The Consortium for Food Security in Mali: 
Catholic Relief Services – United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 
Helen Keller International 
Save the Children International 
Implementing Partners: Caritas, Tassaght 
Report of the 
Final Qualitative Evaluation of the Consortium for 
Food Security in Mali (CFSM) 
“Nema” Program
P.L. 480 Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program 
FFP-A-00-08-00068-00
December 2013 (Final) 
(Revised March 2, 2014) 
Recommended Citation: 
Della E. McMillan and Sidibe Sidikiba. 2013. Final Qualitative Evaluation of the Consortium for 
Food Security in Mali (CFSM) “Nema” Program, P.L. 480 Title II Multi-Year Assistance 
Program, FFP-A-00-08-00068-00. Bamako, Mali: CRS (December). Submitted December 30, 
2013. Revised March 2, 2014.
Table of Contents 
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i 
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... vii 
Chapter 1 Context and Methodology ................................................................................... 1
1.0. Context .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Global Context 
1.2. Early Evolution of the Program
1.3. Evolution of the Program During and After the Conflict 
1.4. Identified Needs for the Final Evaluation 
2.0. Evaluation Goal, Global Objectives, and Expected Results ........................................ 2
2.1. Evaluation Goal and Global Objectives 
2.2. Specific Objectives 
2.3. Key Questions 
3.0. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. SOW Expectations for Data Collection Methodologies 
3.2. Global Organization of the Qualitative Survey and Key Informant Interviews 
3.3. Steps Involved in the Design and Analysis of the Qualitative Survey and Report 
4.0. Organization of the Report ........................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2 SO1: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable and Resilient ............................ 13
1.0. Nema SO1 Strategy/Theory of Change ........................................................................ 13
2.0. Evolution of the Nema Strategy and Activities and Early Evidence of Impact ....... 16
2.1. Evolution of Activities and Early Evidence of Results 
2.2. Early Evidence of Results and Effects 
3.0. Current Level of SO1 Activities Supported by Nema ................................................ 23
3.1. Agro-Enterprise Groups 
3.2. Savings and Internal Lending Communities 
3.3. Farmer Field Schools 
3.4. Food for Work 
3.5. Safety Nets 
4.0. Global Impact of the SO1 Activities on Household Food Security and 
Vulnerability ................................................................................................................... 34
4.1. On Average Household Food Security and Resilience 
4.2. On Vulnerable Households 
4.3. Effectiveness of the SO1 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations ………………............................................. 41
Chapter 3 SO2: Children Under 5 Years Less Vulnerable to Illness and Malnutrition .. 46
1.0. Nema SO2 Strategy/Theory of Change ........................................................................ 46
2.0. Evolution of Program Activities for IR 2.1. Caregivers of Children Under 5 Years 
and Pregnant Women are Applying Improved Nutrition and Feeding Practices ... 48
2.1. PECIMA: Screening and Care of Acute Malnutrition at the CSCOM Level 
2.2. PD/Hearth Strategy Evolution 
2.3. Promoting Improved Nutrition and Feeding Practices Through Community Radio in 130 
Villages 
3.0. Evolution of Program Activities for IR 2.2. Caregivers of Children Under 5 are 
Applying Improved Hygiene and Sanitation Practices ............................................... 59
3.1. Sanitation 
3.2. Drinking Water 
4.0. Current Level of SO2 Activities in the Nema Villages for IR 1.1 and IR 1.2 ........... 60
4.1. Activities of the Nema-Created Health Committees and Nema-Trained Community 
Health Volunteers
4.2. Nutrition and Sanitation Practices of the Mothers Who Participated in the PD/Hearth 
Activities
4.3 Community-Based Activities Offered by the Local Offices of the Ministry of Health
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations ..................................................................... 65
5.1. Key Issues 
5.2. Key Factors Which Reduced the Impact of the Nema Health Strategy in Nutrition in 130 
Target Villages 
5.3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations
Chapter 4 SO3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively ................... 78
1.0. SO3 Strategy/Theory of Change ................................................................................... 79
2.0. Evolution of the Nema SO3 Strategy and Activities ................................................... 82
2.1. IR 3.1. Community Early Warning and Response Systems are in Place 
2.2. IR 3.2. Community Safety Nets are in Place 
2.3. Mid-Term Evaluation Assessment and Recommendations 
3.0. Early Evidence of Impact on the Establishment of Sustainable GAP/RUs in the 
Target Villages ............................................................................................................... 84
3.1. Results During Nema—Efficient Preparation of a Relief Plan in Response to Data from 
the GAP/RU
3.2. Results During Nema—Partial Execution of a Relief Program in the Douentza Villages 
3.3. Results Post-Nema—Nema-Trained Safety Net Committees Helped Facilitate the 
Allocation of Other Humanitarian Aid During the Crisis 
4.0. Current Level of the SO3 Activities Supported by Nema .......................................... 86
4.1. Food for Work 
4.2. Community-Based Early Warning and Response Systems 
4.3. Community Safety Nets
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations ..................................................................... 94
Chapter 5 Cross-Cutting Activities: Literacy, Good Governance, and Local 
Organizational Capacity ................................................................................... 97
1.0. Nema Strategy /Theory of Change for Cross-Cutting Activities: Literacy, Good 
Governance, and Capacity Building ............................................................................ 98
1.1. Literacy 
1.2. Local Capacity Building and Good Governance 
2.0. Evolution of the Nema Strategies for Literacy, Organizational Capacity Building, 
Good Governance, and Early Evidence of Impact .................................................... 100
2.1. Early Evolution of the Program 
2.2. Mid-Term Evaluation Findings and Recommendations
2.3. Activities After the Mid-Term 
3.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported Literacy Activities ................... 104
3.1. Current Level of Activity 
3.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context: Literacy Training 
4.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported CBOs ........................................ 107
4.1. Current Level of Functioning 
4.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context: Local Organizational Capacity and Good Governance 
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations ................................................................... 110
Chapter 6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 112
1.0. Main Lessons Learned from the Program Experience ............................................ 112
1.1. Global Overview of Results 
1.2. Capacity for a Rapid Start Up in the Case of a Recuperation Effort 
2.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations ................................................................... 115
2.1. Strategic Objective 1: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable and Resilient 
2.2. Strategic Objective 2: Children Under 5 Years Less Vulnerable to Illness and 
Malnutrition 
2.3. Strategic Objective 3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively 
2.4. Cross-Cutting Objectives: Basic Literacy, Good Governance, and Capacity Building 
2.5. Monitoring & Evaluation 
Annexes
Annex I. Terms of Reference for Final Evaluation of Years 1-4 of MYAP Nema 
Annex II. Mali CFSM MYAP Final Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
Annex III. Field Survey Interview Guides 
Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups 
Annex V. Key Informant Interviews 
Annex VI. Photo Essay Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation
List of Tables 
Table 1.1. Nema Project Logical Framework 
Table 1.2. Key Questions Asked in the SOW for the Nema Final Evaluation 
Table 1.3. The Four Virtual Working Groups Involved in the Nema Qualitative Final 
Evaluation 
Table 1.4. Steps Involved in the Design, Execution, and Reporting of the Nema Final 
Qualitative Survey 
Table 1.5. Retroactive Qualitative Classification of Nema Villages Used to Determine the 
Sample Frame for the Final Qualitative Survey 
Table 1.6. Number of Individuals Interviewed Nema Final Qualitative Survey 
Table 2.1. Targets and Achievements for the AEG and Number of Nema Communities that 
Benefitted from the Activity, Years 1-4 
Table 2.2. Targets and Achievements for the FFS and Number of Nema Communities that 
Benefitted from the Activity, Years 1-4 
Table 2.3. Targets and Achievements for the SILC and Number of Nema Communities that 
Benefitted from the Activity, Years 1-4 
Table 2.4. Number of Villages and Beneficiaries that Benefited from the Major Categories 
of Nema SO1 Activities, Years 1-4 
Table 2.5. Retroactive Participatory Classification of Nema Program Villages by Level of 
Performance and Food Insecurity When the Program Closed, March 2012 
Table 2.6. Functionality of the AEG Interviewed During the Nema Program Final Evaluation 
Survey, November 2013 
Table 2.7. Functionality of the SILC Groups Interviewed During the Nema Program Final 
Evaluation Survey, November 2013 
Table 2.8. SILC Activities During and After the Nema Program 
Table 2.9. SILC Financial Resources During and After the Nema Program 
Table 2.10. Current Functionality of Nema-Created Infrastructure Visited During the Final 
Evaluation 
Table 2.11. Evidence of Post-Nema Food Distributions in the Nema Villages, September 
2012-present 
Table 2.12. Evolution of the 2012 Food Crisis and Nema and Non-Nema Responses and 
Impacts 
Appendix I, Chapter 2: SILC Tool Used for Tracking Organizational Capacity 
Table 3.1. Targets vs. Achievements for the Main Nema SO2 Activities, Years 1-4
Table 3.2. PD/Hearth Implementation Plan for Nema Program, Years 2-3 
Table 3.3. Hearth/DP Activities in Nema Program, Years 2-3
Table 3.4. Number of Groups and People Interviewed about the Current Functionality of the 
Nema-Funded Activities in the 130 Nema Villages in Douentza and Bourem, 
November 2013
Table 3.5. Current Functional Status of the Formal and Informal Groups and Community 
Health Volunteers Trained by the Nema Program in Years 1-4, November 2013
Table 3.6. Level of Malnutrition in Douentza and Bourem Areas Using Indicative Data of 
CSCOMs’ Staff Qualitative Survey, 2011-2013
Table 3.7. IR 2.1. Caregivers of Children Under 5 and Pregnant Women are Applying 
Improved Nutrition and Feeding Practices
Table 3.8. MI 2.1.6. Percentage of Beneficiary Caregivers Who Practice Behaviors Shown to 
Be Successful to Rehabilitate Underweight Children
Table 3.9. Nema Monitoring Indicators Based on Data Collected by the Annual Mothers 
Survey
Appendix I, Chapter 3: Evolution of SO2 Activities 
Table 4.1. Impact and Monitoring Indicators Used to Track the Progress of the Nema 
Program’s Intermediate Results in Its IPTT 
Table 4.2 Major SO3 Achievements During Nema, Years 1-4
Table 4.3. Evidence of Post-Nema Food Distributions in the Nema Villages, September 
2012-present 
Table 4.4. Number of Infrastructures Created, Direct Beneficiaries, and Current Level of 
Functioning of the FFW-Funded Infrastructure Created by the Nema Program, 
November 2013 
Table 4.5. Functionality of the GAP/RU and Safety Net Committees Interviewed During the 
Nema Program Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013 
Table 4.6. Evolution of the Nema Safety Net and GAP/RU Activities, March 2012-
November 2013 
Table 5.1. Number of Students from Different Nema-Supported Structures that Enrolled in 
Literacy Training and the Number Who Were Active Participants, Years 1-4
Table 5.2. Types of Training and Incorporation of the Local Committees and Community￾Based Experts into the Program’s Internal and Official Tracking Systems, Years 
1-4
Table 5.3. Indicators Used in the Nema IPTT to Track the Evolution of the Local 
Community Organizations’ Capacity in Key Areas Needed to Execute and Sustain 
Their Activities, Years 1-4
Table 5.4. Average Number of SILC and AEG Members Who Attended the Nema￾Sponsored Literacy Training Who Can Read, Write, and Conduct Simple 
Calculations, March 2013 
Table 5.5. Functionality of the Nema-Facilitated CBOs Interviewed During the Nema Final 
Evaluation by SO, November 2013 
Table 6.1. Qualitative Assessment of Current Security Levels in the Former Nema Villages 
in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013 
Table 6.2. Qualitative Assessment of Government Extension Worker Coverage in the 
Former Nema Villages in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013 
Table 6.3. Qualitative Assessment of the Major Outside Development Partners Currently 
Working in the Former Nema Villages in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013 
Table 6.4. Qualitative Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Impact of the 2012 Occupation 
on the Former Nema Villages in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013 
Table 6.5. Corrective Actions Recommended for Increasing the Sustainability of the Nema 
Program’s Accomplishments and Monitoring or Strengthening the Benefits 
Initiated by the Program 
List of Figures 
Figure A. Mali CFSM (Nema) MYAP—Before March 2012 and After (March 2012-
present) 
Figure 1.1. Mali CFSM (Nema) MYAP—Before Suspending Its Activities in Douentza and 
Bourem in March 2012 and Today (March 2012-present) 
Figure 2.1. Nema Strategy for SO1 (Years 1-4) 
Figure 2.2. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Average Household Food 
Security (MAHFP) Before and During the Nema Program 
Figure 2.3. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Average Household Food 
Security (MAHFP) Before, During, and After the Program 
Figure 2.4. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Household Vulnerability 
Levels Before, During, and After the Program 
Figure 2.5. Nema Results and Effects in the Bourem Villages: Household Vulnerability 
Levels Before, During, and After the Program 
Figure 3.1. SO2: Theory of Change Strategies, Nema Program 2013
Figure 3.2. Evolution of the Number of Malnourished Children Identified by Nema, Years 1-4
Figure 3.3. Evolution of the Number of Malnourished Rehabilitated by Nema, Years 1-4
Figure 3.4. Number of Children Rehabilitated in the Nema DP/Hearth Activities in 27 Nema 
Villages, Years 2-4
Figure 4.1. Nema SO3 Strategy/Theory of Change
Figure 5.1. Nema Strategy for Literacy, Good Governance, and Local Capacity Building 
List of Text Boxes 
Text Box 2.1. The INTSORMIL Project in the Nema Village of Oualo 
Text Box 2.2. Sample Responses to Questions Asked to the SILC Focus Groups 
Text Box 3.1. Case Study on the Implementation of Voluntary Contributions to Support 
PD/Hearth Programs in the Villages of Boumbam (Douentza) and Moudankan 
(Bourem)
Text Box 3.2. Testimonials from Six Different Community Health Volunteers on What They 
Learned During Nema, and Whether or Not They Continue Their Activities
Text Box 3.3. Testimony of PD/Hearth Participant Fanta Boucary Maiga During the Focus 
Group Held with the PD/Hearth Group in Densa Village 
Text Box 3.4. Assessment of the Impact of Nema Activities by Partners Linked to Health 
Facilities in Douentza and Bourem, November 2013
Text Box 3.5. Main Suggestions or Recommendations Made by the Technical Partners and 
Beneficiaries in the Improvement of Program Activities 
Text Box 4.1. Major Conclusions of the Mid-Term Evaluation Concerning SO3 
Text Box 4.2. Beneficiary Responses to Questions During the FFW Focus Groups 
Text Box 4.3. Community Leader Observations About the Implementation of the Nema Safety 
Net Programs in the Cercle of Douentza 
Text Box 5.1. Comments Made About the Role of Literacy Training During the AEG Focus 
Groups 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
i
Executive Summary1
Since August 2008, a consortium comprised of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the 
Children International (SCI), and Helen Keller International (HKI) has executed the Consortium 
for Food Security In Mali (CFSM) led by CRS. The original goal was—and continues to be—“to 
reduce the food insecurity prevalence in vulnerable populations” through three strategic 
objectives related to improved livelihood strategies, improved health and nutritional status, and 
increased capacity to manage shocks. Two transversal themes—functional literacy and good 
governance—support all three strategic objectives (SOs). The five-year program (2008-2013), 
known as the “Nema”2
program, or the Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP), is funded by 
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through Food for Peace 
(FFP). 
The original zone of intervention was 130 of the most vulnerable villages in two very food 
insecure cercles3—Douentza and Bourem (Figure A). The estimated number of people 
benefitting from the program in both cercles combined was 124,859 (See Figure A, showing the 
location of the two cercles). To carry it its activities, CRS worked through local partner, 
Caritas/Mali in the cercle of Douentza and SCI worked through the Malian NGO Tassaght in 
Bourem. 
In March 2012, the Consortium was forced to suspend its activities in the Douentza and Bourem 
region due to the rebel occupation of the area by rebel groups, and redeployed many of the same 
activities and staff to: 
 A highly effective emergency internally displaced person (IDP) program benefitting
39,830 IDPs in the regional capital of Mopti (April-September 2012); and 
 A quick-start Title II initiative for three vulnerable cercles further south (Figure A)—
using a slightly amended version of the original mode—that is now entering its second 
year (2012-present).
Both of these follow-on programs have benefited from the considerable effort invested in 
refining the initial Nema strategy in the Douentza and Bourem regions during the first four years 
of the program (August 2009-March 2012). 
1
 Della E. McMillan and Sidibe Sidikiba. 2013. Final Qualitative Evaluation of the Consortium for Food Security in 
Mali (CFSM) “Nema” Program, P.L. 480 Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program, FFP-A-00-08-00068-00. Bamako, 
Mali: CRS (December).
2
 Locally the CFSM program is known as the “Nema” program. In Bambara, the term “Nema” means “at ease” or 
“comfortable.” The term refers to the program’s intention to reduce household food insecurity and render them more 
comfortable by improving their agriculture and livelihood systems. 
3
 Mali is divided administratively into eight regions. Each region is further divided into districts (cercles), and these
districts are made up of communes. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
ii
Figure A. Mali CFSM (Nema) MYAP—Before March 2012 and After (March 2012-present)
Although these follow-on activities are a critical part of the Nema story—past (i.e. the IDPs) and 
present (the ongoing activities in the new MYAP cercles)
4—the official objective of this 
qualitative final evaluation of the Nema program was to “evaluate the results, the implementation 
process and the sustainability of the MYAP program in terms of food security, nutrition of 
vulnerable groups in the target populations and the functionality of community-based early 
warning systems in Douentza and Bourem where the program …stopped operating.”5
The evaluation is more significant than a regular, end-of-project survey in that it occurred almost 
20 months after the abrupt ending of activities with no operational exit strategy, and that it came 
after significant socio-economic upheaval, making the evidence of a longer-term impact more 
impressive. The significance of this evaluation is at three levels: 
 It occurred almost 20 months after the abrupt ending of activities with no operational exit 
strategy, and that it came after significant socio-economic upheaval, making any 
evidence of a longer-term impact more impressive. 
 Given the gradual stabilization of northern Mali since January 2013, there is a huge 
interest in determining what types of strategies should be used to re-engage with the local 
communities in these vulnerable areas, which are typical of the southern frontier of 
northern Mali; and 
 
4 Each of these follow-on programs has—in the eyes of the evaluation team—important impacts on the Nema 
program that deserve an independent assessment and appreciation in and of themselves since they include a large 
number of examples of best practice, some of which are discussed the text of this report and its annexes. Especially 
important, the Nema story includes many valuable lessons learned about the critical importance of donors and 
partners being flexible and adapting program models to new constraints and opportunities. 
5
 Annex I. Evaluation Scope of Work (SOW). Page 2.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
iii
 Since Nema’s activities were suspended in March 2012, this evaluation was expected to 
provide both USAID and its major partners (SCI, HKI, CRS, and Caritas) with some 
valuable lessons about what types of Title II initiatives are most likely to help build local 
communities’ abilities to manage major shocks. 
This final qualitative survey and evaluation process was expected to: 
 Assess the current level of activity and functioning of the program’s supported activities 
almost two years after Nema officially suspended its activities in Douentza and Bourem; 
and 
 Use a participatory process engaging local communities, government officials (Ministries 
of Health, Social Action, Agriculture, Water, and the Governor’s office), execution 
partners (Caritas), as well as a high proportion of the original staff who designed and 
executed the program (from SCI, HKI, and CRS) in the identification of what types of 
follow-on support might be needed to strengthen these activities and sustain them in the 
current context. 
The evaluation was led by a two-person team with high levels of input from the current and 
previous Nema program staff that worked in the Douentza and Bourem regions over a five-week 
period in November and December 2013. The evaluation was based on three types of data: 
 The Nema program’s internal M&E data from Years 1-4 of the program; 
 The qualitative survey of a representative sample of 21 of the 130 Nema villages in 
which the evaluation team conducted individual and group interviews to assess the 
current functioning levels of the activities created by the Nema program, taken over a 
three-week period in November 2013; and 
 Key informant interviews that the team conducted in the region and local cercles that 
enabled the team to better understand the direct impact of the war and current trends 
on donor and government re-engagement in the communities since January 2013. 
This analysis provides clear evidence that in March 2012 Nema was well on its way to achieving 
most of its targets in the original proposal and that many of these activities were having a very 
positive impact on household food security, vulnerable groups, and resilience by the time the 
program was suspended in March 2012. 
There is also ample evidence from the beneficiary and partner interviews that many of the 
program’s activities helped the local people better manage the shocks that started descending 
upon them in June 2011. Specific achievements include: 
 Building household capacity to get more product into the market and to increase 
household incomes through the development of agro-enterprise groups (AEG) and 
savings and internal lending communities (SILC), the majority of which are still 
functional (based on the results of the sample survey); 
 Through the farmer field schools (FFS), introducing a wide variety of new crop 
technologies that helped local people increase their food security and reduce their 
vulnerability to drought; 
 Building 143 new infrastructure works using Food for Work (FFW)—the majority of 
which is still functional—that made local people less vulnerable to drought, flooding, and 
other shocks; 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
iv
 Supporting the new Centre de Santé Communautaire (CSCOM, or community health 
center) model for identifying and rehabilitating malnourished children in collaboration 
with the CSCOMs that complied with the national Management of Acute Malnutrition 
(MAM) strategy in 130 of the 130 villages (100%), and pilot testing a new model for 
community-based PD/Hearth model for identifying and rehabilitating malnourished 
children in 27 of the 130 villages; 
 Encouraging improved hygiene and sanitation practices through a concerted effort to 
promote household use of latrines (most of which appear to be in use) that have 
continued to help improve local sanitation practices; 
 Constructing 15 water points—14 of which are still functional—in water-starved villages 
where successive water resource development programs had previously failed; 
 Strengthening the community-based systems for emergency early warning and response 
by developing: (a) a community-based system of early warning and response 
(Groupements d’Alerte Precoce et Reponse d’Urgence or GAP/RU); and (b) a safety net 
committee that was capable of working with outside agencies to coordinate a series of 
post-Nema food aid responses during the crisis in 130 of the 130 villages; and 
 Creating a system of community-based literacy trainings that helped build the capacity of 
all of the community-based organizations (CBOs) being supported by the program in 130 
of the 130 villages, as well as the specific capacity of the AEG and SILC that were a 
special target of these programs. 
Although the net impact of these activities was very positive, the survey identified a number of 
corrective actions that are needed to sustain and strengthen the benefits that were initiated by 
Nema during its first four years of operation in Douentza and Bourem. 
Strategic Objective 1: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable and Resilient 
The principal recommendations for strengthening and sustaining the Nema program’s SO1 
activities are: 
 Re-engaging in the villages where the Nema program was most active as the security 
situation permits, which is approximately 50% of the villages in Douentza and Bourem 
that benefitted from the highest concentration of Nema program innovations in Years 1-4; 
and
 Extending the basic program to most vulnerable Douentza and Bourem villages that 
benefitted from fewer Nema program interventions in Years 1-4. These villages—which 
represent about 50% of the Douentza and Bourem villages—tend to be isolated agro￾pastoral villages. Re-engaging the Nema program in these villages will require: (a) 
intensifying FFW to overcome some of the major constraints that these villages face in 
terms of isolation; (b) developing some sort of profitable agro-enterprise; and (c) helping 
to facilitate the development of the AEG and SILC as was done in the more accessible 
villages during Years 1-4.
Strategic Objective 2: Children Under 5 Years Less Vulnerable to Illness and Malnutrition
Given the limited sustainability of the original program model for rehabilitating malnourished 
children, the evaluation team and health-working group recommend: 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
v
 Rethink the program’s support for the integrated MAM (PECIMA, or Prise en Charge 
Intégrée de la Malnutrition Aiguë) model that involves: (a) strengthening the local 
communities’ support, involvement, and ownership of the CSCOM-supported growth 
monitoring and rehabilitation activities; and (b) making these activities less dependent 
on the program’s food distribution for success; 
 Based on the successful pilot testing of the PD/Hearth model in just 27 of the 130 Nema 
villages during the initial phase: 
- Extending the PD/Hearth model for rehabilitating moderately malnourished 
children using local products (i.e. not using food aid) to each and every Nema 
village; and 
- Improving the effectiveness and sustainability of the program by revamping 
certain elements of the program to make it better adapted to a non-emergency 
context such as: (a) shifting the focus from a large number of volunteer mothers 
(VMs) to training just two mama lumieres per village; (b) helping the mothers of 
the malnourished children to form ‘care’ or ‘mothers’ groups’ that will help the 
vulnerable mothers of the children treated by the PD/Hearth programs develop 
the income-generating activities (IGAs) that they need to sustain improved health 
practices; and (c) strengthening the Nema systems for tracking the children’s 
progress both during and after treatment; 
 Diversifying the program’s efforts to address the target villages’ chronic water access 
problems; and 
 Anticipating a major scale up in all of the villages of the new Mali government’s
community-led total sanitation (CLTS, also known as Assainissement Total Piloté par la 
Communauté [ATPC]) model, which was pilot tested in five Nema villages at Douentza 
during Years 1-4. 
Strategic Objective 3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively 
Although the safety nets programs were much appreciated by the local people, there is little 
likelihood that the 130 communities will have the means to develop improved safety nets from 
community resources that are more extensive than the traditional methods they have always 
used. It is therefore critical for future programs to examine a new string of activities that will 
reduce the total number of vulnerable people who will need to rely on either these traditional 
safety nets or outside food assistance. 
To address this issue, the evaluators working in close collaboration with the SO3 working group 
developed a list of recommendations that focused on: 
 Anticipating the creation of food security committees in all of the Nema villages to 
coordinate the different Nema and non-Nema community structures that affect food 
security, with a special accent on better integrating the functions of the GAP/RU with the 
safety net committees; 
 Anticipating the involvement of all the key partners (Village Food Security Committees, 
Red Cross/Mali, Systèmes d’Alerte Précoce [SAPs])—who showed their capacity to 
manage major crises during the recent 2012-2013 crisis—in the conception and execution 
of any future community-based early warning and emergency response system; 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Executive Summary. December 30, 2013. 
vi
 Anticipating a new series of FFW and development (SO1) activities that strengthens the 
food security of the most vulnerable households and reduces their dependence on 
community-based safety nets which depend heavily on outside food assistance; 
 Intensifying FFW activities in the most vulnerable villages in order to build their food 
security and income and reduce community-level vulnerability to risk and shocks; and 
 Strengthening the capacity of the Nema monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to 
monitor the activities of the Village Food Security Committees and other key 
community-based organizations. 
Cross-Cutting, Literacy, Good Governance, and Local Capacity Building 
One major output of the Nema program was to build the capacity of the local groups to manage 
these activities and sustain them. The final evaluation survey shows that the vast majority of the 
SILC and AEG that the program helped create are still considered functional. The same survey 
results show the critical importance of the SCI-sponsored literacy and good governance training 
in building this capacity. The pre-existing capacity of the groups—as well as other program￾trained community specialists like the Farmer Field Schools (FFS), Training of Trainers (TOTs),
and SILC Animateurs Villageois (AVs)—is a major capital that future programs can build on 
when planning their strategies for re-engagement in the zone. 
Two of the key recommendations for strengthening the impact and sustainability of these 
activities involve: 
 Strengthening the linkages between literacy training and the actual activities (financial, 
planning, etc.) of the CBOs; and
 Strengthening the capacity of the program managers and administration to monitor the 
core capacity of the CBOs created by the program in order to better target training and 
technical support and plan the program’s exit strategy. 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
A fourth set of recommendations suggests various ways that CRS’s existing systems for Title II 
M&E, which were pilot tested on this program and are already being refined in the new area, can 
be adjusted to track these new activities and new strategies. Especially important, this analysis 
suggests various ways that the existing M&E systems put in place under Nema can be adjusted to 
better track the program’s considerable accomplishments in three areas: 
 Reducing the percentage of Nema villages classified as chronically food insecure; 
 Reducing the percentage of households classified as chronically food insecure; and 
 Developing better systems for monitoring the core capacity of the local organizations 
charged with sustaining these activities as a basis for the development of successful exit 
strategies.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Acronyms. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
vii
Acronyms 
ADESAH Association for the Endogenous Development of the Sahel
AE Addunction Eau (water points)
AEG Agro-Enterprise Group 
AES Adduction D'eau Sommaire
AFAR Appuix aux Systemes Ruraux de Production
ALCOP Aluminum Company of Pakistan 
ATPC Assainissement Total Piloté par la Communauté (Community-Led Total 
Sanitation) 
AV Animateurs Villageois (for the SILC) 
BCC Behavior Change Communication 
CAP Centre d’Animation Paysanne (Center for Rural Extension) 
CBO Community-Based Organization 
CDA Community Development Agent (Agent de Développement 
Communautaire) 
CFA West African CFA Franc 
CFSM Consortium for Food Security in Mali 
CHV Community Health Volunteer (relais) 
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation 
CMAM Community Management of Acute Malnutrition 
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
CSREF Centre de Santé de Reference (District-Level Health Center) 
CSCOM Centre de Santé Communautaire (Commune-Level Health Center) 
DDS Dietary Diversity Scores 
DNFLA Direction Nationale des Langues et de l'Alphabetisation (National 
Directorate for Languages and Literacy) 
EI Environmental Indicator 
ENA Essential Nutrition Actions 
EWG Early Warning Group 
FCFA CFA Franc 
FFP Food for Peace 
FFS Farmer Field School 
FFT Food for Training 
FFW Food for Work 
GAE Groupement Agro-Enterprise
GAP/RU Groupements d’Alerte Precoce et Reponse d’Urgence (Early Warning 
Group/Emergency Response) 
GOM Government of Mali 
GRAT Groupe de Recherche et d 'Applications Techniques 
HH Household 
HKI Helen Keller International 
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics 
IDP Internally Displaced Person 
IEC Information, Education, and Communication 
IER Institut d’Economie Rurale (Institute of Rural Economy) 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Acronyms. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
viii
IESA Initiative Eau et Sécurité Alimentaire pour l’Afrique
IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross 
IGA Income-Generating Activity 
II Impact Indicator 
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute 
IMF Institution of Micro-Finance 
INTSORMIL Sorghum and Millet Research Support Program 
IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
IR Intermediate Result 
IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding 
LOA Life of Activity 
MAHFP Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning 
MAM Management of Acute Malnutrition 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
M&EAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, Learning 
MI Monitoring Indicator 
MOH Ministry of Health 
MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
MSF Médecins sans Frontières
MUAC Mid-Upper Arm Circumference 
MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
OR Operations Research 
OXFAM Oxfam International 
PECIMA Prise en Charge Intégrée de la Malnutrition Aiguë (Integrated 
Management of Acute Malnutrition) 
PD Positive Deviance 
PDI-MUZELM Projet de Developpement Integre, Mission Evangelique Lutherienne au 
Mali
PM Program Manager 
PRA Participatory Rural Analyses 
PREP Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal 
PSI Population Services International 
PSP Private Service Providers 
SAM Severe Acute Malnutrition 
SAP Système d’Alerte Précoce (Early Warning System) 
SCI Save the Children International 
SILC Savings and Internal Lending Communities 
SMILER Simple Measurement of Indicators for Learning and Evaluation-Based 
Reporting 
SO Strategic Objective 
SOW Scope of Work 
SUN Scaling Up Nutrition 
SYAP Single-Year Assistance Plan 
TOT Training of Trainers 
UAVES Union pour un Avenir Ecologique et Solidaire
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Acronyms. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
ix
USG U.S. Government 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
VAD Visites a Domicile (Home Visits) 
VM Volunteer Mother 
WASH Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene 
WFP World Food Programme
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
1
Chapter 1 
Context and Methodology 
1.0. Context 
1.1. Global Context 
The Nema program (a.k.a. Consortium for Food Security in Mali [CFSM]) is a Multi-Year 
Assistance Program (MYAP) implemented through a consortium comprised of Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), Helen Keller International (HKI), and Save the Children International (SCI) in 
the regions of Mopti and Gao through two implementing partners, Caritas/Mali and the Malian 
NGO Tassaght. 
Through integrated interventions from 2008 through 2012, the Nema program intended to 
improve the livelihoods of vulnerable households and strengthen the community capacity for 
resilience to shocks. The program intervened in three priority domains identified by the 
Consortium to fight against food security through increasing capacity in: (a) agro-enterprise 
development; (b) nutrition, hygiene, and sanitations; and (c) disaster-risk reduction (Table 1.1). 
In addition to these three core domains, the program included two additional cross-cutting 
interventions—literacy and savings and internal lending communities (SILC)—designed to 
strengthen household resilience, especially for women, during future crises. 
The Nema program targeted 124,858 participants in 130 villages in the cercles of Bourem in the 
Gao Region and Douentza in the Mopti Region (Figure 1.1). 
Table 1.1. Nema Project Logical Framework 
Framework for the MYAP
GOAL: Vulnerable rural households in the regions of Mopti and Gao have reduced their food insecurity
Strategic Objective 1: Livelihood strategies are more profitable and resilient
 Intermediate Result 1.1. Household agricultural production is increased
 Intermediate Result 1.2. Targeted household revenues increase
Strategic Objective 2: Children under 5 years less vulnerable to illness and malnutrition
 Intermediate Result 2.1. Caregivers of children under five and pregnant women are applying improved 
nutrition and feeding practices
 Intermediate Result 2.2. Caregivers of children under five are applying improved hygiene and sanitation 
practices
Strategic Objective 3: Targeted communities manage shocks more effectively
 Intermediate Result 3.1. Community early warning and response systems are in place
 Intermediate Result 3.2. Community safety nets are in place
Transversal Activities: Functional literacy and training in governance
Source: Annex I. Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation SOW. 
1.2. Early Evolution of the Program 
At the beginning of Nema, the Consortium carried out a baseline study (September –October 
2008), which permitted the determination of reference data and fixed targets for performance 
indicators for the duration of the program. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
2
In May 2011, the program executed a mid-term evaluation to determine the evolution of the 
program towards its original objectives.6 Based on the results of this evaluation, the program 
made a number of recommendations, including: 
 Adding a sub-component that focused on community-based rehabilitation of moderately 
malnourished children, which would permit moderately malnourished children to be 
rehabilitated in the community rather than the hospital; 
 Adding a second community-led total sanitation (CLTS) component to improve hygiene 
and nutrition; and 
 Reducing the number of water points that the program was going to build and/or 
rehabilitate from 60 to 49. 
1.3. Evolution of the Program During and After the Conflict 
In March 2012, the program was obligated to cease activities due to the rebel occupation of the 
area by insurgent groups (Figure 1.1). Currently, the original program area is nearly liberated: 11 
of the 15 communes in Douentza are free of rebel movements, and access roads are free and 
controlled by the armed forces. Until recently, the remaining four communes and the cercle of 
Bourem have been less secure. 
1.4. Identified Needs for the Final Evaluation 
Although the original program never completed its full program cycle, it did execute a critical 
mass of activities in the area. There is also a great deal of qualitative evidence that the program’s 
activities built the resilience of the local population to weather the rebel occupation. 
2.0. Evaluation Goal, Global Objectives, and Expected Results
2.1. Evaluation Goal and Global Objectives 
The goal of the current evaluation is to examine the results that exist in the field since the 
occupation and consequent liberation currently underway by the Malian and French Armies and 
their allies. The global objectives7
of the evaluation are to evaluate: 
 The results, implementation process, and sustainability of the MYAP program in terms of 
food security, nutrition, and vulnerable groups in the target populations; and 
 The current functionality of the systems and structures put in place (including the 
program’s community-based early warning systems) in the areas where the program has 
stopped operating with the intention of informing a possible rapid start up. 
 
6
 Kathy Tilford. 2011. Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Nema Program in Mali. Bamako: The Consortium 
for Food Security in Mali (CFSM) (Catholic Relief Services, Helen Keller International, Save the Children 
International), June. 
7
 The seven specific objectives for achieving these two global objectives are outlined on page 3 of the SOW. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
3
Figure 1.1. Mali CFSM (Nema) MYAP—Before Suspending Its Activities in Douentza and Bourem in March 
2012 and Today (March 2012-present) 
2.2. Specific Objectives 
The specific objectives of the evaluation as outlined in the approved scope of work (SOW) were 
to: 
 Describe whether the program has attained its goals, strategic objectives (SOs), and 
intermediate results (IRs), and how this was accomplished; 
 Identify all other results of the program, intended and unintended; 
 Describe how the activities implemented from 2008 to 2012 (SILC; agro-enterprise; 
nutrition and water, sanitation, and hygiene [WASH]; and disaster risk reduction) 
continue to be applied in the previously occupied program zones by the remaining 
program participants; 
 Provide an update on the implementation of recommendations made during the mid-term 
evaluation; 
 Draw principle lessons learned (positive and/or negative) during the four years of MYAP 
implementation; 
 Analyze the capacity for a rapid start-up of agro-enterprise groups, SILC, and early 
warning committees, among other health systems; and 
 Analyze the efficiency and sustainability of agro-enterprise groups, SILC, Farming Field 
Schools (FFS), and early warning committees. 
2.3. Key Questions 
In addition to these specific objectives, the evaluation SOW listed 30 key questions to be 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
4
answered during the course of the evaluation. These questions included (Table 1.2): 
 10 intervention-specific questions related to the Nema program’s major SOs; 
 17 cross-cutting questions that were expected to inform the key partners of the program 
(CRS, HKI, SCI, Caritas) and its stakeholders about the Nema program’s major results, 
the efficiency of the process, and the sustainability of the program activities; and 
 Three cross-cutting questions related to gender and environmental impacts. 
Table 1.2. Key Questions Asked in the SOW for the Nema Final Evaluation 
Intervention-Specific Questions by Strategic Objective
Strategic Objective 1 (SO1)
1. Are agro-enterprise groups the most appropriate strategy/relevant livelihood approach for strengthening 
household food security given the marginal land conditions, distance from markets etc.?
2. How effectively was the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach carried out? Was it implemented as 
expected? If not, what was the problem? What can we learn from this?
3. Do the agro-enterprise and SILC groups continue to operate and have they remained financially solvent 
after the end of the program?
Strategic Objective 2 (SO2)
4. What are the lessons learned from the shift from health facility delivery to community-based health 
services in this MYAP context? Was this a good change? In what ways? How might it be improved 
further?
5. Are communities applying the techniques introduced for improved nutrition of infants in the context of the 
crisis in the north? If yes, what are the factors that encourage this use?
6. What was the Behavior Change Communication (BCC) strategy and was it relevant and efficient to 
positively affect nutrition and hygiene behavior change and outcomes? Describe and support your response 
with evidence.
Strategic Objective 3 (SO3)
7. Are village-level early warning systems integrated into the regional (SAP- Systeme d’Alerte Precoce) early 
warning system? How? And what are the lessons learned? 
8. State of infrastructures completed: Observe and evaluate the functionality of the public works and 
infrastructures created by the program.
Cross-Cutting: Literacy and Capacity Building
9. Has the program improved the capacity of targeted community organizations? If yes, how so?
10. Has the program improved the capacity of state services and other partners in the implementation of food 
security programs? In what way? Has the program improved program participants’ literacy? If yes, how?
Cross-Cutting Questions Related to Results, Efficiency, Sustainability, and Resilience
Results and Effects:
1. Have the program activities (SILC, AEG, literacy, PD/Hearth, FFS etc.) and their related strategies affected 
program participant households’ capacity to respond to shocks and natural disasters that affect their food 
security? If so, how?
2. According to participants interviewed, have the program activities improved production and agricultural 
yields? Household (HH) Income? Food security? Dietary diversity? Nutritional state of children in targeted 
households? If yes, how? If not, why?
3. Are there other unexpected but important effects in the targeted communities as a result of the program 
activities?
4. What are the points of view of partners, leaders, and program participants about implementation of the 
program and its results?
Effectiveness of the Implementation Process:
5. What was the implementation process for achieving main program objectives (improvement of food 
security, reduced malnutrition, and increase in incomes)? Was it appropriate? Efficient? How might it be 
improved?
6. Assess the effectiveness of the program’s theory of change. Have the outputs contributed to the realization 
of the program’s intermediate results and strategic objectives? Are there components that were more 
effective than others for achieving the intermediate results and objectives of the program?
7. Is the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (M&EAL) system appropriate for measuring 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
5
the objectives and the program indicators?
8. How effective was the technical assistance provided throughout the program?
9. How effectively did the program use selection criteria to target vulnerable households?
10. What aspects of the program were particularly ineffective?
Sustainability:
11. What mechanisms/arrangements have been put in place to ensure the sustainability of the program’s 
results (in all domains including early warning systems and community safety net programs)? Evaluate 
whether these are likely to be sufficient.
12. What are the arrangements for a sustainable management of public works and infrastructures?
13. Has the technical assistance provided via program activities translated into the adoption of best practices?
Do program participants continue to apply the techniques they learned?
14. Are there other benefits participants continue to have/experience after the end of the program? If so, what 
are they? 
Resilience:
15. What are the implemented activities that positively impact the target population’s resilience? What are the 
results of the conflict for the affected households and communities?
16. How have they managed the shock? What coping mechanisms are they using? (Both program-introduced 
and otherwise.) Why? Do they perceive themselves as vulnerable?
17. What is their perception of the result of the shock? Do they believe their situation has improved? Gotten 
worse? Not changed?
Cross-Cutting Questions Related to Gender and Environment and Literacy
1. What have been the effects of the program on the lives of women program participants and their 
households?
2. How has the program affected the gender relationships within targeted households?
3. What effect has the program had on the capacity of households to manage the negative effects of their 
activities on their environment?
Source: Annex I. Nema Qualitative Final Evaluation SOW. 
3.0. Methodology 
3.1. SOW Expectations for Data Collection Methodologies 
Given the fact that the Nema program suspended its activities almost two years ago, and the high 
levels of insecurity that still persist in some communities, the Consortium elected to conduct a 
qualitative final survey instead the normal type of quantitative survey most Title II food security 
programs conduct in their final program. This final qualitative survey and evaluation process was 
expected to: 
 Assess the current level of activity and functioning of the program’s supported activities 
almost two years after Nema officially shut down its activities in Douentza and Bourem; 
and 
 Use a participatory process to engage local communities, local government officials 
(Ministry of Health, Social Action, Agriculture, Water Resources), execution partners 
(Caritas, Tassaght), as well as a high proportion of the original staff of SCI, HKI, and 
CRS, who designed and executed the program, in the identification of what types of 
follow-on support might be needed to strengthen these activities and sustain them in the 
current context. 
The approved SOW8
anticipated that the evaluation would be based on two types of data: 
 
8
 The approved SOW is in Annex I. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
6
 Qualitative Survey: A survey of a representative sample of villages that were accessible 
in the low security zone; and 
 Key Informant Interviews: A series of open-ended interviews with key informants, 
including current and former implementation staff associated with the Consortium’s 
major implement partner in Douentza (Caritas); current and former staff associated with 
HKI, SCI, and CRS; and key government partners in Mopti (the regional capital for 
Douentza and current Caritas base), Gao (the regional capital for Bourem and current SCI 
base), as well as with some of the cercle- and commune-level government officials who 
were familiar with the program and the villages in the two areas. 
The same SOW anticipated that the evaluation would be led by a team of external consultants9
who would work with a core team of Consortium staff to execute the methodology under the 
direct supervision of the CRS monitoring and evaluation (M&E) department and the Nema 
program director and deputy director. 
3.2. Global Organization of the Qualitative Survey and Key Informant Interviews 
3.2.1. Qualitative Survey: The qualitative survey was designed and executed by a core survey 
team that represented all of the major partners in the Consortium under the direction of Dr. 
Sidikiba Sidibe and Deputy M&E Specialist Isack Dolo, with high levels of involvement from 
many of the current and former staff associated with the program. The same survey included key 
informant interviews with 13 staff members associated with the area commune-level health 
centers (Centre de Santé Communautaire or CSCOMs).
3.2.2. Key Informant Interviews at Mopti: Based in Mopti during the field portion of the 
qualitative survey, the second co-team leader, Dr. Della McMillan, conducted a series of key 
informant interviews in Sevare and Mopti. These interviews had two purposes: (a) to talk to key 
government partners about their appreciation of Nema’s impact both during and after the 
program; and (b) to gather as much secondary information as possible about the current status 
and level of government involve in the villages. One very important activity was the series of 
participatory meetings organized by SCI for Bourem and Caritas for Mopti. The output of these 
meetings was a second participatory classification of the 130 villages in terms of various 
categories such as: (a) war-related impacts; (b) current levels of security for development 
 
9 Co-Team Leader, Dr. Della McMillan has over 35 years of experience in African rural development, most of it 
in francophone West Africa. She is a livelihoods specialist with an extensive background in gender and capacity 
building. She has worked on the design and evaluation of Title II food security programs in Mali, Niger, Burkina 
Faso, Chad, Guinea, Ethiopia, and Uganda. She has participated in 15 evaluations, 12 times as team leader. 
Co-Team Leader, Dr. Sidibe Sidekiba (based in Conakry, Guinea) has over 15 years of experience in the design 
and execution of the health, sanitation, and nutrition components of Title II food security programs. As the senior 
health advisor of Africare’s Title II program in Guinea, he pilot tested one of the Hearth model programs for the 
rehabilitation of moderately malnourished children in francophone West Africa. As a MYAP coordinator in 
Rwanda, Dr. Sidibe pilot tested a series of highly innovative programs for HIV/AIDS-affected households. Dr. 
Sidibe has a University Diploma from the London School of Economics in health statistics, a Masters degree in 
epidemiology and a Masters in public health from the University of Bordeaux. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
7
workers; (c) current level of Ministry of Agriculture staff working in the area; (d) post-Nema 
sources and timing of aid in the communities; and (e) the number of registered cooperatives in 
each community. 
Although the 130 villages’ profile data was highly qualitative—and often based on telephone 
interviews and the SCI, Caritas, and Ministry of Agriculture staff’s familiarity with the zone, the 
interviews provided some ‘global’ data that helped situation the qualitative interviews within a 
wider context. 
3.2.3. Participatory Elaboration of the Recommendations with Four Virtual Working Groups: 
Both types of data—the qualitative survey and the qualitative profile of the 130 Nema villages—
have informed a core list of recommendation which the members of the strategic objective (SO) 
working groups helped formulate during an initial debrief session on November 29, 2013, and 
through email communication and document sharing with the other members of the virtual 
working groups10 that have grown up around this exercise for agro-enterprise development, 
nutrition/sanitation, early warning and response systems, and basic literacy, good governance,
and capacity building (Table 1.3). 
Table 1.3. The Four Virtual Working Groups Involved in the Nema Qualitative Final Evaluation 
Group Individuals Involved and their Organizations
SO1  Chery Traore (CRS);
 Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao);
 Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali);
 Ahmadou Tadina (Agricultural Sector Chief, Douentza); and
 Fanta Kone (CRS)
SO2  Dr. Fatou Koite (HKI);
 Kerri Agee (CRS);
 Dr. Aboubacar Halidou (HKI/Gao);
 Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (Field Office Manager SCI, Gao); and
 Abdel Kader Sidibe (former MYAP staff member in charge of PD/Hearth 
activities)
SO3  Adama Sangare (CRS);
 Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali);
 Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao); and
 Ahmadou Tadina (Agricultural Sector Chief, Douentza)
Cross 
Cutting
 Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao);
 Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali); and
 Isack Dolo (CRS)
Source: Nema Final Mid-Term Evaluation. November 2013. 
Methodology: The final evaluation working groups were informal working groups that formed around the 
development and revision of the interview forms and the interview results. 
 
10 The consultants’ original proposal anticipated the development of four working groups that would provide the 
sounding board for the research results. Due to the geographic dispersion of many of the original and current Nema 
staff members, it was impossible to assemble all of the key staff at one time. In the course of executing the 
qualitative survey and key informant interviews, four working groups did assemble and provided the principle 
sounding board for the review of the focus group guides, research results, draft chapters, and recommendations. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
8
3.3. Steps Involved in the Design and Analysis of the Qualitative Survey and Report 
3.3.1. Step One: Initial Debriefing and Review of the SOW and Program (November 5, 2013): A 
team meeting of major stakeholders from the different Bamako-based partners (SCI, HKI, and 
CRS) was organized, during which Nema Deputy Coordinator Adama Sangare provided an 
overview of the program and the preliminary work plan (Table 1.4). 
Table 1.4. Steps Involved in the Design, Execution, and Reporting of the Nema Final Qualitative Survey 
Steps Leadership Teams Participants
Step One: Initial debriefing 
(Bamako)
Adama Sangare (Nema Deputy 
Coordinator) and Isack Dolo 
(Charge de Suivi-Evaluation/CRS)
All the Bamako-based stakeholder 
groups
Step Two: Sampling (Bamako) Dr. Sidibe, Dr. McMillan, Isack 
Dolo, and Boureima Sacko
Current and former staff affiliated 
with the different SO activities
Step Three: Initial review and 
revision of the draft discussion 
guides (Bamako)
Dr. Sidibe, Isack Dolo, and 
Boureima Sacko
Step Four: Enumerator training and 
final revision of the forms (Severe)
Dr. Sidibe (Consultant), Isack Dolo 
and Boreima Sacko (Suivi￾evaluation/CRS), Dr. Fatou Koite
HKI, and Abdoussalam Tiemogo 
Maiga (SCI/Gao)
Enumerators
Step Five: Field interviews and 
initial data entry and analysis 
(Douentza and Bourem)
Douentza: Dr. Sidibe (Consultant), 
Fatou Koite (HKI), and Isack Dolo 
(CRS) 
15 Communities
Bourem: Boureima Sacko (CRS),
Adoulssalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI), 
and Aboubacar Halidou (HKI)
6 Communities
Step Six: Initial analysis and write 
up of the survey results (Severe)
Dr. Sidibe and Dr. McMillan, Isack 
Dolo, and Boureima Sacko, with 
extensive backup from Pierre Togo 
(Caritas/Mali)
Step Seven: Initial debriefing of the 
survey results and results of the key 
informant interviews (San)
Dr. Sidibe and Dr. McMillan CRS and Caritas staff associated 
with the survey
Step Eight: Preparation of the draft 
chapters and revised list of 
recommendations
Dr. Sidibe and Dr. McMillan, with 
backup analytical support from Isack 
Dolo and Boureima Sacko
Step Nine: Stakeholder debriefings
Dr. Sidibe and Dr. McMillan -Representatives of all the 
Consortium partners (HKI, SCI, 
CRS, and Caritas)
-USAID/Mali Title II manager
Step Ten: Final revision and editing 
(December 7-23, 2013)
Dr. Sidibe, Dr. McMillan, and Lynn 
Hurtak
The Final Qualitative Evaluation 
working groups as reviewers (Table 
1.3)
Source:Nema Final Mid-term Evaluation. November 2013. 
3.3.2. Step Two: Sampling (November 6-7, 2013): A four-part strategy was adopted to insure a 
representative sample of the villages for inclusion in the qualitative survey. 
 Preparation of a List of Program Activities by Community: Based on the end-of-program 
records, Nema M&E Specialist Boureima Sacko prepared a list of all program activities 
by SO.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
9
 Qualitative Ranking of Activities by Level of Success: Based on this initial list, the 
consultants facilitated a participatory ranking of the activities based on their level of 
success in the last year of the program. To facilitate the group exercise, these activities 
were color coded, with green meaning ‘highly successful,’ yellow meaning ‘under 
execution,’ and red meaning ‘just started or not working very well.’ The villages where 
the activity never started were left blank. 
 Qualitative Ranking of the Villages by their Performance and Perceived Level of 
Vulnerability at the End of the Program:11 Based on this M&E-department facilitated 
exercise, the full team of sector specialist was reconvened to conduct a participatory 
grouping of the villages in terms of their end-of-program status (Table 1.5). 
 Selection of Sample Villages from the Clusters: Based on this initial clustering, the senior 
M&E specialists identified a sample of 21 villages from the different clusters—15 in 
Douentza and six in Bourem—from each category of communities that were considered 
secure enough for field visits (Table 1.5).12
 
11 A similar system of classifying villages based on performance was used during the qualitative mid-term 
evaluation of the Nema program (Tilford 2011:10). 
8
 For security reasons, four of the original sample villages had to be changed to four other villages in the same 
category during the first week of the fieldwork. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
10
Table 1.5. Retroactive Qualitative Classification of Nema Villages Used to Determine the Sample Frame for 
the Final Qualitative Survey 
Retroactive Qualitative Clustering of 
the Villages at the Time Nema Closed 
(March 2012)
Bourem Douentza
# Villages in 
Category at the 
End of the 
Project (% 
Total Villages)
# Villages 
in Survey 
Sample
(% of Total 
Sample)
# Villages in 
Category at the 
End of the 
Project (%
Total Villages)
# Villages 
in Survey 
Sample (% 
of Total 
Sample)
Performing Well/Less Vulnerable: The 
majority of the communities in this 
category benefited from the complete 
package of Nema interventions. By the 
end of the program, these were 
considered to be the most food secure 
Nema villages
3
(10%)
1
(17%)
24
(24%)
6
(40%)
Average Performance/Average 
Vulnerability: The villages in this 
category were in the early stages of 
adopting the full package of innovations 
proposed by Nema
21
(70%)
4
(66%)
46
(46%)
7
(47%)
Poor Performance/Very Vulnerable:
Because of their extreme isolation, the 
villages in this category had only the 
bare minimum of Nema interventions. 
Many of the villages in this category 
were agro-pastoral and/or often very 
isolated from roads and markets. Some 
villages also had extreme water 
problems, very low levels of literacy, 
and social problems. Most of the villages 
were still considered highly food 
insecure when the program closed
6
(20%)
1
(17%)
30
(30%)
2
(13%)
Total 30 Nema
villages
6 sample 
villages
100 Nema
villages
15 sample 
villages
Methodology: Participatory classification of Nema villages at the time the program closed based on working group 
discussions in November 2013 survey planning exercise.
3.3.3. Step Three: Revision of the Draft Interview Guides and Enumerator Recruitment 
(November 6-8, 2013): Parallel to the sampling process, Dr. Sidibe and Isack Dolo, the CRS 
M&E specialist charged with overseeing the evaluation exercise, facilitated a detailed review of 
the data-collection tools the Consortium had developed and submitted to Food For Peace (FFP) 
in conjunction with the evaluation SOW. During the same time period, CRS M&E Specialist 
Boureima Sacko facilitated the recruitment of 15 experienced enumerators that had worked on 
previous CRS and non-CRS food security research studies in the Bourem and Douentza regions.
3.3.4. Step Four: Enumerator Training and Final Revision of the Forms (November 11-12, 
2013): A two-day workshop was organized at the Caritas office in Sevare, during which the core 
survey team (led by Dr. Sidibe and Isack Dolo) facilitated an in-depth review of the semi￾structured discussion guide and conducted an in-class simulated pilot test of the forms. During 
this same time period, the CRS M&E Specialists Boureima Sacko and Isack Dolo prepared a 
series of pre-coded data-entry tools (masques) to facilitate real-time data entry and analysis. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
11
3.3.5. Step Five: Field Interviews and Initial Data Entry and Analysis (November 14-23, 2013):
The field portion of the exercise was led by two inter-partner teams over an eight-10-day period 
in Bourem and Douentza. The teams interviewed a total of 1124 people (482 [43%] of them 
women) in 117 focus group discussions (38 at Bourem, and 79 at Douentza) (Table 1.6). To 
facilitate real-time data analysis and write up, the team leaders facilitated an initial debriefing 
and data entry session at the end of each field day. 
Table 1.6. Number of Individuals Interviewed in the Nema Final Qualitative Survey 
Community-Based 
Organizations
Bourem Douentza
# of Groups 
Interviewed
# of Persons 
Interviewed # of Groups 
Interviewed
# of Persons 
Interviewed
M F T M F T
AEG 3 9 23 32 11 115 94 209
SLIC 3 3 92 95 12 100 121 221
CHV (Relais) 5 20 8 28 9 31 17 48
FFW 5 31 14 45 8 68 0 68
PD/Hearth 4 0 34 34 8 2 60 62
GAP-RU 6 24 3 27 9 20 1 21
Leader 6 49 1 50 14 152 6 158
Radio 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Macon 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2
Health staff 3 1 2 3 4 5 0 5
Water Point 
Management Committee 1 0 4 4 1 7 2 9
Total 38 139 181 320 79 503 301 804
Source: Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. November 2013. 
3.3.6. Step Six: Initial Analysis and Write up of the Survey Results (November 25-28, 2013): The 
CRS M&E specialists working in close collaboration with Dr. Sidibe completed an initial 
analysis and write up of the qualitative survey data at the Caritas field office over a three-day 
period. 
3.3.7. Step Seven: Initial Debriefing of the Survey and Results of the Key Informant Interviews 
(November 29, 2013): An initial debriefing of the results was conducted at the CRS office in 
San, during which the consultants facilitated a group discussion of the data that generated an 
initial list of global recommendations for each strategic objective and a list of specific sub￾recommendations. 
3.3.8. Step Eight: Preparation of the Draft Chapters and Revised List of Recommendations 
(December 2-5): During the final week of the exercise, the team developed a list of 
recommendations and fine-tuned them with input from different staff associated with the 
different program stakeholders—HKI, SCI, CRS, and Caritas. 
3.3.9. Step Nine: Stakeholder Debriefings (December 6, 2013): A final debriefing with 
representatives of major partners HKI, SCI, CRS, and Caritas was held on Friday, December 6, 
2013, followed by a brief debriefing of the principal conclusions with USAID/Mali Title II 
Manager John Mullenax.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 1. Context and Methodology. December 30, 2013. 
12
3.3.10. Step Ten: Final Revision and Editing (December 7-23, 2013): Based on the input from 
the stakeholders, the evaluation consultants developed an English-draft version of the draft 
chapters, many of which were in French. Each chapter was reviewed by the members of the 
technical working groups (Table 1.3). Final editing was conducted by the consultants in 
collaboration with Editor Lynn Hurtak. 
4.0. Organization of the Report 
Chapters 2-5 provide a brief overview of the results of the final qualitative survey and working 
group discussions for the program’s three strategic objectives (Chapters 2-4) and the cross￾cutting activities related to literacy, good governance, and capacity building (Chapter 5). Each 
chapter follows the same basic format that examines: 
 Strategy: The original strategy or “theory of change” that the activities were designed to 
address; 
 Evolution of Activities (Years 1-4): The evolution of the program’s activities related to 
that particular SO or transversal activities, early evidence of results, and some of the key 
factors that affected the efficiency of these processes during Years 1-4 of the Nema 
program; 
 Current Level of Activities (November 2013): 
- The current level of activity of the Nema-supported activities and any evidence 
that they have affected household resilience; and 
- Some of the key factors that affected these outcomes—i.e. the results and effects 
of the different activities, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the 
sustainability of the results, and the activities’ impact on the local people’s 
resilience; and 
 Lesson Learned and Recommendations: The major lessons that can be learned from 
the program experience, as well as recommended actions for:13
- Increasing the sustainability of the program accomplishments; and 
- Monitoring or strengthening the benefits initiated by the program. 
Chapter 6 summarizes the major conclusions and lessons learned from the chapters. 
 
