Institutional Capacity Building Grant 
AFP-A-00-03-00039-00 
Midterm Review 
Submitted to the Hunger and Malnutrition Unit 
Save the Children Federation, Inc. 
July 28, 2006 
Ashley Aakesson 
Richard Dixon 
Sonia Khush 
List of Acronyms 
BCA Behavior Centered Approach 
CAT Capacity Assessment Tool 
CCM Community Case Management 
CEP Capacity Enhancement Plan 
CEC Children in Emergencies and Crisis 
CHW Community Health Worker 
CO Country Office 
COMMIS Commodity Management Information System 
CORE Child Survival Collaboration and Resources Group 
CS Cooperating Sponsors 
CTC Community Therapeutic Care 
DAP Development Assistance Program 
ECB Emergency Capacity Building Network 
EPU Emergencies and Protection Unit 
FACTS Food and Commodity Tracking System 
FAM Food Aid Management 
FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project 
FFP Office of Food for Peace 
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
HMU Hunger and Malnutrition Unit (previously the Food Security Unit) 
ICBG Institutional Capacity Building Grant 
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development 
IFPRI International Food Production Research Institute 
IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
IR Intermediate Result 
LAC Latin America and Caribbean 
LQAS Lot Quality Assurance Sampling 
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MOS Minimum Operating Standards 
MSU Management Support Unit 
MTE Midterm Evaluation 
M4M Monitoring for Management 
NGO Non Governmental Organization 
OH Office of Health 
OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children 
PLG Program Learning Group 
POP Program Operating Plan 
PVO Private Voluntary Organization 
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition 
SC Save the Children 
SO Strategic Objective 
TA Technical Assistance 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
WFP World Food Organization 
WWO Washington and Westport Offices of Save the Children 
ii
Table of Contents 
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………iv
I. Executive Summary…………………………………………………...1 
II. Goals and Process of ICBG Midterm Review....................................3 
 
II. A. Goals…………………………………………………………………3 
II. B. Team Composition…………………………………………………..3 
II. C. Process of MTE………………………………………………………3 
III. Review Findings………………………………………………………5 
III. A. Key Achievements to Date…………………………………………5 
III. B. IR1. Increased field level management and technical 
capacity to plan and implement high-impact programs that 
reduce food insecurity………………………………………………………9 
III. C. IR2. Enhanced technical leadership and innovation in 
addressing food insecurity…………………………………………………14 
III. D. IR3. Increased strategic collaboration to promote 
effective food security strategies…………………………………………...18 
III.E. Cross Cutting Issues …………………………………………………19 
IV. Recommendations…………………………………………………….20 
Annexes…………………………………………………………………….27 
A. Scope of Work for Midterm Review……………………………………28
B. List of Technical Assistance Trips, FY 04-May FY 06………………...32
C. Interview Guides…………………………………………………………40
D. Risk Management Framework………………………………………….43
E. Gender Sensitization Guidelines.……………………………………….44
F. PLG Agendas……………………………………………………………..47
iii
Acknowledgements 
Many people have generously given their time and insights in the course of the review of the 
Hunger and Malnutrition Unit’s Institutional Capacity Building Grant from USAID’s Office of 
Food for Peace. We would like to thank key informants from Save the Children’s Country 
Offices and Washington and Westport Offices. All were very open and keen to discuss the 
issues. 
We would also like to thank all of the of the team members of the Hunger and Malnutrition Unit: 
Ina Schonberg, Ron Shaw, Bill Fiebig, Toby Stillman, Heather Danton, TS Ramachandran, Paige 
Harrigan, Katie O’Connor, and Tandice Ghajar. Their feedback and participation were greatly 
appreciated throughout the process. Thanks to everyone for being so open and candid. 
Bill Fiebig of the Hunger and Malnutrition Unit has been extremely helpful with preparations for 
the review, including developing the scope of work for the review team, and supporting the 
document review. 
We would like to thank Katie O’Connor and Tandice Ghajar of the Hunger and Malnutrition 
Unit for their help in organizing travel and accommodation for team members during the review 
and for assistance with the document review. 
iv
I. Executive Summary 
The findings of the midterm review indicate that the Hunger and Malnutrition Unit is on track for 
achieving the intermediate results and strategic objective of the Institutional Capacity Building 
Grant (ICBG), increasing the capacity of Save the Children (SC) to implement effective 
programs that reduce food insecurity. An extensive document review shows that the Hunger and 
Malnutrition Unit (HMU) has met specific targets set for each fiscal year, with one exception: 
other cooperating sponsors (CS’s) adopting SC identified best practices for use in their food 
security programs. Interviews with SC staff in other technical units (such as the Office of 
Health), and in country and regional offices, show that HMU staff are perceived as being 
responsive to field needs, as providing high quality technical assistance and capacity building, 
and as effectively testing and adapting innovative approaches to SC’s principles and programs. 
Documentation and interviews also show that the HMU has been a driver of productive 
collaborations within and outside of SC, more than under past Institutional Support Agreements 
with the Office of Food for Peace (FFP). Internal to SC, HMU staff have been instrumental in 
the establishment of three cross-agency working groups, focusing on Nutrition, Vulnerability, 
and Behavior Centered Approaches to programming. Externally, HMU staff have participated 
actively in FANTA’s efforts to validate and disseminate tools for improving the way food 
security programs measure access to food, in efforts of CS’s to form a cross-agency food security 
forum to replace some of the functions of FAM, in the CORE group, and other external fora. 
One of the most important achievements of the HMU during the first half of this ICBG has been 
the development of the Capacity Assessment Tool and Enhancement Plans (CAT and CEP), 
annual self assessment and planning tools for country staff and managers. The CAT has been 
useful for the HMU to measure growth in capacity in key management and technical areas. As 
yet, the potential of the CAT and the CEP as tools for country managers and HMU staff to 
systematically build country staff capacity in a collaborative way has not been realized. 
Regarding the CAT and CEP tools, the midterm review team recommends that: 
• The HMU, as a team, improves the process of feedback and dialogue with country 
programs on their individual CATs and CEPs during the FY 06 round; and 
• The HMU refines the tools in FY07, after improving the overall CAT and CEP process, 
based on what has worked well and what has been challenging for the first few rounds of 
the CAT. 
The HMU has committed to building capacity within SC in diverse areas under this ICBG, from 
looking at programs and staff structures through a gender lens, to strengthening program design, 
monitoring, and evaluation skills in the field. Three areas in particular have made significant 
progress, and will continue to be important throughout the rest of this ICBG and beyond. They 
are: 
• Building capacity in the Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM), including 
Community Therapeutic Care (CTC), in emergency and development contexts; 
• Developing SC specific tools in Behavior Centered Approaches to Programming (BCA) 
and incorporating them into new and ongoing programs; and 
1
• Developing and disseminating the child-centered Risk Management Framework for 
analyzing the types and magnitudes of risk to children in a given context, as well as the 
assets available to manage those risks. See Annex C for the Framework. 
Regarding these three areas, the midterm review team recommends the following: 
• Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition: the HMU should continue to validate and 
document the impacts of SC’s field activities, and contribute to the global evidence base 
regarding the management of SAM in emergency, transitional, and development 
contexts; 
• Behavior Centered Approaches: the HMU should continue to support country level 
staff who are experienced in behavior centered methodologies, by facilitating additional 
training opportunities and regular cross country TA visits; and 
• Risk Management Framework: the HMU should develop and disseminate situational 
assessment and project design tools that operationalize the concepts of risk, assets, and 
vulnerability in the framework.
Other key recommendations include: 
• Increasing emphasis on defining best practices in technical areas for which field, HMU, 
and WWO staff expressed demand, such as cash programming and household/community 
safety nets, market based agriculture and non-agriculture interventions that maximize 
outcomes for children, and management of childhood illnesses, including community 
case management where appropriate; and 
• Making minor changes to the organization of the results framework for the ICBG at the 
activity level, to more accurately describe the nature of activities, and for ease of 
monitoring and reporting. These changes would not necessitate any changes to targets or 
indicators. 
2
II. Goals and Process of ICBG Midterm Review 
II.A. Goals 
The goals of the midterm review were to assess progress in achieving planned results and refine 
program activities and targets accordingly. Specifically the midterm offered the opportunity to: 
• Assess progress towards achieving targets; 
• Refine targets if needed; 
• Review program strategies and their effectiveness in addressing food security issues; 
• Identify constraints and successes; 
• Make recommendations to improve ICBG performance; and 
• Suggest modifications of activities under the grant as appropriate. 
The midterm review offered the HMU an opportunity to assess project management strengths 
and weakness. The monitoring and evaluation system was also reviewed to ensure that it is able 
to track process and outcome indicators. 
II.B. Team Composition 
The assessment team comprised three members: Ashley Aakesson, team leader and member of 
the HMU; Richard Dixon, Food Security Program Manager working in the Mozambique 
Country Office (CO); and Sonia Khush, member of the Emergencies and Protection Unit (EPU) 
in the Washington, DC office, who works closely with the HMU. 
Although all of the review team members currently work for SC, each one offers a different 
perspective regarding the HMU contribution to effective food security programming at SC. 
These perspectives are: from the field; from a Unit which works closely with the HMU; and, 
from someone who is familiar with the internal workings (operation and activities) of the HMU. 
II.C. Process of the Midterm Review 
The assessment team used a process evaluation method, meaning that, at this halfway point in 
the implementation of the grant, the team assessed whether the HMU was on track to meet 
established targets and achieve the intermediate results leading to the strategic objective of the 
ICBG. The process followed by the team is described below. 
1. Planning the Review Process: A number of team meetings were held to plan the review. 
During these meetings, team members: 
• Compiled the list of project documents to review; 
• Developed a list of people to interview from SC’s Westport and Washington offices 
(WWO), Country and Area (Regional) Offices, and the HMU; and 
• Developed interview guides for the three different groups of key informants. See Annex 
B for the guides. 
3
2. Review of Documents: The documents that the midterm review team examined included: 
• The ICBG proposal; 
• Annual performance reports; 
• Annual work plans and narrative; 
• Monitoring and Evaluation plans and the IPTT; 
• Technical program reports; 
• Previous Institutional Support Agreement evaluations; 
• Documents generated by HMU staff, including policy documents, manuals and 
training materials, technical notes, and assessment tools; 
• Proceedings from Program Learning Groups and other trainings/workshops; and 
• Other documents including Country Food Security Program reports, FS Program 
Capacity Enhancement Plans, and articles related to program approaches. 
3. Individual and group interviews: The review team conducted in-depth interviews with three 
distinct groups within SC: (i) food security program staff from SC COs as well as regional staff; 
(ii) WWO staff; and (iii) HMU staff. Interviews consisted of open ended questions that allowed 
key informants to express their opinions and perceptions in a conversational format. Interviews 
were conducted with a total of 33 key informants within the three different groups. 
From the field, ten different COs and one Area Office were selected and contacted. This was an 
important group as they are the HMU’s ICBG beneficiaries. The team wanted to cover a wide 
range of different types of food security programs from developmental, transitional and 
emergency programs as well as programs with: large food aid components; a mix of food aid and 
monetization; and one program with one hundred per cent monetization. Thirteen key informants 
at varying levels of management were contacted. Some were interviewed in person but most 
were contacted by phone. Usually all of the review team members were present. 
From the WWO staff key informants were interviewed from several units and offices within 
SC’s technical and management divisions. These units and offices work directly with the HMU 
in varying degrees of collaboration. Three Vice Presidents were interviewed as well. This gave a 
good cross section of personnel within SC’s WWO with varied perspectives and interests.
All HMU technical or management staff were interviewed to assess perceptions of the unit’s 
strengths, weaknesses, and overall performance under the ICBG. 
4. Data analysis: The interview data from each group were analyzed using separate matrices. 
Frequently made comments and important points were then drawn out and summarized in a 
power point presentation separated by Intermediate Result and interview groups. Findings from 
the document review were incorporated into this presentation as well. 
5. Sharing and refining the Review Report: The team presented the review findings to the 
HMU team on May 12, for feedback and questions. After the two hour feedback session 
recommendations were drawn up. The first draft of the report, including recommendations, was 
circulated to the HMU for comments. HMU staff provided written comments to the team. These 
comments have been incorporated into this document as the midterm review team felt 
4
appropriate. This step has ensured that the findings and recommendations are clear to the HMU. 
