HKS - PAE Final for FXB - April 2016usa.fxb.org/wp-content/uploads/HKS-PAE-Final-for-FXB-April-2016.pdf · ExploringProgramCustomization* &ExpansionforFXBUSA* PolicyAnalysisExercise!

Exploring Program Customization & Expansion for FXB USA

Policy Analysis Exercise

Prepared by: Pooja Gupta David Truong

Lauren Viehbacher Harvard Kennedy School Master in Public Policy Candidates 2016

Presented to:

Karina Weinstein, Program Director at FXB USA

Advised by: Professor Joshua Goodman, Policy Area Concentration Advisor

Professor David Yanagizawa-‐Drott, Faculty Advisor

April 1, 2016 This PAE reflects the views of the author(s) and should not be viewed as representing the views of the

PAE's external client(s), nor those of Harvard University or any of its faculty.

Acknowledgements

We deeply appreciate the support, guidance and humor of our Seminar Leader, Professor Joshua

Goodman. Many thanks for always having an open door. Thank you also to HKS Research Assistant

Carlos Paez for his considerate advice.

We would also like to greatly thank our advisor, Professor David Yanagizawa-‐Drott, for always

making time to answer our questions. We are very grateful for his consistently thoughtful insights

and sound advice.

FXB’s staff has been extremely generous with their time and this PAE would not be the same

without their insights. We admire their dedication to their work and hope this project can support

their efforts.

We also want to thank staff at Mercy Corps, Grameen America and the Massachusetts Department

of Education for taking the time to assist our research. We greatly appreciate their sharing of

organizational lessons.

Finally, we are extremely grateful for all the support provided by our FXB client, Karina Weinstein.

Many thanks for her commitment to the project, her thorough feedback and unflagging support

throughout the Policy Analysis Exercise. We also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Myriam

Zuber, FXB International Liaison Officer at Harvard’s FXB Center.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1 Client Background 3 Project Objective 4

Methodology 6

Phase I: Examining FXBVillage data 8 Rwanda 9 Burundi 11 China 12 Data Caveats 14

Phase II: Conducting Qualitative Work 15 Relationships 15 Program 18 Office 20

Phase III: Exploring Organizational Best Practices in United States 23 Expanding from International to Domestic Contexts 23 Mercy Corps 23 Grameen America 26

Holistic Programming in the United States 29 Mass Wraparound Zone Initiative 29 Harlem Children's Zone 31

Phase IV: Recommendations 34 FXB Programming 35 United States Expansion 38

Conclusion 43

Appendices 44

1

Executive Summary

FXB International (FXB), a poverty alleviation organization, works in diverse contexts across a

multitude of countries. Taking a holistic approach, FXB addresses extreme poverty – defined as less

than $1.25 a day – across nutrition, healthcare, housing, education and income. Its FXBVillage

Model, a three-‐year graduated support program, aims to build participants’ financial self-‐

sufficiency.

In light of its diverse programming but central model, the client – Karina Weinstein, Program

Director at FXB USA – sought greater understanding of the FXBVillage Model’s particular strengths

and challenges in adapting to different landscapes. In turn, these findings would inform a second

area of interest: considerations for opening and adapting an FXBVillage to the United States (US).

Thus, this PAE explores two questions:

1. How does the FXBVillage Model apply to different countries and contexts?

2. How can this model be operationalized towards a potential expansion in the United

States?

Methodology

This project followed a four-‐phase approach, including quantitative analysis of FXB data; qualitative

interviews with FXB Country Directors; research on organizational best practices in the US,

including interviews with Mercy Corps, Grameen America and Massachusetts Department of

Education; and finally recommendations. The data is heavily caveated and cannot prove causality;

thus, our quantitative analysis is purely descriptive.

Key findings

The following is not exhaustive, but represents the most notable findings.

Internal to FXB, the team found:

Need for greater communications: Currently limited between Country Directors, communications

represent an opportunity for greater cross-‐country learning and support.

Potential for close working relations with government: The breadth and depth of current

government relations varies by geography; in Uganda, the national government is a close partner.

In China and Colombia, there is opportunity for deeper working relations.

2

Advantage of customization: Implementation of the FXBVillage Model illustrates a balance

between flexibility and consistency, as it is tailored to local contexts with key elements maintained

and reviewed by FXB Headquarters.

Successfully leveraging expertise: Some country offices coordinate with other NGOs or

government partners in order to pool expertise and attract donors.

Room to improve the questionnaire: It could be shorter and in its delivery, baseline and endline

must be more consistently aligned to allow more rigorous data analysis.

Regarding possible FXB USA expansion, the team’s research yielded the following:

Build partnerships: This would provide guidance and support as FXB navigates a new American

context.

Maintain culture: As FXB adapts its model to the US, it should continuously revisit the

organization’s broader mission to ensure alignment.

Start with a pilot: Test the model in the new environment and iterate as needed.

Hold a set of priorities, not just services: Reflecting the principle of flexibility, newly established

models need latitude to adapt to its community’s needs.

Recommendations

Considering these findings in aggregate, this PAE developed a set of recommendations:

• Improve data to demonstrate differential impact across countries

• Institute formalized communications For US expansion:

• Build flexibility and adaptability into the FXBVillage Model

• Identify and cultivate partnerships

• Start small

Conclusion

FXB is well-‐positioned to pursue opportunities in the US. The strengths outlined through the

findings – including the FXB’s capacity for adaptation, ability to sustain stakeholder partnerships

and dedicated staff – will support its efforts to adapt and adjust to a strikingly new environment.

The balance, as ever, will be between upholding FXB’s mission and model while granting enough

flexibility for adaptation.

3

Introduction This report represents the final deliverable in an eight-‐month Policy Analysis Exercise (PAE) – the

capstone project for Harvard Kennedy School (HKS)’s Master in Public Policy (MPP) program. The

work detailed below was conducted by Pooja Gupta, David Truong, and Lauren Viehbacher (all MPP

Candidates, 2016).

The client was Karina Weinstein, Program Director at FXB USA. The project work was supported by

Myriam Zuber, FXB International Liaison Officer at the Francois-‐Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health

and Human Rights at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Client Background

Founded in 1989, FXB is an international organization taking a holistic approach to tackling

extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $1.25 per day.1 Its distinct FXBVillage Model,

developed with input from experts at Harvard University, provides a time-‐bounded, graduated

program to build participants’ financial and social self-‐sufficiency. FXB addresses five drivers of

poverty: nutrition, healthcare, housing, education and income.2

The FXBVillage Model provides funding and training to fully cover nutritional, education and

healthcare costs in the first year, then gradually scales back financial support as individuals assume

increasing financial responsibility (see Figure 1). FXB provides income assets (e.g. livestock, seed

capital), skills training, food and cash grants, coaching, a savings account and healthcare support.3

All drive towards a sustained rise out of poverty, with 86 percent of participating families living

above the poverty line four years after the program’s end.4

4

Figure 1: FXBVillage Model Timeline

Finally, of note to this PAE are the current deliberations by the FXB USA office to potentially open

an FXBVillage in the US. The feasibility and degree of customization for an FXBVillage in America

are currently under review by FXB USA.

Project Objective

The client sought greater understanding of the efficacy of the FXBVillage Model in different

geographies – both its strengths and challenges – as well as the differing degrees of customization

to various local contexts. FXB’s Country Directors are given relatively wide latitude to apply the

FXBVillage Model to their villages, offering an opportunity to analyze trends for organizational

learning. Findings on this front may be useful for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) work done by

the FXB Field Education Internship Program, a partnership between FXB International and the FXB

Center for Health and Human Rights at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Furthermore, the client sought recommendations on the feasibility of and adaptation required for a

potential FXBVillage Model in the US. This included research into the specifics of introducing an

organization’s program model and managing it in a US context.

5

Therefore, FXB engaged the HKS team to address the following problem statement:

How does the FXBVillage Model apply to different countries and contexts?

How can this model be operationalized towards a potential expansion in the

United States?

6

Methodology This PAE followed a four-‐phase approach:

Phase I: Examining FXBVillage Model Data

To explore how FXB adapts the FXBVillage Model to different contexts, the team analyzed outcomes

in different country offices. The team was granted access by FXB International to de-‐identified,

internal FXB datasets. Datasets included baseline and endline data collections for completed

FXBVillages. The relevant questionnaires associated with the data were also shared.

Phase II: Conducting Qualitative Research

The HKS team conducted interviews with internal FXB International stakeholders. These

conversations were largely conducted via phone or Skype. The HKS team interviewed the FXB

Country Directors in China, Colombia, India, Rwanda and Uganda, and the Program Performance

and Innovation Manager at FXB. A questionnaire was developed for the conversations, with follow-‐

up questions occasionally posed for clarity and further understanding.

Phase III: Exploring Organizational Best Practices in the United States

In order to inform FXB’s potential program expansion in the US, the team explored programmatic

and operational best practices of organizations that have expanded into the US from abroad.

Additionally, the team selected organizations with holistic program interventions that could inform

the FXBVillage Model.

