1 Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes (FASO) Program Title II, Multi-Year Assistance Program CRS Burkina Faso Cooperative Agreement #: AID-FFP-10-00013 Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 i Acknowledgement The members of the evaluation team would like to gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the staff of the FASO Program. Special thanks go to the staff from all of the consortium partners who went out of their way to provide logistical support to enable the team to implement a complicated evaluation schedule. We would also like to thank the technical and implementing staff from all of the partners for supporting the field work, participating in various events during the evaluation, and providing insights while answering our multitudinous questions. Innumerable program participants and beneficiaries have also provided useful responses to our questions and participated in stimulating discussions. Our gratitude goes out to them as well. Hopefully we've listened well, our observations are grounded in reality, our assessment is accurate, and our recommendations are useful. Sincerely, Désiré Yerbanga, FASO Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Coordinator, CRS Burkina Faso Edouard Nonguierma, FASO Program Coordinator, CRS Burkina Faso EYG Kumodzie, Commodity Management Specialist, Independent Consultant Ms. Meredith Stakem, Regional Technical Adviser MCHN, CRS West Africa Ms. Mary Hennigan, MPH Senior Technical Adviser Nutrition, CRS Headquarters Office , Mr. Mike DeVries, Program Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist This report was made public by support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement AID-FFP-10-00013. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the Government of the United States of America FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 B. BACKGROUND 3 B.1. Overview of the FASO Program Strategy 3 B.2. Program Operating Environment 4 B.3. Evaluation Methodology 7 C. ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS 8 C.1. SO1 ANR Overview 8 C.1.1. IR 1.1 Increased Agricultural Production 9 Output 1.1.1: Diversified Agricultural Inputs. 9 Output 1.1.2. Improved Agricultural Production Techniques 13 Output 1.1.3. Land Improvement 16 C.1.2. IR 1.2 Increased Agricultural Revenue 21 Output 1.2.1: Threshing Sesame and Rice 21 Output 1.2.2: Storing Cowpea. 21 Output 1.2.3: Parboiled Rice Value Chain. 23 Output 1.2.4: Access to Markets 25 Output 1.2.5: Financing Productive Activities. 26 C.2. SO2 MCHN Overview 29 C.2.1. IR 2.1 Health, Nutrition & Hygiene Practices 33 Outputs 2.1.1, 2.1.2.,2.1.4, & 2.1.5. Knowledge and Practices 33 Output 2.1.3. Hygiene and Sanitation 36 C.2.2. IR 2.2 Access to Health Services 37 Output 2.2.1. Health Center Services 37 Output 2.2.2. Access to Health Care 42 C.3. SO3 Governance Overview 42 C.3.1. IR 3.1 CBO Capacity Building 46 Output 3.1.1: Village Development Committees 46 Output 3.1.2: Functional Literacy Capacities 48 C.3.2. IR 3.2 PTAs, MAs and VDCS Supporting School Canteens 49 Output 3.2.1: School Feeding 49 Output 3.2.2.: Take Home Rations 50 Output 3.2.3: PTAs, MAs and VDCs Capacity Building 51 D. CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 52 D.1. Gender 52 D.2. Behavorial Change Communications 53 D.3. Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation 55 E. PROGRAM TARGETING AND IMPACT 55 E.1. Targeting - Who is Benefitting? 55 E.1.1. Total Beneficiaries and Overlap 55 E.1.2. Targeting Within SOs 56 E.2. Current Program Impact and Threats to Sustaining Impact 58 F. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEMS 62 F.1. Program Management and Coordination 62 F.2. Partnership 63 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 iii F.3. Knowledge Management (including Monitoring and Evaluation) 64 F.4. Program Integration and Complementarity 68 F.5. Financial Resource Management 69 F.6. Commodity Management 70 F.7. Human Resource Management 73 G. CONCLUDING REMARKS 74 ANNEXES Annex A Mid-Term Evaluation Plan 76 Annex B Places Visited and People Interviewed 111 Annex C Summary of Mid-Term Evaluation Recommendations 118 Annex D Timelines for SO1 Recommendations 128 Annex E Knowledge Management Summary 132 Annex F Full Commodity Management Report 134 TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Resource Summary 4 Table 2. Phasing for the FASO Program 4 Table 3. Indicators for SO1 and Related IRs 8 Table 4. Targets for Output 1.1.1 Agricultural Inputs and Projected Achievement 9 through the End of IY3 Table 5. Targets for Output 1.1.2 Improved Techniques and Projected Achievement 13 through the End of IY3 Table 6. Targets for Output 1.1.3 Land Improvement and Projected Achievement 16 through the End of IY3 Table 7. Targets for Output 1.2.1 Threshing Rice & Sesame and Projected Achievement 21 through the End of IY3 Table 8. Targets for Output 1.2.2 Storing Cowpea and Projected Achievement 22 through the End of IY3 Table 9. Targets for Output 1.2.3 Parboiled Rice and Projected Achievement 24 through the End of IY3 Table 10. Targets for Output 1.2.4 Access to Markets and Projected Achievement 25 through the End of IY3 Table 11. Targets for Output 1.2.3 Access to Capital and Projected Achievement 27 through the End of IY3 Figure 1 The FFP Basic PM2A Package 30 Table 12. Summary of Key Inputs for SO2 30 Table 13. Indicators for SO2 and Related IRs and Achievement at the End of IY2 32 Table 14. Output Targets for Output 2.1 and Achievement at the End of IY2 33 Table 15. Output Targets for Output 2.1 4 and Achievement at the End of IY2 34 Table 16. Output Targets for Output 2.5 and Achievement at the End of IY2 34 Figure 2. Timeline for IR2.1 Recommendations 36 Table 17. Output Targets for Output 2.3 and Achievement at the End of IY2 367 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 iv Table 18. Output Targets for Output 2.1 and Achievement at the End of IY2 38 Table 19. Training for Facility-Based Staff 39 Figure 3: Current Logic Structure for SO3 Governance 43 Figure 4: Proposed Revised Logic Structure for SO3 Governance 44 Table 20. Indicators for SO3 and Related IRs 45 Table 21. Targets for Output 3.1.1 Village Development Committees and Projected 46 Achievement through the End of IY3 Table 22. Targets for Output 3.1.2. Adult Literacy and Projected Achievement 48 through the End of IY3 Table 23. Targets for Output 3.2.1 School Feeding and Projected Achievement 49 through the End of IY3 Table 24. Targets for Output 3.2.2 Take Home Rations and Projected Achievement 50 through the End of IY3 Table 25. Targets for Output 3.2.3 Sustainable School Canteens and Projected 51 Achievement through the End of IY3 Table 26. Targets for Behavioral Change Communications and Projected Achievement 53 through the End of IY3 Figure 5 Targeting Diagram from the FASO Program Proposal 56 Table 27. Current Impact in FASO and Threats to Sustaining the Impact 59 Table 28. Link Between Annual Surveys and Statistics by FY in the IPTT 66 Table 29. Implementing Partners by SO and District 68 Table 30. Cash Expenditure Summary Projected Through March 2013 (US$) 69 Table 31. Approved Commodities for the FASO Program 70 Table 32. Commodity Call Forwards and Arrival Dates 71 Table 33. Monetization Cost Recovery in the FASO Program 72 Table 34. Commodity Loss Summary for Distributed Commodities (MT) 73 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACT African Conservative Tillage Network ANC Antenatal Care ATP Agribusiness and Trade Promotion ATT Association Tin Tua ARR Annual Results Reports BCC Behavioral Change Communications BUBD Best Used by Date CAWT Conservation Agriculture with Trees CBO Community-Based Organization CCEB Cadre de Concertation des ONG et Associations Actives en Éducation de Base au Burkina Faso CFA Communauté Financière d'Afrique CHW Community Health Worker CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation CMO Commodity Management Office CORE Core Group (coalition of non-profit global health organizations) CSB Corn Soy Blend CSR Commodity Status Report CRS Catholic Relief Services CVN Comite Villageois de Nutrition DADI Direction des Aménagements et du Développement de l'Irrigation DAP Development Assistance Program DIP Detailed Implementation Plan DN Direction de la Nutrition DPEBA Direction Provinciale de l’Enseignement de Base et de l’Alphabétisation DSME Direction de la Santé de la Mère et de l’Enfant ENA Essential Nutrition Actions FACOM Facilitateur Communitaire FARF Income-Generating Activities for Women Assistance Fund FASO Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes FFP Food for Peace FFW Food for Work FY Fiscal Year GoBF Government of Burkina Faso GRAINE Groupe d’Accompagnement à l’Investissement et à l’Epargne GRET Groupe de Recherche et d’Echange Technologiques HA Hectare HH Households HKI Helen Keller International HQ Headquarters IEE Initial Environmental Examination IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center IMCI Integrated Management of Childhood Illness INERA Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherche Agricole IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 vi IR Intermediate Result IY Implementation Year IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding LM Lead Mothers LOA Life of Activity M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MA Mother's Association MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition MCHN Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MENA Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de l’Alphabétisation MIS Market Information System MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoH Ministry of Health MoSW Ministry of Social Welfare MOU Memorandum of Understanding MT Metric Tons MTE Mid-Term Evaluation MUAC Middle Upper Arm Circumference MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program NGO Non-Governmental Organization NLO National Literacy Office OCADES Organisation Catholique pour le Développement et la Solidarité OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance PM Project Manager PM2A Prevention of Malnutrition Under 2 Approach PREP Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal PSP Private Service Provider PTA Parent Teachers Association PVS Participatory Variety Selection QWICR Quarterly Web Interface Commodity Reporting RSR Recipient Status Report SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition SILC Savings and Internal Lending Communities SO Strategic Objective TANGO Technical Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VDC Village Development Committee VSL Village Savings and Lending WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WASA West African Seeds Alliance WFP World Food Program WUA Water Users Association FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 1 Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes (FASO) Program MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Catholic Relief Services (CRS) commissioned a Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes (FASO) being implemented by a consortium of five implementing partners1 under the leadership of CRS in three health districts of northern and eastern Burkina Faso. The program has three components, (1) an agriculture and natural resource management component which focuses on increasing agricultural production and increasing revenue from sales of farm production, (2) a maternal and child health and nutrition component that is focused on a prevention of child malnutrition approach, and (3) a governance and education component building capacities for community-based groups and implementing school feeding. The total program cost to Food for Peace (FFP) at approval was estimated to reach US$ 37,760,500 with 29,914 MT of commodities for monetization and distribution. A cost-sharing commitment of US$ 87,594 was made at the time of the approval. Changes since the program began indicate that the current total program cost to FFP at present is US$ 39,702,451, including approved carry-over of US$ 1,941,951 from the previous Title II Development Assistance Program. The program is targeting having impact on 58,633 food insecure households over a period of five years from 10 June 2010 through 31 May 2015. The Mid-Term Evaluation was conducted by a team of two external consultants2 who focused on SO1 and commodity management, respectively, two maternal and child health and nutrition technical specialists for CRS3 from outside Burkina Faso who focused on SO2, and two staff from within the FASO Program4 who focused on SO3. The evaluation was conducted in Burkina Faso over the period from May 13 through June 15, 2013. The team reviewed existing secondary sources of information, reviewed available quantitative information and used qualitative survey methods to obtain information to understand the progress and impact achieved by FASO toward formulating recommendations for the remaining life of the program. The MTE team found that the FASO Program has made progress on nearly all proposed activities, and the evaluation did not find that any parts of the proposed strategy had become irrelevant due to changes in the context. The following highlights emerged from the evaluation relative to impact currently being generated.  The availability of high quality seed at the right time is having good impact on increasing agricultural production. 1 Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echange Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement et la Solidarité (OCADES), Association Tin Tua (ATT) and Catholic Reief Service (CRS) 2 Mike DeVries, Program Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist, who led the team and focused on SO1 and program processes. Yao Gemega Kumodzie, Commodity Management Specialist, undertook the commodity management information gathering and analysis. 3 Mary Hennigan, Senior Technical Adviser Nutrition, CRS Headquarters Office and Meredith Stakem, Regional Technical Adviser MCHN, CRS West Africa 4 Désiré Yerbanga, FASO Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Coordinator, and Edouard Nonguierma, FASO Program Coordinator FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 2  There is not yet much evidence of wide-scale adoption of the agricultural technologies and techniques being promoted, but it is likely that some of the improved practices, such as intercropping cowpea with millet/sorghum and use of improved compost will be adopted since the demonstrations are showing clear benefits.  The lowland infrastructural development is improving the productivity of land for producing rice, and the zai is improving productivity of marginal land.  The triple-lined sacks are enabling cowpea producers to obtain higher prices by selling later in the year when prices are better.  Parboiler groups that have access to markets are benefiting from being able to producer higher volumes of parboiled rice.  There is little evidence yet of substantial impact from the marketing information and capacity building component of the program, except in the case of some parboiler groups who have received more extensive marketing training.  The SILC intervention is only just completing its first cycle so the main impact being achieved so far is associated with the loans disbursed to SILC members.  Rice producer groups and parboiler groups have benefited from the fertilizer and expanded working capital, respectively, that they have been able to access through bank loans.  Care Groups and Village Nutrition Committees have been successful at improving maternal and child health nutrition behavior such as frequency of infant feeding, ending purges, and increasing bathing.  The project appears to be a strong showcase on how Title II can change nutritional status of young children.  Relative to improving the quality of health facility services, the program has provided limited training opportunities (just 25 people trained to date) and routinely provides active supervision in just one of three districts.  Through its door-to-door approach that relies on existing Community Health Worker's, FASO screens the majority of children in the target zone for malnutrition on a quarterly basis and refers those in need of treatment to a nearby health facility.  Women report increased attendance at facilities linked to increased support from their husbands in seeking care who are now more willing to authorize travel and to provide transportation, particularly for delivery.  Under SO3, the program has completed "self-analyses" with a significant number of different kinds of groups and action plans have been developed. A few groups have started implementing action plans to mobilize food resources for school canteens, but program impact on food security from these activities is limited up to this point.  The adult literacy programs have been having impact, but without educational assessment systems to determine the extent that participants have acquired literacy and numeracy skills, it is difficult to determine the scale of the impact. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 3  The food distributions through school canteens and take home rations are certainly having impact on school retention, and possibly on enrollment and nutritional status, as well.  The program's capacity building of canteen stakeholders is having impact in generating some resources for school canteens from parents and the community. The Mid-Term Evaluation has formulated a total of sixty recommendations for the remaining life of the program. Twenty of these have been designated as "PRIORITY", meaning that they should be given priority attention in the remaining life of the program. These priority recommendations focus on modifying approaches to create greater impact and addressing threats to sustaining the impact that the program is achieving. The full list of recommendations is provided in Annex C. The FASO Program, at this point in time, is a sound program. It has the potential to become a great program, if it can make some adjustments and effectively continue to meet the challenges it faces. The priority theme for the remaining life of FASO should be doing as much as possible to ensure that the good impact that is being produced by the program will be sustained after the program ends. B. BACKGROUND B.1. Overview of the FASO Program Strategy The final goal of the FASO Program is "vulnerability to food insecurity is sustainably reduced in the Health Districts of Boulsa-North, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Burkina Faso). The program has six intermediate results under three strategic objectives as shown below. Strategic Objective 1 (Agriculture & Natural Resource Management): 56,126 households have improved access to food of sufficient quantity and quality throughout the year.  Intermediate Result 1.1: 33,375 households sustainably improve their agricultural production.  Intermediate Result 1.2: At least 50,500 beneficiaries farmers sustainably increase revenue. Strategic Objective 2 (Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition): 51,426 mother/child units have improved health and nutrition status.  Intermediate Result 2.1: 18,500 mothers of children 0-23 months and pregnant women adopt recommended health, nutrition and hygiene practices  Intermediate Result 2.2: 79,590 women and children 0-59 months access quality nutrition and health services Strategic Objective 3 (Local Governance): 800 community structures have improved their local governance practice.  Intermediate Result 3.1: 500 community committees equitably manage community resources.  Intermediate Result 3.2: 1600 women occupy leadership roles in their communities. Table 1 summarizes the approved resources and expenditures through March 2013.. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 4 Table 1. Resource Summary Resource Award Letter Current Approved Amounts thru FY 20135 Actual Expenditures as of March 2013 Distribution Commodities 13,794 MT 12,600 MT n/a Monetization Commodities 16,120 MT 15,580 MT n/a 202e $4,910,000 $4,475,000 $2,751,319 ITSH $3,429,883 $2,949,580 $1,654,829 Monetization Proceeds $13,943,798 $14,538,0226 $5,985,945 DAP Monetization Carry-Over --- $1,941,951 Cost Share Contribution $87,594 $87,594 $40,585 Total Program Cost $37,760,500 $39,702,451 Direct Beneficiaries Target 58,633 HH 58,633 HH Not Available7 B.2. Program Operating Environment The FASO Program began implementation in June 2010 in Gayeri and Manni Districts, later expanding to Boulsa North. The implementation phasing for the FASO program is illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Phasing In for the FASO Program Implementation Year (IY) SO1 ANRM SO2 MCHN SO3 Governance IY 1 - June 2010 thru May 2011 Full Implementation in Gayeri District & Partial Implementation in Manni and Boulsa North Full Implementation in Gayeri & Manni Districts Education Components in All Districts IY 2 - June 2011 thru May 2012 Full Implementation in Boulsa North District Organizational Development in All Districts IY 3 - June 2012 thru May 2013 Scaling Up to Full Implementation in All Districts A number of features of the operating context in the three FASO Program Health Districts (Boulsa-North in Namentenga Province, Manni in Gnagna Province and Gayeri in Komondjari Province) have affected or are currently affecting program implementation. Gayeri District. Gayeri District in general is a very different context from the other two districts. Historically, there has been less development investment in this part of the country. 5 Through Modification 6 dated 13 February 2013. 6 This is an estimate since not all commodities in-country have been monetized. Note that cost recovery on monetization has exceeded initial projections. 7 FASO's current M&E system does not track the total number of beneficiaries but only beneficiaries by activity, which does not allow elimination of duplication for the many beneficiaries that are participating in multiple activities. The new FASO Program Monitoring Software (FPMS) that is being put in place will, however, be able to identify the total number of beneficiaries in the program when it is fully operational. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 5 Consequently, the basic services infrastructure is less developed. The relatively fewer schools and absence of community warehouses have most affected the program. The FASO Program, in fact, had to allocate funds, seek approval for, and construct community warehouses for storing commodities for the program. The population of Gayeri District is also smaller and more dispersed than the other districts, resulting in less stress on land resources. The improved zai intervention in FASO which is designed to improve fertility of marginal land is less interesting to participants and has less impact in Gayeri since households generally have better access to fertile land and do not need to use marginal land. Another feature of Gayeri District is increased security risks, mainly from bandits robbing people on roads. Like other basic services, the security infrastructure, i.e., police and army, is fairly widely dispersed and unable to protect widely dispersed populations. Sadly, the program suffered the loss of an SO2 staff member who was murdered by bandits in July 2012. Program activities were suspended for a month while the program developed and implemented strategies for ensuring the security of staff. As the SILC intervention becomes more firmly established and known in the area, it has the potential to expose participants to increased security risks, especially as funds accumulate shortly before share-out. Because of the availability of land in Gayeri, families from other parts of the country have migrated into the area and settled. At the moment, there is sufficient land to accommodate everyone, and there is little tension between migrants and resident populations, but if the influx continues, tensions may rise, as has happened in other contexts around the world. Gold Mining. The gold mining industry, both corporate and artisanal, has boomed in the last three years, and the impact on the program has been notable. Gold mining is pulling village participants away from the program. One village in Boulsa-North reported that around 300 youth, both young men and young women, have left the village to seek their fortunes in gold mines in Burkina Faso and elsewhere in West Africa. Since most of the fortune-seekers are men, many de facto women' headed households have been left behind to produce food and income on their own. The program has found it difficult in some places to hold working groups together and implement community-managed interventions. Children are being pulled out of school when families migrate to the gold fields, and farms are reported to be declining in size since the labor force of young men for farm labor is smaller. Some local health facilities have seen measles cases among in-migrants, and there is concern about the potential spread of measles, other communicable diseases, HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases within the camps and to neighboring communities. Seed Supply in Burkina Faso. A major component of the FASO program under SO1 is to establish sustainable seed supply systems that provide high quality seed at the right time. One element of this component is to build capacities of local seed producers to be able to produce high quality seed. The Government of Burkina Faso (GoBF) has responsibility for controlling the quality of seed through a seed certification system that has relatively limited capacity given its mandate. Seed inspectors are expected to approve seed farm locations, monitor production and certify quality at harvest. The number of inspectors, however, is small and the department is unwilling to give up any functions in this certification process. A recent policy, to make it easier for seed inspectors to fulfill their obligations, is that to be a seed producer, a farmer, or group of farmers, must produce a minimum of 2 to 3 hectares, depending on crop, under conditions that FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 6 ensure varietal purity. Finding suitable locations and farmers or groups of farmers while also facilitating inspection, has been extremely demanding on the FASO Program. Growing Expectations for Hand-Outs from NGOs. Discussions held in communities by the Mid-Term Evaluation team highlighted the seemingly growing perception that the purpose of NGOs is to distribute "things" rather than ideas. Community strategies when talking to program staff and representatives seem to be oriented toward convincing FASO to give more “things”, rather than FASO working with participants to build their capacities to be able to help themselves. While participants certainly do what they can to help themselves when NGOs are not around, it seems that what they expect most from NGOs is to be given food, seeds, tools, money, equipment, and other things, rather than being given ideas on how to get these things for themselves. This feature of the context sometimes makes it difficult to mobilize people with only ideas. New Programs Starting Up. Over the three years that the FASO Program has been implemented, staff recruitment and retention has been a challenge. While some of this is normal or a function of the compensation and benefits policies of FASO partners, another factor has been the start-up of other programs which have recruited staff away from FASO and created greater competition for qualified staff. Health Services. Over the last three years of implementation, the FASO Program has discovered that the availability and orientation of government health services is less than originally envisioned in the design of the program. The quality of health services and the health services infrastructure is somewhat weaker than expected. More important, the health services infrastructure is almost totally oriented around a recuperative approach to malnutrition, rather than the preventive approach taken by FASO in its PM2A activities. As a result, the program has to invest more time and resources strengthening services and building capacities to understand and use a preventive approach to malnutrition. RECOMMENDATIONS Related to Context Observations 1. Consistent with a “Do No Harm” approach, FASO should monitor participation and support provided by the program to participants in Gayeri to ensure that the program is not working in ways that may contribute to increasing tensions between migrants and resident populations. Migrants will likely be more motivated and easier to work with in many cases, and the FASO Program should avoid being perceived as favoring a particular group, either migrants or residents. 2. FASO should explore the opportunity for some interventions, such as Behavioral Change Communications for SO1 and SO2, with populations working at larger gold mining sites. The program may find a "captive" population with increased risk with whom significant impact can be achieved. 3. On the staff security issue in Gayeri, FASO should implement or support advocacy efforts for more GoBF security capacity in Gayeri. The program may also want to investigate the experience in projects elsewhere in Burkina Faso that have used community-based village protection committees, watch committees, or village police. While there is insufficient time and resources remaining in FASO to do much to operationalize these concepts, it may be possible to determine whether a mechanism such as these would reduce personal insecurity for staff and program participants in Gayeri and could be considered for programming to follow FASO in Gayeri District by CRS or her partners.. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 7 4. To ensure that the FASO Program does not reinforce the hand–out mentality that is growing in the program area, a set of guiding principles and practices should be developed including the following, for example. ◦ The program should stress that anything that participants can do themselves, they should be encouraged to do. ◦ For any food or inputs provided by the program, there must be some sort of community contribution to cultivate ownership. ◦ Before distributing an input, the program should consider implications on other components that may be working with the same inputs but in other ways. This may start becoming a problem as SILC becomes more developed and participants want to use loans to invest in chickens, for example, while other participants are receiving chickens from the program. ◦ If inputs must be provided, the program should do this as much as possible through the supplier of the inputs, to build linkages as well as detach the program from being perceived as giving away materials. ◦ When food or inputs must be provided, the program should stress transparency so other participants know the criteria used to determine eligibility. ◦ The program should include in all of its BCC activities the message that depending on NGOs for assistance is not in the best interests of Burkinabe villages. ◦ Villages that show significant self–initiative should be recognized and even rewarded by the program to encourage more self-initiative.. B.3. Evaluation Methodology As a formative evaluation, the purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the FASO Program was to use qualitative methods as well as analysis of secondary, baseline and annual survey data to document the activities, outputs and impact of the program, review the processes used to implement or support implementation, and formulate recommendations for the remaining life of the program. The Evaluation Plan for the evaluation is included in Annex B. Annex C contains the schedule, tools used, persons interviewed, and sites visited during the evaluation. The main limitation on the evaluation was insufficient time to conduct in-depth interviews at multiple levels. Most of the time for information gathering was devoted to visiting villages and sites in each of the three health districts. More time could have been spent interviewing other stakeholders including technical and government partners in Ouagadougou. The evaluation team appreciated the efforts of FASO Program staff to show a mix of good locations and problematic locations in the field. Based on feedback during the Ground-Truthing Workshop, in fact, it would appear that the evaluation team may have actually seen more of the problematic locations than the places where interventions are working well. For SO1, the period of May is perhaps the time when there is the least agricultural activity. There are few crops in the field and most of the previous harvest has been processed and sold. Much of the information obtained is based on participants' recall rather than observation. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 8 C. ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS C.1. SO1 ANRM Overview Under the first Strategic Objective in the FASO Program, the objective is to improve access to food through increasing agricultural production and increasing revenue from the sales of agricultural production. Seven crops are targeted by the program, including four dual purpose crops produced for consumption and sale that were identified during the design of the program as having significant potential for growth (rice, cowpea, sesame and sweet potato) and three additional crops (sorghum, millet and maize) added following the revision of the initial submission of the proposal. The program strategy focuses on increasing production, under one Intermediate Result, by (a) improving access to inputs, primarily seed and fertilizer, (b) promoting the use of improved technologies and techniques through demonstrations and participatory variety selection, and (c) improving the quality of land resources through lowland water control infrastructure development, through an improved zai8 technique and through the promotion of conservation agriculture techniques. A second Intermediate Result targets improving revenue for participating farmers through (a) promoting improved storage and processing practices, (b) expanding marketing capacities and (c) facilitating access to capital through CRS's Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC) approach and through bank loans. Table 3 summarizes the performance indicators for SO2 and the two IRs. Table 3. Indicators for SO1 and Related IRs. INDICATORS Baseline Thru IY 29 LOA Target Strategic Objective 1 (ANRM): 56,126 households have improved access to food of sufficient quantity and quality throughout the year. Indicator 1.2: Average household dietary diversity score. 8.71 ---* 10 Indicator 1.3: Percent of households with moderate or severe hunger scale 34.3% ---* 29% Intermediate Result 1.1 (Production): 33,375 households sustainably improve their agricultural production. Indicator 1.1.1a. Average household production of cowpea (kg) 130 282.4 200 Indicator 1.1.1b. Average household production of sesame (kg) 58.75 126.5 80 Indicator 1.1.1c. Average household production of rice (kg) 126.31 343.5 200 Indicator 1.1.2. Average household production of cowpea fodder (kg) 169.47 n/a 256 Intermediate Result 1.2 (Revenue): At least 50,500 beneficiaries farmers sustainably increase revenue. Indicator 1.2.1. Percentage of targeted beneficiaries farmers reporting increased revenue from agricultural activities 22.5 21.84 31.32 Indicator 1.2.1a. Percentage of targeted beneficiaries men farmers reporting increased revenue from agricultural activities 24.5 22.69 34.1 Indicator 1.2.1b. Percentage of targeted beneficiaries women farmers reporting increased revenue from agricultural activities 20.3 20.52 28.26 *Estimates for these indicators will be generated during the final evaluation. 8 Zai is a local term used to describe a simplified pit planting technique in which small pits are filled with covered compost. The improvement over the traditional zai technique used in Burkina Faso is that the spacing of pits is wider and the quality and quantity of compost used is better. 9 The FASO Implementation Year covers the period June through May. Implementation Year 2 ended on May 2012. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 9 The following sections describe the achievements, observations, recommendations and lessons learned for the output clusters under each Intermediate Result. C.1.1. Intermediate Result 1.1: 33,375 households sustainably improve their agricultural production Output 1.1.1: At least 56,126 beneficiaries access diversified agricultural inputs. In this cluster of outputs under IR 1.1, the FASO Program has focused primarily on developing systems for making high quality planting material available at the right time and for participating farmers to be able to make and use organic fertilizers. The program has also had impact, however, on two other types of inputs required for farm production, farm tools and inorganic commercial fertilizer. Table 4 summarizes progress on planned outputs. Access to Seed & Planting Material. The FASO Program focuses on making high quality seed or planting material available in a timely way with a focus on cowpea, sesame, rice, maize and sweet potato. The seed is subsidized to introduce participating farmers to the benefits of higher quality seed, and the program plans to reduce the subsidies over time as the supply chain is developed. Seed coupons are used to deliver the subsidy and to strengthen relationships between producers and input suppliers. Promotion days and radio spots are used to inform participants about the availability of the seed, its qualities and where interested participants can obtain coupons. Information sheets are also provided with seed to describe varietal qualities and planting instructions. The supply chain development strategy targets strengthening local seed multipliers and building linkages to Agrodia and local agro-dealers in small towns and villages. An assessment of seed producers and seed agro-dealers was carried out in collaboration with the West African Seed Alliance (WASA) in 2011. Table 4. Targets for Output 1.1.1 Agricultural Inputs and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of seed coupons distributed 0 37,437 108,837 308,000 Number of seed coupon beneficiaries 0 13,095 38,070 --- Number of coupons distributed to sweet potato multipliers 0 1,238 7,238 15,000 Percent of target households who save their own seed (IPTT) 10.89% 13.5% n/a** 25.49% Number of Tool Management Committees formed 0 n/a 110 --- Percent of households declaring having increase or not (sic) their access to agriculture inputs (IPTT) 11.80% 16.3% n/a** 32.07 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. The Mid-Term Evaluation observed that the FASO Program is filling a marketing niche with high quality planting material made available at the right time. A number of producers interviewed expressed appreciation for the quality and timeliness of the seed, with the greatest appreciation shown for the cowpea and sweet potato varieties that are being made available. Rice seed obtained through the program is also critical to the increased production obtained by FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 10 the lowland groups in project-supported lowlands (see more below under the section on land improvements). The program, however, is carrying out the process of seed marketing within the program districts almost entirely on its own. High quality seed is procured by implementing partners from larger wholesale seed suppliers. The bulk seed is repackaged into smaller packages by the partners and when participants come to purchase their seed coupons from partners they also exchange the coupons with partners for the small packages of seeds. It appears that no one other than the program is visible and associated with the seed in a way that might cultivate business or seed supply relationships that have the potential to be continued after the program ends. In fact, the seed sales business is very difficult to get into in the program area. The competition from free or highly subsidized seed makes it a very risky market to begin with. Businesses are not legally restrained from entering into seed marketing, but they must have an agreement with the GoBF which verifies that they have met conditions, including seed sourcing and storage, to be a seed supplier. In effect, seed production and seed marketing in Burkina Faso are basically controlled by the GoBF. To be a seed producer, a farmer must be a member of a union organized by the GoBF at the National, Regional and Provincial levels, and these unions are closely connected to the Ministry of Agriculture. The GoBF authorizes these seed producers to sell their seed directly to the government for their own highly subsidized seed distribution activities. As has been reported consistently in the past, the MTE can verify that free or highly subsidized distribution of seed by other actors, including government, has restricted the project from meeting its seed coupon targets. Even though the quality and timeliness of FASO seed is better, many producers will look for seed at lower cost to complement the carry-over seed that they have. The original proposal for FASO suggested that seed "coupons not absorbed by targeted households with children under two or female-headed households will be made available to the larger public, based on their willingness to pay the non-subsidized amount (page 19, FASO Proposal)." Basically the program has found that no one will pay the full, or non-subsidized, amount for seed, because other seed is available. The program has been diligent in working to establish local seed multipliers and has had success with some participants producing cowpea who have been able to produce seed that has been certified by the GoBF. While the seed certification system in Burkina Faso may have the best intentions for maintaining seed quality, the process which requires a limited number of certifiers to be involved throughout the growing season has made it difficult to establish local seed multiplication capacities. The GoBF does not have the resources to provide logistical support for certifiers, so the FASO Program must organize this in order to get the certifiers out to project￾supported seed producers. In addition, the program has to organize groups of farmers who have sufficient land resources to be able to meet the minimum policy requirement of having three Sweet Potato Vine Multiplication FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 11 hectares of seed production, because there are too few certifiers to be able to cover many small plots. Farmers view the seed subsidy as a significant benefit from the program, and the program needs to decide whether it is in the business of providing high quality subsidized seed or building a sustainable seed supply system. When asked where they will get seed when the program ends, a number of respondents indicated that they would look for seed from the government or other sources after the program if the program was not going to be providing seed. Some of those who had obtained seed for two years from the program using the subsidies stated, however, that ”buying seed is less important for us now since we have our own seed from last year”. Many farmers know that varieties lose purity after two years, but at this point in the life of the FASO Program, they do not know how to replace the high quality seed that has been provided. On the carry-over seed, the FASO Program is providing basic training on seed selection and storage, but this could be expanded to cover strategies for ensuring varietal purity and monitoring varietal decline. The program is a year behind on the strategy for reducing seed subsidies over time since a number of farmers had a poor harvest in the first cropping season and there was a need to continue the level of subsidy in year 2. Access to Tools. Facilitating access to tools to increase production is not an element of the initial strategy of the FASO Program. Nevertheless, access to tools, particularly tools such as carts and donkey plows, that are too costly for most vulnerable households, is a constraint to production. The unavailability of tools is the argument used by the FASO Program for justifying the provision of tools for Food-For-Work (FFW) activities in lowland infrastructure development and improved zai, and tools such as shovels, picks, tampers, two-wheeled carts, wheelbarrows, levels, and ropes are provided for FFW. The program organizes committees to manage these tools, and basic training is provided on concepts of bookkeeping and resource mobilization to be able to repair and replace tools. The MTE team visited a number of these tool management committees, called Community Management Committees or Committees for Managing Tools, and found that they had all set rental prices for tools and had been renting out tools. The most popular tools are the two￾wheeled carts and wheelbarrows, although hand tools like shovels are also rented. When asked about other tools that could be rented if they had them in stock, the groups consistently mentioned donkey plows and in areas where water was a problem, water carts. The MTE found that bookkeeping systems for tracking revenue were in place in some areas and functioning well, but they were not in place in other areas. One of the biggest problems cited by these committees is the renting out of tools to people who cannot afford to pay the rent. Because the tools have been provided for free by the program which has clearly expressed an objective to support highly food insecure households, the committees feel obligated to provide the tools, even when they know that rents will not be paid. For the most part, the tools are stored in the houses or compounds of tool committee members. The discussions with participants indicated that there appears to be a viable opportunity for a tool rental business if proper business management training can be provided to the committees. There appears to be significant demand for at least some types of tools. All of the committees mentioned that if they had more carts, for example, they would be rented out. Many of the FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 12 committees already have functioning systems in place for managing working capital, although they have not been thinking of their activity as a "business". They perceive themselves as just a committee to manage tools, although with names like Community Management Committees, someone at some point must have had a bigger vision for what they might do. These committees may have substantial potential for becoming effective community-based social enterprise capable of generating revenue for investments to address community needs. One consistent need, mentioned in a number of villages where interviews were held, was the need for a mill to reduce workloads for women. If these tool committees can show good business management skills and be linked to commercial banks for access to additional capital, they might be able undertake larger scale projects like a community-owned mill. Access to Fertilizer. The FASO Program is promoting the use of improved organic fertilizer, or compost. This is a key feature of the technologies promoted for zai, demonstrations, and conservation agriculture. In addition, the program has facilitated access to commercial fertilizer (NPK and urea) for lowland groups through loans from GRAINE. Information on loan repayment (which is pretty good incidentally) will be provided later in the “Access to Capital” section of the report. The MTE observed that the program is cultivating participant independence in obtaining loans from GRAINE for commercial fertilizer. The application process is facilitated by the FASO animator with sensitization from the GRAINE agent, and the representatives of the lowland group go to the bank to sign the loan documents. In some cases, the representatives of the lowland group go to the department office to buy fertilizer. In other cases, however, the fertilizer is brought by either the FASO animator or the GRAINE animator. Farmers go to the bank themselves to repay the loans. Program training on preparing good organic fertilizer appears to be effective, especially when it is used in the zai approach on land that is degraded. One model farmer, who also happens to be a large-scale livestock producer, is even experimenting on his own with a large scale compost pit. The pit was empty at the time that we saw it, but the farmer reported that it was full last year and he had used all of the compost that he had produced. The program should look at this farmer-driven innovation to see what makes it work and whether it is worth promoting for other livestock producers. