LWR NUMBERS 2015

FOUNDED IN 1945 by U.S. Lutherans to respond LWR by the Numbers is one of a number of from our programs, and can also verify that to the humanitarian needs of post-war Europe, initiatives that LWR is undertaking in order to the impact is indeed lasting over time. Better Lutheran World Relief (LWR) today reaches tell a better, more concrete and specific story data collection, information management and millions of people around the world through about the breadth and depth of LWR’s work and regular strategic analysis allow LWR to learn, its programs in emergency response and its impact on the people we serve. LWR by the plan, grow and improve our accountability to sustainable development. Numbers provides information about the scale both local beneficiaries and our wider public and breakdown of our work. To dig deeper into of stakeholders. Learn more about our robust Driven by local needs and working with local ways that our work has changed the lives of evaluation tools at programs.lwr.org. partners, LWR focuses on underserved rural beneficiaries, we are using project and program communities, with particular emphasis on evaluation tools that can confirm positive impact improving livelihoods for small-scale farmers and on ensuring sustainability by strengthening the capacity of local organizations. LWR holds WHERE WE WORK itself to the highest standards of transparency, accountability and stewardship, testing innovative approaches then seeking ways to bring proven methods to scale.

LWR by the Numbers is a collection of organizational data that provides a snapshot of our work worldwide in 2015.††

The data are organized into several groups:

• People who directly participated in LWR programs (direct beneficiaries)

• People who indirectly benefited from LWR programs (indirect beneficiaries) ACTIVE IN 36 COUNTRIES | 16 FIELD OFFICES • The number of LWR projects and beneficiaries, according to LWR’s programmatic international strategic objectives1 and separated by LWR’s AFRICA ASIA & LATIN AMERICA OTHER MATERIAL three key regions of work: Africa, † MIDDLE EAST Bolivia greece** RESOURCE † Asia and Latin America †* * † hungary** DISTRIBUTION † † Angola Liberia serbia** • The number of local partners by region † Guatemala Djibouti † † • The amount of LWR funds spent on Mauritania Ghana † Palestine** † international programs according to † † region and strategic objective Lebanon † Vanuatu* † Thailand † Yemen Georgia Ukraine †† Data contained in this report are from LWR’s fiscal year 2015, which runs October 2014 through September 2015, and refer to † LWR’s work in the 36 countries where LWR supports projects or Countries with LWR Field Offices *ACT Appeal response in addition to program work **ACT Appeal response only Material Resource distributions. Material Resource distribution in addition to program work 1 LWR Projects Active in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 1-1 126 total projects

33 31 30 27 5

Active Projects in Africa Active Projects Active Projects in Material Resources in asia latin america Distributions 1-2 Emergency Appeals with LWR Contributions 1-3 2 LWR Projects According to International Objective 2-1

Projects Engaged in Projects Engaged in Projects Engaged in Projects Engaged in Agriculture 2-2 Climate Change 2-3 Emergency Response and Health and Livelihoods 2-5 Material Resources 2-4

TOTAL 61 TOTAL 29 TOTAL 61 TOTAL 3

Africa 21 Africa 10 Africa 22 Africa 3

Asia & Middle East 16 Asia & Middle East 9 Asia & Middle East 26 Asia & Middle East 0

Latin America 24 Latin America 10 Latin America 5 Latin America 0

Projects Worldwide 8 3 Total Life of Project Beneficiaries Served by LWR Projects in FY20153-1 4,057,849 Direct and Indirect Beneficiaries 3-2

DIRECT Beneficiaries INDIRECT Beneficiaries 1,147,295 2,910,554

314,675 2,421,814 72,099 61,887

152,427 336,313

DIRECT BENEFICIARIES DIRECT BENEFICIARIES RECEIVING LWR MATERIAL ASSISTED THROUGH ACT EMERGENCY RESOURCES WORLDWIDE APPEALS 3-3 WORLDWIDE 676,057 22,577

See Endnotes on Page 4 for explanations of notes 4 Partners Implementing 7 International Program LWR Projects in FY2015 4-1 Expenses by Objective 7-1 104 total partners Money Spent on Agricultural Projects

32 26 28 18 TOTAL $9,058,272 Africa $2,818,722 partners in Africa partners partners in in asia latin america Asia & Middle East $961,098 Material Resource Distribution partners 4-2 Latin America $4,031,792 US, Worldwide & Cross-Cutting $1,246,660

Money Spent on Emergency 5 Farmers Engaged in Response and Material Resources 7-2 Activities to Improve TOTAL $29,598,904 5-1 Agriculture in FY2015 Africa $11,088,705 Asia & Middle East $11,814,539 207,768 total farmers Latin America $1,624,353 US, Worldwide & 107,766 31,843 68,159 Cross-Cutting $5,071,307

Farmers in Africa Farmers Farmers in in asia latin america Money Spent on Climate Change Projects

TOTAL $2,461,647 Africa $316,331 6 Program Expenses Asia & Middle East $588,133 6-1 in FY2015 Latin America $1,260,672 US, Worldwide & Cross-Cutting $296,511 TOTAL EXPENSES $43,262,566 Expenses in Africa $14,720,811 Money Spent on Health Expenses in Asia $13,363,770 and Livelihoods Projects Expenses in Latin America $6,916,817 TOTAL $564,814 Other Worldwide 6.2 $2,304,432 Africa $497,053 Cross-Cutting Program Management 6-3 $5,956,736 Asia & Middle East $0

