Final Performance Evaluation Report of 
Two Democracy and Governance Projects 
Submitted by: Anabella Bruch 
Raúl Fajardo 
Maria Augusta Rodrigues 
November 2012 
This evaluation is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily 
reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government
Table of Contents
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ........................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i
A. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Our Charge – A Final Performance Evaluation of Two DG Projects ...................................................... 1
Evaluation Scope and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 2
B. Project Descriptions .............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP) – FHI360/AED/MSI ......................................................... 4
a. Program Background, Development and Contracting Vehicle ..................................................... 4 
b. Program objectives, strategy and activities .................................................................................. 5 
2. The Human and Institutional Capacity Development Program (HICD) – World Learning ............. 8
a. Program Background, Development and Contracting Vehicle ..................................................... 8 
b. Program objectives, strategy and activities .................................................................................. 8 
C. Civil Society in Nicaragua- Key Findings .......................................................................................... 10
Civil Society - 1970-2012 ..................................................................................................................... 10 
Civil society: new lenses for grouping CSOs ........................................................................................ 11 
Current Challenges and Threats for CSOs in Nicaragua ...................................................................... 12 
Civil society needs in this context ....................................................................................................... 16 
Strategies for the future ..................................................................................................................... 17 
D. Key Project Findings ........................................................................................................................... 17
Responsiveness and Relevance of Projects ........................................................................................ 17 
Achieving Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 18 
Looking at the future: changes and/or improvements in project design ........................................... 19 
Specifically ISP Findings ....................................................................................................................... 21
Specifically HICD Findings ................................................................................................................... 26
Strengths and Weaknesses of the HICD project ................................................................................. 30 
E. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................... 31
Civil Society – Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 31 
Responsiveness and Relevance of Projects ........................................................................................ 32 
Achieving Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 33 
Looking at the future: changes and/or improvements in project design ........................................... 34 
Conclusions – ISP ................................................................................................................................... 35
Conclusions – HICD ............................................................................................................................... 36
Lessons Learned ..................................................................................................................................... 37
F. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 38
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects 
Annexes 
Annex 1 – Scope of Work 
Annex 2 – Evaluation Design and Methodology, Work plan and Timeframe, Key Question 
Matrix and Design Matrix 
Annex 3 – Data Collection Tools, Guided questions for interviews with CSOs and Survey 
Annex 4 – Consultants Responsibilities and CVs 
Annex 5 – Theory of Change Framework for ISP and HICD projects 
Annex 6 – International Assistance - Nicaragua 
Annex 7 – PMP Targets and Actual Results for ISP Project 
Annex 8 – List of Organizations in Multi-partner Training Program 
Annex 9 – Case Studies 
Annex 10 - Interview and Survey List 
Annex 11 – References 
Lists of Figures and Tables 
Figure 1. Map - Geographic Scope of projects 
Figure 2. Data Collection Process 
Figure 3. ISP Theory of Change 
Figure 4. HICD Theory of Change 
Figure 5. International Assistance to Nicaragua 
Figure 6. International Assistance First Semester 2012 
Figure 7. CSOs in Nicaragua 1980-2012 
Figure 8. Current Environment for Nicaraguan CSOs 
Figure 9. The situation of CSOs is more difficult every day 
Table 1. ISP Program Development 
Table 2. ISP PMP and Actual Results 
Table 3. HICD PMP and Actual Results 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects 
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Acprodmujer Asociación Civil Pro Desarrollo de la Mujer
AED Academy for Educational Development
AJOMA Asociación de Jóvenes de Mateare
AMMCH Women Association/ Movement of Chinandega
AOTR Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative 
ASODEL Association for Survival and Local Development
CAMM Centro de Apoyo a las Misiones
CDC Center for Constitutional Rights
CENIDH Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights
CEPMEN Association of Women Entrepreneurs
CHF Community Housing Foundation
CINCO Communications Research Center
CIVICUS CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
CONPES Economic and Social Planning Council
COP Chief of Party 
CPC Citizen Power Councils –Citizen Participation Committees
CPDH Permanent Commission on Human Rights
CPMEN Permanent Congress of Business Women
CSE Supreme Electoral Council
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party
DG Democracy and Governance
FMN Foundation Movement for Nicaragua
FNN Foundation Nicaragua Nuestra
FOG Fixed Obligation Grants
FONG Foundation for Non Government Organization
FSLN National Liberation Front
FUNDESER Foundation for the Socioeconomic Rural Development 
FUPADE Foundation for Development
HADEMOS Let’s Make Democracy
HICD Human and Institutional Capacity Development
ICNL International Center Nonprofit Law
IDF International Development Framework
IEEPP Institute for Strategic Studies and Public Policies
INGES Research and Social Processes Institute 
INCEJU Nicaraguan Institute and Study Center for Youth 
IPADE Institute for Development and Democracy 
IRI International Republican Institute
ISP Institutional Strengthening Program
MAM Autonomous Women’s Movement
MJN Nicaragüita Youth Movement
MPN Movement for Nicaragua
MSI Management Systems International
NDI National Democratic Institute
NED National Endowment for Democracy
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PROJUSTICIA For Justice Group
RED LOCAL Nicaragua Network for Democracy and Local Development 
USAID United States Agency for International Development
Executive Summary 
The objective of this evaluation was to perform the final performance evaluations of two Democracy 
and Governance Office Projects: 
Project Name The Institutional Strengthening Project 
(ISP) 
The Human and Institutional Capacity 
Development Program (HICD) 
Implementing 
organization 
FHI3601
in partnership with MSI World Learning
Amount $5,544,506 with $1 million for grants $4,059,455 (very limited grant funds)
Life of project 3 years – from June 6, 2008 to August 
30, 2011 
2 years - from April 1, 2010 to April 6, 
2012 
Project objective To support the strengthening of the 
organizational capacity, governance 
structure, operational efficiency, and 
strategic vision of 30 civil society 
organizations (CSOs) in Nicaragua 
To address three core factors that 
greatly impact the sector: capacity and 
performance; environment; and 
sustainability 
In addition, the evaluation was to: “provide USAID with information and analysis to help make 
management decisions in a changing political environment and whether, when, and how to continue 
future support to Nicaraguan civil society organizations”2
. The following were the key evaluation 
questions: 
1. What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? Can it be categorized into subgroups? If 
so, what are the typical organizations in each category? To what extent are or did the two 
activities address the needs of CSOs? 
2. What are the views of local civil society about whether these two activities were relevant to 
them? To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and 
results? Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future civil society 
assistance? 
3. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to 
achieve overall strategic objectives? 
4. How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these programs interact with the broader 
political and governmental environment? And how were they affected by it? 
5. Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program (or programs) to the 
activities being evaluated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? How can 
they be improved? 
6. How has reduction or withdrawal of donor assistance impacted civil society? 
Gender-related questions: 
7. How did the different roles and status of women and men within the community, political 
sphere, workplace, and household (for example, roles in decision-making and different access to 
and control over resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
 
1
 The original implementer was AED, before it was bought by FHI360 
2
 RFQ 524-12-013, page 6 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page ii 
8. How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men differently? 
The evaluation took place between July 27th and November 30th 2012 and covered the implementation 
timeframe for both projects, from June 6, 2008 to April 6, 2012. 
Evaluation design included four phases: evaluation planning, design and methodology, data collection 
and analysis, and final report writing. The evaluation team was comprised of Anabella Bruch, US 
Evaluation and Civil Society Expert, Raul Fajardo, Local Evaluation Expert, and Maria Augusta Rodrigues, 
assistant to the Local Expert. The team has extensive evaluation and civil society sector expertise3
. 
USAID’s democracy portfolio has played a supportive role in the strengthening of Nicaragua’s 
democratic institutions since its return to democracy. Both ISP and HICD projects contributed to this 
effort and did so in an increasingly difficult context due to the drastic weakening of institutions of 
democratic governance, an ever increasing centralization of power, and diminishing spaces for 
independent civil society participation. With the retreat of other international donors, this role is 
increasingly important to Nicaraguan CSOs involved in advocacy, watchdog and transparency activities. 
Civil society in Nicaragua. Over the past four decades, CSOs in Nicaragua have acquired skills and 
capacity that has increased their credibility in the public eye. CSOs have recently played important roles 
in the political environment as they organize to defend democratic institutions, promote dialogue 
among differing views, and advocate for inclusiveness. 
With the election of Daniel Ortega in 2007, CSOs have faced 
new challenges in a progressively more hostile environment. 
The Civil Society Index4
 supported a study in Nicaragua 
implemented by La Red Nicaraguense por la Democracia y el 
Desarrollo Local found that forty percent of a sample of 141 
participating in the study reported to have suffered some kind 
of an illegal restriction imposed by the central government, 
and 30% reported to have suffered illegal restriction imposed 
by a local level government. The study reports the lack of self￾financing and the lack of external funds as one of the main 
weaknesses of Nicaraguan civil society. Interviews and 
discussions with civil society organizations, key informants and international cooperation 
representatives confirmed the study’s findings and also provided a complex and alarming picture of the 
current state of civil society in Nicaragua. 
Civil society leaders described a totally unfavorable environment, one that makes it difficult to 
achieve their organization’s objectives and fulfill their roles in society. This environment coupled with 
the withdrawal of many international donors makes the situation especially difficult. CSOs reported that 
they have had to let go of qualified staff, limit their projects and activities, withdraw from geographic 
areas where they used to work, and continue doing some of their activities with the reduced budgets 
they have left (in the case of one CSO, their budget was reduced by 90%)5
. CSOs also described a 
changed environment where they are no longer able to obtain basic information for their research, 
 
3
 CVs for both Evaluators can be found in Annex 4. 
4 CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation - Civil Society Index Nicaragua. Preliminary Results. Red 
Nicaragüense para la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local. Taller Nacional Managua; Mayo 20; 2010. 
5
 For example, MPN, CPDH, HADEMOS, and Coordinadora Civil are experiencing near-crisis level funding 
shortfalls. 
“CSOs have a weakness: they have not 
been able to make visible their contribution 
to state-building. Civil society has put 
important issues on the national agenda, 
including: climate change, violence against 
women, tolerance for sexual diversity, and 
the citizen participation law. Civil society 
has provided many qualitative 
contributions to the public discourse” 
CSO Leader
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page iii 
where they have lost the capacity to dialogue with the public sector, and where local activities require 
the approval of the CPCs, making their work increasingly difficult. 
Key Project Findings. CSOs affirmed that both projects responded to their expectations and were 
relevant to their needs. Interviews especially highlighted the value of the study tours, grants, and 
individualized coaching and technical assistance provided by both projects. The majority of CSO leaders 
considered institutional strengthening to be important. In both the interviews and surveys, CSOs noted 
that institutional strengthening should be accompanied by resources that would allow them to make 
use of the newly acquired capacities. 
Financial sustainability is the top priority for most of the CSOs. Organizations report developing new 
strategies for their survival including fee- for-service6
, approaching the private sector, identifying new 
potential donors and forming new alliances. Sustainability strategies were considered essential by many. 
CSOs believed that alliances and networks can create synergies to defend CSOs against government 
attacks; facilitate resource development; and improve the quality of their work. 
Regarding project effectiveness, all CSOs interviewed during the evaluation declared that the ISP and 
HICD projects generated changes within their organizations. CSOs report improved cohesion, better 
board-staff relations, clearer vision and goals and new strategic plans. Staff and boards have increased 
capacity to lead the organization, as they have aligned their organization’s vision and strategic plans and 
now have better organizational tools to achieve them. They have improved capacity to restructure and 
improve their management practices; develop sustainability plans; establish local and international links 
and partnerships; and promote and improve volunteer management. 
Both projects assisted CSOs to better comply with government legal and administrative requirements
that need approval by government entities. Given the aggressiveness of the government against some 
of the CSOs, these abilities become especially important. Small grants were valued by CSOs for the 
funding they represent and the responsiveness to their needs.
Regarding project design. Organizations contend that institutional strengthening is important but not 
sufficient. CSOs expressed the need for support with implementation of the tools and other results of 
the institutional strengthening activities. There was a wide consensus among respondents that 
institutional strengthening projects need a longer timeframe, with a minimum of three years.
Findings Specifically by Project 
Area ISP HICD
Targets & 
Objectives 
Met or exceeded PMP targets Met or exceeded PMP targets
Methodology Assessment based on IDF tool; 
provided technical assistance, 
coaching, training, small grants and 
two study tours. 
Assessment based on HICD methodology 
which identifies organizational 
performance gaps; provided technical 
assistance, coaching, training, exceptional 
requests to other USAID partners and 
study tours7
. 
Targets 20 Formal CSOs and 10 emerging CSOs 121 total CSOs of which 15 received HICD 
 
6
 For example, AMMCH is now charging a small fee for their services to women, ProJusticia is selling training 
courses, and FNN is offering professional services to the local media in order to broaden its funding sources. 
7
 Small grants were provided to ICNL activities. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page iv 
Area ISP HICD
services and 33 participated in Multi￾partner training activities. 
Key Strengths The development of valuable planning 
and management tools that allowed 
CSOs to identify their mission and to 
pursue it with increased knowledge 
and capacity; the high technical and 
human qualities of the ISP team; good 
communication and a relationship of 
respect with CSOs. 
Flexibility to respond to unexpected needs 
and requests from USAID and its 
implementing partners; the Supportive 
Framework for Civil Society Project 
implemented by ICNL; strengthened CSOs 
institutional capacity in areas such as 
volunteer management, fundraising and 
communications. 
Key Weaknesses The absence of a component that 
would permit CSOs to put into practice 
many of the new skills gained from the 
program; the key personnel did not 
have a continuous presence in the 
country. For some CSOs this 
represented a delay in their 
implementation. 
Multi-partner training program was poorly 
planned and overwhelmed CSOs with a 
crowded training schedule during the last 
months of the project; short project time 
frame; absence of a component that 
would permit CSOs to put into practice the 
new skills gained from the program. 
Conclusions. Civil society organizations are working in a very unfavorable environment, one that makes 
it difficult to achieve CSO objectives and fulfill their roles. Public attacks, intimidation through legal and 
administrative means and the loss of spaces where they can participate have made it difficult for many 
CSOs, especially those in the DG sector, to continue their work. 
Dialogue with the public sector has become impossible for most CSOs. The creation of new entities of 
civil society participation controlled by the government has restricted the ability of CSOs to work at the 
local and national levels. Participation in policy formulation, the monitoring of public strategies and 
programs has become impossible to carry out without access to information or data. 
Nicaragua’s democratic system finds itself in a process of progressive deterioration due to the 
government’s increased centralization and authoritarianism. In this context, CSOs play an important role 
in the defense of democratic values and the system itself. This in itself justifies the assistance provided 
by the two projects. 
The Evaluation Team concludes that targeted Nicaraguan CSOs have demonstrated considerable 
development over the past four years in which ISP and HICD projects operated. Evaluation and project 
documentation indicate the ISP project’s target organizations matured and improved in key 
organizational capacity areas during this time and HICD results show that, in key organizations, the 
project complemented and expanded on these achievements. This is particularly significant as the two 
projects supported many of the most important advocacy, watchdog and transparency CSOs in 
Nicaragua. 
If sustainability is viewed as financial stability, organizational professionalism and the ability to mobilize 
a united voice for the benefit of civil society, the two projects provided CSOs with key ingredients in 
these areas. The evidence gathered suggests that CSO leaders and their organizations now count with 
improved skills, a broader vision of what is possible for their organizations, trained leaders, new 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page v 
communication tools and management systems. In addition, many have established new linkages with 
counterpart organizations in Nicaragua and internationally. There are already examples of CSOs with 
new strategies in place as they seek to adapt to a more adverse environment. These include developing 
new sustainability strategies (funding, volunteers, alliances, new donors, fee for service), especially 
relevant in this context. Clearly, these CSOs are now better equipped to face and respond to current and 
future challenges. 
CSOs have a gained a better understanding of their rights under national and international law and there 
is a core group of organizations capable of defending freedom of association in Nicaragua. 
The exodus of international donors, however, represents an additional drawback to an already difficult 
context and will hit DG, advocacy and watchdog organizations disproportionately hard. 
The implementation of these projects offers the following key lessons: 
• Integrated or comprehensive project designs, that combine grants, technical assistance/coaching 
and training, provide the tools and flexibility to address CSO needs in a tailored fashion and 
produced good results. 
• To be successful, institutional strengthening of CSOs require a relationship of respect and a 
participatory approach, where CSOs are involved in identifying their needs and in the design and 
implementation of their action plans. 
• Organizational development is important, but not sufficient in achieving performance improvement. 
The political context is affecting the capacity of CSOs to continue performing their role in society. 
Recommendations. A new institutional strengthening project will benefit from having an integrated and 
flexible design that includes technical assistance, grants, study tours and allows CSOs the ability to put 
into practice new skills and/or encourages them to multiply or replicate it. A flexible design will also 
allow USAID the ability to respond to an ever changing environment. Other recommendations include: 
• Consider identifying a more targeted DG project objective that facilitates the selection and 
identification of DG CSOs that have demonstrated their capacity to defend human rights, promote 
democratic values, and that are threatened by the government’s attacks. 
• Past experience has shown the importance of a close integration between the grant and technical 
assistance components and the difficulties in bringing together the organizational cultures and 
priorities of distinct implementers. These issues and lessons learned should be taken into account in 
the design of future civil society projects that have both of these components. 
• Integrate sustainability plans into project design to promote a continuation of activities into the 
future. This could include the development of learning networks among partner CSOs; the 
development of products – i.e. courses or certificates offered by Universities or the capacity of CSOs 
to offer specialized services in organizational development. 
• Promote project designs that provide and permit CSOs to multiply and replicate new skills and 
knowledge, as was used by ICNL. 
• Given the complexity of organizational development, future projects would benefit from an 
extended period of performance, with a three year as a minimum. 
• Projects should give priority to local and regional experts when possible. The list of local service 
providers developed by these projects should be disseminated to other USAID implementers. This 
could include the use of CSOs as trainers and mentors as this would also contribute to building local 
capacity and sustainability. 
A. Introduction 
Our Charge – A Final Performance Evaluation 
(DG) Projects 
The objective of this evaluation was
Projects: 

 The Organizational Development of Nicaraguan Civil Soc
Strengthening Project” (ISP)
a. Implementer: AED/FHI
b. Amount: $5,544,506 of which $1 million was for small grants
c. Life of project - 3 years 
d. Project objective was to 
governance structure, operational efficiency, and strategic vision of 30 civil society 
organizations (CSOs) in Nicaragua

 The Human and Institutional Capacity Development Program (HICD
a. Implementer: World Learning
b. Amount: $4,059,455
c. Life of project - 2 years 
d. Project objective was 
and Performance, Environment
Both of these projects contribute to USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic Objective I: Ruling Justly: More 
Responsive, Transparent Governance
A Final Performance Evaluation of Two Democracy and 
was to carry out the final performance evaluations of two D
Organizational Development of Nicaraguan Civil Society Project, also known as “Institutional 
Strengthening Project” (ISP)
r: AED/FHI360 in partnership with MSI 
Amount: $5,544,506 of which $1 million was for small grants
3 years – from June 6, 2008 to August 30, 2011 
jective was to support the strengthening of the organizational capacity,
governance structure, operational efficiency, and strategic vision of 30 civil society 
organizations (CSOs) in Nicaragua
The Human and Institutional Capacity Development Program (HICD) 
Implementer: World Learning
Amount: $4,059,455
2 years - from April 1, 2010 to April 6, 2012 
Project objective was to address three core factors that greatly impact the sector: Capacity 
Environment, and Sustainability. 
Both of these projects contribute to USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic Objective I: Ruling Justly: More 
Responsive, Transparent Governance. Figure 1 describes the CSOs and geographic scope of the projects
Figure 1 Map - Geographic Scope 
emocracy and Governance 
final performance evaluations of two DG Office 
iety Project, also known as “Institutional 
support the strengthening of the organizational capacity,
governance structure, operational efficiency, and strategic vision of 30 civil society 
to address three core factors that greatly impact the sector: Capacity 
Both of these projects contribute to USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic Objective I: Ruling Justly: More 
scope of the projects. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 2 
Evaluation Scope and Methodology 
The purpose of the evaluation, as stated in the scope of work8
 is to: “provide USAID Nicaragua with a 
review of the above mentioned programs and the role of the various stakeholders involved in the 
implementation of such awards, both directly and indirectly. It is also expected that the evaluators will 
provide USAID with information and analysis to help make management decisions in a changing political 
environment and whether, when, and how to continue future support to Nicaraguan civil society 
organizations”9
The evaluation complies with USAID’s new Evaluation Policy and was designed to respond to the key 
questions provided by USAID/Nicaragua within the time and human resources provided for the activity. Key 
evaluation questions are as follows: 
1. What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? Can it be categorized into subgroups? If so, 
what are the typical organizations in each category? To what extent are or did the two activities 
address the needs of CSOs? 
2. What are the views of local civil society about whether these two activities were relevant to them? 
To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and results? 
Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future civil society assistance? 
3. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to achieve 
overall strategic objectives? 
4. How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these programs interact with the broader 
political and governmental environment? And how were they affected by it? 
5. Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program (or programs) to the activities 
being evaluated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? How can they be 
improved? 
6. How has reduction or withdrawal of donor assistance impacted civil society? 
Gender-related questions: 
7. How did the different roles and status of women and men within the community, political sphere, 
workplace, and household (for example, roles in decision-making and different access to and 
control over resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
8. How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men differently? 
Evaluation Resources and Timeframe. The contract terms for the evaluation included the following: 

 The evaluation contract was for a total of $41,649, which included 45 days level of effort for an 
International Expert and a Local Expert. The budget included Consultancy Fees of $ 32,625.00 and 
Other Direct Costs of 9,024.00 to cover international travel, local costs during the evaluation, and 
other related costs. 

 The contract was signed on July 27th and was modified on October 5th to reflect the new end date of 
November 30th 201210
. 

 The evaluation’s reference period covers the implementation timeframe for both projects (ISP 
from June 6, 2008 to August 30, 2011 and HICD from April 1, 2010 to April 6, 2012. 
Evaluation Design. The Evaluation Team worked together in all phases of the evaluation. A timeline, work 
plan and detailed evaluation design can be found in Annex 2. Evaluation phases included: 
 
8
 Please see Annex 1 for complete scope of work of the evaluation. 
9
 RFQ 524-12-013, page 6 
10 The modification was needed due to an unexpected death in the Lead Evaluator’s family. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 3 

 Phase I: Evaluation Planning. This phase set the foundation for the evaluation and was carried out 
in close coordination with USAID. 

 Phase 2: Design and Methodology. This second phase resulted in selecting a specific design for 
each question/sub-question as appropriate and finalizing the evaluation matrix. Evaluators selected 
the best design for each question, but were limited by the availability of base line data and existing 
data from each project’s monitoring and evaluation system, as PMP for the HICD project focused 
only on output level data and the ISP PMP focused only organization capacity development as 
measured by the IDF. The data collection instruments focused on information, opinions, qualitative 
and quantitative data from a broad number of sources. In addition to participating organizations, 
the evaluation engaged stakeholders and civil society leaders who provided important inputs. 

 Phase 3: Data Collection and Analysis. The evaluation design used a mixture of evaluation designs 
and data collection instruments to respond to the evaluation questions. Both qualitative and 
quantitative data was collected. Evaluators collected data from varied sources and methods and 
were able to triangulate this information in the subsequent analysis. These included utilizing case 
studies, before-after, and one-shot designs depending on the nature of each question and the 
program context. The graph below summarizes the process undertaken during this phase: 
 Figure 2. Data Collection Process 
Information gathered from the interviews was organized to compare and aggregate information, 
identify trends, and generate initial conclusions and recommendations. Some of these conclusions 
were tested, complemented and cross-checked during the focus groups and the stakeholder 
meeting. Annex 10 includes the list of CSOs that were interviewed and responded to the survey. 

 Phase 4: Final Report. This final phase comprises the preparation of the draft evaluation report and 
quality checks conducted. A draft evaluation report was submitted to USAID and feedback was 
provided to the evaluation team. Changes were incorporated into the final evaluation report. 
Design limitations included the fact that both projects were already closed and there was limited access 
to implementing staff. Ample documentation was made available for the HICD project, but detailed 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 4 
project data was more difficult to obtain for the ISP project. In addition, evaluation of organizational 
performance is difficult in general and even more so in a highly charged and changing environment, as 
is the case in Nicaragua. As a performance evaluation the design is intended to provide USAID with 
information to guide its support to civil society in Nicaragua. 
Evaluation Team 
The evaluation team is comprised of Anabella Bruch, US Expert, Raul Fajardo, Local Expert and Maria 
Augusta Rodrigues, assistant to the Local Expert. Both Evaluation Experts are experienced evaluators with 
extensive civil society sector and evaluation experience to successfully complete the evaluation. 
Ms. Bruch successfully completed the mid-term evaluation for ISP and has a deep understanding of the 
project context and challenges faced by civil society given the political environment. She has experience in 
managing institutional capacity development and participant training projects, and has designed, managed, 
and evaluated numerous small grants programs for civil society programs in the past. Ms. Bruch is bi￾cultural and native in both Spanish and English. 
Mr. Fajardo is a senior professional with extensive knowledge and experience of the local context and has 
performed more than 300 consultancies in a broad number of areas. Mr. Fajardo brings a balanced 
perspective of the Nicaraguan context, extensive civil society experience, and demonstrated analytical 
capacity. The team’s CVs and the roles and responsibilities identified for each Expert can be found in Annex 
3. 
B. Project Descriptions 
USAID’s democracy portfolio has played a supportive role in strengthening Nicaraguan democratic 
institutions since its return to democracy. The two projects being reviewed contributed to this effort and 
did so in an increasingly difficult situation due to the drastic weakening of institutions of democratic 
governance and an ever increasing centralization of power and diminishing spaces for independent civil 
society participation. 
1. Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP) – FHI360/AED/MSI 
a. Program Background, Development and Contracting Vehicle 
The ISP was implemented by AED/ FHI360 in association with MSI under AED’s Leader with Associates 
Cooperative Agreement No. AEP-A-00-01-0004-00 under Associate Cooperative Agreement No. 524-A-00-
08-00003-00. During the course of the program AED was acquired by FHI 360 which then became the 
prime organization for the last period of the project. 
The ISP project addressed the problem that civil society organizations in Nicaragua were not performing at 
a desired institutional capacity level. Nicaraguan CSOs lacked the ability to develop strategies with 
measurable goals; were ineffective as advocacy groups; had weak organizational leadership; lacked local 
fundraising strategies; and demonstrated poor management of relations and communication with their 
constituencies. 
In response, the ISP project was designed to strengthen CSOs, especially those in the DG sector, and 
contribute to, “increased institutional capacity in civil society to mobilize constituencies, participate in 
policy and decision-making, and exercise oversight over public institutions.”11 Towards this end, its purpose 
was: “to improve the organizational capacity, governance, structure, operational efficiency, and strategic 
 
11 RFA, AED/MSI. Program Description, page 2 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 5 
vision of selected civil society organizations in Nicaragua. By contributing to each entity’s organizational 
development, the Mission hopes to contribute to their sustainability and strengthen the role of civil society 
in Nicaragua. A civil society capable of advocating for reforms and serving as a government watchdog is 
essential for institutionalizing democracy.”12
ISP Program Development 
As prime, AED/FHI360 was responsible for the overall project, providing administrative functions, and 
leading the small grants component. The MSI team was responsible for leading the technical assistance 
component and included the Program Director/Chief of Party (COP), who provided strategic direction. The 
project began as a 15 month activity with a $352,045 budget and was extended to three years with a 
budget of over five million dollars: 
Table 1. ISP Program Development 
Phase Total 
Amount 
Life of 
Program 
Number 
of orgs 
Structure/changes
Phase 1
June 2008 
Sept. 2008 
$352,045 15 
months 
4-6 
 COP at 91 days LOE does not reside in 
Nicaragua 

 Associate Technical Expert at 91 days (about 
30% of the time) who does not reside in 
Nicaragua 

 Five results 
Phase 2 
September 
12, 2008 
$587.632 15 
months 
10-12 
 COP LOE increases to 105 days 

 Associate Technical Expert to 209 days (ATE 
increases to an average of 70% LOE, but 
increased in intensity from August 2008 to full 
time status for the program. 
Phase 3
June 2009 
to August 
30, 2011 
$5,544,506 3 years 20 formal 
10 
emerging 

 Four new results

 Include $1 million in small grants with a 
maximum of $100,000 per organization to 
promote strengthening and stability of the 
selected organizations 

 3 New Senior Technical Experts 

 Office and administrative staff 

 Technical Expert assumes decision making 
power and office schedule alternates with the 
expectation of providing full coverage to 
project. Neither COP nor Technical Expert 
resides in Nicaragua 
b. Program objectives, strategy and activities 
Program Results. As described above, the program began with five results, with four more being added 
after the last program modification. Expected results included: 
Result 1: The organization’s self-governance capacity strengthened. 
 