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.1 Diversified Agriculture Inputs 5. PRIORITY: The program should not lose sight of its intent to establish reliable and consistent access to good seed that will continue to exist after the program ends. The concept of eliminating subsidies on seed should not be abandoned, but the seed coupon targets should be reduced to more achievable targets given the context. The program should also look for opportunities before the program ends to completely eliminate subsidies, for example, with farmers who have resources to be able to access seed, to see whether a sustainable seed supply system has been developed. 6. PRIORITY: The program should shift its focus more to improving carry-over seed since this is an important source of seed inputs for farmers. The program should monitor producer behavior in selecting seed for varietal characteristics and storing carryover seed, develop training plans for addressing weaknesses in selection and storage, and build linkages for obtaining new seed when varietal purity has declined. 7. The program should also continue to try to establish local seed multipliers, but focus on fewer participants to enable them to become more firmly established with linkages to foundation seed/vine suppliers and retail outlets/markets. If a farmer or farmer group has failed to produce FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 13 certified seed a number of years in a row, for example, the program should invest its resources in other more productive activities. 8. The program should complete bookkeeping training for all tool management committees. As a matter of principle, no committee should have a treasurer or be collecting money without having received complete bookkeeping training sufficiently to be able to maintain basic ledgers 9. PRIORITY: The FASO Program should develop and implement a strategy for providing business development training for a selected number of committees to enable them to manage a tool rental social enterprise in the community. This will involve expanding their capacities to develop and implement business plans as well as strategies for accessing additional capital through banks. 10. On the issue of rents due, the program may want to advise tool management committees to consider using a “tools-for-work” approach or allow renters to pay for the rent of the tool after harvest in cash or in-kind. The "tools-for-work" approach means that someone can use a tool now on the condition that later when they are less occupied, they can do something for the community in return for having used the tool. Output 1.1.2. At least 33,375 beneficiaries farmers apply improved agricultural production techniques. In this cluster of outputs under IR 1.1, the FASO Program has focused primarily on setting up demonstrations of new ideas and technologies for improving production of the seven crops that have been targeted by the program. In addition, working with INERA, the program is implementing participatory variety selection trials with a number of model farmers. Table 5 summarizes progress on planned outputs. Table 5. Targets for Output 1.1.2 Improved Techniques and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of demonstration sites 0 822 1,507 --- Total number of farmers in working groups around demonstrations exposed to demonstration 0 2,256 4,136 --- Percent of men and women using intercropping of cowpea (IPTT) 16.0% 31.2% n/a** 36.88% Percent of men and women using thinning of sesame (IPTT) 3.8% 4.3% n/a** 10.90% Percent of men and women using split application of urea for rice (IPTT) 16.5% 33.7% n/a** 31.17% Number of Participatory Variety Selection Sites 0 21 39 --- Total number of farmers in working groups around PVS sites participating in evaluating PVS trials 0 645 1,545 --- Number of varieties tested 0 Cowpea=9 Rice=5 Sweet Potatoes=10 Rice=5 Sweet Potatoes=10 --- *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 14 Demonstrations of New Ideas and Technologies. The FASO Program has implemented a wide variety of demonstrations showing, for example:  Intercropping techniques using cowpea with sorghum or millet  Using mulch to hold moisture, reduce soil erosion, and reduce cultivation demands  Variety demonstrations for vetted varieties of cowpea (3), sesame (2) and lowland rice (2)  Producing cowpea for forage and grain, comparing improved and local varieties  Planting in rows  Comparisons of different types of organic fertilizer, including grass, manure and improved compost Learning sessions with working groups and cross-visits were organized around demonstrations to facilitate discussion and analysis of demonstration results. Guidelines have been developed by FASO for setting up and monitoring demonstrations. Model farmers are recruited by the program who can provide land, labor and other inputs, such as manure for compost. In interviews conducted the evaluation, the MTE team observed that the selection of model farmers is based primarily on “volunteers” expressing an interest in implementing the demonstration and having the resources to do so. It is not clear, at least based on the interviews conducted with implementing staff and participants, how much the program has strategically selected model farmers based on characteristics such as being respected by other farmers, capacity to innovate, and being representative of most farmers. In any case, the MTE did not observe any major deviations from best practice in selecting model farmers. The protocols, or guidelines, that have been developed by the program for setting up and using demonstrations have many good features of farmer-driven processes for using demonstrations effectively as learning events. The implementation of the demonstration activities, however, is not always aligned with the vision of the protocols. Sometimes, logistical challenges arise such as trying to organize learning sessions when the main residence of working group members is not near the demonstration site, as a result only a few members of the group may be present for a learning session. Facilitating farmer analysis and decisions takes time, and it appears that the fully participatory process envisioned in the protocols is by-passed sometimes by the field animator in order to get the demonstration established or completed. The MTE also observed that the approach generally being taken by frontline animators is to present the new ideas and technologies that they have to offer as proven innovations rather than as options to be tested in the demonstrations. In a farmer-driven approach, participants use the demonstration to learn for themselves whether something "new" is better, rather than being told. The learning is internalized better with this approach, and the program does not run the risk of losing credibility when a new idea promoted by the program is not in fact, better than alternatives in a specific location. The agricultural sector is continually evolving, with research, the private sector, new projects and farmers themselves, generating new ideas and techniques. In the FASO Program, almost all of the new ideas being tested in demonstrations are coming through the program's agriculture technicians who will no longer be in place after the program ends. In some areas, the GoBF agricultural agents have been involved and stronger relationships have been established between these agents and farmer groups. For the most part, however, farmers appear to be highly FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 15 dependent on the FASO program staff. Farmers are not being actively encouraged to experiment with their own ideas or to learn from other sources, including other farmers. The program also does not have systems in place for monitoring how farmers are adapting the ideas from the demonstrations in their own fields or for identifying other farmer innovations that could be extended through the program. Participatory Variety Selection (PVS). Participatory Variety Selection is a farmer-driven approach to testing different varieties of planting material. The process typically involves a contextual analysis led by farmers to identify desired crop attributes that they would like to test, procurement of planting material for testing, systematic testing of different varieties in farmers' fields with well-structured trials, and dissemination of results. The FASO Program has engaged INERA in three contracts related to rice, cowpea, and sweet potatoes, respectively, to provide guidance on PVS to model farmers selected to implement PVS trials. The program made a decision after the first year of implementation to increase the target number of PVS sites to be able to broaden exposure for farmers. The MTE team heard10 that the PVS sites were set up structurally very similar to demonstration sites, with major differences being that the varieties tested were those being developed, but not yet released, by INERA. INERA was also contracted to provide the technical support for the implementation of the PVS trials. The program had some difficulty with organizing the contracting and logistics for INERA technical support, but this approach has advantages over alternatives, such as direct implementation without a research institution involved, in that the PVS results are channeled immediately into the agricultural research system. The relationships established between INERA and PVS farmers also have the potential to continue to be used after the program ends for additional PVS trials or the release of vetted varieties, although INERA will not be motivated by a contract with a program. As with demonstrations, working groups are formed around the PVS sites to learn from the trials, and interviews with participants indicated that farmers appeared to have a strong sense of ownership in the trials. One participant, for example, stated that "we tested ten varieties of sweet potatoes and decided that three of them were good...". RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.2 Improved Techniques 11. In the preparation for the coming farming season, the FASO Program should implement a refresher training with field animators on the demonstration protocols. In this exercise, field animators should be given the opportunity to describe from their perspective what is working well and what is not working well with demonstrations in terms of using them as learning events. 12. The FASO Program should develop a strategy for encouraging farmer-driven innovation in the program by (1) providing guidance to working groups and model farmers on the broad range of sources of new ideas and technologies, including extension services, research stations, agricultural projects, private sector input suppliers, private sector food processors, innovative farmers, and even the internet and (2) providing guidance for them to access these sources themselves to obtain ideas to experiment with in demonstrations. As part of this strategy, the program should find ways to reward field animators who are facilitating demonstrations in which farmers have been able to obtain and test new ideas that they have found on their own to complement those that the program has brought. 10 The MTE occurred during the farming off-season so it was not possible to see an operating PVS site. Farmers who had sites the last season were interviewed usually where there site had been located. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 16 Output 1.1.3. 14,300 hectares of productive land sustainably improved and protected. In this cluster of outputs under IR 1.1, the FASO Program has focused on (a) using FFW to construct lowland water control structures and providing technical advice for lowland rice production, (b) promoting an improved zai farming technique targeting vulnerable women and degraded land, and (c) promoting a number of techniques associated with conservation agriculture. Table 6 summarizes progress on planned outputs. Lowland Systems for Rice Production. The FASO Program is promoting a simple, low cost design for a water control structure in mildly sloping lowlands to contain rainwater for rice production. The process for this intervention involves identifying potential locations in the program area and inviting key government and technical stakeholders, including the Directorate for Irrigation Development (DADI), to view the locations and provide advice. DADI, in fact, is engaged throughout the development of the site in monitoring activities and providing technical training. A group of participants is organized in the village owning the lowland, including the actual owner of the land, and FFW is used with this group to construct bunds to control water. Table 6. Targets for Output 1.1.3 Land Improvement and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of hectares of lowland improved (IPTT) 0 215.92 645.92 650 Number of beneficiaries in lowland groups 0 1,426 4,293 4,333 Percent of beneficiaries who are women 0 26% 53% -- Number of lowland sites 0 26 53 --- Percent of targeted beneficiaries (men and women) who plant rice (IPTT) 12.21% 35.5% n/a** 14.38% Number of hectares of land planted using improved zai 0 544 3,794 13,750 Number of zai beneficiaries (100% women) 0 1,357 4,857 --- Number of conservation agriculture demonstration sites 0 168 278 --- Number of women beneficiaries from conservation agriculture 0 1,310 7,810 27,500 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. The technical design and implementation supervision of the construction is contracted out to private sector contractors with experience in lowland infrastructure development through a competitive bidding process. Once the construction is completed, an agreement is signed with the lowland group, and plots are allocated to group members. Farmers undergo a rice production training using a video and on-going technical advice is provided by a FASO field technician. Seed is made available through the program's seed coupon intervention, and a credit line has been opened by the program with GRAINE to enable farmers to obtain loans to purchase fertilizer. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 17 The MTE team found that the design of the water control system is simple and easy to maintain with manual labor. There are no concrete or metal structures required to operate the system. The design is oriented completely around catching and holding water for rice production, and given this design other types of crops cannot be produced with the system. For the most part, the choice of lowland locations and the design of the system have been able to produce a satisfactory rice crop most of the time. While the program does not have statistics to verify the observation, it appears that at least 80% percent of the 26 systems that are currently completed have produced one or two crops in the last two cropping season. Crop failures occur in systems in which the rainfall has not been sufficient to produce a rice crop, although the rainfall would have been sufficient to produce other crops using a system designed to be able to control and manage water. The system being used is an "all or nothing" system. If the rainfall is sufficient, a rice crop will be produced. If the rainfall is not sufficient, a rice crop is not produced, and no other crops have been planted using the system, so the lowland group gets no benefit from the system. When rainfall is higher than normal in a lowland with a FASO-constructed water control system, lowland groups face additional maintenance and repair demands, since the system is not designed to be able to channel excess water out of the system. During the rains, farmers reinforce bunds so that they do not get washed out. Some bunds inevitably are lost and need to be repaired later after the water has receded or before the next season. One group interviewed in a location like this (see photograph) requested assistance with modifying the design so that they didn't have to work so hard protecting and repairing the system. Program staff reported that it often takes time to get stakeholders lined up to approve a location, and as a result, there are delays in getting systems constructed. This can be perceived as a problem if the target of the program is to construct lowland water control systems. But, the actual target of the program is to build an asset that a lowland group will continue to be able to use even after the program ends. The time taken to get key administrative and technical stakeholders to be aware of, and approve, the system assures that ownership is retained and technical support is accessible after the program ends. Most of the groups interviewed appeared to have pretty good leadership at the time of the evaluation, and the groups were working together to implement maintenance and repair activities to be able to continue using the system. In working with these groups, the SO1 staff, including Animators and Field Supervisors, are responsible for working with groups on building the Water Control Infrastructure Construction Washed Out Bunds FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 18 systems using FFW and producing rice. The SO3 animator is responsible for building the capacities of lowland groups to become functional organizations managing the systems. The activity, at least in its early stages up to now, appears to be not yet very farmer-driven. Decisions are made by program technicians, and the lowland groups are highly dependent on the program staff for technical advice, for seed, and for other inputs such as fertilizer and tools. One farmer in the interviews, for example, in response to the question on how decisions are made for the lowland said that “they made us grow rice”, as if, given the choice, they might have produced something else. It is understood that, given the design of the system and relative riskiness of producing rice, the program needs to maintain control and push farmers to follow their advice. If farmers don't, then they may not get enough benefit from the system. At some point, however, it would be good for the program to turn over full responsibility for the system to the farmer group to see what happens, i.e., whether groups are able to procure seed and fertilizer themselves and independently decide to continue producing rice. The use of FFW to build the water control infrastructure in the lowlands is a good use of food in the FASO Program. While food distribution may contribute to reinforcing the hand–out syndrome to some extent, FFW covers the opportunity costs of farmer participation in the construction which accelerates getting the infrastructure systems in place and building ownership in the system. The program only uses FFW to build the system. The maintenance and repair after the system has been constructed is the responsibility of the lowland group. It is important for farmers to get benefit from the system. Rice is a risky crop to produce in the program areas, so farmers are skeptical of success at the start. If the crop fails the first year, they will be even more skeptical the second year. Farmers cannot afford to invest their labor on activities that do not produce benefits; so if a crop fails, they will take their labor to the farms that they control first and then will come later to the, from their perspective, "more risky" lowland work, which makes them appear uncooperative or uninterested in participating in the program. Improved Zai. The improved zai that is being promoted by the FASO program is a form of pit planting in which relatively small pits are filled with good compost. The improvement over the traditional zai is wider spacing for plant growth and the use of compost. The program targets women, especially in women-headed households, but also women in other vulnerable households, as identified by communities. Women are organized into groups; the program provides tools under the management of a committee; and FFW is used to cover the opportunity costs of participation and also to fill food gaps, given that participations have been defined as highly vulnerable households. The MTE team found that most participants were fairly enthusiastic about zai. One respondent said that “we can get crops now where we couldn’t before”. The zai, however, is less appealing in Gayeri where land resources are available, and it is less imperative to improve productivity on marginal cropland. Many of the zai participants in Gayeri are actually migrants from other areas who are a bit more familiar about the zai intervention and its benefits. Improved Zai FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 19 While there is some evidence that the zai idea is likely to be adopted, the distribution of food still dominates the discussions. Some groups going into their third year are still expecting to receive FFW food distributions, even though they have been exposed to the concept now and have reported increased production, which presumably should reduce their food insecurity and need to have FFW for its food gap benefits. The program has been considering how best to respond to the expressions of interest by men to be included in the program's zai activities. A number of observations around this emerged from the interviews during the MTE. First, women and men both reported that men are already participating in zai activities, supporting women who have been selected by the program for zai activities. Those men who are not participating but want to participate appear to be mostly from households who have not been identified as vulnerable. Some men requested that they want to participate in the program so that "we can learn about zai". The zai intervention is not complicated, and there is nothing keeping anyone from seeing what zai looks like and asking program participants how it works. In exploring the benefits for women being generated by the program through zai, the program found some convincing evidence that, even though the zai production may not be entirely controlled by women since it goes into the same household granary that is controlled by men, this increased production associated with the woman has elevated her status in the household. In addition, the group formation with women working with other women has also cultivated stronger social capital relationships between women, which also likely has had food security impact. Zai activities have been undertaken at a time when women are also responsible for obtaining water for the household. In a village that does not have a borehole and women have to spend time getting water, for example, in parts of Gayeri where potable water infrastructure is less developed, participation in zai is less attractive to them. The program recognized this sometime ago and has made a decision to begin support zai activities earlier in the dry season before the quest for water becomes overly demanding. Conservation Agriculture. The FASO program is promoting a number of farming techniques associated with conservation agriculture for improving soil quality, retaining moisture, and reducing soil erosion. These include half-moon pit planting, construction of two or three-stone contour bunds, mulching with crop residues, use of organic fertilizer (compost), and "conservation agriculture with trees" which is integrating tree species including moringa, acacia species and baobab) with the other conservation agriculture techniques. The acacia varieties are being promoted for their soil-fixing attributes. The moringa and baobab are being promoted by the program for their nutritional benefits. The approach being used by the program is similar to that being used with the introduction of other ideas and technologies using demonstrations undertaken by model farmers and organizing learning sessions around the demonstrations. Technical support in this component is being provided by the African Conservation Tillage (ACT) Network. Half-Moon Pit Planting FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 20 The MTE team observed that the conservation agriculture demonstrations are visible and well￾located; but as with the promotion of conservation agriculture in many locations, creating behavioral change is challenging because the benefits from the techniques do not appear immediately in most cases. The half-moon planting concept does produce immediate benefits, but some respondents during the evaluation indicated that the half-moon pit planting is perceived to be more work relative to benefits, particularly compared to the improved zai. The use of crop residues as part of the conservation agriculture also requires that the benefits of the techniques be weighed against not only the opportunity cost of labor but also the opportunity cost of the alternative uses of crop residues for fuel and construction. The promotion of conservation agriculture is a "tough row to hoe", but programs like FASO need to continue promoting the technologies. Proposed New Activities for Increasing Production in IY 4. In the most recent PREP submitted 30 April 2013 for Implementation Year 4 which began in May 2103, FASO proposed a number of new activities for increasing production under IR 1.1. These include (1) promotion of market gardening through training and cross-visits to market gardens established in the previous Title II program, (2) providing tools for women in 20 new villages to undertake zai activities, and (3) provision of poultry to women-headed households to diversify their livelihoods. The provision of tools and poultry are likely to reinforce the perception that the work of NGOs is to give people "things" rather than ideas. One recommendation is made related to making one of these activities more development-oriented. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.3 Land Improvement 13. The program should not change its approach to targeting women-headed households and women from highly vulnerable households for zai. Women are being empowered by this focus, and this enhances the program's impact on household food security. 14. PRIORITY: The program should not give FFW to women implementing zai for a third year, even on new land. The program needs to eliminate the influence of food to see if the idea of zai is really being adopted. If the zai approach is significantly improving production, the issue of food for filling a food gap for highly vulnerable households should be less important. It will also be a test to see if the requests from men to be included in zai will decline when food is not part of the benefit package. 15. To facilitate learning and assessment of the potential for the conservation agriculture techniques, the program may want to understand and use participatory monitoring and evaluation tools with some of the working groups around the conservation agriculture demonstrations. These tools rely on participants defining indicators that are important for them, which will facilitate a more holistic comparison of the costs and benefits of the new ideas being promoted. 16. Rather than distributing chickens to diversify livelihoods as proposed for IY 4, the program will likely achieve greater long-term impact by expanding its efforts to build the capacities of participants to be able identify livelihoods opportunities themselves that capitalize on their own Baobab Seedling FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 21 comparative advantage and the opportunities unique to their location and circumstances. There are many approaches for building capacities for selection, planning and management of income￾generating activities that are often part of the SILC approach that can be scaled up in FASO. C.1.2. Intermediate Result 1.2: At least 50,500 beneficiary farmers sustainably increase revenue. Output 1.2.1: at least 22,450 beneficiaries farmers thresh sesame and rice production appropriately. The FASO program is promoting the use of plastic tarps while threshing to reduce wastage and contamination and increase revenue through higher prices received for a better product. Table 7 shows the output targets for this component of the program. The MTE team did not have a chance to directly observe activities associated with this output in the field since the harvest has been completed. The benefits of tarpaulins used for threshing rice was raised by some parboiling groups who cited this technique for reducing sand and small stones in their product. Otherwise, benefits were not raised by participants in more general sessions in response to a listing process of the benefits people obtained from FASO. The program's M&E systems are not tracking price differentials for traditionally threshed rice/sesame and the promoted process to verify that participants are receiving better prices, although this information is fairly easy to obtain. The MTE has no recommendations related to this output. Table 7. Targets for Output 1.2.1 Threshing Rice & Sesame and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of demonstrations on cleaning sesame 0 144 --- Number of demonstrations on threshing rice using tarpaulins 0 97 --- Total number of participants exposed to demonstrations 0 8,251 --- percent of beneficiaries who use plastic material to shell their rice (IPTT) 17.47% 27.9% n/a** 23.11% *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. Output 1.2.2: At least 50,500 beneficiaries farmers hermetically store cowpea. The FASO Program is promoting the use of triple-lined sacks for storing cowpea so that producers will be able to take advantage of increased prices for their product when the prices are highest some months after harvest. The sacks also ensure that the product is of improved quality. They are composed of two layers of clear, heavy plastic with an outside woven plastic bag and can be hermetically sealed to reduce infestation from insects. Farmers traditionally have used chemicals to reduce infestation, and the sacks are designed to be used without any chemicals. The program also provides guidance on how to properly store the bags to reduce infestation from rodents. The sacks are produced by FasoPlast, a company based in Ouagadougou. In order to encourage producers to test the sacks, the program makes them available through coupons which subsidize 50% of the retail price of the sacks. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 22 To build a sustainable supply chain for the sacks, the program engages established businessmen in large towns who are linked to FasoPlast. These businessmen are also linked to smaller merchants based at the village level as their distributors for the sacks. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the sacks for storing cowpeas, the program organizes official public sealing and opening events at which a sack of cowpea is sealed in front of an audience and six months later it is opened again in front of the same audience. Producers are asked to assess the quality of the stored commodity. Table 8 summarizes the output targets for this component of the program. The MTE team found that the value of the triple-lined sacks is recognized and appreciated by participants. There are, in fact, able to obtain higher prices for their product by being able to store their cowpeas in the sacks. The sack sealing and opening sessions are effective demonstrations, and the coupons are ensuring that the benefits of the sacks are getting significant exposure. Table 8. Targets for Output 1.2.2 Storing Cowpea and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of triple-lined sack demonstrations implemented 0 923 2508 Number of triple-lined sack coupons distributed 0 15,294 39,694 74,100 Number of beneficiaries from triple-lined sacks 0 10,667 --- Percent of beneficiaries who are women 0 25.5% --- Number of agro-dealers engaged in triple-lined sacks 0 34 --- Percent of targeted farmers who hermetically stored at least 100 kilograms of cowpeas for at least six months (IPTT) 4.52% 79.3% n/a** 42.38% *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. While the technology is good and the benefits recognized, the cost of the sacks appears to be a constraint to being able to establish a sustained supply chain, and participants are still heavily dependent on the subsidies provided by the program. According to an agro-dealer respondent in a district capital who has linkages to FasoPlast, the wholesale price for the sack is 850 CFA. A FASO participant is able to purchse a coupon from the program for 600 CFA and she will exchange the coupon with the agro-dealer for a bag. The agro-delaer in turn redeems the coupon for 600 CFA from the program. The total retail cost of the sack in this coupon-based market is 1200 CFA. This same active agro-dealer, when asked if he plans to sell sacks during the next cowpea harvest said that he would likely keep a small stock and sell them for 1250 CFA. He indicated that there is competion from smaller sacks of the same design but for a cheaper price as well as from other single-ply sacks that are significantly cheaper and preferred by people who do not have much money. This businessmen indicated that, even though he has a Sack Opening Demonstration FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 23 large margin with a price of 1250 CFA, he would not reduce the price since he expects the sacks to sell slowly and might have losses from stock that did not sell before the quality deteriorated. The village-level agro-dealer interviewed did not really see the sale of sacks as a profitable product-line for him to pursue. He perceives his function as to help the FASO Program make sacks available for farmers. The program has taken steps to try to establish a viable supply chain for the triple-lined sacks but the supply chain is obviously still not in place. In some of the program areas, coupons for triple￾lined sacks were made available in a previous project and participants have been buying sacks with coupons for at least four years (since 2008). One group in response to the question on where they would get sacks after three years when a sack wears out said that “program has to bring it again”. Output 1.2.3: 800 women improve parboiled rice value chain. The FASO Program has formed a number of women's groups to introduce them to an improved technology for parboiling rice. A technological package composed of pots, stoves, water storage barrels, a perforated rice pot, and a stirrer are provided to each group, and the program trains the group to use the technology based on a curriculum developed by the Agri-Business and Trade Promotion Project which was funded by Feed the Future. The training provided by the program also covers advice on improving the quality of rice through using tarpaulins for husking, stone removal and drying rice under good hygienic conditions. The intervention is designed to improve revenue through increasing the volume of parboiled rice for the market and by improving the quality of the rice to obtain a better price. Table 9 provides available statistics for this output of the program. Respondents in the evaluation interviews indicated that in rural areas, at least, many households already parboil their own rice, so the local demand for parboiled rice is relatively small. The groups reported that the training on maintaining the quality of rice (stones and drying) has been most useful, although there is little concrete evidence that participants are actually getting better prices as a result. What is clear is that buyers have a preference for the parboiled rice being marketed by the parboilers groups because of the quality. Groups in rural areas are currently facing marketing problems as their volumes increase, unlike groups in the urban areas which have a larger market to try to access. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.2 Cowpea Storage 17. PRIORITY: The program should discontinue making coupons for sacks available for beneficiaries who have obtained coupons two times to test how far the supply chain has been developed. The program should monitor whether or not participants are able to purchase sacks, and if not, obtain information to determine whether this is because demand does not actually exist outside of the coupon market or whether there are bottlenecks in the supply chain. If the demand does not exist, then the program should explore alternative designs for the sacks. If the problems are related to supply chain bottlenecks, the program should explore with agro-dealers ways to alleviate these bottlenecks through, for example, facilitating access to capital, business development services for smaller agro-dealers at the village-level or cultivating functional business relationships to eliminate bottlenecks. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 24 Table 9. Targets for Output 1.2.3 Parboiled Rice and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of parboiling groups 0 43 52 --- Number of women trained in improved rice parboiling 0 525 721 300 Percent of targeted women who parboil rice according to 3 of 4 recommendations (using improved stoves, using tarps for husking, milling and increasing volume) 0.48% 23.3% n/a** 42.38% *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. The evaluation found mixed results on the capacity of groups to be able to operate on their own. In larger towns where marketing is less of a problem, and more time has been spent with the group by animators, the groups are relatively dynamic, keeping good records, and more active in marketing on their own. Some of the groups interviewed in the rural areas, however, were much less independent. One group, for example, was having difficulty marketing rice, had not yet received much training on business development and seemed to have high expectations for the program to support them with marketing. When asked the question on who is responsible for looking for buyers for their rice, they responded that “the project should help us sell our rice”. This group made a request for the program to advertise for them on the radio, and they didn't seem to recognize that they should be thinking about doing things like this themselves. Some parboiler groups have been linked to the Income-Generating Activities for Women Assistance Fund (FARF) for loans of working capital to buy more raw rice. While not necessarily tied to the groups that received loans, one operational constraint cited by parboilers is that in groups that do not have good access to potable water, it is difficult to scale up the production. The technology that has been provided is fairly expensive at 240,000 CFA for the kit. For groups that are having difficulty marketing, the equipment is not likely to be replaced when the weaker parts (stove and perforated pot) become unusable. One group had started mobilization member contributions but after it became difficult to market the rice, the monthly contributions were discontinued. Rice Parboiling Group FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 25 RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.3 Rice Parboiling 18. PRIORITY: The program needs to analyze the real marketing opportunities for parboiler groups. Given (a) the greater success of the approach in larger towns that are nearer to a wider range of market opportunities and (b) the difficulties that groups in some rural areas are now having with marketing, the program could be promoting the approach in rural areas where the probability of success is low because the demand is low and the marketing costs for reaching other markets are too high. If the analysis leads to this result, the program may want to discontinue the intervention where impact is not likely to be achieved and invest the resources in other activities that are more likely to have long-term impact. Output 1.2.4: 10 producer unions and 50 village level groupments have improved their access to markets (22,500 households, 7,000 women). The original FASO proposal described a strategy for working with existing unions and groupements for each value chain being promoted by the program rather than focusing on forming new marketing groups. After implementation began, however, it was discovered that the unions and groupements did not really exist in the program area or, if they did, they were completely dysfunctional and would require substantial organizational development before the program would even be able to begin the proposed capacity building around marketing. So, the strategy of the program changed to focus more on making marketing information available through a cell-phone based platform and building the marketing capacities of groups being formed by the program, especially lowland rice producers and parboiling groups. Table 10 provides available statistics on the new output related to market information and marketing capacity building. Table 10. Targets for Output 1.2.4 Access to Markets and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of program partner staff who have enrolled with Esoko n/a 81 85 --- Number of farmer participants who have enrolled with Seiko n/a 0 20 --- Number of targeted participants trained in basic marketing principles 0 109 125 17,800 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. In FY 2012, Afrique Verte provided training to program staff on the use of a cellphone-based platform called Esoko which, among its services, provides marketing price information and a mechanism for announcing offers and making bids. These trained staff have been enrolled in the service, but FASO does not seem to have a clear strategy on how to use this platform, particularly how this information is supposed to be made available to and used by producers in a sustainable way. Neither of the program's SO1 partners, ATT and OCADES, are planning to become involved in marketing, so once the FASO program ends, any marketing service that the trained staff might offer using the Esoko platform will not be continued. On marketing capacity building, FASO value chain technicians have been mapping out value chains for cowpea and sesame in order to understand more clearly marketing players, marketing FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 26 flows and prices at various stages. The program has developed two videos on marketing specifically for rice and a general farming video with different themes, one of which is on basic marketing principles. However, due to the logistics of renting video equipment and generators, the videos have not yet been widely shown. A major constraint for the program in achieving progress on this output is the staff structure of the program. Across the three districts under SO1, there are a total of 40 field animators, 9 field supervisors, and 3 value chain technicians. Many of the animators and field supervisors come with strong backgrounds in agricultural production. As a result, the production segment of targeted value chains receives much attention from the program, and to its credit, the program is achieving some good impact on increasing production. The other parts of the value chain, input supply and marketing, which are equally important in terms of sustaining program impact, are generally perceived within the program to be the responsibility of the value chain technicians, one person in each district. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.4 Access to Markets 19. The program should revise the statement of Output 1.2.4 to drop the concept of "unions" and "groupements" and say: "22,500 targeted households have expanded marketing capacities and access to marketing information." 20. The program should develop a strategy for establishing a network of community-based market brokers who will be:  The key point of contact for producers in the village who have production to sell  Enrolled in the Esoko platform and be trained to use the information available effectively  The key point of contact for buyers who are looking for production to buy  Motivated through commissions received from sellers and buyers.  Trained in the role of market broker and the benefits of fair trade business. Given the time remaining in the life of FASO, it is not possible to establish such a network across the program area. The program should select a few locations in each district targeting specific value chains, e.g., rice and cowpea, and pilot the strategy. 21. PRIORITY: The program should seek more balance in responsibilities for value chain development. The program cannot expect to achieve its objective under SO1 if most staff are working on increasing production and only a few staff are working on developing the rest of the value chains (input supply and marketing). There are two ways that this can be done, either by converting some animators to value chain technicians or by giving all animators some value chain development responsibilities. Output 1.2.5: 17,100 vulnerable beneficiaries sustainably finance productive activities. The major component of this output is the introduction of the Savings and Internal Lending Communities approach for mobilizing savings capital at the village-level. The FASO program is also facilitating access to bank capital for lowland rice production groups and for some rice parboiler groups. Table 11 provides available statistics on the activities under this output. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 27 Table 11. Targets for Output 1.2.3 Access to Capital and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of SILC groups established 0 0 300 --- Number of Care Group members in SILC groups 0 0 7,230 16,500 Accumulated savings in the current cycles as of April 2013 (in CFA) 0 0 39.966 million --- Interest generated on loans to SILC group members as of April 2013 (In CFA) 0 0 2.341 million --- Percent of beneficiaries accessing SILC during the last cropping season (IPTT) 0% --- n/a** 100% Percentage of SILC groups continuing after graduating from the first distribution 0% --- n/a** 90% Number of input suppliers linked to GRAINE for access to credit --- 22 72 35 Total value of loans received by lowland rice producer groups (in CFA) 0 6,841,375 --- Number of parboiler groups obtaining loans from FARF 0 0 10 --- Total value of loans received by parboiler groups (in CFA) 0 0 11,088,000 --- *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC). SILC is the approach developed by CRS for mobilizing savings capital at the village-level through community-based savings and lending groups. The strategy of the FASO Program was to introduce SILC in the third year of the program after other groups had been formed, and income had been increased through production increases so that SILC members would be able to have savings to mobilize through the SILC approach. SIC is part of the strategy for increasing revenue since the capital generated for members will be invested in loans taken by members from the group for income-generating activities. FASO is using the standard CRS approach with training on concepts provided to interested, self￾selecting groups living in a common locality. Groups decide the terms for their savings and lending activities. Usually savings shares are purchased weekly and loans are giving to members depending on the available capital. Some part of the capital that accumulates is set aside as a social fund to cover group events or emergencies that affect group members. At the end of a cycle period, usually nine months to a year, the capital that has accumulated through share purchases and interest income on loans, is shared-out to members based on the number of shares that each has purchased. The group then decides whether to start a new cycle; and if they decide to do so, they make any changes to the savings and lending terms before beginning. A SILC agent paid by the program normally facilitates the process of establishing the SILC groups and providing technical support. Over the last few years, CRS has introduced the concept of Private Service Provider in which SILC agents are compensated for the services they provide to new and existing groups as a way to motivate them to continue to replicate and scale up the approach after a program ends. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 28 In the original FASO Proposal, the plan was to assist mature SILC groups to be linked to GRAINE for accessing additional capital. In conducting interviews around SILC, the MTE team found that SILC is not entirely new in some parts of the program area. In Boulsa North, the recently completed OFDA Program implemented by CRS and OCADES had a SILC component, and Plan International also implements a Village Savings and Lending (VSL) intervention which is very similar to SILC. As planned, the SILC intervention in FASO has only gotten underway in the last year, and the first share-outs are planned for June 2013. It’s unfortunate that SILC was not started earlier in the program life, because it would have been useful for mobilizing capital to be able to purchase inputs rather than relying on subsidies. The SILC experience elsewhere has shown substantial impact on food security when loans and share-outs are invested in income-generating activities; social funds are used as a safety net to protect households that face a crisis such as injury or illness of a household member; and social capital benefits are realized through group membership and stronger reciprocal relations between members. In interviews held during the evaluation, SILC members reported using loans for mostly productive purposes, e.g., cowpea storage, groundnuts to resell, and petty trade. The loans provided to members are usually one month in duration with 10% interest. Some groups reported that the interest rate was set by the program which is a bit unusual in the SILC approach. Social funds had not yet been used in the groups that were interviewed. Since SILC groups have not yet completed a full cycle, it is difficult to discuss with them the impact of the intervention and the sustainability potential of the group. The share-out is a key event in the life of a SILC group that motivates members to continue in the group and others to want to join or form their own groups. Relative to share-outs, the program should be prepared to address major security concerns for SILC groups around share-out particularly in Gayeri District, but in the other districts as well, since a relatively large amount of money will have been assembled. For the first year, SILC still has a somewhat low profile. After the first year share￾out has been completed, however, the profile will be much higher and the risk of robbery will be much greater in the coming years. The FASO Program plans to accelerate the conversion of SILC agents to become Private Service Providers so that this will be in place by the time the program ends in two years. Access to Bank Capital. In addition to SILC, the FASO Program is also facilitating access for some participant groups to loans from a bank or other microfinance institution. In the first year of implementation of lowland rice production, access to fertilizer became apparent as a significant problem for the groups. So, the FASO Program used resources to set up a credit line with GRAINE for farmers to access loans. The program has also facilitated access to loans from the Income-Generating Activities for Women Support Fund (FARF) for some parboiling groups for working capital to purchase rice for parboiling. The MTE team observed that in the first round of loans for both lowlands and parboiler groups, the program has tried to cultivate participant independence while leading the groups through the application and repayment process. Relationships have been established with institutions, and if the loans are repaid, additional loans may be possible. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 29 RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.5 Access to Capital 22. PRIORITY: The program should not accelerate the establishment of the PSP model and should focus on getting the SILC model firmly in place and understood in the two years left in the program. Until groups have completed at least one share-out, they will not see services, such as calculating share-outs, that they will be willing to pay for. Usually it takes two completed cycles before the benefits of the approach are fully realized. Other people who want to form groups become more interested at that point, and the opportunities for PSPs to earn more income are greater. If SILC is not well-done when it is established, it becomes more difficult to establish in fixing problems and convincing participants of the benefits, so the program should focus now on getting the systems in place. There is even evidence in some locations (see the WALA Mid￾Term Evaluation Report from CRS Malawi) that SILC agents and SILC groups have found ways to compensate agents for their services even in the absence of a PSP intervention, when SILC works well. 23. If the decision is made on the recommendation for supporting the tool management committees to become tool renting businesses, the program should also include them in the strategy for building linkages to banks for accessing capital. Proposed New Activities for Increasing Revenue in IY 4. In the most recent PREP submitted 30 April 2013 for Implementation Year 4 which began in May 2103, FASO proposed one new activity for increasing revenue under IR 1.2. This is to pilot a warrantage loan intervention, which is basically an inventory loan to producers to access capital after harvest but store the crop as collateral on the loan until market prices rise. The crop is then sold, the loan is repaid and any balance goes to the farmer. FASO has held consultations with Caisse Populaire who already has similar loan product, and it is envisioned that the FASO food warehouses can be used for storing the product. This is an innovative idea worthy of being tested in FASO. For sustainability purposes, the program should be sure to avoid being recruited as a guarantor on the loans. The program should try as much as possible to build a strong, independent link between producers and the bank. The market broker concept proposed earlier may have a role in brokering and facilitating the application process for the loans, monitoring the market prices, and monitoring the stock. C.2. SO2 MCHN Overview SO 2 addresses the health, nutrition and water /sanitation needs of the population. Under SO2 FASO offers three basic packages of interventions. These are:  A full package of Title II Prevention of Malnutrition in Under 2 Approach (PM2A), The package follows USAID’s 2010 version of food-assisted PM2A. This is offered through HKI in Gayeri and OCADES in Boulsa North and reaches a combined group of 30,000 Mother/Child Units.  A water /sanitation package to 145 communities. Most of the communities are targeted for a Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach. Another 30 communities are in the process of receiving refurbished boreholes or new ones.  A Non-Food Aid prevention package offered by GRET in Manni. They focus on local made fortified products that reach women and children under 5 years. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 30 Figure 1 highlights the three main components of both prevention of malnutrition approaches used by FASO, and Table 12 summarizes the key inputs for SO2. Table 13 shows progress toward SO2 and related IR indicators. Figure 1 The FFP Basic PM2A Package Table 12. Summary of Key Inputs for SO2. SO2 Boulsa North Gayeri Mani Partners OCADES HKI GRET # of beneficiaries PM2A: As of March 2013: 17940 from a high of 18148 in December 2012 PM2A: As of April 2013 6,735 from a high of 11,129 in October 2012 P/L women Under 23 59 months 24 to 59 months Fortified Food Title II Rations: P/L 6 kgs of CSB & 65 cl of oil Child (6-23 months) 3Kgs of CSB & 33Cl of oil HH protection ration for the period of June to October is 7Kgs of bulgur, 2kgs of lentils and 1 liter of oil. Title II Rations: P/L 6 kgs of CSB & 65 cl of oil Child (6-23 months) 3Kgs of CSB & 33Cl of oil HH protection ration for the period of June to October is 7Kgs of bulgur, 2kgs of lentils and 1 liter of oil. Promotion of home￾based porridges; sale locally made Yomama Fortified flour for 6-23 months and Fortified Water for P/L women Behavior Change Care Group – 157 15619 Mothers reached by 1507 Lead Mothers Care Group – 183 17948 Mothers reached by 1837 lead mothers. 446 Village Nutrition Volunteer Reaching whole villages Promotion of health care and seeking behaviors Quality health and nutrition services High quality nutrient dense foods FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 31 Water and Sanitation support 9 renovated and 1 undergoing renovation 3 new boreholes to be constructed 5 renovated bore holes proposed or on-going as of May 2013 5 new boreholes to be started 5 renovated bore holes repaired or under￾repair 2 bore holes constructed. Access to health Services MUAC screening – promoter in collaboration with the CHW ENA training for CHW health staff (Planned) MUAC screening – promoter in collaboration with the CHW ENA training for CHWs (HKI) The community nutrition volunteer in collaboration with CHW ENA training of CHWs and VNV through GRET. Community staff 173 promoters 79 promoters NA Partner staff Coordinator Supervisor Animators 1 2 18 1 2 11 1 1 3 Staff trained in Community lead total sanitation. 20 - health 13- health 4- health CRS has one project manager who oversees the partners roll out of FASO activities. A long￾time staff member of CRS she spent one-month with CRS-Burundi learning in-depth the PM2A approach and the Care Group model. Recently she was joined by a maternal and child nutrition specialist. A water specialist oversees the WASH and CLTS components. In addition, there is a behavior change specialist that will start to support S02 after the mid-term evaluation. The Health and nutrition team is supported by the regional maternal and child nutrition regional technical advisor based in Senegal and a senior technical advisor in nutrition based at CRS’ HQ offices in Baltimore, Maryland. The center piece of SO2’s behavioral change strategy is peer learning. In Boulsa North and Gayeri FASO uses the globally recognized Care Group methodology for mother to mother peer learning. In Manni a cadre of village nutrition leaders are used. All three partners support the peer educators through the village promoters who in turn is supported and supervised by the animators (staff of each partner organization). The CRS project manager for SO2 spent a one-month TDY CRS-Burundi in 2011. During that time she was able to observe Care Groups as they are used in Burundi. The Care Groups and the village nutrition leaders appear to be well accepted by the communities in Burkina Faso. During visits to project sites for this mid-term the cadre of peer educators seemed dedicated to their work. For the most part, those peer educators interviewed could easily explain materials and discuss messages. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 32 Table 13. Indicators for SO2 and Related IRs and Achievement at the End of IY2 INDICATOR Baseline Thru IY 2 LOA Target Strategic Objective 2 (MCHN): 51,426 mother/child units have improved their health and nutrition. % of stunted children 6.59 months of age (HAZ<-2) 26.5% n/a 17.5% % of underweight children 0-59 months of age (WAZ <-2) 32.7% n/a 23.7% Intermediate Result 2.1 (Behavioral Change) 18,500 mothers of children 0-23 and pregnant women adopt recommended health, nutrition and hygiene practices 2.1.1 % of infants 0-5months of age who are fed exclusively with breast milk (FFP) 40% 62% 60% 2.1.2 % of households using the available (improved) sanitation facility (IEE) 22.60% 34.5% 32.6% 2.1.3 % of children 6-23 months of age who receive a minimum acceptable diet (apart from breast milk) (FFP) 9.6% 26.5% 30% 2.1.4 % of children age 0-23 months in the last two weeks whose mother sought out advice or treatment for the illness 54% 77.8% 70% 2.1.5 % of mothers of children age 0-23 months who had four antenatal visits when they were pregnant with the youngest child 35.5 % 25.5 60% 2.1.6 % of mothers of children 0-23 months who had a postnatal visit within 45 days of delivery 22% 35.9% 40% Intermediate Result 2.2 (Health Services): 79,590 women and children 0-59 months access quality nutrition and health services. 2.2.2 % of mothers of targeted children 0-23 months who gave birth in the health center 62.9% 60% 90.2% The use of peer educators is part of the Government of Burkina Faso’s emerging community health strategy. Dr.Valea Dieudonne Eric, Director of community health for the Ministry of Health encourages CRS to document the success of Care Groups and village nutrition leaders11 . Such a study when completed could be used to further discuss Care Groups /village nutrition committees as part of the national community health strategy. The Care Groups / village nutrition leaders are supported by community promoters. The promoters function at or near the level of a community health volunteer. They were selected by communities based on criteria, and receive an incentive from the project. The key functions of the promoter are: a) to train the peer educators, b) coordinate with MOH on MUAC, and c) support food distributions. In the proposal CRS proposed as part of sustainability work on a scheme for communities to provide the incentives for maintaining the promoters. No such scheme as yet to be developed by FASO. An unanticipated opportunity for sustaining some of the promoters could be as replacements for the MOH’s aging Community Health Volunteers according to Dr. Valea Dieudonne Eric12. The same opportunity is opened to qualified mother leaders as well. FASO having two different BCC delivery mechanisms is an opportunity to compare Care Groups with the GRET nutrition leaders. 11 Meeting between Dr. Valea Dieudonne Eric, Director of Community Health for Ministry of Health and CRS June 11, 2013 12 Meeting between CRS and MOH. June 11, 2013 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 33 A challenge for the mid-term review has been the lack of timely data on the up-take of behaviors. The current data from the yearly survey is one-year old and taken at a time when OCADES BCC activities were just being launched (HKI and GRET’s activities had been on-going). While many indicators from the survey showed substantial changes in behavior it is not clear if behaviors continued to improve over the past year. There is also question that as enrollment has stopped for PM2A if households have stopped practicing. Visited villages assured the evaluation team that they would never revert back to their old ways as they now value good nutritional status of their children. While such statements are appreciated the reality is that there are concerns that behaviors may not be practiced if food aid is withdrawn. The project with a full 24 months remaining has the opportunity to monitor behaviors and make adjustments to their current strategies. C.2.1. Intermediate Result 2.1: 18,500 mothers of children 0-23 months and pregnant women adopt recommended health, nutrition and hygiene practices Below is a summary of the findings after reviewing the five key outputs of Intermediate Result 2.1. Output 2.1.1: 18,500 caregivers of children 0-23 months have the recommended health, nutrition and hygiene knowledge. Output 2.1.2: 26,230 caregivers of children 0-23 months develop positive attitudes for appropriate health, nutrition and hygiene practices. Output 2.1.4 Influential people at the community level support pregnant women and mothers of children 0-23 months in adopting recommended health, hygiene and nutrition practices/ Output 2.1.5 25,700 mothers and children consume food rich in micronutrients As all four of these outputs relate to an aspect of maternal and infant nutrition and health we will report out on them together rather than report out on each output. As the tables below indicate there were some significant changes in behavior from the baseline to the first annual report. Table 14. Output Targets for Output 2.1 and Achievement at the End of IY2 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Thru IY 2 LOA Target 2.1.1.1 % of heads of households and mothers of children of 0-23 months who know all critical moments for hand washing 0 14.7% 25% 2.1.1.2 % mothers of children 0-23 months who can correctly cite at least 2 advantages of exclusive breastfeeding 26.7% 53.8% 55% 2.1.1.3 % of mothers of children aged 0-23 months who know at least two danger signs of childhood illness that indicate the need for treatment 3.5% 63.4% 30% FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 34 Table 15. Output Targets for Output 2.1 4 and Achievement at the End of IY2 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Thru IY 2 LOA Target 2.1.4.1 % of men who can cite at least three advantages of delivering in a health center .50% 86.7% 20% 2.1.4.2 % of mothers of children 0-23 months who can cite two examples how their husbands supported them in adopting healthy practices 38.2% 96.4% 75% Table 16. Output Targets for Output 2.5 and Achievement at the End of IY2 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Thru IY 2 LOA Target 2.1.5.1 % of children 6-23 months of age who receive foods from 4 or more food groups (7 food groups) during the previous day 8% 26.5% 25% 2.1.5.2. % of pregnant women and mothers of children 0-23 months consuming foods from 4 or more food groups (7 groups) during the previous day 12.8% 44% 35% 2.1.5.3. % of targeted children 6-23 months consuming Vitamin A rich foods in the last 24 hours 20.60% 44.1% 35% 2.1.5.4.% of mothers of children 0-23 months consuming Vitamin A rich foods in the last 24 hours (FFP) 31.40% 64.1% 40% 2.1.5.5. % of children 6-23 months consuming at least 1.6 kg of locally "fortified" flour per month as complimentary foods 21.0% 0 35% Our site visits showed that people were clearly “excited” about behaviors. Both men and women as well as influential leaders spoke clearly about selected behaviors and the value they derive from practicing such behaviors. During our sites visit we observed the following:  Mothers as the primary care giver/ target of FASO messages: Our observation during visits to the community was that mothers were viewed as the primary caregiver. This is substantiated by the Care Groups. Women were seen by both men and women as responsible for child care. FASO messages are geared towards mothers as the primary caregivers. This focus on mothers raised a question if the uptake of behaviors inadvertently increased mothers’ workloads.  Use of influential leaders: : Clearly, leaders recognized changes to child’s nutritional status. They gave examples of how they helped women reduce workload, praised women for clean houses, and indicated men now help women keep health appointments. We found the process of engaging the leaders to be “organic” with no unified plan on the part of FASO for engaging leaders. Different partners had different interactions with leaders.  Adoption of tools: The project adopted key Essential Hygiene Actions, Health seeking, and Essential Nutrition Actions. As stated above the Care Group or the CVNs are the primary vehicles for delivering messages on key behaviors. These messages are primarily delivered by word of mouth, with accompanying visual aids. Visual materials used by the FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 35 Care Groups and CVNs were adapted from materials and messages developed by the Government of Burkina. The Care Group mother leaders have “posters” with 3 or 4 key messages on each poster. Posters have captions in local languages. The posters are used to talk to mothers and fathers. The promoter has a larger “facilitator guide” for training the mother leaders. All posters are reported to have been reviewed by the government literacy unit. The Ministry of Health requested and received from CRS the materials in local languages. As part of the phase over plan the team might consider up-grading materials such as talking books to assure that Care Group leaders have accurate messages.  Findings during the site visits strongly point towards an uptake in many targeted behaviors (those measured by the IPTT) such as exclusive breastfeeding, frequency of meals for infants, attendance at ANC, and facility births to name a few. The change in behaviors from baseline to the first survey supports the up-take of many of those behaviors There are several exceptions to positive behavior change. These are: o Hygiene and Sanitation. People spoke of “bathing” and household cleanliness but seldom spoke of “garbage controls”, hand-washing, household water management or latrine use. Many respondents spoke of separating animals from the household as a “FASO message” they have learned. While such an action contributes to reduce spread of disease – it begs the question why only some elements of FASO hygiene and sanitation behaviors are being adopted. FASO is just now launching their Water and Sanitation activities (see 2.1.3 below) and the peer education materials of FASO do include hygiene and sanitation messages. The limited up-take on key hygiene and sanitation messages especially hand￾washing begs for formative research. Understanding why people have not embraced some hygiene and sanitation messages when they obviously have taken up many other FASO behaviors should be a key priority of the program, especially given the relatively higher impact of hand washing, safe water storage and latrine use on child health and nutrition compared to household cleanliness and bathing. o In Interviews with mothers, fathers and others, child nutrition themes were commonly mentioned (e.g. stopping purges for babies, providing porridges, increasing frequency of meals, etc). In contrast, seldom did women (or men) speak of maternal nutrition. In the GRET communities they spoke of drinking fortified white water13 during pregnancy for extra strength. The education materials of FASO speak of the need for maternal nutrition. People (men and women) could easily link their “new behaviors” to much improved child status. They recognized that if they fed the baby frequently it would be healthier. That same recognition of linking behaviors to nutrition outcomes to mothers was not as strong especially regarding dietary intake such as additional meals, or more vegetables or meat servings. Respondents (men and women) did understand that mothers needed to reduce workload, and through ANC visits take iron supplements. 13 “White water” in a local drink made of tamarind. Fortified white water is made by adding a fortification product sold by GRET to homemade white water. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 36 RECOMMENDATIONS for Intermediate Result 2.1. Behavioral Change for MCHN 24. PRIORITY: Review/revision of Behavior Change Strategy. The strategy was formulated three years ago when communities and households assumed malnutrition was the “norm”. Now with wide-spread community and household appreciation for good nutritional status of children the BCC strategy needs to be reviewed and revised to assure messages remain timely and relevant to changing context. As part of the revised strategy FASO needs to identify a way to get “communities to own good nutrition” and to gear BCC towards Government messages. The BCC revision process should be a consultative process with communities, government and other stakeholders. Special attention should be given in including WASH component, SO1 and SO3 teams and partners in the revision process so messages and activities are coordinated.and SO3 teams and partners in the revision process so messages and activities are coordinated. 25. PRIORITY: Develop and conduct operation research on the peer education models (Care Group and CVN). Engage government in identifying the focus of the research and in the actual study as well. Present findings at the CORE Group spring meeting in 2014 (all partners plus government if appropriate should attend). 26. PRIORITY: Develop and implement a sustainability plan for promoters and care groups with government and communities Figure 2. Timeline for IR2.1 Recommendations Output 2.1.3: Hygiene and sanitation conditions are improved in 148 communities. This output has two functions. The first is to build awareness about hygiene and sanitation through the use of a peer awareness methodology called Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS). The second function is to meet demand for reconstructive boreholes or new boreholes. The later will be through contracts. CLTS will be carried out by the trained health animators of HKI, OCADES and GRET. SO1 and SO3 staffs were also trained but FASO has no current plans to use those individuals. •BCC revison •Operation reearch defined •Dialogue with MOH and communities on the role and support to Care Groups, July 2013/Sept 2013 •Roll out changes to BCC •Conduct OR and present at CORE •Work with Government and communties on sustaining, hiring Promoters and animators. October 2013 to April 2014 •Phase over of Care Groups, Promoters to MOH and Commumities •Recognize communities with positive practices May 2014 to July 15 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 37 Table 17. Output Targets for Output 2.3 and Achievement at the End of IY2 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Thru IY 2 LOA Target 2.1.3.1 % of households with access (possessing) to an improved sanitation facility (latrines) (IEE) 17.4% 8.0% 25% 2.1.3.2 # of rehabilitated water infrastructure with protection measures integrated (IEE) --- 9.0% 26% 2.1.3.4. % of latrines built to EGSSAA design specification (IEE) 8.2% 7.1% 14% The activities are just being started for this output and therefore little to show or observe. Given the link between child nutritional status and hygiene, water and sanitation there is no question about the appropriateness of this output. The critical problem is that it is getting started so late in the project that it won’t be able to demonstrate its attributes to maternal and child health. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUTPUT 2.3 Water, Sanitation & Hygiene 27. PRIORITY: Have the Water and Sanitation regional technical advisor visit FASO, review the current plans, and work with the program to facilitate greater synergy between the PM2A and WASH interventions. C.2.2. Intermediate Result 2.2: 79,590 women and children 0-59 months access quality nutrition and health services This intermediate result includes two outputs, the first focused on improving the quality of available services, while the second focused on reducing barriers to women’s service use. Output 2.2.1: 38 health centers provide quality services for preventing and treating malnutrition of women and children. FASO sought to build the capacity of local health facilities to provide high quality nutrition counseling and offer appropriate nutritional interventions, particularly treatment of acutely malnourished children. To reinforce the quality of services, FASO proposed to  Organize focus groups to examine how health services can be improved;  Support district health staff in training personnel in management of malnutrition, Essential Nutrition Actions, and supportive counseling methods;  Provide active supervision of health center staff, relating to implementation of IMCI14 , malnutrition and counseling protocols; and,  Ensure routine malnutrition screening and effective referral/counter-referral systems. 14 IMCI was originally proposed for FASO but was removed in the final approved proposal, since the targeted Health Districts received funding from UNICEF for IMCI. The Health Districts have been finding it difficult to achieve implementation targets for IMCI for this funding, however. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 38 Table 18. Output Targets for Output 2.1 and Achievement at the End of IY2 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Thru IY 2 (% of target achieved) LOA Target 2.2.1.2 # of people trained in child health and nutrition (OP) 0 945 (26%) 3572 2.2.1.4 % of targeted children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM referred to a health center and received (FFP) [sic]15 46.7% 22.2% (37%) 60% 2.2.1.5.1 # of children reached by nutrition program (OP) 0 62,508 (238%) 26,227 2.2.1.5.2 # of mothers reached by nutrition program (OP) 0 24,524 (123%) 19,879 Training. As designed, the training component of the project was rather limited, especially given the high turnover of staff within the health system. FASO’s initial budget included just over $40,000 for facility staff training in various topics:  42 facility staff in clinical IMCI;  82 facility staff in Essential Nutrition Actions;  82 facility staff in Management of Malnutrition; and,  96 facility staff in Nutrition (not specified further). Most facility staff trainings were planned in years 2 or 3, with the exception of Manni District where facility staff trainings were initially budgeted annually. The budget also did not cover all districts with the same trainings – e.g. as Gayeri District had already rolled out IMCI training, no further IMCI training was budgeted there. Finally, while supportive counseling is one of the training themes listed in the proposal, there was no corresponding training in the budget. Visits to health facilities and meetings with District Health Management Teams revealed limited implementation of health/nutrition related trainings. This component appears to have been overshadowed by behavior change activities, food distribution, and malnutrition screening. According to project records, the project has realized one training of facility staff, reaching 25 facility staff in Gayeri District with training in Essential Nutrition Actions. An additional training in Essential Nutrition Actions in Boulsa Nord has been postponed to IY4 due to scheduling constraints with the District Health Management Team. As the Ministry of Health organized training in Integrated Management of Acute Malnutrition with funding from UNICEF, the project reallocated these resources toward other ends. According to project documents the planned IMCI training was removed from the budget/workplan to cover higher costs associated with other interventions. Facility staff training needs remain pronounced. Facility staff training helps to ensure the delivery of quality services, which is essential to sustaining use of services, especially in the absence of food-based incentives for attendance. Throughout the project area, facility staff/ district management teams were most likely to report that they had been recently trained in Integrated Management of Acute Malnutrition, but due to high staff turnover, they continued to cite this as one of many priority training needs. In general, training needs were least pronounced in Gayeri district, where the project recently supported training in Essential Nutrition Actions. 15 See comments regarding this indicator in the section on “Malnutrition Screening and Referrals” and “Recommendations for Output 2.2.1,” both below. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 39 Training in clinical IMCI was underway in Manni District at the time of the midterm evaluation, but was cited as a priority by all three Districts (the training in Manni would not reach all staff). Even where FASO or other actors had organized trainings, they rarely reached all relevant facility staff. Most health facilities have three staff members, each of whom interacts with pregnant/lactating women and/or children under 5. However, because trainings are generally organized once and not all staff can be absent simultaneously, typically only one staff member is targeted. While this approach may makes sense for certain topics, Essential Nutrition Actions and Counseling skills are pertinent for all staff who have contact with pregnant women or young children. In some cases, there is the assumption that training information will be shared among staff, though this is not always case, underlining the need for active supervision (see below). Table 19. Training for Facility-Based Staff Topic # trained Proposed Comments Essential Nutrition Actions 25 82 Completed in Gayeri District, planned in Boulsa Nord for IY4 Management of Acute Malnutrition 0 82 Carried out in all three districts by the Ministry of Health in conjunction with UNICEF Supportive Counseling 0 0 Not budgeted as a standalone training The project’s experiences underscore the importance of scheduling frequent trainings (to account for high facility staff turnover and to ensure training opportunities are available to all relevant facility staff) to ensure sustained gains in the quality of facility services. A key observation by the evaluation team was that facility and health district level staff had very little familiarity with stunting – the main malnutrition problem that FASO works to address. Burkina Faso has recently joined the Scaling Up Nutrition movement (which emphasizes stunting), but Burkina’s previous nutrition efforts have been heavily focused on management of acute malnutrition. As a result, while facility and district staff were extremely familiar with the risks of acute malnutrition, how to identify it and how to treat it, they were much less aware of stunting as nutritional problem with impact on child health, how to identify it, nor how to address it. Children’s health cards currently include (outdated) growth curves, but in the course of the evaluation none were observed to be complete. Facility staff admitted they do not fill growth curves in children’s books consistently, due to either to time constraints or because they do not believe this information allows them to identify children who are malnourished. They do maintain registers of children’s weight and height at the facility level. The project is planning to provide orientation to facility staff on measuring/documenting the height-for-age (stunting) status of children at their graduation. Active Supervision. FASO proposed to engage two “quality health care coordinators” per district to provide “active supervision” at health centers and ensure protocols for treatment of acute malnutrition are followed, while building counseling skills, particularly for infant and young child feeding. An “active supervision” component is an important complement to the training program as ensures that information from training is put into practice, disseminates training information to staff members unable to attend the training, and helps to maintain quality in the FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 40 face of high staff turnover. While active supervision is a responsibility of the District Health Management team, FASO planned to provide additional support in select priority areas. There is currently no IPTT indicator related to active supervision, so implementation cannot be quantified. In Gayeri District, HKI’s “supervisors” carry out monthly supportive supervision at facilities, using standard checklists. In other districts, active supervision is less formal or frequent since the District Medical Officers in Manni and Boulsa have been somewhat reluctant to see an “outsider” perform this supervisory function. The FASO “supervisor” responsibilities in these districts are primarily focused on supervising animators and less time is dedicated to supporting facilities. FASO is planning on organizing an exchange between Gayeri and the other two districts to address this issue. Malnutrition Screening and Referrals. Program FASO proposed to work with existing community health workers (CHWs) to screen children under five for malnutrition using Mid Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) at quarterly home visits and to engage Leader Mothers to conduct screening of children 6-23 months during monthly Care Groups. Through these approaches, FASO intended to routinely screen all 79,590 children 6-59 months for malnutrition. As noted in the IY3 Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal (January 2011), after pilot testing screening by leader mothers through Care Groups, FASO opted to abandon this approach but retain screening by CHWs through quarterly door-to-door campaigns. Challenges noted with the leader mother approach were:  Care Groups normally convened on the day of food distribution. As food distribution is already a time burden, the additional burden of malnutrition screening seemed too high;  Due to low literacy levels, Lead Mothers were not able to report on malnutrition screening activities effectively. Door-to-door screening campaigns appear to be effective. CHWs receive refresher training before each screening and were found to understand the screening and referral process in detail. In 2012, FASO screened 61,747 children (77% of target). In the most recent screenings for which data is available (between December 2012 and February 2013 depending on the district)16 ,, less than 5% of children screened were found to be malnourished. The referral system appears to be operational. Facilities are routinely able to treat children with severe acute malnutrition with support from UNICEF, though they face occasional stock outs of supplementary foods for children with moderate acute malnutrition (provided by the World Food Program). CHWs and/or Leader Mothers and/or CVNs follow up to make sure referred children were taken to the health facility and to provide adherence promotion and additional counseling to the family. While the program has a good amount of data on their malnutrition screening activities, the current indicator used in the Performance Monitoring Plan is not informative. The program reports on “% of targeted children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM referred to a health center and received (FFP).” This indicator would seem to be intended to measure the number of children who were referred who actually received treatment. However, the performance monitoring plan defines the indicator as “#of targeted children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM referred to a health center / # of children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM 16 2% in Manni in February 2013, 4.9% in Boulsa Nord in December 2012 and 2% in Gayeri in December 2012. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 41 )*100,” which seems to reflect a referral rate. Data reported by the program is consistent with the former interpretation; however, this is not a strong measure of program success because (i) whether a child is treated is dependent on the availability of supplementary rations, ready to use therapeutic foods and medicines made available by the World Food Program and UNICEF, (ii) a low rate could reflect over referral or low uptake of treatment – two very different issues, and (iii) the indicator does not reflect the programs commitment to screen all children. While the current approach is effective, it is not sustainable. National CHW policies stipulate that CHWs are not salaried, but receive stipends for periodic “campaign” activities. Accordingly, FASO provides stipends to all CHWs involved in screening. Because screening is generally associated with remuneration, many CHWs are reluctant to undertake screening outside of formal campaigns. Screening campaigns are included among the government’s activities for malnutrition, but health districts rarely have funding to realize them without external support. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 2.2.1: Health Center Services 28. Prioritize remaining training funding for IMCI and ENA (emphasizing IYCF) trainings. Explore possibilities to increase training budgets as the project has only met 26% of its training target and additional training opportunities for facility staff would make the project’s impact more sustainable. 29. Increase the project’s contributions to national SUN efforts and the broader focus on stunting and prevention-oriented malnutrition. While no particular activities were originally planned to increase capacity in stunting, FASO has an opportunity to contribute to increased awareness – nationally and within the project area – of stunting and to support the government’s efforts to transition to a more holistic approach to nutrition. Particular opportunities include:  Increase documentation and sharing of project experiences with the government  Invite key personnel from the Nutrition Bureau to visit project activities  Design and schedule training/orientation with district and facility staff on chronic malnutrition and growth charts and provide active supervision 30. PRIORITY. Strengthen/Expand Active Supervision. While the district health management team is ultimately responsible for the quality of facility services, project support for Active Supervision helps to ensure the quality of project priority services. It is a necessary complement to training, by ensuring skills are applied and expanded. The FASO team may need to review staffing structures and responsibilities to achieve desired level of facility support. As animators as now more familiar with their roles, and responsibilities for food distribution are decreasing, supervisors should be able to increase their support to facilities without jeopardizing other project outcomes. The project should consider tracking the % of facilities who received a supervision visit during a given time period to monitor progress. 31. Remove the indicator “% of targeted children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM referred to a health center and received” and replace it with two alternate indicators:  # of children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM/number of children 6-59 in the target area. This indicator measures whether the project is meeting its objective of screening all children.  # of children enrolled in a MAM or SAM treatment program / # of children referred to a health center for MAM or SAM (disaggregated by MAM/SAM). This indicator would allow the program to identify whether the referral system is functioning and better FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 42 identify issues with availability of treatment. 32. PRIORITY. Pilot and scale up options to increase the sustainability of malnutrition screening activities. As Leader Mothers already have strong contact with young children and do not expect compensation for their work, FASO should strongly consider options to engage them in screening. Previous research in the Sahel has shown non literate women can conduct screening with nearly the same effectiveness as literate CHWs. The main barrier FASO faced to using Leader Mothers was their inability to report, though the project proposed to use simple forms for preliterate people – more attention may need to be given to the design of the form. The program may also which to explore whether Leader Mothers need to be responsible for the reporting, or whether facilities can report on the number of children referred by Leader Mothers. As food distribution activities are winding down, the time constraint may no longer be relevant; however, if it remains an issue the project should explore other venues for periodic screenings. Output 2.2.2: 248 communities facilitate women's access to health care. As a complement to activities to strengthen the supply of high quality health services (Output 2.2.1), FASO also proposed to reduce barriers to uptake of services. FASO proposed to:  Promoters and supervisors will engage the VHC to help monitor women’s participation and identify constraints to women’s participation in care groups or use of health services.  Engage village health committees in identifying and overcoming barriers to women’s use of health services;  Work with influential community members about how the community can support women and children’s access to preventative and curative health care; and,  Promote household level support of women through BCC channels. As discussed in the behavior change section (above), these activities have been largely successful, with women reporting increased attendance at facilities linked to increased support from their husbands in seeking care (husbands more willing to authorize travel and to provide transportation, particularly for delivery). Men particularly appreciate that more frequent use of preventative care leads to lower healthcare costs. The MTE team does not have any recommendations for Output 2.2.2. C.3. SO3 Governance Overview In the original design of the FASO Program, the third Strategic Objective targeted enabling 800 community structures to be able to advocate for their interests to decentralized authorities, influencing factors contributing to food security. The community structures that were targeted included Village Development Committees (VDCs), Water User Committees or Water Management Committees (COGES), and Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs), and program intended to build their capacities for using good governance practices in planning, mitigating and responding to food insecurity risks. PTAs were targeted specifically to support a girls education focus. During the FANTA2 M&E workshop held in August 2010, the logic of SO3 was questioned, and revisions were made such that now the SO3 logic appears as shown in Figure 3. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 43 Figure 3: Current Logic Structure for SO3 Governance The figure shows that there is still somewhat confusing logic under SO3, since the two outputs under the second IR do not really have a direct link to the IR. Moreover, a closer look at the actual outputs and activities being implemented under SO3 enhances the confusion. Under IR 3.1, the program has been facilitating the implementation of "self-analyses" with VDCs, Lowland Rice Producers Groups, Water Users Associations, PTAs and Mothers Associations17 in 100 villages. Self-analyses are community development planning exercises resulting in action plans. In addition, under IR 3.1, the program is supporting adult education classes that are targeting leaders of the various groups that have been formed by the program, including VDCs, PTAs, MAs, as well as parboiler groups and lead mothers in Care Groups. Under IR 3.2, the program is implementing school feeding activities through school canteens, providing take home rations for families of girls who meet attendance standards, and working with the community￾based organizations supporting the schools to implement arrange of activities to support the schools, including school canteen graduation strategies, tree planting, and wood lots. Few of these are designed specifically to facilitate women occupying leadership roles. In fact, the FASO Program is already facilitating women to occupy leadership roles in the community in many different ways across the program:  Women are receiving plots in lowlands  Women are leading rice parboiling groups.  Women are leading many of the SILC groups  Women are leading zai groups  Care groups are composed of mother leaders 17 Mothers Associations (Association des Meres Educatrices) are mandated by the Ministry of Education for each school with the purose to promote girls education. Goal: Reduced Vulnerability to Food Insecurity SO3: 800 Community Structures have improved their local governance IR 3.1 500 community committees equitably manage community resources IR 3.2 1600 women occupy leadership roles in their communities Output 3.2.1 30,561 girls are enrolled in preschool and primary school Output 3.2.2 300 PTAs, MAs and VDCs support girls education Output 3.1.1 500 community have governance and organizational knowledge FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 44  Mothers Associations are led by women The MTE team is proposing to revise the logic for SO3 to be more internally consistent and more focused so the program can achieve greater impact. It is not possible in the time remaining or with the budget available in the life of the FASO program to introduce new activities to promote women's leadership. Since the program is already promoting women leaders across all SOs in the strategy, this should be made a cross-cutting objective for the program. Figure 4 displays the other changes that the MTE is proposing. The sections which follow will describe the Outputs shown in Figure 2. Table 20 summarizes the current performance indicators for SO3 and the two IRs. Figure 4: Proposed Revised Logic Structure for SO3 Governance Goal: Reduced Vulnerability to Food Insecurity SO3: Community-based organizations in 100 villages are using principles of good governance in implementing community development plans for reducing food insecurity. IR 3.1 100 Village Development Committees are coordinating the development and implementation of community development action plans. IR 3.2 PTAs, MAs and VDCs around 340 primary schools are providing support to school canteens to enhance the quality of basic education services, especially targeting girls. Output 3.2.1 45,000 primary school students and 3,000 pre-school children per year have received mid-day meals through school canteens in 340 schools and 41 preschools. Output 3.2.3 PTAs, MAs and VDCs in 100 villages have expanded capacities for mobilizing resources to support school canteens. support girls education Output 3.1.1 100 Village Development Committees have expanded capacities for coordinating planning and implementation of community development activities using principles of good governance. Output 3.1.2 2000 leaders from VDCs and other CBOs participating in FASO Program activities have expanded functional literacy capacities. Output 3.2.2 10,000 girls per year in 159 schools achieving the program's attendance standards have received take home rations. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 45 Table 20. Indicators for SO3 and Related IRs INDICATORS Baseline Thru IY 2 18 LOA Target Strategic Objective 3 (Governance): CURRENT: 800 community structures have improved their local governance practice PROPOSED: Community-based organizations in 100 villages are using principles of good governance in implementing community development plans for reducing food insecurity. Indicator 3.1: Girls' primary school completion rate. 25.1% ---* 30% Indicator 3.2: Percent of targeted community structures applying at least three of four good governance principles in implementing community activities. 19.4% ---* 61.26% Indicator 3.2a: Percent of targeted Village Development Counsels applying at least three of four good governance principles in implementing community activities 51.2% ---* 61.28% Indicator 3.2b: Percent of targeted PTAs applying at least three of four good governance principles in implementing community activities 46.5% ---* 54.15% Indicator 3.2c: Percent of targeted "COGES"/AUE applying at least three of four good governance principles in implementing community activities 6.0% ---* 54.15% Intermediate Result 3.1: CURRENT: 500 community committees equitably manage community resources. PROPOSED: 100 Village Development Committees are coordinating the development and implementation of community development action plans. Indicator 3.1.1. Percent of village development counsels (VDCs) respecting 3 of the 4 functioning criteria 40.57% 32.1% 59.84% NEW Indicator: Percent of 100 targeted VDCs who have developed and begun implementing community development plans by the end of CY 2014. n/a --- 90% NEW Indicator: Average value of cash and in-kind (excluding labor) resources mobilized by VDCs to support community development action plans in CY 2014. n/a --- 1,000,000 CFA NEW Indicator: Percent of adult education participants who are able to pass a basic literacy exam. n/a --- 90% Intermediate Result 3.2: CURRENT: 1600 women occupy leadership roles in their communities PROPOSED: PTAs, MAs and VDCs around 340 primary schools are providing support to school canteens to enhance the quality of basic education services, especially targeting girls. Indicator 3.2.1: Percent of targeted community structures with at least one woman in decision-making positions. 25.8% 49.4% 29.8% Indicator 3.2.1a: Percent of targeted village development counsels with at least one woman in decision-making positions 44.2% 46.1% 15.4%19 Indicator 3.2.1b: Percent of targeted PTAs with at least one woman in decision-making positions 32.6% 18.5% 12.8% Indicator 3.2.1c: Percent of targeted "COGES"/AUE with at least one woman in decision-making positions 12.1% 76.5% 12.6% 18 The FASO Implementation Year covers the period June through May. Implementation Year 2 ended on 31 May 2012. 19 These LOA targets are not typographical errors. It appears that the targets were not revised after the baseline. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 46 NEW Indicator: Average value of cash or in-kind (food) resources per student mobilized by school-related CBOs (PTAs, MAs and VDCS) to support school canteens for the 2014/2015 school year. --- --- 5,000 CFA *Estimates for these indicators will be generated during the final evaluation. C.3.1. Intermediate Result 3.1: (CURRENT) 800 community structures have improved their local governance practice or (PROPOSED) Community-based organizations in 100 villages are using principles of good governance in implementing community development plans for reducing food insecurity. Output 3.1.1: (PROPOSED REVISION) 100 Village Development Committees have expanded capacities for coordinating planning and implementation of community development activities using principles of good governance. At the moment the FASO Program is working in 100 villages under SO3 and is working with five types of community-based organizations (CBOs) in each village. Not all of the villages have all of these types of CBOs, so across these villages, the program is working with 93 Village Development Committees, 98 Parent-Teachers Associations, 98 Mothers' Associations, 79 Water Users Associations, and 3 Rice Producers (Improved Lowlands) Groups. With each of these CBOs the program undertakes a "self￾analysis" in which the organization identifies strengths and weaknesses and develops action plans. Table 21 summarizes available statistics on this output. Table 21. Targets for Output 3.1.1 Village Development Committees and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of management structures that receive training and refresher training on their roles, responsibilities, and the ideal functioning of their structures 0 92 279 800 Number of site management plans developed including costs for running equipment, maintenance, and support of all management committees in organizing and executing annual maintenance (low lying areas, water points, etc) 0 0 0 20 Number of assisted communities with improved community capacity as a result of the FASO Program intervention (IPTT) 0 50 100 248 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. The MTE team noted that the workload under this output exceeds the staff capacity of the program. Each SO3 community facilitator (FACOM) is responsible for working with ten villages within which up to five CBOs can be present, meaning that a FACOM works with as many as 50 CBOs. This work is in addition to their other tasks associated with facilitating linkages for adult literacy, school feeding/take home rations and building capacities around school canteen graduation. The topic of governance is a common theme across all of the capacity building done with these CBOs. The primary messages on this theme promote regular meetings of the organization, good record-keeping, transparent decision-making, and financial management and accountability. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 47 The application of these principles is on the key task for each group. In the case of the lowland rice producers group, for example, the capacities are built around managing the lowland. In the case of the water users association, the capacities are built around managing the borehole. In the case of Parent-Teachers Associations and Mothers Associations, the capacities are built around supporting the schools, and in the case of the Village Development Committees, the capacities are built around community development planning and management. Because the FACOMs have so many different types of groups with whom they must work, they are only able to basically "scratch the surface" on what needs to be done with each. The MTE team also observed that while the VDC has responsibility for coordinating community development in the village, the program is not building their capacities to ensure representation from all of the different groups that have been formed in the program, including rice parboilers under SO1, zai groups under SO1, SILC groups, tool management committees, and care groups under SO2. While there are probably some villagers who are members of a number of these different groups, each of the groups has a different mandate and different community development interests that should be included in the planning facilitated by the VDCs. The rice parboilers, for example, may have marketing problems that a community development strategy might address. The tool management committees may be generating revenue from the social enterprise they are managing that can be leveraged in community development plans. The care groups may want others in the village to be aware of the nutritional benefits of specific crops so that farmers will produce more of these. Community development plans might also support the development of markets for SILC group members to use their loans or share-outs. The MTE team noted some positive results from the training provided by the program. Regular meetings are now being performed by the VDC with notes taken by members. All VDC members, not just the chairman, are now aware of their responsibility to manage village community development, and VDCs have begun to assume the role of coordinating and supporting some CBOs in the village (PTAs, MAs, RP, WUA). One constraint to achieving greater impact is that elections of VDCs members is supposed to be happening now, but the commune administration has not started organizing these elections, so current VDC members do not feel fully empowered to act since they may no longer be their positions after the elections are held. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.1.1 Village Development Committees 33. PRIORITY. In order to deepen the process of building capacities for community-managed community development, the FACOM should focus on building the capacities of the VDC to coordinate community development action planning with all of the types of groups that may be found in a targeted village, including not only Lowland Rice Producers groups, Water Users Associations, PTAs and MAs, but also Tool Management Committees, SILC groups, Care Groups, Zai Groups, and Parboiler Groups, 34. PRIORITY. The target number of villages (100) for SO3 should not be changed. While the FACOM focuses on building the capacities of VDCs, the responsibility for organizational development and action planning with other CBOs such as rice producers groups should be transferred to animators or technicians who are working with these groups, with technical support from the FACOM on the governance themes. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 48 35. PRIORITY. The program should provide enhanced refresher training to the FACOMs to facilitate capacity building with the VDC to be able to:  Practice principles of good governance (this is already being done, but the principle of representation should be included)  Facilitate community development analyses focused on building community assets or addressing problems that affect significant numbers of people living in the village.  Develop community development action plans to address problems or opportunities identified in the analyses.  Mobilize resources through Matching Grants from the program and other sources, including government, donors, the private sector, NGOs, successful sons and daughters from the village living elsewhere, and from within the village  Implement action plans.  Use monitoring and evaluation tools to measure progress and assess quality. Output 3.1.2: (PROPOSED NEW) 2000 leaders from VDCs and other CBOs participating in FASO Program activities have expanded functional literacy capacities. The FASO Program has been facilitating access to adult education literacy classes implemented in schools through the National Literacy Office (NLO). Key activities include sensitizing leaders from various groups to seek out literacy education and providing financial support to open new classes, compensate teachers, facilitate supervision by the NLO and provide small materials for the courses. Table 22 provides available statistics on this output of the FASO Program. Table 22. Targets for Output 3.1.2. Adult Literacy and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of stakeholders that receive literacy training 0 657 n/a 627 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. Classes (65 days in duration) were started in 24 centers in Implementation Year 2 with 680 adult participants, including 582 women and 98 men. These classes will continue into the third implementation year. In addition in Implementation Year 3, classes have been organized in an additional 32 centers, using the new 80-day curriculum released by the Ministry of Education. The MTE team observed that the program is deliberately encouraging VDC and other FASO group leaders, especially women, to improve their literacy skills. At the moment, the program does not have a systematic process for assessing the degree of literacy skills acquired by participants as a result of these classes. However, some anecdotal evidence of the impact was obtained in interviews and observations. Meeting records are now being written in some places in local language (Women’s Association in Kalitaguin), and literacy skills are being used to improve daily work (Kuini masons). There is also some evidence that children that are not attending formal school are acquiring some literacy skills by accompanying their parents and older siblings to the adult literacy classes. Finally, the MTE team noted that there is a lack of printed materials available for participants to continue practicing their newly acquired literacy skills after they complete their literacy training. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 49 RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.1.2 Adult Literacy 36. In order to support adult literacy training and adult literacy participants in using literacy skills, FASO should increase the development of documentation in local languages related to program activities. This will allow participants to practice their skills around messages being promoted by the program. C.3.1. Intermediate Result 3.2: (CURRENT) 1600 women occupy leadership roles in their communities or (PROPOSED) PTAs, MAs and VDCs around 340 primary schools are providing support to school canteens to enhance the quality of basic education services, especially targeting girls. Output 3.2.1: (PROPOSED NEW) 45,000 primary school students and 3,000 pre-school children per year have received mid-day meals through school canteens in 340 schools and 41 preschools. The FASO Program is providing food for mid-day wet feeding through school canteens in 340 primary schools. The food is distributed over a three month period from April through June which is near the end of the school year. This is also the period when food insecurity in the household begins to increase, and the assumption is made that parents will be better able to contribute food for the canteen earlier in the school year after the main harvest. The ration is composed of 3.6 kilograms per month of soy-fortified bulgur, 900 grams of lentils and 500 grams of vegetable oil. Between 37,000 and 42,000 children have benefited from school feeding per year over the first three years of FASO implementation. Food is also being provided by the FASO Program to 41 pre-schools, and between 550 and 2900 children in these pre-schools have received food for five months from February through June. The ration is composed of 205 grams of soy-fortified corn meal per school day and 23 gram of vegetable oil. Table 23 provides available statistics for this output. Table 23. Targets for Output 3.2.1 School Feeding and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of girl students receiving mid-day meals 0 19,900 20,615 --- Number of boy students receiving mid-day meals 0 19,462 21,223 --- Number of targeted schools provided with wet feeding rations at school canteens 0 317 341 517 Number of targeted preschools provided with wet feeding rations 0 11 46 60 Number of girls enrolled in pre-school (IPTT) 443 474 1,610 622 Number of girls enrolled in primary school (IPTT) 18,502 19,462 20,615 25,993 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. The MTE team found that the responsibility for managing the school feeding activities falls primarily on the shoulders of the headmaster in the school. The roles of the Parent-Teachers Association and the Mothers Association relative to school feeding are not clearly defined. School teachers, in fact, are being held liable for food losses and the value of the food is being deducted from their salaries. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 50 Qualitative information gathered from school officials during the MTE indicates that the provision of food through the school canteen has had impact on school enrollment and attendance20 . The MTE has no specific recommendations related to this output. However, there are recommendations for Output 3.2.3 and under the commodity management section that are tangential to this output. Output 3.2.2: (PROPOSED NEW) 10,000 girls per year in 159 schools achieving the program's attendance standards have received take home rations. The FASO Program provides take home rations for families of girls who meet minimum attendance standards set by the program of having attended 90% of classes in the previous month. The program had originally proposed to target schools in which the school enrollment statistics showed a percentage less than 45% of students enrolled who were girls. But, after implementation began, it was found that the parity of girls to boys was already nearly equal in most schools, so the program selected schools in which the percentage of enrolled students who are girls was less than 50%. At the time of the MTE, take home rations composed of 6 kilograms of maize flour were being provided in 159 schools in the current year 2012/2013 school year. Over the three period of the FASO Program, between 5,500 and 9,900 families of girls meeting attendance requirements were receiving take home rations per year. Table 24 provides available statistics for this output. Table 24. Targets for Output 3.2.2 Take Home Rations and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target # of targeted schools provided with take-home rations 0 130 159 517 Metric tons of food distributed 0 973.09 n/a --- *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. In interviews held during the MTE, teachers reported that the take home rations contributed to increasing girls' attendance and motivating them to stay in school for the whole year. However, the record-keeping and take home ration calculations were inconsistent. Attendance records, for example, were found in some schools not to be up-to-date to verify that a girl student was qualified to receive a take home ration A recommendation is made in the commodity management section related to this observation. In a few locations, the parents of boys who were performing well in school and attending classes every day complained that their children were not being rewarded with food like the girls. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.2.2 Take Home Rations for Girls 37. The program should implement refresher campaign to remind parents and communities on the benefits of girls education as the basis behind the provision of take home rations for girls who meet attendance standards. 20 Before the final evaluation, the FASO program is encouraged to obtain more quantitative data from tyhe Ministry of Education to see if these records mght show some impact from the program. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 51 Output 3.2.3: (PROPOSED REVISION) PTAs, MAs and VDCs in 100 villages have expanded capacities for mobilizing resources to support school canteens. The FASO Program is working in 98 schools with school canteens to build the capacities of PTAs, MAs and VDCs to develop and implement graduation strategies for being able to sustain school canteens after the program ends and food is no longer being made available. Training has been provided to school teachers and PTAs/MAs on school canteen management with the support of CCEB and DPEBA. Awareness campaigns have been implemented in all 98 communities on canteen impact on children’s education and the need for community participation. The mobilization of food contributions for the canteen is also now explained to parents when they enroll children, although food contributions are not a mandatory requirement for enrollment. The vision is that school canteens will be able to provide food for a four month period during the school year. Table 25 summarizes available statistics on this output. The MTE team found that parents in all 98 participating schools have made contributions to support school canteens, and in some schools, other activities have been undertaken to support the canteens, including planting trees on school grounds for income and food, allocating a lowland plot in the improved lowland supported by FASO to the PTA to grow rice for the canteen, and using fuel efficient stoves to reduce fuel costs. Trees have been planted in a total of 218 schools and commercial woodlots have been established in three schools for providing income for canteens. At least 152 schools are using improved, fuel efficient stoves as a result of the program’s advocacy campaigns. Table 25. Targets for Output 3.2.3 Sustainable School Canteens and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* Projected thru IY3* LOA Target Number of canteen management simplified guide distributed in the schools 0 0 0 300 Number of mothers associations receiving training in essential hygiene and preparing nutritious meals 0 0 0 300 Number of PTAs encouraged to use improved cookstoves and cooking methods 0 46 341 300 Number of PTAs using improved cookstoves and cooking methods 0 0 152 341 Number of PTAs trained and supported in hygiene management 0 0 98 300 Number of PTAs that receive support in developing a graduation plan to supply and manage the canteen 0 46 52 300 Percent of PTAs and village development counsels who undertake a least 2 actions to support girl's education (IPTT) 80.6% 82.2% n/a** 88.6% Percent of village development counsels who undertake at least 2 actions to support girl's education (IPTT) 81.2% 69.2% n/a** 85.2% Percent of PTAs who undertake at least 2 actions to support girl's education (IPTT) 80.0% 88.9% n/a** 92% Percent of targeted PTAs who supply endogenous canteens with sufficient food for four months of school meals (IPTT) 4.6% n/a n/a** 15.0% Number of PTAs/MAs/VDCs supported (IPTT) 0 92 371 496 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 52 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012 and IY3 covers the period June 2012 through May 2013. For IY 3, numbers shown are unconfirmed, estimated projections. ** Data for generating estimates on these IPTT indicators will be obtained in October 2013 for IY3. The evaluation noted that hygienic standards for food preparation were not being followed in all schools. The program is working toward a vision for a sustainable school canteen that provides a mid-day meal for students over a period of four months. There are alternatives, however, to mid-day meals that are gaining support from organizations such as UNICEF and WFP who are engaged in school feeding in many countries. Children, especially from highly food insecure households, often come to school in the morning hungry and there attention is often more on the impending food then on the lessons being presented in class. So, one alternative is a morning snack when students arrive so that they are not thinking about food and are more attentive in class. Snacks do not require much preparation and in some countries, appropriate snacks with satisfactory nutrient content have been developed. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.2.3 Sustained School Canteens 38. PRIORITY: The program should continue to strengthen PTA and MA organizational capacities for mobilizing contributions to school canteens, not only from parents and school￾based production activities, but also from others sources, including government, donors, NGOs, the private sector and other sources within the community. 39. FASO should involve the Projet Cantine Scolaire, DPEBA and the commune in supporting school canteens process by working with them to create a mechanism for recognizing the school that has collected the most resources to support their canteen. 40. SO2 animators should be engaged in conducting sensitization on school canteen hygiene. D. CROSS-CUTTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES D.1. Gender The FASO Program did not develop a formal gender strategy nor did it include gender questions in its baseline. In lieu of conducting a gender-analysis it considers the Landesa report on land and wealth as its main work on gender. Yet, there is little specific evidence that the report was use to advance gender issues. In interviews with staff and partners work in gender was deemed important. They felt the targeting of women for livelihoods, zai and education was a first step. Staff expressed a great deal of interest in addressing gender issues and learning more about “gender”. For FASO to implement a formal gender strategy will require the program to dedicate the time and effort required to develop and implement such a strategy. What the FASO Program has done well is positioned itself to address gender through dialogue with communities as part of FASO’s exit strategy. First, the zai and other agriculture activities have been well accepted by both men and women. Second, over the life of FASO children’s nutritional status has improved. In interviews for the mid-term the team frequently heard both men and women speak of the impact healthy children have on their relationship with spouses. As we heard suggested, women are able to work better at livelihood activities when the child is healthy. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 53 FASO should further investigate how men and women interact when women are able to earn more money and children are healthy. If you remove a sick child from the household dynamics as well as support more opportunities for women to increase livelihoods would gender inequities be reconciled? The project should consider hiring Landesa to conduct the study. D.2. Behavioral Change Communications The FASO Program has been designed in a way such that Behavioral Change Communications is a cross-cutting theme for the program. One staff position at the program level is responsible for providing guidance and technical support for implementing behavioral change communications strategies across the program. Up until recently, however, this position was also responsible for managing implementation by CRS of activities under SO3. Both OCADES and ATT also have BCC positions to support SO1 activities. Begin June 2013, a position of Community Development Manager was filled by CRS to take over responsibility for implementing SO3 activities which will free time up for the BCC Manager to focus more on developing and implementing BCC strategies across the program. The media used by the program include radio broadcasts, the use of video, and information sheets on seed qualities and planting techniques. French and local languages are used with the various media. Radio broadcasts are used for making announcements on the availability of seed or sack coupons or opportunities to sign up or join other types of program activities. Radio broadcasts are also being used, however, for training and sensitization, with listening/learning sessions organized at the village level when broadcasts are scheduled. For video, the program currently has one set of videos associated with rice production techniques and rice marketing. To show these videos in a village, the program rents a generator and sound system to go along with the computer/projector owned by the project that is used to project the images. The program also recently developed a series of videos on general farming themes around using improved techniques, cultivation, harvesting, storage and marketing. In producing videos, the program films a theater group performing a script prepared by the program. Table 26 summarizes available statistics on the behavioral change communities activities in the program. Table 26. Targets for Behavioral Change Communications and Projected Achievement through the End of IY3 OUTPUT TARGETS Baseline Reported Thru IY2* LOA Target Number of radio broadcasts developed to encourage diversification of production 0 17 1008 Number of radio broadcasts developed to educate producers 0 47 192 Number of radio broadcasts developed to encourage farmers to produce 2nd generation seed 0 5 11 Number of radio emissions developed to encourage farmers to properly store seed (varietal purity, protections from insects and rodents, etc). 0 10 11 Number of videos sessions used to support adoption of improved techniques; 0 5 10 Number of radio emissions, number of info sheets, number of market booths used to educate producers on existing sources of 0 0 144 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 54 market information; . Number of radio emissions developed to educate households on availability of masons to support latrine slabs construction and importance of good hygiene behavior 0 0 300 # of flipcharts on ENA reproduced 0 0 267 *Implementation Year is June through May. IY2 covers the period June 2011 through May 2012. In observing field activities and conducting interviews, the MTE team found that most of the attention on BCC up to now in the program has been on supporting SO1 activities. At the time of the MTE, radio announcements, for example, were being broadcast on where and when participants should go to obtain seed coupons. While parts of SO2 are oriented around effective BCC and staff in SOs are already focused on effective BCC, the FASO Program would benefit from more BCC strategies in SO3, for example, with messages on the value or benefits from practicing good governance or using role models to motivate girls (something the program is already think about doing). The radio coverage was found to be fairly spotty. On three occasions while in the field at the time radio stations were scheduled to be broadcasting in the morning, the MTE team looked for the station on the car radio, and only once was the station found in a participating village. The program has also discovered that even if a station is broadcasting with good reception, participants may not be turning to the station because of its theme, as in, for example, a station with a very specific religious affiliation in an area where another type of religion is predominant. As mentioned, the FASO Program uses radio broadcasts for seed coupon announcements which is a form of marketing, but apparently the original source of the seed is not mentioned or involved in the broadcast. Radio is a very common form of marketing, and it seems that the FASO Program could be doing more to build value chains by (a) expanding capacities of participant groups with products to sell to be able to use this marketing tool and (b) cultivating stronger linkages between broadcasters and input suppliers or product buyers. While this might not be considered a behavioral change communications strategy, the BCC staff could be providing support to other staff, mainly in SO1, who are trying to develop value chains. The experience of the program so far is that, of the different forms of media being used, video seems to be the most effective at providing messages that people can learn from. However, the capacity of the program to organize video sessions in villages is limited since the program does not have its own equipment and must organize the renting of equipment. RECOMMENDATIONS for Behavioral Change Communications 41. The program should use the expanded capacity for BCC following the recruitment of a Community Development Manager to develop and implement a strategy for behavioral change communications to support SO3 using expanded messaging through video. 42. The program should expand its use of video for BCC 21 by completing procurement of one full set of video project equipment for each of the health districts, so the program will no longer need to rely on rented equipment. 21 The program should invite CRS’s Global Knowledge and Information Management team to provide technical assistance, including, for example, ideas like the PICO pocket projector (http://www.optoma.co.uk/PicoNavigation.aspx?PTypeDB=Pico), which other CRS programs are using. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 55 43. The BCC component should expand its support for value chain development by getting the private sector more involved in radio programming and by assisting in building the capacities of producer groups in the program to use radio for marketing. While this activity is a bit outside of the BCC mandate, the BCC staff have good connections with and know how to use radio media, and that expertise can be used to support value chain development. D.3. Environmental Monitoring and Impact Mitigation The FASO Program is conforming with FFP standards for monitoring the impact of program activities on the environment. The Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) was thorough, and the program continues to monitor IEE indicators in its IPTT. There have been no new activities introduced so far in the program that require additional environmental examination and development of monitoring indicators. Some interventions in FASO are designed to reduce environmental threats. These include, for example, the promotion of environmentally sound practices in the water, sanitation and hygiene component, promoting the planting of local species of trees and conservation agriculture techniques, promoting triple-lined sacks without use of chemical pesticides, promoting energy￾saving cooking practices and improved fuel-efficient stoves. E. PROGRAM TARGETING AND IMPACT E.1. Targeting - Who is Benefitting? The FASO Program proposed to reach 58,633 households (HHs) in the targeted health districts, or approximately 94% of all HHs. As shown in the Figure 5 below taken from the FASO Program proposal, nearly half of HHs (45%) were expected to benefit from agricultural (SO1), health/nutrition (SO2) and governance/ education (SO3) activities. An additional 37% of HHs were expected to benefit from both agriculture (SO1) and health/nutrition (SO2), while 7.5% would benefit only from agricultural activities and 4% only from governance/education activities. E.1.1. Total Beneficiaries and Overlap. Currently, FASO is unable to report on a number of beneficiary HHs as it does not have a mechanism to avoid double counting across various activities. However, the project has recently implemented the FASO Program Monitoring Software (FPMS) which will enable tracking of individual beneficiary households and provide confirmation of whether the project is, in fact, reaching 94% of households in the target area. In future projects, it would be useful to include such a system from the beginning of implementation. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 56 Figure 5 Targeting Diagram from the FASO Program Proposal Communities report information consistent with nearly all households receiving at least one service from FASO and most households benefiting from both Agriculture and Nutrition interventions. The evaluation team was unable to exchange with any households who were not benefiting from any FASO service, though communities identified the following types of households as non-beneficiaries:  “Strangers” or recent migrants from other areas22  Isolated households located far outside of the community center (particularly when also ethnic minorities)  Mining settlements Additionally, a Provincial Director of Social Welfare who was interviewed by the MTE team noted that the project's approaches are not necessarily appropriate for the most vulnerable populations, namely the disabled, the elderly, and orphans and encouraged the project to give additional consideration to meeting their livelihood needs. E.1.2. Targeting Within SOs. For SO1, criteria were broad enough to include nearly every household in the target zone: • Households with children under 2 • Female headed households 22 For some activities, notably food distribution, eligibility criteria included being an established community resident, in order to avoid encouraging migration/displacement of nearby communities in order to gain access to the program. SO1 Only: 4,700 Female Heads of HH (7.5%) SO3 Only: 2,508 HHs (4% of all HHs in zone) SO1, SO2, SO3: 28,206 HHs (45% of all HHs in zone) 94% (58,633) of all total households (62,680) in the implementation zone will benefit from one or more FASO activities Boulsa North, Mani and Gayeri Health Districts: 62,680 households [Update May 5, 2010] SO1: Agriculture & SO2: Nutrition 51,426 HHs (82% of all HHs in zone) FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 57 • Other vulnerable households (with <2 hectares) While overall targeting appeared consistent with the proposal, there may have been some targeting drift within specific activities under SO1. For example, seed coupons were intended for HHs with children under 2 or female-headed HHs, with other HHs being able to access coupons at a non-subsidized price. HHs with children under 2 reported receiving the subsidized coupons, but communities did not identify having a young child as being a condition for receiving food coupons and instead described them as something available to everyone. In addition, the proposal indicates that the majority of beneficiaries of improved production technique activities will be PM2A graduates – however, this does not appear to be the case since these activities are already well underway in most communities, with PM2A graduations just beginning. This approach was likely abandoned in recognition of that fact that waiting for families to graduate from PM2A was too late to start agricultural activities. Another example of targeting drift is the Zai FFW. It was intended for female heads of households or women graduating from PM2A, but these criteria may have been inconsistently applied. While some communities noted very limited beneficiaries for zai (implying consistency with those criteria) – for example Lipaka noted only three community members were eligible -- in other instances the program spoke with husbands of zai beneficiaries, even though PM2A graduation had just begun in communities. A key lesson learned is therefore to consider the sequencing of activities when setting targeting criteria. FASO’s agricultural activities should have planned to target current PM2A participants for most activities, rather than graduates. SO2 activities were targeted to all households with pregnant or lactating women or children under 2, with the proposal noting that women with children age 3-5 still welcome to participate in Care Group activities. In the two districts where Care Groups are operational, it was evident that nearly all HHs were participating in health/nutrition activities with non-participants being only recent migrants or distant households. Participation is more difficult to assess in Manni District because food is not distributed and it is more difficult to track participation at mass campaigns, though communities reported that at least one person from each household did participate. Lead Mothers, CHWs and CVN in all districts reported doing informal “outreach” to share program information with non-beneficiaries. Women with children who were above the age range targeted for food assistance were unlikely to participate initially in Care Group activities in part because they lacked the incentive of food, but women who have seen the benefits of Care Group activities are continuing to participate in Care Groups after graduation and are enthusiastic about continuing to do so “until we ask them to stop.” Future projects should give additional thought to how to effectively engage mothers of older children from the outset. SO3 activities targeted all 500 communities in the intervention zone. The original proposal estimated 300 primary schools for targeting for school feeding but the number actual schools is closer to 350. For take home rations, the program estimated that there would 232 schools which would meet the criteria at that time of having less than a 45%/55% ratio of girls to boys enrolled in school. After the program began implementation and obtained current enrollment numbers, it was found that very few schools met this criteria with girls and boys enrollment being almost equal. The program modified its targeting strategy for take home rations to focus on schools in which the number of girls enrolled was less than the number of boys. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 58 RECOMMENDATIONS for Targeting 44. The program should review the feasibility of spreading some project activities to informal mining settlements. Because the project targeted administrative communities, informal mining settlements do not benefit directly23, though they represent a growing and highly vulnerable population (and often targeted beneficiaries move between mining settlements and their home villages). While these settlements may not be a receptive audience for agricultural messages, health/nutrition activities and financial skills (through SILC) may be appropriate. If resources permit, the program should consider expanding a targeted package of activities into these settlements based on identified needs and opportunities. 45. The program should consider working with the Ministry of Social Welfare to analyze the impact of the project on highly vulnerable groups (such as the disabled, the elderly and orphans). While the project does not specifically target these individuals, they are highly vulnerable populations whose food insecurity should be considered in such a large and comprehensive program. The project should establish whether these groups are already benefitting directly or through other members of their HH and if there are “quick win” options to increase the project’s impact on their well-being. If the program is indeed having impact on these target groups and the MoSW has been engaged in undertaking this analysis, they should no longer have questions on targeting and will have a greater appreciation for the FASO program. E.2. Current Program Impact and Threats to Sustaining Impact Based on interviews held by the MTE team, impressions were generated about the current impact of the program and potential threats to sustaining this impact. Table 27 summarizes these impressions based on the qualitative data that was collected during the evaluation. 23 Malnutrition screening activities do cover mining settlements. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 59 Table 27. Current Impact in FASO and Threats to Sustaining the Impact Program Output Current Impact Threats Against and Opportunities For Sustaining Impact Input Supply Systems - Seed, Tools and Fertilizer The availability of high quality seed at the right time is having good impact on increasing production. Supply chains are not likely to be developed sufficiently by the end of the program to ensure sustained access to high quality seed after the FASO Program ends. Improved Techniques - Demonstrations and Participatory Variety Selection There is not yet much evidence of wide-scale adoption of the technologies and techniques being promoted, so the current impact is focused on the direct beneficiaries of demonstration sites. It is likely that some of the improved practices, such as intercropping cowpea with millet/sorghum and use of improved compost will be adopted and continue after the program ends, since the demonstrations are showing clear benefits. As suggested above, sustained seed supply chains will likely not be in place by the end of the program, so the impact achieved with new varieties will decline after the program ends. Land Improvements - Lowland Rice Systems, Zai and Conservation Agriculture The lowland infrastructural development is improving the productivity of land for producing rice, and the zai is improving productivity of marginal land. The conservation agriculture techniques are having far less immediate impact. The impact of the lowland development could be sustained if farmers are able to access rice seed or farmers find ways to adapt the systems to produce other crops. The improved zai impact will likely be sustained since it requires low levels of external inputs as long as the diffusion is not constrained by the zai being perceived as dependent on FFW. Processing and Storage - Threshing Rice and Sesame, Cowpea Storage and Parboiling Rice The triple-lined sacks are enabling cowpea producers to obtain higher prices by selling later in the year when prices are better. Parboiler groups that have access to markets are benefiting from being able to producer higher volumes of product. The impact of threshing on plastic tarps has some impact in improving product quality. In terms of sustaining the impact of triple-lined sacks after the program ends, the high price of the sacks at full retail price appears to be a constraint for producers continuing to buy sacks after the program ends. Vendors are not likely to keep a stock of sacks if they do not see much demand for them. Parboiler groups that have developed market linages will likely continue until the equipment wears out. Parboiler groups who have not developed their markets will likely discontinue using the equipment after the program ends. Access to Markets - Market Information and Market Training There is little evidence yet of substantial impact from this component of the program, except in the case of some parboiler groups who have received more extensive marketing training. The Esoko strategy is not yet fully operational and only limited marketing training has been provided to other participant groups. Impact is possible within the remaining life of FASO, and the impact has the potential to be sustained after the program ends, if FASO focuses on building marketing capacities of producer groups to be able to market their products fully on their own and the marketing information systems that they are using are fully operational without any support from the program. Financing Production - SILC and Loans from Banks The SILC intervention is only just completing one cycle so the main impact being achieved so far is associated with the loans disbursed to SILC members. Rice producer groups and parboiler groups have benefited from the fertilizer and The SILC intervention is likely to have substantial impact after the program ends if it can be firmly established by the program. The loan relationships that have been established by the program may be sustained if loan repayment remains high. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 60 expanded working capital, respectively. Individual and community maternal and child health /nutrition behaviors The program has formed Care Groups and Village nutrition committees to promote BCC. Baseline and annual year survey have shown uptakes in behaviors. Village visits and discussions confirmed that some behaviors such as frequency of infant feeding, ending purges, bathing etc has been understood and practiced. On the other hand – the current monitoring system focuses on measuring knowledge and not practice. Threats to sustainability can be addressed by adjusting the program's BCC component. This includes assuring that the FASO BCC strategy is in line with the Government’s 1000 DAY messages. The program should also review current behaviors (particularly whether they are practiced) and refocus the strategy on the reasons why certain behaviors are not yet universally practiced. FASO has to be realistic in assessing the targets it sets for behaviors as well as better identifying the targeted audience or focus on the change. As part of a revised strategy – FASO needs to do operation research on the Care Groups and CVN and work closely with Government and communities on sustaining these groups and the promoters. They also need to address if the BCC is inadvertently putting more workload on mothers rather than working with communities and men in looking at equitable ways of redistributing child raising roles. Complementary feeding/ fortified foods The project appears to be a strong showcase on how Title II can change nutritional status of young children. It also has an opportunity to demonstrate the capacity of households to use local foods or purchase local fortified foods for child feeding. The threat is that there is inadequate local fortified foods to replace at scale the food provided through Title II. The flip side of the “good” that has come from using Title II food is how to exit. The proposal suggested that GRET’s fortified foods, and high-nutrient crops would be available. In the remaining two years – the project will need to scale up its efforts to increase GRET’s production and to have high nutrient crops evenly distributed across project area. The opportunity is now as the communities have benefited from PM2A – and thus the question is do they value the benefits of well-nourished children enough to purchase or produce high-nutrient crops. The focus of the program for both MCHN and agriculture should be on making certain that households can replicate or obtain GRET's high nutrient porridges. Water and Sanitation Services and Behaviors This component of FASO is just starting and the management of the WASH component is housed under SO2 but with implementation responsibilities spread across SO2 and SO3 animators. SO3 animators are working with water user committees around each borehole to build their capacities for managing the infrastructure. The CLTS portion is being implemented through SO2 animators. The WASH activities appear to be inadequately funded so that large-scale impact is unlikely to be achieved. The Care groups and VHC do promote hygiene independent of WASH staff. This component needs to be reviewed by the Regional Technical advisor in WASH and brought more under the control of SO2. Key WASH behaviors need to receive renewed attention in the above SO2 BCC strategy. Quality of Health Services The evaluation team was not able to directly assess the quality of health facility services. FASO’s efforts to strengthen facility services, in any case, have been scaled back compared to the initial design. The program has provided training to twenty-five facilities-based staff and routinely The government health system through which FASO works faces extremely high staff turnover. More effort in active supervision could help entrench knowledge and practices among all health facility staff (head nurse, assistant & midwife), to reduce impact of staff turnover. Regular joint supervision with District staff could help build the capacity of the health system to provide high quality supervision after the end of the program. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 61 provides active supervision in one of the districts. Malnutrition Screening Through its door-to-door approach that relies on existing CHWs FASO screens the majority of children in the target zone for malnutrition on a quarterly basis, and refers those in need of treatment to a nearby health facility. National CHW policies stipulate that CHWs are not salaried, but receive stipends for periodic “campaign” activities. Accordingly, FASO provides stipends to all CHWs involved in screening. Because screening is generally associated with remuneration, many CHWs are reluctant to undertake screening outside of formal campaigns. Screening campaigns are included among the government’s activities for malnutrition, but health districts rarely have funding to realize them without external support. Access to Health Services Women report increased attendance at facilities linked to increased support from their husbands in seeking care who are now more willing to authorize travel and to provide transportation, particularly for delivery. Men particularly appreciate that more frequent use of preventative care leads to lower healthcare costs. In the long run, use of facility services will depend on (perceived) quality of those services. Accordingly, impact in this domain is linked to sustainability of strengthening health facilities. Organizational Development of Community Committees The program has completed "self-analyses" with a significant number of different kinds of groups and action plans have been developed but not yet implemented, so program impact on food security is limited up to this point. The program needs to focus its relatively small staff resources on a more intensive community development process with VDCs in order to achieve impact. This impact could be sustained if the program can make strong, functional linkages between VDCs and sources of community development resources. Adult Literacy The adult literacy programs have been having impact, but without educational assessment systems to determine the extent that participants have acquired literacy and numeracy skills, it is difficult to determine the scale of the impact. Once literacy and numeracy skills have been acquired they will not be lost, so the program needs to focus on ensuring that participants actually acquire skills. Distribution of Food through School Canteens and Take Home Rations The food distributions are certainly having impact on school retention, possibly enrollment and nutritional status. The impact of the program on students acquiring expanded basic education skills will be sustained after the program ends. The impact of the food on nutritional status and retention/enrollment will decline after the program ends, unless the school canteens can continue to provide significant food to motivate those families for whom the opportunity costs of sending children to school are higher. Capacity Building of PTAs. MAs and VDCs The program's capacity building of canteen stakeholders is having impact in generating some resources for school canteens from parents and the community. The scale of resources possible from parents and the community will not replace the food provided by the program at the same scale, so the current impact of school canteens on food insecurity will decline after the program ends, unless school stakeholders can be lined to a broader range of sources of resources for canteens, including the GoBF, donors, NGOs or the private sector. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 62 F. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION SYSTEMS F.1. Program Management and Coordination Interviews conducted during the MTE around management topics examined management structures, program vision and leadership, program operational planning, problem–solving, decision–making and communications. The FASO Program is managed by a CRS team composed of the Chief-of-Party, FASO Program Coordinator, and sectoral managers for each of the SOs as well as behavioral change communications, water and sanitation and hygiene, and SILC. Each of the partners also has a FASO Program Coordinator. Quarterly coordination meetings are scheduled at the consortium level to facilitate panning and problem solving. Implementation for SO1 is undertaken by Association Tin Tua in two of the three health districts (Gayeri and Manni) and by OCADES in the other health district (Boulsa North). A Field Coordinator in each district oversees implementation. SO2 activities are implemented by HKI in Gayeri District using a food-assisted PM2A approach, by GRET in Manni District using a BCC/fortified food approach and by OCADES in Boulsa North using a food-assisted PM2A approach. As with SO1, a field coordinator in each district oversees implementation of SO2 activities. SO3 is implemented by CRS using a CRS field animator in each of the ten targeted communes in the three districts. Technical working groups for each SO facilitate the sharing of lessons learned, sharing of good practices, and joint problem-solving. District coordinator meetings with program implementers and other stakeholders, including government directorates, are scheduled quarterly in each district. Relative to planning, the FASO Program plans against an Implementation Year from June to May. The PREP for each year is prepared for this period, and the program has LOA targets set for output and process indicators in an Operations Plan Table with annual targets drawn from this table for the Annual Detailed Implementation Plan that is submitted with the PREP. The program, reports to FFP, however, on the USG fiscal year from October through September. The Annual Results Reports which contain the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), as well as the Commodity Status Reports, Recipient Status Reports and Commodity Loss Reports follow this reporting period. Interviews during the MTE indicated that not all field coordinators were fully aware of the portion of the output targets for which they were responsible. This first came to light in one district where staff complained about the huge jump in output targets for year 3 of the program. If they were aware of the LOA target and how this target was to be achieved over the life of activity with annual targets, they should not have been surprised by the year 3 targets. The MTE team noted that coordination meetings between partners and stakeholders are happening as planned in some places, but they have become irregular in other places. As will be described in the next section, the program generally has positive relations with government partners in all districts, so the quarterly stakeholder coordination meetings have not been critical to cultivating these relations, although they do help reinforce the relationships. The irregularity of coordination meetings is probably more of a lost opportunity to cultivate stronger relations between the different components of the FASO program itself. This type of integration is discussed in more depth in a later section below. There were some indications in MTE interviews that decision-making in the program on some specific issues, e.g., the formulation of a plan for implementing malnutrition screening under FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 63 SO2, seemed to be slower than expected. All in all, however, there is a general feeling of satisfaction across the program with management at the consortium level, particularly relative to vision, leadership, and communications. RECOMMENDATIONS for Management Systems 46. The program should ensure that all partners are fully cognizant of LOA output targets for which they have responsibility as well as their annual targets for the remaining life of the programming for achieving these targets. F.2. Partnership Interviews around partnership during the MTE covered relationships between consortium partners and with government partners. The FASO consortium is composed of CRS, HKI, GRET, OCADES and Association Tin Tua, with CRS as the grant recipient. Major government partners include the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture, Water and Fisheries, the District Health Directorates in the three districts, and the Provincial Directorate of Basic Education and Literacy. To an external viewer, the FASO Program appears to be more of a CRS Program than a consortium program. All of the signboards and many of the other branding materials, for example, show the donor logo and the CRS logo, while in a program that is being implemented more as a consortium, the donor logo would be accompanied by a program logo or the program name, rather than the grant recipient. On a continuum from the extreme of a sub-contracting relationships in which program partners are implementing program activities as directed by the lead organization, to the other extreme on the continuum in which the program planning and decision-making are entirely joint in nature, the FASO Program would probably lie near the center but a little toward the sub-contracting side. As a result of this approach, the program is not capitalizing as much as possible on the strengths of each of the partner organizations and on opportunities for raising the visibility of all partners in the consortium, not just the lead organization. The development industry has become very competitive in nature with donors making funding available primarily through competitive bidding processes. Like any industry that is competitive, advertising and visibility are key to capturing market share. The same applies with international NGOs elevating their visibility and recognition in program activities (their advertising) in order to be successful in obtaining donor funding (their market share). Rather than working together to build on each other's expertise, sometimes international NGOs find themselves still competing with each other for visibility and recognition, even when they are implementing a program together, because they depend on donor funding for survival and the competitive bidding process forces them to compete. Relative to government partners, the MTE found strong relations with the Provincial Agriculture, Water and Fisheries Direction FASO provides per diems, fuel and in some areas motorcycles, to facilitate the support of government agents in the program. This support, for program participants, is not likely to be sustained after the program ends since there appears to be no commitment from the GoBF to replace the program support with other resources after the program ends. Similarly, the programs overall relations are strong with the District Health Directorates. The program has provided support for improving the quality of services in health centers, so much so, FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 64 that demand for the services is increasing to the point where health center staff feel stressed in trying to meet the increased demand. Health services in the districts have a clear focus on curative services, whereas FASO is focusing on preventive services related to malnutrition, but the District Health Directorates recognize the potential synergies with the FASO prevention approach reducing the demand for curative services. For the Provincial Directorate of Basic Education and Literacy (DPEBA), they are actively engaged in the school feeding component of the program, but they are not happy that CRS is working toward reducing their support for school feeding. CRS has a long history of supporting school feeding in Burkina Faso which has cultivated an expectation that CRS will be able to continue accessing resources. On a more specific note, there is a perception, as reported by teachers managing school feeding, that FASO commodity management staff do not appreciate their efforts. These and other staff involved in supervising or implementing school canteens want compensation from the program. The Provincial Directorate of Social Action and National Solidarity is responsible for overseeing pre-schools, some of whom have received food from the FASO program for pre-school children. Like the DPEBA, they are disappointed that CRS is scaling down its support for pre-schools. One director also suggested, as mentioned in the earlier section on targeting in the FASO Program, that the program interventions do not target some of their constituents, e.g., orphans, disabled, and elderly. The government partners described above are located in the provinces or districts where the program is working. At the central Ministerial level, relationships are less firmly established, although attempts have been made by the program to have partners identify point persons with whom the program can work to develop stronger relationships. RECOMMENDATIONS for Partnership 47. The program should look for opportunities to understand the other development interventions that consortium partners are implementing to seek opportunities for enhancing the impact of the FASO Program. These opportunities could include cross-visits to other projects as well as presentations by consortium partners in Technical Working Group meetings. 48. The program should take advantage of opportunities to elevate the profiles of all partners. The joint paper at the CORE spring meeting by the program (Recommendation 25) is an opportunity. The program should involve partners in planned meetings with government stakeholders, and, where appropriate, the program should include partners in future branding and marking opportunities. F.3. Knowledge Management (including Monitoring & Evaluation) Knowledge management generally refers to how knowledge is brought into a program, how it is generated and used within a program and how it is generated and disseminated outside of a program. New ideas and approaches that are brought in, tested and adapted by a program represent “knowledge in”. M&E systems are designed to obtain and use information within the program to make decisions to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the program. Systems for undertaking and disseminating research and for capturing good practices and lessons learned represent “knowledge out”. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 65 F.3.1. Knowledge In. The FASO Program has undertaken the following activities in order to obtain new ideas and technologies from outside the program to test and adapt.  The BCC Manager for CRS attended a workshop held in Niger on behavioral change communications.  Two staff from the program management unit attended a training on accountability designed to strengthen communications between FASO, its partners and communities.  Information on the design and use of the Esoko marketing platform was obtained from Afrique Verte.  The FASO Program engages INERA in a number of ways, including the introduction of improved techniques for cowpea production and storage.  The program has a partnership with Africa Rice on the improved parboiling technology.  The program has obtained information from the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) on its Linking Farmers to Markets Training.  The SO2 Manager for CRS visited CRS Burundi to see the PM2A approach.  The Senior Senior Technical Adviser Nutrition from CRS Headquarters conducted a field visit and provided technical support to FASO.  The SO2 Manager attended the West African Regional forum on Nutrition where best practices were shared.  The FASO Program Coordinator participated in a training on USG awards management.  FANTA2 facilitated a workshop to o refine the FASO Program's M&E systems. An number of recommendations have been made by the MTE team for further external knowledge gathering activities. F.3.2. Monitoring & Evaluation. The Program uses the following tools for monitoring program implementation and periodically assessing program impact.  A Results Framework which describes the program strategy.  A Program Framework which describes the impact and monitoring indicators for each level of the program strategy, the critical assumptions at each level, and the linkages at each level to the FFP Strategic Framework.  A Performance Monitoring Plan which defines indicators, data collection sources, and methodologies for producing information on each indicator.  An Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) which is used primarily as a reporting tool for FFP for each Fiscal Year (October through September) and the Life of Activity.  An Operation Plan Table which lists a wide range of monitoring indicators with LOA targets disaggregated by Implementation Year (June through May) which is the primary planning and monitoring tool.  Annual Detailed Implementation Plans (DIPs) for each Implementation Year which are consistent with the indicators and targets set in Operational Plan Table. These DIPs are the primary tool used for operational planning and budgeting. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 66  Annual surveys are used to generate information for a number of indicators in the IPTT. Data is collected in these surveys in October for SO2 and SO3 and over the period October through February for SO1 to be able to cover a longer period from harvest through crop disposition.  The program is developing a new system for generating information for indicators on the Operation Plan Table and for corresponding indicators in the IPTT using the FASO Program Monitoring Software (FPMS) designed for the program. Data for the system is generated through activity report or monthly reports originating with front-line staff indicating participation in various activities. As described above under SO3 Governance, the logic in the program results framework under SO3 is confusing with targeting community groups at the objective level, community groups under IR 3.1 but then women's leadership under IR 3.2 with the primary outputs being more related to girls education and school feeding and the sustainability of school canteens. A recommendation has already been made by the MTE on how to resolve this confusion (see Section on SO3, page 43). The IPTT for FASO is a bit difficult to interpret since the period covered (each Fiscal Year) is not specified, and there are blanks in some columns on achievements, for example in "Year 1", in which one would expect to find some indication of achievement. Interviews during the evaluation were able to clarify the reasons for this, and the key at the moment to understanding the IPTT is to note the information shown in the "Source of Data" column. Where the notation is "Baseline Survey", this means that the baseline survey provided the baseline value and subsequent Annual Surveys will provide annual data. Table 28 indicates where data collected in Annual Surveys appears in the IPTT for indicators with this notation. Table 28. Link Between Annual Surveys and Statistics by FY in the IPTT Fiscal Year Project Implementation Period Corresponding Year on IPTT Data Collection Period for the Annual Survey Oct 2010 (Baseline) FY 2010 June 2010 - Sept 2010 Not shown on IPTT --- FY 2011 Oct 2010 - Sept 2011 Year 1 Oct 2011 - Feb 2012 FY 2012 Oct 2011 - Sept 2012 Year 2 Oct 2012 - Feb 2013 FY 2013 Oct 2012 - Sept 2013 Year 3 Oct 2013 - Feb 2014 FY 2014 Oct 2013 - Sept 2014 Year 4 Oct 2014 - Feb 2015 FY 2015 Oct 2014 - May 2015 Year 5 Final Evaluation Survey If the notation in Source of Data column is ""Annual Survey 2011", this means that the baseline survey was unable to provide a baseline figure, and the estimate produced by the first Annual Survey was used for the baseline value. As a result, there are no statistics entered in the achievement column for Year 1, since the year 1 "achievement" has been inserted as the baseline. For subsequent years, the Annual Surveys will produce estimates where this notation has been used. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 67 If the notation in Source of Data column is ""Annual Report", this means that the achievement statistics for each year are being generated by the program's monitoring systems, or the new FPMS, once it is totally operational. For most of these indicators, the baseline value will be 0 since they are output indicators, although the notation in the IPTT is "n/a" for baseline values. The MTE observed that Operation Plan Table is incomplete in that there are no achievement statistics shown for either Implementation Year 1 or Implementation Year 2, a period which ended in May 2012. It was also observed that the list of indicators shown in the Operation Table are somewhat outdated since a number of changes to the program strategy that have been approved are not reflected in the indicators. Interviews indicated that, given the transition to FPMS, there is a backlog of data that needs to be entered in order to bring the information up to date. It is also likely that the turnover of the senior position in the FASO Program that is responsible for monitoring and evaluation, the Monitoring , Evaluation and Learning Manager, has affected planning and problem solving. The FASO Program has to be managed within the context of two operational years, i.e., the Implementation Year from June through May for planning purposes and the Fiscal Year from October through September for reporting purposes. The program's monitoring systems are, or will be once the FPMS is operational, compiling information on a monthly and quarterly basis, so it has not been a major problem having two operational years. The total target number of beneficiaries for the program is described in the FASO Program proposal on page 4 but it is absent from the IPTT and other tools. Nevertheless, the program intends to be able to obtain data to estimate this number through the FPMS. F.3.3. Knowledge Out. The FASO Program has implemented the following activities related to capturing and disseminating knowledge generated from the program itself.  The FASO Program assembles a quarterly internal newspaper entitled "ECHOS du FASO".  Information briefs are prepared periodically for each sector.  The program supported an operational research exercise on land tenure performed by the Landesa Center for Women's Land Rights.  The program hosted a field visit by a staff member from CRS Burundi to learn about the fortified food being used by GRET in the program.  At the West African forum on Nutrition, a paper was presented by FASO on the care group model. RECOMMENDATIONS for Knowledge Management 49. If FASO decides to implement the marketing broker concept (see Recommendation 20), a cross visit should be organized to another country office using the approach, such as Malawi, or external technical assistance should be procured. 50. PRIORITY: The program should give immediate attention to bringing the program's M&E tools up to date. The MEL Manager should facilitate processes to update all of the indicators to conform with the current approved strategy of the program and ensure that the definitions of the indicators are current and accurate. The MEL Manager should work with other M&E staff within and supporting the program to address the problems of data entry that were cited as FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 68 reasons for the backlog of data. The goal should be that by the time of the next operational planning workshop, the tools, especially the Operation Plan Table, should be fully up to date to be able to inform the planning process 51. In the Final Evaluation, FASO will want to be sure to be given credit for the impact it has achieved, even if impact indicators have not been identified in the IPTT. The program should develop a strategy now for obtaining available evidence of program impact, for example, from school enrollment and attendance records; and should not depend entirely on the final evaluation household survey and qualitative data gathering to capture the full impact of the program. F.4. Program Integration and Complementarity The FASO program planned to “fully integrate” activities across SOs, proposing several specific examples: • SILC integrated into producer groups (and care groups) • Recipes use crops promoted in agricultural activities • Care group meetings used as a platform to promote diversified agricultural production However, the project’s management plan makes no mention of how integration will be assured. To date integration of project activities across SOs – indeed even across various outputs or intermediate results within SOs - has been limited and opportunities abound to strengthen project impact through improved integration. For example, while some crops promoted as part of project agricultural activities are part of recipes promoted under health and nutrition activities (notably sesame and cowpea), FASO is also promoting orange-flesh sweet potato in some areas (a vitamin A rich food that is easy to prepare and feed to young children) but there are no associated recipes. In fact, some nutrition staff were not aware that orange-flesh sweet potato was being promoted in communities. One of FASO’s key integration challenges is the division of work by SO among various implementing partners (see Table 29). Implementing partners are not co-located in the same field offices – and sometimes not even in the same town - limiting potential for collaboration; for example, in Manni District Tin Tua (SO1 partner) is based in Manni while GRET (SO2 partner) is based in Bougande - over 20km away. Partners indicated that they rarely meet outside of quarterly coordination meetings or when convened by CRS. When coordination does occur, it is usually at a senior level (e.g., “coordinator” or “supervisor”) and not among field￾level staff (e.g., “animators”). Table 29. Implementing Partners by SO and District District Implementing Partner Number of Partners SO1 SO2 SO3 in the District Gayeri Tin Tua HKI CRS 3 Boulsa North OCADES OCADES CRS 2 Manni Tin Tua GRET CRS 3 Because activities are implemented in communities by different staff from different organizations, some communities are not aware that the various components are all in the same FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 69 project. However, communities largely recognize the inter-relatedness of project activities. Some of the most common linkages cited by communities were:  Improvements in their children’s health allows them to spend more time on production activities.  Increased harvests have helped them diversify their diets and will help them sustain improvements in the absence of Title II commodities.  Children are healthier and more ready to capitalize on school. The FASO team is aware of integration opportunities and the potential for improved integration to enhance results, citing for example the potential to organize health and nutrition information sessions where farmers are grouped or to use Care Groups as a platform to discuss production techniques. However, the teams have struggled to capitalize on these opportunities as each SO's individual activity schedule and design takes precedence over harmonization. As a result, there are missed opportunities to integrate planned activities and to sequence activities for maximum impact. RECOMMENDATIONS for Program Integration 52. The program should organize a cross visit of a team of representatives from each partner to the CRS Title II Programs in Niger to observe and discuss the integration strategies that are being implemented there. 53. PRIORITY: In the next annual planning meeting, the program should allocate time for an “integration” session to map out potential integration and leverage points; design activity plans around integration leverage points, and identify persons to be responsible for overseeing integration in each district. 54. The program should include integration topics in technical working group meetings in which program managers from other SOs are present to participate in the discussions. F.5. Financial Resource Management The MTE team examined the financial status, budgeting processes, financial reporting processes, cash flow, and auditing processes in FASO in interviews with program coordinators and finance staff. Table 30 summarizes the financial status of the FASO Program as of the end of March 2013, representing 57% of the life of the FASO program. The numbers show that the burn rate for the program (42% across all fund sources) is lower than it should be at this point in the life of the program. The latest PREP has proposed a number of new activities, however, which should bring the program's burn rate closer to the target once implementation of the new activities is completed. The interviews on finance cited cash flow as a problem at times for the program resulting in occasional delays of program activities or reduced field monitoring activities by program implementing staff. Three issues were cited by key informants: o The limit of the CRS Country Representative approval authority for cash disbursements without regional management approval. o The 75% burn requirement before advance replenishment to partners. o Incomplete supporting documentation with financial reports. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 70 Table 30. Cash Expenditure Summary Projected Through March 2013 (US$) Cost Center Monetization Proceeds 202e ITSH Cost Share Total TOTAL Expenses through March 2013 $5,985,945 $2,751,319 $1,654,829 $40,585 $10,432,678 TOTAL LOA Budget at Time of Approval $13,943,798 $4,910,000 $3,429,883 $87,594 $22,371,275 Current Amended LOA Budget $16,473,917 $4,910,000 $3,429,883 $87,594 $24,727,873 Percent of Current LOA Budget Spent through March 2013 36% 56% 48% 46% 42% Analysis of the information and further information gathering after the interviews suggest that the first is not really an issue. When regional approval has been required, it has come reasonably quickly. The second point should not be an issue for cash flow if the third issue is effectively addressed. When financial reports are reviewed, expenses that have been reported without sufficient supporting documentation are disallowed from being included in the report and if the sum of reported expenses does not achieve the 75% threshold, the advance is not replenished at that point, even though the partner does not have the amount of cash shown on the report in the bank to be able to continue implementing program activities. The program should focus on resolving the issue of ensuring that transactions have adequate and appropriate supporting documentation. RECOMMENDATIONS for Financial Management 55. A joint effort should be made between the financial management staff of CRS outside of the FASO Program and the FASO Program implementation staff to identify ways to address problems with supporting documentation. The financial management staff know best what is required for supporting documentation, and the implementing staff are most familiar with the operating constraints that make supporting documentation difficult. Discussions should be held in each field office with financial management staff providing refresher training and suggestions for resolving specific types of supporting documentation problems. F.6. Commodity Management Highlights from the commodity management investigations are provided in this section, and Annex F contains additional details on observations during the MTE. The commodities approved for the implementation of the FASO Program are shown in Table 31. Table 31. Approved Commodities for the FASO Program PURPOSE COMMODITIES MT VALUE USD CFA ('000) Direct Distribution Soy-Fortified Bulgur, Corn-Soy Blend, Soy￾Fortified Corn Meal, Lentils, Vegetable Oil 13,794 13,241,000 6,699,946 Monetization Rice 16,120 16,180,000 8,187,080 TOTAL 29,914 29,421,000 14,887,026 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 71 Commodities are called forward by the CRS Commodity Management Office and transport contracts arranged in the USA cover procurement and transport of commodities to Ouagadougou. Once they arrive in Ouagadougou, the commodities are stored in the CRS primary central warehouse. Monetization commodities are managed from this warehouse. Distribution commodities are dispatched to secondary warehouses upon requisition from the FASO Program management. The program plans to pre-position distribution commodities in the secondary warehouses before the rainy season (June-August) when most of the secondary warehouses become inaccessible due to impassable roads in the project areas. The MTE team found, however, that the program has had difficulty implementing this plan because commodities have arrived in country very late after being called forward. Table 32 shows the sales order dates and the dates of receipt of the final tranche of the commodities shipped. Table 32. Commodity Call Forwards and Arrival Dates Period Call Forward Date Quantity Called Forward Date of Complete Arrival in Ouagadougou Number of Days from Call Forward to Complete Arrival June 2010 - May 2011 8 June 2010 8,920 MT 28 July 2011 415 June 2011 - May 2012 9 May 2011 2,490 MT 17 November 2011 192 June 2012 - May 2013 7 February 2012 6,720 MT 28 March 2013 408 June 2013 - May 2014 10 February 2013 2,450 MT --- --- When the commodities are sent to the secondary warehouses, implementing partners are expected to distribute and then report on commodity distributions to CRS. CRS collates these monthly reports from the partners in preparing Commodity Status Reports (CSR) and Recipient Status Reports (RSR) for onward transmission to FFP. The MTE team found that, instead of sending the reports from the field regularly each month, the partners tended to bulk their reports and send them periodically. This has a great negative effect on the timely submission of the quarterly reports to FFP by CRS. The general explanation given for this delay was that “distributions are not carried out monthly”. However, “nil” distributions in any month are also expected to be reported on. The reporting form being used in the PM2A for reporting on distribution to the beneficiaries does not desegregate the women served according to categories, i.e. lactating mothers and pregnant women. The distributions to the women are all bulked together while the distributions must be reported to FFP according to the various categories of women. The anomaly must therefore be rectified according to each center and this also causes delays in inputting distribution data into the reporting software. This issue was discussed with the CMO and the M&E officers and they have agreed to resolve it for subsequent reporting. In the case of the reports from schools pertaining to school feeding in canteens, the monthly reports that are submitted indicate that the total numbers of children registered in the schools are fed every day without exception. This pre-supposes that there is a 100% school attendance by FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 72 children throughout the year, but this is unlikely and was confirmed by the few cases where the attendance registers were marked. During the MTE, the actual attendance on some days was checked against the quantity of food prepared for those days and the amount prepared exceeded the amount required for the number of children in attendance. Similarly, the take home rations for girls being rewarded for good attendance are reportedly issued to all girls registered. Again, this pre-supposes that all girls attain the 90% attendance rate required to receive take home rations, but in some of the schools visited during the MTE, the attendance registers were not marked, sometimes for a number of months, and there is no justifiable basis for determining school attendance by the girls who received rations. In addition to these record-keeping weaknesses in the program, the MTE team also noted that commodity storage in schools is below industry standards in some locations. In sharp contrast to the warehouses used for the PM2A food, the storage facilities for the school feeding program are in make-shift spaces either in some rooms of the school or even in the houses of school administrators. In the case of the monetization commodities, the FASO Program carries out monthly small lot sales of rice. Annex F contains details on these transactions and Table 33 provides a summary of the cost recovery achieved with this sales mechanism over the life of the program. As the table shows, the FASO Program has achieved one of the best cost recovery rates to appear in a Title II Program. . Table 33. Monetization Cost Recovery in the FASO Program IY Period Covered Quantity Sold C&F Value $ per MT Average Sales Price $ per MT Cost Recovery Rate Year 1 June 2010 - May 2011 2870 MT 882 919.13 104.2% Year 2 June 2010 - May 2011 3650 MT 904 901.06 99.7% Year 3 June 2010 - May 2011 827.2 MT 1,113 794.61 71.4% TOTAL 7347.2 MT 918.94* 896.13* 97.5% * Weighted average Twice over the life of the program with two shipments in 2012, officials from the National Health Laboratory of the GoBF raised concerns about the presence of aflatoxin in the shipped rice, and monetization was subsequently suspended. The issue has since been resolved and monetization sales were resumed in February, 2013. Table 34 provides a summary of commodity losses for distributed commodities through March 2013. There were absolutely no losses recorded in the PM2A warehouses, which, rather than inciting confidence, sends up a small red flag, since it is normal for there to be some losses in a warehouse, if nothing else, from repackaging of commodities. The only significant internal loss sustained by the program was by a transporter whose vehicle was involved in a road accident. All such losses are deducted from the payment due any such transporter. The losses from the school centers are deducted from the salaries of the teachers involved. In effect, the costs of all internal losses are retrieved by the FASO Program, and the shipping losses are covered by the Shipping Department contracts. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 73 Table 34. Commodity Loss Summary for Distributed Commodities (MT) FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 TOTAL Called Forward 2,420 2,070 4,100 8,590 Shipped 2,392.09 1,815.7 4,081.76 8,289.55 Shortlanded 62.86 7.29 102.84 173.00 Inland Transport Losses 16.02 0.49 0.18 16.69 Storage & Handling Losses 0.12 0.49 0.18 0.80 Total Losses 79.00 8.27 103.21 190.48 Net Quantity 2,313 1,807 3,979 8,099 Percentage Loss 3.30% 0.46% 2.53% 0.20% RECOMMENDATIONS for Commodity Management 56. The issue of the delays in the arrival of the commodities in country after being called forward should be brought to the attention of Baltimore/Shipping and the commodity procurement office of FFP. The program is planning as far ahead as possible in procuring commodities after a PREP has been approved, but the delayed commodity arrivals add a further panning challenge for pre￾positioning commodities before the rainy season makes roads impassable. 57. The late submission of reports by implementing partners has resulted in delayed submission of Quarterly Reports to FFP. While the shift of reporting to the web-based interface is a contributory factor to the delays, the program itself should ensure that the available data is entered into the system in a timely way. The program partners should work together to find a workable solution to the late submission of monthly reports. 58. PRIORITY: The program should devote significant attention to cleaning up the record￾keeping and warehousing of commodities in the school feeding/take home rations component of the program to avoid being held culpable for extraordinary loses or even misappropriation of commodities. 59. The program should accelerate the capacity building of PTAs, MAs and VDCs to have expanded roles in canteen management to reduce the workload of teachers who are heavily engaged in school canteen management at the expense of their normal responsibilities to educate children. F.7. Human Resource Management The MTE team examined staff structure, staff recruitment and retention as well as staff capacity building to identify constraints that may be affecting program implementation. The qualitative information gathering highlighted a number of staff structure issues, including the workload of SO2 animators, the workload of GRET animators, the workload of the SO3 Community Facilitators, and the need for cashiers for ATT in Gayeri and Manni. All of these issues are known to the program and some, such as the cashiers for ATT are being dealt with in the budgeting process. Recommendations in the section on SO3 are intended to reduce the workload for the SO3 Community Facilitators. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 74 The most significant human resource management issue that emerged from interviews during the MTE was staff retention, and a number of causes were proposed as the reason staff resigning their positions. New projects starting up result in the recruitment of staff away from FASO and increase competition for new staff to replace those who have left. This factor can be further amplified when the compensation and benefits package for a FASO partner is on the lower end in the labor market for NGO staff. There are new programs starting up in Burkina Faso, and this factor seems to be most important for OCADES in Boulsa North whose compensation and benefits fits this description. Differences between compensation and benefits between consortium partners for staff doing the same functions can also be demotivating for staff in the partner whose package is lower. The recently revised labor laws are also putting pressure on organizations to utilize one year contracts for staff in order to avoid having to make long term commitments to staff that go beyond the resources available to the organization. One year contracts do not provide job security and also limit access to bank loans for staff. In Gayeri, there is a unique combination within the FASO Program area of personal security and hardship that makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff. On the staff retention issue, it is not appropriate for the consortium lead to tell other consortium partners what compensation and benefits to pay to their staff. The consortium lead can only cover, within the normal budgeting process, the compensation and benefits allowed by the human resource policies of the consortium partner. The program, however, can ensure that the leadership of the consortium partners, i.e., those persons who have the power to change the organization’s human resource policies, are fully aware of the situation, including the impact of high staff turnover on program activities, on program impact and on organizational reputation for quality programming, and can present options for policy features that will make it easier to retain staff. RECOMMENDATIONS for Human Resource Management 60. CRS Human Resource Management staff should assemble the details to describe the problem of staff retention, identify potential solutions to these problems, and present this to the leadership of the partners (OCADES and ATT for Gayeri) to encourage them to consider amending their compensation and benefits policies to make it easier to recruit and retain staff. G. CONCLUDING REMARKS All in all, the MTE team found that the FASO Program has established itself as a sound program, with the potential to become a great program, if it can make some adjustments and continue to meet implementing challenges effectively. The priority theme for the remaining life of FASO should be doing as much as possible to ensure that the good impact that is being produced by the program will be sustained after the program ends. This means that everyone in the program needs to think "sustainable". As activities are being implemented, the program should constantly be asking two questions: (1) does what we are doing need to be continued after the program ends in order to sustain the impact we are generating and (2) how can we do this activity in a way that ensures that it will be continued after the program ends. The MTE team would also like to remind the FASO Program not to lose sight of its primary constituents, i.e., food insecure families living in the three targeted health districts. The purpose FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report 16 July 2013 75 of the program is not just to implement government or donor strategies, for example. The purpose of the program should be to implement activities that will sustainably reduce food insecurity for Burkinabe families. As NGOs working in development using humanitarian principles24, the FASO consortium is responsible for representing the best interests of targeted beneficiaries. No one else has that responsibility. 24 There is an international movement to enhance accountability on the part of development organizations to stakeholders, especially implementing partners, program participants, and program beneficiaries (for example: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership). Some features f this movement include (a) developing and monitoring accountability indicators, (b) transparent communications, (c) effective complaint management mechanisms for participants, beneficiaries and staff, (d) being participant-driven and recognizing that for humanitarian organizations, the primary constituents are people in need of assistance, (e) using participatory monitoring and evaluation tools and (f) respecting the contributions of partners, participant and beneficiaries. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 76 CRS/Burkina Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes (FASO) Program (2010-2015) Multi Year Assistance Program Mid-term Evaluation Plan USAID\FFP Title II – FASO MYAP Implemented by Cooperative Sponsors (CRS in consortium with HKI, OCADES Kaya, GRET and TIN TUA No- AID-FFP-10-00013 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 77 March 2013 I.INTRODUCTION Catholic Relief Services is the lead agency for a five year (June 2010-May 2015) USAID/FFP￾financed Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled “FASO” (Burkinabe Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes) with sub-awards to Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement Intégral et la Solidarité (OCADES-Kaya) and Association Tin Tua (ATT). The program targets the Health Districts of the northern Boulsa, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso25). 