Expanding from International to Domestic Contexts

The team developed case studies on Mercy Corps and Grameen America, organizations that

expanded their operations from the international stage to include programs in the US. These case

studies identify and explore insights into tailoring programs to a US context, as well as guidance on

expanding organizational operations. In addition to third-‐party research, interviews were

conducted to explore opportunities, challenges and customization of program models during

expansion.

Phase I: Examining

FXBVillage Model Data

Phase II: Conducting

Qualitative Research

Phase III: Exploring

Organizational Best Practices in US

Phase IV: Recommendations

7

Holistic Programming in the United States

The team also developed case studies on holistic model organizations operating in a US context,

such as the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Wraparound Zone

Initiative (WAZ) and the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ). These case studies illustrate different

approaches and processes to delivering comprehensive, integrated programming models in

American communities. Interviews were also conducted to gain insights into the operational

realities of programming in the US.

Phase IV: Recommendations for (i) FXB Country Programming (ii) FXB-‐USA

Expansion

Both data analysis and interview findings from Phases I-‐III were examined and synthesized to

provide recommendations on two fronts: FXB country programming and expansion into the US.

Recommendations were then prioritized, based either on impact and timeline or by sequencing for

FXB.

8

Phase I: Examining FXBVillage data The team studied a cross-‐section of regional offices, each operating in varying local contexts and

with differing programmatic and operational strengths and challenges. The team selected country

data sets that used the same household baseline and endline questionnaires, to ensure that the

same information was collected at both stages. The Rwanda, Burundi and China datasets matched

these requirements. To perform the analysis, the team combined the baseline and endline data from

villages in each selected country and compared six outcomes that represent core elements of FXB

programming. These six outcomes were selected through a four-‐phase narrowing process (see

Figure 2). The team wanted to ensure each pillar was represented in the quantitative analysis to

provide the broadest assessment of the FXBVillage Model. Therefore, the team categorized the

questions under each pillar. Then, the team went across all categories and identified questions with

sufficient data. Thus, any outcomes missing a sufficient sample size or outcomes with only baseline

or endline data were removed. Finally, within this narrowed pool, the team selected outcomes that

more broadly spoke to the five pillars (instead of a very specific outcome) and were most

representative of FXBVillage’s programming or a specific activity. The resulting six outcomes were

considered best to analyze.

Figure 2: Selection Process for Analyzed Outcomes

Five Pillars

Sufjicient Data

Representative Activity

Outcomes

9

These six outcomes covered: food availability in recent months, access to health care services,

water treatment, psychosocial support and counseling, income – measured by proxy from

consumption – and education. When performing the analysis, the team controlled for individual

households across time so to better account for household-‐inherent effects. The team also

controlled for size of household, the head of household’s age, education status and sex, household

debt repayment and savings, and – when not examined as an outcome – consumption, which was a

proxy for income levels.

The team noted descriptive information used and conducted regression analysis on a multitude of

factors. Due to a number of potential confounding factors and data caveats, the team strongly

cautions against making causal inferences from this analysis and to treat it as descriptive findings

that can be used in further research and data improvements. Both findings that exhibit positive or

negative trends should be explored in greater depth to determine the trend’s root cause. The team

did not attempt to speculate or develop narratives on any of these outcomes due to their purely

descriptive nature. Statistically significant results are presented below:

Rwanda

The team analyzed data from two FXBVillages in Rwanda – Kabati and Gatabi – for approximately

160 observations at the household level. Baseline data was collected in 2012 and endline data was

collected in 2014.

Households in Rwanda were more likely to exhibit positive outcomes at the endline across five

indicators when compared to the baseline; all these relationships were statistically significant but

not causal. An analysis of school attendance did not yield significant results. Key findings include:

• Nutrition: Prior to the intervention, 11.25% of households reported that they either had

plenty or just enough food available in the past three months. Our analysis showed that,

after the intervention, these households were 92.22 percentage points more likely to report

that they have had plenty or just enough food available.

• Health Care Services: Prior to the intervention, 61.88% of households reported that they

had access to health care services. Our analysis showed that, after the intervention, these

10

households were 24.61 percentage points more likely to report that they had access to

health care services.

• Water Treatment: Prior to the intervention, 55% of households reported that they treated

their water in some way to make it safer. Our analysis showed that, after the intervention,

these households were 50.57 percentage points more likely to report that they treat their

water in some way to make it safer.

• Psychosocial Support: Prior to the intervention, 3.13% of households reported that they

currently receive any regular counseling or advice. Our analysis showed that, after the

intervention, these households were 98.18 percentage points more likely to report that they

currently receive any regular counseling or advice.

• Consumption as Income Proxy: Our analysis showed that, after the intervention, surveyed

households had approximately 182.52% higher incomes on average. Please note, this is a

notable yet purely descriptive finding. Given the magnitude, we particularly suggest FXB

look further into this to determine root causes and how FXB might be contributing.

Graph 1: The above graph shows the percentile point change from the baseline to the endline along with the 95% confidence interval for each statistically significant outcome. Income was excluded because it is a percent change.

92.22%

24.61%

50.57%

98.18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nutrition Health Water Psych

Percentrage Point Change

Outcome

Rwanda

11

Burundi

The team analyzed data from one FXBVillage in Burundi – Kamenge – for approximately 98

observations at the household level. Baseline data was collected in 2011 and endline data was

collected in 2013-‐2014.

Households in Burundi were more likely to exhibit positive outcomes at endline across four

indicators when compared to the baseline; all of these relationships were statistically significant

but not causal. An analysis of school attendance and water treatment did not yield significant

results. Key findings include:







households were 43.78 percentage points more likely to report that they had access to

health care services.

• Psychosocial Support: Prior to the intervention, 53.06% of households reported that they

are regularly receiving any advice or counseling. Our analysis showed that, after the


currently receive any regular counseling or advice.

• Consumption as Income Proxy: Our analysis showed that, after the intervention, these

households had approximately 40.66% higher incomes on average.

12

China

The team analyzed data from two FXBVillages in China – located in Bu Tuo County in Sichuan

Province – for approximately 178 observations at the household level. Baseline data was collected

in 2013 and endline data was collected in 2015.

Households in China were more likely to exhibit positive outcomes at endline across three

indicators when compared to the baseline; all of these relationships were statistically significant

but not causal. Our analysis of access to health services found a negative, significant outcome after

the intervention. Our analysis of psychosocial support and consumption as income did not yield

significant results. Key findings include:





Graph 2: The above graph shows the percentile point change from the baseline to the endline along with the 95% confidence interval for each statistically significant outcome. Income was excluded because it is a percent change.

93.80%

43.78% 44.73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nutrition Health Psych

Percentage Point Change

Outcome

Burundi

13



households were 16.82 percentage points less likely to report that they had access to health

care services.

• Water Treatment: Prior to the intervention, nearly none of the households reported that

they treat their water in any way to make it safer. Our analysis showed that, after the


treat their water in some way to make it safer.

• Education: Prior to the intervention, 33.61% of total children in surveyed households were

reported as currently enrolled in school. Our analysis showed that, after the intervention,

81.90% of total children were reported as currently enrolled in school.

Graph 3: The above graph shows the percentile point change from the baseline to the endline along with the 95% confidence interval for each statistically significant outcome. Education was excluded because it was a raw percentage increase.

10.04%

-‐16.82%

94.22%

-‐60%

-‐40%

-‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Nutrition Health Water

Percentage Point Change

Outcome

China

14

Data Caveats

While performing this analysis, the team determined several important data caveats:

• No control group or FXB country-‐ or regional-‐level data was available; thus, it was not

possible to isolate the effects of FXB versus those of other organizations, general country

trends or other external factors. Therefore, trends we see may or may not be attributable to

FXB’s intervention.

• Due to this, it is not possible to determine whether differences seen across countries

can be attributed to differences in country programming or to changes within the countries

themselves.

• Questionnaires, in some cases, differed between baseline and endline. To mitigate this, the

team selected questions consistently asked at pre-‐ and post-‐FXB intervention.

• In some outcomes, a few respondents did not answer questions in both baseline and

endline surveys, thus reducing the available sample size for analysis.

Due to these factors, it is important to note that cross country comparisons cannot establish

causality, as other factors may describe why a country may be particularly successful on any one

criteria. Additionally, these results cannot determine the impact of FXB’s intervention, as this effect

cannot be isolated. Therefore, the above results are descriptive rather than causal. The team has

noted recommendations for data improvement in the Recommendations section.

15

Phase II: Conducting Qualitative Work In this section, we present the qualitative analysis conducted to examine the customization and

implementation of the FXBVillage Model from the perspectives of the country directors.

The HKS team interviewed the FXB Country Directors in China, Colombia, India, Rwanda and

Uganda. A questionnaire was developed for the conversations, with follow-‐up questions

occasionally posed for clarity or further understanding.

Relationships

Communications

• Between Country Directors, communications is limited but unanimously cited as having

considerable potential for cross-‐country learning

• Communications could augment the sense of integration in the wider organization

• Between Country Directors and FXB-‐International, the degree of communication varies

o Different work styles within countries depending on their internal M&E capacity

Across the board, communication between Country Directors is lacking. The passion and

experience of the Country Directors presents enormous potential for cross-‐country learning and

support. It can complement the Toolkit’s shared learnings and also bolster country offices’ sense of

integration in the wider organization. However, there is usually little conversation beyond welcome

emails for new Directors. There was a commonly echoed perception that time constraints limit

meaningful cross-‐country working communications.