12 RFA, AED/ MSI. Program Description page 1 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 6 
Result 2: The organization’s ability to set a strategic plan is developed. 
Result 3: The organization’s management structure and practices are re-organized in order to be able to 
carry out a new strategy. 
Result 4: An effective communication strategy developed. 
Result 5: A training program designed and implemented by the expert(s) for the Boards of Directors and 
technical teams, and if applicable, coalitions partners. 
Result 6: An assessment of opportunities within the non-formal civil society sector, civic leaders and the 
media is conducted. 
Result 7: A training strategy for non-formal organizations, individuals and the media is developed. 
Result 8: A comprehensive strategy to stimulate synergy among the civil society formal and non-formal 
sectors is developed. 
Result 9: Effective grants program created and managed to address strengthening need in the civil society 
sector and develop activities under results 1- 8. 
Strategy. The program’s strategy was designed to improve the organizational capacity, governance, 
structure, operational efficiency and strategic vision of selected CSOs. The program achieved its objectives 
by providing customized technical assistance, workshops and grants to target organizations in five areas of 
organizational capacity after applying MSI’s Institutional Development Framework (IDF) as an assessment. 
MSI describes its approach as “meeting organizations where they were and supporting their efforts to 
shape and construct a reality that met their institutional vision and mission. The project engaged each of 
the organizations on a unique, individual basis that facilitated their development within their own 
organizational timeline”13
. 
The graphic below provides a summary of ISP’s hypothesis or theory of change14
: 
 
13 ISP Final report, page 1 
14 A complete theory of change framework for the ISP project can be found in Annex 5 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projec
Figure 3. ISP Theory of Change 
The project began by providing services to four CSOs and expanded to 20 primary CSOs and 10 emergent 
organizations. These CSOs represented a diversity of areas including women’s groups, youth and financial 
services, most of them were organizations working 
society participation, transparency and others.
leadership and leadership potential in the civil society sector. 
After performing an institutional capacity 
these results with the CSOs, the ISP drafted a
towards this end included workshops, process
and other technical assistance, as requested. 
used to measure the ISP’s effectiveness.
included: 
Institutional assessment. The IDF measures 
areas - including governance, strategic planning, operations management, strategic communication, and 
interagency coordination. It maps the areas of f
Consolidating, and (4) Sustaining. 
Technical Assistance. The program provide
Boards of Directors as well as to their
what technical assistance was to be provided and developed specific protocol
Workshops. The ISP provided both general training workshops as well as customized ones d
the specific CSO needs. 
Grants. This component was one of the most significant additions of the June 2009 modification. The total 
amount designated for grants was $1,000,000, with no single grant exceeding $100,000. MSI/
Outcomes
More effective civil society CSOs with increased strength, stability, 
Outputs
Improved
governance
Improved 
strategic 
planning
Better
communica
tion
Activities
Organizational 
Assessment
Training 
Workshops
Technical
Assistance
Inputs
Quality staff & 
consultants
Institutional 
Framework Methodology
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
by providing services to four CSOs and expanded to 20 primary CSOs and 10 emergent 
organizations. These CSOs represented a diversity of areas including women’s groups, youth and financial 
ganizations working with important DG issues – human rights, elections, civil 
society participation, transparency and others. Criteria utilized in their selection process included their 
leadership and leadership potential in the civil society sector. 
capacity assessment based on the IDF and following up with 
ISP drafted an action plan for each formal organization
workshops, process observation, assistance with daily organizational activities, 
and other technical assistance, as requested. The needs assessment also served as a baseline that was then 
used to measure the ISP’s effectiveness. More specifically, services provided to the 20 
measures the level of development for CSOs within key organizational 
including governance, strategic planning, operations management, strategic communication, and 
It maps the areas of functioning by stage as: (1) Emerging, (2) Developing, (3) 
The program provided customized technical assistance to target CSOs
their technical staff. In each of the results listed above, the project defined 
to be provided and developed specific protocol for each. 
The ISP provided both general training workshops as well as customized ones d
. This component was one of the most significant additions of the June 2009 modification. The total 
amount designated for grants was $1,000,000, with no single grant exceeding $100,000. MSI/
Outcomes
CSOs with increased strength, stability, 
and general capacity
Outputs
Better
communica
tion
More 
alliances and 
networks
Improved 
manageme
nt
Activities
Technical
Assistance Grants Study Tours
Inputs
Institutional Development
Framework Methodology
$5,544,506 and 3 
years
Page 7 
by providing services to four CSOs and expanded to 20 primary CSOs and 10 emergent 
organizations. These CSOs represented a diversity of areas including women’s groups, youth and financial 
human rights, elections, civil 
Criteria utilized in their selection process included their 
following up with discussions of 
organization. Services provided 
observation, assistance with daily organizational activities, 
The needs assessment also served as a baseline that was then 
20 formal CSOs 
the level of development for CSOs within key organizational 
including governance, strategic planning, operations management, strategic communication, and 
(1) Emerging, (2) Developing, (3) 
customized technical assistance to target CSOs, both to their 
taff. In each of the results listed above, the project defined 
for each. 
The ISP provided both general training workshops as well as customized ones destined to meet 
. This component was one of the most significant additions of the June 2009 modification. The total 
amount designated for grants was $1,000,000, with no single grant exceeding $100,000. MSI/FHI360 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 8 
utilized the modality of Fixed Obligation Grants (FOGs). This modality requires grantees to identify a 
product, develop a budget, and deliver it before it receives any financial resources. Only when proof of the 
product is provided and approved are grantees reimbursed for their expenses. 
2. The Human and Institutional Capacity Development Program (HICD) – World 
Learning 
a. Program Background, Development and Contracting Vehicle 
The HICD project was implemented by World Learning under Task Order Number: RAN-I-00-05-00026-00, 
Order No: 09. This project was seen as a means for “the Mission to offer a more comprehensive, integrated 
and cost-effective package of cross-cutting services for human and institutional capacity development to 
activities in the DG portfolio, focusing on short-term, targeted interventions”15. The project had a budget of 
$4,059,455 and a timeframe of two years - from April 1, 2010 to April 6, 2012. 
b. Program objectives, strategy and activities 
As with the ISP project, the HICD project addressed the issue that CSOs were not performing at a desired 
institutional capacity level in an increasingly difficult political and administrative operating environment. 
The goal of the HICD project was to provide Human and Institutional Capacity Development services to the 
USAID/Nicaragua “so that key organizations assisted through other USAID-funded democracy and 
governance activities can better achieve mutually agreed program objectives by developing, in a cost￾efficient manner, the specific capacities needed within those organizations and in key staff members”16
. 
Explicitly, the training and capacity building interventions were to support other existing USAID/Nicaragua 
programs or fill a void where no technical assistance provider existed. 
With the HICD approach and methodology, World Learning brought a new framework and approach to 
organizational development. HICD seeks to achieve improved performance by understanding the gaps and 
barriers within an organization. WL describes HICD as “the systematic analysis of all factors affecting 
performance of an organization, leading to the identification and elimination of barriers to achieving the 
performance goals established by the organization. The ultimate goal of HICD is to improve local 
institutional performance in critical areas leading to measurable results in achieving the organization’s goals 
and objectives”.17 This methodology has been used in other regions of the world and was piloted by WL for 
the first time in Latin America. Given the challenging environment, the project focused on the following key 
factors: 

 Capacity and Performance – The ability of partner CSOs to better meet the demands of their 
stakeholders, clients, and beneficiaries. 

 Environment – the ability of CSOs to operate within the legislative and regulatory framework, 
without undue burden placed upon them. 

 Sustainability – both in terms of financial and programmatic sustainability, the ability of partners to 
endure.18
 
15 Task Order 9, page 4 
16 Task Order 9, page 5 
17 Final TDF Report, FORECAST Nicaragua Training for Development Final Report March 2012, page 17 
18 Ibid, page 8
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projec
The HICD project was designed to provide a series of services, including: 
services related to the Mission’s overall HICD efforts across its portfolio, procurement of training and 
non-training interventions and logistics providers; intervention services; participant recruitment and 
processing; pre-departure orientation, part
program monitoring, evaluation and follow
and grant management. Project interventions 

 Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) activities
improvement activities aimed at selected CSOs in coordination with USAID and USAID partners
HICD contracts an institutional assessment and, based on the resu
performance improvement recommendations and interventions that directly contribute to the 
effectiveness of the CSO or work area

 Partial HICD activities. These are similar to the above except that they rely on information provid
by others to form the program diagnostic;

 Stand-alone non-HICD interventions
requested by USAID or its partners that supplement a USAID existing project. These were funded 
throughout the life of the program in coordination with other partners including NDI, IRI, ISP and 
CHF; and 

 Small grants provided to a select number of partners
of Association agreement with ICNL
The HICD project is built on the theory o
Figure 4. HICD Theory of Change 
The HICD Methodology includes several steps and processes including:
1. Identify and select partner institution; 
2. Form Stakeholder Groups; 
 
19 A complete Theory of Change Framework can be found 
Outcomes
CSOs respond to the 
needs of their 
stakeholders
CSOs operate within 
legislative and regulatory 
Outputs
Performance gaps 
identified and 
closed
Internal 
processes 
improved
Activities
Workshops Technical
Assistance
Limited Small 
Grants
Quality staff & 
consultants HICD Methodology
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
The HICD project was designed to provide a series of services, including: ongoing expert consulta
services related to the Mission’s overall HICD efforts across its portfolio, procurement of training and 
training interventions and logistics providers; intervention services; participant recruitment and 
departure orientation, participant tracking, with related reporting and monitoring; 
program monitoring, evaluation and follow-up; participant processing services (US and Third
Project interventions were organized under the following 
Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) activities. These activities are performance 
improvement activities aimed at selected CSOs in coordination with USAID and USAID partners
contracts an institutional assessment and, based on the results, designs and implements 
performance improvement recommendations and interventions that directly contribute to the 
effectiveness of the CSO or work area; 
. These are similar to the above except that they rely on information provid
by others to form the program diagnostic;
interventions or “exceptional requests” are one or more interventions 
requested by USAID or its partners that supplement a USAID existing project. These were funded 
e program in coordination with other partners including NDI, IRI, ISP and 
provided to a select number of partners were made in connection with the Freedom 
of Association agreement with ICNL. 
theory of change or hypothesis described in the following figure
includes several steps and processes including:
select partner institution; 
A complete Theory of Change Framework can be found in Annex 5. 
Outcomes
CSOs operate within 
legislative and regulatory 
framework
CSOs financially and 
programmaitically 
sustainable
Outputs
processes 
improved
Increased human 
resource capacity
Improved 
organizational 
environment
Activities
Limited Small 
Grants
Study 
Tours
Institutional 
Assessments
Exceptional 
requests
Inputs
HICD Methodology Two years and 
$4,059,455 
Page 9 
ongoing expert consultation 
services related to the Mission’s overall HICD efforts across its portfolio, procurement of training and 
training interventions and logistics providers; intervention services; participant recruitment and 
icipant tracking, with related reporting and monitoring; 
up; participant processing services (US and Third-country); 
were organized under the following four categories: 
. These activities are performance 
improvement activities aimed at selected CSOs in coordination with USAID and USAID partners. 
lts, designs and implements 
performance improvement recommendations and interventions that directly contribute to the 
. These are similar to the above except that they rely on information provided 
are one or more interventions 
requested by USAID or its partners that supplement a USAID existing project. These were funded 
e program in coordination with other partners including NDI, IRI, ISP and 
were made in connection with the Freedom 
described in the following figure19
. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 10 
3. Enlist commitment of partner institution; 
4. Conduct Performance Assessment & TA (HICD programs) or diagnostics (other programs if feasible); 
5. Prepare recommendations and intervention package; 
6. Implement interventions; 
7. Monitor change in partner’s performance 
8. Periodic re-assessment (M&E) 
C. Civil Society in Nicaragua- Key Findings 
Q. What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? 
According to David Bonbright, Chair of the Board of Civicus, “it is civil society organizations that best 
express the values of democratic inclusion, mutual respect and tolerance”20. According to Civicus, “the 
health of societies exists in direct proportion to the degree of balance between the state, the private sector 
and civil society”. A vibrant civil society is essential in all democracies and often plays the role of holding 
governments accountable to respect and promote the most important values of democracy. Civil Society 
Organizations refers to a wide array of organizations, among them: community groups, non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, 
professional associations and foundations”21. To understand civil society in Nicaragua today it is helpful to 
understand its development through the last few decades. 
Civil Society - 1970-2012 
Civil society organizations in Nicaragua did not play an important role before the 1970s. After the 1972 
earthquake in Managua, NGOs were organized to help with the city’s reconstruction. The first women 
organizations and first humanitarian organizations also appeared during this decade. Between 1970 and 
1974 civil society organizations grew and adopted an opposition role to the governing authoritarian regime. 
A new form of civil society organization appeared during the period of growing opposition against the 
Somoza government. The opposition involved business leaders, churches, independent labor unions, new 
political parties, women and youth movements and the Sandinista Front of National Liberation (FSLN) 
guerrilla. Before the Sandinista revolution, Nicaraguan civil society was nascent, weak and dispersed, but it 
was, nevertheless, undergoing a formative stage. 
The Sandinista government regime (July 19th 1979 to April 25 1990) was characterized by a lull in the 
creation of new CSOs and the surge and promotion of different social and labor groups, often controlled by 
the party leadership. The majority of these organizations were movements and social organizations that 
brought together many sectors and were managed from a political perspective by the FSLN. 
With the end of the FSLN government an immediate and notable growth in the registration of CSOs 
occurred. Starting in 1992 the Law No. 147(General Law regarding legal personalities for non-profit 
organizations) came into effect. Between 1990 and 2003, 3,083 legal personalities were approved for a 
large and diverse number of organizations, including federations, schools, cooperatives, sporting teams, 
hospitals, churches and universities among others. This number represents 87% of the total civil society 
organizations in existence at the time. In terms of NGOs registered by the government, these went from 
less than 100 in 1980 (of which 80% were evangelical) to 400 by 199622
. 
 
20 Civicus Annual Report 2010, Message from the Chair of the Board 
21 http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/ 
22 Interviews with CDC July 6 and Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra June 30, 2010 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 11 
There were several reasons for this sudden growth. After their fall, many Sandinista leaders and thinkers 
founded new NGOs as a way to remain active and relevant in the new political environment. In addition, 
international donor organizations encouraged the growth of CSOs because of their grassroots 
characteristics. The late 1990s brought CSOs and movements increased independence from political 
parties. 
NGOs experienced an increasing level of harassment, persecution and excessive fiscal control during the 
government of Arnoldo Aleman. These included threats to civil society leaders, under the pretext that they 
did not meet the conditions stipulated by Act No. 147 and the requirements of the Ministry of the Interior. 
This situation changed drastically the last week of October 1998 when Hurricane Mitch hit Nicaragua. 
Multilateral organizations and donor nations came to the support of the region with large international aid 
packages after the hurricane. These gave new vigor to civil society in the region and promoted the 
development of new CSO platforms. In Nicaragua the Coordinadora Civil was formed as a way to engage 
broad civil society participation in the country’s reconstruction and to advocate for change. The relationship 
with the government remained one of confrontation due to its structural adjustment polices and its efforts 
to control CSOs. 
During the Presidency of Enrique Bolaños, CSOs began to have new opportunities and spaces for direct 
dialogue with the Executive Branch, such as the Economic and Social Planning Council (CONPES), created in 
1999, and the National Council for Sustainable Development. 
In 2003, the Law No. 475 for Citizen Participation represented one of the most important gains in citizen 
participation in the political, social, economic and cultural areas. It created institutional mechanisms that 
allowed for a fluid interaction between the State and Nicaraguan civil society. This contributed to building a 
more participative and representative democracy as is established in the Nicaraguan Constitution. 
Overall, CSOs developed and participated in activities at the national and local levels and had a role in both 
the development of new public policies and in implementing international assistance programs. 
Civil society: new lenses for grouping CSOs 
Q. Can it be categorized into subgroups? If so, what are the typical organizations in each category? 
Over the past four decades, CSOs in Nicaragua have diversified and formed networks and movements 
across many sectors where they have gained presence and influence. There is broad participation in social, 
community and volunteer activities, especially by women groups, indigenous communities and people in 
rural areas. CSOs in Nicaragua are diverse in their ideologies, organizational structures and purpose. Given 
their diversity, the tendency by many to categorize civil society as a homogeneous block is profoundly 
incorrect. Examples of subgroups mentioned by CSO leaders include: 
• Movements that bring organizations and people together to promote and advocate for diverse 
objectives. Among the most typical are: local and community development movements; women’s 
rights movements; labor and trade movements; movements of indigenous peoples; youth and 
student movements; child rights movement; environmental protection movements; and human 
rights movements. 
• Cooperatives. 
• Education, professional, scientific and research sector organizations, including universities, schools, 
professional associations and education/research/scientific centers. 
• Organizations that promote wellness and public health. 
• Culture, arts and sports organizations. 
• Religious and other faith based organizations. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 12 
• Foundations and similar organizations. 
• Private sector associations, social economic organizations and those that promote microenterprises. 
• Organizations that provide humanitarian and social assistance 
Civil society leaders and key informants were asked to describe how Nicaraguan civil society is organized in 
order to examine if the current social, economic and political situation had changed the lens by which CSOs 
views the new landscape. As the government continues to exert pressure on CSOs, the classifications and 
groupings used by the respondents have become more political than during the midterm evaluation23
. 
Examples of these classifications include: 
• Organizations that: 1) work in defense of human rights, 2) work to promote civil society participation 
and mobilization; 3) work on election themes; and 4) those with a social character. Respondents 
noted that CSOs in the first three categories are most frequently attacked by the government. 
• CSOs aligned with: 1) the government; 2) the Movimiento Renovador Sandinista (MRS) and 3) not 
aligned with any political parties. In some cases, CSOs in the last category self-censure their activities 
due to fear of retaliation. 
• Another viewpoint divides CSOs in two groups: the belligerent ones and the “estantes” (those that 
accept the status quo) who align themselves with the government to survive. 
Similarly, FSLN supporters also provide a political lens through which the Ortega regime views CSOs. For 
example, Amado Barahona, in a scathing article against CSOs in El Mundo de las ONGs, groups CSOs in two 
circles. He classifies those in the largest circle as the “absolutely unpresentable from hell” that include CSOs 
affiliated to NED networks and USAID. Barahona’s second circle is composed of CSOs that depend on 
European and Canadian financing; he considers these as dangerous but not as much as those in the first 
group. Within that second circle he differentiates another smaller group of “exceptions”, mostly referring 
to CSOs within the Coordinadora Social. Similarly, Orlando Nuñez Soto, in the article “Assault to the 
National State”, groups CSOs from a political lens: those affiliated to the Movimiento Por Nicaragua (whom 
he accuses of being in line with the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance – Conservative Party), CSOs affiliated to the 
Coordinadora Civil (whom he aligns with the MRS) and those affiliated to the Coordinadora Social and 
supportive of the FSLN. The extreme negativity of these articles and the rationale used against CSOs reflect 
the strong government bias against the sector. 
Current Challenges and Threats for CSOs in Nicaragua
Q. How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these programs interact with the broader political 
and governmental environment? And how were they affected by it? 
Q. How has reduction or withdrawal of donor assistance impacted civil society?
With the election of Daniel Ortega in 2007, CSOs have faced new challenges in a more hostile environment. 
Spaces for CSOs participation have disappeared or been replaced by government institutions. Examples of 
this are the creation of Councils for Public Policy, Development of the Caribbean Coast, Food Safety and 
Guarantee, and Communication and Citizenship. These entities were formed in each department in 
Nicaragua where strategic decisions are made regarding local projects. These instances duplicate the roles 
of the Development Committees that were created by the Citizen Participation Law and have now 
disappeared. The coordination with CONPES is no longer functioning. President Ortega also created a new 
 
23 The mid-term evaluation described sector specific categories as follows: 1) Responding to social needs or promoting 
democracy; 2) Political - CSO against or pro-government; 3) Wealth and mobilization capacity; 4) Sector - by type 
of activity (assistance, community development, political incidence, research; 5) Geographic; 6) Complexity of 
their work (outreach, service, incidence, research, public policy). 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 13 
model of civil society organization with the Consejos de Participación Ciudadana (CPC) through which it 
seeks to consolidate a base of support at the local level to promote its new agenda. He has declared that 
“people organized in the CPC is nothing else than the true civil society!”24
A study carried out by the Nicaraguan Network for Democracy and Local Development and Civicus noted 
that “a third of the CSOs surveyed reported to have been victims of local or national government in the past 
10 years”25. The same study cites motivated prosecutions against dissenting activists; the marginalization 
of organizations advocating for greater accountability and government oversight, and the harassment of 
media groups as examples of the difficulties faced by CSOs. 
The Civil Society Index26 supported a study in Nicaragua that was implemented by La Red Nicaraguense por 
la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local found that: forty percent of a sample of 141 participating in the study 
reported to have suffered some kind of an illegal restriction imposed by the central government, and 30% 
reported to have suffered illegal restriction imposed by a local level government. The study reports the lack 
of self-financing and the lack of external funds as one of the main weaknesses of the Nicaraguan civil 
society. Another important finding in the study is the reproduction of a political culture of leadership and 
individual leadership as a weakness in Nicaraguan CSOs. This last finding relates to the reality that many 
CSOs are dependent on the leadership of one dominant leader for their survival and direction rather than 
on a strong institutional presence and strength that is rooted on a broader source of leadership, democratic 
decision-making, and stability. 
As a result, many CSOs have opted to censure themselves or to work in areas that are not considered 
confrontational. Given the political and economical challenges facing CSOs today, the president of the 
Foundation for Non Government Organizations (FONG)27 expects that in a few more years more than 50% 
of the NGOS in Nicaragua will cease to exist. 
International donors in Nicaragua 
Nicaragua has been one of the major recipients of international aid in the Latin American and Caribbean 
region in the last twenty years. Until 2007, the Nicaraguan government received, on average, a total of 
$550 million per year. Since that year, that amount has declined from $429.5 million in 2008 to $246.7 in 
201128, as can be seen in Figure 5. 
At the same time, private loans have increased to reach $827.5 million in 2011, due to the fact that the 
international assistance from Venezuela is not included as such, nor is it included in the national budget, 
but is considered a loan instead. 
 
24 Libro blanco de las relaciones Estado-sociedad civil 2007-2008, Centro de Estudios y Análisis Políticos, Page. 44 
25 CIVIL SOCIETY INDEX FOR NICARAGUA “Restrictions and the politization of civic space: challenges for civil 
society in Nicaragua; Luis Serra Vázquez; Managua, 2011. RNDDL: Red Nicaraguense por la Democracia y el 
Desarrollo Local, (Nicaraguan Network for Democracy and Local Development) & CIVICUS: World Alliance for 
Citizen Participation 
26 CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation - Civil Society Index Nicaragua. Preliminary Results. Red 
Nicaraguense para la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local. Taller Nacional Managua; Mayo 20; 2010. 
27 The FONG has 31 member organizations, among them are well known and respected organizations like IPADE and 
CENIDH. 
28 Informe de Cooperación Oficial Externa, I Semestre 2012, Banco Central de Nicaragua 
 f m 
Figure 5. 
International assistance o h a 
2007 the amount 
During the first semester of 2012 
multilateral sources a h d 
assistance a 
loans u i n p 
 
29 The evaluation did not find other international donor projects that duplicated the work of these two USAID projects.
Figure 6. Inte a a 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
 International Assistance to Nicaragua
to the private sector, which includes all types of CSOs, has 
of donations reached $121.9 million and by 2011 these had d 
international assistance o a 
reached only $29 million as can be seen in Figure 629
. d 
has been hard on Nicaraguan CSOs and threatens the viability 
Detailed t 
received by the Ni 
public sectors 
in Annex 6. 
Nicaragua’s b 
2007 to the first 
descending order, 
 
Holland n , 
 u m 
a a 
assistance r 
organizations, m 
u n 
o z T 
 d 
assistance is also 
Multilat 
to the publ c and private sectors. In this group of organizations the 
 n t t he 
rnational Assistance First Semester 2012
Page 14 
steadily declined. In 
decreased to $78.6 million. 
to the private sector from bilateral and 
The reduction in international 
of many of them.
information on all resources 
N caraguan private and 
since 2007 can be found 
biggest donors in the period 
semester of 2012, in 
are Spain, USA, 
Denmark, Japan, Germany, Sweden, 
, Finland Taiwan, Switzerland, 
Canada Luxembourg and Norway. 
Nicaragua also received international 
from multilateral 
mainly from the 
European Union, United Nations 
rganizations, The Global Fund and the 
World Bank. A detailed list of this 
presented in Annex 6. 
eral organizations also provide
most important ones are the Inter￾The evaluation did not find other international donor projects that duplicated the work of these two USAID projects.
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projec
American Development Bank, World Bank, Central American Bank for Economic Integration,
Fund for Agricultural Development, International Monetary Fund
Since 2007 until the present, Great Britain, France, I
have withdrawn or are withdrawing 
reduced their levels of support. The reduction in international assistance 
including: the global financial crisis, the change in donor priorities, and concerns regarding the fraud in 
elections in 2008 and 2010 as well as the reduction in democratic spaces in Nicaragua. 
Today, only the governments of the US, Spain, 
Switzerland remain (some bilateral donors who have left may still be helping Nicaraguan CSOs indirectly 
through regional projects). This drastic reduction in international aid is taking place at one of the
moments possible given the political environment. This has left many CSOs vulnerable and baffled at the 
lack of international response to their predicament.
developments that have been supportive of civil so
and some of the key challenges they have faced 
Figure 7. CSOs in Nicaragua 1980-2012
Interviews and discussions with civil society organizations, key info
representatives served to better understand how this new environment 
these organizations are responding to it. Respondents 
to identify its needs and priorities, and to provide the strategies their organizations have taken in response. 
The results provided a complex and alarming picture of the current state of civil society in Nicaragua.
Civil society leaders described a totally unfavo
their organization’s objectives and 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
American Development Bank, World Bank, Central American Bank for Economic Integration,
Fund for Agricultural Development, International Monetary Fund and Nordic Development Fund
Since 2007 until the present, Great Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Finland and Holland 
or are withdrawing their assistance. In addition, Germany, Canada, Spain, and 
. The reduction in international assistance is due to a variety of fa
including: the global financial crisis, the change in donor priorities, and concerns regarding the fraud in 
as well as the reduction in democratic spaces in Nicaragua. 
Today, only the governments of the US, Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, Finland, Canada, Russia, Korea 
Switzerland remain (some bilateral donors who have left may still be helping Nicaraguan CSOs indirectly 
through regional projects). This drastic reduction in international aid is taking place at one of the
moments possible given the political environment. This has left many CSOs vulnerable and baffled at the 
lack of international response to their predicament. Figure 7 below provides a summary of the 
that have been supportive of civil society participation and the growth of 
challenges they have faced during the past few decades (in the bottom).
2012
with civil society organizations, key informants and international cooperation
representatives served to better understand how this new environment is affecting civil society 
these organizations are responding to it. Respondents were asked to provide an assessment of the sector
and priorities, and to provide the strategies their organizations have taken in response. 
The results provided a complex and alarming picture of the current state of civil society in Nicaragua.
Civil society leaders described a totally unfavorable environment, one that makes it difficult to achieve 
and fulfill their roles. This environment coupled with the withdrawal of 
Page 15 
American Development Bank, World Bank, Central American Bank for Economic Integration, International 
Nordic Development Fund. 
taly, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Finland and Holland 
Canada, Spain, and the US have 
due to a variety of factors 
including: the global financial crisis, the change in donor priorities, and concerns regarding the fraud in the 
as well as the reduction in democratic spaces in Nicaragua. 
mbourg, Japan, Finland, Canada, Russia, Korea and 
Switzerland remain (some bilateral donors who have left may still be helping Nicaraguan CSOs indirectly 
through regional projects). This drastic reduction in international aid is taking place at one of the worst 
moments possible given the political environment. This has left many CSOs vulnerable and baffled at the 
below provides a summary of the 
ciety participation and the growth of CSOs (on the top) 
(in the bottom).
rmants and international cooperation
is affecting civil society and how 
were asked to provide an assessment of the sector, 
and priorities, and to provide the strategies their organizations have taken in response. 
The results provided a complex and alarming picture of the current state of civil society in Nicaragua. 
environment, one that makes it difficult to achieve 
. This environment coupled with the withdrawal of 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projec
many donors makes the situation especially difficult. CSOs reported that they have had to let
staff, limit their projects and activities, withdraw from geographic areas where they used to work, and 
continue doing some of their activities with the reduced budgets they have left (in the case of one CSO, 
their budget was reduced by 90%)30
both human and economic resources. 
longer able to obtain basic information for their research, where they had lost the c
the public sector, and where local activities require the approval of the CPCs
they are not approved by the local political leadership
Figure 8 below summarizes some of the key issues facing CSOs today, both those in favor of civil society 
participation and the opposing factors that make the context difficult for civil society to play its critical role 
in society. 
Figure 8. Current Environment for Nicaraguan CSOs
Civil society needs in this context
The most common themes expressed by CSO interviewed regarding priorities and needs were: 
• To identify new strategies and innovative ways in which to become economically and institutionally 
sustainable; 
• To strengthen the alliances and CSO networks that work in municipal, national, and regional CSOs 
beyond just collaborating at the project level, but by also working together to defend the sector; and
 