The content of findings and recommendations remain the review team’s own. 
6. Externally facilitated HMU workshop: On June 9, the HMU, including three new staff 
members, spent a day processing the midterm review findings and recommendations in a 
meeting facilitated by Spee Braun, a long term SC consultant. Among other things, the team 
agreed on specific actions related to the recommendations, and some changes in language in the 
results framework (RF) from the original ICBG proposed RF, all of which are explained below. 
III. Review Findings 
III.A. Key Achievements to Date 
This section summarizes some milestones during the first half of the ICBG. Items were included 
as key achievements if they were repeatedly mentioned favorably in interviews or if they were 
instrumental in accomplishing a target in the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT). 
1. February 2004: Food Security Program Learning Group (PLG) workshop, Turkey
Key technical and management staff from SC’s FS programs worldwide shared best practices 
and lessons learned and discussed innovative food security program initiatives. Sectoral working 
groups agreed on key competencies for each functional area of the CAT. 
Specific topics addressed during the PLG included: 
• Behavior Centered Approaches; 
• Community Therapeutic Care; 
• Risk and Vulnerability; 
• Livelihood Activities; 
• Effective Targeting; 
• Advocacy; 
• Commodity Management; and 
• Developing M & E Systems. 
2. FY 2004: Development of the Capacity Assessment Tool (CAT) 
The CAT is a competency based assessment tool that measures technical and managerial 
capacity among food security staff in COs. The tool defines necessary competencies to meet 
minimum standards across project management, monitoring and evaluation, agriculture, health 
and nutrition, and commodity management. Based on the results of the tool application, a 
Capacity Enhancement Plan (CEP) for each food security program is developed that identifies 
strengths in staff capacity and areas that need further improvement in order to meet SC 
standards.
3. September 2004: Start-up Workshop, Turkey
This workshop, which was funded from the HMU’s private budget, provided training in Title II 
grant management, financial management tracking and reporting, commodity management, and 
other grant reporting requirements. Participants included new FS program managers (for start-up 
5
programs as well as newly recruited managers for on-going programs), current field office 
finance and administration staff, and program technical staff. 
4. September 2004: Development of the Commodity Management Information System 
(COMMIS) 
COMMIS was developed by the SC FS program in Bolivia. The system proved to be robust, user 
friendly, and capable of generating reports that meet USAID’s requirements. In FY05 the HMU 
leveraged private funds to translate and standardize the COMMIS system for dissemination to all 
SC FS programs managing food aid. The process of disseminating COMMIS and building staff 
capacity in the System is ongoing and will be complete by the end of the ICBG. 
5. September 2004/March 2005: Gender Sensitization Guielines developed and 
disseminated at Regional Gender Workshop and PLG in the Latin America/Caribbean 
region (LAC) 
During the regional workshop the gender sensitization guidelines were presented and country 
program managers agreed to go through an exercise with their project staff to assess how gender 
relations might impact their food security programs. Please see Annex D for the gender 
sensitization guidelines tool. 
6. FY 2005: Commodity Management Review Trainings 
Trainings were conducted in Malawi, Nicaragua, Haiti and Guatemala. They increased staff 
capacity and knowledge of commodity management practices and Title II commodity 
management regulations. They also laid the groundwork for participants to conduct periodic 
audits for other programs in their region. 
7. March 2005: Save the Children hosted Interagency CTC Meeting, Washington D.C.
CTC is an innovative approach that links therapeutic feeding with supplementary feeding and 
bases it at the community level, allowing for broader reach. The meeting was organized in 
collaboration with FANTA and Concern Worldwide, and brought together key CTC stakeholders 
from throughout the world to review approaches, develop a formalized coordination mechanism 
between CTC implementing agencies, and outline next steps with regard to developing the CTC 
evidence base. 
8. FY 2005: The SC Behavior Centered Approaches training manual was field tested and 
disseminated 
The manual was based on action-research initiatives in Ethiopia, Haiti, Mozambique and 
Uganda. Further field work was conducted in FY05 in Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Honduras in 
FY05 and the manual has been revised to incorporate these findings. The manual has been 
disseminated to country programs electronically and via TA visits. This manual has since been 
used by a cross sectoral working group within SC to develop an SC-wide Behavior Centered 
Approaches training package. 
6
9. February 2005: Food Security & HIV/AIDS PLG workshop, Malawi 
One objective of this workshop was to improve the integration between food security programs 
and HIV/AIDS programs and to share lessons learned from the Title II programs in Uganda and 
Malawi. Topics covered included: 
• Capacity Building; 
• Gender and HIV/AIDS; 
• Risk and vulnerability, especially related to orphans and vulnerable children; 
• HIV/AIDS and food security; 
• Nutritional needs of people living with HIV/AIDS; and 
• Increasing food security in high HIV prevalence contexts. 
10. March 2005: Regional Food Security PLG workshop, Nicaragua 
One of the main themes of this meeting was agricultural commercialization in the LAC region. 
PLG participants were given an introduction to business planning and vulnerability assessments. 
The PLG provided an additional opportunity for the HMU staff to spend time with each CO 
discussing country-specific programs. HMU and CO staff followed up specifically on the 
implementation of the recommendations from the Gender Analysis workshop and the use of the 
CAT. 
11. July 2005: Asia PLG and Nutrition Meeting, Thailand 
Co-hosted by the HMU and the Office of Health (OH), this meeting was attended by health and 
nutrition technical staff from eight Asian countries as well as the Directors of the HMU and the 
OH, and key WWO technical personnel. The meeting focused on health and nutrition technical 
interventions that cross programming sectors. During the final session, staff from health and food 
security programs worked together to frame an Asia-wide strategy for health and nutrition 
programming. 
12. September 2005: ‘Monitoring for Management’ (M4M) workshop, Guatemala 
The LAC M4M workshop included an overview of M&E and examined the use of information 
systems for management. Participants focused on better understanding and use of Results 
Frameworks, using a Results Monitoring Matrix to track project results, using an Activity 
Monitoring Matrix to track the implementation of project activities, and using a Quality 
Monitoring Matrix to track the quality of project activities. At the close of the workshop each 
CO developed a set of next steps outlining how they plan to apply lessons learned at the 
workshop to management of their food security programs. 
13. FY 2005: Regional Commodity Management Trainings 
These three regional workshops brought together commodity and finance managers from each 
region and focused on increasing commodity management accountability through increased 
collaboration and knowledge management between commodity and finance staff. In addition, 
best practices in commodity management were reviewed and COs were provided with tools to 
conduct regular self assessments in commodity management. The standardized commodity 
management information system software (COMMIS) was also introduced and distributed to 
workshop participants. These workshops were held in Honduras (LAC), Uganda (Africa) and 
Indonesia (Asia). 
7
14. March 2006: Asia and Africa M4M workshop, Kenya 
This workshop used the same training tools as the LAC M4M workshop. See above 
15. March 2006: Global Food Security PLG, Kenya. 
A number of important topics were covered: (i) Understanding how the results frameworks, 
conceptual frameworks, and food security assessments work together in the program design. (ii) 
The introduction of the risk and vulnerability framework and discussion about how existing 
programs might approach targeting, activity design or implementation differently had they been 
designed using this framework. (iii) The introduction to successful cash based and safety net 
programs discussion centered around, when are these approaches are appropriate and feasible. 
(vi) How to target vulnerable groups. (v) CTC: comparing emergency and non-emergency 
interventions and understanding the different ways to incorporate “emergency” elements into 
programs. (vi) Looking at different ways to incorporate market interventions into programs.
16. June 2006: CTC: A Case Study, by Miriam Chaiken, Hedwig Deconinck, and Tedbabe 
Degefie published 
This article will be published in the Food and Nutrition Bulletin, June 2006. Dr. Chaiken 
collected qualitative data and quantitative project data from an SC impact area in Ethiopia in 
May 2005. The authors analyzed these data sets to assess the impact of the CTC interventions on 
children in the target communities of the project area. The conclusion of the article is that CTC is 
an important tool to effectively address nutritional emergencies and may be a valuable entry 
point for long term development. 
8
III.B. IR 1: Increased field level management and technical capacity 
to plan and implement high impact programs that reduce food 
insecurity 
III.B.1. Technical Assistance 
 
Please see Annex B for a complete list of technical assistance (TA) visits completed by HMU 
staff, or facilitated by HMU staff. Facilitation of TA visits usually involved an HMU member 
developing a scope of work with project staff , identifying the appropriate person within or 
outside of SC to provide the TA, supporting logistics for the visit, and following up on 
recommendations from the trip report after the visit. 
CO staff gave very positive feedback on the responsiveness of HMU in providing or facilitating 
technical assistance, and on the high quality of that assistance. WWO interviewees perceive that 
the HMU is engaged with the field in a positive way that results in country buy-in for broader 
agency level food security TA agendas. 
Regional food security advisors have been a successful way to provide more locally appropriate 
TA in local languages, especially in LAC. In addition, CO staff found cross-country TA visits, 
facilitated and sometimes financially supported by the HMU, to be useful for both COs. 
Interview participants, including HMU staff, have found that consistent follow up on actions 
decided during TA visits has occasionally been problematic, largely due to time/human resource 
constraints within a problem with follow-up from HMU. 
III.B.2. Capacity Assessment Tool/Capacity Enhancement Plans
The CAT was developed during FY 2004 with input from FS managers and staff from COs. The 
first round of CATs was completed by CO project staff in late FY 2004 for existing projects, and 
in early FY 2005 for projects started in FY 2004. The HMU considers this first round a baseline 
of sorts for the ICBG, against which future annual outputs of the CAT process can be compared. 
At the regional PLGs in 2005, the CAT tool and the processes for completing the CAT and 
developing an annual CEP based on the CAT were officially “rolled out” to participants. 
Participants were asked to replicate this roll out with their FS project staff and managers. In the 
FY 2005 round of CATs, 31% of programs reported a score of at least 3 out of 4 in all functional 
areas of the CAT, and 75% of programs reported improvements from the previous round, 
meeting or exceeding the CAT related targets in the ICBG M & E plan. 
In FY 2006 some FS projects have submitted their CATs. The Bangladesh DAP has combined 
the CAT process with an intensive program review by three HMU staff. HMU staff will meet in 
August 2006 to jointly process the CATs and provide feedback to help FS programs develop 
country specific CEPs. 
9
The consensus among interview participants from COs, the LAC Area Office, and the HMU is 
that, while the CAT could be a useful tool, the process of dialogue between the HMU and COs to 
develop a CEP based on a CAT is flawed. Country project staff are concerned that the main 
measurement of project quality should remain project outcomes, and would like more guidance 
on how to integrate the CAT/CEP process with other planning and assessment processes, such as 
project M & E plans, staff performance reviews, and Program Operating Plans at the CO level. 
III.B.3. Commodity Management 
The HMU has made important strides toward meeting its ICBG target of all SC food security 
programs using a standard commodity management system by using private funds to translate 
and adapt COMMIS from the Bolivia CO, and beginning to disseminate and build capacity in 
COMMIS at CO and regional levels. As of the FY 2005 performance report, 31% of country 
food security programs were using COMMIS, though with varying levels of competence. 
In addition to the work with COMMIS, the HMU has been working with the Management 
Support Unit (MSU), which sits in the same division of SC as the HMU, to conduct regular 
Commodity Management Reviews in COs. In FY 2004, reviews were conducted in Malawi, 
Nicaragua, Haiti, and Guatemala. In FY 2005, reviews were conducted in Indonesia, Ethiopia, 
and Sudan. In addition, there were three regional Commodity Management Trainings, in Africa, 
Asia, and LAC. As of June 2006, reviews have been conducted in Bangladesh and Indonesia. 
During the life of the ICBG, HMU staff have completed Bellmon analyses and monetization 
plans in Bangladesh and Mozambique, and submitted a report on monetization in Bolivia to 
USAID and a consortium of CSs. 
