1. CARE Southern Africa FNS & CCR Impact Growth Strategy
IMPACT & REACH
Initial compilation of project data, from FY16 PIIRS
Technical Working Group
Lusaka, March 2017

2. Compiling the data – from PIIRS
New + maintained impacts
New impacts

3. Aggregating impact/outcome numbers – towards the 10m target

4. Compiling the data – checking against evaluation data

5. Multiplying impact – analyzing promising cases from Indicator 20:
How we can quantify the impact/outcomes (in future years) of our multiplying impact work, as identified through response on Indicator 20 (policy change)
From project results page, on World Bank site -

6. Definitions
Data reported against the 21 CARE International Indicators – using 11 indicators prioritized by SALT, as particularly relevant for FNS & CCR
Reach - direct: all individuals for whom CARE seeks to facilitate change and will directly benefit from the project's actions. Reach – indirect: all individuals who are NOT directly involved in project activities, who DO NOT receive direct services/goods/resources from the project BUT are still impacted in some way by the project (e.g. adopting an innovation which they learned about from a direct participant, benefiting from a policy change that the project promoted with advocacy strategies, and many other indirect ways)
New impact: the numbers who have improved their FNS/CCR based on changes in baseline % & latest measurement % (& # of impact population to which these %’s apply).
Maintained impact: the numbers who did not worsen their FNS/CCR (based on baseline %, and latest measurement impact population #s)
Family members are added in to the number we count towards 10m target, where impact population numbers only include direct participants (or sub-groups: e.g. children under 5)
Some indicators are impacts, others are outcomes – don’t get too hung up on the difference!
Projects have used different ways of measuring some indicators (e.g food security, or 15 & 21 – resilience, or 19 – meaningful participation)

7. CARE’s Overall Reach over three years
Overall, we see an increase in reach over the last year, with larger share of indirect to direct participants (possibly as projects focus more on multiplying impact)

8. Overall level of impact (preliminary – March 2017), & reach vs. impact:
Impact/outcome #s (for projects reporting) are 36% reach #s (for whole portfolio) – figures are 73% if we only consider those FNS/CCR projects with impact/outcome data (or 25% of direct + indirect participants)

9. Breakdown of indicators (1)

10. Breakdown of indicators (2)
This is just new impact/outcome #s on indicator 15, not new+maintained
Color code the graphic similar to the others with countries represented

11. Impact/outcome #s, by indicator:
Humanitarian FNS contributes 50.3% to the total new impact/outcomes number for Southern Africa (750K of 1.491m)

12. What can we say? (1)
7 projects enabled nearly 180,000 people to reduce levels of food insecurity, a reduction of 24.5 percentage points - overall, CARE & partners contributed to food security for nearly 300,000 people
2 projects enabled over 4,500 (4,579) children under 5 to escape stunting - an average reduction of 8.1 percentage points (or 2.4 percentage points per year)
12 projects supported nearly 180,000 people to better build resilience to the effects of climate change - overall, CARE & partners contributed to climate change resilience for nearly 325,000 people
16 projects helped nearly 350,000 men, women, boys and girls take action to reduce their vulnerabilities to the drivers of shocks and stresses that affect them, an increase of 19.5 percentage points, helping improve the resilience of just under 1,375,000 people
12 projects enabled nearly 840,000 disaster-affected people (54% women & girls) to obtain adequate quantities & quality of food, and/or adopted adequate nutritional practices, and/or recovered household goods, assets, and/or income opportunities - supporting nearly 40% of all those in project areas with need of humanitarian support
In 4 projects that surveyed those receiving humanitarian assistance, 59% reported being satisfied with the relevance, timeliness and accountability of humanitarian interventions (for women, the figure was 96%, in 2 projects that provided data disaggregated by sex)
Will talk to Korinne about converting some of this to an infographic

13. What can we say? (2)
26 projects enabled over 190,000 women & girls to access informal financial services such as community savings & loans groups (VSLAs), an increase of 19.4 percentage points - overall, CARE & partners contributed to the economic empowerment for over 270,000 women & girls
7 projects enabled nearly 10,000 women to gain access to formal financial services, an increase of 24.7 percentage points
11 projects helped over 30,000 women participate equally in household financial decision-making, an increase of 12.9 percentage points (from 46.6% to 59.5%) - overall, CARE & partners contributed to nearly 115,000 women's control over economic resources
4 projects enabled over 7,000 people (over 5,200 women) to reject intimate partner violence, an increase of 15.9 percentage points (from 65.2% to 81.2%)
15 projects helped increase by over 75,000 the number of people who are meaningfully participating in formal and informal decision-making spaces (nearly 40,000 of whom were women & girls) - CARE & partners contributed to maintained or improved participation for over 100,000 people

14. FNS & CCR Impact/Outcome #s, by Country
Mozambique numbers could increase if we can get figures on humanitarian FNS from some projects – Zambia likely to increase in future FYs, as evaluations of their major programs have not yet occurred

15. Reach vs impact/outcomes, by areas
For humanitarian, a much closer relationship (reach almost = impact/outcomes)
For FNS it is less (41% - but longer for reach across multiple sectors to translate into measured reductions in food insecurity/stunting)
For resilience, impact/outcomes are higher than reach (as we build resilience through other sectors, such as WEE – not just through Climate Change or DRR)
For WEE, relationship is closer (80%) – though existing VSLA clients are reached, but do not generate impact/outcome #s
For gender/GBV, change is slower, and harder to measure – so impact represents lower % of reach (14%, 5%)

16. Cost and impact (1)
This adds up each impact/outcome from a project as if it were a separate # (as a project impacting across multiple indicators could be said to be generating greater benefit for each cost) – estimated cost to end June 16 is divided by this figure for “all impacts/outcomes”, to get a cost-effectiveness figure (how much it has cost to “buy” those impacts)
Gideon inclined to this one – need to talk over with Matt/Michelle

17. Cost and impact (2)
This adds up each impact/outcome from a project as if it were a separate # (as a project impacting across multiple indicators could be said to be generating greater benefit for each cost) – estimated cost to end June 16 is divided by this figure for “all impacts/outcomes”, to get a cost-effectiveness figure (how much it has cost to “buy” those impacts)
Gideon inclined to this one – need to talk over with Matt/Michelle

18. Levels of integration of CARE approach:
This is data for the whole regional portfolio (excluding Lendwithcare), not just FNS/CCR projects
Can also produce and use analysis like this of the different elements of CARE approach, and roles (advocacy, innovation, scaling up, partnership, etc.)
Need to add in more on approaches, & advocacy & scale-up

19. Trends in gender integration

20. Trends in governance & resilience integration

21. Advocacy & Going to scale