ADP . Area Development Program 
CARE Cooperative for Assistance & Relief Everywhere 
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
C-SAFE Consortium for Southern Africa Food Security Emergency 
CSB Corn soya blend 
CSM Corn Soy Milk 
CSR Commodiry Status Report 
CTS Commodily Tracking System 
DAP Development Assistance Program 
DME Design, Monitoring and Evaluation 
FAM Food Aid Management group 
FFP Food for Peace 
FPMC Food Program Management Croup 
FRT Food Resources Team 
FY Fiscal Year 
GINA CWlSER Information Needs Assessment 
CIS Geographic Information Systems 
CMO Genetically Modified Organism 
CWlSER Ceospatial, Warning, Information, Surveillance, Evaluation, and ,' 
Response 
ICB Institutional Capacity Building 
IFIT Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
IR Intermediate Result 
IRD International Relief and Development 
ISA Institutional Support Assistance 
ISG Institutional Support Grant 
KMC Knowledge Management Group 
LOP Life of Project 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
MOU '- Memorandum Of Understanding 
Multi- Year Assistance Program 
Non-governmental Organization 
Program Enhancement Grant 
Participatory Impact Evaluation 
Participatory Rural Appraisal 
.. 
11 
PVO Private Voluntary Organization 
SC Save the Children 
SMT Senior Management Team 
SO Strategic Objective 
SOW Scope of Work 
TANGO Technical Assistance to NGOs 
TDI Transformational Development Indicators 
TU Tulane Univers~ty 
UNDP United Nat~ons Development Program 
USAID Un~ted States Agency for International Development 
WFP World Food Programme 
WV World V~s~on 
WVI World V~sion International 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
world Vision (WV) received a grant from the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) to implement a five-year institutional Capacity Building 
(ICE) Initiative. for a period of five years from September 30, 2003 through 
September 29, 2008. The purpose of the ICE initiative has been to support WV's 
Title II programs currently operating in thirteen different countries. The goal of 
the iCB initiative has been to increase the impact of food security programs in 
the field, by working together with local community organizations and 
international partners. The ICB proposal identified the following expected 
results: 
r lmproved food security vulnerability identification and programming. 
r lmproved comprehensive management of Title Ii programs. 
In August 2006. TANGO International was contracted to undertake a mid-term 
review in order to assess WV's progress towards implementation of the ICE 
grant. This report documents the impact of the ICB grant on the stated goal, to 
promote institutional excellence in the design and implementation of M Title // 
food programs worldwide to reduce food insecuriry in vulnerable populations. 
The repon outlines progress toward realizing results at the halfway point of the 
ICB, examines results achieved, sets forth recommendations for WV 
management consideration as it implements the final two years of the ICB, and 
presents strategies for the future. 
Key Findings 
It is clear from this mid-term evaluation that WV Staff in the field offices as well 
as at organizational management levels have used the ICB resources efficiently 
and effectively to strengthen food security programming. Within two years, this 
ambitious ICB has been used to launch several essential initiatives to maintain 
WV's competitive position in food-resourced programming, including an 
innovative Geospatial, Warning, Information, Surveillance, Evaluation, and 
Response initiative (GWISER), the Mega Workshops, and the Competent Program 
Manager Framework. From an external perspective, the program designs are of 
high quality and were based on a good understanding of the current and 
changing food security context. Training and information-sharing events, 
particularly the three Mega Workshops held in 2004, 2005, and 2006, combined 
with the publication and the rollout of a key practitioner manual, the Competent 
Program Manager manual have provided WV staff with an improved 
understanding of program design and implementation, development-relief 
programming, commodity management, and state-of-the-art developments in 
food security and food-assisted programming. 
Specific Achievements: 
+ Facilitation of three Mega Workshops are already successfully impacting 
food-assisted programming by improving program staff competencies, 
standardizing staff understanding of food-assisted programming 
approaches, and sharing knowledge and experience. Staff members have 
increased confidence in participating in collaborative enterprises, joint 
proposals and trainings, donor requirements, and discussion forums. 
+ WV has made strong progress in establishing CWlSER as a community-based 
early warning system. The CWlSER analyses have been used to improve 
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems as well as community-based early 
warning. Although still relatively young as an initiative and limited to two 
pilot country offices, the CWlSER initiative is clearly successfully impacting 
on WVs programming strategy. This coupled with the community based 
early warning work By Emory University on-going in Central America gives 
WV programming staff new tools to analyze food insecurity, risk, and 
vulnerability, and potentially improving programming focus and relevance. 
With the hiring of an HIVIAIDS specialist and maintaining the role of lead 
agency of the Consortium for Southern Africa Food Security Emergency C￾SAFE Program, WV has moved aggressively forward in utilizing the ICB to 
integrate HIVIAIDS programming into food-assisted programming 
strategies. Several initiatives have commenced during the first three years of 
this ICB. WV has clearly demonstrated progress in integrating HIVJAIDS and 
food programming, managing to integrate HIVIAIDS components into 40 
percent of all WV's food a~d programs (Title 11). 
+ WV has conducted two vulnerability assessments per year during the mid￾term review timeframe in 2004 and 2005, fully meeting the target. 
+ Almost all WV food-assisted programs now conduct participatory impact 
evaluations (PIES), which are on target and reflect improved information and 
feedback flow, including reviews of lessons learned from the project 
monitoring cycles. 
t Consisting of eight management modules, WV's Competency Framework 
Initiative has produced an invaluable and highly sustainable set of outputs 
for the organization and represents one of the major potential successes of 
the ICE. Program management participants from the ICE Manager to Country 
Directors have unanimously rated the inputs and outputs of the Project 
Management Trainer as highly effective, particularly in facilitating the 
training events and developing the training and assessment tools and 
materials. 
t As a result of, extensive training, and technical assistance efforts, WV food￾assisted programs are now managing to complete 90 percent of commodity 
reports on time. Commodity accounting and management systems are very 
effective. Commod~ty losses remain very low, at 0.5 to 0.7 percent during 
the ICE mid-term period. Staff can confidently manage and track 
commodities and complete and submit required commodity reports. These 
findings are consistent with the previous ISA grant period indicating that WV 
has maintained timely reporting and low commodity loss over time. 
ICB Challenges and Follow-Up Issues: 
The ICE challenges have been minor compared to the achievements and 
successes of the first two years of the ICE project: 
t Some field staff complained of insufficient funds to attend workshops, to 
promote food aid programming initiatives learned from the workshops, or 
that some sectors were not able to attend Mega Workshops. This calls into 
question whether the right people are attending the workshop or should 
another mechanism be used to reach country level staff. Currently, there are 
no mechanisms in place to hold attendees accountable for transferring 
knowledge learned to other staff. Additional work need to be done to realize 
a multiplier effect of the workshops. 
GWISER is clearly a WV ICB success story in its inception and initial piloting 
activities, but close to 80 percent of questionnaire respondents (including 
both management and field based staff members) outside of the piloting 
countries did not understand GWISER's purpose or were able to discuss 
GWlSER for this evaluation. In addition, some of the GWISER tools may 
require modifications to promote accessibility and usability by field staff. 
Efforts need to be made to consolidate the useful tools derived from GWISER 
and other early warning initiatives in Central America and make these 
available to a wider number of WV staff. 
GWISER management felt that there was a lack of funds in the field to do 
follow up work. Other field staff mentioned the need for more 
comprehensive training, awareness and promotion of assessment 
methodologies, which could hefp them to address the underlying causes of 
vulnerability. 
The rollout of the lessons learned or best practices from Title II 
programming endeavors, Including the training workshops, has sometimes 
been slow, hindering inst~tutionalizat~on ofthe lessons learned. One theme 
emerging from this evaluation is the very uneven follow-up process 
subsequent to workshop events, which can bypass field staff who must focus 
their efforts on day-to-day program implementation. About 30 percent of 
the respondents stated that there was weak follow-up in the field for the ICB 
and Mega Workshops for various reasons. Likew~se, at least three d~fferent 
ICB managers Interviewed felt that follow-up in the field was weak. Country 
office participants would like to see a systematic process to promote follow￾up activities to take advantage of the newfound ideas and initiatives in order 
to maintain the enthusiasm and take advantage of new learning from the 
works hops. 
The Mega Workshops included so many participants that small group work 
and reflection were difficult to accommodate. Some staff would have 
appreciated the opportunlw to gather into small groups to discuss themes 
related to specific sectors or programming issues with personnel from other 
country offices or with partner staff. Th~s findlng may support the need to 
hold regional workshops where small group work is more feasible rather 
than one large Mega Workshop, or hold attendees accountable for follow up 
workshops in country offices. 
vii 
Key Recommendations 
Below is an abbreviated version of the key recommendations, which are 
discussed in detail at the end of this report: 
1. Continue to promote capacity building for field staff in the country 
offices. 
2. Cons~der replicating the Mega Workshops in smaller fora at the 
regional level. 
3. Maintain the functional partnership with Tulane University and Emory 
University in the remaining two years of the grant. 
4. Maintain proactive participation in NGO food security fora and 
programming initiatives. 
5. Capture lessons learned from GWISER work in Mozambique and 
Central America for use and application elsewhere. 
6. Continue to take a leadership role in adapting NGO input for topical 
program manuals such as the HIVIAIDS program manual. 
7. Consider incorporating additional measures to capture the impact of 
ICB initiatives. 
viii 
I. BACKGROUND 
~,, ~ .. Since its founding in 1950, World Vision (WV) has expanded to become one of . ..~ ? 
the world's largest and most successful Christian humanitarian organizations. . ~.~ ~ 
Its focus is on serving the world's poorest chlldren and families in over 100 
countries-a task that is supported by an international staff of over 18,000. 
WV has over two decades of experience in food aid dating back to its initial 
large-scale responses to food insecurity in Poland and Ethiopia during the 
1980s. Since that time, WV has expanded its food programs to include 
successful partnerships with multiple governments and donor agencies, 
including USAiD Food for Peace (FFP) and the World Food Programme WFP). 
Most recently. WV has collaborated with Cooperative for Assistance and Relief 
Everywhere. Inc. (CARE), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), as well as other national 
and international partners on implementation of the Consortium for Southern 
Africa Food Security Emergency (c-SAFE) Program. 
WV currently programs 7700 projects throughout the world, implementing: 
4 Child sponsorship 
4 Child survival 
4 Water resource development and management 
t Reforestation 
t Agricultural production 
t Education 
t Infrastructure 
t Emergency relief 
t Food assistance programs 
WV currently implements Title II emergency relief and development programs in 
Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 
The overall goal of the Institutional Capaciw Building (ICB) program has been to 
improve WV's institutional capaciw to undertake effective food security 
programming using USAID P.L.480 Title II resources. The primary objectives of 
the program have been to improve Identification of populations vulnerable to 
food insecurity and to better manage comprehensive and appropriate food aid 
intewentions supported by Title II resources. 