1.1. Description of the project Context,program goal and objectives Although 80 % of Burkina’s population relies on agricultural production26, the target Health Districts of the FASO program have a stunting rates for children under five of over 40%27, a food coverage rate of less than 75%28, a poverty rate of over 50%29, an incidence of diarrhea rate in children under five of over 20%30, and more than three occurrences of drought or flooding in the last five years31. The goal of the FASO program is therefore to sustainably reduce vulnerability to food insecurity in these Health Districts in North-Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso. The objectives of this $40 million32 program are to a) sustainably improve the access of 51,126 households to sufficient quality food through-out the year; b) improve the health and nutrition status of 51,426 mother-child units and c) improve local governance of 80033 community structures. The strategic objectives and intermediate results are summarized in the table below. 25 Map of the target areas is attached as Annex 2 26 Development of the agricultural sector and quality of life of households, Ministry of Agriculture, 2009 27 ENIAM,2009 28 DGPER/CILSS, using data from 2003-2007 29 Defined as percentage of people living on less than CFA 85,000 per year, or approximately 170 USD, National Institute off Demographic Statistics, 2004 30 DHS, 2003 31 DGPER/CONASUR/CRS 32 $2.4 million from previous programs’ resources have been approved as additional money to the initial $37.8 million 33 This number was later brought down to 500 based on the operating realities such as available human resources and the magnitude of the geographic area FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 78 Goal: Vulnerability to food insecurity is sustainably reduced in the Health Districts of Boulsa-North, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Burkina Faso) STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE (SO) INTERMEDIATE RESULT (IR) SO1: 56,126 households have improved access to food of sufficient quantity and quality throughout the year IR 1.1: 33,375 households sustainably improve their agricultural production IR 1.2: at least 50,500 beneficiaries farmers sustainably increase revenue SO2: 51,426 mother/child units have improved health and nutrition status IR 2.1: 18,500 mothers of children 0-23 months and pregnant women adopt recommended health, nutrition and hygiene practices IR 2.2: 79,590 women and children 0-59 months access quality nutrition and health services SO3: 800 community structures have improved their local governance practice IR 3.1: 500 community committees equitably manage community resources IR 3.2: 1600 women occupy leadership roles in their communities Key interventions and implementation activities To increase agricultural production, the program facilitates farmers’ access to diversified agricultural inputs, promotes improved agricultural production techniques and supports land improvement. Key activities include the distribution of coupons to access certified seed of improved varieties of dual purpose value chains34, demonstrations on intercropping, thinning and split application of urea, promotion of zaï and semi-moon techniques, and low land improvement for rice production through food for work along with the provision of small agricultural equipment. The program trains farmers in post harvesting activities to increase the value of their productions and by extension their revenues. Key activities include the use of plastic sheeting or tarpaulin for the threshing of sesame and rice to improve the quality and market value of their produce, the use of coupons to facilitate access to triple line bags for hermetic storage of the cowpea to prolong safe storage and attract additional revenue by selling when prices are more favorable. The program also train women in improved rice parboiling techniques to improve quality and revenues, and facilitates the emergence of saving internal lending communities (SILC) to mobilize financial resources to support productive activities, primarily for women. The program implements the preventing malnutrition in children under two approach (PM2A) as a strategy to improve on the health and nutrition status of pregnant and lactating women and children under two and to strengthen the quality and delivery of health care services. Key 34 The program promotes sesame, cowpea, rice, sweet potato, sorghum, millet and maize that can be used for household consumption and sale for income FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 79 activities include strengthening the capacity of the community health workers to deliver general health and nutrition services, promoting household and community level behaviors that prevent maternal and childhood illnesses and support good nutrition and hygiene using Care Groups as delivery mechanism, and improving the caloric and nutrient intake of mothers and children under two through cooking demonstrations and monthly distribution of Title II commodities. The program also supports water, sanitation and hygiene through the rehabilitation and drilling of boreholes and the promotion of community-lead total sanitation (CLTS) approach in pilot communities. Recognizing the key role that women play in the upbringing of the children and in the household livelihood, and based on the correlation between education and human development, the program puts a high premium on girl child education and on ensuring an equitable access of women to productive activities. Key activities include take home rations to support girls’ school attendance, inclusion of quota for women in mixed activities such as low land improvement and inclusion of dedicated activities for women (zaï, market gardening, rice parboiling). The program focuses on institutionalizing and sustaining program’s achievements by strengthening the capacity of community structures in good governance practices. The program targets community structures that are involved in the implementation of the program and are engaged as active partners for change. These include Village Development Councils (VDC), Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), Mothers Associations (MA), Water points management committees, Groups of rice producers, and Village Health Committees. Key partners and coordination activities The FASO consortium members play specific roles in the implementation of the program. As the lead agency, CRS is responsible for the overall coordination and representation with the central government, donor and development organizations involved in similar activities. CRS is responsible for technical assistance in the areas of agriculture, commodity management, PM2A approach, education and SILC. CRS leads the monitoring, evaluation and learning and ensures grant management and reporting. HKI is responsible for the implementation of the PM2A approach and coordination with Tin Tua for the integration of activities in Gayéri Health District. Given that PM2A was first implemented in Gayéri Health District, lessons learned by HKI were used by OCADES-Kaya in the northern Boulsa Health District. The consortium was to draw on HKI technical competencies in nutrition for the development of the tools and training modules for the Care groups and health animators and supervisors. In addition to the BCC activities in Manni Health District, GRET is responsible for the promotion of locally produced fortified foods. GRET is responsible for providing technical assistance to evaluate the best strategy to introduce and support the sustainable dissemination of locally produced fortified food in a cost-effective manner in Gayéri and northern Boulsa Health Districts. OCADES is responsible for the implementation of the agriculture component and the PM2A approach and to ensure integration of activities in the northern Boulsa Health District. TIN TUA is responsible for the implementation of the agriculture component in and to coordinate with HKI and GRET for the integration of activities in Gayéri and Manni Health Districts. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 80 In addition to linking up with the government technical and research institutions for technical support and private sector for the procurement of services, the FASO uses a series of mechanisms for the coordination of program implementation. The technical sector meetings are organized on demand to coordinate technical operational issues among the implementing partners to recommend solutions to address them. Steering committees involving relevant technical and administrative departments, consortium members are set up at the health district levels to discuss program implementation, identify key challenges and offer solutions for addressing them. Quarterly Consortium meetings are intended to coordinate, plan or discuss progress or technical and management issues pertaining to program implementation. Implementation history The FASO program is half way in its implementation with varying but steady progress toward the achievement of program targets. All sectors were covered and new activities were introduced. Key activities accomplished include agricultural and natural resource management with a focus on improved agricultural production and revenue, health and nutrition with the introduction of WASH in northern Boulsa health district, and behavior change communication and local governance. CRS and partners consolidated the management systems put in place and increased the field activities with a strong implication of communities and local authorities. CRS and partners consolidated the management systems put into place and increased the field activities with a strong implication of communities and local authorities. At total of 216 hectares of low land have been improved put under rice cultivation and 544 hectares of degraded land reclaimed through FFW. These represent respectively 98% and 99% of the targets for the period against 27% of target was reached with the coupons to access certified seed of improved varieties of the promoted crops. A network of 364 CARE Groups composed of 3,054 Lead Mothers is driving the community-based behavior change communication strategy. This has enabled to program to reach 26,400-child units through PM2A. Ninety two (92) community structures out of 160 planned for the period were supported in conducting their capacity self-assessment and drawing up action plans. The program implementation was affected by a range of factors some of which were germane to the operating environment and others that were not foreseen at the design phase. The construction of secondary warehouses was particularly challenging for the start-up of the implementation of PM2A activities in the Gayéri Health District. This has slightly delayed the start-up of the same activities in the northern Boulsa Health Districts which by design was to occur six months after Gayéri to build on the lessons learned. The low population density in some areas and the inaccessibility of close to half of the villages during the rainy season was not fully incorporated into the program design to help with the staffing level required for program implementation and intervention strategy such as the prepositioning of food commodities. The inception of new programs in neighboring districts threatened the program’s ability to retain staff in critical periods. The capacity of the volunteers did not always match with the tasks assigned to them, particularly the health promoters and the Lead Mothers in some of the villages. Growing insecurity in the Eastern Region negatively affected program monitoring in some areas. The difficulties in filling the vacant Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Coordinator position FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 81 negatively impacted the data management process and hindered the implementation of the formative research schedule. An important intervention principle of the FASO program is the emphasis on learning for change. The endorsement by the donor of this principle which incorporates agility and flexibility based on evidence and lessons learned significantly contributed to the program’s ability to overcome the challenges of the operating environment and adjust its intervention strategies accordingly. The program shifted from monthly screening strategy led by Lead Mothers during monthly food distribution to quarterly door to door screening involving community health workers under the supervision of the health staff. This change in strategy enables the program to reach a wider age group (0-59 months). Additional human and material resources were approved through the PREP mechanism to strengthen the deployment capacity of the implementing partners. 1.2. Evaluation purpose and Objectives The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to review the FASO program implementation processes for producing planned outputs and the program logic reflected in the results framework to determine whether the program is likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. In addition to providing information to the stakeholders on progress, effectiveness of intervention strategies, strengths and weaknesses, the adequacy between the levels of resources used the level of achievements, constraints and lessons learned, the mid-term evaluation will make recommendations on the overall approach, activities and management structure in order to optimize program outcomes during the remaining time of program implementation. The specific objectives include the following:  Identify, explain, and learn from successful program intervention strategies  Identify and learn from challenges and unsuccessful program intervention strategies  Assess the implementation progress and constraints encountered in the implementation of key program activities, measures taken to overcome them and determine the likelihood of achieving target  Review the effectiveness and the quality of service and input delivery mechanisms in achieving the intended results. Services and inputs include, training, sensitization sessions, Care groups as a mechanism for behavior change and support to the adoption of best health and nutrition practices among the pregnant and lactating women and children under two years, demonstrations, and inputs (i.e. use of coupons for accessing seed and triple line bags), food for work, food distribution (PM2A, protection ration, school feeding, take home rations for girls), tools for zai, provision of potable water, and capacity strengthening of community structures  Understand stakeholders’ views on or perception of project interventions, i.e. what is working and what adjustments need to be made  Assess the quality of the partnership between the consortium members and partners at decentralized level in the districts covered by the program  Assess the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation and learning in place for the program management; FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 82  Draw lessons from the program implementation and make recommendations to reorient the actions and interventions that can improve program implementation for the remaining two years 2. Composition of evaluation team CRS will recruit a team of technical experts on behalf of the consortium. A Senior Expert with an advanced degree in agronomy, agricultural economics or other related discipline will serve as Team Leader of the evaluation team. The Team Leader must be familiar with USAID projects and have excellent capabilities in reporting. S/he will have ten (10) years of experience in food security sector and a strong experience in projects and program monitoring and evaluation. S/he will have excellent organizational and interpersonal skills to coordinate and monitor successfully the evaluation team. S/he will assure the quality of work throughout the evaluation process, including the development of the data collection tools, data analysis, report writing and other deliverables by the evaluation team members. S/he will have a good understanding of the interconnection between agriculture and health and nutrition. The Team Leader will evaluate the integration of the program components. In addition to the technical skills required, this expert will have strong organizational, interpersonal skills, and excellent writing skills. S/he will coordinate the mid-term evaluation process as follows:  Work with the project management on evaluation planning and logistics  Assign evaluation topical responsibilities to the team members  Provide support to the evaluation team members to fulfill their obligations  Organize and facilitate team interaction  Coordinate stakeholders’ visit;  Coordinate the development of data collection tools and data collection in the field  Coordinate data analysis, validate the initial observations and interpretation and the compilation of the draft ;  Is responsible for submitting draft report and its presentation to the program stakeholders and donor;  Responsible for coordinating the team response and incorporating review comments on the draft report into the final report;  Submit the mid-term evaluation final report. The Team Leader will also evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 1. S/he will evaluate the effectiveness of the use of coupons as input delivery mechanism to access seed and triple line bags, food for work and provision of tools to support land improvement (zai and low land), training, use of radio and demonstrations as mechanism of skills transfer. S/he will evaluate the level of satisfaction with the service delivery and with the results/changes at the of the program participants’ level. S/he will evaluate the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners and the decentralized level of the government in the agriculture sector. A community health care/nutrition specialist will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 2. S/he will assess the effectiveness of Care groups as a mechanism for behavior change and support to the adoption of best health and nutrition practices among the pregnant and FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 83 lactating women and children under the age of two years. S/he will evaluate the functioning of the Care groups, the quality and effectiveness of the sensitization and trainings (tools and approaches), cooking demonstrations, effectiveness of the food rations distribution and use, adherence of women to recommended health and nutrition practices and the access to quality health services, including pre and post natal consultations, screening and the referral systems. S/he will assess the level of awareness and acceptance of the locally produced fortified food, its availability and affordability to the program participants. S/he will evaluate the delivery system of water, sanitation and hygiene. S/he will evaluate the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners and the decentralized level of the government in the health and nutrition sector. An organization development specialist with a background in social science or education and with experience in organizational development and strengthening will be responsible for assessing the intermediate results of the strategic objective 3. S/he will evaluate the effectiveness of the capacity building approach used by the program in improving local governance of community structures and their ability to sustain the outcomes of the program. S/he will evaluate the effectiveness of the school feeding in improving school enrollment, take home rations for girls’ attendance and any negative it may have on the enrollment or attendance of boys. Assess the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners in the area of community capacity building and evaluate the viability of the direct intervention strategy used by CRS under the strategic objective 3. A logistics and supply chain management specialist with experience in Title II commodity distribution and management. S/he will demonstrate abilities in assessing the relevance, the effectiveness and the efficiency of commodity management, including reporting and distribution systems in order to identify constraints, document lessons learned and provide recommendation for future action. The evaluation team members will participate in the initial 'briefing' with CRS and all consortium members to clarify the objectives and discuss the evaluation process; manage the data collection and analysis pertaining to their respective sectors, provide input into the draft report, participate in the presentation of the findings, preliminary conclusions and recommendations and incorporate the feedback received into respective sections of the final reports. 3. Key evaluation areas and questions The evaluation will assess the relevance of the interventions strategies, the quality and effectiveness of the methodologies and techniques used by the program to deliver technical inputs and services to achieve the expected outcomes. It will also review the processes, and the quality of program management. 3.1. General mid-term evaluation questions (cross-cutting areas) Design, implementation and achievements: FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 84  How effective is the program at reaching the vulnerable population and what could be done to improve targeting?  What interventions have been more or less successful in meeting targets?  What are the factors contributing or hindering effective program implementation and what can be made to the design to improve results?  How effective is program reaching women?  How consistent is the program with the local government’s strategies and priorities and how well integrated are program interventions? Capacity strengthening:  Are staff qualified and knowledgeable of the purpose of the nutrition component and methods used in the program?  What is being done to improve the capabilities of the staff and local partners to respond to community needs and meet the objectives of the program?  To what extent does the program enabling the of program participants? General management and coordination:  How well does information get communicated at the different levels within and outside of the consortium, and with donor? What worked well and what did not work well?  How effective are the coordination mechanisms?  Is the program properly staffed to achieve the intended results? Is staffing and staff retention a problem? If yes, are there any glaring reasons and what can staff turnover be minimized?  What is the proportion of women to men among staff? Is it difficult to get women staff and if so why?  What is the budget burning rate compared to progress in program implementation? What explains any imbalance identified and what can be done to overcome that?  How compliant has the program been in reporting?  How successful has been the monetization? What problems have occurred with monetization and how were those managed?  What key challenges did the program faced in the commodity management and reporting and how were they addressed? Sustainability:  Which of the outcomes related to best practices are program participants likely to continue and those unlikely to continue after the program ends and why?  What can be done to increase sustainability? Monitoring, evaluation and learning:  Are the indicator performance targets reasonable?  Does the program have too many indicators for each results stated in the Results Framework? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 85  Are the indicators defined objectively and are clear to both M&E and respective sector technical staff?  How functional the routine output monitoring system is?  Are M&E data collected adequately and reported regularly and in a timely manner?  To what extend M&E data and anecdotal information inform program management decisions?  Is there a systematic approach to learn from successes and also acknowledge and learn from problems? How lessons are being captured, documented and communicated to stakeholders? Is the system working and what could be done to improve the learning process?  How does the program track environmental indicators? What are the challenges in monitoring environmental indicators and ways to overcome them? 3.2. Technical sectors evaluation questions Maternal Child Health and Nutrition (MCHN):  Are the approaches the project is using to promote behavior change or to prevent malnutrition appropriate to the context and the local health and nutrition issues?  Through what process were the health and nutrition behavior change and communication materials developed, tested and applied? Were they available to staff and volunteers in a timely manner?  What are the factors contributing to or hindering progress toward behavior changes?  Are the MCHN related messages and technologies (materials, methods) promoted by the project technically sound and appropriate to achieving desired changes in behavior in the context?  Are Care Groups functioning as intended?  How are men being engaged in MCHN learning opportunities and are their roles strengthened to support the health and nutrition status of their family?  Are the messages and services being delivered in a gender appropriate manner for the context in order to maximize effectiveness?  How successful has the program been in increasing utilization of government preventive and curative health and nutrition services? Are there barriers to utilization that the program is not addressing? Why not?  Are food rations supporting MCHN objectives as intended? How do households allocate the rations? Do households understand the intended consumer(s) of the rations and the intended amounts?  Are households aware of and do they accept the locally produced fortified food? Is it available and affordable to program participants?  How are the MCHN activities linked to the other project interventions (agriculture, wat/san, capacity building)? Are these linkages effective? What are the opportunities for greater impact? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 86  What strategies are employed to influence water, sanitation and hygiene behaviors and what is the level of success of these strategies?  Are the rehabilitated or drilled boreholes working? How has the community been maintaining them? What are the challenges and how are they been addressed? Agriculture, natural resource management and income generation:  What is the program doing to increase access and availability of food in order to achieve improved dietary diversity?  How effective has been the use of coupons for farmers to access agricultural inputs?  To what extent have the program promoted agricultural and natural resource management technologies and practices been adopted by the program participants? How such practices and tools impacted the workload of women?  Does the program have systems in place to address gender equity in promoting techniques related to agriculture and natural resource management? What could be done to improve equitable participation, workload distribution, and the benefits from the interventions?  How successful have been food for work activities targeting women? How did the program address work burden and childcare issues?  To what extent do farmers continue to maintain on their own the infrastructures which were supported through food for work to establish? If not, why and what could be done to address this limitation?  What are farmers’ (men and women) perceptions about the program promoted strategies, technologies, and practices and their perceived benefits?  How successful have been the market linkages if any and how likely are they to remain after the program?  Are there any comparative advantages of having women’s groups (rice parboilers) or mixed groups (rice producers, SILC groups) for specific activities? In mixed groups, do women play an active role? What are the limitations?  What systems or activities have been put in place to ensure sustainability, and how likely is that system to be sustainable beyond the life of the program? Education & Local governance:  What are the program’s approaches to community capacity strengthening? How effective are they?  How effective has the program been in promoting women in leadership positions within their community structures?  What factors are contributing or hindering the potential of community structures in sustaining the outcomes of the program?  What benefits do people see in the school feeding programs?  What benefits do the program participants see in the take home rations? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 87  What evidence does exist for the ability of the community structures to sustain school feeding at the end of the program?  Are the rehabilitated or drilled boreholes working? How has the community been maintaining them? What are the challenges and how are they been addressed? 4. Methodology of the evaluation This evaluation will primarily use a participatory qualitative methods along with the review of available quantitative information generated by the M&E system. It will involve a cross section of all key stakeholders including the representatives from local government, field staff, management staff of implementing organizations, consortium members, community volunteers and program participants in all the three. The evaluation team will combine documentary review with a set of qualitative research methods. The team will review key program documents35 and other relevant qualitative and quantitative information to evaluate targeting, program strategies, quality of services and service delivery systems, theory of change, quality of program management, cross-cutting issues and the likelihood of the program achieving established targets and sustaining outcomes. No quantitative survey is envisioned for this mid-term evaluation. The qualitative methods and techniques for primary data collection to complement available data will include:  Key informant interview  Direct observations through site visits  Focus group discussion with program participants  Assessment of the institutional capacity of consortium member organizations  Interview of the technical core team and partners’ staff. The evaluation team will also assess the effectiveness of the monitoring system, including the appropriateness of performance indicators, M&E plan, data collection tools, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in data collection and analysis, data flow, data quality management, data analysis systems and use of data for learning and evidence-based decision making. To minimize the potential risk of bias or misinterpretation associated with interviews and focus group discussion (language barriers to convey some key concepts), a set of mechanisms will be used for the validation of the evaluation results and recommendation. A small group of program staff will accompany the evaluation team to assist with the formulation of some questions for easy understanding by the program participants while keeping the essence of the question. The accompanying staff will also help with the clarification of the context to help the evaluation team members have a better perspective. 35 Key program documents include but are not limited the proposal, Annual Results Reports, other special study reports. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 88 The evaluation team will formally present their initial observations and recommendations to the consortium members for feedback. This interactive and participatory process will be used for the validation of findings and recommendations. Where feasible, the program staff will develop an action plan to address the recommendations and discuss it with the evaluation team while still in￾country. 5. Mid-term evaluation staffing and organization 5.1. Role and responsibility of consortium Lead Agency (CRS) will facilitate coordination throughout the evaluation process. This includes the following:  Coordinate the recruitment of the evaluation team, including draft and share the scope of work (SOW) with the consortium members and the donor and incorporate their comments;  Organize the orientation of the evaluation team to the consortium members and donor to organize briefings;  Provide administrative and logistical support to the evaluation team, including hotel bookings, communication and printing facilities, orientation to consortium members and donor, provision of transportation and facilitation of data collection;  In coordination with implementing partners, provide the evaluation team with a list of all operational communities and classify them according to their performance, accessibility and security considerations, and assist with the selection of communities to be visited;  Provide available data and documentation to the evaluation team;  Organize the validation meeting to discuss preliminary observations and recommendations and ensure that feedback is incorporated into the final report;  Translate the final report into French for distribution to staff and stakeholders. The consortium members (HKI, OCADES-Kaya, Tin Tua and GRET) will facilitate the evaluation in their respective operational areas. They will assign their M&E officers and Field Coordinators to assist with the organization of the introduction of the evaluation team members to the local authorities, communities and provide contextual information as needed. The consortium members will also make available documentation as requested by the evaluation team. The consortium members will actively participate in the review of the SOW and the orientation of the team, the validation of the findings and recommendations, in the development and implementation of the follow up action plan. 5.2. Organization Technical coordination: The Chief of Party and the FASO Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Coordinators will ensure coordination and linkage between field operations and the evaluation team. They will communicate with the Team Leader on all matters pertaining to the mid-term evaluation and with the local FFP representatives. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 89 Technical team: The technical team will be organized by drawing representative from CRS, HKI, OCADES￾Kaya, GRET and Tin Tua. These will include the technical sectors leads and field coordinators, the program coordinators as well as the M&E staff. The technical team will provide administrative and technical input into the supervision of the evaluation team’s work. FFP technical representatives: Food for Peace will take an active role in the technical oversight of the mid-term evaluation process. Its representatives will review and approve of the Scope of Work of the mid-term evaluation, have an introductory meeting with the evaluation team, and provide feedback on the preliminary observations and recommendations. 6. Deliverables The mid-term evaluation team will be responsible for the following: 1) Produce a preliminary report of the mid-term evaluation of the FASO program; 2) Make a presentation of the draft report at the validation meeting and incorporate feedback received; 3) Produce a final report (5 hard copies printed both sides and an electronic version); The final report will follow the suggested outline below: Title page with date and logos (USAID and consortium members) i. Executive summary ii. Background a. Overview of project strategies b. Project history and operating context iii. Evaluation purpose and objectives a. Evaluation methodology iv-ix. For each Intermediate Results of each Strategic Objective a. Brief description of interventions b. Service delivery strategies and approaches – quality, successes and challenges c. Implementation progress and achievement of results d. Meeting targets e. Other achievements f. Lessons learned and promising practices x. Program quality and crosscutting areas a. Partnership/ consortium quality b. Targeting c. Integration d. Sustainability/ Exit strategies e. Gender f. SBC xi. Implementation processes a. M&E b. Knowledge management c. Commodity management d. General management FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 90 *Financial management *Human resource management ix. Recommendations a. Critical priority recommendations b. Other recommendations c. Recommended updates to future monitoring and evaluation activities x. Annexes a. List of acronyms b. Evaluation SOW c. Evaluation plan and schedule d. Composition of the team e. Evaluation methods and tools f. A brief report on quantitative results g. List of sites visited h. List of key informants and communities visited i. Summary tables on finance, commodities and human resources 7. Methodological strengths and limitations The combined use of participatory qualitative methods along with the review of existing quantitative information will provide an opportunity to validate or further explain current trends. More importantly, the methods used will provide an opportunity to key stakeholders, particularly the program participants to voice their perception of progress, benefits and challenges and potential for sustaining the outcomes. Some of the proposed qualitative methods of data collection, including direct observations and focus group discussions are cost-effective as they provide the opportunity to have collect information from many participants in one location and also have the opportunity to clarify and triangulate information on the spot. The evaluation team should however ensure that the accompanying program staff limit themselves to clarifying and refrain from influencing the respondents. An upfront discussion of this risk during the planning meetings will reduce the risk in this area. 8. Presentations The evaluation team will present its preliminary observations and recommendations at to the consortium members and FFP local representatives for feedback. The presentation will highlight the progress made in meeting the program’s targets, the strengths and weaknesses in the program design, implementation and overall management, and outline the recommendations to improve the shortcomings. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 91 9. Timeframe The Mid-term evaluation timeline is as follows : Key activities Timeline /deadline Responsible body People involved Draft SOW 03/18/2013 CRS CoP ; MEL Share SOW with stakeholders for comments 03/19/2013 CRS CoP Review of drafts SOW 03/25/2013 Consortium members, CRS regional and HQ, FFP Relevant technical teams; Finalize SOW 03/26/2013 CRS CoP ; MEL Organize documents for evaluation team review 04/03/2013 CRS, Consortium members CRS, Consortium members Listing and classification of implementing villages by geographical area and performance level 04/03/2013 CRS and partners MEL, Technical teams Recruitment of evaluation team members 04/12/2013 CRS HR Document review, draft evaluation plan, methodology and tools 04/12 – 15/2013 Evaluation team Evaluation team Arrival of evaluation team 04/15/2013 Evaluation team Evaluation team Briefing meetings with CRS and with FFP 04/16/2013 CRS and evaluation team CRS core team; CR; evaluation team ; FFP team Meeting with FASO key staff to review, finalize methodology and tools 04/17 - 18/2013 Team leader Consortium members technical staff Collection of field data in the health districts with communities and local authorities (4 days per Health District) 04/18 - 05/02/2013 Evaluation team Consortium members technical staff, program participants , technical partners, local authorities Data analysis and draft report 05/03 - 9/2013 Evaluation team Evaluation team Presentation of preliminary observations and recommendations 05/10/2013 Team leader Consortium members , Evaluation team, FFP Finalize evaluation report 05/10 - 14/2013 Team leader Evaluation team FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 92 Annex 1 Terms of Reference for the Team Leader Midterm Evaluation FASO program 2010-2015 Introduction/Background information Catholic Relief Services/Burkina Faso (CRS/BF) in partnership with Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement Intégral et la Solidarité (OCADES-Kaya) and Association Tin Tua (ATT) are implementing a five year (June 2010-May 2015) USAID/FFP-financed Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled “FASO” (Burkinabe Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes). The goal of the FASO program is to sustainably reduce vulnerability to food insecurity in the Health Districts of the northern Boulsa, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso. The objectives of this $40 million program are to a) sustainably improve the access of 51,126 households to sufficient quality food through-out the year; b) improve the health and nutrition status of 51,426 mother-child units and c) improve local governance of 800 community structures. The program uses coupons to facilitate farmers’ access to diversified agricultural inputs, promotes improved agricultural production and post-harvest management techniques and supports land improvement through food for work. The program facilitates the emergence of saving internal lending communities (SILC) to mobilize financial resources to support productive activities, primarily for women. The program implements the preventing malnutrition in children under two (PM2A) approach as a strategy to improve on the health and nutrition status of pregnant and lactating women and children under two and to strengthen the quality and delivery of health care services. The program promotes household and community level behaviors that prevent maternal and childhood illnesses and support good nutrition and hygiene using Care Groups as delivery mechanism. The program also supports water, sanitation and hygiene through the rehabilitation and drilling of boreholes and the promotion of community-lead total sanitation (CLTS) approach in pilot communities. The program puts a high premium on child girl education and on ensuring an equitable access of women to productive activities. The program provides take home rations to support girls’ school Submission of the final report 05/15/2013 Team leader Evaluation team Total 34 days FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 93 attendance and includes of quota for women in mixed activities such as low land improvement. It supports dedicated activities for women (zaï, market gardening, rice parboiling). The program targets Village Development Councils (VDC), Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), Mothers Associations (MA), Water points management committees, Groups of rice producers, and Village Health Committees for capacity strengthening to help them sustain program’s achievements. Objectives of the evaluation The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to review the FASO program implementation processes for producing planned outputs and to determine whether the program is likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. In addition to providing information to the stakeholders on progress, effectiveness of intervention strategies, strengths and weaknesses, the adequacy between the levels of resources used the level of achievements, constraints and lessons learned, the mid-term evaluation will make recommendations on the overall approach, activities and management structure in order to optimize program outcomes during the remaining time of program implementation. Scope of Work for the Team Leader & Agriculture Sector Technical Specialist The purpose of the Scope of Work (SOW) is to describe the conditions and responsibilities of the Team Leader. S/he will assure the quality of work throughout the evaluation process, including the development of the data collection tools, data analysis, report writing and other deliverables by the evaluation team members. S/he will have a good understanding of the interconnection between agriculture and health and nutrition. The Team Leader will evaluate the integration of the program components. In addition to the technical skills required, this expert will have strong organizational, interpersonal skills, and excellent writing skills. S/he will coordinate the mid-term evaluation process as follows:  Work with the project management on evaluation planning and logistics  Assign evaluation topical responsibilities to the team members  Provide support to the evaluation team members to fulfill their obligations  Organize and facilitate team interaction  Coordinate stakeholders’ visit;  Coordinate the development of data collection tools and data collection in the field  Coordinate data analysis, validate the initial observations and interpretation and the compilation of the draft ;  Is responsible for submitting draft report and its presentation to the program stakeholders and donor;  Responsible for coordinating the team response and incorporating review comments on the draft report into the final report;  Evaluate the effectiveness of the program at reaching targets;  Identify and analyze strengths and constraints and offer recommendations on best practices and corrective measures; FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 94  Draw lessons from the program implementation and make recommendations to reorient the actions and interventions that can improve program implementation for the remaining two years;  Assess the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation and learning in place for the program management;  Submit the mid-term evaluation final report. The Team Leader will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 1. S/he will evaluate:  The effectiveness of the use of coupons as input delivery mechanism to access seed and triple line bags, food for work and provision of tools to support land improvement (zai and low land), training, use of radio and demonstrations as mechanism of skills transfer;  The level of satisfaction with the service delivery and with the results/changes at the of the program participants’ level;  The quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners and the decentralized level of the government in the agriculture sector;  Document lessons learned and provide recommendations for future programming. Composition of the evaluation team The Team Leader will coordinate the work of three other members including the following:  A community health care/nutrition specialist with familiarity with the PM2A approach will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 2.  An organization development specialist with a background in social science or education and with experience in organizational development and strengthening will be responsible for assessing the intermediate results of the strategic objective 3.  A logistics and supply chain management specialist with experience in Title II commodity distribution and management to evaluate the relevance, the effectiveness and the efficiency of commodity management, including reporting and distribution systems in order to identify constraints, document lessons learned and provide recommendation for future action. Evaluation questions General questions for the evaluation team Design, implementation and achievements:  How effective is the program at reaching the vulnerable population and what could be done to improve targeting?  What interventions have been more or less successful in meeting targets? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 95  What are the factors contributing or hindering effective program implementation and what can be made to the design to improve results?  How effective is program reaching women?  How consistent is the program with the local government’s strategies and priorities and how well integrated are program interventions? Capacity strengthening:  Are staff qualified and knowledgeable of the purpose of the nutrition component and methods used in the program?  What is being done to improve the capabilities of the staff and local partners to respond to community needs and meet the objectives of the program?  To what extent does the program enabling the of program participants? General management and coordination:  How well does information get communicated at the different levels within and outside of the consortium, and with donor? What worked well and what did not work well?  How effective are the coordination mechanisms?  Is the program properly staffed to achieve the intended results? Is staffing and staff retention a problem? If yes, are there any glaring reasons and what can staff turnover be minimized?  What is the proportion of women to men among staff? Is it difficult to get women staff and if so why?  What is the budget burning rate compared to progress in program implementation? What explains any imbalance identified and what can be done to overcome that?  How compliant has the program been in reporting?  How successful has been the monetization? What problems have occurred with monetization and how were those managed?  What key challenges did the program faced in the commodity management and reporting and how were they addressed? Sustainability:  Which of the outcomes related to best practices are program participants likely to continue and those unlikely to continue after the program ends and why?  What can be done to increase sustainability? Monitoring, evaluation and learning:  Are the indicator performance targets reasonable?  Does the program have too many indicators for each results stated in the Results Framework?  Are the indicators defined objectively and are clear to both M&E and respective sector technical staff?  How functional the routine output monitoring system is? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 96  Are M&E data collected adequately and reported regularly and in a timely manner?  To what extend M&E data and anecdotal information inform program management decisions?  Is there a systematic approach to learn from successes and also acknowledge and learn from problems? How lessons are being captured, documented and communicated to stakeholders? Is the system working and what could be done to improve the learning process?  How does the program track environmental indicators? What are the challenges in monitoring environmental indicators and ways to overcome them? Agriculture, natural resource management and income generation:  What is the program doing to increase access and availability of food in order to achieve improved dietary diversity?  How effective has been the use of coupons for farmers to access agricultural inputs?  To what extent have the program promoted agricultural and natural resource management technologies and practices been adopted by the program participants? How such practices and tools impacted the workload of women?  Does the program have systems in place to address gender equity in promoting techniques related to agriculture and natural resource management? What could be done to improve equitable participation, workload distribution, and the benefits from the interventions?  How successful have been food for work activities targeting women? How did the program address work burden and childcare issues?  To what extent do farmers continue to maintain on their own the infrastructures which were supported through food for work to establish? If not, why and what could be done to address this limitation?  What are farmers’ (men and women) perceptions about the program promoted strategies, technologies, and practices and their perceived benefits?  How successful have been the market linkages if any and how likely are they to remain after the program?  Are there any comparative advantages of having women’s groups (rice parboilers) or mixed groups (rice producers, SILC groups) for specific activities? In mixed groups, do women play an active role? What are the limitations?  What systems or activities have been put in place to ensure sustainability, and how likely is that system to be sustainable beyond the life of the program? Methodology (See proposed methodology in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Timeline The Midterm evaluation will be carried out from April 12 to May 15, 2013 in the three health districts covered by the FASO program. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 97 Deliverables (Refer to the deliverables in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Minimum qualifications for the Team Leader/Agriculture Sector Specialist • Advanced degree in agronomy, agricultural economics or other related discipline; • Knowledge of agricultural marketing and the links between agriculture and food security (or livelihood security); • Solid understanding of the interconnection between agriculture and health and nutrition; • Strong organizational, interpersonal skills, and excellent writing skills; • Experience in conducting qualitative evaluations of Title II integrated food security programs; • Ability to communicate well in English and a working knowledge in French • Ability to facilitate workshops and make a public presentation of key findings. • Proficiency in Microsoft Applications. How to apply Interested candidates in this assignment should send the following information to CRS Burkina:  Brief cover letter highlighting relevant experience ans skills, as well as confirming availability for 25 to 34 days from April 12 to May 15, 2013  Curriculum Vitae;  Written proposal in English of no less than two pages but not more than 5 pages describing the proposed methodology and the actions to be taken to complete the mid￾term evaluation;  A written sample in English from previous consultancy  Three professional reference with phone and email contacts  A page budget presenting daily fee and other related consultation costs. The above materials should be sent to: BF_CoP@global.crs.org Terms of Reference for the Community Health/Nutrition Specialist Midterm Evaluation FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 98 FASO program 2010-2015 Introduction/Background information Catholic Relief Services/Burkina Faso (CRS/BF) in partnership with Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement Intégral et la Solidarité (OCADES-Kaya) and Association Tin Tua (ATT) are implementing a five year (June 2010-May 2015) USAID/FFP-financed Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled “FASO” (Burkinabe Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes). The goal of the FASO program is to sustainably reduce vulnerability to food insecurity in the Health Districts of the northern Boulsa, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso. The objectives of this $40 million program are to a) sustainably improve the access of 51,126 households to sufficient quality food through-out the year; b) improve the health and nutrition status of 51,426 mother-child units and c) improve local governance of 800 community structures. The program implements the preventing malnutrition in children under two (PM2A) approach as a strategy to improve on the health and nutrition status of pregnant and lactating women and children under two and to strengthen the quality and delivery of health care services. The program promotes household and community level behaviors that prevent maternal and childhood illnesses and support good nutrition and hygiene using Care Groups as delivery mechanism. The program also supports water, sanitation and hygiene through the rehabilitation and drilling of boreholes and the promotion of community-lead total sanitation (CLTS) approach in pilot communities. Objectives of the evaluation The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to review the FASO program implementation processes for producing planned outputs and to determine whether the program is likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. In addition to providing information to the stakeholders on progress, effectiveness of intervention strategies, strengths and weaknesses, the adequacy between the levels of resources used the level of achievements, constraints and lessons learned, the mid-term evaluation will make recommendations on the overall approach, activities and management structure in order to optimize program outcomes during the remaining time of program implementation. Scope of Work for the Community Health/Nutrition Specialist The purpose of the Scope of Work (SOW) is to describe the conditions and responsibilities of the community health/nutrition specialist. S/he will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 2. S/he will:  Assess the effectiveness of behavior change activities and approaches;  Evaluate the functioning of the Care groups;  Assess the quality and effectiveness of the sensitization and trainings (tools and approaches), cooking demonstrations; FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 99  Evaluate adherence of women to recommended health and nutrition practices and the access to quality health services, including pre and post natal consultations, screening and the referral systems;  Evaluate the effectiveness of the food rations distribution and use;  Assess the level of awareness and acceptance of the locally produced fortified food, its availability and affordability to the program participants;  Evaluate the delivery system of water, sanitation and hygiene;  Evaluate the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners and the decentralized level of the government in the health and nutrition sector. Composition of the evaluation team The other three members of the evaluation team include:  A Team Leader with an advanced degree in agricultural, agricultural economics with a coordination responsibilities in addition to evaluating the i intermediate results of the strategic objective 1.  An organization development specialist with a background in social science or education and with experience in organizational development and strengthening will be responsible for assessing the intermediate results of the strategic objective 3.  A logistics and supply chain management specialist with experience in Title II commodity distribution and management to evaluate the relevance, the effectiveness and the efficiency of commodity management, including reporting and distribution systems in order to identify constraints, document lessons learned and provide recommendation for future action. Evaluation questions  Are the approaches the project is using to promote behavior change or to prevent malnutrition appropriate to the context and the local health and nutrition issues?  Through what process were the health and nutrition behavior change and communication materials developed, tested and applied? Were they available to staff and volunteers in a timely manner?  What are the factors contributing to or hindering progress toward behavior changes?  Are the MCHN related messages and technologies (materials, methods) promoted by the project technically sound and appropriate to achieving desired changes in behavior in the context?  Are Care Groups functioning as intended?  How are men being engaged in MCHN learning opportunities and are their roles strengthened to support the health and nutrition status of their family?  Are the messages and services being delivered in a gender appropriate manner for the context in order to maximize effectiveness? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 100  How successful has the program been in increasing utilization of government preventive and curative health and nutrition services? Are there barriers to utilization that the program is not addressing? Why not?   Are food rations supporting MCHN objectives as intended? How do households allocate the rations? Do households understand the intended consumer(s) of the rations and the intended amounts?  Are households aware of and do they accept the locally produced fortified food? Is it available and affordable to program participants?  How are the MCHN activities linked to the other project interventions (agriculture, wat/san, capacity building)? Are these linkages effective? What are the opportunities for greater impact?  What strategies are employed to influence water, sanitation and hygiene behaviors and what is the level of success of these strategies?  Are the rehabilitated or drilled boreholes working? How has the community been maintaining them? What are the challenges and how are they been addressed? Methodology (See proposed methodology in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Timeline The Midterm evaluation will be carried out from April 12 to May 15, 2013 in the three health districts covered by the FASO program. Deliverables (Refer to the deliverables in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Minimum qualifications for the Community Health/Nutrition Specialist • Diploma in Medicine, Public Health, Nutrition or related field • Minimum of 5 years of working experience in primary health care (community health care programs preferred); • Experience in conducting qualitative evaluation of Title II programs • Familiarity with PM2A approach • Solid understanding of the interconnection between agriculture and health and nutrition; • Strong organizational, interpersonal skills, and excellent writing skills; • Ability to communicate well in English and a working knowledge in French • Ability to facilitate workshops and make a public presentation of key findings. • Proficiency in Microsoft Applications; FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 101 • Ability to work in team; • Willingness to travel to remote areas; • Capable of working under pressure. How to apply Interested candidates in this assignment should send the following information to CRS Burkina:  Brief cover letter highlighting relevant experience ans skills, as well as confirming availability for 25 to 34 days from April 12 to May 15, 2013  Curriculum Vitae;  Written proposal in English of no less than two pages but not more than 5 pages describing the proposed methodology and the actions to be taken to complete the mid￾term evaluation;  A written sample in English from previous consultancy  Three professional reference with phone and email contacts  A page budget presenting daily fee and other related consultation costs. The above materials should be sent to: BF_CoP@global.crs.org FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 102 Terms of Reference for the organization development Specialist Midterm Evaluation FASO program 2010-2015 Introduction/Background information Catholic Relief Services/Burkina Faso (CRS/BF) in partnership with Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement Intégral et la Solidarité (OCADES-Kaya) and Association Tin Tua (ATT) are implementing a five year (June 2010-May 2015) USAID/FFP-financed Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled “FASO” (Burkinabe Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes). The goal of the FASO program is to sustainably reduce vulnerability to food insecurity in the Health Districts of the northern Boulsa, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso. The objectives of this $40 million program are to a) sustainably improve the access of 51,126 households to sufficient quality food through-out the year; b) improve the health and nutrition status of 51,426 mother-child units and c) improve local governance of 800 community structures. The program pays a particular attention to institutionalizing and sustaining the program’s achievements by strengthening the capacity of community structures in good governance practices. The program targets community structures that are involved in the implementation of the program and are engaged as active partners for change. These include Village Development Councils (VDC), Parent Teacher Associations (PTA), Mothers Associations (MA), Water points management committees, Groups of rice producers, and Village Health Committees. The program puts a high premium on child girl education and on ensuring an equitable access of women to productive activities. Key activities include take home rations to support girls’ school attendance, inclusion of quota for women in mixed activities such as low land improvement and inclusion of dedicated activities for women (zaï, market gardening, rice parboiling). Objectives of the evaluation The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to review the FASO program implementation processes for producing planned outputs and to determine whether the program is likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. In addition to providing information to the stakeholders on progress, effectiveness of intervention strategies, strengths and weaknesses, the adequacy between the levels of resources used the level of achievements, constraints and lessons learned, the mid-term evaluation will make recommendations on the overall approach, activities and management structure in order to optimize program outcomes during the remaining time of program implementation. Scope of Work for the organization development specialist FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 103 The purpose of the Scope of Work (SOW) is to describe the conditions and responsibilities of the organizational development specialist. S/he will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 3. S/he will:  Evaluate the effectiveness of the capacity building approach used by the program in improving local governance of community structures and their ability to sustain the outcomes of the program;  Assess the effectiveness of the school feeding in improving school enrollment;  Evaluate the effectiveness of the take home rations for girls’ attendance and any negative it may have on the enrollment or attendance of boys;  Assess the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners in the area of community capacity building;  Evaluate the quality of the collaboration between the implementing partners and the relevant decentralized levels of the government;  Evaluate the viability of the direct intervention strategy used by CRS under the strategic objective 3. Composition of the evaluation team The other three members of the evaluation team include:  A Team Leader with an advanced degree in agricultural, agricultural economics with a coordination responsibilities in addition to evaluating the i intermediate results of the strategic objective 1.  A community health care/nutrition specialist with familiarity with the PM2A approach will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 2.  A logistics and supply chain management specialist with experience in Title II commodity distribution and management to evaluate the relevance, the effectiveness and the efficiency of commodity management, including reporting and distribution systems in order to identify constraints, document lessons learned and provide recommendation for future action. Evaluation questions  What are the program’s approaches to community capacity strengthening? How effective are they?  How effective has the program been in promoting women in leadership positions within their community structures?  What factors are contributing or hindering the potential of community structures in sustaining the outcomes of the program?  What benefits do people see in the school feeding programs?  What benefits do the program participants see in the take home rations? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 104  What evidence does exist for the ability of the community structures to sustain school feeding at the end of the program?  Are the rehabilitated or drilled boreholes working? How has the community been maintaining them? What are the challenges and how are they been addressed? Methodology (See proposed methodology in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Timeline The Midterm evaluation will be carried out from April 12 to May 15, 2013 in the three health districts covered by the FASO program. Deliverables (Refer to the deliverables in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Minimum qualifications for the Community Health/Nutrition Specialist • Advanced degree in social science or education • Minimum of 5 years of working experience in organizational development and or strengthening; • Experience with integrated community development programs • Experience in conducting qualitative evaluation of community development program with a strong capacity building component; • Experience with education programs at the pre-primary and primary schools • Strong organizational, interpersonal skills, and excellent writing skills; • Ability to communicate well in English and a working knowledge in French • Ability to facilitate workshops and make a public presentation of key findings. • Proficiency in Microsoft Applications; • Ability to work in team; • Willingness to travel to remote areas; • Capable of working under pressure. How to apply Interested candidates in this assignment should send the following information to CRS Burkina:  Brief cover letter highlighting relevant experience ans skills, as well as confirming availability for 25 to 34 days from April 12 to May 15, 2013 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 105  Curriculum Vitae;  Written proposal in English of no less than two pages but not more than 5 pages describing the proposed methodology and the actions to be taken to complete the mid￾term evaluation;  A written sample in English from previous consultancy  Three professional reference with phone and email contacts  A page budget presenting daily fee and other related consultation costs. The above materials should be sent to: BF_CoP@global.crs.org FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 106 Terms of Reference for the logistics specialist Midterm Evaluation FASO program 2010-2015 Introduction/Background information Catholic Relief Services/Burkina Faso (CRS/BF) in partnership with Helen Keller International (HKI), Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technologiques (GRET), Organisation Catholique pour le Développement Intégral et la Solidarité (OCADES-Kaya) and Association Tin Tua (ATT) are implementing a five year (June 2010-May 2015) USAID/FFP-financed Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) entitled “FASO” (Burkinabe Families Achieving Sustainable Outcomes). The goal of the FASO program is to sustainably reduce vulnerability to food insecurity in the Health Districts of the northern Boulsa, Manni and Gayéri (North Central and Eastern Regions of Burkina Faso. The objectives of this $40 million program are to a) sustainably improve the access of 51,126 households to sufficient quality food through-out the year; b) improve the health and nutrition status of 51,426 mother-child units and c) improve local governance of 800 community structures. The program uses Title II food commodities both for in-kind distribution and for monetization to generate financial resources to support program’s operations. The labor intensive low land improvement and the recuperation of degraded land for productive activities are supported through food for work. The PM2A component of the program provides supplemental monthly rations to improve the caloric and nutrient intake of pregnant women, lactating mothers and children 6-23 months of age. The program distributes family protection rations during the lean season (June to October). The program provides primary school children with daily hot lunch during the academic year. To promote girls’ education, the program makes available a take home ration to girls who attend school 90% of the time in a given month. The program maintains a central warehouse in Ouagadougou and supplies a network of 36 secondary warehouses (13 of which are constructed by the program). Some of the areas are inaccessible during the rainy season (June to October) calling for special prepositioning of food in these areas. Objectives of the evaluation The purpose of this mid-term evaluation is to review the FASO program implementation processes for producing planned outputs and to determine whether the program is likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. In addition to providing information to the stakeholders on progress, effectiveness of intervention strategies, strengths and weaknesses, the adequacy between the levels of resources used the level of achievements, constraints and lessons learned, the mid-term evaluation will make recommendations on the overall approach, activities and management structure in order to optimize program outcomes during the remaining time of program implementation. Scope of Work for the logistics specialist FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 107 The purpose of the Scope of Work (SOW) is to describe the conditions and responsibilities of the logistics specialist. S/he will:  Evaluate the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of commodity management of food distribution, including reporting;  Assess the effectiveness of food distribution strategy in achieving the intended outcomes;  Evaluate participants’ awareness of the food rations entitled to;  Assess participants’ satisfaction with the types of food commodities and rations’ size;  Identify the logistics and operational constraints associated with the food distribution, including warehousing;  Evaluate the effectiveness of the monetization component of the program;  Analyze logistics and commodity information flow to programming unit  Document lessons learned and provide recommendations on corrective action if any. Composition of the evaluation team The other three members of the evaluation team include:  A Team Leader with an advanced degree in agricultural, agricultural economics with a coordination responsibilities in addition to evaluating the intermediate results of the strategic objective 1.  A community health care/nutrition specialist with familiarity with the PM2A approach will evaluate the intermediate results of the strategic objective 2.  An organization development specialist with a background in social science or education and with experience in organizational development and strengthening will be responsible for assessing the intermediate results of the strategic objective 3. Evaluation questions  Are commodities being managed appropriately?  Are correct procedures and best practices used in receiving, storing and distribution food commodities?  Is there a sufficient number of staff working in the warehouses, including secondary warehouses to ensure a separation of duties?  Are all documents associated with inventory stocks (waybills, spoiled food etc.) in warehouses maintained correctly and up to date?  Is the logistic system of trucks adequate to transport all the needed commodities on time?  Are food distributions carried out according to standard?  Does the current system protect against false beneficiaries from receiving commodities?  Are the recommended food ration size respected?  Are the program participants aware of the ration size?  How long on average are women waiting to receive rations?  Are implemented procedures for monitoring food distribution efficient? FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 108  Is the current distribution plan accommodating the numbers of program participants in a timely manner?  How effective has the program been in using food commodity to support its strategic objectives?  Identify the logistics and operational constraints associated with the food distribution, including warehousing;  Is USAID branding/marking compliance adequate?  Evaluate the effectiveness of the monetization component of the program  How successful has been the monetization? What problems have occurred with monetization and how were those managed?  What key challenges did the program faced in the commodity management and reporting and how were they addressed?  Document lessons learned and provide recommendations on corrective action if any. Methodology (See proposed methodology in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Timeline The Midterm evaluation will be carried out from April 12 to May 15, 2013 in the three health districts covered by the FASO program. Deliverables (Refer to the deliverables in the Midterm Evaluation Plan) Minimum qualifications for the Community Health/Nutrition Specialist • Master’s degree in finance, agricultural economics, managements or other relevant diploma; • Five to ten years of experience dealing with commodity management and safety net interventions • Substantial experience in commodity program evaluations (quantitative and qualitative methods) • Ability to work in a team • Ability to communicate well in English and a working knowledge in French • Strong interpersonal and writing skills • Willingness to travel to remote areas; • Capable of working under pressure; • Ability to write report in English; • Proficiency in Microsoft Applications.. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 109 How to apply Interested candidates in this assignment should send the following information to CRS Burkina:  Brief cover letter highlighting relevant experience ans skills, as well as confirming availability for 25 to 34 days from April 12 to May 15, 2013  Curriculum Vitae;  Written proposal in English of no less than two pages but not more than 5 pages describing the proposed methodology and the actions to be taken to complete the mid￾term evaluation;  A written sample in English from previous consultancy  Three professional reference with phone and email contacts  A page budget presenting daily fee and other related consultation costs. The above materials should be sent to: BF_CoP@global.crs.org FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX A 110 Annex 2 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 111 ANNEX B: FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation People Interviewed and Sites Visited STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: ANRM District Village Interviews Boulsa Nord Kalitagin  Large Group Interview (150 persons)  Focus Group Discussion - Zai Group  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Producers Group Boulsa Nord Bakaonga  Key Informants - Model Farmers Demonstration  Key Informants - Model Farmer PVS  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Producers Group Boulsa Nord Taffogo  Large Group Interview Gayeri Oue  Large Group Interview (200 Persons)  Key Informants - Triple-Line Sacks Gayeri Ouro Niebe/Koufougou  Focus Group Discussion - SILC (2 groups)  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Parboilers Group  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Producers Group Gayeri Haaba  Focus Group Discussion - SILC Gayeri Djora  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Parboilers Group  Triple-Lined Sack Opening Demonstration Gayeri Duonla  FFW Lowland Infrastructure Construction Manni Manni  Key Informant - Cowpea Seed Producer  Key Informant - Model Farmer Sesame Demonstration  Key Informant - Agro-Dealer for Triple-Lined Sacks Manni Koulfo  Key Informant - Model Farmer Demonstration  Key Informant - Cowpea Seed Producer Manni Bourgou  Focus Group Discussion - Tool Management Committee Manni ???  Key Informants - Zai Family  Key Informant - Model Farmer Conservation Agriculture Manni Bogomissi  Focus Group Discussion - Tool Management Committee  Focus Group Discussion - Zai Group Manni Tipoli  Focus Group Discussion - Rice Producers Group Boulsa Nord Watigue  Focus Group Discussion - Tool Management Committee  Focus Group Discussion - Zai Working Group FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 112 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2: MCHN District Village Interviews Boulsa Nord Tampelga  Village Development Committee  Focus Group of Mother Leaders  Community Health Workers  Health Center Staff Boulsa Nord Bougou  Focus Group of Mother Leaders  Focus Group of Women Beneficiaries  Village Health Committee  Health Center Staff (Nabingou) Boulsa Nord Boulwodgo  Focus Group of mothers & Mother Leaders  Focus Group of Fathers  Household visit  Visit to rehabilitated borehole  Chief Gayeri Louanga  Gourmantchi Care Group  Morsi Care Group Gayeri Kiani  Village Health Committee  Fula Care Group  Morsi Care Group Gayeri Gambourdeni  Focus group of women not food beneficiaries  Focus group of “graduated” women  Village Health Committee  Community development committee Gayeri Bonkoungo  Focus group of beneficiary women  Focus group of fathers  Focus Group of women not food beneficiaries Manni Lipaka  Health Center Staff at Dakiri  Focus Group with Village Nutrition Committee  Village Development Committee Manni Soula  Health Center Staff at Soula  Focus Group with women beneficiaries  Focus Group with CVNs  Chief  GRET product distributor Manni Bonogo  Village Nutrition Committee  Home Visit  Community Development Committee Manni Nayela  Focus Group of beneficiary women  Village Nutrition Committee Boulsa Nord Pilga  Focus group of women (food beneficiary and non) FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 113  Village Health Committee  Sisters who produce enriched porridge FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 114 Dates Health District Province Villages Organization People encountered 05/17/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Wattigué Water users Association (WUA) 4 05/17/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Wattigué PTA 5 05/17/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Wattigué VCD 6 05/17/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Wattigué MA (Mothers Association) 7 05/18/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Kalitaguin MA (Mothers Association) 5 05/18/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Kalitaguin PTA 6 05/18/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Kalitaguin Not beneficiary of take home ration SAWADOGO Nameba 05/18/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Kalitaguin Not beneficiary of take home ration NAKO Moumouni 05/18/2013 Gayeri Naentenga Kalitaguin Head of the school LALOGO Theodore 05/20/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Loanga Rice Producers Group 6 05/21/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Kolangal PTA 8 05/22/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Gaveri District of basic education ROUAMBA Ablasse 05/22/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Lafia PTA 6 05/22/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Lafia Rice Producers Group 6 05/22/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Yadgou PTA /MA 18 05/23/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Gayeri Mayor LOMPO Songba 05/23/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Gayeri Provincial District of environment YAMEOGO Koulbi 05/23/2013 Gayeri Komondjari Gayeri Community facilitator (CRS staff) 1 05/24/2013 Manni Gnagna Bogmissi PTA 8 05/24/2013 Manni Gnagna Bogmissi Water users Association (WUA) 6 05/24/2013 Manni Gnagna Bogmissi Women involved in parboiling 3 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED BY SO3 TEAM DURING THE MTE FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 115 Dates Health District Province Villages Organization People encountered 05/24/2013 Manni Gnagna Thion Chef CEB SIMPORE Issaka 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo Head of the school KANAZOE Oumarou 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo MA (Mothers Association) 6 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo Rice Producers Group 10 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo VCD 5 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo Woman involved in canteen 1 05/25/2013 Manni Gnagna Kulfo New literate 1 05/26/2013 Manni Gnagna Manni CRS Staff 1 05/26/2013 Manni Gnagna Manni Tin Tua Staff 15 animators 05/26/2013 Manni Gnagna Manni Community facilitator (CRS Staff) 1 05/26/2013 Manni Gnagna Manni Community facilitator (CRS Staff ) 1 05/27/2013 Manni Gnagna Boungou Folgou PTA 5 05/27/2013 Manni Gnagna Manni Mayor BOURGOU Alexis 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Taparko Parent of pupils beneficiaries of take home ration 1 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Taparko Parent of pupils beneficiaries of take home ration 1 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Taparko Pupils not beneficiaries of take home ration 1 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Taparko Pupils beneficiaries of take home ration 1 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Taparko Head of the school SOME Z. Noel 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Nagbingou Women involved in canteen 3 05/28/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Yalgo District of Basic education OUEDRAOGO M.Evariste 05/29/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Kinesoumdi Community facilitator (CRS Staff) 1 05/29/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Tougouri Community facilitator (CRS Staff) 1 05/29/2013 North Boulsa Namentenga Tougouri Community facilitator (CRS Staff) 1 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 116 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES INTERVIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS Organization Position Topics GRET - Ouaga Country Representative Management, Partnership, Finance HKI - Ouaga Country Director Management, Partnership, Finance CRS - Ouaga Country Representative Management, Partnership ATT - Gayeri Program Coordinator Context, SO1, Management, Integration, Finance ATT - Gayeri BCC Coordinator SO1, Knowledge Management ATT - Gayeri SILC Supervisor SO1 ATT - Gayeri Value Chain Coordinator SO1 ATT - Gayeri SO1 Field Supervisor SO1, Partnership ATT - Gayeri 10 other Staff Context, Management, Integration, Finance, Human Resources ATT - Gayeri Finance Officer Finance HKI - Gayeri SO2 Staff Context, Management, Partnership, Finance, Human Resources ATT - Manni SO1 Field Supervisors SO1 ATT - Manni M&E Responsable Knowledge Management ATT - Manni BCC in Charge SO1, Knowledge Management ATT - Manni SO1 Animators Context, Management, Finance and Human Resources ATT - Manni SO1 Coordination Staff Context, Management, Finance and Human Resources GRET-Bougande SO2 Staff Management, Finance and Human Resources OCADES M&E in Charge Knowledge Management OCADES SO1 Staff Context, Management, Finance and Human Resources OCADES SO2 Staff Context, Management, Finance and Human Resources OCADES - Kaya Program Coordinator Context, Management, Partnership, Finance and Human Resources OCADES - Kaya Financial Officer Finance CRS - Ouaga Country Office Resource ManageR Management, Partnership, Finance and Human Resources CRS - Ouaga FASO Chief of Party Context, Management, Partnership, Finance and Human resources CRS - Ouaga FASO M&E Manager Knowledge Management, Partnership CRS - Ouaga FASO Behavioral Change Communications Manager SO3, SO1, Context, PArtnership FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX B 117 GOVERNMENT PARTNERS District Location Interviews Boulsa North Bakaongo  Commune Agricultural Agent Gayeri Gayeri  M. le Haut-Commissaire de Komendjari  Médecin Chef de District, Point Focal Nutrition & Statisticien  Direction Provincial de l’Action Social Gayeri & Manni Fada N'Gourma  Regional MoA Director - East  Provincial MoA Director - Komondjari  Provincial MoA Director - Gnagna Manni Manni  M. le Haut-Commissaire de Gnagna  Médecin Chef de District  Direction Provincial d’Education de Base et d’Alphabétisation  Direction Provincial de l’Action Social Boulsa Nord  Direction Provincial de l’Agriculture  Médecin Chef de District & Point Focal Nutrition  Direction Provincial d’Education de Base et d’Alphabétisation  Direction Provincial de l’Action Sociale  Direction Provincial de l’Environnement Commodity Management (See Annex F) FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 118 LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FASO PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS Related to Context Observations 1. Consistent with a “Do No Harm” approach, FASO should monitor participation and support provided by the program to participants in Gayeri to ensure that the program is not working in ways that may contribute to increasing tensions between migrants and resident populations. Migrants will likely be more motivated and easier to work with in many cases, and the FASO Program should avoid being perceived as favoring a particular group, either migrants or residents. 2. FASO should explore the opportunity for some interventions, such as Behavioral Change Communications for SO1 and SO2, with populations working at larger gold mining sites. The program may find a "captive" population with increased risk with whom significant impact can be achieved. 3. On the staff security issue in Gayeri, FASO should implement or support advocacy efforts for more GoBF security capacity in Gayeri. The program may also want to nvestigate the experience in projects elsewhere in Burkina Faso that have used community-based village protection committees, watch committees, or village police. While there is insufficient time and resources remaining in FASO to do much to operationalize these concepts, it may be possible to determine whether a mechanism such as these would reduce personal insecurity for staff and program participants in Gayeri and could be considered for programming to follow FASO in Gayeri District by CRS or her partners 4. To ensure that the FASO Program does not reinforce the hand–out mentality that is growing in the program area, a set of guiding principles and practices should be developed including the following, for example.  The program should stress that anything that participants can do themselves, they should be encouraged to do.  For any food or inputs provided by the program, there must be some sort of community contribution to cultivate ownership.  Before distributing an input, the program should consider implications on other components that may be working with the same inputs but in other ways. This may start becoming a problem as SILC becomes more developed and participants want to use loans to invest in chickens, for example, while other participants are receiving chickens from the program.  If inputs must be provided, the program should do this as much as possible through the supplier of the inputs, to build linkages as well as detach the program from being perceived as giving away materials.  When food or inputs must be provided, the program should stress transparency so other participants know the criteria used to determine eligibility.  The program should include in all of its BCC activities the message that depending on NGOs for assistance is not in the best interests of Burkinabe villages. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 119  Villages that show significant self–initiative should be recognized and even rewarded by the program to encourage more self-initiative. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.1 Diversified Agriculture Inputs 5. PRIORITY: The program should not lose sight of its intent to establish reliable and consistent access to good seed that will continue to exist after the program ends. The concept of eliminating subsidies on seed should not be abandoned, but the seed coupon targets should be reduced to more achievable targets given the context. The program should also look for opportunities before the program ends to completely eliminate subsidies, for example, with farmers who have resources to be able to access seed, to see whether a sustainable seed supply system has been developed. 6. PRIORITY: The program should shift its focus more to improving carry-over seed since this is an important source of seed inputs for farmers. The program should monitor producer behavior in selecting seed for varietal characteristics and storing carryover seed, develop training plans for addressing weaknesses in selection and storage, and build linkages for obtaining new seed when varietal purity has declined. 7. The program should also continue to try to establish local seed multipliers, but focus on fewer participants to enable them to become more firmly established with linkages to foundation seed/vine suppliers and retail outlets/markets. If a farmer or farmer group has failed to produce certified seed a number of years in a row, for example, the program should invest its resources in other more productive activities. 8. The program should complete bookkeeping training for all tool management committees. As a matter of principle, no committee should have a treasurer or be collecting money without having received complete bookkeeping training sufficiently to be able to maintain basic ledgers 9. PRIORITY: The FASO Program should develop and implement a strategy for providing business development training for a selected number of committees to enable them to manage a tool rental social enterprise in the community. This will involve expanding their capacities to develop and implement business plans as well as strategies for accessing additional capital through banks. 10. On the issue of rents due, the program may want to advise tool management committees to consider using a “tools-for-work” approach or allow renters to pay for the rent of the tool after harvest in cash or in-kind. The "tools-for-work" approach means that someone can use a tool now on the condition that later when they are less occupied, they can do something for the community in return for having used the tool. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.2 Improved Techniques 11. In the preparation for the coming farming season, the FASO Program should implement a refresher training with field animators on the demonstration protocols. In this exercise, field animators should be given the opportunity to describe from their perspective what is working well and what is not working well with demonstrations in terms of using them as learning events FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 120 12. The FASO Program should develop a strategy for encouraging farmer-driven innovation in the program by (1) providing guidance to working groups and model farmers on the broad range of sources of new ideas and technologies, including extension services, research stations, agricultural projects, private sector input suppliers, private sector food processors, innovative farmers, and even the internet and (2) providing guidance for them to access these sources themselves to obtain ideas to experiment with in demonstrations. As part of this strategy, the program should find ways to reward field animators who are facilitating demonstrations in which farmers have been able to obtain and test new ideas that they have found on their own to complement those that the program has brought. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.3 Land Improvement 13. The program should not change its approach to targeting women-headed households and women from highly vulnerable households for zai. Women are being empowered by this focus, and this enhances the program's impact on household food security. 14. PRIORITY: The program should not give FFW to women implementing zai for a third year, even on new land. The program needs to eliminate the influence of food to see if the idea of zai is really being adopted. If the zai approach is significantly improving production, the issue of food for filling a food gap for highly vulnerable households should be less important. It will also be a test to see if the requests from men to be included in zai will decline when food is not part of the benefit package. 15. To facilitate learning and assessment of the potential for the conservation agriculture techniques, the program may want to understand and use participatory monitoring and evaluation tools with some of the working groups around the conservation agriculture demonstrations. These tools rely on participants defining indicators that are important for them, which will facilitate a more holistic comparison of the costs and benefits of the new ideas being promoted. 16. Rather than distributing chickens to diversify livelihoods as proposed for IY 4, the program will likely achieve greater long-term impact by expanding its efforts to build the capacities of participants to be able identify livelihoods opportunities themselves that capitalize on their own comparative advantage and the opportunities unique to their location and circumstances. There are many approaches for building capacities for selection, planning and management of income￾generating activities that are often part of the SILC (or VSL, VSLA) approach that can be scaled up in FASO RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.2 Cowpea Storage 17. PRIORITY: The program should discontinue making coupons for sacks available for beneficiaries who have obtained coupons two times to test how far the supply chain has been developed. The program should monitor whether or not participants are able to purchase sacks, and if not, obtain information to determine whether this is because demand does not actually exist outside of the coupon market or whether there are bottlenecks in the supply chain. If the demand does not exist, then the program should explore alternative designs for the sacks. If the problems are related to supply chain bottlenecks, the program should explore with agro-dealers ways to alleviate these bottlenecks through, for example, facilitating access to capital, business development services for smaller agro-dealers at the village-level or cultivating functional business relationships to eliminate bottlenecks. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.3 Rice Parboiling FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 121 18. PRIORITY: The program needs to analyze the real marketing opportunities for parboiler groups. Given (a) the greater success of the approach in larger towns that are nearer to a wider range of market opportunities and (b) the difficulties that groups in some rural areas are now having with marketing, the program could be promoting the approach in rural areas where the probability of success is low because the demand is low and the marketing costs for reaching other markets are too high. If the analysis leads to this result, the program may want to discontinue the intervention where impact is not likely to be achieved and invest the resources in other activities that are more likely to have long-term impact. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.4 Access to Markets 19. The program should revise the statement of Output 1.2.4 to drop the concept of "unions" and "groupements" and say: "22,500 targeted households have expanded marketing capacities and access to marketing information." 20. The program should develop a strategy for establishing a network of community-based market brokers who will be:  The key point of contact for producers in the village who have production to sell  Enrolled in the ESOKO platform and be trained to use the information available effectively  The key point of contact for buyers who are looking for production to buy  Motivated through commissions received from sellers and buyers.  Trained in the role of market broker and the benefits of fair trade business. Given the time remaining in the life of FASO, it is not possible to establish such a network across the program area. The program should select a few locations in each district targeting specific value chains, e.g., rice and cowpea, and pilot the strategy. 21. PRIORITY: The program should seek more balance in responsibilities for value chain development. The program cannot expect to achieve its objective under SO1 if most staff are working on increasing production and only a few staff are working on developing the rest of the value chains (input supply and marketing). There are two ways that this can be done, either by converting some animators to value chain technicians or by giving all animators some value chain development responsibilities. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.5 Access to Capital 22. PRIORITY: The program should not accelerate the establishment of the PSP model and should focus on getting the SILC model firmly in place and understood in the two years left in the program. Until groups have completed at least one share-out, they will not see services, such as calculating share-outs, that they will be willing to pay for. Usually it takes two completed cycles before the benefits of the approach are fully realized. Other people who want to form groups become more interested at that point, and the opportunities for PSPs to earn more income are greater. If SILC is not well-done when it is established, it becomes more difficult to establish in fixing problems and convincing participants of the benefits, so the program should focus now on getting the systems in place. There is even evidence in some locations (see the WALA Mid￾Term Evaluation Report from CRS Malawi) that SILC agents and SILC groups have found ways to compensate agents for their services even in the absence of a PSP intervention, when SILC works well. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 122 23. If the decision is made on the recommendation for supporting the tool management committees to become tool renting businesses, the program should also include them in the strategy for building linkages to banks for accessing capital. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2: MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH AND NUTRITION RECOMMENDATIONS for Intermediate Result 2.1. Behavioral Change for MCHN 24. PRIORITY: Review/revision of Behavior Change Strategy. The strategy was formulated three years ago when communities and households ‘assumed” malnutrition was the “norm”. Now with wide-spread community and household appreciation for good nutritional status of children the BCC strategy needs to be reviewed and revised to assure messages are timely and relevant. As part of the revised strategy FASO needs to identify a way to get “communities to own good nutrition” and to gear BCC towards Government messages. The BCC revision process should be a consultative process with communities, government and other stakeholders. Special attention should be given in including WASH component, Ag team and SO3 teams and partners in the revision process so messages and activities are coordinated. 25. PRIORITY: Develop and conduct operation research on the peer education models (Care Group and CVN). Engage government in identifying the focus of the research and in the actual study as well. Present findings at the CORE Group spring meeting in 2014 (all partners plus government if appropriate should attend). 26. PRIORITY: Develop and implement a sustainability plan for promoters and care groups with government and communities RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 2.1.3 Water, Sanitation & Hygeine 27. PRIORITY: Have the Water and Sanitation regional technical advisor visit FASO, review the current plans, and work with the program to facilitate greater synergy between the PM2A and WASH interventions. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUTPUT 2.2.1: Health Center Services 28. Prioritize remaining training funding for IMCI and ENA (emphasizing IYCF) trainings. Explore possibilities to increase training budgets as the project has only met 26% of its training target and additional training opportunities for facility staff would make the project’s impact more sustainable. 29. Increase the project’s contributions to national SUN efforts and the broader focus on stunting and prevention-oriented malnutrition. While no particular activities were originally planned to increase capacity in stunting, FASO has an opportunity to contribute to increased awareness – nationally and within the project area – of stunting and to support the government’s efforts to transition to a more holistic approach to nutrition. Particular opportunities include:  Increase documentation and sharing of project experiences with the government  Invite key personnel from the Nutrition Bureau to visit project activities Design and schedule training/orientation with district and facility staff on chronic malnutrition and growth charts and provide active supervision 30. PRIORITY. Strengthen/Expand Active Supervision. While the district health management team is ultimately responsible for the quality of facility services, project support for Active FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 123 Supervision helps to ensure the quality of project priority services. It is a necessary complement to training, by ensuring skills are applied and expanded. The FASO team may need to review staffing structures and responsibilities to achieve desired level of facility support. As animators as now more familiar with their roles, and responsibilities for food distribution are decreasing, supervisors should be able to increase their support to facilities without jeopardizing other project outcomes. The project should consider tracking the % of facilities who received a supervision visit during a given time period to monitor progress. 31. Remove the indicator “% of targeted children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM referred to a health center and received” and replace it with two alternate indicators:  # of children 6-59 months screened for MAM or SAM/number of children 6-59 in the target area. This indicator measures whether the project is meeting its objective of screening all children.  # of children enrolled in a MAM or SAM treatment program / # of children referred to a health center for MAM or SAM (disaggregated by MAM/SAM). This indicator would allow the program to identify whether the referral system is functioning and better identify issues with availability of treatment. 32. PRIORITY. Pilot and scale up options to increase the sustainability of malnutrition screening activities. As Leader Mothers already have strong contact with young children and do not expect compensation for their work, FASO should strongly consider options to engage them in screening. Previous research in the Sahel has shown non literate women can conduct screening with nearly the same effectiveness as literate CHWs. The main barrier FASO faced to using Leader Mothers was their inability to report, though the project proposed to use simple forms for preliterate people – more attention may need to be given to the design of the form. The program may also which to explore whether Leader Mothers need to be responsible for the reporting, or whether facilities can report on the number of children referred by Leader Mothers. As food distribution activities are winding down, the time constraint may no longer be relevant; however, if it remains an issue the project should explore other venues for periodic screenings. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.1.1 Village Development Committees 33. PRIORITY. In order to deepen the process of building capacities for community-managed community development, the FACOM should focus on building the capacities of the VDC to coordinate community development action planning with all of the types of groups that may be found in a targeted village, including not only Lowland Rice Producers groups, Water Users Associations, PTAs and MAs, but also Tool Management Committees, SILC groups, Care Groups, Zai Groups, and Parboiler Groups, 34. PRIORITY. The target number of villages (100) for SO3 should not be changed. While the FACOM focuses on building the capacities of VDCs, the responsibility for organizational development and action planning with other CBOs such as rice producers groups should be transferred to animators or technicians who are working with these groups, with technical support from the FACOM on the governance themes. 35. PRIORITY. The program should provide enhanced refresher training to the FACOMs to facilitate capacity building with the VDC to be able:: FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 124  Practice principles of good governance (this is already being done, but the principle of representation should be included)  Facilitate community development analyses focused on building community assets or addressing problems that affect significant numbers of people living in the village.  Develop community development action plans to address problems or opportunities identified in the analyses.  Mobilize resources through Matching Grants from the program and other sources, including government, donors, the private sector, NGOs, successful sons and daughters from the village living elsewhere, and from within the village  Implement action plans.  Use monitoring and evaluation tools to measure progress and assess quality. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.1.2 Adult Literacy 36. In order to support adult literacy training and adult literacy participants in using literacy skills, FASO should increase the development of documentation in local languages related to program activities. THis will allow participants to practice their skills around messages being promoted by the program. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.2.2 Take Home Rations for Girls 37. The program should implement refresher campaign to remind parents and communities on the benefits of girls education as the basis behind the provision of take home rations for girls who meet attendance standards. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 3.2.3 Sustained School Canteens 38. PRIORITY: The program should continue to strengthen PTA and MA organizational capacities for mobilizing contributions to school canteens, not only from parents and school￾based production activities, but also from others sources, including government, donors, NGOs, the private sector and other sources within the community. 39. FASO should involve the Projet Cantine Scolaire, DPEBA and the commune in supporting school canteens process by working with them to create a mechanism for recognizing the school that has collected the most resources to support their canteen. 40. SO2 animators should be engaged in conducting sensitization on school canteen hygiene. RECOMMENDATIONS for Behavioral Change Communications 41. The program should use the expanded capacity for BCC following the recruitment of a Community Development Manager to develop and implement a strategy for behaviroal change communications to support SO3. expand messaging through video. 42. The program should expand its use of video for BCC by completing procurement of one full set of video project equipment for each of the health distrcts, so the program will no longer need to rely on rented equipment. 43. The BCC component should expand its support for value chain development by getting the private sector more involved in radio programming and by assisting in building the capacities of FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 125 producer groups in the program t use radio for marketing. While this activity is a bit outside of the BCC mandate, the BCC staff have good connections with and know how to use radio media.and that expertise can be used to support value chain development. RECOMMENDATIONS for Targeting 44. The program should review the feasibility of spreading some project activities to informal mining settlements. Because the project targeted administrative communities, informal mining settlements do not benefit directly36, though they represent a growing and highly vulnerable population (and often targeted beneficiaries move between mining settlements and their home villages). While these settlements may not be a receptive audience for agricultural messages, health/nutrition activities and financial skills (through SILC) may be appropriate. If resources permit, the program should consider expanding a targeted package of activities into these settlements based on identified needs and opportunities. 45. The program should consider working with the Ministry of Social Welfare to analyze the impact of the project on highly vulnerable groups (such as the disabled, the elderly and orphans). While the project does not specifically target these individuals, they are highly vulnerable populations whose food insecurity should be considered in such a large and comprehensive program. The project should establish whether these groups are already benefitting directly or through other members of their HH and if there are “quick win” options to increase the project’s impact on their well-being. If the program is indeed having impact on these target groups and the MSW has been engaged in undertaking this analysis, they should no longer have questions on targeting and will have a greater appreciation for the FASO program. RECOMMENDATIONS for Management Systems 46. The program should ensure that all partners are fully cognizant of LOA output targets for which they have responsibility as well as their annual targets for the remaining life of the programming for achieving these targets. RECOMMENDATIONS for Partnership 47. The program should look for opportunities to understand the other development interventions that consortium partners are implementing to seek opportunities for enhancing the impact of the FASO Program. These opportunities could include cross-visits to other projects as well as presentations by consortium partners in Technical Working Group meetings. 48. The program should take advantage of opportunities to elevate the profiles of all partners. The joint paper at the CORE spring meeting by the program (Recommendation 25) is an opportunity. The program should involve partners in planned meetings with government stakeholders, and, where appropriate, the program should include partners in future branding and marking opportunities. RECOMMENDATIONS for Knowledge Management 49. If FASO decides to implement the marketing broker concept (see Recommendation 20), a cross vicit should be organized to another country office using the approach, such as Malawi, or external technical assistance should be procured. 36 Malnutrition screening activities do cover mining settlements. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 126 50. PRIORITY: The program should give immediate attention to bringing the program's M&E tools up to date. The MEL Manager should facilitate processes to update all of the indicators to conform with the current approved strategy of the program and ensure that the definitions of the indicators are current and accurate. The MEL Manager should work with other M&E staff within and supporting the program to address the problems of data entry that were cited as reasons for the backlog of data. The goal should be that by the time of the next operational planning workshop, the tools, especially the Operation Plan Table, should be fully up to date to be able to inform the planning process 51. In the Final Evaluation, FASO will want to be sure to be given credit for the impact it has achieved, even if impact indicators have not been identified in the IPTT. The program should develop a strategy now for obtaining available evidence of program impact, for example, from school enrollment and attendance records; and should not depend entirely on the final evaluation household survey and qualitative data gathering to capture the full impact of the program. RECOMMENDATIONS for Program Integration 52. The program should organize a cross visit of a team of representatives from each partner to the CRS Title II Programs in Niger to observe and discuss the integration strategies that are being implemented there. 53. PRIORITY: In the next annual planning meeting, the program should allocate time for an “integration” session to map out potential integration and leverage points; design activity plans around integration leverage points, and identify persons to be responsible for overseeing integration in each district. 54. The program should include integration topics in technical working group meetings in which program managers from other SOs are present to participate in the discussions. RECOMMENDATIONS for Financial Management 55. A joint effort should be made between the financial management staff of CRS outside of the FASO Program and the FASO Program implementation staff to identify ways to address problems with supporting documentation. The financial management staff know best what is required for supporting documentation, and the implementing staff are most familiar with the operating constraints that make supporting documentation difficult. Discussions should be held in each field office with financial management staff providing refresher training and suggestions for resolving specific types of supporting documentation problems. RECOMMENDATIONS for Commodity Management 56. The issue of the delays in the arrival of the commodities in country after being called forward should be brought to the attention of Baltimore/Shipping and the commodity procurement office of FFP. The program is planning as far ahead as possible in procuring commodities after a PREP has been approved, but the delayed commodity arrivals add a further panning challenge for pre￾positioning commodities before the rainy season makes roads impassable. 57. The late submission of reports by implementing partners has resulted in delayed submission of Quarterly Reports to FFP. While the shift of reporting to the web-based interface is a contributory factor to the delays, the program itself should ensure that the available data is FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX C 127 entered into the system in a timely way. The program partners should work together to find a workable solution to the late submission of monthly reports. 58. PRIORITY: The program should devote significant attention to cleaning up the record￾keeping and warehousing of commodities in the school feeding/take home rations component of the program to avoid being held culpable for extraordinary loses or even misappropriation of commodities. 59. The program should accelerate the capacity building of PTAs, MAs and VDCs to have expanded roles in canteen management to reduce the workload of teachers who are heavily engaged in school canteen management at the expense of their normal responsibilities to educate children. RECOMMENDATIONS for Human Resource Management 60. CRS Human Resource Management staff should assemble the details to describe the problem of staff retention, identify potential solutions to these problems, and present this to the leadership of the partners (OCADES and ATT for Gayeri) to encourage them to consider amending their compensation and benefits policies to make it easier to recruit and retain staff. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX D 128 ANNEX D: Timelines for SO 1 Priority Recommendations Suggested timelines for implementation of the Priority Recommendations for SO1 (ANRM) are provided below. 5. PRIORITY: The program should not lose sight of its intent to establish reliable and consistent access to good seed that will continue to exist after the program ends. The concept of eliminating subsidies on seed should not be abandoned, but the seed coupon targets should be reduced to more achievable targets given the context. The program should also look for opportunities before the program ends to completely eliminate subsidies, for example, with farmers who have resources to be able to access seed, to see whether a sustainable seed supply system has been developed. 6. PRIORITY: The program should shift its focus more to improving carry-over seed since this is an important source of seed inputs for farmers. The program should monitor producer behavior in selecting seed for varietal characteristics and storing carryover seed, develop training plans for addressing weaknesses in selection and storage, and build linkages for obtaining new seed when varietal purity has declined. July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) Eliminate seed subsidies for some farmers and monitor behavior Develop and implement a strategy for strengthening seed supply chains based on analysis of farmers not receiving seed subsidies. Monitor producer seed selection and storage behavior. Develop and implement training plans for addressing weaknesses in selection and storage. Cultivate direct linkages between seed suppliers and producers FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX D 129 9. PRIORITY: The FASO Program should develop and implement a strategy for providing business development training for a selected number of committees to enable them to manage a tool rental social enterprise in the community. This will involve expanding their capacities to develop and implement business plans as well as strategies for accessing additional capital through banks. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.1.3 Land Improvement 14. PRIORITY: The program should not give FFW to women implementing zai for a third year. The program needs to eliminate the influence of food to see if the idea of zai is really being adopted. If the zai approach is significantly improving production, the issue of food for filling a food gap for highly vulnerable households should be less important. It will also be a test to see if the requests from men to be included in zai will decline when food is not part of the benefit package. July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) Select Tool Management Committees to Target Develop business development training plan and curriculum Provide business development training resulting in a business plan Monitor implementation of business plans y tool management committees and provide technical support Discontinue providing FFW for some zai groups and monitor behavior Develop and implement a strategy for facilitating unsubsidized adoption of zai based on analysis of the behavior of zai groups not receiving FFW subsidies. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX D 130 RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.2 Cowpea Storage 17. PRIORITY: The program should discontinue making coupons for sacks available for beneficiaries who have obtained coupons two times to test how far the supply chain has been developed. The program should monitor whether or not participants are able to purchase sacks, and if not, obtain information to determine whether this is because demand does not actually exist outside of the coupon market or whether there are bottlenecks in the supply chain. If the demand does not exist, then the program should explore alternative designs for the sacks. If the problems are related to supply chain bottlenecks, the program should explore with agro-dealers ways to alleviate these bottlenecks through, for example, facilitating access to capital, business development services for smaller agro-dealers at the village-level or cultivating functional business relationships to eliminate bottlenecks. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.3 Rice Parboiling 18. PRIORITY: The program needs to analyze the real marketing opportunities for parboiler groups. Given (a) the greater success of the approach in larger towns that are nearer to a wider range of market opportunities and (b) the difficulties that groups in some rural areas are now having with marketing, the program could be promoting the approach in rural areas where the probability of success is low because the demand is low and the marketing costs for reaching other markets are too high. If the analysis leads to this result, the program may want to discontinue the intervention where impact is not likely to be achieved and invest the resources in other activities that are more likely to have long-term impact. July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) Discontinue making coupons available for purchase of triple￾lined sacks for some participants and monitor behavior of these participants as well as sack suppliers. Develop and implement a strategy for addressing obstacles to the adoption of triple-lined sacks, considering sack design and the supply chain Undertake a systematic analysis of market opportunities for parboiler groups Make and implement a decision on greater focus for the parboiling intervention to increase probability of long￾term impact FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX D 131 RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.4 Access to Markets 21. PRIORITY: The program should seek more balance in responsibilities for value chain development. The program cannot expect to achieve its objective under SO1 if most staff are working on increasing production and only a few staff are working on developing the rest of the value chains (input supply and marketing). There are two ways that this can be done, either by converting some animators to value chain technicians or by giving all animators some value chain development responsibilities. RECOMMENDATIONS for Output 1.2.5 Access to Capital 22. PRIORITY: The program should not accelerate the establishment of the PSP model and should focus on getting the SILC model firmly in place and understood in the two years left in the program. Until groups have completed at least one share-out, they will not see services, such as calculating share-outs, that they will be willing to pay for. Usually it takes two completed cycles before the benefits of the approach are fully realized. Other people who want to form groups become more interested at that point, and the opportunities for PSPs to earn more income are greater. If SILC is not well-done when it is established, it becomes more difficult to establish in fixing problems and convincing participants of the benefits, so the program should focus now on getting the systems in place. There is even evidence in some locations (see the WALA Mid￾Term Evaluation Report from CRS Malawi) that SILC agents and SILC groups have found ways to compensate agents for their services even in the absence of a PSP intervention, when SILC works well. July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) July 2013 to May 2014 (Implementation Year 4) June to December 2014 (Implementation Year 5) January to May 2015 (Project Close-out) Make a decision on how best to increase capacities in the program for implementing value chain development Revise job descriptions of staff affected and build staff capacities. Focus on establishing the SILC model through the nect share-out Facilitate dialogue between SILC agents and existing SILC groups to identify opportunities and mechanisms for agents to be fairly compensated for services provided to existing and new groups FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX E 132 ANNEX E: Knowledge Management Summary - New Ideas Brought In and Knowledge Disseminated Out SECTOR KNOWLEDGE IN KNOWLEDGE Out BEHAVIOR CHANGE COMMUNICATIONS  BCC manager attended a workshop in Niger on behavioral change communications  Two FASO staff attended training on accountability that will reinforce communication and feedback between FASO, its partners and communities  FASO internal newspaper: ECHOS du FASO AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESSOURCES MANAGEMENT  The use of Esoko platform being promoted by APROSA/Afrique Verte  Introduction of Improved techniques for cowpea production and storage with the support of INERA  Improving parboiling techniques for women group through a partnership with Africa Rice  Linking Farmers to Markets Training organized by IFDC  Operational research on land tenure performed by LANDESA open new ways for communities and program stakeholders to better handle the issue of women access to land HEALTH AND NUTRITION  TDY by SO2 Manager in Burundi to learn on PM2A approach  Senior MCHN Technical Adviser provided technical support on a field visit to FASO  FASO representative attended the West African Regional forum on Nutrition where best practices were shared by other programs  FLIP Chart ( on Hygiene, on Nutrition) translated into local language: Moore, Gulmantche, Fulfulde, Dioula, being used by other programs  TDY of REGINE Pacis from Burundi to learn from FASO activities, specifically on GRET fortified food  During West African forum on Nutrition, FASO program achievement were presented to participant as best practices ( PM2A approach an care group model)  USAID National Office took opportunity to organize a show on their funded program best practices and FASO program was represented FINANCES  FASO Program Coordinator participated in a training on USG awards management GENERAL MANAGEMENT  Field visits realized by US ambassador ( DCM), High commissary of Gnagna, Governor Central North region was FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX E 133 opportunity to present FASO program achievement to GoBF representative and advocate for their support and ownership MEL  FANTA2 workshop held to refine FASO Program indicators;  Formative research was done on the barriers limiting the monitoring of pre and post natal health care in the program area ; FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 134 FASO PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT. PRESENTATION ON COMMODITY MANAGEMENT The CRS/BF Multi Year Assistance Program (2012-2015), called the FASO Program, covers three (3) Provinces in Burkina Faso, namely: Gnagna, Komandjari and Namentenga. In the collection of information in the preparation of this report, I relied on: 1) Background review of available literature on the Program 2) Briefing by the Chief of Party, Mr. Vewonyi Adjavon 3) Discussions with the Program Managers and Staff of CMO 4) Visits to randomly selected warehouses/Centers in the three (3) provinces 5) Interactions and interviews with some of the beneficiaries and 6) Interactions and interviews with some Partner staff in the field. The centers I visited and the Partner staff I interacted with are shown in the following table. In all, I visited 12 centers/warehouses being used for the PM2A commodities and 5 centers being used for School feeding and take Home Rations for girls. CENTERS VISITED Province: Gnagna Center Category Official DAKIRI SL DIANDA Hamidou NAGBINGOU SL LANKOANDE Jean Paul FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 135 CENTERS VISITED Province: KOMANDJARI Center Category Official BOULKIANA SL YONLI Benoit GAYERI SL SEPAMA Issa HAABA SL ONADJA Idrissa TOUMBENGA SL SOME Sambon BANDIKIDINI PM2A BOUGOU Hubert DJORA PM2A LOMPO Banimpo GAMBOUDENI PM2A LOMPO Banimpo HAABA PM2A DAHANI Maida OUE PM2A BOUGMA Remy CENTERS VISITED Province: NAMENTENGA Center Category Official TAPARKO SL SOME Noel TOUGOURI OCADES OUEDRAOGO Olivier, KABRE Paulin and SOME Robert BOUROUM PM2A ZAGRE Boureima BOUROUM PM2A DIAPA Jean BOUROUM MENA SONDO Mahamoudou DEGTOUMDA Albert TAFFOGO PM2A SAWADOGO Sylvain TAPARKO PM2A Mme BAHADIO Zounogo TOUGOURI PM2A KINDA Maxime YALGO PM2A Mme OUEDRAOGO Virginie FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 136 I also had the opportunity to attend the monetization sale for the month of May where bids were opened and to visit a few village markets on their market days. The commodities approved for the implementation of the Program are shown below:- DETAILS OF DIST. COMMODITIES CF SFBW CSB SFCM Lentils Veg. Oil Total 2010 SL 475 0 0 119 66 660 PRS 0 0 32 0 4 36 THR 0 0 158 0 0 158 FFW 0 0 180 0 0 180 PM2A 375 770 111 130 1386 TOTAL 850 770 370 230 200 2420 2011 SFP 402 0 0 101 74 577 PRS 0 0 35 0 4 39 THR 0 0 113 0 0 113 FFW 0 0 222 0 0 222 PM2A 308 640 0 89 82 1119 TOTAL 710 640 370 190 160 2070 2012 SL 470 0 0 40 34 544 PRS 0 0 39 0 2 41 THR 0 0 193 0 0 193 FFW 0 0 848 0 0 848 PM2A 1010 960 0 300 224 2494 TOTAL 1480 960 1080 340 260 4120 2013 SFP 0 0 0 49 85 134 PRS 0 0 0 0 5 5 THR 0 0 0 0 0 0 FFW 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM2A 500 470 0 131 50 1151 TOTAL 500 470 0 180 140 1290 FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 137 The distribution commodities needed as per the Program plan are called forward by the CMO and stored in the CRS primary central warehouse in Ouagadougou. The commodities are then dispatched to secondary warehouses upon requisition from the programming department. The Program plan is to pre-position these commodities in the secondary warehouses before the rainy season (June-August) when most of the secondary warehouses become inaccessible due to impassable roads in the project areas. However, it was found out that when commodities are called forward, they take a very long time to arrive in the CRS/Burkina Faso central warehouse in Ouagadougou. The table below shows the sales order dates and the dates of receipt of the final tranche of the commodity shipped. CALL FORWARD Period Call Forward Date received Quantities of commodities in MT SFBW CSB SFCM Lentils Veg. Oil Rice 01/06/2010 - 31/05/2011 08/06/2010 28/07/2011 850 770 370 230 200 6,500 01/06/2011 - 31/05/2012 09/05/2011 17/11/2011 710 640 370 190 160 420 01/06/2012 - 31/05/2013 07/02/2012 28/03/2013 1,480 960 1,080 340 260 2,600 01/06/2013 - 31/05/2014 10/02/2013 Nil 890 470 770 180 140 0 01/06/2014 - 31/05/2015 Nil Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total quantities 3,930 2,840 2,590 940 760 9,520 When the commodities are sent to the secondary warehouses, the Partners are expected to distribute the food commodities according to approved rations and report the food utilization to CRS. CRS collates these monthly reports from the Partners to be used in the preparation of the CSR and RSR for onward transmission to FFP and USDA. It was found out that instead of sending the reports from the field on a monthly basis, the Partners tend to bulk their reports and send them periodically. This has a great negative effect on the timely submission of Quarterly reports to FFP by CRS. The general explanation given for this delay was that “distributions are not carried out monthly”. However, “nil” distributions in any month are also expected to be reported on. The reporting form being used in the PM2A for reporting on distribution to the beneficiaries does not desegregate the women served according to categories i.e. lactating mothers and pregnant women. The distributions to the women are all bulked together whilst the distributions must be reported to FFP according to the various categories of women. The anomaly must therefore be rectified according to each center and this also causes delays in FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 138 inputting distribution data into the software. The issue was discussed with the CMO and the M&E officers and they have agreed to resolve it for subsequent reporting. In the case of the reports from the schools, the monthly reports that are submitted indicate that the total numbers of children registered in the schools are fed every day without exception. This pre-supposes that there is a 100% school attendance by the children throughout the year but this is unlikely and was confirmed by the few cases where the attendance registers were marked and I checked the actual attendance on some days against the quantity of food cooked for those days. Similarly, the girls’ Take Home rations are reportedly issued to all girls registered. Again, this pre-supposes that all the girls attain the 90% attendance but in some of the schools I visited, the attendance registers were not marked for months and there is no justifiable basis for determining school attendance by the girls. Generally, there were delays in the submission of monthly reports by all the partners as evidenced in the table below. SAMPLE SUMMARY OF REPORTS SUBMISSION BY PARTNERS Partners Reporting months Date of submission HKI October to December 2012 March 29, 2013 OCADES March 21, 2013 SL January 28 to March 31, 2013 • Loss reports indicated that center losses were minimal. In the case of the monetization commodity, FASO Program was carrying out small lot sales of rice and making good cost recovery as shown in the tables below. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 139 MONETIZATION COMMODITY REPORT FY Qty CF (MT) Qty Shipped Received in Whse (MT) Transit Loss (MT) Percentage Loss Qty Sold (MT) Balance (MT) 11 6,500.00 6,387.30 6,116.43 270.87 4.24% 6,116.43 0.00 12 420.00 412.25 403.12 9.13 2.21% 403.12 0.00 13 2,600.00 2,589.00 2,518.29 70.71 2.73% 1,147.20 1,371.09 TOTAL 9,520.00 9,388.55 9,037.84 350.71 3.74% 7,666.75 1,371.09 MONETIZATION COST RECOVERY FY 11 Sale # MT C&F / MT (USD) Sale price / MT (USD) Cost recovery % Average Cost recovery % 1 600 882 860 97.51% 104.04% 2 380 882 940 106.60% 3 330 882 983 111.40% 4 400 882 856 97.00% 5 500 882 934 105.91% 6 260 882 928 105.25% 7 400 882 932 105.70% 8 520 882 923 104.58% 9 390 882 950 107.64% 10 500 882 921 104.45% 11 440 882 868 98.41% aq FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 140 MONETIZATION COST RECOVERY FY 12 Sale # MT C&F / MT (USD) Sale price / MT (USD) Cost recovery % Average Cost recovery % 1 370 882 869 98.46% 99.76% 2 570 882 833 94.45% 3 450 882 793 89.92% 4 144 904 966 106.92% 5 183.75 904 974 107.74% 6 81 904 930 102.88% 7 0.8 904 885 97.97% MONETIZATION COST RECOVERY FY 13 Sale # MT C&F / MT (USD) Sale price / MT (USD) Cost recovery % Average Cost recovery % 1 343.2 1,113 850 76.39% 71.30% 2 255.2 1,113 761 68.34% 3 228.8 1,113 773 69.45% 4 220 1,113 790 71.01% In August, 2012, some officials of the GOBF raised concerns about the presence of aflatoxin in the rice and monetization was subsequently suspended. The issue has since been resolved and the sale of monetization rice has been resumed since February, 2013. I attended the monetization sale for the month of May, 2012 which was held on Friday, May, 31st. 2013. The process was transparent and the cost recovery realized from the sale of 500 MTons of Rice was 71.3%. This drop in the per cent recovery was due to the devaluation of the CFA against the US dollar coupled with the increase in the world price of rice during the call forward of the last monetization rice. The Management intends to continue with the small lot sales of the monetization stock balance of 1,371.09 MTons and they are entreated to exhaust FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 141 the rice stock in question before monetizing any other stocks. This is to forestall any further increase in the presence of the alleged fungus that causes the afflatoxin. In addition to the above, I made some other observations that may not necessarily be infringements of any laid down commodity management regulations but when they are rectified, where necessary, they will go a long way to enhance and demonstrate the oversight responsibility and stewardship of the commodity resources by CRS/FASO.. OBSERVATIONS WITH REMARKS: 1) The PM2A warehouses were well built of good construction materials with solid doors and locks. They are well ventilated and having bird-proofing of the ventilation holes. Pallets were available in all the warehouses. There were visible roofing nail holes which revealed signs of leaking during a rain storm that occurred during the evaluation period. h FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 142 2) Donor source was acknowledged at all the warehouses visited during the evaluation albeit some of the signboards were too detached from the warehouses. 3) In sharp contrast to the above warehouses of the PM2A, the storage facilities for the School feeding program are inadequate. Most of them are make-shift spaces in some rooms of the school. In the case of one school visited, the commodities were being kept in the headmaster’s house. 4) Commodities in the PM2A warehouses were stacked on pallets whilst those of the school lunch stores were strewn about in most cases because of the inadequacy of storage space. 5) In all cases, only the warehouse keeper was the sole person with a lock to the warehouse whilst with the PM2A warehouses, there is the opportunity to have two or more locks on the warehouse door. It will be a good idea to introduce a second lock wherever possible. 6) Commodity management/movement documents are not properly stored in most of the warehouses visited. They are left lose in folders that are kept on the tables in the warehouse. Documents that were needed could not be retrieved easily. It will be a good idea to provide arch files for the filing of all the documents. Boxes should be provided for the storing of the arch files as was evident in one of the OCADES warehouses. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 143 7) Record keeping was virtually non-existent in the school centers. Even daily attendance registers are not marked regularly. In one school, the head teacher did not mark the daily attendance register since October/November, 2012. The integrity of the daily cooking ration and the monthly Take Home ration for girls are highly compromised. I test-checked the ration for canteen in one school visited and found out that on a particular day, 29% of the children were marked absent but the quantity of food allegedly cooked was for the number of registered pupils. I visited a school where all the daily registers of attendance were not marked for the months of January to May, 2013, but they were planning to distribute Take Home ration on Saturday, May 31, 2013. This is a recipe for commodity misappropriation because the girls’ attendance cannot be certified with any authentic documentation. 8) There is no documented interface in the warehouses between the Partner officials and the CMO officials when they visit to ensure that recorded observations and recommendations during an earlier visit by one group of officers are being followed or to determine that recommended changes in previous visits are being implemented. 9) There were late distributions recorded at various centers across the Program due to late arrival of commodities from the Primary warehouse caused by delays in arrival of commodities called forward. (Refer to table on page 4). This state of affairs is dealt with in the recommendations below. There are stocks of CSB in some of the warehouses with a BUBD of June, 2013. It was impressed upon the CMO to bring this to the attention of the Program managers so that they arrange to distribute the stock of CSB as early as possible or alternatively, for CMO to loan out the CSB to another organization that will utilize it immediately to be replaced later. 10) The PM2A beneficiaries were aware of the rations due them but not even a single teacher could tell the daily ration due a pupil. They all relied on the quantity of food to be cooked in a day on the calculated quantity received from their controllers. This may be the cause of not adjusting the quantity cooked according to actual attendance. Similarly, in some schools, the 90% attendance for girls was calculated on the attendance of all the girls in the class and not individually. Furthermore, the cooks prepared what was issued to them and were not involved in determining what was to be cooked. 11) The teachers complained about increased workload because of the school canteens and demanded monetary compensations from the CRS. If this attitude of the teachers is not curtailed, it will negatively affect the effective execution of the school feeding program. FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 144 12) Losses were minimal in the Program as shown in the table below. There were no losses, whatsoever, recorded in the PM2A warehouses. (“If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is”) The only significant internal loss sustained was by a transporter whose vehicle was involved in a road accident. All such losses are deducted from the payment due any such transporter. The losses from the school centers are deducted from the salaries of the teachers involved. In effect, the costs of all internal losses are retrieved by the FASO Program and the shipping losses are covered by the Shipping Department. The losses at the school centers can be attributed to the inadequate record keeping at those centers and should be addressed CRS/FASO. DISTRIBUTION COMMODITY LOSS REPORT FY Qty CF (MT) Qty Shipped Shortlanded (MT) Internal transport Losses (MT) Storage & Handling Losses (MT) Total Losses (MT) Net Qty (MT) Percentage Loss 11 2,420.00 2,392.09 62.86 16.02 0.12 79.00 2,313.08 3.30% 12 2,070.00 1,815.70 7.29 0.49 0.49 8.27 1,807.43 0.46% 13 4,100.00 4,081.76 102.84 0.18 0.18 103.21 3,978.55 2.53% TOTAL 8,590.00 8,289.55 173.00 16.69 0.80 190.48 8,099.07 0.20% RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.) The issue of the delays in the arrival of the commodities in country must be brought to the notice of Baltimore/Shipping and the commodity procurement office of the FFP. There are Agency laid down processes of commodity procurement but commodity arrival delays of twelve (12) months are likely to affect program implementation since the commodities are needed at very specific times in the life of the project. There is the need to review the system to accommodate sales orders by landlocked countries. 2.) The late submission of reports by the Partners has greatly impacted on the Quarterly Reports that are due FFP. The web based Internet reporting problem is a contributory factor but available data must be inputted into the system and if it is not working, FFP will be made aware. The stakeholders in the FASO Program must discuss and find a workable solution to the late submission of monthly reports. 3.) The unavailability of credible school attendance records exposes the teachers to charges of misappropriation at the school feeding centers. For CRS/FASO to avoid being held culpable for the misappropriation of commodities at the schools, CRS/FASO must engage the appropriate unit of the Ministry of Education in discussions on the matter of the attendance registers. These registers are the only authentic source of credible FASO Program Mid-Term Evaluation Report ANNEX F 145 evidence of school attendance that CRS/FASO can use to substantiate the commodity usage in the schools. 4.) CRS should arrange meetings with MENA to resolve the issues of some teachers requesting monetary considerations before devoting time to the canteen project and the rations cooked on a daily basis. In addition, CRS/BF must quicken the setting up of the village structures in SO3 and strengthen/sensitize them to get involved in the management of school feeding program.