SHN Stakeholder Report 4 23

2014 SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Review:
Key Stakeholder and Lead Partner Interviews

NCSU Department of Social Work 2013-2014 Cohort:

Krystal Smith, Advanced Research MSW Graduate Student
Laurie Moses, Advanced Research MSW Graduate Student
Suzanne Martin, Advanced Research MSW Graduate Student
Erica Smith, Advanced Research MSW Graduate Student
Brittney Asch, Advanced Research MSW Graduate Student
Marcie Fisher-Borne, PhD, MSW, MPH, Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work

SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Stakeholder Report, 2014 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Overview of Hunger ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Defining Hunger and Malnutrition .............................................................................................................................. 5
Monitoring and Evaluation: Organizational Capacity and Current Trends ......................................................... 6
Building Quality Partnerships: Understanding Success ........................................................................................... 7
EVALUATION JUSTIFICATION AND METHODS ....................................................................................... 8
Constituent Groups Involved: Internal Staff and Board Stakeholders and Lead Partners ................................. 8
Methods ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
KEY FINDINGS SHN STAFF AND BOARD ................................................................................................ 13
Defining Hunger ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
Defining Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 13
Perceptions of M&E in SHN: Current Status and Future Needs ......................................................................... 14
The Value of Monitoring and Evaluation for SHN Stakeholders ........................................................................ 14
Monitoring and Evaluation: Barriers and Challenges .............................................................................................. 15
The Future of M&E ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
KEY FINDINGS PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................ 19
Partner Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Partners Perceptions of SHN ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Partner Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity ........................................................................................................... 23
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 25
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 28
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................................... 33
SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Stakeholder Report, 2014 Page iii

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix G .................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix H .................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix I...................................................................................................................................................................... 63

SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Stakeholder Report, 2014 Page iv

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Hunger Related Terminology..12
Table 2: Key Terms and Definitions.13
Table 3: Summary of Quantitative Data Sources...16
Table 4: Summary of Qualitative Data Sources.....18
Table 5: Lead Partners Total Food Received27
Table 6: Survey Responses on Types of SHN Support Received...28

SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Stakeholder Report, 2014 Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to thank the following people for their assistance and support with this evaluation:
Thank you to the Stop Hunger Now (SHN) partners who participated in the interviews. These
individuals work tirelessly with minimal resources and staff. They gave us their valuable time for the
interviews and truly understood the importance of participation. Without their input our team could
not create this report which is intended to assist SHN with increasing their capacity for program
monitoring and evaluation.
To the SHN staff, leadership team, and board members we interviewed - thank you for allowing us
to speak with you about your perspectives as SHN stakeholders. Your dedication to the mission of
Stop Hunger Now, to end hunger in our lifetime, is exemplified by the work you do at every level.
Your contribution to our research has provided a more holistic understanding of SHNs
organization and the passionate people who work for and with SHN.
Our team is especially grateful for Nina DaSilva Batista and Matt Anlyan, SHN Aid Distribution
Managers, who worked with us to provide a thorough understanding of SHN as an organization,
SHNs lead partners, and an overview of their experiences working with various partners over the
years. Your collaboration and feedback has been paramount to our work.
We also give a very special thank you to our professor Dr. Marcie Fisher-Borne, Assistant Professor
in the Department of Social Work at North Carolina State University. From the onset of our
Advanced Research course your enthusiasm for teaching and research has been contagious! By
trusting the process we have created, what we hope to be, a meaningful report with relevant and
useful information. Upon completion of this course, we will take away a once-in-a-lifetime
experience, for which we are eternally grateful. With your guidance we have developed our own real-
world experience working with the international aid organization, Stop Hunger Now, which will
serve as a catalyst for our continued work as professionals. We are more competent, confident, and
committed to becoming leaders who advocate for social justice on every front.
We would like to thank the rest of our Advanced Research Student Colleagues. Though this has
been a different experience for each of us, we have gained so much by sharing this journey together.
It is said there is strength in numbers and our group is no exception. We have achieved what we
sought and look to the future knowing there ARE great people out there doing amazing work - we
know this because we know each of you will be out there.
Last but not least, thank you to our Department of Social Work at North Carolina State University.
This international section is a first-time experience for the Department and we appreciate the
opportunity to be a part of it! We believe it is courses like this that will demonstrate and highlight
the amazing talent within our Masters of Social Work Program. Thank you for your willingness to
share in our journey and your support for our education.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Background and Literature
Stop Hunger Now partners with organizations around the world to provide food and other
resources to over a thousand facilities and encourages transformational development in the
communities served. This report, built out of the NCSU Collaborative of 13 Social Work graduate
students and Professor Dr. Fisher-Borne, seeks to bring the perspectives of key internal (staff and
board) and external (lead and on the ground partners) into dialogue to understand how Stop Hunger
Now can be more effective in partner relationships and building the monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) programs stakeholders need and want in order to be successful.
Evaluation Justification and Methods
Evaluating and understanding the needs of Stop Hunger Now stakeholders are vital to the success
and growth of the organization. This evaluation addressed the following questions:
1. What are the perspectives of Stop Hunger Now staff and board members on the nature
of Stop Hunger Nows efforts to fight hunger and what role does monitoring and
evaluation play in this work?
2. How do partners describe the impact of Stop Hunger Now meals?
3. How do partners define partnership success?
4. How do partners explain their capacity for M&E
5. How would partners like to work with Stop Hunger Now to further their M&E?
Key stakeholder interviews were conducted with 11 members of the Stop Hunger Now staff,
executive leadership, and board in order to understand the current perceptions, needs, and vision for
monitoring and evaluation. Thirteen lead partners were selected to be interviewed about their
experiences as partners with Stop Hunger Now and the impact of Stop Hunger Now meals in their
communities. In addition, 21 of 26 lead partners completed survey regarding the quality of
partnership with Stop Hunger Now, the technology available to them, and how they would like to
move forward with monitoring and evaluation. These data were combined with 45 SHN Impact
reports submitted in 2012.
Evaluation Findings
The stakeholders interviewed chose varying definitions for how Stop Hunger Now defines hunger
and monitoring and evaluation, with some respondents focused on the impact of food at the
individual or facility level, and others focusing on Stop Hunger Now's effectiveness and
accountability as an organization. The majority of stakeholders felt that monitoring and evaluation
within the organization was just getting started. Many believed M&E would require additional

resources and that the current processes in place were not sufficient to capture the work of Stop
Hunger Now. Most stakeholders saw M&E as critical to their day-to-day work that would
demonstrate to donors a "return on investment." A lack of internal M&E capacity and investment
along with challenges with partner capacity to conduct M&E were all cited as issues. Internal
stakeholders requested a clear timeline for the process of developing monitoring and evaluation
systems that were in line with organizational priorities.
The lead partners interviewed described how partnering with Stop Hunger Now impacted their
work in substantial ways. The communication and passion displayed by Stop Hunger Now
distribution staff was cited by lead partners as the biggest strength. Partners requested additional
training on partnership expectations as well as resources and strategies to conduct M&E more
effectively. Partners expressed the difficult realities of tracking food to individual facilities as they
were often understaffed and unequipped with record-keeping tools such as computers and Internet.
This, along with difficulty transporting the food to various on-the-ground partners due to high costs,
were some of the major barriers expressed by partners interviewed.
Discussion and Summary
A review of the findings revealed a critical need for clarity and cohesion around the organizational
definition of hunger and the overarching strategies Stop Hunger Now should prioritize to address
the issue of hunger. There was not unity amongst staff and board around these overarching
strategies. With increased clarity on how Stop Hunger Now is moving towards its mission, Stop
Hunger Now will be able to develop a detailed, sustainable M&E program that can further inform
organizational development and demonstrate the worth of investing in Stop Hunger Now. The
findings also indicate that Stop Hunger Now has an incredible opportunity to build and support the
M&E capacity of their 26 lead partners as a strategy to improve data tracking and overall impact.
Recommendations
1) Engage in a strategic planning process that would lead to concrete goals and priorities around
impact outlining priorities for the next 1-3 years. This process should involve:
a. Clarifying key definitions related to mission such as hunger
b. Integrating best practices from current global international development work
c. Defining and operationalizing transformational development and how efforts labeled
as such might impact Stop Hunger Now priorities
d. Defining and clarifying partner priorities
2) Determine the role and priorities of organizational monitoring and evaluation that are designed
to build partner capacity for M&E.
3) Continue to build collaborative university partnerships around M&E to maximize resources,
impact students and universities, and objectively assess impact.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The North Carolina State University Department of Social Work partnered with Stop Hunter Now
(SHN) over the 2013-2014 academic year to build monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity. In
2011, Stop Hunger Now partnered with UNC Chapel Hill to produce monitoring and evaluation
reports for Uganda and Nicaragua and to create forms to assist with future monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) efforts. The SHN NCSU partnership began through Dr. Marcie Fisher-Bornes
application for a $15,000 Extension, Engagement, & Economic Development Seed Grant to fund
the collaborative and assist with travel costs for students to conduct site visits.
Through this partnership, 14 advanced graduate research students in Social Work undertook
five key projects for SHN:
1) The creation of a training manual for SHN staff and volunteers participating in monitoring and
evaluation trips
2) The creation of logic models that communicate core SHN organizational elements (see
Appendix I in report for the organization logic model)
3) A country site visit and report for Haiti
4) A country site visit and report for the Dominican Republic
5) A stakeholder report collecting data from SHN executive staff, board members, and SHN lead
partners
Report Focus
This specific report focuses on the perspectives of key internal and external stakeholders (Board,
leadership Staff, and lead partners) on addressing global hunger, qualities of successful partnerships,
and the role of monitoring and evaluation in the efforts to end hunger. Stop Hunger Now works
with partners around the globe to impact the issue of hunger. As such, understanding what makes a
successful partnership is vital. This report sought to:
Identify and describe current challenges and strengths within the organization that may
impact the development of the M&E program
Gain understanding of the opinions of stakeholders on what steps to take moving forward
with M&E strategies
Collect valuable process information from internal and external stakeholders to be used to
improve SHN monitoring and evaluation in the future
Gain perspective and assess SHN partners overall experiences with SHN and SHN meals


LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Hunger
There are currently 842 million people suffering from chronic hunger (1 in 8 people globally),
according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2013a). Undernutrition contributes to
3.1 million deaths of children under age five each year, almost half of the total worldwide deaths
(Black et al., 2013). The majority of those suffering from chronic hunger and malnutrition live in
developing countries. Hunger affects the body and the mind of individuals in several ways. An
individual who experiences hunger for long periods of time demonstrates stunting, poorer immune
system, such as staying sick longer or developing malaria, and an increase in emotional and
psychological difficulties, such as depression (Dutta, Anaele, & Jones, 2013; Kirkpatrick, McIntyre,
& Potestto, 2010).
Defining Hunger and Malnutrition
Hunger is not a condition which is easily confined to one simple definition. Accordingly, the Food
and Agriculture Organization (2013a) presents a set of terms, which differentiate the varying
manifestations of hunger (see Table 1). Hunger can be endured as a short-term condition or on a
chronic basis and may range in levels of severity from mild to life-threatening.
Table 1: Hunger Related Terminology from FAO (2013a)
Term Definition
Hunger
A state, lasting for at least one year, of inability to acquire enough food, defined
as a level of food intake insufficient to meet dietary energy requirements.
Food Insecurity
A situation that exists when people lack severe access to sufficient amounts of
safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and
healthy life. It may be caused by the unavailability of food, insufficient purchasing
power, inappropriate distribution or inadequate use of food at the household
level. Food insecurity may be chronic, seasonal or transitory.
Malnutrition
An abnormal physiological condition caused by inadequate, unbalanced or
excessive consumption of macronutrient and /or micronutrients. Malnutrition
includes under-nutrition and over-nutrition as well as micronutrient deficiencies.
Undernourishment
The outcome of undernourishment, and /or poor absorption and/or poor
biological use of nutrients consumed as a response to repeated infectious disease.
It includes being underweight for ones age, too short for ones age (stunted),
dangerously thin for ones height (wasted) and deficient in vitamins and minerals
(micronutrient malnutrition)