The current ICB project builds on previous USAlDjFFP institutional support in the 
form of the Program Enhancement Grant (PEG), Institutional Support Grant (ISC), 
and Institutional Support Assistance (ISA). The ICB project coincides with WV 
commitment to food security programming as evidenced by two food resource 
teams: one in Washington dealing with Title II resources (Food Resources Team) 
and one in South Africa dealing with WFP and other food resources (Food 
Programming Management Group). Toward these ends, WV has sought through 
the ICB to improve food security programming by instituting appropriate 
systems and learning lessons related to the following ICB activities: 
Promoting collaboration with other Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) 
on cross-cutting issues. 
Enhancing WVs Food Resources Global Information System. 
Piloting the Ceospatial, warning. Information, Surveillance, Evaluation, and 
Response (GWISER) system to more effectively monitor vulnerabilities. 
Improving WV capacity in food-assisted programming management, 
implementation, design, monitoring, and evaluation. 
Enhancing food assessment capacity. 
Integrating the WV HIVIAIDS response with food-assisted and other food 
security programming in order to improve programming effectiveness. 
Instituting comprehensive, competency-based staffing standards. 
The two Strategic Objectives (SO) and Intermediate Results (IR) supported by the 
ICB grant include: 
SO1 : lmproved food insecurity vulnerability identification and programming 
IR 1.1: lmproved use of food securily data for program design, 
implementation, and evaluation of programs. 
IR 1.2: Established and implemented best practices in vulnerability targeting. 
502: Improved comprehensive management of Title II programs 
IR 2.1: Identified and implemented best practices for program impact 
evaluation. 
lR2.2: Institutionalized standards and best practices for food securify program 
management. 
IR2.3: Upgraded and implemented best practices in commodify management 
and accountability. 
WS five-year ICB Program was started on Septemberl, 2003; therefore, the 
program has been operational for approximately three years at the time of this 
midterm evaluation. 
11. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
A. Evaluation Objectives 
The purpose of the mid-term review has been to assess the extent to which 
activities are occurring as originally planned. The evaluation should also 
provide an opportunity for WV staff to step back and revlew initial plans and 
ascertain the extent to which they are meeting the capacity building needs of 
the organization. This review therefore seeks to be directed toward learning as 
well as measuring results achieved. 
The mid-term review was designed to carry out the following tasks: 
Determine the degree of progress of the ICB program toward initial targets 
(compare stated objectives and activities with actual progress towards 
targets established in indicator tracking table). 
Verify that current indicators have dlrect linkages with activ~ties, recommend 
alternative indicators if necessary and appropriate. 
Determine the approprlateness of activities implemented as part of the ICE 
program. 
Identlfy previous and current constraints and/or difficulties. 
Identify and analyze key successes and notable achievements. 
Make recommendations for future capacity building activities. 
Conduct analysis of project management (including financial and 
programmatic). 
Conduct analysis of ICE'S Impact on WV's capacity building and the 
sustainablllty for food aid programming. 
Conduct analysis of collaborative activities and any efficiency achleved as a 
result. 
The ICB Mid-Term Review Scope of Work (SOW is attached as Appendix A. 
0. Mid-Term Review Approach and Schedule 
The mid-term evaluation process commenced with a review of key documents 
produced and used by or for the ICE, including: 
ICB Proposal ofJune 2003 
ICB Annual Work 'klans. FY 2004-2007 
ICB Annual Reports, 2004 & ZOO5 
+ GWI5ER System Design Requirements, 2006 
+ WV ICB Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
A range of GWISER documents 
Program Management Training documents 
+ ' ICB funded HIV/AIDS, Food and Nutrition Newslemers 
. A range of presentations and supporting documentation from the three 
Mega Workshops 
hone discussions were also conducted with the WV Senior Director and ICB 
Grant Manager prior to undertaking the office and field interviews in order to 
achieve clarity on the mid-term review objectives, process, and logistical 
arrangements. A topical outline for Interview Focus Questions was developed 
and shared with the ICB Grant Manager, the Food Manager, and the Capacity 
Building Manager prior to commencing the interviews. The WV ICB Mid-Term 
Review Topical Outline is attached as Appendix B. 
In order to fulfill the SOW described above, the evaluator anended WV's annual 
Food Aid Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand from August 21 - 25, 2006, during 
which additionaf meetings were held with members of the ICB midterm 
evaluation review team and other staff that were connected to the grant. The 
evaluator interviewed several of the WV field and management staff during that 
workshop and others during a subsequent visit to Washington DC. Fourteen key 
informant interviews were carried out in total. Other key partner managers were 
. . interviewed by telephone (3) and in Washington, such as International Relief and I 1 
Development (IRD) staff (3). In addition, 20 field and management staff from i . ' I WV offices implementing food-resourced programs responded in writing to the i 
guiding topical outline of questions. In total, 40 people were either intewiewed -1 11 
or responded to a questionnaire. t 
A complete list of persons and positions intewiewed by organization and office 
is attached as Appendix C. 
Ill. MIDTERM REVIEW FINDINGS 
WV's ICB program has sought to realize two strategic objectives, to: 
1. Achieve improved food insecurity vulnerability identification and 
programming through two relevant intermediate results. 
2. Support improved comprehensive management of Title II programs through 
hree intermediate results. 
1. General Findings: Overall improvements in WV Capacity to 
Implement Food Security Programs 
Training and information-sharing events, particularly the three Mega Workshops 
held in 2004, 2005, and 2006, combined with the publication and roll-out of 
key practitioner manuals, such as the Competent Program Manager manual and 
the Commodity Management manual, have provided WV staff with an improved 
understanding of program design and implementation, development-relief 
programming, commodity management, and state-of-the-art developments in 
food security and food-assisted programming. Based on questionnaire 
feedback, nearly two-thirds (roughly 65 percent) of the field staff reported that 
program management, professionalism, and the technical skills of staff involved 
in food security programming have increased substantially since the inception 
of the current ICB. This was reinforced by the majority of the senior staff 
interviewed. In addition, this evaluator has attended all three Mega Workshops 
and has noted a substantial qualitative improvement in the level of discourse on 
program design, M&E, and program management among field staff attending 
the workshops. 
The intensive training program was designed and developed to strengthen the 
understanding of field staff, managers, and in some cases partners (i.e. IUD), in 
food security concepts, commodity management, the application of assessment I 
methods, monitoring and evaluation, and program management in general. WV 
has dedicated enhanced attention to program learning, documentation, and 
development of best practice models. The ICB program has bu~lt food 
programming staff capacity in understanding USAID guidelines and food 
handling procedures. During this ICB period, WV staff have seen improved 
information sharing resulting from the Mega Workshops as well as the 'best 
15 
PREVIOUS PAGE BLANK 
practice" compet~tions. ICE management and field staff appreciate the variety of 
tools related to food security programming produced during the past two years. 
Field staff have therefore increased their conf~dence and changed their 
perceptions of their roles In food securlty programming based on the exposure 
to information through this in~t~ative. Nearly two-thirds (roughly 65 percent) of 
the participants in this mid-term evaluation believe that they now have the tools 
to improve programming and management in their projects and that these tools 
have, in fact, been disseminated. All respondents ment~oned that their 
knowledge has increased and they have gained a wider and more holistic 
perspective on food security and food a~d programming. 
Feedback from FANTA also indicates that WV staff have demonstrated improved 
technical capacity, willingness to learn and to innovate, that there is a genuine 
corporate commitment to capacity building, and that WV has used the ICE to 
improve program processes. 
Key outcomes and products emanating from the ICE ~nltrative include. 
+ Management and grant framing and tools 
Improved program design and implementation, and M&E and data collection 
systems 
GWISER (discussed in detail below) 
01-monthly newslener on HIVIAIDS, nutrit~on, and food 
+ Programming networks resulting from the mega workshops 
The following priority activities described in the ICE proposal apply to both 
Strategic Objectives: 
Collaborate with PVOs on cross-cumhg issues through participation in FAM 
As an actlve member of the Food Aid Management (FAM) group, which has been 
defunct since ZOOS after USAID discontinued funding support, WV participated 
regularly in the FAM working groups, the Steering Comrn~ttee and annual 
meetings, and contributed to the FAM library and database. Although FAM was 
phased out in Year 1, WV appears to have continued to work with other NGOs to 
maintam some key functions of FAM, specifically the website. WV has hosted 
joint-WO trainings and meetings and has shared programming experience and 
best practices with the other primary members of the CSAFE consortium - CARE 
16 
. . 
and CRS. Other PVOs have heard about the Mega Workshops and begun to 
request WV for participation in future workshops. WV has also recently 
participated in The Food Security Assessment Workshop in September 2006 . ~ 
organized by Save the Children, and hosted a workshop to review a Food 
Assistance and HIVIAIDS programming manual jointly developed by FANTA and 
WFP. Several NGOs attended this meeting. . . 
WV has developed functional partnerships with organizations on cross-cutting 
Issues of importance to each organization in promoting improved programming. 
For example, In 200S, WV and Un~ted Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 
Mozambique developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) designed to 
enhance cooperation and synergy toward the implementation, dissemination, 
and coordination of best practices for community-based risk and vulnerability 
reduction. Program sharing remains primarily informal, however. The loss of 
FAM has ~ncreased the difficulty in maintaining connections with other NGOs, 
and there is much less opportunityfor food aid NGOs to establish relationships. 
WV has also been a good mentor to smaller NGOs such as IRD. IRD staff were 
invited to participate in the Mega workshops, and have found the materials from 
these workshops to be very helpful in guiding their programming efforts. 
According to IRD staff, WV has been very open about sharing their tools and 
manuals with IRD, and has been an excellent mentor from IRD's perspective. 
Enhance WV's Food Resources Globallnformation System 
WV is apparently close to completing a comprehensive document 
management system for the Food Resources Team (FRT) after conducting 
an audit of existing information systems during Year 1 of the ICB. The 
food resources Global Information System is designed to coordinate with 
WV's Knowledge Management Group (KMG) and WV Partnership. ICB Staff 
also supported a needs assessment of Dulles Technologies (the company 
used by WVUS's Washington, DC KMU to describe core business practices) 
related to the management of Title II resources. The assessment found 
that significant customization to the corporate databases is required to 
include commodity tracking and other food programming elements into 
WV's CIS. This will facllitate the development of information systems 
functionality that is appropriate for managlng food resources. 
4 Provide formal workshop training 
The mega workshops, which formed the primary ICB formal workshop training 
trategy, have elicited more comments and discussion than any other issue or 
ctivity under review in this ICB mid-term evaluation. WV has now convened 
three Mega Workshops, one per year with a starting date of 2004. They are 
called 'Mega Workshops' because up to 200 WV staff from around the world 
oined headquarters staff and management to discuss topics of importance and 
relevance to food-assisted programming endeavors, with practitioners and 
experts from within and outside of World Vision. 
