STRIVE Philippines Assessment Visit 
October 11-15, 2010 
STRIVE Philippines Assessment Visit 
October 11-15, 2010 
Lloyd Feinberg, AOTR, STRIVE Program, Manager of the Displaced Children and 
Orphans Fund (DCOF), Team Leader
 
Jason Wolfe, Enterprise Development Advisor, USAID/EGAT Microenterprise 
Development Office 
John Williamson, Senior Technical Advisor, DCOF
 
 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It 
was prepared by Lloyd Feinberg, Jason Wolfe, and John Williamson. 
ii 
The assessment team would like to express appreciation to USAID/Philippines, in 
particular to Maria Rendon and Teresita Espenilla for their participation in the field visits 
and review of project activities, to Gloria Steele for her thoughtful discussion with the 
team concerning the STRIVE Philippines project, and to Charo Perez for facilitating 
accommodations and travel arrangements while in the country. They would also like to 
express sincere thanks to Henry Panlibuton, Chief of Party for STRIVE Philippines, and 
his fine team for all their work in arranging the team’s itinerary and meetings, facilitating 
in-country travel, providing relevant documents, and patiently answering an endless 
stream of questions. 
iii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... v
 
DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... vi
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. vii
 
Background................................................................................................................... vii
 
Observations of the Assessment Team ........................................................................ viii
 
Limited Scale of Employment Opportunities Created Versus Costs ....................... viii
 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
 
USAID/DCOF’s STRIVE Program................................................................................ 2
 
Assessment Visit ............................................................................................................. 3
 
The Value Chain Approach to Economic Strengthening ................................................ 4
 
OVERVIEW OF STRIVE PHILIPPINES ......................................................................... 6
 
Seaweed Value Chain ..................................................................................................... 7
 
Seaweed Lead Firms....................................................................................................... 8
 
NAMSU Marketing .................................................................................................... 8
 
Tracks Seaweed Trading............................................................................................. 8
 
SiteExport ................................................................................................................... 8
 
Pacific Aqua Trading .................................................................................................. 8
 
Woven Products Value Chain......................................................................................... 8
 
Woven Products Lead Firms........................................................................................... 9
 
All Homes Designs Inc. .............................................................................................. 9
 
33 Point 3 Exports Inc.: ............................................................................................ 10
 
Bohol Beads & Fiber ................................................................................................ 10
 
Timeline Showing Context for Expansion into Different Value Chains ...................... 10
 
The Project’s Evaluation Research ............................................................................... 11
 
OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT TEAM ...................................................... 13
 
Limited Scale of Employment Opportunities Created Versus Costs ............................ 13
 
Profile of Participating Households .............................................................................. 15
 
Questionable Impact on Household Income ................................................................. 15
 
Need for Monitoring Effects on Households and Children .......................................... 16
 
Decision-Making Processes.......................................................................................... 17
 
Exploring New Partnerships and Industry Constraints ................................................. 18
 
Quarterly Reports.......................................................................................................... 18
 
Branding........................................................................................................................ 19
 
Other Matters ................................................................................................................ 19
 
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 20
 
APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................. 22
 
APPENDIX B: Itinerary for Field Visit............................................................................ 25
 
APPENDIX C: Tables with Summary Data for STRIVE Philippines ............................. 27
 
APPENDIX D: Evaluation Timing and Process ............................................................... 36
 
APPENDIX E: Selected Data from the First Wave of Quantitative Data Collection ...... 38
 
iv 
 
 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 
ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and 
Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance 
AED Academy for Educational Development 
AFE	 Action for Enterprise 
AH All Homes Designs Inc. 
AOTR Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative 
BB&F Bohol Beads & Fiber 
COP Chief of Party 
DCG Development Consulting Group 
DCOF Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 
EGAT Bureau of Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade, 
USAID/Washington 
IRIS Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector, University of 
Maryland 
M&E monitoring and evaluation 
MOU memorandum of understanding 
NAMSU NAMSU Marketing, based in Zamboanga City, Mindanau, the 
company is a large trader directly supplying major processors in 
Cebu and Manila 
PAC Program Advisory Committee 
PRODEL Programa de Desarrollo Económico Local (Local Economic 
Development Program) 
OEDG Office of Economic Development and Governance, USAID 
SDCAsia	 Strategic Development Corporation 
STRIVE Supporting Transformation by Reducing Insecurity and 
Vulnerability with Economic Strengthening 
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 
v 
DEFINITIONS 
The following definitions are included to clarify how key terms are used in this report: 
Lead firm: A business that has linkages with a significant number of small producers or 
microenterprises, has a significant proportion of overall sales in the sector, and (due to its 
market share) can exert a great deal of influence over how small producers and 
microenterprises interact with the market. Examples of lead firms include buyers, traders, 
input suppliers, veterinarians, exporters, and processors. Lead firms often provide 
important services or support to the small producers or microenterprises they have 
commercial relationships with, such as training, technical assistance, and inputs. Lead 
firms can vary significantly in size and may operate as part of either the formal or 
informal economy. 
Value chain: The full range of actors that are required to bring a product from its 
conception to its end use. These include input suppliers, producers, processors, 
distributors, wholesalers, and supporting markets that provide services required to get the 
product to the final consumer. 
Vulnerable children: Children under age 18 whose safety, well-being, or development is 
at significant risk due to inadequate care, protection, or access to essential services 
vi 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background 
A primary strategy of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) in addressing the needs of vulnerable 
children is to strengthen the capacities of their families to provide economically for their 
needs. Recent research supports the relevance of this approach. STRIVE Philippines, 
implemented by Action for Enterprise (AFE), is one of four country projects that 
comprise the global STRIVE (Supporting Transformation by Reducing Insecurity and 
Vulnerability with Economic Strengthening) program. The program is an active learning 
laboratory intended to inform future programming to benefit vulnerable children and 
youth. October 11-15, 2010, a DCOF team together with two members of 
USAID/Philippines/ Office of Economic Development and Governance (OEDG), carried 
out a mid-term assessment of the project. 
STRIVE Philippines takes a value chain approach that: 
 Seeks to facilitate changes in firm behavior that increase the competitiveness of 
the chain and generate wealth for all participating firms, 
 Targets points of leverage that have a multiplier effect on interventions in order to 
maximize impact and outreach, and 
 Seeks to enable private-sector stakeholders to act on their own behalf to upgrade 
firms and collectively create a competitive value chain that contributes to 
economic growth with poverty reduction. 
Vulnerable households present unique challenges for value chain development. 
Programming must be adjusted to encourage their participation. 
STRIVE Philippines aims to promote the well-being of children by increasing household 
income through value chain development. Project interventions center on market-based 
solutions that contribute to the economic strengthening of poorer households. The total 
project budget is $2.8 million and the duration is three and one-half years (July 2008 - 
December 2011). It involves interventions with lead firms in the sectors of seaweed 
farming and woven products, with the aim of creating opportunities from which some 
vulnerable households, among a larger group of participants, will be able to benefit. 
Essentially, the project helps lead firms identify ways to overcome constraints in their 
operations, allowing them to create new employment opportunities for low-income 
families. These changes come with some risk and potential expense to the firm. The 
project helps firms buy-down these risks with cost-share agreements, with the assumption 
that if the innovation proves to be profitable for the firm, it will likely continue and 
potentially expand the approach with its own resources. The project has initiated a 
Program Advisory Committee (PAC) comprised of leading child-focused organizations 
that has offered suggestions on how the project may be able to maximize benefits to poor 
families and their children. 
vii 
 
 
Initially, STRIVE Philippines focused on coastal areas, where seaweed farming is a 
significant source of household income and many families are extremely poor. When 
falling seaweed prices led to substantially reduced opportunities, the project considered 
other value chains. It decided that the woven products industry offered promising 
opportunities for increasing household income among poor families, although not in the 
coastal communities originally targeted. The primary intervention by STRIVE 
Philippines has been to support the development of nurseries from which farmers can 
access seaweed seedlings and, thereby, increase their production. STRIVE Philippines 
continues to work with two lead firms in the seaweed value chain, but with less emphasis 
than at the beginning of the project. 
In June 2009, AFE began to work in the woven products sector and is currently working 
with three lead firms. The project has helped lead firms improve management procedures, 
has improved their capacities to train weavers, and supported improvements in the 
procurement and preparation of raw materials. 
The IRIS Center at the University of Maryland (Institutional Reform and the Informal 
Sector) is the technical leader for evaluation research within the overall STRIVE project. 
Data is collected by a local firm. IRIS is responsible for designing and implementing a 
study to address if and how project interventions with lead firms affect producers and 
their families, in particular their children. The dynamic and continuously evolving nature 
of the value chain interventions precluded establishing control groups, so IRIS is using a 
“deep dive” approach, gathering detailed information in three communities affected by 
the project. Learning questions being addressed, using both quantitative and qualitative 
methods, include the following: 
 What is the impact of the project on participating households? 
 What is the impact of the project on children within these households? 
 How do project activities produce outcomes at the household and child levels? 
 How replicable are the activities and corresponding outcomes at the household 
and child levels to other value-chain economic strengthening projects? 
Observations of the Assessment Team 
Limited Scale of Employment Opportunities Created Versus Costs 
The impact component of the program description set a target of “increased income for 
10,000 participating seaweed beneficiaries.” Beneficiaries include both adults and their 
children. The number of direct participants earning income as a result of the project and 
the amounts that they are earning are not clear. Shortly after the team’s visit to the 
Philippines, AFE sent DCOF a set of tables (See Appendix C) indicating that 46 seaweed 
farmers (43 men, 3 women) had received seedlings through the nurseries that the project 
has helped to fund, and that 1,335 individuals (504 men, 831 women) had been trained 
either as weavers or raw material producers. AFE further estimated that half again as 
many additional persons had, in turn, been trained by them. The key issue, however, is 
not how many people have been trained, but how many are earning income as a result of 
project activities with lead firms, and how many family members may be benefitting 
viii 
from this income. The project should obtain from the lead firms and report over time the 
actual number of individuals who are earning income and the average amounts being paid 
as a result of project interventions. In turn, to calculate the number of beneficiaries the 
number of weavers, raw material producers, and seaweed farmers earning income can be 
multiplied by the average household size in the respective communities. AFE’s limited 
results at this stage (roughly the mid-point of the project period) are a cause for concern. 
Since one of STRIVE’s primary hypotheses is that child vulnerability is strongly 
correlated with the poverty, it is important for AFE and IRIS to calculate the approximate 
percentage of beneficiaries who are living in poverty. The the national poverty level of 
the Philippines (P65.76 or roughly $1.50 per day) appears to be a reasonable benchmark 
to use for this calculation. 
Project pipeline figures as of September 2010 indicate that $978,566 had been expended 
and $1,808,204 was unspent. If the project can identify promising approaches for 
benefitting a substantial number of additional participants, there are enough resources to 
do so. However, with only about 14 months until the end of the project, time is quite 
limited,. An issue to consider soon is whether a no-cost extension would be appropriate 
for STRIVE Philippines. Alternatively, funds unlikely to be expended could be made 
available to another STRIVE project. 
Profile of Participating Households 
Participating weaving households visited by the team in Barangay Lamac in southwest 
Cebu appeared to be reasonably well-off, though later the project indicated that they had 
been selected by the sub-contractor working in the village to give a positive impression. 
Questionable Impact on Household Income 
The weavers interviewed by the team in Lamac reported earning relatively small 
amounts, though income should increase as their skills improve and small sums may turn 
out to be quite meaningful for very poor households. Income was reported to be higher 
among weavers with whom the team met in Cabungahan Barangay, Danao. 
Need for Monitoring Effects on Households and Children 
The current project design calls for AFE to monitor only the economic aspects of the 
project based on information provided by lead firms. There is no mechanism for 
monitoring the potential negative effects on children of supported economic activities, 
though qualitative data gathered periodically by IRIS could help flag problems. 
Observations by the team suggest that AFE needs to make some provision for monitoring 
the involvement of children in work related to the project. 
ix 
Decision-Making Processes 
Since the beginning of the project there has been a shift of priorities away from: 
 seaweed production, 
 the extremely poor and vulnerable seaweed growing communities originally 
targeted, and 
 Mindanao. 
Although the project has presented a good economic rationale for its shift away from the 
seaweed value chain to woven products, the assessment team is concerned about the 
communication related to this change. While STRIVE had reported over time the 
problems with the seaweed value chain and the initiatives to work in the woven products 
sector, it was only after the team’s visit and the subsequent provision of the statistics in 
Appendix C that the degree of the shift toward the woven products, primarily in the 
Visayas, became clear. 
Quarterly Reports 
The bullet point format of quarterly reports does not convey a clear perspective on the 
development of the project. A clearer narrative is needed to explain project progress in 
relation to its strategic framework. Relevant statistics should be included as well. 
Branding 
The issue of branding arose during the team’s discussion with the mission. The USAID 
agreement officer for the overall FIELD-Support Leader with Associates mechanism has 
granted a presumptive global exception. Although DCOF fully appreciates the 
importance of complying with USAID branding requirements, we feel that the branding 
exception for the Philippines is appropriate and warranted. One of the primary aims of 
the project is to increase the quality of value chains by improving the commercial 
relationships between the lead firms and their suppliers. To achieve the economic results 
sought and the consequent benefits to vulnerable children, it is essential not to 
compromise the perceived independence of the lead firms. Placing USAID logos within 
the lead firm could give the impression that the lead firm is subsidized or otherwise 
influenced by USAID. This could have a deleterious impact within the value chain. 
Contact with the Mission 
During the team’s debriefing at USAID Philippines, it was agreed that the mission should 
be more regularly informed about project activities and that Teresita Espenilla would be 
the point of contact. 
Recommendations 
1. AFE should consider the potential offered by leverage points other than lead firms. 
Strategic Development Corporation - Asia (SDCAsia), an organization based in the 
x 
 