30 For example, MPN, CPDH, HADEMOS
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
many donors makes the situation especially difficult. CSOs reported that they have had to let
staff, limit their projects and activities, withdraw from geographic areas where they used to work, and 
their activities with the reduced budgets they have left (in the case of one CSO, 
30. The majority of CSOs interviewed/surveyed are going through a loss of 
both human and economic resources. CSOs also described a changed environment where they
longer able to obtain basic information for their research, where they had lost the capacity to dialogue with 
the public sector, and where local activities require the approval of the CPCs, making their work difficult if 
they are not approved by the local political leadership. This situation has reduced their ability to function.
below summarizes some of the key issues facing CSOs today, both those in favor of civil society 
participation and the opposing factors that make the context difficult for civil society to play its critical role 
or Nicaraguan CSOs
The most common themes expressed by CSO interviewed regarding priorities and needs were: 
dentify new strategies and innovative ways in which to become economically and institutionally 
To strengthen the alliances and CSO networks that work in municipal, national, and regional CSOs 
beyond just collaborating at the project level, but by also working together to defend the sector; and
MPN, CPDH, HADEMOS, and Coordinadora Civil are experiencing near-crisis level funding shortfalls
Page 16 
many donors makes the situation especially difficult. CSOs reported that they have had to let go of qualified 
staff, limit their projects and activities, withdraw from geographic areas where they used to work, and 
their activities with the reduced budgets they have left (in the case of one CSO, 
. The majority of CSOs interviewed/surveyed are going through a loss of 
CSOs also described a changed environment where they were no 
apacity to dialogue with 
, making their work difficult if 
. This situation has reduced their ability to function.
below summarizes some of the key issues facing CSOs today, both those in favor of civil society 
participation and the opposing factors that make the context difficult for civil society to play its critical role 
The most common themes expressed by CSO interviewed regarding priorities and needs were: 
dentify new strategies and innovative ways in which to become economically and institutionally 
To strengthen the alliances and CSO networks that work in municipal, national, and regional CSOs 
beyond just collaborating at the project level, but by also working together to defend the sector; and
crisis level funding shortfalls. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 17 
• To increase the use of volunteers. 
• To become more efficient and transparent in their activities, including presenting annual reports and 
having clear membership and board of director election procedures; 
• To maintain their independence from the government, political parties and, in some cases, international 
donors; 
Strategies for the future 
Nicaraguan civil society has acquired skills and capacity during 
the last three decades that has enabled it to effectively reach 
out to the general population and the media and has gained 
credibility in the public eye. They have played important roles 
in the current political environment as they organize to defend 
democratic institutions, promote dialogue among differing 
views, and advocate for inclusiveness. 
Nicaraguan CSOs will need to develop strategies that will 
permit them to respond to the current environment and 
continue to contribute to the development of their communities and country. Discussions with CSOs, 
independently and in groups, revealed that some organizations have already changed strategies to adapt to 
the new environment and also to apply newly developed skills. These include: 
• Strategies related to resource development and finding new donors, including reaching out to new 
international donors as a result of study tours organized by the projects; 
• Establishing new relationships with the private sector; 
• Identifying fee-for-service possibilities that are in-line with the organization’s mission; 
• The increased use of volunteers; and 
• Reducing expenses to the maximum. 
D. Key Project Findings 
Responsiveness and Relevance of Projects
Q. To what extent did the two activities address the needs of CSOs? 
Q. What are the views of local civil society about whether these two activities were relevant to them? 
• Responsiveness and relevance of projects to civil society 
needs. CSOs interviewed and surveyed responded that both 
projects responded to their expectations and were relevant to 
their needs. Survey results show that the ISP project obtained 
.96 of 1 while HICD had 0.89 of 1 in this area. Survey 
respondents identified Governance, Communications and 
Strengthening of Board of Directors and Technical Teams as 
the most valuable. Interviews especially highlighted the value 
of the study tours, individualized coaching and technical 
assistance provided by both projects. 
• Institutional strengthening is still considered important and 
relevant by the majority of the participating CSOs. The 
majority of CSO leaders considered institutional strengthening 
“Institutional strengthening served us well. 
The project motivated us and we improved. 
We are more conscientious of doing things 
in a more organized way and to implement 
processes in an orderly and structured 
manner that is also not rigid. Institutional 
strengthening helped increase the survival 
and sustainability of organizations within 
our women’s movement and to find new 
resources.”
“CSOs have a weakness: they have not 
been able to make visible their contribution 
to state-building. Civil society has put 
important issues on the national agenda, 
including: climate change, violence against 
women, tolerance for sexual diversity, and 
the citizen participation law. Civil society 
has provided many qualitative 
contributions to the public discourse” 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 18 
to be important and 50% of the ten organizations responding to the survey considered that in the 
current context, there is an on-going need for institutional strengthening assistance in order to respond 
to the current challenges. In both the interviews and surveys, CSOs noted that institutional 
strengthening should be accompanied by resources that would allow them to make use of the newly 
acquired capacities. 
• Financial sustainability is the top priority for most of the 
CSOs participating in the interviews and survey. Some have 
never had to search for funding and are suddenly facing a 
new reality. There is a difference in degree between the 
midterm and this final evaluation in regards to the 
heightened concern with economic survival. 
A large part of respondents identified financial need as their 
highest priority. Especially hard hit are organizations that 
relied on European donors as many of these donors have 
reduced or withdrawn their assistance. The effects are 
drastic. For example a CSO that in 2008 had a $600k budget and six regional offices, today is trying to 
accomplish its work with only three offices and a $200k budget. 
In many cases, CSOs reported having difficulties in implementing their new plans and strategies due to a 
lack of financial resources. In some cases CSOs questioned the value of having communication or 
strategic plans without the ability to implement them and many noted having lost valuable human 
resources as a result of the economic hardships encountered by their organizations. 
 CSOs report developing new strategies for their survival including fee- for-service31, approaching the 
private sector, identifying new potential donors and forming new alliances. Both projects offered 
training and technical assistance in this area and a study tour was conducted so CSOs could develop 
new relationships with other donors and experienced different strategies of developing resources. 
• A Sustainability Strategy was considered essential given that all CSOs are undergoing a difficult 
economic situation that affects their future sustainability. This was an area covered by both projects as 
well as the theme of Strategic Alliances and Networks. CSOs believed that alliances and networks can 
create synergies to defend CSOs against government attacks; facilitate resource development; and 
improve the quality of their work through sharing best practices. 
• Satisfaction. Most of the CSOS consider the assistance very important to their organizations and 
recognize USAID’s commitment to and support of civil society. The survey found levels of satisfaction 
were high, 0.77 for HICD and 0.75 for ISP. CSOs also expressed their satisfaction during interviews by 
relating the benefits they derived from the projects. The professional quality of the teams was broadly 
recognized, especially in the case of the ISP.
Achieving Project Objectives 
Q. To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and results? 
• Effectiveness: Regarding the effectiveness of the projects, ISP and HICD were rated at 0.76 and 0.72 
respectively by survey respondents. All CSOs interviewed during the evaluation declared that the ISP 
 
31 For example, AMMCH is now charging a small fee for their services to women, ProJusticia is selling training 
courses, and FNN is offering professional services to the local media in order to broaden its funding sources. 
“Before, we never knew anything about 
sustainability strategies. (International 
donors) paid for everything - from my 
salary, to the electricity and even the 
janitor. Now, all of a sudden I need to 
maintain the organization. It was a double￾edged sword as we didn’t anticipate that 
one day international donors would leave. 
This will serve to shake the tree and we will 
see who stays and who does not”. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 19 
and HICD projects generated changes within their organizations, mostly led by their executive and 
technical staffs. CSOs report improved cohesion, better board-staff relations, clearer vision and goals 
and new strategic plans. Staff and boards have increased capacity to lead the organization, as they have 
aligned their organization’s vision and strategic plans and now have better organizational tools to 
achieve them. They have improved capacity to restructure and improve their management practices; 
develop sustainability plans; establish local and international links and partnerships; and promote and 
improve volunteer management. Examples include Hademos which significantly improved board staff 
relations; MCAS which gives credit to its new strategic plan drafted with ISP assistance for its funding 
from Holland; and emerging organizations like INCEJU, which acknowledged not having known about 
strategic plans or accounting manuals before ISP support, to now having all these tools in place and 
having grown significantly. Case Studies in Annex 9 also point to examples of each project’s 
effectiveness in achieving results.
• Legal requirements. Both projects assisted CSOs to better comply with government legal and 
administrative requirements that need approval by government entities, such as legal personalities and 
by-laws. Given the aggressiveness of the government against some of the CSOs, these abilities become 
especially important.
• Increased Communication Skills. Several organizations noted improvements in communication skills, 
including a focus on use of new media and several mentioned new or revamped websites. Managing 
the media has been valued by CSOs.
• Small grants were valued by CSOs for the funding they represent and the responsiveness to their 
needs, but respondents also commented on the short grant time periods and amounts, especially given 
the administrative burden associated with them.
• Coordination between the ISP and HICD projects. The transfer of CSOs and coordination between the 
two projects was not optimal. This resulted in cases of duplication of services, contradictions in 
recommendations, and confusion in several CSOs. 
Looking at the future: changes and/or improvements in project design 
Q. Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future civil society assistance? 
Q. Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program (or programs) to the activities being 
evaluated? How can they be improved? 
CSO representatives were unanimous in their support for the continuation of institutional assistance 
projects. When asked to suggest what changes a future civil society assistance project should consider, 
CSOs offered the following suggestions: 
• Regarding selection criteria and target organizations. Several CSOs recommended that future 
assistance projects should have very clear participation selection criteria, as there was confusion by 
several of them regarding the criteria for receiving full services under the HICD project. Several 
suggested concentrating new efforts on organizations that defend democratic values and institutions, 
especially those involved in advocacy and human rights who risk their livelihoods and persons on a daily 
basis. Other suggestions included: 

 Expanding work with local grassroots organizations, especially outside of Managua;

 Working with emerging youth organizations, as the traditional CSOs have not incorporated 
youth leaders into their leadership teams; 

 Given the loss of free media, supporting independent media, new communication technologies 
and training on critical thinking for journalists and youth; and

 For USAID to expand the number of organizations they support as there is the appearance of a 
closed group of beneficiaries.
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 20 
• Regarding project design. Organizations contend that institutional strengthening is important but not 
sufficient. CSOs expressed the need for support with implementation of the tools and other results of 
the institutional strengthening activities. Herein lays the importance of grants, which CSOs recommend 
should be a larger project component than it currently is. In addition, they expressed a need for follow￾up support and coaching after training is completed to help organizations adapt and apply newly 
acquired skills. 
• Project timeframe. There was a wide consensus among respondents that institutional strengthening 
projects need a longer timeframe and CSOs recommended that a future project be longer than those 
being evaluated, especially in the case of HICD.
• Efficiency of resources. Respondents noted the need for more efficiency in the use of resources and for 
projects to produce useful deliverables for Nicaragua, for example a “diplomado” in a relevant topic or 
a local organization or mechanism where CSOs can go to for assistance with organizational 
development needs. The use of external consultants, especially international ones, and high cost 
venues for training were criticized by participants on several occasions. They suggested the use of local 
and more cost-effective approaches. Some respondents suggested that local CSOs be considered as 
direct recipients of funding in order to reduce the high transaction costs that an international 
implementing agency implies. 
• Political considerations. Civil society leaders encouraged the development of a strategy that lessens 
the negative consequences to CSOs of participating in USAID supported projects, as doing so may make 
them more vulnerable to government attacks – a civil society leader described USAID assistance as a 
“double edge sword”. Options may include broader collaboration with other donors or incorporating 
attractive project components like infrastructure to the design.
• Sustainability and resource development. Respondents highlighted the need to continue supporting 
CSOs to develop and implement new resource development strategies. Efforts that encourage 
partnerships and networks and alliances also contribute to increased sustainability and need to be 
included in a future project design. Examples of partnerships that formed as a result of the projects are 
Acprodmujer which is planning to share offices with ProJusticia in exchange for their help in project 
design and has also joined forces with FNN for exploring project opportunities and supporting them on 
issues of domestic violence. They have formed a coalition review group. Several organizations are now 
approaching new funding opportunities as a group rather than on their own.
 Gender Issues 
Q. How did the different roles and status of women and men within the community, political sphere, 
workplace, and household (for example, roles in decision-making and different access to and control over 
resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
Q. How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men differently? 
When questioned about their gender policies, impact on women and the role of women in their 
organizations and projects, CSOs responded that: 
• There were no obstacles to participation of women in their activities or organizations, as women 
are active at all level of the organizations. This was evidenced by the fact that 18 out of the 27 CSO 
representatives interviewed were women. 
• Half of the CSOs interviewed had developed a gender policy within their organizations, but some 
considered the need to improve it and be better prepared on the subject. 
• Many CSOs include a gender focus in the activities. Supporting gender equity forms part of the 
strategic plan of several organizations, for example CPDH. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 21 
Both projects intentionally made efforts to involve women organizations and participants in their work. For 
example, 63% of the persons trained by the HICD project 32were women and four women organizations out 
of a total of 27 formed part of the ISP project. 
Specifically ISP Findings 
Q. To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and results? 
Q. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to achieve overall 
strategic objectives? 
The ISP project improved performance in most of the participating CSOs, achieving its overall objective. 
Likewise, it was successful in meeting or exceeding the targets in its approved PMP as described below: 
Indicators by Result Baseline Target Outcome
Result 1 Formal CSOs Boards of directors and executive 
directors with improved leadership functionality; CSOs in 
substantial compliance with domestic regulations 
4 of 20 14 of 20 15 of 20
Result 1 for Emergent CSOs
Completed request for Legislative Decree 
0 of 10 4 of 10 4 of 10
Result 2 Formal CSOs 
Partner CSOs implementing strategic plans 
5 of 20 15 of 20 17 of 20
Result 2 Emerging CSOs 0 of 10 5 of 10 6 of 10
Result 3 Formal CSOs
Organizations with board-approved documents that contain 
Organizational structure, Descriptions of authority and 
responsibility, and Personnel policies and procedures 
1 of 20 10 of 20 20 of 20
Result 3 Emerging CSOs
Organizations with board-approved documents that contain 
Volunteer Manuals 
0 of o 20 4 of 20 4 of 20
Result 4 Formal CSOs
Organizations that have a communications strategy that 
contains the following: Message development, 
Communications policy, Use of new media 
1 of 20 12 of 20 18 of 20
Result 4 Emerging CSOs same as above 0 of 10 4 of 10 4 of 10
Result 5 - Training Programs for Boards of Directors and 
Technical Teams are Developed 
118 training workshops
Result 6 An Assessment of Opportunities within the 
Emerging Civil Society Sector, Civil Leaders, and Media is 
Completed. 
10 emerging CSOs selected 
 
32 TDR Final Report, page 9 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 22 
Indicators by Result Baseline Target Outcome
Conducted
Result 7 A Training Strategy for Non-formal Organizations Strategy Completed. 
The strategy includes: Leadership 
Development , Strategic, Operations and 
Project Planning, Enhanced Skills in 
Operations Management (HR, Volunteer 
Financial and Facilities Management), 
and Expanded Awareness of Potential as 
CSOs in Coalition Alliance and Partnership 
Development, Public Policy Formulation 
and Reform and Increasing Transparency 
and Accountability 
Result 8 Number of CSOs that have worked together with at 
least two other CSOs in activities such as: Alliances, 
coalitions, and cooperation Joint programs sponsorship 
1 of 20 10 of 20 15 of 20
Result 8 Emerging CSOs 2 0f 10 5 of 10 6 of 10
Result 9 Grants Program Ten grant agreements signed in the first 
round and 18 in the second one 
Table 2. ISP PMP and Actual Results 
The ISP project developed and structured an organized system for providing organizational development 
services and its assistance was highly praised by the majority of CSOs. The focus group identified the quality 
of the technical staff as one of the project’s biggest strengths. 
The ISP applied its analytical tool to 17 CSOs and provided personalized and tailored technical assistance to 
a broader number of organizations in the key organizational development areas identified in the IDF. 
Technical assistance was provided by the Senior Consultants of the project and evaluations of the quality 
and appropriateness of their services was positive in general. 
Training. 118 workshops were held on 39 different topics of which 72 were customized workshops tailored 
to meet the specific needs of the various organizations, such as conflict resolution or non-violent actions of 
CSOs. Many of the workshop topics were delivered multiple times. Topics for workshops included33
:
Result 1: Governance and Leadership 
1. Strengthening of Boards of Directors 
2. Leadership Development 
3. Transparency and Governance 
4. Institutional Strengthening and Integrity 
Result 2: Strategic Planning 
5. Organizational Diagnosis 
6. Strategic Planning 
Result 3: Management Structures and Practices 
7. Effective Management 
8. Team Leadership 
21. Human Resource Management
22. Development of Volunteer Network 
23. Volunteer Recruitment and Management 
24. Fundraising Strategies 
25. Project Design and Proposal Development 
26. Fundraising Databases 
Result 4: Marketing and Communications 
27. Advocacy and Communication 
28. Communication Strategy Design 
29. New Media 
30. The Role of Civil Society Spokespersons 
 
33 ISP Final Report, page 14 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 23 
9. Youth Leadership
10. Training of Trainers 
11. Conflict Resolution 
12. Development of Annual Work Plans 
13. Evaluation of Results 
14. Spider Web Model 
15. Accomplishments of the ISP 
16. Security and Emergency Measures 
17. Diagnosis and Formulation of Legal Statutes 
18. Nicaraguan Laws Governing Youth 
19. Nicaraguan Law 147 – Governing NGOs 
20. Legal Framework Analysis 
31. Mass Media Management
Result 8: Strategic Realignment & Collaboration 
32. Developing Civil Society Alliances 
33. Leadership and Organizational Change 
34. Development of Youth Consortiums 
35. Non-Violent Actions of Civil Society 
36. Human Security Alliances 
37. Interagency Partnerships 
38. Strategies for Inter-Sectorial Collaboration 
Result 9: Grants Management 
39. Grantees Orientation
Response to the training was positive as 89% of the ten surveyed CSOs considered training effective and 
67% satisfactory. The majority of CSO leaders interviewed were satisfied with the training as well. 
Dissatisfaction was usually due to their being too basic, that they were trying to meet very diverse needs at 
the same time, or that they were repetitive from previous trainings. Many of those highlighted the trainings 
provided for the Board of Directors. INCEJU and HADEMOS attributed changes in their organizations to 
trainings received from ISP. 
In addition to these workshops, ISP conducted two study tours: to Peru and Boston/Cape Cod. These study 
tours were designed to expand the views of CSO leaders and explore different models and approaches by 
similar organizations and leaders. Study tours were also designed to help CSOs develop “more visionary, 
collaborative, creative and proactive approaches in learning from experiences”34. Civil society leaders who 
participated in these study tours were unanimous in their appreciation for how valuable they were. They 
developed a new vision of what is possible, made new international contacts and linkages with potential 
donors, and are already trying to adapt innovative ideas to their organizations in Nicaragua. IEEP, for 
example, learned how the project organized the tour and was able to replicate it to organize its own 
fundraising tour. 
Grants. A first round of grants was implemented in August 2009 with ten formal CSOs. A second round was 
launched beginning October 2010 with some adjustments caused by issues affecting the prime contractor 
that required additional approvals and included 18 agreements. All grants were completed by July 30, 2011. 
A total of 23 partner CSOs participated in the program, including 19 formal CSOs and four emerging CSOs. 
Nine formal CSOs received grants in both rounds of the program. Grants ranged from $48,173 to $76,295, 
with an average grant of $67,820 in the first round of grants. The average grant in the second round was of 
$15,000. CSOs utilized these grants to produce strategic, operating and/or communication plans, 
administrative and operating manuals, gender policies, web pages, alliances, and information systems; they 
also purchased software and obtained training in a range of areas including project design, financial 
management, volunteer management, internal controls, new media, accounting and leadership. 
One of the findings of the mid-term evaluation was that the technical and grants teams did not collaborate 
sufficiently, which resulted in delays in the approval of deliverables/products produced with the grants. 
This issue was resolved for the second round of grants as both technical and grants staff members reported 
increased collaboration. The inclusion of technical assistance from the start produced better deliverables by 
grantees and prevented delays in the disbursal of funds. This improved situation was corroborated during 
CSO interviews as none reported delays in payment due to poor quality of deliverables/products. 
 
34 ISP Final Report, page 14 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 24 
Results. ISP’s assessment of 17 of the 20 formal CSO partners found improvements in all areas of 
institutional development as measured by the IDF as follows: 

 In Result 1 Organization’s self-governance capacity strengthened, MSI noted that 13 CSOs graduated 
to their highest score of consolidation. The Evaluation team found that 90% of those surveyed received 
assistance in self-governance and that this was relevant to their needs and effective to meet their 
objectives. For example, CARITAS updated their by-laws and HADEMOS received timely and critical 
assistance with their Board of Directors. 

 In Result 2, the organization’s ability to set a strategic plan, MSI reported that 14 CSOs strengthened 
their strategic planning capacity. Likewise, CSOs that were interviewed affirmed having received this 
assistance and that this was relevant and effective in meeting their objectives. A youth organization 
commented that the strategic plan had given them, “a much clearer vision of our future”. 

 In Result 3, improved management structure and practices, MSI reported that 15 organizations 
improved by one or more levels. The evaluation found that 60% of the CSOs received these services and 
considered them relevant, effective and satisfactory. In the words of a CSO leader, “the board of 
directors improved its effectiveness and continues to use what it learned about resource development, 
project design and volunteer management, things we did not know previously and now we use 
constantly. 

 In Result 4, effective communication strategy developed, MSI reported that all CSOs have achieved 
better visibility in the local and national media, improved internal and external communication and 
image. They noted that three organizations reached the consolidation stage and one the final level of 
sustainability. CSOs reported some concern that the effectiveness of the training was limited by lack of 
funding to apply new skills. Organizations learned about social media, developed new websites and 
were better able to craft and deliver their messages. 
Other Results. The ISP also committed to conducting an assessment of opportunities within the emerging 
civil society sector, civic leaders and media under its Result 6. After completing the assessment, Assessment 
of Opportunities within the Non-Formal (Emerging) Civil Society Sector, Civic Leaders, and the Media, a 
group of ten emerging CSOs were selected and received various levels of support. Although the ISP was not 
able to provide them all the support they needed given their incipient levels of development, most 
emerging CSOs interviewed were satisfied with the training and technical assistance received by the 
project. CSOs described organizational improvements and pride at having fulfilled their legal and 
administrative requirements, of having by-laws, a webpage and/or policies and procedures. One 
commented that “before we were just an informal group and now we are a real organization”. 
Under Result 7 ISP was responsible for developing a training strategy for non-formal organizations, 
individuals and the media based on the assessment mentioned above. The Emergent CSO Training Strategy 
was completed by MSI in 2010. Although it did not have resources to implement it fully, it did present the 
strategy to five USAID partners. 
 Result 8 of the project was to develop a comprehensive strategy to stimulate synergy among the civil 
society formal and non-formal sectors. MSI reported that eight CSOs developed their capacity to generate 
synergies as a result of mentor relationships established between formal and emerging CSOs. For example 
FNN and ACROPDMUJER of Masaya and MAM and Movimiento de Mujeres de Chinandega established 
strong relationships. Synergies through relationship building were highlighted by many CSOs during the 
interviews. Civil society leaders noted the improved relationships with other CSOs as an additional benefit 
of the program. Examples of partnerships include HADEMOS and CPDH, which currently engage in alliances 
with other CSOs in a coordinated way and have worked in alliance to advocate for a fair electoral process 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 25 
without politicizing the work of civil society. These partnerships afforded emerging organizations with a 
broad range of benefits, including the ability to apply for grants without having a legal personality; having a 
mentoring relationship with and support from experienced organizations as they go through their growing 
phases; and technical assistance from them to improve their services and better serve their members. For 
more formal CSOs, partnerships represented a support group with whom to analyze and strategize a 
response to the political situation, discuss the financial challenges facing the sector, and/or build a common 
agenda with organizations that share values and priorities in order to have a bigger impact. ISP staff noted 
the increase of alliances and partnerships as a trend over the three years of the project. 
Coordination with USAID/Nicaragua. As the program underwent significant changes, important leadership 
changes took place within USAID/Nicaragua. During this period, the Mission Director, Deputy Mission 
Director, DG Team Leader and AOTR also changed. These changes brought about increased attention to 
the program, a closer relationship with USAID, and a clarification of what the program’s targets would be. 
In addition, given the sensitive nature of the project’s interaction with participating CSOs, ISP staff was 
zealous about maintaining the confidentiality it had offered CSOs regarding its work with their boards, 
staffing, vision, and strategies. This made providing details on reports a challenge. Agreements regarding 
the COP’s and DCOP’s schedules were also made at this time in an effort to provide improved coverage. As 
a Cooperative Agreement, MSI sought to manage the project with relative latitude under Donald Spears’ 
capable direction. These issues created tensions in the relationship that lasted throughout project 
implementation. 
Q. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? 
The evaluation team convened CSO leaders to identify, among several other purposes, the project’s 
strengths and weaknesses. Participants identified the main strengths of the ISP program to be: 
Strengths within the ISP 
• The development of valuable planning and management tools that allowed CSOs to identify their 
mission and to pursue it with increased knowledge and capacity. 
• The high technical and human qualities of the ISP team; good communication and a relationship of 
respect; their openness to recommendations; their understanding of needs; and their ability to adapt 
methodologies to each CSO level. 
• Useful tools and methodologies including the combination of technical assistance and grants 
• The coaching aspects of the program and personalized technical assistance that resulted in many of the 
improvements made by CSOs. 
• The ability of CSOs to select their own consultants based on a list of service providers within the grant 
component. 
• The ability of the staff to understand the internal working conditions within each CSO. 
• The encouragement and support provided by the project to participate in networks and alliances with 
other CSOs. This was especially important for the emerging organizations. 
Weaknesses within the ISP 
• The absence of a component that would permit CSOs to put into practice many of the new skills gained 
from the program (i.e. communication strategy). 
• The Fixed Obligation Grants mechanism did not provide advances to cover project implementation. 
CSOs are currently in a vulnerable financial situation and the mechanism created problems for some of 
the organizations. 
• Project design did not take into account the context of Nicaragua. Some CSOs reported that the 
methodologies were inadequate for CSOs in the country 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 26 
• Workshops did not always respond to the needs of the organizations, contents needed to be more 
appropriate to the reality faced by CSOs and the limitations they face. 
• The timeframe to implement the second round of grants was too short. 
Specifically HICD Findings 
Q. To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and results? 
Q. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to achieve overall 
strategic objectives? 
As described below, the HICD project improved performance in many of the participating CSOs, achieving 
its overall objective. Likewise, it was successful in meeting the targets in its approved PMP35
: 
Indicator Target Total
2.3.2-8 Number of local CSOs strengthened that promote political participation and 
voter education 23 24
2.4.1-1 Number of Civil Society Organizations using USG Assistance to Improve Internal 
Organizational Capacity 30 48
2.4.1-9 Number of USG Assisted Civil Society Organizations that engage in advocacy and 
watchdog functions 24 34
2.4.1-Custom - Number of CSOs equipped with the skills to contribute to developing and 
advocating for proposals for an improved legal environment for CSOs 12 15
2.4.2-2 Number of Journalists Trained with USG Assistance 20 54
2.4.2-2a Number of men 10 31
2.4.2-2b Number of women 10 23
Table 3. HICD PMP and Actual Results 
Given that the HICD approach and methodology is different from a regular participant training one, WL staff 
indicated that a process of clarification and discussion between WL and USAID was required before an 
understanding was reached on the project’s design and its potential. 
The process of identifying and selecting CSOs included information sessions with USAID Sector Teams and 
partners, including ISP, CHF, IRI and NDI. The coordination between ISP and WL was not smooth and 
generated confusion. WL staff reported having very limited documentation regarding real CSO performance 
levels. Information to CSOs regarding the HICD project was a source of confusion for several CSOs. 
Organizations noted during their interviews that they did not understanding the criteria by which some 
were selected to receive some services and others not. Others were grateful for the project’s support but 
did not understand how they came to receive them. Others complained of not getting a response to their 
requests to be part of the project. There was a 16 month overlap between the ISP and HICD projects. 
Regardless of its difficulties with start-up, the majority of CSOs were satisfied with the services provided 
by the HICD project and benefitted from its services. Several organizations highlighted the process utilized 
by HICD in identifying their needs, arriving at priorities and developing an action plan. They especially liked 
the ability to select the consultants that would provide them with technical assistance. 
 