Each workshop included: 
Plenary sessions facilitated by internationally-known leaders in the 
. , fields of food security and poveny alleviation. 
Elective sessions on a range of cross-sector issues such as the 
Development Relief approach, HIVIAIDS, gender, micro-enterprise 
.development, and transformational development facilitated by WV 
leaders of programming initiatives. 
Program implementation issues such as program management, 
commodities management, program design, and monitoring and 
evaluation. 
field staff and management have overwhelmingly agreed (100 percent of 
respondents) that the workshops are already successfully affecting their food￾assisted programming by improving program staff competencies, staff 
understanding of food-assisted programming approaches, sharing knowledge 
and experience, and through sector/program specific requirements and 
trainings. The workshops brought commodity managers, program managers, 
M&E managers, and finance managers together for the first time to discuss food 
management as a holistic enterprise for WV. Staff members have increased 
confidence in participating in collaborative enterprises, joint proposals and 
trainings, donor requirements, and discussion forums. 
Field staff have clearly appreciated the discussion of best practices, policies, 
trends, and future initiatives, which involved partner organizations and speakers 
from agencies including FFP, European Union, WFP, USDA, shipping agencies, 
~ . 
18 
and universities. ICB evaluation respondents believe that the cross-fertilization 
and sharing process is bringing a renewed commitment within the organization, 
in the field as well as at headquarters, to quality integrated food security 
programming Networking and participation of a variety of WV country staff and 
other NCOs was a key success. Some of the country offices have promoted 
cross-visits to learn from other programs after returning from the workshops. 
Mega Workshop general outcomes and tang~ble achievements included: 
r Understand~ng the development relief programming framework and 
strategy which underpins the FFP approach. 
r Familiarization with FFP and food aid regulation, which will contr~bute 
to improved f~eld activity implementation. 
r Face-to-face meetings with headquarters-based FRU team members 
and field-based program implementers, which creates newfound 
synergies, communication, and potential follow-up. 
r Interaction with experienced food-assisted programming 
practitioners, exposlng staff to a wide range of topics pertalnlng to 
food resources management, lessons learned, and best practices from 
various regions of the WV world and beyond. 
r Frank discussion about the future of food aid and implications for WV 
in adapting to chang~ng environments and realit~es. 
r Networking opportun~ties, allowing staff insight into other units within 
the organization and fostering improved working relationships in 
particular amongst DME, project managers, and finance teams. 
r Well-organized, pertinent, and applicable workshop sesslons 
Some specific examples of how countty offices have used the learning from the 
Mega Workshops are cited below: 
r One respondent from Ethiopia reported that staff repl~cated the 
training from the Mega Workshop for field staff. 
r One WV Zimbabwe partic~pant reported that "networks have been 
created and there 1s a better understand~ng of how different unlts 
work. The second Mega Workshop fostered better working 
relationships with the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DME) Team, 
Project Mangers and Finance Teams". 
+ A respondent from Mongolia stated that there has been substantial 
tool dissemination from various ICB funded trainings and that "new 
concepts are applied every day" in their country office. 
+ A manager from WV Honduras stated that "sharing with M&E 
facilitators is enabling them to scale up their early warning community 
systems", and that all documents and information from previous Mega 
. ~ Workshops have been shared with their staff. 
Themes & Messages emerging from the Mega Workshops 
+ WV is now emerging as a supportive learning organization with a wealth of 
experience and support from which to draw on; a process requiring WV to 
learn from past mistakes rather than only highlighting successes. 
+ WV looks for synergies integrating food-assisted programming and other 
types of projects in order to promote and realize sustainable development. 
+ Development relief programming is being internalized into the organization. 
+ WV is sensitizing staff about the need to adapt to the changing food aid 
operational environment through multiple presentations. 
+ WV is also addressing cross-cutting issues [such as HIVIAIDS, gender, and 
conflict], which have implications for project design, the proposal process, 
and M&E systems, through skills training and knowledge dissemination. 
+ WV sees networking as a way to improve food-assisted programming. 
+ WV is systematically documenting lessons learned to stimulate innovation in 
WV programming. For example, this is done through promoting country 
office competitions on "better practices" and producing manuals. 
+ WV believes that the Mega workshop methodology and process can be 
replicated (in part) in smaller country or regional workshops to share the 
information and learning. 
As stated earlier, the Mega Workshop experience has been ovetwhelmingly ! 
positive based on feedback from workshop participants both in WV management 
and field level staff positions, and from various key informant interviews with 
ICB management. Every questionnaire respondent described positive workshop 
benefits and listed very few if any negatives aspects of the Mega Workshops. It 
should also be noted that every respondent listed Mega Workshop-related 
benefits when asked about general ICB success. 
Another positive benefit of the Mega Workshop has been the inclusion of 
financial managers. Financial managers were able to not only discuss better 
practices among themselves but were able to interact with programmers and 
commodity managers in the same forum. Such exchanges enabled staff from 
different parts of the organization to better appreciate the needs and 
perspectives of one another. 
. . 
Nevertheless, workshop participants identified a few weaknesses. Most 
significantly, country office participants would like to see a systematic process 
to promote follow-up activities to take advantage of the newfound ideas and 
initiatives in order to maintain the enthusiasm and take advantage of new 
learning from the workshops. Too often, workshop participants 'have returned 
to their country offices to be confronted with work that has piled up, requiring 
attention to business as usual. The ability of country offices to initiate activities 
relating to workshop themes and topics has been highly uneven across the WV 
world. Some participants, who lack the authority to move initiatives forward, 
mentioned the lack of support or buy-in from national senior management 
teams (SMT). 
The Mega Workshop process depends on inputs and participation of many 
individuals, which encourages cross-fertilization and sharing. Yet the size of the 
workshops can also alienate some participants who feel a bit lost in the 
complexity of workshop management, somettmes failing to retain the workshop 
lessons. The most common constraint of the Mega Workshop stated by 
respondents was that the workshop was either too large or that they had to 
choose only one topic or sector in whtch to attend sesstons. Workshop 
participants menttoned their difficulty in forming or participating in small group 
discussions, which is a constraint due to the number of partic~pants attending 
sessions in the Mega Workshop. Specifically, workshop participants would like 
to form discussion groups around specific sector activities or aspects of the 
food security programming process, such as commodity management, finance. 
'and M&E; subjects discussed in plenary but not in small groups. 
The exception to this has been the program management sessions held at the 
Mega Workshop this year. Efforts were made each day to have the participants 
work in small groups on specific aspects of the MYAP design process. This small 
group participation was highly valued by those who attended these sessions. 
Based on the feedback from the survey respondents, future workshops should 
I 
I 
try to accommodate small group discussions whenever possible. This might be I 
better managed by having regional workshops rather than one large mega￾I 
i 
workshop. I 
1 
2. Review of SO1 - Food Security Vulnerability Assessment, I 
Identification, and Programming I 
1 
I 
The first strategic objective sought to accomplish the following: , 
I 
Improved food securlty vulnerability identification and programming I 
I , 
SO1 was to be achieved through two intermediate results: I 
I 
1 
I 
IR1.l: lmproved use of food, security data for program design 
implementation and evaluation of programs. 1 
I 
4 IR1.2: Establish and implement best practices in vulnerability targeting I 
I 
SO1 was to be realized through the following two general indicators: 
90 percent of all new programs are meeting the WFIFFP standards in all 
aspects. 
100 percent of all new programs now demonstrate integrated programming 
(see IW. 
lR I. 1 - Improved use of food security data for program design implementation 
and evaluation of programs. 
The following constitute the primary activities of IR 1 .l, all of which have been 
achreved: 
CWISER framework and strategy developed in partnership with Tulane 
University (TU), which identified the types of information, specific indicators 
and methods required. 
CWISER system designed and implemented as pilots in two-three WV 
countries 
+ Tulane University hosted the CWISER Design Consultation in November 2004 
which included participation of multiple partners (see AR for Year 1). 
+ Presented program resource information in maps, graphs, intelligent 
summaries and other tools 
Secondary Activities carrled out under IR 1.1 have included: 
+ lnformation Needs Assessments conducted for WV Mozambique and 
Angola (basis for the CWISER Information Needs Assessment (GINA). 
+ Development of CWISER tools (hazard and vulnerability maps. COBRA info￾flashes) and food securitylvulnerabil~ty database In Mozambique (in 
collaboration with Tulane). 
+ CWISER conducted a detailed risk and shock exposure analysis based on data 
collected by the Mozambique National Secretariat for Food Security and 
Nutrition (AR 2005). 
+ WV Angola teamed with WFP to implement a Nutrition and Livelihood 
Baseline survey for the Plan Alto region. 
+ CWISER team provided technical support to WV's response to the Indian 
Ocean Tsunami, much of which was focused on efforts implemented by WV 
Sri Lanka. 
Ceospatial Warning, Information, Surveillance, Evaluation & Response System - 
WV has adopted its Transformational Development framework with the aim of 
I 
I 
reducing risks and enhancing capacities of families and communities to cope 
with, mitigate, and respond to disasters, conflicts, and HIV/AiDS. SO1 of the ICB 
has sought to improve WV capacity to undertake food security risk and 
intervention monitoring, and extend its food security information strategy to 
focus on early detection and intervention, thus strengthening the pre-emptive 
effectiveness and efficient use of Title II resources to realize the Transformation 
Development Indicators VDI) goal. To this effect, WV established a partnership 
with Tulane University to design an early warning and food security information 
strategy. Initially piloted in two countries - Mozambique and Angola - the 
GWISER prototype is one of the major ICB initiatives. It is not meant to 
duplicate FEWS NET but to complement it by supplying micro-level information 
to the higher-level FEWS network. 
s were used to develop the prototype system to pilot in two-three 
countries and the capacity of WV to utilize the system through the development 
of tools, including multi-media training modules. The overall objectives of the 
1. provide timely information for early detection of an impending crisis; 
2. establish a food security information system; 
3. provide information that can be used in the design, implementation and 
evaluation of development and relief projects; 
4. contribute critical food security information to national early warning 
systems, USAID/FFP systems, and other key clearinghouses of food 
security data. 
as made strong progress in establishing GWlSER as a community-based 
early warning system. GWlSER completely meshes with WV's TDI framework. 
The project commenced with Tulane's production of a GWlSER analytical 
framework, which assessed recent food security information systems 
approaches and their applicability to WV programming needs and systems. 
Tulane then worked closely with field staff in Mozambique and Angola - the two 
pilot countries - to analyze HIV/AIDS, food insecurity, and malnutrition, initially 
producing spatial data sets and maps as part of the process, which fed into 
'nformation needs assessments for each country. The maps in particular gave 
he GWlSER team, including WV field staff, excellent scope for resource 
allocation decisions. The assessments in turn formed the basis for the 
development of GINA, which identifies pertinent early warning, vulnerability, and 
food security information for WV programming. The process also included a 
- Geographic Information Systems (CIS) capacity building and mapping exercise. 
