CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 0 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Midterm Review Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant Number AFP-A-00-03-00015-00 Submitted: January 2007 Project Time Frame: FY2003 – FY2008 CRS Contact Information: Judson Flanagan Telephone Number (410) 234-3120 Fax Number: (410) 234-3178 E-mail: Hjflanaga@crs.org Address: c/o CRS/PQSD 209 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, MD 21201-3443 "This application includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the U.S. Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed - in whole or in part - for any purpose other than to evaluate this application. If, however, a grant is awarded to this applicant as a result of - or in connection with - the submission of this data, the U.S. Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting grant. This restriction does not limit the U.S. Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in the following pages…" CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms List 2 I. Executive Summary 3 II. Purpose of the ICB Midterm Review 5 III. Thinking Behind the ICB Grant Design 5 A. Context 5 B. Response 6 IV. ICB Midterm Review Methodology 6 V. ICB Midterm Review Organization 7 VI. ICB Midterm Review Findings 8 Strategic Objective 1 8 Intermediate Result 1.1 8 Intermediate Result 1.2 13 Strategic Objective 2 17 Intermediate Result 2.1 17 Intermediate Result 2.2 22 Strategic Objective 3 27 Intermediate Result 3.1 27 Intermediate Result 3.2 31 Cross-cutting Intermediate Result A 37 Cross-cutting Intermediate Result B 40 VII. Overall Leadership and Management of the ICB Grant 47 VIII. Overall Analysis and Recommendations 48 A. Analysis 48 B. Recommendations 48 C. Adjustments recommended for the baseline survey and the PITT 50 IX. Appendices A. ICB Midterm Review Scopes of Work 1. ICB Midterm Review SOW 2. ICB Midterm Review SOW for External Consultant 3. ICB Midterm Review SOW for External Interviews B. ICB Results Framework C. ICB PITT D. List of Documents Reviewed for ICB Midterm Review E. List of ICB Midterm Review Participants F. ICB Survey Tool G. List of ICB Products Reviewed H. Bibliography of ICB Related Publications CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 2 ACRONYMS LIST ACDS Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ARC American Red Cross CARO Central Africa Regional Office CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CORE Child Survival Collaborations and Resources Group CRS Catholic Relief Services C-SAFE Consortium for Southern Africa Food Security Emergency DRD/PQ Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality EARO East Africa Regional Office EME Europe/Middle Regional Office ERT Emergency Response Team FAM Food Aid Management FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project FFP Food for Peace FY Fiscal Year HIP Hygiene Improvement Project HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus ICB Institutional Capacity Building IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IHD Integral Human Development INEE Inter-agency Network on Education in Emergencies INGO International Non-governmental Organization IR Intermediate Result ISA Institutional Support Assistance JASS Just Associates LACRO Latin America/Caribbean Regional Office LQAS Lot Quality Assurance Sampling M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MWA Millennium Water Alliance MYAP Multi-Year Activity Program NGO Non-government Organization PITT Performance Indicator Tracking Table PLHIV People Living with HIV and AIDS PQSD Program Quality and Support Department ProPack Project Package: Project Design and Proposal Guidance for CRS Project and Program Managers SARO Southern Africa Regional Office SAsia South Asia SEAPRO Southeast Asia Regional Office SO Strategic Objective SPP Strategic Program Plan UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development WARO West Africa Regional Office WHO World Health Organization CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) grant responds to the interests of the United States Agency for International Development Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) in strengthening the technical competencies and management abilities not only of grant recipients, but also of their colleague non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), local partners and FFP itself via the development and dissemination of technical expertise and efforts to influence policymakers.F 1 The designers of the ICB grant proposal thought specifically about emerging trends affecting food security: climate change, increasing natural disasters and decreasing development gains; land degradation and desertification decreasing water security; global epidemics such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) increasing food insecurity; and the donor context in which food aid was being criticized as a resource and decreased as an input for development aims. In response to this context, CRS proposed using its ICB grant to promote a developmental relief and cross-sectoral approach, captured in what it has since named the Integral Human Development (IHD) conceptual framework. CRS proposed particular attention to its interventions addressing the challenges presented by HIV and AIDS and water insecurity. Further, recognizing that one contributor to the challenges it had identified was the quality of governance and the systems and structures that comprised it, CRS decided to emphasize strengthening program participants’ abilities to advocate for their rights to affect change. In all of its activities, CRS proposed to increase staff and partners’ capacities to successfully implement Title II food security programming and measure the impact of their interventions. During the first half of the ICB grant period, CRS has accomplished the following: • Built staff, partner and community capacity to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations. • Developed the IHD framework and contributed to Title II country program capacity to use it. As a result of the IHD framework’s utility, CRS leadership has established it as the agency’s approach to development and relief. Already it is being integrated into many assessments and program and strategy designs. • Integrated food security and HIV and AIDS programming. CRS’ innovative approaches and related operations research have not only helped improve the effectiveness of CRS’ approaches, but have influenced the practices of others intervening in this area. • Increased and improved the effectiveness of its water and sanitation programming. Since food security depends on water security, this investment has been critical. 1 CRS, “Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant, Executive Summary.” CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 4 • Built community capacity to influence factors that affect food security. Given that increased citizen participation in public decision making contributes to better governance, which contributes to improved food security, this investment promises to have a long-term positive impact. • Strengthened relationships with other international NGOs (INGOs), USAID and others involved in promoting food security. Through these relationships, CRS has enhanced joint learning and contributed to improved effectiveness in influencing food security strategies and undertaking food security programming. • Improved staff, partner and community capacity to manage, implement and measure the impact of food security programs. CRS has laid a foundation and developed helpful tools that are proving their utility in the field. During the second half of the ICB grant period, CRS is well positioned to build on these successes. With new staff in place and tools and frameworks developed, CRS will focus on encouraging the adoption of the new approaches, leading to greater impact of ICB grant activities. In the upcoming ICB grant period, CRS will focus on the following: • Developing and disseminating training materials and tools by building on existing tools, disseminating materials and tools more systematically, and continuing to collaborate with others to develop guidance and tools requiring consistency among those involved in promoting food security. • Increasing integration of grant-funded activities, with particular focus on integrating structural analysis with IHD assessments; HIV prevention with food security programming; water and sanitation programming with agriculture activities; partner institutional management capacity with partner capacity to identify and measure intervention impact; and CRS Project Package: Project Design and Proposal Guidance for CRS Project and Program Managers or ProPack problem analysis and project design guidance with Title II programming requirements. • Increasing learning from innovative approaches, with particular focus on use of the IHD framework to inform context analysis, strategic direction and program design; exit strategies for food distribution programs; integration of HIV and AIDS and nutrition programming; development of community capacity to analyze and influence factors affecting food security; and participatory approaches for identifying and measuring the impact of food security interventions. CRS is well on its way to achieving the objectives of the ICB grant through efforts that have had a visible positive impact on CRS’ and others’ approaches to food security programming. With focus on knowledge management, the positive impact of ICB activities should increase and be felt more broadly in the second half of the grant period. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 5 II. PURPOSE OF THE ICB MIDTERM REVIEW USAID/FFP awarded CRS an ICB grant on September 30, 2003 to help CRS strengthen core management, support technical innovation and best practices, and improve collaboration in order to better contribute to the reduction of food insecurity in vulnerable populations.F 2 Now, at the midpoint of this five-year grant, CRS is undertaking a midterm review, following USAID’s guidance: The midterm review should determine whether the activity is being implemented in a timely and cost-effective way, and whether the program is likely to achieve its goals in terms of its specific objectives and intermediate results. Project management, sustainability, institutional strengthening, and training should be examined. The monitoring and evaluation system should be reviewed to ensure that the indicators are being objectively measured, include specific measurement units and have clear links to program activities.F 3 III. THINKING BEHIND THE ICB GRANT DESIGN A. Context CRS’ ICB grant builds on three previous grants from USAID/FFP: two Institutional Support Grants (1989-1993 and 1993-1998) and Institutional Support Assistance (ISA, 1998-2003). Under these three previous grants, CRS sought “to strengthen the effectiveness of CRS Title II programs through support to the Program Quality and Support Department (PQSD) in headquarters, including an Emergency Response Team (ERT) largely located in the field, and to key overseas staff in food security and monetization.”F 4 The external evaluator concluded that, using the ISA grant, CRS made achieving program quality central to its efforts. This was visible not only in the work of headquarters and field-based technical advisors, but also in that of more generalist country program project managers and partner staff.F 5 CRS’ ICB grant responds to USAID/FFP’s interest in strengthening the technical competencies and management abilities not only of grant recipients, but also of their colleague NGOs, local partners and FFP itself via the development and dissemination of technical expertise and efforts to influence policymakers.F 6 The designers of the ICB grant proposal thought specifically about emerging trends affecting food security: climate change, increasing natural disasters and decreasing development gains; land degradation and desertification decreasing water security; global epidemics such as HIV and AIDS increasing food insecurity; and the donor context in which food aid was being criticized as a resource and decreased as an input for development aims. 2 Grant agreement, 11. 3 Grant agreement, 8. 4 Philip Boyle, “Institutional Support Assistance Program, USAID and Catholic Relief Services, FAO-A-00-98-00046- 00, Final Evaluation,” January 15, 2003, 9. 5 Boyle, 18. 6 CRS, “Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant, Executive Summary.” CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 6 B. Response In response to this context, CRS proposed using its ICB grant to promote a developmental relief and cross-sectoral approach, captured in what has since been named the IHD conceptual framework. Development activities are designed to incorporate a holistic perspective, with special emphasis on risk mitigation, and emergency interventions to set the foundation for future development activities, recognizing that program participants live in high risk and often unpredictable environments. CRS proposed to give particular attention to its interventions addressing the challenges presented by HIV and AIDS and water insecurity. Further, recognizing that a factor in the challenges identified was the quality of governance and the systems and structures that comprised it, CRS decided to focus attention on strengthening program participants’ abilities to advocate for their rights to affect change. In all of its activities, CRS would increase staff and partners’ capacities to successfully implement Title II food security programming. CRS would also work to strengthen CRS staff and partners’ monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacities so they could better learn from their experiences and increase the impact of their interventions. IV. ICB MIDTERM REVIEW METHODOLOGY To undertake the midterm review of its ICB grant, CRS utilized both an internal team and external evaluators. The internal review team was led by Carlisle Levine, Senior Technical Advisor for M&E in CRS/PQSD, with support from other PQSD Technical Advisors and staff members. External evaluators included Della E. McMillan and Amy Bess. Dr. McMillan was selected based on her familiarity with Title II programs and her past experience working with USAID/FFP, CRS and other Cooperating Sponsors. Ms. Bess was chosen for her familiarity with the other NGOs with which CRS is collaborating via its ICB grant. Internal review team: The internal review team asked CRS Title II country programs to respond again to the survey that had been used during the baseline assessment. Of CRS’ 24 Title II country programs, 19 responded to the survey.F 7 The internal review team interviewed 17 headquarters and eight field staff members involved with CRS Title II country programs. In addition to reviewing documents reporting grant activities and documents produced through the grant, the internal review team asked 17 field staff members from regional or country teams working in all of the Title II programs to review three documents produced through the grant. External evaluators: One external evaluator asked 17 representatives from USAID/FFP, the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), other Cooperating Sponsors, and academic institutions associated with USAID-funded Collaborative Research Support Programs to also review the documents. The other external evaluator interviewed representatives of organizations with which CRS had collaborated on Title II 7 The Title II Country programs that responded to the survey are Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Southern Sudan, Uganda and Zambia. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 7 program-related activities. The purpose of these activities was to assess CRS’ broader contribution to USAID/FFP and other NGOs via its ICB grant activities. Challenges in the midterm review Adjustments in CRS’ approach to achieving its ICB goal, resulting from changes in the external environment as well as changes internal to CRS, made some comparisons between baseline assessment and midterm review challenging. This was particularly true for Intermediate Results (IRs) 3.1 and B for which the discrepancies are greatest between survey questions and outputs in the Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT). Additionally, the survey design did not facilitate comparisons between Title II country programs or between baseline and midterm responses. The survey questions ask for respondents’ perceptions of CRS staff, partner and community knowledge and practices. • Weighting was necessary to draw conclusions across Title II country programs that individually showed tendencies to score themselves high or low in spite of evidence that their skills sets and practices were similar. • Baseline and midterm survey respondents for one Title II country program often differed, given frequent staff movement. This meant that respondents within a country program could often provide lower scores at the midterm than at the baseline, implying that knowledge and practices had worsened over the time period. Further investigation was necessary to determine if the change was due to change in respondents (data sources) or change in skills and performance. Survey respondents provided helpful information in their comments. However, since analysis emanating from the comments was done using an inductive approach, further research is needed to discover if the conclusions drawn represent trends within CRS or individual Title II country program experiences. V. ICB MIDTERM REVIEW ORGANIZATION The midterm review report follows the CRS ICB grant Results Framework. The review covers CRS’ ICB grant activities from the grant’s inception through the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. In addition, the report includes mention of activities that took place in FY2006, although these have not yet been evaluated from the perspective of the populations they targeted. After discussion of activities, feedback from CRS staff and other colleagues is included, as gathered via the midterm survey, document reviews and interviews. Finally, based on the above, each IR section contains a recap of the PITT targets followed by an analysis of CRS’ progress toward achieving the IR and recommended adjustments in its approach that could increase its impact in this area. In addition, there are overall recommendations and proposed revisions to the PITT to strengthen grant impact and ensure that learning emanating from it is widely accessible inside and outside CRS and utilized as appropriate. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 8 VI. ICB MIDTERM REVIEW FINDINGS GOAL: TO REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY IN VULNERABLE POPULATIONS SO 1: Strategies for individuals, households and communities to manage risks to food security are promoted. CRS has made significant progress on its activities and outputs under this Strategic Objective (SO) and is positioned to meet its SO target indicators by the end of the grant. The first indicator states that all Multi-Year Activity Programs (MYAPs) awarded to CRS in FY2006 or later evidence use of one or more ICB outputs. The second states that that 70 percent of CRS Title II country Strategic Program Plans (SPPs) developed after 2006 reflect IHD thinking and approaches. Significant trainings in Title II countries have occurred, and technical and program staff are developing proficiency in using ICB tools and the IHD framework. Similarly, program technical staff have worked with ICB tools and the IHD within their program areas as well as collaboratively across disciplines to introduce tools and interventions that seek to strengthen a community’s coping abilities to manage risks to food security. IR 1.1: Coping abilities of targeted groups are reinforced in all program sectors. A. Thinking behind the development of the IHD framework CRS recognized that to help program participants manage risks to food security, it needed a conceptual framework for analyzing program participants’ assets, needs, risks and vulnerabilities, and the structures and systems in which they lived and then devising holistic strategies to help them reinforce their coping abilities. With this in mind, CRS developed the IHD framework. B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 1.1.1: A holistic framework for integral human development Concept paper on an IHD framework developed 1 1 0 1 # of IHD framework tools developed 2 3 2 3 # of sectors supported by the ICB that incorporate IHD perspectives in their annual PQSD workplans 0 2 3 4 Output 1.1.2: Capacity building for IHD Annually updated capacity building strategy for the IHD framework 0 2 1 1 # of instances of TA using the IHD framework 2 4 10 10 # of IHD-specific workshops/learning events 2 4 3 3 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 38 156+ 100 155 CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 9 CRS used the ICB grant to conceptualize the IHD framework and introduce it to staff and partners. The IHD framework is based on the Livelihood Security frameworks that the UK Department for International Development (DFID), the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and others have developed. However, it contains important differences that arise out of CRS’ justice lens: the inclusion of right relationships, spiritual and political assets. After having developed the IHD framework and training modules during the first year of the ICB grant, CRS began training PQ staff members in headquarters and the field in how to use the framework. CRS has introduced the IHD framework through existing regional and strategic meetings, country and partner assessment and planning meetings, and integrated the IHD into program workshops and trainings where appropriate. IHD Framework Training Events During the first two years of the ICB grant, CRS met or exceeded its targets for all of its output indicators under this IR. The table below shows training events that focused on or included IHD sessions for staff and partners from FY2004 into FY2006. Three salient points can be noted: 1. The large number of events that provide opportunities for training. 2. The wide geographical spread of this capacity-building effort. 3. The variety of rollout mechanisms used beyond IHD-focused training. Regional Training has occurred in six of CRS’ eight regions. Only the Latin America/Caribbean Regional Office (LACRO) and Europe/Middle East (EME) have not received support in building IHD framework knowledge and skills. IHD-related topics have been integrated into a range of different workshops and, where possible, on-the-job applied training has been provided. While the introductory trainings have been highly valuable both as a sharing and a feedback mechanism, increasingly CRS has targeted occasions which allow an applied approach. Based on survey responses, trainings are more effective when grounded in participants’ working realities. In India the training included a practical application of the IHD framework with an assessment of education and child programming. In SARO, the IHD framework was used to guide the development of a regional agriculture and environment strategy. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 10 IHD-related Training Events, FY2004 – FY2006 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 IHD-focused Training • Central Africa Regional Office (CARO) • SARO • South Asia (SAsia) • South East Asia Regional Office (SEAPRO) Food Security and Nutrition Workshop • SAROF 8 IHD-focused Training • Angola • CRS Headquarters • Sierra LeoneF 9 Agriculture Strategy Workshop • SARO Senegambia Title II Program Workshop • GambiaF 10 Title II Health Program Workshop • Indonesia Title II I-LIFE Workshop • MalawiF 11 Livelihoods Assessment • Zambia IHD-focused Training • East Africa Regional Office (EARO) • South Africa • SAsia • CRS Headquarters Food Security and Nutrition Workshop • EARO1 Livelihoods Assessment • Chad • Haiti IHD and Education Workshop • IndiaF 12 Project Listen Evaluation • Malawi C. Application and Feedback Of the 19 Title II country programs that responded to the midterm survey, seven reported they had been trained to use the IHD framework, and an additional six reported they had been introduced to the IHD in the context of another training or workshop. Country programs tend to be trained in the IHD framework while undertaking their five-year SPP process, developing their MYAP proposals, or designing responses to emergency situations in chronically food insecure environments. Increasingly, introduction to the IHD framework is happening during new staff orientations and ProPack (see below) trainings, using participants’ own circumstances as context. Country program staff and partners valued the analysis of various types of assets (human/spiritual, social, political, natural, physical and financial) using the IHD framework, as it helped them identify the contributions program participants could make to resolve their own problems. It also helped them better understand program participants’ vulnerabilities. For several country programs, receiving a practical training grounded in their reality had a very positive outcome. One country program reported that “the staff who participated in the two-hour session were delighted, and discovered that they had perceived the IHD concept as a scientific approach, and yet, it is a concept that 8 Attended by representatives from Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Other senior agency staff attending included the Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality for West Africa, the HIV and/or Health Regional Technical Advisors (RTAs) for East, Southern and West Africa, and the MicroFinance RTA whose portfolio covers much of Africa 9 The event also included behavioral change training that helped staff strengthen their strategies in the breast-feeding program. 