Philippines, has been particularly effective in this area. We recommend that AFE spend 
more time consulting this organization and learning from its experience. 
2. Quarterly reports should include a narrative overview of project activities and progress 
and statistical tables to facilitate monitoring project development. This could be 
supplemented with the kinds of bulleted information that has been provided. 
3. The project should calculate and report quarterly on the actual number of individuals 
with income resulting from project interventions, their respective amount of income, and 
the geographic areas where they live. The project should also track and report total 
household beneficiaries and the percentage of beneficiaries who are below the national 
poverty line. 
4. When considering possible engagement with a lead firm for a particular new 
intervention, project personnel should assess, and as far as possible quantify, potential 
effects at the household level of involvement with the proposed initiative. This might 
include limited rapid household sampling in new areas proposed by lead firms to ensure 
that there is good potential for a substantial number of vulnerable children to benefit. 
5. The project should establish a mechanism consistent with the value chain approach of 
anticipating and then monitoring the effects of supported activities on households and 
children. But in situations in which this would conflict with the project’s fundamental 
economic role, an alternative mechanism should be arranged, such as one through an 
NGO. Assessment and monitoring should include some direct information gathering at 
the household level, as well as consultation with key informants at the community level, 
e.g., community leaders, school principles. STRIVE Philippines should confer with the 
PAC or at least some of its members, to identify a workable approach to monitoring 
project effects on participating households—in particular on their children—with a view 
toward mitigating possible negative impacts of the project (e.g., school absences or 
potentially hazardous work). 
6. Based on monitoring information, AFE should report on how it has adjusted program 
interventions to maximize positive effects and minimize negative ones. 
7. The Chief of Party (COP) for the project should attend COP meetings at the Mission, 
share quarterly reports with Teresita Espenilla, and keep her informed of major 
developments with the project. 
8. STRIVE should explore increasing opportunities for exchange and cross-learning 
among the field projects it manages. 
xi 
 
INTRODUCTION 
The Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) of USAID’s Office of Democracy 
and Governance addresses the needs of vulnerable children, particularly those who are 
either outside of family care or at risk of losing family care. It is clear that the safety and 
well-being of the vast majority of vulnerable children depends upon the capacity and 
ability of their families to protect and care for them. Also, the best solution for many of 
the children living outside of family care, such as those on the street or in residential care, 
is to improve the capacity of their immediate or extended families to provide for their 
care. Child welfare professionals have long recognized that effectively addressing child 
vulnerability requires improving family economic circumstances. Consequently, DCOF is 
committed to identifying effective ways of strengthening the economic capacities of 
vulnerable families. 
Extended family 
Child 
Household 
Community 
Government 
Civil 
society 
Private 
sector 
Two recently published studies provide a strong empirical basis for the importance of 
addressing the household economic circumstances of vulnerable children. The first, 
“Assessing the ‘Orphan Effect’” analyzed Demographic Health Survey data from 11 
eastern and southern African countries to identify the factors that contributed most 
significantly to selected negative outcomes for children. It used multivariate regression 
analysis to consider the relationship of various indictors and outcomes for children. It 
found that after controlling other possible intervening factors, “for all outcomes 
household wealth is the single most important correlate of better outcomes.” Low 
household economic status was a stronger predictor of negative outcomes than was 
orphan status. 1 
The second article, “Who is the vulnerable child? Using survey data to identify children 
at risk in the era of HIV and AIDS,” presents an analysis using bivariate and multivariate 
methods of data from 60 national studies done in 36 countries to identify the factors 
associated with negative outcomes for children. It found that household economic status 
and parental education level were the most consistent predictors of negative outcomes for 
children. In this study also, household economic condition was a stronger predictor of 
negative outcomes for children than orphanhood.2 
1 
 
 
Since 2000, DCOF has supported efforts to bring together specialists in economic 
strengthening and programming for vulnerable children with the aim of developing 
effective programming in this area.3
 For decades, programs intended to address the needs 
of highly vulnerable children have sought to use income-generating activities as a basic 
strategy for improving children’s well-being; however, very frequently they have failed 
to do so effectively. For example, a 2008 USAID-supported study of USG-funded 
programs in Kenya and Uganda that were attempting to use economic strengthening to 
benefit vulnerable children found that “very few were deemed economically viable, 
largely because they had not been designed and implemented with adequate consideration 
paid to fundamental principles for economically viable programming.”4 
Recognizing this critical link between the economic circumstances of families and their 
children’s well-being, in 2008 DCOF supported the initiation of the STRIVE program. Its 
goal was to build a stronger evidence base in developing market-based economic 
strengthening programs whose aim is to benefit vulnerable children. 
USAID/DCOF’s STRIVE Program 
In 2008, DCOF initiated the centrally-funded STRIVE (Supporting Transformation by 
Reducing Insecurity and Vulnerability with Economic Strengthening) program, which 
uses market-led economic strengthening initiatives to benefit vulnerable children. The 
project is managed by the Academy for Educational Development (AED) under the 
FIELD-Support Leader with Associates mechanism. The project is implementing four 
field projects and supporting research in a fifth. The five-year STRIVE program is 
scheduled to conclude in 2012. Each of the field projects is implemented by an NGO with 
strong capacity in the design and implementation of programming for economic 
strengthening. For each project, a rigorous evaluation component has been included 
through collaboration with the IRIS Center at the University of Maryland. The four 
countries in which STRIVE projects are being implemented include Liberia, 
Mozambique, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. In 2010, through STRIVE, an evaluation 
component was added to the PRODEL II (Programa de Desarrollo Económico Local 
(Local Economic Development Program) economic growth project in a fifth country, 
Ecuador. 
The first four STRIVE projects were designed to measurably improve the well-being of 
vulnerable children through various approaches to economic strengthening. The fifth 
project was designed to increase household income, without a specific focus on children. 
This program was added to STRIVE to help test whether increasing household income, in 
the absence of child-specific program measures, will lead to improve child well-being. 
STRIVE is an active learning laboratory that is intended to inform future programming 
not only by USAID/DCOF, but also by the wider community of organizations concerned 
with programming to benefit vulnerable children and youth. Consequently, STRIVE was 
designed with a strong learning agenda intended to generate information both on how 
2 
 