35 TFD Final Report Attachment II Indicators HICD Final April 6 2012. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 27 
Both organizations that received full or extensive HICD services (Red Local and NicaSalud) were very 
satisfied with the process, even though in NicaSalud’s case they did not achieve all of their objectives, 
which included determining an indirect rate for the organization. In general, CSOs considered the technical 
assistance provided to be of good quality. 
The 15 organizations receiving HICD or partial HICD services throughout the life of the project included36
: 
Year One Year 2 
• Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el 
Desarrollo Local (Red Local) 
• Red Local (continued from HICD) 
• NicaSalud • Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y 
Políticas Públicas (IEEPP) 
• Cáritas • Desafios 
• Fundación para el Desarrollo Social and 
Economía Rural (FUNDESER) 
• Centro de Derechos Constitucionales 
(CDC) 
• Movemiento Juvenil Nicaragüita (MJN) • MJN Management TA (from 2010 
workplan) 
• Grupo FUNDEMEOS • Centro de Investigación de la 
Comunicación (CINCO) 
• Congreso Permanente de Mujeres 
Empresarias de Nicaragua (CPMEN) 
• Asociación Movimiento Mujeres de 
Chinandega (AMMCH) 
• Comisión Permanente de Derechos 
Humanos (CPDH) 
• Congreso Permanente de Mujeres 
Empresarias de Nicaragua (CPMEN) 
• Grupo ProJusticia 
Throughout the two years of the project, WL implemented one full HICD program and 13 partial HICD 
programs37. Many participating CSOs were proud of their new capabilities and skills developed as a result of 
the project. Case studies in Annex 9 demonstrate the HICD process as well as its impact on NicaSalud and 
Red Local. 
Multi-partner Training and Technical Assistance
In addition to the HICD activities, a Multi-partner Training and Technical Assistance program was designed 
to offer training to a wider number of CSOs. Anticipated outcomes included38
: 
• Organizational performance in the area of fundraising improved; potential donor base of targeted 
organizations diversified; quality and scope of project proposals improved; organizations have clear 
strategies, systems and procedures for fundraising; 
• Strategic links and cooperative relationships with key NGOs and donors from United States 
developed and/or strengthened; international public relations function vis-à-vis strategic partners 
and donors improved; 
• Best practices and lessons learned from organizations in the US understood, resulting in improved 
fundraising, public relations, and programmatic functions vis-à-vis international organizations and 
donors; 
 
36 Training for Development Final Report, page 19 
37 Final report , page 18 
38 TFD Multi-partner Training Program Technical Assistance Intervention Request Form
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 28 
• Performance of staff members and their organizations improved in the areas of communication, 
volunteer management, and project cycle management as a result of multi-partner training and 
technical assistance activities; 
• Alliances established between partner organizations to exchange lessons learned in key 
organizational performance areas based on relative strengths/needs. 
 World Learning commissioned an institutional assessment of “the core human and institutional 
competencies, organizational capacities, and actual levels of need for such a learning program”39. The 
assessment was conducted by Northern Nevada International Center (NNIC) from late October through mid 
December of 2010 and resulted in the selection of four key areas of training: resource development and 
sustainability, volunteer management, communications and project cycle management and planning. Given 
the environment CSOs were living through, resource development and sustainability was emphasized. 
The procurement and implementation of the institutional assessment resulted in a lull in project activities 
for many participating CSOs and unfortunately did not produce the desired results. Several CSO 
representatives described the assessment process as superficial and were dissatisfied with the results. This 
sense of malaise was aggravated by the fact that some did not receive a response to their requests for 
clarification of results and felt incorrectly represented by the assessment. Others described this period as 
one of much activity only to be followed by silence. 
There were 33 organizations selected to benefit from the Multi-partner Training program (MPT)40
. The 
training program also included study tours to both third-country and US locations. These were highly valued 
by the CSO leaders. The HICD’s emphasis on resource development, volunteer management and 
communications were important priorities for CSOs. Study tours provided an opportunity to expand their 
vision, develop links with international organizations, and strengthen relationships with other Nicaraguan 
CSOs. 
Interviews with participant CSOs raised the following points regarding this component: 
• Many CSOs noted the uneven pace in the implementation of the HICD project. The organizational 
assessment was followed by a long pause in activities. A hectic training schedule ensued 
characterized full days of training over a period of several weeks that covered many subjects. CSOs 
were unable to adequately benefit from these training opportunities due to their small staff, 
limited advance notice, and their own agenda. 
• In general, CSOs were satisfied with the quality of the training provided, found it relevant and 
especially valued the training regarding resource development and sustainability plans. 
• Although they recognized their expertise, several CSOs questioned the high cost and need for 
international consultants and the use of expensive hotels as training venues. 
• Some CSOs questioned the allocation of resources and study tours as they believed that in some 
cases it was based on personal relations with WL staff. 
A valuable characteristic of the HICD project was its flexibility to respond to unexpected needs and 
requests from USAID and its implementing partners. The project was able to respond to various requests 
from implementing partners including NDI, CHF, IRI and MSI. Interviews with some of these USAID Partners 
revealed that they were pleased with the support provided by HICD in response to exceptional requests, 
 
39 Ibid, page 21 
40 A list of organizations served by the MPT program can be found in Annex 8. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 29 
which included assistance with conferences, support in providing technical assistance, and facilitating study 
tours among others. 
Efficiency in the use of resources. It is worthwhile to assess the efficiency of interventions in gauging a 
project design’s scalability and replicability. In the case of the HICD project, there were two instances where 
an institutional assessment or institutional diagnostic were carried out, the cases of Red Local and 
NicaSalud respectively. These two cases were the closest to having a “complete” HICD process. WL’s TDF 
Report March 2012 shows the cost for the Red Local assessment as $89,019. Total HICD interventions were 
$141,664 for Red Local and $102,853 for NicaSalud or an average of $122k per organization. The project 
invested $244,517 to provide services to two CSOs, both important organizations in Nicaragua and obtained 
positive results. Nevertheless, the significant cost for this type of intervention calls into question of how 
best to invest scarce resources in an environment of diminished 
international donor assistance. 
Supportive Framework for Civil Society Project41
An effective and contrasting approach was provided by the 
“Supportive Framework for Civil Society Project” (SFCS) led by 
ICNL with funding and support from WL. This support provided 
continuity to ICNL’s previous activities under the Supportive 
Framework Program. The project sought to “continue the efforts 
initiated by ICNL with Nicaraguan CSOs to develop their capacity 
to: 1. Design, obtain funding for, and implement training 
programs on freedom of association and laws governing CSOs; 
and 2. Mobilize and lead an appropriate sector-wide response to 
restrictive legislative initiatives.”42 The ICNL strategy is based on 
the belief that in order for an NGO law reform process to 
succeed, indigenous institutions and individuals must assume ownership of activities. ICNL’s role in the 
process is one of catalyst only as they provide both technical assistance and a comparative perspective. The 
work and leadership for advocacy and legal reform comes from local NGOs43
. 
ICNL strategy was to focus assistance on a core group of CSOs to ensure that the Nicaraguan CSO sector 
developed experts in civil society law, legal drafting, and advocacy who can leverage their skills to engage 
CSOs across the sector in support of law reform. ICNL was careful on its selection of target organizations to 
be included in the program. Both, with its first group of expert CSOs and with the expanded group, ICNL set 
out to build an effective and balanced group. ICNL supported this “expert group” with training, technical 
assistance to help them quickly develop the knowledge and skills to credibly and effectively counter 
restrictive laws and advocate for more enabling ones. Through a small grant program, ICNL supported and 
encouraged initiatives that reviewed law reform proposals, and educated other CSOs, the public, and the 
media regarding the need for supportive laws that regulated the sector’s activities. These small grants also 
had the aim of deepening their capacity. ICNL provided models and comparative analysis to the group as it 
developed its recommendations. 
 
41 ICNL’s work in Nicaragua started through a previous project funded by USAID/Nicaragua. The WL project provided 
continuation of selected activities. 
42 Intervention Request Form and Implementation Plan for ICNL, page 2. 
43 Lessons in Implementation: The NGO Story Building Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe And the New 
Independent States A Study Sponsored by the Office of Democracy and Governance Within USAID’s E&E Bureau 
And by Implementing Nongovernmental Partner Organizations October 1999, page B1
“Of the projects, the ICNL activities were 
the most successful ones. There you can 
see results. We are those results; the 
project changed us – I traveled and had a 
professional fellowship. Now we have the 
logic of international laws through the lens 
of international law which we didn’t have 
before. We were able to include several 
universities in our work. With UPOLI we 
organized a higher level course on 
Association Law. We were 20 
organizations that worked together on 
something concrete.”
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 30 
The costs for the SFCS project were $241,853 in services and $53,712 in grants awarded to five CSO 
partners (with a range of $5k-17k in size) for replication of their new skills and knowledge, for a total of 
$295,56544. With these resources ICNL was able to achieve the following results, many highlighted by CSOs 
during their interviews: 
• CSOs have become recognized as specialists in Nicaragua in the area of freedom of association and 
constitutional law. ProJusticia has expanded its technical abilities and now provides training on 
these subjects. Collaboration was established between ProJusticia and the UPOLI Law School to 
commemorate the month of the constitution and raise awareness about constitutional law. 
• Several universities participated in the project and as a result have committed to including freedom 
of association as part of their curriculum. Oscar Castillo, Dean at the Universidad Politecnica de 
Nicaragua, reiterated his University’s commitment to continue providing training in these areas and 
informed that this is a topic in the curriculum reform currently underway. Approximately 400 law 
students and professors and bar association members were trained in national and international 
legal standards governing CSOs. 
• The group was able to produce an alternate civil society law collaboratively in case there is an 
initiative to change current law. 
• A delegation of three CSO lawyers engaged in a special regional hearing before the IACHR on legal 
barriers to freedom of association in the Americas. This experience profoundly impacted their 
professionalism. 
• Over 500 representatives of CSOs nationwide are better prepared to comply with Nicaraguan law; 
Close to 50 CSO representatives received advanced training in the tax laws affecting the sector and 
hundreds more have access to plain language guidance. In addition, a manual for CSOs outlining 
important information about tax law and options available to CSOs to implement non-grant and 
non-donor-based income generation strategies was developed; and 
• More than 200 journalism students and practitioners were introduced to legal concepts on the 
rights and responsibilities of Nicaraguan CSOs, providing them with a background that will facilitate 
technically sound, less sensationalistic coverage of the sector in the media. 
Project length. In its final report WL staff recommended that “the length of future HICD or other capacity￾building programs be extended. The process of establishing the all-necessary trusting relationship, 
completing organization assessments or diagnostics, building stakeholder consensus, and providing the 
dedicated technical assistance that allows partners to make systems and structures operational would be 
more ideally carried out over a longer program period.” CSOs also noted that the project’s timeframe was 
too short and that the highly packed training schedule did not allow them time to sufficiently absorb the 
material presented. In addition, discussions with WL staff raised the issue of a contradiction between the 
HICD methodology and the two-year time frame for the project. 
Relationship between CSOs and WL. For the most part, the relationship was strong and respectful. Most of 
the concerns related to one staff member who was disrespectful and behaved unprofessionally to several 
CSO representatives. 
Strengths and Weaknesses of the HICD project 
Q. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? 
As with the ISP, focus group discussions were held that identified the strengths and weaknesses of the HICD 
project. These were: 
 
44 TDF Report for March 2012 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 31 
Strengths 
• Flexible model was able to respond to many requests; mostly demand driven technical assistance; 
study tours provided a valued opportunity 
• Developed valuable planning and management tools for participating CSOs. Tools were also 
developed for facilitating the process of identifying and implementing their missions. 
• Strengthened CSOs institutional capacity in areas such as volunteer management, fundraising and 
communications. 
• Staff openness to CSOs recommendations and a demonstrated interest on their part towards CSOs 
needs and proposals; in most cases, good communication with CSOs. 
• Good understanding on the internal workings of the CSOs and of their work. 
• Ongoing coaching and personalized technical assistance 
• Staff that resided in the country and was easily accessible. 
• The study tours gave CSOs international visibility, enriched and expanded a vision of their work, and 
allowed CSOs to develop new sources of financing and learn successful practices from counterparts 
in other places. 
Weakness 
• Short project time frame. 
• Project design did not take into account the country’s context. Some international consultants did 
not understand Nicaraguan reality and were unwilling to listen. 
• Project design did not include a component that allowed CSOs to put into practice the new abilities 
and skills acquired through the project or promote the sustainability of the contacts made through 
internships or study tours. 
• CSOs were overwhelmed by a crowded training schedule during the last months of the project. 
These resulted in wasted resources and caused difficulties in small organizations with limited 
human resources. 
• In a few cases, the suggested methodologies were not adequate for the CSOs and arriving at a 
solution resulted in delays. 
• Deficits in coordination between the two projects resulted in: instances where training was 
duplicated from what had already been provided by ISP; cases where consultants gave conflicting 
advice from one another; and a lapse in the work with the organizations during the transition 
between the two projects. CSOs also indicated that the process of trying to understand the changes 
and transition was frustrating. 
• Negative cost-benefit ratio. CSOs suggested increasing the use of local consultants, who are 
qualified, know the reality of the country and are less costly; too many activities in too short a time 
made it difficult to assimilate the knowledge. 
E. Conclusions and Lessons Learned 
Civil Society – Conclusions
Q. What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? 
Q. How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these programs interact with the broader political 
and governmental environment? And how were they affected by it? 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 32 
Civil society organizations are working in a 
totally unfavorable environment, one that 
makes it difficult to achieve their organization’s 
objectives and fulfill their roles. Public attacks, 
intimidation through legal and administrative 
means and the loss of spaces where they can 
participate have made it difficult for many CSOs, 
especially those in the DG sector, to continue 
their work. Figure 9 describes the situation for 
CSOs in Nicaragua today. 
Many CSOs, especially those in the DG sector, 
find themselves in a critical economic situation. 
This is significantly increasing their 
vulnerability. The negative political and 
administrative environment, coupled with the 
withdrawal of many donors makes the situation 
especially difficult for many CSOs, especially those 
which had depended on European assistance. This 
situation has become more acute since the midterm evaluation and there is a risk of losing key CSOs with 
knowledge and skills important to protecting democratic values and practices. 
Dialogue with the public sector has become impossible for most CSOs. The creation of new entities of civil 
society participation controlled by the government, such as the CPCs at the local level, has restricted the 
ability of CSOs (particularly those not aligned with the government) to work at the local and national levels. 
Participation in policy formulation, the monitoring of public strategies and programs has become 
impossible to carry out without access to information or data. 
The use of administrative and taxation vehicles are being used to frighten or dissuade CSOs. Several CSOs 
noted the repeated audits by the government as a way to intimidate them. CSOs have benefitted from a 
better understanding of their rights and responsibilities and are able to protect themselves from these 
forms of intimidation. It appears that the government has opted for this methodology in targeting specific 
CSOs. 
CSOs that participated in the two projects have matured and improved their capacity as organizations.
This gives them a better chance to face and respond to current and future challenges. These CSOs have 
established new linkages with counterpart organizations in Nicaragua and internationally; they have a 
broader vision of what is possible and better trained leaders. These assets, among others, will position 
them to better face the challenges ahead. 
Responsiveness and Relevance of Projects
Q. To what extent are or did the two activities address the needs of CSOs? 
Q. What are the views of local civil society about whether these two activities were relevant to them? 
Nicaragua’s democratic system finds itself in a process of progressive deterioration due to the Ortega 
regime’s increased centralization and authoritarianism. In this context, CSOs play an important role in the 
defense of democratic values and the system itself. This in itself justifies the assistance provided by the 
two projects. Beyond this validation are the valuable results obtained by the projects which not only benefit 
the organizations themselves but also the citizenry of Nicaragua in general. 
Figure 9. The situation of CSOs is more difficult 
every day 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 33 
Based on the information collected, it is clear that both projects were well grounded in the civil society 
arena and responded to relevant civil society needs. These projects were especially important at a time 
when other donors left Nicaragua, significantly reducing available resources and the political environment 
continued to deteriorate. The projects responded to civil society needs as follows: 
• The ISP responded to civil society’s need to sharpen its purpose and strategic vision within the 
current context. Issues of governance, strategic plans, clear communications, resource 
development and meeting administrative and legal requirements were important to CSOs. 
• The HICD project responded to civil society’s desire to improve its performance in carrying out its 
mission. The training focus on resource development, communications, and volunteer management 
responded to deeply felt organizational needs in areas where they were deficient. 
Organizational development is important and relevant for the majority of participating CSOs. Both formal 
and emergent partners achieved increased levels of organizational capacity as a consequence of the 
assistance provided by the ISP and HICD Projects. This included 
the ability to develop new sustainability strategies (funding, 
volunteers, alliances, new donors, fee for service), especially 
relevant in this context. 
Networks and alliances, both national and international, and 
have gained in importance in the current environment. CSOs 
are finding that alliances and networking provides them with 
needed support and resources. Some reported that they do their 
advocacy work through their networks and refrain from political 
or activities sensitive to the government as an organization. 
Alliances for the purpose of developing new resources have also 
been more frequent in this environment, as organizations search to develop new strategies for survival. 
 Achieving Project Objectives 
Q. To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and results? 
Q. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to achieve overall 
strategic objectives?
Both projects met or exceeded the targets set by their respective contracts/agreements resulting in 
improved performance in key organizational areas. These integrated programs, which combine 
diagnostics, technical assistance, study tours, coaching, grants, and training, were effective in bringing 
about improved organizational development, as was frequently confirmed by CSOs during interviews. 
Integrated and flexible designs allow projects to respond to the individual needs of each CSO.
Increased capacity of CSOs human resources was the key to both projects and the reason behind the 
training activities provided. Capable human resources constitute the best defense for CSOs in the current 
context. The reduced levels of funding are putting at risk the stability of these trained staff in the 
organizations. 
Both projects were successful in achieving improvements in the governance area. Better defined roles 
between CSOs staff and board of directors, updated by-laws, and complying with the NGO laws have 
helped to facilitate the work of CSOs. The assistance provided in improving the functioning of the Boards 
and more clearly establishing their role was mentioned by many CSOs as important to becoming more 
effective organizations. 
“I feel that Civil Society is more united, 
especially our group that promotes 
electoral reform. We are more united since 
the international donors retreated”. 
“We see more alliances at the local level. 
We coordinate efforts and collaborate with 
each other. We also look out for each 
other. There are more partnerships – 
before it was hard to work together”. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 34 
CSOs have a gained a better understanding of their rights under national and international law and there 
is a core group of organizations capable of defending freedom of association in Nicaragua. The work of 
ICNL provided CSOs with appropriate materials and tools to enable them to continue to promote a sound 
legal framework related to freedom of association, constitutional law, and citizen participation. 
Improved volunteer management capacity will contribute to CSOs ability to improve their sustainability 
and effectiveness. Volunteer support is seen as an important mechanism and strategy for many CSOs in 
order to continue their activities and has been critical for many organizations during this time. 
Collaborating with other USAID projects was specifically an objective of the HICD project and WL reached 
out to other USAID partners to offer services and activities, which it was successful in doing. IRI and CHF for 
example, were satisfied with the support offered by HICD. In comparison, ISP did not have collaboration 
with other projects as an objective and, for the most part, focused solely on target CSOs. In limited cases 
ISP coordinated and supported CSOs in their relationships with other donors, as was the case with CPMEN 
and the Danish embassy. This support resulted in the CPMEN obtaining resources and support from the 
Danes. 
Looking at the future: changes and/or improvements in project design 
Q. Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future civil society assistance? 
Q. Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program (or programs) to the activities being 
evaluated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? How can they be improved? 
The evaluation found ample evidence to assert that organizational development activities are important 
to Nicaraguan CSOs and full consensus from participant CSOs on the need for similar projects in the 
future. The question regarding changes in focus raises the following issues: 
• Strengthening civil society is a very broad objective and includes a wide range of divergent 
organizations. Given the current context, it may be beneficial to narrow the scope of the project 
objective and CSO selection criteria and to focus more on specific DG objectives.
• Selection criterion for CSOs was not sufficiently clear to stakeholders and the projects could 
benefit from additional clarity. Possible criteria could include: 1. CSOs in the DG sector (those that 
defend human rights, monitor elections, advocate for transparency); 2. CSOs that represent a 
sector; 3. CSOs that have a demonstrated capacity or expertise in a strategic area; 4. CSOs with 
impact potential or the ability to multiply and disseminate; 5. CSOs that are sustainable and have 
the capacity to absorb assistance; and networks or movements with regional coverage. 
• Organizational development is important but not sufficient to improve CSO performance. There is 
a need for complementary interventions, such as grants or funding to implement 
recommendations, exchanges with counterparts in other countries or regions with successful 
practices, and support for network and alliance building.
• Issues of cost efficiency need to be balanced with achieving project results. Given the current 
political and economic context, the ability to support and engage a critical number of key DG 
organizations may be more important than deeply assessing and providing tailored institutional 
strengthening support to a few. 
• Scalability and replicability were not part of the design in either project, but may be important in 
building sustainable mechanisms to continue providing organizational development assistance 
after projects are completed. Building learning networks where CSOs are identified for their 
expertise and commit to mentor other organizations in this area is one of many models in this 
direction. Other options may include the use of CSOs as consultant for the project (which will also 
build recognition for them in their areas of expertise and was done by the HICD project in 
contracting with MAM to design the gender policy for MJN) while providing needed revenue for 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 35 
them or developing services – like a “diplomado” – which will continue forming and training civil 
society members in the future. 
• The focus on youth and women organizations should continue in the future as these represent a 
way for projects to be rooted in key demographic sectors, which have played critical roles bringing 
about change in Nicaragua.
• Support for new and alternative media will represent a way of reaching the public given increasing 
restrictions in the traditional media and will likely gain in importance to civil society and the public 
in general. 
• With the retreat of many donors, USAID’s assistance gains in importance, especially to DG CSOs. 
There is a need to target assistance strategically and to look for synergies with the remaining 
donors. 
 Gender 
Q. How did the different roles and status of women and men within the community, political sphere, 
workplace, and household (for example, roles in decision-making and different access to and control over 
resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
Q. How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men differently? 
Women organizations have been at the forefront of advocating for 
change and defending democratic values in Nicaragua. In many 
ways, they have led the way in promoting and advocating for civil 
society participation. Women were strong allies of the Sandinista 
movement and have been dismayed and disappointed by the 
treatment received from the Ortega government. These 
organizations are deeply rooted in the communities and are active 
both at the local and national levels. Within CSOs women are well 
represented at the volunteer, technical and managerial levels, although they may have lesser 
representation at the board level (in some organizations). 
CSOs, for the most part, are aware of the importance of utilizing a gender focus in their activities and in 
supporting gender equity in general and several have incorporated gender policies as part of their 
organizations. 
Both projects focused on the internal and external institutional capacities of the organizations rather than a 
targeted beneficiary group. It is expected that as organizations increase in their ability to accomplish their 
mission, their understanding of gender issues and support for gender equity will have a positive effect on 
women in general. 
Conclusions – ISP 
The ISP was successful in achieving its objective. As measured by the Performance Management Plan45
, the 
project met or exceeded all the targets for the nine results.
The vast majority of participating CSOs declared that the ISP brought about important differences in 
improving their strategic and management capabilities within their organizations. Asodel, AMMCH, 
CPMEN, Eduquemos, Grupo Fundemos, MPN and Caritas are the organizations that made the most 
progress, as reported by MSI. 
 