Participating management and field staff' have been highly supportive of the 
process, which culminated in different specific recommended objectives for 
GWlSER for each of the two countries. The GWlSER analyses have been used to 
improve M&E systems as well as community-based early warning. GWISER 
conducted a detailed r~sk and shock exposure analysis and a thematic review of 
M&E for two project areas in WV Mozambique, and produced a nutrition and 
livelihoods baseline in partnership with WFP in the Angola Plan Alto region, 
where WV programming is centered. 
' More than fifty staff were mtm~ewed as part of the GINA analysis pmcess m the two countries. 
use the Mozambique and Angola experience to branch out 
world, supporting WV's response to the Indian Ocean 
tsunami. WV Ethiopia is now ready to work with the Government of Ethiopia to 
collect and analyze data for planning and evaluation purposes. Application of 
GWlSER to other food security contexts in other areas of the world remains 
lthough still relatively young as an initiative and ostensibly limited to two pi o 
untry offices, the GWlSER initiative is clearly successfully impacting on WV's 
rogramming strategy, giving programming staff new tools to analyze food 
security, risk, and vulnerability, and potentially improve programming focus 
relevance and management. 
ISER pilot in Mozambique was a gr eraged additiona 
nds for community-based early warning. Two Mozambique communities have 
eveloped emergency response plans following facilitated basic risk analysis 
and reporting structures. Senior management from WV Mozambique stated in 
n interview that they had used GWlSER and management tools extensively. For 
xample, GINA analysis in WV Mozambique and Angola offices yielded results ~ . 
plicable to a range of management issues in addition to early warning, as 
ted by staff and senior management. In addition to GWISER's influence in 
anagement decisions, GWlSER in Mozambique features prominently in their 
ed in interviews with WV Mozambique management and 
ISER management the following outputs and outcomes were achieved: 
Maps from the practical workshop sessions at WV Mozambique on GWlSER 
were "used almost immediately for resource allocation decisions and were a 
great success for the GWlSER Team" (second annual report). Basic risk 
analysis and reporting in two communities bique was established 
s part of a multi-organization initiative. 
a detailed risk and shock exposure analysis from a large ,. 
government household vulnerability survey data set as well as a 
comprehensive dietary analys the development of 
. ~ 
livelihood groups, these activities helped program management in 
nt vulnerability and was applied in decision-making. 
major break through in information management resulted from the 
consultation with Outweb. Their information management design was 
picked up by WVI programs to be their corporate web presence and 
intraweb. This leveraged more than 1.5 million dollars in private funding 
exercise of WV programs globally was done with equipment and staff from 
GWISER. Both consultants and Tulane staff on the GWISER team were the 
first to do this. The team has continued to work with WV in better 
some documents are still in progress, spatial analysis of indicators from a 
ousehold and anthropometric survey has helped identify areas of greatest 
ed, particularly in the Southern Plan Alto. 
, . 
agement and field staff who have had the opportunity to become 
posed to GWISER express confidence in its potential future usefulness to the 
anization, noting that: 
Community early warning approaches have been introduced. 
ogram quality is improving through information management for decision 
aking, the use of nutritional information for hazard mapping, and 
ommunity early warning systems. 
communication between WV management and the Tulane University team 
years of this ICE, GWISER activities have more recently waned a bit, in part a 
result of the effects of Hurricane Katrina on Tulane University activities. Key 
partner staff were apparently deployed to Katrina. After reviewing the annual 
26 
. . 
d reviewing Mozam 
staff response to questionnaires, it should be noted that WV staff are concerned 
that the overall project is under-budgeted and under-resourced, which could 
severely impede the momentum generated from initial pilot activities in 
Mozambique and Angola. The CWISER manager stated that adequate time, 
esources and attention are the primary constraints to continued successful 
piementation of CWISER in the pilot countries due to competing priorities. 
sic data management appears to be another primary challenge to the initial 
mplementation of CWISER in the national offices. The exit strategy for CWISER 
is unclear to the evaluator, nor was it raised by staff; WV should articulate its 
exit strategy for CWISER in the last two years of the ICB. 
, . 
Regarding the dissemination of CWISER information and tools, another factor ~' 
that could affect effective follow up has been the departure of the WV staff 
person overseeing this ICB activity. However, with this depatture, the ICB 
GWISER leadership is now driven by WV/Mozarnbique staff in order to build local 
capacity of other Title II program's field staff with additional resources. 
Finally, GWISER depends on IT - Internet ~echnolog; - which is not always 
feasible in developing countries and therefore inappropriate for some WV field 
offices. Country offices replete with advanced programming technologies are 
finding the GWISER experience to be rewarding. The program may be too 
advanced for other country offices lacking sufficient program technology 
herewithal. Outside of the two pilot countries, few WV field Staff were able to 
scuss GWISER for this evaluation. Over 75 percent of the survey respondents 
were unable to respond to questions regarding CWISER due to lack of 
information. Little is apparently known about this initiative in other WV offices. 
In addition, some GWISER tools are still in progress. 
Other Community Early Warning Efforts in Central America 
Community early warning initiatives have also been implemented in Central 
America with support from Emory University. Efforts have been carried out in 
Haiti, Guatemala and Honduras. WV plans on making a presentation in mid￾January on the WV/Honduras and WV/ Warning Systems 
developed from this work. WV plans to make this presentation to OFDA, FFP, 
NGOs and FANTA. 
In the last two years of the ICB, WV should consider consolidating the key 
lessons learned from CWISER and the Central America initiatives, for example, 
by pulling out useful tools to share with country offices. 
IR 1.2 Establish and implement best practices in wlnerabilllly rargerlng 
Primary Activities in support of IR 1.2 have included: 
Implementation of best practices for integrating HIVIAIDS 
preventionlmitigation with food security programming. 
Vulnerability assessments. 
Integration of HIVIAIDS Prevention & Mitigation with Food Security Programming 
through best practices 
Supporting Activities: Through the initial two years of the ICB has: 
Hired an HIVIAIDS Specialist to broaden the HOPE Initiative (the initiative 
itself is not ICE funded) and link WV food-assisted programs with best 
practices related to HIVIAIDS programming. 
Paper presented by the ICB HIVIAIDS Coordinator at the June 2006 
PEPFAR lmplementers Workshop in Durban, South Africa on the topic of 
HIVIAIDS, food and nutrition. This gave WV greater visibility as a 
technical leader in the area of HIVIAIDS, food and nutrition programming 
as over 2000 USAID, NGO and other related stakeholders attended this 
workshop. 
Conducted an internal review of Ws experience and lessons learned in 
the area of food security and HIVIAIDS programming in 2004. 
. Conducted an internal review of WV policy with regard to Title II Corn 
Soya Milk (CSM) and Corn Soya Blend (CSB) to HIV+ mothers in support of 
abrupt weaning in 2004. 
Developed Vulnerability Mapping and Programming tools. 
Implemented a nutrition group case study and an informational chart for 
dissemination to WV project staff and other NCOs. 
Developed a program exit strategy, drawing on WV Zambia program 
experience, in order to address the impact of HIV/AIDS on l~velihoods in 
the context of programmlng cycles. 
Facilitated the adoption of the positive living approach. 
Produced a training module demonstrating the linkages between 
agriculture and positive l~ving. 
Maintained the production of the ICB-funded HIVIAIDS, Food and 
Nutrition Newsletter, which was taken over from C-SAFE in September 
2006. 
Sponsored an inter-agency workshop to review a manual addressing 
Food Assistance and HlVAlDS Developed by FANTA and WFP. 
With the hiring of an HIVIAIDS specialist and assumption of the role of lead 
agency of the C-SAFE Program, WV has moved aggressively forward in utilizing 
ICB to integrate HIV/AIDS programming into food-assisted programming 
strategies. Several initiatives have commenced during the first two years of this 
ICB. WVs efforts in piloting food aid programming and targeting in the context 
of HIVIAIDS prevention and mitigation has included the incorporation of 
information dissemination at distribution points and the development of 
numerous programmlng tools cited above - reviews, case studies, program 
strategies, and training modules. HIVIAIDS mitigation efforts have included 
ptlot testing of alternative food aid commodities in Zambia and exit strategies. 
Food security and MYAP programming in several contexts can now promote 
productive safety net program activities for chronically-affected communities. 
WV has clearly demonstrated progress in integrating HIV/AIDS and food 
programming. Although the target of 55 percent integration has not been 
achieved, 40 percent of all WV's Title II food aid programs (73% of target) have 
integrated HIV/AIDS components, which still is a substantial accomplishment. 
In low prevalence countries, HIV programming tends to be given lower priority 
in relation to other needs. For example, in the Title II Honduras DAP, clean and 
safe drinking water is a priortIy so there are no HIVIAIDS funded activities. 
Other highly food insecure countries have a low prevalence of HIV, such as 
Sierra Leone, Honduras, Mauritania, and Indonesia. Other program priorities 
related to food insecurtty take precedent in these countries. 
In high HIV prevalence countries, high HIV prevalence areas and highly food 
insecure areas often do not overlap geographically. For example, in Ethiopia 
most of the high prevalence is in urban areas, not in rural areas where WV 
operates. WV Zimbabwe, where HIVIAIDS has been streaml~ned in most of the 
WV programs, including the agricultural recovery program, water and sanitation 
programs, and the food aid program, portrays a typical picture w~thin the 
Southern Africa context, where HIVIAIDS prevalence rates are the h~ghest in the 
world. Field staff note the progress, but also note the substantial work yet to be 
accomplished, particularly in understanding how to cater for various needs of 
the HIVIAIDS infected and affected populations. Only about half of the 
respondents responded to these questions. Roughly 70 percent of those who 
responded to these specif~c questions felt positive steps have been made to 
integrate HIVIAIDS Into programming, yet 30 percent within that 70 percent felt 
unsure of whether there is real Integration occurring and had mixed responses. 
Other country offices, such as WV Rwanda, agree with this analysis, commenting 
that many projects have yet to spec~f~cally target affected households but have 
successfully begun targeting project areas with act~vlties a~med at improving the 
food security of HIVIAIDS affected households. In countries with low HIV 
prevalence and other, more pressing context specific priorities, it is harder to 
integrate HIVIAIDS components in food aid programs. This may not necessarily 
be an issue of concern if in fact those countries are not h~ghly affected by the 
HIVIAIDS pandemic. However, given the rapid and dynamic spread of HIVIAIDS 
on a global scale, this issue must be addressed accordingly in order to specify 
whether ICE ind~cators need to account for these country differences. 