economic strengthening projects can be used to measurably benefit vulnerable children 
(e.g., in terms of their education, health, and nutrition) and to develop and test assessment 
methods and tools that can be used more widely. Each of the STRIVE field projects 
measures both economic outcomes and outcomes for children. STRIVE aims to help fill 
current knowledge gaps about effective economic strengthening approaches and their 
impact on reducing the vulnerability of children and youth. 
The following STRIVE field projects are being implemented: 
	 Philippines (Action for Enterprise – AFE): Increasing household income through 
enterprise and market/ value chain development in high-growth industries 
characterized by high levels of engagement from low-income communities. 
	 Afghanistan (Mennonite Economic Development Associates/AED): Improving 
youth work skills acquisition and workplace safety through value chain 
development and microfinance in a conflict-affected environment, by engaging 
with a high-growth industry (construction) that has high rates of youth 
apprenticeship. 
	 Liberia (ACDI/VOCA[Agricultural Cooperative Development International and 
Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance]): Agricultural value chain 
development and livelihood development in a post-conflict environment in low￾income communities, which integrates food and cash crops for the benefit of 
vulnerable children. 
	 Mozambique (Save the Children): Improving education and nutritional outcomes 
for children by building household assets and social capital through village 
savings and loan groups and rotating labor schemes that help create access to 
markets for low-income communities in post-disaster areas. 
	 Ecuador (ACDI/VOCA): A child-focused evaluation component has been added 
to the PRODEL II project, the objective of which is to increase income and 
employment for families by supporting the expansion of private enterprises. 
Assessment Visit 
From October 11-15, 2010, a DCOF team visited the project for a mid-term assessment.1 
The team was led by Lloyd Feinberg, Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) of the STRIVE 
Program and manager of DCOF, and included Jason Wolfe, enterprise development 
advisor for poverty reduction/microeconomic development, and John Williamson, senior 
technical advisor, DCOF. The team was fortunate to be joined by Maria Rendon and 
Teresita Espenilla of USAID/Philippines/OEDG. The team worked closely with Henry 
Panlibuton, chief of party for STRIVE Philippines, and project personnel, including 
Manny Roleda, senior enterprise development specialist; Jovie Antiporta, senior 
enterprise development specialist, Rosebell Balang, enterprise development specialist, 
and Stephen Sungkip, enterprise development specialist. The scope of work and itinerary 
for the visit are attached as Appendices A and B. 
1
 DCOF originally anticipated carrying out this assessment in early 2010 but had to postpone it in order to 
participate in USAID’s response to children affected by the earthquake in Haiti. 
3 
The Value Chain Approach to Economic Strengthening 
The value chain approach is a leading intervention strategy for linking small firms and 
producers to economic growth opportunities. Taking a value chain approach necessitates 
understanding a market system in its totality: the firms that operate within an industry— 
from input suppliers to end-market buyers; the support markets that provide technical, 
business, and financial services to the industry; and the business environment in which 
the industry operates. Such a broad scope for industry analysis is needed because the 
principal constraints to competitiveness may lie within any part of this market system or 
the environment in which it operates. While it may be beyond the capacity or outside the 
mandate of a donor or implementing agency to address certain constraints, the failure to 
recognize and incorporate the implications of the full range of constraints will generally 
lead to limited, short-term impact or even counter-productive results. 
The following implementation principles are key to successful value chain development 
programs: 
 Facilitating changes in firm behavior. The value chain approach seeks to facilitate 
changes in firm behavior that increase the competitiveness of the chain and 
generate wealth for all participating firms. Changing firm behavior requires an 
understanding of the incentives of the various stakeholders—why they behave in 
the way they do, and what is needed to motivate them to change their behavior. 
Implementers of the value chain approach identify firms within the industry with 
the incentives, ability, and willingness to address constraints and facilitate 
upgrading throughout the chain. 
 Targeting leverage points. Value chain project implementers target points of 
leverage that have a multiplier effect on interventions in order to maximize impact 
and outreach. Points of leverage include economic and social structures, 
commercial incentives, and social norms and incentives. 
 Empowering the private sector. The goal of the value chain approach is to enable 
private-sector stakeholders to act on their own behalf: to upgrade their firms and 
collectively create a competitive value chain that contributes to economic growth 
with poverty reduction. The value chain analysis and strategy development 
process is therefore participatory to the extent possible. The role of the donor and 
implementing partner is to facilitate and support implementation of the 
competitiveness strategy by the private sector so that development objectives are 
also met. 
Many features of the value chain approach make it particularly relevant for programs 
working on economic strengthening among vulnerable populations. Although there is 
growing emphasis on applying the value chain approach to vulnerable populations, most 
projects have not disaggregated their monitoring data to identify the extent to which the 
4 
very poor, youth, and other vulnerable populations directly and indirectly participate and 
benefit. Evidence suggests, however, that their involvement in many initiatives to date 
has been marginal for a number of reasons: 
 The vulnerable face barriers, such as lack of time or social exclusion, which make 
their participation unlikely, if not specifically considered. 
 While most initiatives have focused on linking producers to output markets, many 
vulnerable populations lack the required assets for market engagement. 
	 Projects have assumed that vulnerable populations will benefit from wealth 
creation within the community, even when they are not direct participants. This 
assumption has rarely been backed with analysis to understand how intra￾household and inter-household resource transfers function within a specific 
context. Thus, this trickle-down effect has rarely been confirmed. 
	 Projects have found it difficult to strike an appropriate balance between 
concentrating resources on a small number of the vulnerable and achieving large￾scale impact through a focus on the less vulnerable. 
Vulnerable households present unique challenges in the context of value chain 
development. These households tend to be more isolated from the mainstream economy, 
have far fewer assets, and suffer from more disadvantageous (or exploitative) 
relationships with the private sector. The need for upgrading is comparatively greater yet 
the resources to support it are very limited. Vulnerable populations may have limited 
capacity to make informed choices about how to engage with mainstream markets and 
allocate their scarce resources. They often view investment decisions and perceive risk in 
different ways from the less vulnerable, and have much shorter time horizons. All of 
these factors will tend to reduce the role of the vulnerable in value chain programming, if 
programming is not adjusted to encourage their participation. 
5 
OVERVIEW OF STRIVE PHILIPPINES
 
STRIVE Philippines aims to promote the well-being of children by increasing household 
income through value chain development. Project interventions center on market-based 
solutions that contribute to the economic strengthening of poorer households. The total 
project budget is $2.8 million and the duration is three and one-half years (July 2008 - 
December 2011). 
The value chain approach used by the project is an indirect, market-based approach that 
is intended to stimulate new or improved economic opportunities for the poor. As it is 
being implemented by AFE in STRIVE Philippines, it involves interventions with lead 
firms, with the aim of creating opportunities from which some vulnerable households, 
among a larger group of participants, will be able to benefit. Essentially, the project helps 
lead firms to identify ways to overcome constraints in their operations that create new 
employment opportunities for low-income families. The firms and other workers above 
the poverty line benefit from these opportunities as well. 
Essentially, the project identifies a value chain (e.g., seaweed farming, woven products) 
where opportunities exist to help firms create new employment opportunities through 
change or improvements in their operational methods (e.g., nurseries to increase farmers’ 
access to good quality seedlings or training new weavers). These changes come with 
some risk and potential expense to the firm. The project helps firms buy-down these risks 
with cost-share agreements (e.g., for establishing a seaweed nursery or conducting 
training), with the project covering part of the cost (typically 70 percent). This cost-share 
is provided with the assumption that if the innovation proves to be profitable for the firm, 
it will likely continue and potentially expand the approach with its own resources and, 
thereby achieve a sustained benefit to those workers doing business with the firm. Not all 
business innovations lead to new employment opportunities or increased income for 
workers, so the project considers proposals from lead firms, and agrees to support only 
those that offer potential results that will be consistent with the project’s aims. 
STRIVE Philippines initially focused on coastal areas, where seaweed farming is a 
significant source of household income and many families are extremely poor. In its 
proposal to DCOF, AFE made a strong case for the opportunities to increase the incomes 
of impoverished seaweed farmers in coastal communities. Work began in this sector, but 
when falling seaweed prices and other factors led to substantially reduced opportunities, 
the project considered other value chains (e.g., abalone, crabs). It eventually decided that 
the woven products industry offered promising opportunities for increasing household 
income among poor families, although not in the coastal communities originally targeted. 
Scaled-down activities still continue in the seaweed sector. Project interventions include, 
but are not limited to: 
 Encouraging suppliers and processing firms to invest in new production areas and 
techniques. 
 Expanding and strengthening market linkages. 
 Improving information flow among actors and between levels of the value chain. 
6 
 
 
 
	 Supporting research and pilot activities to identify innovative, sustainable 
solutions to current obstacles to high-quality production. 
STRIVE Philippines initiated a Program Advisory Committee (PAC) comprised of 
leading child-focused organizations, which has offered suggestions on how the project 
may be able to maximize benefits to poor families and their children. The members of the 
PAC have also benefitted by gaining a better understanding of how to design effective, 
market-based interventions. 
The diagram below is the causal model underlying the project design and implementation 
of STRIVE Philippines: 
Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts 
Seaweed Value Chain 
STRIVE Philippines focused initially on the seaweed value chain: seaweed is processed 
to produce carageenan, which is used in the production of food, toothpaste, personal care 
products, and capsules for medication. STRIVE Philippines’ primary intervention has 
been to support the development of nurseries from which farmers can access seaweed 
seedlings and, thereby, increase their production. A total of 46 seaweed farmers have 
benefitted from project interventions. 
STRIVE Philippines continues to work in the seaweed value chain, but with less 
emphasis than at the beginning of the project. This shift was due to the dramatic 
reduction in the global price of seaweed2
, the withdrawal from the sector of one of the 
lead firms with which the project had engaged, the effects on production of “El Niňo” 
weather patterns, and other factors that indicated limited potential for increasing 
economic opportunities for poor families. The project has engaged with the lead firms 
described below. 
2
 For example, the price decreased from US$2.10/kg in August 2008 to less than US$1.15/kg in December, 
a decrease of over 48 percent. 
 Increased 
integration and 
participation of 
producers/farmers in 
the value chain 
 Greater 
competitiveness of 
the value chain 
 # of lead firms 
 # of producers 
 # of trainings 
 # of trained 
participants 
 Increased 
household income 
 Increased producer 
sales of (value & 
volume) 
 Increased lead firm 
purchases (value 
and volume) 
 Improved 
household well￾being 
 Improved child 
/youth well-being 
7 
Seaweed Lead Firms 
NAMSU Marketing – Based in Zamboanga City, Mindanau, the company is a large 
trader directly supplying major processors in Cebu and Manila. Through a cost-share 
agreement with AFE, it established a seaweed seedling nursery near Tictapul, 
Zamboanga City. It buys from approximately 100 families in the Tictapul area and in 
nearby islets. A total of 26 farmers have accessed 10.9 metric tons of seaweed seedlings 
with a total value of 59,067 pesos (approximately $1,312). This enabled participating 
farmers to increase their production an average of more than 200 percent (from 2.8 to 9.6 
lines of seaweed). Seven farmers of the first batch of nine that received seedlings on 
credit were able to repay the nursery after the first harvest. STRIVE Philippines has a 
Zamboanga-based field coordinator responsible for coordination and monitoring related 
to NAMSU. 
Tracks Seaweed Trading – Based on Jao Island, Bohol Province, this company 
established a nursery for seaweed seedlings through a cost-share agreement with AFE. 
The initial nursery planting sustained significant hurricane damage, as well as losses due 
to plant disease. The nursery was re-planted and has sold or distributed a total of 1664 Kg 
of seedlings (819 spinossum and 845 cottonni) to 13 farmers. 
STRIVE Philippines facilitated a lateral learning exchange for Tracks staff to share and 
observe NAMSU’s seedling production and distribution scheme in Zamboanga. NAMSU 
presented its production, harvest, and post-harvest techniques. Tracks and NAMSU have 
had similar growth and plant disease challenges. Tracks expressed interest in NAMSU’s 
use of less expensive planting materials and techniques, which give it lower production 
costs. 
SiteExport – This firm, based in Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi Province, signed a memorandum 
of understanding (MOU) with AFE and a cost-share agreement for a pilot commercial 
nursery. It subsequently withdrew from work in the seaweed value chain and is no longer 
involved with the project. 
Pacific Aqua Trading – This firm, based in Cebu, signed an MOU with AFE during the 
first quarter of FY 2009. Before initiating activities with the project, the firm shifted its 
focus away from farmer-level investment due to the steep declines in seaweed prices. It is 
not currently involved with the project. 
Woven Products Value Chain 
In the third quarter of FY 2009, STRIVE Philippines began to explore possibilities in the 
woven products value chain. In June 2009, AFE signed a memorandum of understanding 
with All Homes Designs, the first lead firm with which it has worked in this sector. While 
weaving is a principle economic activity for some households, it is generally not the sole 
source of income for the household engaged, and it tends to be carried out in the weavers’ 
8 
own homes. The project has implemented interventions with lead firms regarding their 
management procedures. It has also built the capacity of lead firms to provide improved 
and expanded training and skills upgrading of weavers, and supported increased 
capacities and efficiencies in the procurement and preparation of raw materials. Shortly 
after the DCOF’s team’s visit, AFE provided statistics indicating that 1,335 individuals 
have been trained in weaving or in harvesting and preparing raw materials for weaving. It 
has also estimated that about half of these individuals have, in turn, trained a neighbor in 
those skills (See Appendix C). 
The three types of weaving with which the project has been involved include: 
 Hapao weaving, which involves the spiraling out of rattan core pieces connected 
together by strips of buri midribs (middle part of the leaves) or nito vines, 
 Wire frame weaving with a range of natural fibers, and 
 Loom weaving of raffia fiber (also made from buri). 
Lead firms do the final stages of quality control and processing woven products. With 
baskets, this includes trimming and burning off excess fibers, staining, and packaging. 
Raffia material is typically fashioned into place mats or women’s handbags. 
Woven Products Lead Firms 
All Homes Designs Inc. (AH): This is one of the largest exporters of woven products 
from the Philippines, it primarily deals with functional baskets. Their major market is U.S 
buyers, including Crate & Barrel, TJ Maxx, and Marshal’s. STRIVE Philippines has 
supported AH to develop and design a training curriculum and strategy for new weavers 
in selected target areas, including development of training curricula/materials and a 
training of trainers. A week-long practice period follows the training to provide 
participants with hands-on monitoring and advice while they weave baskets for an initial 
AH purchase order. Purchase orders are channeled to groups of weavers through sub￾contractors. The owners indicated that most of the weavers and those processing raw 
materials are adult women and out-of-school youth. AH has conducted trainings for more 
than 346 new weavers (central and northern Cebu) and braiders of raw material (Negros 
Occidental province). 
The company’s owners indicated to the DCOF assessment team that STRIVE Philippines 
had assisted them in thinking through the firm’s operating constraints and in developing 
an operational plan. The project has also facilitated the development, planning, and 
implementation of a quality assurance seminar to inform and sensitize sub-contractors 
and weaver-leaders to the importance of quality from the perspective of the end market. 
The owners told the team that their rejection rate fell from 18 percent to 10 percent 
following the quality assurance training. This represented a significant economic gain, 
and therefore incentive to continue the supply of this quality assurance training for 
weaving groups and for the company. There was also an increase in the number of 
baskets purchased from weaver producer groups. Their monthly production level has 
increased from 45,000 to 60,000 pieces. 
9 
 