Regarding communications between the

Africa and Asia-‐based Country Directors

and FXB International, the Program

Performance & Innovation Manager is

much appreciated for his support and

accessibility. The style and depth of

communications varies per each country’s

needs and M&E capacity.

It’s a pity the Country Directors don’t have much

communication between them. [After visiting

Rwanda], I found it helpful to carry over rural

themes. I plan to Skype with them when FXB

Colombia goes into rural areas. Overall,

however, it’s not a practice Cecile Lavergne

FXB Colombia Country Director

“ ”

16

Insufficient Formal Processes

• Calls for clarified formal processes for general activities, but not at the expense of flexibility,

which is a core success factor for FXB

• Could particularly support new staff members and accelerate their integration into FXB

On one hand, there was a call for more formal processes to clarify general working procedures. The

team hypothesizes that the Toolkit is a helpful tool, but that requests related to day-‐to-‐day

operations are not covered. Examples include clarifications regarding with whom Country

Directors should speak about particular questions or what steps to take when modifying a

questionnaire.

On the other hand, the request for

formalization came from newer

members of FXB. The difference in

reporting structures may

contribute to this sense. For

example, the Colombia office

reports to FXB USA, while the

other country offices report to

FXB GVA. Furthermore, flexibility arose as a key success factor for FXB. Countries manage their own

M&E and refer to the Program Performance & Innovation Manager with questions or seek approval

for significant changes; for example, alterations to a questionnaire. This flexibility allows Country

Directors to manage their operations sensitive to community needs and their staff’s capacity, and to

adapt to local context. For example, the FXB China team works in a rural, mountainous area with

participants who speak specific dialects. To better connect culturally, FXB China engages local,

external parties who share the dialect and customs to connect with potential participants. This

illustrates creativity in responding to local circumstances.

Finally, the flexibility also boosts a sense of

empowerment among Country Directors:

the expressed need is for formalization of

current processes, not the addition of processes,

while maintaining the degree of flexibility that

I’m feeling optimistic about the

future and the ability to make

changes Cecile Lavergne


“ ”

We need a process for everything -‐

we’re lacking structure. Every

country director is very alone Cecile Lavergne


“ ”

17

allows for creativity. Therefore, formalization of simple processes would be most beneficial in

helping new staff members accelerate their understanding of how FXB operates. It would also

provide a sense of integration across offices and reinforce organizational unity.

Donors

• Donor base and management differs by country office

Interviews yielded country nuances useful for donor management. In Uganda, donors want to reach

a certain number of participants -‐ far beyond the number served by an FXB Village. This

expectation, along with its lack of an independent financing mechanism, represents one of the

Uganda office’s primary challenges.

In Colombia and China, there is potential for new donor outreach. The Colombian office has

identified several French firms newly arrived in the country and will receive support from FXB

France to target them in their fundraising strategy. FXB Colombia is also considering approaching

companies that are already donors to the FXB India Suraksha.

Finally, Rwanda has a significant, well-‐developed donor base, with partners including USAID and

Harvard. FXB Rwanda’s programming has to match funding requirements, but overall the financing

allows greater latitude in its work.

Government Relations

• Breadth and depth of government relations varies widely by geography

• Close working relationships with national government in Uganda

• Opportunity in China and Colombia

The breadth and depth of

government relations varies widely

by geography. The Uganda office

illustrates tight-‐knit working

relationships with the national

government. Local context requires

sensitivity not only to the

By addressing government needs

and guidelines, we adapt our

program to be integrated and

relevant William Kibaalya

FXB Uganda Country Director

“ ”

18

FXBVillage Model, but also to government’s needs. These are aligned through working groups

between government and NGOs. Aligning priorities benefits the FXBVillage Model, as its work is

“integrated [with] and relevant [to]” the national government’s efforts.5 This also allows FXB to

build close working relationships with the national government and other NGOs, bolstering its

reputation and position in Uganda.

In Uganda, the FXB office is required to report program impact figures to the government via

quarterly reports. Every six months, it shares a report with FXB headquarters, donors and

government stakeholders. Through its working group engagement, FXB Uganda has also been able

to inform the government’s use of development tools.6

In China, FXB currently partners with local branches of the Chinese Women’s Federation as it

pursues registration in Sichuan. Once registered, it will be able to cultivate a government

relationship. The Country Director also suggested the potential to attract a Chinese partner to

further integrate the program into the country’s context.

Finally, Colombia reported local government’s interest in more frequent partnerships. The latter

has identified FXB as a particularly strong NGO model in a security hotspot and would like to

increase FXB contracts. The Colombian office welcomes the opportunity, but it would be contingent

on other NGOs being contracted to support in complementary areas, such as the arts. There is also

concern about increasing FXB staff presence in the face of high security risks.

Program

Customization

• Positive view of FXBVillage Model Toolkit and Planning Guide as guidelines but not strictly

prescriptive

• Capability to tailor to local context

• Questionnaire modifications are signed off with Performance & Innovation Manager

The Toolkit is positively viewed by Country Directors as providing helpful guidelines and orienting

values yet allowing flexibility to customize to local contexts. The China office in particular referred

to a chance to better tailor to participants; for example, by creating their own family selection form.

FXB Uganda coordinates with other NGOs to deliver projects, with each organization bringing its

19

own expertise. While maintaining the overall FXB Village mission and model, FXB Uganda has thus

developed a particular focus on and reputation for economic development and programming for

vulnerable children. Finally, the Rwanda office has been able to tailor its programming to urban and

rural contexts.

Regarding M&E customization, country offices have room to develop new indicators or modify to

suit the reality of their operating environment. These updates are regulated, reviewed and

approved by FXB´s Program Performance & Innovation Manager. He is seen as responsive and

sensitive to country nuances, which is appreciated by Directors. There is thus a balance between

flexibility and consistency.

Leveraging Expertise

• Coordinate with other NGO partners to deliver, provide expertise and attract donors

• Drawing on local staff to forge cultural connections, language and credibility with

beneficiaries

Related to customization, many country offices are successfully leveraging local expertise to

augment FXB’s impact. As previously mentioned, China engages external parties, who are versed in

target villages’ language and culture, to connect with potential participants. The more personal

connection heightens potential participants’ trust in and acceptance of the FXBVillage Model.

The Uganda office coordinates with other

partners to deliver its programming, which

leverages expertise and ties FXB into local and

national structures. Country Director Kibaalya

reported that “no one tool is enough” and that

FXB’s tools can be well complemented by other

NGOs’ and government’s approaches. Given a

worsening economic climate, there is also risk

of people slipping back into poverty and a

wider network of organizations might be better

positioned to help mitigate.

Working with other NGOs

ensures efficiency, limits

duplication, attracts expertise

and creates value William Kibaalya

FXB Uganda Country Director

“ ”

20

Office

Staffing

• Staffing is a core strength of the FXB offices

• Greater training opportunities

• In some geographies, higher pay for security risks

The Country Directors overwhelmingly cited staffing as a core strength of their offices. Staff teams

are deeply committed to FXB’s mission and have significant experience, which bolsters long-‐term

stability of the offices. The staff’s established knowledge and understanding of local context assist

both longer tenure Country Directors, as in China and Rwanda, and newly arrived Country

Directors, as in Colombia. The Rwandan office in particular emphasized the M&E capabilities of its

staff, while in Colombia the team has been receptive to a recent prioritization of M&E.

To further build their staff’s strengths,

many Country Directors are eager for

greater training opportunities and

commensurate funding. This could occur

at cross-‐country level, as modeled by

Uganda and Rwanda’s practice of cross-‐

office visits and learning. Training is also

needed at the office level; for example,

Colombia needs assistance finding and

training people to execute its M&E

database. Uganda also echoed the need

for greater funding for staff training.

Furthermore, Uganda is strained by its constant hiring needs. When projects close, the team staff

leaves. Each opening project requires fresh staffing at heavy time and resource costs.

Finally, the Colombian office expressed a desire to increase staff pay to properly reflect the high

security risks in the country.

The FXB model is not easy. It

requires wisdom and creativity

[from the staff] Bruce Lee

FXB China & Mongolia Country Director

“ ”

21

Logistics: Software & Questionnaire

• Greater funding for M&E

• Software training & technology in country language

• Using control groups in M&E; ensuring aligned baseline & endline data

• Making the questionnaire shorter and more outcomes-‐focused

Overall, developing more rigorous M&E at FXB will require greater funding. Oft-‐cited unmet needs

include software training and supplying the technology in the country’s language. Some offices only

have one or no M&E software-‐proficient staff members, burdening the Country Directors with

additional work. The Program Performance & Innovation Manager is willing to travel to install

software systems directly, in order to smooth software uptake and wider use.

Regarding the questionnaire process, it is effective overall but could use improvements. The

Performance & Innovation Manager cited a widespread view of control groups as a drain on time,

resources and emotions of the office staff.

This was affirmed by the China Country

Director, whose staff sometimes feels

uneasy entering non-‐treatment

environments without providing any

assistance.