Institutionalization of the HIVIAIDS Food Program pos~tion, though relatively I 
new, has elicited support from the field, who appreciate added impetus in 
facilitating, training, and implementing agriculture and food assistance activ~ties 
on projects targeting HIV/AIDS-affected households. Food Programmers, who 
are placed at Area Development Program (ADP) sites, can facilitate targeting, 
beneficiary d~stribution, and screening. More ADP-based projects have begun 
to integrate activ~ties such as home-based care, target HIVIAIDS patients for 
nutrition support, provide counseling and testing services, plan income￾generating activit~es, implement kitchen gardening and small animal 
provisioning, and include HIVIAIDS messages in farmer and mother group 
promotion. 
The integration process has, however, been challenging. As noted above, WV 
has not quite met the 55 percent HIV/AIDS food program integration goal. 
Many WV field staff continue to struggle to understand issues related to food 
nutrients, commodity type, quantity, and social network support systems. Some 
staff mentioned the lack of clear guidelines on how to integrate HIV/AIDS and 
food resources, nutrition needs, or ration types or sizes for HIV affected 
households. Coordination remains an issue. As the "F process goes forward, 
new opportunities to integrate PEPFAR and Title II program resources may arise, 
A common constraint revealed by WV's involvement in C-SAFE is the enormity of 
need relative to the amount of resources allocated, particularly given the 
prevalence of malnutrition and HIVIAIDS throughout much of Africa. WV has 
struggled to measure the food effects on the chronically ill, which is a common 
' -HiV/AIDS proxy, or to meet the increased commodity needs of HIV/AIDS 
integrated food aid programs. In Zambia, for example, WV programming has 
had to try to cope with severe limitations in the commodity pipeline, largely 
related to government Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) restrictions, which 
have limited the use of nutrient-rich commodities specifically, intended to 
support the nutritional needs of chronically ill individuals. Another challenge to 
integration relates to the contradictory nature of different types of 
programming. Food resources have frequently been targeted to rural food 
insecure households; HiV/AIDS programming however. IS frequently targeted in 
urban regions of the country, providing little opportunity for geographic 
overlap. 
Vulnerability Assessments 
The current IC8 has contributed to the skill development of WV programmers. 
Vulnerability assessments are contributing to increased and improved MYAP 
proposal designs. WV has conducted two vulnerability assessments per year 
during the mid-term review timeframe in 2004 and 2005, fully meeting the 
target for this IR. In 2004, ICE supponed two assessments - the Honduras 
food security assessment and the Rwanda Development Assistance Program 
(DAP) assessment, which culminated in the approved Honduras DAP. Two 
additional food security assessments were carried out in Kenya and the DRC 
during the second year of the ICE. WV has begun to use the vulnerability 
assessment methodology as an input to program design, activiw development, 
and targeting for the DAPs and Multl-Year Assistance Program (MYAPs). In 
addition, WV regularly conducts rapid assessments for emergency response. 
The quality and timeliness of the vulnerab~lity assessments have received mixed 
reviews. Assessment findings have not systematically resulted in 
comprehensive analysis or solid program designs, a result partially of the short 
time frames devoted to the assessment process. Timely results for program 
implementation have also proven problematic. Field Staff mentioned the need 
for more comprehensive training, and awareness and promotion of assessment 
methodologies which help to address the underlying causes of vulnerability. 
Some of the assessments also lacked sufficient logistical and resource support 
to comprehensively analyze and target vulnerability and food insecurity. Finally, 
WV does not consistently participate in multi-agency assessments (outs~de of C￾SAFE), applying standard methodology which might enhance resource inputs 
into the assessment process and allow for more holistic and comprehensive 
analysis. 
Survey work carried out by WV in Asia provides valuable lessons that can be 
shared with other Title II countries. These lessons include the combination of 
qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, and the introduction of 
personal digital assistants (PDA) for data entry. The evaluator recommends that 
the FRT work with the M&E Coordinator based in WV Singapore to capture the 
lessons learned from recent assessments carried out in WV tsunami-affected 
program areas in Indonesia, India, and Thailand. 
3. Review of 502 -Comprehensive Management of Title II Programs 
The second strategic objective sought to accomplish the following: 
Improved comprehensive management of Title II programs 
SO2 was to be achieved through three intermediate results: 
4 IR2.1: Identified & implemented best practices for impact evaluation. 
4 IR2.2: Institutionalized standards and best practices for food security 
program management. 
4 IR2.3: Upgraded & implemented best practices in commodity accountability. 
501 was to be realized through the following two general indicators: 
94 percent of all new programs are meeting WV standards for 
management. 
I 
i 
IR 2. I: Identify and impkment best piactices forpmgram impact evaluation I 
j: 
Primaw Activities: 
Provide techntcal ass~stance to WV Title II programs. 
Supporting Activities have included: 
. The WVUS Food Resources Team hired a new M&E Officer. 
. M&E officer conducted quarterly review meetings on evaluations, 
factlitated the ICE workshop sessions, and coordinated baseline surveys 
and other midterm data collection for quality control for Title II M&E 
systems. 
WV has applied this ICE to improve M&E capacity in field offlces ~mplementing 
DAPs and MYAPs, emphasizing the importance of effective baselines and 
approprlate ways to carry out studies. Although initial progress was slow, the 
newly hired M&E officer is managing to provide technical support to field staff, 
complete review meetings, facilitate ICE workshop sessions, train and 
coordinate baseline stud~es, and oversee midterm data collection activities. 
Project management training has apparently Improved monitoring performance 
and reporting, which have been helped by more systematic feedback. 
Almost all (95%) WV food-assisted programs now conduct participatory impact 
evaluations (PIES), which are on target and reflect improved Information and 
feedback flow, including reviews of lessons learned from the project monitoring 
cycles. Participation in a PIE allows staff to review lessons learned. Some mid￾term evaluation participants mentioned that discussions occurred post￾evaluation, revealing the need for more intensive follow-up in order to promote 
sustainability in the respective programs. 
ICE Performance Indicators 
Although considerable effort has been focused on strengthening the field office 
capacity to improve monitoring capacity and enhance M&E systems, less 
attention has been concentrated on monitoring the impact, in addition to the 
outcomes, of the ICB. WV's monitoring systems are successfully tracking a 
number of output indicators, but have placed far less emphasis on tracking 
program qual~ty improvements, including outcome or impact measures for the 
ICB. One shortcoming of the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IFIT is that 
it does not have any measures of capacity building or quality program 
improvements. It primarily consists of indicators that track output. 
To accomplish this, WV should consider in the future incorporating indicators 
that: reflect behaviour changes relating to the application of systems that staff 
are putting in place in their country office programs, indicate whether staff are 
engaging in knowledge transfer by passing on their learning from the Mega 
Workshops to other field staff, and introduce award or incentive systems for 
integrating better practices Into program management. This type of indicator 
sequence would reflect the introduction of a new system, its application, and 
recognition of the system's application. 
.Z: institutionalize standards and best practices for fwd securiry program 
managemenr 
Primary Activities: 
Develop and accredit a competency and institutional framework. 
Deveiop and standardize effective training rnater~als in order to develop 
the required levels of competency. 
. Provide technical assistance to food aid programs via ICE Training 
Administrator. 
Supporting activities to accomplish the primary activities have included: 
Enrolling staff in the diploma process. 
Conducting assessments. 
, 
Developing the assessment tools and training materials. 1 
. Providing monthly newsletters and other reading &training materials. I 
Conducting field visits. ,'I 
1 
The purpose of this IR was to increase the competencies of WV field and 
headquarters personnel managrng food resourced programs. To this purpose, 
WV applied the ICE to develop a "Competency Framework;" consisting of e~ght 
management areas, including self management, team management, stakeholder 
management, operations management, information management, quallty 
management, finance management, and one elective from a broad range 
specialized units such as evaluation, human resources, or relief. The training 
modules for the eight management areas are encapsulated in a highly user￾friendly development practitioner's workbook entitled, Are You a Competent 
Program Manager? As indicated in the IPT, half of all WV staff are participating 
in competency training, which should culminate in accreditation for the 
competency diploma based on a set of criteria for each of the eight 
management areas, determining "competent" versus "not yet competent." 
FANTA was very impressed with WVs corporate commitment to capacity 
building among its food aid staff, and sees this as a model which should be 
replicated by other NtOs. 
This ICB set of activities has produced an invaluable and highly sustainable set 
of outputs for the organization and represents one of the major potential 
successes of the ICE. After receiving accreditation from the Australian Nat~onal 
Training Authority, the Program Management Trainer is ostensibly able to confer 
Business Management diplomas from Melbourne University to Program 
Managers passing the competency requirements outlined above, although it 
remains unclear how realistic the diploma program will turn out to be. At any 
rate, the competency program activities entailing the workbook, set of 
competency criteria, and assessments are highly relevant, appropriate, and 
'achievable for working field managers. Based on self-evaluation, "evidence", 
third-party input, and inputs from an external assessor or mentor, the 
assessments appear to accurately establish competency and proven initiatives. 
Managers actively participate in program management development activities by 
producing future work plans and budgets and demonstrating skills application. 
Program management participants and ICE management have unanimously 
rated the inputs and outputs of the Project Management trainer as highly 
effective, particularly in facilitating the training events and developing the 
training and assessment tools and materials. A sample of typical comments: 
"This trainer has successfully harmonized training, implementation, and 
. reporting, which didn't exist before" and, "participants were equipped with tools . .. 
to improve their performance". Program managers and staff appreciate the 
training products and tools, which are characterized as easily understood, 
applicable, and useful, allowing staff who devote time to this initiative the 
opportunity to gain new, applicable, accredited skills. Managers and staff 
perceive that improved standards, in conjunction with restructuring initiatives. 
have resulted in increased competence and professionalism at all levels of the ~ ~. 
organization, particularly in response to the changing landscape of food- ' . 
assisted programming evolution. WV field staff expressed the opinion that this 
ative will culminate in a "better way of doing business". 
, To supplement and accompany the competency framewoik, WV has developed a 
program management assessment and training tool. It is designed to rapidly 
assess various components of program management at the national office level 
and then subsequently develop and schedule national training workshops based 
on weaknesses discovered during the assessment. In addition as noted in the 
07 work plan, the capacity building training staff conducted workshops in Year 
in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and South Africa. Newsletters and training 
aterials are being circulated amongst Program Managers, maintaining 
formation flow within the organization. WV established a web page 
mprising competency standards, assessment tools, and training materials. 
ese are all for public access at www.develo~inqmanaqers.net. The additional 
apacity building resources and tools should result in more competent, 
: confident program management and implementation staffing units. The 
evaluator suggests that WV should track how many of its staff are accessing the 
Through this very ambitious ICE IR, WV has also facilitated workshops to assist 
country offices in establishing and implementing grant management effectively. 
Training modules include finance, administration, program administration, 
staffing, and regulation compliance. Yet another initiative is the monitoring 
systems tool for managers - comprised of a module including presentations, 
formats, a database, and facllltator's manual -which 1s now in place and already 
apparently used by the majority of food programs. WV Kenya, as well as 
tsunami-related programs, has developed MIS based on the monitoring systems 
tool. , , 
.The diploma program appears appropriate and realistic, and has been praised 
'by FANTA. The evaluator suggests that post-diploma impact should be 
, . 'measured through indicators that capture the impact on personnel competency, 
professionalism, and the application of the competency framework. WV could 
apply the same type of performance indicators as mentioned above for the ICE. 
