Access To Markets

Learning Evaluation

Nine organizations participated in the Access to Markets demonstration and accompanying learning assessment. Seven of the projects were part of a multi-year demonstration funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation between 1998 and 2001, while two additional projects – RainKist of Willapa Bay, Wash. and ACEnet of Athens, Ohio – also participated and received Mott support. The evaluation consisted of four components:

Component 1: Annual Program Monitoring
This was an annual survey completed by programs designed to generate basic information on program activities and performance – numbers and typology of clients served, program services provided, and program performance issues such as cost.

Component 2: Case Studies and Targeted Documentation of Interventions
Three organizations partnered with the Aspen Institute to complete in-depth case studies of their ATM strategies. The case studies documented program interventions and how they evolved and performed over time. They involved regular check-ins with program staff as they worked to refine their methodologies and in-depth documentation of selected strategies showing significant promise for learning or replication. Findings include lessons learned about what did and did not work, and insights about why.

Component 3: Longitudinal Tracking of Participant Businesses’ Sales
This component involved longitudinal tracking that focused on the sales experiences of participants' businesses over time and their individual marketing strategies. Baseline information was collected from participants upon entry into the microenterprise program and immediately upon graduation or termination. In addition, follow-up interviews were conducted at approximately 12- and 24-month intervals.

Component 4: Meetings of Grantees and Evaluation Staff
Annual meetings of programs, FIELD staff and donors served several purposes. First, they provided an opportunity for peer exchange among the grantees – an opportunity to discuss the key challenges they faced in implementing their demonstration programs, and lessons learned regarding program strategy and practice. Second, they provided an opportunity for practitioners to reflect upon and discuss learning and experiences from the evaluation.