13 CRS/HKI/SCI. 2013. SOW. Pp. 6-7.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
13
Chapter 2 
SO1: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable and Resilient14
This chapter provides a brief overview of the results of the Final Qualitative Survey and 
Evaluation for the Nema program’s Strategic Objective 1 (SO1) activities. The chapter is in five 
sections: 
Section 1.0. SO1 Strategy/Theory of Change: Describes the intervention strategy and key 
actors involved in executing the strategy’s two major intermediate results (IRs). 
Section 2.0. Evolution of the Strategy for SO1 IR 1.1 (Years 1-4): Describes the evolution of 
the implementation strategy for IR 1.1 during the first four years. 
Section 3.0. Evolution of the Strategy for SO1 IR 1.2 (Years 1-4): Describes the evolution of 
the implementation strategy for IR 1.2 during the first four years.15
Section 4.0. Current Level of the SO1 Activities in the Nema Villages for IR 1.1 and IR 1.2:
Describes: 
 The early evidence about how these activities have affected household food security in 
the target communities; and 
 The effectiveness of the Nema monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for measuring 
the objective, the intermediate results, and the principal impact and monitoring indicators. 
Section 5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Presents a list of recommendations that 
the evaluation team—working in close collaboration with the key implementation, execution 
partners have identified for: 
 Corrective actions recommended for increasing the sustainability of the program impacts; 
and
 Strengthening the benefits initiated by the program. 
1.0. SO1 Strategy/Theory of Change 
Despite the vulnerability of the north, the Mopti region has historically had a large, well￾developed network of cooperatives. The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that there are about 60 
registered cooperatives in the 100 Nema villages in Douentza.16 The original intent of the 
program strategy for agro-enterprise groups (AEG, or GAEs [Groupements Agro-Enterprise]) 
was to help the vulnerable households in the villages served by the USAID Food for Peace 
 
14 This chapter was prepared with the assistance of an informal Nema SO1 working group that developed around the 
final evaluation team’s field and key informant interviews. This working group included: Abdoussalaam Tiemogo 
Maiga (SCI/Gao); Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali); Ahmadou Tadina (Agricultural Sector Chief, Douentza); Fanta Kone 
(CRS); and Chery Traore (CRS). The working group was supported in its analysis of previous and current activities 
by Boureima Sako and Isack Dolo (M&E department CRS), who co-facilitated the field portion of the exercise with 
Dr. Sidikiba Sidibe (Consultant, Nema) and Salam Maiga (SCI/Gao) in Bourem. 
15 I.e. The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and 
the activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
16 The team was not able to get this information for Bourem. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
14
(FFP)-funded one-year emergency Single-Year Assistance Program (SYAP) to: 
 Build their capacity to engage in commercial agriculture; and 
 Eventually transition into the societes cooperatives (registered cooperative societies) 
needed to sustain these activities through linkages to local micro-finance institutions, 
input, and output markets. 
A second set of activities, the savings and internal lending communities (SILC), were designed 
to strengthen the capacity of vulnerable individuals who did not have the financial resources 
and/or labor to participate in the more high-risk agro-enterprises being supported by the Nema￾supported AEG and local cooperatives (Figure 2.1). It was anticipated the SILC training 
programs, combined with their internal saving, would build the vulnerable groups’ financial 
capacity to engage in more profitable agro-enterprises and help a certain position of the members 
to transition to more permanent institutions (i.e. cooperatives or established women’s groups) 
once they were ready. 
A third set of activities helped the program organize farmer field schools (FFS) as a tool for 
facilitating farmer access to information about more productive, drought-tolerant crop and 
livestock production technologies being promoted by the local representatives of the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Institute of Rural Economy (IER). The initial intent of the program was to train a 
network of trainers to conduct the first round of trials under the direct supervision of the 
Consortium and its key local partners (Caritas/Mali, Tassaght, Ministry of Agriculture, IER), and 
that these trainers would then conduct a second round of trials in other villages and/or sections of 
the villages (many of which are large). It was anticipated that the Nema-trained trainers would 
provide the villages with a point of contact between the local producers and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and IER. 
This idea of strengthening the Douentza and Bourem farmers’ access to IER, the leading 
agricultural research institution in Mali, was highly innovative in 2006-2008 when the Nema 
program was designed. The original concept was that CRS and the executing partners and the 
Ministry of Agriculture would provide the ‘feet’ for testing new technologies that IER had 
identified as profitable and that these same institutions would feed the trial data back to IER for 
analysis. This collaboration was expected to strengthen IER’s presence in the zone and to help 
the farmers and Ministry of Agriculture officials to ‘draw down’ the top leading technologies 
being tested in Mali for their respective agro-ecological zones. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
15
Figure 2.1. Nema Strategy for SO1, Years 1-4 
A separate set of Food for Work (FFW) activities (administered under SO3) were designed to 
create various agro-sylvo-pastoral investments that the communities needed to sustain certain 
agro-enterprise activities (Figure 2.1). A third set of safety nets (filets de securite) also 
administered under SO3 was designed to build the food security of the most vulnerable 
households who were unable to benefit from the program supported FFW activities or the 
mainstream agricultural activities supported by the cooperatives with assistance from IER and 
the Ministry of Agriculture. 
The anticipated impact of this model, which was tracked through the program Indicator 
Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), was to make the community-based livelihood strategies 
more profitable and resilient through the achievement of two IRs (Figure 2.1): 
 IR 1.1. Household agricultural production increased; and
 IR 1.2. Targeted household revenues increased. 
The principle mechanism for executing this strategy was the Nema Agents de Developpement 
Communautaire (CDAs), who were recruited and trained by the two executing partners: 
Tassaght at Bourem and Caritas at Douentza. Each CDA received an initial baseline training, 
which was followed by more specialized training in the technical areas they were supposed to 
backstop during the first year of the program. During the first and second year, the CDAs were 
specialized with certain ones focused on SO1, SO2, and SO3 activities. In order to accelerate the 
program’s achievement of its major outputs, the mid-term evaluation recommended converting 
this system of specialized CDAs to a system of multi-purpose (polyvalente) CDAs in June 2012 
(end of the third year) and all agents were retrained and redeployed as multi-purpose CDA 
agents in the fourth year (till March 2012). Although the conversion of the health and nutrition 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
16
CDAs had a negative influence on the efficacy of the program’s SO2 health and nutrition 
activities, it helped accelerate the achievement of the program targets for creating AEG and 
SILC. 
Within the Consortium, CRS was the lead for SO1 and provided technical assistance to the two 
local NGOs (Tassaght and Caritas) that were responsible for field implementation for the 
development and monitoring of the AEG, SILC, and FFS. The principal technical partners for 
the FFS component were IER and CRS. 
The same CDAs that were responsible for the execution of the SO1 activities were responsible 
for overseeing the committees that were responsible for managing the FFW and filet de securite
activities. 
2.0. Evolution of the Nema Strategy and Activities and Early Evidence of Impact 
2.1. Evolution of Activities and Early Evidence of Results 
2.1.1. IR 1.1. Household Agricultural Production is Increased 
2.1.1.1. AEG: The principal activity for this IR was to reinforce the institutional and technical 
capacities of 75 agro-enterprise groups over the life of the program. 
The AEG are groups of 20-25 community members who work together and contribute to a 
shared production and marketing plan with technical and financial support from the program. 
Training covers organization development, basic business skills, and understanding market 
requirements. With guidance from the SO1 team and its partners, AEG members undertake 
market opportunity identification exercises and conduct market chain analyses to better identify 
opportunities that complements each group’s resources, strengths, and potential.
17
This training is supposed to enable the AEG to make more rational decisions on what to produce, 
when to produce, how to produce, and at what price to sell to realize maximum profits. Once 
groups have had sufficient hands-on experience through the training exercises, they develop a 
business plan and submit it to the program for financing. In Year 2 alone, the program provided 
20 investment grants worth almost $100,000; by the end of Year 3, all but five of the 75 AEG 
business plans were financed. The mid-term evaluation considered this an impressive 
achievement since the “AEG must satisfy a number of stringent criteria before they qualify for 
financing.”18
Given the many benefits of AEG, one of the key questions in the mid-term evaluation was, “Is it 
possible to have an AEG in each of the 130 villages in the Nema Program?” Based on 
interviews, the mid-term evaluations concluded: 
“The answer is NO, as certain conditions need to be met before an AEG can be 
successful. These conditions include social cohesion within the group, a shared vision, 
the availability of markets, a certain level of experience among group members, and the 
 
17 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 14. 
18 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 14. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
17
availability of resources.”19
This decision to stay with the original AEG model meant that although the Nema program 
achieved or surpassed all of its original targets, the activity benefited only 38% of the villages in 
Douentza; and only 30% of the Bourem villages (Table 2.1). 
Had the Nema program continued as planned, this highly unequal distribution of one of the 
program’s principal activity sets would have no doubt had a very negative impact on the 
achievement of the principal impact indicators which measured the program’s population-based 
impact on household food security, dietary diversity, and household revenues (see Nema IPTT, 
Annex I). 
Table 2.1. Targets and Achievements for the AEG and Number of Nema Communities that Benefitted from 
the Activity, Years 1-4 
Activity Target 
(LOA)
Achieved 
(2012)
Achievement 
vs. Target 
Nema 
Communities 
Covered by the 
Activities
Units # # % %
Targets vs. Achievements for the Major Indicators
AEG established 75 90 120%
AEG that have developed business plans 75 73 97%
AEG whose business plans have been funded 75 73 97%
# of Nema Communities Where AEG Were Created
Bourem N/A* 9/30 N/A 30%
Douentza N/A* 38/100 N/A 38%
Source: Disaggregated analysis of the Nema program tracking data by Isack Dolo and Boureima Sacko during the 
Qualitative Final Evaluation. Acronym: LOA: Life of Activity 
*Neither the MYAP proposal nor the IPTT set geographical targets for this activity. 
2.1.1.2. Farmer Field Schools (FFS): To reinforce the technical capacities of the AEG, the 
MYAP organized FFS.
20 These peer school were designed in close collaboration with Mali’s IER 
as a way of strengthening farmers’ access to improved crop technologies and better production 
techniques. Although the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the activity was signed with 
IER, most of the day-to-day coordination of the FFS was conducted by the program-trained 
training of trainers (TOT) FFS trainers (formateurs) in partnership with the extension agents of 
the Ministry of Agriculture.
Each FFS started with a participatory diagnostic exercise to select the themes for the school. For 
agricultural production, contrasting demonstration plots were planted to facilitate a comparison 
of traditional methods and inputs with improved techniques and inputs. The participants 
analyzed the results and drew their conclusions. 
Following the FFS, the participants were encouraged to set up replication plots to disseminate 
what they had learned. Based on a recommendation made during a USAID/FFP supervision 
mission, the SO1 activity was significantly expanded during the third year of the program. 21 This 
 
19 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 14. 
20 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 15. 
21
 Evolution of the Targets for the FFS in Years 2-4 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
18
shift in strategy enabled the program to surpass the original proposal target of 1,500 target 
farmers by over 350%, and to train almost double the original number of TOTs they had planned 
to train (Table 2.2). The same shift in strategy meant a much larger percentage of the target 
communities were affected by the FFS than by the AEG—about 50% of the Nema communities 
at Bourem and 90% of the Nema communities at Douentza (Table 2.2). 
Based on the farmers’ enthusiastic endorsement of the FFS, the program expected that the FFS
would, after a slow start, increase the famers’ adoption of the new agro-enterprise technologies 
being promoted by the FFS, which was being tracked by Nema Monitoring Indicators 1.1.1 and 
1.1.2 (Annex I). Unfortunately, the program was forced to suspend its activities before these 
trials had a major impact on technology adoption, which was measured by monitoring indicators 
1.1.1 and 1.1.2 (Annex I). 
Table 2.2. Targets and Achievements for the FFS and Number of Nema Communities that Benefitted from 
the Activity, Years 1-4
Activity Target 
(LOA)
Achieved 
(2012)
Achievement
vs. Target
Nema 
Communities 
Covered by 
the Activities
Units # # % %
Targets vs. Achievements for the Major Indicators
Total number of persons participating in the 
FFS 1,500^ 5,251 350%
FFS TOT trainers 15 29 193%
FFS participants who have replicated the 
technologies 1,500 5,276 352%
# of Nema Communities Where FFS Were Created
Bourem N/A* 15/30 N/A 50%
Douentza N/A* 9/100 N/A 90%
Source: Nema IPTT (Annex I) and disaggregated analysis of the Nema program tracking data by Isack Dolo and 
Boureima Sacko during the Qualitative Final Evaluation. 
*Neither the MYAP proposal nor the IPTT set geographical targets for this activity. 
** Rainy season trials never executed. 
^ Original target number. Original LOA target was revised upward in Year 3. 
2.1.2. IR 1.2. Targeted Household Revenues Increased: The MYAP strategy for achieving this 
IR focused on the establishment of 585 SILC. The SILC approach was based on a simple 
premise: Participants should use their own resources to set up internal loan funds that they 
manage themselves. They can also set up a social insurance fund for the emergency needs of 
their members. This particular model was based on a successful approach to SILC that CRS pilot 
tested in other West African countries and other areas of Mali.22
 
Year Revised 
Target Achievement % Target 
achieved
Year 2 175 117 67%
Year 3 1,000 4,766 477%
Year 4 4,950 368 Crop year not 
completed 
22 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 16. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
19
The SILC component of the MYAP was set up as a strategy for building the livelihood assets of 
vulnerable women who often did not have the capacity or social access to the main AEG and 
cooperative groups. It was expected that:23
 The women would use the SILC loans to develop and expand small-scale commercial 
activities, thereby increasing their household revenue; and 
 Once trained, the SILC would be able to function independently with no outside support. 
The initial MYAP SILC were established by community development agents (CDAs, also 
known as Agents de Développement Communautaire), who also identified community members 
interested in being trained as field agents (animateur villageois or AVs). Once trained, the AVs 
contract with interested community members to set up additional SILC on a fee-for-service basis. 
The mid-term evaluation considered the SILC as:
“One of the success stories of the MYAP for a number of reasons. First of all, the 
members help to ensure short- and long-term household economic resilience to periodic 
food security shocks. For example, households [with members in the SILC] are better 
able to pay basic fees and transportation costs to the nearest health centers, purchase 
varied and more nutritious food, and pay for school-related expenses for their 
children.”24
When the program ended, the SILC had already exceeded the Nema program’s life of activity 
targets for the total number of first generation (i.e. CDA-created) SILC and AVs to be trained,
and was well on its way to achieving the 585 SILC program-end target. 
Unfortunately, the program’s SILC activities suffered from the same concentration of activities 
in the more accessible villages, which meant that only 57% (17) of the Bourem villages had 
SILC and only 58% (58) of the Douentza villages (Table 2.3). 
 
23 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 16. 
24 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 17. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
20
Table 2.3. Targets and Achievements for the SILC and Number of Nema Communities that Benefitted from 
the Activity, Years 1-4 
Activity Target 
(LOA)
Achieved 
(2012)
Achievement 
vs. Target
Nema 
Communities 
Covered by 
the Activities
Units # # % % 
Targets vs. Achievements for the Major Indicators
SILC (1st generation) 60 80
SILC village leaders (AVs), trained and 
available to start new groups
60 86
SILC (2nd generation) 525 146
# of Nema Communities Where SILC Were Created
Bourem N/A* 17 57%
Douentza N/A 58 58%
Source: Nema IPTT (Annex I) and disaggregated analysis of the Nema program tracking data by Isack Dolo and 
Boureima Sacko during the Qualitative Final Evaluation. 
*Neither the MYAP proposal nor the IPTT set geographical targets for this activity. 
2.1.3. Cross-Cutting Activities: Three critical cross-cutting activities that affected the 
profitability of the other SO1 activities and/or the three principal impact indicators for SO125
were (Table 2.4): 
 FFW: The program’s FFW activities (under SO3), which provided short-term in-kind 
employment for 58,919 persons that built 143 agro-sylvo-pastoral, roads, and rural 
infrastructures in 100% of the Bourem villages and 78% of the Douentza villages; 
 Safety Net: The program’s safety net activities (under SO3) provided short-term food 
assistance (three months) for the poorest five percent of the population, which included a 
total of 27,013 beneficiaries of the first four years; and
 Gender Integration: The program’s strong focus on gender insured that women were 
very strongly involved in almost all the SO1 activities and cross-cutting FFW and safety 
net activities. 
Table 2.4. Number of Villages and Beneficiaries that Benefited from the Major Categories of Nema SO1 
Activities, Years 1-4 
Activity
# Villages (%) Direct Beneficiaries
Bourem Douentza Bourem Douentza
Male Female Male Female
AEG 9 (30%) 38 (38%) 285 191 928 692
SILC 17 (57%) 58 (50%) 160 1,016 299 2,933
FFS 15 (50%) 90 (90% 893 590 2290 993
SO1: FFW 30 (100%) 78 (78%) 10,808 11,249 18,062 18,800
SO3: Safety Nets 30 (100%) 100 (100%) 5673 5905 7563 7872
Source: Disaggregated analysis of the Nema program tracking data by Isack Dolo and Boureima Sacko during the 
Qualitative Final Evaluation. November 2013. 
 
25 These were: Impact Indicator 1.1. # months of adequate household food provisioning; Impact Indicator 1.2. 
Average HHDD score (Household dietary diversity score); and Impact Indicator 1.3. % of households who report 
increase in financial resources. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
21
2.2. Early Evidence of Results and Effects 
2.2.1. Average Household Food Security: It was anticipated that the SO1 activities, combined 
with the crosscutting FFW and safety net activities, would increase household food security 
using the standard Title II FFP endorsed measure of the Months of Adequate Household Food 
Provisioning (MAHFP). The baseline measure of the MAHFP was 3.8 months for all of the 
villages—2.8 for the Bourem villages and 5.8 for the Douentza villages. Since the program did 
not re-measure this indicator during either the mid-term or before closing, the final evaluation 
survey conducted a retroactive measure using an early Participatory Rural Analyses (PRA) 
version of the MAHFP. Using this qualitative measure of the MAHFP to measure household 
food insecurity before, during, and after the program, the survey showed that household food 
security did increase during the program (Figure 2.2): 
 From 2.0 months to 2.6 months in the Bourem villages; 
 From 5.6 months to 7.4 months in the Douentza villages; and 
 From 3.8 months to 5.0 months for both areas. 
This substantial increase in food security was attributed to the combination of the FFW and 
safety nets, with a slight increase in crop productivity due to the early introduction of the 
improved varieties and crop production technologies. 
Figure 2.2. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Average Household Food Security (MAHFP) 
Before and During the Nema Program
Methodology and Source: Based on food security calendar Participatory Rural Analyses (PRAs) during the 
community focus groups conducted as part the Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
2.0
5.6
3.8
2.6
7.4
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Bourem (n=6 villages) Douentza (n=14 villages) All (n=20 villages)
Before
NEMA
During
NEMA
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
22
2.2.2. Percentage of Households Classified as Less Vulnerable: Although average food security 
appears to have increased in most of the program villages, there is clear evidence from the 
qualitative final retroactive survey that this successful impact was more pronounced in some 
communities than in others (Table 2.5). 
When the Nema program started, all 130 of the program villages would have been classified as 
extremely food insecure, or having ‘average’ food security levels. By the end of the program: 
 In general, the most successful villages—i.e. the 10-24% of Nema program villages that 
staff classified retroactively during the final qualitative evaluation as being less food 
insecure—were those that had the highest concentration of Nema program interventions. 
In most cases, these were also the most accessible villages and villages which had had 
anterior investments by other donor-funded programs (Table 2.5); 
 The least successful villages—i.e. the 20-30% villages that the Nema classified as still 
being chronically food insecure at the end of the program—were the more isolated 
villages that had never benefitted from the Nema AEG and SILC activities and that had 
had—because of their isolation—lower levels of FFW investment. These were typically 
the most food insecure villages; and 
 The middle category of villages, which were still considered food insecure, were the 
villages where Nema program activities were just starting when the program ended in 
March 2012.
Table 2.5. Retroactive Participatory Classification of Nema Program Villages by Level of Performance and 
Food Insecurity When the Program Closed, March 2012 
Retroactive Qualitative Clustering
of the Villages at the Time
Nema Closed 
Bourem Douentza
# Villages in 
This Category 
at the End of 
the Program
(% Total)
# Villages in 
This Category 
at the End of 
the Program
(% Total)
Performing Well/Less Vulnerable: The majority of the communities in this 
category benefited from the complete package of Nema interventions. By the 
end of the program, these were considered to be the most food-secure Nema
villages
3
(10%)
24
(24%)
Average Performance/Average Vulnerability: The villages in this category 
were in the early stages of adopting the full package of innovations proposed 
by Nema
21
(70%)
46
(46%)
Poor Performance/Very Vulnerable: Because of their extreme isolation, the 
villages in this category had only the bare minimum of Nema interventions. 
Many of the villages in this category were agro-pastoral and/or often very 
isolated from roads and markets. Some of the villages also had extreme water 
problems, very low levels of literacy, and social problems. Most of the 
villages in this category were still considered highly food insecure when the 
program closed
6
(20%)
30
(30%)
Source and Methodology: Participatory classification conducted by the Nema final evaluation working groups 
based on program data concerning the status of the program interventions and the communities’ food security levels 
at the time the program closed. This table was developed to facilitate a representative sample of villages for the 
study. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
23
3.0. Current Level of SO1 Activities Supported by Nema 
3.1. Agro-Enterprise Groups 
3.1.1. Current Level of Functioning of the AEG Interviewed: The majority of the groups that 
were interviewed in the final qualitative survey were considered ‘functional’ (Table 2.5). The 
researchers identified a functional group as one that continued to work on its business plan (plan 
d’affaire), organized meetings, kept minutes on the meetings, and where the amount of money 
the group had in the bank was known to the AEG members (Tables 2.6 and 2.7). The two groups 
that were assessed as ‘non-functional’ were groups that were no longer able to account for the 
money they received and/or had divided the group’s operating capital (fonds de caisse) between 
the members and no longer conducted meetings. 
Table 2.6. Functionality of the AEG Interviewed During the Nema Program Final Evaluation Survey, 
November 2013 
On-Going Activities Bourem Douentza
# of Groups Interviewed 3 11
# of Groups Classified as Functional 3 9
% of Total 100% 82%
% of the AEG that continue to apply the production techniques that they learned during 
Nema
67% 100%
Average Number of Persons Per Group that Continue to Apply New Production Technologies Learned During 
Nema 
Male 2 10
Female 16 15
Average Number of Persons Per Group that Attended the Nema-Sponsored Literacy Training Sessions 
Male 18 17
Female 7 14
Average Number of Persons Per Group that Know How to Read, Write, and Conduct Basic Calculations 
Male 9 6
Female 6 6
Source: AEG focus groups, Nema Final Evaluation Survey. November 2013. 
3.1.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:26
 Organizational Capacity Building and Systems for Monitoring this Capacity: The Nema 
AEG model made consistent use of a grille (capacity index) that enabled Nema 
Agricultural Specialist Chery Traore to monitor the core capacities of the groups in order 
to better target technical assistance and training. 
 Gender Roles and Relations: The Nema targets for women’s participation in the AEG 
resulted in a much higher representation of women in this activity than was anticipated, 
almost equivalent to the participation of men (Table 2.3).
 Complementary FFW Assistance: The AEG received a high level of technical assistance 
and many AEG communities were able to request and receive FFW-funded infrastructure 
development (irrigated perimeters, etc.) that helped them be successful. 
 
26 The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and the 
activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
24
 Insufficient Time for Developing the Appropriate Level of Financial Management Before 
the Program Ended: In March 2013, the vast majority of the AEG had been operating for 
less than two years, which meant that the program systems needed to manage the AEG’ 
operating capital received after their initial training (ranging from 50,000 CFA to 450,000 
CFA) were just starting to develop. 
 Emerging Commercial Opportunities and Cooperative Structures in the Two Areas: 
Faced with the weak capacity of their groups to mobilize the resources they needed to 
market the crops once the Nema program ended, many of the AEG members encountered 
during the final evaluation survey appear to have joined—as the program expected—
some of the established cooperative groups in their local communities (i.e. the registered 
cooperatives). Two of the 60 registered cooperatives in the program intervention area are 
linked to international partners and have supported a new low-cost pilot initiative to 
promote the community-based cooperatives’ ability to support intensive commercial 
millet and nebie (cowpea or black eyed peas) production. During the final evaluation key 
informant interviews, the Ministry of Agriculture sector chief identified about 40 of the 
60communities with registered cooperatives as having good potential to scale up this new 
package. This new package builds on more than 20 years of collaborative Ministry of 
Agriculture/IER/Sorghum and Millet Research Support Program 
(INTSORMIL)/International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics 
(ICRISAT) and World Bank support in the Mopti region. The same intensive package is 
benefitting from a new initiative to support cooperative-managed marketing to support 
new technologies that the McKnight Foundation has funded at Oualo since 2009 (Text 
Box 2.1). Many of the Nema AEG-trained farmers have joined these cooperatives and/or 
formed sub-groups and/or contacted the Caritas staff for assistance with marketing, as 
well as accessing seeds and fertilizer that they need to sustain their interventions. One 
simple indicator of this persistent interest is the number of calls that Caritas staff receive 
to assist the representatives of the Douentza AEG groups with input and marketing 
issues. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
25
Text Box 2.1. The INTSORMIL Project’s Activities in the Nema Village of Oualo
This program has a six-phase approach.
1. Production Phase: The activities in this phase are designed to promote technology transfer that will 
increase production and generate surplus production for sale through:
 Technology support: INTSORMIL works through the local agricultural extension agent to strengthen 
the local cooperative’s access to improved inputs (improved seed, fertilizer, minerals, and fungicide) 
and cultivation techniques. The cooperative’s management committee then redistributes the inputs to 
the members of the cooperative society. Each cooperative member receives, for example, 50kg urea, 
50kg DAP, 8-10kg of seed and one package of fungicide per hectare.
 Extension backup: INTSORMIL pays some of the support costs (gas, per diem) that enables the local 
agricultural extension agent to train the members of the cooperative in the recommended cultivation 
techniques (e.g. soil preparation, the correct dosage and application methods for fertilizer, plant 
density, thinning, and planting techniques).
 Yield plots: The same agricultural extension agents do crop cuts to estimate yields on farmers’ fields 
to track the performance of the technology package.
2. Repayment Phase: Each member of the cooperative reimburses the value of seed-fertilizer and fungicide,
paying in grain after threshing. The reimbursement price is calculated based on the per kilogram market price 
of the crop at the time of the sale. The cooperative’s president, the secretary of production and the 
administrative secretary are responsible for repaying loans and for covering the costs of the cooperative. The 
money from the sale of the cooperative’s cereals is put into the account of the cooperative under the direction 
of the president, the treasurer, and a member of control. 
3. Storage Phase: Once the crops are reimbursed to the cooperative, they are stored in the cooperative’s 
warehouse. All grains are stored in PIC bags and piled on pallets to prevent early deterioration of the grain.
4. Packaging of the Product Phase: An appropriate warehouse is provided by the cooperative to store 
productions in order to maintain a quality product.
5. Marketing (or Sales) Phase: The sale of the stored product is negotiated during the period where the 
price has risen but before the next planting on the market (usually in April/May/June). The cooperative’s 
secretary of marketing and treasurer are responsible for organizing the sale. The cooperative is usually able 
to realize a return of 150% over the value at which the farmers paid back, which helps them increase their 
cash revenues.
6. Strengthening of the Organizational Capacity of the Cooperative Phase: A key to the success of the 
project is its emphasis on training. These trainings include training members of the cooperative, the 
management committee, and committee of control on how to:
 Manage the purchase and correct supply of member inputs and their loan reimbursements after the 
harvest;
 Open a bank account by the cooperative and take out a bank loan (if one is needed) for its members;
 Organize a transparent review of the campaign and report out to all of the members; and
 Handle product management to ensure the presentation of a quality product.
Source: Head of Sector, Ministry of Agriculture, Douentza. November 2013.
3.2. Savings and Internal Lending Communities 
3.2.1. Current Level of Functioning of the SILC Interviewed:
 13 of the 15 groups that were interviewed during the qualitative final evaluation are 
considered functional in that they still consider themselves to be a group and they still 
have their core funding (Tables 2.7 and 2.8).
 The principal reasons given for low lending level of the groups were varied and generally 
related to the high level of insecurity in the zone. 
 Despite these problems, all 15 SILC interviewed reported that they were still getting 
together regularly, still contributing small amounts to the group savings program, and still 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
26
contributing to the social fund; even 10 of the 12 groups still had their bank accounts 
(Table 2.9). 
 In general, however, the SILC were not circulating the funds (through loans) at the same 
level they had during Nema’s support, which is completely understandable given the high 
levels of insecurity in the zone (Table 2.9) 
 A key theme that emerged during the SILC focus groups was the impact that each 
group’s membership in the SILC had on their ability to manage the crisis (Text Box 2.2). 
3.2.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:27
 Organizational Capacity Building and Systems for Monitoring this Capacity: All of the 
SILC interviewed expressed their deep appreciation of the training and technical 
assistance they received during the program. The Nema program’s capacity to provide 
appropriate technical assistance and training was helped by its consistent use of a 
standard CRS capacity-monitoring tool used in Burkina, Mali, and Niger. 
Table 2.7. Functionality of the SILC Groups Interviewed During the Nema Program Final Evaluation 
Survey, November 2013 
Number of 
Groups 
Considered 
Functional
Average Number of People 
Who Continue to Apply 
the Training Received 
During Nema
Average Number of
People Per Group that 
Continue to Apply the 
Training Learned 
During Nema
Average Number of Persons 
that Know How to Read, 
Write, and Conduct Basic 
Calculations in the SILC
# % Male Female Male Female
Bourem (n=3)
3 100% 0 7 22 2 7
Douentza (n=12)
10 83% 1 4 11 1 5
Source: SILC focus groups, Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation Survey, November 2013. 
Table 2.8. SILC Activities During and After the Nema Program 
Activity Bourem Douentza
During After During After
Organize meetings 3 1 12
Group savings 3 1 12 9
Give out credit 3 3 11 10
Group contributions to a social fund 3 2 12 10
Compte la Caisse 0 0 4 3
Purchase and storage of paddy rice 1
Source: Sidibe Sidikiba, Isack Dolo, and Boureima Sacko. Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation Survey, November 
2013.
 
27 The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and the 
activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
27
Table 2.9. SILC Financial Resources During and After the Nema Program 
Activities
Douentza (n=10) Bourem (n=3)
Average 
During the 
Program
(FCFA)
Current 
Average Post￾Program
(FCFA)
Average 
During the 
Program
(FCFA)
Current 
Average Post￾Program
(FCFA)
Current savings 373,819 151,654 825,000 466,000
Current credits 389,022 320,318 38,500 304,500
Social fund 77,702 16,736 50,000 101,866
Fines 3,322 2,597 3,750 5,000
Interest 42,107 26,000 1,666
Total Available 885,972 517,305 917,250 879,032
Source: Sidibe Sidikiba, Isack Dolo, and Boureima Sacko. Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation Survey, November 
2013.
Text Box 2.2. Sample Responses to Questions Asked to the SILC Focus Groups
Since the SILC activities began, what changes/differences do you see in your lives?
 Ngono Village: More self-sufficiency; savings – and training of the group.
 Fombory Village: Strengthening of the social climate (25 members composed of two men and 23 women). The 
SILC is functional, and the group had savings. In May 2013, the activities stopped when the members divided 
up the money amongst themselves. We learned many things during the SILC.
 Kiro Village: The group functions. Its creation helped build social cohesion and mutual assistance among the 
group members. Our income has increased to support has some primary needs of our families without husbands. 
We also use the vegetables from the group’s market gardening activities in our sauces. 
What steps have you taken to continue the activities of SILC after the withdrawal of the draft?
 Gono, Petaka Villages: No provision has been made because we were expecting the return of the project to 
resume the SILC activities.
 Fombory Village: Replication of the SILC in the village. SILC was implemented by a village leader. This 
grouping is a second-generation SILC grouping. Altogether, two grouping have been implemented by the 
project, and two others have been in the community relais.
 Kiro Village: The SILC continues to function even after the withdrawal of the project. Our last meeting was 
very recent, November 14, 2013. This is logged in the book of ours that we showed you.
 Ibissa Village: The SILC is functional; the last meeting was November 11, 2013.
What are the major prospects for the group since the withdrawal of the project?
 Gono, Petaka Villages
- Learn dyeing. 
- Learn sewing and selling clothes in the village. 
- Assist the village in terms of health. 
 KiroVillage: Continue the SILC activities because we understood the benefits that come to us through 
increasing our revenues.
What suggestions or recommendations made in the context of the monitoring and strengthening of groups of 
the SILC?
 Provide support for IGAs through encouraging stall feeding, purchasing sewing machines, and gas-powered 
grinding mills, etc. and apprenticeship opportunities. 
 Add stall feeding to the training programs given to SILC members (Fambory). 
 Support the construction of a CSCOM in the village to reduce women’s hardship. 
 Resume the SILC management training programs for our group. This will help us build the skills we need to 
manage our SILC activities. 
 Avoid scheduling the creation of the SILC groups during the peak periods of agricultural labor. 
Dalla Village: Halimatou Dicko, a 40-year-old mother of six. This inhabitant of the village of Dallah, Cercle of 
Douentza, is a housewife who attended literacy courses thanks to the intervention of the Nema project in her village. 
Hahn is the Chair of the SILC Waalde Jam group which means Association for Peace. According to her, before the 
formation of their group, she was an illiterate mother with a lot of financial difficulties to make ends meet. She said,
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
28
"I was obliged to ask for money from my husband very often, and this sometimes caused misunderstandings and 
episodes of marital conflict. If my husband gave no money, I was obliged to search for loans in the villages, most of 
the time.” According to her, the SILC has created solidarity among the women of the village. Through the SILC she 
became more autonomous and was better able to look after her basic needs and those of her children without asking 
for assistance from her husband. Through the group she also received training in on sanitation and infant nutrition. 
She stated, “In addition to the trainings we received, I also participated in a course on basic literacy, which has 
helped to open my mind to new possibilities.” She now has a more open mind; she has learned to save and has 
become much more open to resolving daily problems. Thanks to the literacy courses, she can read and write her 
name as well as the name of all the members of the group. As proof, after the focus group, she wrote the names of 
all the women who had participated in the discussion groups. Mme. Halimatou concluded that she would like to 
increase her understanding of and ability to undertake income generating activities. She requested that Nema restart 
its basic literacy training courses for all women in the village.
Kiro Villlage: “I'm Noumoudjou Maiga (aka Gako). I am 33 years old and my phone number is 70585592. I took 
out a line of credit equaling 10,000 FCFA in our cashier SILC to invest in the fattening of a buck six months ago. I 
intend to resell the buck in a month to repay my loan with an interest of 5 percent.”
Source: SILC Focus Groups, Nema Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013. 
 Gender Roles and Relations: The tight linkage between the SILC and the AEG supported 
by the program seems to have two unintended but very important consequences for 
women. First, it seems to have strengthened the community-level understanding and 
willingness to support the women developing this new set of semi-autonomous income 
generating activities (IGAs). Second, it seems to have protected their access (in most 
cases) to the land needed to engage in these activities. This seems to have helped the 
SILC beneficiaries who got involved in agricultural AEG to avoid the common problem 
that many such initiatives have experienced throughout Mali and other areas of the Sahel,
which is that a powerful male leader or men’s group will often reclaim land allocated to 
women’s groups (for irrigation, demonstration plots) once these activities are shown to be 
profitable and/or when the donor funding ends. 
 Limited Scale Up Since the Program Ended: The SILC model used by Nema helped 
develop of a strong network of trainers. Although many of these trainers were actively 
engaged in replicating SILC in other villages during the program, they have completely 
stopped replicating since the program ended. Given the security situation and the limited 
connection between these groups and various other area actors (like the Ministry for the 
Promotion of Women and the INSORTMIL/Purdue/McKnight Initiative), this is 
understandable. One critical challenge for the next phase will be to facilitate the 
certification of the existing base of AVs into private service providers (PSPs) to help 
strengthen the linkages between the SILC and the existing base of micro-finance services 
within the region; and to help to help transform certain SILC into AEG, and ultimately 
into cooperatives. 
 Limited Number of Villages Where SILC Were Developed: To date, only 57% of the 
Nema villages in Bourem and 58% of the Nema villages in Douentza have SILC (Tables 
2.3 and 2.4 above). The ones that have SILC often have several due to the huge demand 
for them and the easy access these communities have to the Nema-trained AVs. A major 
challenge for the next phase will be to develop various networks of SILC in all of the 
Nema-assisted communities. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
29
3.3. Farmer Field Schools 
3.3.1. Current Level of Functioning of the FFS-Supported Activities: The FFS demonstration 
plots covered the majority of the Douentza villages (90%), but only 50% of the Bourem villages 
(Tables 2.2. and 2.4 above). When villages did receive the FFS, they were much appreciated by 
the local people. Every single AEG and SILC focus group that was interviewed listed the 
program’s efforts to promote new technologies through the FFS as one of the principal program 
impacts. Sixty-seven % of the functional AEG at Bourem reported that they continue to use the 
new production technologies that they learned during Nema; the figure was 100% for the 
functional AEG interviewed in Douentza (Table 2.6 above). Although the focus group discussion 
for the SILC did not ask any specific questions about their interest in the types of technology 
being promoted at the FFS, it is clear from the open-ended discussions that many of the members 
benefitted from these activities and appreciated them. 
The chief reason the AEG focus groups stated for no longer practicing the new technologies 
were: 
 Limited access to the seeds and other inputs—fertilizer (DAP28 and Urea29), pesticides 
for intensive cowpea (nebie) production, and PIC30 sacks for nebie conservation; and
 Limited access to markets because of high levels of insecurity along the major roads and 
more limited market activity in general. 
Despite farmers’ complaints during the focus groups about the current difficulty they are having 
continuing the new farming practices, there is ample evidence from the key person interviews 
with the Ministry of Agriculture, Caritas, and SCI staff that: 
 Some (if not all) of the AEG and SILC groups in Bourem have maintained their pre￾existing levels of crop activity (especially irrigated gardening by women’s groups); and 
 Several of the AEG in Douentza had successful harvests this year for both intensive 
nebie and millet. 
One of the best indirect qualitative indicators showing that some of the AEG and SILC continue 
to practice some of the improved intensive technologies that Nema promoted is the number of 
calls31 from AEG representatives to the Consortium’s national NGO partner Caritas asking for 
assistance with marketing, purchasing sacks, and seeds. Another indirect indicator of success is 
the growing number of commercial seed producers in the former Nema villages both during the 
occupation and today.32 There is also a great deal of anecdotal evidence from the qualitative 
 
28 DAP is 18% nitrogen-46% phospherous-0% potassium. 
29 Urea is 44-46% nitrogen-0% phosphorous-0% potassium. 
30 PIC (Purdue Insect Control) sacks are triple plastic sacks that keep the air out of stored nebie, which kills any 
insects that might come in from the field. 
31 Caritas maintains a master lists of calls to their main offices from AEG and SILC representatives. The frequent 
calls from AEG and SILC to the current and former Nema extension agents have not been tracked. 
32 Six of the Nema-facilitated AEG were reported to be moving into commercial seed production in the Douentza. 
Caritas was able to verify the production figures for two of these groups.
Villages Seed Production (kg)
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Tabi (Millet) 3,000 4,600 4,500
Boubam (Milletl) 1,800 2,000 0
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
30
survey, as well as the interviews with various Ministry of Agriculture staff in Bourem and 
Douentza, that at least some of the Nema-trained farmers and groups have joined pre-existing 
cooperatives and are getting seed and market access through these group; this observation was 
confirmed during the focus group discussions. 
3.3.2. Summary: Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:33
 Organizational Capacity Building and Systems for Monitoring This Capacity: One of the 
major institutional impacts of the FFS component of Nema was the training of 29 FFS 
TOT trainers (Table 2.2). Based on interviews with SCI and Caritas staff, it appears that 
almost all of the TOTs are living in the villages and that they continue to be important 
go-to people for agricultural production and marketing information. One of the major 
institutional challenges during the next phase of the program will be to: (a) strengthen the 
direct connections between the FFS TOTs and the main private-sector and public-sector 
technology providers (i.e. IER and the Ministry of Agriculture); and (b) help each of the 
TOT trainers that are interested to become private-sector seed producers. Given the high 
demand for seed production, the profitability of private-sector seed production in both 
Bourem and Douentza, and IER’s willingness to backstop seed certification, this is a key 
activity that will help strengthen Nema’s current and programed impact on private-sector 
seed production. 
 Gender Roles and Relations: Nema’s record for gender inclusion in the FFS is very good 
(30% of the direct beneficiaries for Douentza and 40% for Bourem were women [Table 
2.4]). The modes by which this gender inclusion occurred (i.e. high involvement of the 
AEG and SILC in selecting the trainers, as well as the sites and communication channels 
used to publicize the trials) should probably be studied in order to identify a number of 
best practices that could be scaled up through future Title II and non-Title II programs in 
Mali. 
 Limited Access of Most Farmers to Complementary Inputs: The principal reason cited by 
most farmers for not practicing the new technologies that were pilot tested at the FFS was 
the farmers’ limited access to improved inputs. One output of the Consortium’s 
collaboration with IER has been a series of publications showing that in the absence of 
complementary inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, PIC storage sacks for nebie), the farmers are 
unlikely to realize the full-yield potential of the improved seed, which makes it difficult 
to justify the cash costs of purchasing new seed or the additional labor needed to increase 
their use of organic fertilizer or the recommended package of crop-production 
techniques.34 One major challenge for the next phase of any interventions in the Nema 
villages will be to strengthen sustainable access to improved inputs through cooperative 
and expanding the current base of private-sector seed suppliers. 
 