2.3: Upgrade and implement best practices in commodity management and 
. . 
Provide technical assistance. 
Comprehensive training of food program staff on commodity 
accountability, donor requirements, commodity tracking, management 
information systems and internal review/audits. 
Updating the Commodity Manual to a web-based version. 
ing review audits along with the regular 
ommodity audits. 
The purpose of thislCB IR was to improve the management of food aid. The 
FPMG is committed to proper commodity management of all food-assisted 
programs, and has focused attention on commodity accountability and 
reporting. The Food Resources Management Group has conducted 75 training 
events over the initial two year period of this ICE (22 during Year 1, and 53 
during Year 2) and responding to more than 1SO requests for technical 
assistance to food resourced programs. Although these training events have 
been funded from many sources, the ICE grant has added value by enabling 
commodity managers to attend the Mega Workshop to exchange better 
practices on an annual basis, and to stay up to date with changes in 
programming. An updated version of the Commod~ty Manual was completed for 
FPMG in 2004 with non-ICE funding The ICE will also facilitate access to the 
Commodity Manual via the worldwide web. WV has yet to translate the manual 
into accessible web-based modules, a process planned for Year 3. 
Some examples of changes in commodity management: 
A WV Zimbabwe respondent stated that "There has been an improved level 
and understanding of management, since commodity managers are aware of 
donor requirements and with support from FPMG, Zimbabwe has maintained - a very high level of standards in commodity management". 
A respondent from Honduras noted that "real time interaction with the CTS 
team as well as several trainings have improved the commodity tracking 
system". 
As a result of the update of the Commodity Manual, extensive training, and 
technical assistance efforts, WV food-assisted programs are now managing to 
complete 90 percent of commodity reports on time with sustained 
improvements in monthly CSRs, RSRs and LSRSs. Late submissions are quite 
rare. Reports are now automated, timely and accurate for all WV offices. 
Commodity accounting and management systems are very effective. About 90 
percent of those who responded to questions on these topics in the 
questionnaire felt very positively about the quality and efficiency of commodity 
management and improvements during the ICE. WV has maintained its low rate 
of commodity losses from the ISG, at 0.5 to 0.7 percent during the ICE mid￾term period, which is remarkably good. Following the training regimen, staff 
can confidently manage and track commodities and complete and submit 
required commodity reports. Most of the internal and external audits report 
fewer discrepancies. Most country offices report that commodity management 
standards have increased substantially during recent years, a result of the ICB 
and FPMG capacity buitding initiatives and continuous close liaison with country 
offices. 
IV. MIDTERM REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS 
It is clear to this evaluator that WV staff in the field offices, as well as at 
organizational management levels, have used the ICB resources efficiently and 
effectively to strengthen food security programming. FANTA concurs with this 
38 
conclusion. Within three years, this ambitious ICB has been used to launch 
several initiatives that have helped maintain WV's competitive position in food￾resourced programming, including CWISER, the Mega Workshops, and the 
competent program manager framework. From an external perspective, the 
program designs are of high quality and are based on a sound understanding of 
the current and changing food security context. The following 
recommendations are for the consideration of WV as the organization moves 
into the second half of the ICE five-year programming timeframe and constructs 
strategies for the future. 
1. Continue to promote capacity bullding for field staff in the country 
offices 
The iCB management team has done an excellent job at building capacity 
associated with the ICB initiatives at the upper and middle levels of the 
organization. It 1s Important to continue to strengthen WV capacity in food 
security and vulnerability programming, including early warning and food 
securlty assessment methodologies, DME, and program implementation. It is 
suggested that WV develop a way of measuring whether systems are being put 
in place, and create incentive structures that recognize staff for adopting better 
practices. Staff who attend workshops should be held accountable for 
knowledge transfer once they return to their field offices. 
2. Consider replicating the Mega Workshops In smaller fora at the regional 
level 
As discussed above, the Mega Workshop experience has been overwhelmingly 
posrtive for participating field staff as well as management. However, the size 
of the workshops worked against ensuring full participation and engagement by 
ail staff, some of whom failed to retain or ever apply workshop learnlng or 
lessons. Workshop output follow up has proven difficult to maintain as staff 
return back to thew country offices to tackle business as usual. The ability of 
country offices to initiate activities relating to workshop themes and toplcs has 
been highly uneven across WV. WV might consider smaller workshops at the 
regional level, convened around specific themes that would include systematic 
ways to maintain momentum as participants return to their home offices and 
39 
field work. Such regional workshops would enable a larger number of staff with 
different sector expertise to attend and would allow for more small group work 
tailored to specific regional issues. 
3. Maintain the functional partnership with Tulane University and Emory 
University in the remaining two years of the grant 
As one of the most important initiatives of this ICE, WV established a 
partnership with Tulane University to design an early warning and food security 
information strategy. This strategy was created to strengthen the pre-emptive 
effectiveness and efficient use of Title II resources to realize the TDI goals, 
which form the basis of WV's overall programming strategy. Tulane was chosen 
due to its extensive expertise and practical experience in food security and 
development information systems. Tulane pioneered USAID's Famine Early 
Warning Systems (FEWS) program and is currently able to bring the latest 
information and communication technologies (107 to the design of GWlSER and 
other WV information systems initiatives. Through their contribution to GWISER, 
Tulane has provided excellent services to both of GWlSER pilot country offices, 
building relationships with other agencies and providing on the ground 
assessments and support, meta-analysis of evaluations, trainings,solutions to 
M&E requirements and direct decision support to managers. Through this direct 
support and creation of GWlSER tools, WV Mozambique developed community- ' 
. based early warning systems and disaster mitigation tools. Tulane students 
from the GWlSER project are currently working for WV in Mozambique. 
WV should make every effort to maintain a strong functional partnership with 
academic institutions such as Tulane University in order to foster an 
environment of continuous learning and the welcoming and infusion of new 
ideas. This would atlow the organization to move forward and take advantage 
of state-of-the-art developments. This is especially critical since one of the key 
technical staff working on the GWlSER initiative is no longer supported under the 
ICE. WV should in turn pass practical implementation issues back to Tulane and 
other academic institutions to promote the practical application of academic 
pursuits, which can benefit the development relief community over the long 
term. Learning lessons from these types of will promote the 
realistic development and application of practical, usable tools that field staff 
will find useful. WV should designate someone within the ICB management 
team to provide follow-up and ensure the continued partnership or liaison. 
4. Maintain proactive participation In inter-NGO Food Security fora and 
programming initiatives 
WV should participate proactivety in inter-NCO cooperation and coordination on 
programming issues of importance to NCOs involved in food security 
programming. WV should continue to be involved with initiatives emanating 
from groups such as the Food Aid Coalition, which has recently undergone a 
crisis of sons resulting from differences of opinion over its focus and purpose, 
or FAM, which became defunct as result of a funding crisis. WV should 
encourage NCOs to share their products and learn from each other. A good 
example of this type of sharing took place in the Food Security Assessment 
Workshop organized by Save the Children (SC) on assessment approaches. WV is 
also promoting such sharing by hosting an interagency workshop to review a 
manual developed jointly by FANTA and WFP on food assistance programming 
and HIV/AIDS. This cooperation would also include participation in multi-agency 
assessments in country office settings. In addition, serious consideration 
should be given to the idea of supporting a multi-agency learning center in 
southern Africa that captures the lessons learned derived from the various 
inter-agency consonlums operating in several countries in the region. Similar to 
the previous recommendation, a designee from the ICB management team 
should be selected to ensure continuity for NCO food security cooperation and 
coordination efforts. 
5. Capture lessons learned from GWlSER and the early warning activities in 
Central America for application elsewhere 
WV has made strong progress in establishing CWISER as a community-based 
early warning system in the two pilot countries of Mozambique and Angola. 
GWlSER is a potentially powerful tool to define programming and targeting and 
prioritize activities and strategy based on good diagnostics, as has been 
demonstrated in the application of GWISER information collection in 
Mozambique's recent MYAP. GWlSER has gone beyond its original scope of work 
to contribute to the overall objective of Enhancing WV's Food Resources Global 
i Information System. ! 
Outside of the two pilot countries however, few WV field staff were able to 
discuss GWlSER for this evaluation; little is apparently known about the initiative 
in other WV offices. It 1s not clear how GWlSER is to be integrated with other 
programming so that field staff could become involved in ensuring its continued 
usefulness for WV. It is therefore incumbent upon WV to strategically capture 
lessons and pass on learning and tools for use by field staff. This will require 
simplifying some of the tools. GWlSER is a hlghly sophisticated system with a 
number of important advantages, but the tools may require several 
modifications in order to promote their use by field staff. GWlSER should also 
be translated Into local or national languages in order to capture its usefulness 
for field staff. Continued support from Tulane University will be crltical for this 
capaclty building effort. 
WV should tv to consolidate the lessons learned from the tools that were 
developed by GWlSER and the community early warning systems work in Central 
Amerlca and share these across all Title I1 countries. In addition, WV should 
anlculate its exit strategy for GWlSER in the last two years of the ICB. 
6. Continue to take a leadership rote in adapting NGO input for toplcal 
program manuals such as the HIV/AIDS program manual 
WV has moved aggressively forward in utilizing the ICB to integrate HIVIAIDS 
programming into food-assisted programming strategies. WV is drawing from 
this important initiative to convene a forum to discuss programming approaches 
to HIVIAIDS. The FANTAIWFP HIVIAIDS program manual review workshop it is 
hosting in December has presented an excellent opportunity to demonstrate 
this leadership role. A variety of inputs from the experiences of other NGOs 
implementing HIVIAIDS programming will assist in the effort to develop clear 
guidelines on how to Integrate HIVIAIDS and food resources, nutrition needs, or 
ration types or sizes for HIVaffected households. 
7. Consider incorporating additional measures to capture the impact of ICB 
initiatives 
42 
WV's iCB is successfully tracking a number of output indicators. More could be 
done to capture the outcome and impact of the ICB on WV's Title II food aid 
programming capacity by placing greater emphasis on tracking program quality , 
improvements. 
WV should consider incorporating additional indicators that: reflect behaviour 
changes relating to the application of systems that staff are putting in place in 
'their country office programs; indicate whether staff are engaging in knowledge 
transfer by passing on their learning from the Mega Workshops to other field 
staff, and introduce award or incentive systems for integrating better practices 
into program management. This type of indicator sequence would reflect the 
.introduction of a new system, its application, and recognition of the system's 
I 
i 
i 
Appendix A: ICB Mid-term ReviewScope of Work I 
i ,:'I 
i 
I 
ICB MID-TERM EVALUATION j 
FISCAL YEAR 2006 I 
I 
Background: ! 