The consensus among interview participants is that HMU support and capacity building in 
commodity management, in collaboration with the MSU, is very useful for effectively 
implementing food security projects. Comments about COMMIS were generally positive, 
although additional support is needed to fully integrate the system and adapt it to specific project 
or CO needs. Especially effective and popular has been supporting, and partially funding, CO 
staff to participate in commodity reviews in other countries in their region. 
See the table below for a summary of commodity reviews and the status of COMMIS installation 
in COs, as of the time this report was written. 
10
SC Country Office Commodity Reviews Done in 2004/2005 and Plan for 2006/2007 
 Field Office Reviewed in Proposed review in 2006 Proposed review in 2007 Installing COMMIS 
2004 2005 Month Dates Month Dates Month Dates 
INDONESIA X March 17 - 25 March 12 - 18 
BANGLADESH Mar/Apr 26 - 5 February 12 - 16 
KC CONFERENCE April 25 - 27 
UGANDA X May 15 - 26 April 9 - 16 
ETHIOPIA (Emerg) June/July 08 - 07 Feb Com.Rev. June 17 - 24 
TAJIKISTAN X August 14 - 25 August 2 - 8 
HAITI X Sept 11 - 22 
BOLIVIA Oct 16 - 27 installed 
SUDAN Nov 13 - 22 July 16 - 22 
MALAWI X Dec 11 - 21 not yet 
MOZAMBIQUE March Com.Rev. not yet 
NICARAGUA X April Com.Rev. no visit needed 
WEST BANK/GAZA May Com.Rev.
MALI July Com.Rev.
PAKISTAN 
HONDURAS Sept Com.Rev.
GUATAMALA Oct Com.Rev. no visit needed 
11
III.B.4. Workshops and Trainings 
Workshops, including annual Program Learning Groups (PLGs), and trainings, are two key 
mechanisms that the HMU employs for field to field, field to headquarters, and headquarters to 
field exchange of new ideas, lessons learned, and sharing of best practices. The HMU builds 
capacity of country staff through formal trainings, such as the Commodity Management training, 
Behavior Centered Approaches training, or Monitoring for Management training, but also by 
transferring skills and concepts informally during TA visits. 
Qualitatively, country and area level interviewees agreed that the global and regional PLGs were 
productive and enjoyable. They felt that PLGs are an effective way to share lessons learned and 
best practices across country programs, and to update key SC food security staff on new 
developments in the field. Country staff appreciated skills based trainings such as the M4M and 
BCA trainings. Alternating regional and global PLGs was popular, particularly in the LAC 
region, as regional PLGs allow deeper country participation and more discussion in local 
languages. 
For descriptions of illustrative trainings and workshops, see Section III.A. above. 
III.B.5. Monitoring and Evaluation 
Much of the direct technical assistance that HMU sectoral experts give to specific projects is in 
the area of M &E, from M & E system design, to using monitoring data for mid course 
corrections, to developing scopes of work and recruiting consultants for midterm and final 
evaluations. 
In addition, the HMU has been closely engaged with an agency wide effort to standardize M & E 
systems and to build capacity in key competencies at country, regional, and headquarters levels. 
The Monitoring for Management training mentioned above incorporates many concepts and 
some tools from this initiative. 
III.B.6. Behavior Centered Approaches 
In FY 2004 the HMU supported field testing of BC tools and methodologies in Ethiopia, Haiti, 
and Mozambique, and facilitated cross program TA from Ethiopia to Uganda. The HMU and 
Ethiopia Country Office supported the development of a training manual for Behavior Centered 
Approaches. The target audience for this manual is field based technical staff. 
In FY 2005, the BCA Manual was finalized and disseminated electronically and through TA 
visits. A cross agency BCA Working Group was established, largely due to efforts from HMU 
staff. Collaboration of this working group resulted in a “Save the Children” training package, 
combining elements of the BCA manual with CORE’s BEHAVE training. 
Throughout the life of the ICBG to date, HMU staff have built the capacity of country level staff, 
some of whom have been identified as regional resource people in BCA. HMU staff have been 
12
instrumental in building BCA into new program designs and supporting country staff to 
operationalize those designs effectively. 
There is a consensus among interview participants at all levels that BCA has been important for 
making SC’s food security programs effective, and will continue to be important for securing 
grants and implementing projects in the future. 
III.B.7. Community Mobilization 
The BCA Manual incorporates key concepts and methods from SC’s approach to CM, and the 
leading CM expert at SC sits on the BCA Working Group. Aspects of community mobilization 
continue to be incorporated into SC’s food security projects as cross cutting strategies, and HMU 
technical staff provide ongoing TA as projects implement, monitor, and evaluate their CM 
strategies. 
III.B.8. HIV/AIDS and Food Security 
Throughout the first half of the ICBG, the HMU has been coordinating TA efforts with SC’s 
Office of HIV/AIDS in selected African food security programs, including Malawi, 
Mozambique, and Uganda. In FY 2005 the Africa regional PLG was jointly organized by the 
HMU and Office of HIV/AIDS. 
In FY 2004 the Uganda DAP staff completed an assessment of HIV/AIDS affected households. 
An HMU supported consultancy examined the validity of the methodology used for the Uganda 
assessment as well as the effectiveness of the project’s monitoring plan for measuring reduction 
in vulnerability. 
In FY 2005 the HMU leveraged private funding to hire FIFSA to conduct a study and make 
recommendations about how SC could better use food aid in projects with HIV affected 
populations. Title II and other food security program staff contributed to the study as well as 
HIV program staff and managers. The final report from the study has not been completed. 
The fact that there has not been an Africa based Food Security Advisor since September 2004 
has impacted the level of effort the HMU has been able to invest in this area. As of June 2006, 
two Africa based positions have been filled, one focusing on Health and Nutrition and the other 
on Livelihoods. 
III.B.9. Integrating Gender into Food Security Programs 
In FY 2005, the HMU developed Gender Sensitization Guidelines which were disseminated at a 
LAC Gender workshop and again at the LAC regional PLG in 2005. Each food security project 
in agreed to conduct gender assessments of food security projects and staffing structures. The 
assessments were completed, but follow up has depended on food security managers. 
13
In FY 2006, the HMU has facilitated contracting the International Center for Research on 
Women to conduct a gender analysis of SC’s Bangladesh DAP. Lessons learned from this 
analysis will be shared with other COs. 
There is consensus among country, area, and HMU interviewees that the gender guidelines 
presented by the HMU were a good start, but that more focused TA and capacity building is 
needed to take this initiative forward in other regions as well as LAC. 
III.B.10. Integrating agriculture and nutrition 
The HMU has taken this initiative forward largely through TA for new project design as well as 
improving the integration of agriculture and nutrition projects in existing projects. Countries that 
have been particularly successful at increasing synergies among project activities across sectors 
have included Guatemala, Haiti, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Malawi, Bangladesh, and Uganda. 
In addition, HMU staff participate in IFPRI and IFAD working groups on this topic. 
III.B.11. Partnerships 
In FY 2004, the HMU completed a review of quality of partnerships between SC food security 
programs and local/national NGOs, as well as how the HMU can best support partnerships in 
country programs. Taking the lessons learned from this review, principles of good partnerships 
continue to be designed into new projects and supported in existing ones. 
III.C. IR 2: Enhanced technical leadership and innovation in 
addressing food insecurity 
III.C.1. Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition 
During FY 2004, HMU staff participated in joint planning with FANTA and Concern Worldwide 
for a multi agency meeting that took place in FY 2005. The HMU continued collaboration with 
Valid to support the Ethiopia CTC program as it moved from emergency response to a 
transitional project. During FY 2005, SC’s CTC programs in Ethiopia and Sudan expanded, and 
in Malawi and Bangladesh, management of SAM was incorporated into Title II food security 
programs. 
In FY 2006, SC participated, by invitation, in a WHO informal consultation on SAM. The HMU 
is currently chairing SC’s cross agency Nutrition/CTC Working Group. HMU staff have 
collaborated in the development of the FANTA funded CTC Manual which is soon to be 
released, and are engaged in the development of the associated training package. 
The consensus among interview participants is that building capacity in effective approaches for 
managing SAM, including community based approaches like CTC, will continue to be important 
in the coming years. Field interviewees were positive about the TA that the HMU has provided 
and appreciative of private funds for piloting CTC programs that the HMU helped to leverage. 
14
Country level participants noted that as there has been rapid growth in demand for TA in this 
area, HMU staff have not always been able to respond to TA needs in as timely a manner as 
desired. External consultants that the HMU has identified to fill the gap have worked well, but 
have brought their own challenges, such as being very tied to one model of community based 
management of SAM. 
III.C.2. Child Centered, Risk Management Framework 
Under the ICBG, the HMU committed to developing a child centered food security framework. 
An external consultant completed a first draft of this framework, which took a life cycle 
approach. At the same time, the HMU was looking at ways to help programs analyze risk and 
vulnerability in order to more effectively manage risk in SC’s food security programs. A Risk 
and Vulnerability working group was formed with other SC units, field staff, and external 
members. It was supported by a technical assistance group, comprised of one HMU staff person, 
a Tulane PhD student and a Tufts PhD student. This technical assistance group did the majority 
of the work leading to the first and subsequent drafts of the risk and vulnerability framework. 
Over time, as understanding of and clarity within the framework developed, it became known as 
the draft Risk Management Framework. The framework has remained child centered, but has 
become more broadly applicable across sectors, and in emergency as well as development 
contexts. 
In FY 2006 the current version of the Risk Management Framework and explanatory narrative 
were completed and disseminated at the HMU PLG and other SC meetings. Dissemination 
continues; the A Risk and Vulnerability working group has become a sub-group of the SC-wide 
Program Development, Monitoring, and Evaluation working group. Links to an SC-wide Avian 
and Pandemic Influenza working group have also been established. The framework and narrative 
have also been disseminated to other CSs through the Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) 
Network. 
 
Key tasks that are currently under way are the completion of an annotated bibliography of risk 
and vulnerability literature, and the development of a risk and vulnerability assessment tool kit to 
help HMU and country/regional staff to begin applying the concepts in the framework on the 
ground. 
Interview participants at country, regional, and HMU level agreed that the Risk Management 
Framework has the potential to improve the way SC’s programs address risk and vulnerability, 
but that field testing and validation of the framework is needed. 
III.C.3. Management of Childhood Illnesses 
 
While this is not an area specifically mentioned in the ICBG agreement, elements of improving 
the management of childhood illnesses at the household and community levels have usually been 
incorporated into SC’s food security programs. This is increasingly the case, and interview 
participants at all levels expressed an interest at becoming more effective at integrating the 
management of childhood illnesses into food security programs. 
15
Some examples of this trend include: 
• The Bangladesh Title II program has included Community Case Management (CCM) of 
ARI and diarrhea. The Bangladesh Ministry of Health has given authorization and 
committed to participate. Roll out of CCM will begin in the final quarter of FY 2006. 
• The Title II program in Uganda has actively supported CCM of malaria in the project 
area through community distribution agents, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health 
and Roll Back Malaria. The HMU in collaboration with SC’s Office of Health has 
submitted a proposal for funding to pilot CCM of ARI in the same project area. 
• Funds have been secured for pilot CCM activities in conjunction with the Nicaragua Title 
II program. This resulted from a joint HMU/OH visit to LAC to assess the potential for 
CCM in existing country programs. The HMU and OH are pursuing funding 
opportunities for linking CCM activities with Title II programs in Honduras and 
Guatemala in the future. 
III.C.4. Adoption of Best Practices in Country Programs 
The HMU assesses this by reviewing annual country program reports. In FY 2004, Haiti, 
Guatemala, and Nicaragua reported best practices in food systems management, and 
Mozambique reported best practices in Behavior Centered Approaches for Health and Nutrition. 
In FY 2005, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Haiti, Mozambique, Uganda, Malawi, and Nicaragua reported 
best practices in BCA and food systems management and extension through model homesteads. 
III.C.5. Documenting and disseminating best practices 
The HMU has documented and disseminated best practices to SC staff and other CSs through a 
variety of media, including technical notes, tools and manuals, newsletters, and external 
publications. A list of each type of medium which has been completed to date follows: 
1. Technical notes: 
• Developing minimum standards for agricultural programs; 
• Integrating agricultural marketing plans into food security programming; 
• Gender and food security: Women feeding the world; 
• Farmer field schools: a group extension process for food security programs; and 
• Use of LQAS surveys for monitoring in Haiti’s food security program (Agriculture and 
Health/Nutrition sectors). 