33 The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and the 
activities impact on the local people’s resilience.
34 Aliou Traore, Moussa Keita, Fatoumata Ba, Seydou Coulibaly, Seydou Sanogo. 2012. Rapport de Recherche 
CRS/CRRA de MOPTI. Campagne 2010-2011. Mopti: Centre Régional de Recherche Agronomique de Mopti. 
Décembre 2012.
Moussa Keita. 2012. Rapport de champagne pour la conduite des Champs Ecoles Paysans sur l’échalote et la tomate 
dans les villages de Adia, Debere, Mougui, Koiraberi et Koundiou (Cercle de Douentza). Mopti: Centre Regional de 
Recherche Agronomique de Mopti. Decembre 2012. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
31
 Collaborating Partners: During Years 1-4, the Nema program maintained tight linkages 
with IER for the identification and supervision of the demonstration plots. This 
collaboration helped the program access a wide range of promising technologies. The 
same collaboration model can open new doors to potential partners like the Ministry of 
Agriculture Partnership with INTSORTMIL/Purdue and Initiative Eau et Sécurité 
Alimentaire pour l’Afrique (IESA) that are trying to strengthen the local cooperatives’ 
access to the input and output markets that they need to sustain productivity increases.
3.4. Food for Work 
3.4.1. Current Level of Functioning of the FFW-Supported Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral 
Infrastructure: A total of 30 of the 143 agro-sylvo-pastoral infrastructures created by the 
program during Years 1-4 to help local communities build agro-enterprise development and 
better manage risk were visited during the final qualitative survey (Table 2.10). This survey 
showed that 85% of the completed infrastructures were still functional, though the level of 
maintenance was lower than desired in most cases. 
Only one of the infrastructures visited—a fully operational perimetre marachiere (irrigated 
vegetable garden) in the village of Oualo—was completely non-functional (locked up) for more 
than one year. The reasons for the non-functioning of this infrastructure are not fully understood,
but appear to be related to internal problems within the AEG that was in charge of it. 
Table 2.10. Current Functionality of Nema-Created Infrastructure Visited During the Final Evaluation* 
Infrastructure Bourem Douentza Total Assessed as 
Functional (%)
Drinking water infrastructure 1 1 2 50.0
Agro-sylvo-pastoral and gardening infrastructure 6 14 20 85.7
Sanitation infrastructure 6 6 83.3
Other infrastructures (bridges, rural roads) 0 2 2 100
Total Visited 7 23 30 N/A
Source: Nema Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013. 
*n=Number of infrastructures visited during the final qualitative survey and evaluation. 
3.4.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:35
 Sustainability and Resilience: The FFW component of the SO1 Nema strategy helped the 
program address some of the major impediments to more profitable agro-enterprise 
development in the majority of the Nema villages. The same activities have helped 
certain communities’ capacity to manage routine risk like sand and water erosion and to 
protect them from periodic flooding. To date, however, the average number of FFW per 
village in the Bourem region has been less than in Douentza. 
 Vulnerability: The successful implementation of these FFW infrastructure programs,
combined with solid AEG and SILC (i.e. the full Nema technical package), seems to be 
one of the principal reasons that three of the Bourem villages (10% of the total) and 24 of 
the Douentza villages (24% of the total) were assessed by staff as ‘relatively food 
 
35 The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and the 
activities impact on the local people’s resilience.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
32
secure/not very vulnerable’ after four years (Table 2.5 above).36 One of the principal 
recommendations from the Caritas, SCI, and CRS staff is for future programs to intensify 
their use of FFW to develop the types of agro-sylvo-pastoral infrastructure that the more 
isolated villages will need to reduce the high levels of food insecurity and vulnerability to 
routine risk and major crises. 
3.5. Safety Nets 
3.5.1. Current Level of Functioning of the Safety Net Committees in the Nema Villages: The 
Nema-sponsored safety net programs helped build the capacity of the local communities to better 
target emergency food assistance and safety nets. Prior to the program, any food aid was simply 
distributed to the village chief, which meant that it seldom reached the poorest groups. 
One of the most important consequences of this community-level capacity building seems to 
have been to help attract and manage the two major regional-level humanitarian relief programs 
that the team was able to document (through the key informant interviews with the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Caritas, SCI, and the Red Cross/Mali) for Douentza and Bourem (Table 2.11), as 
well as some of the more community-specific smaller, short-term food assistance programs 
aimed at helping internally displaced persons (IDPs). A major challenge for the next phase will 
be to better understand how this training helped better engage and manage this assistance. 
The short-term impact of the successful implementation of these post-Nema safety net programs 
appears to have been: 
 Improving the aggregate food security (MAHFP) and dietary diversity scores (DDS) for 
about 5% of the most vulnerable households in each community; and 
 Helping the community avoid some of the conflicts that had accompanied food assistance 
in these villages during earlier crises like the 2004 cricket infestation. 
Another unintended consequence of this assistance that was observed in some of the villages 
during the final survey was strengthening the commitment of the community leaders (the chief 
and counselors) to reflect on: (a) better targeting the traditional tithing practices in the villages to 
very vulnerable groups; and (b) better ways to supplement this traditional support by connecting 
it to some of the local NGOs that foreign migrant communities in Bamako and France have 
developed in order to help their home communities.37
 
36 Based on the end-of-program classification of aggregate vulnerability status (see Table 2.4) and staff assessments 
during the baseline, almost all of the Nema villages were in the very vulnerable or highly vulnerable category in 
2009, which was the end of the one year USAID FFP one-year emergency program. 
37 One of the communities interviewed during the final evaluation survey has already identified ways of using funds 
coming from expatriate resortissants to continue strengthening its support through the Nema-created safety-net 
groups to help the most vulnerable members of the community. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
33
Table 2.11. Evidence of Post-Nema Food Distributions in the Nema Villages, September 2012-present 
Humanitarian Agency 
Distributing Food Aid
Percentage of the Population 
Targeted by the Distribution 
(i.e. % of Most Vulnerable 
Households)
# of Villages
% of Nema 
Villages 
Covered by 
Distribution
Douentza (100 Villages Nema)
January-February 2013
IFRC 13% (during 2 months) 100 100%
March-October 2013
WFP 33% (during 6 months) 24
IFRC 31% (during 6 months) 76
Bourem (30 Villages Nema)
OXFAM/WFP (July-Dec 
2013)
30-40% (during 6 months) 27 90%
IFRC (Sept 2013) 100% (during 1 month) 30 100%
Vivres ADESAH (Sept-Nov 
2012; Sept-Nov 2013)
50% (during 3 months) 3 10%
Source: Key informant interviews, Ministry of Agriculture staff, Nema Final Evaluation, November 2013. 
Acronyms: IFRC: International Federation of the Red Cross; WFP: World Food Programme 
3.5.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:38
 Capacity Building: Based on this qualitative assessment, it appears that the training given 
to the safety net committees (comites de filet de securite) was far more effective in 
catalyzing a safety net emergency response after the Nema closing than any information 
transmitted “up the food chain” to the cercle-level early warning systems (SAPs or 
systemes d’alerte precoce). In sum, the foods aid response after the program ended is best 
described as being “supply driven” not “demand driven” –i.e. villages that were well 
organized and well trained were more likely to benefit from the specific IDP and general 
food allocations than those that were not. 
 Slow Emergency Response: Although the community’s safety net committees were able 
to manage an emergency response, the first distributions did not occur for eight months 
after Nema closed (January 2013) (Table 2.11). One of the major challenges of any future 
program should be to anticipate ways that the local communities can accelerate the speed 
needed to mobilize a major response to a major crisis. 
 Lack of Pre-Negotiated Connection to the Humanitarian Donors Capable of Mobilizing a 
Major Emergency Response to a Major Civil-War Related Crisis: Although this is an 
area that the evaluation team was not able to study in detail, it appears that none of the 
responses generated to the crisis were the result of a re-negotiated memorandum of 
understanding between either the SAPs or the villages. Instead, they were responses 
launched by major donors (International Federation of the Red Cross [IFRC] and the 
World Food Programme [WFP]) to an emergency situation, and the fact that the villages 
were organized helped them benefit more quickly and efficiently. A major challenge in 
the next phase will be to identify better ways that the local communities can work more 
 
38 The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and the 
activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
34
effectively with the principal humanitarian donors to pre-negotiate some sort of pre-crisis 
memorandum of understanding just in case a major crisis does occur. 
4.0. Global Impact of the SO1 Activities on Household Food Security and Vulnerability 
4.1. On Average Household Food Security and Resilience 
The evaluate team used a qualitative “food security calendar” to measure the impact of Nema on 
the MAHFP. This calendar, also referred to in the literature as the MAHFP qualitative tool, was 
used extensively by Title II NGOs prior to the new FANTA requirement that programs use the 
quantitative measure that the Nema program used during its baseline survey (Impact Indicator 
1.1). The fact that the baseline measure from the qualitative MAHFP (3.8 months) is almost 
exactly as the same from the baseline Nema quantitative survey (4.11 months) suggests that the 
tools are very complementary. 
This analysis showed (Figure 2.3) a major increase in the average MAHFP of the 
households in comparison with the baseline. This substantial increase at Douentza seems to be 
related to the large amount of FFW and safety net food that was distributed in the villages that 
were studied during the final survey, as well as a slight increase in technology adoption and the 
use of improved inputs that was Nema-facilitated. The much lower increase in household food 
security in the Bourem villages seems to be related to their chronic food insecurity, the much 
lower rate of technology uptake by the communities (from the FFS, AEG, and SILC), as well as 
the lower amounts of FFW implemented during the program (Figure 2.3). 
The same analysis showed that the average MAHFP is currently at about the same level as at the 
Nema baseline. This is not surprising given the multiple shocks and crises that the Nema 
communities have endured over the last two years (Table 2.12). It is clear that this figure would 
have been far lower without the small amounts of food assistance that came in post-Nema and 
the beneficiaries’ use of some of the improved crop technologies and income earned from IGAs 
to purchase food. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
35
Figure 2.3. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Average Household Food Security (MAHFP) 
Before, During, and After the Program
Methodology and Source: Based on food security calendar Participatory Rural Analyses (PRAs) during the 
community focus groups conducted as part the Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
2.0
5.6
3.8
2.6
7.4
5.0
2.0
4.4
3.2
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Bourem (n=6 villages) Douentza (n=14
villages)
All (n=20 villages)
Before
NEMA
During
NEMA
Today(Ater
NEMA)
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
36
Table 2.12. Evolution of the 2012 Food Crisis and Nema and Non-Nema Responses and Impacts 
Risks/Shocks Impact Nema Communities
Douentza Bourem
Bad harvest MAHFP very low in August 2011 Yes Yes
Nema safety net program (104/130 of the 
most vulnerable villages for 2 months) in 
January 2012
Short-term increase of MAHFP in 104 
Nema villages for 3 months
Yes Yes
Nema prepared an emergency response 
program for 104/130 most vulnerable 
Nema villages that was only partially 
executed (see Chapter 4)
MAHFP very low March 2013 to 
January 2013 (9 months) 
Yes Yes
Emergency humanitarian assistance that 
targets the most vulnerable households 
(15-30%) starts to arrive in September 
2012 (See Table 2.10)
Slight increase in MAHFP, but only 
for the most vulnerable households
Yes Yes
Good rainfall but weak access to inputs 
(seeds and fertilizer) 
Despite good rainfall, most farmers do 
not produce much (low MAHFP and 
low revenues)
Yes Yes
Many regional activities are closed or 
diminished in activity 
Yes Yes
Sharia law in some areas makes it 
difficult to organize group meetings (for 
the AEG, SILC, and cooperatives)
Yes Yes
Certain irrigated perimeters and gardens 
non-functioning due to poor maintenance
Yes Yes
Sharia law forbids smoking and tobacco 
production
17 riverside villages in Bourem with 
limited access to fields suitable for 
sorghum, millet, or nebie lost their 
principal source of revenue for 
purchasing food. Very negative impact 
on household food security
n/a 17/30 
Bourem 
commun
ities
IDPs return Increased demands on the limited 
household food stocks
Yes Yes
Source: Final Nema Qualitative Survey, November 2013.
4.2. On Vulnerable Households 
Using the same MAHFP data profile, the survey team was able to develop a qualitative profile of 
the local people’s assessment of Nema’s impact on vulnerable households. 
4.2.1. Douentza: This analysis shows (Figure 2.4):
 The Nema program decreased the number of households classified as highly food 
insecurity based on the average MAHFP from 50% of the households in the community 
to 31% by the end of the program; but 
 The current level of vulnerable households is approximately the same as at the baseline 
(53% vs. 50% at baseline). 
The fact that the number of vulnerable households did not increase dramatically suggests that the 
villages’ capacity to manage the shock made them more resilient than in previous crises (such as 
the 2004 cricket crisis, which required many years of sequential CRS-facilitated emergency 
initiatives in Douentza to get back to the level they had been before the crisis). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
37
Figure 2.4. Nema Results and Effects in the Douentza Villages: Household Vulnerability Levels Before, 
During, and After the Program 
Methodology and Source: Based on food security calendar PRAs during the community focus groups conducted as 
part the Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
4.2.2. Bourem: In contrast to Douentza, the percentage of households classified as highly 
vulnerable did not show any major change since the program started (Figure 2.5). 
30%
39%
29%
50%
31%
53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Before NEMA During NEMA Today (After
NEMA)
"Very Vulnerable (high
food insecurity)"
"Average Vulnerability"
"Less Vulnerable (More
food secure)"
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
38
Figure 2.5. Nema Results and Effects in the Bourem Villages: Household Vulnerability Levels Before, During, 
and After the Program 
Methodology and Source: Based on food security calendar PRAs during the community focus groups conducted as 
part the Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
4.3. Effectiveness of the SO1 Monitoring and Evaluation Systems 
4.3.1. Strengths of the System in Reporting SO1 Results and Effects: The program developed 
rigorous systems for tracking activities, outputs, and impact. From the beginning the program 
used the Simple Measurement of Indicators for Learning and Evaluation-Based Reporting 
(SMILER) system to identify which types of data needed to be tracked to measure the official 
IPTT indicators as well as the various internal monitoring indicators used for program planning 
and assessment. One innovative ‘best practice’ in the first year was the team’s decision to 
integrate all of these different monitoring systems into a single database. Once the database was 
created, it acted as a standard ‘masque’ that all of the partners could use to collect certain types 
of standard information in ways that would feed directly into the main tracking indicators. Once 
the base was created, every one of the senior partner staff members and M&E staff were trained 
in how to use. This integrated data base made it possible for the evaluate team to monitor long￾term trend data on a number of key internal and official indicators. It also facilitated real-time 
analyses of the field data for planning and reporting, as well as the transmission of some of the 
data being collected by the CDAs and community groups (SILC, AEG, GAP/RU, safety net 
committees) to the CRS M&E agent charged with maintaining the central data system.
13% 13% 13%
40% 40% 40%
47% 47% 47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Before NEMA During NEMA Today (After
NEMA)
"Very Vulnerable (high
food insecurity)"
"Average Vulnerability"
"Less Vulnerable (More
food secure)"
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
39
Another major strength of the program is that all of the M&E officers are well trained and 
imbued with a strong sense of ethics and responsibility. Their unwillingness to be ‘flexible with’ 
(i.e. fudge) the data was mentioned by several persons during the key informant interviews as 
both a strength and a source of frustration. 
4.3.2. Areas That Could be Strengthened in Order to Better Track Program Results and Effects: 
Although the M&E systems were rigorous, certain elements of the IPTT tracking system made it 
hard to appreciate the program’s significant achievements in a number of areas that are critical to 
resilience, food security, and sustainability. 
4.3.2.1. Limited Disaggregation of the Tracking Data by Intervention Zone: One of the 
unintended consequences of presenting an aggregate analysis of the main monitoring indicators 
in the IPTT for the two intervention areas was to hide some very important differences between 
the level of activity and impact in the two areas for certain groups of activities. The program’s 
tendency to aggregate all of the planning and reporting data for both zones had several 
downstream consequences, which included: 
 Downplaying certain problems that the partners needed to discuss, like the fact that the 
technology package being promoted was far more successful at Douentza than in the 
more arid agro-pastoral communities at Bourem; 
 Decreasing the utility of the IPTT as a partner planning and coordination tool; and
 Making it somewhat time consuming (but not impossible) to go back and disaggregate 
Year 2-4 data retroactively. 
Two very useful lessons and recommendations that the Nema team is already using in its new 
area of intervention and for future programs: 
 Anticipate the need to disaggregate all of the data for the principal internal and donor￾driven indicators from the start; and 
 Train all execution partners (M&E officers and program managers) in the methodologies 
needed to conduct disaggregated IPTT analyses for their zone of information. 
This same type of disaggregated analysis of the indicators should make it easier to build the local 
partners’ (both NGO and government agencies) capacity to collect and analyze certain types of 
data and to provide M&E backup to the partners if this data cannot be collected through normal 
channels due to a shift in security or other constraint. This is a lesson learned that the Consortium 
has already set in motion in the new zone. 
4.3.2.2. Limited Tracking and Reporting of Program Impacts on Community and Household 
Level Vulnerability and Resilience: Three of the unintended consequences of not tracking the 
program’s impact on vulnerable groups and vulnerable households (except for safety nets) were: 
 Masking the Nema program’s considerable impact on vulnerable villages, vulnerable 
groups, and resilience; 
 Making it difficult to target appropriate SO1 assistance (FFS, AEG, SILC, FFW) to 
vulnerable villages that were less suitable for the main package of innovations being 
promoted; and 
 Making it difficult to design special FFW programs that could work with individual 
households to build “agro-sylvo-pastoral infrastructure” that would reduce their 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
40
vulnerability since there was no systematic way (other than the safety net system) to track 
the impact of these initiatives. Several Title II programs in West and East Africa have 
used this type of individual FFW to reduce vulnerable groups’ dependence on food 
assistance. 
Three options for strengthening the program’s capacity to track vulnerability in ways that build 
on the existing tracking systems might include: 
 Adding a new indicator to the SO1 Impact Indicators that measures percentage of 
households classified as chronically food insecure. This indicator could be calculated 
from the same information used to calculate the average MAHFP indicator the 
Consortium tracked during Years 1-4. 
 Adding a new indicator measuring the percentage of villages classified as chronically 
food insecure to the tracking table, and developing targets for reducing the number of 
villages classified as chronically food insecure and/or vulnerable. This indicator could be 
calculated several ways. One option would be to develop an index that would be 
calculated from the existing program data. Since the program is used to this, it would be 
an internal M&E exercise that would require very little additional labor that could be 
pilot tested in the process of developing the exit plans for the new area where Nema is 
currently working. Another option would be to consider using the tool that SCI has 
developed for measuring community-level vulnerability in some of its other programs. 
 Adding a qualitative measurement of the MAHFP using the ‘food security calendar’ 
methodology used during the final evaluation. Based on the experience of several other 
Title II programs in Africa, various local community groups could be trained to use and 
report on as part of the incipient community-based M&E system that is already under 
development. This qualitative indicator could even be included in the IPTT as a backup 
impact indicator that could be used to track program impact, as was done in the final 
evaluation, should the program not be able to conduct a quantitative final survey. 
4.3.2.3. Extensive Tracking but Limited Reporting of Programmatic Impacts on Local 
Community Capacity: A major strength of the initial and current phase of the Nema program—
which is rare in Title II programming—was the Consortium’s commitment to the consistent use 
of three internal tools for tracking this capacity: one for the SILC (which is used by CRS 
throughout the sub-region), one for the AEG and one for the GAP/RUs (under SO3). Staff stated 
that the tools helped them track capacity and better target assistance. To date, however, the only 
one of these indicators being tracked in the IPTT is the one for the GAP/RUs (under SO3). The 
downstream consequences of reporting on this data internally rather than as part of the official 
M&E system have been: 
 Making it difficult to track the significant impact of the Nema program on local 
community capacity during the first four years of the program; and 
 Making it difficult to identify and discuss the key challenges these groups were likely to 
face and how to address them in an exit plan. 
One of the key challenges for the next phase will be to build on these initial tools to develop 
SO1-specific tools for capacity building for the SILC and AEG that can be more easily tracked in 
the IPTT and reports. This type of tracking is critical to the development of effective exit plans 
and long-term sustainability. Two options for addressing this include: 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
41
 Develop a more consistent system for tracking and reporting on local organizational 
capacity in the main program IPTT that builds on the existing AEG and SILC tools that 
are already being used to track capacity; and 
 Move in the direction of turning the tool into self-assessment tools (that builds on existing 
tools being used by the AEG and SILC officers to track their programs) that the 
Consortium can use to build local communities’ capacity to develop realistic exit and 
sustainability strategies. 
Given the fact that the Consortium has already been tracking the capacity of the SILC and AEG 
since the beginning of the program, it is probably wise to build these activities on the existing 
tools rather than develop a new one. 
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
Based on the assessment of the data from the final evaluation survey, the consultants and field 
staff who participated in the initial debriefing at San on November 30, 2013 identified six major 
recommendations for the next phase, as well as a list of specific recommendations. The 
consultants synthesized this list with their initial analyses and presented a revised list to the 
working group members on December 3, 2013 for their review. Based on this participatory 
review, the team reached agreement on the following seven recommendations. 
Recommendation 1.1. Consolidate the investments made by the Nema program in building 
agricultural production and increasing revenues in the communities where the SO1 activities 
were most active during the initial phase (Years 1-4). 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. AEG: Assess the current level of functioning activities of each AEG, including the 
profitability of the original activities it has engaged in, and: 
- Build the core institutional capacity they need to become registered cooperatives 
and/or to join and established cooperatives; 
- Identify any technical assistance they might need (such as increased access to 
improved food-processing technology) to further sustain their existing agro￾economic enterprises or any new ones they have developed; and 
- Strengthen the program’s collaboration with the local technical services and 
donor-funded initiatives (e.g. INSORMIL/Purdue and IESA) that support the new 
intensive technology package in order to facilitate their support for the scale up of 
the new technologies pilot tested during the FFS for the Nema target villages. 
2. SILC: Conduct a similar sort of institutional review of the SILC in the initial pre-planning 
phase of any sort of follow-up programming. 
3. Track the impact of this activity on the aggregate vulnerability of the communities as a 
basis for planning a program exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.2. Extend the total package of SO1 innovations into the Nema communities 
where the program was less active in the first phase in ways that build on the capacities of the 
local agro-ecological capacity. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
42
AEG: Since the initial AEG methodology focused on reinforcing existing initiatives, many of the 
most vulnerable villages were not eligible for participation. These are often vulnerable villages 
without ready access to markets and/or those focused on agro-pastoral enterprises. These are 
villages that were often under-served by other programs with few if any pre-existing 
groupements or cooperative activities to build on. 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Target underserved, vulnerable villages with an intensified package of FFW activities to 
build their capacity for the agro-enterprises that they can develop (especially livestock, 
commercial forage production, and irrigated gardening). 
2. Encourage commercial fodder production. 
3. Develop a new group of safety net programs that focuses on the use of individualized 
FFW that vulnerable households can execute to help them develop small micro￾enterprises (like poultry production, stall feeding, manure pits, and kitchen gardens). 
4. Build the core capacity of the team to support commercially oriented, sustainable 
livestock activities by recruiting an senior animal scientist (zoo-technician) who can 
provide appropriate technical assistance and intensified linkages to the emerging 
livestock initiatives being developed by the Mali Ministry of Livestock and international 
partners like the International Livestock Research Initiatives (ILRI), as well as some of 
the new livestock initiatives being supported by USAID in Burkina Faso and Niger. 
5. To insure appropriate conclusion of women and vulnerable groups, a progressive scale 
up of the SILC should follow the progressive scale up of the AEG in the most vulnerable 
communities.
6. Track the impact of this activity on the aggregate vulnerability of the communities as a 
basis for planning a program exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.3. Strengthen the level of integration and joint planning between SO1 and 
SO2.
During the first four years, these collaborative activities focused on: 
 The promotion of various high nutrient crops (like the orange fleshed sweet potato); and 
 Training and equipping a small group of SILC members (created under SO1) in the basic 
principles of health and nutrition that the program was promoting under SO2.
To date, there has been no direct linkage between the PD/Hearth component of the program and 
the SILC, AEG, or FFS as anticipated in the proposal. Given the critical importance of this 
linkage, the SO2 team has identified a number of concrete recommendations for how these 
linkages could be developed and strengthened in ways that would help sustain any future 
PD/Hearth initiatives. 
Specific Recommendations (cross-cutting with SO2): 
1. Encourage the mothers of children graduating from the SO2-supported PD/Hearth to 
organize themselves into mothers groups that are SILC. 
2. Provide the mothers’ group with technical assistance and support to help them increase 
their crop production and revenues. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
43
3. Given the difficulty that all of the PD/Hearths have had in providing the basic ingredients 
and fuel wood needed to support the PD/Hearth in Bourem, link future FFW investment 
in the development of irrigated market gardens (culture maraichages)—one of the most 
potentially profitable value chains in Bourem—to the group’s commitment to: (a) 
providing a certain percentage of their harvest to the PD/Hearth in that community; and 
(b) planting a haie vive (around the plot) that the women’s group can maintain as a source 
of fuel wood for the future PD/Hearth. 
4. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment tool and report on it 
regularly to strengthen the preparation of any new program’s exit strategy (see 
Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.4. Transform and certify the FFS trainers and help them become 
commercial seed producers as a way to strengthen their role as community-based extension 
agents for both the Nema-founded extension groups as well as for other pre-existing community 
groups.
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Retrain current and train new TOTs in basic skills, as well as the skills needed to become 
certified seed producers through the IER program designed to promote this. 
2. Provide technical assistance and monitoring to facilitate the TOTs becoming seed 
private-service providers (PSPs). 
3. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment tool and report on it 
regularly to strengthen the preparation of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.5. Strengthen the organizational capacity of the local service providers that 
are essential to the successful achievement of the activities.
Specific Recommendations (cross-cutting with literacy and capacity building):
1. Both categories of AEG and SILC capacity building (listed under Recommendations 1 
and 2) would benefit from literacy training programs that build the capacity of the 
members with basic reading and writing skills (see Tables 2.5 and 2.5) to manage the 
basic AEG and SILC planning and financial tools. 
Specific Recommendations (SILC): 
2. Certify the SILC AVs in PSP. 
3. Finalize the process of training the AV in PSP and help them to create a network 
(reseau).
4. Better connect the SILC groups with the existing base of institutions of micro-finance 
(IMFs).
5. Facilitate the transformation of certain groups (as they develop) into AEG and ultimately, 
when they are ready, into cooperatives. 
6. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment tool and report on it 
regularly to strengthen the preparation of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.6. Require all future AEG to be organized into cooperatives before co￾financing their business plans based on measured levels of performance. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
44
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Strengthen the organizational capacity of the AEG before financing their business plans.
2. To insure fiscal responsibility and allow them to approach local micro-enterprise 
institutions, require them to be registered cooperatives before co-financing their business 
plans. 
3. Anticipate the need to provide the cautionnement (collateral) for the AEG initial IMF 
loans. 
4. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment tool and report on it 
regularly to strengthen the preparation of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7). 
Recommendation 1.7. (cross-cutting with SO3, capacity building, and M&E) Develop new 
indicators based on existing tracking tools that will enable the Consortium to better monitor its 
impacts on community-level capacity building and vulnerable groups. 
Specific Recommendations:
1. Anticipate the need to disaggregate all of the data for the principal internal and donor 
driven indicators from the start. 
2. Train all execution partners (M&E officers and program managers) in the 
methodologies needed to conduct disaggregated IPTT analyses for their zone of 
information. 
3. Consider adding a new indicator to the SO1 impact indicators that measures the 
percentage of households classified as chronically food insecure. 
4. Consider adding a new indicator measuring percentage of villages classified as 
chronically food insecure to the tracking table and developing targets for reducing the 
number of villages classified as chronically food insecure and/or vulnerable.
5. Consider adding a qualitative measurement of the MAHFP using the ‘food security 
calendar’ methodology used during the final evaluation.
6. Develop a more consistent system for tracking and reporting local organizational 
capacity building in the IPTT and reports that builds on the existing AEG and SILC 
tools (see Annex I, Chapter 2) that are already being used to track capacity. 
7. Move in the direction of turning the tool into a self-assessment tool that builds on 
existing tools being used by the AEG and SILC officers to track their programs that 
the Consortium can use to build local communities’ capacity to develop realistic exit 
and sustainability strategies. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 2. SO1. December 30, 2013. 
45
Appendix I, Chapter 2: SILC Tool Used for Tracking Organizational Capacity 
Index - Evaluation Phase of the Groupings Change Sheet SILC 
Phase: Intense Supervision 
Bareme on the SILC 
assessment sheet
5 4 3 2 1 0
Module 1: Groups, Leadership and Elections
Percentage of members who participated 
strongly in this activity 100 80 60 40 20 0
MINIMUM: 80% Self-selection 100 80 60 40 20 0
MINIMUM: 80% Role of General Meeting 100 80 60 40 20 0
MINIMUM: 80% Role of group leaders 100 80 60 40 20 0
MINIMUM: 100% Preparations for elections 100 80 60 40 20 0
Module 2: Development of Small Group
all procedures were followed concepts and savings procedures YES NO
all procedures were followed concepts and procedures of credit YES NO
all procedures were followed Reimbursement procedures YES NO
all procedures were followed Sharing procedures dividends YES NO
Module 3: Developing Internal Regulations
Role of each member of the committee and his 
term
Group Governance YES NO
Is the amount to contribute clearly stated? Social background policy YES NO
Is the amount to contribute clearly stated? Credit policy YES NO
Is the amount to contribute clearly stated? Savings policy YES NO
Module 4: Keeping Track of Documents
Records are up to date? Record Keeping: Savings YES NO
Records are up to date? Record keeping: Credit YES NO
Records are up to date? Social background policy YES NO
Module 5: Meeting Procedures
Percentages of savings procedures followed Mastery saving procedure 100 80 60 40 20 0
Rates arrears Mastery of the credit process 0 1 2 3 4 #5
Percentages of social background monitoring 
procedures
Mastery of the social fund process 100 80 60 40 20 0
Percentage of input data without error Mastery of the procedure recordkeeping 100 80 60 40 20 0
Module 6: Meeting of Savings and Credit
Percentage of members who are present at the 
beginning and end of the meeting
100% of the members are present at the 
meeting 100 80 60 40 20 0
Percentage of members who are at the time All members arrive on time 100 80 60 40 20 0
Percentage of savings procedures followed savings procedures are followed 0 1 2 3 4 #5
Number of present and active committee 
members 
Does the Management Committee play 
correctly his role? 5 4 3 2 1 0
fund balances are correctly recalled by the 
group
Members of the group are they able to 
remember exactly the current situation of 
accounts
YES NO
Yes or No The secretary does the financial point at 
the end of the session YES NO
Module 7: Dividend Sharing
Yes or No Dividends are shared among all members YES NO
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
46
Chapter 3
SO2: Children Under 5 Years Less Vulnerable to Illness and Malnutrition39
This chapter provides a brief overview of the results of the Final Qualitative Survey and 
Evaluation Program for the Nema program’s Strategic Objective 2 (SO2) activities. The chapter 
is in five sections:
Section 1.0. SO2 Strategy/Theory of Change: Describes the intervention strategy and key 
actors involved in executing the strategy’s two major intermediate results (IRs).
Section 2.0. Evolution of the Strategy for SO2 IR 1.1: Describes the evolution of the 
implementation strategy for IR 1.1 during the first four years.
Section 3.0. Evolution of the Strategy for SO2 IR 1.2: Describes the evolution of the 
implementation strategy for IR 1.2 during the first four years.
Section 4.0. Current Level of the SO2 Activities in the Nema Villages for IR 1.1 and IR 1.2:
Describes the current level of activity in the Nema villages based on both the results of the 
qualitative survey (November 2013) and the key information interviews with the commune-level 
health centers (Centre de Santé Communautaire or CSCOMs) in the municipalities covered.
Section 5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Presents a list of recommendations 
from the evaluation team and key implementation and executive partners designed to: 
 Increase the sustainability of the program accomplishments; and
 Strengthen the benefits initiated by the program.
1.0. Nema SO2 Strategy/Theory of Change 
The aim of Nema’s second strategy was to improve food utilization by addressing health issues. 
The strategy was expected to achieve two strategic objectives (SOs):
 IR 2.1. Caregivers of children under 5 and pregnant women are applying improved 
nutrition and feeding practices; and
 IR 2.2. Caregivers of children under 5 are applying improved hygiene and sanitation 
practices.
The sub-strategy for the achievement of IR 2.1 anticipated the use of a two-pronged approach 
 
39 This chapter was prepared with the assistance of an informal Nema SO2 working group that developed around the 
final evaluation team’s field and key informant interviews. This working group was co-facilitated by Dr. Fatou 
Koite (HKI) and Sidibe Sidikiba (Consultant) and included the direct input of Dr. Bouba Halidou (HKI/GAO), 
Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga, (SCI/Gao), Abdel Kader Sidibe (former CRS MYAP staff member in charge of 
PD/Hearth activities), and Kerri Agee (CRS MYAP Coordinator). The working group was supported in its analysis 
of previous and current activities by Boureima Sako and Isack Dolo (M&E Department CRS), who co-facilitated the 
field portion of the exercise with Dr. Sidikiba Sidibe (Consultant, Nema), Dr. Fatou Koite (HKI), and Dr. Bouba 
Halidou (HKI). Dr. Della McMillan (consultant) provided analytical support. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
47
that targeted:40
 Behavior change communication focused on Essential Nutrition Actions (ENA);41 and
 Rehabilitation of malnourished children through two specific types of interventions for 
rehabilitating malnourished children:
- Complementary feeding for severe and moderate cases of acute malnutrition 
without complications using complementary take-home rations at the CSCOMs
for children under 5 who are acutely malnourished, in addition to one weekly 
meal and materials for cooking demonstration; and
- Scaling up the positive deviance/Hearth (PD/Hearth) model for community-based 
rehabilitation of moderately malnourished children using local food that CRS 
pilot tested in Douentza under the a one-year USAID Title II-funded emergency 
single-year assistance plan (SYAP). 
The proposal anticipated that IR 2.2 would be achieved by teaching caregivers of children under 
5 improved hygiene and sanitation practices; promoting innovative sanitation infrastructures and 
hygiene messages; training communities in integrated water management; and increasing potable 
water points. 
The main partner in the implementation of this component of the Nema program was is the 
Ministry of Health through the CSCOMs.42 Each CSCOM covers a number of villages, including 
those in the Nema program. Douentza and Bourem CSCOMs were heavily involved in the 
implementation of the component operations. The monitoring of the nutrition activities was 
completed by five trained community health volunteers (CHVs, or relais) in the different areas of 
intervention. A total of five CHVs in each village, who had a certain level of basic literacy, were 
selected and trained in nutrition, basic hygiene, and sanitation.
Thus, to ensure proper integration with government structures and policies, the conceptualization 
and implementation of the activities was made in close collaboration with the most relevant 
government structures to ensure compliance with the National Protocol for the Treatment of 
Acute Malnutrition.43
These activities were expected to decrease malnutrition levels by promoting sustainable behavior 
changes and strengthening the capacity of the local communities to sustain access to basic 
services and results with support from the CSCOMs and district-level health centers (Centre de 
 
40 CRS, HKI, SCI. 2008. PL480 Title II MYAP. CFSM. Nema Program. Pp. 15-16. 
41 “ENA consists of optimal breastfeeding practices, improved complementary feeding, appropriate nutritional care 
of sick and malnourished children, use of iodized salt, use of Vitamin A and improved nutrition for pregnant and 
lactating women, and the control of anemia” (CRS, HKI, SCI 2008: 15). 
42 The 29 CSCOMs are led by two CSREFs (17 at Douentza and 12 at Gao) for Management of Acute Malnutrition 
(MAM) activities, PD/Hearth and radio broadcasts; the Directorate of Hygiene and Sanitation within the Ministry of 
Environment for sanitation component; the Regional Directorate of Water for the water component; and the Ministry 
of Education for the literacy component related to health programs and sanitation. 
43 Ministère de la Santé du Mali. Protocole de Prise en Charge Intégrée de la Malnutrition Aiguë au Mali. Secrétariat 
Général Direction Nationale de la Santé/Division Nutrition Version révisée en 2011. The 29 CSCOMs are led by 
two CSREFs (17 at Douentza and 12 at Gao) for MAM activities, PD/Hearth and radio broadcasts; the Directorate 
of Hygiene and Sanitation within the Ministry of Environment for sanitation component; the Regional Directorate of 
Water for the water component; and the Ministry of Education for the literacy component related to health programs 
and sanitation. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
48
Santé de Reference or CSREFs) (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1. SO2: Theory of Change Strategies, Nema Program 2013
2.0. Evolution of Program Activities for IR 2.1. Caregivers of Children Under 5 Years 
and Pregnant Women are Applying Improved Nutrition and Feeding Practices
This section provides a brief overview of the principal activities and results of the Nema 
program’s SO2 activities. Since none of the impact indicators were measured before the program 
shut down in March 2012, this analysis is based largely on the results of the program’s internal 
tracking data (Table 3.1).
The initial program document identified three main groups of activities to achieve IR 2.1:
 Screening and care of acute malnutrition at CSCOMs in 130 villages;
 The organization of community-based programs to rehabilitate moderately malnourished 
children using the PD/Hearth model in 45 villages; and
 The promotion of improved nutrition and feeding practices by community radio in 130 
villages.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
49
Table 3.1. Targets vs. Achievements for the Main Nema SO2 Activities, Years 1-4
Activity LOA 
Target Achieved
% of 
Target 
Achieved
Units # # %
Training of health center staff at the district/municipality level on 
ENAs and CMAM 805 790 98%
Monthly screening for malnutrition in the 130 villages using MUAC, 
first food ration, and reference to CSCOM Monthly
6,087 children 
admitted (3,004 
rehabilitated)
Training of SILC Groups in ENAs 200 66 33%
Implementation of PD/Hearth sessions of 12 weeks in 45 villages 45 27 60%
Radio broadcasts on nutrition/hygiene in local languages in the 
program areas
45 18 40%
Initiation of the CLTS approach in 45 PD/Hearth villages 16 4 25%
Construction of 90 latrines, 2 in each PD/Hearth village 90 88 98%
Number of water points completed 49 15 31%
Number of children affected by nutrition programs supported by USG 
(USAID) 20,909 20,330 97.2%
Number of people trained in child health and nutrition through USG￾supported programs in the field of health (USAID) 6,932 8,326 120%
Number of people in target areas with access to safe drinking water 
with the help of USG (USAID) 19,600 9,600 49%
Source: Nema program M&E records. 2013.
Acronyms: ENAs: Essential Nutrition Actions; CMAM: Community Management of Acute Malnutrition; MUAC: 
Mid-Upper Arm Circumference; SILC: Savings and Internal Lending Communities; CLTS: Community-Led Total 
Sanitation; USG: U.S. Government; LOA: Life of Activity.
2.1. PECIMA: Screening and Care of Acute Malnutrition at the CSCOM Level 
2.1.1. Basic Strategy: The main objective of this component was to identify malnourished 
children and their rehabilitation. This approach was based on the use of Mid-Upper Arm 
Circumference (MUAC) tapes to measure children in accordance with the national policy of the 
Ministry of Health in order refer them to the CSCOMs for support. To achieve this goal, the 
Nema lead for health—Helen Keller International (HKI):
 Organized a series of cascade trainings on essential nutrition actions (ENAs),1
hygiene,
and care of malnutrition for key players involved in the implementation of the activities; 
and
 Distributed food rations and drugs such as albendazole, iron, folic acid, and vitamin A to 
encourage the rehabilitation of moderately malnourished children at the community level 
with their families’ involvement. 
The food support was very important for the most vulnerable families in the program area. In all 
areas covered by the Nema program, active detection of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) 
cases was provided by trained CHVs under the direct supervision of the program community 
development agents (CDAs), who are leaders of the two implementing agencies (Caritas/Mali 
at Douentza, and Tassaght at Bourem). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
50
2.1.2. Evolution of the PECIMA Strategy (Years 1-4)
2.1.2.1. Program Year 1 (August 1, 2008 - July 31, 2009): During the first year, Nema’s SO2 
activities focused on the design and execution of thee baseline survey, the recruitment and 
training of the program staff (CDAs), the training of health workers from the Ministry of Health 
(e.g. doctors, CSCOM station chiefs, and midwives) (Table 3.1), and the distribution of MYAP 
food for the treatment of moderately malnourished children who were identified at 25 CSCOM 
health centers.
2.1.2.2. Program Year 2 (August 1, 2009 - July 31, 2010) CSCOM-Based Activities: The program 
continued to emphasize medical staff training for health workers (midwives, nurses, nursing 
assistants, and community volunteers) during the second year. Altogether, 650 CHVs were 
trained (Table 3.1). As defined by Mali's national health and nutrition policy, the CHV is a 
goodwill volunteer chosen by the community to conduct health activities. The Nema program 
training focused on three activities: (a) the ENAs to prevent malnutrition; (b) hygiene and 
sanitation; and (c) the national strategy for the care of malnutrition. 
The CHVs were also trained on how to complete certain management tools, most notably the 
MAM registry and forms needed to distribute food rations.44 Each CHV was provided with basic 
equipment, including a MUAC tape for active screening of malnourished children and one 
registry per village, to record the results of the MUAC screenings. Once the program identified a 
child as malnourished, the program issued the mother a ration card for the child and a 
‘protective’ ration for herself and other children in the household. Despite the incentive of food 
rations at the CSCOMs, the number of malnourished children being identified and rehabilitated 
remained very low compared to the target, which was based on the CSCOMs’ estimate of the 
number of children in the 130 villages (Figure 3.2).45
 
44 The training lasted four days and was held at the CSCOMs. 
45 The second-year target for admitting acutely malnourished children to the CSCOMs for rehabilitation was 35%; 
only 28% were admitted (Mali CFSM MYAP final IPTT-Updated October 29, 2012). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
51
Figure 3.2. Evolution of the Number of Malnourished Children Identified by Nema, Years 1-4
Source: Nema program M&E data. 2013. Adama Sangare. PowerPoint presentation. November 2013.
2.1.2.3. Program Year 3 (August 1, 2010 - July 31, 2011): To increase the number of 
malnourished children being identified and referred to the CSCOMs, Nema decided to pilot test a 
new outreach strategy (stratégie avancée) for community-based (as opposed to CSCOM-based) 
screening and food aid distribution. This outreach strategy was supposed to complement (not 
replace) the CSCOM-based screening and food aid distributions.46
The initial scale-up of this new stratégie avancée for MAM (Management of Acute Malnutrition) 
during Year 3 focused on the:
 Use of the CHVs to identify malnourished children instead of waiting for mothers to take 
them to CSCOMs for screening; 
 Referring the children diagnosed as being severely malnourished to the CSCOMs for 
medical and nutritional intervention; 
 Provision of rations to the children brought to the CSCOMs for rehabilitation; and 
 Community-based distribution of food assistance at the village level—under the 
supervision of CSCOM-based government health workers and Nema CDAs—to facilitate 
the rehabilitation of children suffering from MAM.
The short-term impact of this new stratégie avancée was a sharp increase in the number of 
malnourished children identified in the villages and referred for treatment to the CSCOMs 
in Douentza and Bourem (Figure 3.1). This increase was due to the fact that, in contrast to the 
 
46 This innovative initiative was first discussed in October 2010 with all partners involved in the implementation of 
the program and a four-day training session was organized for CSCOM managers of Hombori village, the CDAs, 
and community health workers on distribution and support approach at the community level. The new approach was 
then tested in the village of Kiri (10 km from the Hombori CSCOM) before being extended in other areas of 
intervention. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
52
old strategy, the stratégie avancée encouraged the CHVs to seek the children out and offer them 
rations to encourage the mothers to send them to the CSCOMs for rehabilitation. 
Although the new stratégie avancée increased the percentage of children identified as 
malnourished in Year 3(Figure 3.2), it did not increase the number of children who were taken to 
the CSCOMs for rehabilitation (Figure 3.3). According to the mothers of those children, the 
predominant reason for not going to the CSCOMs was that they were unable to both attend the 
aforementioned program and maintain their household and farm work. 
Figure 3.3. Evolution of the Number of Malnourished Rehabilitated by Nema, Years 1-4
Source: Nema program M&E data. 2013. Adama Sangare. PowerPoint presentation. November 2013.
To deal with these problems, the Nema team—in collaboration with the USAID-Food for Peace 
(FFP) (Dakar)]
47—proposed a new MAM approach to rehabilitation that targeted food-aid 
support to the malnourished children and their families until the child was considered completely 
cured, either in the village or in a CSCOM. This new initiative increased the number of children 
identified/detected, as well as the number of children who were monitored to full recovery 
because it reduced the number of families that abandoned or interrupted the rehabilitation 
process.
To facilitate community support, HKI organized a series of public awareness sessions that were 
co-facilitated by the Nema CDA teams and CSCOMs. This training, in conjunction with the 
more active involvement of the CHVs, increased the involvement of the community in both the 
screening and care of the malnourished children. 
The short-term impact of the new strategy was a dramatic increase in the number of children 
 
47 Dr. Fatou Koite (HKI), personal communication, November 2013. 
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Baseline An 1 An 2 An 3 An 4
Target
Achieved
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
53
admitted to CSCOMs for treatment of acute malnutrition from 28%48 in 2010 to 68%49 in 
2011(Figure 3.2). Also, the number of acutely malnourished children who were rehabilitated 
jumped from 39% in 2010 to 42% in 2011 (Figure 3.3). In fact, the actual change in the 
percentage of rehabilitated children was probably even higher since the figures in the Indicator 
Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) reflected only the official figures that were registered by the 
CSCOM officials in their official registry. Although the CHVs—both individually and through 
the CDAs—transferred this information to the CSCOM staff, the CSCOM staff was often 
overwhelmed by the sheer volume of reporting data and failed to note these figures coming in 
from the villages. For all these reasons, the official figures—which do show a dramatic 
increase—under-estimate the full impact of the shift in strategy.
Four factors that affected the transmission of information about the community-level impacts of 
the stratégie avancée were:50
 The disincentive of some CHVs to conduct the additional work without any form of cash 
or in-kind payment; 
 That the Nema program had only seven nutrition CDAs (facilitators of the two 
implementing agencies: Caritas and Tassaght) covering 130 villages, none of whom were 
directly supervised by HKI;
 Insufficient quarterly and bi-annual coordination meetings between the officials involved 
in supervising the Nema CDAs; and
 The lack of harmonized oversight and reporting between the different implementing 
partners.
2.1.2.4. Short-Term Impact of the Lessons Learned and Recommendations from the Mid-Term 
Evaluation: The mid-term evaluation made 16 recommendations51 for strengthening the Nema 
SO2 strategy;52 all but one of these recommendations was adopted. One cross-cutting 
recommendation from the mid-term—which had a direct impact on the execution and 
supervision of the MAM activities—was the decision to convert all of the specialized CDA 
positions (including those for nutrition) into multi-purpose CDA positions. The consequence of 
this conversion was to make one CDA responsible for the coordination of all the Nema activities 
in the villages that he or she covered, including agriculture, nutrition, food for work, and literacy. 
Since most of the multi-purpose CDAs had only undergone basic training in general agriculture, 
this approach required additional training of these CDA in nutrition in Year 4. Unfortunately, this 
conversion of the CDA nutritional specialists into multi-purpose CDAs had a very negative 
impact on the effective monitoring of the program’s nutrition activities. This was due to the 
unwieldy volume of activities the new multi-purpose CDAs were expected to monitor, as well as 
the diversity of the target groups who were assisted on-site. This problem was exacerbated by the 
fact that two or three activities could be programmed in the same village at the same time with 
the same versatile CDA. Thus, the conversion of nutrition CDAs into the more versatile multi-
 
48 Based on the number of children estimated with CSCOM figures (Mali CFSM MYAP final IPTT-Updated 
October 29, 2012. 
49 Based on official Nema M&E data (Mali CFSM MYAP final IPTT-Updated October 29, 2012 (Annex II). 
50 Key informant interviews, Nema final qualitative evaluation interviews. November, 2013. 
51 Six general recommendations; six related to the program’s nutritional activities; two for hygiene; and four for 
radio (Tilford 2011: 30-31). 
52 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pp. 19-30.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
54
purpose CDAs has made it difficult to supervise many of the nutrition activities (like the 
PD/Hearth) that required high levels of supervision to be effective. Without the support of a CDA 
focused on nutrition, community volunteers had difficulty filling out forms and logbooks at both 
of the CSCOM and village levels.
A second impact of the mid-term was the program’s development of a more comprehensive 
behavior strategy.53 Based on this recommendation, the team conducted a formative research 
study to inform the development of this strategy and implemented a series of training programs 
for all of the Nema and CSCOM staff. 54 Unfortunately, the program was forced to close before 
the impact of the new training could be felt on the ground.
2.2. PD/Hearth Strategy Evolution 
2.2.1. The Original Strategy: In addition to MAM rehabilitation activities (see Section 2.1 
above), the program document proposed the implementation of the PD/Hearth methodology for 
rehabilitating moderately malnourished children using local products. The Nema proposal 
anticipated creating the PD/Hearth program in 45 of the 130 Nema villages based on a number of 
selection criteria. This criteria included “assessing the communities to assure that PD/Hearth can 
be fully integrated with other activities” as well as the availability of local food, availability of 
drinking water points, and proximity to the local health facilities’ CSCOM.55
 
The goal of the PD/Hearth activity was to help parents better understand the link between diet, 
hygiene, nutritional status, and overall health by showing them how the children could gain 
weight and regain their health status through improved feeding and hygiene practices. The 
PD/Hearth activities targeted 6-36-month-old children with a weight deficit identified through 
weighing (using weight/age index). The program consisted of three 12-day sessions during 
which the mothers of the malnourished children were exposed to improved feeding, hygiene, and 
education practices by a group of volunteer mothers (VMs) (Table 3.2). Once a village was 
selected for a PD/Hearth program, the program selected 10-1456 VMs, who were charged with 
sharing feeding practices, recipes that use locally available foods, and promoting positive 
behaviors such as frequent breastfeeding (four to five times daily) and complementary feeding of 
children after six months of age (fish based and other enriched porridges). The mothers were also 
charged with the task of taking children to the CSCOMs and with the organization of the 
PD/Hearth activities under the direction of the Nema CDAs. 57
 
53 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pp. 20-21.
54 At the beginning of Year 4 (FY11) (September 2011), HKI conducted a survey on "boundaries to behavior 
change'' on a sample village. The main finding of this survey was the need to integrate the negotiation of behavior 
change in the training of participants, with a particular emphasis on interpersonal communication strategy, including 
home visits. The survey indicated that women have some knowledge of nutrition but the practice remains a problem. 
So the new approach will aim to encourage beneficiaries to apply improved practices learned and not just the 
dissemination of messages. To implement this approach, HKI initiated a new series of courses for three target 
groups (health workers, relays, CDA). Radio messages have been revised to better reflect this new BCC approach. 
55 CRS, HKI, SCI. 200. MYAP Proposal. Nema Program. Pg. 17. 
56 The program anticipated choosing 10 “mamans volontaires” (VMs) by village based on the following criteria: (a) 
being an exemplary mother (i.e. having a child in good nutritional health); (b) being available; (c) agreeing to do the 
work as on a voluntary basis; and (d) being motivated to help malnourished children. The program anticipated the 
recruitment of 10 volunteers in order to be able to organize multiple sessions at the same time (May, June, July). 
57 CRS/HKI/SCI. 2008. PL480 Title MYAP. CFSM. Page 17. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
55
Table 3.2. PD/Hearth Implementation Plan for Nema Program, Years 2-3 
Session Activities Role of Key Individuals Supervision of Activities
1
(12 days)
-Initial entry weighing of the 
children 
-Preparation of cereals
-Culinary demonstrations in the 
preparation of porridge (toh
porridge, etc.)
10 VMs (maximum) selected 
from the community to support 
10 moms with 10 children 
MAM 
Nutrition CDA (Years 2 
and 3) CRS nutrition 
supervisor (at Douentza),
and SCI (at Bourem)
2
(12 days)
Mothers return with children in 
individual homes to apply 
the knowledge received in group 
session, under CDA and VMs’ 
supervision 
10 VMs make daily home visits 
to mothers of malnourished 
children under the CDA 
supervision 
Nutrition CDA and VMs
3
(12 days)
- The group (VMs, mothers, and 
children) return to PD/Hearth to 
discuss shortcomings, improve 
knowledge and see together what 
worked and what did not work
-Back weighing ("exit") of child 
growth and data reporting to CSREF 
and the M&E (Nema)
CDAs, VMs, and nutrition 
supervisor for the area
Nutrition CDA (Years 2 
and 3) CRS nutrition 
supervisor (at Douentza) 
SCI (at Bourem), and HKI 
nutrition advisor
Source: Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga, Field Office Manager SCI, Gao. November 2013 
2.2.2. Evolution of the Strategy (Years 1-4): During the second and third year of the program, 
Nema (Table 3.3):
 Trained 650 CHVs, 278 VMs, 189 committee members in 27 villages; 
 Constructed 29 hangars to facilitate this training at the relevant CSCOMs for the 27 
villages; 
 Organized 60 sessions; and 
 Admitted 589 children to the PD/Hearth sessions. 
Table 3.3. PD/Hearth Activities in Nema Program,* Years 2-3
Year 
# 
Volunteers 
(Relay)
# 
Volunteer 
Mothers
# 
Committee 
Members 
# Sheds 
Constructed
# of 
Villages 
Hosting 
Foyer
# Foyer 
Sessions 
Organized 
# of 
Malnourished 
Children 
Douentza 500 190 131 17 19 45 439
Bourem 150 88 58 12 8 15 141
Total 650 278 189 29 27 60 580
Source: Nema program M&E data, November 2013. 
* Number of CHVs, VMs, and committee members trained in improved nutrition and hygiene practices; CSCOM 
hangars constructed for cooking demonstrations; villages hosting DP/Hearth; number of Hearth sessions organized; 
and number of children aged 6-36 months who participated. 
Nema’s PD/Hearth approach was greatly appreciated during the mid-term evaluation as a 
mechanism to get the community to focus on the impact of nutrition on the health and wellbeing 
of children.58 To cope with the low number of mothers available to care for malnourished 
children, the mid-term evaluation recommended helping local communities to mobilize cereals 
 
58 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pp. 26-27.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
56
for PD/Hearths right after the harvest season when they were more available and less expensive 
to buy (November, December, and January). This change in strategy was quickly understood by 
the community and built into the PD/Hearth sessions, which were scheduled to start in Year 4, 
but never actually implemented due to the program ending. 
Given the limited analysis of the PD/Hearth data during the program, Dr. Sidibe, the 
lead consultant for nutrition and survey analysis, conducted an independent review of the data. 
His new data from the analysis of 60 PD/Hearth sessions organized in a total of 27 villages—
eight villages from Bourem and 19 villages from Douentza (Figure 3.4)—shows a gradual 
improvement in the nutritional status of children, indicated by weight gain (weight/age 
anthropometric measures), through six weeks of a combination of PD/Hearth and home-visit 
sessions (Figure 3.4). In only six weeks, over 57% (332 of 580 children) were completely 
rehabilitated through the PD/Hearth approach using only the readily available local foods. Of the 
580 children who participated in the PD/Hearth, 452 gained at least 300 grams of weight. 
Moreover, only 75 of the participating children lost weight, and only 52 remained stationary. 
These data suggest that mothers were able to apply the knowledge and improved nutrition, 
hygiene, and feeding practices learned during the PD/Hearth sessions, resulting in a significant 
improvement in the nutritional status of some malnourished children who participated in the 
PD/Hearth sessions. In several visited villages the evaluation team found that many children who 
participated in the PD/Hearth kept their improved nutritional status despite the crisis. They also 
found that mothers applied the same practices to their children born after the program withdrew 
from their villages.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
57
Figure 3.4. Number of Children Rehabilitated in the Nema PD/Hearth Activities in 27 Nema Villages, Years 
2-4*
Source: Nema PD/Hearth program records. 
Methodology: Reanalysis of the existing program M&E data using excel. 
* This re-analysis of the program data indicates that after six weeks, out of 580 children admitted, 453 children 
gained weight, 332 children were completely rehabilitated (had good nutritional status), and 121 gained weight but 
were not completely rehabilitated. 
The implementation of PD/Hearth activities was easier at Douentza than Bourem. Since most of 
the critical PD/Hearth foods (e.g. peanuts, cereals, and cowpeas) were grown by both men and 
women at Douentza, the women could access the ingredients without purchasing them. In
contrast, it was virtually impossible for the women at Bourem to access to either these foods 
without purchasing them. Even firewood—which was critical to the preparation of the 
PD/Hearth recipes—was not available in most of the Bourem communities unless it was bought. 
To cope with these difficulties, some of the health committees worked with community leaders 
to collect some of the crucial ingredients for the PD/Hearth programs during harvest (e.g. 
peanuts, beans, sorrel leaves, and baobab leaves). Under the supervision of the health committee,
VMs kept these voluntary contributions. The surplus was often sold and the money used to 
purchase products not available at the village level, such as sugar, oil, and fish (Text Box 3.1). 
Baseline (n=580), 
580
6 Weeks after 
(n=580), 127
121 332
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Baseline
(n=580)
6 Weeks
after
(n=580)
Malnourished
Gained weight but
not completely
rehabilitated
Completely
rehabilitated
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
58
Text Box 3.1. Case Study on the Implementation of Voluntary Contributions to Support PD/Hearth 
Programs in the Villages of Boumbam (Douentza) and Moudankan (Bourem)
The villages of Boumbam (Douentza) and Moudankan (Bourem) were leading examples of mobilizing local 
resources to support PD/Hearth. As part of the implementation of PD/Hearth and the promotion of local products 
in the prevention of child malnutrition, the local people mobilized and stored a lot of local cereals, groundnuts, 
cowpea, and monkey bread to support the PD/Hearth Program.
Source: Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga, Field Office Manager SCI, Gao. November 12, 2013. 
2.3. Promoting Improved Nutrition and Feeding Practices Through Community Radio in 130 
Villages 
2.3.1. The Original Strategy: The third part of the IR 2.1 activities anticipated creating a series of 
nutrition and sanitation programs to be broadcast through nine rural radio stations in Nema’s 
intervention area. It was expected that these radio broadcasts would cover all of the Bourem 
villages and approximately three-fourths of the Douentza villages. 
2.3.2. Evolution Strategy (Years 2-4): During the second year of the program, 15 radio 
hosts59 were trained. In addition, 18 radio messages, written in no fewer than seven of the most 
prevalent local languages, were developed on key themes of nutrition, hygiene, and sanitation 
and then recorded for a daily broadcast. Unfortunately, some of the records suffered from poor 
audio quality; however, this neither prevented the dissemination of key messages for two months 
in some areas of intervention, nor did it significantly degrade the quality of the messages being 
broadcast. By mid-term, only a small number of women’s listening groups had been established 
in villages in both districts. 
The mid-term evaluation concluded that: 
“[While there] is anecdotal evidence that the messages are being heard in 
some MYAP villages… how often and by whom [the messages are heard] is 
not clear. It is also unclear to what extent, if any, CDAs are supporting the 
listening groups. This support is critical, especially for new listening 
groups.”60
One major impact of the mid-term was that it highlighted the need for a more effective strategy 
for listening groups. To address this issue, the consortium selected five members from each of 
the savings and internal lending communities (SILC) that existed in 58% of the Douentza 
villages and 57% of the Bourem villages to function as listening groups. 
During the Year 4, the Nema program trained 80 listening groups (713 people) to listen to the 
radio broadcasts on ENAs and share key messages with other SILC members during weekly 
meetings. Altogether, 713 people were trained on the new approach during Year 4 of the 
program. After training each of the listening groups received a certain amount of basic 
equipment (radios, batteries, ENA leaflets on nutrition and sanitation). 
 
