AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUG 0 5 R'B
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20523
TO: Dr. Chris Andrew, Project Director FSSP
FROM: Roberto J. Castro, S&T/AGR/EPP _.
SUBJECT: Final evaluation FSSP.
I am taking this opportunity to inform you that the Office of Agriculture of
the Bureau of Science and Technology has initiated the final evaluation of the
Farming Systems Support Project. Albert S. Brown and James Chapman from
CHEMONICS have been contracted to undertake the evaluation task following the
As tentatively agreed in our phone conversation of July 16, 1987, the
evaluation team will be in Gainsville, Florida by mid August 1987. Their main
tasks, during their 3-day visit, include interviewing key personnel
associated with the project as well as reviewing FSSP central files. To
assist the evaluation team in their efforts I request your collaboration for
the following tasks:
1- Confirm the most appropriate dates for the evaluation team's visit to
2- Schedule appointments with personnel associated with the project. I
suggest arranging interviews with both part and full time FSSP personnel in
addition to meetings with Drs. Hugh Popenoe and Peter Hilldebrand.
3- Instruct your support staff to make available to the project team the
central files as well as relevant information for the evaluation.
4- If possible, make arrangements to accommodate the project team in the
University residence facilities (per-diem rates are below Holiday-Inn room
In addition, I would like to indicate that the same team will assist our
office in the preparation of a concept paper that would provide guidelines for
future A.I.D. involvement in Farming Systems Research and Extension.
I would appreciate your immediate response to this memorandum to schedule
Dr. Hugh Popenoe
lr.. Peter Hilldebrand
Annex Scope of Work for Work Order Under IQC Chemonics
GUIDELINES FOR 1st. PHASE FSSP FINAL EVALUATION
1. The main purpose of this evaluation is to analize the accomplishments
of the first phase of the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP). To meet
this purpose the evaluation will assess the following:
(a) Compliance with the objectives of the project.
(b) Tangible and intangible results achieved that have impacted on
A.I.D. field missions and on host country institutions implementing
(c) Managerial and technical effectiveness of the support institution
involved in providing technical assistance, training, networking and
reporting under the terms of the project paper and cooperative
- technical assistance ( in support provided to field missions and host
country institutions for the design and evaluation of FSR/E programs);
- training ( including relevance of workshops, training strategy in
FSR/E, the extent of collaboration with host country experts);
- networking ( including effectiveness in fostering the development
and/or strenghtening of networks overseas and in the U. S.)
- publications (including relevance of newsletter, bibliographies,
networking papers, guidelines, inventory of FSR/E activities)
- SOTA/Synthesis (including relevance of training materials for
implementing the proposed training strategy for African countries);
In summary, the basic question which the evaluation should answer is:
- Has the project been implemented and managed effectively by AID/W and
the University of Florida to achieve the sated project objectives as
indicated in relevant project documents?.
2. To assess the usefulness of FSSP accomplishments for further A.I.D.
support to Farming Systems programs and their contribution to the new
agricultural focus. (This assessment will serve as the basis for a
concept paper about the future of FSR in A.I.D.)
B. STATEMENT OF WORK
The contractor will review relevant information available in the files of
AID/W and the Project Office in Gainsville, Florida to assess the quality
and magnitude of the technical assistance, training, and support provided
to FSR/E programs in West Africa. This review process will be
complemented with interviews with key staff and contractors in A.I.D. and
selected FSSP Support Entities and outside institutions.
The activities to be completed in sequential order are the follows:
1. Review project documentation as follows:
- Project Paper
- Cooperative Agreement with the University of Florida
- Mid-term evaluation of the project
- S&T/FA letter of March 14, 1986
- Training Units
- Trip reports
- Project work plans
- State-of-the-art reports
- Other technical reports
- Relevant correspondence
2. Conduct interviews with relevant staff in the A.I.D. regional bureaus,
PPC, S&T/RD, S&T/AGR, S&T/ED, and field project officers in A.I.D./W
(Temporarily or in rotation)
3. Undertake one visit to the FSSP project office in Gainsville, Florida
to review relevant documentation and conduct interviews with FSSP staff.
4 Prepare and submit an evaluation report that includes the matters listed
above as well as the following issues:
(a) To what extent the leading institution acted as coordinator of the
support entities implementing FSR/E bilateral programs?
(b) One of the main activities of FSSP focused in the development of
training manuals in FSR/E. Are the training manuals developed, or in
process of being finalized, appropriate in quality and quantity for their
(c) One purpose of the cooperative agreement is to develop and strenghten
the capacity of LDC's institutions for providing training and technical
assistance to FSR/E programs. Have the leading institution been effective
in meeting this objective?. What relationships have been developed with
LDC's counterpart universities to strenghten their capability for
providing training in FSR/E methologies?.
(d) The adoption of new technologies requires effective participation of
extension agents. How has the project addressed the extension component
in the FSR/E methologies?.
(e) The farming systems approach requires an assessment of total farm
resources and the constraints influencing farmer's behavior. In many
cases, constraints for the adoption of new technologies are not only
biological but also a result of contradictory policies. Has FSSP dealt
with these issues in their methodological documents?.
(f) Networking is another relevant FSSP activity. Has the project been
effective in fostering and/or strenghtening farming systems networks?.
What are the project accomplishments during its life and after the
mid-term evaluation?. Has the project participation been decisive for
carrying out the Annual Farming Systems Symposium?. How effective has
FSSP been in supporting the West Africa Farming Systems Networks?.
(g) The project has emphasized in the dissemination of FS activities and
experiences through Newsleteers, bibliographies, networking papers, and
other similar documents. To what extent these documents have been
relevant for strenghtening the FS networks and for supporting the FSR/E
programs throughout the world?.
Finally, the contractor will discuss the evaluation findings with the A.I.D.
Office of Agriculture, and incorporate the evaluation recommendations in the
Concept Paper on the future of FSR/E in A.I.D.
C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. The evaluation report will include the following information:
(a) A summary of conclusions and preliminary recommendations;
(b) Names, titles and addresses of persons contacted during the
List of documents reviewed.
2. Within one calendar month starting August 1, 1987, the contractor will
complete the overall evaluation report covering in a clear and organized
manner all the information mentioned in the previous portions of this
Scope of Work, and submit the report to A.I.D.
3. Ten copies of the final evaluation report and recommendations will be
submitted to the A.I.D. Office of Agriculture (S&T/AGR) Project Manager,
Roberto J. Castro, Room 430, SA-18, A.I.D., Washington, D.C. 20523.
D. RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant (s) will work under the general supervision of Roberto J.
Castro in the Office of Agriculture (S&T/AGR).
Drafted by RCastro, W4578A, 7-27-87