Second, offices need to ensure baseline and

endline data collections are aligned. Too

often different questionnaires are used for

“

We wish we could be more in the field with them to assist in

capacity building Sacha Jeanneret

Program Performance and Innovation Manager at FXB “ ”

We always encourage change

and never compare between

families Bruce Lee FXB China Country Director ” “

22

baseline and endline, challenging data alignment. Third, there is opportunity to dovetail

questionnaires with technology, as Colombia is doing with its anticipated introduction of tablets for

field officers.

On the questionnaire specifics: the questionnaires do not reflect every culture; for example, meat as

an income proxy is not a useful metric in meat-‐eating Mongolia. Another example is the call for

more psychosocial questions to suit Rwanda’s context. Furthermore, some offices asked that the

questionnaire be more specific on income-‐generating activities and how money will be spent.

Finally, there was a general consensus that the questionnaire could be shorter. One Country

Director added it could be more focused on outcomes relative to outputs.

Rural-‐Urban

• Depending on geography, rural and urban represent opportunities and challenges

• Some country offices are interested in expanding to a mix of rural and urban locations

Interestingly, rural and urban locations represent differing opportunities and challenges for

country offices. Currently, only the Rwandan and Indian offices have a rural-‐urban mix in their

FXBVillage locations. The reality is that urban and rural beneficiaries have very different needs. In

Uganda, urban populations are more vulnerable -‐ rural populations at least have land -‐ which

lengthens the time needed for a sustained life out of poverty. On the other hand, rural areas are

more difficult to scale because their livelihoods are so dependent on agriculture. In Asia, the

Chinese rural model cannot be easily replicated in Mongolia’s urban settings, which are marked by

unemployment and alcohol issues.

Meanwhile, rural areas represent an opportunity for the Colombian office: they suffer less from

security issues and agriculture presents economic opportunity. The Country Director is planning to

garner lessons on rural populations from the Rwandan office, but is aware that expansion into rural

would be more expensive.

23

Phase III: Exploring Organizational Best Practices in United States

Expanding from International to Domestic Contexts

The HKS team selected two organizations that began their programming internationally and

subsequently expanded their operations into the US: Mercy Corps and Grameen America. Each case

study provides a different perspective and lessons learned for FXB’s potential expansion into the

US.

Mercy Corps

The HKS team selected Mercy Corps as the first case study to glean lessons learned on how an

organization can successfully tailor their operations to respond to the needs of varied communities,

particularly when moving from international to US-‐domestic operations. The process undertaken

by Mercy Corps to add domestic programming to their international activities, as well as their

considerable success in their US operations, can provide ample insights for FXB.

Mercy Corps’ mission is to “alleviate suffering, poverty, and oppression by helping people to build

secure, productive and just communities.”7 Similar to FXB, this mission is comprehensive and

covers many programming areas. They have been able to maintain adherence to this mission

despite delivering programs in several sectors and through different mechanisms in more than 45

countries.8

In 1998, Mercy Corps began programming in the US, with an office in Portland, Oregon, to provide

services in Oregon and Washington after spending 19 years working internationally. These

programs aimed to assist low-‐income communities through employment and microenterprise

opportunities.9 On their website, Mercy Corps discusses their approach and philosophy, explaining

their larger goal of strengthening civil society while providing services to populations in need.10

This underscores that their approach goes beyond merely providing supplies or services to

holistically build and sustain communities, as well as providing assistance in a variety of different

circumstances and contexts around the world. This approach will be key in the analysis for FXB that

also provides comprehensive services internationally and seeks to enter the domestic realm.

In addition to research on Mercy Corps and its expansion, the HKS team interviewed Mr. John

Haines, the Executive Director of Mercy Corps Northwest. He is based in Portland, Oregon and has

24

been with Mercy Corps since 2002.11 Haines noted that, although Mercy Corps Northwest is

relatively small at 1% of the total organization, they are treated very much like one of the larger

country offices by the organization. They have a core set of issues, including business loans,

microloans and business development training. They share Mercy Corps’ commitment to

innovation, impact and influence, and an understanding that the bulk of the work is driven by on-‐

the-‐ground realities rather than by headquarters.

Although Haines was not present during the expansion, he explained that one of the reasons to start

programming in the US was a desire for enhanced local visibility. Many lessons learned, insights

and best practices from Mercy Corp’s expansion into the US are applicable for FXB’s potential

expansion, to be discussed below.

Reputation and Funding

At the time of their transfer, Mercy Corps had an established reputation and was well known for

their international work. This positive reputation was important to the success of the program and

is an issue that FXB will have to contend with when potentially expanding to areas in which they

are not already established. With this positive reputation comes the necessity to find programmatic

areas in which FXB has expertise and to secure adequate funding for these activities, to find and

secure strong partnerships with local organizations and key stakeholders for the most effective

programming, and to create and maintain a culture of innovation, cohesion and fidelity to the

overall mission of their organization.

Funding remains a challenge. While well known, Mercy Corps Northwest does not have the same

level of funding that Mercy Corps does in other country offices, yet there are significant

expectations of their programming and activities. Moreover, funding in the US is different than that

internationally and often complex, with different sources, regulations and funder expectations.

Haines explained that it can be difficult to be aware of all of the varied funding opportunities and to

then secure them, as each opportunity has different requirements. Mercy Corps Northwest

continues to learn about a wide array of potential funders, including the private sector.

Reputation and funding are both areas with which FXB will have to contend. As FXB may not be

well known in certain domestic locations, adequate time will have to be spent to build community

trust, including forging robust local partnerships and ties before programming begins to ensure

25

that the community understands FXB. This could be done through town halls, meetings with local,

trusted organizations and local government, as well as making visits to ongoing, existing programs

and services. Moreover, they will have to find the specific interventions in which their

programming model excels, and tailor their operations to work within them and to match

outstanding needs in the communities. Regarding funding, a move from working with international

to domestic funders could prove challenging. To mitigate this, FXB will need to quickly learn about a

diverse set of potential funders that may not be as prevalent in their international operations.

Partnerships

Our research emphasized the importance of partnerships, an element that Mercy Corps puts at the

forefront of their programming strategy. Haines explained that although there will be some

inherent competition, especially for funding, it is essential for similar organizations to work

together to find the most effective and sustainable solution for the community. Sometimes, such as

in the work after Hurricane Katrina, the most effective solution is to work in tandem with other

organizations. Mr. Haines describes that there was good, effective work already being done in the

New Orleans. In light of this, and with an awareness of their own relative strengths, Mercy Corps

ran some programs of their own, but also spent significant time supporting the work of other

organizations in the post-‐Katrina recovery.

Although challenging at times,

finding good partnerships for

both information sharing and

shared programming, as well

as maintaining a focus on

collaboration where possible,

is applicable to FXB’s potential

expansion as well. Particularly

given the relative newness of FXB to the US context, not only could securing partnerships ease their

entry into the domestic arena, but also provide FXB with solid support and guidance as they

navigate a new context.

[We] pride ourselves on being

collaborative and not competitive. John Haines

Executive Director of Mercy Corps Northwest

“ ”

26

Culture

Our interviews emphasized that creating a new country office in the US could not be done with a

formula: it would have to be infused into the culture of the office and the organization. This is a

culture that must be maintained and continually improved, such as constantly revisiting the

mission of a country office or chapter of an organization to ensure alignment with the greater goals

of the organization as a whole. This cannot be achieved by just adhering to pre-‐set guidelines. This

would have to be infused not only into the current FXB USA office in New York but also into any

local offices in the selected cities.

One area in which Mercy Corps has achieved this is with their intra-‐organizational communication,

an area in which they excel. Through global leadership gatherings every two years, country

directors able to meet face-‐to-‐face and share information on programming, new ideas and

challenges. A focus on communication helps to ensure that there is sufficient sharing of ideas, as

well as maintenance of a shared mission and vision. This contributes to organizational cohesion.

This emphasis on cohesion is important for FXB to note, as current communication between

Country Directors is less fulsome than desired.

Grameen America

The HKS team selected Grameen America as the second case study to illustrate how an organization

can successfully move a standardized intervention model from one community to another, adapting

it to fit a different context while preserving the core elements. Whereas Mercy Corps has several

different types of interventions and myriad programs, Grameen America retains its core program of

microloans. However, it does seek to tailor these interventions to communities in need. From this,

FXB International can glean valuable lessons and best practices about transporting a standard

model to different communities.

[Expanding into the US] isn’t necessarily a model transfer, but a

matter of culture. It’s not a toolkit John Haines

Executive Director of Mercy Corps Northwest

“ ”

27

Grameen America began from the same roots as Grameen Bank, which was founded by Mohammad

Yunus in Bangladesh. In 2008, the model was transferred from Bangladesh to the US, with the idea

that it could help lift people out of poverty.12

In particular, Grameen America works with women to start their own small businesses. They

facilitate the formation of a “Grameen Group” of five women, who together will undergo financial

and business training to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to address their

situations, as well as a microloan of $1,500. The women are regularly supported by Grameen

America and by each other throughout the process, with the aim of getting them on the path to their

own small business and to address poverty.13 Grameen America reports that they have helped more

than 64,000 women in 11 cities and disbursed over 179,000 loans since the program’s inception.14

Grameen America has been lauded as leader in microcredit in the US and for successfully applying

their model to the American context. In particular, their entry into the domestic market during the

financial crisis in the early 2000s helped those who have been unable to otherwise find loans.