59 The training sessions organized by HKI for the radio journalists lasted two days and focused on essential nutrition 
actions and good dietary, drinking water, and sanitation practices. 
60 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 28. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
59
Despite training those involved, the impact of this new approach was not noticeable due to: (a) 
the abrupt withdrawal of program activities following the rebel incursion; (b) the interruption of 
radio messages transmissions; and (c) the lack of group monitoring by the CDAs to ensure radio 
broadcasts were received and shared with other members of the community. 
3.0. Evolution of Program Activities for IR 2.2. Caregivers of Children Under 5 are 
Applying Improved Hygiene and Sanitation Practices 
The second IR of the SO2 strategy had two main themes: 
 Sanitation: Behavioral changes to hygiene practices; and 
 Drinking Water: Improving access and quality of drinking water. 
3.1. Sanitation 
3.1.1. Basic Strategy: The proposal anticipated that the program would build public awareness 
about latrines. The initial strategy focused on the construction of model platform latrines in the 
villages selected for the PD/Hearth program. It was anticipated that the model latrines, in 
combination with the dissemination of the radio and CDA messages that promoted the use of 
latrines, would accelerate the adoption of improved latrines. To facilitate the construction of 
latrines, the program trained and equipped 13 masons.61 The model latrines were constructed of 
imported materials (2 iron bars and 3 cement bags) provided by the Nema program, for two 
latrines in each PD/Hearth village. 
3.1.2. Evolution of the Strategy (Years 1-3): A total of 10 model latrines were built in the 
PD/Hearth villages in the Year 3 and 14 in Year 4 for a total of 24. 
3.1.3. Mid-Term Recommendations and Follow-Up: Given the program’s weak record on 
encouraging latrine use, the mid-term evaluation recommended that the program put more 
emphasis on this issue in the second half of the program. Based on this recommendation, the 
MYAP team put in place a technical team to carry the community-led total sanitation (CLTS, 
also known as the assainissement total piloté par la communauté or ATPC) activities in the 
intervention villages in collaboration with the Mali government state sanitation services. Four 
pilot villages were chosen to host the first awareness workshops on the CLTS approach. After an 
initial training workshop, each community was asked to commit to building latrines. This 
approach led to the construction of 142 latrines during the last two months of Year 3 and 
190 latrines in Year 4 totaling 332 latrines built by the communities without any financial 
support from the program.
This approach has contributed significantly to the improvement of hygiene practices in the 
beneficiary communities where it was pilot tested. Unfortunately, this good approach initiated by 
the program was only introduced in four of the 130 communities62 during Year 3 of the program 
and was interrupted by the rebel incursion in the program intervention areas. 
 
61 The training lasted four days. 
62 Although other communities were received the CLTS training, they never started the activities.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
60
3.2. Drinking Water 
3.2.1. Strategy: The initial Nema needs assessments identified clean drinking water as one of the 
critical constraints to improving the nutritional status of children under 5 years. This challenge 
was confirmed by the Nema baseline survey, which showed that only 37% of villages (33% in 
Douentza and 41% in Bourem) had sufficient access to drinking water. Based on this analysis, 
Nema planned to construct 60 water points. 
3.2.2. Evolution of the Drinking Water Strategy: Given the high cost of wells (especially the 
large diameter wells that were needed), the program planned to fund this component from the 
sale of MYAP food. Unfortunately, due to a shift in Mali government policy that reduced the 
capacity of the Nema program to generate cash through the monetization (e.g. sale) of MYAP 
commodities, the program was forced to reduce the number of water points from 60 to 49, out of 
which only 15 began construction (8 were completed; 7 remain unfinished though they have 
water). Out of those 15 wells completed, only one (in the village of Agamore) failed to produce 
water. This successful record of well construction, which was a notable accomplishment for 
villages with a history of multiple well failures, is attributed to the program’s strong 
collaboration with the state water service and strong supervision by the SO3 field team’s water 
specialists. 
Each of the completed wells is managed by a water management committee, whose members 
were trained in basic literacy and principles of infrastructure management. 
4.0. Current Level of SO2 Activities in the Nema Villages for IR 1.1 and IR 1.2
One important objective of the final qualitative evaluation was to describe how the activities 
completed from 2008 to 2012 (i.e., SILC, water resource development and management, feeding 
and hygiene practices, resilience to shocks) are currently being implemented by the beneficiaries 
after the withdrawal of the program in the areas occupied during the crisis (Table 1.2, Chapter 
1).63 This analysis is based on team interviews with 55 of the 110 focus-group discussions that 
the final evaluation team conducted. In the course of these 55 discussions, the evaluation team 
interviewed 514 individuals (340 women, 174 men) (Table 3.4).
 
63 (1) What are the lessons learned from the shift from health-facility delivery to community-based health services in 
this MYAP context? Was this a good change? In what ways? How might it be improved further? (2) Are 
communities applying the techniques introduced for improved nutrition of infants in the context of the crisis in the 
north? If yes, what are the factors that encourage this use? (3) What was the Behavior Change Communication 
(BCC) strategy and was it relevant and efficient to positively affect nutrition and hygiene behavior change and 
outcomes? Describe and support your response with evidence. (Note: See Table 1.2, Chapter 1).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
61
Table 3.4. Number of Groups and People Interviewed about the Current Functionality of the Nema-Funded 
Activities in the 130 Nema Villages in Douentza and Bourem, November 2013
Community-Based 
Structures Interviewed 
During the Final 
Evaluation’s Focus 
Groups
Bourem
N=6 Villages
Douentza
N=15 Villages
# of Focus 
Groups
# of People # of Focus 
Groups
# of People
M F T M F T
SILC 3 3 92 95 12 100 121 221
CHVs 5 20 8 28 9 31 17 48
PD/Hearth 4 0 34 34 8 2 60 62
Radio 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Mason 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2
Health Staff 3 1 2 3 4 5 0 5
Water Point Management 
Committees 1 0 4 4 1 7 2 9
Total 18 26 140 166 37 148 200 348
Source: Team MYAP Nema, November 2013. See Table 1.6, Chapter 1 for a complete list of people interviewed.
4.1. Activities of the Nema-Created Health Committees and Nema-Trained Community 
Health Volunteers
Based on the focus group discussions conducted during the final qualitative survey,64 the 
evaluation concluded that:
 Most of the committees set up by the program to support the program’s nutrition, 
hygiene, and sanitation activities are not functional (e.g. Health committees, Adduction 
D'eau Sommaire [AES] management committee, etc.) (Table 3.5). 
 In most of the villages visited, the Ministry of Health’s CHVs that Nema had trained (650 
community-based volunteers, 500 in Douentza and 150 in Bourem) were no longer 
actively supporting any sort of health and nutrition activities (Table 3.5; Text Box 3.3),
although a few them did appear to participate in CSCOM outreach activities for 
vaccination; and
 Almost all the Nema community-based nutrition activities (growth monitoring, 
replication of PD/Hearth activities, and household nutrition demonstration) stopped soon 
after the program withdrawal. 
The only functional CHV was found in a Bourem village, where he conducts screening of 
malnourished children in partnership with the NGO Médecins sans Frontières (MSF).
Several groups of beneficiaries that met during the focus groups (Table 3.4) attributed these 
setbacks to the lack of Nema food to care for malnourished children:
 "Since the withdrawal of the program, we did not conduct any activity because we were 
afraid to get together during the crisis"; and others asserted
 "We did not conduct any activity due to lack of motivation and food since the withdrawal 
of the program from our community." 
 
64 This includes focus groups with: (a) mothers of children who were rehabilitated through the CSCOM-managed 
PECIMA program, (b) CSCOM personnel, (c) leaders, and (d) CHVs. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
62
Table 3.5. Current Functional Status of the Formal and Informal Groups and Community Health Volunteers 
Trained by the Nema Program in Years 1-4, November 2013
Community Base 
Organizations Supported by 
the Project (# = Need for 
Official Recognition)
Bourem
Operating Level 
Proposed by Nema
and CSCOM
Douentza
Operating Level 
Proposed by Nema
and CSCOM
# of Groups 
Met 1 2 3 4
# of Groups
Met 1 2 3 4
Health Committees 4 4 9 9
Mothers Health Group (mothers 
who participated in 
rehabilitation programs)**
4 4 9 9
Water Management Committees 1 1 1 1
Committee Hygiene/Sanitation 
(CLTS Committees) 3 3
CHV (Relais) (nutrition 
activities) 5 1 4 15 15
Source: Team MYAP Nema. November 2013.
* 1 = high, 2 = medium, 3 = low, 4 = non-functional
**Organizing mothers into groups was not an objective of this program. Since this is a normal activity of most 
PD/Hearth programs, it is assessed here.
Text Box 3.2. Testimonials from Six Different Community Health Volunteers on What They Learned During 
Nema, and Whether or Not They Continue Their Activities
Oualo Relais (CHV). "My name is Souley Maba, Walo village Relais (CHV). Before the Nema program, I had no 
idea about nutrition and recognition of malnutrition in children. Thanks to the training received and activities with 
Nema program, I learned how to recognize malnutrition in a child even if he is not sick. I also learned how to screen 
for malnutrition at the community level and how to advise women to prepare recipes rich in vitamins for children. I 
would like to see again the Nema program in my village to continue with nutrition activities that had helped many 
children and mothers of our village. The nutritional and health status of children was much improved. With the 
abrupt withdrawal of Nema program and the crisis, all activities were stopped, although some women continued to 
apply improved feeding practices learned in their household. There are still many women in our village who do not 
know these practices, which is why we beseech the rapid and immediate resumption of activities with the Nema
program.”
Village CHV from Ngono, Fombory, Petaka, Dalla, Kiro: Community relais (CHVs) met say they currently do 
not conduct nutrition activities since the withdrawal of the program and noted an increase in cases of malnutrition,
especially after the crisis. All relais were unanimous: "The children are often sick and emaciated. Some mothers 
continue to receive plumpy nut food from the CSCOM, but the vast majority remain in the village due to the 
distance causing an increase in children diseases.”
Source: CHV Focus Groups, Nema Qualitative Final Evaluation. November 2013. 
4.2. Nutrition and Sanitation Practices of the Mothers Who Participated in the PD/Hearth 
Activities
The results of the final evaluation focus group sessions with the mothers of malnourished 
children (Table 3.4) suggest that some mothers continue to apply improved feeding and hygiene 
practices learned especially during the Nema program despite the complete cessation of growth 
monitoring of children by the CHVs. This was especially true in the villages benefitting from the 
Nema-sponsored PD/Hearth activities. During the focus groups, the women testified that (Text 
Box 3.3:
 “We continue the practices learned during the program and we also organized 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
63
demonstrations sessions with porridge recipes fortified with beans;" 
 “We continue to apply the practices in households (Oualo Village);” and
 “We are drying and storing millet powder to increase its availability in the household 
which facilitates the preparation of fortified porridge (Hombori village).”
Text Box 3.3. Testimony of PD/Hearth Participant Fanta Boucary Maiga During the Focus Group Held with 
the PD/Hearth Group in Densa Village 
Fanta Boucary Maiga is a 32-year-old mother of eight children, all living in Densa village. Her fifth child, 
Halimatou, participated in PD/Hearth activities at age one. "My daughter Halimatou got sick several times when I 
was pregnant with her little sister. I became pregnant very early and abruptly weaned Halimatou. She was very thin 
and very weak. When the [CHV] came into the village, he weighed Halimatou and informed us that she was 
malnourished (her weight was very low compared to her level). The child received food. Halimatou began to eat and 
gain weight after several days. After Hearth, I continued with the same practices with the help of another mom who 
visited us. My child was saved by Hearth. We were also educated on the spacing of children birth. Currently 
Halimatou is five, in good health, and now has two sisters acquired without much problem thanks to Hearth. I thank 
God and the program brought to educate us.”
Source: PD/Hearth Focus Group, Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
4.3 Community-Based Activities Offered by the Local Offices of the Ministry of Health
In addition to the qualitative data collection, the evaluation team conducted in-depth interviews 
with eight health workers at three CSCOMs in Bourem and three CSCOMs in Douentza, the 
focal point of nutrition and the chief medical officer (hospital director) in Douentza. 
During the first four years, the Nema program trained large numbers of CSCOM and CSREF 
staff in essential nutrition actions, hygiene, and care of acute malnutrition at the CSCOMs and 
community level. Program records show that the program facilitated the training of 30 CSCOM 
station heads (12 in Bourem and 18 in Douentza), five CSREF agents, 18 nursing assistants, 18 
midwives, 500 CHVs (5 per village) at Douentza, and 150 CHVs plus 27 midwives at Bourem. 
Some of the key joint activities with the CSCOMs included:65
 The distribution of food for moderately malnourished children and their households at the 
village level;
 Referring severe malnutrition cases to the CSCOM for treatment; 
 Joint supervision of nutrition activities in the field and continuing education of all 
participants (CHVs, health workers, and leaders); 
 Joint supervision to improve the quality of care in the community-based and CSCOM￾based diagnostic and treatment activities; 
 Joint development of key messages on nutrition, hygiene, and training of local media 
workers to disseminate messages of improved nutrition practices and health hygiene; and
 Construction of 17 hangars in Douentza CSCOMs and 12 at Bourem for nutritional 
demonstration and dissemination of messages on improved nutrition practices.
Unfortunately, almost all of the government staff members trained by Nema are no longer at their 
original posts. Many of the new staff, as well as the few who are still at their posts, expressed 
 
65 Based on interviews conducted with the CSCOM facilities staff during the Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation 
(November 2013). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
64
their appreciation for the training and made suggestions for how to improve the care of 
malnourished children in the former Nema villages (Text Box 3.4).
During the qualitative survey, the field team collected information on the status of malnutrition at 
the CSCOM level in the former Nema program intervention area. These data showed (Table 3.6):
 A sudden decrease in the number of children screened at the CSCOM level during the 
crisis which is probably due to the closure of many of these structures during the war and 
the lack of food for the care of malnourished children screened in CSCOMs that 
remained open (2012); and
 A slight recovery recorded in 2013 compared to the Nema program period (2011) was 
attributed to the lack of food for the care of children at the village and CSCOM level.
Table 3.6. Level of Malnutrition in Douentza and Bourem Areas Using Indicative Data of CSCOMs’ Staff 
Qualitative Survey, 2011-2013
Type of Malnutrition 2011 2012 2013
Douentza Bourem Douentza Bourem Douentza Bourem
Moderate Acute 
Malnutrition (MAM) 547 _ 55 603 1689 662
Severe Acute 
Malnutrition (SAM) 2886 _ 545 60 1017 221
Source and Methodology: Bourem data are from three CSCOMs in the villages surveyed. Douentza data come 
from nutrition focal points at CSREF (Reference Centre) for the 100 Nema villages. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
65
Text Box 3.4. Assessment of the Impact of Nema Activities by Partners Linked to Health Facilities in Douentza 
and Bourem, November 2013
Positive impacts cited by the people interviewed during the focus groups were:
 Increased active detection of acute malnutrition cases and care of moderate cases at the community level by 
community volunteers and program facilitators;
 Increased CSCOM visits leading to an increase in malnutrition care at CSCOM centers through the 
distribution of food to moderately malnourished children and distribution of protection ration. This strategy
led to a strong motivation of mothers with children for early case detection and immediate care at the 
community level;
 Care of 100-200 malnourished children per month (CSCOMs Bourem);
 Reduction of severe acute malnutrition to refer to CSCOMs and CSREFs following the early and wide 
treatment of moderate cases;
 Considerable improvement of the nutritional status of children under 5 years through food distribution 
sessions and demonstrations at the CSCOMs and community level; 
 Increased primary curative care at CSCOMs;
 Strengthening of CSCOM and CSREF staff capacity for screening and nutritional care of malnutrition 
(“Before the program, I did not have sufficient training in nutrition, especially for the care of acute 
malnutrition. With the series of trainings organized by our partners and regular supervision, we were able to 
significantly improve the care of moderate acute malnutrition cases, resulting in a decrease in severe cases 
referred to CSREF”); and
 Motivation of CHVs through the training received and the distribution of food at the community level.
The same interviews identified a number of areas that the staff felt could be strengthened. This included:
 The lack of a regular meeting through a monitoring system of activities and quarterly data to discuss all 
issues identified in the implementation of program activities and propose solutions in accordance with the 
national nutrition policy; 
 Non-coverage of all villages in the health district Douentza. Out of 262 villages, the program only covered 
100 for a rate of 100/262. With 500 CHVs trained, the program could have considered two CHVs per village 
instead of five; and
 The fact that the program stopped just when the participants involved in the care and active screening had 
begun to master the approach and have an impact on health indicators.
Some of the current challenges that the CSCOMs face in dealing with the resurgence in the number of malnourished 
children are listed below:
 “With the increasing number of cases of severe acute malnutrition seen in health facilities, inadequate 
screening of malnutrition at the community level, lack of staff, and especially the departure of MSF, with 
whom we have established a free access system, the major challenge for health facilities remains to maintain 
the level of care of severe malnutrition cases and the implementation of prevention activities for early 
detection and care of moderate malnutrition. This challenge cannot be met without the support of 
development partners for the resumption of the fight against malnutrition in the Circle of Douentza.”
 “Currently, there is a slowing or complete cessation of the implementation of nutrition activities (screening, 
nutrition demonstrations, and dissemination of messages) by community volunteers who no longer work 
because of the crisis. After the crisis, the continuation of activities still faces [CHVs] demotivation, lack of 
food to distribute to screened cases, and the absence of close supervision. The major challenge remains the 
resumption of these activities on the field.”
Source: CSCOM Key Informant Interviews, Nema Final Evaluation, November 2013.
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations
One of the strengths in the implementation of SO2 activities was the flexibility of the partners 
involved in the management of Nema program. They did acknowledge some shortcomings in the 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
66
program document and agreed to adopt approaches best suited to realities in the field—in 
accordance with the Ministry of Health policy—to better achieve the objectives. This section 
provides a brief overview of the main findings and lessons learned from the final qualitative 
evaluation field surveys and key informant interviews.
5.1. Key Issues 
5.1.1. Effectiveness
5.1.1.1. Care of MAM Cases: The initial MAM approach was keenly geared towards the 
CSCOM health facilities; however, it was very well reoriented during Years 3 and 4 of the 
program to a more community-based approached for treating children suffering from MAM; 
referring the more Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM, also known as Malnutrition aigue severe or 
MAS) cases to the CSCOMs for treatment; and distributing food. Specifically, the Nema 
program helped pilot test a new stratégie avancée program for nutrition that was consistent with 
the national malnutrition strategy.66
The approach allowed Nema program agents and CSCOM staff to conduct joint monitoring and 
supervision activities in health areas and villages. Two key aspects of the activities that had a 
negative impact on program implementation were: (a) the fact that Nema program budget 
(during Years 1-4) did not enable the principal consortium partner that was responsible for the 
design and execution of the nutrition activities to supervise and direct the activities on the 
ground; and (b) the weak motivation of the unpaid CHVs to execute the Nema nutrition activities 
given the other work they were expected to do for the Ministry of Health and their own crop and 
livestock production activities. This first recommendation, which was incorporated into the 
proposal for Nema’s new areas of intervention in the south (2012-present), has helped the 
program very effectively achieve the new targets in a short period of time. Two key challenges 
for the next generation of the Nema program will be to: (a) provide some way of compensating 
the CHVs; and (b) train 80% of the SILC created by the Nema extension agents (120 out of 140 
groups) in ENAs and sanitation.
5.1.1.2. PD/Hearth: The PD/Hearth approach was very good, but it was implemented in only 27 
of the 130 Nema villages. The next phase of the program should extend the PD/Hearth 
methodology to every one of the villages, taking into account the weight/height index with a 
particular emphasis on extended monitoring (i.e. continuing to monitor the children at 
progressive intervals of two months, six months, then one year after their release from 
PD/Hearth). This improved tracking system—standard in non-emergency PD/Hearth programs—
will help the program to better monitor the impact of the PD/Hearth activities on the children’s
nutritional status and the application of improved practices learned by mothers during 
PD/Hearth. 
5.1.1.3. Behavior Change Communication: Unfortunately, the introduction of the new “behavior 
changes communication (BCC) through interpersonal communication and home visits” approach 
that was recommended by the mid-term evaluation did not start until the beginning of the 
 
66 Direction Nationale de la santé, Division Nutrition. 2011. Protocole: Prise en charge intégrale de la malnutrition 
aigue. Bamako: Direction National de la santé, division nutrition. .
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
67
program’s fourth year, so it is impossible to assess its impact over longer period of time in the 
original Nema villages. 
5.1.1.4. Training Modules: During the first four years, the Nema program developed a series of 
PowerPoint modules tailored to SO2 topics, including topics on HIV/AIDS and the national 
strategy for malnutrition care (e.g. appropriate community-based methodologies for MAM, BCC, 
etc.). These modules represent a program asset that is being exploited in the new MYAP area of 
intervention. Another pedagogical impact of the program was the creation of a series of health, 
nutrition, and sanitation lessons that were incorporated into the literacy training manuals that 
were used in all 130 Nema villages.
5.1.1.5. Sanitation: Despite the importance of the "theory of change" granted to sanitation at the 
beginning of the program, the program document did not propose a good model for 
implementation of outreach activities for the use of latrines. The integration of the Mali 
government’s innovative CLTS approach, in collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment, 
has improved the impact of the use of latrines by the beneficiary communities. Nema’s funds 
helped hire a series of consultants in areas where the local Ministry of Environment staff in 
Douentza did not have sufficient experience. Future programs need to extend the CLTS initiative 
to all program villages from the start.
5.1.1.6. Drinking Water: The Nema program budget attempted to fund the well development 
activities as part under the most vulnerable part of the financing (i.e. monetization), resulting in 
this component of the program never executing fully. Consequently, there are still villages—even 
CSCOMs—with inadequate drinking water. This is a major critical constraint to achieving IR 
2.2, since, in the absence of clean drinking water, one cannot even talk about proper hygiene.
5.1.2. Sustainability: A major strength of Nema’s SO2 activities was its effective involvement of 
administrative authorities (city mayors, prefects) and state technical services (e.g. Ministries of 
Health, Environment, and Water) in the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the 
program’s nutrition, water resource development, and sanitation activities. The close 
collaboration was instrumental in: (a) mobilizing the local beneficiary communities’ adherence in 
activities implementation; (b) insured the successful integration of these activities into the 
national sector strategies for nutrition, rural water resource development, and sanitation; (c) the 
construction of 29 cooking demonstration hangars at the CSCOM level; and (d) the adoption of 
improved practices in health and nutrition by mothers who took advantage of nutrition activities. 
5.1.3. Other Unexpected Impacts: Two other impacts of the program, which were in a sense 
unexpected (i.e. not anticipated in the program document), include:
 Training the SILC groups in health and nutrition; and
 Including a wide range of training lessons on nutrition and hygiene themes in the books 
used for literacy training in all 130 Nema villages.
5.1.4. Monitoring and Evaluation
5.1.4.1. Global M&E Strategy for SO2
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
68
5.1.4.1.1. Impact Indicators: The Nema program was unable to conduct a quantitative survey to 
measure the impact indicators that were assessed at the beginning of the program before its 
abrupt discontinuation in March 2012. It is still possible, however, to observe some of the 
nutritional impacts of the program through some of the program’s internal qualitative data (from 
the Nema final qualitative evaluation) on the adoption of improved feeding practices learned by 
some mothers during the PD/Hearth sessions. 
5.1.4.1.2. Monitoring Indicators: Unfortunately, monitoring indicators in the IPTT poorly 
tracked many of the program’s main SO2 achievements. This issue was raised during the mid￾term evaluation but was never acted on due to the termination of the program—only eight 
months after the mid-term.67 The disconnect between the actual activities on the ground and 
those being tracked was due to the fact that the first list of indicators was adopted from the initial 
strategy, a strategy that was based on all of the activities being undertaken at the level of the 
CSCOMs. As a result, the methodology used to track many of the Nema program’s SO2 
indicators was based on the CSCOMs’ official tracking data. When the Nema SO2 strategy 
changed in Year 3, a lot of data on community-level activities was no longer reported to the 
CSCOMs. This gave the impression that the program had less impact in SO2 component 
implementation. 
The conversion of the nutritional CDAs into multi-purpose CDAs in Year 4 made reporting even 
more difficult. This lesson learned was taken into account in the new intervention area by 
recruiting six additional officers as nutrition support staff directly attached to HKI—in addition 
to the HKI nutrition supervisor. The HKI-supervised staff was responsible for both execution and 
insuring that the CSCOM registry figures are correct.
One of the main impacts of Nema’s technical assistance during the program’s first year was to 
make the Nema program teams—as well as implementing agents (CRS, SCI, Caritas, and 
Tassaght) and local Ministry of Health teams—more effective in nutrition through training and 
capacity building. Unfortunately, this component of the program (unlike the SO1 and SO3 
components) did not have indicators that tracked local capacity building.
 
67 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pp. 43-45.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
69
5.1.4.2. Monitoring Indicators in the IPTT and Other Nema Program Quantitative Indicators
Table 3.7. IR 2.1. Caregivers of Children Under 5 and Pregnant Women are Applying Improved Nutrition 
and Feeding Practices 
Baseline
Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12)
Target Achieved Target 
Met Target Achieved Target 
Met Target Achieved Target 
Met
MI 2.1.2. % of children admitted to CSCOM for treatment of acute malnutrition
27% (22.67, 
31.14) 35% 28% 47% 40% 68% 170% 45% 23% 51%
MI 2.1.3. % of children 0-59 months with severe acute malnutrition who are rehabilitated [1] at the 
CSCOM
10% (6.86, 
12.18) 30% 24% 48% 40% 11% 28% 50% 3% 6%
MI 2.1.4. % of children with moderate acute malnutrition who are rehabilitated at CSCOMs
21% (17.89, 
23.12) 50% 39% 50.6% 40% 42% 105% 50% 6% 12%
Source: Nema IPTT, Annex II.
Three indicators from the CSCOM registry (Indicators 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.1.4) show a gradual 
change in the number of children ages 0-5 followed through growth-monitoring activities at the 
CSCOMs and also the percentage of children rehabilitated at the CSCOMs (Table 3.7). Despite 
this positive trend, these figures are lower than expected for the following reasons:
 From Year 3 of the program, the number of children rehabilitated at village level has 
increased significantly due to the implementation of the stratégie avancée for MAMs 
case rehabilitation. For example, the number of children affected by programs (MI 2.1.9: 
Number of children affected by the nutrition program) increased from 749 in Year 2 to 
10,991 in Year 3, and even to 8,590 at the end of the third quarter of Year 4.
 Unfortunately, these figures under-estimate the actual number of children and their 
rehabilitation because a lot of the data on the children who were identified and 
rehabilitated in the communities was never transmitted to the CSCOM level. Once the 
CDA positions that focused on nutrition were converted to generalist positions, it became 
even harder to monitor the program’s community-based nutrition activities.
5.1.4.3. PD/Hearth Monitoring Indicators (IPTT)
Table 3.8. MI 2.1.6. Percentage of Beneficiary Caregivers Who Practice Behaviors Shown to Be Successful to 
Rehabilitate Underweight Children
Base
Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12)
Goal Achieved Goal 
Achieved Goal Achieved Goal 
Achieved Goal Achieved Goal 
Achieved
NA 10% 1.8% 18% 15% 1.3% 9% 20% ND
Source: Nema IPTT, Annex II.
Unfortunately, the IPTT indicator which should follow the community-based rehabilitation of the 
children under both the advanced strategy and the PD/Hearth model (MI 2.1.6, Table 3.8) was 
measured through an annual survey that the Nema M&E staff conducted on a sample of all 
mothers affected by the program (i.e. mothers involved in the SILC listening groups, PD/Hearth, 
MAM, health committees, etc.). Because of this, the indicator only measures the mothers 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
70
covered in this annual survey who also participated in PD/Hearth activities, which is why the 
achievement is so low. 
5.5.1.4. Monitoring Indicators from the Annual Mothers Survey Conducted by the Nema M&E 
Staff
Table 3.9. Nema Monitoring Indicators Based on Data Collected by the Annual Mothers Survey 
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12)
Target Achieved Target 
Met Target Achieved Target 
Met Target Achieved Target 
Met Target Achieved Target 
Met
MI 2.1.6. % of beneficiary caregivers who practice behaviors shown to be successful to rehabilitate underweight children
NA -- -- -- 10% 1.8% 18% 15% 1.3% 9% 20% ND
MI 2.1.7. % of beneficiary mothers who had at least one post-partum checkup
8% (6.19, 
9.81) -- -- -- 25% 19% 76% 30% 38% 127% 35% ND
MI 2.1.8. % of beneficiary pregnant women who attend at least three prenatal visits
33% (31.48, 
34.52) -- -- -- 75% 75% 100% 78% 79% 101% 81% ND
MI 2.1.9. # of children reached by USG-supported nutrition programs (USAID)
0 0 0 -- 10313 749 8.1% 6120 10991 180% 6720 8590 128%
EI 2.2.7. % of targeted caregivers who report that they sweep/clean their house daily
75% 69% 92% 75% 77% 103% 75% ND
Source: Nema IPTT, Annex II.
The indicator data from the annual mother survey done by the Nema M&E unit in November of 
each year showed a clear trend in all indicators related to key behaviors changes (hand washing 
with soap, prenatal care—Indicators 2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and 2.2.7) except behaviors linked to 
transporting drinking water (2.2.3) and use of latrines (2.2.6). The poor performance of these 
IPTT monitoring indicators was due to the facts that:
 The program could not fund the original number of water points it needed to address the 
most pressing water issues in the Nema villages; and 
 The new model of platform latrines was found only in the four villages that benefited 
from the CLTS-model latrines and in some the PD/Hearth villages. 
5.2. Key Factors Which Reduced the Impact of the Nema Health Strategy in Nutrition in 130 
Target Villages 
5.2.1. The Nema “Theory of Change” was Treatment-Focused, Not Prevention-Focused: It is 
vital to remember that the paradigm shift in development-oriented nutrition—that is to say, from 
treatment focused to prevention focused—occurred largely after the Nema program was 
developed in 2006-2007. The Lancet series on chronic malnutrition, Scaling Up Nutrition 
(SUN), and 1000 Days all gained momentum after this program was designed,68 approved, and 
implementation had started. In looking at this program through today's prevention lens, it appears 
the Nema “theory of change” was very much off-base, although, at the time, it was appropriate. 
5.2.2. Poor Integration of Resource Persons at the Community Level: The core program 
 
68 See http://www.bread.org/event/gathering-2013/international-meeting/pdf/june-10-summary-report.pdf.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
71
document intended to target other resource persons in addition to mothers, such as grandmothers, 
fathers, and community leaders. Unfortunately, the communication strategy developed by 
MYAP did not focus on targeting these resource persons in training and communication for 
behavior change in the context of improved nutrition and feeding practices at the household 
level. Future programs need to consider the influence of resource persons in decision making for 
nutrition of children under 5 years. 
5.2.3. Inadequate Focus on Pregnant and Lactating Women: The Nema program proposal 
anticipated that the communication strategy for behavior change would focus on the ENAs 
needed to encourage households and the beneficiary community at large to find better strategies 
for appropriate infant and young children feeding, as well as nutrition during pregnancy and 
lactation. During its implementation, the emphasis was switched to child nutrition and recovery 
of malnourished children at the community and CSCOM levels. As a result, there was no focus 
on feeding women during pregnancy, which is a crucial step to preparing future mothers for the 
adoption of improved feeding practices during pregnancy and breastfeeding. 
5.2.4. Not Taking Into Account the Weight/Height Index in Monitoring PD/Hearth Children: The 
Nema PD/Hearth program used only weight/age to determine children’s eligibility for and 
progress from the PD/Hearth activities. This is not the measurement that is recommended by the 
Ministry of Health’s National Malnutrition Policy. This policy especially recommended the use 
of weight/height index and MUAC for acute malnutrition screening. In addition to the 
weight/age (underweight) index, future PD/Hearth programs should include the weight/height 
index in the children selection criteria, as recommended by the Ministry of Health. During the 
interview with key informants, it was found that often some children identified as severely 
malnourished and referred to the health center by the CHVs were not cared for, as the 
weight/height criteria (for acute malnutrition detection) excluded these children as severely 
malnourished. This was a source of frustration among some mothers. 
5.2.5. Inadequate Support from the Nema CDAs: The low coverage of nutrition activities in the 
first two years of the program has been exacerbated by the conversion of the nutrition CDA 
positions into generalist CDA positions in July 2011 (end of Year 3). To facilitate sustainability, 
the PD/Hearth approach requires close monitoring during implementation to ensure ownership of 
activities by the beneficiaries communities. 
5.2.6. Lack of Exit Strategy: With the lack of implementation of an exit strategy in different areas 
of program intervention, the abrupt cessation of the Nema program’s SO2 activities had a very 
negative impact on sustainability and local ownership of most activities (PD/Hearth, AEG, SILC, 
PECIMA) both by the people and the CSCOMs. 
5.2.7. Lack of Development of Communication Materials for Behavior Change on ENAs and 
Feeding of Pregnant and Lactating Women: Many of the groups that were supposed to continue 
the nutrition activities were left without any training materials, such as picture boxes, flyers on 
ENAs, or the program’s training materials on improved nutritional practices for pregnant and 
lactating women.
5.3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
72
5.3.1. Recommendation 2.1. Rethink the Nema program’s support for the national 
government’s PECIMA strategy through the CSCOMs.
5.3.1.1. Summary Observations:
1. Involvement of Health Facilities and Local Authorities: The involvement of 
administrative authorities (city mayors, prefects) and technical services of the state 
(health, environment, and water) in the implementation M&E of Nema’s SO2 activities 
during Years 1-4 contributed to the mobilization and adhesion of the beneficiary 
communities. Conversely, the sudden withdrawal of the program due to the crisis had a 
negative impact on ownership and the continuation of nutrition activities at the 
community level. Various key informants, with whom the evaluation team met at the 
local health facilities (CSCOM, CSREF), and mayors confirmed that not one of the 
Nema-trained CHVs that are the official representative of the CSCOMs in the Nema 
villages is currently promoting community-based nutrition programs. 
2. Limited Post-Nema Involvement of the CHVs in Nutrition: The program document 
emphasized the role of CHVs in monitoring SO2 activities. The CHVs are community￾level volunteers that are recognized by the Ministry of Health and made available to all 
stakeholders (NGOs and the government). The Nema program trained 650 CHVs on the 
following subjects: (a) exclusive breastfeeding; (b) nutritional supplements; (c) 
malnutrition screening; (d) cooking demonstrations; and (e) the design and execution of 
PD/Hearth activities. Unfortunately, the volume of work and low motivation of CHVs did 
not yield the expected results. Future programs need to determine if and how the CHVs’ 
role could be supplemented by the role of the community health worker (CHW), whose 
salaries must be paid for by the community. Some health districts in Mali are pilot testing 
CHWs as an intermediary between the CHVs and CSCOMs. At present, this new policy 
is not yet applied in the areas of Bourem and Douentza. The fact that the CHVs were 
non-functional following the departure of the program should not be a surprise given the 
fact that the number of CHVs was insufficient from the start of the program. To 
encourage sustainability, the Nema program tried to build its activities on the existing 
system of CHVs. Future programs need to help the health structures recruit and retain the 
most qualified CHVs. Equipping these individuals with proper materials to do their jobs 
and getting the communities to provide them with more in-kind and financial support will 
allow motivated volunteers to continue to spread the message after the departure of the 
program.
3. PECIMA’s Heavy Reliance on Food Assistance to Get Mothers to Bring Their Children 
in for Rehabilitations: The PECIMA component (SO2, IR 2.1) was implemented as an 
emergency program, with activities that focused on active screening and care of 
malnutrition that were strongly dependent on the distribution of food to malnourished 
children including a protective ration for the malnourished children’s families. Thus, the 
program did not focus on promoting monitoring (monthly weighing and cooking 
demonstrations activities) of children at the community level that could be accompanied 
by the distribution of food. The principal reasons that most CHVs and staff gave for not 
continuing the nutrition activities after the program closed was the absence of food aid: 
 "We have no more food to give to children who are detected, this is why we 
cannot continue with the activities, for moms were motivated by the presence of 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
73
food"; and 
 “Douentza is a food insecure area, so you need food, and the program must return 
to continue the activities of active screening and treatment of malnourished 
children at the community level. “ 
4. Weak But Poorly Documented Impact of the IEC Radio Programs: To promote 
communication activities for behavior change, the Nema program (through HKI) trained 
radio hosts in ENA, hygiene, and the national strategy for care of malnutrition. The same 
initiative developed a series of messages about improved nutritional practices and the 
care of acute malnutrition that were translated into local languages for broadcasting by 
the local radio stations. To date, no one has evaluated the impact of these broadcast 
messages, but it appears that their greatest impact was in sites where the taped messages 
were distributed to the SILC listening groups. 
5.3.1.2. Key Recommendations: 
1. Retrain the CHVs and provide them with training materials (IEC support picture boxes, 
posters, pamphlets, etc.) on the prevention and community-level treatment of acute 
malnutrition. 
2. Build public awareness about the need to support the CHVs though the development of 
income generating activities (IGAs) through the AEG and SILC, community support for 
their farming activities, or setting up a system of in-kind compensation through the 
mobilization of community resources. 
3. Strengthen the baseline training of the health personnel (at the CSCOM and CSREF 
levels) in the identification and treatment of moderately malnourished children, and 
organize regular retraining sessions. 
4. Provide additional training on nutrition for the SILC and AEG members to help them 
better train the mothers and fathers in the monitoring and community-based rehabilitation 
of moderately malnourished children. 
5. Anticipate the need for a progressive transfer of knowledge and responsibility to the 
CHVs and make sure they have the tools and equipment they need to conduct growth 
monitoring in compliance with the national norms for fighting malnutrition. 
6. Integrate the promotion of micro-nutrient rich foods into the routine activities of the 
CHVs, and put them in contact with other community-based structures or women contact 
persons in order to promote appropriate health messages concerning dietary diversity and 
the promotion of local foods that are rich in micro nutrients (vitamin A and iron). 
7. Introduce food technology activities to process local food (production of weaning foods, 
local foods enrichment). 
8. Strengthen the frequency of in-home training visits by the CHVs and volunteer mothers 
in order to create the enabling environment required for behavior change. 
5.3.2. Recommendation 2.2. Improve the execution of the PD/Hearth-model programs in the 
program villages. 
5.3.2.1. Summary Observations: 
1. PD/Hearth Better Suited to an Emergency Context: The Nema model for PD/Hearth 
focused heavily on cooking demonstration and the promotion of local products that could 
provide high-quality weaning foods. The heavy involvement of the volunteer mothers in 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
74
the organization of the cooking demonstrations limited the amount of time the mothers 
had for apprenticeship. This had the unintended consequence of limiting the mothers’ 
ownership of the improved practices being promoted. Other problems were caused by the 
fact that many of the women who volunteered to be model mothers were unable to 
continue the PD/Hearth activities after the program closed. Though the focus was on 
replication of DP/Foyer approach by participating moms in their respective 
families/communities, this replication did not occur once the CDAs completed their 
conversion to generalists. The best strategy would have been that program staff be based 
in the villages to enhance the transfer of skills to CHVs and help establish health 
committees to support nutrition activities in the village. This strategy would have enabled 
a better understanding of target groups, their difficulties, and the M&E of field activities. 
2. Low Coverage of Neediest Nema Villages by PD/Hearth: Even with its acknowledged 
weak points (see #1 above), the Nema PD/Hearth approach was very good, but its 
implementation only covered 21% of the intervention villages (27/130). In addition to the 
crisis, which shut down the Nema program and most CSCOMs for many months, the 
criteria (availability of local products, drinking water, a nearby health center) used by the 
program to build a village FARN approach limited its extension to the neediest villages. 
Future programs need to take this into account and consider steps to extend PD/Hearth 
coverage to all villages, with particular emphasis on developing PD/Hearth programs in 
the villages that are identified as most vulnerable in food security and nutrition. 
3. No Long-Term Monitoring of the Children After They Graduated from the PD/Hearth 
Program: Two weak points of the Nema approach for PD/Hearth were: (a) not taking into 
account the weight/height index; and (b) insufficient monitoring of children in the longer 
term (i.e., two months, six months and one year after the children leave PD/Hearth). This 
type of post-PD/Hearth growth monitoring is needed for two reasons. First, it enables the 
program to measure the impact of PD/Hearth activities on the nutritional status of 
children and the application of improved practices learned by mothers during PD/Hearth. 
Second, it provides a mechanism for the program to support the mothers’ continuing the 
improved practices learned during PD/Hearth. The focus group discussions show that 
many of these mothers were able to continue these practices, even for other children born 
later in their households. 
4. Lack of Integration of SO2 Activities with SO1 Activities: The MYAP proposal 
anticipated a strong link between the program’s SO1 and SO2 activities through training 
PD/Hearth mothers in gardening techniques and support for the development of 
gardening techniques that would increase household access to micronutrient-rich 
vegetables. Unfortunately, this linkage was not well developed until the third year of the 
program. 
5. Weak Monitoring of PD/Hearth Activities by the Nema CDAs: Given the volume of 
activities the CDAs were responsible for, they were not very effective in monitoring 
women who participated in the approach. At the start of the implementation of PD/Hearth 
activities, the sessions often coincided with the preparation of farm activities and the lean 
seasons (June-July). This frequently led to difficulties in obtaining local foods and the 
effective participation of mothers with malnourished children. Based on lessons learned 
from program Year 2, the implementation period of PD/Hearth activities was taken back 
to the months of December-April in program Year 3. During the Year 4 (2012) of the 
program, mobilization and identification activities of malnourished children were made,
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
75
but because of the crisis, PD/Hearth was not undertaken. 
5.3.2.2. Key Recommendations: 
1. Given the observed impact of the PD/Hearth model programs on mothers’ health 
practices both during and after the program, future Nema interventions should implement 
a revised PD/Hearth model in every village where the program intervenes that includes 
revised model for tracking the children’s progress both during and after treatment.69
2. Encourage the development of IGAs for the vulnerable mothers of the children 
participating in the PD/Hearths through the development of irrigated gardening activities 
and organizing them into care groups. 
3. Involve community volunteers in early PD/Hearth activities, and strengthen the 
CSCOM’s supervision of the CHVs (at least twice per quarter) to ensure sustainability of 
the achievements in the field, especially in new areas of program intervention. 
4. Introduce food technology activities for local food processing (production of weaning 
foods, local foods enrichment). 
5. Transform the earlier Nema "voluntary mothers" system into the system of "Mama 
Lumieres" used by most non-emergency PD/Hearth programs.
5.3.3. Recommendation 2.3. Improve access to clean drinking water and strengthen hygiene 
and sanitation practices by requiring all villages to support the Mali government’s 
regional and cercle-level CLTS initiative. 
5.3.3.1. Summary Observations: Since clean drinking water is still a pressing constraint in about 
half the Nema villages due to budget constraints that restricted the program’s ability to create 
wells, a third set of recommendations focuses developing a wider network of support for creating 
potable water drinking points. Given the successful record of the government-sponsored CLTS 
program in adjacent areas and the successful pilot testing of this program in five Nema villages 
during the start-up phase, the health team is encouraging future programs to support the 
government’s CLTS initiative to promote community sanitation programs. 
5.3.3.2. Key Recommendations: 
1. Since drinking water is still one of the principal constraints to improving the nutritional 
status of the most vulnerable population in the villages, the consortium partners might 
think of exploring other opportunities for funding drinking water infrastructure through 
other organizations or private-donor funds. These funds, as well as any future funds, need 
to give priority to water resource development in the most vulnerable villages. 
2. Future programs should anticipate introducing the government’s new CLTS initiative, 
which was pilot tested in five of the Nema villages, in every one of the Nema 
communities. 
5.3.4. Recommendations Made by the Partners and Beneficiaries: During interviews with the 
technical partners of state services, some recommendations were made to improve the care of 
malnutrition (Text Box 3.5). Beneficiaries also made recommendations during focus groups. 
 
69 This includes using weight/height index and monitoring the children’s progress two months, six months, and one 
year after the children leave PD/Hearth. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
76
Text Box 3.5. Main Suggestions or Recommendations Made by the Technical Partners and Beneficiaries in 
the Improvement of Program Activities 
The main suggestions or recommendations made by technical partners in the context of the improvement of the 
activities of the project: 
 “We are seeking the return of the project and the resumption of activities in 100 villages, which were covered 
with emphasis on the training of two relais (CHVs) by village;”
 Resume community-level screening of moderately malnourished childrenf that distributes food to 
malnourished children;
 Resume the basic training and retraining of the health workers (e.g. the community-based relais [CHF] as 
well as the Ministry of Health workers) on community-based rehabilitation of acute malnutrition and the new 
National Nutrition Support Protocol;
 In collaboration with the health structures, establish a system of regularly monitoring the nutrition activities 
developed on the ground; and
 Put in place a system to motivate community relais (CHVs) for the sustainability of their activities on the 
ground.
The main suggestions or recommendations made by the beneficiaries in the context of the improvement of the 
activities of the project:
 The resumption of the Nema project for the continuation of the assistance activities for our children;
 Resumption of activities by the Nema project and enhancement of the training of mothers on nutrition of 
children. “The Nema project must go back now because we mothers need this project for the health of our 
children and for continuing to teach us to make their food;” and
 We are seeking the return of the draft to regain homes and sensitize mothers in the village through the 
testimonies of other mothers who adopted good practices.
Source: Key informant and focus group discussion. Nema Final Evaluation, November 2013.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 3. SO2. December 30, 2013. Draft. 
77
Appendix I, Chapter 3: Evolution of SO2 Activities 
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
A. Rehabilitation of moderate acute malnourished children
Training of CSREFs/ CSCOMs 35 105 28 105
CSCOM equipment 28 29 29
Creating hangars for CSCOMs 17 12
CHV training 670 645
CHV equipment (Shakir, one register per village) 650 630
SILC training (in listening groups and distribution of ENA 
equipment)
20 40 80
Number of people following literacy program (four months): 90% 
of women with an emphasis on sanitation and hygiene themes 
(sanitation, nutrition, management of drinking water)
Training of radio hosts (training and messages—the design,
translation, and dissemination of messages in local languages) 15 15
Creating radio messages 18 35
Screening for PECIMA (children) 0 575 12196 5094
Number of CSCOMs that received food to support the 
rehabilitation of malnourished children 25 28 29 29
B. PD/Hearth
Preparation of villages for PD/Hearth activities 23 18
Training of volunteer mothers and health committees (# trained) 74 433 139
Number of PD/Hearth sessions (achieved/planned) 11/30 49/52 18/36 
Supervision (number of trips) by the adviser on health /nutrition 
(HKI) 2 4 ¼
Programs to encourage the volunteer mothers 74 433 0
Training of health workers on PD/Hearth 58
C. Latrines/CLTS
Training of masons 13
Providing the trained masons with equipment 10
Construction of model platform latrines 14 10/26
Initial training (aka “triggering”) of CLTS community-based 
programs (Number of villages) 4 16
Certification of CLTS villages (out of number trained) 2/20 
Latrines of CLTS (traditional latrines constructed by the community 
members after the initial CLTS public-awareness building) 142 190
Water Points
AES (temporary water supply) 3
Wells 3 7 4
Wells drilled 6 11
Water supply committees trained 17 13
Source: Nema M&E data, November 2013. Translation by CRS/Mali. March 1, 2014.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
78
Chapter 4 
SO3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively70
This chapter provides a brief overview of the results of the Final Qualitative Survey and 
Evaluation for the Nema program’s Strategic Objective 3 (SO3) activities. The chapter is divided 
into five sections. 
Section 1.0. SO3 Strategy/Theory of Change: The intervention strategy and key actors 
involved in executing specific components of the strategy to achieve two intermediate results 
(IRs): 
 IR 3.1. Community early warning and response systems are in place; and
 IR 3.2. Community safety nets are in place. 
Section 2.0. Evolution of the Nema SO3 Strategy and Activities (Years 1-4): The evolution of 
the implementation strategy for the three principal components of the program: the Early 
Warning Group/Emergency Response (Groupements d’Alerte Precoce et Reponse d’Urgence or 
GAP/RU), Food for Work (FFW), and safety net activities. 
Section 3.0. Early Evidence of Effects and Results of Nema’s SO3 Activities on the 
Establishment of Sustainable Community Early Warning and Response Systems (Years 1-
4): Some of the ways that the SO3 activities helped the local people manage a series of crises 
that started in June 2011 and continue to the present time.71
Section 4.0. Current Level of the SO3 Activities Supported by Nema (November 2013): 
 4.1. The current level of activity in the villages based on the results of the qualitative 
survey (November 2013) for the principal categories of activities including: 
- FFW-created infrastructure; 
- Community-based early warning systems; and 
- Community-based safety nets; and 
 4.2. A summary assessment of some of the key factors that affected these outcomes.
72
Section 5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: A list of recommendations that the 
evaluation team—working in close collaboration with the key implementation and execution 
partners—have identified for: 
 
70 This chapter was prepared with the assistance of an informal Nema SO3 working group that developed around the 
final evaluation team’s field and key informant interviews. This working group included: Adama Sangare (CRS); 
Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali); Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao); and Ahmadou Tadina (Agricultural Sector 
Chief, Douentza). The working group was supported in its analysis of previous and current activities by Boureima 
Sacko and Isack Dolo (M&E Department CRS), who co-facilitated the field portion of the final qualitative survey 
exercise with Dr. Sidikiba Sidibe (Consultant, Nema) and Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao) in Bourem. 
Della McMillan (Consultant, Nema) provided analytical and editorial support to the team’s activities. 
71 See key questions on resilience (see Table 1.2 in Chapter 1). 
72 I.e. The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and 
the activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
79
 Corrective actions recommended for increasing the sustainability of the program impacts; 
and
 Strengthening the benefits initiated by the program. 
1.0. SO3 Strategy/Theory of Change
Since 2007, the USAID has encouraged all of the Title II food security programs to include a set 
of activities designed to build the capacity of local communities to better manage risks and 
shocks. To address this issue, most Title II programs designed since 2007 have included: 
 GAP/RU: The creation of some variant of a community-based early warning and 
response system; 
 FFW: A system for planning technically and socially acceptable programs trading work 
for food; and 
 Safety Nets: A culturally appropriate system for safety nets for vulnerable groups that 
usually includes some combination of: 
- Direct distribution to help vulnerable groups complement their short-term food 
needs; and 
- Individual FFW to help the vulnerable groups develop infrastructure and activities 
that will help them develop income-generating activities (IGAs) that they can 
manage with their limited labor; as well as
 Scale-Up Plan: A plan for scaling this combined package up or down depending on the 
trigger indicators for assistance. 
Given the Douentza and the Bourem region’s long history of drought and emergency response—
in particular the very recent devastating drought that followed the 2004-2005 locus epidemics in 
both areas—the Nema program focused on the design of an integrated GAP/RU that could be 
scaled up or down depending on need. 
The original plan, which was outlined in the proposal, anticipated the creation of GAP/RU in 
each of the 130 villages. The role of the GAP/RU was to collect information that they could use 
to help the communities anticipate crises and develop appropriate internal responses, and to 
transfer this information to the commune-level early warning systems (Système d’Alerte Précoce 
or SAPs), whose role was to monitor food security risks and coordinate any larger-scale 
emergency response that might be needed to a major crisis. 
This section of the Nema proposal is very well designed and included a very well-thought-out 
plan for: 
 The development of the GAP/RUs and their relationship to the SAPs; 
 An extensive program to development FFW activities that would help the local 
communities develop more profitable agro-enterprise activities and reduce routine risk by 
infrastructure development that reduced erosion, flooding, and other period risks; 
 The creation of a Safety Net Committee comprised of village leaders whose role would 
be to: 
- Identify Vulnerable Households and Rations to be Distributed: Develop a 
prioritized list of vulnerable groups that would receive a daily ration for three 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
80
months during the soudure (hungry period before the harvests).73 In contrast to 
many earlier programs, the Nema program provided a donation for the family 
members of vulnerable persons as well as for their rehabilitation; and 
- Coordinate Distribution: Discreetly manage the appropriate ration size to the 
vulnerable individuals and their families in ways that minimized any shame or 
social conflict related to the safety net. Although the short-term focus of the safety 
net program was on relieving the severe food constraints that many of these 
households faced, the program hoped that the training the committees received 
would help these community leaders strengthen the traditional systems for helping 
vulnerable groups once the program ended. 
The same baseline document included a well-thought-out plan for how these activities SO3 
activities—as well as the Prise en Charge Intégrée de la Malnutrition Aiguë (PECIMA) 
component of SO2—could be scaled up or decreased if a major risk hit that affected more than 
25% of the population. 
These SO3 activities (FFW, GAP/RU, safety nets) were expected to have a host of short-term 
and longer-term impacts. In the short-term, they were expected to facilitate the adoption of more 
crop technologies and IGAs by improving basic infrastructure and reducing the drain on 
household investments and labor created by looking after very vulnerable groups. The impacts of 
these activities on household food security, income growth, and vulnerability were measured by 
the SO1 Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) indicators (see Chapter 2). 
The same SO3 activities (FFW, GAP/RU, safety nets) were expected to increase the long-term 
sustainability of these impacts under the program by setting up a sustainable system of 
community early warning and response systems and community-based safety nets. To insure 
appropriate tracking, the IPTT included a series of indicators that tracked the creation of these 
two institutions—the GAP/RU (Monitoring Indicators 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) and Safety Net 
Committees (Comite de Filet de Securite) (Monitoring Indicators 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).
 