33 Point 3 Exports Inc.: Located in Mandaue City. Cebu, 33 Point 3 is one of the oldest 
and largest exporters of woven products (primarily functional baskets) from the 
Philippines. The U.S. is their major market, and buyers include Target, Pier 1, and Crate 
& Barrel. AFE signed a memorandum of understanding with 33 Point 3 to help the firm 
expand production, develop new production areas, and improve the efficiency and 
commitment of the weavers and leaders who supply the firm. 33 Point 3’s main product 
line is a type of weaving called “hapao,” which is woven without frames. STRIVE 
Philippines has supported the expansion of hapao production capacity by training new 
weavers (including development of training curricula and training of trainers) in targeted 
expansion areas. The project has collaborated with 33 Point 3 in a “production audit” to 
compile information on the leaders, sub-contractors, and weavers that the firm works 
with. This enabled 33 Point 3 to develop an internal monitoring system and improve its 
production planning. It also allows the STRIVE Philippines project to obtain more 
detailed data for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Based on the findings, the firm 
organized quality assurance seminars in Bohol and Cebu for its internal quality control 
staff, suppliers, and leaders. 33 Point 3 has conducted trainings for more than 393 new 
weavers (Bohol Province) and braiders of raw material (Agusan del Norte Province). 
Bohol Beads & Fiber (BB&F)—Based in Inabanga, Bohol, BB&F was started by the 
former mayor of the Municipality to add value to the rolls of traditional raffia mats and 
material produced by local loom weavers. BB&F designs and produces a line of 
tableware and fashion bags products for higher-end domestic markets in the Philippines, 
as well as for the tourist market in Bohol. It was previously a major supplier of hapao￾style baskets to 33 Point 3. 
With the support of the STRIVE Philippines project, BB&F began curriculum 
development for new weaver training in February 2010 with the active participation of 
their eight suppliers and relevant BB&F staff. Upon completion of the draft curriculum 
and materials, a training of trainers was conducted for the proposed training teams of 
suppliers and BB&F staff. BB&F has trained 151 new weavers and raw material 
collectors and processors from barangays within Inabanga Municipality. 
Timeline Showing Context for Expansion into Different Value Chains 
The following provides a timeline as context for the expansion of the project from 
seaweed into other value chains: 
 Aug 2008: STRIVE Philippines start-up 
 Nov 2008: Signed MOU with Sitexport (Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi) 
 Focus on seaweed seedling nursery 
 Planning & start-up of nursery, established pilot area for planting 
 Seaweed prices at all-time high in mid-late 2008 
 Mar 2009: Signed MOU with Tracks Trading (Jao Island, Bohol) 
10 
 
 
	 Apr-Jun 2009: Sitexport facing constraints to maintain buying 
	 Seaweed prices drop; very volatile pricing 
	 Incentives and interest in maintenance of nursery waned 
 Apr-Jun 2009: Explored opportunities for complimentary sources of income for 
seaweed farmers/coastal communities, but did not find acceptable opportunities 
 Abalone cultivation (feed and ‘seed’ availability constraints; 9 mo. 
gestation) 
	 Crab collection (unsustainable collection practices) 
	 Mar-May 2009: Explored opportunities in woven products 
	 Jun 2009: signed MOU with first woven products lead firm (AH Designs) 
The Project’s Evaluation Research 
The IRIS Center at the University of Maryland is the technical leader for evaluation 
research within the overall STRIVE project. IRIS is responsible for designing and 
implementing a study to address if and how project interventions with lead firms affect 
producers and their families, in particular their children. 
Learning questions being addressed include the following: 
 What is the impact of the project on participating households? 
	 What is the impact of the project on children within these households? 
	 How do project activities produce outcomes at the household and child levels? 
	 How replicable are the activities and corresponding outcomes at the household 
and child levels to other value-chain economic strengthening projects? 
IRIS is using a mixed methods approach using both qualitative methods (to explore how 
and why) and quantitative methods to understand outcomes. The possibility of using 
comparison or control groups to examine the counterfactual was explored at several 
stages during the development of the evaluation plan, but the dynamic and continuously 
evolving nature of the value chain interventions being used in the project has precluded 
their use. No approach could be identified that was acceptable to all the stakeholders in 
the seaweed value chain, no methods could be found to randomize who among those to 
be trained as weavers would receive the training, and, the numbers of new weavers per 
location have been too limited to create control groups. 
Since it was not possible to arrange control groups, a “deep dive” case study approach 
was selected as an alternative. Three communities were selected, one coastal community 
where seaweed production is being facilitated and two communities where new weavers 
have been trained. IRIS believes that detailed qualitative (focus group discussions, 
participatory rapid appraisals, and key informant interviews) and quantitative methods 
11 
over time will yield an understanding of how much change takes place within producer 
households, as well as producing evidence about how and why change took place. This 
information will be analyzed along with monitoring data collected by project personnel. 
The following three communities have been selected as the representative sites for these 
in-depth evaluation studies: 
 As representative of seaweed growing communities: Kabug 1, Kabug 2, and 
Duhul Alip in Barangay Tumitus of the Vitali District of Zamboanga City 
(accessing seedlings from NAMSU) 
 As representative of communities producing woven products: Barangay Lamac in 
southwest Cebu (producing baskets for 33 Point 3) 
 Barangays Kanluhangon and Cantobaon in the municipality of Tabuelan 
(producing baskets for All Homes) 
Household financial income is being measured in two ways: with baseline and endline 
questionnaires, and with financial diaries that seaweed farmers and weavers complete 
themselves, and which will be collected periodically during the life of the project. The 
schedule for qualitative and quantitative data collection is included in Appendix D. 
Highlights of the findings of the baseline quantitative survey are included in Appendix E. 
Initially data collection was done by a local organization, Tambuyog, through a contract 
with AFE under the technical guidance of IRIS. The capacity of this organization to do 
the necessary data collection was eventually determined to be inadequate. So, AFE 
established a new agreement with the Development Consulting Group to do data 
collection during the rest of the project. IRIS has trained the personnel who have done 
data collection, and the raw data that they gather is sent to IRIS, which does the 
processing and analysis. Detailed information on the evaluation methods being used, 
including household questionnaires, are provided in the report, “STRIVE Philippines: 
Initial Evaluation Research” (Diana Rutherford, October 2010). 
12 
OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT TEAM 
Limited Scale of Employment Opportunities Created Versus Costs 
The program description for STRIVE Philippines reads: 
The anticipated outreach of the STRIVE program participants will be up to 
15,000 seaweed farmers, 12-15 suppliers, and 4 major carrageenan processors. 
Assuming that each seaweed farmer has at least two children/youth, the program 
could impact approximately 30,000 of the most vulnerable. 
The impact component of the program description set a target of “increased income for 
10,000 participating seaweed beneficiaries.” 
The number of direct participants earning income as a result of the project and the 
amounts that they are earning are not clear. Shortly after the team’s visit to the 
Philippines, AFE sent DCOF a set of tables (See Appendix C) indicating that 46 seaweed 
farmers (43 men, 3 women) had received seedlings through the nurseries that the project 
has helped to fund, and that 1,335 individuals (504 men, 831 women) had been trained 
either as weavers or raw material producers. AFE further estimated that half again as 
many additional persons had, in turn, been trained by them. Those estimates calculated by 
AFE have not been included in Appendix C because they are speculative. 
The key issue is not how many people have been trained formally or informally, but how 
many are earning income as a result of project activities with lead firms, and how many 
family members may be benefitting from this income. The project should obtain from the 
lead firms and report over time the actual number of individuals who are earning income 
as a result of project interventions. This would include weavers and raw material 
producers who are selling to lead firms, as well as seaweed farmers who have obtained 
seedlings from one of the nurseries the project has help subsidize. Using that information, 
the project could calculate and report the average amounts being paid by lead firms to the 
individuals concerned. 
In turn, to calculate the number of beneficiaries, the number of weavers, raw material 
producers, and seaweed farmers currently earning income can be multiplied by the 
average household size in the respective communities. IRIS has produced statistics on 
average household size and composition for beneficiary households in each of the case 
study communities, and household statistics should be available at least at barangay level 
for other communities with direct beneficiaries. These numbers can be used to estimate 
total beneficiary figures. 
In addition, one of STRIVE’s primary hypotheses is that child vulnerability is strongly 
correlated with the poverty or wealth status of the household caring for these children. By 
improving the economic circumstances of target households, DCOF hopes to observe 
measurable improvements in child well-being over time. Consequently, it is important for 
AFE and IRIS to calculate the approximate percentage of such beneficiaries who are 
13 
 