2. Tools and Manuals: 
• Gender Sensitization Guidelines; 
• BCA Manual 
3. Newsletters: The HMU has distributed three newsletters since FY2004 to SC food security 
program staff and other units within SC. This is just short of the plan for biannual newsletters. 
16
4. External publications: 
• Chaiken/Degefie/Deconinck: CTC: A Case Study, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, June 
2006; 
• Aakesson/Swedberg: “Supporting caregiver behaviors”, a chapter in BASICS Field Guide 
to CCM of Childhood Illness, FY 2006; 
• Shaw: Guidance on Local/Regional food procurement, 2006; 
• Fiebig, Quarterly UN Chronicle, March-May 2005; 
• Shaw: Bolivian monetization data analysis: 2001-2005; 
• Stillman: Emergency Nutrition Network special supplement on CTC, 2005; 
• Stillman/Kiernan:Wall Street Journal article on CTC; 
• Stillman/Kiernan: Philadelphia Inquirer article on CTC; and 
• Deconinck: Adopting CTC from scratch in Ethiopia, Emergency Nutrition Network, 
Special Supplement, November 2004. 
CO and Regional interview participants appreciate the efforts of the HMU to disseminate the 
latest technical guidance on food security issues, whether produced by SC or other organizations. 
They said that occasionally, more explanation about how that guidance might affect specific 
projects would be useful. 
The HMU has supported some country programs to document lessons learned and innovations 
driven by country program staff, but CO interviewees said that more specific guidance on 
targeting different audiences and formats for different types of documents would help them to 
more effectively do this. CO and HMU interviewees said that the HMU should be more strategic 
about supporting outside experts to validate project results for formal journal publications, while 
acknowledging the cost implications of this. 
III.C.6. Participating in External Fora 
HMU staff participate regularly in external technical and policy fora. Two particularly intensive 
commitments have been the FANTA working group on developing improved indicators for 
access to food, and the ECB Network. SC has participated in developing assessment and 
monitoring tools for FANTA’s dietary diversity, hunger gap, and food insecurity index 
indicators, and has volunteered to test them in some upcoming midterm evaluations. 
One of HMU’ s Food Security Advisors is technical advisor to the Disaster Risk Reduction 
initiative of the ECB. Participating in ECB has enabled SC to network with other NGOs and 
learn from best practices in the field of risk and vulnerability assessment and emergency 
response. The ECB has also provided a forum for the HMU to share the Risk Management 
Framework and get feedback from other CSs. 
Illustrative one time or ongoing fora that HMU staff have participated in are: 
• The CORE group, including working group and annual meetings; 
• International Rural Development Meeting in Nairobi, June 2004; 
• Food Aid Management (FAM) working groups and meetings; 
• World Vision-US’s GWISER workshop; 
• UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, NYC, March 2004; 
17
• UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, Geneva, March 2006; 
• IFPRI/Gov’t of Uganda conference on Assuring Food and Nutrition Security in Africa by 
2020, Kampala, April 2004; 
• United Nations Security Council presentation, July 2005; and 
• Global Health Council Meetings, FY 04-06. 
III.C.7. Best practices being used by other CS’s in Title II programs 
The HMU set a target of two CSs per fiscal year using an SC developed tool for applying best 
practices in food security programs. This is the only target that is under achieved at the midway 
point in the life of the ICBG. 
HMU staff have contributed to the dissemination of best practices in cross agency groups in the 
following ways: 
• The SC BCA training package will be reviewed by CORE’s Social and Behavior Change 
working group in FY 2006/2007 as it develops it’s revised version of the BEHAVE 
training package; and 
• The HMU has contributed to the development of new IEE guidelines with the FFP/CS 
Environmental Working Group. These guidelines are still under development. 
IV.D. IR 3: Increased strategic collaboration to promote effective 
food security practices 
III.D.1. Cross unit/office collaboration within Save the Children 
One area in which internal collaboration has increased is in joint or cross unit TA to country 
programs. In FY 2004, the HMU facilitated six TA visits to food security projects from experts 
in other offices within SC. In FY 2005 that number increased to five. In addition, the HMU is 
increasingly facilitating, and sometimes financially supporting, cross country TA. Two examples 
of this are TA in BCA from Ethiopia to Uganda, and TA from Pakistan to Indonesia in 
Commodity Management. 
Another area of increased collaboration is in participating in other units’ PLGs, and inviting 
participation from other units in HMU PLGs. Since FY 2004 the HMU has hosted two PLGs 
jointly; one with the Office of HIV/AIDS in Malawi, and one with the Office of Health in 
Thailand. 
HMU staff have helped to establish cross agency working groups in BCA, Nutrition/CTC, and 
Risk and Vulnerability. In addition, HMU staff participate in SC’s M & E, Technical Assistance, 
and Avian and Pandemic Influenza working groups. 
Qualitatively, interview participants in CO and regional offices, HMU and WWO are very 
positive about the increasingly productive and cost effective collaboration across units and 
offices within SC. Participants appreciate the leadership role HMU staff have played in initiating 
and maintaining collaborative relationships. 
18
III.D.2. Building Relationships with Universities and Action Research Projects 
For the last several years, the HMU has built relationships with faculty at universities with strong 
public health and food security programs. Key faculty members at Emory, Tufts, Tulane, and 
University of Florida agreed to serve as informal technical advisors to the HMU. In addition, 
Tufts and Tulane students participated in the Risk and Vulnerability Technical Advisory Group 
that developed the Risk Management Framework. 
One of the most rewarding outcomes of building these relationships, from both CO and HMU 
perspectives has been a series of summer interns that have completed high quality projects such 
as action research to validate program results, and qualitative assessments of project service 
provision. 
Other action research projects that the HMU has supported include project assessments in 
Ethiopia and Mozambique. The Ethiopia assessment resulted in the article, CTC: A Case Study, 
which will be published in Food and Nutrition Bulletin in June 2006. In addition, an action 
research project linked GMP interventions with weight gain in Nicaragua, and the Uganda food 
security staff submitted a proposal to the IFPRI RENEWAL program that made it to “finalist”, 
but was ultimately not funded. 
In the area of management of severe malnutrition, SC continues to validate best practices 
through action research in conjunction with Title II projects, in Ethiopia, Malawi, and 
Bangladesh. In Malawi SC is piloting the treatment of adult HIV with Ready to Use Therapeutic 
Food, and at the relevance of supplementary feeding for treatment of early stage kwashiorkor. In 
Bangladesh CHWs have been involved in delivering CTC on a pilot basis. 
III.D.3. PVO Participation in ICB Supported Workshops
In FY 04, the HMU participated in an Africare hosted workshop on Developmental Relief, and 
in the FAM consultancy on lessons learned from Food Aid Consortia. In FY 05, SC/US co￾facilitated a workshop on PD/Hearth and CTC for Title II managers in which 10 CS’s 
participated. In addition, the HMU participated with other CS’s in revising the “Cooperating 
Sponsor’s Field Guide to USAID Environmental Compliance Procedures”, including examples 
from specific countries. The HMU has also been working with other CSs to establish a follow up 
mechanism for cooperation and sharing technical knowledge after FAM dissolution. 
IV.E. Cross Cutting Issues 
IV.E.1. HMU Role in Emergencies and Transitional Programming 
The HMU is currently supporting a large scale review of feeding in emergencies, and also an 
HMU Technical Advisor taught courses in Selective Feeding in Emergencies at Columbia and 
Johns Hopkins Universities in FY 2006.
19
The perception of field staff and WWO staff interviewed for the midterm review is that the main 
support from HMU is related to commodity management and distribution. They feel that other 
technical assistance from the HMU has been good in some cases, particularly for CTC, but 
inconsistent due to unclear roles and insufficient staff. 
HMU interview participants agree that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy for how the 
HMU supports SC emergency and safety net programs. 
IV.E.2. Communication and General Management 
MTE Team findings: It is clear that in general ICBG management is effective, and 
communications among the HMU team themselves, as well as among HMU staff and other 
colleagues within SC are positive and productive. As mentioned in the executive summary, the 
HMU is on track to achieve its commitments under the ICBG. 
The HMU staff made themselves available and supported the MTE process generously, but there 
were information and time management issues that made the process difficult This finding 
supports numerous mentions in the interviews from country program staff, the HMU, and WWO 
colleagues, of these issues. 
Regarding information management, there is as yet no central system for easily retrieving data 
on HMU activities, country programs, or technical documents and reports. The document review 
required at least two days of effort from administrative staff to bring together hard copies in one 
place for the convenience of the midterm review team. As one example, there is no one place, in 
paper or electronic media, that lists every TA trip HMU staff have made, every training or 
workshop HMU members have organized or participated in, or every document that HMU staff 
have produced. The information was gleaned through annual reports and individual accounts. 
Under time management, there is a general tendency not to set specific goals for meetings or 
phone calls, or, if goals have been set, not to stick with them. The MTE team has observed that 
most members of the team contribute to this issue at different times. 
IV. Recommendations 
It is clear that Save the Children has a strong and viable program that is attempting to increase 
Save the Children’s capacity to implement effective Title II activities that decrease food 
insecurity. The establishment of minimum standards and key competencies for technical and 
managerial quality through the provision of TA is working well. 
Some of the recommendations included here are suggestions to modify some of the initiatives 
currently included in the ICBG. The team has also included recommendations to add additional 
components to the program in response to impending changes in the operating environment that 
were not anticipated during the development of the original proposal. The recommendations are 
organized into the sections listed below and not per IR because most of them are cross cutting 
issues relevant to all of the IRs. 
20
1. Clarifying priorities for capacity building and technical innovation 
In the final two and half years of the grant the review team recommends that the HMU 
continue to focus on building field capacity and disseminating tools and lessons learned in the 
following areas: Assessment, M&E; BCA; Using the child centered Risk Management 
framework; and Management of acute malnutrition and food security in high HIV prevalence 
settings. A great deal has been learned in the first half of the ICBG and the HMU is now in a 
good position to move forward and build capacity in the field in these programming areas, as 
well as playing a leadership role among other PVOs. 
Increase focus on some areas, including: 
• Adapting and applying best practices for programming in transitional contexts such as 
HH and community social safety nets and use of cash resources as an alternative to 
food; 
• Management of childhood illnesses; and 
• Increasing market-based considerations into all agricultural and non-agricultural 
activities to ensure child centered livelihoods programming. 
Looking ahead, these areas are thought by field staff and the HMU team to be important to 
incorporate into existing programs where appropriate and to build into the design of future 
programs. The HMU should continue to flesh out and define a child-centered livelihoods 
approach, building on both the current evidence base and on experience gained through existing 
field programs. (Note, slightly inconsistent with the summary found above…maybe you do want 
to identify 4 areas instead of 3 to expand more on CCM (as separate from SAM).
Continue to facilitate TA as requested by individual food security programs. The HMU has 
achieved success in building capacity in the areas of gender analysis, community mobilization, 
and better integration of agriculture and nutrition in during the first half of the grant. In addition, 
issues of gender and community mobilization have been incorporated into the Behavior Centered 
Approaches manual. As discussed above, it may prudent to shift focus to the topics identified in 
the previous paragraphs. 
Ensure that individual work plans reflect the above priorities, and plan for strengthening the 
capacities within existing or new staff that will be necessary to succeed in these areas. HMU 
management, with input from all of the HMU staff, should assess necessary skill sets and 
whether they exist in the team. If not, put action plan in place to build skill sets and secure new 
staffing, if necessary. 
2. Revise the Results Framework of the ICBG at Activity Level
To simplify monitoring and reporting on the ICBG, the MTE team suggests minor revisions to 
the Results Framework. The grant was designed so that each IR is related to and supports the 
others, the team feels that assigning specific initiatives (such as BCA) under one IR will more 
accurately reflect the nature of the work in those areas, and ease information tracking and 
reporting. The suggested revised RF is below. The changes suggested would not necessitate 
changes in the IPTT, which is also included below.