Defining Monitoring and Evaluation
In order to justify the importance of monitoring and evaluation in fighting global hunger, we first
must define key terms. Table 2 provides the definitions for terms used throughout this report.
Table 2: Key Terms and Definitions
Key Term Definition
Monitoring
The systematic and routine collection of information from projects or programs to
improve activities. It also creates accountability to stakeholders.
Evaluation
To assess a completed project or program (or a phase of an ongoing project or
program) to see whether it has or had the desired impact (Sport and Development,
2013).
Capacity
Refers to having the resources, skills, and knowledge to achieve desired performance
or effectiveness (Connolly, 2007).
Basic Training
A term that consists of helping partners determines their long-term goals, their short
term goals, and ways to move towards accomplishing those goals.
On-the-Ground
Partner
Refers to any organization that has and is distributing Stop Hunger Now meals
Monitoring and Evaluation: Organizational Capacity and Current Trends
From funders to charity-rating groups such as Charity-Navigator, increasingly organizations are being
asked to show mission-related results and how resources are being utilized to achieve expected
outcomes. In an era of deeper organizational accountability to funders, monitoring and evaluation
plays a critical role in demonstrating that organizations are serious about assessing impact. For
example, by 2016, Charity Navigator will include an NGO rating system based on results. See
Appendix A for the five core elements that will be asssessed under the new guidelines.
Monitoring and Evaluation is a crucial piece of organizational capacity and is highly beneficial for
improving services and increasing impact (Carman 2011; Fine, Thayer, & Coghlan, 2000; Forti &
Yazbak, 2012). Forti and Yazbak (2012) looked in-depth at nonprofits that are most effective in
evaluating the services they provide, such as Youth Villages and ROCA. The leaders of these
organizations argued it is possible to do performance measurement with few resources, if you
identify one or two things to examine in a more methodical way. They highlighted the importance of
building communities of practice amongst measurement staff and to equip all staff members l to
encorporate measurement in their work from frontline practitioners to the CEO (Forti & Yazbak,
2012, p. 17). Organizations that demonstrate impact attract resources to scale (Forti & Yazbak,

2012, p. 2) and the benefits outweigh the costs: both to individual constituents and to the
organizations overall health and capacity.
USAID published a report on current trends in evaluation policy and practice and the overarching
goal of enhancing aid effectiveness. The report argued that evaluation is only valuable when findings
are applied and performance is improved (Hageboeck, 2009). Current M&E trends also include the
centrality of stakeholder involvement in developing evaluation questions, gathering and analyzing
data, and formulating action recommendations (Hageboeck, 2009). Participatory evaluation is a
central concept that is in line with reorientation of the UN to treat beneficiaries as equal partners
and consultants in order to sustain intended project benefits. Funding demands have heightened for
food relief efforts that are credible and demonstrate the strength of evidence through rigorous
evaluation methods (Hageboeck, 2009).
Building Quality Partnerships: Understanding Success
Creating partnerships that are successful and understanding the communities needs are vital to
create real change around the complex issue of global hunger. Working with partners in the
community can be challenging, particularly for international organizations. These partnerships need
to recognize and be able to integrate the assets that the community organizations have to offer
they know best what their community needs to be successful (Connors & Prelip, 2000).
Creating a strong partnership is important, but maintaining the partnership is difficult and takes
additional work. Creating clear boundaries and a framework in the beginning of the partnership will
prevent confusion and allow for clear communication (Rein & Stott, 2008). With good
communication comes trust that both partners will have the resources they need and will be able to
rely on each other (Connors & Prelip, 2000). Partnerships must also be able to review their successes
and failures to create a stronger partnership that can be sustainable (Heady, 2000). Knowing the
community needs leads to creating a solution that will solve the issue of hunger and create an
environment that prevents it from reoccurring.

EVALUATION JUSTIFICATION AND METHODS
This mixed methods evaluation is a component of a larger North Carolina State University (NCSU)
Monitoring and Evaluation Collaborative, led by Dr. Marcie Fisher-Borne and graduate student
consultants in the Masters of Social Work programs Advanced Research and Evaluation Sequence. All
research activities were approved by the North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board
in December of 2013. This evaluation project had two primary constituent groups and separate
evaluation goals for each.
Constituent Groups Involved: Internal Staff and Board Stakeholders and Lead
Partners
Evaluation Goals: Internal Staff and Board Stakeholders
Understand the perspective of key staff and board members regarding hunger, monitoring
and evaluation, how M&E impacts their work, and what they need from M&E
Identify and describe current challenges and strengths within the organization that may
impact the development of the M&E program
Gain understanding of the opinions of stakeholders on what steps to take moving forward
Collect valuable process information to be used to improve SHN monitoring and evaluation
in the future
Evaluation Goals: SHN Partners
Gain perspective and assess SHN partners experiences with SHN and SHN meals
Identify and describe partner perceptions of program achievements, implementation
facilitators and barriers
Collect valuable process information to be used to improve SHN monitoring and evaluation
in the future
See Appendix B for the detailed evaluation timeline. The section that follows describes the studys
data collection method, data sources, and data analysis strategies.
Methods
Data sources for the evaluation included both quantitative and qualitative data collected from SHN
lead partners and SHN key staff and board members. The section that follows describes each type
of data collection method, data sources, and data analysis strategies.
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data included surveys and reports submitted by lead partner organizations. The Stop
Hunger Now Partner Survey consisted of 34 questions and was administered online through Qualtrics

survey software. All 26 lead partners were asked to complete the survey, and 22 lead partners (85%)
had completed surveys at the time of analysis. The survey addressed partner characteristics,
perceptions of the relationship with Stop Hunger Now, lead partners relationships with their on-the-
ground partners, and their overall capacity for monitoring and evaluation. See Appendix C for the
partner survey instrument. Lead partners had the option of including their name at the end of the
survey or leave the survey anonymous. All participants who completed the survey were entered into
a raffle for a $50 Visa gift card.
Additional quantitative data came from the 2012 Impact Reports. All partners are expected to
complete annual impact reports where they report on meal distribution to individual facilities, data
collected on the impact of meals on beneficiaries, and any recommendations or challenges they
would like to address with Stop Hunger Now. In Fall 2012, all reports (n=45) were compiled in an
Excel document and a summary report was completed by the SHN Social Work Graduate Intern.
Impact Reports were submitted by lead partners on a country basis, so partners receiving SHN
shipments in multiple countries must submit reports for each country. See Appendix D for the
Impact Report form and Appendix E for the 2012 Impact Report Summary. See Table 3 for a
summary of quantitative data sources.
Table 3. Summary of Quantitative Data Sources
Qualitative Data Collection
The two principal qualitative sources for this evaluation were 13 interviews with lead and on the
ground partners and 11 interviews with key internal stakeholders from Stop Hunger Now.
The NCSU research team drafted a semi-structured Partnership Success Interview Guide (Appendix F)
that was reviewed by the Principal Investigator and SHN Aid Distribution Staff. Lead partners who
exemplified partner success were selected by the Aid Distribution staff and Social Work Intern
and invited to be interviewed. Of all partners invited, only two declined the opportunity to be
interviewed, and two more partners were selected to be interviewed instead. Thirteen graduate social
work students from North Carolina State University conducted these interviews. Each student
interviewed one SHN partner who was identified by SHN staff for an interview. To ensure
consistency, training was conducted with those conducting the interviews. Partners were asked a set
of 15 open-ended questions to help structure the interview process and make sure partners answer
the same questions. These questions were created to develop an understanding of the partners
Data Sources Total Number
Total Lead Partners 26
Lead Partner Surveys Completed 22
Document Review
2012 Impact Reports 45
2012 Impact Report Summary 1

relationship to SHN and the impact of their partnership between SHN as well as to identify key
components of successful partnerships. Questions focused on the partnership with SHN,
experiences partners had with SHN food distribution and meals, and communication between
partners. Lastly, questions focused on the impact SHN meals had on the partners with their direct
beneficiaries and in the community as a whole. Handwritten notes were used to record participants
answers and interviews were recorded to confirm accuracy of data and allow interviewers to review
information they might have missed (Harvey, 2011). Interviews took from 30 to 60 minutes to
complete. The CitiHope International interview was conducted by the Research Team when we
traveled to the Dominican Republic in February of 2014.
The Internal Stakeholder Interview guide was created by the SHN Aid Distribution Staff and two
consultants: Doug Johnson and Dr. Marcie Fisher-Borne, the Principal Investigator for the NCSU
research team. This guide asked 10 open-ended questions regarding stakeholders understanding of
hunger and monitoring and evaluation, the role of monitoring and evaluation in their work with
Stop Hunger Now, their perceptions of the current status of monitoring and evaluation and how
they would like it to be in the future (see Appendix G). These interviews were conducted by the
Aid Distribution staff and consultant Doug Johnson in person and by phone. Aid distribution staff
took notes on respondents answers to each question. Members of the NCSU research reviewed
notes, interview recordings and transcribed each interview. For a complete summary of qualitative
sources, see Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Qualitative Sources
Data Sources
Total
Number
Total Lead Partner Interviews 13
Lead SHN
Partner
Organization
Alliance for Children Everywhere Zambia
Children of Vietnam Vietnam
Convoy of Hope
Haiti, El Salvador, Kenya,
Philippians

Ganta United Methodist Mission Liberia
Guatemala Village Partners Guatemala
Haiti Outreach Ministries Haiti
Hearts and Hands for Haiti Haiti
Kidz Konnect 4 Jesus Belize
Lesea Global Feed the Hungry Uganda
ORPHANetwork Nicaragua
Reach Now International*
(Missions Touch Ministries -
intermediate partner- interviewed)
Zambia, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Somalia

SHN of Southern Africa (affiliate) South Africa
St. Andres Episcopal School
(intermediate partner)
Haiti
Stakeholder Interviews 11
Internal SHN
Stakeholder
Interviews
Executive Staff 5
Non-Executive Staff 4
Board Members 2
Total Interviews 24


Quantitative Analysis
The online survey was analyzed using Qualtrics software. Responses were incorporated into the
findings of the partner success interviews. Impact reports were organized by section and partner in
an excel document then summarized to highlight level of M&E being conducted by partners,
challenges and barriers partners face, innovative uses of meals, bags, and boxes, unique
transformational development initiatives, and other information that can be used by SHN to
improve services. The 2012 Impact Report Summary findings were also incorporated into the
Partner Success and Survey findings.
Qualitative Analysis
For all stakeholder interviews, data related to each evaluation question were extracted from the
interviews (see Appendix F and G for interview guides) and sorted into a codebook matrix that
summarized major themes by data source using Atlas.ti software (for partner success interviews) and
Google Drive documents and folders (for Stakeholder Interviews). Analysis of data content across
sources identified instances in which multiple respondents identified common experiences and ideas.
This process allowed for comparison and contrasting of themes related to common program
components and objectives. Data were analyzed according to content analysis procedures and
transcripts were read and coded independently to identify initial themes. This coding was checked
by the research team for consistency and accuracy. Any quotations presented reflect the general
themes and opinions of a majority of the participants.