10 The training strengthened partner capacity to implement the Senegambia Title II program. 11 A week-long seminar for I-LIFE Consortium members to address behavioral change in the health sector. 12 The workshop involved a session on Rights Based Approaches and Child Rights Programming based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child in an effort to compare IHD and the Rights Based Approach and to identify potential for cross learning between the two; the first field review of the draft IHD-Education paper; the first attempt at comparing and contrasting IHD and Rights Based Approaches. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 11 they live every day, both as part of their personal and professional lives.” Participants offered the following responses to the training: • I've learned that it is possible to make a positive evaluation/assessment having in mind we have other assets to improve and/or fill gaps. • To achieve my goals in life, I have to capitalize on my assets, evaluate risks and vulnerabilities. Using IHD is a continuing process with constant changes and readjustments. • Each of us has assets for a better life. The IHD concept helps us to have a more structured way of assessing these assets.F 13 In gaining a concrete and practical understanding of the IHD framework as it relates to their personal lives, staff and partners feel they are better equipped to apply IHD analysis with project participants. A CRS staff member who participated in an IHD assessment in Chad and then led one in Rwanda as part of their MYAP development process, noted that the information collected contributed significantly to CRS/Rwanda’s analysis of food insecurity and, given that they relied entirely on people in country and had fewer logistical hurdles than they had in Chad; the assessment took more time, but was inexpensive.F 14 CRS’ Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality (DRD/PQ) in SARO reported that over 200 people in the region have been trained in using the IHD framework. As a result, these country programs are using the framework in their SPP processes. They are also using it when undertaking contextual analysis to design projects. CRS/Madagascar recently used the IHD framework’s analysis of systems and structures to help them develop an advocacy agenda and identify target associations for a civil society strengthening project. Finally, the region used an IHD analysis of natural resource assets when designing its regional agricultural strategy.F 15 As in any capacity building effort, country programs noted that staff turnover reduces the benefits of trainings. A number of country programs reported that staff members who were trained have since moved on to other CRS country programs or to positions with other organizations. As new staff come on board, training becomes a constant need. D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded all output-level indicator targets established in its ICB PITT for this IR. These indicators and targets remain in line with CRS’ objective of managing risk via holistic context assessment and programming. Additionally, CRS is making progress toward the indicators for this IR. Approximately half of the country programs responding to the midterm survey reported an increase in their knowledge of the IHD framework, while four reported high levels of confidence using at least two 13 Staff members from CRS Madagascar, response to ICB Grant Midterm Survey, February 2006. 14 Interview with Laura Dills, Head of Programs, CRS/Rwanda, April 20, 2006. 15 Interview with Driss Moumane, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/SARO, February 7, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 12 components of the IHD framework. CRS is well on its way to achieving its targets for IR 1.1 by the end of the grant period. According to the feedback received from CRS Title II country programs, the IHD is effective for analyzing individual and community coping mechanisms and risks in food insecure environments, thereby providing a valuable guide for program interventions to strengthen communities’ abilities to manage risks. CRS has made significant progress in introducing the IHD framework to Title II country programs and helping many of them incorporate it into SPP processes and MYAP proposal development. As evidence of the IHD’s perceived utility in CRS, during the second half of the ICB grant, CRS will elevate the IHD to an agency-wide strategic priority. Recommendations 1. Adopt a more strategic approach to IHD trainings. To date, CRS has introduced the IHD framework to Title II country programs as opportunities have arisen, usually because of regional meetings, an SPP or MYAP proposal development process. This has proven a good strategy to date, as opportunities for immediate application has been a critical factor in adopting new approaches. However, now that CRS is convinced of the IHD framework’s utility and is embracing it at an agency level, those leading the IHD roll-out will take a more systematic approach to trainings. That strategic approach will follow the example already established by other similar initiatives: train regional-level staff sufficiently in using the IHD so that they can tailor the training to individual country program contexts and needs and then replicate the training within Title II country programs. With this approach, CRS will reach a large number of staff and partners through training that is relevant and in depth enough to understand structural analysis and program design. 2. Develop more tools and training materials to help Title II country programs use the IHD framework for assessments, strategy and program design. Over half of the survey respondents expressed a need for more training in actually using the IHD framework as part of program assessments. This was echoed in interviews with CRS staff: they appreciated the IHD conceptual framework, but wanted more tools to help them apply its guidance in their program decision making. CRS already has some tools that it will link more systematically to the IHD. For example, CRS has a very good Participatory Rural Appraisal/Rapid Rural Appraisal manual, which was successfully used in Haiti while using the IHD to assess programs for their next five￾year plan. CRS/PQSD is also developing more concrete IHD training materials, which will be available in mid-FY2007. Linking these training materials to practical tools to facilitate field implementation will benefit CRS’ Title II country programs and partners. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 13 3. Establish a monitoring, evaluation and reporting system that will allow those leading the IHD framework roll-out to know where it is being used well, which Title II country programs require more assistance, and what benefits CRS’ Title II country programs are gaining from the IHD’s adoption. Given the centrality of the IHD framework to CRS’ efforts to manage risks to food security, those in charge of rolling out the IHD will track trainings received, resulting changes in approaches, and over a long period, could indicate changes in impact on food insecurity risk reduction. This monitoring will inform where, when and in what form trainings and technical assistance are provided. Reports on trainings and resulting changes in approaches will be tracked on an annual basis to ensure even progress across CRS’ Title II country programs and among CRS’ partners. IR 1.2: Program initiatives linking emergency and development are prioritized. A. Thinking behind the development of IR 1.2 Consistent with the FFP strategy, CRS focused some of its ICB efforts on improving the effectiveness of its developmental-relief approach to enhance its capacity to reduce risks and the impact of disasters. Using the IHD framework, the agency anticipated that CRS and partner staff and project participants could design interventions that would reduce community vulnerability to shocks and help ensure that emergency responses laid solid foundations for longer-term development efforts.F 16 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 1.2.1: Field has tools for addressing risk reduction and emergency preparedness in holistic manner # of tools and/or risk reduction frameworks (regional or crisis-specific) developed based on IHD 0 3 2 9 # of compilations of lessons learned for better links between emergency and development programming 0 0 0 0 Output 1.2.2: Capacity building for risk reduction and emergency preparedness in holistic manner Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the risk-reduction frameworks and food-aid lessons 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the risk-reduction frameworks or lessons learned 20 26 60 21 # of risk reduction/preparedness workshops/learning evens using IHD or shock-specific frameworks 2 2 3 5 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 110 95 285 151 Risk-reduction and emergency preparedness are natural parts of CRS’ programming approach. However, emergency response demands can interfere with efforts to build such capacity. Given this, on-the-job training and on-the-spot technical assistance have been 16 Grant agreement, p. 15. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 14 more feasible and successful than formal training and technical assistance. That said, and in spite of emergency response demands, CRS has produced a number of tools and frameworks and provided technical assistance and trainings aimed at building staff and partner risk reduction and emergency preparedness capacity, including: • Dry Spells: Learning to Live with Drought, which featured a risk reduction framework for drought management using an IHD approach incorporating asset creation and diversification. CRS presented a workshop in South Asia based on this tool, which has now been used in drought-prone states of India. • Natural Morningstar, a partner-to-partner assessment for agriculture and natural resource management that used CRS/South Asia’s Morningstar method as a model.F 17 • In FY2005 many planned ICB grant activities were set aside when the December 2004 tsunami hit. Despite the diversion of attention, the tsunami proved an opportunity to test the IHD framework in an emergency context. CRS/PQSD wrote Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development, demonstrating how the IHD framework could be applied in the tsunami context to analyze needs and develop programs to strengthen local capacity in order to mitigate the devastating consequences of the disaster.F 18 As evidence of this paper’s utility, President Clintons’ Tsunami team asked for copies as input to their own work.F 19 C. Application and Feedback The majority of emergencies that the CRS Title II country programs face are natural disasters: drought, hurricanes, tsunamis and pest infestations. Only four country programs cited violent conflict, and four cited emergencies caused by the presence of internally displaced populations and refugees. Two cited emergencies brought on or exacerbated by disease (malaria, TB, HIV and AIDS). CRS’ Title II country programs have relatively high confidence in their emergency response capacities. Because of the risks that their countries face, emergency preparedness and response, assessments and risk reduction approaches are integral to their programming. More than half of them reported using a developmental approach to their emergency programming. Of that group, however, only three stated that they used the IHD framework to inform their developmental relief approaches. The country programs most often cite Sphere training as the source of their skills. It is not clear what contribution ICB grant activities have made to these practices to date, except where ICB grant-funded trainings have taken place in country. SAsia and particularly India reflect positive change as a result of the drought management trainings it has received. In November 2004, CRS held a Resilient Village workshop on the relief￾to-development continuum for CRS staff and partners in India and has also trained staff in drought preparedness. 17 CRS, Annual ICB Grant Report for FY05, p. 12. 18 CRS, “Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development,” April 2005. 19 CRS, Annual ICB Grant Report, FY05, p. 10. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 15 As confirmed in the responses to the survey by the ERT, risk-reduction is already part of CRS’ emergency programming and country programs use similar analytical approaches to the IHD framework, but not always as a result of ICB efforts. Where the ICB is having an impact is by training communities and practitioners in emergency-prone areas where emergencies can be mitigated by using the IHD framework or its logic. CRS has seen the IHD framework help CRS country program staff and partners analyze more holistically communities’ and individual’s assets and vulnerabilities, as well as the obstacles and risks they face, when designing emergency prevention and response programs. What is missing is a full complement of field-tested IHD tools and a systemic roll-out that will enable CRS country programs and partners to embrace the IHD fully.F 20 Five CRS staff members reviewed the PQSD “Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development,” three of whom participated in the tsunami emergency response. One reviewer who participated in the tsunami response observed that, “Ironically, many of the issues regarding integrating sectoral activities and a more holistic approach to developing longer-term approaches that arose in Indonesia in June/July 2005 could have been more readily progressed if there had been a common grounding in IHD or [a] similar [conceptual framework] as articulated in the document.”F 21 A group of ten external reviewers from other NGOs, FANTA, universities and USAID/FFP also reviewed the “Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development.” Outside reviewers agreed with CRS’ internal assessment and one noted that the document serves as a “good conceptual guide” and can effectively broaden the awareness of emergency response staff to developmental-relief concepts. Outside reviewers, unfamiliar with CRS’ IHD framework, wanted a more thorough explanation, especially of the different vulnerability contexts articulated, something they recognized as a conceptual advance within livelihoods frameworks. They also wanted more guidance as to how one can apply the IHD framework in a disaster setting.F 22 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has exceeded its output targets for numbers of IHD-based tools and/or risk reduction frameworks developed. It has also met or exceeded its targets for numbers or risk reduction or emergency preparedness workshops or learning events using the IHD or shock-specific frameworks held. However, it did not meet its targets for instances of technical assistance provided in FY2005 or number of trainees reached. The first shortfall is due to the staff demands of the December 2004 tsunami response. The second shortfall reflects a more general finding regarding training effectiveness and appropriate target numbers for trainees reached. 20 Interview with Dane Fredenburg, deputy director of CRS’ Emergency Response Team, August 31, 2006. 21 Graham Saunders, Shelter and Settlement Technical Advisor, Emergency Response Team, document review, April, 2006. 22 MacMillan, pp. 34-35; MacMillan, memo, revised July 25, 2006, pp. 2-3. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 16 Analysis of learning emerging from trainings has led to two overall recommendations for the ICB grant’s PITT targets for numbers of trainees reached. • Participants learn better in smaller groups. Therefore, the ratio between target number of trainings and target number of trainees should be no higher than 1:35, and the ICB grant PITT targets should be revised accordingly. • More context-specific trainings where learning also has direct application are more effective than larger, more general trainings. Thus, CRS field teams are shifting somewhat from an emphasis on regional trainings to an emphasis on equipping regional staff to provide country-level trainings. CRS is making progress toward achieving its indicators for this IR. CRS Title II country programs report having good linkages between emergency and development initiatives and using tools that facilitate those linkages as a natural response to the ongoing risks that their countries face. Recommendations 1. Build on the risk reduction and developmental relief approaches that are already widely accepted within the industry and used by CRS. Because risk is not new to CRS’ Title II country programs, risk reduction and developmental relief approaches have been prioritized for some time. Most often, CRS staff and partners cite Sphere training as the source of their skills. Those leading the IHD roll-out will look for opportunities to link to and build on Sphere trainings and the related knowledge and skills of CRS and partner staff. 2. Develop tools that facilitate IHD application. As in feedback received under IR 1.1, CRS field staff would like more tools that facilitate using the IHD framework to design interventions that promote risk reduction and emergency preparedness. For example, these could include tools that help program participants establish early warning systems for acute food insecurity, as recently requested in USAID/FFP MYAP proposals. 3. Offer structured learning activities that will ensure that project leaders and staff understand and adopt IHD guidance in their emergency response programming. This recommendation responds to two more general review findings. Structured learning activities can 1) serve as an effective means to impart new information and 2) help broaden exposure to and promote more even adoption of new approaches. In designing training events, facilitators will help ensure that managers and other program decision makers understand and are able to promote this new approach. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 17 SO 2: Human capacities and community resilience are protected and enhanced by holistic responses to two major challenges to food security. CRS, in developing the ICB grant proposal, recognized that water insecurity and HIV and AIDS create tremendous challenges to reducing food insecurity. Given the magnitude of the political, economic and social implications of both crises, CRS chose to highlight these two challenges within the ICB grant. Because of the strategic focus CRS staff have applied to both of these areas, CRS has made notable progress toward this SO. IR 2.1: The impact of HIV and AIDS is mitigated. A. Thinking behind the development of IR 2.1 In designing its ICB grant, CRS prioritized building capacity aimed at mitigating the health and nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS. Identified needs included addressing the health and nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS more holistically; mainstreaming HIV prevention in Title II programs; improving Title II program design through raising the nutritional status of people living with HIV and AIDS (PLHIV); and improving program staff’s knowledge of exit strategies for food distribution to those infected or affected with HIV and AIDS within Title II programs.F 23 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 2.1.1: Field tools for mitigating health/nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS and food security # of tools for and critical compilations of proven best practices and strategies worldwide in responding to nutrition and food insecurity in populations living with HIV and AIDS 0 1 1 2 Action plan for scaling up such practices and strategies 0 0 1 1 Output 2.1.2: Capacity building for integrating food security into HIV and AIDS mitigation strategies Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the tools, best practices and scale-up framework 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the tools, best practices or framework 10 10 15 17 # of HIV and AIDS-food security workshops/learning events 1 1 2 4 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 55 36 90 93 Numerous activities took place to support the advancement of the HIV and AIDS team’s strategy of mitigating the health and nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS. To increase programming soundness and sharing of lessons learned and promising practices, the HIV 23 CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY04, p. 11. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 18 and AIDS team held their first annual HIV and AIDS Global CRS Technical Advisor Meeting in December 2004. The meeting focused on sharing lessons learned across regions and covered topics including nutrition, food security and prevention. Technical advisors from SARO, EARO, the West Africa Regional Office (WARO), SEAPRO and headquarters participated. This initial meeting was considered a success by all participants and has since been held annually (April 2005 and November 2006). The HIV and AIDS team co-facilitated the following events with Title II country programs in different regions to promote shared learning: • Food Security and HIV and AIDS Conference in SARO in September 2004 with 45 participants, representing every CRS country program in the region and local partners. The conference focused on current CRS programs, program design best practices, and guidance on how the IHD framework can help to mitigate the adverse impact of HIV and AIDS. HIV prevention was included as a learning theme. Country program representatives devised strategies for improving HIV and AIDS and food security programming through multi-sectoral approaches. SARO set up a Regional Learning Agenda to help guide each country program’s effort. Additionally, working groups were formed to examine water and sanitation and linking nutrition with HIV and AIDS for improved food security. • Food Security and HIV and AIDS Conference in September 2005 in EARO, focusing on ways to improve Title II programs where HIV and AIDS affects food security.F 24 Thirty-five people participated, representing all country programs in the region, as well as some local partners. • Food Security and HIV and AIDS Conference in WARO country programs and partners. • Conference on Orphans and Vulnerable Children and Food Security in the context of diminishing Title II resources was held in Tanzania in July 2005. The HIV and AIDS team also produced the following documents which were distributed to CRS country programs, as well as shared with other NGOs and partners: • In FY 2005, a paper to help country programs use the IHD framework for HIV and AIDS programming, focusing on social and human assets.F 25 • In FY2006, “Promising Practices,” a collection of 24 case studies of CRS’ integrated HIV and AIDS programs, documenting how programs were able to adapt to the many needs of those affected by HIV and AIDS. The case studies address topics such as nutritional needs, care of orphans and vulnerable children, and family food security, as well as provide tools and approaches to respond to these issues. • In 2006, a paper on applying the IHD to nutrition and food security for PLHIV, which offered promising practices for programming. • In FY2006, two case studies showing linkages between water and sanitation and home-based care clients in Malawi and Zambia. 24 CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY04, pp. 11-13. 25 CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY05, pp. 14-16. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 19 • In FY2006, a paper on applying the IHD to agriculture and HIV programming, which was presented in poster format at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto 2006. The HIV and AIDS team primarily helped strengthen Title II programs that aim to improve the nutritional status of PLHIV through on-site technical assistance and in￾country training. The team provided support to Madagascar, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The WARO Technical Advisor for HIV and AIDS provided technical assistance to Burkina Faso, Ghana and Senegal using FANTA best practices. In September 2005 in Malawi, the HIV and AIDS team held a training of trainers on HIV and AIDS Positive Living in collaboration with Save the Children US, Action Against Hunger and the National AIDS Commission. The training included modules on nutrition, home gardening, food security, water and sanitation, and health motivation. Technical assistance was provided via eight field visits and seven remote instances to Title II country programs in Africa and SEAPRO. The results of a rigorous CRS study in Zambia on the impact of nutritional supplements on the quality of life of PLHIVF 26 have provided convincing evidence in support of such programming. This, reinforced by increasing donor requests that PEPFAR and Title II funding benefit the same target groups, has strengthened CRS’ decision to focus on addressing the special nutritional needs of PLHIV. While these efforts are already underway, they will become even more visible in the upcoming years, as evidenced by some recent hiring decisions. Given the importance CRS’ HIV and AIDS team places on the intersection of their work with food security, both SARO Regional Technical Advisors hired in FY2006 have a thorough understanding of the links between HIV, food insecurity and nutrition. To improve knowledge of exit strategies for food distribution to those infected with, or affected by, HIV and AIDS in Title II programs, in 2006, in collaboration with Tufts University, CRS assessed exit strategies in Malawi. The assessment explored how exit strategies were applied under the Consortium for Southern Africa Food Security Emergency (C-SAFE) and offered recommendations for current Title II programs. C. Application and Feedback Of the Title II country programs that responded to the midterm survey, 12 out of 19 reported having medium to large-sized HIV and AIDS programs. Four of the 19 are in SARO and four are in EARO, where ICB-funded conferences on food security and HIV and AIDS have already taken place. Of the four SARO countries, two claim high prevalence rates of HIV and AIDS and two claim low prevalence rates. In the EARO countries, two claim medium levels of HIV and AIDS and two claim low levels. 26 Kari Egge, James Campbell, Shannon Senefeld, Susan Strasser and Linda Lovick, CRS SUCCESS Palliative Care Nutritional Supplementation Targeted Evaluation, July 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 20 Of the 19 countries, 12 reported systematically integrating HIV prevention messages into other programming, 11 reported integrating a variety of responses to HIV and AIDS into other programming, while nine reported integrating HIV and AIDS programming into their MYAPs. Six country programs reported systematically addressing the special nutrition needs of PLHIV, although one identified adjusting nutrition responses to various stages of the illness as a weakness within their program. Two more noted that their programs responded to participants’ nutritional needs, but did not specifically identify PLHIV within the program. Four more country programs planned to respond to PLHIV’s nutritional needs in upcoming programming, with two of the country programs having already undertaken relevant studies and developed strategies. Eight country programs had developed and implemented exit strategies from food-related safety-net interventions, while another two were in the planning stages. Among those who had used exit strategies, four noted that they were not all successful for internal and external reasons. These reasons included late planning and a lack of committed resources on the part of the country program; delayed involvement and over-committing of key external stakeholders; a limited ability to move emergency programming to development due to donor restrictions; and ongoing emergency conditions, such as severe drought.F 27 Only two country programs reported designing food programming (in this case, their MYAP proposals) for HIV and AIDS-affected groups using the IHD framework, however, one of the two was not funded. Another five claimed to use elements of the IHD framework in their program design, pointing most to livelihood or agro-enterprise components of their programs. Reporting on the HIV and AIDS and food security conference held in SARO in 2004, the DRD/PQ there observed that, as a result of the number of people involved and the assistance provided, SARO, after two to three years of struggling to achieve this, was able to establish its learning agenda.F 28 As a result of the HIV and AIDS, food security and nutrition workshop in EARO in September 2005, EARO country programs report paying more attention to nutrition, with four country programs deciding to hire nutritionists. There is also increased knowledge of how to integrate nutrition into HIV activities. There has been increased discussion regarding integrated programming, as well as some new initiatives. For example, the regional office is planning to pilot a small-scale HIV, nutrition and agriculture project that promotes the production of nutrition-rich foods.F 29 27 CRS Malawi, p.3. 28 Interview with Driss Moumane, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/SARO, February 7, 2006. 29 Interview with Lori Kunze, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/EARO, February 9, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 21 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded almost all of its output-level targets for this IR. The only output target it did not achieve was number of trainees, which, as explained under IR 1.2, is due to the target number of trainees being too high for optimum training conditions. As with the other IRs, CRS will reduce the target number of trainees in the PITT to reflect no more than 35 participants per training. CRS has also made significant strides toward achieving its IR-level indicator. As noted in the survey results, almost two-thirds of responding Title II country programs showed evidence of increased knowledge and skills related to mitigating the health and nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS via their programming approaches and decisions. The vast majority reported using multiple tools to mitigate the impact of HIV and AIDS. CRS/PQSD’s HIV and AIDS team has taken a strategic approach to achieving its ICB grant IR and to supporting the grant’s overall goal. CRS has been thoughtful and systematic in its exploration and adoption of interventions that help mitigate the health and nutritional impact of HIV and AIDS. CRS has also prioritized documenting and sharing what it is learning from its HIV and AIDS and food security programming in Southern Africa. With the notable successes emanating from the HIV and AIDS’ team’s efforts, few recommendations are necessary. Recommendations 1. Ensure the dissemination and encourage the use of guidance on the IHD framework to develop holistic approaches for addressing the needs of PLHIV. According to survey responses, the HIV and AIDS team seems to be lagging relative to other IR 2.1-related responses in explicitly using the IHD framework to develop a holistic approach to addressing the needs of people affected by the HIV and AIDS. Yet, the HIV and AIDS team has produced various papers on using an IHD structure for HIV programming, including one specifically focused on nutrition and food security. Where used, those papers reportedly have had a positive influence on HIV and AIDS programming design. During the second half of the ICB grant, the HIV and AIDS team will ensure that all Title II country programs have access to these papers and, where necessary, organize structured learning events to encourage their use. 2. Increase efforts to integrate HIV prevention into Title II programs. While more than half of the country programs report integrating prevention into their Title II programs, it is not clear that this integration is a result of the ICB grant or related activities. In the time remaining on this grant, the HIV and AIDS team will examine how best to support the integration of prevention into existing and new Title II programs. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 22 3. Place additional focus on helping Title II country programs and partners develop and successfully implement exit strategies. The exit strategy work that began in FY 2006 will be reviewed for its applicability to other programs. Based on the findings, the team should explore how best to advance staff knowledge around exit strategies within existing and future Title II programs. Terrific work is emerging from this IR within the ICB grant. The HIV and AIDS strategy appears to be especially strong around learning and sharing. This work will continue and be reinforced by the HIV and AIDS team. IR 2.2: Water insecurity is reduced. A. Thinking behind the development of IR 2.2 In creating an IR specifically focused on reducing water insecurity, CRS was responding to existing and anticipated water shortages around the world. CRS noted that bad planning, poorly designed development schemes, population growth and increasing climatic variability were all contributing to water insecurity, which was in turn affecting human health, food production, economic activities, and social and political stability. In response to these concerns, CRS proposed encouraging community-managed and holistic approaches to water security.F 30 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 2.2.1: Field tools and best practices for water security # of tools for and critical compilations of proven best practices and strategies worldwide in responding to water insecurity in communities 0 3 1 3 Action plan for scaling up such practices and strategies 0 0 0 0 Output 2.2.2: Capacity building for water security Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the best practices and scale-up framework 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the best practices or scale-up framework 0 0 2 6 # of workshops/learning events for water security 0 0 1 2 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 0 0 23 43 30 Grant agreement, p. 19. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 23 During FY2004, CRS/EARO developed a regional water and sanitation strategyF 31 and then produced guidelines for project implementation in EAROF 32 based on water and sanitation guidelines developed the previous year for EthiopiaF 33 with the support of USAID. Also in FY2004, CRS/SAsia modified EARO’s strategy for use in its region. To help promote best practices in project design, CRS’ Senior Technical Advisor for Water and Sanitation visited country programs in Afghanistan (pre-Development Activity Program – DAP), India and Sudan, provided input into project design in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan and Uganda, and provided remote technical assistance to many country and regional staff members on water and sanitation issues.F 34 Technical field assistance also was provided to several emergencies: Aceh, Indonesia (FY2005), Darfur, Sudan (FY2005), and Pakistan (FY2006). In FY2005, CRS approached the promotion of best practices more systematically by developing a prototype format for disseminating best practices and writing the first CRS water and sanitation best practice documents on irrigation of home gardensF 35. A training manual for the design and construction of low-cost water storage tanksF 36 was prepared and field tested in the Philippines. The third major resource produced to help field staff improve programs on the quality of their water and sanitation was a CD containing over 200 technical reference documents on water supply and sanitationF 37. A unique public-private partnership was initiated in FY2004 with ACDS, based in Garland, Texas. This partnership will strengthen the technical capacities and field activities of CRS and ACDS in groundwater development and borehole drilling. In addition, discussions were held with Proctor and Gamble, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, to improve water quality treatment in CRS projects. These innovative relationships are potential opportunities to multiply resources and impact for Title II programs. In FY2005 and FY2006, training and technical assistance via field visits was provided on applying best practices in water and sanitation and developing regional water strategies to six Title II countries: Sudan (emergency response) and Niger, Ghana, Nicaragua, Madagascar and Malawi (development contexts).F 38 Additional field support was provided to Title II programs in Lesotho, Kenya, Sudan, Malawi and Zimbabwe. In May, 2006 significant progress was made toward establishing program quality standards for water programming when PQSD and EARO jointly sponsored an 31 D. Warner, C. Green-Abate and T. Remington (2005). “Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy: developed in East Africa”. Nairobi: CRS/EARO. 32 D. Warner and C. Green-Abate (2005). “Guidelines for the Development of Small Scale Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa”. Nairobi: CRS/EARO. 33 D. Warner and C. Green-Abate (2003). “Guidelines for the Development of Small Scale Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Ethiopia”. USAID/Ethiopia and CRS/Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, July 31, 2003. 34 ICB grant annual report FY04, pp. 14-15. 35 CRS (2005). “Irrigation of Home Gardens Using Shallow Wells with Foot-pumps”. 36 J. Gendrano and C. Hillbrunner (2006). “The Bana Pinoy: A Design and Construction Manual for Wire-Reinforced Ferrocement Jars”. 37 CRS (2005). “Water and Sanitation: Technical Reference Library”. Version 1.0. 38 ICB grant annual report FY05, pp. 19-20. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 24 All-African Water Conference in Ethiopia. The conference reviewed CRS policies, regional and country needs, and best practices for future water security issues. In looking at a holistic approach to food insecurity, interdisciplinary programs were designed to integrate water supply and sanitation with HIV and AIDS in Malawi and Zambia. With the support of the World Health Organization (WHO) and USAID, Malawi and Zambia carried out assessments of the linkages between water and sanitation and the home-based care of HIV and AIDS patients in both rural and urban communities. CRS and the cooperating organizations expect that this initial work will lead to the development of guidelines for improving sanitary environments for PLHIV. With the support of the ICB, CRS has also been active in coalitions, efforts and priority partnerships and alliances, including the Millennium Water Alliance (MWA), USAID Hygiene Improvement Project (HIP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Emergency Watsan Cluster, and the partnership with ACDS. C. Application and Feedback The support of the ICB to build capacity within CRS, partners and other organizations has been very successful, especially in Africa. Initial progress on establishing program quality standards for CRS and partners has also been advanced. Of the 19 Title II country programs that responded to the midterm survey, seventeen reported water and sanitation activities. Zambia stated they were soon beginning water and sanitation activities and only The Gambia expressed no plans. The vast majority of survey respondents were assessing the sanitary implications of drinking water interventions, while a slightly smaller number were taking environmental impact and social equity into account when designing their interventions. Eleven country programs feel confident about their efforts to establish and train village water committees and other local entities in charge of maintaining and repairing local water and sanitation infrastructure, and another three country programs feel they have made some achievements in this area, but would like to improve their performance. Three country programs stated explicitly that their projects focus on watershed management. Two country programs either had a water and sanitation strategy or were developing one. Some country programs noted the length of time they had been undertaking such programming and used international standards as their guides. However, five country programs – an unusually high number, as compared to responses to other areas in the survey – cited assistance from the PQSD resources produced via the ICB grant as contributing significantly to the success of their water and sanitation activities. CRS in Southern Sudan has focused its water and sanitation activities solely on drinking water, given the extreme shortage of available safe water. The country program also stated that “the program has very much benefited from the guidance by the Strategy for CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 25 Provision of Sustainable Safe Water,” developed through the ICB and the visits of the PQSD Senior Technical Advisor for Water and Sanitation.F 39 As part of assessing the effectiveness of CRS’ ICB grant-funded activities, in addition to responding to survey questions, four CRS field staff members reviewed “Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa,” which was developed as part of the ICB grant. These field members came from CRS programs in SAsia, SARO, CARO and WARO. Three manage programs with water and sanitation components, while the fourth is a Regional Technical Advisor for Emergencies and Water and Sanitation. Three were familiar with the document, two because of field visits from PQSD’s Senior Technical Advisor for Water and Sanitation. Reviewers found the document provided clear and concise guidelines and appreciated the information provided on how to apply them. They liked the project development checklist and the ideas it provided for monitoring different phases of a project. The reviewer from CRS/Madagascar noted that the document’s contents agree with the national strategy regarding water supply and sanitation.F 40 The reviewer from CRS/Indonesia thought the document was useful in raising awareness regarding water and sanitation programs, and in that sense, could be most helpful for supervisors and program managers who are not familiar with the water and sanitation sector.F 41 However, they saw a need for more links to technical or practical references to inform project design and implementation. The EARO guidelines refer to the WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality and the Sphere handbook as the most widely accepted international guidelines. The WARO reviewer suggested that some more practical guidelines exist and should be promoted as well, including: • WELL – Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programs • ITDG – The worth of water (technical briefs on health, water and sanitation) • ITDG – Running water (more technical briefs on health, water and sanitation) • ITDG – Hand dug wells and their construction • WEDC – Emergency sanitation • WEDC – Emergency water sourcesF 42 Concerns were raised that the document focuses more on water programming, and not enough on sanitation and hygiene. There was also some concern as to the emphasis on water quality, when other internationally recognized guidelines place primary emphasis on water quantity to improve health. The same reviewer agreed with the guideline that 39 CRS/Southern Sudan response to ICB grant midterm survey, p. 4. 40 Rakotoniaina, Water Sanitation Project Officer, CRS/Madagascar, document review, April 2006, p. 2. 41 Ross Tomlinson, Water and Sanitation Program Manager, West Aceh, CRS/Indonesia, document review, April 2006, p. 2. 42 Jean-Philippe Debus, Regional Technical Advisor for Emergencies and Water and Sanitation, WARO/CARO, document review, April 2006, p. 2. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 26 field test kit use should be encouraged, but cautioned that using the kits inappropriately – a frequent problem – can provide inaccurate information about water contamination.F 43 Ten external reviewers from other NGOs, FANTA, universities and USAID/FFP also reviewed “Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa.” They praised the document, given the technical area as it relates to Title II programming remains one of the least documented. Specifically, they concurred with its recommendation of a six to eight-month planning period, felt the presentation of issues related to maintenance was clear, liked the promotion of a watershed approach, and appreciated references to USAID and international organization policies related to water and sanitation. Reviewers suggested that a focus on an integrated approach to water use could be valuable. They wanted more discussion regarding water for agricultural production, which would include guidance for water quality for aquatic life and its implications for human health. They also wanted more practical guidance on water infrastructure maintenance and sustainability. This would include guidance on building governance capacity to manage water projects. They also requested that the M&E discussion be expanded. USAID reviewers asked that the document incorporate progress that USAID/Economic Growth and Trade has made in developing water guidelines. F 44 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded all of its targets for its output-level indicators for this IR. CRS has also made marked progress toward achieving its targets for its IR-level indicators. Of survey respondents, the vast majority showed evidence of increased knowledge of tools to address water insecurity and is using water management tools. In water security CRS is most notably advancing its programming in ways it could not have without the benefit of the ICB grant. Significantly, the ICB grant allowed CRS to hire a Senior Technical Advisor for Water and Sanitation who has strategically promoted high quality water and sanitation programming in the agency and made valuable linkages between water and sanitation programming and food security interventions, as well as between CRS and other organizations that promote water security. Although CRS has carried out programs to address water insecurity for many years and currently has water-related activities in nearly half of all country programs, water programs do not have established and recognized quality standards in CRS programs. 43 Jean-Philippe Debus, Regional Technical Advisor for Emergencies and Water and Sanitation, WARO/CARO, document review, April 2006, pp. 2-4. 44 MacMillan, pp. 37-40. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 27 Recommendations 1. Continue working toward establishing program quality standards within CRS. With ICB grant support, CRS has made significant strides over the past few years toward improving its water and sanitation programming. This movement is critical to its efforts to effectively address food security needs, since access to water is necessary for the success of a wide variety of interventions. 2. Better integrate water and sanitation programming with other sector activities, especially agriculture. Since water and sanitation programming are necessary to the success of health, nutrition, agriculture and other activities, CRS will increase its efforts to integrate water and sanitation programming with other types of interventions. There are a number of examples where CRS is integrating water and sanitation activities into health programs. However, only three Title II country programs that responded to the survey reported that their projects focus on watershed management. Since these types of integrated programs allow for strengthening human capabilities through better nutrition and health, as well as livelihoods through productive activities, they offer multiple ways to reduce risk and decrease food insecurity. As such, CRS will learn from these examples and seek opportunities to replicate these approaches in other Title II countries. SO 3: Institutional capacities for influencing food practices and policy are bolstered. With this SO, CRS aims to help communities, other NGOs and USAID/FFP increase their abilities to influence factors affecting food security. CRS has made progress toward its SO in all of these regards. In Title II country programs particularly in WARO and LACRO, CRS has focused significant effort on helping communities identify and influence factors related to food security. IR 3.1: Communities’ ability to influence factors that affect food security is increased. A. Thinking behind the development of IR 3.1 CRS included this IR in its ICB grant because the agency believes that achieving sustainable food security depends on empowering communities to make decisions for themselves and to advocate on issues that affect them. Via this IR, CRS proposed to undertake structural analysis related to food security using the IHD framework, and based on that analysis, develop action plans aimed at influencing food practices and policies.F 45 45 Grant agreement, p. 21. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 28 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 3.1.1: Tools and case studies help communities understand their rights and responsibilities and promote peace # of tools for and/or case studies on communities applying structural/conflict analysis and strategies for building capacity for peace 1 1 1 7 Action plan for replicating such practices and strategies 0 0 0 0 Output 3.1.2: Capacity building for structural analysis and peacebuilding Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the case studies and tools 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the case studies or tools 2 2 6 7 # of structural analysis and peacebuilding workshops/learning events 1 1 1 1 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 23 27 54 33 Conflict is a significant risk to food security in many countries where CRS works. Often multi-year community development results are wiped out by conflict brought on over long-standing issues that require careful evaluation and, where possible, interventions. In FY2004, CRS undertook a case study in India examining long-term community tensions around four Title-II supported boarding school facilities in tribal regions to identify factors significant to building peace and social empowerment.F 46 From this research, CRS learned that, while campus activities such as hiring practices and the creation of support services that engaged the surrounding community and involved government officials could build relationships and address structural inequalities, these activities and the changes they brought about were not sufficient to prevent future conflict. Additionally, bringing about new relationships and structural change took many years, required ongoing support, and often encountered difficulties along the way. Nonetheless, those interviewed stated that the benefits gained from overcoming structural injustices and fostering new relationships, even if they did not eliminate the possibility of violent conflict, were highly valued.F 47 CRS conducted regional training on structural analysis and IHD tools in Ghana in May 2005. Twenty-four regional and country program staff members participated. Nine WARO country representatives and the Regional Director joined the training on its final day. Much of the workshop focused on the IHD framework and the Contextual Analysis toolkit developed for CRS by Just Associates (JASS). Training facilitators collected feedback on the use of the tools to inform future trainings as well as case studies. 46 CRS annual ICB grant report FY04, p. 16. 47 Reina Neufeldt, “Points for Violence or Bulwarks for Peace and Integral Human Development: A Comparative Case Study of Peacebuilding and Social Empowerment Activities in Food-Assisted Programming at Four Residential Institutions Supported by CRS/India,” CRS, 2005. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 29 Over the course of FY2005, technical assistance was provided on structural analysis and: • Emergency response in Indonesia • IHD in Ghana • IHD in Zimbabwe for SARO regional staff • IHD as part of an assessment of Title II food assistance, peacebuilding and education linkages in India • Peacebuilding for M&E at the EARO Justice, peacebuilding and solidarity regional meeting in Nairobi, Kenya • IHD in Nigeria as part of their SPP processF 48 C. Application and Feedback As noted under IR 2.1, CRS Title II country programs responding to the ICB grant midterm survey identified poor harvests, drought, human disease, violent conflict and IDPs and refugees as contributors to food insecurity with each of these causes resulting from a variety of natural and human – including structural – factors. Three country programs explicitly credited the IHD framework with helping them analyze systemic causes of food, water and livelihood insecurity. Others cited food security analysis and drought assessments providing the context for understanding systems and structures, while many discussed using problem trees to understand root causes of problems. Three country programs stated that they undertake structural analysis with community-based organizations and/or their programs’ participants, although another noted that short timeframes for proposal responses restricted them to analyzing secondary data and limited opportunities for participation. Most country programs reported that they did work with program participants to create participatory community action plans in response to their analysis of systemic causes of food insecurity in at least one of their programming areas. They cited education, health and peacebuilding interventions, in addition to food security programs. A few noted that the justice and peacebuilding interventions in which these plans were developed were privately funded. This observation reinforced commentaries provided by two more country programs. One stated that donor requirements can force country programs to downplay community preferences.F 49 Another, speaking specifically about DAPs, said they were limited by USAID policies and priorities: USAID was not interested in civil society interventions as part of their DAP. However, in a two-year extension, USAID allowed the country program to include a civil society focus to encourage partners and communities to participate more fully in decision making with municipal authorities.F 50 48 CRS annual ICB grant report, pp. 21-23. 49 CRS/Uganda response to ICB grant midterm survey, p. 5. 50 CRS/Nicaragua response to ICB grant midterm survey, p. 5. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 30 Four country programs gave themselves low scores in providing communities or community-based organizations with advocacy training, although many country programs reported using interventions designed to empower communities. For instance in Southern Sudan, with guidance from PQSD, CRS incorporated a community-based food and livelihood security interventions using community empowerment methodologies and community members in the design stage.F 51 CRS/Angola stated that in its new post￾conflict context, country program staff members are eager to engage with program participants in advocacy.F 52 Ten country programs stated they are designing sustainable approaches that incorporate community influence and advocacy, although for some this is relatively new, and for most, it is at the community level. Only three explicitly requested more IHD training in this area. A constraint has been the dearth of community based advocacy tools and trainings and that expertise in this area is not widely available. LACRO country programs conducted a training of trainers in the JASS Contextual Analysis Toolkit that is being replicated in each country program. One positive outcome of this training has been the introduction of more advocacy-specific activities in CRS/Nicaragua’s HIV and AIDS projects. With support form the ICB, CRS also undertook a regional JASS Contextual Analysis and IHD training for its country programs in WARO and SARO. The DRD/PQ in WARO reported that before staff members did not carefully analyze the contextual, structural and systemic causes of poverty in their countries, limiting themselves mainly to beneficiary level analysis. Now, for example, they are willing to acknowledge the role corruption in the management of public resources plays in the creation and perpetuation of poverty, and are trying to address it in their programming. The DRD sees a trend emerging in WARO of people organizing themselves into groups to have a say in the management of public resources, and civil society getting a voice in public decision-making processes. He observes that CRS needs to find ways to sensitize people and bring them into political decision-making processes in peaceful and constructive ways.F 53 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded almost all of its output-level targets for this IR. The one exception is a target number of trainees, which was set higher than the ideal number of trainees per training for the purposes of maximizing learning. As was recommended in other IRs, CRS should adjust its target number of trainees per training so that the ratio does not exceed 35:1. CRS is also on track toward achieving its IR-level indicator targets. Regardless of the framework or tool being used, most Title II country programs that responded to the survey discussed analyzing systemic causes of food insecurity and working with program participants to develop action plans to respond to those causes. 51 CRS/Southern Sudan response to ICB grant midterm survey, p. 5. 52 CRS/Angola response to ICB grant midterm survey, p. 5. 53 Interview with Hippolyt Pul, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/WARO, February 9, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 31 Recommendations 1. Develop and/or disseminate structural analysis and community-based advocacy tools Survey responses indicate that Title II country programs are interested in working with partners and program participants to analyze systems and structures and then develop and implement plans to address issues the analysis raises. However, they lack sufficient tools and training to do this. Since better governance, in part achieved through citizen participation, contributes to reduced risks and increased food security, CRS will increase its investment in this area. 2. Build on WARO’s success developing staff capacity to analyze systems and structures WARO’s DRD/PQ has observed an emerging trend in West Africa of greater citizen participation in public decision making. Using the JASS Contextual Analysis toolkit and the IHD framework, CRS will further build staff, partner and community capacity to identify factors affecting food security and then develop and implement action plans aimed at influencing those factors. Once this is well established in WARO, learning from this experience can help inform similar initiatives in other regions. IR 3.2: PVO practices and FFP’s global leadership role are enhanced by CRS contributions. A. Thinking behind the development of IR 3.2 CRS observed that, in the face of limited donor resources and increasing global food insecurity caused in part by increasing natural and man-made disasters and poor governance, successful collaboration is critical to achieving positive impact. For the ICB grant, CRS proposed collaborating with organizations such as CARE, the Inter￾agency Network on Education in Emergencies (INEE) and the American Red Cross (ARC) to develop practical products that would contribute to more effective food￾assisted programming. CRS also proposed developing learning alliances with research institutions to undertake field-based research aimed at improving the technical excellence of ongoing interventions, identifying and sharing innovations, and building the capacity of those responding to food insecurity. Among learning alliance partners would be the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Crops Research for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), and Johns Hopkins University’s Health Communication Partnership (HCP). Finally, CRS sought to use its ICB to help strengthen the global leadership of USAID/FFP. CRS would remain an active participant in USAID/FFP and FANTA discussions on ways to improve the effectiveness of food security interventions, and during its existence, CRS played an active role in Food Aid Management (FAM).F 54 54 CRS ICB Grant Agreement, pp. 23-26. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 32 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output 3.2.1: Institutional collaborations # of institutions/networks with which CRS initiates Title II-related collaboration 2 2 2 2 # of completed collaborative products, services or studies 3 1 2 3 Output 3.2.2: Learning Alliances with institutions # of such alliances made, maintained 2 3 3 4 # of major alliance initiatives annually 2 2 5 5 Output 3.2.3 FFP leadership # of instances of participation in FAM and FAM follow-on group/network 20 9 20 0 # of instances of CRS staff participation in USAID, FANTA and other fora related to food insecurity 5 6 5 5 Through collaborations across sectors involved in food security programming, CRS is seeking to use mutual learning to improve practices and strengthen USAID/FFP’s leadership role. In FY2004, CRS and CARE agreed to study the use of food aid in their Title II programs within the context of holistic livelihood security frameworks: CARE’s sustainable livelihoods rights-based approach and CRS’ IHD framework. A joint food aid study was designed to be useful to the entire community of Cooperating Sponsors. CRS completed a Food Aid study in FY2005. The executive summary was distributed widely in headquarters and the field. Two consultants used the study extensively to provide food aid policy recommendations to CRS and the NGO community. CRS has partnered with CIAT over the past two years in an Agro-enterprise Learning Alliance that is changing the way CRS interacts with farmers; focusing not only on environmentally sound food production for food security, but also on increasing financial capital to reduce risk and minimize vulnerability to food insecurity. Building on the gains of this learning alliance, an eight-member team of CRS and CIAT scientists undertook an Advanced Study Tour to Uganda, Colombia and India to assess agricultural production and marketing projects. Using their findings, a team is providing guidance to country programs on the effectiveness of integrated programming approaches to decrease food insecurity and increase resiliency. CRS and CIAT’s Agro-enterprise Learning Alliance has already had significant impact for CRS programming approaches. CRS country programs are now using advanced agro-enterprise approaches to reduce food insecurity and poverty in 35 countries across five continents. Five manuals have been published with guidance for program managers using the agro-enterprise approach. The Agro-enterprise Learning Alliance makes a direct and substantive contribution to planning and implementing food security programs and influencing food security policies. It makes a secondary contribution to the nutritional needs of those living with HIV and AIDS via support to nutritional value chains and to water security through the inclusion of multiple use-based irrigation systems. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 33 CRS worked with Project Concern International to plan and implement “The Africa Forum 2006: The Dual Epidemics of HIV and Food Insecurity.” CRS staff were actively engaged in the early stages of conference planning and again during the conference through panel discussions, conducting presentations, and leading skills building sessions. The forum hosted over 200 HIV and food security practitioners and emphasized a practical and hands on approach. Throughout FY2004, CRS remained an active member of the FAM M&E Working Group and its sub-groups on both Standardized Indicators and Communications. CRS participated in the production of a Success and Learning Story-Writing Package, for FFP. In the last quarter of FY2004, the Success and Learning Story Packet was distributed widely across the CRS world. In September 2004, CRS hosted the annual NGO Evaluators Roundtable, which 13 NGOs, consultants and private-enterprise representatives attended. As a result of this event, participating NGOs notably increased their sharing of M&E materials – internal and external – among the group. Exchange visits were organized on M&E issues of mutual concern. Additionally, with the ending of FAM, those who participated in FAM and the Roundtable established an M&E Working Group under InterAction, thus, continuing the cross-NGO learning that had been taking place within FAM. CRS has remained an active member in the InterAction Evaluation Interest Group, participating in the annual NGO Roundtable meetings, as well as in a panel discussion at the 2005 American Evaluation Conference in Toronto, Canada. During FY2005, CRS remained an active collaborator with FANTA, participating in a review of the M&E Working Group’s two new food access indicators proposed by USAID/FFP and FANTA. CRS also compiled feedback from field staff on FANTA’s proposed Household Food Insecurity Scale. CRS joined FANTA, USAID/FFP, CARE and Save the Children, among others, to help Child Survival Collaborations and Resources Group (CORE) identify better ways to include Title II programming in their child health discussions. During FY2005 and FY2006, CRS participated in FANTA’s M&E Working Group’s efforts to develop performance indicators for USAID/FFP’s Performance Management Plan. Using their respective ICB grants, the M&E Units of CRS and ARC collaborated to improve their own practices as well as those of partner or chapter staff. Via this collaboration, CRS and ARC agreed to produce field-friendly M&E modules addressing practical issues commonly raised by field staff. To date, seven have been produced. The ICB grant has also supported the participation of CRS in the INEE’s Working Group on Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. The INEE Minimum Standards were shared in December 2004 in Cape Town, South Africa and immediately went into use in the tsunami response which CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 34 soon followed. Beginning in January 2006 in Nairobi, INEE launched a series of nineF 55 worldwide trainings of trainers to establish a cadre of qualified trainers actively working within their own organizations and partner networks to improve the quality of emergency education response through the application of the INEE Minimum Standards. According to a review of their use published on the INEE website, in the 18 months since their launch the INEE Minimum Standards have been used in more than 60 countriesF 56, achieving widespread recognition as a valuable tool for linking emergency preparedness and coordination with development programming. Finally, in the interest of sharing CRS food security learning with a broader community, CRS wrote and presented the following papers: • Food Security, People Living with HIV and AIDS, and Quality of Life, an article published in Emergency Nutrition Network Field Exchange (May 2005). • Coping Strategies of People Living with HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe, presentation at an International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Conference in Durban (April 2005) and later published by IFPRI. • Alliances between Science and Development: Managing Risk and Reducing Vulnerability (Burpee, Wilson, Remington and Ericksen; February 2005), a paper and presentation at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science in a three-hour symposium entitled “Agriculture and Food in Times of Crisis.” F 57 C. Application and Feedback CRS hired an external consultant to interview 19 representatives of 15 of the abovementioned organizations. The feedback confirmed the high value place on INGO collaboration, many stating that they could not effectively do their work without their partnership with CRS. They noted that CRS technical staff contributions to working groups and other collaborative initiatives help advance agendas through the provision of soft program advocacy and the presentation of improved technical approaches. Further, they appreciated CRS headquarters staff’s strong links to the field. Their one request was that CRS do more to document and disseminate its guidance. F 58 CIAT observed that, through its partnership with CRS, CRS is shifting its focus and reputation from agricultural production and provision of services to a market-led approach that facilitates local service provision. Meanwhile, CIAT is able to test its methods and apply them widely across the globe. 55 As of September 1, 2006 seven trainings had been conducted (Anglophone Africa; Southeast Asia; South Asia; Europe; North America; Francophone Africa; and Lusophone countries). Two more (South America; Caribbean) are planned for late 2006 and early 2007. 56 CRS education programs in India (tsunami), Afghanistan (post-Taliban reconstruction), Pakistan (earthquake) and Guatemala (hurricane Stan). 57 CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY04, pp. 17-21; CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY05, pp. 25-31. 58 General feedback on interviews from Amy Bess, external consultant, in a private conversation, October 12, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 35 Those involved with the Africa Forum on Food Security and HIV and AIDS noted that CRS was a key driver behind the conference early on, providing significant input to its design as well as financial support. CRS also contributed significantly in terms of technical content at the conference. CRS was also recognized for its contributions to CORE, a network organization of 47 NGOs focused on health interventions. Food security has only become one of CORE’s areas of interest within the last year. CRS has been involved in inviting Title II staff to CORE nutrition working group sessions to discuss points of connection.F 59 The MWA, currently comprised of 10 large international NGOs, greatly values CRS’ participation. It brings its members together for the purpose of advocacy for high quality water programming, visibility of the sector through reporting and donor and government relations, peer reviews and programming coordination. CRS is a member of the MWA’s board of directors. The Chairman of MWA stated, [CRS’ senior technical advisor for water and sanitation] helped with the passage of the Water for the Poor Act and the implementation of the act. He was vital in two meetings and getting Andrew [Natsios] turned onto the issue of water. Water fell off the radar of USAID before MWA….[CRS’] relationship with UNICEF is wonderful and their relationship with USAID provides great credibility to the organization. MWA has given great testimony through [CRS]. CRS participated as a member in the latest grant, and has also stepped forward to host the secretariat in Southern Sudan. We are very pleased with CRS’ involvement in moving the agenda forward.F 60 The Hygiene Improvement Project (HIP), led by the Academy for Educational Development (AED), is a USAID-funded Indefinite Quantity Contract that, in part, works closely with the NGO community to increase capacity to promote, implement and evaluate hygiene improvement programs at scale. HIP acknowledges CRS’ contribution to its efforts to develop a common understanding of how to achieve scale in its hygiene programs, how to use systems thinking to develop partnerships and identify leverage points that will help a variety of stakeholders work together toward a common goal. Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions (ACDS), which provides water drilling equipment and services, has worked with CRS in EARO since 2004. The partnership was developed for equipment supply and training in its use, as well as for sharing technical knowledge. ACDS and CRS are currently designing a training seminar on water relief, setting up drilling programs and equipment training, among other topics.F 61 59 Interview with Lynette Walker, CORE Deputy Director, September 2006. 60 Interview with Malcolm Morris, Chairman, Millennium Water Alliance, September 2006. 