Additionally, Grameen America fills a gap in the US, where those in need of assistance often face

substantial barriers and significant uncertainty.15

Particularly applicable for FXB is Grameen America’s ability to find synergies between their work in

Bangladesh with the needs of poor communities throughout the US. They were able to find

opportunities within their own model and use it to address poverty concerns in the US.

In addition to research on the organization and their expansion, the HKS team also conducted an

interview with staff. As FXB also has a fixed intervention model that would be transferred to the US,

the lessons learned from Grameen America will be valuable when they consider their potential

expansion.

Context Matters

Grameen America found it helpful to bring bank managers from Bangladesh to begin with Grameen

America, as well as bring on staff from the communities they serve. The advantage of this was the

wealth of experience and knowledge that came with them. Experts in the process ensure that the

28

model is effectively carried out. In addition, staff from local communities help provide valuable

insights about on-‐the-‐ground realities.

This balance will be important for FXB as well. When moving into the US context, FXB will need to

both retain the core intervention model and leave room to adapt as necessary.

Integrating Stakeholders

As seen with Mercy Corps, building and maintaining relationships with various stakeholders is key,

including with governments and philanthropies. Our research shows that currently, Grameen

America operates in cities where the local government or available philanthropies will be able to

fund half of the necessary costs. As they move forward, they are also looking to national funding

sources in order to continue growing. In addition to partnerships with local governments and

philanthropies, Grameen America maintains several partnerships with banks and corporations,

including Citi, Capital One and Wells Fargo.

Navigating these complex but essential relationships will be an issue also facing FXB. As they look

into a new set of funders and partners, FXB will have to ensure that they are able to effectively

integrate their partners into their operations. A need for coordination and communication echoes

what we have heard from FXB’s country operations: a need for more integration and

communication between country offices and country directors. As they look to expand into the US,

it will be imperative that they also invest in more institutionalized and robust communication

between country directors.

Start Small

Many are unused to microfinance in the US. Organizations have tried and been ultimately

unsuccessful, so many believed it was not suited for the US context. Grameen America therefore

started small and built from there. They began with one branch in New York to see whether it

would be successful. Since then, Grameen America receives invitations from interested cities that

are excited for them to begin work in their respective city.

This is a helpful approach for FXB, who will need to test their model in small areas before scaling it

and launching extensive operation.

29

Holistic Programming in the United States

The HKS team selected two organizations that take a poverty alleviation approach similar to the

FXBVillage Model: the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s

Wraparound Zone Initiative (WAZ) and the Harlem’s Children’s Zone (HCZ). Wraparound

programming takes a holistic and comprehensive approach to programming, addressing multiple

and complex concerns with an intervention.16 Wraparound or holistic approaches in the US usually

use children or students as the unit of measurement or target of intervention, as wraparound

programming developed out of a focus on troubled youth.17 This played a role in our approach

towards selecting the cases. Each case study provides a different perspective and lessons learned

for using wraparound services as a poverty intervention in the US.

Mass Wraparound Zone Initiative

The state of Massachusetts is engaged in the construction of wraparound zones in various parts of

the state through the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education focused

on addressing out-‐of-‐the-‐classroom needs of students, such as developing a new parent

engagement model18. Eighteen schools in five school districts across the state received two-‐year

grants as part of President Obama’s Race to the Top Initiative in the 2011-‐2012 school year to

create a Wraparound Zone Initiative (WAZ) that would address non-‐academic challenges. The goal

of the initiative was to “enhance positive school climate, identify student needs, integrate service

resources and create district level feedback and improvement.”19 Two more school districts were

added in the 2012-‐2013 school year. The original five school districts were Fall River, Holyoke,

Lawrence, Springfield and Worcester, with Lynn and Wareham joining as the two additions.

The examination of the Mass Wraparound Zone Initiative provides an early-‐stage example of

implementing a wraparound initiative. The Mass WAZ also operates statewide, using schools as the

channel of intervention. This provides a very specific example of how wraparound services are

targeted and the potential limitations that could arise during implementation. In addition, there is a

specific cost structure developed that equates to approximately $1,300 per student based on the

ability to provide administration and staffing along with programmatic needs20. While not the only

case study of wraparound approaches provided through schools, Mass WAZ provided a local

context that facilitated access to conduct analysis and garner insights. Limitations of the program

were found in the exclusion of actual service provisions by the schools themselves.

30

From the analysis of both online resources and an interview with Rebecca Shor, the Wraparound

Zone Coordinator at WAZ, our team developed the following findings:

Not Just a Set Of Services but a Swath Of Priorities

Ms. Shor noted that the Mass WAZ is an entity that would assist selected schools in providing direct

services and interventions. It initiated as a pilot program that developed strategies to allow schools

to maximize their ability to utilize the strengths and needs of their entire student population. The

piloted approach would then be expanded at the district level in other schools.

The Wraparound Replication Cookbook

To maximize the positive outcomes and avoid a standardized approach towards replication and

scaling of the WAZ to other school districts in the state, a Wraparound Replication Cookbook was

created. The Cookbook is an internal guide for expanding the WAZ model to other schools within

the state of Massachusetts, similar to the FXBVillage Toolkit and Planning Guide. The Cookbook’s

goal was the capture of best practices and lessons learned from the initiative, both and within the

realm of certain priority areas.

Peer Learning Community

The Mass WAZ initiative engaged participating school districts in a peer learning community that

brought together various internal stakeholders to share best practices and collectively tackle any

challenges. One of the crucial foci of this peer learning community is measuring outcomes and

monitoring the practices as a means of bringing rigor to the evidence base.

Comparison Groups

In an evaluation conducted by the American Institutes for Research, the Mass WAZ was deemed

effective on four criteria: Student Achievement, Student Outcome, Student Retention and

Suspensions. This evaluation was conducted with a matching mechanism of students participating

in the program and comparison schools matched on various key school-‐level characteristics21.

While there are important limitations of relying on the specific impacts and outcomes of Mass WAZ

(given their focus on student outcomes) as it pertains to any potential FXBVillage operations in the

US, the lessons learned from using a comparison group in assessing impact do lend themselves to

demonstrating effectiveness of any intervention.

31

It is again important to reemphasize that the Mass WAZ initiative is very specific in its approach,

both through its funding streams and the use of the educational system as the nexus at which is

operates. In regards to funding, the Mass WAZ received initial Race to the Top money, which is not

particularly applicable to FXBVillage. Yet, FXBVillage can seek grants from the Federal and State

governments alongside the private sector to work on their interventions.22 A few example grants

include the Entergy Micro Grant23, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Community Health

Matching Program24, and the Michigan Good Food Fund.25 To summarize, the WAZ case serves to

illustrate the opportunities and challenges of an early-‐stage holistic intervention in the United State.

Harlem Children's Zone

The team selected the Harlem Children’s Zone as the final case study to examine how an

organization can successfully implement a wraparound poverty alleviation approach in the US. The

Harlem Children’s Zone is arguably the most well-‐known and comprehensive program in the US

that engages in this approach. While their focus is on children, the model necessitates the

participation of parents to help lift families out of poverty, as well as numerous other stakeholders

and community partners.26 This approach will be valuable for FXB as they also take a holistic

approach in addressing poverty.

The Harlem Children Zone (HCZ) began in the 1990s and “set out to address not just some, but all of

the issues children and families were facing within a finite geographic area: crumbling apartments,

rampant drug use, failing schools, violent crime and chronic health problems.”27 The HCZ focuses on

doing individualized work with children that they re-‐visit and base off on the progress the youth

have made.28

The HCZ programs act as a set of gears operating in conjunction towards a common objective. Each

program is designed to address various needs of the children they serve. The programming is

bucketed into three main categories: Education, Family and Community, and Health.29 These

programming sub-‐categories are similar to the five FXB pillars in that their programming falls into

multiple sectors under the same intervention. Many of the successes of the HCZ are therefore

applicable to a potential FXB expansion.

32

Begin with a Pilot and then Innovate

HCZ began its work in just one block of Harlem. From there, they built upon the successes of the

pilot and eventually expanded to cover 97 blocks. The HCZ website reports the Children’s Zone now

works with over 11,000 youth and more than 8,000 adults.30 This gradual approach to

programming has served them well, as they have been able to build up their reputation and scale

impact. The HCZ explains how they have imbued innovation into their very organizational core.

They have introduced valuable programs when appropriate, meeting the needs they see emerge in

their communities.31

In addition, the HCZ has instituted a culture of feedback and innovation within their operations, so

they are more able to learn from past programing and continue to grow and improve based on their

results. This is reflected in one of their core principles: to “evaluate program outcomes and create a

feedback loop to provide managers with real-‐time data and strengthen services”.32

This approach to programming echoes what we have heard from other external organizations and

underscores the value in a ‘start small’ strategy. When transplanting FXB’s model to the US and as

the organization finds its footing in a drastically different landscape, it may help to begin with a

compact approach to clarify the needs of the communities and allow them to build up, rather than

drastically change programs once they have already been initiated. Furthermore, the importance of

using results and feedback loops may be beneficial for FXB’s programming, to ensure that robust

accountability measures are in place.