living in poverty. Based on advice from USAID/Washington’s Bureau for Economic 
Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT), the national poverty level of the Philippines 
appears to be a reasonable benchmark to use for this calculation. The official national 
poverty line3
 is 10,000 pesos per capita per month, which is P65.76 or roughly $1.50 per 
day. About 25 percent of Filipinos are estimated to fall below this poverty threshold. 
In an exchange shortly after the visit, by contrast, IRIS and STRIVE proposed a poverty 
threshold of $2.50 per capita per day to estimate the proportion of its beneficiaries that 
may care for vulnerable children. According to World Bank modeling, roughly 50 
percent of Filipinos fall below this particular threshold. DCOF finds this benchmark to be 
exceedingly expansive and to have little basis in the local understanding or measures of 
poverty. 
As poverty is a complex and socially defined concept, USAID considers national poverty 
lines (where available and credible) to be the preferred and most locally relevant 
benchmark. STRIVE Philippines should begin using the official poverty threshold for 
project operations, monitoring, and reporting. In consultation with IRIS, STRIVE 
Philippines should explore whether it is most sensible to utilize the median national 
poverty line or to use official thresholds developed for specific regions or rural 
populations. 
While the current project approach seems likely to increase the number of poor 
households who participate, it was not clear to the assessment team that with these 
approaches the project would be on track to reach a substantially larger number of 
participants. At this point it appears that, on the current trajectory, the eventual number of 
beneficiaries may be relatively low, the significance of the economic benefits those 
families may realize might be modest, and the cost per beneficiary relatively high. 
Project pipeline figures as of September 2010 indicate that $978,566 had been expended 
and $1,808,204 was unspent. If the project can identify promising approaches for 
benefitting a substantial number of additional participants, there are enough resources to 
do so. However, with only about 14 months until the end of the project, time is quite 
limited. An issue to consider soon is whether a no-cost extension would be appropriate 
for STRIVE Philippines. Alternatively, funds unlikely to be expended could be made 
available to another STRIVE project. 
The value chain approach employed by AFE follows a phased intervention strategy that 
aims to test the waters for particular interventions; scale up promising interventions 
through leverage points (in this case, lead firms); and withdraw project support. This 
“demonstrate – scale up – exit” approach is meant to ensure appropriate interventions are 
promoted, cost-effective scale is achieved, and post-project sustainability succeeds. This 
approach also tends to result in a limited scale of results during the “demonstration” 
phase of introducing and testing new interventions, which then increase exponentially 
during the “scale up” phase. 
3
 Based on 2008 survey data from the Philippines National Statistical Coordination Board. 
14 
AFE’s limited results at this stage (roughly the mid-point of the project period) are a 
cause for concern. The team did not hear enough about AFE’s scale-up or replication 
strategy to understand how AFE expects results to ramp up over the next year, and what 
scale of results they now consider to be achievable. While lead firms are a natural 
leverage point in any market system, others do exist and in some contexts may provide 
better opportunities to disseminate, scale up, or replicate important interventions. These 
other leverage points stem from socio-cultural factors (such as status, norms, and 
behaviors) rather than the structure of the value chain. It is not clear whether AFE has 
considered if these other leverage points have greater potential than lead firms or if they 
are complementary. 
Profile of Participating Households 
While many of the weavers who have been trained are poor, a substantial proportion is 
not. Among those in the Lamac sample, 51.0 percent were below the national poverty 
line and in Tabuelan the proportion was 67.6 percent. The two households visited by the 
assessment team in Lamac appeared to be relatively well off, with the houses having 
metal roofs and glass windows, and possessions including television sets and other 
electronic items. In a follow-up discussion, AFE informed the team that these households 
were not representative of typical woven products producers. They had been selected by 
the sub-contractor working with weavers in the village to give a positive impression of 
the village. 
With a more traditional economic strengthening approach, a USAID-funded project could 
specify the profile of training participants, potentially including only the poorest. While 
the downside of a value chain approach is less “efficiency” in targeting, the potential 
advantage is it may lead to more sustainable results. If the total number of participants is 
large enough, a substantial number of low-income participants can still benefit. If the 
number of participants remains relatively small, though, the cost per “vulnerable” 
beneficiary will be quite high. 
Questionable Impact on Household Income 
The DCOF team together with members of the STRIVE Philippines team visited Lamac 
Barangay (population approximately 5,600) in the Pinamungahan Municipality on 
October 13. The firm 33 Point 3 has trained around 60 weavers in the community in two 
rounds of training on the hapao weaving method. Thirty of the weavers were selling 
baskets to 33 Point 3 at the time of the team’s visit. No frame is used in hapao, and the 
method is rather labor-intensive. One of the new weavers interviewed said that she 
spends about six hours per day weaving. The sub-contractor for 33 Point 3 in the 
community said that currently, weavers in Lamac are producing four or five small baskets 
per week, from which they earn about 35 pesos (about $0.81) per day. As their skills 
improve, their income should increase. The new weavers with whom the team spoke said 
15 
they anticipated that they might eventually be able to produce six or seven baskets per 
week, which would theoretically equal 210-245 pesos ($4.88-5.70) per week. 
Such small amounts may turn out to be quite meaningful for very poor households. As 
supplementary income, this could be significant, as it is roughly equivalent to a family’s 
cost for rice. Weaving families may have multiple income streams (including 
remittances), and small yet regular income increases could allow them to allocate their 
resources in different ways or spend their money on different things. The team’s biggest 
concern is that the project staff could not articulate any operating hypothesis or 
expectation for how this small increase in income makes a difference for participating 
households. 
The situation appeared better among weavers producing baskets woven on metal frames 
for All Homes. The team’s discussion with weavers in Cabungahan Barangay, Danao, 
suggested that they were earning at a higher level than the weavers for 33 Point 3. One 
weaver said that she earned about 100 pesos ($2.33) per day and that her son was also 
weaving. She said that basket weaving has helped to put her children through school. 
Consistent with what All Homes told the team, she said that children started helping with 
weaving from age 12. 
Need for Monitoring Effects on Households and Children 
The current project design calls for AFE to monitor only the economic aspects of the 
project. The evaluation process being implemented by IRIS has gathered extensive 
baseline data, both quantitative and qualitative, on children and households. However, the 
only way in which the project seems to be assessing prospects for producer income is 
from information provided by the lead firms. Also, there is no mechanism through which 
AFE is currently monitoring the potential negative effects on children of supported 
economic activities, though qualitative data gathered periodically by IRIS could help flag 
problems. Essentially, AFE’s approach has been to treat households as a “black box” 
with the idea that IRIS will eventually measure changes at that level related to 
participation in seaweed or woven products value chain. AFE’s focus has been solely on 
monitoring economic activities at the levels of lead firms, and through them, households. 
Lead Firms Households 
AFE Monitoring ??? IRIS Evaluation
Interventions Children 
When the assessment team visited the seaweed nursery of Tracks on Jao Island, Bohol, it 
observed a group of children helping a female seaweed farmer split seaweed and tie the 
16 
seedlings to her lines. At least two of the children appeared to be of school age, other 
children were younger. Also, the vice principle of the school on the island told the team 
that some children of school age do not attend because they are helping their families fish 
or grow seaweed. All Homes reported engaging out-of-school youth as young as 12 years 
of age as weavers. These examples suggest the need for STRIVE Philippines to include 
some provision for monitoring the involvement of children in work related to the project, 
either by its own personnel, or through a collaborative arrangement with a child-focused 
NGO. 
Some level of children’s involvement in work that helps support the household is 
acceptable, as long as it is safe and does not result in negative consequences, like 
interference with school. Within acceptable limits, some work by children may improve 
their well-being by helping to increase household income. But, it is critically important 
that the project ensure that its activities do not contribute to harmful child labor. 
The PAC has not been convened since the early in the program’s development; however, 
the program description for STRIVE Philippines indicates that “through the PAC’s 
participation in semi-annual reviews of impact monitoring data, they will help to monitor 
and interpret the impact monitoring data….” Given the questions that the assessment 
team has raised about possible negative effects on children, it may be appropriate to 
involve the PAC in developing an approach to periodic household-level monitoring. It 
might be that the PAC of members could play a direct role in monitoring, perhaps with 
some support from STRIVE Philippines. 
Decision-Making Processes 
Since the beginning of the project there has been a shift of priorities away from 
 seaweed production, 
 the extremely poor and vulnerable seaweed growing communities originally 
targeted, and 
 Mindanao. 
While the project has presented a good economic rationale for its shift from the seaweed 
value chain to woven products, the assessment team is concerned about the 
communication related to this change. 
STRIVE Philippines began with a focus on the seaweed sector, which appealed to DCOF 
since these are some of the poorest communities in the Philippines. The program 
description gave attention to Mindanao, an area of particular concern to USAID. It 
indicated that the project would explore opportunities in the seaweed value chain in other 
parts of the country, as well. The extreme poverty of seaweed farming communities was 
of particular interest to DCOF, since its focus is vulnerable children. However, changing 
economic circumstances began to challenge the viability of the approach described in the 
proposal and program description. As early as the October – December 2008 quarterly 
report, STRIVE indicated that price volatility in the seaweed value chain (a 48 percent 
17 
drop in the price paid for seaweed) had reduced the interest of lead firms in investing in 
production development. The January – March 2009 quarterly reports noted that the 
project was exploring the woven products value chain. Subsequent quarterly reports have 
reflected a gradual shift in the project’s emphasis away from seaweed and toward woven 
products. 
In December 2009, the Academy for Educational Development (AED) sent a note to 
DCOF addressing the project’s geographic focus, indicating that the areas targeted were 
selected based on the vulnerability of the potential participants and the opportunities that 
they may have for economic growth and integration into value chains. The note indicated 
that the project was continuing to work in Mindanao, but recognizing the volatility of 
seaweed prices, indicated that it was exploring opportunities in the woven products value 
chain. The note was sent for information, and did not ask the Agreement Officer’s 
Technical Representative (AOTR) to approve the shifts in geographic and value chain 
emphasis for the project. Because quarterly reports on the project had only rarely 
provided statistical information on participants by value chain and never by geographic 
area, the degree to which the project had shifted away from seaweed and Mindanao was 
not fully evident to DCOF. It was only after the visit that the project provided the 
information in Appendix C, which shows, in terms of participants, the degree of the shift 
toward the woven products value chain, primarily in the Visayas. 
Exploring New Partnerships and Industry Constraints 
Although the time remaining for the project is limited, it may be appropriate for AFE to 
explore additional partnerships, with the aim of increasing project impact by benefiting 
more contract workers and their families, especially disadvantaged children. Industry 
associations that might be helpful in this regard include the Seaweed Industry Association 
of the Philippines (http://www.dticebu.net.ph/03_a_04.html) and the Philippine 
Housewares Industry Association. They may be able to facilitate linkages with additional 
lead firms. These associations may also be able to help identify industry constraints to 
address, and to contribute ideas regarding possible additional STRIVE enterprise 
development interventions that could produce results. Some constraints identified by the 
Philippine Housewares Industry Association can be found at 
http://www.pearl2.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=327&Itemi 
d=92. 
Quarterly Reports 
The bullet point format of quarterly reports does not convey a clear perspective on the 
development of the project. Relevant information has been included, but in the absence 
of a narrative, it is fragmentary, making it difficult for DCOF to interpret the significance 
of the activities described in relation to the project’s aims. A clearer narrative explaining 
project progress in relation to its strategic framework would be helpful. 
18 
 