KEY FINDINGS SHN STAFF AND BOARD
This section highlights key findings from interviews with 11 SHN leadership staff and board
members in January of 2014 and addresses findings in light of the studys evaluation questions.
Defining Hunger
The first question asked of all stakeholders was to identify the definition of hunger that most closely
aligned with the work of SHN. Definitions of undernourishment, food insecurity, and chronic
hunger developed by FAO from Table 1 on page 5 of this report were shared with all stakeholders
and board members interviewed. Five stakeholders (45%) chose the definition of food insecurity
reasoning that its about having enough access to food, it spells out the causes of hunger, and
hunger is really defined by people who are truly dying of starvation. These quotes illustrate that
even though respondents chose the same answer, they had varying ways of conceptualizing hunger.
Three stakeholders (27%) identified chronic hunger as the organizations leading definition of hunger.
Their explanations included, were really trying to stop starvation and I view hunger as involving
a persistent basis. The remaining three respondents created their own definitions of hunger. One
connected hunger directly to school feeding. Another explained, Hunger is a lack of food and we
deal with that by packaging food. Finally, two respondents noted that SHN deals with hunger that
is chronic as opposed to simply starvation, and that hunger is the lack of sustainable sources of
food, that are both safe and high quality.
Defining Monitoring and Evaluation
Respondents were also asked to broadly define monitoring and evaluation (M&E). This question
elicited a wide variety of responses with some major themes. Of all respondents, 45% said that
monitoring and evaluation were two separate things with separate meanings; the majority defined
M&E as one concept. Six (54%) connected evaluation to impact and five (45%) connected
monitoring to process.
Some chose to discuss the purpose of M&E for SHN. Three individuals (27%) said that the purpose
of monitoring and evaluation is to inform the organizations actions and decision-making. Two
respondents said that M&E helps to show whether the organization is moving towards its mission.
Three respondents (18%) framed M&E in terms of the impact SHN has on individuals eating the
meals regularly (2 specifically talking about children). Three stakeholders (27%) framed monitoring
in terms of the partners use of food and the expectations set for partners. Three stakeholders
framed monitoring in terms of SHNs effectiveness in managing the resources they are entrusted
with (i.e. meals, money etc.).


Perceptions of M&E in SHN: Current Status and Future Needs
To be honest, Im glad we are having this conversation, because I dont know a ton about it.
--Respondent
Staff and board members shared varying perceptions of SHNs current monitoring and evaluation
process. They also shared different views on how the organization currently gathered and
understood data. Two respondents openly stated that they did not know what was happening with
M&E. One respondent shared concerns that frontline staff was less aware of what was happening
and unclear why the organization was focusing efforts on M&E. In particular, some concerns were
focused on the ability to provide tangible data on impact. Another stakeholder stated that more
collaboration along with communication was needed around the data and its impact: The story is
lost and it becomes about how many meals you packaged. We forget that we are here to end
hunger. The majority of stakeholders talked about M&E just getting started or being fairly
surface level. Three stakeholders cited a lack of resources and financial support for M&E as a
challenge. Some stakeholders were concerned with how SHN could move forward because we
shouldnt measure things we cant prove or because there was not a clear understanding across the
organization in regards to the value of M&E. Another stakeholder said that SHN lacked a specific
process, data points, [or a] distribution/selection process. Two stakeholders were concerned about
a lack of a scientific approach. On the other hand, one stakeholder believed that SHN was already
collecting a fair amount of data and SHN needed to work to show what we are collecting.
Another felt we are really doing a good job with current resources. Some stakeholders also felt
that SHN was at a critical point because of how quickly SHN had grown: Weve set ourselves up
as a leader in this field and now we need to back that up. Finally, some stakeholders shared
concerns regarding the processes that were currently in place. Specifically, there were concerns that
impact forms were sent out and not sent back, that meals needed to be counted and verified (a
higher standards of accountability with partners), and that the SHNs distribution model made M&E
very complex and challenging. Multiple stakeholders saw partners limitations with data collection
and analysis as another key barrier in moving forward with M&E.
The Value of Monitoring and Evaluation for SHN Stakeholders
Everyone agrees its a good idea, but if people dont put an effort into it then its useless. . . If
we dont get this addressed in 3 - 5 years we wont be here because other people will and they
will do it [evaluation] better. --Respondent
All stakeholders were asked to identify how monitoring and evaluation affected their work and what
information they (and their team) needed in order to be successful in meeting their work goals.
Three respondents said that M&E was a crucial part of their day-to-day job. One noted, I will be
using this data every day, every week. More and more people are interested in what is the impact of
our work.

The majority of respondents (6 of 11) discussed how M&E provided crucial information for donor
support. Four respondents specifically said that M&E validated their work in a way that was critical
to eliciting contributions. For example, one respondent noted: Organization donors like to see
more evidence/fact-based, scientific based results from what they are investing in and return on
their investment. Corporations, foundations, universities, any of those types of donors will demand
that we have the above kinds of results to show them. Another stakeholder shared, for large
donations, its probably the number one key barrier that we face to get large dollars, is to lay down
results. Its a key piece of what we need to move forward. In fact, nine of the eleven respondents
identified communication with potential donors and supports as the primary way M&E affected
their work.
While increasing donor dollars was a key reason cited to conduct M&E, stakeholders also discussed
the importance of achieving the organizational mission: To me it comes down to the mission. How
are we achieving our mission? What impact is it having toward ending world hunger? Three of the
eleven stakeholders discussed connection to mission as part of how they will use M&E in their job.
One respondent noted: I see it as proactively capturing data that indicates impact and that cannot
only inform potential donors, but also really inform operations. . . There are all kinds of reasons to
have solid data. Three additional respondents affirmed the importance of integrating what is
learned through monitoring and evaluation to improve future actions taken by the organization.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Barriers and Challenges
The major barriers and challenges with M&E identified by stakeholders included:
1. Internal infrastructure and M&E capacity
2. Internal communication and unity to incorporate M&E
3. Ability to assess impact in complex environments and with partner capacity (i.e. in
developing countries)
Internal Infrastructure and M&E Capacity
Things are going to fall apart if we dont have the systems, structures, and processes in place to
demonstrate whats going on. --Respondent
Two respondents discussed their belief that SHN did not have the infrastructure in place to do the
M&E work desired, including information storage, information analysis, and clear processes. Four
cited insufficient resources (particularly in terms of staff and money) for M&E as a major barrier:
Lack of control and lack of resources. Would love to have people on the ground in each country,
but dont have resources . . . Would like to visit every partner in the field every year, but we dont
have the capacity. Four stakeholders directly addressed their dissatisfaction with impact reports as
the current strategy to collect data from partners. On a logistical level, one stakeholder felt the
problem with M&E was the forms we get do not tally the number of meals we send out.

Another said, Im bothered by length of time needed to get reports back. We want to get 100%
reporting compliance, or close, but were not there yet. Others felt that the impact reports were
imperfect tools-not received regularly, not objective, and often, incomplete. As one stakeholder
noted, on sample impact reports, a lot [that] we asked for we didnt get. Are they too tough to
answer? Why are they not being answered? Regarding stories, many interviewees said that
anecdotal data was all SHN currently collected. Even so, over half the interviewees reported that the
stories SHN does have are not sufficient for their needs and they would like more stories to share
with external stakeholders and donors. One interviewee, when asked about challenges and barriers,
shared, Number one, theres not a lot of stories to tell. It would be awesome toshare a handful
of stories. That would go a long way with some of these partners. One stakeholder expressed the
gap between talking about individuals who eat SHN meals and the mission of SHN this way: In
terms of measuring success you know when you start talking about weight of the student it is not
getting to how are you going to change the condition [of hunger].
Developing and Communicating a Unified Vision
Its going to be critical we are using consistent talking points and data that is validated.
Everyone [is sharing] based on their own experience. If called into question, can we
demonstrate data? --Respondent
Clear communication, was a consistent challenge named by stakeholders. One respondent discussed
how their program staff was confused as to why resources were going into M&E when program
staff were rarely asked for hard data on the impact of SHN. One stakeholder said, Weve got to
figure out a way that if we are making a significant change in any of the verbiage or numbers or
anything that were communicating it effectively across the organization.
A few stakeholders expressed that the current M&E processes had not been shared with them and
therefore they did not know what is happening. One said, Staff dont understand what other staff
are doing which leads to a fall out.
There were a few stakeholders concerned about consistent buy in across the organization for
M&E. One said [Some] wonder or question the investment, which is going to be substantial, in the
M&E when they don't see or hear the need for it, as much as someone on development or
corporateRarely at an event do you get grilled about How can you prove your food works?


Understanding Partner Capacity in the Context of Developing Countries.
We distribute aid well, logistically, but have no control over day-to-day. With working
internationally, it creates risk that things wont go as planned. Local capacity in country and
cultural understanding about M&E are limitations as well. Not a culture of
M&E/reporting in developing countries. They also dont have resources, so its hard to collect
information from the field. --Respondent
A few stakeholders brought up concerns regarding the complex environments where SHN meals
and aid are distributed. Five of the eleven stakeholders interviewed brought questions such as:
How much can we claim as a result of our food? How are we going to determine what the impact of our meal
is? Even if we can get their outcomes, what part does our product play in that outcome? We can report on
program but how much claim can we put on it being the result of our product?...We can get a lot of success
understanding their program. Its a doubt that we can take it further than this.
Stakeholders also expressed concerns about the capacity of SHNs partners to collect data and
report data back to SHN. SHN currently has 26 lead partners who are distributing meals to over
1,000 individual facilities around the world. Many of these partners are multinational aid
organizations that are U.S. based and distribute SHN meals and aid to smaller organizations in
specific countries. In total, four stakeholders discussed the limitations of SHNs partners as a major
barrier and challenge to monitoring and evaluation.
The Future of M&E
Stakeholders were asked the best strategies to move forward with M&E. Specifically, staff and board
were asked what types of partners and what types of programs should be prioritized in gathering
data and how to conduct more in-depth evaluation of the impact of SHN meals.
Gathering Data. There was a range of responses related to how (and with what programs) to gather
data. Three respondents said that the organization should no longer focus on crisis/disaster
intervention; two felt that crisis intervention was particularly important. Two respondents felt SHN
should focus on the [partners] we trust most and whoever we can. Two respondents felt it was
important that data be collected for the end users, those who eat the meals. Transformational
development, which was equated first with school feeding then with vocational, medical, maternal
and child health, was another priority cited by a number of internal stakeholders. Two respondents
discussed the necessity of having key performance indicators or criteria for each type of program
SHN supports. The majority of stakeholders felt that the most important thing in determining
partners was their capacity to collect meaningful data. Specifically, respondents discussed partners
ability to prove their success through the data that they give you and that the data should be
reliable and consistent. Other respondent simply said SHN should focus data collection with:
whoever returns our forms.

Focus of M&E Efforts. Some respondents shared specific ideas as to where SHN should focus
M&E efforts. One recommendation was to complete more measuring during early stages of
partnership with a new organization in order to see the impact SHN had on their organization and
constituents. One stakeholder felt it was better to focus on smaller organizations that do specific
focused programs, another felt it was better to work with larger organizations who could already
have reporting in place. Two respondents felt it was important to focus on U.S. based partners who
were easier to contact. One stakeholder wanted to prioritize partners who have a great opportunity
to break the cycle of poverty. Other strategies mentioned by stakeholders were the importance of
doing research on organizational standards for M&E. This could include doing surveys and
interviews to see what donors or foundations were looking to assess impact. Additional ideas
included collaborating with universities and engaging corporate partners with M&E and conducting
more M&E trips instead of vision trips.
Communication with Staff and Partners. One recommendation related to communication with
staff regarding M&E involved having more time on staff calls devoted to sharing results and partner
stories. Stakeholders requested more collaboration and communication around the data and how
SHN was reaching its mission. Stakeholders requested more anecdotal stories to give a better
understanding of the educational piece of SHNs work, as there were funders who would give to
education but might not give to hunger. Stakeholders also requested sharing a partner of the
month at staff meetings, spending more time on staff calls talking about stories or results, and
having a better system for stories as well as sharing partner photos. Others asked for a clearer
timeline for the M&E process and coordination across the organization on the flow and formatting
of the information shared.
The Importance of M&E for Funding. Stakeholders believed that SHN needed to demonstrate
that of amongst all the organizations competing for funding, SHN was worth giving to because of
the work that was done and the way resources were used to fight hunger. One respondent noted
that people will pay more for the ability to truly make a difference. Some respondents requested
information on M&E standards and benchmarks related to nonprofit spending and a clearer
understanding on what foundations look for in whom they fund. Most respondents, when
discussing the needs of volunteers, suggested that volunteers wanted and needed to know where the
meals were going coupled with some success stories of individuals and/or facilities. There was a
general sentiment that M&E was important not only for grants and large donors, but also individual
volunteers as well.

