These e-mails usually focus on the incredible results our programs have, and that’s inspiring. But what you see when you stack CARE’s work up against other people doing similar work is even more impressive. CARE isn’t just accomplishing great things—we’re doing it better and cheaper than the competition.
You don’t have to take my word for it (in fact, I encourage you not to). Below are the results of 5 separate independent evaluations that donors commissioned to compare projects from multiple implementers trying to accomplish the same thing. In all 5, CARE outperformed the competition by 40-1000%. Often, we did that with less time and less money than other implementers.
What did we accomplish?
- In the USAID-funded LIFT II project in Malawi, projects worked to get HIV-positive patients referrals to services that would help them have sustainable livelihoods. CARE had more than 10 times more successful referrals than the next closest implementer. Learn more in the LIFT II evaluation.
- Food Security for the Ultra Poor (FSUP) in Bangladesh, with funding from the EU, saw families in the CARE project had 40% more money (in real terms and in percentage terms) at the end of the program than any other partner, even though CARE gave a lower cash transfer than other partners. Spending less actually got better results. Read the FSUP evaluation.
- The number of children from ages 6-23 months in CARE’s SHOUHARDO I and II projects in Bangladesh who had an adequate diet rose dramatically, from 8% to 50% (more than 6 times better). This is greater than the national average, or either of the programs the evaluator compared it to. SHOUHARDO also had almost twice as much success in reducing stunting as either of the other USAID Food For Peace programs. Learn more in the USAID Food For Peace evaluation.
- In the EU-funded Enhancing Community Resilience Programme in Malawi, for every $1 invested in VSLA, the community gets a $29 return. That’s nearly three times more than the next closest project was able to show as a return. Find out more in the Community Resilience Program midterm review.
- USAID conducted a review of their Feed the Future portfolio in Ethiopia, and concluded that CARE’s GRAD project had the highest cost per beneficiary, but also the highest return on investment of any of USAID’s Feed the Future interventions in Ethiopia, at a 100% return. See the Feed the Future evaluation.
How did we get there?
The evaluations don’t always spell out specifics of how CARE is most effective, but reading between the lines, a couple of commonalities are:
- Work with communities’ realities: CARE works with communities to figure out what they need—like no-tech referrals in Malawi, or a broad range of income activities in Bangladesh instead of just one or two options. Our programs meet communities where they are instead of where we think they should be.
- Target the poorest of the poor: These programs all start from the premise that you can bring people out of even the most severe poverty if you provide a graduated range of options from the most basic cash infusions to more sophisticated business opportunities. Starting small and working up gives the poorest people a chance to change their livelihoods.
- Build relationships with the government: All of these projects build on local and national governments to support and scale implementation. CARE can’t do it alone, and we depend on local actors to make projects more sustainable.
None of this means that CARE is perfect. All of these projects have challenges, including staff turnover, management difficulties, and difficulty building in sustainability plans. Any one of these projects has important lessons learned about what not to do. Like all of CARE’s work, each of these projects also builds on partnerships to accomplish our goals. We depend on communities doing amazing work, support from all kinds of local partners, and relationships with governments and donors to get things done. But when we get it right, we get the job done more effectively than others.
It’s worth noting that in the 120 or so evaluations I’ve read in the last year, these 5 highlight places where CARE is outperforming others. I have not read even one where CARE is underperforming other organizations across the board, although sometimes we are lower on specific indicators. That doesn’t mean those evaluations don’t exist, but I haven’t seen one yet.