It would also be helpful for STRIVE Philippines to provide in its quarterly reports 
quantitative information on the number of individuals who have participated in project￾supported activities (such as training); the number who are earning income; the amount 
of income; and the average amount per capita for each of the categories of participants. 
Branding 
The issue of branding arose during the team’s discussion with the mission. USAID’s 
agreement officer for the overall FIELD-Support Leader with Associates award has 
granted a presumptive global exception: 
Presumptive Exception: USAID marking requirements may not apply if they would 
compromise the intrinsic independence or neutrality of a program or materials where 
independence or neutrality is an inherent aspect of the program and materials, such 
as election monitoring or ballots, and voter information literature; political party 
support or public policy advocacy or reform; independent media, such as television 
and radio broadcasts, newspaper articles and editorials; and public service 
announcements or public opinion polls and surveys (22 CFR 226.91(h)(1)). 
Although DCOF fully appreciates the importance of complying with USAID branding 
requirements, we believe that the branding exception for the Philippines is appropriate 
and warranted. One of the primary aims of the project is to increase the quality of value 
chains by improving the commercial relationships between the lead firms and their 
suppliers. In order to facilitate this relationship, it is essential that nothing compromise 
the perceived independence of the lead firms. Placing USAID logos within the lead firms 
could give the impression that the lead firm is subsidized or otherwise influenced by 
USAID. This perception could have a deleterious impact within the value chain itself, 
e.g., impair the ability of the lead firm to negotiate competitive prices for purchased or 
sold goods; act as a disincentive toward repayment of loans received by the suppliers, etc. 
Anything that negatively alters the perceptions and relationships between lead firms and 
suppliers decreases the effectiveness of the value chain and is counterproductive to 
achieving the economic outcomes sought by the project and the benefits to vulnerable 
children. 
Other Matters 
During the team’s debriefing at USAID Philippines, it was agreed that the mission should 
be more regularly informed about project activities and that Teresita Espenilla would be 
the point of contact. Also, the Chief of Party for STRIVE Philippines expressed interest 
in having greater opportunities for exchange and cross-learning with other STRIVE 
projects. 
19 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. AFE should consider the potential offered by leverage points other than lead firms. 
SDC Asia, an organization based in the Philippines, has been particularly effective in this 
area, and we recommend that AFE spend more time consulting them and learning from 
their experience. 
2. AFE should contact the Seaweed Industry Association of the Philippines and the 
Philippine Housewares Industry Association to explore constraints affecting companies 
that might be addressed through the project, as well as to identify additional firms with 
which partnerships might be appropriate. 
3. Quarterly reports should include a narrative overview of project activities and progress 
and statistical tables to facilitate monitoring project development. This could be 
supplemented with the kinds of bulleted information that has been provided. 
4. The project should calculate and report quarterly on the actual number of individuals 
with income resulting from project interventions, their respective amount of income, and 
the geographic areas where they live. The project should also track and report total 
household beneficiaries and the percentage of beneficiaries who are below the national 
poverty line. 
5. When considering possible engagement with a lead firm for a particular new 
intervention, project personnel should assess, and as far as possible quantify, potential 
effects at the household level of involvement with a proposed initiative. This might 
include limited rapid household sampling in new areas proposed by lead firms to ensure 
that there is good potential for a substantial number of vulnerable children to benefit. 
6. The project should establish a mechanism consistent with the value chain approach of 
anticipating, and then monitoring the effects of supported activities on households and 
children. But where this would conflict with the project’s fundamental economic role, an 
alternative mechanism should be arranged, such as through an NGO. Assessment and 
monitoring should include some direct information gathering at the household level, as 
well as consultation with key informants at the community level, e.g., community 
leaders, school principals. STRIVE Philippines should confer with the PAC or at least 
some of its members, to identify a workable approach to monitoring project effects on 
participating households, in particular on their children, with a view toward mitigating 
possible negative impacts of the project (e.g., school absences or potentially hazardous 
work). 
7. Based on monitoring information, AFE should report on how it has adjusted program 
interventions to maximize positive effects and minimize negative ones. 
8. The chief of party for the project should attend COP meetings at the mission, share 
quarterly reports with Teresita Espenilla, and keep her informed of major developments 
with the project. 
20 
9. STRIVE should explore increasing opportunities for exchange and cross-learning 
among the field projects it manages. 
21 
 
APPENDIX A: SCOPE OF WORK 
October 2010 Assessment of the STRIVE Project in the Philippines 
Country Implementing Concept Funding Level & Status & Approvals 
& Project Organization Timeline Summary 
Name 
STRIVE Action for Value chain development as $2,800,000 Implementation Phase -
Philippines Enterprise (AFE) a means of poverty (approx. design and Concept approved Mar 08 
alleviation: Low income implement) Field design during Apr 08 
communities; Measuring Full proposal approved 
effects on healthcare, 3 ½ years: July 08 
education spending and (Jul 08 – Dec 11) Officially started Aug 08 
aspiration, child time use. 
Background 
STRIVE Philippines aims to promote the well-being of children by increasing household 
income through value chain development. The STRIVE Philippines Project interventions 
center on market-based solutions in targeted value chains that contribute to the economic 
strengthening of households in poor areas of the Philippines. These interventions include, 
but are not limited to: 
	 Encouraging lead firms to invest in the upgrading of their supply chain of MSME 
producers (provision of training, inputs, quality management, new product 
designs, etc). 
	 Expanding and strengthening market linkages. 
	 Improving information flow among actors and between levels of the value chain. 
	 Supporting research and pilot activities to identify innovative, sustainable 
solutions to current obstacles to high-quality production. 
By facilitating these activities with existing actors in targeted value chains, the project 
aims to achieve sustainable improvements in production, leading to increases in 
household income. STRIVE Philippines conferred with a Program Advisory Committee 
(PAC) comprised of leading child-focused organizations in the Philippines to solicit input 
for the evaluation of the program’s causal model of increased household incomes and its 
contribution to reduced vulnerability among children and youth in targeted communities. 
While the project’s initial focus was on the seaweed value chain, greater focus is now on 
the woven products value chain, where STRIVE Philippines has been engaged with three 
lead firms: All Homes Designs Inc. (AH), 33 Point 3 Exports Inc. (33.3), and Bohol 
Beads & Fiber (BB&F). Activities have included supporting these firms to build the 
capacity and develop the skills of new and existing weavers in Cebu and Bohol to meet 
market demands and increasing the supply of raw materials from Central and Western 
Visayas and northeastern Mindanao. 
In the seaweed value chain STRIVE Philippines has engaged with the lead firms to 
develop seaweed nurseries. These include NAMSU Marketing (which established a 
nursery near Zamboanga Sibugay) and Tracks Seaweed Trading in northern Bohol 
Province. 
22 
 
Process and Timing 
Prior to departure from the United States, the DCOF team will review pertinent reports, 
including project progress reports, and any other documents or materials considered 
relevant to the assessment. Team members based in the Washington area will meet with 
Margie Brand of Academy for Educational Development (director of the STRIVE 
Program), Frank Lusby of Action for Enterprise, and Diana Rutherford of IRIS for a 
briefing and discussion on the STRIVE Philippines project and M&E activities, and 
plans. 
Activities in the Philippines will be carried out October 10 -16, with the possibility of the 
addition of a few days if visiting project sites in Mindanao proves possible. 
In Cebu, the team will meet with the local M&E firm, Development Consulting Group 
(DCG), with which AFE contracted for the collection of baseline household data to 
discuss with DCG its observations concerning the process of collection of baseline data 
and the implications for end of project data gathering and analysis (which will be 
coordinated with IRIS). 
Overall Objective 
The assessment will enable the DCOF team and STRIVE Philippines personnel to jointly 
review and critique the value chain activities of STRIVE Philippines and related M&E 
activities and plans. This will include an exploration of the project’s approaches, 
interventions, and methods. 
Specific Objectives 
Overall 
Meet with IRIS to discuss its observations concerning the process of collection of 
baseline data, any provisional findings from surveys/analysis, and the implications for 
end of project data gathering and analysis. (IRIS is coordinating the evaluation activities 
outside of AFE’s monitoring activities, designing the evaluation approach, and is 
conducting all the analyses activities, with the local M&E firm, DCG, only carrying out 
the data collection activities.) 
Conduct an in-briefing with STRIVE Philippines staff to review their causal model and 
approaches employed. 
Debrief with STRIVE Philippines and USAID/Philippines on observations and 
information gathered from the visits to project sites. 
Woven Products 
Meet with woven products lead firms (AH, 33.3 and BB&F) to gain their perspectives on 
the market/competition for woven products, their experience to date with STRIVE, and 
their views on their relationships with suppliers. Specific activities/issues to review 
include: 
 Capacity building related to training of new and existing producers, 
23 
 