Fully Engage with the Community to Create Cultural Change

The HCZ stresses that their programming rests on support from the communities and families with

which they work. Their approach draws on the idea that most service providers are too limited in

their scope and do not adequately address issues stemming from the context in which the youth

grow up.33 They go on further to explain that they aim for a “pervasive presence” in a community.34

This contributes to their goal of reaching a “tipping point” in their work, at which point the culture

changes within a community.35 Furthermore, one of their core principles is to “build community

among residents, institutions and stakeholders in order to create a healthy, positive environment

where our children can thrive”.36

This commitment to partnership and community integration has been vital to the HCZ model and

can be a valuable lesson for FXB’s potential expansion to the US, as is the importance of creating

33

and sustaining cultural change. As discovered in both internal and external interviews, creating

scaleable impact goes beyond simply implementing a program. It will require thoughtful

partnerships with organizations and key stakeholders throughout the community. Furthermore, it

will be essential for FXB to ensure that there is cultural buy-‐in for their programs, at not just the

organizational level but also with their partners throughout the community.

34

Phase IV: Recommendations The team consolidated findings into the recommendations below. The recommendations fall under

two main categories: FXB Programming and FXB USA Expansion.

35

FXB Programming

RECOMMENDATION: Improve Data to Demonstrate Differential Impact Across Countries

The initial scope of this project was to conduct a cross-‐country analysis. However, this report

contains descriptive data rather than causal inferences because of data limitations. In order to build

the potential to conduct a robust cross-‐country analysis, we recommend the following data

improvements:

Form and collect data from comparison groups in order to better demonstrate and isolate FXB’s

impact. Furthermore, develop selection criteria for control groups that mirror treatment groups as

much as possible. Control groups can be expensive and difficult to implement. If these are not

immediately possible, instituting country or region-‐level controls could help triangulate program

impact. Country or region-‐level controls can be found in public database banks such as the World

Bank’s.37 While not a perfect mirror of FXBVillage beneficiaries, this will help to isolate overall

trends in the countries and distinguish them from FXB’s impact. It is important to match FXBVillage

operations’ start and end data with these controls whenever possible. For instance, census data is

only updated sporadically and thus not an ideal comparison for FXB data. However, it could prove

useful if the dates align with the beginning and ending of an FXBVillage. Country Directors could try

gain access to more local data whenever possible if a countrywide control cannot be created. This

local-‐level data could be used to construct a proxy control group.

Ensure that baseline and endline questionnaires match for each FXBVillage. Consistent use of

the same versions of the questionnaire for baseline and endline data collection within a single

village is important for data robustness, even if alterations to the standard questionnaire are made

during the tenure of existing FXBVillage operation, either through individual country tailoring or

standardized revision of the template. This reduces the risk of unclear results due to any potential

data irregularities during analysis and increases the ability to perform robust cross-‐country

analyses.

RECOMMENDATION: Institute Formalized Communications

Our interviews with both internal and external parties highlight the importance and need for

formalized communication processes between country offices and headquarters staff, in order to

share best practices and challenges, and build organizational rapport.

36

Between country offices: Ideally, an annual or biennial leadership gathering where country

directors can meet to share insights would be held. However, this can also be done in low-‐cost

and/or minimally burdensome ways, such as regular Skype calls (given time constraints, this may

need to be done in small groups or pairs), peer learning facilitated by monthly brown bags on

country progress or regular updates (or recorded learning sessions given time differences), visit

exchanges when possible, and/or appointing a designated staff member or other HQ to facilitate

communications (e.g. “This Country Director is working on X, you should talk to her/him”).

RECOMMENDATION: Clarifying Processes

There are fulsome existing relationships and processes between the various country offices and

headquarters for procedural issues while retaining necessary flexibility. However, the awareness

and sense of access to this support varies by country offices. In particular, FXB Colombia feels an

absence of clear processes, which may be related to its being the only country office reporting to

FXB USA, while all other country offices are grouped together in a separate reporting structure. It

may be due to length of time at FXB, illustrating the need to better help new staff learn internal

processes. FXB can conduct further internal research to determine the cause and support

accordingly.

Outline standard processes: Using a Powerpoint or Word document as a guideline for Country

Directors may be helpful, particularly for onboarding staff. This guideline could include direction on

who to contact about M&E questionnaire updates, various programming needs and changes, and/or

deviations from the intervention model. No time frames would be imposed, as HQ has unique and

effective working relationships with each office. An example of such a template can be found in the

appendix.

37

Considering these recommendations in aggregate, the HKS team proposes the following

implementation map:

38

United States Expansion

RECOMMENDATION: Build Flexibility and Adaptability into the FXBVillage Model

The US presents a significantly different landscape for poverty alleviation and holistic

programming. While the FXBVillage Model presents a clear and defined approach to alleviating

poverty amongst the poorest populations in developing countries, it will be necessary to adapt it to

the US context.

Assess the local contexts in which the FXBVillage will operate in order to adapt the

intervention model to address specific concerns. It is essential that FXB USA understand the local

contexts for the communities in which they program, not only within the US but also within the

state and city. Provided below is an example of potential differences to consider within each of the

five major pillars of the FXBVillage Model. These differences will be viewed through the outcomes

listed in the household questionnaire, as these should form and drive future programming.

§ Health: The current general health outcomes address a lack of access to healthcare, HIV status,

family planning, and water treatment and sanitation. In the US, access to healthcare is usually

delivered through health insurance, which the Affordable Care Act now seeks to provide for all

Americans. Those who are living in poverty have access to Medicaid, which is healthcare

coverage provided through the federal government. US-‐based outcomes should focus instead on

outcomes such as the quality of care received.

§ Income: FXBVillage currently focuses on income-‐generating activities and tracks household

consumption as a proxy for income. In the US, most income comes from formal employment;

however, those in poverty often earn insufficient wages to cover basic expenses. When wages

are low, the government often provides federal assistance through welfare programs and/or

transfer programs such as food stamps. Therefore, the focus of FXBVillage in this pillar could be

financial literacy and how individuals choose to save and spend their money, particularly when

wages are low.

§ Nutrition: Many of the nutritional outcomes that FXBVillage measures deal with a lack of basic

food staples as a proxy for malnourishment. In the US, malnourishment is less of a problem

while obesity and other nutrition-‐related ailments are increasingly prevalent in both the adult

and child population. Many individuals and families living in poverty receive food stamps from

the government to assist their purchase of food. The types of food purchased are of variable

39

nutritional quality. As such, outcomes within this pillar may be geared towards identifying a

lack of access to healthy food and improving dietary and healthy living habits.

§ Housing: FXB’s housing outcomes (in their current role as a proxy for various health

indicators) are defined based on housing conditions commonly present in developing countries.

However, certain conditions do not exist in the US, such as proximity to livestock or structural

inadequacies. In the US, many low-‐income individuals live in housing via some form of

government intervention, either as government housing or through a voucher system. Both are

regulated. Moreover, there is a substantial homeless population, which may present an

opportunity for the FXBVillage to intervene in areas such as temporary housing.

§ Education: The educational aspect of FXBVillage as it stands focuses on getting children into

primary education. Given that there is universal mandatory primary and secondary education

in the US, the FXBVillage intervention in the US could focus on students who live in poverty and

extremely low performers in schools. FXBVillage has an opportunity here to provide holistic

help in addressing factors outside the classroom affecting performance. Remedies could include

interventions such as mobile libraries, on-‐call tutors, after-‐school programming, etc.

This is not an exhaustive list but serves to highlight some potential ways to adapt to the US context.

In addition, there may be other pillars better suited towards the US context, such as criminal justice,

that could be added or incorporated within the standard FXB intervention model.

RECOMMENDATION: Identify and Cultivate Partnerships

In both internal and external research, many emphasized the importance of maintaining

partnerships with a wide variety of stakeholders, including local governments, non-‐governmental

and community-‐based organizations operating in the same environment, and donors and partners.

Build local and contextual awareness: The US will be a new programming area for FXB and it will

be essential to cultivate and build strong relationships and partnerships with those already active

in and familiar with the area. This may also help build community trust and buy-‐in for FXB

programming. Successful working partnerships have been shown to be beneficial in current

FXBVillages, such as in Uganda.

RECOMMENDATION: Start Small

External interviews in particular emphasized the importance of beginning with a pilot and then

instituting continuous improvement adaptation. Doing so may give FXB the opportunity to grow

40

and learn as they work. Opportunities to reflect on progress will be valuable in building a

sustainable FXBVillage in the US. Our main suggestion is to begin with a pilot:

Pilot first to assess initial operations of and reactions to an FXB model in an American context and

build from there. Our team believes that an FXBVillage should not serve as the direct service

provider in the US, at least not initially. Instead, forming partnerships with various organizations in

a complementary role would allow FXBVillage to not only learn the context of the locality, but also

bolster existing efforts. In a complementary role, FXBVillage could operationally work within a

neighborhood and add its expertise to existing organizations’ work. As an illustrative example, FXB

could partner with an organization working in job provision. While the existing organization

provides jobs, FXB could supply resources and local staff to develop participants’ financial literacy

skills. The FXBVillage Model should focus on particular neighborhoods in the localities in which

they operate, thus achieving more of an “FXBNeighborhood” model.

