PVO co-financing

and indigenous nongovernmental organizations (NGO"s) in Indonesia. Evaluation covered the period 1982-87. The main evaluation findings are that: (1) the Indonesian NGO movement is an increasingly important domestic voice on development; (2) its activities have had a significant impact on government policy, particularly in the health field; (3) the movement is vulnerable to government control; (4) there is a need for the movement to diversify its funding base; (5) some NGO activities, particularly credit programs, have been able to significantly leverage other resources; (6) the project has had a positive impact in involving both U.S. and Indonesian NGO"s in development activities; (7) in the absence of appropriate data, it may not be possible to quantify the project"s contribution or verify causal linkages between inputs and specific outcomes; (8) the project lacks a sense of having a strategic purpose and has functioned in a reactive mode to proposals submitted to it; (9) the management systems of all parties involved in the project are inadequate; and (10) block grants can be an effective mechanism for extending the project"s outreach far beyond the limitations of USAID/I"s Office of Voluntary and Humanitarian Programs" (VHP) personnel. Recommendations for VHP are to: (1) develop a set of strategic objectives focusing on institutional development and a process approach to development and sustainability; (2) divide its activities into long-term institutional support to selected large indigenous NGO"s, indirect support to small NGO"s, and support to the movement in general; (3) employ different programming tactics in pursuing its strategic goals; (4) establish monitoring and evaluation systems that incorporate economic, political, and sociocultural considerations and develop a documentation system to improve its institutional memory and the quality of its assistance; and (5) take the lead in sensitizing Mission personnel about the desirability of the NGO movement in Indonesia retaining its ability to grow and act, independent of government control. Lessons learned are: (1) evaluations limited to quantifiable results obscure wider impacts relating to policy changes, institution building, improved development strategies, and possible community-initiated post-project activities; (2) evaluations that consider process impacts (e.g, political, social, cultural impacts) might be more useful than those considering only purely economic impacts, although they are more difficult to perform; (3) Indonesian NGO"s may have had more impact on policy than on grassroots beneficiaries -- the reasons for this should be explored. See also the abstract of PD-AAW-861. (Author abstract, modified)