 
 Training of trainers, 
 Development of training curricula and materials, and 
 Improving access to raw materials. 
 Quality management and team building in their supply chains 
Meet with a group of producers (beneficiary suppliers) associated with each of the lead 
firms to obtain their perspectives on their economic circumstances, their view of the 
market for woven products, their relationships with sales agents and lead firms, and 
issues affecting their children. 
Seaweed 
Meet with Tracks Seaweed Trading (due to logistical and safety concerns, travel to 
NAMSU Marketing and Zamboanga City will not be possible during this trip) and visit 
the area where seaweed seedlings are being produced and distributed to farmers to gather 
information on the approaches and methods being used and anticipated outcomes. 
Meet with a group of seaweed farmers (in northern Bohol) who have obtained seedlings 
from Tracks to obtain their perspectives on their economic circumstances, their view of 
the market for seaweed, their relationships with Tracks Seaweed Trading, and issues 
affecting their children. 
The following are key monitoring indicators which provide key points of reference for 
the DCOF team to discuss with STRIVE Philippines and the lead firms with which it has 
been working. 
1.0 Producer Sales 
2.0 Number of Producers 
3.0 Access to Inputs for Producers 
4.0 
Sustainability of Market Access for 
Producers 
Report 
Within two weeks of the completion of the visit, the team will prepare a draft report on 
the visit with recommendations for discussion with the key actors in the design and 
implementation of STRIVE Philippines. 
Team Members 
The team will be led by Lloyd Feinberg, CTO of the STRIVE Program and Manager of 
USAID’s Displaced Children and Orphans Fund in the Office of Democracy and 
Governance, which has provided funding for STRIVE. It will also include Jason Wolfe 
Enterprise Development Advisor for Poverty Reduction/Microeconomic Development 
and John Williamson, Senior Technical Advisor, DCOF. 
24 
APPENDIX B: Itinerary for Field Visit, STRIVE Philippines, October 10-15, 2010 
DATE ACTIVITIES LOGISTICS 
(Oct 11) 
Monday 
am  arrival in Tagbilaran, Bohol from Manila 
 travel to Talibon, Bohol 
 meeting with seaweed seedling lead firm (Tracks) 
 possible flight from Manila Philippine Airlines PR#175 
(arriving Tagbilaran @ 10am) 
 private hired van from Tagbilaran to Talibon, Bohol 
(two hour road trip) 
pm  site visit of TRACKS seaweed seedling production and distribution platform 
on Jao Island, Bohol 
 site visit with seaweed farmers and communities on Jao Island, Bgy. Busilian 
 return travel from Talibon to Tubigon, Bohol 
 travel to/from Jao Island from Talibon port via local 
boat (approx. 20 min. boat trip each way) 
 private hired van from Talibon to Tubigon, Bohol (one 
hour road trip) 
 overnight in Tubigon (Monina Inn) 
(Oct 12) 
Tuesday 
am  orientation and overview of STRIVE Philippines activities 
 meeting with woven products lead firm in Inabanga, Bohol (Bohol Beads & 
Fiber - BB&F) 
 site visit to BB&F loom weaving production and trade (Bgy. Ilaya, Inabanga) 
 private hired van from Tubigon to Inabanga, Bohol (30 
min. road trip) 
 private hired van for drive to/from Bgy. Ilaya, Bohol 
(approx. 30-45 min road trip each way) 
pm  site visit with loom weavers and communities in Bgy. Ilaya, Inabanga 
 return travel to Cebu 
 travel from Tubigon, Bohol to Cebu City via fast craft 
@ approx. 2 pm (one hour boat trip) 
 overnight in Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu 
(Oct 13) 
Wednesday 
am  travel to 33 Point 3 new weaving site in western Cebu 
 site visit with hapao weavers and communities in Bgy. Lamac, Pinamungajan 
 return travel to Cebu City 
 private hired van from Cebu city to 33 Point 3 weaving 
sites in Bgy. Lamac, Pinamungajan, Cebu (approx. two 
hour road trip each way) 
pm  meeting with woven products lead firm in Cebu (33 Point 3 Exports)  overnight in Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu 
(Oct 14) 
Thursday 
am  meeting with woven products lead firm in Cebu (AH Designs Inc.) 
 de-briefing with USAID Philippines staff 
 private hired van for travel from Cebu city to AH 
Designs sites in Cebu (approx. hour road trip each way) 
pm  meeting with possible new lead firm in Cebu (Ecoconut Tours) 
 tour of possible new initiatives in Cebu (Olango Island) 
 Note: return travel of USAID Philippines staff to Manila 
 private boat hire for travel to/from Olango Island 
 overnight in Marco Polo Plaza Hotel, Cebu 
(Oct 15) am  final de-briefing with DCOF & MDO team  STRIVE Philippines office, Cebu City 
Friday pm  final debriefing at USAID Phillippines  return travel of DCOF & MDO team to Manila 
25 
vernight Monina Inn, Tubigon 
Locations of Field Visits 
Mon am, Oct 11: 
-- arrival from Manila 
Mon pm, Oct 11: 
-- site visit to Jao Island (seaweed) 
Mon pm, Oct 11: 
-- o 
Tue am-pm, Oct 12: 
-- site visit Inabanga, Bohol (woven products) 
Tue pm, Oct 12: 
-- travel to Cebu 
from Tubigon 
Wed am, Oct 13: 
-- site visit to Lamac, Pinamunajan 
(weavers) 
Wed pm Oct 13 & Thu am, Oct 14: 
-- STRIVE Philippines overview 
-- misc. mtgs. with project partners 
Fri am, Oct 15: 
-- possible site visit to Danao (weavers) 
Fri pm, Oct 15: 
-- final de-briefing 
-- departure to Manila 
Thu pm, Oct 14: 
-- site visit to Olango Island (new initiatives) 
26 
   
      
   
               
                                   
                             
                           
APPENDIX C: Tables with Summary Data for STRIVE Philippines 
The information in the following tables was provided by AFE. The original tables provided also included 
estimated numbers of additional persons trained informally by the beneficiaries who participated in formal 
training sessions organized by lead firms with the support of the project. These estimates have not been 
included. All figures are as of October 21, 2010. 
Project Participants
Those Trained
by Value Chain Male Female Total
Seaweed
(receiving
seedlings) 43 3 46
Woven
products 504 831 1,335
Total 547 834 1,381
27 
AFE SUPPORT BY LEAD FIRM (LF) ‐ SEAWEED/CARRAGEENAN VALUE CHAIN (as of October 21,
2010)
Lead
Firm
# of
CSAs
# of
Sites Locations
# of seedlings recipients # of farmers/stockers trained Total Number of Beneficiaries
M F Total M F Total M F Total
Seaweed
NAMSU 1 1 Kabog, Tumitus,
Zamboanga City 26
‐
26 ‐ ‐ ‐ 26
‐
26
TRACKS 2 1 Busalian,
Talibon, Bohol 11 2 13 6 1 7 17 3 20
Total 3 2 37 2 39 6 1 7 43 3 46
# of CSAs = number of cost sharing agreements between AFE and lead firms
# of Sites = the number of areas where lead firm activities supported by AFE were conducted (e.g., seaweed
nurseries)
# of farmers trained = participants during the lead firm training/activities
28 
AFE SUPPORT BY LEAD FIRM (LF) ‐ WOVEN PRODUCTS VALUE CHAIN as of October 21, 2010
Lead Firm # of CSAs # of Sites Locations
# of producers trained # of producer / leaders trained Total Trained to Date
M F Total M F Total M F Total
All Homes 7 8 Bgy. Cantabaco, Toledo City, Cebu
Bgy. Kanluhangon, Tabuelan, City
Bgy. Pansoy, Sogod, Cebu
Poblacion, Borbon, Cebu
Danao, Cebu
San Carlos City, Negros Occidental
Calatrava, Negros Occidental
Bgy Sta Ana, Tubay, Agusan del
Norte
117 229 346 37 25 62 154 254 408
BB&F 7 3 Bgys. Ilaya, Cawayan, &
Poblacion, Inabanga, Bohol 14 137 151 2 8 10 16 145 161
33.3 7 5 Bgy. Lamac, Pinamungahan, Cebu
Aloguinsan, Cebu
Mandaue City, Cebu
Lapu‐Lapu City, Bohol
Tagbilaran City, Bohol
Carmen, Bohol
Balilihan, Bohol
Loon, Bohol
Antequera, Bohol
Bgys. Patin‐ay & Talakugon,
Prosperidad, Agusan del Norte
96 297 393 238 135 373 334 432 766
Total 21 16 227 663 890 277 168 445 504 831 1,335
# of producers trained = participants during the lead firm training/activities supported by AFE
29 
AFE SUPPORT BY LEAD FIRM‐WOVEN SECTOR—All Homes
as of October 21, 2010
# of CSAs Description of Activities Location
# of producers
trained
# of producer/
leaders trained
TOTAL TRAINED
TO DATE
M F Total M F Total M F Total
1
Quality Assurance
Seminar
AH factory,
Tabok,
Mandaue
City
‐
‐ ‐ 19 14 33 19 14 33
2
Training of Trainers for
New Weavers
USC Retreat
House,
Talamban,
Cebu City
‐
‐ ‐ 15 8 23 15 8 23
Development of
Production Capacity
through training of new
weavers
Brgy.
Argawanon,
San Remegio,
Cebu 18 1 19 ‐ ‐ ‐ 18 1 19
Brgy.
Cabungahan,
Danao city,
Cebu 14 10 24 ‐ 14 10 24
Brgy. Pansuy,
Sogod, Cebu 5 24 29 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5 24 29
Brgy.
Kanluhangon,
Tabuelan,
Cebu 28 11 39 ‐ ‐ ‐ 28 11 39
Brgy.
Poblacion,
Borbon, Cebu 18 37 55 ‐ 18 37 55
Raw
Material
Producers
Impacted
Producers
trained by
trained
producers Notes
10 10
12 12
15 15
20 20
28 28
30 
Brgy.
Cantabaco,
Toledo City,
Cebu 7 28 35 ‐ 7 28 35
3
Expansion of Raw
Material Supply
(lampakanay) thru Site
Visit
Tubay,
Agusan del
Norte
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
4
Expansion of Raw
Material Supply
(lampakanay) thru
training in Semi‐
Processing (twisting)
Brgy. Sta.
Ana, Tubay,
Agusan del
Norte
24 73 97 ‐ 24 73 97
5
Upgrading of Weaving
Production
& Monitoring
to Improve Efficiency of
Purchases from
Suppliers
USC Retreat
House,
Talamban,
Cebu City
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
6
Training of Trainers for
Pandan Braiders
AFE
conference
room,
Mandaue
City
‐
‐ ‐ 3 3 6 3 3 6
Pandan Braiding Seminar San Carlos
City, Negros
Occidental 3 22 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 22 25
Calatrava,
Negros
Occidental
‐
23 23 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 23 23
Total 117 229 346 37 25 62 154 254 408
18 18
101 101
31 
AFE SUPPORT BY LEAD FIRM‐
WOVEN SECTOR
as of October 21, 2010
# of
CSAs Description of Activities Location
# of producers trained # of producer / leaders trained TOTAL TRAINED TO DATE
M F Total M F Total M F Total
1 Management Training
and Institutional
Upgrading
Tagbilaran City,
Bohol
‐
‐ ‐
2 Improving Productivity
through Upgrading
Training of Loom
Weavers
Barangay Ilaya
3 36 39 2 8 10 5 44 49
Expanding Production
through of New Loom
Weavers Training
Inabanga *
5 15 20
‐
5 15 20
3 Expanding Market
Access through
Curriculum
Development and
Demonstrations for
newly created designs
Inabanga *
‐
1 5 6 1 5 6
4 Expanding Market
Access through Skills
Upgrading Training for
newly created designs
Ilaya ** 1 30 31
‐
1 30 31
Cawayan ** 3 23 26
‐
3 23 26
Inabanga ** 2 33 35
‐
2 33 35
5 Expanding Market
Access through BB&F
Website Development
Inabanga
‐ ‐ ‐
‐
6 Expanding Market Inabanga 1 5 6 1 5 6
32 
Access through
Curriculum
Development and
Demonstrations for
newly created designs
‐ ‐ ‐
‐
7 Expanding Market
Access through Skills
Upgrading Training for
newly created designs
Ilaya
‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Cawayan
‐ ‐ ‐
‐ Inabanga
‐
‐
‐ ‐
‐
Total 14 137 151 2 8 22 18 155 173
* same participants as in CSA # 3 & 7 (same leaders are trained for the curriculum development)
** same participants as in CSA # 7
33 
AFE SUPPORT BY LEAD FIRM‐WOVEN
SECTOR
as of October 21, 2010
# of
CSAs Description of Activities Location
# of producers
trained
# of producer/
leaders trained
TOTAL NUMBER
TRAINED TO DATE
M F Total M F Total M F Total
1 QA Seminar Mandaue City,
Cebu 61 9 70 61 9 70
Tagbilaran City,
Bohol  ‐ 142 76 218 142 76 218
2
Development and expansion of
production capacity through training of
new weavers
Lamac 1 ‐ Batch
1 30 30  ‐ ‐ 30 30
Lamac 2 ‐ Batch
2 5 25 30 7 7 5 32 37
3
Development and Expansion of
Production Capacity Through Upgrading
Training of Existing Weavers on New
Weaving Design
Aloguinsan
7 19 26  ‐ 7 19 26
4 Development and expansion of
production capacity through training of
new weavers (new product
development & existing item
Patin‐ay,
Prosperidad
2 31 33  ‐ 2 31 33
5
Development and expansion of
production capacity through training of
new weavers (new product
development & existing item)
Carmen, Bohol
30 29 59  ‐ 30 29 59
6
Development and expansion of
production capacity through training of
new weavers
Lapu ‐ lapu City
7 14 21  ‐ 7 14 21
34 
7 Suppliers Team Building and Quality
Assurance Seminars
Tagbilaran City,
Bohol  ‐ 35 43 78 35 43 78
Balilihan, Bohol
1 39 40  ‐ 1 39 40
Loon, Bohol
37 39 76 37 39 76
Antequera,
Bohol 7 71 78  ‐ 7 71 78
Total
96 297 393 238 135 373 334 432 766
Suppliers Team Building and Quality Assurance
Seminars
35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX D: Evaluation Timing and Process 
Preparation December 2009 – January 2010 
 Field Researchers Manual 
 Pre-testing of questionnaire 
 Pre-Test Report 
 Translate questionnaire 
 Draft & Finalize financial diary 
 Draft & Finalize training materials for diaries 
Data Collection Point No. 1 January – April 2010 
 Demonstrating diaries to households 
 Data collection 
 Distribution of diaries 
 Data sets 
 Completed questionnaires 
 Field Report (Baseline) 
Data Collection Point No. 2 September - October 2010 
 Development of qualitative data collection tools 
 Data & diary collection 
 Distribution of diaries 
 Completed financial diaries 
 Financial data sets 
 Financial Report 1 
 Preliminary Case Study Report 1 
Data Collection Point No. 3 & Financial Diary Collection Point No. 3 February-March 2011 
 Development of qualitative data collection tools 
 Data & diary collection 
 Distribution of diaries 
 Completed financial diaries 
 Financial data sets 
 Financial Report 3 
 Preliminary Case Study Report 2 
Financial Diary Collection Point No. 4 May 2011 
 Diary collection 
 Distribution of diaries 
 Completed financial diaries 
 Financial data sets 
 Financial Report 4 
Data Collection Point No. 4 & Financial Diary Collection Point No. 5 September 2011 
36 
 