21
22
SO: Increase SC’s capacity to implement effective Title II activities that decrease 
food insecurity. 
Save the Children Institutional Capacity Building Grant Revised Results Framework 
Activity 1.1 Ensure standardized 
management and technical quality of
development and developmental 
relief programs. 
Activity 1.2 Improve application of 
best practices in: 
• Assessments and Project 
Design; 
• Behavior Centered Approaches, 
including Community 
Mobilization; 
• Monitoring and Evaluation; and 
• Gender and Food Security. 
Activity 1.3 Improve SC capacity to 
reduce food insecurity in high 
HIV/AIDS prevalence settings. 
Activity 2.1 Develop a child￾centered framework for food 
security. Support its application in 
SC’s programs. 
Activity 2.2 Develop and test 
approaches and methodologies in: 
• Management of Acute Malnutrition, 
including CTC; 
• Community based management of 
childhood illnesses; 
• Risk assessment and project design, 
including best targeting of food and 
cash resources in developmental 
relief; and 
• Livelihoods interventions that 
maximize benefits to children. 
Activity 2.3 Document and disseminate 
experiences and best practices. 
Activity 3.1 Enhance the knowledge 
base for food security programs by 
supporting effective organizational 
learning at SC, partners, and cross 
PVO institutions. 
Activity 3.2 Enhance partner and 
SC’s food security capacities 
through partnerships. 
Activity 3.3 Improve inter-PVO 
coordination and cooperation. 
IR 1: Increased field-level 
management and technical 
capacity to plan and implement 
high impact programs that 
reduce food insecurity.
IR 3: Increased strategic 
collaboration to promote 
effective food security practices. 
IR 2: Enhanced technical 
leadership and innovation in 
addressing food insecurity. 
3. Specific initiatives: 
Provide meaningful feedback, as a unit, to each food security program’s CAT and CEP. A 
concerted and timely effort to systematically review and provide feedback on each CO plan by 
all members of the HMU is needed. Country program staff stated in the interviews that the CAT 
and CEP tools would be more valuable to them if HMU staff gave concrete feedback on the CEP 
in particular, and used the CEP to guide discussions with country offices on felt needs for 
specific HMU support for TA and capacity building. 
The Capacity Assessment Tool (CAT) is a good competency based assessment tool, which is 
able to measure technical and managerial capacity enhancement among the food security staff. 
The tool identifies competencies across project management; monitoring and evaluation; 
agriculture; health and nutrition; and, commodity management. If FS programs receive good 
constructive feedback from the HMU after the second round of the CAT process (May 06), they 
will be able to truly evaluate the usefulness of the tool and should then be asked to suggest 
improvements to refine the tool. The development of this type of tool is a dynamic process. 
Country office staff have suggested that the tool should be simplified, harmonized better across 
sectors, and made to fit better with their other planning obligations within COs, as well as with 
M&E plans and staff performance reviews. Clarification is needed that the tool is not meant for 
comparison between country programs. 
Roll out the next phase of the risk management framework which specifies practical 
applications through tools and approaches. Field staff have been introduced to the risk 
framework and now need to understand its practicalities. How can they incorporate the 
framework into new program design? The Framework is extremely important, given the focus 
on vulnerability and safety-netting for future programs. At present, CO food security staff do not 
fully understood the way in which the framework can be practically applied. 
Complete the plan to transfer Behavioral Change Approach (BCA) capacity to the field and 
circulate the BCA manual with follow-on BCA training. Specific country offices have staff 
with strong capacity to apply BCA and train others. These staff should be supported to become 
regional resource people in BCA, to provide training and TA to other country programs in their 
region as needed. Collaboration with the Office of Health to develop an SC-wide BCA manual 
has gone well, but the HMU should continue to disseminate the existing BCA Manual from 
Ethiopia rather than wait for the SC wide tool to be finalized. 
Maintain emphasis on program innovation in the Management of Severe Acute Malnutrition 
(SAM) in emergency and development contexts, and document the field based evidence. There 
is a growing interest in the management of acute malnutrition (global and severe) in both 
development and emergency contexts. This is as a result of new developments in the treatment of 
acute malnutrition. Supported by the ICBG, SC is emerging as a technical leader in this area, 
notably under the field application of the CTC approach; a promising community based method 
to manage SAM, in appropriate contexts. In the next phase of the grant SC will further document 
field based innovations in promising approaches to better manage acute malnutrition, in 
particular at the community level. 
23
4. Continue the things that the HMU is doing well. 
Continue to provide the high quality of TA presently being given. Both external consultants 
and in-house technical assistance provided to COs has been of high quality. TA appears to work 
best when the request has come from the field with clear scope of work. TA facilitated by the 
HMU between country offices has also worked well. 
Continue to organize and facilitate relevant, skills based workshops. Workshops have been 
appreciated and well received by field staff. The workshops have been of high quality and 
covered useful, appropriate themes. 
Continue the commodity management reviews and training for each country office HMU has 
gone a long way to standardize the COMMIS system throughout all of the FS programs. The 
commodity management reviews bring together field staff, home office staff and financial 
managers which has created a deeper understanding of commodity management for everyone 
concerned. 
6. Documentation and Communication with Field Staff 
Communicate to the CO Food Security programs the objectives of the institutional capacity 
building grant, the HMU role, and the benefits to the FS programs in achieving the ICBG 
objectives. Field programs need to know more about HMU activities. It would be useful for 
COs to know the areas of expertise that exist within HMU and how these can be accessed. It is 
recommended that the HMU develop a one page profile of its work, structure and relationship 
with other units within SC for dissemination to the field. 
Develop technical notes for BCA, CTC, and Assessing program impact on Hunger Gaps 
(Moz). Request feed back from the field for existing technical notes as to their usefulness. A 
number of technical notes have already been developed for agriculture, gender, farmer field 
schools and LQAS. Interviews indicate that technical notes are most appreciated when they 
clearly show how to do a particular intervention with references to more in depth material, rather 
than a discussion paper about a particular intervention. 
Re-examine the purpose of the HMU Newsletter. The team suggests the HMU produce a 
concise, quarterly newsletter which includes HMU global activities, short stories from the field 
that are directly related to successful new approaches/interventions, and latest thinking on 
relevant food security issues. The field needs to be ‘in touch’ with what is going on in the wider 
world of food security and increase their ability to access information about relevant food 
security issues. 
Analyze the different types of documentation required for journals, donors, in-house (SC) and 
websites and develop a strategy for collecting it. The team suggests that the HMU take the lead 
with regards to documentation of food security program successes and innovations, rather than 
expecting CO staff to assume responsibility for this task. For example, the HMU can contract an 
independent specialist to visit a specific CO and document a successful approach. HMU has a 
wide network of University contacts that would be helpful in this regard, including for cost 
sharing arrangments. For short stories, from the field, for circulation in-house and/or for posting 
on websites, develop a simple format with guidelines for field staff to enable them to write 
24
stories. Alternatively, produce a short questionnaire to collect information which can then be 
used by HMU staff to write short stories for distribution. This process of documentation of 
success approaches is extremely important. 
Continue with the present format for Program Learning Group (PLG’s) workshops. Field 
staff greatly appreciate this chance to get together and exchange ideas. Many felt that this 
opportunity to have face to face contact is the best venue to communicate new approaches and 
put forward new concepts. 
7. Information management and dissemination 
Refine the current information collection system to better understand: beneficiary numbers 
and how they are counted; cost per beneficiary; proportion of the population reached; 
program geographical size; budgets, and, number of different interventions being 
implemented by food security programs. Train people on the system as appropriate. This will 
provide important information both for Save the Children management, other units working with 
the HMU and for donors. 
Revise the current central filing system, including shared hard drive and SaveNet materials. 
Keep a current annotated bibliography, available to field and WWO staff, of all assessment 
tools, articles and reports written by the HMU or produced by food security programs-through 
SaveNet or another medium. It will be important to then provide training in the use of the 
system for HMU staff to effectively contribute to and maintain the system, and for field staff to 
contribute to and have access to this information. 
Adapt a formal protocol from other SC units for email use, and train the HMU team in it. It 
appears from a number of comments that the email system is overused. For example, emails are 
often cc’ed to people to whom the message is not directly relevant. This creates an information 
overload and brings extra people into a conversation that can easily be streamlined for efficiency 
and timely resolution. 
It is important to have more structured, regular staff meetings with a set agenda and rotating 
facilitation. The MTE team suggests that responsibility for setting an agenda and facilitating the 
meeting rotates among all the HMU staff. If the person whose “turn” is coming for the next 
meeting would be traveling, it would be that person’s responsibility to switch turns with 
someone else in the HMU. This will help to make meetings more productive and less time 
consuming, as well as to divide the responsibility for high quality meetings more equitably 
among the team. An agenda set in advance will ensure that meeting objectives are clearly 
understood and met. 
 
Put up an HMU travel board to post personnel travel overseas and to meetings. This would 
assist HMU schedule trips and see at a glance where and when staff are committed. 
8. Collaboration 
Continue the good collaboration between the HMU and other units. Collaboration has gone 
well with the Office of Health (OH) particularly when developing strategies for Management of 
25
SAM, CCM and BCA. Collaboration with the HIV/AIDS unit and the EPU has also been 
productive. 
Develop a formal agreement format for requesting technical assistance for food security 
programs from other units/offices within Save the Children. An agreement will demonstrate 
firm commitment from other units to provide TA for FS programs and will also formalize 
requests from the HMU to other units for TA in a particular area or country. Some frustration 
exists on both sides with regards the informal arrangement for TA provision to FS programs. 
26
Annexes 
27
Annex A. SOW for Midterm Review 
AFP-A-00-03-00039-00 
Institutional Capacity Building Grant 
Mid-Term Evaluation Scope of Work 
Save the Children 
June, 2005 
1. Management:
1.1 Team composition: 
SC submitted a proposed budget that would have allowed recruiting an outside consultant as 
team leader but this line item was eliminated during the proposal approval process. SC plans to 
look in-house for an evaluator from the SC Program Development Unit or Field Office and if 
private funds are available, the FSU will recruit an external team leader. It is also expected that 
one other SC staff member will be asked to participate in the evaluation. 
A third member of the evaluation team has yet to be identified but will be a mid-level internal 
staff member who can assist the team to collect and analyze data, schedule interviews, prepare 
surveys, assist with any travel arrangements, and facilitate with the compilation of the report. 
1.2 Timeframe 
The report will take approximately three weeks to complete. Two weeks will be devoted to an 
internal review of documentation and interviews and the final week for the report preparation. 
The evaluation is currently scheduled for the month of July 2006. 
2. Methodology
In order to provide some basis for comparison between the ISA final evaluation and the ICB 
mid-term, the two evaluations will use a similar methodology that includes a five-step process. 
This includes team planning, review of documents, interviews, analysis of findings and the final 
report preparation. 
2.1 Team Planning 
The team will begin with a two-day exercise. The team planning exercise will set the 
groundwork for how the evaluation team will function, and create in each team member a similar 
frame of reference to work on the project. Taking the time to go through this process was key to 
the integrity of the ISA final evaluation. Some of the items to be covered during the team 
planning exercise will include: 
• Understanding the ICB and its history 
• Understanding the clients for the report 
• Operationalizing the SOW 
• Developing a work plan for the evaluation 
• Understanding team member working styles 
• Developing questionnaires and instruments to query field offices 
28
During this two-day process, as well as during the interview process, evaluators will look at how 
the ICB currently fits within the organization. The review will look at how the ICB has built on 
the ISA, and if any of the underlying assumptions or objectives of the ICB have changed since its 
inception. It will also examine SC’s definition of its ICB “beneficiary population” and how that 
group has been served thus far under the ICB. 
2.2 Review of Documents 
The team will begin by reviewing three types of documents. 
The first group are classified as background documents related to the policy, planning, 
implementation, and monitoring & evaluation of Title II programs. These will be such things as 
the most recent DAP/MYAP guidelines, the Monetization Field Manual, the Monitoring & 
Evaluation guidelines, the USAID Food Security Policy Paper and the FFP Strategic Plan for 
FY06-10. 
The second group of documents are SC documents specifically related to its work with Title II 
and the ICB. These would include policy related documents; manuals and training materials that 
have been produced by the headquarters based team as a result of the ICB. It would include 
databases, capability statements or reports that have been prepared about SC’s institutional 
capacity in food security. 
The third set of documents would be documents prepared by the “beneficiaries” of the ICB and 
would include Field Office reports, CATs and other country specific materials that show the 
results of capacity building on specific country programs. 
2.3 Interviews 
The evaluation will include a series of interviews. Although the evaluation team will have the 
final determination as to who will be interviewed, it is expected that a number of groups will be 
included. Similar to the ISA final evaluation, it is expected that staff members within Children in 
Emergencies and Crisis will be interviewed as well as other SC staff members in other 
Departments, including senior executives. However, it is expected that the interviews will be 
targeted to the “beneficiary population” which includes field staff from a number of SC field 
offices. It is expected that a focus group format will probably be used with Headquarters-based 
staff and that a questionnaire format will be used with senior level field based staff. The 
evaluation team will have determined the best method for surveying field staff that have received 
training from the ICB. 
2.4 Data Collection/Report Preparation 
Data collection will include both secondary data (document review) and primary data (interviews 
focus groups and site visit). The data collection and analysis will be done by the two-team 
members, with the assistance of the third team member. SC’s Food Security Unit staff will 
assure that all secondary data to be reviewed is compiled and available to the team on a timely 
basis. The Food Security Unit will also facilitate the collection of primary data as requested by 
the team. The team is responsible for analyzing the data collected from interviews, focus groups 
and surveys. 
29
The report preparation will be the shared responsibility of both team members, with the Team 
Leader responsible for the final product. The Director of the FSU requests a report outline prior 
to the team’s departure for the field site. The staff of the Food Security Unit will meet with the 
evaluators for a presentation of the final results of the report before it goes to Food for Peace, 
and have the right to comment on any factual errors or misconceptions contained in the report. 
3. Evaluation Points of Emphasis
Although the evaluation team will use the ICB grant document as their guide for the evaluation, 
there are a number of points of emphasis that the Food Security Unit would like the evaluators to 
give special attention. 
3.1 Quality 
In Save the Children’s ICB submission, our first objective was to improve our existing programs 
(DAPs) in order to build depth and breadth before attempting to expand. How has our strong 
emphasis on training in the first two and half years contributed to this objective? At what point 
time and in what ways has our emphasis on M&E impacted on the quality of our programs? The 
midterm will examine how the ICB has contributed to specific aspects of quality such as better 
understanding of food security concepts, the application of state-of-the-art program activities, the 
flow of technical support from the home office and regional technical presence, and overall 
improved logistical capacity. 
3.2 Expansion 
SC has embarked on assertive food security program expansion since the ISA going from 8 to 13 
programs in FY05. At this point, it is important to conduct both a self-evaluation and an overall 
assessment of the food security policy environment: What else does SC need to do to 
accomplish this objective in a timely manner? Will original targets of program growth have to 
be revised as a result of USAID policy changes? For example, our initial proposal saw 
monetization as a tool for expansion, yet changes in policies towards monetization now put that 
strategy in jeopardy. Likewise, SC wants to know how its improved ability to do food security 
problem analysis through RSFAs and other assessment tools impacted our ability to write better 
DAP/MYAPs for new programs. 
3.3 Coordination 
SC champions the dissemination and open discussion of successful food-assisted programming 
endeavors. During the midterm evaluation, SC wants to know if its efforts of sharing best 
practices with other NGOs helped us to build stronger in-house capacity? Areas to be 
investigated might include: 
• Reg 216 trainings 
• M&E working group 
• Local capacity building 
• Hearth Model/Positive Deviance methodology 
• Community-based M&E and mobilization strategies 
• BC approaches and trainings 
• CTC innovations 
30
3.4 IPTT & M&E 
Assessing progress in institutional capacity building at the midterm is crucial in order to make 
crucial adjustments or to strengthen certain aspects of the ICB. In particular, SC wants to know 
how it is doing in its monitoring and evaluation of the ICB? How could its ICB M&E plan be 
improved and what accomplishments can be measured to date? The mid-term evaluation team 
will be responsible for recommending updates for the IPTT table and will make 
recommendations on the revision of indicators, targets or annual monitoring tools should this be 
required. 
31
Annex B. List of Technical Assistance Trips, FY 04 to May 06 
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
HEATHER DANTON
Angola- RFSA and 
develop MYAP 
Title II MYAP Training workshop for staff 
in RFSA tools, 
methodology 
Bangladesh – DAP 
preparation (2 visits) 
Title II DAP HKI DAP prep/design 
workshop including 
understanding Results 
Frameworks 
Uganda- DAP 
preparation 
Title II DAP 
Sudan- Strategic 
planning for Nuba Mtns. 
program transition 
Transitional programming First draft results framework Um Ruwaba program 
manager – Education 
sector 
Internal strategic planning 
workshop 
Pakistan- Rapid 
livelihoods assessment 
Livelihoods and emergencies Livelihoods Assessment report Emergency staff, including 
Team Leader and Site 
managers 
Ethiopia- Development 
of Safety Net proposal (2 
visits) 
Safety nets, Title II Concept Paper and proposal 
Ethiopia- Lessons 
learned from DAP II 
Title II Trip report, summary of staff 
interviews 
Other sector staff, Health, 
Education, HIV/AIDS 
2-hour workshop on 
understanding concepts of 
risk and vulnerability 
Indonesia- Attend AERA 
semi-annual review 
meeting, meet AERA 
livelihoods and food 
distribution staff and 
meet DAP staff 
Emergencies and transitions; Title 
II 
Trip report Emergency staff, SC 
Alliance members, other 
CEC and DPC staff, 
Country Office leadership 
and key sector staff, 
outside facilitators 
Guatemala- Start-up 
workshop for MYAP prep 
Title II MYAP development 
plan/schedule 
Outside consultants 2-Day MYAP Preparation 
workshop 
32
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
RON SHAW
Bangladesh – Assist in 
preparation of DAP 
monetization 
components & prepare 
distribution program 
Bellmon Analysis (Sept￾Oct 03) 
Analysis of risks for producer 
disincentive and market disruption 
associated with distribution of Title 
II commodities. Monetization sales 
design. 
Monetization sections of DAP 
Distribution program Bellmon 
Analysis 
DAP manager participation Yes 
Bolivia – Conduct Title II 
monetization commodity 
selection, pricing and 
sales methodology study 
for USAID & CS 
Consortium (Nov 03) 
Study/evaluation of ongoing Title II 
monetization program re 
commodity selection, sales 
methodology, minimum price 
management, etc. 
Report, recommendations and 
options for future of program. 
Commodity manager 
participation 
No 
Mozambique – Prepare 
Bellmon Analysis Update 
for Title II monetization 
program (Jan-Feb 04) 
Analysis of risks for producer 
disincentive and market disruption 
associated with monetization of 
Title II commodities 
Bellmon Analysis Update None No 
Haiti – Prepare Title II 
emergency program 
proposal (Mar 04) 
Design emergency urban based 
FFW program. 
Project proposal for 
For urban FFW project. 
Program manager 
participation 
No 
Kosovo – Prepare CARE 
USDA monetization 
proposal (Jun 04). Note: 
Non/FFP
Commodity selection & sales 
implementation design for Section 
416(b) monetization. 
None No 
Bangladesh – Conduct Study/evaluation of potential for Report on potential for Title II None No 
33
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
Title II monetization 
private sector sales 
study (Dec 04) 
shifting Title II monetization sales 
from government to private sector 
buyers. 
monetization sales to private 
sector buyers with 
implementation 
recommendations 
Mozambique – Prepare 
update of Bellmon 
Analysis for Title II 
monetization program 
(Jan-Feb (05) 
Analysis of risks for producer 
disincentive and market disruption 
associated with monetization of 
Title II commodities 
Bellmon Analysis Update None No 
Niger- Emergency 
Program start-up (Aug. 
05) 
Note: Non/FFP activity 
WFP contracting. Start-up of 
emergency food distribution 
WFP Contract Program plan SC/UK FOD Participation No 
TOBIAS STILLMAN 
Facilitated TA 
LAC - Regional 
Community Case 
Management 
Assessment – OH, FSU, 
Johns Hopkins 
University 
Health/Nutrition Visit Report, program proposals FS and Health staff None 
Haiti – Support to 
Health/Nutrition sector 
(2-3 trips) - Swedberg 
Health/Nutrition and M&E Trip reports In one trip Eric worked 
with staff from co-located 
MSH project in addition to 
our staff 
Bangladesh – Support to 
GMP program - Bolles 
Health/Nutrition Powerpoint slide show including 
recommendations 
CTC pilot strategy and training 
plan 
All FS staff GMP 
Bangladesh – Facilitate 
CTC Pilot Training – 
Valid International 
Health/Nutrition Training completed, final report 
pending 
All FS staff CTC 
34
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
Bangladesh – Review 
CCM programming and 
make recommendations 
for Title II roll out – Eric 
Starbuck 
Health/Nutrition Trip Report FS and OH staff 
Bolivia – GBGP training 
and country roll out – 
Ofilio Mayorga 
Health/Nutrition FS Staff and other CS GBGP 
Guatemala – PD/hearth 
Training – Facilitated 
attendance of Claudia 
Nieves to attend 
workshop in USA 
Health/Nutrition FS Staff PD/Hearth 
Uganda – Informal mid￾term review of health 
sector – Consultant 
Health/Nutrition Visit Report FS staff Adult education 
methodologies 
Ethiopia – CTC program 
review – C. Tanner 
Health/Nutrition Visit Report Emergency/Health Staff 
Ethiopia – Ongoing 
Technical Support for 
CTC – Valid International 
Health/Nutrition Visit Reports Emergency/Health staff CTC 
Malawi – Crisis response 
program design – C. 
Tanner 
Health/Nutrition Visit Report, Gates Proposal FS and Emergency Staff CTC 
Malawi – CTC technical 
assistance 
Health/Nutrition Visit report FS and emergency staff CTC 
Malawi – Ongoing 
technical support for 
CTC – Valid International 
Health/Nutrition Visit Reports FS and emergency staff CTC 
Tajikistan – Title II SHN 
set up support – Karin 
Lapping (2x) 
Health/Nutrition Visit Report FS staff 
35
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
Trips
Guatemala (3x) – 
Amendment 
development, TA, TA 
Health/Nutrition, M&E Trip Reports 
Amendment 
FS Staff Results frameworks 
IMCI 
Honduras (1x) – Start-up 
workshop 
Health/Nutrition – FS Workshop report FS staff, cooperating 
partners 
Use of food 
Behavior Change 
Etc. 
IMCI 
Haiti (1x) – Emergency 
response and review 
programming 
Health/Nutrition, Emergency FS staff 
Nicaragua – Midterm 
evaluation 
Health/Nutrition, M&e Trip Report FS staff 
Bolivia (1x) – TA Health/Nutrition Trip Report FS staff BC 
IMCI 
Uganda (1x) – Startup 
support – IMCI 
Health/Nutrition Trip report FS staff Results frameworks 
IMCI 
Ethiopia – CTC program 
review 
Health/Nutrition FS and emergency health 
staff 
Angola – program design Health/Nutrition DAP FS staff and health staff 
Sudan – program review 
and TA 
Health/Nutrition Powerpoint presentation FS and Health staff Results frameworks 
Bangladesh (3X) – 
Program design, TA 
Health/Nutrition Proposal, trip reports FS and health staff Results frameworks 
BC 
IMCI 
PAIGE HARRIGAN
April 2005 
Cross visit with members 
of Guatemalan DAP 
team to Nicaragua; 
AIN-C field visit 
Opportunity to learn about AIN-C 
implementation in Nicaragua. AIN￾C is an integrated prevention based 
health and nutrition program 
located at the community level. A 
Direct capacity building of GT 
team members and application 
of principles in Guatemalan 
DAP, where AIN-C is also 
implemented by the MOH 
The TA visit to Bolivia by 
Dr. Ofilio Mayorga in 
June/July 2005 benefited 
not only SC, but also the 
other TII CSs in Bolivia. 
36
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
great focus is on monthly 
community based growth 
monitoring and promotion activities.
nationwide. 
Facilitated training visit of Dr. 
Ofilio Mayorga (Nicaragua DAP 
manager) to the Bolivian 
country office to teach the SC 
team and other CSs about AIN￾C and application of CBGP in 
Bolivia. I developed a detailed 
SOW for the TA visit. 
July 2005 
Community Case 
Management Exploratory 
visit to Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua 
investigate country level 
possibilities to integrate 
CCM into FS activities. 
Community case management￾CCM is a delivery strategy 
designed to bring simple, curative 
interventions to the community for 
common infant and childhood 
infections, such as diarrhea, 
pneumonia, malaria, and newborn 
sepsis. Key interventions are 
inexpensive and can include oral 
rehydration and zinc for diarrhea; 
antibiotics for pneumonia, 
dysentery and newborn sepsis, and 
antimalarials. 
Yes, a concept paper and 
proposal are being developed 
for “pilot” CCM activities in 
Nicaragua. At this time, the 
location for the pilot would not 
fall directly within FS project 
target areas, but FS staff are 
key implementers. 
Yes, served as organizer 
of the visit with E Bocaletti 
(LAC Health Advisor) and 
other members of the 
team were D. Marsh (OH), 
K. Bolles (OH), and Ellie 
Leonstini (sp?)- JHUSPH. 
Made presentation 
introducing CCM delivery 
strategy overall and the 
findings to date to 
USAID/Guatemala 
representatives. Made 
similar presentation in 
Nicaragua to SC staff. 
August 2005 
Bolivia 
H&N, CBGP, 
Monitoring and Evaluation, review 
of Ag commercialization activities, 
and orientation visit. 
Visit strongly informed 
development of Sept 2005 
Monitoring for Managers 
workshop. 
No 
Sept 2005 
TA visit to Haiti 
Participated in preparation of 2006 
DIP and, work with M&E team, and 
work with new BCC coordinator 
and H&N team to review current 
performance of Hearth nutrition 
Developed a detailed SOW for 
Eric Swedberg (OH) TA visit in 
February 2006. The delay was 
due in part to national elections 
in Haiti. 
SC Partners. Yes, 
Presentation of 
Community based 
therapeutic care (based on 
materials prepared by
37
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
rehabilitation activities And informed discussions with 
Tstillman for proposed TA visit 
to Haiti for needs assessment 
for CTC in Haiti. 
Tstillman) and discussed 
February 2005 
TA to GT country office 
During DAP final 
evaluation. 
Truly this was an ongoing exercise 
from August 2005 to Feb 2005. in 
preparation for and carrying out 
joint final evaluation. The 
evaluation itself was in Feb 2006. I 
participated in data collection the 
second week fo Feb 2006 and 
served as a representative from SC 
to the eval team throughout the 
process. 
March/April 2006 have included 
review of preliminary evaluation 
findings 
Assisted DAP team in preparing 
useful reports that summarized 
program and indicator results 
from SC’s DAP experience for 
the final evaluation team. 
Helped SC DAP team review 
and assemble tables of 
quantitative results from the 
DAP for the final evaluation 
team. 
Joint TII evaluation. 
As a result, participation 
from USAID, CRS, 
SHARE, and CARE. 
Consulting firm, TANGO 
carried out the evaluation. 
Capacity building exercise 
for team. 
Feb 2005 
Nicaragua 
Participated in finalization of 
questionnaire for RFSA 
(March/April 2006), followed up on 
“next steps” CCM and documenting 
impressive nutrition results in 
Nicaraguas FS project, and 
covered monitoring and evaluation. 
SC Nica Prepared very brief 
presentation on how to 
improve presentation of 
data in reports and 
powerpoint presentations. 
Feb 2006 
TA visit to Honduras 
Received detailed presentation of 
baseline survey results, worked 
with team members on next steps 
in finalizing monitoring and 
evaluation system, discussed BCC 
strategy development. 
Honduras team to develop 
SOW for consultant to carry out 
development of a BCC strategy 
(in process) 
Annie Foster, LAC 
regional director 
Not a presentation, but 
facilitated a useful 
technical discussion with 
team members on 
identifying findings from 
the baseline that should be 
prioritized in development 
of BCC strategy. 
March 2006 to present 
Numerous meetings/ presentations 
for MYAP development. 
38
Country and Primary 
objective of visit 
Relevant technical or 
managerial areas 
Outputs from the trip Non SC or non food 
security staff in 
country* 
Trainings or 
workshops conducted 
during visit (if not 
listed below)? 
BILL FIEBIG
Angola 
CDRA program visit, review agric 
program 
Recommended actions; 
diversify production systems 
Guatemala 
Visit impact area Recommended agric program 
activities 
Haiti 
Annual strategic planning 
workshops; visited impact areas 
Recommended program 
activities in agric sector 
Malawi 
Annual strategic planning 
workshops; visits to program 
impact areas; 
Recommendations; assisted in 
baseline survey analysis 
Mali 
Designed and implemented new 
food security program; developed 
results framework, visited impact 
area in northern Mali 
Recommended program 
activities 
Mozambique 
Visited impact areas; conducted 
study of local seed supply systems; 
Provided recommendations for 
community-based gardening 
programs 
Nicaragua Visited impact areas Recommended agric strategies, 
marketing strategies; 
Sudan Visited program impact area in 
Nuba Mtns.; 
Recommended activities for 
agric sector development 
program 
Assisted with initial 
strategic planning process 
for development programs 
Tajikistan Visited impact areas Recommended activities for 
agric sector development 
program 
Uganda Visited impact areas Recommended activities for 
agric sector development 
program 
Participated in DAP start￾up workshop; provided 
training in sustainable 
agriculture and 
diversification of farming 
systems 
39
Annex C. Interview Guides for ICB Midterm 
ICB Midterm Evaluation May 2006 
Question guide for Country Program Staff 
Purpose of interview: part of a midterm assessment of the progress towards meeting HMU 
obligations under the ICB Grant from FFP. Explain SO and IRs. Process focused evaluation￾need field staff input to see what has been working so far, what hasn’t, and to get suggestions for 
getting better results for the remaining life of the grant. (to be sent in the scheduling email and 
re-iterated at the beginning of the phone interview). 
A. General ICB and Communications 
1. Have your program managers and staff gotten messages or requests for activities from the 
HMU related to the ICB grant? (after initial answer can probe: documenting successful 
activities and lessons learned, testing innovative approaches, using standard design, 
reporting, and management tools (including the CAT)? 
2. What has been the level of clarity in HMU communications to you and your staff about 
what the HMU needs from program staff to fulfill the ICB and why? 
3. What actions have you or your staff taken based on these requests? 
4. How can HMU improve the communications process about 
a. the objectives of the ICB, 
b. the benefits of the ICB for country programs, and 
c. how country programs contribute to meeting those objectives? 
5. What is the level of understanding among your staff of the role the HMU should be 
playing in terms of program quality, technical excellence, and leadership in the field? 
How could this role be made more clear to field staff? 
B. Standardized tools for program quality
Add commodity management and M&E 
6. Have the CATs helped managers and staff think about the needed capacities and 
competencies for quality programs? Have they helped managers and staff to assess 
strengths and weaknesses in staff capacity and plan to fill them? 
7. Did you and your staff use the CAT to inform last year’s annual planning process? Why 
or why not? 
8. What has been the quality of feedback from the HMU on your program’s CAT process? 
What has been the quality of assistance from the HMU to follow up with capacity 
assessment? How could the HMU provide more effective feedback and support to 
programs to make the CAT process more effective? 
9. What other tools have members of the HMU provided you or your staff for other aspects 
of quality programs, such as: program design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, or 
documentation? 
40
C. Testing Innovative Approaches and Documenting and Disseminating Lessons Learned
10. Do you feel the HMU supported your program staff to test new approaches or document 
and disseminate effective approaches? If yes, did your staff or the HMU initiate this 
process? How did HMU provide this support? 
If no, why not? How can the HMU support testing new approaches and 
documenting/disseminating lessons learned from approaches that work in programs? 
11. Has your program staff received information from HMU about new approaches that have 
worked well in other SC programs? What about successful approaches from other 
agencies? 
12. Have you gotten clear guidance from HMU about HMU needs for documenting and 
disseminating information about successful approaches in your program? If yes, please 
describe them. What information from HMU would be helpful for you to do these things 
more effectively for your own and HMU needs (for example, formats, info on target 
audiences)? 
D. Strategic Collaboration 
13. Has HMU provided your program with guidance or support to partner more effectively 
with other agencies in country, including SC Alliance members? If yes, please describe 
that support. If no, why not? 
14. Has HMU provided your program with guidance or support to develop and implement a 
strategy for leveraging comparative advantages with other actors, (for example, SC 
Alliance members, Universities, Advocacy Groups) to achieve objectives, particularly 
related to advocacy and technical leadership? If yes, please describe. If no, why not? 
E. Emergency response 
1. Have you worked with HMU staff during an emergency response? If so, which one (s)? 
2. What was HMU’s role in the response? How was this role determined? 
3. Did HMU add value to the response? If so – how – management wise? Operational 
support? technical support and direction? Was this sufficient, in your opinion, or should 
the Unit have been involved in other ways? 
4. What HMU tools/innovations do you know of? Have you used any of these during an 
emergency? If so, were they helpful? 
5. Have HMU staff engaged you (or vice versa) to co-develop tools that may be useful for 
both emergencies and developmental settings? 
6. Have you used any rapid food security assessment tools in the course of a response? Did 
you use this with an HMU staff present? If so, how was the collaboration and sharing of 
expertise? If no HMU staff was present, did HMU provide technical support or guidance 
remotely? How did you decide which tool to use? 
41
ICB Midterm Evaluation May 2006 
Question guide for Westport/Washington Based Staff 
Interview background (to be sent in the scheduling email and reiterated at the beginning of the 
interview or group discussion). 
This interview is part of a midterm assessment of the progress towards meeting HMU obligations 
under the ICB Grant from FFP. Explain SO and IRs. Process focused evaluation-need WWO 
staff input to see what has been working so far, what hasn’t, and to get suggestions for getting 
better results for the remaining life of the grant. 
HMU is also interested in assessing how well the objectives of the ICB correspond to HMU and 
SC-wide strategic priorities in the current, rapidly changing funding and operational 
environment. Your ideas will help us refocus our energies for the rest of the grant and position 
ourselves better to continue our work after the grant. 
A. Role of HMU in SC and Communications 
1. Have you worked directly with HMU staff? What types of work have you done together? 
(proposal development, program design, grant administration, assessments, monitoring 
and evaluation, technical assistance) 
2. In your experience, how effective are HMU staff in communicating about the HMU’s 
strategic and programming priorities? How could communication about priorities be 
more clear, consistent, and compelling in future? 
3. In your experience, how effective are HMU staff in communicating program impacts and 
successful programming approaches? 
a. Have you received HMU documentation of program impacts or successful 
approaches (for example, final reports or lessons learned? If yes, please describe 
them. 
b. Have you received any tools from HMU for standardizing technical or managerial 
aspects of programs? (for example, assessment tools, M & E tools, training 
manuals)? If yes, please describe. 
4. In your opinion, how effective has the HMU been at helping SC make lasting changes in 
the lives of children and their families through: 
c. Developing and implementing high quality programs? 
d. Ensuring technical excellence, and leadership in the field? 
e. Leveraging complementary advantages through effective partnerships at local, 
national, and international levels? 
B. Strategic Collaboration
5. In the collaboration(s) you mentioned above, what has worked well and what has been 
difficult about working with HMU staff? How could the process be improved? 
6. Are you aware of any technical working groups within or outside of Save the Children 
that HMU staff participate in? If so, what are these? Are there any working groups you 
think HMU staff should be participating in, but aren’t? 
7. In your opinion, has the HMU been effective at drawing on outside partnerships (for 
example, with SC Alliance members, Universities, or Advocacy Groups)where necessary 
for expertise, support, and to pursue funding opportunities? How could the HMU be more 
effective at this? 
42
Annex D. Child Centered Risk Management Framework 
Natural 
Risk 
Social 
Risk
Health 
Risk 
Lifecycle 
Risk
Financial 
Risk 
Political 
Risk
Environment
al Risk 
C
LIM
A
T
E
O
F
RIS
K
Financial 
Assets
Social 
Assets 
Natural 
Assets 
Physical 
Assets
Human 
Assets 
Shock 
occurs
DEVELOPMENT 
PHASE
TRANSITIONAL 
PROGRAMMING 
RELIEF PHASE
Preparedness strategies: 
Risk Mitigation 
Risk Reduction 
Shock response
Coping strategies attempt 
to deal with losses that are 
realized from the shock
Outcome
Change or 
no change 
in child’s 
wellbeing
EXTERNAL AGENTS
43
Annex E. Gender Sensitization Guide for Food Security Programs 
BACKGROUND 
 
One of Save the Children’s program quality considerations is the importance of understanding 
gender implications in our programs. An understanding of and respect for the roles that women 
and men play in their daily livelihood and care-giving activities is critical to SC’s ability to 
address child malnutrition and hunger in a sustainable manner. In addition, gender equity 
(define…) is an important value held by Save the Children, and we strive to reflect this in our 
programming. In order to support the quality of existing programs and the appropriate design of 
future food security programs, the FSU is piloting a household and community based approach 
to assessing the capacities, motivations and barriers that exist for and among men and women for 
participation in the types of behavior change activities that characterize most of SC’s current 
food security programs. SC’s food security program, staff ranging from front line community 
workers to sectoral and program managers, make different types of decisions every day related to 
program implementation. For example, while it is easy to assume that we know the motivators 
and challenges faced by men and women in our target program areas, until we take the time to 
ask target beneficiaries, themselves, the types of barriers they face in doing what they do every 
day, it is not possible to make well-informed decisions that create positive change without 
causing harm or threatening cultural values. 
This approach consists of one day of project participant focus group inquiry, followed by staff 
examination and discussion of results. 
OBJECTIVES 
1) Sensitize staff to gender issues 
2) Examine program-based gender considerations from the ground up 
3) Consider implications of gender for program implementation and decision-making 
OUTLINE OF ACTIVITIES 
Getting Started:
- Identify participant focus group facilitators: Program managers should find out from 
ALL FS staff how many (and who) among them have participated with and/or have been 
trained in facilitating focus group discussions. One to two staff should be designated as 
lead facilitators. This person must have an open mind and an ability as well as a 
willingness to continue to ask questions of focus group members within one or two target 
communities to ensure that the questions are answered as thoroughly (with as much 
detail) as possible. 
- Select focus group locations and participants: Separate focus groups for men and 
women should have no more than 10 -15 people and a comfortable environment in which 
44
all members feel safe to express their thoughts, ideas and views. To the extent possible, 
focus group members should be representative of the target HHs served by the FS 
program. 
- Conduct focus groups: A 2-3 hour session should be sufficient, pending on the size of 
the group, breadth of SO or number of activities analyzed. The questions should be asked 
in such a way that a specific activity under one or more IRs of a SO is the point of 
reference. Therefore, the FS program may decide to (initially) assess gender under only 
one SO, rather then the entire program. However, this process can (and should) be 
repeated for all activities under all program SOs. 
Community focus groups: Discussion Guide:
The Focus Group (FG) Discussion facilitator should ask FG members two basic questions: 
1) What do men do related to the activity in question and why (or for what purpose) or why 
not? 
2) What do women do related to the activity in question and why (or for what purpose) or 
why not? 
However, facilitators will want to ensure that the following information is elicited in discussion, 
posing additional questions as needed: 
a) Within this particular activity area (e.g. the agricultural production cycle), who does 
what? In other words, what is the division of labor between/among men and women for 
this particular activity? Time requirements/demands and expectations of spouses, 
relatives, friends, community for each role played (disaggregated by gender). 
b) Who (men or women) have access to the key assets or resources required to undertake 
this activity? 
c) Who benefits from the activity (men, women, children?) and how (provide some 
additional probing questions on the how)? 
d) Who within the HH or the community maintains the information, skills, capacities needed 
for the activity to be successful? 
e) Who makes the decisions (or has the power) related to the control of both using and 
obtaining assets/resources related to this activity? 
Answers to the questions provided by each group covering all aspects of a – e should be recorded 
carefully. Don’t forget to note which group it was (village location, men’s group or women’s 
group, date of discussion). A matrix for doing this is attached as Exhibit A. 
Using the information:
Focus Group Discussion facilitators and program managers should call a meeting of all FS staff 
to review the findings/answers from the focus group discussions. Using this information, re￾examine the approaches currently used and the expected outputs related to the activities 
discussed with the groups. What decisions, suggestions or ideas for improving implementation 
approaches can be gleaned from the FG members’ answers? This can be discussed in the context 
45
46
of understanding current (or perceived) roles of men and women and what we might view as 
their “ideal” roles for ensuring decreased malnutrition and hunger among children and decreased 
food insecurity within the HH. 
Using the matrix attached as Exhibit A, detail the current (as expressed by FG members) and 
ideal roles (per program goals/objectives and indicators) for both men and women and list the 
barriers faced by each in achieving the ideal. How might the barriers identified by both men and 
women be addressed? What steps will be taken to remove or lower these barriers? 
Depending on the number of staff involved, breakout groups may be appropriate to ensure full 
engagement of staff at all levels. 
Exhibit A 
Gender Assessment 
Focus Group Discussion Record 
Province/District/Village________________________________ Enumerator 
Name or No.__________________ 
Group Type___________________________________________ 
 Date____________________________________ 
Objective/Strategy Behaviors Current Roles Ideal Roles Barriers How Address 
Barriers? 
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
47
Annex F. Illustrative HMU Program Learning Group Agenda 
FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM LEARNING GROUP 
MARCH 13 - 16, 2006 
AGENDA 
Monday, March 13 
Session 1: Introductions, Expectations & Purpose of PLG
Facilitator: Ina Schonberg 
Objectives: Participants meet, share expectations, and understand the purpose of the PLG 
8:30 – 9:00 Welcome & Introductions 
9:00 – 9:20 Sharing of Expectations 
9:20 – 9:30 Review of Agenda 
Materials: Agenda; PLG Purpose Statement; Summary of 2005 PLG recommendations and 
 follow up actions 
Session 2: Opportunities and Challenges for SC Hunger and Malnutrition Programs
Facilitator: Ina Schonberg 
Objectives: Reflect on changes in the funding and operational environments that affect day to 
day work and strategic planning; Obtain field and FSU perspectives to frame the 
rest of the PLG sessions 
10:00-11:15 
Materials: 
Session 3: Presentation about Save UK’s Hunger Reduction Programming
Facilitator: Ina Schonberg 
Objectives: Learn how Save UK is responding to a changing environment; Understand the 
overlapping and complementary capacities of US and UK 
11:30-12:30 
12:30- 1:30 Lunch Break 
Session 4: Standardizing Program Design I: Common Results Framework
Facilitator: Toby Stillman
Objectives: Understand how the results frameworks, conceptual frameworks, and food 
security assessments work together in the program design; Discuss 
commonalities between current project results and frameworks; Get feedback on 
proposed common results framework 
48
1:30-3:00 
Materials: 
Session 5: Standardizing Program Design II: Risk and Vulnerability Framework
Facilitator: Heather Danton 
Objectives: Become familiar with the risk and vulnerability framework; Discuss how existing 
programs might approach targeting, activity design or implementation differently 
had they been designed using this framework 
3:15- 5:00 Standardizing Program Design II: Risk and Vulnerability Framework 
Materials: 
Session 6: Wrap Up 
Facilitator: TBD
Objectives: 
5:00-5:30 
Materials: 
49
Tuesday, March 14 
Session 7: Standardizing Program Design III: Food Security Assessments 
Facilitator: Heather 
Objectives: Brainstorm steps in a food security assessment, including tools and processes 
 Compare sample food security assessment for emergency response with one for a 
 development program; Plan to build capacity in food security assessment for 
 emergency response, transitional, and developmental programming 
9:00 - 11:00 
Materials: 
11:00 – 11:15 Break 
Session 8: New Approaches for SC/US
Facilitator: TBD 
Objectives: Become familiar with successful cash based and safety net programs; Discuss 
when these approaches are appropriate and feasible 
11:15 - 12:30 
Materials:
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch Break
Session 9: Panel Discussion on Targeting Vulnerable Groups
Facilitator: TBD
Objectives: Understand processes to identify groups as more vulnerable; 
 Understand program mechanisms to determine membership of individuals in 
 these groups; Understand how program activities and results differ as a result of 
 alternate targeting choices 
1:30 – 3:15 Uganda: food insecure and HIV affected households 
Ethiopia: those at the “edge” of pastoralism 
Nicaragua: poor vs. ultra poor households 
Indonesia: targeting in post emergency context 
Materials: Executive summary on content and use of training manual 
Session 10: Community Management of Severe Malnutrition 
Facilitator: Hedwig and/or Toby 
Objectives: Compare emergency and non-emergency interventions; Can discuss when 
 community management interventions are feasible and desirable 
3:30 – 4:30 
Materials: Pubs on CTC 
Session 11: Wrap Up
Facilitator: TBD 
4:30 – 5:00 
50
Wednesday, March 15 
Session 12: 
Panel Discussion on Emergency Preparedness and Response 
Facilitator: Bill, Rama, Ashley 
Objectives: Understand different ways to incorporate “emergency” elements into programs; 
Share program perspectives on coordination issues for emergency response and 
preparedness 
9:00 – 11:00 Emergency preparedness: Bangladesh 
Non food aid response: Malawi & Indonesia 
National surveillance: Malawi & Mozambique 
Materials: 
Session 13: Poster Gallery – Successful Approaches
Facilitator: Ashley, Katie 
Objectives: Familiarize with successful aspects of approaches or aspects of program 
implementation; Celebrating the good work that SC does to bring lasting and 
positive change to the lives of children! 
11:00 – 12:00 
Materials: 
12:00 – 1:00 Lunch Break 
Session 14: Panel Discussion of Market Based Approaches to Livelihoods 
Facilitator: TBD
Objectives: Understand different ways to incorporate market interventions into programs; 
Relate this to new opportunities for SC/US 
1:00 – 4:00 Ag marketing in Bolivia 
Ag marketing in Nicaragua 
Linking pastoralists to markets in Ethiopa 
Ag marketing in Uganda 
Materials: 
Session 15: Concurrent, Voluntary Small Group Meetings 
Facilitator: Adrian Cullis 
Objectives: Allow topics to be covered that may not be relevant for all participants 
4:00 – 5:00 Nutrition in SC programs 
HIV and Food Security 
Lessons learned from SC Emergency Response experience 
Materials: 
Thursday, March 16 
Session 16: 
Recap of Opportunities and Challenges Discussion from Day 1 
Facilitator: Ina Schonberg 
Objectives: Summarizing and refreshing the issues to prepare for next session 
9:00 – 9:30 
Materials: 
Session 27: Strategic Planning for Hunger & Malnutrition
Facilitator: Ina Schonberg
Objectives: Conduct SWOT analysis by region; Identify priority programming areas, 
opportunities, donors, challenges; Provide input for new strategy articulation 
9:30 – 11:15 
Materials: 
11:15 – 11:30 Break 
Session 17: Managing for Program Quality 
Facilitator: Bill, Ina 
Objectives: Share “findings” from quality planning and assessment jars; Discuss annual 
 planning processes 
11:30 – 12:30 
Materials: 
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch Break 
Session 18: Panel Discussion on Innovative Monitoring Approaches 
Facilitator: Bill, Ashley
Objectives: Understanding of tools and approaches discussed; Focusing on how programs are
 using the data gathered to improve quality of projects
1:30 – 3:30 Lot quality assurance techniques in Haiti and Uganda 
Monitoring natural resources management in Bolivia 
Annual survey analysis in Mozambique 
HEA as an evaluative tool 
Materials: 
Session 19: Closing Session
Facilitator: TBD 
Objectives: Action Items, Poster Awards, Evaluation 
3:30 – 4:30 
51