KEY FINDINGS PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS
This section highlights findings from interviews conducted with 13 of the 26 current lead partners
with Stop Hunger Now (50% of total SHN lead partners), online surveys completed by 22 lead
partners (85% of total SHN lead partners), and 45 partners responses to the 2012 Impact Reports.
Together, these findings contain feedback from all of Stop Hunger Nows lead partners.
Partner Characteristics
Lead partner organizations serve anywhere from one to 130 countries and one to over 170 facilities.
Table 5 outlines the six lead partner organizations that received the most SHN meals in 2012. Of
these six, partners interviewed are highlighted in light gray. On average, partners had worked with
Stop Hunger Now for four years, and the partners interviewed provide SHN meals to over 456
facilities, totaling 59% of the SHN meals provided to partners. The interviewed partners complete
demographic information can be viewed in Appendix H.
Of the partners who completed the survey, 50% reported that Stop Hunger meals constituted 80-
100% of food used in their programs and 71% reported that SHN meals constituted 40-100% of
food used in programs. The majority of survey respondents ran the on-the-ground programs
directly. The highest ranked priority areas of focus for partners were education (52%), followed by
spiritual development (50%) and health (44%). Fifty percent of partners said that their requests for
food increased during the last year, and 54% expected their demand for food to increase in 2014.
Of partners interviewed, 50% said that their long-term goal was based on self-sustainability so that
outside help was no longer needed. Other long term goals included healthier children (12.5%),
education (12.5%), and helping children and the communities reach their full potential (12.5%).


Table 5. Lead Partners Total SHN Food Received 2014 Schedule
Organization Country
Number of
Containers
% of total SHN
Meals Given
Convoy of Hope Haiti, El Salvador, Kenya, Philippines 18 15.4%
Reach Now **
Zambia, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Somalia
18 15.4%
Salesian Mission** Haiti/Timor/SW/SL/Sudan 16 13.7%
CitiHope International** Dominican Republic 9 7.7%
Lesea Global Feed the
Hungry**
23 Countries 9 7.7%
CRS Burkina Faso 8 6.8%
Gray highlighting indicate partners interviewed for this report.
** Indicates partners who completed the online survey.
Partners Perceptions of SHN
You are the most responsive, supportive, and reliable partner we have.
Contact and communication with SHN are super excellent and efficient.
--Survey Respondents
Partners selected three different ways of defining Stop Hunger Now: a food donor organization
(50%), an international development organization (25%) and a faith based relief and development
organization (25%). Overwhelmingly, partners expressed satisfaction with the partnership with Stop
Hunger Now. When asked in the online survey to rate the quality of partnership with SHN from 1
(poor) to 5 (excellent), 79% partners selected the rating of five and 21% selected four. Almost all
partners agreed or strongly agreed that SHN understood the communities they work in, made major
contributions to the sector, and were well aligned with their organizational values. When considering
what SHN was doing well within their partnerships, 25% of partners interviewed listed the positive
reputation of SHN as a strong benefit for their organization. Communication (12.5%), site visits
(12.5%), and additional services supported by SHN (12.5%) were also listed as strong elements of
the SHN partnership. Twelve (57%) took the opportunity to write compliments to Stop Hunger
Now in the final comment box. Of the partners interviewed, 37.5% stated that they were in constant
communication with SHN and found this to be a major success of the partnership. All partners
stated that they were happy with the current level of communication with SHN and would not
change communication in any way. One of the greatest benefits that partners discussed in their
interviews was support from SHN that extended beyond the meals. Table 6 illustrated the
percentage of partners who received support in addition to meals. In terms of SHNs capacity to
grow and change, 82% of partners agreed that SHN learned from its mistakes and made
improvements.

Table 6. Survey Responses on Types of SHN Support Received
6. What type of support have you received from Stop Hunger Now in the past? (Check all
that apply)
# Answer Response %
1
Food/Meals
23 100%
2
Water Filters
5 22%
3
Medical Supplies
11 48%
4
Financial Support
6 26%
5
Other In-Kind donations
9 39%
6
Other (please specify)
6 26%

Partner Experiences with SHN
Partners Experiences with Food Distribution
Partners shared their experiences with distributing SHN meals, including information on the
tracking and delivery of food shipments. Of the partners interviewed, 100% said that they received
advance notice of shipments, ranging from three weeks to two months of notice, for when a
shipment would be delivered in country. The biggest barriers discussed was 1) the ability of lead
partners to track SHN meals as the food was distributed to the smaller, on the ground partners that
were more in rural areas (36%), and 2) the cost of distribution (20%). Other barriers identified
included: difficulties with customs (13%), trouble transporting the food (8%), or having storage
space for the food (4%).
Preparing SHN Meals
All of the partners interviewed stated that meals were prepared using multiple bags of food instead
of preparing one bag at a time. Of the lead partners interviewed, 20% suggested that SHN create
larger meal bags that served more than six servings. Many partners shared on the Impact Reports
how they incorporated SHN meals to create new recipes. ORPHANetwork of Nicaragua discussed
how they separated out soy to create fried cakes, while Salesian Missions used soy to make muffins.
At Tarahumara Ministries in Mexico, facilities added beans and more water to create a soup out of
the meals. In addition to creative recipes, partners also reported adding to the meals as well. Of the
partners who responded to the survey, 60% reported they added another source of protein, such as
chicken, or vegetables to add additional nutrients to the meal. When asked to rate the quality of

SHN meals on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), 85% rated the meals as excellent. The majority
of partners interviewed gave this rating because of the nutrients in the SHN food. In the Impact
Reports, partners were given the opportunity to comment on taste and acceptability of meals as well
as recommend changes. Two partners requested alternatives to soy, five requested better taste, five
cited a need for cooking fuel, and two discussed storage issues. When asked about vitamin packet
use, five were putting in vitamin packets too soon, one was not putting them in at all, and one
partner was using one packet per two bags of Stop Hunger Now rice.
After preparing the food, a number of partners reported reusing the materials the meals arrived in.
For example, some of the partners interviewed, and some partners who completed the Impact
Report, reported using the boxes for carpentry purposes, such as repairing roofs on houses. Some of
additional purposes included using shipping boxes in arts and crafts, and using both boxes and bags
for storage of materials such as books. According to Kidz Konnect 4 Jesus, The boxes are valued
as a Rubbermaid container. In the Impact Report, Salesian Missions stated that the recycled bags
are sold by the children to make a profit for their family. Only 17% of partners reported that they
were not sure if their partners were using the boxes or bags, and 9% reported that they were not
using the bags.
The Impact of SHN Meals
SHN is a major blessing to the children and people of Belize. It is making a MAJOR
impact across a variety of fronts. We could not even begin to do what we do without the
assistance from SHN. --Respondent
Partners discussed the impact that SHN meals had on their organization and their constituents. In
the online survey, 57% of partners reported that SHN meals constituted approximately 81-100% of
the food they used in their programs. Interestingly, in the partner interviews, 83% stated that they
received additional food from other international partners, such as from Feed My Starving Children and
Milk and Medicine. A significant portion of partners interviewed (43%) stated that SHN meals aided
their agencys ability to expand programming. When asked in the lead partner interviews how SHN
meals benefitted the agency, Ganta United Methodist Mission stated, By receiving the pending
food support, the students will be guaranteed at least one good meal a day, which will encourage
attendance and attention in class.
Another partner said on the survey: SHN is a major blessing to the children and people. It is
making a MAJOR impact across a variety of fronts. We could not even begin to do what we do
without the assistance from SHN. These statements were a way to highlight the importance of
meals within schools. Some partners mentioned the cost effectiveness of meals. Overwhelmingly,
the majority of partners cited healthy children as the primary impact of SHN meals. In the Impact
Reports, partners who were tracking health indicators reported children gained weight and most

partners indicated there were significant health improvements in their constituents in 2012 after
receiving SHN meals.
Overall, partners interviewed felt that the support received from SHN created long-term change in
the communities they served. Of the partners interviewed, 20% said that this change was through
the partners being able to effectively provide education. Other changes mentioned included allowing
parents to support their children (16%), moving toward self-sustainability (12%), and helping people
served reach their potential (12%). Some partners did provide suggestions for ways that SHN could
be more efficient in meal support with on the ground partners. These changes included making bags
of food larger for programs that serve multiple meals (20% of partners interviewed recommended
this) and shipping vitamin packets separately (10% of partners interviewed) for countries that could
produce and purchase rice.
Partner Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity
Current M&E Practices of Partners
In the online survey, 96% of partners said they collected data or required reporting to monitor work.
Of those collecting data, 65% used a standard reporting form consistently, and 26% received reports
from on-the ground partners on a monthly basis while 26% can receive them at any time. Partners
use of tracking tools for the impact of SHN meals was also observed in the lead partners interview
and the impact report. To keep record of how SHN meals were benefitting their agency and people
served, 19% of lead partners interviewed kept records of weight, height, or attendance while 14%
kept teacher reports. These results were also demonstrated in partners responses to the Impact
Report, nine lead partners tracked health indicators and five partners tracked academic indicators
such as graduation rates, attendance, and academic performance. Some partners recorded the
benefits of SHN meals by taking pictures of children (9%) before and after they began the feeding
program. Many partners described the visible impact of the meals on their constituents in the impact
reports. Partners also reported in the interviews that they tracked the impact of SHN meals through
reports on Body Mass Index (9%), categorizing children into malnourishment groups (5%), and self-
reports/stories (5%).
Partner Technology Capacity
According to the partner survey, 71% of on the ground partners had access to internet and over
83% were comfortable using the internet. However, only 17% of lead partners said their on the
ground partners always had access to internet and only 21% said all their on the ground partners had
the computers and software they needed to do their work. About 60% of lead partners were in
communication with their on the ground partners daily or weekly and 66% of on the ground
partners checked email daily. Cell phones were also used for communication: 48% of lead partners
reported communicating with on the ground partners via cell phone on a weekly basis. These
responses suggest that email is most likely the best method for data collection for on the ground

partners and lead partners and Stop Hunger Now needs to ensure that the M&E strategies they
install are in line with this method of communication. The major technological challenges (in order
of prevalence) were access to computers, access to internet, electricity, and the costs associated with
technology.
Need for Increased Training and Collaboration with Stop Hunger Now
Partners expressed interest in receiving training from SHN on the expectations of the partnership.
The majority of partners interviewed (67%) stated that they had not received any formal training
from SHN since the partnership began. Partners requested specific training on the expectations of
SHN to clarify the goals of the partnership. Another request made by partners interviewed involved
training on food nutrition and the ways partners can improve their services.
Partners also suggested that their agencies increase collaboration with SHN to promote each others
work. In the survey, only 37% thought that it was likely or very likely that SHN would make
changes to their work as a result of their input in the survey. This indicates that partners may have
some doubts about the usage of data they provide to SHN. Nevertheless, partners indicated
significant interest in collaborating with M&E. Partners were asked to select two items they would
most like SHN to do to improve M&E in the future.
42% of partners wanted SHN to undertake more monitoring with partners by providing
staff and support to collect needed data.
38% of partners wanted SHN to help partners monitor in ways that are useful for them and
the people they work with.
29% of partners wanted SHN to provide more training and assistance for partners to
monitor and report on work.
21% of partners wanted SHN to focus more attention on long term changes.
17% of lead partners wanted SHN to draw more on partners expertise in developing ways
to monitor progress.
Most importantly, 92% of partners reported that they did not want Stop Hunger Now to
communicate directly with their on the ground partners for data collecting and monitoring.
Reasons for this response included creating extra work and confusion for on the ground partners,
changing the context of relationships, language barriers, lack of knowledge of on the ground
partners and desire to collect data together. One respondent said We are very familiar with our
partners and understand their capacity. We also have our own goals for data collection and do not
want to give conflicting messages. In interviews, partners were asked to consider how to further
strengthen partnerships and many respondents indicated they would like more M&E resources to
track how the meals affect their community and the individuals.