 
 
 
 
 Development of qualitative data collection tools 
 Data & diary collection 
 Data sets 
 Completed questionnaires 
 Financial data sets 
 Completed financial diaries 
 Field Report (Endline) 
 Financial Report 5 
 Final Case Study Report 
Community Debriefing November 2011 
 Community debriefing session plan 
 Community debriefing meetings 
 Process Evaluation 
37 
 
APPENDIX E: Selected Data from the First Wave of Quantitative Data Collection 
The information below is from “STRIVE Philippines: Initial Evaluation Research” (Diana 
Rutherford, October 2010). 
Seaweed Farmer Households 
The data in the following tables was collected in January 2010. 
Demographics and Household Information on Seaweed Farmers in Barangay Tumitus 
that Had Received Seedlings from NAMSU 
Seaweed 
Recipients’ 
Location 
(n=12) 
Average 
Household 
Size 
(n=81) 
Average 
Children 18 
years & 
below in 
Household 
(n=45) 
Average 
Farmer’s 
Education 
Attainment 
Reported 
Average 
Household 
Income in 
2009 (pesos) 
Reported 
Average 
Income From 
Seaweed in 
2009 (pesos) 
(% of total 
income) 
Kabug 1 = 6 5.33 
(32) 
2.17 
(13) 
Between some 
and completed 
high school 
29,109 26,500 
(91%) 
Kabug 2 = 5 7.60 
(38) 
4.60 
(23) 
Some high 
school 
27,250 21,842 
(80%) 
Duhul Alip = 1 11.00 
(11) 
9.00 
(9) 
Some high 
school 
55,000 45,000 
(82%) 
Demographics and Household Information on Seaweed Farmers in Barangay Tumitus 
Scheduled to Receive Seedlings from NAMSU 
Seaweed 
Recipients’ 
Location (n=15) 
Average 
Household 
Size 
(n=78) 
Average 
Children 18 
years & below 
in Household 
(n=43) 
Average 
Farmer’s 
Education 
Attainment 
Reported 
Average 
Household 
Income in 2009 
(pesos) 
Reported Average 
Income From 
Seaweed in 2009 
(pesos) (% of total 
income) 
Kabug 1 = 11 5.18 2.91 Between some 56,982 47,368 
(57) (32) and completed 
high school 
(83%) 
Kabug 2 = 2 3.00 
(6) 
0.50 
(1) 
Completed high 
school 
23,333 23,333 
(100%) 
Duhul Ahir = 2 7.50 
(15) 
5.00 
(10) 
Some high 
school 
63,600 48,000 
(76%) 
38 
 
 
 
 
81.1 percent of these 27 households fall below the national poverty line. 
Of the 27 households, 23 have children. 
Seaweed Farmers’ Children by Age Group 
Location 0-7 years old 8-11 years old 12-15 years old 16-18 years old 
Kabug 1 22 9 8 6 
Kabug 2 11 6 2 5 
Duhul Alip 6 5 3 5 
Total 39 20 13 16 
Less than half (40.2 percent) of the children of the seaweed farmers paneled in Tumitus are 
enrolled in school. There is no school on any of the three islands and children who do attend 
school travel about 30 minutes by boat to do so. Cost was the most frequently identified reason 
for children not being enrolled in school. 
Twenty percent of the children were reported to have been ill and unable to engage in normal 
activities for more than three consecutive days during the previous six months. 
Regarding food security, 81.8 percent of the families with children reported that they normally 
eat three meals per day, and another 6.8 percent reported having four meals per day. Four 
households reported that at least one child had missed a meal in the previous week due to a lack 
of money or food. 
Weaver Households 
A total of 33 participants in the weaving training were included in the research panel in Lamac 
and 20 households were included from Tabuelan. The weaver households paneled are relatively 
better off than the seaweed farming households. Among those in Lamac 51.0 percent were below 
the national poverty line and in Tabuelan the figure was 67.6 percent. As this is baseline 
information among newly trained weavers, their income is from sources other than weaving. 
The age profile of the children in the weavers households is presented in the table below. 
Weavers’ Children by Age Group 
Location 0-7 years old 8-11 years old 12-15 years old 16-18 years old 
Lamac 36 25 20 7 
Tabuelan 21 14 12 7 
Total 57 39 32 14 
39 
Two-thirds of the the school-aged children are enrolled in school and none of them were reported 
to have missed school the four weeks prior to the interview. 
The children of the newly trained weavers were reported to be relatively healthy. In the last six 
months only three children in Lamac (3.4 percent of the total) and two children in Tabuelan were 
reported to have been ill for three or more days. In all but one of these cases the families sought treatment, 
and the illness not treated was not serious. 
Regarding access to nutrion, all of the children in Tabuelan and 97.7 percent of those in Lamac 
were reported to have three mals per day, and none were reported to have missed a meal in the 
week preceding the interview. 
40 
 
 
 
1
 Penelope Campbell et al., Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 5: 1, April 2010, pp. 12-32. 2
 Priscilla Atwani Akwara, et al, AIDS Care, Vol. 22, No. 9, September 2010, pp. 1066-1085.
 3
 Town Hall Meeting: Economic Strengthening of Household and Community Safety Nets to Mitigate the Impacts of
 
AIDS, Main Report, Jill Donahue, 2000. A Guide for Agencies Planning and Developing Economic Strengthening 
Interventions for Households and Communities Caring for Orphans and Vulnerable Children, Jim Dempsey,
 
USAID/DCOF, 2003. Economic Strengthening to Improve the Well-Being of Orphans and Vulnerable Children,
 
Workshop Report June 14-16, 2004 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, USAID Bureau for Africa 
4
 “Economic Strengthening for Vulnerable Children: Principles of Program Design and Technical Recommendations 
for Effective Field Interventions, FILED Support LWA and Save the Children for USAID, February 2008. 
41 
U.S. Agency for International Development
 
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
 
Washington, DC 20523
 
Tel: (202) 789-1500
 
Fax: (202) 789-1601
 
www.usaid.gov