Given that Detroit is a potential future site for the FXBVillage, FXB could potentially operate in a

complementary role with the following organizations:

§ Community Development Corporations (CDCs), such as the Central Detroit Christian CDC. They

focus on creating jobs for individuals in the community along with housing stabilization, youth

programming and various other educational programming such as parenting classes.38

§ Foundations such as the Kresge Foundation, which is based in the Detroit area and works on

social investments.39

§ The City of Detroit is also a valuable stakeholder as they support residents of Detroit. The

current mayor is Michael Duggan and he has led a revitalization of Detroit.40 Rodrick Miller is

the President and CEO for the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.41 These players have an

active interest in improving the lives of the residents of Detroit and would be valuable partners

in this effort.

§ Other nonprofit organizations such as the Live6 Alliance42 or Detroit Future City.43 Both seek to

contribute to the economic revitalization of Detroit, based on ‘neighborhood’ and larger scale

models, respectively. These are examples of organizations that focus on the business and

planning aspect of development. They could provide local context to both the needs of the

community, as well as existing initiatives.

Please note that these are illustrative examples of organizations with which FXB could partner. FXB

will need to conduct a local landscape analysis to determine and finalize a list of peer organizations

41

and partners. FXB must also look to define what role the FXBVillage Model would serve after the

pilot’s conclusion. As a partner initially in a complementary role, FXB would gain a sense of what

services are needed at the neighborhood level in Detroit.

As a poverty alleviation organization, FXB could eventually implement the full FXBVillage model,

enclosing neighborhoods and providing some direct services, such as out-‐of-‐school programs,

financial literacy workshops, health screenings for HIV, and nutrition and fitness workshops.

Services in the US are likely to be relatively costly compared to existing FXBVillage operations in

developing countries. For example, the current FXBVillage Model hires three full-‐time staff -‐ a

Coordinator, Nurse Counselor and Social Worker. Wages for these employees would likely be much

greater and given the differences in needs of American participants and the potential programming

in the US, these efforts would be substantially more expensive. This provides additional rationale

for initially working in partnership, utilizing existing resources of partner organizations before

making the large commitment of becoming a direct service provider.

42

In light of these recommendations, it is important for FXB to prioritize in order to facilitate a new

FXBVillage in the US. The HKS team suggests the following prioritization of recommended action

steps:

43

Conclusion FXB is well-‐positioned to pursue opportunities in the United States. Qualitative interviews highlight

the dedication of the Country Directors and staffing teams, underscore the FXBVillage Model’s

flexibility and adaptation to local contexts, and reveal a capacity for stakeholder partnerships.

Quantitative data illustrate some positive trends from baseline to endline outcomes, though these

are limited in causality and cannot be definitively attributed to FXB. There is room for

improvement, particularly on strengthening data and communications, to allow FXB to build on its

current work.

The FXBVillage Model has sufficient flexibility at its core to allow adaptation to diverse contexts.

The American landscape is drastically different from FXB’s current locations and reflects realities

not currently captured by FXB’s questionnaires; thus, it will be imperative to be mindful of local

context in any expansion to the US. The strengths outlined above will support FXB USA in such

efforts. The balance, as ever, will be between upholding FXB’s mission and model while granting

enough flexibility for adaptation. FXB is particularly adept at finding this balance and if found in an

American context, could allow it to continue FXB’s dedication to lifting people out of extreme

poverty.

44

Appendices Appendix 1: Additional Client Background

Over the past 26 years, FXB International has implemented 165 FXBVillage programs across nine

countries.44 Today, FXB operates in many countries across the globe. FXB implements youth

trainings in vulnerable communities in Thailand, South Africa and Myanmar in the realm of

vocational skills development, life skills education and health education.45 FXB has also constructed

and rehabilitated wells in Niger, providing increased access to potable water to local populations.

FXB implements the FXBVillage Model in Rwanda, Burundi, China, Mongolia, Colombia, India, and

Uganda. Each village serves 80-‐100 families, typically 500-‐600 people. FXB’s staff numbers 450 and

is assisted by over 800 volunteers. According to FXB’s annual report, they have helped 81,000

individuals out of extreme poverty between 1989 and 2014.46 In May 2015, FXB open-‐sourced its

FXBVillage Toolkit and Planning Guide.47

The FXBVillage Model is implemented by the FXB country offices, which are supported in

administrative, fundraising and M&E capacities by FXB headquarters (USA, Switzerland and

France). The country offices are designed to be locally focused with locally recruited staff, in order

to tailor to context while upholding the overall FXBVillage Model. At present, four country offices

are registered as community-‐based organizations.

45

Appendix 2: Selected Questionnaire Questions

Questions for analysis and for control were taken from “FXB Village Program: Household

Questionnaire (version 2.3 – 27th February 2012)”

NUTRITION (Nutrition Pillar)

Question NU3: Would you say the quantity of food available for your household over the past 3

months has been:

(1) Plenty (2) Just Enough (3) Not Quite Enough (4) Not Nearly Enough

In analyzing this question, the HKS team combined responses for (1) and (2) as “Enough Food” and

(3) and (4) as “Not Enough Food,” and created a dummy variable with responses (0) and (1). A (0)

would indicate that the respondent answered (3) or (4) to the original question, or “Not Quite

Enough,” or “Not Nearly Enough,” while a (1) would indicate that the respondent answered (1) or

(2) to the original question, or “Plenty,” or “Just Enough.”

GENERAL HEALTH (Health Pillar)

Question GH1: Do you currently have access to health care services? For example, access to

vaccinations for children, care in the event of fever, diarrhea, etc.?

(1) No (2) Yes (8) Do not know

PSYCHOSOCIAL (Health Pillar)

Question PS12: Are you currently receiving any regular counseling or advice?

(1) No (2) Yes

WATER AND SANITATION AND ENVIRONMENT (Housing Pillar)

Question WS4: Do you treat your water in any way to make it safer to drink?

(1) No (2) Yes (8) Do Not Know

46

EDUCATION AND SUPPORT (Education Pillar)

Question AA17: What is the school enrolment status of (name)?

In analyzing this question, the HKS team used question AA17 to total the number of kids per

household and the enrollment status of each child. The team then created a percentage of kids in

each household that were reported as “enrolled.”

HOUSEHOLD FINANCES/ECONOMICS (Income Pillar)

Question EC3: In a typical week, how much money is spent by members of the household on: food?

Question EC4: In a typical week, how much money is spent by members of the household on: water (including water purification costs)?

Question EC5: In a typical week, how much money is spent by members of the household on: fuel or electricity (For cooking/heating/lighting)?

Question EC6: In a typical week, how much money is spent by members of the household on: transport?

Question EC7: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: clothing and shoes?

Question EC8: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: household supplies (kitchen supplies, soap & hygiene products, stationary tools, etc.)?

Question EC9: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: medical expenses (medicine, doctors fees, etc.)?

Question EC10: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: education (e.g. school fees, equipment, etc.)?

Question EC11: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: repair and maintenance (e.g. house repairs, clothing repairs, bike repairs, etc.)?

Question EC12: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: tax and rent (e.g. house rent, land tax, housing tax, etc.)?

Question EC13: In a typical month, how much money is spent by members of the household on: any other expenses (not already mentioned, for example: mobile phone, etc.)?

In analyzing this question, the HKS team totaled each of the above questions and converted any

weekly totals to monthly totals to create a monthly income proxy (using consumption).

47

CONTROL VARIABLES

The following questions were asked of the member of the household who spends the most time

taking care of the children.

Question HD3: What is your age?

Question HD4: What is your sex/gender?

Question HD5: Have you ever attended school?

Question HD15: How many people live in your household in total (including yourself)?

The following questions were asked of the household member who knows most about the

household finances. Questions EC14 and EC16 were combined into one variable,

debtsavings_monthly.

Question EC14: In a typical month, how much money do members of the household: use to repay debts?

Question EC16: In a typical month, how much money do members of the household: put into savings?

All of the above were used as control variables in our regression analysis. The income proxy was

also used as a control in the regressions other than the income analysis.