73 Distribution made in June to cover July, August, and September. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
81
Figure 4.1. Nema SO3 Strategy/Theory of Change
Table 4.1. Impact and Monitoring Indicators Used to Track the Progress of the Nema Program’s 
Intermediate Results in Its IPTT 
Indicator Year 
2
Year 
3
Year 
4
IR 3.1. Community early warning and response systems are in place
GAP/RU
II 3.1. % of Title II-assisted communities with disaster early warning systems in place 
(FFP)
30% 55% 0
MI 3.1.1. % of HOH (sic) in targeted communities who can cite at least two concrete 
strategies the community is using to improve their resiliency to future shocks ND ND ND
MI 3.1.2. # of community groups that are actively tracking trigger indicators 26 67 0
FFW
II 3.2. % of Title II-assisted communities with improved physical infrastructure to 
mitigate the impact of shocks 32.3% 82% ND
MI 1.1.3. # of beneficiary farmers accessing improved agro-sylvo-pastoral 
infrastructure (created with FFW) 35,210 66,746 0
MI 1.1.4. # of improved infrastructures completed (disaggregated by type of 
infrastructure: km of road, number of bridges, hectares irrigated, etc.)
42 143 0
MI 1.1.9. # of mitigation actions to prevent or reduce natural resource degradation 
implemented 11 18 0
MI 3.1.3.-3.1.9. Environmental indicators
IR 3.2. Community safety nets are in place
MI 3.2.1. Total # of assisted communities with safety nets in place to address the needs 
of the most vulnerable members (FFP) 96 130 130
MI 3.2.2. Total # of communities who strengthen safety nets over the life of the activity, 
as shown by the reported increase in the diversity of shocks the safety net is capable of 
responding to (FFP)
42 130 130
MI 1.1.7. # of vulnerable households benefitting directly from USG assistance (safety 
nets) 3,438 3,859 3,640
Source: Nema program IPTT, Annex I. Acronyms: II: Impact Indicator; MI: Monitoring Indicator; FFP: Food for 
Peace; USG: U.S. Government; ND: No data. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
82
2.0. Evolution of the Nema SO3 Strategy and Activities 
2.1. IR 3.1. Community Early Warning and Response Systems are in Place 
2.1.1. GAP/RU: The process of setting up and training the GAP/RU started in the second year. 
Each village was expected to nominate a committee of between seven and 12 persons per group, 
including at least one woman, who was usually a community health volunteer (CHV or relais) or 
the village representative for women. Once the GAP/RU committee was identified, members 
received a three-day training. 
In Douentza, this initial training was conducted by a sub-contract to the Ministry of Agriculture 
in the first years. Unfortunately, since the concept was very new and extension agents doing the 
training had no experience in GAP/RU, this initial training was very weak and had to be redone 
in the second year with strong input from Caritas/Mali and extensive input from the senior SO3 
advisor for the Consortium. 
Tassaght was responsible for the initial selection and training of the GAP/RU at Bourem. Despite 
the fact that they were not involved in either the initial selection or training of the GAP/RU 
groups, the Bourem administrators supported their participation in their development and 
participation in the cercle-level meetings. Thus most of the Bourem GAP/RU groups were up 
and running by the second year. 
Faced with the regional SAP’s unwillingness to let the GAP/RU committee members attend their 
meetings at Douentza, the SO3 Consortium advisor from CRS and the Caritas program manager 
(PM), who managed all of the program activities at Bourem, were forced to spend a great deal of 
time advocating on behalf of their inclusion. The groups were finally allowed to attend the 
commune-level SAP meetings in the third year. 
At the time of the mid-term evaluation, 79 of the 130 GAP/RUs were considered ‘functional’ in 
terms of (a) organizing monthly meetings; (b) collecting information and putting it in the 
notebooks; (c) participating in the commune-level meetings of the SAP; (d) collecting regular 
rainfall data; (e) sharing the information gathered on the ‘trigger indicators’ with their
communities; and (f) assisting the community in the event of a shock.74 One strength of the 
Nema monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system was its consistent collection and analysis of the 
data needed to monitor the major monitoring indicators (MIs) that were designed to track the 
efficiency and results of the GAP/RUs as they developed (Tables 4.1 and 4.2).75
2.1.2. FFW: A total of 143 infrastructures (114 agro-sylvo-pastoral infrastructures and 29 roads 
and bridges) were built with FFW (Table 4.2). Each FFW program was managed by a FFW 
management committee. Once the activity was terminated, the village was expected to create a 
separate committee to maintain the infrastructure. 
 
74 K. Tilford. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Page 31. 
75 One group of internal indicators was collected by the CDAs and transmitted directly to the SO3 specialist and the 
executing partner PMs on all 130 the GAP/RUs. Each year, the Consortium’s M&E specialist conducted an 
independent audit of these numbers on about half the GAP/RUs during his annual field visits. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
83
Table 4.2. Major SO3 Achievements During Nema, Years 1-4 
Activities LOA Target Achieved (Year 4)
GAP/RU linked to the regional-level early warning 
system (System d’Alerte Precoce or SAP) 130 84
Bourem 30 28
Douentza 100 56
Community infrastructure in place to increase 
production, avoid shocks, and reduce erosion through 
FFW
260 143
Number of vulnerable individuals targeted for safety net 
programs using specific criteria 14,362 8,726
Bourem 4,309 2,618
Douentza 10,053 6,108
Source: Nema program data, November 2013. Acronym: LOA: Life of Activity. 
2.2. IR 3.2. Community Safety Nets are in Place 
In the past, the principal conduit of food assistance in the program intervention areas was the 
chief, who would usually distribute the food to a group of households that would be co￾determined with his counselors. One objective of the CRS safety-net program was to try to 
strengthen this traditional system by training village leaders to use a simple but very rigorous 
system for identifying the most vulnerable groups and determining an appropriate ration size to 
the most vulnerable 2-3% of the local community. Each safety net group was trained by the 
Consortium’s three SO3 community development agents (CDAs, also known as Agents de 
Développement Communautaire).76 The fact that the first non-emergency food distribution 
followed one month after the second training helped hone some of the training messages and 
gave a great sense of importance to this group. A total of two ‘routine’ emergency safety net 
distributions were executed during the soudure in Years 2 and 3 of the program. The first 
emergency safety net (which was the third safety net executed by the Nema program) was 
designed in October 2011 and executed in January-March 2012 to provide safety nets for 
vulnerable households in 104 of the Nema villages that were most seriously affected by the 2011 
drought (see Section 3.1. below).77
2.3. Mid-Term Evaluation Assessment and Recommendations 
The mid-term evaluation was not optimistic about the long-term sustainability of the GAP/RU 
system, but made a list of recommendations for strengthening the groups’ functioning. The mid￾term was very positive, however, about the technical quality and prospects for sustaining the 
infrastructure created with the program’s FFW activities and the way the safety net program was 
targeting vulnerable groups (Text Box 4.1). 
 
76 The program had two SO3 CDAs for the 100 villages at Douentza and one SO3 CDA for the 30 Bourem villages. 
77 Nema. 2001. Rapport Situationnel/Douentza/Bourem/Mali. 2 Novembre 2011.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
84
Text Box 4.1. Major Conclusions of the Mid-Term Evaluation Concerning SO3
GAP/RU: “The interviews with EWG (Early Warning Group) members during the field survey showed that the 
EWGs do understand how the information they collect is used at a higher level. The members are especially 
interested in tracking rainfall…..Fortunately, no major shocks have occurred recently in the MYAP communities,
but the absence of shocks makes it difficult to assess whether the EWGs [early warning groups] and the 
communities as a whole have actually improved their ability to identify and respond to shocks. ….The main concern 
with the EWS is whether they will continue to carry out their functions once the MYAP ends.”
FFW: “Most of the programs are directly related to improving livelihoods…Other programs protect the 
communities from flooding or from the encroachment of sand dunes. ….This activity is one of the most successful 
and appreciated by the beneficiaries for two reasons. First, the food is provided during the ‘hungry 
season.’….Second, the type of infrastructure to be built is chosen by the community, and almost all programs benefit 
the entire community in one way or another. The exception is the irrigated perimeters where the number of plots 
might be limited.”
Safety Nets: “The major issue with this activity is sustainability once the FFP rations are no longer available. Given 
how poor most people are, there is a certain reluctance to donate part of one’s harvests to neighbors and others who 
are casual acquaintance…For this reason it is highly unlikely that all 130 villages will set up their own system 
before the program ends.”
Source: K. Tilford, 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pp. 32-33.
3.0. Early Evidence of Impact on the Establishment of Sustainable GAP/RUs in the 
Target Villages 
The true results and effects of an effective early warning and response system are: 
 How it reacts when an actual emergency occurs; and 
 How it performs when the program that created it is no longer there to assist it. 
To date, there are very few of the Title II-funded programs that have been tested to the degree 
that Nema was tested starting in June 2011, at the very end of year three just after the mid-term 
evaluation. For all this reasons, USAID/FFP is very interested in assessing how the early 
warning system that was set up in Years 1-3 actually functioned when a real crisis hit. 
3.1. Results During Nema —Efficient Preparation of a Relief Plan in Response to Data from 
the GAP/RU
The first evidence of a major drought started filtering through their GAP/RU reports to Caritas 
and SCI in June and July 2011. Based on this information, the Consortium’s SO3 specialist made 
a series of field visits to verify the information, including a full field visit in October 2011 in 
which he and the SCI, Caritas, and Tassaght staff identified a list of the 104 (80%) most 
vulnerable villages. With input from some of the better-organized GAP/RU committees, the 
consortium prepared a “bump-up” plan that was submitted to USAID that basically followed the 
“scale-up” plan that had been outlined in the original Nema proposal.78 Specifically, the “bump 
up” anticipated: 
 Doubling the amount of FFW in all villages—not just the most vulnerable ones—during 
the soudure months in two periods (January–March and April-June); 
 
78 Nema. 2001. Rapport Situationnel/Douentza/Bourem/Mali. 2 Novembre 2011.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
85
 Doubling the amount of food aid for the regular PECIMA program (which was scheduled 
to start in 2012) for up to 10,800 children instead of 5,400; and 
 Doubling the amount of food budgeted to the direct distribution safety nets. 
The fact that the program could prepare such a solid, well-researched proposal in only two 
months is a vivid indicator of the degree to which the Nema training had built the capacity of 
some of the better organized GAP/RUs (that were able to help), the Safety Net Committees, and 
the Consortium’s local executing partners, Caritas and Tassaght. 
It is a testament to the quality of the proposal that the first shipment of supplementary food 
assistance and cash arrived within two months (January 2012). 
Another output was the team’s effective mobilization of an emergency safety net program in 
January-March 2012 in the hopes of stabilizing the male work force until the emergency FFW
program could be geared up for all 130 (100%) of the villages. The speed and effectiveness of 
the response was even more important given the fact that it overlapped with an even larger crisis 
that was clearly starting to emerge in January 2012.79
3.2. Results During Nema—Partial Execution of a Relief Program in the Douentza Villages 
Once the Mali government fell in March 2012, most government services in Douentza and 
Bourem shut down. This, in combination with the progressive military occupation of both 
cercles, forced both local executing partners (Tassaght and Caritas) to shut down their local 
offices. The Caritas office in Douentza was moved back to Mopti in March. These events—
combined with agency (CRS, SCI, and HKI) and US government security measures for the 
north—meant that Nema’s carefully orchestrated emergency relief plan (plan d’urgence) for the
2011 drought was only partially executed. That is to say, Nema was only able to execute the very 
first part of the relief program—i.e. the first three-month safety net (January-March) and an 
initial increase in the amount of food given to the community health centers (Centres de Santé 
Communautaire or CSCOMs) for treating malnourished children. 
3.3. Results Post-Nema—Nema-Trained Safety Net Committees Helped Facilitate the 
Allocation of Other Humanitarian Aid During the Crisis 
The full impact of the Nema training of the community-based Nema Safety Net Committees 
became apparent when the first non-Nema food assistance to the area started filtering in, which 
was not until January 2013 (Table 4.3). 
 
79 The first real attacks in northern Mali started in January 2012 as the arms from the demobilized Libyan troops 
started moving into the far north. These arms ignited age-old animosities that quickly swirled into series of 
rebellions and occupations in the north. Faced with growing opposition to the way the government was managing 
this second emerging crisis, the military staged a coup d’etat in Bamako March 22nd
, which accelerated the speed 
with various armed groups, started moving south in hopes of occupying Mopti, which is the capital of the region that 
the cercles of Bourem and Douentza report to. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
86
Table 4.3. Evidence of Post-Nema Food Distributions in the Nema Villages, September 2012-present 
Humanitarian Agency 
Distributing Food Aid
% of Population 
Targeted by Distribution 
(% of Most Vulnerable 
Households)
Number 
of 
Villages
% of Nema 
Villages 
Covered by 
Distribution
Douentza (100 Nema Villages)
January-February 2013
 IFRC 13% (during 2 months) 100 100%
March-October 2013
WFP 33% (during 6 months) 24
IFRC 31% (during 6 months) 76
Bourem (30 Nema Villages)
OXFAM/WFP (July-Dec 2013) 30-40% (during 6 months) 27 90%
IFRC (Sept 2013) 100% (during 1 month) 30 100%
ADESAH (Sept-Nov 2012; Sept￾Nov 2013)
50% (during 3 months) 3 10%
Source: Key informant interviews, Ministry of Agriculture staff, Nema Final Evaluation, November 2013. 
Acronyms: IFRC: International Federation of the Red Cross; WFP: World Food Program; OXFAM: Oxfam 
International; ADESAH: Association for the Endogenous Development of the Sahel
Based on feedback from the focus group and key informant discussions during the evaluation, 
the training received under Nema helped these Safety Net Committees: (a) develop a draft list80
of vulnerable households, which complied with the humanitarian donors (i.e. 13-20% of the 
population); (b) make sure that the ration complied with donor requirements; and (c) (very 
important) ensure that the donor got the records that the rations were received by the appropriate 
category of beneficiary. 
There is anecdotal evidence that this increased village-level capacity helped some of the Food 
Security Committees attract smaller food-aid allotments as they came in over and above the main 
distributions, such as restricted allotments for specific groups like internally displaced persons 
(IDPs).
4.0. Current Level of the SO3 Activities Supported by Nema 
4.1. Food for Work 
4.1.1. Current Level of Functioning of the FFW-Supported Activities Designed to Reduce 
Environmental Risk and Promote Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Enterprise Development: Out of the 
seven non-FFW-facilitated infrastructures visited by the final evaluation survey team, 100% 
were still functional. Out of the 26 FFW facilitated infrastructures visited, 78% were functional 
(Table 4.4). In general, however, the level of maintenance is sub-standard and most maintenance 
committees do not appear to function. 
 
80 It appears that this draft list was often just a revised list of the original list of the vulnerable groups used to target 
the most vulnerable households in Years 2-3 of Nema. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
87
Table 4.4. Number of Infrastructures Created, Direct Beneficiaries, and Current Level of Functioning of the 
FFW-Funded Infrastructure Created by the Nema Program, November 2013 
Activity/Indicator
During the Program
(by Year)
After Nema 
(November 2013)
2 3 4 Total # Visited During 
Final Survey
# Visited That 
Were Assessed as 
Functional
# of persons benefitting from FFW 
Men 28,870 
Women 30,049
Non-FFW infrastructure created 7/7 (100%)
Sanitation and hygiene 
infrastructure 
Incomplete 
information 5
5/5
Drinking water infrastructure 15 2 2/2
FFW infrastructure created
# FFW-facilitated infrastructures 
created 65 78 143 26 (18% of 
created) 19/26 (78%)
FFW-facilitated infrastructure for 
agro-sylvo-pastoral and gardening 
activities
49 65 114/143 21 (15/21)
FFW-facilitated other (bridges, 
rural roads) 16 13 29/143 4
(4/4)
Source: Field visits to observe infrastructure, Nema Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013. 
4.1.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:81
 Beneficiary, Mid-Term, and Partner Assessments: In general, the villagers interviewed 
during the final evaluation survey expressed their deep appreciation for the FFW—both 
as a food supplement and as a source of investment in infrastructure that benefitted (in 
most cases) the entire village (Text Box 4.2). Almost all of the key informants 
interviewed during the final evaluation concurred with the conclusion expressed in the 
mid-term evaluation that this was “one of the most successful program interventions.”82
 All Infrastructure Activities Integrated into the Government Commune Plans: A major 
strength was that all activities integrated into the previously created commune 
development plans. If any infrastructure was not identified before the program, Nema 
made sure it was added in order to strengthen the prospects for long-term maintenance. 
 Delays in Materials: The chief complaint about the FFW was substantial delays in the 
provision of some of the materials. This point was also raised in the mid-term 
evaluation.83
 Gender Roles and Relations: The Consortium’s insistence that all programs respect the 
target for gender has resulted in a high percentage of the direct beneficiaries being 
women.
 Impact on Vulnerable Households: All of the focus groups underscored the critical 
importance of FFW on household food security (Text Box 4.2). One challenge for the 
 
81 I.e. The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and 
the activities impact on the local people’s resilience.
82 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation, Page 32. 
83 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Page 32.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
88
next phase of the program should be to create a new sub-category of FFW that would 
create new opportunities for vulnerable women (as both individuals and groups) to use 
FFW to develop small IGAs that would reduce their long-term dependency on both the 
traditional and donor supported safety net programs. 
Text Box 4.2. Beneficiary Responses to Questions During the FFW Focus Groups
What are the benefits of FFW activities?
 Oualo Village: “Our village (Oualo) benefitted doubly from the Nema program’s FFW activities. We 
benefited from the infrastructure that was built (i.e. the construction of rural roads, irrigated market garden 
perimeter, and two wells) as well as the food. The new infrastructure has reduced the difficulty of reaching the 
village during the winter season. The village school teacher says that the new road has reduced her fuel 
consumption from 1.0 liter to 0.4 liters, and the length of the journey was reduced from six to three kilometers. 
The market-garden perimeter fence (i.e. windbreak) helped reduce deforestation, tree cutting, and protects the 
perimeter from stray animals.”
 Fombory Village: The Nema program’s FFW activities helped reduce the impact of the lean season in some 
households. Some of these families who needed food were grateful to receive food during the construction 
activities. This enabled them to cultivate their fields and reduce their humiliation about being dependent on 
other villagers.
 Kiro Village: The Nema program’s FFW activities benefitted us significantly. In addition to the food, the 
FFW enabled us to develop our irrigated rice perimeters. This food distribution enabled us to cover our food 
needs as well as do physical work in our fields during the soudoure (hungry months). In addition to these 
benefits, the FFW activities helped us to retain more young people in the village and to become familiar with 
new production techniques for rice. The same activities helped strengthen the solidarity of the community as 
they undertook activities of common interest.
 Dalla Village: The FFW was one of the best strategies of the Nema program because all of its activities were 
conducted for communities with active participation. The food distribution helped motivate the community to 
build the community’s basic infrastructure. 
- The food helped people satisfy their basic needs. The food came during the lean (i.e. hungry) season.
- The food reduced the number of young people seeking seasonal labor outside the village. 
- The construction of the dike using the FFW allowed us to protect the village against floods during rainy 
seasons and increase the area cultivated by diverting water using the deviation.
 Bore Village: The water points developed by the FFW helped to increase the availability of water in the pond 
(water courses during the 12 months of the year). We produce rice nurseries to transplant them during the 
cultivation period. There is also more water available for women to make detergents and market gardening 
during the dry season. The crocodiles are preserved and remain in withholding of water throughout the year. 
Prior to the construction of reservoirs, the crocodiles were not protected, and many of them died during the dry 
season (April and May). Currently, the benefits of the reservoir exceeded our expectations. FFW has also 
allowed us to enjoy food and work materials.
 Fombory, Dalla, Kiro Villages: 
- Coordinated food distribution to overlap with the period of food shortages;
- Double benefits: we benefited from both the infrastructure and rations food;
- Passionate support of the for FFW activities; and
- Food came during the lean season.
What suggestions do you have for strengthening the project’s achievements?
Kiro Village: The major difficulty was that women did not know how to prepare some foods that were not in our 
eating habits (such as the pea and semolina) and some of the foods were delivered late (e.g. after the FFW 
activities had ended). Some of the equipment also arrived late. When the equipment did come, we discovered that 
some of it was not strong or was of poor quality and not suitable for our clay soils.
 Bore Village: Fodder crops planted on the edge of the marsh were not successful due to the crisis.
 Fombory, Dalla Villages:
- Increase the amount of equipment distributed;
- Local workers must be accompanied by the qualified works for their training; and
- The water points are very deep and do not meet technical norms.
 Dalla Village:
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
89
- Increase the amount of food intake and add oil;
- Resume the work needed to finalize the dam;
- Immediate return of the Nema program and help increase the surface area of the perimeter; and 
- Increase the length of the rural roads and increase the amount of food distributed.
 Kiro Village: Increase the depth of the water retention pond and adapt the composition of the foods to the 
dietary habits of the population.
Testimony on the FFW: Focus Group with the Village Leaders of Dallah
According to the village leaders, the FFW activities have had a significant impact on the level of food security in 
their village. The FFW activities were timed to coincide with the start of the lean season. "In our village, the Food 
for Work helped some households to protect the seeds for agricultural production. Prior to this, many households 
were already starting to consume part of their seed.” Despite the fact that some of the infrastructure was never 
completed, the leaders were unanimous in affirming that the dikes have reduced the village’s constant fear of 
flooding. Prior to this the village was flooded annually, and many homes and granaries were destroyed. Thanks to 
God and the intervention of the project, the phenomenon of repeated flooding has been controlled. This dike plays 
an important role in the village. “We would like the program to resume the works needed to complete the dikes, 
which are so important to the village.”
Source: FFW Focus Groups, Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. November 2013. 
4.2. Community-Based Early Warning and Response Systems 
4.2.1. Current Level of Functioning of the Community-Based Early Warning and Response 
Systems: 
 Limited Functioning of the GAP/RU Committees as Intended in the Proposal: Only eight 
(38%) of the 21 GAP/RU committees contacted during the final evaluation survey are 
considered ‘functional’ in the sense that they still collect and report rainfall data in the 
local community; only one of the 21 still transmits data to the SAP (Table 4.5). Most 
committees are referred within the village as the meteo (rainfall gauge), which reflects the 
villagers’ opinion that their principal role is for data collection, not response. 
 Limited Functioning of the Safety Net Committees as Intended in the Proposal but New 
Role in Orchestrating Emergency Response: Although only 33% of the Safety Net 
Committees were considered functional in terms of the original purpose that they were 
supposed to perform (Table 4.5), they have become the principal point of contact for 
most of humanitarian food assistance coming in (Table 4.4 above). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
90
Table 4.5. Functionality of the GAP/RU and Safety Net Committees Interviewed During the Nema Program 
Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013 
Current Level of Functioning
Bourem (n*=6 
interviewed)
Douentza (n=15 
interviewed) Total
#
% of total 
interviewed #
% of total 
interviewed
GAP/RU Committees
1. Strong 0 0
2. Average 0 0
3. Weak 1 17% 7 47% 8 functional but weak 
(38%)
4. Non-Functional 5 83% 8 53% 13 non-functional 
(62%)
Safety Net Committees (Filets de Securite)
1. Strong
2. Average
3. Weak 6 100% 1 7% 7 (33% functional but 
weak)
4. Non-Functional (Traditional 
System Only) 14 93% 14 (67%) non￾functional
Source and Methodology: Nema Final Evaluation Survey based on the responses given during the community 
focus groups, November 2013 
*= Number of groups interviewed
4.2.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:
 Very Good Training and Supervision of the Safety Net Committees during Nema: The 
Nema program provided very good baseline training and persistent, very careful, close 
supervision of the Safety Net Committees. This type of in-depth technical assistance was 
needed to insure that they were able to do their job. 
 All of the Nema Villages Benefitted: All of the communities benefited from both types of 
support that currently provide the nucleus around which the current de-facto Food 
Security Committees are coagulating—the Safety Net Committees and the GAP/RUs.
 Limited Involvement of the SAPs in the Initial Set Up of the GAP/RU Committees 
Reduced the Committees’ Effectiveness in Douentza: One of the chief weaknesses 
associated was the weak implementation of the SAPs in the initial set up of the GAP/RU 
committees in Douentza. This reduced their support from and contribution to the SAPs. 
 Unintended Impacts—Managing a Major Crisis: In the final analysis, the Nema GAP/RU 
system did what it was supposed to do—it monitored emerging risks and facilitated the 
preparation of an emergency response, which was successfully submitted to USAID for 
funding in October/November 2012. This type of community-based system was never 
designed to identify or manage a major crisis with Title II or another type of donor 
support. However, the Nema support did help these communities manage the food 
assistance that they needed to handle the major crisis when it arrived. 
 Limited Integration of the GAP/RU and Safety Net Programs with Other Emergency 
Response Systems in the Target Areas: This assistance could have been more efficient 
and quicker had the community-based systems been better linked to some of the other 
emergency systems that the government and the Red Cross/Mali had set up in Douentza 
and Bourem. This would have had two benefits: It would have better-integrated the 
training and response systems with the pre-existing SAP and Red Cross/Mali system of 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
91
volunteers that were critical players in the crisis response, and would have enabled the 
Consortium to pre-negotiate certain types of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) for 
collaboration, which might have gotten the food to the local people more efficiently and 
quickly once a major disaster struck. 
4.3. Community Safety Nets
4.3.1. Current Level of Functioning: The final evaluation survey team conducted 20 interviews 
with representatives of the Safety Net Committees as part of the community-leader focus groups. 
These interviews confirmed that: (a) most of the committees still include their original members; 
(b) they continue to oversee certain traditional mechanisms for helping vulnerable groups; and 
(c) hey are the main point of point of contact for distributing food aid if and when it comes to the 
villages. They also confirm the communities’ deep appreciation for the safety nets (Text Box 
4.3).
The interviews also confirmed the suspicion that was voiced in the mid-term evaluation that: “It 
is very unlikely that all 130 villages will set up their own system before the program ends.”84 To 
date, only one of the committees interviewed has been able to do this through a link up to one of 
the associations des resortissants (expatriate clubs) that supports certain village charities (Table 
4.6). 
Table 4.6. Evolution of the Nema Safety Net and GAP/RU Activities, March 2012-November 2013
Activity/Indicator
After Nema
Actual (November 2013) Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 
(January)
MI 3.2.1.Total # of assisted 
communities with safety nets in 
place to address needs of the 
most vulnerable members
96/130
villages
130/130 
villages
130/130
villages
All but one of the villages visited in the 
final survey have reverted to 
traditional safety nets with one exception 
that is mobilizing expatriate support
MI 1.1.7. # of vulnerable 
households benefitting from 
USG assistance via safety nets 
3, 438 3,859 3,640
0
II 3.1.% of Title II assisted 
communites with disaster early 
warning systems in place (FFP). 
85 n/a 30% 65%*
Only one of the GAP/RU in the village of 
Boumbam functions fully—i.e. relays the 
data it collects to the SAP. The others 
continue to collect the data, which they 
convey to their fellow villagers through 
local radio or verbal communication.
Source: Nema program data and the results of the Nema Final Qualitative Survey, November 2013. 
*The figure in the IPTT (Annex I) is 52%. The correct figure according to staff is 84/13o or 65%.
 
84 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 33. 
85 “Functional groups consist of those who meet regularly, collect monthly data, submit monthly reports to SAP, and 
who intervene in the event of a shock.” (Annex I, Nema IPTT, Page 10). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
92
Text Box 4.3. Community Leader Observations About the Implementation of the Nema Safety Net Programs 
in the Cercle of Douentza
Can you describe how the selection of the beneficiaries for the safety net activities was made?
 Fambory, Naruto, Ouala, Kiro, Boron Villages: The vulnerable individuals were chosen by the village head 
and his advisor during a meeting of the village council. Cards were then distributed to the beneficiaries 
(vulnerable persons) through an assembly organized by the leaders for the identification of vulnerable persons 
in the village based on the defined vulnerability criteria.
What are the criteria for targeting of beneficiaries?
 Fambory, Ngono, Ouala, Kiro Villages: 
- Widows;
- Elderly persons who are childless;
- Elderly people abandoned by their children in the village; 
- The very poor (do not have enough to eat);
- The disabled; and
- Victims of flooding.
After the withdrawal of the project, the communities continued to use the same criteria to select vulnerable 
persons in the village who benefitted from assistance from UNHCR and the Islamic Relief Fund.
What do you think of the impact of the safety (free food distribution) net led by Nema in your village (impact 
on the lives of the most vulnerable)?
 Fambory, Naruto, Ouala, Kiro, Bore Villages: 
- Kept vulnerable people in the village;
- Helped vulnerable people to save the money they needed to pay for the education, health, and school 
supplies for their children;
- Decreased the burden of vulnerable people on the larger community; 
- Helped promote peace in the community and a spirit of solidarity with the vulnerable by strengthening social 
cohesion in the village;
- Helped support the most vulnerable people during the lean (i.e. hungry) season; 
- Helped avoid vulnerable people from having to go into debt or begging, and in so doing, helped them 
preserve their human dignity (since they no longer had to look for food);
- Reduced the community-level burden of managing vulnerable people; and
- Reduced the burden of looking after vulnerable household and the rural exodus of agricultural workers from 
the village.
What were the weaknesses/difficulties in the implementation of the safety under the Nema safety net 
activities? (Not all mentioned weaknesses):
 The crisis came and stopped the process.
 Presence of insects in the semolina flour.
 Kiro Village: We encountered many difficulties in implementing the Nema safety net program. Sometimes, the 
census would identify 25 people as beneficiaries but the program would receive only enough food for 20 
persons. This would mean that the five other persons who were identified as vulnerable would not receive any 
food. When this happened it would create a great deal of frustration.
What strategies were put in place to support the most vulnerable at the community level once the project 
withdrew? (Note all the strategies that were identified)
 Fambory, Naruto, Ouala, Kiro, Bore Villages: 
- With the sudden withdrawal of the Nema project, the community project rallied together to make gestures of 
solidarity toward the vulnerable people by granting them the zakat and zakat/alms;
- Support through traditional solidarity actions (such as alms);
- The community continues with the traditional system of support to the vulnerable through handouts, zakat,
and voluntary donations;
- Traditional support (Fambory), family solidarity; and
- Vulnerable people are supported by the community through actions of solidarity such as helping them 
cultivate their field (from the preparation of the fields to plant through harvests), helping them with baptisms 
and wedding ceremonies.
What suggestions or recommendations have you as part of the reduction of food insecurity at the level of the 
most vulnerable groups?
 Fambory, Naruto, Ouala, Kiro, Bore Villages: 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
93
- Vulnerable persons represent a burden, their support remains essential to improve their food security 
situation;
- Resume activities at the village and increase the amount of food to be distributed to vulnerable people;
- Project should focus on creating income-generating activities for vulnerable groups;
- Facilitate the implementation of a health infrastructure in the village to increase the accessibility of women 
and vulnerable people to health service; 
- Support the development of literacy centers for training the target groups (organized into groups or 
associations) in basic literacy; and
- Facilitate vulnerable groups’ access to the inputs that they will need to support themselves after the project’s 
withdrawal.
Lessons Learned / Testimony / Proverbs (Note: pay attention to relevant stories to be successes, stories of 
changes)
The support through the safety net for the vulnerable reminds us of the support of parents during the great drought 
that occurred in 1945 during the colonial period. At this time, our parents received food aid. It saved the entire 
village from hunger. Nema’s support for vulnerable persons is very similar. We can say that there are cases where 
Nema’s support helped save entire villages, especially during the most vulnerable during difficult periods. This 
same assistance helped lighten the burden of supporting these vulnerable groups during difficult times. We request 
that the Nema program consider resuming these activities in our village as well as completing all of the public 
works and good initiatives initiated together. 
Source: Community focus groups, Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation, November 2013. 
4.3.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context:86
4.3.2.1. General: 
 Culturally Appropriate Model Increased Efficiency and Sustainability During and After 
Nema: The Nema safety net model incorporated all of the same people that were involved 
in the execution of the traditional system, as well as one or two health volunteers (relais) 
as the official representative of the Ministry of Health. This has helped build group 
cohesion, acceptance, and sustainability both during and after the program. 
 De Facto Committee Structures Needs a Formal Identify and Technical Support: The fact 
that the de facto committee is still an informal structure that does not benefit from the 
steps of direct types of communication that were envisioned for the GAP/RU in program 
proposal and initial set up has a number of downstream consequences. It both limits the 
degree to which the committee members can interact with the other relevant actors 
involved in early warning and response (most notably the Red Cross/Mali volunteers), 
and their interaction with the SAPs. 
 Recent Creation of Community-Level Food Security Committees as a Legal Structure 
within the SAPs: The national SAP committee has recently recommended that each 
community create a village-level Food Security Committee, and that this committee be 
the principal contact point between the community and the cercle and commune-level 
SAPs. One of the main recommendations coming out of the San debriefing workshop on 
November 29, 2013 was that the next phase of the program anticipates the need to have 
this type of Food Security Committee be created to oversee all of the SO3 activities and
 
86 I.e. The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and 
the activities impact on the local people’s resilience. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
94
have specific sub-committees to do specific functions (like the GAP/RU, the Safety Net 
Committees, the FFW committee, and infrastructure management). This same structure 
could provide an umbrella for coordination with the other Nema committees both during 
and after program phase out. 
4.3.2.2. Effectiveness of the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, Learning (M&EAL) System: 
 Strong System for Tracking the Capacity of the Safety Net and GAP/RU Committees: A 
major strength of the SO3 M&E system was the creation and use of a simple system for 
tracking the capacity of the two most important intended organizational outputs: the 
Safety Net Committees and the GAP/RU. This system made it possible for the SO3 to 
identify problems—like the non-communication between the groups and the cercle-level 
SAPs—and to better target technical assistance and capacity.
 Areas that Could Be Strengthened in Order to Better Track Program Results and Effects: 
Although the M&E systems were rigorous, certain elements of the IPTT tracking system 
made it hard to appreciate the program’s significant achievements in a number of areas 
that are critical to resilience, food security, and sustainability. 
 Limited Disaggregation of the Tracking Data by Intervention Zone: The fact that most of 
the SO3 reporting data was aggregated made it harder to track certain site specific issues 
like the much weaker capacity of the GAP/RU in Douentza than in Bourem.
 Limited Capacity of Community-Level Capacity: The SO3 institutional capacity 
indicators were very useful, but the fact that they focused on specific committees—not 
the entire community early warning and response system—made it harder to:
- Track the “bigger picture” of how the community was responding to risk and 
various options for emergency response (like aid from other donors like WFP, 
IFRC, and Red Cross/Mali both during and after Nema); and 
- Determine when and what types of technical assistance might be needed to 
strengthen the emergency response when the major crisis hit. 
Had a more general tracking system been in place that could track the aggregate capacity of the 
de facto Food Security Committee that was calling the shots in most villages, it would have been 
much easier for the Consortium members to continue to backstop these committees and 
collaborate with the donors that were coordinating the emergency response. 
In the absence of this type of system, none of the major implementing partners (HKI, SCI, CRS) 
or local execution partners like Caritas had any concrete information on what type of emergency 
response was going on or who was doing it until the final qualitative evaluation in November 
2013.
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
Based on the assessment of the data from the final evaluation survey, the consultants and field 
staff who participated in the initial debriefing at San on November 30, 2013 identified six major 
recommendations for the next phase, as well as a list of specific recommendations. The 
consultants synthesized this list with their initial analyses and presented a revised list to the 
working group members on December 4, 2013 for their review. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
95
Recommendation 3.1. Anticipate the creation of Food Security Committees in all of the Nema 
villages to coordinate the different Nema and non-Nema community structures that affect food 
security, with a special accent on the activities started under SO3. 
Specific Recommendations:
1. Transform the existing level of collaboration between the different Nema-created 
structures that are functioning as an informal food security into a series of Village Food 
Security Committees (Comite villageois de sécurité alimentaire). 
2. Conduct a participatory needs assessment in each of the former Nema program villages to 
determine the level of functioning of the SO3 structures put in place and how the 
community managed the crisis. 
3. In conjunction with this participatory needs assessment, identify all of the key 
humanitarian assistance partners (including the local Red Cross volunteers and brigades) 
and their activities in the Nema villages during the crisis. 
4. Create a self-assessment tool that the Village Food Security Committees can use to self￾assess the core capacities that they will need to manage routine risk and major shocks. 
5. Based on this baseline self-assessment, help each committee develop a strategic plan for 
building their capacity in collaboration with the program and other partners such as Red 
Cross/Mali. 
6. Based on these needs assessments, work with local aid and SAP partners to develop joint 
training programs that will strengthen the Village Food Security Committees and sub￾committees (e.g. the Safety Net Committee and the GAP/RU) and build strong regional 
networks that can backstop these committees during a crisis. 
7. Require each Village Food Security Committee to update its self-assessment index 
(which includes an assessment of their level of collaboration with other aid partners and 
SAP structures outside the community) and try to insure that some of this information is 
tracked in indicators in the IPTT. 
Recommendation 3.2. Anticipate the involvement of all the key partners (Village Food Security 
Committees, Red Cross/Mali, and SAP) in the conception and execution of any future 
community-based early warning and emergency response system.
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Insure that the regional and local SAPs and major humanitarian organizations working in 
the area are involved in the initial conception of any future early warning and response 
system (i.e. in the MYAP design), as well as its implementation. 
2. Anticipate signing a MOU with the aid partners that might be needed in a major 
emergency as part of any future MYAP designs to facilitate quick response and more 
realistic emergency preparedness for worst-case scenarios. 
3. Each year, conduct a participatory review of all MOU and processes needed to activate 
them with the Village Food Security Committees and update the agreements if the 
context has changed. 
4. Continue to support the GAP/RU sharing the early warning information that they collect 
on the local community radio stations. 
5. Anticipate the necessity of linking the GAP/RU data-collection efforts to the larger data 
needs of the SAPs and other humanitarian partners. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 4. SO3. December 30, 2013. 
96
Recommendation 3.3. Anticipate activities that strengthen the food security of the most 
vulnerable households that reduce their dependence on community based safety nets. 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Strengthen current safety net programs with activities that develop IGAs for the most 
vulnerable households. 
2. Help vulnerable groups to organize themselves into groups to facilitate the supervision 
and support of activities that will strengthen their livelihoods and reduce the case loads of 
future safety-net programs. 
3. Anticipate a sub-category of FFW activities for vulnerable groups (as both individuals 
and groups) that will support the development of IGAs.
4. Develop appropriate M&E systems for tracking the impact of these activities on 
vulnerable groups. 
Recommendation 3.4. Strengthen the linkages between SO3 and SO2 activities.
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Intensify the existing efforts of Nema to use FFW to expand the development of fruit 
trees and gardens managed by women. 
2. Anticipate FFW activities that can help the savings and internal lending communities 
(SILC) groups develop irrigated vegetable gardens that increase their revenue and 
household dietary diversity. 
Recommendation 3.5. Intensify FFW activities in the most vulnerable villages in order to build 
their food security and income and reduce community-level vulnerability to risk and shocks. 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Identify FFW activities needed to jumpstart agro-enterprise development in the most 
vulnerable villages. 
2. Develop appropriate M&E systems for tracking the impact of these activities on 
household and village-level vulnerability. 
Recommendation 3.6. Strengthen the capacity of the Nema M&E system to monitor the 
activities of the Village Food Security Committees and other key community-level management 
structures.
Specific Recommendations:
See Recommendation 3.1, sub-recommendations 1-7 above. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
97
Chapter 5 
Cross-Cutting Activities: Literacy, Good Governance, and Local Organizational Capacity87
This chapter provides a brief overview of the results of the Final Qualitative Survey and 
Evaluation for the Nema program’s transversal activities related to basic literacy and good 
governance. 
Section 1.0. Nema Strategy/Theory of Change for Cross-Cutting Activities: Literacy, Good 
Governance, and Capacity Building: Describes the Nema program’s literacy and good 
governance activities that were expected to “enhance beneficiaries’ human and financial 
capital.”88
Section 2.0. Evolution of the Nema Strategies for Literacy, Organizational Capacity 
Building, Good Governance, and Early Evidence of Impact: Describes the evolution of the 
implementation strategy for literacy and good governance activities. 
Section 3.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported Literacy Activities: 
Describes: 
 3.1. The current level of literacy training in the centers, as well as some of the longer￾term impacts of this training on the community groups that benefited from it based on the 
results of the qualitative survey (November 2013); and 
 3.2. A summary assessment of some of the key factors that affected these outcomes.
89
Section 4.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported Community Based 
Organisations (CBOs): Provides: 
 4.1. A brief overview of the current level of functioning of the community-based 
organizations (CBOs) that were targeted by Nema’s literacy and good governance 
training; and 
 4.2. A summary assessment of some of the key factors that affected these outcomes. 
Section 5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Presents a list of recommendations that 
the evaluation team—working in close collaboration with the key implementation and execution 
partners—have identified for: 
 Corrective actions recommended for increasing the sustainability of the program impacts; 
and
 Strengthening the benefits initiated by the program. 
 
87 This chapter was prepared with the assistance of an informal Nema literacy and capacity working group that 
developed around the final evaluation team’s field and key informant interviews. This working group included: 
Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao), Pierre Togo (Caritas), and Isack Dolo (CRS). The working group was 
supported in its analysis of previous and current activities by Boureima Sako and Isack Dolo (M&E Department 
CRS), who co-facilitated the field portion of the exercise with Dr. Sidikiba Sidibe (Consultant, Nema), and 
Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao) in Bourem. 
88 CRS 2008: 5. 
89 I.e. The results and effects, the effectiveness of the implementation process, the sustainability of the results, and 
the activities impact on the local people’s resilence. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
98
In addition to the three interconnected technical areas addressed under Strategic Objective 1 
(SO1), the Nema program included two cross-cutting activities—basic literacy and 
governance—that were meant to support all three SOs.90 The underlying premise was that 
training beneficiaries in these themes would contribute to the smooth functioning and 
sustainability of the various groups associated with the Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP): 
agro-enterprise groups (AEG), savings and internal lending communities (SILC), PD/Hearth 
participants, early warning groups (GAP/RUs), Safety Net Committees, etc. (Figure 5.1).91
Figure 5.1. Nema Strategy for Literacy, Good Governance, and Local Capacity Building 
1.0. Nema Strategy/Theory of Change for Cross-Cutting Activities: Literacy, Good 
 Governance, and Capacity Building 
1.1. Literacy 
The original proposal anticipated that the MYAP would: 
 
90 The original proposal (CRS 2008: 5) outlined two cross-cutting interventions. The first was “thematic literacy 
courses related to agro-enterprise, nutrition, and hygiene.” The second was SILC as a means of improving resiliency 
to economic shocks, based on a methodology developed by CRS and successfully implrlemented in Mali and 
numerous other countries in Africa” (CRS 2008: 5). By the time of the mid-term evaluation, the SILC had been 
incorporated into SO1 and were evaluated as part of SO1 and the issue of “good governance” was added to literacy 
as a cross cutting theme (Tilford 2011: 34-36). 
91 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 34. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
99
“Build on materials and approaches developed by other NGOs to dispense thematic 
literacy courses related to agro-enterprise, nutrition, and hygiene.”92
The approach that was adopted was the Samogoya, a new method that had just been pilot tested 
by the Direction Nationale des Langues et de l'Alphabetisation (National Directorate for 
Languages and Literacy or DNFLA) in Mali that is now the standard approach used in all of the 
Mali government’s literacy training centers. This approach emphasized: (a) the presentation of 
images in the students’ handbooks to facilitate a debate between the instructor and the student on 
key themes, followed by (b) the identification of key words that linked the image to their every 
day lives. The theory under girding the approach was that the trainees (auditeurs) would be more 
receptive to the training if it were linked to something concrete they could relate to. 
The goal of this activity was to establish a literacy center with at least two trained trainers 
(formateurs) in each of the 130 MYAP villages who could continue to provide training once the 
program ended. A literacy center referred not to a physical structure but to the gathering of a 
group of people who came together to learn to read, write, and perform simple calculations. The 
actual classes could be held under a tree, in a schoolroom, in the shade of a building, or under a 
hangar. To ensure an appropriate level of community commitment to the development of the 
training center and the trainees, all of the community development agents (CDAs) were trained 
to oversee a participatory process that required high levels community engagement in the choice 
of the trainers, the literacy training site, and the trainees.93
The community was responsible for providing a literacy center, identifying the trainers, and 
providing certain in-kind support to the trainers. The program trained the teachers and provided 
basic equipment for the classroom, as well as the training manuals and supervision and student 
review needed to certify literacy levels. To insure appropriate training, the program invested 
heavily in the selection and training of two trainers per village,94 some of whom had been trained 
as literacy workers by earlier programs. Once the literacy trainers were chosen and trained, the 
literacy supervisors worked with each community to identify a training calendar and recruit 
various members of the different community groups being established. It was anticipated that 
each session would last three months and train 15 men and 15 women. 
Given the high rates of illiteracy and the need for literacy skills within the various MYAP￾sponsored groups, this activity was deemed essential to insuring the long-term sustainability of a 
number of the MYAP activities.95 Although literacy was a major focus of the program, the 
Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) did not include an indicator that tracked the 
evolution of these activities, nor their impact.96
 
92 CRS 2008: 5.
93 SCI. 2011. Présentation Approche Sanmogoya Nema / MYAP Août 2011. Douentza du 3 AU 6 Aout 2011
94 One of the first tasks was to evalute the level of the local existing trainers then to recruit new trainers—if 
needed—to insure two qualified trainers per village. All existing and new trainers received a basic training in the 
Samogoya methodology. Once this was done, the program conducted a public forum in each village to outline the 
training program in the presence of the CDAs, trainers, and communities.
9595 K. Tillford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 34. 
96 The Mid-Term Evaluation recommended adding four indicators for functional literacy to the IPTT (Tilford 2011: 
36). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
100
Save the Children International (SCI) was the technical lead and assigned a full-time staff person 
to insure that the literacy activities were executed according to plan through four sub-contracts 
to: (a) Caritas/Mali and Tassaght, and the Ministry of Education for the actual training; (b) 
Center for Rural Extension (Centre d’Animation Paysanne or CAP) for testing and assessment; 
and (c) DNFLA for the production of the instruction manuals. SCI was also the lead on the good 
governance training, which started at the end of the second year (June 2010).
1.2. Local Capacity Building and Good Governance 
Although the program proposal did not include an explicit strategy for local capacity building, 
the Nema program included an implicit one based on building the capacity of the local groups 
charged with the execution and maintenance of the activities the program was creating 
through its intensive investment in community-level training programs. Most training programs 
were conducted by the CDAs, who then trained the community-based trainers (the Animateurs 
Villageois [AVs] for the SILC, the Training of Trainers [TOT] Farmer Field School [FFS] 
trainers for the FFS, and the community health volunteers [CHVs or relais]). Most of the 
GAP/RUs, Safety Net Committees, AEG, and water management committees were trained 
directly by the CDAs. Most of these core training programs—including the ones for the SILC 
and AEG—included some basic training on good governance and financial management of 
group-managed activities. The implicit assumption of the program proposal was that this 
training—in combination with the literacy training—would “enhance beneficiaries’ human and 
financial capital…[and have]….greater capacity to resist and recover from shocks and to 
capitalize on existing or initiate new livelihood opportunities.”
97 The evolution of some of the 
key capacities being developed was tracked as part of the IPTT. 
2.0. Evolution of the Nema Strategies for Literacy, Organizational Capacity Building, 
Good Governance, and Early Evidence of Impact 
2.1. Early Evolution of the Program 
2.1.1. Literacy Training: By the time of the mid-term (June 2011), 122 of the 130 Nema 
communities had created literacy centers. Although some centers were considered to be 
functioning at less than optimal capacity, the mid-term evaluation concluded that the activity was 
very much appreciated by the beneficiaries. Based on interviews with members of literacy 
centers in each of the 16 villages, the mid-term evaluation concluded that the literacy programs 
were making a major contribution to the Nema program. They noted that the health messages 
were especially appreciated by the beneficiaries, and that 15 of the 16 groups noted the 
usefulness of the literacy programs for their group activities: keeping minutes of meetings, filling 
out forms, and preparing plans and reports. The two principal challenges at mid-term were the 
low salaries for the trainers and the high dropout rate in some centers. Just prior to the mid-term,
the salaries were increased from 15,000 CFA/month to 25,000 CFA a month. Some of the staff 
recommended using Food for Training (FFT) as an incentive for attendance during the mid-term, 
 
97 CRS. 2008. PL480 Title II MYAP Proposal. Consortium for Food Security in Mali (CFSM) Nema Program. Pg. 
5.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
101
but this was rejected during the second mid-term evaluation workshop.98
2.1.2. Good Governance Training of Trainers: In June 2010, SCI led a five-year TOTs workshop 
in governance for approximately 25 MYAP staff. Topics included leadership, community 
organization, supportive supervision, gender, synergy, and self-governance. At the end of the 
training, the participants received a comprehensive manual. Between July 2010 and May 2011
(time of the mid-term evaluation), the MYAP staff trained all of the AEG and SILC on the good 
governance themes in the SCI manual. This training supplemented the modules in the CRS 
manuals that were used for baseline training and retraining of the AEG and SILC groups. The 
CRS manuals used for training both groups included modules on governance-related themes such 
as leadership roles, the democratic process for conducting meetings and making decisions, 
conflict management, and the importance of keeping written records of meetings. By the end of 
the mid-term evaluation, 53% of the AEG had been trained in governance (Environmental 
Indicator 1.1.11).
2.2. Mid-Term Evaluation Findings and Recommendations
Based on their field interviews, the mid-term evaluation included a list of recommendations for 
trying to improve the motivation of the community-based literacy trainers (formateurs) and 
reduce student drop out. The evaluation also recommended that the program:99
 Determine the essential elements of governance that all MYAP-sponsored groups [e.g. 
AEG, SILC, water management associations, GAP/RUs, Safety Net Committees] be 
trained in, referring first to the training already conducted for AEG and SILC; and 
 Develop a one- to two-day training module incorporating the essential elements, and 
ensure that the other MYAP-supported groups also benefit from governance training. 
2.3. Activities After the Mid-Term 
2.3.1. Literacy Training: The final evaluation of the centers by the CAP, which was the official 
government agency charged with auditing the quality and impact of literacy training, concluded 
in August 2011100 that Nema had: 
 Created centers in all 130 of the Nema villages, and 121 centers were open; and
 Enrolled 3177 students (out of 3900 anticipated) from a broad cross-section of all the 
groups targeted for the training (including AEG, SILC, emergency preparedness 
[GAP/RUs], and PD/Hearth volunteer mothers) (Table 5.1). 
However, only: 
 2608 (67%) of the 3077 students were active participants; and, out of that number,
 
98 This was rejected for two reasons. First, many of the participants made a distinction between activites in which 
food distribution is important (such as FFW projects and the safety nets) and activities where the obvious benefits of 
participation should provide sufficient motifvation, e.g. the advantages of being able to read, write, and do basic 
caluclations. The second reason given was that the workshop participants felt it was unlikely that Food for Peace 
(FFP) managers would agree to the use of food for this activity. 
99 K. Tilford. 2011. Nema Mid-Term Evaluation. Pg. 36.
100 Carte des Auditeurs. Alpha 2. August 2011.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
102
 472 of the students at Bourem101 were evaluated (out of 880 who signed up to be tested),
of whom 215 were actually certified as being neo-alphabetes (newly literate) (Table 5.1). 
Although 42% of the active students were women (1090 out of 2608), only 30% (18/60 
total) of the students trained in Bourem and 15% (19/136) of the students at Douentza 
that were assessed as being neo-alphabetes at Bourem were women. 
The final evaluation of the Nema literacy training by CAP gave several reasons for the low 
rattendance and certification rates.102
Table 5.1. Number of Students from Different Nema-Supported Structures that Enrolled in Literacy 
Training and the Number Who Were Active Participants, Years 1-4 
Structures
Number of Students Enrolled Number Who Completed 
Training
Male Female Total Male Female Total
AEG 341 203 544 289 156 445
SILC 130 453 583 14 379 393
Emergency Response 313 45 358 238 37 275
Health 223 70 293 182 67 249
Volunteers 838 561 1399 795 451 1246
Total 1845 1332 3177 1518 1090 2608
Source: CAP. 2011. Carte de Auditeurs. PowerPoint provided by Abdoussalam Tiemogo Maiga (SCI/Gao).
2.3.2. Local Governance Training: After the mid-term, the program was plunged into a series of 
trainings that were needed to convert the Nema program’s CDA subject specialists (who focused 
on nutrition, GAP/RU, and agriculture) into CDA generalists (who would cover all community￾level activities). This new training seems to have included a much greater emphasis on good 
governance, which was integrated into the community-level training of the local groups—
especially the AEG and SILC. By the time the program closed, 97% of the AEG had been 
trained using the new good governance module (Environmental Indicator 1.1.11).
2.3.3. Other Pertinent and Overlapping Trainings: By the time Nema ended, most of the local 
committees had experienced a wide variety of technical trainings, as well as basic literacy and 
training in good governance (Table 5.2). The program had also invested heavily in training and 
technical assistance to develop three types of TOTs—the AVs for the SILC, the FFS TOTs, and 
the CHVs. The program was also starting to use some of the FFS TOTs and CHVs to collect data 
for the official IPTT indicators, as well as the internal tracking systems (Table 5.2).
 