Over the past twenty years, World Vision 0 has increased its food aid 
programs worldwide and enhanced institutional accountability for resources. 
both in commodity tracking and impact evaluation. WV has also expanded its 
institutional commitment to food programming, evidenced by the creation of 
two field and headquarters-based food resources teams comprising more than 
twenty staff, funded primarily with private resources. Given WV's historical 
prof~le and maturity, it is incumbent upon the organization to move toward 
higher levels of food programming excellence. Thus, WV submitted a request 
for funding to USAID's Office of Food for Peace in June 2003, to implement a 
five-year Institutional Capacity Building (ICB) Project. The WV ICB project 
proposal was funded by USAID for activities covering the period of October 1, 
2003, through September 31, 2008. 
The goal of the ICB Project is to promote institutional excellence in the design 
and implementation of US Title I1 food programs worldwide to reduce food 
insecurity in vulnerable populations. Building upon past successes, working 
collaboratively with other PVOs where possible, and working in intentional 
partnership with Tulane University, the project will implement activities aimed at 
achieving two objectives that collectively seek to meet the goal: 
1 : 
+ Improved food security vulnerability identification and programming. j '. 
' .~ + Improved comprehensive management of Title II programs. , 
i :. / '~, 
As required by USAID, WV is conducting a mid-term evaluation of the grant 
during Year 3 of the project. Toward this end. WV proposes a scope of work for 
the external consultant, in order to meet the grant requirements, and to 
evaluate WV's grant. 
Coal of Mid-Term Evaluation: To assess WV's progress in achieving planned 
results and to offer recommendations for the future. 
Proposed Time Period: Maximum of 20 days. 
. . 
ICB Mid-Term Evaluation Review Team: 
External Consultant - Tim Frankenberger 
ICB Grant Manager and Sr. Director, GAM - Carol Jenkins 
Food Team Director and ICB HIVIAIDS Speclallst - Colette Powers 
WV International Food Manager - Walter Middleton 
ICB Capacity Building Manager - Brett Gresham 
ICB GWISER Manager - Nathan Morrow 
Food Team Contracts Attorney - Lisa Mondori 
Food Team Finance Director - David Alarcon 
Specific Tasks to Be Conducted by the External Consultant: 
1. Determination of progress toward targets (compare stated objectives and 
activities with actual progress and review progress toward targets on 
indicator tracking table, ensuring that indicators have direct linkages with 
activities )- recommend alternative indicators, if necessary and appropriate. 
2. Determination of appropriateness of the activities in the ICB (compare 
problem statement of the ICB with activities and solutions being 
implemented under the ICB). 
3. ldentification of constraints and difficult~es. 
4. Identification of successes (key successes and particular achievements 
should be analyzed). 
5. Recommendations for future capacity building activities. . 
6. Analysis of project management, including financial and programmatic. 
7. Analysis of the ICB's impact on WV's capacity building and the sustainability 
for food aid programming. 
8. Analysis of collaborative activities and analysis of any efficiencies achieved 
as a result. 
Definition of Process: 
. . . . ,,. . . " ,, 
. ~ 
Assessment techniques for data collection will include the following: 
telephone interviews 
on-site visits at HQs in Washington, D.C. 
relevant working file reviews, including annual reports and DIPS 
. review of workshop evaluation folders 
. focus group discussions with WVUS Food Team and other WVUS staff 
members - see names beiow 
M&E plan review, logframe review, and ~nd~cator tracking table review 
ICE tools review (review of tools developed under ICE) 1 
I 
if poss~ble, in-person interviews w~th field implementers can be held at the i 
Annual Food Aid Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand, In August, funded by ICE 
grant 
As noted, various techniques will be used for data collect~on. It will be through 
the phone interviews and on-site visits in Washington, D.C.. where the key 
informant list will be used. The Review Team, led by the external consultant, 
will prepare a questionnaire for use in the informant interviews. Because the 
quantitative data methodology used to measure progress on the ICB is already 
:established and has been used to prepare the baseline, the interview 
questionnaire will be used for qualitative analysis, in addition to the other 
indicators used in the M&E plan of WV's ICE. The informant interviews will help 
to provide greater insight regarding the ways in which WV's ICB is adding to 
institutional capacity beyond that already being measured and analyzed. The 
questionnaire will need to be focused in order to shed additional light on the 
key successes and constraints associated w~th implementation. The Focus 
Groups Discussions mentioned in the SOW, will involve the Review Team 
working with the WVUS Food Team and other staff members. The Focus Group 
Discussions will be used to further enhance the consultant's ability to 
qualitatively assess the Impact of the ICE grant. These Discussions will use 
techniques associated with Participatory Appraisal and Appreciative Inquiry that 
seeks to build on the positive aspects of situations as the means to address 
problems. 
Identification of Key Informant lnterviewees: 
WVUS 
Members of ICB Mid-Term Evaluation Team 
Ben Campbell, Food Team 
Anthony Koomson, CAM Africa Team 
Paul Karago, Food Team 
. Hamid Mansary, Food Team 
Jim Lutzweiler, Food Team 
Mark Viso, VP IPG Operations 
Dorothy Scheffel. Sr. Director, Integrated Programs 
Polly Arnold, CAM Global Team 
Thomas Solomon, CAM LAC Team 
Lauren Sable, CAM Global Team 
Kote Lomidze, Food Team Finance 
Alek Mackowlak, Food Team Finance 
WV International Offices 
Walter Middleton, Vice President, FPMG 
Bernie Fortes, Food Tralning Coordinator 
Leonard Maina, CTS Installation Specialist 
Edward Brown. WV Zimbabwe 
. Brian Holmes, WVI and WV Mozambique 
= Carlos Piedrasanta, WV Mozambique 
Others, as identified by the Review Team Members 
External 
= Fettig & Donalty (Mike Lagoon) 
= USAID (Lisa Witte) 
FANTA 
Tulane University (Nancy Mock, Bill Bertrand) 
Expected Outputs: 
At the end of the SOW, the following outputs will be expected and will be the 
responslbillty of the external consultant to produce: 
An MS Word document in 12 point font of no less than 15 pages that 
provides a review (as outlined above) of WV's progress in achieving planned 
results of the ICE, and a description of recommendations for the future. The 
47 

. . 
Appendix B: WV ICB Mid-Term Evaluation Topical Outline 
World Vision . . . ~ Institutional Capacity Building 
.Midterm Evaluation 
Questionnaire for Field Staff 
A. what are the principle successes and achievements of the ICB 
program? What factors influenced these changes? 
are the major constraints and difficulties encountered in this 
am and its implementation? 
ave there been any gaps between the objectives and actual field 
iences? Are the activities and information systems achieving 
improvements goals? 
, . 
D. Have there been any tradeoffs at the field level during these ICB 
improvements? 
I 
E. How do you feel that capacity building will be maintained after the I 
I 
ICB grant ends? i 
II Questions on Objective 1: Improved Food Security Vulnerability 
Identification and Programming 
. , 
A. Improved Use of Food Security Data for Program Design, 
Implementation, and Evaluation of Programs 
1. What were the strenqths and weakness of the GWISER oroiect? 
--Framework established: explain the components and how it 
differs and has improved (changed?) 
, , 
: --Integration into WV Networks: are the information systems in 
How many countries/prograrns are operationalized? 
, --Data in use: has the data collection been strengthened in the 
field for actual use? 
2. Traininq 
--What were 3 major messages that were taken away from the 
mega workshops? 
--If networks/collaborative relationships created through the . . 
participation in mega workshops, what sharing has occurred.since 
the workshops? 
--How has the training (all) that was given through the ICB grant 
been institut~onal~zed? Has there been a lot of tool dissemination? 
--Many people who have been trained in the mega workshops 
have been transferred to other countries. How has that affected 
your country operatlons? 
B. Established and Implemented Best Practices in Vulnerability 
Targeting 
1. Are There Issues Reaardina Vulnerabil~tv Assessments? 
--assessments-are they occurring in timely manner? 
Communication and feedback issues? 
2. How has the intearation of food resources with HIVIAIDS 
interventions for livelihood Securitv been aoina? 
--Food Programmer position: has this role been effective in 
facilitating this goal of food and HIVIAIDS integration? 
--Integration Itself: what specifically has been done to integrate 
food assistance with HIVIAIDS programming and assessments￾nutritional needs? For identification of vulnerability and criteria for 
programs on household/community level? Incorporation into non 
food securitylhealth programs like agriculture etc .... ? Is HIVIAIDS 
ruly cross-cutting all WV programs? 
ObJective 2: Improved Comprehensive Management of Title 
II Programs 
1. Have #of Title II Droarams increased and whvlwhv not for: 
-Standards: for commodity, program and financial management? 
. ~ 
Targets-achieved targets? 
4. what were the maior chanaes in institutional omanization felt at 
me field level? 
A. Identified and Implemented Best Practices for Impact Evaluation 
1. How effective is the new position of Proiect Manaaement 
Develo~erltrainer? 
Integration-into ongoing project management in the field an 
what were the outcomes? Was their presence felt in the field 
Concuurent Products-useful? (i.e newletters, databases, 
. . trainings) 
2. Were the PIES (Participatory Impact Evaluation) conducted as 
scheduled and were lessons learned communicated to field 
staff? 
Any significant dialogue created based upon the PIES? 
B. lnstirutionaliled Standards and Best Practices for Food Security 
. . Program Management 
1. How successful was the "sharina" of chis ~roqramlseminar 
series with other NGOrs like SC and IRD? (Collaboration) 
. . 
2. Are kev staff involved in the workshous and benefitina? 
Glitches in this? 
. 3. Haveuroducts trulv become available to taraeted user? 
C. raded and Implemented Best Practices in Commodity 
Accountability 
1. What was the loss rate post ICB chanae and factors affectinq 
this? 
2. Where there real chanaes in monthlv CRSs. RSRs and LSRSs 
3. Trainina adeauacv and achievements? 
--commodity track~ng? 
-- information systems? 
-- baselme surveys? 
-- overall commod~ty mgmt? 
World Vision 
Midterm Evaluation 
US-Based ICB Management Staff 
Questions: General 
Is there adequate qualitative data being collected? 
Identification and Programming 
Integrated: demonstrating integrated programming? 
Meeting standards: for targeting, impact measurement, good 
design and sound vulnerability targeting? 
C. Improved Use of Food Security Data for Program Design, 
Implementation, and Evaluation of Programs 
1. What were the strenqths and weakness of the GWlSER ~roiect? 
--Framework established. explain the components and how it 
differs and has improved (changed?) 
--Integration into WV Networks. are the information systems in 
sync? 
How many countrieslprograms are operat~onalized? 
use: has the data collection been strengthened in the 
field for actual use? 