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
This qualitative evaluation sought to (1) understand key SHN staff and board members perspectives
on hunger and evaluation; (2) understand the process of tracking SHN meal distribution and how
food is creating an impact for partners; and, (3) determine the strengths and areas of growth for
SHN partnerships to be used to improve SHN in the future. Below, we highlight key areas that
demonstrate strengths such as communication between partners, as well as the actions needed to
ensure the program is moving towards its broader goals of impacting hunger.
1. Defining Hunger: Need for Clarity and Cohesion
With internal stakeholder interviews (SHN lead staff and board members), the first interview
question elicited an important finding: there was a lack of clarity and cohesion around the
organizational definition of hunger. Respondents chose different definitions from a sample list and
provided varying explanations for their choice. According to the stakeholders answers, the
following things were not clear:
Whether SHN is focused on alleviating hunger in the lives of individuals or in communities
Whether the focus is on caloric intake or micronutrient deficiencies
The degree of hunger SHN aims to address
Unpacking the very broad mission of ending hunger is a critical first step to setting outcomes to
assess impact. Depending on how hunger is defined, the ultimate outcomes will be different;
therefore, monitoring and evaluation structures will be different.
2. SHN Mission: Need for Measurable Outcomes
Many stakeholders explicitly discussed the importance of demonstrating progress toward the
mission. Having a mission of ending hunger in our lifetime makes it challenging to show concrete
progress toward achieving the mission, as it is very broad. Furthermore, the resources of SHN are
limited. Some stakeholders explicitly addressed this concern in their interviews. The findings show
that there may be insufficient strategic planning, or communication of strategic plans related to
impact and the SHN mission of ending hunger. There was also a stated need for increased
awareness of the best practices and recent research on development work.
Most partners surveyed reported that the root causes of hunger in their communities were
unemployment and lack of agriculture. If Stop Hunger Now is working to end hunger, a focus on
the root causes of hunger in the communities served is critical. Stakeholders did not address the
component of their mission around creating a movement by engaging volunteers, even though the
majority of Stop Hunger Now staff efforts are spent on meal packaging events. Once clear,
measurable outcomes and organizational priorities of SHN are cohesively defined, SHN staff can
work towards a clear understanding of M&E and make decisions based on their organizational
priorities.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation: Need for Clarity and Cohesion
No clear or consistent definition or purpose of monitoring and evaluation emerged from the
findings. Stakeholders seemed to be divided on:
How internal monitoring and evaluation should be done
How monitoring and evaluation would be done with SHNs partners
The primary purpose of M&E: Donor support, program improvement, or measure
movement toward mission
Furthermore, internal stakeholder interviews discussed impact and M&E methods that cannot be
reconciled with current Stop Hunger Now activities. Most stakeholders talked about impact on
individuals or facilities, but at this point, SHN meal distribution is done through 26 lead partners.
Meals are given in shipments to each of these partners, who then determine how meals are
distributed to individual facilities within particular countries. There are a few partners who directly
manage a few facilities where all the meals go, but most are distributing boxes of meals to many
different organizations in many different regions of countries. It may be more feasible for Stop
Hunger Now to work with their 26 lead partners than the over 1,000 on the ground facilities in 28
countries throughout the world. Furthermore, partner responses in the survey and interviews
suggest they would like to be part of the M&E process and would prefer Stop Hunger Now to work
directly with them versus their on the ground facilities.
4. Partnership Success and Relationships with Lead Partners
Partners were never explicitly asked to provide a definition of partnership success but were asked
about their perspectives on key characteristics of partnership: communication with SHN, training
from SHN, and how they understand the needs of the facilities where they distribute SHN meals.
There were several benefits identified during the interviews. Partners felt that the reputation of SHN
alone had been a benefit to their agency by strengthening their relationship with communities
served. Partners also indicated that a benefit to their agency was the constant and reliable
communication and the passion displayed by SHN staff. Partners knew Nina and Matt by name and
felt that they could always count on them. Some partners discussed additional benefits beyond
receiving meals, which included receiving medical supplies, vitamins, and water filters.
Partners did express some areas of growth for the partnership. Of the lead partners interviewed,
71% said they never received training from SHN and expressed a need for training on the specific
expectations of the partnership. This is significant in light of stakeholders concerns about partners
capacity to conduct M&E. Perhaps if clearer expectations were communicated to partners, they
would be able to conduct the M&E tasks desired by SHN. Partners were interested in receiving
training on food nutrition, ways they can improve their services, and how to do M&E in general.
Many partners also expressed that they would like more M&E resources in order to learn how the
meals affect the people and communities they serve.

It is also important to note that all partners prepared meals using multiple bags and the majority
were using several boxes of SHN bags at each meal preparation. Because of this, 20% requested
larger meal packages as these would be beneficial to the facilities meal preparation.
5. Increased Internal Resources in order to Collaborate with Partners on
Monitoring and Evaluation
It is evident in the interviews and the survey results that lead partners are looking to Stop Hunger
Now for assistance with developing their monitoring and evaluation capacity. Stop Hunger Now has
already significantly impacted their work by providing food and other donations, but could further
expand their impact if they began to focus on empowering their partners and building their capacity
to do M&E. In order to do so, a significant internal investment in M&E will be necessary. The only
question on the survey that elicited equal amounts of negative and positive responses was the
likelihood that Stop Hunger Now would use this survey to make changes to their work. This finding
is also supported by the responses of internal stakeholders, some of which had very little knowledge
of current M&E efforts or of Stop Hunger Nows partners.
Because of the diversity of Stop Hunger Now partners, Stop Hunger Now will not be able to create
a single method of data collection that works across the board and will need dedicated staff
resources in order to analyze the data that does exist, publishing findings, and make organizational
changes based on the findings. There is a strong case to be made for the value of empowering
partners to do strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation in order to reach their goals of self-
sustainability and reducing poverty in the areas they work, but if Stop Hunger Now is not doing
these things internally, it will be challenging to train partners to engage meaningfully in M&E
efforts.


RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Recommendation: Engage in a Strategic Planning Process Developing
Concrete Goals and Priorities around Impact
In order to monitor and evaluate the work being done by Stop Hunger Now, concrete goals and
priorities must be in place. We have identified four key steps in this process.
A. Clarify Key Definitions Related to Mission
The most important definition to address is the definition of hunger. There are many ways of framing
hunger and SHNs framing will greatly impact how they go about their work.
B. Integrate Best Practices from Global International Development and Hunger Relief
Work
Stop Hunger Now work must be in line with the most recent data and information available on
international development in order for them to continue to be competitive as a nonprofit worth
investing in and, more importantly, in order for them to move toward their mission of ending
hunger. For example, a valuable reference SHN could use is the WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) in
order to determine strategic objectives, goals associated with each objective and main tools used to
accomplish goals (such as school feeding, advocacy, maternal and child health programs, community
based management of acute malnutrition etc.).
C. Unpack, Define and Operationalize Transformational Development
Transformational development is a term created by Stop Hunger Now to describe the kind of work
their partners are doing that goes beyond passing out meals. An important thing to consider is
whether all of a certain type of organization (such as schools) are automatically labeled
transformational development, or whether the phrase goes beyond the type of facility to the work
that they are doing that creates long-term sustainability.
D. Define and Clarify Partner Priorities
Once organizational priorities have been developed, a more systematic process for partner alignment
with priorities can be created and implemented as well. Some key questions to consider:
Will SHN focus on the first 1000 days of a childs life?
To what extent is school feeding a priority?
Will SHN focus on areas of most severe food insecurity and/or individuals who have
highest rates of malnourishment?
To what extent will meal distribution be at the discretion of the lead partner?
What will be the policies in place for when partners fail to match organizational priorities?


2. Recommendation: Determine the Role and Priorities of SHN Monitoring
and Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation efforts should be driven by a detailed, measurable plan that is embedded
in the larger organizational strategic plan of Stop Hunger Now. This plan should outline the specific
goals, objectives, and activities for monitoring and evaluation over the next 1-3 years. Key
considerations for the M&E plan should include: internal unity and buy-in, adequate resources,
alignment with current U.S. and international work, and clear communication with all staff and
board members. Internal stakeholders cited the lack of investment in M&E efforts (i.e. lack of
funding) as a major issue with current M&E practices. The majority also discussed how crucial M&E
is to their role and to the overall organization. The M&E plan should span all aspects of the
organization, including domestic and international programs and activities. As such, it may be most
ideal for M&E to exist outside of any one department within the organization.
International M&E
Lead partners are key to understanding impact. Stop Hunger Now should invest M&E resources to
better understand the impact of meals through the lead 26 partner organizations. Focusing impact
on the lead partner level would allow SHN to focus its M&E efforts in a way that is feasible and
respects the wishes of lead partners. Lead partners requested that they would most like SHN to help
them monitor in ways that are useful and provide the support needed to collect data.
Critically, lead partners (92% of those surveyed) have stated that they would prefer SHN to work
directly with them (versus with on the ground partners) to build M&E efforts in order to avoid
confusion and to collect data together.
Furthermore, SHN partners were willing and eager to provide necessary information and to
collaborate with SHN in monitoring and evaluation efforts. The 85% survey response rate is
significantly higher than a average online response rate (33%), and speaks to the quality of
relationship already in existence between SHN and their partners. Strengthening lead partner
relationships does not preclude the opportunity for SHN to collect and share meaningful stories of
individuals that partners serve. Partners communicated a strong willingness to have SHN engage
with on the ground partners but requested that M&E efforts be forged in collaboration with them.
Domestic M&E
In order to understand impact on volunteers, Stop Hunger Now needs to develop measures and
monitoring processes for tracking volunteers and organizations engagement in fighting hunger after
their connection to Stop Hunger Now. If one of the goals of the organization is to create a
movement then incorporating evaluation of the domestic program into the wider M&E efforts is
critical.


Using Existing Data and Resources
Stop Hunger Now currently has a significant amount of data that are yet to be analyzed. In the
partner survey, partners were least confident about the likelihood of SHN using the survey
information to improve their operations and organization (only 37% thought they were likely or very
likely to use the survey data. Internal data that require further analysis include data from the impact
reports, data from the Guatemala/El Salvador and Belize SHN trips, and compilation and
dissemination of data from the various reports that have been created by UNC, NCSU, and SHN
staff. It is not enough for data to be compiled into a variety of reports, there needs to be a system in
place for this information to impact the operations and organization of SHN in order to meet the
standards outlined by Charity Navigator in Appendix A as well as address the needs and
expectations for M&E expressed in the key stakeholder interviews.
Externally, the vast majority of lead partners have indicated a willingness to share their data and the
high response rates on the survey and interviews indicate that partners are accessible and looking to
SHN to inform their own organizational M&E practices.
3. Recommendation: Building Collaborative Efforts for M&E
External M&E partners allow for increased resources, expertise, and stronger credibility with M&E
efforts to support SHNs efforts. For example, the partnership with NCSU has allowed SHN to
have the equivalent of 2 years of full time work in seven months and two country-level reports
completed in a period of four months time. By continuing collaborative efforts with universities,
such as NCSU, SHN has an increased capacity to deepen partner relationships as more individuals
are working to interview partners, take M&E trips, write reports that can be sent to partners, and
discover and highlight the incredible work that partners and individual facilities are doing around the
world.
University partnerships also create opportunities to bring in the most recent and innovative research
on international development and hunger. Additionally, external evaluation provides a critical
outsider perspective and is an industry standard (Hageboeck, 2009). Considering the significant
workload required for M&E, university partnerships can be key partners in expanding SHN capacity
in strategic planning and M&E.
Beyond building M&E, partnering with graduate-level students gives SHN the opportunity to have a
significant impact on volunteers that can live long beyond the initial volunteer experience. For the
NCSU Collaborative team, after a year of in-depth partnership with SHN, there will be more
opportunities to apply our knowledge and training, build cross-cultural relationships, and build a
future movement to alleviate hunger.