45 Organizational Development of Nicaraguan Civil Society Final Project Report, June 2008 to August 2011, MSI 
“Before we had an excellent relationship 
with the Comisaría de la Mujer (Women’s 
Commissioner) but ever since this 
government came in the doors have been 
closed for us. They do not take us into 
account for any kind of event or meeting”. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 36 
Improvements and changes obtained by the participating organizations are tangible, recognized by 
representatives of CSOs, and highly valued by them. CSOs have high regard for their improved capacities in 
governance, strategic planning in their structures and management practices, and the design and 
implementation of their communication strategies. 
The ISP Project succeeded in responding to the needs and expectations of CSOs. This was due to: 
1. An adequate methodological approach in implementing the ISP, which started from a needs 
assessment and the use of the IDF and was followed by the design and implementation of tailor 
made development plans. 
2. The technical and human quality of project professionals ISP and teamwork that developed with 
CSOs members. 
3. The effort and hard work carried out by the various partners in each of the CSOs. 
4. An integrated design that included the right combination of training; personalized and tailored 
technical assistance; grants; and study tours which promoted international networking and 
exchange of experience with counterpart organizations. 
5. Success in adapting the methodology to the Nicaraguan context and to the needs of each 
organization. ISP grants provided useful tools, but did not provide an opportunity for CSOs to 
implement or put into practice the new skills or knowledge, something frequently noted by CSOs. 
The training program provided the skills and knowledge that allowed CSOs to better position them to 
potential donors and citizens as well as to defend against government attacks. 
The study tours were successful in creating linkages between CSOs and their international counterparts. 
They served to facilitate the exchange of experiences and to raise awareness of successful and innovative 
solutions to problems similar to those facing Nicaraguan CSOs. 
ISP was relatively successful in incorporating the ten "emerging" CSOs into the project. CSO 
representatives of these emerging organizations participated in courses, workshops and established 
mentoring relationships and synergies with some of the formal CSOs. As a result, many emerging CSOS are 
stronger and have completed, or are in the process of completing, the initial stage of establishment and 
development. 
The small grants were an excellent complement to other project activities and served different purposes 
for each of the 23 CSOs that received them. Despite their relatively small size, they served to improve the 
knowledge of the organizations in the legal and technical areas and to conduct activities in areas required 
by them. This mechanism proved effective. 
The IDF provides a useful lens through which to gauge an organization’s level of development. Although it 
may not be sufficient in identifying all the barriers to improved performance in an organization (i.e. staff 
incentives to performance may not be picked up in this framework), it is useful in working with CSOs 
towards building an understanding of what is required to become an effective organization. 
Conclusions – HICD 
The HICD project achieved its targets and objectives as defined in its performance management plan. The 
project achieved results as described in the findings above. Indicators selected for the HICD PMP were 
limited to the output level. 
Most CSOs were satisfied with the services and interventions provided by the project. Highlights of the 
project included the quality of technical assistance, the openness of staff to their proposals, the possibility 
of selecting their own consultants, and the study tours. CSOs found the training relevant and especially 
valued the assistance with resource development and sustainability plans. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 37 
CSOs reported improvements in organizational performance. CSO leaders value the changes in 
performance and recognize their significance to their organization. CSOs are proud of their achievements in 
resource development, volunteer management, and new management practices. 
Design and timeframe. It was very challenging to implement a HICD methodology in two years. A longer 
timeframe was needed for the methodology to be applied as designed. On average, the cost of a full HICD 
intervention ranges between $50-75k. Especially in the current context where resources are scarce and a 
very difficult political and legal environment, this investment should be carefully weighed against other 
approaches. The design calls for the use of distinct consulting firms to implement an action plan for a CSO, 
which permits skilled experts in specific areas. This may also result in conflictive advice among experts. 
Difficulties in the early phases of the project resulted in an uneven pace of implementation in the Multi￾partner Training Program. In addition, an organizational assessment that did not provide the desired 
outcome caused further delays in getting training activities underway. Given the short project timeframe, a 
hectic training schedule was offered to participating CSOs, which reduced the potential benefits they could 
have gained from the training. Several CSOs considered the multi-partner training program poorly planned. 
The WL/ICNL component provided an efficient and effective model for building capacity in freedom of 
association with a multiplier effect that had local and national reach. 
One of the most valued characteristic of the HICD project is its flexibility and ability to respond to 
unexpected needs and requests from USAID and its implementing partners. In an uncertain environment, 
this is a welcome tool and an asset that gives the Mission flexibility to meet unexpected challenges and 
opportunities. 
Lessons Learned 
The implementation of these projects brought about the following lessons: 
• To be successful, institutional strengthening of CSOs require a relationship of respect and a 
participatory approach, where CSOs are involved in identifying their needs and in the design and 
implementation of their action plans. A horizontal relationship between the executing agency and 
the CSOs, one of partners in the effort, produces good results. 
• Nicaraguan CSOs are receptive to and welcome organizational development assistance. They are 
open to assessing their performance and to improving their organizations in both internal and 
external aspects. 
• Integrated or comprehensive project designs, that combine grants, technical assistance/coaching 
and training, provide the tools and flexibility to address CSO needs in a tailored fashion and 
produced good results. Flexibility to respond with the appropriate tools was effective for both 
projects. 
• Organizational development projects require time to build relationships of trust and complete 
institutional assessments. Project timeframes need to be long enough to accommodate the 
process; two years proved insufficient. 
• Organizational development is important, but not sufficient in achieving performance 
improvement. Improvements are vulnerable to changes in the political and economic 
environments. Losses of valuable human resources represent loss of capacity for many CSOs. 
• Mechanisms that assist CSOs to access economic resources, including assistance with resource 
development and fundraising, small grants, facilitating CSOs partnering/linking with counterparts in 
other countries, and linkages to other donors are valuable to organizational development efforts; 
especially in contexts such as currently exist in Nicaragua. 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 38 
• Study tours were some of the most valued activities in both projects and allowed CSO leaders a 
new vision of what their organizations could become and provided new ways to address their 
challenges. They energized and invigorated leaders during a difficult and trying period for civil 
society. 
• The selection of external consultants, especially those from developed countries, should be very 
rigorous, because sometimes they do not understand the internal problems of a country and their 
understanding of local culture and the political context is limited. Given their higher costs, foreign 
experts are better used in cases where there is limited local or regional capacity and should be 
teamed with national partners to support the transfer of knowledge 
F. Recommendations 
A new institutional strengthening project will benefit from having an integrated and flexible design that 
includes technical assistance, grants, study tours and allows CSOs the ability to put into practice new skills 
and/or encourages them to multiply or replicate it. A flexible design will also allow USAID the ability to 
respond to an ever changing environment. 
Consider identifying a more targeted DG project objective that facilitates the selection and identification 
of DG CSOs that have demonstrated their capacity to defend human rights, promote democratic values, 
and that are threatened by the government’s attacks. Other CSO selection criteria could include: solid 
membership with several years of experience and proven ability to generate support through volunteerism 
or other resources; strong leadership and management capacity; or can present a proposal that 
demonstrates implementation capacity and can generate results. These criteria focus more on quality than 
on quantity in determining the number of organizations to serve. 
Past experience has shown the importance of a close integration between the grant and technical 
assistance components and the difficulties in bringing together the organizational cultures and priorities of 
distinct implementers. These issues and lessons learned should be taken into account in the design of 
future civil society projects that have both of these components. 
Integrate sustainability plans into project design to promote a continuation of activities into the future.
This could include the development of learning networks among partner CSOs; the development of 
products – i.e. courses or certificates offered by Universities or the capacity of CSOs to offer specialized 
services in organizational development. 
Promote project designs that provide and permit CSOs to multiply and replicate new skills and 
knowledge, as was used by ICNL. 
Given the complexity of organizational development, future projects would benefit from an extended 
period of performance, with a three year as a minimum. 
Projects should give priority to local and regional experts when possible. The list of local service providers 
developed by these projects should be disseminated to other USAID implementers. This could include the 
use of CSOs as trainers and mentors as this would also contribute to building local capacity and 
sustainability. 
Given the current political context, it may be desirable to develop possible alternative scenarios and 
strategies for future DG projects in the event the current situation worsens. These might include 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 39 
identifying alternative ways of providing support to DG CSOs in case the political situation does not permit 
them to participate in typical USAID funded projects. 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 1 | P a g e
Annexes 
Annex 1 – Scope of Work 
Annex 2 – Evaluation Design and Methodology, Work plan and Timeframe, Key Question 
Matrix and Design Matrix 
Annex 3 – Data Collection Tools, Guided questions for interviews with CSOs and Survey 
Annex 4 – Consultants Responsibilities and CVs 
Annex 5 – Theory of Change Framework for ISP and HICD projects 
Annex 6 – International Assistance - Nicaragua 
Annex 7 – PMP Targets and Actual Results for ISP Project 
Annex 8 – List of Organizations in Multi-partner Training Program 
Annex 9 – Case Studies 
Annex 10 - Interview List 
Annex 11 – References 
Annex 1 – Scope of Work - 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
Project Identification Data
I. Project Title: “Human and Institutional Capacity Development” (HICD) Project, also known as 
“Training for Development” Project.
Project Number: RAN-I-CO-05-00026-00 
Project Dates: April 2010 – April 2012 
 Project Funding: $4, 059, 455 
Implementing Organization: World Learning, Inc. 
Contracting Officer Representative (COR): Luis Fernando Ubeda 
II. Project Title: “Institutional Strengthening Project”, also known as “Organizational Development of 
Nicaraguan Civil Society” Project.
Project Number: 524-A-00-08-00003-00 
Project Dates: June 2008 – August 2011 
Project Funding: $5,444,506 
Implementing Organization: FHI 360, LLC (formerly known as Academy for Educational Development 
(AED) in partnership with Management Sciences International (MSI) 
Agreement Officer Representative (AOR): Jessica Zaman 
A) BACKGROUND 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 2 | P a g e
Project Title: Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) Program -also known as Training 
for Development 
The goal of this program aimed to provide Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) 
services to USAID/Nicaragua so that key organizations assisted through other USG-funded Democracy 
and Governance (DG) activities could better achieve mutually agreed program objectives by developing, 
in a cost efficient manner, the specific capacities needed within those organizations and in key staff 
members. The training and other capacity building interventions provided under a Task Order (TO) 
supported existing technical assistance (TA) programs or filled a void where no TA provider existed. This 
program was an integral part of the set of activities directed to achieve USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic 
Objective 1 – Ruling Justly: More responsive, Transparent Governance (SO 1) and concluded on April 6, 
2012. Program activities undertaken fell into three broad categories: 
1) Complete Human and Institutional Capacity Development (HICD) activities, 
2) Partial HICD activities, and 
3) Stand -alone non-HICD interventions, or “exceptional requests”. 
More specifically, the program implemented the following services and interventions: 
• Services: such as ongoing expert consultation services related to the Mission’s overall HICD 
efforts across its portfolio, procurement of training and non-training interventions and logistics 
providers; intervention services; participant recruitment and processing; pre-departure 
orientation, participant tracking, with related reporting and monitoring; program monitoring, 
evaluation and follow-up; participant processing services (US and Third-country); grant 
management; and 
• Interventions: such as performance assessment, organizational performance, individual or 
workgroup performance, participant training/academic education, technical assistance, small 
grants and local capacity building. 
The HICD program, implemented by World Learning, was specifically designed to develop the capacity of 
selected Nicaraguan civil society organizations whose work contributes to USAID/Nicaragua’s Strategic 
Objective I, Ruling Justly: More Responsive, Transparent Governance. Given the context of Nicaragua at 
this time, the two-year program worked to address three core factors that greatly impact the sector: 
Capacity and Performance – The ability of partner CSOs to better meet the demands of their 
stakeholders, clients, and beneficiaries. 
Environment – the ability of CSOs to operate within the legislative and regulatory framework, without 
undue burden placed upon them. 
Sustainability – both in terms of financial and programmatic sustainability, the ability of partners to 
endure. 
The following illustrate some of key results as result of the program support: 
• Sound Legislative Approach Promoted - 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 3 | P a g e
• Partner Capacity-Building Activities Supported by Small Grants 
• Professional and Institutional Capacity TA and Training –in subjects related to project 
management and planning, sustainability, communications, and volunteer management. 
• Contributing to the Sustainability of CSOs – 
In all, over the course of the two years the HICD program worked directly with more than 70 
organizations/partners, implementing 76 programs that consisted of 307 training events, 68 technical 
assistance activities, 17 US and third-country activities, and nine small grants. 
Project Title: Organizational Development of Nicaraguan Civil Society Project – also known as 
Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP)
From June 2008 to August 2011, USAID/Nicaragua supported the strengthening of the organizational 
capacity, governance structure, operational efficiency, and strategic vision of 30 civil society 
organizations (CSOs) in Nicaragua through the Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP). When the 
program began in 2008, there was not a cohesive vision of the role that Nicaraguan civil society should 
play in civic engagement. Through the process of strengthening individual organizations, CSO leaders 
became more visible and vocal in local media, broadening their constituencies. These grassroots leaders 
now have a deeper understanding of the impact that their stronger organizations can have in their 
country and their region. With this understanding and through alliance building, these CSOs began to 
coalesce around the role that civil society could take in Nicaragua. 
Over the course of the project, the ISP worked with 30 CSOs representing a diversity of areas such as 
education, human rights, women’s business, and vulnerable youth. The program focused on their 
organizational development and aimed to provide ongoing professional support within five main 
components: 
• Governance and Leadership; 
• Strategic planning; 
• Management Structures and Practices; 
• Marketing and Communications and; 
• Strategic realignment and coalition building. 
The program worked with two groups of organizations - twenty of which are mature civil society 
organizations (CSOs) and ten of which are emerging civil society organizations. Emerging organizations 
are distinguished by the fact that they have existed for less than five years. The methods used by 
program staff in assisting CSOs included managerial process observation, coaching, training and 
technical assistance. To complement the areas discussed above, the program managed a grants 
program. The grants served to accelerate the implementation of the activities promoted by the 
program’s technical advisors. 
Highlights of progress as result of this program support include the following: 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 4 | P a g e
• Thirteen organizations strengthened their self-governance capacity moving to the 
 Consolidating stage of the IDF. 
• Fourteen organizations strengthened their strategic planning capacity and moved to the 
 Consolidating stage. 
• Eleven organizations experienced substantial growth moving one or more of the four stages on 
the continuum. 
• Fifteen organizations improved their management structures and practices moving to the 
consolidating stage. 
• Five organizations achieved substantial growth, advancing one or more stages. 
• Eight organizations strengthened their ability to stimulate synergies growing into the 
 Sustaining stage and at least four organizations showed substantial improvements. 
A performance mid-term evaluation was performed in July of 2010 with generally favorable 
conclusions and useful recommendations that were taken into consideration in the ongoing 
implementation of the project. The report presented a list of recommendations that are 
summarized below: 
1. USAID should continue supporting the 20 formal CSOs to maintain the level of strength they 
currently exhibit. 
2. USAID should provide OD services similar to these provided through ISP to an additional set 
of up to 20 CSOs. These could include several of the ten emergent organizations that 
participated in this project. 
3. USAID should broaden and deepen OD services to include greater emphasis on institutional 
sustainability, and improve internal financial management and inter-institutional alliance 
building, both at the national and international levels. 
4. Support CSOs to develop their capacity to manage grants directly, especially FOGs from 
USAID and other cooperating entities. 
5. USAID should use only non-prescriptive, long-term, collaborative implementation processes 
delivered by qualified OD professionals in providing institutional strengthening while not 
intervening in internal programmatic issues. 
6. The ISP partner CSOs organizations should continue to work on implementing the seven 
pillars to building a fundraising program and they would benefit from continued technical 
assistance that ensures the following: 
• An expanded volunteer network for fundraising and fundraising committee with clear 
terms of reference 
• A compelling institutional case for support 
• A written fundraising plan 
• A reliable system of financial management and accountability 
• Proficiency using Foundation Directory Online 
B. EXISTING DATA 
The evaluation team will be expected to meet with members of USAID Nicaragua and staff from World 
Learning, FHI 360 and MSI as well as with other key technical players and counterparts. 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 5 | P a g e
USAID will provide all existing documentation (hard or electronic copies) related to the two programs 
being evaluated and will provide the evaluation team with a package of background materials, including: 
• Evaluation Policy 
• Checklist for assessing USAID Evaluation Reports 
• ISP mid-term evaluation report 
• Project contract (or agreement) and pertinent amendments 
• Project annual plans and quarterly reports 
• Work Plan 
• Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
• Final program reports 
• Other relevant studies or documents (as requested by the evaluators) 
In addition evaluators should consider the following performance indicators that were tracked during 
the life of the project: 
Common indicators for both DG projects: 
2.3.2-8 Number of local CSOs strengthened that promote political participation and voter 
 education 
2.4.1-1 Number of Civil Society Organizations using USG Assistance to Improve Internal 
Organizational Capacity 
2.4.1-9 Number of USG Assisted Civil Society Organizations that engage in advocacy and watchdog 
functions 
Additional indicators for HICD project: 
2.2.4.1 Custom - Number of CSOs equipped with the skills to contribute to developing and 
 advocating for proposals for an improved legal environment for CSOs 
2.4.2-2 Number of Journalists Trained with USG Assistance 
2.4.2-2a Number of men 
2.4.2-2b Number of women 
C. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The following evaluation questions have been identified by USAID Nicaragua and must be answered as a 
result of this evaluation and clearly presented in the Final Report in terms of how they relate to the 
evaluation purpose 
1) What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? Can it be categorized into subgroups? If 
so, what are the typical organizations in each category? To what extent are or did the two 
activities address the needs of CSOs? 
2) What are the views of local civil society about whether these two activities were relevant to 
them? To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their overall objectives and 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 6 | P a g e
results? Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future civil society 
assistance? 
3) How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or other donor programs to 
achieve overall strategic objectives? 
4) How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these programs interact with the broader 
political and governmental environment? And how were they affected by it? 
5) Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program (or programs) to the 
activities being evaluated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? How 
can they be improved? 
6) How has reduction or withdrawal of donor assistance impacted civil society? 
Gender-related questions: 
1) How did the different roles and status of women and men within the community, political 
sphere, workplace, and household (for example, roles in decision-making and different access to 
and control over resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
2) How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men differently? 
D. METHODOLOGY 
The contractor will provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed methodology for carrying out 
the work when the evaluation design is submitted to USAID for approval. The methodology may be 
comprised of a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation’s research questions. These tools may include, 
but not be limited to, a combination of the following: 
• Review documentation (e.g., mid-term evaluation; quarterly reports; final reports); 
• Organize focus group discussions with selected CSOs; 
• Conduct stakeholder interviews; 
• Case studies of CSOs 
This evaluation will be conducted in consultation with USAID to ensure that the team has the 
appropriate background and contact information. The key issues to be addressed by the evaluation 
team should be developed in consultation with USAID designated staff during the evaluation team’s first 
meeting. 
The recommended methodological instruments to be used should focus on obtaining information, 
opinions, and quantitative and qualitative data from all parties involved. These will include the 
preparation of appropriate questionnaires that should be attached to the work plan to be presented to 
USAID. 
E. TEAM COMPOSITION 
The contractor is expected to independently hire any assistance s/he may deem necessary to carry out 
this work. The team will be comprised with one external U.S. Senior Civil Society Expert/Organizational 
Strengthening Expert and a Local Civil Society Expert. 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 7 | P a g e
F. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS 
The majority of the work will take place outside of the premises of USAID/Nicaragua Mission in 
Managua, Nicaragua. The consultants must provide their own laptop with appropriate software. 
Contractors are responsible for providing all transportation to and from Nicaragua; international 
transportation costs are limited to economy-class fares. Contractors are also responsible for in-country 
transportation. 
 G. REPORTING GUIDELINES 
Recommended format for the Final Report (Not to exceed 25 pages per Project evaluated, excluding 
Executive Summary): 
1) Table of contents 
2) List of Acronyms 
3) Executive Summary – including a simple statement of the purpose of the evaluation, a very short 
description of the program, methodology, key results, conclusions and recommendations. 
4) Introduction – purpose of the evaluation, audience, task synopsis and statement of the key 
questions to be answered 
5) Scope and Methodology – describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps 
6) Analysis/Findings/ Conclusions/ Recommendations: for each objective or question, include data 
quality and reporting system that should present verification of indicators, issues and outcomes 
7) References 
8) Annexes 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 8 | P a g e
Annex 2 – Evaluation Design and Methodology, Work plan and 
Timeframe, Key Question Matrix and Design Matrix 
A. Evaluation Design and Methodology 
Phase 1: Evaluation Planning. 
This phase set the foundation the evaluation and was carried out in close coordination with USAID. The 
Evaluators conducted the literature and document review that included: 

 Official program documents including RFAs, program descriptions, modifications; 

 Program documents, including annual, quarterly and trip reports and training materials and 
program handbooks, and assessment products provided by FHI/360 (formerly known as AED) in 
partnership with MSI and World Learning; 

 Relevant assessments and other evaluations regarding civil society participation and civil society 
organizational development/strengthening; 

 Relevant publications regarding civil society and the socio-political context in Nicaragua; and 

 USAID documentation including previous USAID Democracy and Governance assessments and 
current five-year strategy. 
In addition, evaluators sought information of other programs or interventions relevant to the programs 
funded by other donors and USAID/Nicaragua. During this phase, the draft work plan and timeline was 
prepared and approved by USAID/Nicaragua as well as refining the initial theory of change with its key 
assumptions underlying the program design. An initial evaluation design matrix was prepared that 
includes each evaluation question. This matrix is included in Section C. In sum, this phase included: 

 Clarification with USAID/Nicaragua regarding key issues and priorities of the evaluations 

 Finalized the identification of stakeholders for the two programs 

 Finalized evaluation work plan and timeline 

 Literature review, including related relevant evaluations 

 Identification of related interventions and programs that impact the projects 

 Developed and/or refined theory of change and identify key assumptions 

 Developed evaluation matrix 
Phase 2: Design and Methodology 
This second phase resulted in selecting a specific design for each question/subquestion as appropriate 
and finalizing the evaluation matrix. Evaluators selected the best design for each question, but were 
limited by the availability of base line data and existing data from each project’s monitoring and 
evaluation system. The data collection instruments focused on information, opinions, qualitative and 
quantitative data from a broad number of sources. In addition to participating organizations, the 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 9 | P a g e
evaluation engaged stakeholders and civil society leaders who provided important inputs. During this 
phase the evaluators: 

 Selected measures for each question/subquestion in terms of reference 

 Identified an appropriate design for each question/subquestion in terms of reference 

 Developed data collection strategy and the instruments and sampling methods to be used for 
each tool. 

 Developed strategy for data analysis 

 Developed the list of organizations and individuals to participate in the evaluation and obtained 
USAID/Nicaragua approval. These included: 
1. Participating CSOs and Trainees. 
2. Key Informants. In order to better understand the context of the programs and the 
current situation of civil society in Nicaragua, the evaluation design includes interviews 
with key informants from diverse sectors. Key civil society leaders who may provide 
important insights on the current situation and suggestions for the future are also 
included in this group. In selecting individuals for this group of informants, the following 
characteristics will be considered: broad political representation; broad sector 
representation; recognized as opinion leaders; and/or credible to the public in general 
or specialists in their areas. 
3. Comparative CSOs. The evaluation design will include interviews with CSO 
representatives from organizations that have not participated in any of the programs 
being evaluated. Although the sample size will be too small to serve as a formal control 
group, information gathered from these interviews will give insights as to the 
importance and relevance of the activities currently provided by the two programs 
being evaluated and help test assumptions and trends identified by other evaluation 
tools. 
4. International Donors. A small group of international donors will be interviewed to gain 
their understanding of the current socio-political context and their perception of CSO’s 
needs and opportunities. 
Phase 3: Data Collection and Analysis 
The evaluation design used a mixture of evaluation designs and data collection instruments to respond 
to the evaluation questions. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Evaluators collected 
data from varied sources and methods and were able to triangulate this information in the subsequent 
analysis. These included utilizing case studies, before-after, and one-shot designs depending on the 
nature of each question and the program context. The evaluation included the following: 
a. Interviews –followed the established protocols and data collection tools and used both open ended 
and semi-structured formats. The interview guide used for participating CSOs is included in Annex 3. 
b. Focus Groups – Twp focus group discussions were held to examine specific issues identified during 
the early stages of the evaluation. 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012
c. Stakeholder Meeting – A stakeholder meeting was held with 
discussion regarding evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations in order to . 
identify lessons learned and best practices. We will utilize an appreciative inquiry approach during 
these meetings. 
d. Case Studies – In close coordination with USAID/Nicaragua
were selected to represent each program.
e. Surveys – A survey was used in conjunction with the other tools described above to elicit input for 
some of the questions. The survey is included in Attachment 
Information gathered from the interviews 
identify trends, and generate initial conclusions and recommendations. 
tested, complemented and cross-checked during 
This phase included the following activities:

 Tested data collection instruments and request input on evaluation design
three CSOs interviewed. In addition, provided USAID/Nicaragua with draft copies and received 
feedback and recommendations. Made modifications to data collection tools as necessary.

 Prepared protocol for data collection

 Collect data utilizing data collection protocol

 Prepared data for analysis and clean

 Analyzed and interpreted data 

 Held a Midpoint Conference with USAID/Nicaragua and Evaluators to discuss major themes, findings 
and assure main issues were being addressed.
Evaluation Report October 2012
A stakeholder meeting was held with organizations from both 
luation findings, conclusions and recommendations in order to . 
identify lessons learned and best practices. We will utilize an appreciative inquiry approach during 
In close coordination with USAID/Nicaragua four case studies (two of each project) 
each program.
used in conjunction with the other tools described above to elicit input for 
survey is included in Attachment XX. 
n gathered from the interviews was organized to compare and aggregate information, 
identify trends, and generate initial conclusions and recommendations. Some of these 
checked during the focus groups and the stakeholder meeting. 
the following activities:
data collection instruments and request input on evaluation design and tools
interviewed. In addition, provided USAID/Nicaragua with draft copies and received 
feedback and recommendations. Made modifications to data collection tools as necessary.
protocol for data collection
Collect data utilizing data collection protocols 
data for analysis and cleaned data as needed 
ld a Midpoint Conference with USAID/Nicaragua and Evaluators to discuss major themes, findings 
being addressed.
10 | P a g e
both projects for a 
luation findings, conclusions and recommendations in order to . will seek to 
identify lessons learned and best practices. We will utilize an appreciative inquiry approach during 
case studies (two of each project) 
used in conjunction with the other tools described above to elicit input for 
organized to compare and aggregate information, 
Some of these conclusions were 
stakeholder meeting. 
and tools from the first 
interviewed. In addition, provided USAID/Nicaragua with draft copies and received 
feedback and recommendations. Made modifications to data collection tools as necessary.
ld a Midpoint Conference with USAID/Nicaragua and Evaluators to discuss major themes, findings 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 11 | P a g e

 Held a stakeholder meeting with CSOs to present draft conclusions and deepen discussions, confirm 
understandings and further explore remaining issues. 

 Debriefed USAID/Nicaragua on evaluation and present major findings and recommendations. 

 Conducted quality checks with key stakeholders and other experts 

 Provided documented draft outline to USAID for approval 
Phase 4: Final Report 

 Prepared draft evaluation report and conduct quality checks 

 Submitted draft evaluation report to USAID/Nicaragua for approval 

 Submitted final draft evaluation report in accordance to the requested terms of reference and 
guidance 

 Submitted final evaluation report to USAID/Nicaragua for approval 
B. Workplan and Timeframe 
Deliverable 1 –Work Plan 
I. Timeline 
The timeline has been adjusted to reflect the actual travel dates for the field visit component of the 
evaluation. The total number of days for evaluation remains at 45 for each member of the 
evaluation team. 
Activity Start Date 
Contract signed 31-Jul
A. Evaluation Planning and Design 31-Jul
Evaluation Planning 31-Jul
Evaluation Design and Methodology 8-Aug
B. Field Visit - US Consultant in Nicaragua 20-Aug
Evaluation design and work plan submitted to 
USAID 23-Aug
Data Collection 24-Aug
USAID Briefing - Midpoint Conference 30-Aug
Focus Groups 29-Aug
Case Studies 27-Aug
Stakeholder meeting 31-Aug
Present major findings to USAID 5-Sep
C. Final Evaluation Report 7-Sep
Draft evaluation reports 7-Sep
Submit Draft Evaluation Report September 21st 21-Sep
USAID Review and feedback by September 28th 21-Sep
Final Reports and Submit October 5th 28-Sep
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 12 | P a g e
Evaluation Time Line 
II. List of persons and organizations to be contacted 
The following is the list of persons and organizations to be contacted for the evaluations of the HICD 
and ISP programs. In the case of participating Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) we have used the 
following selection criteria: 

 Diversity in thematic areas and sectors, with an emphasis on those in the democracy and 
governance sector; 

 Representation of CSOs based outside the capital city given that the majority of participating 
CSOs are located in Managua; 

 Representation of youth and women serving organizations; 

 An emphasis on CSOs that received significant levels of assistance; 

 Representation of emergent organizations; 

 An emphasis on those CSOs that received an HICD process, small grant, ICNL subgrant or 
were part of the Multipartner training process; 

 A preference for those CSOs with a base-line or initial assessment that may provide more 
information regarding program effectiveness; and 

 A particular reason that makes the CSO especially interesting or representative that results 
from the program document review. 
28-Jul 9-Aug 21-Aug 2-Sep 14-Sep 26-Sep 8-Oct
A. Evaluation Planning and Design
Evaluation Planning
Evaluation Design and Methodology
B. Field Visit - US Consultant in Nicaragua
Evaluation design and work plan …
Data Collection
USAID Briefing - Midpoint Conference
Focus Groups
Case Studies
Stakeholder meeting 
Present major findings to USAID
C. Final Evaluation Report
Draft evaluation reports
Submit Draft Evaluation Report
USAID Review and feedback
Final Reports and Submit October 5th
Duration
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 13 | P a g e
CSOs to be contacted 
A. Interviews/Group Discussions 
1. Asociación Civil Pro Desarrollo de la Mujer de Masaya (ACPRODMUJER) 
2. Asociación de Jóvenes de Mateare (AJOMA) 
3. Asociación Instituto Nicaragüense de Capacitación y Estudios Juveniles (INCEJU) 
4. Asociación Movimiento de Mujeres de Chinandega (AMMCH) 
5. Asociación para la Sobrevivencia y el Desarrollo Local (ASODEL) 
6. Centro de Apoyo a las Misiones (CAM) 
7. Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CDC) 
8. Centro de Investigación de la Comunicación (CINCO) 
9. Comisión Permanente de Derechos Humanos (CPDH) 
10. Congreso Permanente de Mujeres Empresarias de Nicaragua (CPMEN) 
11. Coordinadora Civil (CC) y Coordinadora Civil Enlace León 
12. Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra (FNN) 
13. Fundación para el Desarrollo Socioeconómico Rural (FUNDESER) 
14. Grupo Civico Etica y Transparencia (EyT) 
15. Grupo FUNDEMOS 
16. Grupo ProJusticia 
17. Hagamos Democracia (HADEMOS) 
18. Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas Públicas (IEEPP) 
19. Movimiento contra el Abuso Sexual (MCAS) 
20. Movimiento Juvenil Nicaragüita (MJN) 
21. Movimiento por Nicaragua (MPN) 
22. NicaSalud 
23. Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local (Red Local) 
24. Universidad Politécnica de Nicaragua (UPOLI) 
B. Survey 
1. Asociación Civil Pro Desarrollo de la Mujer de Masaya (ACPRODMUJER) 
2. Asociación de Jóvenes de Mateare (AJOMA) 
3. Asociación de Profesionales en Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (APRORSE) 
4. Asociación Instituto Nicaragüense de Capacitación y Estudios Juveniles (INCEJU) 
5. Asociación Movimiento de Mujeres de Chinandega (AMMCH) 
6. Asociación para la Sobrevivencia y el Desarrollo Local (ASODEL) 
7. Cáritas 
8. Centro de Apoyo a las Misiones CAM 
9. Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CDC) 
10. Centro de Investigación de la Comunicación (CINCO) 
11. Comisión Permanente de Derechos Humanos (CPDH) 
12. Congreso Permanente de Mujeres Empresarias de Nicaragua (CPMEN) 
13. Coordinadora Civil Chinandega 
14. Coordinadora Civil Enlace Leon 
15. Foro Educativo Nicaragüense (EDUQUEMOS) 
16. Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra (FNN) 
17. Fundación para el Desarrollo Socioeconómico Rural (FUNDESER) 
18. Fundación Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (FVBCH) 
19. Grupo Civico Etica y Transparencia (EyT) 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 14 | P a g e
20. Grupo FUNDEMOS 
21. Grupo ProJusticia 
22. Grupo Promotor de las Reformas Constitucionales (GPRE)-Coalición￾23. Hagamos Democracia (HADEMOS) 
24. Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas Públicas (IEEPP) 
25. Instituto para el Desarrollo y la Democracia (IPADE) 
26. Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres (MAM) 
27. Movimiento contra el Abuso Sexual (MCAS) 
28. Movimiento Juvenil Nicaragüita (MJN) 
29. Movimiento por Nicaragua (MPN) 
30. Movimiento por una Cultura Política Diferente 
31. Movimiento PUENTE 
32. NicaSalud 
33. Novelistas y Escritores Internacional 
34. Novelistas y Escritores Internacional (PEN) 
35. Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local (Red Local) 
36. Red Teritorial De la Coordinadora Civil de Carazo 
37. Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) 
38. Universidad Americana (UAM) 
39. Universidad de las Regiones Autónomas de la Costa Caribe Nicaragüense (URACCAN) 
40. Universidad Politecnica (UPOLI) 
C. Key Informants: 
1. Carlos Fernando Chamorro - Grupo Cinco 
2. Carlos Tünnermann 
3. Violeta Granera 
4. Gustavo Adolfo Vargas / Oscar René Vargas 
5. Manuel Antonio Ortega Hegg - UCA 
D. Other Comparative CSOs 
1. Centro Nicaragüense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH) 
2. Instituto de Investigaciones y Gestión Social (INGES) 
3. Puntos de Encuentro 
E. International Donors and NGOs 
1. European Union 
2. IBIS – Denmark 
3. OXFAM – British 
4. International Republican Institute 
5. Embassy of Holland 
World Learning and FHI 360/MSI Staff and Key Subcontractors 
1. Cecile Saborio - ISP 
2. Leonardo Escobar - ISP 
3. Donald Spears - ISP 
4. Felix Maradiaga - ISP 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 15 | P a g e
5. Kevin Carew - HICD 
6. Jenny Wiegel – HICD 
7. Namara Altamirano – HICD 
8. Jocelyn Nieva – ISP/NCLA 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 16 | P a g e
C. Key Question Matrix and Design Matrix 
• Matrix – Evaluation Questions 
Key Evaluation Questions Data Collection Questions
1. What is the general status of civil society in Nicaragua? ¿Cual considera usted que es el estado actual de la sociedad civil 
nicaragüense? 
1.1 Can it be categorized into subgroups? If so, what are the typical 
organizations in each category? 
¿De qué forma se agrupan la sociedad civil nicaragüense? ¿Hay grupos 
de organizaciones que considera importante para Nicaragua y por 
qué? 
1.2 To what extent are or did the two activities address the needs of 
CSOs? 
¿Qué necesidades tienen en estos momentos las organizaciones de la 
sociedad civil a) a su interior y en relación con el medio en que se 
desempeña? B)¿Individualmente y como colectivo? 
En relación con las necesidades que usted nombra, ¿hasta qué punto 
responden estos dos programas a estas necesidades? 
2. What are the views of local civil society about whether these two 
activities were relevant to them? 
¿Cuál es la prioridad más grande de su organización?
Empezando del uno a cinco, siendo 1 lo más bajo y 5 la prioridad más 
alta, ¿qué prioridad tiene para su organización el fortalecimiento 
institucional? 
Empezando del uno a cinco, siendo 1 lo más bajo y 5 la importancia 
más alta, qué importancia tiene para su organización el 
fortalecimiento institucional? 
¿Hasta qué punto responden estos dos programas a sus necesidades? 
En una potencial ayuda futura a las OSC ¿cuáles deberían ser las aéreas 
y/o componentes de mayor énfasis?¿cuáles deberían ser los énfasis? 
¿La estrategia? 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 17 | P a g e
Key Evaluation Questions Data Collection Questions
2.1 To what extent were the two activities effective in achieving their 
overall objectives and results? 
¿Han habido cambios en su institución que son resultado directo de la 
participación en estas actividades? (por proyecto) 
En referencia a estos cambios, ¿piensa usted que se pueden mantener 
vigentes a través del tiempo? 
¿Quién/es han impulsado los cambios dentro de su organización? 
 ¿De qué forma han impactado estos programas en la sostenibilidad 
de su organización? 
Por favor mencione dos de las mejores características/componentes 
de cada uno de estos programas y dos que menos le gustaron. 
¿Cuál fue su experiencia con las sub-donaciones o acuerdos de 
colaboración? 
¿Recibe mejor servicios de esta institución? (para redes) 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores) 
¿El apoyo recibido fue relevante para lograr los objetivos y resultados 
planteados? 
¿El apoyo recibido fue efectivo para lograr los objetivos y resultados 
planteados? 
¿Está su organización plenamente satisfecha con el apoyo recibido? 
En términos de magnitud o intensidad ¿cómo califica el apoyo 
recibido? 
Muy significativo_____ Regular_____ Marginal____ 
Si la respuesta es positiva, brevemente mencione cuáles son e indique 
si estos son sostenibles 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 18 | P a g e
Key Evaluation Questions Data Collection Questions
2.2 Are there changes in focus that should be made under any future 
civil society assistance 
¿Si tuviera usted la posibilidad de ajustar/mejorar estos proyectos que 
cambios haría? 
¿Qué preferiría, un apoyo directo de USAID o el apoyo a través de 
organizaciones norteamericanas? 
Con relación al aspecto de sostenibilidad financiera, ¿qué tipo de 
programa sería útil para su organización? 
3. How effectively have these programs coordinated with USAID or 
other donor programs to achieve overall strategic objectives? 
¿Las acciones de apoyo recibidas fueron coordinadas con algún otro 
programa o financiador/donante? Si la respuesta es positiva, indique 
brevemente cuáles fueron los resultados de esa coordinación. 
Que otros programas o sectores de USAID participaron en estos 
proyectos (salud, desarrollo economico)? ¿Cuales fueron los resultados 
de la participación? 
De que forma se coordino con otros donantes y/o representantes de la 
cooperación y/o ONGs internacionales? 
4. How did the civil society partners and beneficiaries of these 
programs interact with the broader political and governmental 
environment? And how were they affected by it? 
¿Cómo interactúa su organización con el actual contexto político, 
económico y social? ¿Qué efecto tuvo esa interacción? ¿Qué 
oportunidades ve usted?
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores) 
Bajo el actual ambiente político, social y económico, ¿qué 
oportunidades y/o amenazas ve usted? ¿En qué forma afecta a su 
organización? 
5. Should the Mission design and implement a similar future program 
(or programs) to the activities being evaluated? 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores)
Su organización considera que en el futuro es conveniente diseñarse e 
implementarse un proyecto similar al que está siendo evaluado? 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 19 | P a g e
Key Evaluation Questions Data Collection Questions
Si la respuesta es positiva, ¿qué cambios recomendaría su organización 
para ese proyecto de asistencia futura a las Organizaciones de la 
Sociedad Civil? Si es negativa, favor explique su respuesta. 
5.1 What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs? Recordando todo lo que paso durante el programa, ¿en qué momento 
se sintió más orgulloso de su trabajo y por qué? 
 Por favor mencione dos de los mejores aspectos/ características/ 
componentes de estos dos programas y dos que menos le gustaron. 
¿Qué procesos de selección y criterios se dieron para la participación 
de las organizaciones en los programas? 
¿Qué tipo de compromisos se hicieron entre el programa y las 
organizaciones seleccionadas? MOU? 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores) 
¿Qué debilidades y fortalezas detecta en el apoyo recibido por su 
organización y cómo cree que podrían ser mejoradas? 
5.2 How can they be improved? ¿Si tuviera usted la posibilidad de ajustar/mejorar estas actividades 
que cambios haría? 
¿Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica usted de esta experiencia? 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores) 
¿Su organización considera que en el futuro debería diseñarse e 
implementarse un proyecto similar al que está siendo evaluado? 
Si la respuesta es positiva, ¿qué cambios recomendaría su organización 
para ese proyecto de asistencia futura a las Organizaciones de la 
Sociedad Civil? Si es negativa, favor explique su respuesta. 
6. How has reduction or withdrawal of donor assistance impacted civil 
society? 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores)
¿Está la reducción de fondos y el retiro de los donantes impactando las 
organizaciones de la sociedad civil? ¿De qué forma? 
Annexes - Draft Evaluation Report October 2012 20 | P a g e
Key Evaluation Questions Data Collection Questions
7. How did the different roles and status of women and men within the 
community, political sphere, workplace, and household (for example, 
roles in decision-making and different access to and control over 
resources and services) affect the work that was undertaken? 
¿Tiene su organización una política de género? 
¿Hay obstáculos para la participación de la mujer dentro y fuera de las 
OSC? 
Encuesta (preguntas adicionales a las anteriores) 
¿Hasta qué punto se consideraron aspectos de género en el proyecto 
que apoyó a su organización?
8. How did the anticipated results of the work affect women and men 
differently? 
¿Hasta qué punto impactaron estas actividades de forma diferenciada
a las mujeres y a los hombres? 
21
Annex 3 – Data Collection Tools - Guided questions for interviews 
with CSOs and Survey 
A. Interview Guide 1 – Partner Civil Society Organizations
Organización________________________________________________________ 
Entrevistado (Nombre y Titulo) 
______________________________________________________________________ 
Fecha_____________________Entrevistador/a_______________________________ 
1. ¿Cuál considera usted que es el estado actual de la sociedad civil nicaragüense? 
2. ¿De qué forma se agrupan la sociedad civil nicaragüense? ¿Hay grupos de 
organizaciones que considera de especial importancia para Nicaragua? 
3. ¿Qué necesidades tienen en estos momentos las organizaciones de la sociedad 
civil a) a su interior y en relación con el medio en que se desempeña? 
b)¿Individualmente y como colectivo? 
4. En relación con las necesidades que usted nombra, ¿hasta qué punto responden 
estos dos programas a estas necesidades? 
5. ¿Cuál es la prioridad más grande de su organización? 
6. Empezando del uno a cinco, siendo 1 lo más bajo y 5 la prioridad más alta, 
¿qué prioridad tiene para su organización el fortalecimiento institucional? 
7. Empezando del uno a cinco, siendo 1 lo más bajo y 5 la importancia más alta, 
qué importancia tiene para su organización el fortalecimiento institucional? 
8. Explíquenos por favor su calificación 
9. En una potencial ayuda futura a las OSC ¿cuáles deberían ser las aéreas y/o 
componentes de mayor énfasis? ¿La estrategia?
10. ¿Han habido cambios en su institución que son resultado directo de la 
participación en estas actividades? (por proyecto) 
22
11. En referencia a estos cambios, ¿piensa usted que se pueden mantener vigentes a 
través del tiempo? ¿Quién/es han impulsado los cambios dentro de su 
organización? 
12. ¿De qué forma han impactado estos proyectos en la sostenibilidad de su 
organización? 
13. Por favor mencione dos de las mejores características/componentes de cada uno 
de estos programas y dos que menos le gustaron. 
14. ¿Cuál fue su experiencia con las sub-donaciones o acuerdos de colaboración? 
15. ¿Recibe mejor servicios de esta institución? (para redes) 
16. ¿Si tuviera usted la posibilidad de ajustar/mejorar estos proyectos que cambios 
haría? ¿Qué preferiría, un apoyo directo de USAID o el apoyo a través de 
organizaciones norteamericanas? 
17. Con relación al aspecto de sostenibilidad financiera, ¿qué tipo de programa sería 
útil para su organización? 
18. ¿Cómo interactúa su organización con el actual contexto político, económico y social? 
¿Qué efecto tuvo esa interacción? Bajo este ambiente ¿qué oportunidades ve 
usted? 
19. Recordando todo lo que paso durante el programa, ¿en qué momento se sintió 
más orgulloso de su trabajo y por qué? 
20. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica de esta experiencia? 
21. ¿Hay obstáculos para la participación de la mujer dentro y fuera de las OSC? 
22. ¿Hasta qué punto impactaron estas actividades de forma diferenciada a las 
mujeres y a los hombres? 
23. ¿Tiene su organización una política de género? 
24. ¿Tiene algo más que agregar? 
 