101 Based on the auditor’s report, which was given by the SCI representative on the evaluation team, it appears that 
the final evalution of the literacy centers at Douentza was never completed. 
102 Two of the main reasons cited were: (1) the last months of most literacy sessions overlapped with the start of the 
growing season; and (2) the high rates of food insecurity for the students, which made it hard for them to take the 
time away from their routine crop and IGAs. Carte d’auditeurs. Alpha 2. 2011. PowerPoint Presentation. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
103
Table 5.2. Types of Training and Incorporation of the Local Committees and Community-Based Experts into 
the Program’s Internal and Official Tracking Systems, Years 1-4 
Technical 
Training
Training in 
Good
Governance
Training in 
Financial 
Management
Literacy 
Trainings
Collection & 
Reporting of 
Nema M&E 
Data
SO1
AEG X X# X X IPTT*
SILC X X# X X Internal
FFS TOTs X X Internal
SO2
Health comitteees X X X X Internal***
Volunteer mothers (for 
the PD/Hearth 
activities)
X X X Internal***
Water point 
management 
committees
X X X X Internal***
Sanitation and hygiene 
commitees (community￾led total sanitation or 
CLTS)
X X X X Internal***
Community health 
volunteers (Rélais)
X X X X IPTT**
SO3
GAP/RUs X X X X Internal***
Safety Net Committees X X X X Internal***
Infrastructure 
management 
committees (and FFW 
management 
committees)
X X X X Internal***
Source: Equipe MYAP Nema. November 2013 
# Special modules developed by SCI in June 2010, as well as the core AEG and SILC training modules. 
*Monitor yields on the FFS replication fields. 
**Monitor malnourished children and their rehabilitation. 
***Internal program tracking data only. 
2.3.4. Early Evidence of Effects (Based on the IPTT): A major strength of the Nema program 
was its investment in a series of internal tracking tools to track the capacity of the SILC, AEG 
and GAP/RUs. Some of the information from these tools was reported in the IPTT and used to 
track the evolution of some of the most critical local committees being supported, including the 
SILC, AEG, water-point management associations, GAP/RUs, and Safety Net Committees 
(Table 5.3) The SILC tool is a regional tool used in all the CRS-sponsored SILC programs in the 
sub-region; the AEG tool is borrowed from a sub-regional tool. Staff argued that these tools were 
very useful and helped them better target its technical assistance and training. The same tools 
helped track certain key capacities in the IPTT like good governance training for the AEG 
(Environmental Indicator 1.1.11). Given the critical importance of local capacity building, the 
program created capacity assessment tools that were used to track the capacity of the SILC, 
AEG, and GAP/RUs. The evolution of some of some of the most important core capacities and 
trainings were tracked in the program IPTT (Table 5.3). Although the committees themselves 
tracked some of these indicators, any official data reported in the IPTT was verified through an 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
104
independent audit by the Nema M&E officer based on a sample of program households that was 
conducted annually. 
Table 5.3. Indicators Used in the Nema IPTT to Track the Evolution of the Local Community Organizations’ 
Capacity in Key Areas Needed to Execute and Sustain Their Activities, Years 1-4 
Year 
1
Year 
2
Year 
3
Year 4 & 
% of 
Target
AEG
EI 1.1.11. # of AEG trained in governance 0 9 29 73 (97%)
MI 1.2.6. % Title II-assisted producers who are members of a functional 
agro-enterprise group 0 19% 44% ND
SILC
MI 1.2.1. % of SILC members who have increased their financial assets 0 50% 87% 36%
MI 1.2.2. % increase in value of net worth of the SILC groups combined 0 22.1% 38% 53%
Water User Groups
MI. 2.2.9. % water management committees who properly maintain 
completed water points as indicated by lack of stagnant water and 
cleanliness of site
0 0 33% ND
GAP/RU
II. 3.1. % of Title II-assisted communities with disaster early warning 
systems in place 0 30% 52% 64%103
MI 3.1.2. # of community groups that are actively tracking trigger 
indicators 0 26 67 ND
Safety Net Committees
MI 3.2.1. Total # of assisted communities with safety nets in place to 
address the needs of the most vulnerable members 0 96 130 130
MI 3.2.2. Total # of communities who strengthen safety nets over the life 
of the activity, as shown by the reported increase in the diversity of shocks 
the safety net is capable of responding to
0 42 130 130
Source: Nema program IPTT, Annex I. 
Acronyms: EI: Environmental Indicator; MI: Monitoring Indicator; II: Impact Indicator. 
3.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported Literacy Activities 
3.1. Current Level of Activity 
During the 15 focus group interviews with the SILC and the 14 focus group interviews with the 
AEG, the evaluation team asked a series of questions about the level of involvement and benefits 
of literacy training. These interviews suggest that most of the Nema-trained literacy trainers 
(formateurs) are still living in the village, though not one of them has organized any literacy 
training since the Nema program ended. The same interviews reflected some of the CAP data, 
which showed that only between 30-50% of the SILC and AEG members trained in literacy 
during the program were considered able to read, write, and conduct basic calculations (Table 
5.4).
Although the ratio of persons trained to persons able to read, write, and perform basic 
calculations was low (Table 5.4), most of the persons who attended the focus groups were vocal 
 
103 This figure was not reported in the final IPTT, which states “ND,” but is the result of the Nema program’s
internal tracking data (Source: Adama Sangare, November 2013). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
105
in their appreciation of the training and the role that the literacy training played in helping them 
manage their groups. One of the most frequent demands for follow-up assistance in the focus 
groups with the SILC and AEG was for literacy training (Text Box 5.1).
Table. 5.4. Average Number of SILC and AEG Members Who Attended the Nema-Sponsored Literacy 
Training Who Can Read, Write, and Conduct Simple Calculations, March 2013 
Structure # of Groups 
Interviewed
Average # of 
Members Who 
Attended the 
Literacy Training
Average # of 
Members Who Can 
Read, Write, and 
Calculate
Percentage of Those 
Trained Who Can 
Read, Write, and 
Calculate
AEG
Bourem 3 31 15 48%
Douentza 11 31 12 39%
SILC
Bourem 3 22 11 50%
Douentza 12 9 6 67%
Methodology and Source: AEG and SILC focus groups, Nema Final Evaluation, November 2013. 
Text Box 5.1. Comments Made About the Role of Literacy Training During the AEG Focus Groups
What suggestions or 
recommendations 
would you make to 
strengthen the 
monitoring of your 
agro-enterprise 
activiies?
Fombory, Bore Villages:
 The immediate start up of program activities that can help us finance our business plans.
 Basic training in literacy and agriculture.
 The rapid return of the Nema program in order to continue the activities it initiated with 
the group. This would permit the group to better understand the approach and guarantee 
a better understanding and extension of the new practices in the village.
 We are requesting assistance for the purchase of new agricultural material (plows, oxen, 
donkeys, carts) and agriucltural inputs (e.g. more improved seeds).
What was the impact 
of the literacy 
training given to 
your members 
during the Nema 
program?
 Fombory Village: In our village, 30 persons (25 men and five women) participated in 
the Nema-sponsored literacy sessions. We learned to read, write, and calculate. Out of 
the members of this group, 10 members (nine men and one woman) know how to read, 
write, and perform simple calculations. This training helped us to better organize our 
management documents (i.e. to fill out the tools for association management, meeting 
minutes, track our savings accounts, and roll taking).
 Bore, Ibissa Villages: The literacy training helped us to use the AEG management tools 
(i.e. taking minutes during meetings, preparing letters, and noting debits and credits for 
the group’s commercial activities in our register).
What are your 
recommendations for 
future literacy 
training programs? 
 Fombory Village: The immediate return of the Nema program’s support for literacy in 
order to increase the number pf people that can read, write, and do simple calculations.
 Ibissa Village: Strengthen the capacity of the members in reading, calculations, and 
writing. Strengthen the number of auditors and support the constructin of a literacy 
center for groups in the village.
Source: AEG Focus Groups, Nema Final Evaluation. November 2013.
3.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context: Literacy Training 
3.2.1. Results and Effects: 
 People were trained, and some did learn to read, write, and perform basic calculations: 
In sum, the literacy programs during Nema did train a large number of people in the local 
CBOs to read and write but not to the level that was desired by the program, which is not 
surprising given that the program stopped before the third year of training could be 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
106
executed. It is possible that this might have been greater had the literacy trainings focused 
more concretely on the actual tools and activities of the CBOs that it was designed to 
help. In any case, the strong impact of these programs during the first four years has left 
an important human capital that can be built on in future programs.
 Literacy activities were active in all 130 villages and most trainers are still in the 
villages: The literacy component of the program was one of the few Nema components 
that touched every single village (Table 5.4). The final evaluation study showed that most 
of the centers are still recognized and most of the trainers are in the villages. 
 Positive impact of the literacy training manuals on nutrition and sanitation messages:
One unintended consequence of the training seems to have been to provide a major 
component of the program’s Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) strategy 
for the Nema sanitation and nutrition activities. In contrast to the SILC, which covered 
only 50% of the Nema villages, the literacy programs covered all 130. This impact was 
mentioned during the mid-term and in several of the focus group discussions. 
3.2.2. Effectiveness of the Implementation Process and Gender Integration: 
 Strong linkages with the key government partners involved in literacy training (CAP and 
DNFLA): Another strength of the program was its tight linkage with the government 
services that support and monitor literacy programs. This apparently helped increase 
quality and supervision and set the tone for sustainability. 
 Strong implication of the communities in the initial choice of the literacy trainers:
Several key informants felt that this recruitment process helped build local ownership and 
support for the trainers that earlier training programs had not had.
 Weak motivation of the teachers: One of the key problems that contributed to the lower￾than-expected results of the literacy training in most centers was the weak motivation of 
the teachers and the students (auditeurs). Although the training manuals touched on 
Nema program links, there was very little direct linkage between the training and the 
actual tools the committee members were being asked to use. 
 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (M&EAL) tracking system tracked 
student attendance and success, not the impact of the training on the local groups:
Although CAP’s technical supervision of Nema’s community-based literacy program 
activities was very thorough, this technical assistance focused on assessing the technical 
quality of the training and student success—not the impact of the training on the local 
groups that it was designed to address. 
 Effective targeting of women as participants, but lower success rate: The literacy 
activities’ gender targets helped insure that a high percentage of the trainees were 
women. Although women participated in the literacy training, their certification rates 
were lower: i.e. 42% of the active students were women (1090 out of 2608), but only 
30% (18/60 total) of the students trained in Bourem and 15% (19/136) of the students at 
Douentza that were assessed as being neo-alphabetes were women. 
3.2.3. Sustainability: Strong collaboration with government agencies increases the chances that 
the Mali government agencies charged with oversight of literacy training will be willing to 
support the Nema-founded training centers and trainers in future programs: Certain elements of 
the program—that were put in place to guarantee its sustainability—are very weak and need to 
be strengthened, which would enhance the chances that this type of literacy program will be 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
107
sustained—e.g. the weak collaboration between the program and the two cercle-level CAP 
offices and the program’s emphasis on TOT. For this government-endorsed literacy training 
program to have greater impact, it needs to be better oriented to the actual skills and tools that 
the trainees will need to manage group activities. This type of thematic literacy training program 
is being pilot tested by several NGOs in both Bourem and Douentza. 
3.2.4. Resilience: Indirect impact of literacy on resilience: Based on the responses during the 
focus groups, there is clear evidence that in the beneficiaries felt that the literacy training helped 
them better manage the multi-dimensional shocks that started descending upon them after June 
2011 (see qualitative responses to the survey in Annex I). 
4.0. Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported CBOs 
4.1. Current Level of Functioning 
Based on the focus group discussions, the evaluation team developed a matrix with which they 
assessed the degree of functionality of the groups they encountered (Table 5.5; See also Tables 
2.5 and 2.6 in Chapter 2). Although many of the groups were still functional, they were 
considered weak. It is not a surprise that some of the strongest, most-functional groups were the 
AEG and SILC, whose training emphasized their becoming autonomous from the start. Most 
groups emphasized the critical importance of the literacy training in helping them manage the 
tools and funds needed to execute their core functions, and requested that the program re-start 
some of the literacy training to help them better manage these tools (Text Box 5.1).
Table 5.5. Functionality of the Nema-Facilitated CBOs Interviewed During the Nema Final Evaluation by 
SO, November 2013 
Nema SOs and CBOs
Level of Functioning*
Bourem Douentza
# Groups 
Interviewed
Level # Groups 
Interviewed
Level
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
SO1
AEG 3 2 1 15 1 4 3 7
SILC 3 3 12 2 4 2 4
FFW management committees 5 5 10 10
SO2
Health committees 4 4 9 9
Water point management committees 1 1 1 1
Hygiene and sanitation committees 
(CLTSs)
3 3
CHVs 5 1 4 15 15
SO3
GAP/RU 6 1 5 15 7 8
Safety Net Committees 6 6 15 1 14
Literacy groups 4 4 15 2 13
Source: Nema Final Evaluation Survey, November 2013. 
* 1=strong, 2=average, 3=weak, 4= non-functional 
One of the chief weaknesses across all of the local organizations was the weak capacity to 
manage budgets and accounting. This was especially true for the AEG, which received large 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
108
budgets from the programs before they were really ready to manage them. The general consensus 
from many focus groups and MYAP staff was that the program ended before the groups were 
sufficiently trained in financial management. 
4.2. Summary Assessment of Strengths, Areas that Need Strengthening, and Opportunities in 
the Current Context: Local Organizational Capacity and Good Governance 
4.2.1. Results and Effects: 
 Major impact on local organizational capacity of the groups Nema supported:104 There is 
strong quantitative evidence—from the program’s own reporting data and the key 
informant and beneficiary data—that the Nema training and technical assistance helped 
build the capacity of the local organizations they supported in several key areas, 
including: 
- Strategic planning; 
- Basic principles of organization, including government registration processes; 
- Financial management and access to micro-finance institutions; and 
- Marketing. 
 Many of the same trainings helped build the capacity of certain state institutions—like 
the Ministry of Agriculture extension service and Institute of Rural Economy (Institut 
d’Economie Rurale or IER) for agriculture, the Ministry of Health and the Regional 
Directorate for Sanitation (for SO2), as well as the regional- and commune-level SAP 
(early warning systems)—to improve their activities in the local communities. The fact 
that almost all of the Nema activities—without exception—supported the current national 
strategies and policies for these sectors was very much appreciated by all of the persons 
interviewed during the key informant interviews (health, water resources, IER, Ministry 
of Agriculture, and the Governor’s office). 
 Major local impact on two local NGOs: The program helped strengthen the capacity of 
two local NGOs, Tassaght and Caritas. The trainings helped facilitate the training of local 
experts in both institutions who continue to be in contact with some of the local leaders. 
The same collaboration helped both institutions identify a number of best practices in 
management, financial management, administration, and human resources that these 
NGOs are continuing to adopt (2013). Especially important for Caritas was the addition 
of two new intervention themes (nutrition, and community-led total sanitation [CLTS] for 
sanitation) that they had never supported before. 
4.2.2. Effectiveness of the Implementation Process and M&E Systems: 
 Training programs were well designed and included government partners, which 
increased efficiency:105 Three elements of the Nema approach that seem to have facilited 
its trainings having such an important impact in such a short period of time (3.75 years) 
include: 
- The strong implication of state structures in the conception and execution of the 
trainings; 
- The rigorous supervision of the training by the executing agencies (Caritas, 
Tassaght) and partners (SCI, HKI, CRS) in collaboration with the relevant 
 
104 Cross-cutting questions from the SOW related to effects and results. 
105 Cross-cutting questions from the SOW related to efficiency. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
109
government agencies, which also implicated these state agencies in enforcing the 
Nema program’s gender targets; and 
- The Nema training budget was well designed and anticipated the need for baseline 
training and retraining. 
 Most and least efficient trainings: Some of the most effective activities appear to be the 
community-based technical training programs; the least effective were the CSCOM 
training programs, since most of the staff was transferred to other positions during the 
crisis. 
 Strong M&E for tracking the capacity of some groups, but limited analysis of the link 
between these capacities and literacy and Nema’s eventual exit strategy: The Nema 
program was committed to tracking the capacity of the four main groups the program 
worked with—the SILC, AEG, GAP/RUs, and Safety Net Committees. This information 
helped the program better orient its technical assistance. Unfortunately, there was very 
little real-time, annual analysis of the role that the literacy training was—or was not—
having in relation to these programs. There was also very limited reporting on this 
enhanced capacity in the major program documents. Given the critical importance of this 
capacity in sustaining these groups’ activities during the crisis, future programs need to 
anticipate the need for: 
- More in-depth analysis of the comparative capacity needs of all of the groups, not 
just the AEG, SILC, GAP/RUs, and Safety Net Committees; 
- The linkages between the program support for literacy and this capacity; and 
- The link between these groups’ capacity and the preparation of the programs’ exit 
strategy from the zone. 
 Limited capacity building of groups that target vulnerable groups: The Nema program 
document did not anticipate the development of any groups that target the most 
vulnerable groups in each village. The program did, however, promote the use of SILC as 
a mechanism for building the livelihoods of women (many of whom were probably 
classified as vulnerable). Two challenges for future interventions in Douentza and 
Bourem will be to: (a) better monitor the impact of participating in the SILC on the 
socioeconomic status of the beneficiary populations; and (b) develop a sub-set of cross￾cutting activities (SO1, SO3) that target vulnerable groups through individual and group 
activities. 
4.2.3. Sustainability: 
 The large number of committees created by the program has made it hard to determine 
which ones are sustainable: The program’s theory of change envisioned the local 
committees as a mechanism for building stakeholder input and understanding of the 
program. Unfortunately, the program pulled out before most of them were sustainable 
and/or linked to the larger community-level structures that are needed to improve the 
inter-community coordination between groups. One of the key challenges for the next 
phase will be to move in the direction of a gradual consolidation of these groups into SO￾level coordinating committees that are linked to some sort of community-level structure 
like the new Food Security Committee structure described in Chapter 4 (see 
Recommendation #3.1, Section 5, Chapter 4). This type of flexible structure—which is 
recognized by the Mali government—will make it easier for future programs to insure 
that the local groups are aware of and in communication with some of the most relevant 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
110
government (hydraulic, sanitation, health sanitation) and local NGO programs (Caritas, 
Tassaghet, Norvege, Near East Foundation, Red Cross, etc.) that they need to sustain 
their activities in normal times as well as crises. 
 Most Nema-created groups are still informal—i.e. not recognized by the government:
The strongest organizations in the current context are those related to income-generating 
activities (IGAs)—the SILC and AEG—but, unfortunately, the program closed before 
most of these groups could file for their official legal recognition from the government as 
cooperatives (for the AEG and SILC) or as networks (reseau). This type of legal 
recognition is critical to their sustainability and impact since it affects their ability to 
access micro-finance and a host of other government supports, as well as to benefit from 
other donor programs. 
4.2.4. Resilience: There is clear evidence from the participants and key informant interviews that 
the capacities the groups developed under Nema helped them better manage the crisis by 
providing internal access to savings and emergency funds (the SILC), critical inputs and markets 
for the crops they produced (AEG), and identifying and managing the food aid that other donors 
(PAM, Red Cross) provided to the region during the crisis.
5.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
Based on the assessment on the data from the final evaluation survey, the consultants and field 
staff who participated in the initial debriefing at San on November 30th 2013 identified a number 
of major challenges for future literacy and capacity-building for future programs. The 
consultants synthesized this list with their initial analyses and presented a revised list to the 
working group members on December 7, 2013 during their final debriefing. Based on the 
feedback from staff during this initial debriefing, the evaluation participants reached consensus 
on two major recommendations for future programs. 
Recommendation 4.1. Strengthen the linkages between literacy training and the actual 
activities (financial, planning, etc.) of the CBOs. 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Facilitate a participatory baseline diagnostic (with input from the members) of each 
group’s literacy needs as a basis for planning a training program and appropriate training 
materials.
2. Strengthen the existing systems set up under Nema for working with CAP to monitor the 
quality of the literacy programs. 
3. Build on the existing base of Nema capacity monitoring matrices/tools to develop self￾assessment tools that the program can use to help CBOs self-assess their capacity in key 
technical areas, as well as financial management, strategic planning, and literacy. 
4. Facilitate each group conducting an annual update of its capacity index as part of its 
strategic plan for the coming year. 
5. Ensure that the results of the community-based self-assessments of the CBOs’ local 
capacity are reported in the annual reports and (if possible) in the IPTT. 
Recommendation 4.2. Strengthen the capacity of the program managers and administration to 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 5. Cross Cutting. December 30, 2013. 
111
monitor the core capacity of the CBOs created by the program in order to better target training 
and technical support and plan the program’s exit strategy. 
Specific Recommendations: 
1. Anticipate the need to transform certain informal structures and community organizations 
into formal structures that are recognized by the government, and build this information 
into the training programs. 
2. (Cross–cutting with SO2) Given the critical importance of the village food security 
committees in emergency and planning with the SAPs, anticipate the development of 
these groups in all of the future interventions as an umbrella organization that can help 
coordinate with the other CBOs. 
3. Encourage the establishment of a network (reseau) linking the current and any new AEG 
and SILC established under future programs to ensure their access to improved inputs 
and markets.
4. Strengthen staff training in conflict management to minimize the impact of community￾level conflicts on program activities.
5. Anticipate the key government, NGO, and private-sector linkages that each CBO will 
need, and monitor the evolution of these linkages as part of the annual self-assessment 
process to help facilitate an appropriate exit strategy. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
112
Chapter 6 
Conclusions 
This chapter provides a brief overview of the principal conclusions of the Nema final evaluation 
that are described in much greater detail in Chapters 1-4 for the program’s principal strategic 
objectives (SOs) and intermediate results (IRs). Each chapter assesses the program’s impact for 
the specific SOs based both during and after the program using three data sets: 
 The Nema program’s internal monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data from Years 1-4 of 
the program; 
 The qualitative survey in 21 villages that was conducted over a three-week period in 
November 2013; and 
 The key informant interviews that the team conducted in the region and local cercles that 
enabled the team to better understand the direct impact of the war and current trends on 
donor and government re-engagement in the communities since January 2013. 
1.0. Main Lessons Learned from the Program Experience
1.1. Global Overview of Results 
This analysis provides clear evidence that in March 2012 Nema was well on its way to achieving 
most of the original targets it had committed to in the original proposal, and that many of these 
activities were having a very positive impact on household food security, vulnerable groups, and 
resilience by the time the program shut down at the end of its fourth year in March 2012. 
There is also ample evidence from the beneficiary and partner interviews that many of the 
program’s activities helped the local people better manage the shocks that started descending up 
on them in June 2011. Specific achievements include: 
 Helping build the capacity of vulnerable people in agro-enterprise development through 
the development of agro-enterprise groups (AEG) and savings and internal lending 
communities (SILC), many of which still exist and seem to be functioning at a low level; 
 Helping introduce a wide variety of new crop technologies that helped local people 
increase their food security and reduce their vulnerability to drought; 
 Building a wide range of agro-sylvo-pastoral infrastructure (143 separate structures) that 
made local people less vulnerable to drought, flooding and other shocks; 
 Pilot testing a new community health center (Centre de Santé Communautaire or 
CSCOM) and community-based (PD/Hearth) model for identifying and rehabilitating 
malnourished children; 
 Encouraging improved hygiene and sanitation practices through a concerted effort to 
promote household use of latrines (most of which appear to be in use) that have 
continued to help improve local sanitation practices; 
 Constructing 15 water points (14 of which are still functional) in water-starved villages 
where successive water resource development programs had failed time after time; 
 Strengthening the community-based systems for emergency early warning and response 
by developing a: (a) community-based system of early warning and response 
(Groupements d’Alerte Precoce et Reponse d’Urgence or GAP/RU); and (b) Safety Net 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
113
Committee that was capable of working with outside agencies to coordinate a series of 
post-Nema food aid responses during the crisis; and 
 Creating a system of community-based literacy training that helped build the capacity of 
all the community-based organizations (CBOs) being supported by the program. 
1.2. Capacity for a Rapid Start Up in the Case of a Recuperation Effort 
Based on key informant interviews, the Ministry of Agriculture extension agents estimated that 
about 40% of the villages are safe enough for routine government services to start back up (Level 
3 and 4, Table 6.1). As of November 2013, about 47% of the Douentza villages were estimated 
to have “average” or “good” extension coverage, and about 26% of the Bourem villages (Table 
6.2). Only 29% of the Douentza villages and 17% of the Bourem villages were considered too 
dangerous for agents to work there (Table 6.2). There are also a growing number of international 
development donors and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) moving back in 
especially in the Bourem region (Table 6.3). 
Future programs should probably consider a progressive re-engagement in the area: 
 Level I Villages: One category of re-engagement should probably follow the progressive 
re-instatement of ‘normal’ government services that is already very much underway in 
the some of the less isolated villages, which were also those that were less directly 
affected by the rebel occupation and internally displaced persons (IDP) movements in 
2012 and 2013 (e.g. Level 1, 2, and 3 villages in Table 6.4). These villages are typical of 
the villages that the evaluation team visited during the Final Qualitative Evaluation 
Survey. 
 Level II Villages: The program will probably need to adopt a different approach—one 
that works in close collaboration with various emergency relief programs that are 
working with the IDPs—if it chooses to re-engage with the Nema communities that were 
most directly affected by the war and post-war insecurity that still exists but is getting 
better and better every day (the Level 5 villages in Table 6.4). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
114
Table 6.1. Qualitative Assessment of Current Security Levels in the Former Nema Villages in Bourem and 
Douentza, November 2013106
Qualitative Assessment of Security Levels Bourem Douentza
# % # %
0
Very limited security with high levels of risk to vehicles and motorcycles from 
roving bandits. No permanent security force in those areas; some areas border the 
Burkina frontier, which is a known hideout area
6 20% 33 33%
1
Very unstable area. No permanent security in these areas. High risk of roadside 
robberies, which are difficult to monitor 0 0% 26 26%
2 Limited stability. No permanent security forces in the area. Residual banditry 11 37% 1 1%
3
Somewhat secure area with limited banditry. Security agents are on the ground. 
Villages benefit from routine army patrols because they are located near the main 
highways where army patrols are focused
13 43% 20 20%
4
Stable areas with limited residual banditry and permanent security forces on the 
ground 0 0% 20 20%
5 Secure area with permanent security forces and only limited banditry 0 0% 0 0%
Total Number of Nema Villages 30 100% 100 100%
Table 6.2. Qualitative Assessment of Government Extension Worker Coverage in the Former Nema Villages 
in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013
Qualitative Assessment of Extension Levels Bourem Douentza
# % # %
0 No government extension agents posted or serving the villages 5 17% 17 17%
1
In theory the agents cover these villages, but in reality their contact with the 
villages is minimal 0 0% 12 12%
2
Extension agents are assigned to the village and support certain village activities 
remotely 17 57% 24 24%
3
Average level of extension services with some limited support from outside 
partners (IFRC, GRAT, Oxfam, SCI)* 8 26% 34 34%
4 Good level of extension services supported by the presence of outside partners 0 0% 13 13%
5
Extension services are sufficient to support any existing or emerging unions and 
federations that producers need to sustain their commercial activities 0 0% 0 0%
Total Number of Nema Villages 30 100% 100 100%
Source: Same as Table 6.1. 
*Level at which the Ministry of Agriculture feels comfortable posting an agent. 
Acronyms: IFRC: International Federation of the Red Cross; GRAT: Groupe de Recherche et d 'Applications 
Techniques; SCI: Save the Children International. 
 
106 Methodology and Sources: These four tables (Tables 6.1-6.4) are based on information gathered during key 
informant group meetings co-chaired by Abdou Salam Tiemogo Maiga, (SCI/Gao); Amadou Tadina (Chef du 
Secteur Agricole, Ministry of Agriculture, Douentza); and Pierre Togo (Caritas/Mali). Theses individuals used their 
connections with community leaders and the Ministry of Agriculture field agents in the ground to verify certain 
types of data on all 130 Nema villages. Other key participants in the group meetings included Aboubacar Halidou 
(HKI); Sidi Maiga (Chef du Secteur Agricole Bourem, by telephone); and Emmanuel Goita (Caritas/Mali). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
115
Table 6.3. Qualitative Assessment of the Major Outside Development Partners Currently 
Working in the Former Nema Villages in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013 
Partners
Number of Nema Villages Where They are Working
Bourem (n=30) Douentza (n=100)
# % Total # % Total
OXFAM 25 83%
IFRC 5 17% 6 6%
GRAT 12 40%
UAVES 5 17%
SCI 6 20%
AFAR 4 13%
ALCOP 10 10%
PDI-MUZELEM 3 3%
IESA 1 1%
Purdue/INTSORMIL
/McKnight 1 1%
Source: Same as Table 6.1.
Acronyms: OXFAM: Oxfam International; IESA: Initiative Eau et Securité 
Alimentaire; ALCOP: Aluminum Company of Pakistan; PDI-MUZELM: Projet de 
Developpement Integre, Mission Evangelique Lutherienne au Mali; UAVES: Union 
pour un Avenir Ecologique et Solidaire; AFAR: Appuix aux Systemes Ruraux de 
Production. 
Table 6.4. Qualitative Assessment of the Direct and Indirect Impact of the 2012 Occupation on the Former 
Nema Villages in Bourem and Douentza, November 2013
Qualitative Assessment of Impact Bourem Douentza
# % # % 
0 Very little affected 0 0% 0 0%
1
Very little affected. Little direct contact with the occupying forces but limited 
access to markets 3 10% 8 8%
2
Limited impact but occasional contact with the occupying forces (estimated 
direct contact once every 15 days) 3 10% 16 16%
3
Somewhat affected. More regular direct contact but not very affected by 
displacements from the villages 1 3% 16 16%
4
Affected. Regular contact with the Jihadists but no permanent military bases 
in the villages. Important population displacement from the villages during the 
occupation.
6 20% 9 9%
5
Directly affected. Regular direct contact and military presence in the villages 
(i.e. brigades, application of sharia law, military bases, sharia sentencing and 
courts, involuntary recruitment of children). Larger scale displacement from 
certain villages
17 57% 51 51%
Total Number of Nema Villages 30 100% 100 100%
Source: Same as Table 6.1.
2.0. Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
Although the net impact of these activities was very positive, the survey identified a number of 
corrective actions that are needed to sustain and strengthen the benefits that were initiated by 
Nema during its first four years of operation in Douentza and Bourem. 
2.1. Strategic Objective 1: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable and Resilient 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
116
2.1.1. Summary Observations: Based on the results of the food security calendars that were 
conducted during the final qualitative evaluation, the project did increase agricultural production 
and revenues for the households of the AEG and SILC groups that were the principal target of 
this activity. There is also a great deal of evidence that the program’s wide-ranging farmer field 
school (FFS) activities increased farmer’s access to new higher-yielding technologies. The short￾term impact of this integrated approach was a substantial increase in the average Months of 
Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP) during the program. 
Although the results of the MAHFP analysis that was conducted during the final qualitative field 
survey suggest that the current MAHFP levels in the survey villages are about the same level as 
at the program’s baseline, this is not surprising given the successive shocks that the study 
villages have experienced since June 2011. 
This analysis highlights the critical importance of strengthening various program activities that 
will enable the Nema program to have a more broad-based impact on whole communities, rather 
than an impact that is based on just building the capacity of the AEG and the SILC, which were 
created in fewer than 50% of the program villages.107 Although the program’s successful 
development of a new model of FFS in 90% of the Douentza villages and 50% of the Bourem 
villages did enable it to have a broader population-based impact, this was insufficient in and of 
itself to guarantee the farmers’ access to all of the inputs they would need to sustain these 
broader impacts over time. 
Future programs need to capitalize on the core capacity of the AEG and SILC that were 
developed during the first phase to strengthen the local communities’ access to the improved 
seeds and inputs that they will need to have a broader population-based impact on yields and 
household revenue. This includes building more sustainable sources of income for the Training 
of Trainers (TOTs), FFS trainers, and SILC trainers (known as AVs or Animateurs Villageois) 
that will enable them to continue to be community-based change agents and contact persons for 
the government agricultural research and extension services and regional micro-finance 
institutions that the farmers need to sustain higher yields and incomes. 
A critical next step for any future plan must address these issues at two levels: 
 The first level involves reactivating and strengthening the existing AEG, SILC, and FFS 
activities in the areas where the program was already active; and 
 A second level involves extending the core program into the more marginal villages that 
did not generally benefit from either AEG or SILC activities during the first phase of the 
program. Due to the brusque cut off of the program—and the fact that many of these 
villages were not considered eligible for AEG—this represents about 50% of the program 
villages. Many of these villages are agro-pastoralist in vocation and were not particularly 
suited to the core program that was promoted by the FFS. In contrast to the first level of 
villages where the program was most active in the first four years, this second group of 
villages are likely to need extensive FFW investment to create new opportunities for 
 
107 Only 30% of the Nema villages in Bourem have AEG, and only 38% of the Douentza villages (Table 2.4, 
Chapter 2); SILC were created in only 57% of the Bourem villages and only 58% of the Douentza villages (Table 
2.4, Chapter 2). The FFS were organized in 50% of the Bourem Villages and 90% of the Douentza Villages (Table 
2.4, Chapter 2).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
117
commercial livestock and irrigated gardening for local groups, which could then be 
organized (once these new activities are created) into AEG and SILC. 
Both categories of communities—those that received the full Nema package during the original 
program and those that did not—would likely benefit from: 
 An expansion of the Nema program’s efforts to strengthen the linkages between its SO1 
and SO3 activities and the promotion of fruit trees and micronutrient-dense tuber and 
food crops; 
 A focused program to help the community-based volunteers and CBOs (AEG and SILC) 
that are charged with executing these programs by helping the volunteers to develop 
income generating activities (IGAs) that are related to their extension activities and by 
building the capacity of the SILC and AEG groups so that they can sustain these 
activities once the program ends; and 
 Extending certain types of assistance and capacity building (such as training) to some of 
the pre-existing groups—like registered cooperatives--that may be already active in the 
communities. 
2.1.2. Key Recommendations (see Table 6.5 at the end of this chapter for the specific 
recommendations for implementing the key recommendations):
 Recommendation 1.1. Consolidate the achievement of Nema in the first phase in the 
communities where the SO1 activities were concentrated during the initial Phase (Years 
1-4). 
 Recommendation 1.2. Extend the total package of SO1 innovations into the Nema 
communities where the program was less active in the first phase in ways that build on 
the capacities of the local agro-ecological capacity. 
 Recommendation 1.3. Strengthen integration between the Nema program’s livelihood 
and safety net activities and the project’s efforts to promote improved nutrition and health 
in all villages. 
 Recommendation 1.4. Transform and certify the FFS Trainers (TOT) and help them 
become commercial seed producers as a way to strengthen their role as community-based 
extension agents that serve the AEG and SILC, as well as other groups within the 
community such as pre-existing cooperatives. 
 Recommendation 1.5. Strengthen the organizational capacity of the local service 
providers that are essential to the successful achievement of the activities.
 Recommendation 1.6. Require all future AEG to be organized into cooperatives before 
co-financing their business plans based on measured levels of performance. 
 Recommendation 1.7. (Cross cutting with SO3, capacity building, and M&E) Develop 
new indicators based on existing tracking tools that will enable the Consortium to better 
monitor its impacts on community-level capacity building and vulnerable groups. 
2.2. Strategic Objective 2: Children Under 5 Years Less Vulnerable to Illness and 
Malnutrition 
2.2.1. Summary Observations: One direct impact of the Nema program’s support for the 
CSCOM-based programs to identify and rehabilitate malnourished children was a sharp increase 
in the number of children identified and treated. Not surprisingly, there was a sharp precipitous 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
118
decrease in the number of children identified and treated once the project quit providing food 
assistance to the families of the children being rehabilitated. In 2012, the same clinic records that 
were analyzed during the final survey are currently (November 2013) showing a sharp increase 
in the number of children being identified as malnourished, but very few being rehabilitated 
either at the CSCOM or in the villages since most mothers argued that they could no longer 
afford either the expense or time that this type of rehabilitation would involve. 
The chief reason given for the very limited sustainability of these gains was that most of the 
Nema health activities were implemented as if they were emergency programs, with high levels 
of food rations being distributed to the malnourished children including a ‘protective’ ration for 
the families. 
Although certain mothers of malnourished children who were treated by the program continue to 
model some of the good nutritional and sanitation practices that they learned during the program,
but this impact varied enormously between activities: 
 The mothers who reported the most active follow-up and continued practice were those 
that had participated in the Nema program’s limited community-based rehabilitation 
programs for moderately malnourished children following the PD/Hearth model activities 
in 27 of the 130 Nema villages; and 
 The survey showed almost no impact on current practices among mothers who had only 
participated in CSCOM-based rehabilitation programs for moderately and severely 
malnourished that were supported with the Nema food distribution that were organized in 
130 of the 130 Nema villages. 
2.2.1.1. PECIMA- The Identification and Treatment of Children Suffering from Moderate Acute 
Malnutrition (MAM) and Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) at the Community Health Centers 
(CSCOM): Based on this analysis, the health team concluded that the Nema program needs to 
completely rethink its support to the national Prise en Charge Intégrée de la Malnutrition Aiguë
(PECIMA) program through the CSCOMs that it supported through training and food assistance 
for the families of the children who were identified as malnourished. 
A critical first step involves strengthening the local communities’ support, involvement, and 
ownership of the CSCOM-supported growth monitoring and rehabilitation activities. Key 
recommendations include trying to increase the willingness and ability of the government’s 
officially recognized community health volunteers (CHVs or relais) to execute the program 
through: 
 Improved training; and 
 Improved compensation of their efforts by making them part of Nema-supported AEG or 
SILC or compensating them through other types of collective labor or in-kind payments. 
2.2.1.2. PD/Hearth: Given the successful record of Nema’s pilot PD/Hearth program, the team is 
recommending that future programs support the development of the community-based 
PD/Hearth model for rehabilitating moderately malnourished children using local products (i.e. 
not using food aid). The same recommendation includes a list of recommendations (based on 
successful PD/Hearth-model programs in other parts of Mali and West Africa) for developing: 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
119
 A simpler, more stream-lined model of PD/Hearth that should be easier for the project 
and the CSCOMs to backstop and monitor the correct execution of using a ‘model 
mother’ approach; as well as 
 A strong program of post-PD/Hearth program support to the vulnerable mothers of the 
rehabilitated children to help them develop the type of IGAs needed to sustain the 
positive impacts of the PD/Hearth program on their children. 
2.2.1.3. Water/Sanitation: Since clean drinking water is still a pressing constraint in about half 
the Nema villages due to budget constraints, which restricted the project’s ability to create wells, 
a third set of recommendations focuses developing a wider network of support for developing 
potable water-drinking points. Given the successful record of the government-sponsored 
community-led total sanitation (CLTS, also known as Assainissement Total Piloté par la 
Communauté or ATPC) program in adjacent areas and the successful pilot testing of this 
program in five Nema villages during the start-up phase, the health team is encouraging future 
programs to support the government’s CLTS initiative to promote community sanitation 
programs. 
2.2.2. Key Recommendations: 
 Recommendation 2.1. Rethink the Nema program’s support for the national 
government’s PECIMA strategy through the CSCOMs. 
 Recommendation 2.2. Improve the execution of the PD/Hearth model programs in the 
program villages. 
 Recommendation 2.3. Improve access to clean drinking water and strengthen hygiene 
and sanitation practices by requiring all villages to support the Mali government’s 
regional and cercle-level CLTS initiative. 
2.3. Strategic Objective 3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively 
2.3.1. Summary Observations 
2.3.1.1. Early Warning and Response Systems: The true results and effects of an effective early 
warning and response system are: 
 How it reacts when an actual emergency occurs; and 
 How it performs when the program that created it is no longer there to assist it. 
To date, there are very few of the Title II-funded programs that have been tested to the degree 
that Nema was tested starting in June 2011, at the very end of year three just after the mid-term 
evaluation. For all these reasons, USAID/FFP is very interested in assessing how the early 
warning system that Nema set up in Years 1-3 actually functioned when a real crisis hit. 
One major impact of the GAP/RU community-based early warning and response committees—
that the Nema program created in all 130 of the Nema villages—was to provide the regional 
early warning systems (SAPs or Système d’Alerte Précoce) in both Bourem and Douentza with 
some of the first data on the emerging food security crisis in in June 2011. Working through 
some of the most functional Nema-trained GAP/RU and Safety Net Committees, the Consortium 
was able to very quickly and efficiently: 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
120
 Develop a follow-up proposal for USAID that got emergency food and cash to the 
program by January 2013; and 
 Orchestrate the first phase of food security nets and enhanced PECIMA activities of this 
well-planned emergency response. 
Another major impact of the program that emerged during the execution of the final qualitative 
evaluation was the critical role played by the Nema-trained Safety Net Committees in 
orchestrating the food assistance that moved into the Nema villages six to 10 months after the 
Nema program was forced to close because of the military occupation. In addition to better 
targeting the post-Nema food assistance coming in, the trained committees seem to have helped 
the former Nema communities attract some additional special allocations of food assistance that 
supplemented the main distributions from the World Food Programme (WFP) and International 
Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) (see Table 4.3, Chapter 4). 
This experience highlights the critical importance of integrating the early warning and response 
functions of the GAP/RU into a new structure—the Village Food Security Committees—that the 
Mali government recently proposed as part its SAPs. Although this new function focuses 
primarily on emergency preparedness, the same structure could provide a framework for 
improved coordination between all of the different sub-committees being created by the project. 
2.3.1.2. FFW as a Cross-Cutting Tool for Increasing Agricultural Production, Raising Yields, 
and Reducing Risk: The program’s commitment to the creative use of FFW and similar safety￾net programs helped to minimize the risk associated with vulnerable households adopting the 
new practices and technologies needed to build stronger livelihoods. In the course of execution,
the FFW activities built 143 types of basic infrastructure, most of which (based on the data 
gathered during the survey) is still considered functional. In general, the villagers interviewed 
during the final evaluation survey expressed their deep appreciation for the FFW—both as a food 
supplement and as a source of investment in infrastructure that benefitted—in most cases—the 
entire village. This experience highlights the critical role that FFW-generated infrastructure can 
play in supporting stronger livelihood systems and reducing the aggregate vulnerability of certain 
highly food-insecure communities. 
2.3.1.3. Safety Nets as a Tool for Helping Vulnerable People Better Manage Risk: Although the 
safety nets program were much appreciated by the local people, there is little likelihood that the 
130 communities will have the means to develop improved safety nets from community 
resources that are more extensive than the traditional methods they have always used. It is 
therefore critical for future programs to examine a new string of activities that will reduce the 
total number of vulnerable people who will need to rely of either these traditional safety nets or 
outside food assistance to survive. Sample programs might include providing short-term food 
assistance, technical support, and inputs to vulnerable people that helps them develop profitable 
IGAs that they can manage with limited labor, like intensive poultry production, stall feeding, or 
kitchen gardens. 
2.3.2. Key Recommendations: 
 Recommendation 3.1. (Cross cutting with SO1, SO2, and SO4) Anticipate the creation 
of Food Security Committees in all of the Nema villages to coordinate the different Nema 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
121
and non-Nema community structures that affect food security with a special accent on the 
activities started under SO3. 
 Recommendation 3.2. Anticipate the involvement of all the key partners (Village Food 
Security Committee, Red Cross/Mali, SAP) in the conception and execution of any future 
community-based early warning and emergency response system. 
 Recommendation 3.3. (Cross cutting with SO1) Anticipate activities that strengthen the 
food security of the most vulnerable households that reduce their dependence on 
community-based safety nets. 
 Recommendation 3.4. (Cross cutting with SO2) Strengthen the linkages between SO3 
and SO2 activities.
 Recommendation 3.5. (Cross cutting with SO1) Intensify FFW activities in the most 
vulnerable villages in order to build their food security and income and reduce 
community-level vulnerability to risk and shocks. 
 Recommendation 3.6. (Cross cutting with M&EAL) Strengthen the capacity of the Nema 
M&E system to monitor the activities of the Village Food Security Committees and other 
key CBOs.
2.4. Cross-Cutting Objectives: Basic Literacy, Good Governance and Capacity Building 
2.4.1. Summary Observations: One major impact of the Nema program was to build the capacity 
of local CBOs around the activities that they created. Given the high illiteracy rates in the area, 
the project proposal anticipated the need for literacy training to equip these groups with the basic 
skills they would need to manage group enterprises. Although the two issues—literacy training 
and core capacity—overlap, they were evaluated separately with a set of interconnected 
recommendations. 
2.4.1.1. Literacy: The program created literacy centers and developed trainers in all 130 of the 
Nema villages. Although the short-term output of this exercise was an apparent increase in the 
number of literate people involved in the different CBOs, the rate of drop out was high and many 
of the groups still have very few members who understand the most important tools that they 
need to execute and sustain their interventions. Future programs can build on this existing base 
of literacy centers and trainers in order to: (a) continue to offer basic literacy training; and (b) 
develop a more focused set of “stage two” trainings that emphasize the actual tools needed to run 
a specific group enterprise. Given the local peoples’ appreciation of the literacy training, this is a 
clear priority for the next phase, and one that needs to be linked to a cross-cutting program of 
capacity building. 
2.4.1.2. Capacity Building: Although the program increased the capacity of local groups, many 
of these groups are still quite fragile. A clear priority for the next phase will be to: (a) strengthen 
the capacity of the existing groups; and (b) develop new groups in the villages that were 
underserved during the first phase. The ultimate goal of this capacity building is to build the 
organizations’ capacity to manage the activities without the project. To achieve this objective—
which the final evaluation has shown is critical to having a sustainable impact on resilience—the 
program will need to strengthen its existing systems for monitoring CBO capacity. 
2.4.2. Key Recommendations:
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
122
 Recommendation 4.1. Strengthen the linkages between literacy training and the actual 
activities (financial, planning, etc.) of the CBOs. 
 Recommendation 4.2. Strengthen the capacity of project managers and the 
administration to monitor the core capacity of the CBOs created by the project in order to 
better target training and technical support and plan the project’s exit strategy. To achieve 
this recommendation—which the final evaluation has shown is critical to having a 
sustainable impact on resilience—the program will need to strengthen its existing 
systems for monitoring CBO capacity. Specific recommendations for doing this would be 
to: 
- Transform the existing tools the Nema program has used to track capacity in the 
AEG and SILC into self-assessment tools that the program could use to track the 
evolution of the key capacities they would need to sustain their activities once the 
program closed; and 
- Train local groups to use this tool (with support from the Nema agents and 
partners) as a basis for developing strategic plans and training activities, including 
those that are designed to cross-link with the new generation of more focused 
literacy programs. 
 Once these tools are in place, they will provide a useful basis for both Nema and the local 
partners to use to plan the next generation of the program’s exit strategy as well as 
progressive engagement with a wider circle of NGO and government partners in the 
region that the villages will need to sustain these activities over time. 
2.5. Monitoring & Evaluation 
2.5.1. Summary Observations: The final evaluation qualitative survey was completed with speed 
and efficiency by the CRS M&E specialists due to their ability to enter and analyze the 
qualitative surveys using a series of CRS data-base management systems that were pre-adapted 
to the forms. This data entry analysis facilitated the formulation of certain simple but very 
powerful analyses that are presented in the report, a brief summary of which will be presented 
here.
The Nema M&E systems’ sophisticated database summarized all the tracking data for the 
program from Years 1-4. The original model was the CRS Simple Measurement of Indicators for 
Learning and Evaluation-Based Reporting (SMILER) system. This system exists because the 
initial Nema M&E team took the unusual step of developing a single data bank in the first year 
of the program that facilitated data entry. This data base management system was soon 
recognized as an example of best practice and generalized to all the CRS programs in Mali. The 
fact that it was pilot tested on Nema is important because it facilitated a disaggregated analysis of 
the program data by region and by gender that would have been impossible to do retroactively. 
Three of the key challenges for the next phase will be for Nema to build on this existing base of 
solid M&E systems to strengthen the capacity of Nema project to track: 
 The percentage of Nema villages classified as chronically food insecure; 
 The percentage of households classified as chronically food insecure; and 
 The core capacity of the local organizations charged with sustaining these activities as a 
basis for the development of successful exit strategies. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
123
3.5.2. Key Recommendations: Given the critical importance of these recommendations, they 
have been mainstreamed into the recommendations for the main SOs. 
Table 6. 5. Corrective Actions Recommended for Increasing the Sustainability of the Nema Program’s 
Accomplishments and Monitoring or Strengthening the Benefits Initiated by the Program108
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
SO1: Livelihood strategies more profitable and resilient
Recommendation 1.1. Consolidate the 
investments made by the Nema program in 
building agricultural production and increasing 
revenues in the communities where the SO1 
activities were most active during the initial phase 
(Years 1-4).
1. AEG: Assess the current level of functioning activities of 
each AEG, including the profitability of the original 
activities it has engaged in, and:
- Build the core institutional capacity they need to 
become registered cooperatives and/or to join and 
established cooperatives; 
- Identify any technical assistance they might need (such 
as increased access to improved food-processing 
technology) to further sustain their existing agro￾economic enterprises or any new ones they have 
developed; and
- Strengthen the program’s collaboration with the local 
technical services and donor-funded initiatives (e.g.
INSORMIL/Purdue and IESA) that support the new 
intensive technology package in order to facilitate their 
support for the scale up of the new technologies pilot 
tested during the FFS for the Nema target villages.
2. SILC: Conduct a similar sort of institutional review of the 
SILC in the initial pre-planning phase of any sort of follow￾up programming.
3. Track the impact of this activity on the aggregate 
vulnerability of the communities as a basis for planning a 
program exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7).
Recommendation 1.2. Extend the total package 
of SO1 innovations into the Nema communities 
where the program was less active in the first 
phase in ways that build on the capacities of the 
local agro-ecological capacity.
1. Target underserved, vulnerable villages with an intensified 
package of FFW activities to build their capacity for the 
agro-enterprises that they can develop (especially livestock, 
commercial forage production, and irrigated gardening).
2. Encourage commercial fodder production.
3. Develop a new group of safety net programs that focuses on 
the use of individualized FFW that vulnerable households 
can execute to help them develop small micro-enterprises 
(like poultry production, stall feeding, manure pits, and 
kitchen gardens).
4. Build the core capacity of the team to support commercially 
oriented, sustainable livestock activities by recruiting an 
senior animal scientist (zoo-technician) who can provide 
appropriate technical assistance and intensified linkages to 
the emerging livestock initiatives being developed by the 
Mali Ministry of Livestock and international partners like 
the International Livestock Research Initiatives (ILRI), as 
well as some of the new livestock initiatives being 
supported by USAID in Burkina Faso and Niger.
 