REFERENCES
Connors, K. & Prelip, M. (2000). Principle 3: The partnership builds upon identified strengths and
assets, but also addresses areas that need improvement. Partnership Perspectives, 1(2), 19-26.
Dutta, M.J., Anaele, A., & Jones, C. (2013). Voices of hunger: Addressing health disparities through
the culture-centered approach. Journal of Communication, 63, 159-180.
Engel, R.J., & Schutt, R.K. (2012). The practice of research in social work (3
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013a). Basic definitions. In Hunger portal. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013b). FAO strategy for partnerships with civil society
organizations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/027/mf999e.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2013c). The state of food insecurity in the world. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/
Hageboeck, Molly (2009). Trends in international development evaluation theory, policy, and practices. United
States Agency for International Development. Retrieved from:
http://www.alnap.org/resource/8441.aspx
Harvey, W.S. (2013). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431-441.
Heady, H.R. (2000). Principle 9: Partnerships take time to develop and evolve over time. Partnership
Perspectives, 1(2), 71-78.
Kirkpatrick, S.I., McIntyre, L., & Potestto, M. (2010). Child hunger and long-term adverse
consequences for health. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164(8), 754- 762.
Myers, N. & Kent, J. (2001). Food and hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Environmentalists, 21, 41-69.
OBoyle, E. & OBoyle, M. (2012). Global poverty, hunger, death, and disease. International Journal of
Social Economics, 39(1/2), 4-17.
Rein, M. & Stott, L. (2009). Working together: Critical perspectives on six cross-sector partnerships
in Southern Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 79-98.
Smith, L.C. (1999). Can FAOs measure of chronic undernourishment be strengthened? Food Policy,
23(5), 425-445.
Stop Hunger Now. (2013). Mission and History. Retrieved from
http://www.stophungernow.org/mission-history.

Appendix A
Charity Navigator - 5 Core Elements
Element One: Alignment of Mission, Solicitations and Resources
We determine if the charitys funding solicitation materials (on a donations page, public financial reports,
or for the first year the charity is reviewed only - materials sent to CN) are in accordance with how it
allocates its resources as per the program expenses break out on the most recent Form 990. All
subsequent rating elements are evaluated for each individual program area until at least 60% of overall
program expenses are represented.
Element Two: Results Logic and Measures
o Is the organizations causal logic plausible?
Is the organizations statement on how their activities lead to pre-defined outputs and outcomes
likely under normal circumstances? (Outputs are the immediate results of the activities for example,
how many people were fed or sheltered, or how many roads built. Outcomes are the medium- and
long term changes. They might be improvements in nutritional status or health indicators.)
o Is there an indication of how much of the action is required to produce the pre-defined outputs and
outcomes?
Has the charity given thought to the required amount and time that is needed to produce the pre-
defined outputs and outcomes?
o Is the causal logic based on reasonable evidence?
Does the report include reference to evidence that these actions have in fact been demonstrated to
produce the intended results? References could be evidence from other organizations or from past
activity by the charity itself.
o Are there specified measures (indicators) to be collected and a plan to do so?
Does the charity state what success looks like and how it will collect the data to know if it has been
achieved?
Element Three: Validators
For the purposes of Results Reporting assessment, we recognize the work of other organizations which,
through their processes, standards or analysis, examine or assess the charities we evaluate. Charity
Navigator realizes that it is not the only organization that evaluates charities; and that the evaluation
processes of many other organizations have merit. Our intent therefore is to give charities credit for
making public on their own websites or other materials the results of evaluations or analyses from these
other validator organizations.
o Charities indicate which organizations they are members in good standing of, or show evidence of
their participation in the organization on their website, or in materials emailed to Charity Navigator.
Element Four: Constituent Voice
This element assesses whether and how well a charity collects and publishes feedback from it primary
constituents. (Primary constituents are the people who are meant to be the direct recipients of benefits
created by the organizations actions.)

o Does the charity publish feedback data from its primary constituents?
Is there a rigorous method of data collection using the same questions and capturing the answers
consistently?
o Does this data indicate if it is representative of all primary constituents?
The feedback data must in some way indicate why the data set could be seen to be representative of
the whole group.
o Does this data include an explanation of why the organization believes the feedback is frank and
honest?
Is there an explanation in the feedback data that explains why the feedback is frank and honest, for
example, is it collected anonymously, and/or using multiple methods etc.
o Is this data presented in a way that shows changes over time going back at least one year?
Does the data show how answers to the same questions to the same constituent group change over
time?
o Does this data include questions that speak to the organizations effectiveness?
Do any of the questions address how well the organizations activities meet the need of the
respondents? Do any questions ask if the organizations activities lead to improvements or positive
changes in their lives?
o Does the organization report back to its primary constituents what it heard from them?
Have the findings from the data collection process been reported back to those who provided the
data and others like them?
Element Five: Published Evaluation Reports
This element assesses whether a charity is publishing regular evaluation reports that cover the results of a
majority of their programs.
o Does the charity publish evaluation reports that cover the results of its programs at least every five
years?
o Are those reports based on recognized techniques to understand their results?
o Does the charity explain what, if anything, it is changing as a result of the findings in the evaluation
report?

Appendix B
Gantt Chart & Detailed Timeline

Starting
Month
Goal Activity

Completion
Date
Aug-13
Research background
on topic
Advanced standing Social Work students will begin
researching background on definition of hunger,
Stop Hunger Now, and partnership success.
Nov-13
Nov-13
Submit IRB proposal
for evaluation
Principal Investigator will submit IRB proposal. Nov-13
Jan-14
Advance Standing
Social Work graduate
students will begin
interviewing.
Thirteen randomly selected partners will be
interviewed by thirteen advance standing social work
graduate students. Interviews will be approximately
minutes to complete.
Feb-14 Stakeholder
interviewees selected
and contacted
Stake holders were identified for the interviews and
contacted to gain consent to interview them
Interview Guide
Developed
The interview guide was developed to standardize the
questions for all interviewees.
Feb-14
Interviews conducted
Stake holders were identified for the interviews and
contacted to gain consent to interview them
Mar-14
Interviews transcribed
Graduate students will transcribe interviews the
interviews they conducted with partners
Mar-14 Data analysis
Data cleaning and analysis will be completed.
Qualitative data will be coded from interviews and
Impact Report.
Apr-14
Apr-14
Completion of
Evaluation
The evaluation will be completed and submitted for
review. Feedback will be provided when appropriate.
Apr-14

8/27/2013 10/16/2013 12/5/2013 1/24/2014 3/15/2014 5/4/2014
Background Research
IRB Proposal
Create Interview Questionnaires
Conduct Interviews
Transcribe Interviews
Code & Analyze Data
Full Evaluation Draft
Finalize Full Evaluation
Present Report SHN

Appendix C
Stop Hunger Now Partner Survey
Q37 Stop Hunger Now Partner Survey Stop Hunger Now is working to understand how to
continue to build strong partnerships to end hunger in our lifetime. Your input is valuable to us. We
are asking our lead partners to complete this short anonymous survey to provide us critical feedback.
By completing this survey by Friday, March 14 at 5 pm, you will be entered in a drawing for a $50
visa gift card! You may include your name in the last question or email kasmit13@ncsu.edu to notify
us that you have taken the survey and chose to remain anonymous.
Q1 How many countries do you serve?
Q2 Which countries do you serve? (If more than 3 countries, please list top 3 countries served and
additional regions where you work.)
Q3 How long have you been a Stop Hunger Now partner?
Q4 Stop Hunger Now meals constitute approximately what percent of the food used in your
programs?
Less than 20% (1)
20%-40% (2)
41%-60% (3)
61%-80% (4)
81%-100% (5)
This varies too much to average (6)
Q5 Age Range of the people you feed (percentages should add up to 100%):
______ 0-3 yrs old (1)
______ 4-10 yrs old (2)
______ 11-20 yrs old (3)
______ 21-50 yrs old (4)
______ 51+ years old (5)
Q6 What type of support have you received from Stop Hunger Now in the past? (Check all that
apply)
Food/Meals (1)
Water Filters (2)
Medical Supplies (3)
Financial Support (4)
Other In-Kind donations (5)
Other (please specify) (6) ____________________

Q7 What is your relationship with the organizations on-the-ground responsible for meal
distribution/preparation?
My organization is the one on the ground running programs (1)
We run them directly (2)
We run them indirectly (3)
We fund all of their work (4)
We fund some of their work (5)
We provide in kind aid only (6)
Other (please specify) (7) ____________________
Q8 Please rank the priority areas of focus for your organization where 1 is the highest priority.
______ Hunger/Food Security (1)
______ Refugees and Protection (2)
______ Disaster Resilience and Response (3)
______ Health (4)
______ Education (5)
______ Child development (Non-school based programs for children and youth) (6)
______ Spiritual Development (7)
______ Job Training (8)
______ Other (please specify) (9)


Q9 Thinking about the beginning of your partnership with Stop Hunger Now - please select the
extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly
Agree (1)
Agree (2)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
Disagree (4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
The time that
passed from
starting
discussions to
receiving
support from
SHN was
reasonable. (1)

The amount of
food from SHN
was well
matched to our
needs. (2)

SHN asked for
more
information
during the
agreement
process than
other
NGOs/funders.
(3)

During the
agreement
process, we did
not feel
pressured by
SHN to change
our priorities.
(4)

Q10 Do you currently collect data/require reporting from your partners or programs to monitor
your work?