23
B. Survey – Partner Civil Society Organizations
Encuesta a las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil participantes 
A solicitud de la USAID, estamos realizando la evaluación final de los proyectos 
Programa de Desarrollo de Capacidades Institucionales y Proyecto de 
Fortalecimiento Institucional, financiados por esta organización para fortalecer a las 
Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil de Nicaragua, en la(s) que su organización 
participó. Con este fin solicitamos su opinión sobre los logros, impactos, fortalezas y 
aciertos, así como sobre las dificultades y debilidades que se han presentado durante 
la ejecución de estos proyectos en su organización. Le agradecemos mucho su 
cooperación respondiendo a las preguntas que le haremos a continuación. Le 
informamos que su participación en esta encuesta es voluntaria y que la información 
que usted nos brinde será mantenida como confidencial. No se harán citas sobre su 
persona u la organización para la cual trabaja. 
Datos generales 
Fecha de la encuesta: _________________________________________ 
1. Nombre de la organización ____________________________________ 
2. Nombre de la persona entrevistada: _____________________________ 
3. Nombre del departamento: ____________________________________ 
4. Nombre del municipio: ________________________________________ 
5. Cargo dentro de la organización_________________________________ 
6. Sexo: Hombre ❑ Mujer ❑ 
7. Organización de la cual recibió el apoyo: __________________________ 
24
1. Valoración de la relevancia, eficacia y satisfacción (marque con una x donde corresponda): 
1. Tipo de apoyo recibido Si No En los casos en que haya recibido apoyo conteste las preguntas 1.1, 1.2, y 
1.3 marcando una X donde corresponda 
¿Tiene algún comentario respecto a lo señalado en cada una de 
las líneas? 
1.1 ¿El apoyo 
recibido fue 
relevante a las 
necesidades 
organización? 
1.2 ¿El apoyo recibido 
fue efectivo para 
lograr los 
objetivos y 
resultados 
planteados? 
1.3 ¿Está su 
organización 
plenamente 
satisfecha con el 
apoyo recibido? 
Si No A medias Si No A medias Si No A medias
a. Fortalecimiento de las 
capacidades de su 
organización para un 
mejor gobierno 
b. Proveer o mejorar la 
capacidad para 
establecer planes 
estratégicos en la 
organización
c. Reorganización de las 
estructuras y prácticas 
de gestión 
d. Desarrollo de estrategias 
de comunicación
eficaces
e. Desarrollo de programas 
de formación para las 
juntas directivas y los 
equipos técnicos 
f. Diagnostico Institucional
g. Desarrollo de estrategias 
de sostenibilidad:
h. Otro: (especificar):
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 25 
2. En términos de magnitud o intensidad ¿cómo califica el apoyo recibido? 
Muy significativo_____ Regular_____ Marginal____ 
3. ¿Quién/es han impulsado los cambios dentro de su organización? (Marque todos los que 
sean apropiados). 
___Presidencia/Gerencia ___Junta Directiva ___Unidad Técnica 
__Consultores Externos ___Beneficiarios de su organización __Otros________ 
4. ¿El apoyo recibido ha generado cambios dentro de su organización? 
Si____ No___ 
5. Si la respuesta es positiva, brevemente mencione cuáles son e indique si estos son 
sostenibles 
_______________________________________________________________ 
Cambios generados ¿Se pueden mantener en el futuro? 
¿Han impactado estos cambios en la 
sostenibilidad de su organización? 
• • 
• • 
• • 
• • 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 26 
6. ¿Las acciones de apoyo recibidas fueron coordinadas con algún otro programa o donante ? 
Si___ No____ 
7. Si la respuesta es positiva, indique brevemente cuáles fueron los resultados de esa 
coordinación 
 _____________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________ 
8. Bajo el actual ambiente político, social y económico, ¿qué oportunidades y/o amenazas ve 
usted? ¿En qué forma afecta a su organización? 
_______________________________________________________________ 
_______________________________________________________________ 
9. ¿Qué debilidades y fortalezas detecta en el apoyo recibido por su organización y cómo cree 
que podrían ser mejoradas? 
Escriba las más importantes ¿Cómo podrían ser mejoradas?
Fortalezas • • 
• • 
• • 
Debilidades • • 
• • 
• • 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 27 
10. ¿Su organización considera que en el futuro es conveniente diseñarse e implementarse un 
proyecto similar al que está siendo evaluado? 
Si ___ No___ 
11. Si la respuesta es positiva, ¿qué cambios recomendaría su organización para ese proyecto 
de asistencia futura a las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil? Si es negativa, favor 
explique su respuesta. 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
12. En una potencial ayuda futura a las OSC ¿cuáles deberían ser los énfasis? 
___________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________ 
 