108 CRS/HKI/Save the Children. 2013. SOW. Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Lessons Learned and 
Recommendations. Key Questions. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
124
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
5. To insure appropriate conclusion of women and vulnerable 
groups, a progressive scale up of the SILC should follow 
the progressive scale up of the AEG in the most vulnerable 
communities.
6. Track the impact of this activity on the aggregate 
vulnerability of the communities as a basis for planning a 
program exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7).
Recommendation 1.3. Strengthen the level of 
integration and joint planning between SO1 and 
SO2.
Cross-cutting with SO2:
1. Encourage the mothers of children graduating from the 
SO2-supported PD/Hearth to organize themselves into 
mothers groups that are SILC.
2. Provide the mothers’ group with technical assistance and 
support to help them increase their crop production and 
revenues.
3. Given the difficulty that all of the PD/Hearths have had in 
providing the basic ingredients and fuel wood needed to 
support the PD/Hearth in Bourem, link future FFW 
investment in the development of irrigated market gardens 
(culture maraichages)—one of the most potentially 
profitable value chains in Bourem—to the group’s 
commitment to: (a) providing a certain percentage of their 
harvest to the PD/Hearth in that community; and (b) 
planting a haie vive (around the plot) that the women’s 
group can maintain as a source of fuel wood for the future 
PD/Hearth.
4. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment 
tool and report on it regularly to strengthen the preparation 
of any new program’s exit strategy (see Recommendation 
1.7).
Recommendation 1.4. Transform and certify the 
FFS trainers and help them become commercial 
seed producers as a way to strengthen their role as 
community-based extension agents for both the 
Nema-founded extension groups as well as for 
other pre-existing community groups.
1. Retrain current and train new TOTs in basic skills, as well 
as the skills needed to become certified seed producers 
through the IER program designed to promote this.
2. Provide technical assistance and monitoring to facilitate the 
TOTs becoming seed private-service providers (PSPs).
3. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment 
tool and report on it regularly to strengthen the preparation 
of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7).
Recommendation 1.5. Strengthen the 
organizational capacity of the local service 
providers that are essential to the successful 
achievement of the activities.
Cross-cutting with literacy and capacity building:
1. Both categories of AEG and SILC capacity building (listed 
under Recommendations 1 and 2) would benefit from 
literacy training programs that build the capacity of the 
members with basic reading and writing skills (see Tables 
2.5 and 2.5) to manage the basic AEG and SILC planning 
and financial tools.
SILC:
2. Certify the SILC AVs in PSP.
3. Finalize the process of training the AV in PSP and help 
them to create a network (reseau).
4. Better connect the SILC groups with the existing base of 
institutions of micro-finance (IMFs).
5. Facilitate the transformation of certain groups (as they 
develop) into AEG and ultimately, when they are ready, 
into cooperatives.
6. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment 
tool and report on it regularly to strengthen the preparation 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
125
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7).
Recommendation 1.6. Require all future AEG to 
be organized into cooperatives before co￾financing their business plans based on measured 
levels of performance.
1. Strengthen the organizational capacity of the AEG before 
financing their business plans.
2. To insure fiscal responsibility and allow them to approach 
local micro-enterprise institutions, require them to be 
registered cooperatives before co-financing their business 
plans.
3. Anticipate the need to provide the cautionnement
(collateral) for the AEG initial IMF loans.
4. Track this increased capacity through a new self-assessment 
tool and report on it regularly to strengthen the preparation 
of the exit strategy (see Recommendation 1.7).
Recommendation 1.7. (cross-cutting with SO3, 
capacity building, and M&E) Develop new 
indicators based on existing tracking tools that 
will enable the Consortium to better monitor its 
impacts on community-level capacity building 
and vulnerable groups.
1. Anticipate the need to disaggregate all of the data for the 
principal internal and donor driven indicators from the start.
2. Train all execution partners (M&E officers and program 
managers) in the methodologies needed to conduct 
disaggregated IPTT analyses for their zone of information. 
3. Consider adding a new indicator to the SO1 impact 
indicators that measures the percentage of households 
classified as chronically food insecure. 
4. Consider adding a new indicator measuring percentage of 
villages classified as chronically food insecure to the 
tracking table and developing targets for reducing the 
number of villages classified as chronically food insecure 
and/or vulnerable.
5. Consider adding a qualitative measurement of the MAHFP 
using the ‘food security calendar’ methodology used during 
the final evaluation.
6. Develop a more consistent system for tracking and 
reporting local organizational capacity building in the IPTT 
and reports that builds on the existing AEG and SILC tools 
(see Annex I, Chapter 2) that are already being used to track 
capacity.
7. Move in the direction of turning the tool into a self￾assessment tool that builds on existing tools being used by 
the AEG and SILC officers to track their programs that the 
Consortium can use to build local communities’ capacity to 
develop realistic exit and sustainability strategies.
SO2: Children under 5 years less vulnerable to illness and malnutrition
Recommendation 2.1. Rethink the Nema 
program’s support for the national government’s 
PECIMA strategy through the CSCOMs.
1. Retrain the CHVs and provide them with training materials 
(IEC support picture boxes, posters, pamphlets, etc.) on the 
prevention and community-level treatment of acute 
malnutrition. 
2. Build public awareness about the need to support the CHVs 
though the development of income generating activities 
(IGAs) through the AEG and SILC, community support for 
their farming activities, or setting up a system of in-kind 
compensation through the mobilization of community 
resources.
3. Strengthen the baseline training of the health personnel (at 
the CSCOM and CSREF levels) in the identification and 
treatment of moderately malnourished children, and 
organize regular retraining sessions.
4. Provide additional training on nutrition for the SILC and 
AEG members to help them better train the mothers and 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
126
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
fathers in the monitoring and community-based 
rehabilitation of moderately malnourished children.
5. Anticipate the need for a progressive transfer of knowledge 
and responsibility to the CHVs and make sure they have the 
tools and equipment they need to conduct growth 
monitoring in compliance with the national norms for 
fighting malnutrition.
6. Integrate the promotion of micro-nutrient rich foods into the 
routine activities of the CHVs, and put them in contact with 
other community-based structures or women contact 
persons in order to promote appropriate health messages 
concerning dietary diversity and the promotion of local 
foods that are rich in micro nutrients (vitamin A and iron).
7. Introduce food technology activities to process local food 
(production of weaning foods, local foods enrichment).
8. Strengthen the frequency of in-home training visits by the 
CHVs and volunteer mothers in order to create the enabling 
environment required for behavior change.
Recommendation 2.2. Improve the execution of 
the PD/Hearth-model programs in the program 
villages.
1. Given the observed impact of the PD/Hearth model 
programs on mothers’ health practices both during and after 
the program, future Nema interventions should implement a 
revised PD/Hearth model in every village where the 
program intervenes that includes revised model for tracking 
the children’s progress both during and after treatment.109
2. Encourage the development of IGAs for the vulnerable 
mothers of the children participating in the PD/Hearths 
through the development of irrigated gardening activities 
and organizing them into care groups.
3. Involve community volunteers in early PD/Hearth 
activities, and strengthen the CSCOM’s supervision of the 
CHVs (at least twice per quarter) to ensure sustainability of 
the achievements in the field, especially in new areas of 
program intervention. 
4. Introduce food technology activities for local food 
processing (production of weaning foods, local foods 
enrichment). 
5. Transform the earlier Nema "voluntary mothers" system 
into the system of "Mama Lumieres" used by most non￾emergency PD/Hearth programs.
Recommendation 2.3. Improve access to clean 
drinking water and strengthen hygiene and 
sanitation practices by requiring all villages to 
support the Mali government’s regional and 
cercle-level CLTS initiative.
1. Since drinking water is still one of the principal constraints 
to improving the nutritional status of the most vulnerable 
population in the villages, the consortium partners might 
think of exploring other opportunities for funding drinking 
water infrastructure through other organizations or private￾donor funds. These funds, as well as any future funds, need 
to give priority to water resource development in the most 
vulnerable villages. 
2. Future programs should anticipate introducing the 
government’s new CLTS initiative, which was pilot tested 
in five of the Nema villages, in every one of the Nema 
communities.
 
109 This includes using weight/height index and monitoring the children’s progress two months, six months, and one 
year after the children leave PD/Hearth. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
127
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
Recommendation made by the partners and beneficiaries:
3. During interviews with the technical partners of state 
services, some recommendations were made to improve the 
care of malnutrition (Text Box 3.5). Beneficiaries also 
made recommendations during focus groups.
SO3: Targeted communities manage shocks more effectively
Recommendation 3.1. Anticipate the creation of 
Food Security Committees in all of the Nema 
villages to coordinate the different Nema and
non-Nema community structures that affect food 
security, with a special accent on the activities 
started under SO3.
1. Transform the existing level of collaboration between the 
different Nema-created structures that are functioning as an 
informal food security into a series of Village Food 
Security Committees (Comite villageois de sécurité 
alimentaire). 
2. Conduct a participatory needs assessment in each of the 
former Nema program villages to determine the level of 
functioning of the SO3 structures put in place and how the 
community managed the crisis. 
3. In conjunction with this participatory needs assessment, 
identify all of the key humanitarian assistance partners 
(including the local Red Cross volunteers and brigades) and 
their activities in the Nema villages during the crisis.
4. Create a self-assessment tool that the Village Food Security 
Committees can use to self-assess the core capacities that 
they will need to manage routine risk and major shocks.
5. Based on this baseline self-assessment, help each 
committee develop a strategic plan for building their 
capacity in collaboration with the program and other 
partners such as Red Cross/Mali.
6. Based on these needs assessments, work with local aid and 
SAP partners to develop joint training programs that will 
strengthen the Village Food Security Committees and sub￾committees (e.g. the Safety Net Committee and the 
GAP/RU) and build strong regional networks that can 
backstop these committees during a crisis. 
7. Require each Village Food Security Committee to update 
its self-assessment index (which includes an assessment of 
their level of collaboration with other aid partners and SAP 
structures outside the community) and try to insure that 
some of this information is tracked in indicators in the 
IPTT.
Recommendation 3.2. Anticipate the 
involvement of all the key partners (Village Food 
Security Committees, Red Cross/Mali, and SAP) 
in the conception and execution of any future 
community-based early warning and emergency 
response system.
1. Insure that the regional and local SAPs and major 
humanitarian organizations working in the area are 
involved in the initial conception of any future early 
warning and response system (i.e. in the MYAP design), as 
well as its implementation.
2. Anticipate signing a MOU with the aid partners that might 
be needed in a major emergency as part of any future 
MYAP designs to facilitate quick response and more 
realistic emergency preparedness for worst-case scenarios.
3. Each year, conduct a participatory review of all MOU and 
processes needed to activate them with the Village Food 
Security Committees and update the agreements if the 
context has changed.
4. Continue to support the GAP/RU sharing the early 
warning information that they collect on the local 
community radio stations.
5. Anticipate the necessity of linking the GAP/RU data-
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
128
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
collection efforts to the larger data needs of the SAPs and 
other humanitarian partners.
Recommendation 3.3. Anticipate activities that 
strengthen the food security of the most 
vulnerable households that reduce their 
dependence on community based safety nets.
1. Strengthen current safety net programs with activities that 
develop IGAs for the most vulnerable households.
2. Help vulnerable groups to organize themselves into groups 
to facilitate the supervision and support of activities that 
will strengthen their livelihoods and reduce the case loads 
of future safety-net programs. 
3. Anticipate a sub-category of FFW activities for vulnerable 
groups (as both individuals and groups) that will support 
the development of IGAs.
4. Develop appropriate M&E systems for tracking the impact 
of these activities on vulnerable groups.
Recommendation 3.4. Strengthen the linkages 
between SO3 and SO2 activities.
1. Intensify the existing efforts of Nema to use FFW to expand 
the development of fruit trees and gardens managed by 
women.
2. Anticipate FFW activities that can help the savings and 
internal lending communities (SILC) groups develop 
irrigated vegetable gardens that increase their revenue and 
household dietary diversity.
Recommendation 3.5. Intensify FFW activities 
in the most vulnerable villages in order to build 
their food security and income and reduce 
community-level vulnerability to risk and shocks.
1. Identify FFW activities needed to jumpstart agro-enterprise 
development in the most vulnerable villages.
2. Develop appropriate M&E systems for tracking the impact 
of these activities on household and village-level 
vulnerability.
Recommendation 3.6. Strengthen the capacity of 
the Nema M&E system to monitor the activities 
of the Village Food Security Committees and 
other key community-level management 
structures.
See Recommendation 3.1, sub-recommendations 1-7 above.
Cross-Cutting Literacy/Capacity Building
Recommendation 4.1. Strengthen the linkages 
between literacy training and the actual activities 
(financial, planning, etc.) of the CBOs.
1. Facilitate a participatory baseline diagnostic (with input 
from the members) of each group’s literacy needs as a 
basis for planning a training program and appropriate 
training materials.
2. Strengthen the existing systems set up under Nema for 
working with CAP to monitor the quality of the literacy 
programs.
3. Build on the existing base of Nema capacity monitoring 
matrices/tools to develop self-assessment tools that the 
program can use to help CBOs self-assess their capacity in 
key technical areas, as well as financial management, 
strategic planning, and literacy.
4. Facilitate each group conducting an annual update of its 
capacity index as part of its strategic plan for the coming 
year. 
5. Ensure that the results of the community-based self￾assessments of the CBOs’ local capacity are reported in the 
annual reports and (if possible) in the IPTT.
Recommendation 4.2. Strengthen the capacity of 
the program managers and administration to 
monitor the core capacity of the CBOs created by 
the program in order to better target training and 
technical support and plan the program’s exit 
1. Anticipate the need to transform certain informal structures 
and community organizations into formal structures that 
are recognized by the government, and build this 
information into the training programs.
2. (Cross–cutting with SO2) Given the critical importance of 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Chapter 6. Conclusions. December 30, 2013. 
129
Recommendations Specific Recommendations
strategy. the village food security committees in emergency and 
planning with the SAPs, anticipate the development of 
these groups in all of the future interventions as an 
umbrella organization that can help coordinate with the 
other CBOs.
3. Encourage the establishment of a network (reseau) linking 
the current and any new AEG and SILC established under 
future programs to ensure their access to improved inputs 
and markets.
4. Strengthen staff training in conflict management to 
minimize the impact of community-level conflicts on 
program activities.
5. Anticipate the key government, NGO, and private-sector 
linkages that each CBO will need, and monitor the 
evolution of these linkages as part of the annual self￾assessment process to help facilitate an appropriate exit 
strategy.
Source: Chapters 1-5.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
1
Annex I. Terms of Reference for Final Evaluation of Years 1-4 of MYAP Nema 
The following terms of reference define the guidelines and specific tasks for carrying out the evaluation of 
the MYAP program in the program’s original intervention zone before prematurely closing the program in 
the first quarter of 2012. The program was obligated to cease activities due to the rebel occupation by 
Islamic groups in the intervention area. The contracted consultant or firm should carry out a critical 
examination of the implementation of the Multi-Year Assistance Program (NEMA) and the results that 
exist in the field since the occupation and consequent liberation currently underway by the Malian and 
French armies and their allies. Currently the zones are nearly liberated: Eleven of 15 communes in 
Douentza are free of rebel movements. Access roads are free and are controlled by the armed forces. In 
the remaining 4 communes and in the cercle of Bourem challenges still exist and travel is not advised. 
I. CONTEXT AND PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION: 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation, Inc. (SC) and Helen Keller International 
(HKI) have put in place the CFSM (Consortium for Food Security in Mali) of which CRS is the lead. The 
CFSM has submitted and was granted financing from USAID/FFP for the Multi-Year Assistance Program 
(MYAP) named « NEMA ». NEMA is implemented through the consortium CRS, HKI, Save the 
Children in the regions of Mopti and Gao through implementing partners, CARITAS Mali of Mopti and 
the NGO Tassaght. The « NEMA » program is designed to contribute to the reduction of food insecurity 
of vulnerable households in the regions of Gao and Mopti, targeting 124,858 program participants in 130 
villages in the cercles of Bourem in the Gao region and Douentza in the Mopti region. 
Through integrated interventions, the « NEMA » program from 2008 through 2012 intended to improve 
the livelihoods of vulnerable households and strengthen the community capacity for resilience to shocks 
by following the program’s results framework. 
The NEMA Program addresses three priority domains identified by the consortium to fight against food 
insecurity through increasing capacity in 1) agro-enterprise, 2) nutrition, hygiene and sanitation and 3) 
disaster risk reduction. 
The NEMA Program in addition to these three components included 2 additional cross-cutting 
interventions which were: literacy and savings and internal credit (SILC). To ensure the largest possible 
benefit from the program and achieve the greatest possible measure of sustainability, the NEMA program 
has endeavored to provide participating communities training sessions in literacy that focus on agro￾enterprise, nutrition, WASH themes. In addition, with the goal of strengthening community resilience 
and specifically the resilience of women during future crises, the NEMA program supported savings and 
internal lending communities. These are generally groups of women that function using a method 
developed by CRS and that has been proven effective in several countries around the world. 
At the beginning of NEMA, the consortium carried out a baseline study in September-October 2008, 
which permitted the determination of reference data and fixed targets for performance indicators for the 
duration of the program. 
Also, in May 2011, a mid-term evaluation was carried out to determine the evolution of the program 
toward the objectives determined at the beginning. This permitted the identification of difficulties and 
constraints, strengths and weaknesses and made recommendations for improving the implementation. For 
example, cases of moderately malnourished children are now managed at the community level rather than 
at the health centers. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) was added to the program to improve 
hygiene and nutrition and the target number of water points was reduced from 60 to 49 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
2
Following the occupation of the different program intervention zones by the rebel groups since March 
2012, it was no longer possible to carry out activities. It is with the objective of learning and improving 
future programs, that the present evaluation will be conducted. It will serve to inform USAID/FFP of the 
results of the activities implemented. The evaluation of NEMA’s accomplishments in the first 4 years 
comes in response to a request made during the Nov 2012 field visit to the re-located MYAP. 
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF PROGRAM: 
FRAMEWORK FOR THE MYAP
GOAL: Vulnerable rural households in the regions of Mopti and Gao have reduced their 
food insecurity.
Strategic Objective 1: Livelihood Strategies are More Profitable and Resilient
 Intermediate Result 1.1: Household agricultural production is increased.
 Intermediate Result 1.2: Targeted household revenues increase.
Strategic Objective 2: Children Under 5-Years of Age are Less Vulnerable to Illness and 
Malnutrition
 Intermediate Result 2.1: Caregivers of children under five and pregnant women are 
applying improved nutrition and feeding practices.
 Intermediate Result 2.2: Caregivers of children under five are applying improved 
hygiene and sanitation practices.
Strategic Objective 3: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks More Effectively.
 Intermediate Result 3.1: Community early warning and response systems are in place.
 Intermediate Result 3.2: Community safety nets are in place.
Transversal Activities: Functional literacy and training in governance
II. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 
The evaluation’s objective is to evaluate the results, the implementation process and the sustainability of 
the MYAP program in terms of food security, nutrition of vulnerable groups in the target populations and 
the functionality of community based early warning systems in Douentza and Bourem where the program 
has stopped operating. 
As a recuperation phase is one possibility, this evaluation will investigate also the current functionality of 
systems and structures that have been established or supported by NEMA with the intention of informing 
a possible rapid start-up. 
Specific Objectives:
Specifically, this requires: 
 Describe whether the program has attained its goal, strategic objectives, and intermediate results and 
how this was accomplished. 
 Identify all other results of the program, intended and unintended. 
 Describe how the activities implemented from 2008 to 2012 (SILC, Agro-enterprise, nutrition and 
WASH, and disaster risk reduction) continue to be applied in the previously occupied program zones 
by the remaining program participants. 
 Provide an update on the implementation of recommendations made during the mid-term evaluation 
 Draw principle lessons learned (positive and/or negative) during the four years of MYAP 
implementation. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
3
 Analyze the capacity for a rapid start-up of agro-enterprise groups, SILC groups, and early warning 
committees, among other health systems. 
 Analyze the efficiency and sustainability of agro-enterprise groups, SILC groups, Farming Field 
School (FFS), and early warning committees. 
In total, the evaluation should inform CRS and its stakeholders about program results, the efficiency of the 
process and the sustainability of the program activities. This will inform recommendations made 
regarding a possible rapid start-up in the case of a recuperation effort. 
III. EXPECTED RESULTS: 
By the time the evaluation is complete, the evaluation team will have produced a final report that assesses 
the 4 years of NEMA Program activities in the zone Bourem and Douentza. The report will respond to the 
key questions highlighted in the terms of reference. 
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY: 
This final MYAP evaluation will use qualitative methods to understand program results, the efficiency of 
the implementation processes, and the sustainability of the activities carried out in the MYAP. Data will 
be collected through focus groups using a sample from among the 100 accessible Douentza communities. 
The number of focus groups will be based on a diverse selection of communities to ensure information is 
gathered from participants of every type of program activity. Key informant interviews will be conducted 
among leaders of community based early warning structures, food for work management committees, 
water management committees, medical post managers (chefs de poste médicaux), health committees and
the literacy partner (Centre d’animation Pédogogique). These will take place in the same communities 
where focus groups take place to permit triangulation of information. The insecurity in Bourem may 
likely limit the investigation to data collection through telephone calls among program participants and 
stakeholders from among the 30 communities in Bourem. 
The evaluation will be informed by NEMA program participants and key stakeholders. The evaluation 
team will advise in their technical proposal the appropriate methodology and a data collection plan always 
ensuring that the evaluation is realized based on USAID/FFP requirements and expectations and standards 
of Title II programs as well as the requirements of USAID’s Mission in Mali. The data collection tools 
already developed and submitted to FFP will be made available for the consultant as a reference tool. 
The design/methodology of the study should use qualitative data collection methods that can include (but 
are not limited to) the following approaches: 
o Review of secondary data and consultation of principle documents: 
o Proposal document 
o Baseline report 
o Monitoring reports 
o Annual Activities Report 
o Mid-term Evaluation Report 
o Key informant interviews: Semi-structured interviews with community members, agricultural 
extension services, health facility administrators, administrative authorities, elected officials, and 
or others persons who have benefited from the program. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
4
 Community based Early Warning structures 
 Food For Work management committees 
 Water management committees 
 Medical post managers (chefs de poste médicaux) 
 Health Committees 
 Literacy partner (Centre d’animation Pédogogique) 
o Focus group discussions: Semi-structured discussion guides with homogenous groups 
(disaggregated by sex wherever possible) of 8-12 stakeholders that will include the following 
target groups: 
 Members of AE groups 
 Members of SILC groups 
 Leader Mothers (Hearth) 
 Community volunteers 
 Literacy Trainers and participants 
 Participants Title II food 
 Participants of FFW 
 Non-participants 
Design of Data Collection Tools: 
Semi-structured interview guides have already been designed and submitted to FFP for approval by the 
CRS M&E team. These include interview guides for: 
Interview Guide for AE groups 
Interview Guide for Market venders 
Interview Guide for Literacy trainers/auditors 
Interview Guide for SILC Groups 
Interview Guide for volunteers 
Interview Guide for Hearth Groups 
Interview Guide for Health Agents 
Interview Guide for Water management committee 
Interview Guide for FFW participant 
Interview Guide for Early Warning Group 
Interview Guide for FFW Committees 
Interview Guide for the NEMA stakeholders 
Tools approved by FFP will be used for interviews and focus groups. 
Data Collection: 
CRS M&E department will support in the data collection team. The number of enumerators needed by 
consultant will be made available. The relative cost of the data collection agents is not included in the 
consultant or firm budget. Logistics will be managed by CRS- Mali (paper, supplies, for training, data 
collection, lanterns, markers, classification folders, general supplies, vehicles and enumerator lodging) so 
this is also not included in the consultant budget. 
Data Analysis:
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
5
Data analysis of qualitative data may include but is not limited to the following analysis methods: 
typology, taxonomy and content analysis. Information provided by each source will be grouped and 
analyzed to inform the key evaluation questions. Lessons learned will also be included in the analysis. 
V. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS: 
This evaluation will address these aspects (although this is not an exhaustive list) giving priority to the 
following key questions: 
Relevance 
 Are Agro-enterprise groups the most appropriate strategy / relevant livelihood approach for 
strengthening household food security given the marginal land conditions, distance from markets 
etc.? 
Results and effects 
 Have the program activities (SILC, AEGs, literacy, hearth, FFS etc.) and their related strategies 
affected program participant households’ capacity to respond to shocks and natural disasters that 
affect their food security? If so, how? 
 According to participants interviewed, have the program activities improved production and 
agricultural yields? HH Income? Food security? Dietary diversity? Nutritional state of children in 
targeted households? If yes, how? IF not why? 
 What are the lessons learned from the shift from health facility delivery to community based health 
services in this MYAP context? Was this a good change? In what ways? How might it be 
improved further? 
 Are communities applying the techniques introduced for improved nutrition of infants in the 
context of the crisis in the north? If yes, what are the factors that encourage this use? 
 Are there other unexpected but important effects in the targeted communities as a result of the 
program activities? 
 Has the program improved the capacity of targeted community organizations? If yes, how so? 
 Has the program improved the capacity of state services and other partners in the implementation 
of food security programs? In what way? 
 Are village-level early warning systems integrated into the regional (SAP- Systeme d’alerte 
Precoce) early warning system? How? And what are the lessons learned? 
 What are the points of view of partners, leaders and program participants about implementation of 
the program and its results? 
Effectiveness of the implementation process 
 What was the implementation process for achieving main project objectives (improvement of food 
security, reduced malnutrition and increase in incomes)? Was it appropriate? Efficient? How 
might it be improved? 
 How effectively was the Farmer Field School approach carried out? Was it implemented as 
expected? If not, what was the problem? What can we learn from this? 
 What was the BCC strategy and was it relevant and efficient to positively affect nutrition and 
hygiene behavior change and outcomes? Describe and support your response with evidence. 
 Assess the effectiveness of the program’s theory of change. Have the outputs contributed to the 
realization of the program’s intermediate results and strategic objectives? Are there components 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
6
that were more effective than others for achieving the intermediate results and objectives of the 
program?
 Is the M&EAL system appropriate for measuring the objectives and the program indicators? 
 How effective was the technical assistance provided throughout the program? 
 How effectively did the program use selection criteria to target vulnerable households? 
 What aspects of the program were particularly ineffective? 
Sustainability: 
 What mechanisms, arrangements have been put in place to ensure the sustainability of the 
program’s results (in all domains including early warning systems and community safety net 
programs)? Evaluate whether these are likely to be sufficient. 
 What are the arrangements for a sustainable management of public works and infrastructures? 
 Has the technical assistance provided via program activities translated into the adoption of best 
practices? Do program participants continue to apply the techniques they learned? 
 Do the agro-enterprise and SILC groups continue to operate and have they remained financially 
solvent after the end of the program? 
 State of infrastructures completed: Observe and evaluate the functionality of the public works and 
infrastructures created by the program. 
 Are there other benefits participants continue to have / experience after the end of the program? If 
so, what are they? 
Resilience 
 What are the implemented activities that positively impact the target population’s resilience? What 
are the results of the conflict for the affected households and communities? 
 How have they managed the shock? What coping mechanisms are they using? (Both project￾introduced and otherwise.) Why? Do they perceive themselves as vulnerable? 
 What is their perception of the result of the shock? Do they believe their situation has improved?- 
Gotten worse or has not changed? 
Cross- cutting Questions 
 What have been the effects of the program on the lives of women program participants and their 
households? 
 How has the program affected the gender relationships within targeted households? 
 What effect has the program had on the capacity of households to manage the negative effects of 
their activities on their environment? 
 Has the program improved program participants’ literacy? If yes, how? 
Lessons Learned and Recommendations 
 What are the main lessons that can be learned from the program experience? 
 What are the corrective actions recommended for the sustainability of the program 
accomplishments? 
 What are the recommended actions for monitoring or strengthening the benefits initiated by the 
program? 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
7
VI. EVALUATION REPORT WRITING AND DISTRIBUTION: 
The initial report produced following the preliminary analysis will be written by the evaluation team and 
submitted to CRS Mali 12 business days after finishing field work. The distribution of the report will 
follow these steps: 
1) The preliminary version of the report will be sent to all MYAP stakeholders (partners, donor, and 
SO & SILC coordinators) for their feedback. 
2) The CRS M&EAL Dept. will compile the observations and commentaries to transmit them to the 
consultant team. 
3) The consultant team will produce a version of the report to be presented at the feedback and 
validation workshop organized in concert with the consultant by the M&EAL dpt. of CRS Mali. 
4) Following this workshop, the evaluation team will produce a final evaluation report which will be 
distributed to all stakeholders. 
VII. TASKS TO ACCOMPLISH BY THE EVALUATION TEAM: 
The tasks to be accomplished by the consultant are the following: 
 Review key documents ; 
 Carry out a work session with the key program staff 
 Lead the data collection, data entry, cleaning and data analysis 
 Become familiar with the Malian context and the CFSM program activities through the 
examination of main program documents and exchange emails with CRS Mali personnel before 
arriving ; 
 Identify the targeting and sampling strategy for the program evaluation 
 Develop and or adapt tools methodology and action plan 
 Finalize proposed program evaluation methodology tools and action plan with the evaluation team; 
Train interviewers and conduct a pre-test of the tools 
 Present the preliminary report to the CRS Mali office in Bamako at the feedback workshop no later 
than 12 business days after the end of data collection 
 Submit the final report no later than 10 business days after the feedback and validation workshop 
VIII. EVALUATION TEAM: 
The team should be multi-disciplinary composed of an expert in the evaluation of food security,
nutritional status of children, market analyses and should include members with extensive experience in 
evaluating USAID/FFP Title II projects. The team should have consultants with both international 
national expertise and be led by an international consultant.
IX. QUALIFICATIONS AND COMPETENCIES REQUIRED (for the team leader) 
 Have a diploma in superior studies (masters or PhD.) in the domains associated with the present 
evaluation (Agriculture/agro-enterprise; Social sciences; nutrition, participatory research methods, 
monitoring systems, etc.). 
 Have at least 3 years experience in the evaluation of food security programs 
 Have at least a master’s level in the domain of agro-economics or any other discipline relevant for 
an evaluation of programs similar to a MYAP 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
8
 Have experience leading a final evaluation of food security program, preferably Title II, Food for 
Peace. 
 Be capable of developing a sampling strategy consistent with the data collection methodology, 
verifying the quality of data and using relevant qualitative analysis techniques 
 Excellent analytical, editing and communication capacities. 
 Good knowledge of writing and speaking in English 
X. PROPOSALS FOR SUBMISSION: 
The candidate file is submitted under closed envelope and should include two distinct proposals (of which 
one is technical and the other is financial) each one in an envelope, both in a large anonymous envelope. 
 
o The technical proposal should include : 
- A note acknowledging understanding of the SoW and any proposed amendments 
- Resumes of consultants and members of the team 
- References from at least 3 recent consultations with the contacts of the principal consultants and of the 
contact person from the structure offering services, 
- A description of the roles and responsibilities of each team member (one page maximum) 
- A description of the office headquarters or consultant’s place of work with the complete address. 
- Valid administrative identification for the consultant or office (State registration/ fisc situation) 
- An appropriate methodology that describes among others, the sampling strategy, the methods for data 
collection, cleaning and analysis 
- Copies of references demonstrating good execution and /or services similar to this evaluation. 
o Financial proposal, will include all the costs linked to the evaluation, the proposal will 
include all taxes (toutes taxes comprise--TTC). 
- The large envelope will be labeled, “PROPOSITION FOR THE FINAL EVALUATION OF 
PROGRAM NEMA, NOT TO BE OPENED UNTIL THE REVIEW OF BIDS » 
- Alternatively, send documents electronically to the address below. 
- The individuals proposed in the submission will be required for the evaluation. 
XI. SELECTION 
- A selection committee will evaluate the proposals submitted. In all cases, the costs of proposal 
submission are not reimbursed and CRS reserves the right to not award the consultation.
- The firm or consultant will sign a contract with CRS Mali. 
XII. WORKPLAN: 
The work plan presented is subject to change, it will be up to the consultant to readjust it based on the 
methodology proposed. 
Activities Time Required
Review of key documents 1
Draft baseline plan, methodology and tools 1
Meet with staff to plan and target villages 2
Finalize the data collection plan and methodology, with CRS M&E and 2
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex I. SOW. December 30, 2013. 
9
project staff. 
Train agents and pre-test tools 3
Data collection in the sampled villages 7
Data cleaning and analysis 5
Produce preliminary report 4
Validation workshop 1
Produce final report 2
Total days for consultation 28
XIII. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PLACE AND DEADLINES 
- Proposal submission is possible all business days until 5 PM at any of the CRS offices in the locations 
indicated below. 
o Scope of Work Available : 
o CRS Bamako : Badalabougou Est, derrière la pâtisserie AMANDINE, Rue 22 Porte 49, 
(l’ancien bureau du Plan International au Mali).Tel. : 20 23 44 57 
o CRS Mopti – Bureau de San 
o Submit request to receive the Terms of references at the CRS Mali email address: 
adama.sangare@crs.org
o
o Submission of proposal : (Only in BAMAKO) 
o CRS Bamako : Badalabougou Est, derrière la pâtisserie AMANDINE, Rue 22 Porte 49, 
(l’ancien bureau du Plan International au Mali).Tel. : 20 23 44 57 
o To send electronically, send to : adama.sangare@crs.org with copy to 
scott.braunschweig@crs.org
 Date of Submission : 
o The deadline for submission is Monday, September, 9th 2013 at 5 PM. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 1
Mali CFSM MYAP Final Indicator Performance Tracking Table—Updated October 29, 2012 
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
SO1: Livelihood strategies more profitable and resilient.
Impact Indicator 
1.1. # of months of 
adequate food 
provisioning 
(FFP)
(+)
4.11
(3.96;
4.26)
-- -- -- 5 7 7
Impact Indicator 
1.2. Average HH 
dietary diversity 
score (FFP)
(+)
6.51
(6.36; 
6.66)
-- -- -- 6.51 7.21 7.21
Impact Indicator
1.3. % of 
households who 
report increase in 
financial resources 
(+) 0 -- -- -- 60% 70% 70%
IR 1.1. Household agricultural production increased.
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.1. % 
of Title II-assisted 
producers using at 
least 3 sustainable 
agro-enterprise 
technologies1
(FFP)
(+) 0 -- -- -- 30% 10% 33.3% 50% 19% 38% 70% ND 80% 80%
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.2. #
of beneficiary 
farmers who have 
adopted new 
techniques
(USAID)
(+) 0 -- -- -- 150 0 0% 300 488 163% 600 ND 1200 1200
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.3. #
of beneficiary 
farmers accessing 
improved agro-
(+) 0 0 0 -- 15,000 35,210 234.73
%
30,000 66,746 222% 50,000 ND 100,00
0
100,00
0
 
1
Includes using improved production techniques tailored to market demand. CRS considers this to be part of the package of “sustainable agricultural technologies” as defined by FFP in the SAPQ and will measure adaptation of specific technologies promoted by the FFS 
activity under SO1. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 2
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
silvo-pastoral 
infrastructure2
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.4. # 
of improved 
infrastructures 
completed3
(disaggregated by 
type of 
infrastructure: km 
of road, number of 
bridges, hectares
irrigated, etc)
(+) 0 0 0 -- 65 42
4 64.62 120 1435 119% 185 ND 260 260
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.5. % 
of Title II-assisted 
producers who 
increase their 
agricultural 
production of cash 
crops by an 
average of at least 
20% over the 
project life
(+) 0 0 0 -- 20% 9% 45% 20% 7% 35% 30% ND 40% 40%
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.6. #
of individuals who 
have received USG 
supported short 
term agricultural 
sector productivity 
training (USAID)
(+) 0 0 -- -- 175 117 66.9% 1000 4766 477% 4950 368 7% 6750 6750
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.7. #
of vulnerable 
households 
benefiting directly 
(+) 0 -- -- -- 3438 3438 100% 3538 38596 109% 3640 3640 100% 3746 14362
 
2
Infrastructure improved or created by the MYAP interventions. 
3 MYAP supported infrastructures. 
4 These Year 2 infrastructures consist of 20 rehabilitated irrigated perimeter infrastructures (235 ha); 1 rehabilitated road 1 kilometer in length; 6 stone dykes (3158 meters total); 2 animal vaccination structures; 2 reinforced ponds; 1 tree park (250 plants); 4 concrete 
dykes to protect against floods. 
5 25 reinforcement/consolidation of dykes (20300ml) ; 8 rehabilitated canals (8200ml) ; 7 protection dykes (2287ml), 8 rock dykes (3370ml) ; 1 rehabilitated rural road (1km) ; 4 animal vaccination parks ; 18 hectares sand dunes reinforcement ; 24 rehabilitated of water 
retention structures ; 34 hectares of rehabilitated irrigation perimeters; 1 hectar of tree plants; 69 hectares of rehabilitated rice plains , 4 hectars gardens; 4 animal wells; 2 small bridges; and 1 improved well. 
6 This number includes a portion of the supplemental safety net recently approved by FFP. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 3
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
from USG 
assistance. 
(USAID)
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.1.8. #
of producer 
organizations, 
water user 
association, trade 
and business 
associations, and 
community-based 
organizations 
receiving USG 
assistance 
(USAID)
(+) 0 20 20 100% 95 93 97.9% 135 82 61% 135 91 67% 135 135
Environmental 
Indicator 1.1.9. #
of mitigation 
actions to prevent 
or reduce natural 
resource 
degradation
implemented
(+) 0 -- -- -- 15 11 73.3% 50 18 36% 10 ND 0 75
Environmental 
Indicator 1.1.10. 
# of reported cases 
of overgrazing as a 
result of SO1 
activities
(-) 0 -- -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 ND 0 0
Environmental
Indicator 1.1.11. # 
of AEGs trained in 
governance
(+) 0 0 -- -- 20 9 45% 55 29 53% 75 73 97% 0 75
IR 1.2. Targeted household revenues increase.
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.1. % 
SILC members 
who have increased 
their financial 
assets
(+) 0 - -- -- 50% 50% 100% 60% 86.7% 145% 70% 36% 51% 80% 80%
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.2. % 
increase in value of 
net worth of the 
(+) 0 - -- -- 50% 22.1% 44.2% 60% 37.7% 63% 70% 53% 76% 80% 80%
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 4
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
SILC groups 
combined
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.3. #
of women’s 
organizations/assoc
iations assisted as a 
result of USG 
interventions 
(savings) (USAID)
(+) 0 0 -- -- 20 20 100% 180 191 106% 340 328 96%
585 585
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.4. % 
change in net 
revenue from agro￾enterprise activities 
for Title II assisted 
producers 
compared to their 
baseline net 
revenue
(+) 0 NA -- -- 20% 5% 25% 15% 8% 53% 20% ND 25% 25%
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.5. % 
of Title II assisted 
producers using 
improved MIS 
technologies7
(+) 0 0 -- -- 20% 15.4% 77% 30% 46% 153% 40% ND 50% 50%
Monitoring 
Indicator 1.2.6. % 
Title II-assisted 
producers who are 
members of a 
functional agro￾enterprise group8
(+) 0 0 -- -- 20% 19% 95% 40% 44% 110% 60% ND 75% 75%
SO2: Children under 5 years less vulnerable to illness and malnutrition.
Impact Indicator 
2.1. % of wasted 
children (WHZ <-
2) ages 6-59 
months
(-)
17.2%
(15.4, 
19.0)
-- -- -- 13% 9.2% 9.2%
Impact Indicator 
2.2. % of stunted (-)
35.2%
(33.0, -- -- -- 33% 31.2% 31.2%
 
7
 CRS considers this to be part of the package of “sustainable agricultural technologies” as defined by FFP in the SAPQ. 
8
 CRS considers this to be part of the package of “sustainable agricultural technologies” as defined by FFP in the SAPQ 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 5
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
(HAZ) children 6-
59 months of age 
(FFP)
37.4)
Impact Indicator
2.3. % of 
underweight WAZ 
<-2) children 0-59 
months of age, 
disaggregated by 0-
6 months, 6-36 
months, 37-59 
months (FFP)
(-)
30.8%
(28.7, 
33.0)
-- -- -- 28% 26.8% 26.8%
IR 2.1. Caregivers of children under 5 and pregnant women are applying improved nutrition and feeding practices.
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.1. % 
of children 0-59 
months accessing 
CSCOM’s growth 
monitoring 
services9
(+)
9% 
(7.40, 
9.62)
-- -- -- 50% 11% 22% 20% 19% 95% 35% 6% 17% 45% 45%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.2. % 
of children 
admitted to 
CSCOM for 
treatment of acute 
malnutrition
(+) 27% 
(22.67, 
31.14)
-- -- -- 35% 28% 47% 40% 68% 170% 45% 23% 51% 50% 50%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.3. % 
of children 0-59 
months with severe 
acute malnutrition 
who are 
rehabilitated
10 at 
the CSCOMs 
(propose to 
remove) 
(+)
10% 
(6.86, 
12.18)
-- -- -- 30% 24% 48% 40% 11% 28% 50% 3% 6% 60% 60%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.4. % 
of children with 
moderate acute 
(+)
21% 
(17.89, 
23.12)
-- -- -- 50% 39% 50.6% 40% 42% 105% 50% 6% 12% 60% 60%
 
9
 This indicator is not yet recorded by CSCOMs, and will be implemented by the project starting in Year 2 of the MYAP. 
10 A child is considered rehabilitated when he/she attains 85% target weight for height for a total of two consecutive assessments. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 6
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
malnutrition who 
are rehabilitated11
at CSCOMs 
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.5. % 
of beneficiary 
children 0-6 
months of age 
exclusively 
breastfed (FFP) 
(+)
22.8%
(18.57, 
25.13)
-- -- -- 36% 41% 140% 45% 48% 107% 55% ND 60% 60%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.6. % 
of beneficiary 
caregivers who 
practice behaviors 
shown to be 
successful to 
rehabilitate 
underweight 
children
(+) NA -- -- -- 10% 1.8% 18% 15% 1.3% 9% 20% ND 25% 25%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.7. %
of beneficiary 
mothers who had at 
least one post￾partum checkup
(+)
8%
(6.19, 
9.81)
-- -- -- 25% 19% 76% 30% 38% 127% 35% ND 40% 40%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.8. % 
of beneficiary 
pregnant women 
who attend at least 
three prenatal visits
(+)
33% 
(31.48, 
34.52) -- -- -- 75% 75% 100% 78% 79% 101% 81% ND 84% 84%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.9. #
of children reached 
by USG supported 
nutrition programs 
(USAID)
(+) 0 0 0 -- 10313 749 8.1% 6120 10991 180% 6720 8590 128% 7320 20909
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.1.10. #
of people trained in 
child health and 
nutrition through 
(+) 0 50 70 140% 1270 930 73.2% 1035 1113 108% 2577 915 36% 2000 6932
 
11 A child is considered rehabilitated when he/she attains 85% of the target weight for height for a total of two consecutive assessments. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 7
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
USG supported 
health area 
programs (USAID)
Environmental 
Indicator 2.1.11. #
of hangars 
completed for food 
demonstration 
activities
(+) 0 0 0 -- 17 0 0% 12 27 93% 0 - - 0 29
IR 2.2. Caregivers of children under 5 are applying improved hygiene and sanitation practices.
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.1. % 
of beneficiary 
caregivers 
demonstrating 
proper personal 
hygiene behaviors 
as shown by 
improved hand 
washing12 (FFP)
(+)
11.2%
(8.6, 
13.3)
-- -- -- 12% 34% 283% 40% 36% 90% 50% ND 60% 60%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.2. % 
of beneficiary 
caregivers 
demonstrating 
proper food 
hygiene behaviors 
as shown by 
improved ustensil 
washing (FFP)
(+)
78.6%
(74.8, 
81.1)
-- -- -- 79% 73.5% 93% 80% 89% 111% 85% ND 90% 90%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.3. % 
of beneficiary 
caregivers 
demonstrating 
proper water 
hygiene behaviors 
as shown by 
improved habits in 
the transport of 
drinking water 
(FFP)13
(+)
14.9%
(12.3, 
17.7)
-- -- -- 15% 14.1% 94% 15% 15% 100% 25% ND 50% 50%
 
12 Percentage of mothers or caregivers reporting washing hands with soap at three key periods: before eating, after using the toilet, and after washing a child that had defecated. 
13 Measured by type of recipient used for the transport of drinking water (open or closed). 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 8
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.4. % 
of target population
with access to 
potable water 
(+)
37.5%
(33.3, 
40.6)
-- -- -- 42.5% 53% 53%
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.5. #
of people in target 
areas with access to 
improved drinking 
water as a result of 
USG assistance 
(USAID)
(+) 0 0 0 -- 1 200 0 0 6 400 1 200 19% 5 600 ND 9600 19600
Monitoring 
Indicator 2.2.6. % 
of beneficiary 
caregivers 
demonstrating 
proper 
environmental 
hygiene behaviors 
as shown by 
increased use of 
latrines14
(+)
54.5%
(50.24, 
57.76)
-- -- -- 55% 58% 105% 57% 58% 102% 60% ND 65% 65%
Environmental 
Indicator 2.2.7. 
% of targeted 
caregivers who 
report that they 
sweep/clean their 
house daily
(+) 0 0 0 -- 75% 69% 92% 75% 77% 103% 75% ND 75% 75%
Environmental 
Indicator 2.2.8.
Water quality tests 
indicate potable 
water for 
completed water 
points.
(+) 0 0 0 -- 9 0 0% 7 5 71% 14 ND 19 49
Environmental 
indicator 2.2.9. % 
water management 
committees who 
properly maintain 
(+) 0 0 0 -- 90% 0 0% 90% 33% 37% 90% ND 90% 90%
 
14 Includes households reporting their own latrines and those reporting access to other latrines. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 9
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
completed water 
points as indicated 
by lack of stagnant
water and 
cleanliness of site
SO3: Targeted communities manage shocks more effectively.
Impact Indicator
3.1. % of Title-II 
assisted 
communities with 
disaster early 
warning systems in 
place (FFP)15
(+) 0 0 0 -- 60% 30% 50% 80% 52% 65% 90% ND 100% 100%
Impact Indicator
3.2. % of Title-II 
assisted 
communities with 
improved physical 
infrastructure to 
mitigate the impact 
of shocks (FFP)
(+)
09.1% 
(2.25, 
15.75)
-- -- -- 50% 32.3% 64.6% 75% 82% 109% 90% ND 100% 100%
IR 3.1. Community early warning and response systems are in place.
Monitoring 
Indicator 3.1.1. % 
of HOH in targeted 
communities who 
can cite at least 2 
concrete strategies 
the community is 
using to improve 
their resiliency to 
future shocks
(+) 38.1% -- -- -- 60% 75% 75%
Monitoring 
Indicator 3.1.2. # 
of community 
groups that are 
actively tracking 
trigger indicators 
(+) 7 (6.04, 
7.96) 0 0 -- 50 26 52% 65 67 103% 85 ND 98 98
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.3. # 
of flood mitigation 
actions 
(+) 0 0 0 -- 15 4 26.7% 20 17 85% 25 ND 18 78
 
15 While the baseline data reported 50% of the communities surveyed had some form of EWG, 76% of those were also reported as non-functional. The IPTT therefore will start its baseline at 0 and assume that no functional EWGs exist in the target villages. Functional groups consist of those who meet 
regularly, collect monthly data, submit monthly reports to SAP, and who intervene in the event of a shock. 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 10
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
implemented
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.5. # 
of erosion 
mitigation actions 
implemented
(+) 0 0 0 -- 6 11 183.3
%
6 4 67% 6 ND 8 26
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.6. # 
of hectares if sand 
dunes stabilized
(+) 0 0 0 -- 1 19 1900% 2 6 300% 2 ND 3 8
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.7. # 
of hectares of 
vegetation cover 
re-established
(+) 0 0 0 -- 2 6 300% 4 6.5 163% 4 ND 3 13
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.8. # 
of hectares of soil 
restored
(+) 0 0 0 -- 6 0 0% 6 42.2 710% 6 ND 8 26
Environmental 
Indicator 3.1.9. # 
of hectares of 
natural pastureland 
restored
(+) 0 0 0 -- 2 0 0% 4 8 200% 4 ND 3 13
IR 3.2. Community safety nets are in place.
Monitoring 
Indicator 3.2.1.
Total # of assisted 
communities with 
safety nets in place 
to address the 
needs of the most 
vulnerable 
members (FFP)
(+) 0 0 0 -- 65 96 147.7
%
130 130 100% 130 130 100% 130 130
Monitoring 
Indicator 3.2.2. 
Total # of 
communities who 
strengthen safety 
nets, over the life 
of the activity, as 
shown by the 
reported increase in 
the diversity of 
shocks the safety 
(+) 0 0 0 -- 65 42 64.6% 130 130 100% 130 130 100% 130 130
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex II. IPTT. December 30, 2013. 
 11
Indicator
Desired 
Direction
of 
Change 
(+) or (-)
Baseline
Year 1 (FY 09) Year 2 (FY 10) Year 3 (FY 11) Year 4 (FY 12) Year 5 (FY 13) LOA
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
% 
Target 
Met
Target Achieved
net is capable of 
responding to 
(FFP)
Humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs).
# of IDPs who 
have received FFP 
food assistance
4286 4955 116%
# of IDPs who 
have received FFP 
cash transfer
1500 1200 80%
# of host families 
who have received 
FFP food 
assistance
1500 2237 149%
# of infrastructures 
completed 19 16 84%
# of people who 
have benefited the 
infrastructures 
created
1558 714 46%
# of households 
who received 
sanitation kits
600 327 55%
# of households 
who received 
hosting kits
1000 1049 105%
# of households 
who received 
kitchen kits
600 251 42%
# students who 
received school 
kits 
280 280 100%
Page 1 of 7
MYAP MALI EVALUATION FINALE
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec
mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a
été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de
l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur
des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions
sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement
confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser
les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou   à
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir
me fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe :  
FOCUS GROUPE ENTRETIEN COMMUNAUTAIRE
Page 2 of 7
Identification 
 Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE ______________________________ 
Nombre de personnes présentes: T /______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Profil du Village 
Groupements & comités Nombre de 
groupement formé
Nombre de groupement 
formé fonctionnel 
actuellement 
SILC 
GAP-RU 
AEG 
Comité de gestion de point d’eau 
Comité de filet de sécurité 
Comité de santé 
 
2. ATPC : 
 Noter le nombre Nombre fonctionnel 
Nombre de latrine réalisé prévu 
(engagement de la population après les 
campagnes de sensibilisations) 
 
Nombre de latrine réalisé sur initiatives 
des populations après campagnes de 
sensibilisations 
 
3. Selon vous quelles la proportion de la population qui a été déplacée lors de la crise ? 
(Cocher dans la case correspondante) 
Moins de 25% /____/ 
25% - 50% /____/ 
51% - 75% /____/ 
76%-100% /____/ 
4. Selon vous, quels étaient les groupes qui se sont déplacés de plus 
Femmes et Enfants /____/ 
 Peulh /____/ 
Dogon /____/ 
Bambara /____/ 
Sonrai /____/ 
Tamashek et Arabe /____/ 
Bella /____/ 
Maures /____/ 
Homme /____/ 
Autres /____/ 
Page 3 of 7
5. Selon vous quelles la proportion de la population qui a est retournée depuis que la situation a 
commencé a s’améliorer ? (Cocher dans la case correspondante) 
Moins de 25% /____/ 
25% - 50% /____/ 
51% - 75% /____/ 
76%-100% /____/ 
6. Selon vous, quels étaient les groupes qui se sont retournés de plus 
Femmes et Enfants /____/ 
 Peulh /____/ 
Dogon /____/ 
Bambara /____/ 
Sonrai /____/ 
Tamashek et Arabe /____/ 
Bella /____/ 
Maures /____/ 
Hommes /____/ 
Autres /____/ 
7. Impact de la crise sur le niveau de sécurité alimentaire du village ? 
Direct : 
Stock alimentaire /____/ 
Champs /____/ 
Perte de vivre /____/ 
Matériel, /____/ 
Recrutement des enfants /____/ 
Autres /____/ 
(Préciser) : ______________________________________________________________ 
8. Indirect : 
Accès difficiles aux semences et intrants /____/ 
Aux marches, /____/ 
Approvisionnement des marches, /____/ 
Fermeture des cantines scolaires, /____/ 
Arrêt des cours, /____/ 
Insécurité, /____/ 
Autres /____/ 
(Préciser) : ______________________________________________________________ 
Quels sont les avantages tirés des activités de FFW/ CVT par le village ? (Note approfondir la 
réflexion autour de leur réponse pour savoir pourquoi ils citent ces avantages) 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
Page 4 of 7
Quels sont l’effet négatifs des activités de FFW / CVT dans votre villages ? (Note approfondir 
la réflexion autour de leur réponse pour savoir pourquoi ils citent ces effets négatifs) 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
Filet de Sécurité 
1. Pouvez-vous décrire comment la sélection des bénéficiaires du filet de sécurité a été faite? 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
2. Quelle sont les critères de ciblages des bénéficiaires ? 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ 
3. Que pensez-vous de l’impact du filet de sécurité (distribution gratuite des vivres) mené dans le 
cadre du programme NEMA dans votre village (Impact sur la vie des plus vulnérables)? 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________ 
Page 5 of 7
4. Quelles ont été les faiblesses/ difficultés dans la mise en œuvre du filet de sécurité dans le cadre 
du NEMA ? (noter toutes les faiblesses évoquées) 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
5. Au niveau communautaire, quelles sont les stratégies mise en place pour soutenir les plus 
vulnérables à l’absence du projet? (noter toutes les stratégies soulignées) 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
6. Si pas de stratégie, pourquoi? (noter toutes les raisons évoquées) 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez-vous dans le cadre de la réduction de 
l’insécurité alimentaire au niveau de groupes les plus vulnérables? 
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ 
7. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes.(Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, histoires de changements) 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
Page 6 of 7
9. Calendrier de sécurité alimentaire : 
a. Avant l’intervention (A=période Abondance, T=période de Transition, S= période de Soudure)
Catégorie de vulnérable Oct. Nov. Déc. Jan Fév. Mars Avril Mai Juin Juil. Aout Sept 
Moins Vulnérable (Grande 
sécurité alimentaire) 
Vulnérable (Moyen) 
Très vulnérable 
(Très grande insécurité 
alimentaire) 
b. Pendant l’intervention (A=période Abondance, T=période de Transition, S= période de Soudure)
Catégorie de vulnérable Oct. Nov. Déc. Jan Fév. Mars Avril Mai Juin Juil. Aout Sept 
Moins Vulnérable (En 
sécurité alimentaire) 
Vulnérable (Moyen) 
Très vulnérable 
(Très grande insécurité 
alimentaire) 
c. Apres l’intervention, actuellement (A=période Abondance, T=période de Transition, S= période de Soudure)
Catégorie de vulnérable Oct. Nov. Déc. Jan Fév. Mars Avril Mai Juin Juil. Aout Sept 
Moins Vulnérable (En 
sécurité alimentaire) 
Vulnérable (Moyen) 
Très vulnérable 
(insécurité alimentaire) 
Page 7 of 7
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM TELEPHONE 
 
26 déc. 13 
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: Key Informant NEMA 
Introduction 
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici
avec mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre
du projet MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en
exécution par 5 organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children
Federation Inc, Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et
Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans
votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je
voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du
projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions sensibles, mais les informations
que vous me donnerez resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces informations
seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou  
à toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien
vouloir me fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe :  
26 déc. 13 
Identification 
Date de collecte : ___________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE 
Nom de la structure ou informateur Clé: 
_____________________________________________________ 
Fonction : ________________________________________________________________ 
Nombre de personnes: T /______/ H : /________/ F : /______ / 
Adresse e-mail : 
Téléphone : 
1. Selon vous quelles sont les activités qui ont plus eu d’impacts sur les bénéficiaires? 
Pourquoi ? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Selon vous, quels ont été les points forts du projet NEMA? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________ 
26 déc. 13 
3. Quels ont été les points faibles du projet NEMA? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
Selon vous, quelles sont les activités que les bénéficiaires de NEMA continuent à 
mener après le retrait du projet en Mars 2012? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
a. Si NON, pourquoi? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont influencé la situation de sécurité alimentaire dans les 
villages NEMA après le retrait du projet? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 
5. Quelles étaient des difficultés ou des défis du projet NEMA ? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Quels sont les défis actuels dans les villages de NEMA ? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
6. Quels sont les changements qui sont survenus au niveau de la mise en œuvre des 
activités après l’évaluation mi-parcours ? 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 
7. 8. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez-vous afin de renforcer les acquis 
du projet NEMA dans les différentes zones ? 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
9. Selon vous quelles sont les principales leçons apprises 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Fin de l’entretien, remercier.
26‐déc.‐13   Fiche Alpha Page 1 of 3
Fiche Alphabétisation		
(A administrer aux formateurs et dans les villages où il n’y pas AEG et SILC dans
l’échantillon)
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre groupement?
(préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________
                  
2. Combien était volontaire ? (noter le nombre)________________________
3. Quels sont les modules que vous avez appris lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? (cocher les
cases correspondantes)
- La lecture     /____/
- L’écriture     /____/
- Le Calcul     /____/
  