Yes (1)
No (2)
Answer If Do you currently collect data/require reporting from your partners to monitor your
work? Yes Is Selected
Q11 What types of data do you collect from your partners or programs?
Q12 Do you use standard reporting forms? (By "standard" we mean using the same form
consistently to collect information)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Q13 How often do your on-the-ground partners or staff provide reports to your organization?
Bi monthly (1)
Monthly (2)
Every 6 months (3)
Yearly (4)
Anytime/no set schedule (5)
Other (6) ____________________
Q14 Please select two items that you would MOST like SHN to do to improve monitoring and
reporting in the future
Accept reports in different formats (1)
Provide more training and assistance for us to monitor and report on our work (2)
Respond and discuss our reports with us (3)
Focus more attention on long term changes (4)
Allow more time to complete reports (5)
Help us monitor in ways that are useful for us and the people we work with (6)
Draw more on our expertise in developing ways to monitor progress (7)
Undertake more monitoring with us by providing staff and support to collect needed data (8)
Involve us in deciding how to monitor and report (9)
Simplify monitoring and reporting (10)
Visit us more often (11)
Other (12) ____________________

Q15 If you are an organization that has multiple on-the-ground partners: Would you prefer that
Stop Hunger Now correspond directly with on the ground partners for data collection and
monitoring?
This question is not applicable to my organization (1)
Yes, and this is why: (2) ____________________
No, and this is why: (3) ____________________
Q16 What are the main uses of technology in your organization? ("We mainly use technology for
_________")
Data sharing (1)
Email (2)
Mandatory reporting (3)
Social-Media, networking etc. (4)
Fundraising and Gaining Donor Support (5)
Sharing pictures or video (6)
Pay-pal sharing of funds (7)
Other (8) ____________________
Q17 How stable is your on-the-ground partner's or staff's Internet connection?
They always have access to Internet (1)
Somewhat stable (Access to internet at least half of the time). (2)
Not very stable-goes out frequently (3)
This varies from partner to partner (Please elaborate in text box) (4)
Our on the ground partners have no Internet connection (5)
Must go off-site for internet access. If so, where (i.e. internet cafe) (6) ____________________
Unknown (7)
Q18 How comfortable are your partners or on-the-ground staff in using the Internet?
Very comfortable (1)
Somewhat comfortable (2)
Not comfortable (3)
Unknown (4)
Other (5) ____________________
Q19 How frequently do you communicate with your on-the-ground partners by email?
Daily (1)
2-3 Times a Week (2)
Once a Week (3)
2-3 Times a Month (4)

Once a Month (5)
Several Times a Year (6)
Never (7)
Other (8) ____________________
Q20 How often do your on-the-ground partners check email on average?
A few times a day (1)
Daily (2)
Once a Week (4)
Once a Month (6)
Varies significantly from partner to partner (please elaborate if possible) (7)
____________________
Unknown (8)
Q21 How frequently do you communicate with your on-the-ground partners by cellular/mobile
phone?
Daily (1)
Once a Week (3)
Once a Month (5)
Several Times a Year (6)
Never (7)
Other (8) ____________________
Q22 What is the main cellular/mobile provider used by staff and partners in each country? You can
list up to 5 countries. (For example Haiti - Voila)
Country 1, Provider (1)
Q23 Do you incur additional costs when sending files/video via cellular phone that would inhibit
your ability to do so?
Yes (1)
Maybe (please elaborate) (2) ____________________

No (3)
Not applicable (4)
Q24 How many of your on-the-ground partners or staff have the computers and software they need
to adequately do their work?
All (1)
Most (2)
Some (3)
None (4)
Q25 Does your agency have other technology challenges? Please list challenges.
Q26 Please select the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly
agree (1)
Agree (2)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (3)
Disagree (4)
Strongly
Disagree (5)
Don't
Know (6)
Our
organizational
values and
SHN's
organizational
values are well
aligned. (1)

We can
comfortably
discuss our
SHN
partnership in
the
communities
where we
serve. (2)

SHN
understands
the
communities
we work in.
(3)


SHN has
made a major
contribution
to the
sector(s) that
we work in.
(4)

SHN learns
from its
mistakes and
makes
improvements
to how it
works. (5)

Food
shipments
and Support
(including
funding) are
sent when
SHN says
they will be.
(6)

SHN
understands
our working
environment
and cultural
context. (7)

SHN has
explained
what it
expects from
us to maintain
the
partnership.
(8)


We
understand
SHN's plans
and strategies.
(9)

Q27 If you had to choose one label to define Stop Hunger Now, what would it be? (There is no one
right answer)
A crisis response organization (1)
A food donor organization (2)
An international development organization (3)
A faith based relief and development organization (4)
A church based relief and development organization (5)
Other definition: (6) ____________________
I don't know/cannot define (7)
Q28 How likely do you think it is that SHN will make changes to their work as a result of your input
in this survey?
Very Unlikely (1)
Unlikely (2)
Somewhat Likely (3)
Likely (4)
Very Likely (5)
Other: (6) ____________________
Q29 How do you rate the quality of the partnership with SHN?
1 (poor) (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)
5 (excellent) (5)
Q30 During the last year, did requests for food assistance increase, decrease or stay the same?
Increase (1)
Decrease (2)
Stay the same (3)
Q31 Do you expect the demand for food assistance to increase, decrease, or stay the same during
2014?

Increase (1)
Decrease (2)
Stay the same (3)
Q32 What do you think are the main causes of hunger in the communities/countries you serve?
Q33 Is there anything else that you would like to say? This can be feedback, suggestions, questions,
additional information about your work or anything else you would like to share with us.
Q34 Almost done! We greatly appreciate your participation in this survey. We would like to provide
you with the opportunity to let us know who you are and what organization you represent, as this
information is very helpful to us in understanding the results of this survey and what it means for
our organization. HOWEVER, if you prefer for this to remain anonymous please leave the box
below BLANK. Otherwise, please include your name. If you choose to remain anonymous but
would still like to be entered in the drawing for a $50 gift card, please email kasmit13@ncsu.edu to
notify us that you have completed the survey.
Q35 This is the end! Once you submit this question, your survey responses will be recorded and you
will not be able to change any answers. If you would like to make any edits feel free to go back and
review any questions. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in completing this survey.


Appendix D
SHN Impact Report

In order to improve our programs and provide information to our donors, we require meal distribution partners to provide feedback
on the effect of the donated meals on their programs. Thank you for your valued partnership!
General Information
Organization Name
Program Country
Name of person completing report
E-mail address
Date(s) Cargo Arrived

Please include photographs of the donated cargo being used or distributed when returning this
report
Distribution Information
Please list the institutions/projects that received the cargo, the number of people served, the amount of the
cargo used in each institution (boxes or percent of total) and the project category or type: school, orphanage,
general distribution/feeding center, child development program, vocational training, medical program, elder
care, crche/daycare, or shelter (attach additional sheet if necessary):
Institution/Project Name City or Town
Number of
People
Served
Project Category/Type
Amount of
Cargo
Distributed


Please describe how the meals were distributed to the final recipients. Include: how they were transported,
how recipients were chosen, whether meals were served or sent home

If meals were sent home, how were recipients trained to prepare meals? If meals cooked and served, what
training do those serving receive?

How did the institutions listed above prepare the meals? Are ingredients separated and cooked independently?
Is the entire bag cooked at once? What is added to the meals?

How are the flavoring/vitamin packets used? Are all of the packets used? Are they given to everyone or only
certain people? Are they used each time the rest of the ingredients are prepared?

Were any of the meals found to be sold, lost, damaged or otherwise used in ways not intended?

What other food items were used in these programs? Were they purchased or donated?


Were the meal boxes reused in your programs? If yes, how were they used?

Results of Feeding Program
What indicators does your organization use to determine your programs progress?

Please describe any changes that you have seen in the following indicators as a result of the feeding
program(s)
Program Indicators Changes
Measurement
Period
Average Weight Gain
Average Height Increase
Graduation Rates
Enrollment Increases
Overall Standard of Living

Please list any other changes or results of your program(s) related to the Stop Hunger Now meals


Do you have other needs that affect the use of the food (for example: cookware, water, heating fuel,
distribution staff etc.) or the progress of your program in general?

Pictures, Testimonials and Success Stories
So that we can personally thank our donors, please share two brief personal stories or testimonies of how this
cargo benefited or changed the lives of people in your programs.
1.

2.

Please let us know what your experience has been with the taste and acceptability of the meals, including
suggestions for changes:

Thank you for completing this report. Please either e-mail completed report to Nina Batista at
nbatista@stophungernow.org, fax to 919-839-8971 or mail to Stop Hunger Now.

Signature: ______ Date:


Appendix E
SHN Impact Report Summary
Total 2012 Reports: 45
Partners measuring the indicators on impact forms (potential target organizations for
piloting M&E initiative):
Country School Academic Indicators
Haiti St. Andrews School
Grades, graduation rates,
national test scores,
Haiti Youth Build Haiti
Enrollment, attendance,
graduation rates
Haiti Free The Kids Haiti
Graduation Rates and Test
Scores
Liberia Reach Now
Academic
Performance/Attendance
records
Zambia Reach Now
Attendance/test scores/nat.
exams
Kenya Reach Now Attendance
Honduras Salesian Missions
Graduation Rates, Enrollment
Rates

Country Partner Health Indicators
Kenya Mission of Mercy
Height and weight data is
collected quarterly and numbers
are given that show increases
Turkana Cluster, Kenya Mission of Mercy
Measurable data regarding
height and weight increase: 2kg
and 10 cm a month on average
South Sudan Mission of Mercy
Quarterly weight and height
gain average: 1 kg and 7 to 12
cm, measured at beginning and
end of quarter.
Philippines RASFI
Tracking the overall health of
the children; weighing; visits;
interview (did not see these
stats in report).

Haiti Free the Kids Haiti
Measure height/weight gain,
graduation rates/test scores,
but this info is not provided in
impact report
Haiti Haiti Outreach Ministries
Measuring weight: average gain
12.4 lbs, high capacity for data
collection, teachers and
students testify to educational
value of SHN meals
Haiti Robert Ford Orphanage
Indicators: typical child gains 2
to 4lbs a yr, 1/2 in, 40 children
a yr move to secondary school
Belize Kidz Konnect 4 Jesus
Medical team that comes every
90 days for assessment, indicate
health and behavior
improvements, no data
provided.
Nicaragua ORPHANetwork
Measure BMI instead of
height/weight, keep track of
number of kids coming to
feeding programs, saw
malnutrition decrease from
26% to 19%
Honduras Salesian Missions
Average Weight Gain 3-4 lbs.
each month (30 days). Average
Height gain: 5-6 cm each 6
months.
Cambodia Reach Now
Average Weight Gain 3-4 lbs.
each month (30 days)

Positive Program Impact
Innovative Uses of Meals:
Organization Idea
ORPHANetwork, Nicaragua Separate out soy and fry into cakes

Use of Ziplock Bags
Organization Location How they were used
Salesian Missions Honduras Recycled and sold by children
Youthbuild Haiti Haiti
Children take bags home for
personal use.

RASFI, Philippines Mix rice with coconut milk/milk for porridge
Add chicken or egg
Sweeten with chocolate, milk or coconut milk
Salesian Missions, Sierra Leone Making cookies and muffins with soy.

The rice, carrots and in some cases chives, or
something resembling chives, are separated from
the rest of the ingredients and cooked separately.
This combination of rice can be served in many
ways and combined with many other ingredients,
such as fish or chicken in gravy. Sometimes only
fish and seasoning are added.

The rest of the ingredients are sometimes
ground up by hand, and then cooked with fish,
and sliced potatoes or sliced cassava.
Salesian Missions, Peru Separate soy and cook it in soups
Tarahumara Ministries, Mexico Add additional vegetables, beans and water to
make soup.

Use of Boxes
Organization Location How they were used
Salesian Missions Sierra Leone
Sold in the market. Some
families use as hung ceilings
suspended from the roof of the
house to reduce heat or laid
on the floor to reduce cold of
the floor for sleeping.
Roofing and walls, props for
skits for youth
Reach Now Cambodia Cambodia
Used for storage and extras are
burned for fuel.
Reach Now Liberia Liberia
Sent home with students and
staff.
Robert Ford Orphanage Haiti
Lining inner walls of local
homes.
Hearts and Hands for Haiti Haiti
Recycling paper and rice straw,
making briquettes for cooking
Many partners Various
Storage-in schools, given to
community members etc.