2. Trainina? 
--How has the training that was given through the ICE grant been 
~nstltutionalized? Has there been a lot of tool dissemination? 
D. Established and implemented Best Practices in Vulnerability 
Targeting 
1. Are There Issues Reaardina Vulnerabilitv Assessments? 
Assessments. are they occurring in timely manner? 
Communication and feedback issues? 
2. How has the intearatlon of food resources with HIVIAIDS 
interventions for livelihood Securltv been aoina? 
--Food Programmer position: has this role been effectlve in 
facilitating thls goal of food and HIVIAIDS integration? 
--Integration Itself: what specifically has been done to integrate 
food assistance with HIVIAIDS programming and assessments￾nutritional needs? For identification of vulnerability and criteria for 
programs on household/community level? Incorporation into non 
food securitylhealth programs like agriculture etc .... ? Is HIVIAIDS 
truly cross-cutting all WV programs? 
Ill Questions on Objective 2: Improved Comprehensive Management of Title 
II Programs 
1. Have # of Title II Droorams increased and whvlwhv not for: 
--Targets-achieved targets? 
. Identified and lmp/emented Best Practices for Impact Evaluation 
1. How effective is the new ~osition of Proiect Manaaement 
Develo~erjtrainer? 
Integration-into ongoing project management in the field and 
what were the outcomes? Was their presence felt in the field 
--Concurrent Products-are they useful? (i.e newletters, databases, 
. Were the PIES (Partici~atory lm~act Evaluation) conducted as 
lnstirutionalized Standards and Best Practices for Food Security 
Pmgram Management 
1. How successful was the "sharino" of this ~roqramlseminar 
series with other NGO's like SC and IRD? (Collaboration) 
55 
2. Are kev staff involved, in the worksho~s and benefitina? 
Glitches in this? 
5. Have ~roaucts rrulv ~ome aetw userr' 
F. Upnrad~rl and Implemented .. ractices in Commodity 
Ac _ _ . .- bility *- 1. 
'I - What was the loss rate ~ost ICB chanae and factors affectinq 
sisy 2. 
W ere there real rhanoes in rnonthlv CRSs. RSRs and LSRSr 
3. Traln~na adeauacv and - - 
-commodity tracking? 
--information systems 
--basetine surveys? mi5 
--overall commodity mgrnt? 
UL - 
Carol Jer. ..... s 
Colette Powers 
Brett Gresham 
Hamid Mansary 
Naithan Morrow 
Lisa Mvndori 
Polly Amold 
David Alma 
.ist of Pers ons Intervie 
wvus 
WVUS 
WWS 
wvus 
wvus 
WWS 
WWS 
wvus 
Director, GAT-- mm . ! 
Food Team Director and ICB . . - - ; , $ HIVIAIDS Specialist I+? ICB Capacity Building Manage I 
Food Team a 
ICB GWISER Manager 5 1 Food Team Contracts Attorney 
GAM Global Team 
Food Team ~inancem 
Lauren Sable WWS GAM Global Team 
Kote Lomidze WWS Food Team Fiance 
Alek Mackowiak WWS Food Team Finance 
Walter Middleton WVI Vice President, Food 
Programming Management . . ~~ 
Group 
- Bernie Fortes WVI Food Training Coordinator 
Brian Holmes WVI and WV Mozambique 
Carlos Piedrasanta WV Mozambique 
Nancy Mock Tulane University Professor, Sehool of Publie 
Health and Tropical Medicine 
Peggy Sheehan IRD Director ofFood Security 
Themos Ntasis IRD-Mozambique Couniry Director 
Jennifer Zhang IRD Finance 
Anne Swindale FANTA Director 
Several people identified as key informants in the TOR were unavailable, declined to be 
interviewed, or had left the organization. For this reason, some names on TOR do not 
appear on the list above. 
In addition, questionnaires were obtained from 20 other program field and management 
staff who submitted responses anonymously. 
. . 
Appendix D: WV ICB Indicator Tracking Matrix 
, , 
I . . 1. . . . . . I Tulanc) I 2004-Of GWISER insiativc. huo lnfamationNeeds Assessments I '' LrWLS'K a n'wy -GWISER la conduct a detailed risk for Gola and ~izambique. "phisticated 'ystem with a and shock exposure analysis based ZW4-GWISER framework eslablished 
number of important on datacollected by the 2004- Web based flp site including documents, data sets, not￾advantages MozambiqueNational Sccrctanat 2004- Collaboration included aulputs: Seminars by Tulane to 
4. Number of WVTitle I1 for Food Security andNutrilian WV staffin Mozambique, eight WV stsfl trained on CIS, 

implemented best integrating food resources with 
practices in HIVIAIDS intcwntions for 
2. Number ofwlncrability 
assessments conducted each 
ye=(atZpmyr) 
PLANNED SUPPORTING I FlNDlNGSmROCRESS TO DATE 
ACTIVITIES 
-Hire HNIAIDS Specialist lo I. 40 pmmt ofprograms integrating with HIVIAIDS 
broaden the HOPE Initiative and inlerventions-only 73 percent of target 
link WV food-assisted programs 2. 212 vulnenbilily assessments done-100 percent of target 
wllh best practlees related to 
HlVlAlDS programming 
-Conduct internal review of WV's 
expmcnes wJ Icwnns lcamcd in 
Ihr arca of food rccvrtry inJ 
lllV AIDS prognmm.ng 
-Condurl inlcmal rc\.ew of\h'V 
pl~y u~th rcgwi toTitlr II CShl 
and CSB to HIVT mothm in 
support afJbrupt urantng 
-Establish Hope Alert site, allowing 
prael~tioners to aecess a wide range 
of external and internal documenls 
relating to HIVIAIDS 
2004-lllV AII)S .pccnal.>l hired in Fzbruary 
20W.Tnro~ghC-SAFE. WV dr\rlopnl andp~lolrd food atd 
pmgramm8ng targct~ng ~8th lllV/411)S prc\cntion ,nJ 
mitigai.un-tncltdcd and nformltnon d~cccm~nal~on a1 dirt poonls 
2004- Programming 1001s dd\rlopcd inelud~ng. rapid rcr lru lo 
Inleeraw :and eol1,boratr bctwm T:tlc I1 and 1101'E In!t!rl~tc; 
SummJry ofUSG Funded HIVIAIUS Food Prqritr war 
dr.\clopd in mlalion to uhiehT~rlc 11'5 inilt~de 5omc lllV 411)s 
prc\enlion: inIrma1 eramln,tlon ofm~lk policy: enohl~.hcd 
llopc Alcn 4e. nalnlmn gruup cw .tudy in U'V 7;mbia; 
~nformauunal chm lor Tllle I1 loud brrkslop uKrcn on HIV AII)S lrnr for a~~l.crt on; findtnpr ofC-S4FF nrngr,rn in 
I . . targeting shared at n;&erous forums 
- 
2004-conducted/supwrted . . two assessments-one in Honduras and 
-Develop Vulnerability Mapping Rwanda 
and Programming tools 2005- Implementation included a food aid pilot test program in 
-Implement a nutrition group case Zambia (fortified potato flakes) and pursued a regional 
shldy and an informational chart for HIVIAIDS Eeclor rtrstegy with FFP, includingpeanut paste as an 
dissemination to WV staff almnativc Title I1 food aid commodity. 
and otherNGOs ZOOS-C- SAFE ..... (pllat fwd acd programming with HIVIAIDS 
program shlegy, in prevention and mitigation within an approved Title I1 program 
order to address lhc impact of with partners 
HIV/ALDS on livelihoods in the 2005- Pmgram exit strategy i~ areas with high prevalence of 
cantext of programing cycles HNIAIDS; link in Hope Alert site to C-Safe learning center's 
HIVIAIDS resources Ihe adoption of'he ZOOS-WV Zambia program piloted fortified potam flakes positive living approach 2005- Conductedlsupported two assessments in Kenya and DRC 
-Produce a lraining module 
demonsnating the linkages between 
ogricullure and parilive living 
ObJerHve 2: 1. % of new WV approved T~tle I1 -94 pereent of new pmgrams that meet mgmt standards-104% of 
Improved DAPs, TAPs, and EOPs over the target 
comprehensive five years that meet WV standards -75 percent ach~eve targets-only 94 percent of target 
management of for commodity, pmgram, and 
Tlllr 11 programs finane~almanagement 
2. %of ma rams that achlwe a1 I least 70 oftargets 
IRZ.1: Identified I 1. Techn~cal nssistancc will have 
I impact evaluation requested by the field I 
InsliNtionalized 
standards and best 
praclicn for food 
rccurity pmgram 
management 
ongoing c&npelency development 
pmas 
2. % ofkey staff ahending at least 
one workshop each year during he 
LOP 
3. # of e-mining modules 
dwelqxd and accessible on the 
Inlmet 
-M&E officer conducts auarterlv 
I collection for quality contml for 
I Title 11 M&E systems 
-Year 2 goals: Majority of the 
Program Management Framework 
in place and accredited: 6.10 
trained and accmdited assessors in 
lhc area ofcommodity mgml; 
commodity manual up on web 
-Enroll staff in diploma pmess 
-Conduct assessments 
-Develop assessment tools and 
training materials 
-Pmvide monthly newsiettm & 
other readingitmining material 
-Conduct field visits 
-96 paced of TA pmvidcd upon request-107% of targot 
-95 percent of programs conducting PEs-103% of targel 
-78 percent of staffknow lessons lcamed-142% of target 
2004 2005-Mat otfierr compteuJ wiru mrnlngs, lahnleal 
support to I'rLV, fac.ltralnl ICR uorkrhop rcrr onntr~inlnd (scc 
CD), and coordlnated hosrlmemdtm Jlla uollcul~nnc survryr 
of target 
-90 percent of staff attending one workshop per yr-129 percent of 
target 
-2 out of 2 e-modules on wcb-IW percent of target 
2004-"Compctmcy Fmtncuork was Jcvcloprd ullh c~ghl mgmt 
xc;a u II crltrrla for $1 ploma .4srrsrmcn1 mrthodr rstahlrmrd. 
2Uul-I".Meca - uorkphm in S. Africa. Commod~l, . mLmI - inrinlnx . workshop 
2004- Acerediled Pmgram Management Trainer hired 
2W4- Commodity manual not yet updated but tools and modules 
within the manual develoaed Lhmueh ICB fundine. 
1 ZnM- -. Monitorins ~ ~~ -~,~ svstem now in tinct . -~~ 
2004 2UUS-Capxtl) Rullclng Aclmln cimlatrs monthly 
ncurlrztcr and mpondr ro mqursts for tech asrlnance, lo dale in 
SAfnca, hlongol~a am1 1mloncs:a: wrhr!lc hortlng tools tralnlng 
I at wwwdevelo~in~manaeers~net 
2005- Assessment tmls developed and officially accrrdited by 
Melbourne Umvers~ly 
2005- Monrtonng system now m use by majonty of food