13. ¿Qué preferiría, un apoyo directo de USAID o el apoyo a través de organizaciones 
norteamericanas? 
____________________________________________________________________ 
14. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas identifica usted de esta experiencia? 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
15. ¿Está la reducción de fondos y el retiro de los donantes impactando las organizaciones de 
la sociedad civil? SI__NO__
16. ¿De qué forma? 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 28 
17. ¿Hasta qué punto se consideraron aspectos de género en el proyecto que apoyó a su 
organización? 
Mucho ____ Algo ____ Muy poco o nada ____ 
18. ¿Existen obstáculos para la participación de la mujer dentro y/o fuera de las OSC? 
Si ____ No ____ 
Favor explique su respuesta 
19. ¿Tiene algo más que agregar? 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________ 
Muchas gracias por su colaboración.
 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 29 
Annex 4 – Evaluation Team: Responsibilities and CVs 
Activity 
Responsibility/ 
Participation Description 
A. Evaluation Planning 
and Design Joint
Evaluation Planning Joint
Both consultants will work on the planning of the 
evaluation 
Evaluation Design and 
Methodology US Expert
US Expert will lead the methodological design with 
inputs of the local consultant. This will be done in 
consultation with the DG Technical Team
B. Field Visit - US 
Consultant in 
Nicaragua 
Evaluation design and 
work plan submitted to 
USAID US Expert US Expert submits plan for approval
Data Collection Joint
The data collection tools will be designed by both 
consultants depending of their expertise. Final approval 
will be by the US Expert.
 Sampling methodologies will be decided by US expert 
in collaboration with DG Technical Team. The local 
expert will be responsible for logistics and assuring that 
interviews are well planned. Local expert will also lead 
the identification of CS leaders, opinion makers and 
comparative CSO. Selection of these will be done 
jointly, in collaboration with DG Team
US Expert will focus on organizations that participated 
in the World Learning project
USAID Briefing - 
Midpoint Conference US Expert
US Expert will prepare the briefing presentation in 
coordination with Local Expert. Both will contribute 
inputs for this presentation.
Focus Groups Joint
Both Consultants will participate in the preparation of 
the focus groups. The Local Expert will lead those in the 
FHI program and the US Expert those with the World 
Learning organizations.
Case Studies Local Expert
The case studies will be structured and planned jointly, 
but the Local Expert will be responsible for the product. 
This will be reviewed and have inputs from the US 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 30 
Activity 
Responsibility/ 
Participation Description 
Expert. Final Case Studies will be approved by US Expert
Stakeholder meeting Joint
The Local Expert will serve as facilitator for the meeting 
that will be planned by both.
Present major findings 
to USAID US Expert
The US Expert will present the major findings to USAID. 
The presentation will be jointly prepared, with 
substantial inputs from Local Expert.
C. Final Evaluation 
Report Joint
US Expert will have final approval. Inputs from both 
US and Local Experts
Draft evaluation 
reports & submit Joint
Both Experts will provide inputs to reports, will 
exchange views and opinions, edit and review 
document. US Expert will be responsible for final 
content.
USAID Review and 
feedback 
Final Reports Joint
Both Experts will provide inputs to reports, will 
exchange views and opinions, edit and review 
document. US Expert will be responsible for final 
content.
Evaluation Team CVs
Team Leader and International Expert Anabella Bruch and Local Expert Raul Fajardo formed the 
Evaluation Team. Their CVs are found below: 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 31 
ANABELLA BRUCH 
6185 Kawaihau Rd. Kapaa, HI 96746 
Tel. 301-523-5711 abruch@gmail.com
______________________________________________________________________________
KEY QUALIFICATIONS: 
Ms. Bruch is a seasoned international development professional with 25 years of experience 
working in Latin America and the Caribbean on projects funded by USAID, US Department of 
State, US Department of Labor, IDB and various NGOs and private organizations. She has 
extensive experience designing and leading M&E projects and in providing M&E training. Ms. 
Bruch has excellent management capabilities and technical knowledge in civil society, 
democracy and governance, organizational development and youth programming. She has 
extensive experience in small grants management, NGO management, developing networks, and 
participant training. 
Currently, Ms. Bruch is working for Knowledge Pathways as Principle where she provides 
technical services in the areas of evaluation of democracy and governance programs, network 
development, citizen participation and civil society capacity building, NGO management and 
program design and implementation to USAID missions, NGOs and private organizations in the 
US and Latin America. In this role, she conducted mid-term evaluation of civil society 
strengthening programs for USAID/Nicaragua and led the final evaluation of the PEER project, a 
civil society program funded by USAID in Honduras for ICNL. Ms. Bruch is also the Executive 
Director for Partners for Sustainable Development where she works to expand opportunities for 
youth, women and underserved populations by mobilizing the private sector and building public￾private partnerships. As Vice President for Field Operations in May 2007 to March 2010 for 
Partners of the Americas, she supervised all programs implemented from the field, which 
included all monitoring and evaluation activities. She also designed and led evaluations for civil 
society, youth and agricultural programs and provided training in monitoring and evaluation to 
field staff. 
Ms. Bruch has demonstrated analytic capabilities and exceptional verbal and written 
communication skills in English and Spanish. She holds a Master of Science in Development 
Management from American University and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Latin 
American Studies from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. In addition to her native 
proficiency in English and Spanish, Ms. Bruch has basic language abilities in French and 
Portuguese. 
EDUCATION: 
Master of Science, Development Management, American University, 1987 
Bachelor of Arts, Economics and Latin American Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel 
Hill, 1981 
LANGUAGES: English (native), Spanish (native), French (basic), Portuguese (basic) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 32 
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 
July 2010-Present, Executive Director, Partners for Sustainable Development, Arlington, 
VA. PSD’s mission is to work in partnership with the poor, youth, women and communications 
recovering from natural or man-made disasters to fulfill their aspirations for increased 
opportunities, income, recognition, inclusion and social justice. By mobilizing the private sector 
as an engine for economic growth, using the best available methodologies and tools and creating 
effective linkages, contributed to economic growth and decent work for vulnerable groups 
worldwide. 
March 2010-Present, Principal, Knowledge Pathways, Bethesda, MD. Provide technical 
services in the areas of evaluation of democracy and governance program, network development, 
citizen participation and civil society capacity building, NGO management, program design and 
implementation. Conducted mid-term evaluation of civil society strengthening programs for 
USAID/Nicaragua. The evaluation purpose was to provide needed information and analysis that 
would allow USAID to make management decisions about how to best support civil society in a 
changing and difficult political environment. Evaluation design included: document review of 
program documents, literature and studies on civil society; 62 interviews with civil society 
organizations, key informants and civil society leaders, sample comparison organizations that did 
not receive assistance; and group discussions to identify lessons learned and recommendations 
using an appreciative inquiry methodology. 
Led the final evaluation of the PEER project, a civil society program funded by USAID in 
Honduras for ICNL. Led the Lessons Learned report for Partners of the Americas on the 
Participation and Justice Network and Citizens Working for Justice Program. 
May 2007-March 2010, Vice President of Field Operations, Partners of the Americas, 
Washington, D.C. Oversaw Latin American programs, including civil society participation, 
election monitoring, justice reform and agriculture, and at-risk youth programs. Held 
coordination meetings at the national and local government level, with NGOs and CSOs, and 
other international donors. Led the design and implementation of midterm and final evaluations 
for all field programs, including programs in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Jamaica, Haiti, Guyana, 
Colombia and Guatemala. Prepared presentations based on lessons learned and provided 
recommendations. Worked closely with donors and specialized monitoring and evaluation firms 
to develop complex M&E systems. Supervised and trained field and DC staff on M&E 
methodologies, including civil society, at-risk youth, and democracy programs. Led an 
organization-wide training process to increase awareness and skills in M&E. 
An example of Ms. Bruch’s program management success is the Citizens Working for Justice 
program in Bolivia, which was implemented with USAID/Bolivia support from 2002 to 2010 under her 
direction and oversight. This program highlighted the power of building civil society networks to bring 
about change, especially in the area of access to justice and democratic processes and the results that can 
be achieved when civil society is organized. Through this program, the Citizen Participation and Justice 
Network (Red Participación y Justicia) was created, which grew to include over 100 organizations and 
became an independent, legally conformed Bolivian NGO, specializing in access to justice. To achieve 
this, the program brought together existing Bolivian civil society organizations that were working in, or 
had an interest in justice related issues. By applying tested methodologies and carefully navigating the 
difficult political environment, the program built their capacity to support, advocate for, and educate the 
public regarding justice reform and helped them work together to increase their impact and competence. 
Today the Network is recognized as a legitimate, professional and capable organization in the area of 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 33 
justice. Liliana Ayalde, Mission Director at the time, frequently highlighted the program as one of its 
most successful ones in her portfolio and USAID contracts office referred to it as a “Swiss watch” for its 
timeliness and accuracy in complying with reporting and financial requirements.
In the area of at-risk youth, Ms. Bruch supported the design of and was responsible for 
supervising of an award-winning at-risk youth program in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and 
Uruguay: A Ganar. This program started out with support from the IADB and has attracted 
additional funding from private donors and USAID due to its innovative design and success of 
engaging at-risk youth in vocational training and support networks. In Brazil, Ms. Bruch 
supported the design and implementation of a girl’s only model of A Ganar which has been 
adapted to meet the special needs of young at-risk women with funding from the Nike 
Foundations. It has attracted local support and funding, provided young women with new 
opportunities for their future, and provided a model for others to learn from. Ms. Bruch worked 
closely with program staff, assured quality of program, engaged donors and potential supporters, 
and led the design of the M&E component for the program. 
In addition to program management responsibilities, Ms. Bruch led the project design and 
proposal preparation for civil society, youth, child labor and environmental programs and was 
responsible for designing all M&E components. Responsible for all Field Operations and donor 
relations, including USAID, US Department of Labor, US DOS, Nike Foundation and IDB. 
Supervised all COPs in the region to assure programs met targets and donor expectations. 
December 2001-April 2007, Vice President for Programs, Partners of the Americas, 
Washington, D.C. Oversaw Partners program portfolio to assure program objectives were 
achieved and compliance with US government procedures and regulations. Developed and 
oversaw program M&E systems. Trained staff and NGO members on program management and 
monitoring and evaluation, including appreciative inquiry methodology. Supervised small grants 
program in the civil society programs implemented throughout the Americas, including review 
of project design, organizational capacity needs and monitoring and evaluation plans. Assured 
high quality of Partners’ programs and timeliness of implementation and all reporting. Promoted 
and sought synergies and collaboration across programs to improve impact and results. 
December 1992-November 2001, Director, Farmer to Farmer, Partners of the Americas, 
Washington, D.C. Served as Chief of Party to the Farmer to Farmer program in 14 countries in 
the Americas. Directed, managed and implemented the Dairy Development Program in Guyana. 
Developed all monitoring and evaluation systems and trained staff and volunteers in the logical 
framework, participative evaluation, and other evaluation methodologies. Assessed technical 
assistance needs of grass roots organizations and assisted in the identification of appropriate 
technical experts to meet them. Local organization capacity building was a priority throughout 
program and provided strategic planning, needs assessment and coaching to participating 
organizations. Managed volunteers in the implementation of technical assistance programs in 
Latin America. Developed and implemented agricultural program for Rural Women in the 
Americas that resulted in significant productivity and income increases. 
February 1992-December 1992, Assistant Director, Farmer to Farmer, Partners of the Americas, 
Washington, D.C. Monitored program implementation in three South American countries. 
Designed and implemented the Women in Development program component of the FTF 
Program as well as the volunteer training program and evaluation systems. Designed a sub- 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 34 
grants mechanism to involve small women organizations in the program. Emphasis on 
organizational development of local organizations. 
April 1991 to February 1992, Program Coordinator, Nicaraguan Peace Scholarship 
Program, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Helped design and oversee 
implementation of a participant training pilot program for disadvantaged Nicaraguan youth; 
annual work plans, execution and administration of sub-agreements with colleges. Oversight of 
participant recruitment, pre-departure and final orientation, participant tracking and follow 
through. Designed and implemented evaluation component. 
February 1989-April 1991, Program Officer, Central American and Caribbean 
Scholarship Program, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. Managed all components 
of the CASS program at six community colleges in the U.S. Evaluated and monitored academic 
and technical training programs for 210 scholars. Monitored and provided technical assistance to 
colleges in their CASS budgets. Assisted in designing and completing a systematic evaluation of 
community colleges. Participated in all aspects of participant recruiting, orientation, monitoring 
and support. 
May 1987-September 1988, Coordinator, Immigrant Women’s Income Generating Project, 
The Family Place, Washington, D.C. Revitalized small enterprise project for low-income 
urban women in spite of minimal funds. Identified, designed, and created a new product for 
which markets were researched and developed. Prepared grant proposals and organizing self￾funding activities. 
July 1982-November 1982, Economist, Centro Centro para el Desarrollo-Económico y 
Social, La Paz, Bolivia. Contributed to the implementation of a consumer cooperative 
evaluation project. Conducted workshops to develop community leadership skills. Audited 
group of consumer cooperatives, analyzed results and recommended changes.
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 35 
Raúl E. Fajardo 
Resumé 
General Manager of “Management Coaching & Consulting Group” (mc2
 Group), the most reputed 
consultancy firm in Nicaragua in the cooperation for development field. 
Expertise fields: Project identification, design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation an systematization, 
Strategic Planning, Results Based Management, Training Needs Assessment, Design of Monitoring and 
Evaluation Systems in projects, Training Promotion, Small and Medium Enterprises, Professional Training, 
and other related fields 
Phone: 505-2277-0335 
Fax: 505-2277-04009 
E-mail: mc2group@competitividad.net
Web Site: www.mc2group,com 
Address: Del Hotel Brandts, 200m al Sur. Frente a S.O.S., Reparto San Juan, Managua, Nicaragua. 
STUDIES AND TITLES:
1962 - 1966 : Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. Lima, Perú: Degree: 
Industrial Engineer 
1968 - 1970 : Ohio State University, U.S.A: Degree: Master of Sciences (M.Sc.) 
1970 - 1973 : Ohio State University, U.S.A: Degree: Dr. of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 
OTHER STUDIES:
Participation in courses, seminars, workshops and internships in issues related to Innovation, Science 
and Technology, Small Enterprise, Professional and Technical Training, Leadership, Planning, Project 
Cycle Management, Cooperation Projects Management and topics related, in the following countries: 
France, Switzerland, Bulgaria, USA, Japan, India, Brazil, Italy, Ecuador, Germany, Spain, Costa Rica 
and Peru. (In total more than 30 seminars). 
MAIN POSITIONS IN THE LAST 20 YEARS:
1978 - 1980 : Technical Manager, Helitubca - Venezuela (Private Enterprise) 
1980 - 1982 : General Manager, Industrial Recycling Corp., Perú (Private Enterprise) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 36 
1982 - 1985 : General Director, ITINTEC -Instituto de Investigación Tecnológica y de 
Normas Técnicas, Perú (Public Technological Development and Standards 
Institute - 600 employees). 
1985 - 1989 : National Director, SENATI- Servicio Nacional de Adiestramiento en Trabajo 
Industrial, Perú (Public Industrial Training System - 1,200 employees) 
1989 - 1991 : Executive Director, Instituto Tecnológico Superior - TECSUP, Perú (Private 
supported training institution - 180 employees). 
1991 – 2000 : Chief Technical Adviser of the International Labour Organization (ILO) 
Projects: NIC/90/M01/NET, NIC/94/MO1/NET and NIC/97/MO1/NET – 
(Supporting Projects to the Technical and Professional Training in Nicaragua) 
(US$10’000,000 in three projects). 
Since August 2000: General Manager “Management Coaching & Consulting Group” Managua, 
Nicaragua (International Consulting Company). 
PARTICIPATION IN CONGRESSES, COURSES AND CONFERENCES AS SPEAKER 
He has participated as speaker in several congresses, seminars and conferences related to the 
topics: Innovation, Creativity, Science and Technology, Research and Development, Small 
Enterprises, Technical and Professional Training, Leadership, Strategic Planning, Management, 
Cooperation Projects Management, and other topics in the following countries: Peru, India, Costa 
Rica, Nicaragua, South-Africa, Panama, Germany, Jamaica, Argentina, Uruguay, Honduras, 
Dominican Republic, United States of America and Brazil. 
 SCHOLARSHIPS AND RECOGNITIONS:
- Instituto Peruano de Fomento Educativo, scholarship1964-66, Perú 
- Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Scholarship from the Graduate School 1968-70. 
- Arno Fiedler Fellowship 1970-72, USA 
- Ohio State International Student Scholarship 1972-73, USA. 
- “National Award of CONCYTEC - (Consejo de Ciencia y Tecnología del Perú) in Scientific and 
Technological Creativity" in 1988 
 BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS:
- "Gestión y Desarrollo Tecnológico en la Pequeña Empresa Industrial" 1986. Fundación 
Adenauer - CINCEYT. Lima, Perú. 
- "Mecanismos de Apoyo Tecnológico para la Pequeña Empresa Industrial" - Fund. Friedrich 
Ebert. 1987. Lima, Perú. 
- "Educación y Capacitación Técnico Científica y su integración a la Producción" 1987. 
CONCYTEC. Lima, Perú. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 37 
- "El Aprendizaje Dual en la Unidad de Pisco-Ica del SENATI". Deutsche Stifftung fuer 
Internationale Entwicklug-Mannheim, Germany, 1989. 
- "Lista de Chequeo para la Gestión Tecnológica en la Pequeña Empresa Industrial". Banco 
Industrial del Perú. Fundación Friedrich Ebert, 1988. 
 - "Glosario Descriptivo de Técnicas y Métodos Gerenciales". Competitividad Personal y 
Empresarial, 1997. 
Additionally, he has contributed with articles in the following journals and newspapers: 
- CINTERFOR Bulletin- Uruguay. 
- Información Tecnológica - Perú. 
- "El Comercio" - Perú. 
- Formación Profesional y Desarrollo de Recursos Humanos - Perú. 
- International Development Research Centre - Canadá. 
- Revista INATEC - Nicaragua. 
- "La Prensa" - Nicaragua. 
- Boletín Informativo - San José ILO Office. Costa Rica. 
- Management Review - American Management Association 
LANGUAGES: 
- Fluent in English and Spanish. 
- Regular knowledge of German. 
 MEMBERSHIPS: 
- Colegio de Ingenieros del Perú 
- Founder Member of the Sociedad de Gestión Científica y Tecnológica 
- Founder Member of the Fundación para la Ingeniería Nacional 
- American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) 
- International Vocational Education and Training Association (IVETA) 
- American Management Association (AMA) 
- American Vocational Association (AVA) 
- World Future Society 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 38 
CONSULTANCIES PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT ON PROJECTS AND 
PROGRAMMES EVALUATION
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
1 Evaluación de Medio Término y de Impacto del 
Programa Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario 
(FondeAgro). 
Jinotega y Matagalpa, 
Nicaragua 
Embajada de Suecia – 
ASDI 
Agosto 2006 
2 Estudio de Impacto de Género del Programa 
Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario (FondeAgro). 
Jinotega y Matagalpa, 
Nicaragua 
Embajada de Suecia – 
ASDI 
Julio – Sept. 
2006 
3 Estudio de Impacto/Efectos del Modelo de 
Cogestión Adaptativa de Cuencas promovido e 
implementado por el Programa Focuencas del 
CATIE y financiado por ASDI. 
Nicaragua Embajada de Suecia – 
ASDI 
May. – Ago. 
2010 
4 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Reestructuración, Fortalecimiento Institucional 
y Ampliación de la Cobertura Rural y Municipal 
de la Policía Nacional de Nicaragua 2002-2005”. 
Nicaragua Agencia Sueca para el 
Desarrollo ASDI – PN 
Jul. – Sept. 
2005 
5 Evaluación de Impacto para la Medición del 
Empleo e Ingresos de Jóvenes y Adultos 
Egresados/as de los Cursos de Habilitación 
Laboral. 
Nicaragua Programa Educación de 
Jóvenes y Adultos del 
Ministerio de Educación. 
May. – Jun. 
2005 
6 Evaluación de Impacto de la implementación de 
Cursos de Habilitación Laboral del Proyecto: 
Fortalecimiento del Sector Educativo (MECD – 
FOSED). 
Madriz, Nicaragua MECD – FOSED, 
financiado por PRRAC de 
la Unión Europea. 
Sept. – Nov. 
2005 
7 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto “Auto￾construcción de viviendas con bloques de 
cemento, en San Francisco, Municipio de 
Mozonte”, ejecutado por la Alcaldía y los 
beneficiarios directos, con apoyo del Programa 
de Desarrollo Integral de Asentamientos 
Humanos (PRODIAH) y el Proyecto Pro-Empleo 
de la OIT. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Mayo 2006 
8 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto “Auto￾construcción de viviendas con bloques de 
cemento, en Santa Rita, Municipio de Dipilto, 
ejecutado por la Alcaldía y los beneficiarios 
directos, con el apoyo del Programa PRODIAH y 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Septiembre 
2005 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 39 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo. 
9 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto “Auto￾construcción de Módulos Húmedos con mano de 
obra intensiva y recursos locales, en San 
Fernando, Municipio de El Sauce”, ejecutado por 
beneficiarios directos, apoyado por el FISE y el 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo de la OIT. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Marzo 2005 
10 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto “Auto￾construcción de Viviendas con Adobloques en 
San Pablo, municipio de Mozonte, Nueva 
Segovia, ejecutado por la Alcaldía, PRODIAH y el 
Programa Ayuda en Acción, con el apoyo del 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo de la OIT. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Septiembre 
2004 
11 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Revestimiento de 1,100 metros lineales de 
Cauce en el Barrio Laura Sofía Olivas, Municipio 
de Ocotal”, ejecutado por la Alcaldía de Ocotal 
en coordinación con el Movimiento Comunal, 
con apoyo del Proyecto Pro-Empleo de la OIT. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Abril 2004 
12 Evaluación de Impactos Socioeconómicos del 
“Proyecto de Mejoramiento de Camino El Riíto – 
Jocote, Municipio de Palacagüina – Madriz”, 
ejecutado por el Programa de Apoyo al Sector 
Transporte en la Región I, PAST–DANIDA, con el 
apoyo del Proyecto Pro-Empleo de la OIT. 
Madriz, Nicaragua Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Marzo 2004 
13 Evaluación de Impacto del Proyecto “Auto￾construcción de viviendas de Pueblos Unidos, 
Ocotal”, ejecutado por la Alcaldía y beneficiarios 
directos con apoyo del Programa de Desarrollo 
Integral de Asentamientos Humanos (PRODIAH) 
y el Proyecto Pro Empleo de la OIT. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Noviembre 
2003 
14 Evaluación de Impacto del “Proyecto de 
Abastecimiento Rural Mini-Acueducto de Agua 
Potable por Gravedad con mano de obra 
intensiva y recursos locales”, Comarca de Quisulí 
Abajo y Zona # 5 del casco urbano, Mozonte – 
Nueva Segovia, ejecutado por beneficiarios 
directos, la Alcaldía y ENACAL – COSUDE. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Proyecto Pro-Empleo OIT Enero 2003 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 40 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
15 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Reactivación y Desarrollo Rural Sostenible en 
las Microcuencas de los Ríos Malacatoya en San 
José de los Remates y Grande de Matagalpa en 
Terrabona” (PROFINCA), ejecutado por CENADE. 
Matagalpa y Boaco, 
Nicaragua 
Winrock International Jul. – Oct. 
2002 
16 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Reactivación Agrícola para Pequeños 
Agricultores de Nueva Guinea”, ejecutado por 
ADEC. 
Nueva Guinea – RAAS, 
Nicaragua 
Winrock International Jul. – Oct. 
2002 
17 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Rehabilitación Cafetalera dirigida a Pequeños y 
Medianos Productores en Técnicas de 
Producción Orgánica y/o Bajo Insumo”, 
ejecutado por UNICAFÉ. 
Matagalpa y Nueva 
Segovia, Nicaragua 
Winrock International Jul. – Oct. 
2002 
18 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Desarrollo Agrocomercial de los Pequeños 
Productores de Productos No Tradicionales”, 
ejecutado por APENN. 
Matagalpa, Jinotega y 
Estelí, Nicaragua 
Winrock International Jul. – Oct. 
2002 
19 Evaluación Final y de Impacto del Proyecto 
“Mejoramiento del Nivel de Vida en los 
Municipios de San Fernando, Mozonte y Ciudad 
Antigua”, ejecutado por CONNOR 3-80. 
Nueva Segovia, 
Nicaragua 
Winrock International Jul. – Oct. 
2002 
20 Evaluación de Impacto para Sistematizar la 
Experiencia de la Formación Profesional 
Vinculada al Mundo Laboral. 
Nicaragua INATEC – OIT Julio 2000 
21 Evaluación de Impacto del Programa de 
Desarrollo ejecutado por la Fundación para la 
Autonomía y Desarrollo de la Costa Atlántica de 
Nicaragua – FADCANIC con el financiamiento de 
Ayuda en Acción. 
Costa Atlántica de 
Nicaragua 
FADCANIC, financiado por 
Ayuda en Acción 
Octubre 1998
22 Evaluación del Diseño Organizativo, Contribución 
a la Reducción de la Pobreza y Aprendizaje de 
FondeAgro. 
Nicaragua Embajada de Suecia para 
Centroamérica 
Nov. – Dic. 
2010 
23 Evaluación Final del Proyecto “Adecuación de los 
Servicios de Sanidad Agropecuaria y Forestal – 
PASSAF – MAGFOR”, Contrato 1500 – SF/NI. 
Nicaragua Proyecto PASSAF – 
MAGFOR, financiado por 
el BID 
Mayo 2011 – 
En Curso 
24 Evaluación Final del “Programa para la 
Implementación de Métodos Alternos de 
Nicaragua Cámara de Comercio de Feb. – Mar. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 41 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
Resolución de Conflictos Comerciales y 
Laborales”. 
Nicaragua (CACONIC) 2011 
25 Elaboración del Informe Final para la Evaluación 
2004 – 2010 del Programa de Fortalecimiento al 
Desarrollo Rural y a la Reducción de la Pobreza 
en Boaco y Chontales (IDR – FOMEVIDAS). 
Boaco y Chontales, 
Nicaragua 
IDR – FOMEVIDAS con 
financiamiento de la 
Embajada de Finlandia 
Nov. 2010 – 
Feb. 2011 
26 Participación en la Misión de Revisión del Marco 
Lógico del Programa Agroambiental 
Mesoamericano (MAP). 
Nicaragua Embajada de Noruega Noviembre 
2010 
27 Estudio de Chequeo de la Realidad (Reality 
Check) del Modelo de cogestión Adaptativa de 
Cuencas Hidrográficas “Aguas Calientes” y 
“Jucuapa” en Nicaragua, “Copán” y “Río 
Soledad” en Honduras. 
Matagalpa y Madriz 
(Nicaragua) 
Francisco de Morazán 
y Copán (Honduras) 
Programa Focuencas II 
del CATIE, financiado por 
ASDI – Gobierno de 
Suecia 
May. – Ago. 
2010 
28 Evaluación Final del Proyecto “Ampliación de la 
Cobertura de La Policía Nacional de Nicaragua 
para Fortalecer la Seguridad Ciudadana, Fase I”. 
Ejecutado por la Policía Nacional y Cofinanciado 
por el BCIE y PNUD. 
Nicaragua Policía Nacional, 
cofinanciado por el BCIE y 
el PNUD 
Oct. – Nov. 
2010 
29 Evaluación del Programa de Mejoramiento de las 
Competencias para la Empleabilidad de Jóvenes 
en Nicaragua INATEC – Capacitación Laboral. 
Nicaragua Instituto Nacional 
Tecnológico (INATEC), 
financiado por COSUDE. 
Jul. – Ago. 
2010 
30 Evaluación del Desempeño de la Ejecución del 
Convenio de Cooperación Técnica de la 
Programación y Priorización Sectorial del PND – 
ATN/SF – 9017 – NI. 
Nicaragua Ministerio de Hacienda y 
Crédito Público (MHCP), 
financiado por el BID. 
May. – Jun. 
2010 
31 Evaluación Final del Programa de Desarrollo de 
Área – PDA “Chorotega”. 
Granada y Masaya, 
Nicaragua 
Visión Mundial Nicaragua Ago. – Sept. 
2009 
32 Evaluación del Programa de Mejora de la 
Competitividad de las PYMES Forestales de 
Centroamérica. 
Guatemala, Honduras 
y Nicaragua 
CATIE – BID – FOMIN Abr. – May. 
2009 
33 Evaluación del Desempeño Institucional de 
FUNICA 2001-2008 y Formulación del Plan 
Estratégico de FUNICA 2009-2015. 
Nicaragua FUNICA Ene. – Jun. 
2009 
34 Evaluación del Proyecto de Tecnología Agrícola – 
PTA. 
Nicaragua Banco Mundial Sept. – Nov. 
2008 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 42 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
35 Evaluación del Sistema de Seguimiento, 
Evaluación y Aprendizaje del PRORURAL–SISEVA.
Nicaragua Embajada de Noruega Mayo 2008 
36 Evaluación de la oferta y demanda de 
entrenamiento y capacitación existente en Haití 
para la introducción de la Herramienta Gerencial 
“Business Edge”, creada y desarrollada por IFC. 
Haití IFC – BM. Feb. – May. 
2008 
37 Evaluación del Proyecto Abogacía e incidencia 
para la promoción y defensa de los derechos de 
la Niñez y la Adolescencia, Fase II”. 
Nicaragua Plan Nicaragua Oct. 2007 – 
Feb. 2008 
38 Evaluación de la Gestión Financiera Pública del 
Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Productivo – 
PRORURAL. Solicitado por la Embajada de 
Suecia. 
Nicaragua Embajada de Suecia Oct. – Nov. 
2007 
39 Evaluación de avances del PRORURAL. Asistencia 
a las Agencias del Fondo Común en su Apoyo al 
Programa Sectorial PRORURAL. Misión Conjunta. 
Oct. 2007 
Nicaragua Agencias Fondo Común 
PRORURAL (Suecia, 
Finlandia, Dinamarca, 
Suiza y Noruega) 
Sept. – Oct. 
2007 
40 Evaluación Final del Programa para el 
Mejoramiento de las Encuestas y la Medición de 
Condiciones de Vida en la República de 
Nicaragua (MECOVI-2). 
Nicaragua INIDE, financiado por el 
BID y PNUD 
Feb.– Abril 
2007 
41 Evaluación intermedia del Programa de 
Facilitadores Judiciales Rurales. 
Boaco, Chontales, 
Madriz, Matagalpa, 
Nueva Segovia, Río 
San Juan, RAAS, RAAN
Embajada de Suecia – 
ASDI 
Feb. – Abr. 
2006 
42 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Diriangén”. 
Carazo, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Oct. 2004 – 
Ene. 2005 
43 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Laguna de Apoyo”. 
Granada, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Oct. 2004 – 
Ene. 2005 
44 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Mombacho”. 
Granada, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Oct. 2004 
Ene. 2005 
45 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Malacatoya”. 
Granada, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jul. – Oct. 
2004 
46 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Chorotega”. 
Masaya y Granada, 
Nic. 
Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jul. – Oct. 
2004 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 43 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
47 Evaluación intermedia del proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Tenderí”. 
Masaya, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jul. – Oct. 
2004 
48 Evaluación Intermedia del Proyecto de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Sacuanjoche”. 
Masaya, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Septiembre 
2003 
49 Evaluación intermedia del Programa de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Vidas”. 
Masaya, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jun. – Sept. 
2003 
50 Evaluación intermedia del Programa de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Ticuantepe”. 
Managua, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jun. – Sept. 
2003 
51 Evaluación intermedia del Programa de 
Desarrollo de Área (PDA) “Nicarao”. 
Masaya, Nicaragua Visión Mundial Nicaragua Jun. – Sept. 
2003 
52 Evaluación Componente de Capacitaciones 
Especiales del Programa APRENDE. 
Managua, Carazo, 
Estelí, RAAN y RAAS
Programa APRENDE 
MECD – BM 
Nov. 2002 
Ene. 2003 
53 Evaluación de término medio del Proyecto de 
Competitividad, Aprendizaje e Innovación 
(PROCOMPE) 
Nicaragua PROCOMPE – Banco 
Mundial 
Agosto 2003 
54 Evaluación del Proyecto Fomento de 
Microempresas, ejecutado por PRODESA. 
Chontales, Nicaragua Plan Nicaragua (Plan 
Internacional) 
Jun. – Jul. 
2002 
55 Evaluación del Plan Operativo Anual 2001 y 
Formulación del Plan Operativo Anual 2002 del 
Programa de Apoyo al Sector Transporte de la 
Región I – DANIDA. 
Estelí, Nicaragua PAST-DANIDA. 2002 
56 Identificación de problemas y debilidades del 
Proyecto PAST – DANIDA, así como para la 
Evaluación participativa de los avances del 
Proyecto, formulación participativa del Plan 
Anual 2001 e Identificación del Plan de 
Capacitación del personal del Proyecto. 
Managua, Nicaragua DANIDA Febrero 2002
57 Evaluación Intermedia del Programa de Apoyo al 
Sector Transporte de la Región I. 
Estelí, Nicaragua PAST-DANIDA Ene. – Feb. 
2001 
WORKSHOPS FACILITATED BY THE CONSULTANT RELATED TO PROJECT Y PROGRAM EVALUATION 
58 Seminario-Taller Evaluación de Proyectos y 
Programas con énfasis en la Evaluación de 
Impacto. 
Managua, Nicaragua Público en general Cada año Del 
2002 al 2008 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 44 
No. Mission Place Contractor Date 
59 Taller “Los Indicadores como Herramienta de 
Gestión de Proyectos”. 
Managua, Nicaragua Público en general Cada año Del 
2001 al 2007 
60 Facilitación del Taller para la Evaluación del 
Avance del Plan Operativo del Proyecto FODES￾GTZ. 
Managua, Nicaragua Proyecto FODES-GTZ. Noviembre 
2002 
61 Seminario-Taller “Gerencia Integral de Proyectos 
y Programas de Cooperación Técnica con énfasis 
en la Identificación de Indicadores y Diseño de 
Sistemas de Monitoreo”. 
Managua, Nicaragua Público en general Septiembre 
2000 
EXPERIENCE IN COOPERATION PROJECTS
• He has been direct counterpart or has supervised projects as main executive of the cooperation 
counterpart institution in multiple cooperation projects, with: GTZ, DSE and Ministry of Technical 
Cooperation of Baden-Württenberg (Germany); Governments of France, Holland, Japan, Sweden, 
Canada, Andean Pact, Agencies of United Nations (UNDP, ONUDI, OMPI, ILO) and Agencies of 
Cooperation (AID, AECI, ASDI, JICA and SWISSCONTACT). 
• He has participated in research oriented to the Diagnosis and Evaluation of International 
Technical Cooperation. 
• He has identified and formulated 29 technical Cooperation projects. 
• He has designed monitoring and evaluation systems for more than 21 projects and 
programs. 
• He has participated and directed evaluation teams as Chief of the Evaluation Mission in 57 
cooperation projects. 
• He has directed multiple workshops for Projects Planning using the Logical Framework and 
the methodology ZOPP (Ziel Orientierte Projekt Plannung). 
• He has been lecturer of courses and workshops about the Methodology of Logical 
Framework; formulation of cooperation projects; Project Evaluation; Design of Monitoring 
and Evaluation Systems in Technical Cooperation projects, Project Sistematization, 
Strategic Planning, Techniques for the Executive and Organizational Efficiency and 
Effectiveness. 
• He has been Chief Technical Adviser of 4 large projects of International Technical 
Cooperation (US$10`000.000.) working with the International Labour Organization. 
• Since August 2000, as general manager and senior consultant of Management Coaching & 
Consulting Group, he has been responsible of consultancy teams that have carried out over 
280 consultancies and advisories in the field of Professional Training, Strategic Planning, 
Project design (LFA, ZOOP), Impact Evaluation, Results Based Management Training 
Needs Assessment, Design of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in projects, Training 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 45 
Promotion, Consultancy for the Small and Medium Enterprises and project formulation and 
other related fields. He has also acted as facilitator for many workshops, focus groups and 
task groups. 
• He has conducted consultancies for the following cooperation and development 
organizations: KFW, GTZ, AECI, ASDI, DANIDA, NORAD, BID, BM, DFID, COSUDE, 
UNICEF, ONUDI, ILO, UNDP, OPS, OEI, OEA, PMA, Lux Development, IFC, SNV, 
Governments of Finnland, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Honduras, Perú, EU. WBI, OXFAM GB, 
VECOMA. 
CLIENTS
Organismos 
• Agencia de Cooperación Financiera Alemana – KFW 
• Agencia de Cooperación Técnica Alemana – GTZ 
• Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional (AECI) 
• Agencia Sueca de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo – ASDI 
• Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) 
• Banco Mundial (BM) 
• Centro para la Promoción de la Micro y Pequeña Empresa en Centroamérica CENPROMYPE 
• Congreso de la República de El Perú 
• Department for International Development (DFID) Reino Unido 
• Cooperación Suiza para el Desarrollo (COSUDE) 
• Embajada de Finlandia 
• Embajada de Suecia 
• Embajada Real de los Países Bajos 
• Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF) 
• Gran Ducado de Luxemburgo (Lux Development S.A.) 
• International Finance Corporation (IFC) del Banco Mundial 
• Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI) 
• Organización de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Industrial (ONUDI) 
• Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) 
• Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) 
• Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA) 
• Programa CASAC del Sistema de Integración Centroamericana 
• Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) 
• Real Embajada de Dinamarca para Centroamérica (DANIDA) 
• Real Embajada de Noruega (NORAD) 
• Servicio Holandés de Cooperación al Desarrollo (SNV) 
• Unión Europea (UE) 
• World Bank Institute (WBI) 
Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG): 
• Alianza de Centros de Mujeres 
• Alianza de Cooperativas Amerrizque 
• Centro Cooperativo Sueco 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 46 
• Centro de Acción y Apoyo al Desarrollo Rural (CENADE) 
• Consorcio de Desarrollo Sostenible de Ticuantepe (CODESOS) 
• CONOR 3-80 
• Fundación León 2000 
• Fundación para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Agropecuario y Forestal de Nicaragua (FUNICA) 
• Federación Red NICASALUD 
• OXFAM GB-Nicaragua 
• Plan Internacional 
• Visión Mundial Nicaragua 
• Vredeseilanden (VECOMA – Bélgica) 
Instituciones y organismos de Gobierno: 
• Alcaldía de Managua 
• Alcaldía de Matagalpa 
• Alcaldía de Ticuantepe 
• Banco Central de Nicaragua (BCN) 
• Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología – CONICYT 
• Comisión Sectorial de Descentralización – CONADES 
• Empresa Nacional de Transmisión Eléctrica (ENATREL) 
• Instituto de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa (INPYME) 
• Instituto Nacional Tecnológico (INATEC) 
• Instituto Nicaragüense de Turismo (INTUR) 
• Instituto Nacional de Información para el Desarrollo (INIDE) 
• Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal (MAGFOR) 
• Ministerio de Educación (MECD) 
• Ministerio de Fomento, Industria y Comercio (MIFIC) 
• Ministerio de Gobernación (MINGOB) 
• Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (MINREX) 
• Ministerio de Salud (MINSA) 
• Ministerio del Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales (MARENA) 
• Policía Nacional (PN) 
• Secretaría de Coordinación y Estrategia de la Presidencia – SETEC 
• Unidad de Coordinación del Programa de Reforma y Modernización del Sector Público (UCRESEP) 
Asociaciones Gremiales y del Sector Privado: 
• Asociación de Desarrollo Económico Campesino de Nueva Guinea (ADEC) 
• Asociación Nicaragüense de Productores y Exportadores de Productos No Tradicionales (APEN) 
• Cámara de Industria de Nicaragua (CADIN) 
• Cámara Nicaragüense de Turismo – CANTUR · 
• Cooperativa Multisectorial del Norte 
• Unión de Productores de Nicaragua (UPANIC). 
• WINROCK International 
• Instituto Nicaragüense de Desarrollo (INDE) 
• CHEMONICS Inc. 
• Management Sciences for Health (MSH) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 47 
• Deutsche Energie Consult Ingenieurge-sellschaft mbH – decon · Intercooperation 
• Latinoamericana de Vialidad S.A. – Honduras 
• Instituto Nicaragüense de Desarrollo (INDE) 
Programas y Proyectos: 
• Componente SETAC del Proyecto de Tecnología Agrícola 
• Pro-Caribe 
• Programa Ambiental Nicaragua–Finlandia (PANIF) 
• Programa Business Edge para empresarios de la PYME - BM-IFC. 
• Programa de Alfabetización y Educación Básica de Jóvenes y Adultos (PAEBANIC) 
• Programa de Apoyo a la Implementación de la ERCERP (PROFODEM) 
• Programa de Apoyo al PND 
• Programa de Apoyo al Sector Ambiental de Nicaragua (PASMA – DANIDA) 
• Programa de Apoyo al Sector Transporte (PAST) 
• Programa de Apoyo Institucional Nicaragua (PAINIC) 
• Programa de Competitividad (PROCOMPE) 
• Programa de Desarrollo Local, S.A. (PRODELSA) 
• Programa de Fomento de Servicios Financieros para la Pequeña Empresa y el Pequeño Productor 
(PROMIFIN) 
• Programa de Inversiones Intensivas en Empleo de la OIT a la Secretaría de Obras Públicas, 
Transporte y Vivienda del Gobierno de Honduras (OIT) 
• Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) 
• Programa de Mejora de la competitividad de las PYMES forestales de Centroamérica (Guatemala￾Honduras-Nicaragua). Solicitado por CATIE-BID-FOMIN. 
• Programa de Mejoramiento de la Calidad de los Servicios de las PYME Turísticas 
• Programa de Modernización del Sector Salud 
• Programa de Promoción de Servicios Empresariales Sostenibles para la MIPYME 
• Programa FOMEVIDAS 
• Programa Fondo de Desarrollo Agropecuario (FondeAgro) 
• Programa Nacional de Tecnología y Formación Técnica Agrícola del MAGFOR 
• Programa para el Mejoramiento de las Encuestas y la Medición de Condiciones de Vida en la 
República de Nicaragua (MECOVI-2) 
• Programa para el Mejoramiento de las Encuestas y la Medición de Condiciones de Vida en la 
República de Nicaragua (MECOVI-2), 
• Programa para la Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas (PASOLAC) 
• Programa para la Mujer (Pro-Mujer) 
• Programa ProAmbiente – MARENA 
• Programa Regional para la Reconstrucción de América Central de la Unión Europea (PRRAC-UE) 
• Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo a la Micro, Pequeña y Mediana Empresa en Nicaragua 
(PROMIPYME) 
• Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Rural Productivo Sostenible (PRORURAL) 
• Programas Zonales del SNV de Holanda en Nicaragua y Honduras 
• Proyecto de Apoyo a la Formación Profesional en Hostelería y Turismo en Nicaragua 
• Proyecto de Apoyo a la Innovación Tecnológica (PAIT – MIFIC) 
• Programa de Mejora de la competitividad de las PYMES forestales de Centroamérica (Guatemala￾Honduras-Nicaragua). (CATIE-BID-FOMIN) 
• Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural y Ganadero (PRODEGA) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 48 
• Proyecto de Electrificación Rural para Zonas Aisladas (PERZA) 
• Proyecto de Gerencia, Liderazgo y Sostenibilidad (PRONICASS – USAID) 
• Proyecto de Tecnología Agrícola –(MAGFOR) 
• Proyecto FODES-GTZ. 
• Proyecto BID-FOMIN de Nicaragua 
• Proyecto Fortalecimiento del Sector Educativo (FOSED – MECD) 
• Proyecto Mejora y Ampliación del Sistema de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado Sanitario de Granada 
(KFW) 
• Proyecto ONUDI – CADIN 
• Proyecto para el Desarrollo Municipal (PRODEMU – DANIDA) 
• Proyecto para la Conservación y el Uso Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales (PROCESOS) 
• Proyecto PROMICRO – OIT 
• Proyecto Promoción del Empleo (Pro-Empleo) OIT 
• Proyecto PSTAC – BM 
• Proyecto Regional PRODIAC – OIT 
• Segundo Proyecto de Educación Básica (APRENDE) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 49 
Annex 5 – Theory of Change Framework for ISP and HICD projects 
ISP 
Strategies
• The Development Framework as a tool for 
institutional assessment and guidance 
• Provide customized technical assistance 
• Workshops 
• Grants in five areas of organizational capacity
• Study Tours
Assumptions
Political and legal environment permits the 
implementation of project activities 
Influential Factors
• Reduction in 
international 
assistance from 
European and 
other donors 
• Presidential and 
municipal elections 
during project 
implementation 
• The development 
of CSOs was linked 
to political 
movements and 
tendencies. 
Problem 
Civil society organizations in 
Nicaragua not performing at a 
desired institutional capacity level in 
a very difficult political and 
administrative operating 
environment. 
CSOs lack the ability to develop 
strategies with measurable goals, 
which threatens their effectiveness 
as lobbying and advocacy groups; 
weak organizational leadership; 
program interventions with poor 
results that engender a lack of 
confidence on the part of their 
constituencies; lack of local 
fundraising strategies; and poor 
management of relations and 
communication with their 
constituencies. 
Desired Results (outputs, outcomes, and 
impact) 
• The organization’s self-governance capacity 
strengthened 
• The organization’s ability to set a 
strategic plan developed 
• The organizaiton’s management 
structure and practices are re-organized in 
order to be able to carry out a new strategy 
• An effective communication strategy 
developed 
• A training program designed and 
implemented
• An assessment of opportunities within 
the non-formal civil society sector 
conducted 
• A training strategy for non-formal 
organizations, individuals and the media 
is developed. 
• A comprehensive strategy to stimulate 
synergy among the civil society formal 
and nonformal sectors is developed 
• Effective grants program created and 
managed to address strengthening need 
in the civil society sector 
Needs
• Identify new strategies and 
innovative ways in which to 
become economically and 
institutionally sustainable 
• Become form efficient and 
transparent in their activities 
• Maintain their independence 
from the government, political 
parties and, in some cases, 
international donors. 
• Strengthen the alliances and 
CSO networks that work in 
municipal, national, and regional 
CSOs. 
• Increase the use of volunteers 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 50 
HICD Project 
Strategies
• The HICD methodology 
• HICD services which included an assessment, technical 
assistance, training and/or study tours.
• Partial HICD services which included technical 
assistance, training and/or study tours 
• Multi-partner training program – workshops in key areas
• Exceptional requests to efficiently respond to needs of 
USAID Mission/its Partners. 
Assumptions
Political and legal environment 
permits the implementation of 
project activities 
Influential Factors
• Very difficult 
political and 
administrative 
operating 
environment 
• Reduction in 
international 
assistance from 
European and other 
donors 
• Presidential and 
municipal elections 
during project 
implementation 
• The development of 
CSOs was linked to 
political movements 
and tendencies
•
Problem 
Civil society organizations in 
Nicaragua not performing at a 
desired institutional capacity 
level in a very difficult political 
and administrative operating 
environment. 
CSOs lack the ability to develop 
strategies with measurable 
goals, which threatens their 
effectiveness as lobbying and 
advocacy groups; weak 
organizational leadership; 
program interventions with poor 
results that engender a lack of 
confidence on the part of their 
constituencies; lack of local 
fundraising strategies; and poor 
management of relations and 
communication with their 
constituencies. 
Desired Results (outputs, 
outcomes, and impact) 
• Capacity and Performance – 
The ability of partner CSOs to 
meet better the demands of 
their stakeholders, clients, 
and beneficiaries.
• Environment – the ability of 
CSOs to operate within the 
legislative and regulatory 
framework, without undue 
burden placed upon them. 
• Sustainability – both in terms 
of financial and programmatic 
sustainability, the ability of 
partners to endure. 
• 23 CSOs strengthened that 
promote political 
participation and voter 
education (actual 24) 
• 30 Civil Society Organizations 
using USG Assistance to 
Improve Internal 
Organizational Capacity 
(actual 48) 
• 24 Civil Society Organizations 
that engage in advocacy and 
watchdog functions (actual 
34) 
• 12 CSOs equipped with the 
skills to contribute to 
developing and advocating for 
proposals for an improved 
legal environment for CSOs 
(actual 15) 
• 20 Journalists Trained with 
USG Assistance (actual 54) 
Needs
• Identify new strategies and 
innovative ways in which to 
become economically and 
institutionally sustainable 
• Become more efficient and 
transparent in their activities
• Maintain their independence 
from the government, 
political parties and, in some 
cases, international donors. 
• Strengthen CSO alliances 
and networks at the 
municipal, national, and 
regional levels 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 51 
• Increase the use of 
volunteers 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 52 
Annex 6 – International Assistance - Nicaragua 
International Assistance Report 1St Semester 2012 - Official Resources by purpose, source and 
type 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects
International Assistance Report 1St
 
Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 
St Semester 2012 – Public Sector by source 
53 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 54 
Annex 7 – PMP Targets and Actual Results for ISP Project and 
Workplan Targets and Actual Results for HICD Project 
ISP Results by PMP Targets 
Indicators by Result Baseline Target Outcome
Result 1 Formal CSOs Boards of directors and 
executive directors with improved leadership 
functionality; CSOs in substantial compliance with 
domestic regulations 
4 of 20 14 of 20 15 of 20
Result 1 for Emergent CSOs
Completed request for Legislative Decree 
0 of 10 4 of 10 4 of 10
Result 2 Formal CSOs 
Partner CSOs implementing strategic plans 
5 of 20 15 of 20 17 of 20
Result 2 Emerging CSOs 0 of 10 5 of 10 6 of 10
Result 3 Formal CSOs
Organizations with board-approved documents that 
contain Organizational structure, Descriptions of 
authority and responsibility, and Personnel policies 
and procedures 
1 of 20 10 of 20 20 of 20
Result 3 Emerging CSOs
Organizations with board-approved documents that 
contain Volunteer Manuals 
0 of o 20 4 of 20 4 of 20
Result 4 Formal CSOs
Organizations that have a communications strategy 
that contains the following: Message development, 
Communications policy, Use of new media 
1 of 20 12 of 20 18 of 20
Result 4 Emerging CSOs same as above 0 of 10 4 of 10 4 of 10
Result 5 - Training Programs for Boards of Directors 
and Technical Teams are Developed 
118 training workshops
Result 6 An Assessment of Opportunities within the 
Emerging Civil Society Sector, Civil Leaders, and Media 
is Conducted 
Completed. 
10 emerging CSOs selected 
Result 7 A Training Strategy for Non-formal 
Organizations 
Strategy Completed. 
The strategy includes: Leadership 
Development , Strategic, Operations 
and Project Planning, Enhanced Skills in 
Operations Management (HR, 
Volunteer Financial and Facilities 
Management), and Expanded 
Awareness of Potential as CSOs in 
Coalition Alliance and Partnership 
Development, Public Policy Formulation 
and Reform and Increasing 
Transparency and Accountability 
Result 8 Number of CSOs that have worked together 
with at least two other CSOs in activities such as: 
Alliances, coalitions, and cooperation Joint programs 
1 of 20 10 of 20 15 of 20
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 55 
sponsorship 
Result 8 Emerging CSOs 2 0f 10 5 of 10 6 of 10
Result 9 Grants Program Ten grant agreements signed in the first 
round and 18 in the second one 
HICD byPMP Targets 
Indicator Target Total
2.3.2-8 Number of local CSOs strengthened that promote political participation 
and voter education 23 24
2.4.1-1 Number of Civil Society Organizations using USG Assistance to Improve 
Internal Organizational Capacity 30 48
2.4.1-9 Number of USG Assisted Civil Society Organizations that engage in 
advocacy and watchdog functions 24 34
2.4.1-Custom - Number of CSOs equipped with the skills to contribute to 
developing and advocating for proposals for an improved legal environment 
for CSOs 12 15
2.4.2-2 Number of Journalists Trained with USG Assistance 20 54
2.4.2-2a Number of men 10 31
2.4.2-2b Number of women 10 23
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 56 
Annex 8 – List of Organizations in the HICD Multi-partner Training 
Program 
HICD Multi-partner Training Program. 
There were 33 organizations selected to benefit from the Multi-partner Training program (MPT). 
These were:
Formal Organizations Emergent Organizations
1. Asociación Civil Pro-Desarrollo de la Mujer 
de Masaya (ACPRODMUJER) 
1. Asociación de Jóvenes de Mateare 
(AJOMA) 
2. Asociación para la Sobrevivencia y el 
Desarrollo Local (ASODEL) 
2. Asociación de Profesionales de 
Responsabilidad Social Empresarial 
(APRORSE) 
3. Centro de Investigación de la Comunicación 
(Cinco) 
3. Fundación CAMM (CAMM)
4. Comisión Permanente de Derechos 
Humanos (CPDH) 
4. Instituto Nicaragüense de Capacitación y 
Estudios Juveniles (INCEJU) 
5. Foro Educativo Nicaragüense 
(EDUQUEMOS) 
5. Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres (MAM)
6. Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra (FNN) 6. Movimiento Contra el Abuso Sexual 
(MCAS) 
7. Fundación Para el Desarrollo Social y 
Económico Rural (FUNDESER) 
7. Novelistas y Escritores Internacional (PEN)
8. Grupo Cívico Ética y Transparencia (E y T) 8. Movimiento por una Cultura Política 
Diferente (PUENTE). 
9. Hagamos Democracia (HD) Added the second year:
10. Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticas 
Públicas (IEEPP) 
1. Coordinadora Civil
11. Movimiento por Nicaragua (MPN) 2. Instituto para el Desarrollo y la Democracia 
(IPADE) 
12. Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el 
Desarrollo Local (Red Local) 
3. Centro Nicaragüense de Derechos 
Humanos (CENIDH) 
13. Foro Educativo Nicaragüense 
(EDUQUEMOS) 
4. Fundación para el Desarrollo de la 
Juventud (Desafíos) 
14. Asociación Movimiento de Mujeres 
Autónomas de Chinandega (AMMCH) 
5. Centro de la Investigación de la 
comunicación (CINCO) 
15. Grupo Pro- justicia (PROJUSTICIA) 6. Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CDC)
16. Movimiento Juvenil Nicaragüita (MJN) 7. Asociación de Movimientos de Mujeres de 
Chinandega (AMMCH) 
17. Caritas de Nicaragua (CARITAS)
18. Congreso Permanente de Mujeres 
Empresarias de Nicaragua (CPMEN) 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 57 
Annex 9 – Case Studies 
Case Study 1: Asociación de Movimiento de Mujeres de Chinandega 
Introduction 
The Association of Women's Movement of Chinandega (AMMCH) was selected to be part of the 
case studies prepared as part of the Final Performance Evaluation because: of its focus on 
women’s rights; it is one of very few organizations based outside of the capital city; and because 
it received services from both the Institutional Strengthening Project (ISP) and the Human and 
Institutional Capacity Development Program (HICD). 
The Association of Women's Movement of Chinandega (AMMCH) is a nonprofit organization that 
was formed in 1992 by a group of women’s rights activists to respond to the needs of women in 
the department of Chinandega and gained legal status in 1994. AMMCH was also formed to serve 
as a stable and trusted space for women in the urban and rural areas of Chinandega. 
The organization promotes equality, defends women’s human rights, and has been a leader in 
organizing women’s movements through broad coalitions. The Association combats domestic 
and gender violence by providing psychological and emotional care to victims as well as by 
educating society on domestic violence issues. The organization’s strategic areas of action 
include: (1) citizenship; (2) justice and security; (3) strengthening a sense of identity for women; 
(4) strengthening women’s economic empowerment; and (5) institutional strengthening. 
There are twenty members who form part of the Association, but over 1,000 grassroots women 
who form part of the women’s movement which it provides leadership to. Today, the association 
has a presence in 13 municipalities throughout the Department. In each municipality, women 
elect a member to serve as coordinator or promoter who is responsible for encouraging and 
stimulating activities. At the department level AMMCH coordinates activities with other 
organizations. 
AMMCH has executed numerous projects on the rights of women and girls. Since its inception it 
has served 6,560 participants, of which 1,200 were children and adolescents in a sexual violence 
prevention program; 3,600 women in a comprehensive domestic and sexual violence prevention 
program; 560 women have studied in the School of Legal Education; and 1,200 women have been 
trained in empowerment and gender awareness for local advocacy and political debate. 
The group's vision is “empowered women, defending their legal and human rights in a way that 
they can impact the betterment of their living conditions and their environment.” 
Institutional Strengthening Support from USAID 
Before participating in the ISP and HICD projects, AMMCH had been part of a previous USAID 
funded activity, ICNL’s Supportive Framework for Civil Society project that provided training on 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 58 
freedom of association rights and supported an appropriate sector-wide response to restrictive 
legislative initiatives. They were referred by CINCO to the ISP project. 
ISP utilizes the Institutional Development Framework (IDF) in its approach to institutional 
development which measures the level of development in key organizational capacity areas. 
Based on this tool, an institutional diagnosis was completed of AMMCH with their active 
participation. The diagnosis found that AMMCH was weakest in the area of Management 
Structures and Practices, an area that includes Operative Leadership, Administrative Systems, 
Human Resources, and Financial Management. Other areas, such as Governance and Leadership 
and Communication Strategies were also at the first “Emerging” level. At the start of the project, 
AMMCH’s strongest area was in Strategic Planning. 
AMMCH benefited from all the services offered by the ISP program: technical assistance, 
coaching, training and small grants. Members participated in nine institutional workshops and 
five custom workshops. One of the most valued training activities was a customized workshop on 
Strategic Planning, which allowed them to align the organization’s strategic plan to the 
institutional mission and vision, and to further define the organization’s strategies and programs. 
Other highly rated workshops were related to Grantees Orientation and Fundraising, which 
improved AMMCH’s capacity to apply for grant funds or financing for projects. Finally, the 
organization valued the Institutional Strengthening Integrity, New Media and Effective 
Management of Mass Media training. AMMCH members were pleased with the training and 
concluded that, "ISP trained us and the training was very good." 
In addition, AMMCH members received coaching in strategic planning. The Director explained 
that, "this program has really helped us. The ISP program was very important to us; it gave us a 
strategic planning document, a manual of administrative procedures, a fundraising manual, and a 
volunteer manual. We made two strategic plans: one for our Association and one for the broader 
Women's Movement of Chinandega. We also developed the political agenda for this movement 
in Chinandega and carried out focus groups with women in 13 municipalities, collecting their own 
demands of the municipal government regarding housing, health and education”. 
The ISP focused on strengthening AMMCH’s management practices and provided grants to 
develop a Functions Manual and the Manual on Administrative and Financial procedures, which 
significantly improved the administrative management of the Association and streamlined 
administrative processes. In addition, the Association developed a Volunteer Manual, which 
included a recruitment policy and helped with volunteer retention. Improved volunteer 
management has helped increase the number of volunteers serving the Association. "The 
volunteer manual has helped us a lot: we saw the wealth of human capital we had and had not 
valued appropriately". 
Furthermore, AMMCH requested support for the formulation of a gender policy, which was 
developed and implemented with ISP financing. As a result, the women's association now has an 
updated policy for handling this crosscutting issue. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 59 
The Director of AMMCH said that the current situation of civil society is much more difficult than 
seven years ago. The reasons include: fewer international donors remaining in the country and 
government policies hinder the work of their organization. AMMCH considers itself an 
autonomous and apolitical organization, however the government has labeled it as part of the 
opposition and, according to AMMCH, is looking for any excuse to close the association down. In 
such circumstances, the support from the USAID projects has been highly valued by the 
Association. 
Important achievements 
"In the last three years we have grown as an organization. Before our work was all very empirical, 
very traditional, now, we have methods and systems”, Maria Castillo, the Director for AMMCH 
asserted proudly. Early on, the Association understood that institutional capacity strengthening 
was a priority for their organization and the contributions of the ISP have directly responded to 
their needs. 
As a result of this support the organization has introduced technology into its systems to improve 
its management and performance, for example it has a new accounting system. Improvements in 
AMMCH planning, operation, fundraising and performance have contributed to the 
organization’s competitiveness, and thus, sustainability. 
ISP gave AMMCH the opportunity to systematically exchange experiences with other NGO, 
"sharing experiences with the Youth Movement Nicaragüita was very was very rewarding for 
both organizations, we learnt a lot from each other”. According to MSI, AMMCH showed 
improvement in their capacity to form strategic alliances. They also signed agreements with 
ACPRODMUJER, the movement against Sexual Violence and MAM. 
In the final diagnostic, ISP detected significant changes in AMMCH, including improvements in1
: 
• Governance, with increased members’ representation and functionality in the Board of 
Directors. 
• Strategic Planning, with redefined and socialized mission and clarified vision; a new 
strategic plan with a draft work-plan; and annual goals to organize institutional activities. 
• Management Structure and Practices, with more diverse leadership roles, better 
administrative process, a new HR manual, and a new accounting system. 
• Strategic Realignment and collaboration, with new and improved alliances with other 
CSOs and increased visibility within Nicaraguan civil society. AMMCH has positioned itself 
as a point of reference in Chinandega. 
Conclusions 
Support provided by the ISP, has significantly contributed to the consolidation of AMMCH, taking 
it from a fairly empirical managed CSO to a more rigorous and technical organization, with 
improved opportunities to adapt and survive in a difficult environment. 
 
1
 ISP Final Project Report, September 2011, page 43 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 60 
Participation of AMMCH in ISP also prepared it for benefitting from assistance offered later by 
the HICD program implemented by Word Learning, which continued to provide institutional 
strengthening support for the organization, especially in developing a sustainability strategy. 
Through that program AMMCH participated in two study tours where they saw new strategies 
and approaches used by NGOs in the US and Peru. They also received training and support with 
sustainability strategies. As a result, AMMCH has now put in place a fee-for-service system where 
they are charging women small fees for their services and are exploring membership fees for 
their Association. 
 Both programs have made important contributions to develop better capacities for AMMCH 
functioning, increasing its sustainability. Their new skills and perspectives are having results. 
Associated in partnership with other organizations, they just won a two year project with the 
Norwegian cooperation to manage 23 women’s shelters. 
 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 61 
Case Study 2: Nicaraguan Network for Democracy and Local 
Development (Local Network - Red Local) 
Introduction 
The Nicaraguan Network for Democracy and Local Development (Local Network or Red Local) 
was selected to be part of the case studies prepared as part of the Final Performance Evaluation 
because it was the only organizations that received a full Human and Institutional Capacity 
Development (HICD) diagnostic and process under the project implemented by World Learning. 
Red Local was created in 1993 by a group of organizations under the name of Red de Poder Local 
(Local Power Network). The network describes itself as a space for democratic dialogue that 
strengthens civil society organizations for inclusive and equitable local development, public policy 
advocacy, knowledge management and the promotion of active citizenship. Red Local’s objective 
is "to contribute to strengthening democracy and inclusive and equitable local development by 
strengthening its membership and allied organizations and institutions to actively exercise their 
citizenship and advocate for public policy reform”. 
Red Local gained its legal status as an NGO federation in 2006. As a federation, it does not 
compete with the territorial status of its members and always operates through its membership 
at the municipal level. Red Local consists of 42 members of which 31 are NGOs and 11 are private 
individuals. To achieve its objectives Red Local has three working axis: Local Development, Citizen 
Participation and Decentralization. These three are highly focused at the municipal level as for 
Red Local; this is where development really takes place. 
Red Local has worked parliamentary advocacy processes, especially in the approval and 
amendment of laws to strengthen municipalities; civic education campaigns; developed 
methodologies to increase participative and social oversight of municipal policy and budgets. Its 
citizen participation observatory has produced five reports. 
Institutional Strengthening Support from USAID 
Red Local participated in the ISP project before being part of the HICD program. Results from 
their participation in the ISP project included improvements in the federation’s governance and 
leadership, where the Board of Directors became open to discussing their processes and to 
identifying opportunities for improvement. It also gained a better understanding of its role and 
decision-making responsibilities. Red Local had also improved their management structures and 
practices as they diversified leadership responsibilities, implemented a human resources 
assessment and restructured staff functions. With improved financial management systems, they 
expanded their capacity to manage resources across a diverse portfolio of projects and services. 
Their projects were also more aligned with their Strategic Plan2
. 
 
2
 Final Report ISP Program, September 2011, page 27 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 62 
At the start of their participation in HICD program, in the months of November and December 
2010, an institutional performance assessment was carried out by Kelly Novak Opportunities 
aimed at defining Red Local’s performance gaps and to recommend solutions. The diagnostic 
framework utilized the HICD model which “involves an examination of systems and infrastructure 
as they relate to overall organizational performance, and helps to ensure sufficient absorptive 
capacity for new technologies or skill sets. Individuals or workgroups can perform only as well as 
the organizational systems that support them”3
. 
The assessment included intensive on-site consultations and survey of stakeholders, and the 
recommendation of solutions and interventions to address priority performance 
shortcomings/gaps. The goal was to make recommendation to assist Red Local in building a 
network management model for optimum performance and results. The assessment team 
analyzed existing strategic and operational documents, and conducted in-depth interviews, focus 
groups, and mapping sessions with stakeholders within and external to the network. 
Given the special nature of Red Local as a federation, rather than a traditional NGO, special 
attention was paid to the formulation of recommendations so they would be applicable to the 
structures that have been implemented over the last 17 years. The diagnosis found that: 
• Red Local had a clearly defined vision and mission. However, although they had approved 
strategic objectives for their current five year plan, there was a growing interest in 
reconsidering these strategies in light of the changing political environment, existing 
member/client concerns with a number of macro-level strategies, and management issues 
concerning the Executive Secretariat. The two important areas to be addressed were: 
1. Confirmation and refinement of strategic objectives and better definition of 
strategic indicators, data collection methods and evaluation system. 
2. Clarification of the roles, authority relationship and Coordination Team 
performance targets, regarding the Executive Secretary. 
• There was an over-emphasis on the approach of projects formulation and implementation. 
Weaknesses were found in basic actions such as internal staff meetings, comprehensive 
operational planning and staff performance processes. 
• The analysis indicated that: key processes should be related to capacity building and joint 
advocacy of the local network; that facilitation of communication was another fundamental 
process; and that monitoring and evaluation required continuous and dedicated attention 
within Red Local4
. 
Based on these findings, HICD designed and institutional strengthening plan to address 
weaknesses and improve Red Local’s performance. The plan included training through workshops 
 
3
 World Learning Task Order, page 13. 
4
 Training for Development Program 2011 Work Plan, page 5. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 63 
and seminars, technical assistance and a study tour and 
addressed a variety of subjects including strategic and 
operational planning, monitoring and evaluation systems 
for projects, communications strategies, and regional 
network development to strengthen their local 
development capacities. Technical assistance addressed 
the need to strengthen Red Local’s management and 
achieve its strategic objectives. The project helped to 
define and adopt strategic and operational measurable 
indicators and to establish its baseline. Through structured study tours hosted by similar 
organizations in the LAC region, Red Local was introduced to best practices in governance and is 
exploring ways to adapt these to its network. 
Important achievements 
World Learning assisted Red Local in aligning its vision, mission and strategy to better reflect the 
demands of its membership and community-level stakeholders. The HICD program facilitated 
revisions to the network’s strategic framework and provided the methodological tools to 
measure progress forward and to make adjustments when needed. This is all core HICD activity, 
difficult to get to and to implement, but highly successful when done appropriately. 
As a result of the assistance, Red Local has crafted a new strategic plan for 2012-2015 and 
defined three strategic areas for its work: Knowledge Management, Construction of Citizenship, 
and Management Strengthening. 
The alignment of the Strategic Plan and the assistance for the development of a local 
development strategy were also, from the point of view of officials of the network, highly 
remarkable achievements, “The support we received has allowed us to focus on what citizens do 
best. We have transcended from the internal to another space”. 
World Learning reported that “the Technical Secretary feels “more prepared and stronger in the 
management of programs and projects thanks to the monitoring and evaluation tools… designed 
specifically to evaluate management and fulfillment of our institutional goals.” Using these tools, 
methodologies, and newly established baseline data, Red Local is now able to monitor 
institutional progress towards strategic indicators while considering the demands and needs of 
their member organizations, making them better prepared to serve those beneficiaries that 
benefit from their work”5
.
As for project management, Red Local can at this moment develop a strategic process for 
selecting projects and manages a standardized and transparent process for projects allocation. 
They are also using project management processes that will contribute to improved project 
performance. 
 
5
 World Learning Final Program Report, page 33. 
“We used to have a strategic plan 
but it was not aligned to our 
organization, which made it hard to 
implement. Now we have 
anotherone that covers thoroughly 
the work of the organization and it 
is totally participative. We did this 
with World Learning”
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 64 
Red Local has improved capacity to provide its members and local community with demand￾driven and targeted assistance, information and resources. They are able to promote citizen 
democracy through development programming and now they have the right set of tools and 
methodologies to support local democratic development. 
Interviews with Red Local representatives revealed satisfaction with the quality of the assistance, 
an illustrative comment stated that they "had very good relations with World Learning staff, they 
were very respectful and helpful. They provided help as needed; diagnosed our needs in a 
participatory manner. We set realistic timelines (very few things were left without doing). The 
consultants were selected jointly, not imposed. They were consultants with experience, 
knowledge of country and when they didn’t have that local knowledge, they were paired with 
Nicaraguan consultant, which worked very well. We have established a relationship with the local 
consultants with whom we still use". 
Red Local considers that their work is improving and is pleased with the interest of others in their 
organization, "we see in the news media that there is interest in our proposals, and we think it is 
because of the quality of our work, and also because we are a completely nonpartisan 
organization, which allows us to work with independence and to get good results". 
Red Local’s representatives also noted other impacts from their participation in the USAID 
funded projects: 
• “Given our improvements in project management, we are currently working on a proposal 
with the European Union. We want to offer a training certificate (curriculum) on local 
development so we can have a sustainable impact at the local level. For the first time we 
have a direct relationship with the European Union, without any intermediaries, and are 
asking for a large amount of funding. We think we are on track for getting an approval from 
them”. 
• “The support we have received has also helped our organization to adapt. We had to adapt 
and incorporate crosscutting issues such as gender and youth in order to respond to the 
priorities of international donors. However, this change has allowed us to integrate these 
issues into our programming and our Gender Commission is being strengthened. We are also 
taking into consideration multiculturalism, which is a priority for IBIS, a Danish member￾based development organization”.
Conclusions 
The HICD model produced results in its work with Red Local, but these were more difficult and 
took longer to obtain because Red Local was a federation and not just an individual CSO. World 
Learning recognized this fact and made the following recommendation in its final project report, 
“In general, due to the complexity of working with networks that involve huge numbers of 
stakeholders with varied demands and necessities and suffer from sub-par internal operating 
systems and communications strategies, TfD found the effective implementation of programs 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 65 
with Nicaraguan CSO networks to be problematic. As such, TfD recommends that future HICD 
efforts primarily target individual institutions rather than networks of multiple institutions.”6
Nevertheless, both ISP and HICD projects equipped Red Local with improved tools, 
methodologies and a new vision for their organization. As a result, the federation is more aligned 
with its membership and has stronger governance and management systems in place, crucial 
elements for their ability to successfully face the difficult political and economic challenges that 
lie ahead. Red Local acknowledges that institutional strengthening will always be important, 
especially in the present circumstances, “Being more efficient and dynamic helps us to deal with 
the present difficult situation”. “Institutional strengthening activities have shown us that our 
activities need to have specific products; we need to make a qualitative leap in the results of our 
work with civil society. Nicaragua needs more education and improving education will make us 
free. This really will have an impact on the government and on the future. For us, investing in civil 
society is very important”. 
 
 
6
 Ibid, page 20. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 66 
Annex 10 - Interview List 
Interview List 
Program Participating CSOs Names
1 Asociación Civil Pro Desarrollo de la Mujer 
ACPRODMUJER Isolina Ali Ruiz 
2 Asociación de Jóvenes de Mateare - AJOMA Luis Balladares 
3 Asociación de Mujeres de Chinandega AMMCH María Castillo 
4 Asociación para la Sobrevivencia y el Desarrollo 
Local-ASODEL 
Pablo Medina 
Mario Melespino 
5 CAMM - Centro de Apoyo a las Misiones de 
Matagalpa Jenny Scarlet Pérez 
6 CARITAS Nicaragua Sheyla Obando
7 Centro de Derechos Constitucionales - CDC Ada Esperanza Silva
8 Centro de Investigación de la Comunicación -
CINCO 
Sofía Montenegro 
9 Centro Permanente de Derechos Humano - CPDH Denis Darce 
10 Consejo Permanente de Mujeres Empresarias 
CPMEM Ximena Ramírez 
11 Federación Red Nicasalud Josefina Bonilla 
12 Fundación Grupo Cívico Etica y Transparencia Celina Burgalin 
Soraya Corea 
13 Fundación Iberoamericana de las Culturas FIBRAS Violeta Granera 
14 Fundación Nicaragua Nuestra FNN Jenny Leiva Oviedo 
15 Grupo FUNDEMOS Patricia Mayorga 
Marco Antonio Fletes 
16 Grupo Pro justicia Fernando Centeno 
Jose Antonio Moreno 
17 Hagamos Democracia - HADEMOS Pedro Xavier Solís Cuadra 
18 Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos y Políticos 
Publicas Claudia Pineda 
19 Instituto Nicaragüense de Capacitación y Estudios 
Juveniles (INCEJU) Marcos Roblero 
20 Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres Sofía Montenegro 
21 Movimiento Contra el Abuso Sexual MCAS Lorna Lorori 
22 Movimiento Juvenil Nicaragüita MJN Donald Muñoz 
23 Movimiento por Nicaragua Violeta Granera 
24 Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el 
Desarrollo Local -RED LOCAL 
Lludely Aburto 
Inés Molina Jiménez 
25 Universidad Politécnica de Nicaragua Oscar Castillo Guido 
Comparative Group 
CSOs and International Donors Names
26 Instituto de Investigaciones y Gestión Social INGES Guillermo Incer 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 67 
Key Informants
Civil Society Organizations Names
1 Centro de Investigación de la Comunicación -
CINCO 
Carlos Fernando Chamarro 
2 Movimiento por Nicaragua (MPN) Violeta Granera
International Donors and NGOs 
Civil Society Organizations Names
1 IBIS - Denmark Myriam Blanco
2 Instituto Republicano Internacional - IRI Miguel Hernández
3 Fondo Común de Apoyo a la Sociedad Civil para la 
Gobernabilidad Democrática 
Zela Sequeira
Implementing Organizations and USAID Representatives 
Organization Nombre
1 Deputy Director ISP Program; MSI Leonardo Escobar
2 Organizational Development Consultant; MSI Félix Madariaga
3 Grants Manager AED/FHI360 Cecile Saborío
4 Legal Framework Program Director ICNL Jocelyn Nieva
5 Vice President – Programs ICNL Cathy Shea
8 HICD Staff World Learning Jennifer Wiegel
8 HICD Project Chief of Party, World Learning Kevin Carew
9 Monitoring and Evaluation Office, USAID Marcela Villagra
6 AOTR - Institutional Strengthening Program USAID Luz Marina García
7 Development Project Specialist, DG Office, USAID Luis Ubeda
AOTR - Institutional Strengthening Program USAID Jessica Zaman
 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 68 
Annex 11 – References 
Andino, Claribel., Portocarrero, Ada Ligia., et al. “Mapeo y Caracterización de las Organizaciones 
de la Sociedad Civil”. Nicaragua, Agosto, 2006.
Associates in Rural Development, ARD Inc. “Democracy and Governance Assessment of 
Nicaragua”. Draft Report. March, 2010. 
Barahona, Amaru, “El Mundo de las ONGs”, El Nuevo Diario, January 22, 2008
Civicus Annual Report 2010, Message from the Chair of the Board http://web.worldbank.org/
WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO 
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation - Civil Society Index Nicaragua. Red 
Nicaragüense para la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local.Report prepared by Dr Luis Serra 
Vázquez, Managua, 2011
Federación de Organismos No Gubernamentales de Nicaragua FONG. “Código de Conducta”. 
Managua 2004. 
INGES, KEPA, DFID,CENIDH, Save The Children., Las Relaciones Gobierno - Sociedad Civil 
en el Actual Contexto. Documento de Trabajo -.Borrador, 2009. 
Instituto de Investigaciones y gestión Social, INGES., “Las Relaciones del Gobierno de 
Nicaragua y la Sociedad Civil”. KEPA, Finlandia, Instituto de Investigaciones y Gestión Social, 
Managua, Nicaragua Marzo 2010. 
Lessons in Implementation: The NGO Story Building Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe 
And the New Independent States A Study Sponsored by the Office of Democracy and Governance 
Within USAID’s E&E Bureau And by Implementing Nongovernmental Partner Organizations 
October 1999. 
Management Systems International. Institutional Strengthening Program (ISP) Management 
Handbook. Nicaragua. MSI, 2010 
Monje, N, Lucia "Ley No 147 “Ley general Sobre Personas Jurídicas sin fines de Lucro” Aspectos 
Aplicados y/o Comprendidos de Manera Inexacta. Centro de Derechos Constitucionales. 
Managua. 2009. 
Monje, N, Lucia, Personas Jurídicas sin Fines de Lucro en Nicaragua- UNA GUÍA BÁSICA. 
Centro de Derechos Constitucionales (CDC) Carlos Núñez Téllez. Abril 2010. 
Ministerio de Gobierno, Nicaragua. Procedimientos de Una Ventanilla Única para la Atención a 
las Asociaciones y Fundaciones Internacionales y Extranjeras sin Fines de Lucro. Junio 2009. 
Nicaragua 2009 Democracy Survey: Sharp Drop in Confidence in Public Institutions, NDI August 
2009. 
Annexes - Final Performance Evaluation of the HICD and ISP Projects Page 69 
Nowottny, Mark, Nord Adam., Civil society Index and Civil Society Watch, CIVICUS. Partner, 
not enemy: Depoliticizing civic space in Nicaragua. 
http://www.civicus.org/compnent/content/article 72-latest news/123 
Núñez Soto, Orlando, El Asalto al Estado Nacional , http://www.mms.org.ni/historia.html. 
Ortega Hegg, Manuel. Análisis de Contexto, Nicaragua 2012. http://www.redlocalnic.org 
Prado, O Silvio., Libro Blanco de las Relaciones Estado-Sociedad Civil 2007-2008. Centro de 
Estudios y Análisis Políticos. EDISA 2010. 
Propuesta desde las Sociedad Civil. “Para Restaurar la Confianza en el Sistema Electoral”. 
GREPE, Febrero 2010. 
Red Nicaragüense por la Democracia y el Desarrollo Local., Observatorio de la Participación 
Ciudadana Informe 2007. Full Color, Mayo 2008
Seligson, M., et al. Cultura “Política de la democracia en Nicaragua”. Barometro de las 
Americas. LAPOP. 2006. 
Seligson, M., et al. The Political Culture of Democracy in Nicaragua. The Impact in Governance. 
Vandervilt University/LAPOP.2008