Partners reporting non-traditional outreach or programs
Partner/Location Program/Services
Salesian Missions, S. Sudan. Vocational training center/leper colony/street boys center
Salesian Missions, Honduras Alcoholics Anonymous
Mission of Mercy, Kenya Home visits by Social Workers
Reach Now, Kenya
A committee was formed to select the most needy
beneficiaries for the food
Reach Now, Zambia
Personal relationships with partners to determine meal
distribution to especially vulnerable children
Reach Now, Cambodia
Engaging widows in the community in caring for orphans

Agricultural Program
Free the Kids, Haiti Agricultural Program
Youthbuild Haiti Youth Training Center
Case Studies/Community Development Initiatives
Mission of Mercy, Malindi, Kenya
Parent meetings and involving parents in opportunities for project involvement. Parents bringing
firewood, help cooking on program days, etc.
Salesian Missions, Sierra Leone
The Mama Margaret program is intended for children between the ages of 4 and 8, 80% of them
belong to families in which only the mother is present, some of them work in the market selling
anything to survive, the children do not go to school, and sometimes work all day among adults.
Through the program we approach the mothers and offer them a plate of free food for boys and
girls, and in exchange we ask them to allow us to have 3 hours a day of informal class with the
children. We take them to the school where a group of young volunteers attends to them, they have
an hour of study, half an hour of rest (the children sleep for 30 minutes), then educational games
and finally, lunch.
St. Andres, Haiti
National examinations indicate that the St. Andres students do exceptionally well. One of our 9th
grade students was recognized by the President of Haiti this past summer. Our graduates are also doi
ng very well and will be agents of transformation in Haiti in the future.
*St. Andres mentioned they were at maximum capacity-would increase meals increase their capacity?

Youthbuild Haiti, Haiti
In all our Training Centers we have a group of 150 Youths between 14 to 24 Years of age in trainin
g for different fields like Carpentry, Plumbing, Electricity, Tiling, Masonry, Electronic
Tech. etc. Each group stays in the program for a period of six months.
Quote about SHN meals:
This was a great help to our feeding program, which helps keep the students in school.
The meal was sent by ground transportation and was served at the Training Centers.
Many (students) after the six months find a job, some decide to push their knowledge
further and return to regular school, and some start a micro enterprise.
The program works and the meal is really an important incentive to keep the youth
coming back to the training program.


Partner Issues/Complaints
Issue Partner Location
Soy
Salesian Missions Peru
Orphan network Nicaragua
Taste of Food
Mission of Mercy Kenya
Reach Now Liberia
RASFI Philippines
IGLEMEN Nicaragua
Salesian Missions Peru
Putting Vitamin Packet in at
the end
Free the Kids Haiti
Salesian Mission Peru
Tarahumara Ministries Mexico
RASFI Philippines
St Andrews Episcopal School Haiti
Needing Cooking Fuel
Salesian Missions Honduras
Kids Konnect 4 Jesus Belize
Youthbuild Haiti Haiti
Robert Ford Orphanage Haiti
Reach Now Liberia
Storage Issues
IGLEMEN Nicaruagua
Not Putting in Vitamin Packets
Christian Alliance for Children Zambia
Salesian Missions Peru (one packet per two bags)


Overall Recommendations
1. Focus on Partners who have an active and innovative transformational feeding
model-contact them to see about expansion.
Make strategic investments with partners doing the most transformational
development work.
2. Consider Monitoring and Expanding Capacity Building Grants
Small grants ($500-10,000) that partners can apply for in order to carry out
community development initiatives (i.e. local farming, vocational training, micro
enterprise.) Teams doing meal-packaging events could fund these grants.
3. Using Impact Data to Grow SHNs Outreach
Consider using data from impact report to share a partner spotlight at meal
packaging events; focus on highlighting partners instead of just individual
students for marketing and testimonials.
4. Develop a plan to get impact data from Convoy of Hope and Feed the Hungry.
5. Help Partners Shift from Impact Report forms to Annual Report Form.
Create an incentive system and/or a rating system for partners regarding their data
collection and reporting. For example, a
reward for partners who turn in their impact reports for the deadline, who successfully
implement CHAP forms etc.
6. Conduct an online focus group with leaders of various partner organizations to
discuss M&E priorities, capacity, etc. from their perspective (engage them and have
them be leaders in their own M&E processes).
7. Provide partners with data collection mechanisms as is necessary (i.e. scales, height
charts, MU AC bands, and/or forms for data collection). Example:
Adding a MU AC band to each box of Stop Hunger Now Meals sent out in 2014 if there is
evidence that this is the best way for partners to collect nutritional information.


Appendix F
Partnership Success Interview Guide
Information to be gathered from leader(s) within partner organization who oversees all facilities.
GENERAL INFORMATION
INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS
Familiarize yourself with these questions and your partners organization prior to the interview. For data accuracy, ask the
questions exactly as written and ask for more specific information depending on the interviewees answers.

Beginning Script (please read before beginning phone interview):

Thank you for participating in this interview today. The purpose of this interview is to gain a better
understanding of how SHN food distribution is being implemented and to find out what has been working
well, and what may need improvement in the program. Your organization has been identified as a strong
SHN partner and we would like to ask you questions related to your partnership as well as your experience
supporting your local on-the-ground partners (Unless this IS an on-the-ground partner).

This interview is entirely voluntary and will last between 30-60 minutes. We will share the findings from this
interview in a summary form with SHN. When we do, we will not use individual organizational names and
we will make every effort to ensure that individual comments cannot be attributed to any single person. If
you are willing to participate, we would also like to audiotape this interview. Please be as honest as possible
as your feedback is very helpful. This in no way impacts the meals/shipments your organization receives.
[If you are given verbal permission to proceed, you can begin the interview.]
Interview Completed by:

Name :

Title/Role:

Location:

Length of partnership with
SHN:

Type of organization:
(E.g. school, orphan, etc.)

Appendix I
SHN Logic Model

1. TO BEGIN THE INTERVIEW WE WILL FOCUS ON HOW THE PARTNERSHIPS
TRACK FOOD SHIPMENTS (in your country of destination).

a. How many organizations or facilities do you provide food for? How do you track food
shipments?

b. Does your agency know in advance when you will receive food from SHN?
(Example: what is the window or timeframe)

c. What is your biggest barrier to being able to distribute food?

E. THESE NEXT FEW QUESTIONS FOCUS ON HOW PARTNERS DESCRIBE THE
IMPACT OF SHN MEALS.

a. How has receiving SHN meals benefited your agency?

b. How has receiving SHN meals benefited the individuals you serve and/or the individuals
your on-the-ground partners serve?

c. What indicators does your organization use to determine your programs success? (Example:
do you track/keep records of the impact of meals through stories or through other measurements
such as the height/weight of children?)

F. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ASK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO FOOD
AND FOOD PACKAGES IN THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION.

a. Do you know what the in-country staff does with any of the boxes/bags after using the
food? For example, do any re-use the boxes or bags?
(example: do they know that the bag is re-sealable)

b. Do you know if in-country staff cook or serve meals using single bags or do they cook large
meals using multiple bags? If so, which method do they primarily use?

G. ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE DOING THIS INTERVIEWS IS TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND PARTNERSHIP SUCCESS AND HOW TO HELP SHN BE
SUCCESSFUL.

a. Do you have other partners or donors that provide food? If so, what is one thing that your
other partners are doing that would be beneficial for Stop Hunger Now to do?

b. What is one thing that SHN is doing within their partnership that you would find beneficial
if all other partners were doing?

c. What training or information have you been provided regarding the SHN guidelines for
partnerships? What other training / info would you like to have?

d. How could SHN strengthen the partner relationship with your agency? What are some of
the things that would be helpful?

e. Are you happy with the amount of communication you have from Stop Hunger Now?
Would you like more or less communication?

f. What is the main, long-term goal of your work?
If answer is spiritual in nature, drill down to get a more tangible answer

g. Does the support you receive from Stop Hunger Now create (or help you create) long-term
change in the community(ies) you serve, or short-term change?
If long-term change, how? If not, what could SHN do to create long-term change?

h. Is there a way SHN could be more efficient in supporting your work and long-term
change? If so, what way(s)?

i. What, if any, benefits does your organization see from using Stop Hunger Now meals
versus buying all food locally, in-country?

j. How would you rate the quality of Stop Hunger Now meals on a scale from 1-5, where 5 is
the highest quality and 1 is the lowest?
Please explain why you chose that rating. What can SHN do to improve the quality?
Circle Rating: 1 2 3 4 5

Explanation/Suggestion(s):

Appendix G
Stakeholder: Date:
Interviewer:

SHN Staff Stakeholder Interviews
As part of our monitoring & evaluation work this year, we are talking to a number of
stakeholders, including executive staff and board members about their vision of
monitoring and evaluation work within Stop Hunger Now. This will inform how we move
forward in developing a monitoring & evaluation procedure. The interview should take 30-
60 minutes.

1) In thinking about our mission, to end hunger in our lifetime we are trying to understand the
definitions of hunger we are working with (show the list on separate page)How do you
view our organizations definition of hunger?
Can choose one of the sample definitions or define in own words

2) How would you define Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) work broadly?

3) What is your perception of how Monitoring and Evaluation works within Stop Hunger Now at
this point in time?

4) How does M&E work impact you and your work/role at Stop Hunger Now?

5) What issues/problems/pain points do you currently have regarding distribution of aid,
monitoring and evaluation and demonstration of SHNs impact?
a) Are you getting everything you need currently? If not, what do you need?

6) From your knowledge of the Strategic Impact project (SIP), do you think were headed in the
right direction to give you the tools and information you need to be successful in your
position? Please explain why or why not.

7) In your opinion, what types of partners should Stop Hunger Now be working with to gather
data? Why? (Example: large, small, focused, diverse, on-the-ground, US-based, level of
need)

8) Where should Stop Hunger Now be working to gather data? Why? (Through school,
orphanage, medical, child/youth development, general feeding, crisis response, locally run)

9) What, in your opinion, can our team do to make monitoring and evaluation a more strategic
part of Stop Hunger Now?

10) For your department, what M&E / impact information do you and your team need to be
successful in your job duties and goals over the long-term?

Sample Definitions of Hunger and Related Terms
Definition
1.
The status of people whose food intake does not include
enough calories (energy) to meet minimum physiological
needs.
2.
A situation that exists when people lack secure access to sufficient
amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development
and an active and healthy life. It may be caused by the unavailability of
food, insufficient purchasing power, inappropriate distribution or
inadequate use of food at the household level.
3.
A state, lasting for at least one year, of inability to acquire enough food,
defined as a level of food intake insufficient to meet dietary energy
requirements. For the purposes of this report, hunger was defined as
being synonymous with chronic undernourishment.

Appendix H
Interviewed Partners Detailed Information

SHN Partner Agency
Agency
Location
SHN
Partner
Since
Number of
Facilities
Receiving
SHN Meals
Types of
Programs
Percent of
Total SHN
Meals Given
Convoy of Hope
Haiti, El
Salvador,
Kenya,
Philippines
Honduras,
Panama
2008 29
Schools; Child
Development;
General Crisis
15%
Missions Touch Ministries
(Intermediate partner of
Reach Now)
Zambia 2007 45 +/-
Schools; Prison;
Other
2%
ORPHANetwork Nicaragua 2009 40 +/- Orphanage 6%
Haiti Outreach Ministries Haiti 2007 3
Schools;
Churches
5%
Children of Vietnam Vietnam 2008 86
School; Medical;
eldercare;
general; shelter;
vocational;
Creche
3%
Alliance for Children
Everywhere
Zambia 2009 13
Schools;
orphanage,
general
1.5%
Kidz Konnect 4 Jesus Belize 2012 30 Schools 1.5%
Ganta United Methodist
Mission
Liberia 2012 3 Medical; Schools 0.2%
Guatemala Village
Partners
Guatemala 2010 3
Schools;
Orphanage
0.8%
Hearts and Hands for
Haiti
Haiti 2010 17
Schools;
Orphanage;
Churches; Elder-
Care
1.5%
Stop Hunger Now
Southern Africa
(affiliate)
South Africa 2011 173
Preschools;
General
0.8%
St. Andres Episcopal
School
(Intermediate partner)
Haiti 2011 1 School 0.8%
Appendix I
SHN Logic Model

SHN Stakeholder Report 4 23

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SHN Stakeholder Report 4 23

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2014 SHN Monitoring and Evaluation Review:

Key Stakeholder and Lead Partner Interviews

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen