IIRR, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction : a transregional program to build capacity for sustained development impact -- final evaluation : project no. 938-0158 -- cooperative agreement no. FAO-A-00-96-90050-00

Emphasis countries included Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Nepal, and Ecuador. With regard to MG objective 1, IIRR strengthened the capacity of a greatly increased number of NGOs and other localized partners to implement development activities. Strengthening was achieved via: (1) IIRR publications, whose numbers, local-language versions, subject matters, and dissemination modes all increased immensely during the MG; (2) IIRR delivery of many kinds of high-quality training, follow-up, and TA assistance, including writeshops (a participatory publication methodology) and conferences, all of which increased significantly during the MG; and (3) IIRR collaboration with NGOs and other partners in field projects, the rural beneficiaries of which also increased. IIRR strengthening of the service capacity of its own RCs, MG objective 2, focused on RCs' ability to deliver and sustain services to partners, undertake process documentation, promote inter-institutional learning and networking, and perform impact evaluations. Thanks almost solely to MG inputs, IIRR made tremendous progress toward strengthening its AFR and LAC Centers on all these fronts except impact evaluation. In addition to greatly increasing their publications and other best-practices documentation, AFR and LAC increased the number of their partners manyfold and their inter-institutional learning and networking. AFR and LAC also made substantial strides toward self- sustainability. Progress by the ASI Center is difficult to determine due to the conflation of ASI activities, budget, and management with that of IIRR headquarters. Sustainability at all three centers is still questionable in terms of staff skills and manpower, especially in the area of regional leadership. On the implicit objective 3 of building IIRR capacities as a whole, significant progress was made in virtually all programmatic realms, as well as in global partnerships, financial information and reporting systems, governance, and information technology. However, headquarters experienced considerable difficulties in managing finances in relation to the Institute's overarching programmatic goals and also in decentralizing decisionmaking authority to the regions. All RCs plus headquarters fell short in conducting impact assessments and, except for training process data, in monitoring and evaluating. It is thus impossible to provide a definitive or quantitative evaluation of IIRR's progress toward MG objectives, or a comprehensive evaluation of its development programs. (Author abstract, modified)