48

Appendix 3: Regression Results

RWANDA

Coefficient P-‐Value CI Lower CI Upper

Nutrition .922 .000 .834 1.00

Health Care Services .246 .005 .074 .418

Psychosocial Support .982 .000 .952 1.00

Water Treatment .506 .000 .339 .672

Consumption as Income Proxy

1.83 .000 1.44 2.21

BURUNDI


Nutrition .938 .000 .734 1.00

Health Care Services .438 .008 .117 .759

Psychosocial Support .447 .001 .191 .704

Consumption as Income Proxy

.407 .010 .101 .712

CHINA


Nutrition .100 .008 .027 .174

Health Care Services -‐.168 .015 -‐.303 -‐.033

Water Treatment .942 .000 .880 1.00

Baseline Endline

Education 33.61% 81.90%

49

Appendix 4: List of Interviewees

Name Organization/Affiliation

INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

William Kibaalya FXB Uganda

Emmanuel Habyarimana FXB Rwanda

Bruce Lee FXB China

Mamta Borgoyary FXB India

Cécile Lavergne FXB Colombia

Sacha Jeanneret Program Performance and Innovation Manager, FXB International

EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS

John Haines MercyCorps Northwest

Staff Member Grameen America

Rebecca Shor Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary School Education -‐ Office of District and School Turnaround

50

Appendix 5: Internal Stakeholder Interview Questions

1. Could you please describe the current programming within your country office?

2. How is FXBVillage implemented in your country?

3. Is programming targeted at both urban and rural settings? If so, please describe any major

differences.

4. How do you measure outcomes? What does your M&E look like? Do you use the M&E tools

developed by FXB International to measure your programs?

5. How have you tailored the FXB model and M&E tools, such as the household questionnaire,

to fit local needs? Please describe this process of customization. Have there been any

challenges or lessons learned?

6. How much of your organizational resources are devoted to M&E? Do you believe that this is

an appropriate level?

7. What are the biggest challenges to program implementation your office faces?

8. What are your office’s operational or programmatic strengths?

9. How does your office communicate with other country offices and with FXB International?

Is there an effort to standardize efforts or share best practices? If not, do you see value in

increased standardization efforts and/or sharing best practices?

51

Appendix 6: External Stakeholder Interview Questions

MercyCorps 1. How do you constantly evolve and innovate within this context?

2. What prompted MC to expand into the US?

3. What were the challenges associated with an expansion?

4. How did you consider the new context? What actions did you take to learn about the

landscape and establish yourselves?

5. What have you learned since the expansion about your programming?

6. What did you think was important for United States stakeholders as opposed to foreign

ones?

7. How did you find partners? Where did you look and what did you consider?

8. How do you maintain your mission and vision of Change throughout your programs, even

after you tailor them to specific contexts?

9. Shift in programming? From humanitarian efforts to development?

Grameen Bank

1. When and how did you decide to expand into the United States? Was it that you saw an

opportunity in the United States landscape? Why did you want to expand?

2. How long was the start-‐up process for the U.S. operations?

Massachusetts Wraparound Zone Initiative

1. Why are you engaged in this WAZ Initiative this?

2. Tell us how this program works?

3. Please describe the process of Mass WAZ and its implementation.

4. What are the major hurdles facing Mass WAZ?

5. Are there plans to scale?

6. What was the process of going into a new school like?

7. Can this operate independently?

8. Politically how was this been received? Who are your allies? Publication, promotion?

9. What are the results? Have you been successful? If so, why? If not, why?

10. Are there elements that are more effective than others?

52

Appendix 7: Example Flow Chart for a Specific Formalized Process

53

1 Client Materials, provided March 2016. 2 "The Five Pillars of the FXBVillage Methodology." FXB USA. FXBUsa Tumblr, 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. 2 "The Five Pillars of the FXBVillage Methodology." FXB USA. FXBUsa Tumblr, 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://fxbusa.tumblr.com/post/117250071951/the-‐five-‐pillars-‐of-‐the-‐fxbvillage-‐methodology>. 3 FXBVillage Toolkit and Planning Guide. Rep. FXB International. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <https://fxb.org/toolkit/>. 4 Client Materials, provided March 2016. 5 Interview with William Kibaalya, Uganda Country Director, January 25 2016 6 Note: Additional interviews required for further details 7 "Our Mission." Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps, 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <https://www.mercycorps.org/about-‐us/our-‐mission>. 8 "Our Work." Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <https://www.mercycorps.org/about-‐us/our-‐work>. 9 "Our History." Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps, 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <https://www.mercycorps.org/about-‐us/our-‐history>. 10 Ibid. 11 "John Haines: Filling a Niche." Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps, 01 Dec. 2007. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/john-‐haines-‐filling-‐niche>. 12 "Grameen America | Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential." Grameen America. Grameen Foundation, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.grameenfoundation.org/about/related-‐organizations/grameen-‐america>. 13 "Grameen America Model Alleviates Poverty." The Grameen Model Alleviates Poverty. Grameen America, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.grameenamerica.org/model>. 14 "Grameen America's Impact." Impact | Grameen America. Grameen America, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.grameenamerica.org/impact>. 15 Shaila, Dewan. “Microcredit for Americans.” New York Times. Oct. 28, 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/business/microcredit-‐for-‐americans.html>. 16 Wraparound Basics – What is Wraparound." NWI Wraparound Basics. National Wraparound Initiative. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://nwi.pdx.edu/wraparound-‐basics/#whatiswraparound>. 17 "Wraparound Basics." NWI Wraparound Basics. National Wraparound Initiative. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. < http://nwi.pdx.edu/wraparound-‐basics/>. 18 "Mass ESE Wraparound Zone Initiative." Mass Wraparound Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.masswaz.org/>. 19 Jones, Colin A. "Uplifting the Whole Child: Using Wraparound Services to Overcome Social Barriers to Learning -‐ MassBudget." Uplifting the Whole Child: Using Wraparound Services to Overcome Social Barriers to Learning -‐ MassBudget. MassBudget, 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=Uplifting_the_Whole_Child.html>. 20 Ibid. 21 Gandhi, Allison et al. “Focusing on the Whole Student: Final Report on the Massachusetts Wraparound Zones.” American Institutes of Research. Aug 12, 2015. <http://www.air.org/resource/focusing-‐whole-‐student-‐final-‐report-‐massachusetts-‐wraparound-‐zones>. 22 Grants from state and local governments are quite specific, thus examples will be left for future research from FXB staff. 23 More information about the Entergy Micro Grants can be found here: http://www.entergy.com/our_community/micro_grant_guidelines.aspx. 24 More information about the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Community Health Matching Program here: http://www.bcbsm.com/content/microsites/foundation/en/grants.html. 25 More information on the Michigan Good Food Fund Grants can be found here: http://www.migoodfoodfund.org/financing. 26 "About HCZ." Harlem Children's Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/about-‐us/>. 27 "History & Origins of HCZ." Harlem Children’s Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/about-‐us/history/>.

54

28 "About HCZ." Harlem Children's Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/about-‐us/>. 29 "Our Programs." Harlem Children's Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/our-‐programs/>. 30 "History & Origins of HCZ." Harlem Children’s Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/about-‐us/history/>. 31Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Whatever It Takes: A White Paper on the Harlem Children’s Zone. Rep. Harlem Children’s Zone. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://wac.adef.edgecastcdn.net/80ADEF/hcz.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/04/HCZ-‐White-‐Paper.pdf>. 34 Ibid 35 "History & Origins of HCZ." Harlem Children’s Zone. Harlem Children's Zone, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://hcz.org/about-‐us/history/>. 36 Ibid. 37 More information can be found at the World Bank’s website: http://data.worldbank.org 38 More information can be found at the Central Detroit Christian CDC’s website: http://centraldetroitchristian.org. "CDC -‐ Central Detroit Christian | CDC Strives to Instill Faith, Hope, and Values in the Community." CDC Central Detroit Christian RSS2. Central Detroit Christian. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://centraldetroitchristian.org/>. 39 More information can be found at the Kresge Foundation’s website: http://kresge.org. "Home | The Kresge Foundation." Home | The Kresge Foundation. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://kresge.org/>. 40 Dolan, Matthew. "Mayor Aims to Reverse Detroit Exodus." The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 22 June 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/mayor-‐mike-‐duggan-‐aims-‐to-‐reverse-‐detroit-‐exodus-‐1403480663>. 41 "Rodrick Miller." Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.degc.org/degc-‐staff/rodrick-‐miller>. 42 More information can be found at the Live6 Alliance’s website: http://live6detroit.org. "Home -‐ Live6 Alliance." Live6 Alliance. Live6 Alliance. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://live6detroit.org/>. 43 More information can be found at the Detroit Future City’s website: http://detroitfuturecity.com. "Detroit Future City | The Starting Point for Advancing the Transformation of Detroit." Detroit Future City | The Starting Point for Advancing the Transformation of Detroit. Detroit Future City. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://detroitfuturecity.com/>. 44 Client Materials, provided March 2016. 45 Client Materials, provided March 2016. 46 Annual Report 2014. Rep. FXB International, 2015. Web. 28 March 2016. <https://fxb.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/04/FXB-‐International-‐Annual-‐Report-‐2014.pdf>. 47 A link to FXBVillage Toolkit and Planning Guide can be found here for download: https://fxb.org/toolkit/

Documents

HKS - PAE Final for FXB - April 2016usa.fxb.org/wp-content/uploads/HKS-PAE-Final-for-FXB-April-2016.pdf · Exploring*Program*Customization* &ExpansionforFXBUSA* PolicyAnalysis*Exercise*!

HKS - PAE Final for FXB - April 2016usa.fxb.org/wp-content/uploads/HKS-PAE-Final-for-FXB-April-2016.pdf · ExploringProgramCustomization* &ExpansionforFXBUSA* PolicyAnalysisExercise!