61 Interview with Johan Kempe, Program Manager, Atlas Copco Drilling Systems, September 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 36 With FANTA, which supports USAID/FFP and NGOs with Title II programs, CRS has collaborated on four specific efforts: • CRS headquarters participated in the development of indicators for USAID/FFP’s Performance Management Plan. • CRS provided input to the development of FANTA’s Household Food Insecurity Access Scale. • CRS/Ethiopia pilot tested Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) as a household sampling methodology for assessing emergency situations. • CRS/Haiti used LQAS for a midterm evaluation. FANTA expressed two regrets regarding its collaboration with CRS. First, due to their competing demands, CRS staff, like other NGO staff, are not always able to participate in meetings. FANTA wishes CRS had more technical staff so that they could more often be present. Second, FANTA encourages CRS to continue to look for ways to share their ICB-produced documents, such as “Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development,” with the wider community. FANTA notes that “CRS is in the forefront in a lot of ways.” While CRS is not alone in not disseminating its learning systematically enough, it “has a lot to offer, especially by establishing best practices.”F 62 M&E colleagues observed that, while M&E specialists from the various INGOs have collaborated extensively for many years, the collaboration became even stronger after CRS hosted the annual international NGO Evaluators’ Roundtable in 2004. CARE’s M&E Coordinator notes that: I, for one, have greatly appreciated the level of professional expertise and contributions my CRS colleagues have added to our mutual learning…. This includes, among other things, the ProPack, the presentation of CRS’ (and joint CRS-ARC) M&E strengthening strategies at a pre-[InterAction] Forum workshop in May 2005 and at the American Evaluation Association conference [in] October [2005]. I don’t know how they could be more active in working to strengthen our network.F 63 An M&E colleague from the ARC, discussing the field friendly M&E modules ARC is creating with CRS, referred to one on human interest stories that was suggested and created by CRS field staff – a clear indication that the module will be valued and used by those managing field projects. She noted that ARC field staff like the modules and are using them. She also noted that she finds their evaluations to be stronger when they have done so.F 64 62 Interviews with Anne Swindale, Deputy Director, and Meghan Deitchler, Sr. Maternal Child Health Nutrition Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Food Security and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Academy for Educational Development, September 2006. 63 Interview with Jim Rugh, Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, CARE, September 2006. 64 Interview with Alice Willard, Sr. Technical Advisor for M&E, American Red Cross, September 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 37 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded the majority of its output-level targets for this IR. Its most notable shortfall resulted from the demise of FAM. When revising the PITT, CRS will eliminate this indicator. CRS is also on track to achieve its IR-level indicator target. As evidenced by the above commentaries from organizations with which CRS has collaborated on ICB grant-related activities, CRS has contributed to PVO practices and USAID/FFP’s global leadership. In its collaborative efforts, CRS is valued for the technical expertise of its staff and its close headquarters-field linkages. Yet, there is room to increase this positive impact. Those who collaborate with CRS want CRS to focus more attention on documenting and disseminating its experience and knowledge. Recommendations 1. Continue to invest in collaborations such as those described above. As challenges to obtaining and maintaining food security increase, those promoting food security must increasingly work together to achieve their goals. CRS has benefited from its participation in ICB-related collaborations, and as per the feedback above, those with whom CRS has collaborated have benefited from its contributions. 2. Increase efforts to document and disseminate knowledge related to food security. The main regret that CRS’ collaborating partners expressed was CRS’ lack of documentation and sharing its learning related to promoting food security. Increasing efforts to document and disseminate this knowledge will serve CRS, its colleague organizations and USAID/FFP well, as it will allow this knowledge to be shared more broadly and consistently, thus increasing its utility and multiplying CRS’ impact. 3. Reassess together with FFP and INGOs how best to strengthen the global leadership of USAID/FFP. Given the changes in the context of food aid over the past two years, CRS will reassess the future directions of food aid and how the ICB and INGO community can contribute to strengthening mutual commitment and efforts to address food insecurity. Cross-cutting IR A: Capacity of local partner staff to plan and implement programs is increased. A. Thinking behind the development of IR A Because partnership is central to its work, CRS made increasing its country program capacity to support local partners to plan and implement Title II programs a cross-cutting theme in its ICB grant. Although CRS has a long history of working with partners and supporting their capacity development, prior to the ICB grant, it had not systematically assessed partner needs and provided training programs that addressed gaps. Nor had CRS systematically assessed the impact on partner capacity of that support. Via the ICB grant, CRS planned to remedy this.F 65 65 ICB grant agreement, p. 26. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 38 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output A 1: Field tools and information for local-partner capacity building # of tools and case studies for strengthening partners’ planning and implementation capacities 0 0 1 4 Standardized template and illustrative examples for creating indices of local partner capacities to manage and implement Title II programs 0 0 1 0 Output A 2: Capacity building for local partner staff program planning and implementation Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the tools and case studies 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the tools and case studies 0 0 4 3 # of workshops/learning events using the tools and case studies 0 0 1 0 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 0 0 31 0 Since the start of the grant, CRS has made modest progress in this area. In 2004, the Technical Advisor for Capacity Building contributed to the development of the IHD framework to ensure that it took into consideration partner capacities and needs. CRS developed a Resource and Needs Assessment for Capacity Building to identify from partners their needs in a systematic way. In 2005, CRS tested the Needs Assessment and employed case studies to document best practices and positive deviants. CRS also developed capacity building indices and tested them in 2006 in Zimbabwe and Haiti. However, the feedback from those activities was that the indices were overly complex and did not respond to partner needs. While CRS has made excellent progress in its work with partners in the field, the activity envisioned under this grant has not progressed as planned, due to poor hiring decisions. However, CRS has taken steps in 2006 to rectify this and in August, a new Senior Technical Advisor for Capacity Building and Partnership was hired. With her arrival, PQSD plans to reinvigorate its work in this area. The timing of her arrival also coincides with renewed focus on partnership as part of CRS’ agency-wide strategy review. C. Application and Feedback Of the 19 Title II country programs that responded to the ICB grant midterm survey, only Angola stated that it implemented its Title II program directly and did not work through partners. All others implemented their Title II programs with local partners. Country programs reported varying levels of knowledge and use of organizational capacity￾building indices, as well as participatory organizational capacity assessments and action plan development for increasing organizational capacity. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 39 Seven country programs stated they understood organizational capacity indices, naming various indices used within CRS to assess management quality, other financial and administrative capacity measuring indices, and organizational capacity indices associated with specific sector programming approaches such as microfinance and AIDS Relief. Three country programs reported concerted efforts to improve their abilities to use organizational capacity building indices with partners. Two of these country programs had established teams or units for this purpose. One country program noted that they are sometimes limited in their ability to adjust organizational capacity indices in response to their local contexts by competing indices and indicators from different donors.F 66 During FY2005, CRS/Zimbabwe and Haiti both tested a package of draft capacity building indices that CRS/PQSD had developed. Both found the indices too complex and offered suggestions for their simplification. Of the 18 country programs that responded to the ICB grant midterm survey and implement their Title II programs with partners, five felt they had a very good track record of undertaking participatory organizational capacity assessments with their partners and helping their partners design and implement action plans to increase their organizational capacity. Another eight cited a good track record in some areas such as finance and administration or programming sectors such as microfinance. When identifying obstacles to helping local partners increase their organizational capacity, some country programs cited a lack of adequate staffing within CRS offices for this purpose. Some country programs noted that their focus is more on helping local partners develop the capacity to successfully implement their programs, rather than on the partners’ organizational capacity itself. Some noted this as an area that deserves increased attention that, while they regularly undertake participatory assessments and planning exercises focused on partner organizational capacity, partners often have trouble actually implementing the organizational capacity building action plans they develop. Some respondents cited challenges such as leadership within the local partner and partner staff moving to better paying INGOs after receiving capacity building assistance. D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has not met most of its output-level targets for this IR, due to inadequate staffing in HQ. Yet, CRS Title II country programs report some knowledge of program planning and implementation for partners and use of capacity building assessment tools with partners. In the absence of adequate staffing and therefore coherent guidance in this area from CRS headquarters, CRS Title II country programs have taken the lead in building local partner capacity to plan and implement Title II programs. Using a variety of existing organizational capacity assessment tools, they have helped their local partners identify their strengths and weaknesses and develop plans to improve the latter. Their success has 66 CRS/Benin, response to ICB Grant Midterm Survey, p. 6. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 40 depended on the level of attention to this within the CRS country program, leadership within the local partner, and donor support. With its new Senior Technical Advisor for Capacity Building and Partnership now on board and with new agency emphasis being placed on partnership, PQSD will redouble it efforts to make progress in this area. The size of the task and limited time remaining to implement the ICB grant means that CRS might not be able to advance as far as it anticipated when designing the grant. However, with strategic and technical guidance from headquarters and concerted effort on the part of Title II country programs, CRS should be able to establish a more systematic approach to building local partner capacity and increase country program staff’s capacity to facilitate this process. Recommendations 1. Assess the partner capacity assessment tools CRS Title II country programs are already using, and establish CRS guidance based on this assessment. Numbers of effective local partner capacity assessment tools already exist and are in use among CRS Title II country programs. CRS will use this experience to establish guidance for helping partners assess and build their institutional capacity. 2. Integrate partner capacity building with the work taking place under other ICB IRs. Since most of the ICB IRs mention building partner capacity, efforts undertaken under this IR will, where relevant, be linked with efforts taking place under other IRs. This is particularly the case with the other cross-cutting IR, which aims to build CRS and local partner staff capacity to measure and document field impact. Cross-cutting IR B: Capacity of CRS’ and local-partner staff to identify, measure and document field impact is increased. A. Thinking behind the development of IR B USAID/FFP explicitly requested that recipients of ICB grants contribute to efforts to standardize aspects of M&E for food security interventions. CRS also saw the need to build basic country program and partners M&E capacities and sought to do so in collaboration with other ICB grant recipients.F 67 67 CRS ICB Grant Agreement, pp. 27-30. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 41 B. Activities FY2004 FY2005 Indicators Target Achieved Target Achieved Output B 1: Risk-sensitive indicators and approaches for monitoring and evaluating Title II program outcomes Updated project design and proposal manual (ProPack) and field friendly design, monitoring, evaluation and reporting modules 2 3 1 6 Title II-related baskets of risk-sensitive indicators 0 0 1 1 Output B 2: Capacity building for CRS and local partner staff identification, measurement and documentation of field impact Annually updated capacity building strategy for using the manual, modules and indicator baskets 0 0 1 1 # of instances of TA using the manual, modules or indicators 20 75 50 50 # of workshops/learning events using the manual, modules or indicators 2 2 3 4 # of trainees disaggregated by gender, institutional affiliation 110 268 145 90 In its efforts to build more coherence to M&E for food security programming, CRS’ Senior Technical Advisors for M&E have throughout the period FY2004 – FY2006 placed considerable emphasis on providing technical assistance to CRS country program and regional office staff, as well as to headquarters staff supporting Title II programs. Technical assistance has been provided through field visits and remotely via telephone and email. In addition to on-the-job training and mentoring via technical assistance, formal training events have been an important element in their capacity building armory. Regional and country staff have, in turn, trained program staff and partners. A key component of the M&E capacity-building strategy has been the development of a core M&E resource document that focuses on strengthening the ability of CRS staff and partners to design and plan projects. The CRS ProPack, which was initiated under CRS' ISA award, was completed under CRS’ ICB grant during its first year. As one of CRS’ Senior Technical Advisors for M&E noted: ProPack “is a resource to help CRS staff improve the quality of project design and proposal writing. It is written to support CRS’ work with partners and communities…The focus of ProPack is on the design phase of the project cycle…because it affects every other step in the project cycle.”F 68 ProPack was written so as to be applicable to “all projects regardless of sector, funding source, or donor” although it is recognized that some donors, including notably FFP, “have their own proposal format that must be used.”F 69 68 ProPack, pp. 1 and 3. 69 ProPack, p.1. Guy Sharrock, Senior Technical Advisor, Monitoring and Evaluation, comments on draft ICB midterm evaluation, September 20, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 42 CRS M&E Senior Technical Advisors spent the next year training CRS staff in headquarters and the regions in how to use ProPack¸which was also posted on several internal CRS websites and shared with other NGOs, university groups, consultants and donors. ProPack’s perceived utility within CRS was evidenced when regional staff began conducting their own ProPack trainings. Since 2004, CRS regional offices and country programs have provided approximately 40 ProPack trainings to their field and partner staff. In FY2005, inspired by the demand for ProPack and requests for further guidance, CRS staff members began developing the follow-up manual to ProPack, ProPack II: Project Management and Implementation Guidance. During FY2004, CRS M&E Senior Technical Advisors provided guidance on M&E to headquarters units involved with Title II programs. They provided technical assistance on indicator design and reporting relevant to regional strategies and tracking their impact. They also provided technical assistance on designing M&E approaches, indicators, measurements or analysis techniques to eight CRS Title II country programs and on designing TAP/DAP evaluations for three CRS Title II country programs. CRS led the completion of the FAM-produced Success and Learning Story-Writing Package, which was shared with all NGOs participating in FAM and all CRS regional offices and country programs. Soon after the document’s dissemination, the CRS M&E team received reports of its use in headquarters and country program offices. Building on the positive reception of the Success and Learning Story-Writing Package and as part of the ICB grant, CRS created a partnership with the ARC to develop the following field-friendly M&E modules designed to respond to field-identified needs for specific guidance: • Success and Learning Story Package: Guidelines and tools for writing effective project impact reports • Preparing for the Evaluation: Guidelines and tools for pre-evaluation planning. • Capacity Building Guidance: Guidelines and tools for getting the most from your technical assistance • Hiring Guidance: Guidelines and tools for hiring field-level M&E specialists • Guidance for the Preparation and Use of Performance Indicator Tracking Tables • Human Interest Stories: Guidelines and tools for developing human interest stories • Guidance for the Management of an Evaluation It is worth noting that even during their production stages, parts of these modules were being circulated to meet demands for the information, and as a way of field testing the content. For example, the Preparing for the Evaluation module was sent to CRS/Benin and CRS/Rwanda, so that they could better prepare for their DAP evaluations. The same materials were shared with the C-SAFE team prior to their final evaluation. As noted earlier, parts of other modules have also been adopted, such as the inclusion of a form to evaluate the quality of technical assistance received, a training evaluation form, guidance CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 43 for hiring M&E staff and structuring M&E units.F 70 Additional beneficiaries of the modules include staff working for other Title II Cooperating Sponsors, e.g., Africare. In FY2004 and FY2005, ProPack training was conducted for CRS staff in headquarters and every region. This work was continued during FY2006 by regional and country program staff. The vast majority of work was undertaken via regional workshops with key regional and country program staff. In addition, complementary on-the-job training and mentoring took place to support key advisors in Kenya and LACRO, as well as the ongoing provision of electronic technical assistance to eight CRS Title II country programs (Angola, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, Niger, Kenya, SeneGambia and Sudan) and on designing TAP/DAP evaluations for three CRS Title II country programs (Indonesia, Malawi and SeneGambia). In FY2005, in addition to ongoing M&E technical assistance and support to Title II countries (Benin, Kenya, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda and Zambia), the Senior Technical Advisors for M&E began to design and develop the follow-up manual to ProPack, ProPack II: Project Management and Implementation Guidance. The first volume of ProPack focuses on the initial stages of the project cycle and thereby initiates a project designing process that will address how field impact might be identified and measured, as per the IR-B objective statement). The orientation aims to ensure that ProPack I and II are used by CRS project managers in their capacity-building work with local partners. In FY2005, CRS commissioned a study entitled Improving Emergency Response Monitoring and Evaluation: Opportunities for CRS. It was felt that more harmonization in CRS’ approaches to M&E across its development and emergency activities would support the ICB objective of prioritizing program initiatives linking emergency and development, as well as give direction to the issue of identifying, measuring and documenting field impact in the emergency arena. Given its focus on a limited number of CRS emergency activity areas, the consultants’ report generated a brief overview of the indicators currently being used by agencies working in emergencies. This basket of indicators was disseminated to key potential users (CRS’ ERT members and Emergency Focal Point staff) at the end of FY2005, as per the PITT schedule. C. Application and Feedback The 19 CRS Title II country programs that responded to the ICB grant midterm survey were asked about participatory M&E, M&E plans, data monitoring systems and reporting on M&E findings. Seven country programs stated they have M&E units, strong M&E skills among their program management staff, and/or are benefiting from the M&E units that exist within their DAP consortia. Nine more were in the process of creating M&E units and/or strengthening their M&E skills. Of the 19 responding Title II country programs, 12 use participatory M&E methodologies for data collection and analysis. Country programs observed that often donor timeframes for proposal submission and requirements in terms of M&E methodologies and indicator 70 CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY04, pp. 22-30; and CRS Annual ICB Grant Report FY05, pp. 34-38. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 44 measurement limit their ability to include local partners and program participants in M&E plan designs, as well as to use participatory M&E approaches. When they do use such approaches or at least include local partners and program participants in their assessments, monitoring activities and evaluations, sometimes emerging findings and recommendations do not get incorporated into program design because of restrictions placed by donors. Country programs reported that with privately funded projects, because of greater time flexibility for project development and fewer restrictions on the use of funds, they were better able to use participatory methodologies and incorporate program participant recommendations into project decision making. All of the country programs stated they developed complete M&E plans for their projects, although some added that this was more often true for larger and publicly funded projects. While most report that where they have M&E plans they also have data monitoring systems, they note the need to improve the systematic collection of quality data in all programs. In spite of ongoing challenges, two country programs provided specific examples of how they have used findings from M&E activities to inform strategic decision making. SARO’s DRD/PQ observed that the SARO country programs, most of which have Title II programs, have benefited tremendously from ICB grant M&E assistance. In late 2003, with support from the ICB, heads of programs and M&E staff members developed a regional strategy complete with an M&E plan for each country program. At the same time, he believes that SARO country programs need to strengthen their reporting and dissemination capacities. With this in mind, one country program has hired a documentation and dissemination officer, and others are considering doing the same.F 71 In addition to responding to the ICB grant midterm survey, a number of field staff from SARO, WARO, CARO, SEAPRO and SAsia reviewed ProPack. All reviewers have been trained in ProPack and have used it in their project design. They noted that it is not only helpful to those directly involved in project design, but also to others as a joint shared management tool for providing input from technical and management colleagues. The reviewers described ProPack as clear and comprehensive. However, its length coupled with country program, local partner and program participant time and financial constraints have often limited its use during project design and proposal writing. One reviewer noted that the participatory process is critical to project appropriateness and the sustainability of its impacts.F 72 It has been particularly useful for DAPs/MYAPs and other proposals for there is significant lead time to engage partners and communities. An agriculture and natural resource management program manager in the Philippines described how his team used Proframe with partners in a project. He observed that with CRS’ provision of continuous technical assistance, partners learned how to use Proframe and appreciated its utility in tracking project implementation and development. Once they 71 Interview with Driss Moumane, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/SARO, February 7, 2006. 72 Pedro Terry R. Tuason III, Program Manager, Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Program, CRS/Philippines, ProPack review, April 2006, p. 3. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 45 had fully embraced Proframe, partners began using it when submitting project proposals to other donors who, in turn, reported appreciating the tool because it more clearly outlined a project’s theories of change than other similar tools, and facilitated tracking project implementation.F 73 Ten external reviewers from other NGOs, FANTA, universities and USAID/FFP also reviewed ProPack. They appreciated the guidance it provides on project design and proposal writing. One reviewer noted that, although FANTA and most NGOs have similar project and proposal design guidance, CRS’ ProPack stands out for its organization and comprehensiveness.F 74 However, they observed that ProPack offers very little guidance specific to designing Title II projects and proposals. Further, ProPack states that it is aimed at CRS staff, and not at partners whose capacity CRS is supposed to build via its ICB grant. One of the ICB grant midterm review external consultants, responding to comments by external reviewers, wrote, The implications for USAID/FFP are considerable since partner capacity in key areas of design and implementation is a priority in the new strategic plan. CRS clearly needs to accelerate its current testing of the Title II specific indicators in FY2006 in order to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current IR-B (M&E) packages for building this type of core capacity to design and implement food assisted programming based on the IHD.F 75 In terms of ProPack’s appeal to a wider NGO audience, they noted that ProPack is CRS￾specific in its frameworks used (IHD, Proframe), examples and terminology. This would need to be broadened or explained to make ProPack more useful to those outside CRS.F 76 D. Analysis and Recommendations CRS has met or exceeded almost all of its output-level targets for this IR. The one exception, as in other cases, results from targets for numbers of participants attending trainings being set too high. As in the case of the other IRs, CRS ought to reduce these target numbers so that target number of trainees does not exceed 35 per training. CRS has also made good progress toward achieving its IR-level targets. CRS Title II country programs are using a variety of M&E tools. However, CRS needs to focus more attention on building Title II country program knowledge and application of tools for identifying, measuring and documenting field impact. As part of a broader effort addressing all programming sectors and building on FANTA’s work to date developing indicators for USAID/FFP’s performance management plan, CRS will identify and define commonly accepted and core project indicators for Title II programs. CRS is also developing guidance and tools to help Title II country programs develop early warning indicators with trigger levels for food insecurity 73 Pedro Terry R. Tuason III, Program Manager, Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Program, CRS/Philippines, ProPack review, April 2006, p. 2. 74 Gilles Bergeron, Senior Food Security Advisor, FANTA project, response to ICB Grant Midterm Review, Questionnaire: ICB-funded Products, May 17, 2006, pp. 2-3. 75 MacMillan, pp. 25-26. 76 MacMillan, pp. 23-30. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 46 early warning systems. Both of these projects will incorporate participatory approaches that either complement or are consistent with donor guidelines. In addition, CRS is designing M&E workshops for in Africa in FY2007 and LACRO in FY2008. Finally, CRS is piloting two new impact assessment methodologies, both of which could be replicated in other Title II country programs in future years: . • In Burkina Faso, CRS is piloting the Most Significant Change approach, which is also referred to as an impact monitoring method. • In Mali, CRS is piloting a participatory impact assessment methodology developed by Tufts University’s Feinstein International Center with funding from the Gates Foundation. Recommendations 1. Develop structured learning events for introducing field-friendly M&E modules. CRS and ARC have done a notable job of producing a series of field-friendly M&E modules. To increase their use in the field, CRS will develop structured learning events to introduce them to Title II country programs. 2. Work with other offices within CRS to develop guidance to increase the utility of ProPack to Title II country programs. CRS country programs find ProPack exceedingly useful for problem assessment and project design. With a small amount of additional guidance, ProPack’s utility to country programs developing MYAP proposals will increase significantly. 3. Work with FANTA, USAID/FFP and other PVOs to establish commonly accepted and core project indicators for food security projects. These indicators will help raise the quality of CRS Title II program M&E systems. 4. Field-test the draft guidance for developing food security early warning indicators and trigger levels. CRS/PQSD has produced thoughtful IHD-based draft guidance for developing food security early warning indicators and trigger levels. CRS will have field teams review it and suggest changes to increase its utility. Having this guidance available to inform MYAP design for FY2008 will enhance the quality of those programs. 5. Pilot new approaches for assessing impact. CRS is piloting new approaches for assessing impact and will use these as learning opportunities to be shared with CRS’ other Title II country programs and other NGOs. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 47 VII. OVERALL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ICB GRANT PQSD Senior Technical Advisors have been engaged in and led the work under the ICB grant consistently. There has been broad participation from technical staff in headquarters and the field in the design and rollout of the IHD framework and other capacity building tools and activities supported by the ICB. CRS could not have achieved its program quality goals without this support. As pointed out throughout this report, capacities in regions such as SARO and EARO, which have a large number of Title II programs addressing food insecurity, have also benefited and been actively involved in ICB￾sponsored trainings, workshops and activities. ICB objectives, targets and activities are reviewed at least semi-annually and integrated into PQSD staff work plans with the field. CRS/SARO has benefited notably from the ICB grant and, in turn, contributed to advancing its objectives. CRS/SARO’s DRD/PQ noted that, when CRS staff members were developing CRS’ ICB grant proposal, SARO was facing a number of challenges, including responding to widespread food insecurity and rapid scale up of its HIV and AIDS program. In FY2004, at the annual Heads of Programs meeting, the ICB Manager at that time presented the grant to all attendees. As described under IR 2.1, in September of that year, SARO held a Food Security and HIV and AIDS Conference with support from the ICB, which established SARO’s learning agenda focused on these two areas.F 77 In SARO, to institutionalize the knowledge gained from the ICB grant, the region has compiled a binder of ICB-related materials that is given to every Regional Technical Advisor. SARO’s Regional Director and DRD/PQ have also championed the innovative approaches and learning that ICB promotes. In addition, those who have left SARO have often gone to other CRS regions, such as CARO and LACRO, where they share the knowledge they have gained via ICB efforts. Despite the strong collective leadership around the ICB in the field and HQ, there are areas that CRS can strengthen. In the first half of the grant, PQSD hired a generalist with no field experience to manage the grant under the leadership of a senior, highly experienced, person in food security. However, it became apparent in the past year that the Grant Manager also needed to have field experience in food security programs to adequately coordinate and communicate on ICB activities and progress. That position has been redesigned and an incoming Manager with extensive field experience in food security-related programming will begin in 2007. CRS has provided strong administrative and financial management for the grant and will enhance its leadership and overall management for the remainder of the grant. As consistent with the recommendations from this midterm review, CRS will reinforce areas that have lagged and strengthen its communications and capacity to share learning from the grant activities internally and with others addressing food insecurity. 77 Interview with Driss Moumane, Deputy Regional Director for Program Quality, CRS/SARO, February 7, 2006. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 48 VIII. OVERALL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Analysis During the first half of the ICB grant period, CRS built staff, partner and community capacity to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations. CRS has developed the IHD framework and built Title II country program capacity to use it. As a result of the IHD framework’s utility, CRS leadership has established it as the agency’s approach to development and relief and it is being integrated into many assessments and program and strategy design processes. CRS has used the ICB grant strategically to integrate food security and HIV and AIDS programming. CRS’ innovative approaches and related operations research have not only helped improve the effectiveness of CRS’ approaches, but have also influenced the practices of others intervening in this area. Similarly, CRS has used the ICB grant to increase and improve the effectiveness of its water and sanitation programming. Since food security depends on water security, this investment has been critical. Through the ICB grant, CRS has built community capacity to influence factors that affect food security. Given that increased citizen participation in public decision making contributes to better governance, which contributes to improved food security, this investment promises to have a long-term positive impact. CRS has also maintained strong relationships with other INGOs, USAID and others involved in promoting food security. Through these relationships, CRS has enhanced joint learning and contributed to as well as benefited from improved effectiveness in influencing food security strategies and implementing food security programming. Finally, CRS is building staff, partner and community capacity to manage, implement and measure the impact of food security programs. During the first half of the ICB grant period, CRS has laid a foundation and developed helpful tools that are proving their utility in the field. B. Recommendations During the second half of the ICB grant period, CRS is well positioned to build on its successes to date. With new staff in place and tools and frameworks developed, CRS can focus on encouraging the adoption of the new approaches. Primarily, improved knowledge management will lead to greater impact from its ICB grant activities. 1. Develop and disseminate training materials and tools. CRS field staff and other INGOs consistently requested that CRS/PQSD provide more training materials and field-friendly tools to help facilitate the adoption of the new approaches it is developing via the ICB grant. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 49 • CRS will build more systematically on existing tools, such as those related to Livelihood Security frameworks for the IHD, Sphere for developmental relief, and various organizational capacity assessment indices and capacity building tools. • CRS will disseminate tools more systematically. Holding more structured learning events will facilitate Title II country program adoption of new approaches. • CRS will continue to collaborate with other INGOs and USAID in the development of guidance that benefits from consistency among those involved in promoting food security, such as developing and disseminating commonly accepted indicators for food security programming. 2. Increase integration of grant-funded activities. CRS is already using the ICB grant to promote a holistic approach to food security programming. Developmental relief and risk reduction are already well established in CRS. Water and sanitation activities are being integrated into health and agriculture programs, and HIV and AIDS interventions are incorporating nutrition. CRS will further enhance its effectiveness in integrating its programming approaches by focusing more attention on integrating the following areas: • Structural analysis with IHD assessments • HIV prevention with food security programming • Water and sanitation programming with agriculture activities • Partner institutional management capacity with partner capacity to identify and measure intervention impact • ProPack problem analysis and project design guidance with Title II programming requirements 3. Increase learning from innovative approaches With funding from the ICB grant, CRS is developing and testing a number of innovative approaches. During the second half of the grant period, CRS will invest more resources in learning from its early experiences with those approaches and sharing that learning systematically within the agency and with others promoting food security. Particularly, CRS will continue its learning and sharing to: • Use the IHD framework to inform context analysis, strategy and program design • Develop exit strategies for food distribution programs • Integrate HIV and AIDS and nutrition programming • Develop community capacity to analyze and influence factors affecting food security • Develop participatory approaches to identify and measure the impact of food security interventions CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 50 C. Adjustments recommended for the baseline survey and the PITT Baseline survey CRS will review the questions being asked in the baseline survey, which was repeated for the midterm review, to ensure that they still have relevance for ICB grant-funded activities. This is particularly true for IRs 3.1 and B. CRS will revise or add questions that show evidence of changes in knowledge and practices to help evaluators interpret responses to questions asking for perceptions of changes in knowledge and practice. Finally, CRS will reduce the survey’s 10-point scale to a 5-point scale and providing greater guidance on using it in order to increase comparability of responses among country programs and over time. PITT As with the baseline survey, CRS will review the indicators for SO 3 and the outputs and indicators for IR B to ensure they continue to reflect accurately and adequately ICB grant-funded activities and anticipated results. The first indicator under every capacity building output will be changed to read “an annually updated capacity building plan,” rather than “an annually updated capacity building strategy.” Finally, targets for numbers of trainees should not exceed 35 per training. After internal consultations on the ICB PITT and SO 3 and IR B specifically, CRS will propose changes to USAID/FFP, with the goal of having an approved revised ICB PITT by March 31, 2007. CRS is well on its way to achieve its objectives within its ICB grant. Already, its efforts have had a visible positive impact on CRS’ and others’ approaches to food security programming. With more attention to knowledge management, its positive impact will increase and be felt more broadly during the second half of the grant period. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 51 APPENDIX A 1 Scope of Work Mid-term Review CRS Institutional Capacity Building Grant 1.0. Introduction 1.1. Objective of the evaluation The objective of this Mid-term Review is to assess progress in achieving the project’s planned results and to recommend refinements for project activities and targets for Catholic Relief Service’s (CRS’) Title II-funded Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) grant. Specifically, mid-term data, including qualitative and quantitative information, will be used to: • Determine progress toward achieving SOs, IRs and targets for activities; • Identify factors facilitating or hindering progress; and • Recommend refinements to targets and/or modifications to activities to help CRS achieve its IRs, SOs and goal. One innovative feature of the mid-term review is its commitment to use the review as a tool for enhancing some of the project’s outputs and increasing projected positive impact on CRS, the Title II Cooperating Sponsors and USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) by • Providing on-site training to CRS/HQ staff in the “Seven Step Pre-Evaluation Planning Process” outlined in the ARC/CRS training module that was developed under the ICB; and • Facilitating an initial user-focused review of other ICB products (both draft and finalized) by a sample of CRS regional offices, country programs and partners, as well as other Title II Cooperating Sponsors. 1.2. Description of the program 1.2.1. ICB goal, strategic objectives and intermediate results In order to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations, CRS has adopted the following strategic objectives (SOs) and intermediate results (IRs) for the grant: SO1: Strategies for individuals, households, and communities to manage risks to food security are promoted. IR1.1 Coping abilities of targeted groups are reinforced in all program sectors. IR1.2 Program initiatives linking emergency and development are prioritized. SO2: Human capacities and community resilience are protected and enhanced by holistic responses to two major challenges to food security. IR2.1 Impact of HIV/AIDS is mitigated. IR2.2 Water insecurity is reduced. SO3: Institutional capacities for influencing food practices and policies are bolstered. IR3.1 Communities’ ability to influence factors that affect food security is increased. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 52 IR3.2 PVO practices and FFP’s global leadership are enhanced by CRS contributions. IR.A. Capacity of local partner staff to plan and implement programs is increased. IR.B. Capacity of CRS’ and local partners’ staff to identify, measure, and document field impact is increased. To undertake the project, CRS is using ICB funds, which complement the existing financial support of the agency’s Program Quality Support Department (PQSD) through partial salary cover for a limited number of critical technical adviser positions (approximately 20 percent), as well as providing programming budgets for other PQSD staff whose salaries are funded through a combination of core CRS private and other donor funds. To facilitate management and coordination of the ICB Project, a full-time ICB Manager was appointed during the second year. 1.2.2. Geographical Coverage The primary beneficiaries of the ICB grant are 24 Title II non-emergency programs that are located in 19 countries in Africa, three in Latin America, and two in Asia. CRS’ emergency programs also stand to benefit from ICB funding through IR 1.2’s focus on linking emergency and development initiatives. 1.2.3. Description of key partners and coordination mechanisms CRS has been actively collaborating with other Title II Cooperating Sponsors (CARE and the American Red Cross, among others), the FANTA project, the FAM Group (prior to its demise), Johns Hopkins University and CIAT in the production of key project outputs, including monitoring and evaluation processes. CRS has designated a primary and secondary liaison person for each of these organizations from among the CRS staff working on the ICB. 1.2.4. Implementation history and issues to date With rare exception, the project is on track in the delivery of every one of the major deliverables that were scheduled for the first half of the project, despite turnover in several key project positions. 1.3 Project fit with CRS strategies and priorities Through the ICB grant, CRS is advancing its food security promotion strategy within which mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDS is a priority and according to which CRS emphasizes collaboration with other PVOs and USAID/FFP and works to build local partner and community capacities to address food security needs. 2.0 Mid-term team composition The evaluation team will comprise an external mid-term technical reviewer, an internal CRS ICB grant program manager, an internal CRS senior technical advisor for monitoring and evaluation, a CRS Evaluation Manager and internal CRS team members. Their roles in the ICB mid-term review are described more fully in the following sections. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 53 2.1 External Technical Reviewer To facilitate internal learning and planning for the second phase of the project, CRS is recruiting an external mid-term technical reviewer (henceforth referred to as “Evaluation Technical Reviewer”). The Evaluation Technical Reviewer should be a senior social scientist with an extensive background in Title II programming, in general, and the assessment of capacity building programs in particular. The Evaluation Technical Reviewer should possess technical knowledge of the sectors in which CRS has activities, knowledge of CRS, and appropriate data collection and analysis and report writing skills. The internal CRS senior technical advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation, is responsible for coordinating the input of the different internal team members. The CRS internal team will prepare the review of the program with the External Technical Reviewer reviewing the final submission that will conform to the expectations and requirements of USAID/FFP and CRS. 2.2 Internal CRS Evaluation Manager Internal responsibility for managing the evaluation is vested in the ICB Manager (henceforth referred to as “Evaluation Manager”). The Evaluation Manager’s duties include working with the Senior Technical advisor for M&E to complete the following activities: 1) Coordination: Organizing, convening and facilitating regular meetings with the internal CRS team members, when appropriate, to ensure the timely and coordinated undertaking of mid-term activities; 2) Capacity Building/Preparation: Ensuring the general distribution of the ARC/CRS Evaluation Planning Tool for Project Managers module and PQSD staff’s understanding of its link to the mid-term review SOW and process; 3) Design: Identifying the critical pre-evaluation products that are needed to conduct the evaluation, as well as the overall conceptualization and execution of the exercise; 4) Documentation: a) Overseeing the production of the detailed project bibliography by the sector specialists; b) Updating and organizing the electronically based project documentation center; c) Developing a CD-based and, when requested, hard copy version of critical project documents needed and d) Developing a CD “download” of all ICB deliverables (including ProPack) and a “Cover Bibliography” to 25 percent of CRS’ country programs for their review. 2.3 Internal CRS Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation The Internal CRS Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation (henceforth referred to as “Senior Technical Advisor for M&E”) will design and coordinate mid-term review activities. She will also work with the CRS ICB Grant Manager and the CRS Evaluation Manager on evaluation tool design, implementation, data collection and analysis, and reporting. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 54 2.4 Internal CRS Team Members Internal CRS Team Members (henceforth referred to as “Evaluation Team”) will provide the Evaluation Manager with bibliographies and documentation necessary for the mid￾term review; participate in SO teams formed to analyze CRS’ progress toward the ICB grant’s SOs; and participate in mid-term review meetings convened to ensure the smooth undertaking of the mid-term review process. 3.0 Mid-term Review 3.1 Areas to be Addressed Through the ICB grant mid-term review, CRS seeks to address the following areas. 3.1.1 SO-Specific Questions The Evaluation Team will review each of the project’s SOs and the two cross-cutting IRs. Based on the IPTT, quantitative data and qualitative data collected as part of the routine monitoring and evaluation of the project, as well as baseline and mid-term measurements for the project’s impact indicators, the Evaluation Team will: • determine progress towards achieving grant targets; • review the appropriateness of the activities with respect to the problem analysis in the ICB and the current institutional and policy context of CRS and CRS’ Title II programs; • identify successes and challenges in meeting grant targets; and • recommend adjustments to targets and/or changes to activities to better reflect outputs required to achieve IRs. 3.1.2 ICB Monitoring and Evaluation System The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E will address the following areas of M&E concern in collaboration with the Evaluation Team and PQSD Management: • Relevance of the indicators put in place and adjustments needed in indicators or indicator tracking systems for the second portion of the ICB grant; • Link between ICB M&E and PQSD strategic planning; and • Link between the ICB M&E system and USAID reporting under the new 2003 USAID/Title II Strategy. 3.1.3 Key Cross-cutting Questions The CRS ICB Grant Manager will analyze the efficacy of project management, institutional strengthening, and inter-agency collaboration. Relevant areas of interest to be addressed in structured interviews include the following: 3.1.3a Administrative and Financial Management Assess CRS’ administrative and financial management of the ICB grant, staff resources allocated to the grant, PQSD staff capacity built through the grant. 3.1.3b Institutional Strengthening • What has been the ICB grant’s impact on the institutional strength of the PQSD unit and sector teams supported through the grant? CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 55 • What processes/effects are in place now that link the ICB grant with MYAPs, TAPs and EOPs? • What better institutional practices has CRS developed through the ICB grant (e.g., the IHD framework)? What better practices has CRS developed through the ICB grant with other agencies? • How has CRS documented and shared those practices? What impact has this had? • What other specific changes in CRS’ institutional strength can be attributed to the ICB grant? 3.1.3c Collaboration In the context of the ICB grant, • With whom has CRS coordinated and for what purposes? • What has been the effect of CRS’ collaboration with sister PVOs? • What have been the results of CRS’ collaboration with FANTA? FAM? • What has been the effect of this collaboration on FFP’s global leadership? • What have been the results of the Learning Alliances that CRS has established? 3.2 Mid-term Review Activities To answer these questions, mid-term review activities will include: 1. Project documentation review; 2. IPTT review; 3. Survey based on baseline survey with follow-up interviews; and 4. ICB product review. Each is described in detail below. 3.2.1 Project documentation review The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E will consider the following critical core documents during the mid-term review: 1. Revised technical application (August 1, 2003); 2. M&E Plan (12/03), and ‘rationale’ letter written in response to USAID’s issues letter; 3. Measurement Methods/Data Sources Worksheet (2nd quarter of FY04); 4. DIP; and 5. FY04 Annual Report. The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E will also review a second set of documents that document the specific training, research and monitoring activities of the staff in support of the ICB’s strategic objectives and IRs. As part of the pre-review process, the ICB CRS Evaluation Manager will prepare a detailed bibliography of core and SO/IR-specific documents. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 56 The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E may undertake follow-up interviews with key project staff members based on project documentation review findings. 3.2.2 IPTT review The Evaluation Team will undertake the IPTT review, as described above. Senior Technical Advisor for M&E will help facilitate the analysis that takes place during the review. 3.2.3 Survey based on baseline survey with follow-up interviews The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E, in collaboration with the Evaluation Manager and PQSD Management, will administer the original baseline survey, adjusted for changes that have taken place in the interim. The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E and the Evaluation Team will analyze and report survey findings. The Senior Technical Advisor for M&E will undertake follow-up interviews with a sample of survey respondents and will analyze and report the findings. 3.2.4 ICB Product Review (Sample CRS country programs, USAID/FFP regional staff, FANTA, and other Title II Cooperating Sponsors) Another source of data for the mid-term review will be an informal country program￾level review of the major draft products of the ICB to date by 25 per cent of the country programs with active Title II development programming and approximately five other Title II Cooperating Sponsors who are potential consumers of these products. Since many of the ICB products developed during the first half of the grant will have only been circulated in draft form, the review will be informal and focus on a non-random sample routed through one staff member chosen by PQSD. The mechanism for conducting this review will be for individual PQSD Technical Advisors to hand-deliver CD downloads of the key ICB products to be assessed to individuals within country programs selected by the Technical Advisors and Country Representatives. 3.3 Mid-term Review Deliverables Mid-term review deliverables will include: 1. A mid-term evaluation report of approximately 25 pages (excluding table of contents, executive summary and annexes) that will include brief background information on CRS and USAID Title II programming and the ICB grant, as well as the mid-term review; four chapters outlining progress made within each of the three SOs and the two cross-cutting IRs; and a chapter highlighting cross-cutting issues and priority recommendations. 2. A project information briefing book containing all background documents relevant to the ICB grant. 3. An ICB products book and CD containing all the ICB products developed to date. 4. A re-administered baseline survey including the revised survey, field responses, data collected and analysis. 5. A revised IPTT based on a review of the indicators, targets and methods of measurement within the original IPTT. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 57 APPENDIX A 2 Scope of Work for ICB Midterm Review External Consultant May 3 2006 Purpose: The objective of this Mid-term Review is to assess progress in achieving the project’s planned results and to recommend refinements for project activities and targets for Catholic Relief Service’s (CRS’) ICB grant. To assess the grant’s progress, CRS will conduct a through internal evaluation toward achieving the project’s planned results and an independent, external consultant will be hired to assess impact of CRS’ contributions with Cooperating Sponsors. In contrast to previous Title II capacity building grants, the current round of ICB grants was designed to produce “outputs” that would have system-wide benefits, as well as to increase the internal capacity of the individual Title II Cooperating Sponsors. The grants were awarded to Cooperating Sponsors who could demonstrate this dual-level impact. This impact is tracked as part of the ICB’s IR 3.2: PVO practices and FFP’s global leadership are enhanced by CRS contributions. Role of External Consultant: The External Consultant will supplement CRS internal midterm review of its ICB grant by documenting CRS’ contributions to the FFP and Cooperating Sponsor community via its ICB grant. This document will conform to the expectations and requirements of USAID/FFP and CRS and will form part of CRS’ ICB midterm review. Required Skills and Experience: The External Consultant is a senior social scientist with an extensive background in Title II programming and the broader Title II community. The Consultant possesses technical knowledge of the activities in sectors were CRS has activities, knowledge of CRS, and appropriate data collection, analysis and report writing skills. Milestones: ƒ Information resources and interviewees identified ¾ List of 4 key documents to be reviewed externally. The 4 documents produced by the ICB will be sent in CD format (12 CDs, each containing the 4 completed documents, will be sent to consultant for distribution to external reviewers from the pool of Cooperating Sponsors, FANta, University academics and USAID) (Propack I, Tsunami paper, Wat/San strategy for EARO, HIV/AIDS Best Practices) ¾ External reviewers identified for review ¾ Interviews with one or more key informant staff from 3 or more Cooperating Sponsors, 1 or more staff from FANta, 1 or more university professors, 2 or more staff from USAID and/or FFP about the CRS documents listed above for CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 58 impressions of CRS contributions to the FFP community using questionnaire provided ƒ Data collected via document review and interviews ¾ Consultant will focus on how CRS ICB work is contributing to other Cooperating Sponsors, USAID/FFP work and reputation and the international development community ¾ Document summarizing interview results written and submitted to CRS for incorporation into mid-term evaluation. Suggested Table of Contents 1.0. Executive Summary 2.0. Introduction - Purpose of Document Review, Methods Used 3.0. Brief Summary of Documents Reviewed • Propack • Tsunami Paper • EARO Regional Strategy • HIV/AIDS Best Practices 4.0. Evaluation of CRS documents 4.1 Cooperating Sponsor evaluation of 4 CRS documents, including projected impact 4.2 FANta and university evaluations, including projected impact 4.3 USAID evaluation, including projected impact 5.0. Consultant Findings and Recommendations -- To include suggestions for a tracking system for dissemination, use and impact of CRS documents Key Working Relationships: Judson Flanagan, Deputy Director for PQSD Carlisle Levine, Senior TA for M&E Rosann Zemanek, ICB Program Specialist Catholic Relief Services 209 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, MD 21201 1-410-625-2220 Deliverables, Payment & Schedule: The consultant will be paid based on CRS’ acceptance of the final deliverable (as opposed to daily rates). The amount of the contract shall not exceed $10,500.00. Deliverables Days (1) Schedule Contacts and appointments made with external reviewers for evaluating 4 5 Developed collaboratively with CRS and distributed to the consultant CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 59 key CRS documents. (Documents provided to External Consultant by CRS for impressions of CRS contributions to the FFP community) Interviews with key contacts approved by CRS 5 Within three weeks of initial contacts Final document submitted to CRS for review and inclusion in mid-term evaluation document in Microsoft Word format by electronic and hard copy 10 No later than June 15, 2006 (2) Total 20 CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 60 APPENDIX A 3 Scope of Work: External Interviews for CRS Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant Midterm Evaluation September 14, 2006 Purpose: To interview representatives of collaborating organizations to contribute to CRS’ ICB grant midterm evaluation Background: CRS is currently undertaking the midterm evaluation of its USAID/FFP￾funded Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) grant. As a contribution to this midterm evaluation, CRS is asking a consultant to interview representatives of NGOs and coalitions with which it has collaborated. Work to be accomplished: 1. Interview representatives of NGOs and coalitions with which CRS has collaborated as part of its ICB grant activities. • CRS will provide a list of contacts, background on these relationships, and a questionnaire. • These interviews should be done by telephone. If that is not possible given interviewee travel or other circumstances, e-mail responses are also fine. 2. Write up each interview separately using the CRS-provided questionnaire and submit to CRS. • Since the interview summaries will become part of the larger ICB grant midterm evaluation document, they do not need to be able to stand alone. Complete sentences and coherence are good enough. Milestone: Interview summaries are written up using the CRS-provided questionnaire and submitted to CRS. Place of performance: Washington, DC (consultant’s home) Period of performance: September 18 – 29, 2006 Deliverables schedule: 1. Interview summaries submitted to CRS, September 29, 2006 Contact person: Carlisle J. Levine Sr. Technical Advisor, Monitoring and Evaluation Catholic Relief Services 209 W. Fayette St. Baltimore, MD 21201-3443 Tel: 410-951-739/Fax: 410-234-3178 E-mail: clevine@crs.org CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 61 APPENDIX B Goal Reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations SO1 Strategies for individuals, households, and communities to manage risks to food security are promoted SO3 Institutional capacities for influencing food practices and policy are bolstered SO2 Human capacities and community resilience are protected and enhanced by holistic responses to two major challenges to food security IR1.1 Coping abilities of targeted groups are reinforced in all program sectors* IR1.2 Program initiatives linking emergency and development are prioritized IR2.1 The impact of HIV/AIDS is mitigated IR2.2 Water insecurity is reduced IR3.1 Communities’ ability to influence factors that affect food security is increased IR3.2 PVO practices and FFP’s global leadership role are enhanced by CRS contributions ICB Midterm Review - Appendix B CRS Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant Results Framework *all sectors include agriculture, education, emergency, health, microfinance, shelter, water/sanitation Cross-cutting IR-A Capacity of local partner staff to plan and implement programs is increased Cross-cutting IR-B Capacity of CRS’ and local-partners staff to identify, measure and document field impact is increased CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 62 APPENDIX C Indicator Performance Tracking Table CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 63 APPENDIX D List of Documents Reviewed for the ICB Midterm Review 1. CRS’ Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant Agreement (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 2. CRS’ ICB Grant Results Framework 3. CRS’ ICB Grant Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT) 4. USAID/FFP Strategic Plan for 2006-2010, May 2005 5. CRS’ ICB Grant Baseline Survey Tool and Summarized Responses 6. CRS’ ICB Grant Annual Report for FY 2004 7. CRS’ ICB Grant Annual Report for FY 2005 8. CRS’ ICB Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) for FY 2006 9. List of Current CRS Title II Programs 10. CRS’ ICB Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 11. CRS’ Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) Program (FAO-A-00-98-00046-00) Final Evaluation 12. CRS’ Program Quality Support Department (PQSD) Draft Strategy, June 2002 13. ProPack: The CRS Project Package 14. Tsunami Recovery through IHD 15. Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa 16. External Review of ICB Produced Documents by Title II Cooperating Sponsors and Other Development NGOs and Agencies, by Della E. McMillan & Leah A. J. Cohen, June 15, 2006 CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 64 APPENDIX E ICB Midterm Survey - Responding CRS Title II Country Programs 1. CRS/Angola 2. CRS/Benin 3. CRS/Burkina Faso 4. CRS/Ethiopia 5. CRS/Gambia 6. CRS/Guatemala 7. CRS/Haiti 8. CRS/India 9. CRS/Indonesia 10. CRS/Kenya 11. CRS/Madagascar 12. CRS/Malawi 13. CRS/Nicaragua 14. CRS/Niger 15. CRS/Rwanda 16. CRS/Sierra Leone 17. CRS/Sudan 18. CRS/Uganda 19. CRS/`Zambia ICB Products Review - Internal Reviewers 1. ProPack: The CRS Project Package a. Karen Kent, Country Representative, CRS/Burkina Faso b. Pedro Terry R. Tuason III, Program Manager, CRS/Philippines c. Madeleine Smith, Program Quality Advisor, CRS/SARO and CRS/MG d. Laura Dills, Head of Programming, CRS/Rwanda e. Edouard Jay, Head of Programming, CRS/Sri Lanka f. Orla Kilcullen, Program Manager, CRS/Sri Lanka 2. Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development a. V. Bruce J. Tolentino, Ph.D., Senior Technical Advisor, CRS/SEAPRO b. Graham Saunders, Shelter & Settlement Technical Advisor, CRS/ERT c. Dr. Snigdha Chakraborty, Program Quality Coordinator, CRS/India d. Hilary O’Connor, Acting Country Representative, CRS/Guinea e. Yohannes Antonyo, Deputy Head of Programming, CRS/Malawi 3. Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa a. Kevin M. Doyle, Head of Kirundo Sub-Office, CRS/Burundi b. Rakotaniaina, Water Sanitation Project Officer, CRS/Madagascar c. Dr. Rolando Figueroa, Regional Technical Advisor, CRS/LACRO CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 65 d. Ross Tomlinson, Water and Sanitation Program Manager, CRS/SEAPRO e. Jean-Philippe Debus, Regional Technical Advisor for Emergencies & WATSAN, CRS/WARO and CARO ICB Products Review - External Reviewers 1. Charles E. Owuba, Director of Operations, HIV/AIDS-Integrated Programs, International Programs Group, World Vision 2. Ange Tingbo, Technical Solutions Unit, American Red Cross International Services 3. Bill Feibig, Technical Advisor, Hunger and Malnutrition Unit, Save the Children/USA 4. Thomas Chappell Cole, Food Security Specialist, Hunger and Malnutrition Unit, Save the Children/USA 5. Heather Denton, Food Security Advisor, Hunger and Malnutrition Unit, Save the Children/USA 6. Todd Flower, Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellow, Uganda Field Office, Save the Children/USA 7. Paul Majarowitz, IWG/ECB2 Project, Mercy Corps 8. Carlos Cardenas, Director, Mercy Corps Health Unit, Mercy Corps 9. Jessica Quarles, Senior Program Officer for HIV/AIDS, Mercy Corps 10. Keith Polo, Director of Agriculture/Livelihoods Unit, Mercy Corps 11. Bonaventure Traore, Country Representative, Africare/Guinea 12. Anne Swindale, Deputy Director, FANTA 13. Gilles Bergeron, Senior Food Security Advisor, FANTA 14. Sarah Workman, Research Scientist and Education Specialist, International Programs in Agriculture, University of Georgia 15. Charles S. Wortmann, Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska Lincoln 16. Hillary Egna, Director, Aquaculture CRSP, Oregon State University 17. Dramane Mariko, USAID/FFP Regional Program Office, Dakar 18. Dennis McCarthy, USAID/FFP Office, Haiti ICB Midterm Review - External Interviews 1. Johan Kempe, Product Manager, Atlas Copco Drilling Systems (ACDS) 2. Kate Greenaway, Consultant, Africa Forum 3. Alice Willard, Senior Technical Advisor for Monitoring and Evaluation, American Red Cross 4. Jim Rugh, Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, CARE 5. Jacqueline Ashby, Director, Rural Innovation Institute, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 6. Shaun Ferris, Project Manager, Rural Agro-enterprise Development Project, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 7. Lynette Walker, Deputy Director, The CORE Group, World Vision CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 66 8. Patricia Bonnard, Consultant, formerly with the Food Security and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Academy for Educational Development (AED) 9. Meghan Deitchler, Senior Maternal Child Health Nutrition Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Food Security and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Academy for Educational Development (AED) 10. Anne Swindale, Deputy Director, Food Security and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA), Academy for Educational Development (AED) 11. Mona Grieser, Project Director, Hygiene Improvement Project (HIP), Academy for Educational Development (AED) 12. Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network on Education in Emergencies (INEE) Focal Point for Minimum Standards, International Rescue Committee 13. Rebecca Winthrop, Education Technical Advisor and Inter-agency Network on Education in Emergencies (INEE) Chairperson, Minimum Standards, International Rescue Committee 14. Tom Ewert, Country Director, Mercy Corps/Liberia 15. Dave McCauley, President, Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) 16. Malcolm Morris, Chairman, Millennium Water Alliance (MWA) 17. Gwen O’Donnell, DC Office Director and Food Security Technical Officer, Project Concern International (PCI) 18. Megan Steinke, Save the Children CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 67 APPENDIX F ICB Midterm Review - Appendix F: Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Grant Midterm Survey for CRS Title II Countries IR 1.1: Coping abilities of targeted groups are reinforced in all program sectors. (IHD-Integral Human Development) Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Analyzing household assets using the IHD 2 Analyzing broader structures, systems, and policies using the IHD 3 Analyzing vulnerability contexts using the IHD 4 Integrating findings from IHD analyses with those of other analyses and assessments in programming Descriptions of topics above: 1 Household assets include six types: financial, physical, human, natural, political, social. 2 Broader structures, systems and policies include institutions, belief and value systems, socio-economic systems, etc. 3 Vulnerability- context analysis addresses possible shocks, cycles, trends, and risks. 4 IHD analysis should be coupled with other kinds of analyses and assessments noted in other IRs below and in CRS' ProPack, which covers literature and secondary-data review, as well as stakeholder, gap, capacity and gender appraisals/assessments. Comments: IR I.2: Program initiatives linking emergency and development are prioritized Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Instituting emergency preparedness and response training and techniques 2 Conducting an emergency assessment CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 68 3 Integrating risk reduction into ongoing Title II development activities 4 Designing developmental relief programming using the IHD Descriptions of topics above: 1 Country programs need to know if and how to train partners in emergency preparedness and response. Techniques and training topics are spelled out in the CRS Emergency Response's Team's (ERT) Emergency Preparedness and Response Handbook. Also useful will be the Emergency Field Operations Manual (forthcoming under the ICB). 2 Emergency assessment topics and procedures are available in the CRS' Emergency Assessment Manual. Also relevant are CRS' Shelter Guidelines and Milk Policy. 3 On-going development activities can protect development gains through the addition of risk-reduction elements such as: disaster preparedness, livelihood diversification, asset creation, peacebuilding, and natural resource management. 4 Developmental relief draws on IHD analysis to improve the design of emergency responses by including interventions that lead to subsequent development programming and, conversely, by building into development programming elements that reduce risk and vulnerability and thus reduce the need for relief. Comments: IR 2.1: The health and nutritional impact of HIV/AIDS is mitigated. Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Mainstreaming HIV prevention messages in food-security programming 2 Developing strategies to address the special nutritional needs of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) 3 Defining appropriate exit strategies from food-related safety-net interventions 4 Designing food programming for HIV/AIDS-affected groups using the IHD Descriptions of topics above: CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 69 1 HIV/AIDS causes or exacerbates food and livelihood insecurity. To mitigate these impacts, appropriate prevention messages responding to the values, attitudes, and behaviors of those at risk for contracting or spreading HIV are necessary. 2 PLWHA have special nutritional needs not always met by conventional food assistance. CPs should be able to assess the nutritional quality of available foodstuff and put in place strategies to mitigate PLWHA's nutritional shortfalls. 3 Safety nets that typically distribute food to the most vulnerable populations risk creating dependency. CPs need to know how to plan and implement an exit strategy that decreases dependency and promotes food security after a program ends. 4 HIV/AIDS programming must incorporate all of the above, plus the IHD's coping-oriented assessments, in order to deploy scarce food aid and other resources in the most efficient fashion, to achieve maximum coverage and positive impacts without creating dependency. Comments: IR 2.2: Water insecurity is reduced. Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Using water in multiple ways, including domestic and productive uses 2 Assessing the sanitary implications of all drinking water interventions 3 Establishing and training village water committees and other local personnel 4 Designing water security interventions that are environmentally sound and socially equitable Descriptions of topics above: 1 Multiple uses of water include: drinking water for humans and animals; sanitary functions like handwashing, bathing, laundering, housecleaning, latrines, and rubbish pits; value-added processing of crop/livestock and other gathered/wild products; agricultural applications like fish farming, irrigation, composting, stock wallows; and local enterprises like brickmaking, tanning, and smithing. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 70 2 Every drinking water intervention should be informed by a sanitary survey to determine potential human and animal health risks from contamination. Environmental examinations are also required for USAID-funded projects for other kinds of water-related interventions as irrigation, aquaculture (fish farming), or other agricutural uses of water may create new breeding grounds for water- or insect-borne diseases; when runoff from certain uses of water may contaminate downstream flows or wildlife habitat; and so forth. Environmental examinations and sanitary surveys include identifying all potential sources of adverse impact; estimating risk levels' scope and scale; preparing a survey report on remedial actions, and implementing mitigation and monitoring measures. 3 Village water committees implement, manage, and sustain water security interventions. Included here are committee and local personnel training in basic system management; financial and operational records; well-digging, masonry, etc. skills; pump and pipe installation, leak detection, and repair; drainage, fencing, and disinfection methods; appropriate maintenance and proper water-quality monitoring. 4 This approach is embodied in IHD analysis (and also elements of IR 3.1) for designing water security interventions that protect natural resources (soil, flora and fauna, as well as water) and foster social equity Comments: IR 3.1: Communities' ability to influence factors that affect their food, water, and livelihood security is increased. Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Analyzing systemic causes of food, water, and livelihood insecurity 2 Constructing participatory community action strategies to respond to the analysis in #1 3 Integrating system-level analysis into program design to include rights￾based approaches 4 Designing sustainable approaches to support or stimulate community influence and advocacy Descriptions of topics above: 1 This means identifying root causes of structural injustice, vulnerability, and conflict and how they impact household food, water, and livelihood security. These causes may include legal, judicial, social and economic systems, policies and practices. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 71 2 CP staff help partners design community action strategies to help change systemic, policy, or structural issues through structural analysis; participatory action research; awareness-raising campaigns; and more direct kinds of advocacy, dialogue, and/or negotiation. 3 Programs can benefit from integrating analysis of systemic causes of insecurity and vulnerability as described in #1 above into their responses, which should be locally grounded but tied into country and regional strategies. 4 This kind of CRS and partner programming should be based on IHD analysis and assessments such as those of Intermediate Result A. Comments: IR A: Capacity of CPs to support local partners to plan and implement Title II programs is increased. Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Understanding organizational capacity indices 2 Refining and applying such indices with local partners 3 Conducting participatory needs assessments of organizational capacity with local partners 4 Helping local partners design and implement action plans to increase their organizational capacity Descriptions of topics above: 1 Many such indices exist for determining organizational health during needs assessments and post-intervention evaluations, examining by￾laws, board organization and functioning, gender representation, quantity and quality of professional staff, fundraising, proposal writing, financial management, monitoring and evaluation systems, building and equipment ownership and maintenance, etc. 2 Often indices need to be tailored for each local partner's particular sectoral or thematic action areas and comparative advantage. 3 Findings about key organizational weaknesses can be used to prioritize capacity building assistance. 4 CP staff should know how to work with partners to design feasible and cost-effective plans tailored to each partner's needs. Plans may include formal or on-the-job training, workshops, mentoring, exchange visits to other organizations to learn from their systems and experience, distance-learning and self-study, and linking partners with other agencies to address certain needs. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 72 Comments: IR B: Capacity of CP staff to identify, measure, and document field impact is increased. Present level of Country Program (CP) knowledge about: N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Participatory M&E of food, water, and livelihood security interventions 2 Constructing a complete project M&E Plan 3 Setting up a data monitoring system for Title II projects 4 Reporting on project M&E findings Descriptions of topics above: 1 Participatory M&E means working with direct beneficiaries -- and in evaluation, also indirect beneficiaries -- to get their active input on: choice and design of interventions; objectives and indicators; monitoring progress toward, and evaluating final achievement of, these objectives in beneficiaries' own estimation. Included in the M&E process is attention to unanticipated positive or negative effects and synergies. Methodologies include focus groups; key informant or group interviews; community prioritizing and ranking/scoring exercises; oral histories; group transects; community mapping or other types of community-based diagramming and monitoring of social, natural, or other (e.g., market, transport) resources, influences, achievements. 2 A complete M&E Plan includes a project Proframe informed by IHD analysis plus assessments mentioned in earlier IRs; a corresponding Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT); an M&E Management Plan (who is responsible for data collection, transfer, cleaning, entry, analysis and when); an outline of planned evaluations and their type/approach (midterm/final, internal/external, with/without participatory elements); and a budget for all M&E activities. 3 A data monitoring system includes data collection procedures plus quality controls and a management information system for managing data and organizing it for analysis and reporting. 4 Reporting draws on data from 1-3 above plus other sources (see CRS ProPack). It is guided by a Reporting Management Plan that details all required or planned reports from beneficiaries, CRS and partner staff, consortium members, evaluators, as well as the formats, outlets, and frequency for disseminating reports or other materials to stakeholders, including beneficiaries, CRS Regional and HQ Offices and donors. Comments: CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 73 APPENDIX G List of ICB Products Reviewed 1. Stetson, Valerie, Guy Sharrock and Susan Hahn, ProPack: The CRS Project Package, Catholic Relief Services, July 2004. 2. Catholic Relief Services/Program Quality Support Department, Tsunami Recovery through Integral Human Development, Catholic Relief Services, April 2005. 3. Warner, Dennis B. and Carmela Green Abate, Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa, Catholic Relief Services, 2005. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 74 APPENDIX H Bibliography – ICB Related publications AGRICULTURE/ENVIRONMENT Articles Publications CRS: Aldana, M., Burpee, G., Heinrich, G., Remington, T., and Wilson, K. RII-CIAT: Ashby, J., Ferris, S., and Quiros, C. The organization and development of farmer groups for agroenterprise: Conclusions from a CRS & RII-CIAT study tour in Asia, Africa and Latin America. (Completed, ready for publication). CRS: Aldana, M., Burpee, G., Heinrich, G., Remington, T., and Wilson, K. RII-CIAT: Ashby, J., Ferris, S., and C. Quiros. Preparing farmer groups to engage successfully with markets: A field guide for five key skill sets. (Completed, ready for publication). Heinrich, G., Penders, C., Senefeld, S. and G. Burpee. Jan 2006. Strategies for integrating agriculture and HIV/AIDS programming (In process). CRS. Aug 2006. Scoring Strategies for Integrating HIV and Agriculture Programming. Poster presentation at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Canada. Ferris, S., Best, R., Lundy, M., Ostertag, C., Gottret, M. and T. Wandschneider.2006. Strategy Paper: A Participatory and Area-based Approach to Rural Agroenterprise Development. (Hard copies only, provided). Ferris, S., Kaganzi, E., Best, R., Lundy, M., Ostertag, C. and T. Wandschneider.2006. A Market Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Agroenterprise Development. (Hard copies only, provided). Selected Presentations Oct 2006. Presentations on outcomes of the CRS & RII-CIAT Study Tour: a) EARO Agroenterprise workshop, Kenya, June 06 b) PQSD - Baltimore August 06, and c) WARO Agroenterprise workshop, Senegal, October 2006. Tools/Modules Goeppert, K. and M. Jeganathan. 2005. Development workers Library for Agriculture Knowledge: A resource CD-ROM that includes variety of agricultural tools and publications produced by CRS and other organizations. EDUCATION CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 75 Articles Carneal, C. and R. Neufeldt. 2005. Points for Violence or Bulwarks for Peace and Integral Human Development: A Comparative Case Study of Peacebuilding and Social Empowerment Activities in Food-Assisted Programming at Four Residential Institutions Supported by CRS/India. Publications Eversmann, E. 2006. Education and the IHD Framework. CRS. Baltimore, MD. (In progress) Selected Presentations Eversmann, E. Oct 2005. Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction. PowerPoint presentation to CRS Executive Leadership Team, CRS Headquarters, Baltimore, Maryland. Sellers, A. 2005. Ending Child Hunger for 5-15 year-olds: CRS’ Food-Assisted Education Programs. PowerPoint presentation at WFP-PVO annual consultation, October 27, 2005, WFP Office, Rome, Italy. Tools/Modules Training Materials (CO-FUNDED WITH CARE) Baxter, P. and L. Bethke. 2005. Understanding and Using the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies. Training Guide and Workbook, Version 3, November 5th, 2005. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. May 2004. Next Phase Planning Tool for Food-Assisted Education Programs. Brochure with tool and text, developed at the FAE workshop. May 2004. Food-Assisted Education Workshop CD. CD-ROM with report and materials from May, 2004 workshop for FAE program managers. HEALTH Articles Publications Selected Presentations Hennigan, M. 2005, IHD in Eleven Slides - PowerPoint presented to CRS-Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone August 8, 2005. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 76 Tools/Modules CRS. Mar 2006. BCC Facilitator guide I-Life program. CRS. Mar 2006. Behavior Change Workshop Report. HIVAIDS Articles Working Papers Farmer, M. 2005. DRAFT Building a Holistic Response to the AIDS Crisis: An Integrated Approach to Food Security and HIV/AIDS Care Within CRS' Programming- A Background Paper. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. Hanley, M. Assets Sample Tool. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. (In progress). Hanley, M. Excerpts from IHD & HIV/AIDS reflections: Social and Human Assets (+Software). Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. (In progress). Hanley, M. Example of a "SOCIAL Asset" Intervention. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. (In progress). Senefeld, S., Weinhauer, K. and K. Polsky. May 2004. Nutrition, HIV/AIDS, and Antiretroviral Therapy. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD and Catholic Relief Services, Harare. Senefeld, S., Kruse-Levy, N., Weinhauer, K. Sept 2005. “Best Practices Fact Sheet”. Baltimore, Catholic Relief Services. Senefeld, S. April 2004. Required Nutritional Intakes for People Living with Suppressed Immune Systems: A Review. Review and summary of the links between nutrition and HIV. Publications CRS. Compassionate Action: CRS HIV Programming Guidelines. Baltimore. (In progress). Lockwood, K., Mmanga, R., Senefeld, S., Perrin, P., Nogi, J. and M. Mtika. 2006. Water and Sanitation Assessment of Home-Based Care Clients in Malawi. Report for World Health Organization. Senefeld, S. and K. Polsky. 2006. Chronically Ill Households, Food Security, and Coping Strategies in Rural Zimbabwe. Printed in: Gillespie, S., ed. 2006. AIDS, poverty and hunger: Challenges and responses. Highlights of the International Conference on HIV/AIDS and Food and Nutrition Security, Durban, South Africa, April 14-16, 2005. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Egge, K., Campbell, J., Senefeld, S., Lovick, S., Strasser, S. and M. Pengele. The Multiple Impacts of Nutritional Supplements on Home-Based Care Clients in CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 77 Zambia. Final report for USAID. Accepted for CD-ROM publication at the International AIDS Society Conference in Toronto, August 2006. Senefeld, S. and K. Weinhauer. 2006. Promising Practices: Integrated HIV&AIDS Programming. Book of global promising practices of CRS programs. Baltimore: Catholic Relief Services. Senefeld, S. 2005. Impact of HIV/AIDS on household food security and quality of life in Malawi. Emergency Nutrition Network, May 2005. Weinhauer, K. and Senefeld, S. Training of Trainers manual on Nutrition & HIV/AIDS. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD (In progress). Selected Presentations Senefeld, S. and Polsky, K. Apr 2005. Chronically Ill Households, Food Security, and Coping Strategies in Rural Zimbabwe. Presented at IPFRI HIV/AIDS & Nutrition and Food Security Conference in Durban, South Africa. Senefeld, S. Situating ‘Utilization’ within food security programming. Presented at Heads of Programming Workshop. Harare, Zimbabwe. April 2005. Senefeld, S. “Nutrition and HIV/AIDS.” Presented at regional CRS meeting for southern Africa country programs. September 2004. Senefeld, S. & Weinhauer, K. 2004. Exploring the Links between Nutrition and HIV/AIDS. Presented at Southern Africa Food Security and HIV/AIDS Conference. September 2004. Day long training including sessions on basic nutrition and HIV/AIDS, mother-child nutrition, drug-interactions and nutrition. Tools/Modules CD-ROMS CRS. 2004. Conference on HIV/AIDS and Food Security in Southern Africa: Final Conference Report, Presentations and Technical Resources. Includes presentations. CRS. 2006. Promising Practices: Integrated HIV&AIDS Programming. Book of global promising practices of CRS programs. Baltimore: Catholic Relief Services. CRS. 2006. Positive Living Training of Trainers manual on Nutrition & HIV/AIDS. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. CRS. 2004. HIV Life Skill resource: HIV and AIDS resource CD-ROM that includes PQ produced HIV and AIDS resources. CRS. 2006. WARO. HIV, Food Security & Nutrition Workshop, Presentation, Reports & Technical Resources. (In progress). Conference Proceedings Stetson, V. and K. Weinhauer. 2004. CRS SARO HIV/AIDS & Food Security Workshop September 22-29, 2004. Johannesburg, South Africa. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. Kunze, L. 2005. CRS EARO HIV/AIDS & Food Security Workshop. September 19-24, 2005. Limuru, Kenya. Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, MD. (In progress). CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 78 Learning Events & Trainings 2005. CRS EARO HIV/AIDS & Food Security Workshop September 19-23, 2005. Limuru, Kenya. 2004. CRS SARO HIV/AIDS & Food Security Workshop September 22-29, 2004. Johannesburg, South Africa. HIV/AIDS Food Security & Nutrition Learning E-mail List-serve. This is broken into working groups by target group (i.e. Asymptomatic, ART, Palliative Care, OVC) OVC Conference Session: OVC’s & Food Security Didactic Lecture/Discussion. How do we provide food security for OVCs in areas where Title II is diminishing and needs still exist? (Tanzania, July 2005). Lockwood, K. and S. Senefeld, S. 2005. Positive Living Training: one-day training on the links between nutrition and HIV/AIDS. September 2005. Catholic Relief Services, Lilongwe. Senefeld, S. 2004. Nutrition and HIV/AIDS. November 2004. Catholic Relief Services, Madagascar. Conducted one-day training for CRS/Madagascar and partner staff. Weinhauer, K. 2005. HIV/AIDS Global CRS Technical Advisor Meeting Session: Food Security & HIV/AIDS, where do we go from here? December 2004. Dakar, Senegal. INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (IHD) Articles Dills, L., Eversmann, E., Paquette, C., Poirier, N. and M. Sheridan. Draft IHD Strategy for CRS as an Agency, by the IHD Core Group. Includes a draft of both narrative and results framework now being considered by the ELT Representative. Publications CRS. A Users’ Guide to the IHD: Some Practical Ideas for Applying the Integral Human Development Framework (In process). Selected Presentations Sharrock, G’O.G. 2004. Planning for Action on the IHD. Presentation to ELT following the PQ Annual Retreat. October Tools/Modules Ericksen, Cox, Gulick, Morel, Aker and Moumane. Being updated by G. Burpee and G. Heinrich, with current experience with the IHD. Towards an Integral Human Development (IHD) framework for CRS. (In process) Training Materials CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 79 G. Heinrich, Leege, D. and G. Burpee. 1-day IHD training course (PowerPoint's, Case Studies and Exercises). Mar 2006. 1-Day IHD training course for OSD (CRS Baltimore): a) Feb and b) Mar. May 2006. 1-Day IHD training course for CRS-Malawi and SARO Country Reps. Sep 2006. 3-Day IHD training course for CRS-Ethiopia. MONITORING & EVALUATION Articles Documents McCorkle, C.M. and G.O’G. Sharrock. Sept 2003. Getting ‘SMART' about M&E: A Strategic Measurement and Reporting Plan for CRS. Baltimore, MD. Three versions: 4pp, 17pp and 62pp. Byrd, D.L. Oct 2003. CRS SMART Plan and Proframe. Memorandum to CRS/Baltimore, Regional Offices and Countries. Baltimore, MD. McCorkle, C.M. and J. Nazaire. Dec 2003. M&E Plan and IPTT for DIP for ICB grant. Baltimore, MD. Ferris-Morris, M. and A. Hilleboe. Jun 2005. Monitoring for Emergencies: CRS and Emergency Response. Baltimore, MD. Reports Stetson, V. (with input from G.O’G. Sharrock). Dec 2004. Evaluation Report: CRS/EARO May 2004 Project Design Workshop (ProPack Rollout). Report by consultant on impact of ProPack training using R.O. Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Methodology. Baltimore, MD. Sharrock, G.O’G. and C.M. McCorkle. 2003-2006. Half-yearly and Annual SMART Plan Reports. Baltimore, MD. Publications Stetson, V., Sharrock, G.O’G. and S. Hahn, with contributions from CRS HQ and field￾based staff. 2004. ProPack – the Project Design Package: Project Design and Proposal Guidance for CRS Project and Program Managers. Available in hard copy or as CD-ROM (including electronic versions of ProPack tables and worksheets). CRS. Baltimore, MD. July (English, French, Portuguese and Spanish translations). Sharrock, G.O’G. (based on work done by CRS consultants M. Ferris-Morris and A. Hilleboe). 2005. Emergency Operations Basket of Indicators. CRS. Baltimore, MD. September. McCorkle, C.M. 2003. New Studies in Information Management in CRS. In in-house newsletter, Quality Matters, 7:6-7, Spring. McCorkle, C.M. and G.O’G. Sharrock, 2004. Getting SMART about M&E. Submitted for publication to Quality Matters pending its re-institution. September. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 80 Selected Presentations Presentations to Internal or External Audiences McCorkle, C.M. 2003. The CRS SMART Plan. Presentation to participants at the PVO Evaluators’ Roundtable. September. Sharrock, G. O’G. 2003. Getting SMART about M&E. Presentation to the participants at the PQ Annual Retreat. December. Sharrock, G.O’G. 2004. Cheat Sheet. Short guidance tool dealing with Proframe. Baltimore, MD. July. McCorkle, C.M. and G.O’G. Sharrock. 2004. Proframe Samples (7 sectors) - “worked examples” of Proframes, as intranet reference materials for ProPack. Baltimore, MD. July. Sharrock, G.O’G. 2004. Proframe Powerpoint Presentation. Slide-set with lecture notes, and references to ProPack, Proframe ‘Cheat Sheet,’ and worked examples of Proframes. Baltimore, MD. July. Sharrock, G.O’G. 2004. Orientation to M&E, Stages 1 and 2. Two PowerPoint presentations provided to HR Training Unit for use in CRS/HQ’s two-part orientation program for new staff members. December. McCorkle, C.M. 2005. Getting SMART about M&E: The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Experience. Pre-joint AEA Annual Conference workshop of the Annual InterAction Evaluation Forum. May McCorkle, C.M. and G.O’G. Sharrock. 2005. Institutional Strategies for M&E Effectiveness and Impact Measurement: The CRS Experience. Panel presentation at the Joint Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association and Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto. October. Sharrock, G’O.G. 2006. Building Capacity in Emergency Monitoring and Evaluation: Is It Good Enough? Panel presentation at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Portland, Oregon. November. Tools/Modules CD-ROMS CRS. 2004. ProPack – the Project Design Package: Project Design and Proposal Guidance for CRS Project and Program Managers. (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese). CRS. 2006. All in one version of the CRS ProPack. Includes ProPack in all CRS official language. Workshops McCorkle, C.M. and G.O’G. Sharrock. 2004. SARO Heads of Programming Workshop. Facilitated development of SARO CP M&E action plans, and other M&E-related matters. Compiled by J. Bastian, and available on CD-ROM from SARO DRD￾PQ. Mar 1-5. CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 81 CRS with M&E Working Group of FAM (task subgroup headed by FAM’s T. Long and CRS’ C.M. McCorkle). 2006. Success and Learning Story Package: Guidelines and tools for writing effective project impact reports. Version 1.0. Baltimore, MD. Series Editors: A. Willard and G.O’G. Sharrock. February. McMillan, D.E. and A. Willard. 2006. Preparing for the Evaluation: Guidelines and tools for pre-evaluation planning. Version 1.0. Baltimore, MD. Series Editors: A. Willard and G.O’G. Sharrock. February. De Ruiter, F. and J.C. Aker. 2007. Human Interest Stories: Guidelines and tools for developing human interest stories. CRS. Baltimore, MD. Series Editors: A. Willard and G.O’G. Sharrock. Forthcoming. McMillan, D.E., Sharrock, G.O’G. and A. Willard. 2007. Performance Indicator Tracking Tables: Guidelines and tools for the preparation and use of PITTs. Version 1.0. Baltimore, MD. Series Editors: A. Willard and G.O’G. Sharrock. Forthcoming. McCorkle, C.M. and A. Willard. 2007. Managing an Evaluation. Version 1.0. Baltimore, MD. (Forthcoming). CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 82 PEACBUILDING Articles Publications Neufeldt, R. C., Patnaik, K. and C. Capacci Carneal. 2006. Residential Schools in India: Flashpoints or Bulwarks for Peace and Integral Human Development. Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services. Selected Presentations Tools/Modules WATER/SANITATION Presentations Warner, D. 2006. Moral Dilemmas in Disaster Response. Presentation given at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics. Jacksonville, Florida, March 4, 2006. Warner, D. 2005. The Asian Tsunami Disaster: Immediate and Long-Term Relief Efforts. Presentation given at the Annual Conference of the Water Environment Federation. Washington, DC, Nov. 2, 2005. Warner, D. 2005. The Development of a CRS Water Sector Strategy. Presentation to the ELT. June 20, 2005. Warner D. 2006. Water and the Environment. Presentation to the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. Sept 25, 2006. Publications Warner, D., Green-Abate, C. and T. Remington. 2005. Water Supply & Sanitation Strategy: developed in East Africa. Nairobi: CRS/EARO. Warner D. and C. Green-Abate. 2005. Guidelines for the Development of Small Scale Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa. Nairobi: CRS/EARO. Warner D. and C. Green-Abate. Jul 2003. Guidelines for the Development of Small Scale Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in Ethiopia. USAID/Ethiopia and CRS/Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, July 31, 2003. Tools/Modules CD-ROMS CRS ICB Grant Midterm Review Report, December 2006 (AFP-A-00-03-00015-00) 83 CRS. Aug 2005. Water Supply and Sanitation. Technical Reference Library.Version 1.0. Warner, D. and C. Green-Abate. 2005. Guidelines for the Development of Small Scale Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa. Nairobi: CRS/EARO.