Latin America $0 US, Worldwide & Cross-Cutting $67,761

See Endnotes on Page 4 for explanations of notes ENDNOTES 1: LWR’s Objectives: 3-1: “Life of Project” beneficiaries means the number of beneficiaries AGRICULTURE: Improve small producer livelihoods by scaling up participating in the project for the whole duration of the project (often agricultural value chain and initiatives. several years) or at any point in the project. The vast majority of LWR’s EMERGENCIES AND MATERIAL RESOURCES: Reduce the impact of beneficiaries work with us from the start of the project, and support emergencies by pre-positioning and mobilizing human, monetary, to the same target group of people will continue holistically through and material resources. the end of the project. CLIMATE CHANGE: Build the capacity of communities to adapt to 3-2: DIRECT beneficiaries are project participants who benefit directly and mitigate the effects of climate change. from project activities whereas INDIRECT beneficiaries are not HEALTH AND LIVELIHOODS: Expand LWR’s integrated health and involved directly in project activities but can still receive secondary livelihoods approach to reduce the socioeconomic effects of diseases benefits from those activities. LWR partners and local staff of poverty. This objective was part of a previous strategy and is being determine who is counted as “direct” and “indirect” beneficiaries phased out. Consequently, its low number of projects and low level of on a per-project basis to reflect each project’s specific nature and expenditure reflect projects that are drawing to a close. context. For example, some agriculture projects may be working CONSTITUENT ENGAGEMENT: LWR has an additional objective, directly with one farmer per family, and would count that farmer as Constituent Engagement, focused on engaging US Lutherans and a direct beneficiary, with his/her family as indirect beneficiaries. But key stakeholders in LWR’s mission. This objective’s programmatic the nature of another type of agriculture project may be to provide data is not represented in this document. For more information on support to a family farm, where most or all members of the family how this objective affects LWR’s financials or how to get involved, would be direct participants, and thus direct beneficiaries, and a visit lwr.org. wider definition, such as neighbors or extended family who learn 1-1: The term projects is meant to encompass both development and from them, could be counted as indirect beneficiaries in that case. emergency response projects, Material Resource (or Quilts and 3-3: ACT is an alliance of 137 churches and related organizations Kits) distributions, and emergency appeals that were designed and that work together in humanitarian assistance, advocacy and implemented by other organizations without LWR’s programmatic development. In almost any emergency, one or more ACT members input, but to which LWR provided some financial support. FY2015 = are already working in the community and are able to begin an Oct. 1, 2014 - Sept. 30, 2015. Includes all projects active during the immediate response. ACT coordinates fund raising for the response period regardless of the duration of activity during that period. Projects through Emergency Appeals to its member agencies, allowing alliance could be active from one day to one year within the fiscal year. members to support disaster response through ACT partners. 1-2: Material Resource distributions worldwide, including countries where 4-1: LWR defines “partners” as local organizations involved in LWR does not have an office or support development projects. This implementing LWR program activities. includes LWR’s Quilt & Kit Ministry (Note: all Material Resource 4-2: Distributions in FY15 were Quilts and Kits). Includes LWR partners in countries where LWR does not have an active presence and partners in countries where LWR has an active presence 1-3: “Emergency appeals” refers to situations in which LWR contributes but only assisted with Material Resource distributions, not full projects. funding to emergency responses, but does not implement any of the 5-1: funded emergency response activities. Examples include responses “Farmers” refers to any beneficiaries who engaged in an LWR through the global alliance Action by Churches Together (ACT). supported project with an agricultural component. This includes people Data about emergency responses undertaken directly by LWR are who work in a range of activities involved with agriculture, including but included in the regional project data figures above. not limited to, production, processing, or marketing. 6-1: 2-1: Many projects include activities in multiple sectors; therefore, the Program Expenses, by region, include costs incurred within each total number of projects according to sector is greater than the total region and related program management costs. number of projects overall. “Engaged” means that the project had at 6-2: Includes costs of emergency responses in regions not covered by least one component related to that sector. LWR regional offices and other worldwide program support not 2-2: Examples of agriculture projects include, but are not limited to, specific to a particular country. technical assistance for farmers, access to farm inputs and credit, 6-3: Includes program expenses for international program management and crop diversification. and other cross-cutting program activities not linked to one region, 2-3: Examples of climate change projects include, but are not limited to, such as gender integration, emergency response support, public policy, disaster risk reduction and coastal resilience, watershed management, constituent engagement and monitoring, evaluation and learning. and helping rural communities adapt to changing weather patterns. 7-1: International Program Expenses by Objective includes direct 2-4: Examples of emergency relief projects include, but are not limited costs by sector and region, plus related proportional cross-cutting to, Quilt and Kit distributions, cash for work, food distributions, and program and management costs, for international programming. direct cash transfers. 7-2: Total spent on emergencies and material resources includes 2-5: Examples of health and livelihoods projects include, but are not $12,690,123 cash value equivalent of donated material resources limited to, malaria awareness and prevention education projects shipped. funded through the Lutheran Malaria Initiative, and community- managed health care funds.

lwr.org