4. Quels sont les thèmes discutés lors des séances d’alphabétisation ?  
- Santé / Hygiène             /____/
- Education               /____/
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de culture      /____/
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de commercialisation   /____/
- Utilisation des fumures organiques         /____/
- Calcul du rendement, compte d’exploitation       /____/
- Protection et conservation de l’environnement   /____/
- Autres à préciser           /____/
- _________________________________________________
5. Combien de personnes formés peuvent lire, écrire et calculer après les sessions alpha dans
votre groupement en homme, femme? (Note a l’enquêteur :  il s’agit de noter le nombre de
personnes qui répondent aux trois critères : lire, écrire et calculer) : Total : /________ / H :
/________ /, F : /______/  
  
6. Parmi les personnes formées combien sont en train d’appliquer la formation reçue ?: (noter le
nombre)  Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/
7. Comment utilisez‐vous ce que vous avez appris (en général et dans la gestion des activités des
différents groupes) ? (Note à l’enquêteur : laisser les participants répondre et cocher les réponses
correspondantes sans lire la liste des options ci‐dessous)
- A faciliter le remplissage des outils des associations   et groupements   /____/
- A pouvoir écrire et lire son nom             /____/
26‐déc.‐13   Fiche Alpha Page 2 of 3
- A faire des correspondances en langue locale         /____/
- Autres à préciser                 /____/
______________________________________________________________________________
8. S’il ne l’applique pas, pourquoi?  
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
9. Quels sont les effets des séances d’alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en tant que
membres de votre groupement? (Note à l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, demander a avoir des
exemples individuels pour illustrer les effets)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________  
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
10. Quelles dispositions avez‐vous mise en place pour pouvoir continuer à appliquer les
connaissances acquises dans  le cadre de la réalisation de vos activités ?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
11. Quels sont aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour consolider  les acquis de
l’alphabétisation dans votre village?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des
vos activités d’alphabétisation?
_______________________________________________________________________________
26‐déc.‐13   Fiche Alpha Page 3 of 3
_______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes.(Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par
rapports aux réussites, histoires de changements)  
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS NUTRITION : (a poser aux hommes)  
1. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans.
Pendant le projet NEMA  
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Actuellement  
2. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement
des activités de nutrition? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à
l’entretien)
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 1 of 9
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: AEG 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec
mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a
été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de
l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur
des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions
sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement
confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser
les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou  à
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir
me fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe :  
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 2 of 9
Identification 
 Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE ______________________________ NOM DU GROUPE _______________________ 
Nombre de Membres du Groupements : T 
/______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de Membres du Groupements 
Présents : T /______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
Options du Groupes (il s’agit des produits d’AE 
que le groupement mène)
___________________________________________ 
1. Quels sont les conditions à remplir pour être groupement AEG bénéficiaires du projet 
NEMA? 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Pourquoi avez-vous crée ce groupement ? 
(Enquêteur : Cherchez la ‘raison d’être’ de leur groupement.] 
- Travailler ensemble /____/ 
- Pour apprendre /____/ 
- Pour développer une culture (filière) /____/ 
- Augmenter le revenu des membres /____/ 
- Renforcer la cohésion /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quelles sont les activités de votre groupement ? 
- Maraichage /____/ 
- Agriculture /____/ 
- Elevage/embouche /____/ 
- Petit commerce /____/ 
- Pèche /____/ 
- Production des plants /____/ 
- Aviculture /____/ 
- SILC /____/
- Autres à préciser /____/
-
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 3 of 9
4. Votre groupement a-t-il un statut et règlement intérieur ? (cocher une réponse) 
 Oui /__/ ; Non /__/
5. Combien de réunion statutaire sont dans le règlement ?(écrire le nombre) /______________/
6. Le groupement tient il actuellement des réunions ? (Cocher une réponse) Oui /__/ ; Non /__/
7. A quand remonte la dernière réunion statutaire du groupement ? (noter le mois et année) 
__________________________________________________________
(Note a l’enquêteur : si la dernière se situe avant Mars 2012, demander à savoir pourquoi ? 
8. Pourquoi ? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
9. Quel appui et/ou formation avez-vous reçu du projet Nema ? 
(Note a l’enquêteur : laisser les membres répondre sans citer les options ci-dessous, cocher dans les cases qui 
correspondent a leur réponse.)
- Identification des produits /____/ 
- Etude de marché /____/ 
- Etude de filière /____/ 
- Système d’informations de marché /____/ 
- Elaboration de plans d’affaires /____/ 
- Financement des plans d’affaires, projets /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de la qualité de la formation/appui reçu pendant NEMA?: 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quelles sont les nouvelles techniques d’agro entreprise que vous avez apprises pendant 
NEMA ? 
(Note a l’enquêteur : laisser les membres répondre sans citer les options ci-dessous, cocher dans les cases qui 
correspondent a leur réponse.)
- Identification des produits /____/ 
- Etude de marché /____/ 
- Etude de filière /____/ 
- Système d’informations de marché /____/ 
- Elaboration de plans d’affaires /____/ 
- Financement de projets /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 4 of 9
12. Avez-vous participé aux Champs Ecoles Paysannes pendant NEMA ? (Cocher une réponse) 
OUI /__/ ; NON /__/ 
13. Combien d’entre vous ont participé à la formation des formateurs (ToT) dans les champs 
FFS pendant NEMA? (Noter le nombre) _________________________ 
14. Combien de membres ont participé aux champs Ecole (de réplication/ diffusion) pendant 
NEMA dans les villages? (noter le nombre) _________________________ 
15. Si OUI, qu’est-ce vous avez appris ? 
(Note a l’enquêteur : laisser les membres répondre sans citer les options ci-dessous, cocher dans les cases qui 
correspondent a leur réponse.)
- Production et/ou utilisation de fumure organique /____/ 
- Techniques de semis /____/ 
- Techniques de sarclage /____/ 
- Techniques de démariage /____/ 
- Traitement phytosanitaire /____/ 
- Conservation des produits /____/ 
- Fertilisation des sols /____/ 
- Technique d’embouche /____/ 
- Technique de maraîchage /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/
______________________________________________________________________________ 
16. Est-ce que les membres des groupements AE continuent à appliquer les nouvelles 
techniques de production enseignées par NEMA? (Cocher une réponse) 
OUI /___/, NON /___/ 
17. Combien d’entre vous continue à appliquer les nouvelles techniques de production? (noter 
le nombre) Total : _____________ H : ______________ F : ________________
18. Si OUI, quelles sont les techniques que vous appliquez maintenant? Pourquoi ? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
19. Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés en appliquant les techniques apprises 
pendant NEMA? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 5 of 9
20. Que pensez de ces nouvelles techniques de production que vous avez apprises pendant 
NEMA? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
21. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé la continuation de l’application des techniques 
apprises ? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
22. Quels sont les facteurs qui empêchent l’application des techniques apprises pendant 
NEMA? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
23. Quelle est votre appréciation de la production de votre AEG/ groupement par rapport 
aux spéculations suivantes : 
1 : Bon ; 2 : Passable ; 3 : Mauvais 
Mil Riz Sorgho Produits 
maraichers 
Niebe 
Campagne 2009- 2010 
Campagne 2010 – 2011 
Campagne 2011 – 2012 
Campagne 2012 – 2013 
24. Depuis le départ de NEMA, quelles sont les dispositions prises pour continuer les activités 
d’agro entreprise dans votre village ? (Noter les réponses) 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
25. Si aucune disposition, pourquoi? 
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 6 of 9
26. Depuis que le groupement a été crée, quels changements/différences avez-vous constaté 
dans vos vies en termes de production, augmentation revenu, disponibilité de stock 
alimentaire, vente des produits sur le marché…: (Note a l’enquêteur : laisser les membres répondre 
et noter toutes les réponses.) 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
27. Quelles sont les difficultés aux quelles sont confrontés le groupement AEG actuellement? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
28. Quelles sont les solutions que vous avez apportées à ces difficultés ? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
29. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et 
renforcement des vos activités d’agro entreprises ? 
________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
30. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant 
le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le 
nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 7 of 9
Alphabetisation :
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre 
groupement? (préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________ 
 
2. Combien était volontaire (ceux du village, qui ont suivi la formation sans être membre d’un groupement 
du projet) ? (noter le nombre) ________________________ 
3. Quels sont les modules (gafe) que vous avez appris lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
(cocher les cases correspondantes)
- La lecture /____/ 
- L’écriture /____/ 
- Le Calcul /____/ 
 
4. Quels sont les thèmes (Kalan sen, images) discutés lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
- Santé / Hygiène /____/
- Education /____/
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de culture /____/ 
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de commercialisation /____/ 
- Utilisation des fumures organiques /____/
- Calcul du rendement, compte d’exploitation /____/
- Protection et conservation de l’environnement /____/
- Autres à préciser /____/
- _________________________________________________
5. Parmi vous, combien de personnes formés peuvent lire, écrire et calculer après les sessions 
alpha dans votre groupement en homme, femme? (Note a l’enquêteur : il s’agit de noter le nombre de 
personnes qui répondent aux trois critères : lire, écrire et calculer) : Total : /________ / H : /________ /, 
F : /______/ 
 
6. Parmi les personnes formées combien sont en train d’appliquer la formation reçue ?: (noter 
le nombre, et si c’est l’ensemble des formés qui lisent, écrivent etc calculent qui n’appliquent , posez la question 
suivante) Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
7. Pour ceux qui n’appliquent pas les formations reçues, demander pourquoi? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Comment utilisez-vous ce que vous avez appris actuellement (en général et dans la gestion 
des activités des différents groupes) ? (Note à l’enquêteur : laisser les participants répondre et cocher les 
réponses correspondantes sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous)
- A faciliter le remplissage des outils des associations et groupements /____/ 
- A pouvoir écrire et lire son nom /____/ 
- A faire des correspondances en langue locale /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 8 of 9
9. Quels sont les effets de la formation en alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en 
tant que membres de votre groupement? (Note à l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, demander à 
avoir des exemples individuels pour illustrer les effets)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour continuer les séances d’alphabétisation 
dans le village? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour consolider les acquis de 
l’alphabétisation dans votre village? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement 
des activités d’alphabétisation? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________ 
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant 
le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le 
nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement AgroEntreprise Page 9 of 9
QUESTIONS NUTRITION : (a poser aux hommes)  
1. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans.
Pendant le projet NEMA 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Actuellement 
2. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à l’entretien)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE 
 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 1 of 10
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: SILC 
Introduction 
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec 
mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet 
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5 
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, 
Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet 
NEMA a été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009-2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre 
de l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur 
des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions 
sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement 
confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser 
les acquis du projet. 
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est 
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou à 
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me 
fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité. 
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 2 of 10
Identification : 
 Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________ 
VILLAGE ______________________________ NOM DU GROUPE _______________________ 
Nombre de Membres du Groupement : 
T /______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de Membres du Groupement Présents : T 
/______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Comment le groupement SILC a été mis en place? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Le groupement a été mis en place par qui ? (cocher la réponse correspondante)
- ADC/ agent de projet /____/ 
- Animateur Villageois /____/ 
3. Pourquoi (les raisons) avez-vous crée votre groupement ? (cocher les réponses correspondantes 
données par les participants sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous) 
- Améliorer les revenus /____/ 
- Développer des AGR /____/ 
- Avoir des équipements de travail /____/ 
- Avoir des biens matériels /____/ 
- Améliorer la disponibilité des aliments /____/ 
- Améliorer la qualité des aliments /____/ 
- Faire des dons au Centre de Santé /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Quel est l’objectif de votre groupement ? 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
5. Quelles orientations ou formations avez-vous reçue du projet Nema? (cocher les réponses 
correspondantes données par les participants sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous) 
- 7 modules SILC (groupement leadershep-election ; fonds de SILC, Reglement Interieur, les outils, Tenue des 
Réunions, octroi de crédit et remboursement, le partage des fonds,) /____/ 
- Formation en nutrition et santé de l’enfant moins de 5 ans et de fa femme 
enceinte/allaitante /____/ 
- Alphabétisation /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 3 of 10
6. Que pensez-vous de la qualité (compréhension et déroulement) de ces 
formations/orientations reçues? 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Depuis que les activités SILC ont commencé, quels changements/différences constatez-vous 
dans vos vies? (Noter les changements évoqués par les participants, demander des exemples concrets pour 
soutenir les propos) 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Quelles sont les activités menées au sein de votre groupement dans le cadre du SILC ? (cocher 
les réponses correspondantes) 
- Tenue de réunion /____/ 
- Epargne /____/ 
- Octroi de crédit /____/ 
- Cotisation pour le fond social /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
9. En tant que membre du groupement SILC, quels sont les avantages que tu as reçu ? (poser la 
question a plusieurs mem bres mais individuellement, noter la tendance globale qui correspond aux options de 
reponses, cocher les réponses qui s’appliquent aux réponses des participants) 
- Crédit accessible et discret /____/ 
- Le fond social pour les cas sociaux /____/ 
- La solidarité /____/ 
- Accès à la formation (alpha, nutrition…) /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Etes vous en train de mener les activités de SILC actuellement c'est-à-dire a l’absence du 
programme ? (cocher une réponse) OUI /____/, NON /____/ 
11. Si OUI, lesquelles ? 
- Epargnes /____/ 
- Octroi de crédit /____/ 
- Cotisation fonds social /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 4 of 10
12. Quelles difficultés rencontrez-vous maintenant (après le retrait du projet) dans le cadre du 
SILC ? (cocher les réponses qui s’appliquent aux réponses des participants) 
- Conflits entre les membres /____/ 
- Cas de vol de la caisse /____/ 
- Non-remboursement de crédit /____/ 
- Abandons des membres /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
13. Quelles solutions avez-vous trouvées à ces difficultés? (noter toutes les solutions évoquées par les 
participants) 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
14. Quel était le montant au moment où le projet était présent ? Epargnes (fonds total de 
l’épargne) /_________________/ 
- Crédit en cours /_________________/ 
- Cotisation fonds social /_________________/ 
- Amendes /_________________/ 
- Intérêts /_________________/ 
15. Quels sont les montants actuellement ? 
- Epargnes (fonds total de l’épargne) /_________________/ 
- Crédit en cours /_________________/ 
- Cotisation fonds social /_________________/ 
- Amendes /_________________/ 
- Intérêts /_________________/ 
16. Quelles dispositions avez-vous prises pour continuer les activités de SILC après le retrait du 
projet ? (noter les dispositions évoquées par les participants à l’entretien) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
17. Si pas de disposition, pourquoi? (noter toutes les raisons évoquées par les participants à l’entretien) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 5 of 10
18. Quels sont les perspectives majeures du groupement depuis le retrait du projet ? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________ 
19. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement 
des groupements du SILC ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à l’entretien) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ 
20. Lecons apprises/ Temoignage/ proverbes. (Note : preter attention aux recits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant le 
focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom, 
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Fiche Evaluation de la performance des groupements : 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 6 of 10
Fiche	à	administrer	au	Membres	des	groupements	SILC	qui	ont	reçu	les	vivres	
de	la	nutrition	(PECIMA),		
(Note	les	membres	non	bénéficiaires	des	vivres	peuvent	participer	à	l’entretien	pour	les	témoignages)	
1. Quel est le nombre de membres ici présent qui ont bénéficié de l’assistance en vivres du 
MYAP/NEMA (farine de Maïs, huile et sucre) pour leur enfant malnutris ? (noter le nombre, 
au cours de la discussion, se focaliser sur les personnes qui ont reçu de l’assistance) / 
_______________/ 
2. Quel type d’assistance reçu au niveau du Centre de Santé / village quand l’enfant est admis 
pour malnutrition ? 
- Distribution de vivre /____/ 
- Prise en charge médicamenteuse /____/ 
- La démonstration culinaire /____/ 
- Information, Education, Communication /____/ 
- Autres a préciser /____/ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Selon vous, quels étaient les enfants auxquels cette assistance vivres (farine, Huile, sucre du 
MYAP/ NEMA) était destinées ? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
4. Que pensez-vous de cette assistance pour les enfants malnutris admis au niveau des Centre de 
Santé / villages ? 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
5. Selon vous, quels sont les changements survenus sur l’état nutritionnel et sanitaire de vos 
enfants grâce à cette assistance? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 7 of 10
6. Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels changements avez-vous constaté chez les 
enfants de moins de cinq ans dans le village? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
7. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place dans votre village pour aider les enfants 
malnutris depuis l’arrêt de cette assistance ? ? (noter toutes les dispositions)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 8 of 10
Fiche à administrer au Membres des groupements SILC qui ont suivi la formation 
Alpha
Alphabétisation	:	
		
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre groupement? 
(préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________ 
 
2. Combien était volontaire (ceux du village, qui ont suivi la formation sans être membre d’un groupement du 
projet) ? (noter le nombre) ________________________ 
3. Quels sont les modules (gafe) que vous avez appris lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
(cocher les cases correspondantes)
- La lecture /____/ 
- L’écriture /____/ 
- Le Calcul /____/ 
 
4. Quels sont les thèmes (Kalan sen, images) discutés lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
- Santé / Hygiène /____/ 
- Education /____/ 
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de culture /____/ 
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de commercialisation /____/ 
- Utilisation des fumures organiques /____/ 
- Calcul du rendement, compte d’exploitation /____/ 
- Protection et conservation de l’environnement /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
- _________________________________________________ 
5. Parmi vous, combien de personnes formés peuvent lire, écrire et calculer après les sessions 
alpha dans votre groupement en homme, femme? (Note a l’enquêteur : il s’agit de noter le nombre de 
personnes qui répondent aux trois critères : lire, écrire et calculer) : Total : /________ / H : 
/________ /, F : /______/ 
 
6. Parmi les personnes formées combien sont en train d’appliquer la formation reçue ?: (noter le 
nombre, et si c’est l’ensemble des formés qui lisent, écrivent etc calculent qui n’appliquent , posez la question 
suivante) Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
7. Pour ceux qui n’appliquent pas les formations reçues, demander pourquoi? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 9 of 10
8. Comment utilisez-vous ce que vous avez appris actuellement (en général et dans la gestion 
des activités des différents groupes) ? (Note à l’enquêteur : laisser les participants répondre et 
cocher les réponses correspondantes sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous)
- A faciliter le remplissage des outils des associations et groupements /____/ 
- A pouvoir écrire et lire son nom /____/ 
- A faire des correspondances en langue locale /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
9. Quels sont les effets de la formation en alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en tant 
que membres de votre groupement? (Note à l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, demander à avoir des 
exemples individuels pour illustrer les effets)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour continuer les séances d’alphabétisation 
dans le village? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour consolider les acquis de 
l’alphabétisation dans votre village? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Groupement SILC Page 10 of 10
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement 
des activités d’alphabétisation? 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ 
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant le 
focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom, 
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE 
 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 1 of 7
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: AGENTS DE SANTE 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec mon
collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été
mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation
du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions
relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions sensibles, mais les
informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces
informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est volontaire
et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou   à toutes les
questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me fournir le
maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 2 of 7
Identification : 
Date de collecte 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE 
VILLAGE NOM DE L’ENQUETE : 
CENTRE DE SANTE DE : _____________________ Tel : 
1. Quelles sont les activités que vous menez avec le projet Nema dans le domaine de santé/nutrition 
de 2009 à 2012 ? (Note à l’enquêteur : cocher les réponses de l’enquêté sans lire la liste des activités ci-dessous) 
- Dépistage des enfants malnutris /____/
- Prise en charge des enfants malnutris /____/
- Démonstration culinaire /____/
- Diffusion de messages sur la nutrition et l’hygiène /____/
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
2. Avez- vous bénéficié des formations de la part du projet ? cocher une réponse) 
OUI /__/, NON /__/ 
3. Si OUI, quels étaient les thèmes traités lors de ces formations, le nombre? (Note à l’enquêteur : 
mettre oui ou non pour chaque thème selon les réponses correspondantes aux options ci-dessous de l’enquêté sans lire 
la liste des thèmes ci-dessous) 
Thèmes Formation 
sur le thème : 
Oui ou Non 
Nombre de 
session sur 
les thèmes 
Nombre 
total de 
formés 
Dont 
nombre de 
femmes 
La stratégie de l'AEN 
La déviance / foyer positive 
Les pratiques de la nutrition et 
de l'alimentation 
 
L'hygiène et l'assainissement 
L'alimentation des enfants au 
cours des maladies 
 
La prise en charge de la 
malnutrition aiguë 
 
Le soin de pré-et post-natal 
Autres à préciser 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 3 of 7
4. Quel autre appui avez- vous reçu du projet ? 
________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
5. Quelle appréciation faites vous de la qualité des formations/appuis reçus ?: (Note a l’enquêteur : 
demander les chiffres appuyant les propos de l’enquêté), 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6. Du démarrage du projet à Mars 2012, , quels changements/différences avez vous constaté par 
rapport aux activité de nutrition dans votre centre de santé (Note a l’enquêteur : demander les chiffres 
appuyant les propos de l’enquêté), 
6.1 A la fréquentation du centre de santé pour les cas de malnutrition des enfants de moins 5 ans? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6.2 A la prise en charge des cas de malnutrition des enfants de moins 5 ans 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6.3 A la tenue des supports de gestion dans le centre de santé? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6.4 A l’état nutritionnel des enfants de -5ans? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Depuis le retrait du projet NEMA, quels changements/différences avez-vous constaté par 
rapport aux activités de nutrition dans votre centre de santé (Note a l’enquêteur : demander les chiffres 
appuyant les propos de l’enquêté), 
7.1 A la fréquentation du centre de santé pour les cas de malnutrition des enfants de moins 5 ans? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7.2 A la prise en charge des cas de malnutrition des enfants de moins 5 ans 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 4 of 7
7.3 A la tenue des supports de gestion dans le centre de santé? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7.4 A l’état nutritionnel des enfants de -5ans? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Information sur le taux de malnutrition enfant de -5ans dans l’aire de santé de: 
______________________ 
 Taux en 2012 Taux en 2013 Commentaires 
MAM 
MAS 
Malnutrition Global 
9. Parlez nous des activités que vous meniez et que vous continuez a mener à l’absence du projet ? 
(Note à l’enquêteur : cocher les réponses de l’enquêté sans lire la liste des activités ci-dessous)
- Dépistage des enfants malnutris /____/
- Prise en charge des enfants malnutris /____/
- Démonstration culinaire /____/
- Diffusion de messages sur la nutrition et l’hygiène /____/
- Distribution des vivre 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________ 
10. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé la continuation des activités de prise en charge des 
malnutris depuis le retrait du projet? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont entravé la continuation des activités de prise en charge des 
malnutris depuis le retrait du projet? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 5 of 7
12. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour pouvoir continuer les activités relatives à la 
prise en charge de la malnutrition? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
13. Quels sont les defis majeurs relatifs à la prise en charge des malnutris depuis le retrait du 
projet dans le centre de santé? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
14. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez-vous afin de mieux renforcer les acquis dans le 
cadre de la nutrition (amélioration de l’état nutritionnel des enfants de moins de 5 ans)? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
15. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, histoires de changements) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 6 of 7
Distribution des vivres		
1. En dehors des soins médicaux, quel type d’assistance donnez-vous aux enfants malnutris au 
niveau du Centre de Sante? (distribution des vivres ?) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Selon vous, quels étaient les critères définis pour recevoir les assistances (vivres) au niveau du 
Centre de Santé / Villages 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quelles sont les formations que vous avez reçues pour la distribution des vivres (par qui ?) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Que pensez vous de l’impact de cette assistance sur la Sante de vos enfants? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Guide Entretien Agent Santé Page 7 of 7
5. Quelles étaient les principales difficultés rencontrées liées à la distribution des vivres et 
comment ont-ils été résolues ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6. Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels changements avez vous constaté chez les enfants 
moins cinq ans fréquentant les Centre de Santé 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Selon vous, quelles dispositions ont été mises en place depuis l’arrêt de cette assistance au 
niveau des Centres de Santé? (noter toutes les dispositions)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Actuellement, quels sont les principaux défis liés à la prise en charge des enfants malnutris au 
niveau de votre santé ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
26 déc. 13 Fiche animateurs Radio Page 1 of 3
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: Animateur Radio 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici
avec mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du
projet MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par
5 organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc,
Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet
NEMA a été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le
cadre de l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir
avec vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous
poser des questions sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez
resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées
uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou  à
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien
vouloir me fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
26 déc. 13 Fiche animateurs Radio Page 2 of 3
Identification 
 Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE ______________________________ NOM DE LA RADIO ______________________ 
1. La radio que vous animiez au moment du projet NEMA est-elle fonctionnelle 
actuellement? Oui /____/ Non /____/ (cocher une réponse) 
2. Avez-vous eu une formation sur la nutrition, l’hygiène et assainissement de la part du 
projet NEMA Oui /___/, Non /___/ (cocher une réponse)
3. Combien de personnes ont été formées dans le cadre des émissions de la Nutrition, 
Hygiènes et Assainissement du MYAP NEMA au compte de la 
radio ? /________________/ (noter le nombre) 
4. Parmi ceux qui ont été formés au compte de votre radio, combien sont encore en fonction 
dans la radio ? /________ / (noter le nombre) 
5. La radio continue t elle a passé les émissions sur l’hygiène et assainissement ? Oui /___/, 
Non /___/ (cocher une réponse)
6. Justifier votre réponse :
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________ 
7. Quel impact la formation sur la nutrition, Hygiène et assainissement a eu sur vous-même 
en tant que animateur et chef de ménage ou membre d’un ménage ? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________ 
8. Au moment où vous passiez les émissions pour le compte du projet NEMA sur la 
nutrition, Hygiène et assainissement, y avait-il d’autres partenaires pour lesquels vous 
diffusiez les mêmes thèmes ? Oui /___/, Non /___/ (cocher une réponse)
9. Si oui, Pour quelle organisation ? 
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Votre radio a-t-elle toujours un contrat de prestation avec une organisation dans le 
domaine de la nutrition, Hygiène et assainissement ? Oui /___/, Non /___/ (cocher une 
réponse) 
11. Si oui, Pour quelle organisation ? 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Fiche animateurs Radio Page 3 of 3
12. Combien de ceux qui ont suivi la même formation que vous sont fonctionnelles dans leur 
radio ? /________________/ (noter le nombre)
13. Citez nous les radios dans lesquelles ils sont. 
Nom de la radio Village d’implantation 
de la radio 
Nom de l’animateur 
radio 
Téléphone 
 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Comité de gestion Point Eau Page 1 of 5
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: COMITE D’EAU 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec
mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été
mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation
du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions
relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions sensibles, mais
les informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces
informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou   à
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me
fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
Identification 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Comité de gestion Point Eau Page 2 of 5
 Date de collecte 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE __________________________ 
VILLAGE 
Nombre de Membres du comité : T /______/ H : 
/_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de Membres du Comité Présents : 
T /______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Quel est le type de points d’eau réalisé par le projet NEMA/MYAP dans votre village (AES, 
PMH, Puits…)? (noter le nom du point d’eau cité) 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Pourquoi avez-vous mis en place ce comité ? (Note à l’Enquêteur : noter toutes les raisons qui seront 
données par les membres du comité). 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quelles sont les activités que le Comité mène actuellement? (noter toutes les activités citées)
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Le comité a-t-il un statut et règlement intérieur ? (Cocher une réponse) Oui /___/, Non /___/
5. Le comité tient il actuellement des réunions (vérifier la réponse a travers les supports) ? 
(Cocher une réponse) Oui /___/, Non /___/
6. Si non, Pourquoi ?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Si oui, à quand remonte la dernière réunion statutaire du comité ? (noter le moi________________
(Note a l’enquêteur : si la dernière se situe avant Mars 2012, demander à savoir pourquoi ? 
8. Si non, Pourquoi ?
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Comité de gestion Point Eau Page 3 of 5
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
9. Quelle orientation ou formation avez-vous reçue du projet Nema pour la gestion des points 
d’eau? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelle appréciation faites-vous de la qualité (compréhension, déroulement) de la 
formation/orientation reçue ? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________
11. Quelles sont les difficultés courantes que vous rencontrez en tant que Comité de gestion de 
points d’eau ? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles solutions avez-vous trouvées aux difficultés rencontrées? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
13. Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour une meilleure gestion des 
infrastructures d’eau du village ? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
14. Quelles dispositions avez-vous prises pour pérenniser la fonctionnalité de l’infrastructure? 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Comité de gestion Point Eau Page 4 of 5
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
15. Si pas de disposition, pourquoi ? 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
16. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites -vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement 
de gestion de votre point d’eau? 
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
17. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant le 
focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom, 
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
Information sur la gestion : 
Années Montant encaissé Montant dépensé Motifs d’Utilisation 
2011 
2012 2013 
Vérifier les outils de gestion disponible (noter dans le tableau les outils et leur état des supports 
de gestion): 
Outils disponibles Commentaires sur l’etat et tenue des supports de gestion 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Comité de gestion Point Eau Page 5 of 5
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE 
 
Page 1 of 8
  GUIDE  D’ENTRETIEN: HEARTH
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici
avec mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre
du projet MYAP/NEMA financé par USAID. Le projet est mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc,
Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locales : Caritas et Tassaght. Le
projet NEMA est en train d’être mis en œuvre depuis plus de 2 ans dans votre
zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation à mi‐parcours du projet, nous voudrions
nous entretenir avec vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du projet en
ce qui concerne la Sécurité Alimentaire et le bien‐être de vos familles. Nous
voudrions échanger avec vous sur certains points et recevoir vos suggestions.
Ces informations seront utilisées pour mieux réorienter au besoin les actions
que le projet est en train de poursuivre dans le cadre de la Sécurité Alimentaire
dans votre  village.
L’interview prendra un certain temps.  Nous vous serions très reconnaissants
de bien vouloir nous fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.
L’équipe du projet voudrait bien améliorer son appui et on compte sur vous
pour donner des suggestions sur comment le projet pourrait mieux vous
appuyer pour renforcer la Sécurité Alimentaire et le bien‐être de toute la
famille, surtout les enfants de moins de 5 ans.
[Essayez de mettre le groupe à l’aise et d’encourager la franchise sans être trop
formel. Assurez que les personnes clés du group sont présentes.]
Page 2 of 8
Identification :
Date de collecte
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE  
VILLAGE :   Nombre de participants: H /_____/ F : /_____/  
1. Pourquoi avez‐vous décidé de participer aux activités Foyer (Hearth) ? (ne pas lire les
réponses)
- Parce que l’ADC m’a demandé d’y participer     /____/  
- Parce que mon enfant a été dépisté malnutris     /____/  
- Parce que le relais m’a demande d’y participer   /____/
- Ne sait pas               /____/
- Autres à préciser           /____/ :
2. Qu’est‐ce que vous avez appris aux activités Foyer Hearth ? (ne pas lire les réponses)
- A  faire de la bouillie enrichie       /____/
- Valorisation des aliments locaux       /____/
- Hygiène             /____/
- Rien               /____/
- Ne sait pas             /____/
- Autres à préciser           /____/  
3. Quelles sont les actions d’hygiène que vous avez apprises lors des foyers ? (ne pas lire les
réponses)       
- Lavage des mains          /____/
- Hygiène corporelle         /____/
- Hygiène alimentaire         /____/
- Utilisation de latrines       /____/
- Autres à préciser         /____/
4. Selon vous quels ont été les avantages de votre participation au Foyer   ? [On voudrait
savoir quels bénéfices vous avez tiré du foyer.]
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 8
5. Au cours des activités au Foyer Hearth, quelles difficultés avez‐vous rencontrées ? [On
cherche par exemple à savoir si elles ont eu des problèmes de trouver le temps de
participer plein temps.]
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
a. Quelles solutions avez‐vous trouvées?
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
6. Quels changements/différences avez‐vous constaté au niveau de l’état nutritionnel des
enfants qui ont participé aux activités de foyer?  (noter toutes les réponses, demander aux
participants d’illustrer, de citer des exemples s’il y a, Cherchez des exemples individuels à exploiter en
profondeur, noter l’amélioration ou pas](Cocher les réponses correspondantes)
- Gain de poids        /____/    
- Combien de participants l’affirme   /__________/ (noter le nombre)
- Perte de poids         /____/
- Combien de participants l’affirme   /__________/ (noter le nombre)
- Meilleure santé         /____/
- Combien de participants l’affirme   /__________/ (noter le nombre)
- Autres à préciser        /____/  
- ____________________________________________________________________
- Combien de participants l’affirme   /__________/ (noter le nombre)
7. Actuellement, quelle appréciation faites‐vous de l’état nutritionnel des enfants dans
votre village ?  
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont influencé ces changements survenus chez les enfants (la
situation nutritionnelle des enfants) ?
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 8
9. Continuez‐vous d’appliquer les bonnes pratiques nutritionnelles apprises pendant le
foyer ? (noter les raisons avancées)
a. Si oui, demander pourquoi  
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
b. Si non, demander pourquoi  
10. __________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
11. Citez quelques exemples de bonnes pratiques appliquées
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
12. Quelles dispositions avez‐vous mise en place pour continuer avec les bonnes pratiques
(nutrition, Hygiène, assainissement) que vous apprises dans le foyer? (noter toutes les
dispositions
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
13. Depuis le retrait du projet  Quels sont les difficultés majeures rencontrées pour la
continuation avec les bonnes pratiques (nutrition, Hygiène, assainissement)?  
____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
14. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous afin de mieux renforcer les acquis
dans le cadre de la nutrition / foyer (amélioration de l’état nutritionnel des enfants de
moins de 5 ans)?  
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 8
15. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents
par rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis
durant le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en
donnant le nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire)  
_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
PECIMA
1. Quel est le nombre de membres ici présent qui ont bénéficié de l’assistance en vivres
pour leur enfant malnutris ? (noter le nombre, au cours de la discussion, se focaliser sur
les personnes qui ont reçu de l’assistance) / _______________/
2. Quel type d’assistance avez‐vous reçu au niveau du Centre de Sante quand votre enfant
a été admis pour malnutrition ?  (distribution des vivres ?)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3. Selon vous, quels étaient les critères définis pour recevoir assistance  au niveau du
Centre de Sante  
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
4. Que pensez‐vous de cette assistance pour les enfants malnutris admis au niveau des
Centre de Sante  
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 8
5. Selon vous, quel a été l‘impact de cette assistance sur la Sante de vos enfants?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
6. Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels changements avez vous constaté chez
les enfants moins cinq ans fréquentant les Centre de Santé
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
7. Selon vous, quelles dispositions ont été mise en place depuis l’arrêt de cette assistance
au niveau des Centres de Santé? (noter toutes les dispositions)
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Nutrition / Soins de l’enfant
1. Est‐ce que les activités de Nutrition ont eu lieu dans votre village au cours des trois
derniers mois? (par exemple, démonstration culinaire, les séances d’IEC, la
distribution de nourriture pour enfant)?   0. Non  1.Oui
2. Si oui, dans quelles activités avez‐vous participées?
Démonstrations culinaire   0. Non  1.Oui
Séances  d’IEC   0. Non  1.Oui
Messages Radio   0. Non  1.Oui
Autres (spécifier)   0. Non  1.Oui
3. Si non, pourquoi    
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 8
4. Quels sont les signes de la malnutrition aigüe que vous connaissez chez l’enfant ?
[Note à l’enquêteur : Ne pas lire les options. Veuillez noter toutes les réponses]  
Amaigrissement extrême (avec les joues creuses et les yeux enfonces) /____/
Gonflement des deux pieds et du corps (surtout le visage, les bras, les jambes et les pieds)
/____/                   Couleur de la bande
de Shakir/fiche de croissance   /____/      
Autres (à préciser : ____________________________) /____/
       
5. Est‐ce que vous avez amené votre enfant pour la pesée/mesure Périmètre brachial (au
cours des trois derniers mois (au niveau village ou Centre de Sante)  ?    
   0. Non  1.Oui,        
6. Si oui, où ? [Note à l’enquêteur : Si oui, cocher la case correspondante    
   1. Chez le relais communautaire           /____/
   2. Au niveau de CSCOM             /____/
   3. Autres (à préciser : ____________________________)      /____/
7. Aviez‐vous reçu des informations dans votre village sur la nutrition des enfants pendant le
projet NEMA ?          0. Non  1.Oui
8. Si oui, quelles étaient vos principales sources ou canaux d’information ? (cocher les cases qui
s’appliquent aux réponses.
ADC   /____/
Relais /____/
Membres groupes SILC /____/
Comité de Santé/ Foyer /____/
Au centre de Santé /____/
Radio locale/ régionale /____/
Autres (préciser) ________________________________ /____/
9. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans.
Pendant le projet NEMA  
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Actuellement  
10. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement
des activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à
l’entretien)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 8
11. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant
le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le
nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire)  
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE
    
  
    
  
    
  
    
  
26-déc.-13 Fiche Macon Page 1 of 3
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: MACON 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec mon
collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été
mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation
du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions
relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions sensibles, mais les
informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces
informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est volontaire
et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou  à toutes les
questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me fournir le
maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
26-déc.-13 Fiche Macon Page 2 of 3
Identification 
 Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE ______________________________ NOM DU MACON ______________________ 
1. Avez-vous eu une formation en qualité de Macon de la part du projet NEMA Oui /___/, Non 
/___/ (cocher une réponse)
2. Combien de personnes ont été formées comme maçon dans le cadre de MYAP NEMA dans 
votre village ? /________________/ (noter le nombre) 
3. Parmi ceux qui ont été formés comme maçon, combien sont encore en fonction dans la le village, 
c’est-à-dire qui continue à mener des activités de maçonnerie ? /________ / (noter le nombre) 
4. Quel impact la formation en maçonnerie pour la confection des dalles a eu sur vous-même en 
tant que maçon et chef de ménage ou membre d’un ménage ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
5. Avez-vous eu à travailler pour d’autres partenaires dus au fait que vous avez été formé par le 
projet NEMA? Oui /___/, Non /___/ (cocher une réponse)
6. Si oui, Pour quelle organisation ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Quel intérêt avez-vous tirez de fait de travailler pour une autre structure en tant que maçon formé 
par NEMA ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Avez-vous formés d’autres personnes en maçonnerie depuis le retrait du projet ? Oui /___/, Non 
/___/ (cocher une réponse) 
9. SI oui, combien de personnes ? T : /_______ / H : /________/, F : /________/ 
10. Combien de ceux qui ont suivi la même formation que vous sont fonctionnelles dans leur 
village ? /________________/ (noter le nombre) 
26-déc.-13 Fiche Macon Page 3 of 3
11. Citez nous les villages dans lesquelles ils ont. 
Nom de la personne formée Village du formé Téléphone 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Guide pour observation directe des Réalisations
Village Type de réalisation Date de
réalisation
date de visite Etat/
fonctionnel
Nombre mois
pendant lequel
l’infrastructure n’est
pas fonctionnelle
Observation
  GUIDE  D’ENTRETIEN: PECIMA
(A administrer aux Femmes dans les villages où il n’y pas Hearth dans l’échantillon)
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec 
mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet 
MYAP/NEMA financé par USAID. Le projet est mis en exécution par 5 
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, 
Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locales : Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet 
NEMA est en train d’être mis en œuvre depuis plus de 2 ans dans votre zone. Dans le 
cadre de l’évaluation à mi-parcours du projet, nous voudrions nous entretenir avec 
vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du projet en ce qui concerne la Sécurité 
Alimentaire et le bien-être de vos familles. Nous voudrions échanger avec vous sur 
certains points et recevoir vos suggestions. Ces informations seront utilisées pour 
mieux réorienter au besoin les actions que le projet est en train de poursuivre dans le 
cadre de la Sécurité Alimentaire dans votre village. 
L’interview prendra un certain temps. Nous vous serions très reconnaissants de bien 
vouloir nous fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité. L’équipe du 
projet voudrait bien améliorer son appui et on compte sur vous pour donner des 
suggestions sur comment le projet pourrait mieux vous appuyer pour renforcer la 
Sécurité Alimentaire et le bien-être de toute la famille, surtout les enfants de moins de 
5 ans. 
[Essayez de mettre le groupe à l’aise et d’encourager la franchise sans être trop formel. Assurez que 
les personnes clés du group sont présentes.] 
Identification :
Date de collecte
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE  
VILLAGE   NOM  DE L’ENQUETE :  
CENTRE DE SANTE DE : _____________________ Tel :    
1. Quel type d’assistance avez‐vous reçu au niveau du Centre de Sante quand votre enfant a été admis
pour malnutrition ?  (distribution des vivres ?)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Selon vous, quels étaient les critères définis pour recevoir assistance  au niveau du Centre de Sante  
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Que pensez‐vous de cette assistance pour les enfants malnutris admis au niveau des Centre de
Sante  
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Selon vous, quel a été l‘impact de cette assistance sur la Sante de vos enfants?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels changements avez vous constaté chez les enfants
moins cinq ans fréquentant les Centre de Santé
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Selon vous, quelles dispositions ont été mise en place depuis l’arrêt de cette assistance au niveau
des Centres de Santé? (noter toutes les dispositions)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Nutrition / Soins de l’enfant
1. Est‐ce que les activités de Nutrition ont eu lieu dans votre village au cours des trois derniers mois?
(par exemple, démonstration culinaire, les séances d’IEC, la distribution de nourriture pour
enfant)?   0. Non  1.Oui
2. Si oui, dans quelles activités avez‐vous participées?
Démonstrations alimentaire   0. Non  1.Oui
Séances  d’IEC   0. Non  1.Oui
Radio     0. Non  1.Oui
Autres (spécifier)   0. Non  1.Oui
3. Si non, pourquoi    
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Quels sont les signes de la malnutrition aigüe que vous connaissez chez l’enfant ?
[Note à l’enquêteur : Ne pas lire les options. Veuillez noter toutes les réponses]  
1 = Amaigrissement extrême (avec les joues creuses et les yeux enfonces)   0. Non  1.Oui
2 = Gonflement des deux pieds et du corps (surtout le visage, les bras, les jambes et les pieds)    
                   0. Non  1.Oui
3 = Couleur de la bande de Shakir/fiche de croissance       0. Non  1.Oui
4 = Autres (à préciser : ____________________________)       0. Non  1.Oui      
5. Est‐ce que vous avez amené votre enfant pour la pesée/mesure MUAC au cours des trois derniers
mois (au niveau village ou Centre de Sante)  ?                                                             0. Non  1.Oui
6. Si oui, où ?  
[Note à l’enquêteur : Si oui, noter « 1 ». Si on ne cite pas un endroit, noter « 0 »]      
   1. Chez le relais communautaire           0. Non  1.Oui,
   2. Au niveau de CSCOM             0. Non  1.Oui
   3. Autres (à préciser : ____________________________)      0. Non  1.Oui
7. Aviez‐vous reçu des informations dans votre village sur la nutrition des enfants pendant le projet
NEMA ?          0. Non  1.Oui
8. Si oui, Quelles étaient vos principales sources d’information  
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
9. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans .
Pendant le projet NEMA  
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Actuellement  
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des
groupements du SILC ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à l’entretien)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
8. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant le
focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom,
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire)  
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 1 of 9
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: RELAIS 
 
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec mon
collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet
MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5
organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen
Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été
mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation du
projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions
relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous poser des questions sensibles, mais les
informations que vous me donnerez resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces
informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est volontaire
et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou   à toutes les
questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me fournir le
maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 2 of 9
Identification 
 Date de collecte : ___________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE 
VILLAGE : ______________________________ 
Nombre de relais du village: T /______/ H : 
/_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de relais du village Présents : T /______/ H : 
/_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Quelles sont les activités que vous avez mené dans le village dans le cadre du MYAP - Nema ? 
(noter toutes les activités citées par les participants.) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
Avez- vous bénéficié des formations de la part du projet ? (cocher une réponse), OUI /__/, NON /____/ 
2. Si OUI, quels sont les thèmes de formation que vous avez reçue ? (cocher les thèmes correspondants 
aux réponses donnés par les participants)
- Allaitement maternel /____/ 
- Alimentation complémentaire: /____/ 
- Alimentation de la femme (enceinte/allaitant) /____/ 
- Utilisation du sel iodé. /____/ 
- Carence en fer : /____/ 
- La prise en charge nutritionnelle des enfants malnutris et malades. /____/ 
- Carence en Vitamine A /____/ 
- Hygiène et assainissement /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
3. Combien de relais formé par le MYAP NEMA sont dans le village actuellement? (Note à 
l’enquêteur : il s’agit de noter le nombre de personnes dans le village par le projet) : 
Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
 
4. Parmi les relais formés, combien sont en train de faire de mener des activités dans le village de 
nos jours? (noter le nombre) Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 3 of 9
5. Pendant le projet NEMA, quels changements/différences avez-vous constaté dans l’état 
nutritionnel des enfants de moins 5 ans? (noter toutes les réponses, demander aux participants d’illustrer, 
de citer des exemples s’il ya, Cherchez des exemples individuels à exploiter en profondeur] 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
6. Comparativement au moment où le projet NEMA intervenait dans votre, quels 
changements/différences avez-vous constaté dans l’état nutritionnel des enfants de moins 5 ans 
aujourd’hui? (noter toutes les réponses, demander aux participants d’illustrer, de citer des exemples s’il ya, 
Cherchez des exemples individuels à exploiter en profondeur, noter l’amélioration ou pas] 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont influencé positivement ou negativement la situation 
nutrtionnnelle des enfants de moins de 5 ans ? 
a. Positivement 
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
b. Négativement 
_________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour pouvoir continuer les activités d’agent de 
relais dans votre village? (noter toutes les dispositions)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ 
9. Y a-t-il des activités que vous continuez à mener à l’absence du projet actuellement? (noter une 
réponse) OUI /___/, NON /____/ 
10. Si OUI, lesquelles ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 4 of 9
11. Quels sont les defis majeurs des agents relais depuis le retrait du projet ? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez-vous afin de mieux renforcer les acquis dans le 
cadre de la nutrition (amélioration de l’etat nutritionnel des enfants de moins de 5 ans)? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : preter attention aux recits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échecs, histoires de changements) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 5 of 9
Distribution des vivres		
1. Quel type d’assistance était donné aux enfants de moins de 5 ans malnutris pour une prise en 
charge nutritionnelle? (distribution des vivres ?) 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Selon vous, quels étaient les critères définis pour recevoir les vivres au niveau du village ? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quelle était la quantité de la ration alimentaire donnée aux enfants ? (estimez la quantité, la 
fréquence et le type de la ration alimentaire) 
Type de vivres Ration La fréquence 
4. Que pensez-vous de l’impact de cette assistance (distribution des vivres) sur la Santé de vos 
enfants? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
5. Quelles étaient les principales difficultés rencontrées et comment ont-ils été résolus ? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 6 of 9
6. Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels changements avez vous constaté chez les enfants 
moins cinq ans au niveau de votre village? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Selon vous, quelles dispositions ont été mises en place dans votre communauté depuis l’arrêt de 
cette assistance ? (noter toutes les dispositions)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Actuellement, quels sont les principaux défis liés à la prise en charge des enfants malnutris au 
niveau de votre village? 
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 7 of 9
Alphabétisation :
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre village? 
(préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________ 
 
2. Combien était volontaire (ceux du village, qui ont suivi la formation sans être membre d’un groupement du 
projet) ? (noter le nombre) ________________________ 
3. Quels sont les modules (gafe) que vous avez appris lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? (cocher les 
cases correspondantes)
- La lecture /____/ 
- L’écriture /____/ 
- Le Calcul /____/ 
 
4. Quels sont les thèmes (Kalan sen, images) discutés lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
- Santé / Hygiène /____/
- Education /____/
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de culture /____/ 
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de commercialisation /____/ 
- Utilisation des fumures organiques /____/
- Calcul du rendement, compte d’exploitation /____/
- Protection et conservation de l’environnement /____/
- Autres à préciser /____/
- _________________________________________________
5. Parmi vous, combien de personnes formés peuvent lire, écrire et calculer après les sessions 
alpha dans votre groupement en homme, femme? (Note a l’enquêteur : il s’agit de noter le nombre de 
personnes qui répondent aux trois critères : lire, écrire et calculer) : Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : 
/______/ 
 
6. Parmi les personnes formées combien sont en train d’appliquer la formation reçue ?: (noter le 
nombre, et si c’est l’ensemble des formés qui lisent, écrivent etc calculent qui n’appliquent , posez la question suivante) 
Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
7. Pour ceux qui n’appliquent pas les formations reçues, demander pourquoi? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________ 
8. Comment utilisez-vous ce que vous avez appris actuellement (en général et dans la gestion des 
activités des différents groupes) ? (Note à l’enquêteur : laisser les participants répondre et cocher les réponses 
correspondantes sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous)
- A faciliter le remplissage des outils des associations et groupements /____/ 
- A pouvoir écrire et lire son nom /____/ 
- A faire des correspondances en langue locale /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 8 of 9
9. Quels sont les effets de la formation en alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en tant 
que membres de votre groupement? (Note à l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, demander à avoir des 
exemples individuels pour illustrer les effets)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour continuer les séances d’alphabétisation dans 
le village? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour consolider les acquis de 
l’alphabétisation dans votre village? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
activités d’alphabétisation? 
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________ 
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant le 
focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom, 
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien Relais de Santé Page 9 of 9
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE 
 
 
 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 1 of 7
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: FFW Participants 
(S’assurez qu’il y a aussi les membres du Comité de Gestion de
l’Infrastructure présents y compris des femmes.)
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici
avec mon collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du
projet MYAP/NEMA qui est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par
5 organisations : Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc,
Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet
NEMA a été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans votre zone. Dans le
cadre de l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais m’entretenir
avec vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous
poser des questions sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez
resteront strictement confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées
uniquement pour mieux capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est
volontaire et vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou  à
toutes les questions. Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien
vouloir me fournir le maximum d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe : 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 2 of 7
Identification : 
Date de collecte_________________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE ______________________________ 
Nombre de Membres du Groupements FFW: T 
/______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de Membres du Groupements FFW 
Présents : T /______/ H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Quels sont les infrastructures que vous avez réalisées avec l’appui du programme 
MYAP dans votre village en FFW/ VCT ? (noter toutes les infrastructures réalisées par NEMA 
dans le village) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Comment avez-vous été choisi comme participants au VCT (approfondir la question en 
tenant compte de la participation des femmes)? (noter le processus)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quels sont les appuis que le projet a apporté lors de la réalisation de l’infrastructure ? 
(noter les appuis énumérés par les participants, demander les quantités) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Quelle appréciation faites-vous des appuis apportés ? (noter les appréciations des appuis 
énumérés)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 3 of 7
5. Quelle est votre appréciation de la qualité des infrastructures réalisées ? (noter les 
appréciations)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
6. Quels sont les infrastructures réalisés dans votre village qui sont fonctionnelles 
actuellement?(Note à l’enquêteur : il faut répertorier toutes les infrastructures réalisées par le MYAP, 
puis demander a savoir si elles sont fonctionnelles ou pas, ensuite écrire oui ou non dans la cellule) 
Listes des infrastructures réalisées par le MYAP Fonctionnalité, écrire oui ou non selon 
le cas le jour de l’entretien 
1. 
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
7. Pour les infrastructures qui fonctionnent qu’avez-vous fait pour les maintenir 
fonctionnelles jusqu’à nos jours ?(noter les réponses des participants)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Pour les infrastructures qui ne fonctionnent pas , citez les raisons de leur non 
fonctionnalité ? (noter les raisons)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 4 of 7
9. Quelles sont les dispositions prises pour pérenniser l’infrastructure? (noter les dispositions)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quels intérêts tirez-vous des infrastructures ? (noter les différentes exploitations et profits tires 
des infrastructures réalisées) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quelles sont les personnes/ménages qui ont accès et/ou bénéficient des avantages de 
l’infrastructure ? (noter les personnes/ménages) 
Nom infrastructure les personnes/ménages qui ont accès et/ou 
bénéficient des avantages 
1. 
2.
3.
4.
5.
12. Décrivez comment ces personnes/ménages ont accès et/ou bénéficient de 
l’infrastructure. (Note à l’enquêteur : pour chaque type d’infrastructure, noter comment 
personnes/ménages bénéficient des avantages)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 5 of 7
13. Existe-t-il des personnes/ménages dans votre village qui n’ont pas accès ou qui ne 
bénéficient pas de l’infrastructure? (cocher une réponse) OUI /____/, NON /____/ 
14. Si oui, qui sont ces personnes/ ménages ? (noter les catégories de personnes/ ménages) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
15. Si non, pourquoi ? (noter les raisons)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
16. Quelles appréciations faites-vous de la distribution des vivres (période de la 
distribution, qualité, quantité, etc.) ? (noter les réponses par rapport aux différents paramètres 
période, quantité et qualité)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
17. Quels sont les aspects à améliorer dans la réalisation des infrastructures utilisant le 
food for Work /VCT? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
18. Quelles suggestions et recommandations faites-vous pour renforcer les acquis du 
projet? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 6 of 7
19. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents 
par rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis 
durant le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en 
donnant le nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
QUESTIONS NUTRITION : (a poser aux hommes)  
1. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans.
Pendant le projet NEMA 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Actuellement 
2. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à
l’entretien)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
26 déc. 13 Guide Entretien FFW Page 7 of 7
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM TYPE DE BENEFICIAIRE 
(PARTICIPANT AUX 
TRAVAUX & MEMBRE 
COMITE) 
TELEPHONE 
 
Page 1 of 8
 GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN: GAP-RU 
CERCLE:……….……………………………. COMMUNE :………………………………….
VILLAGE :………………………………….NOM DU GROUPE :……………………………
NOMBRE DE PERSONNES PRESENTES :…………………………………………………...
DATE/____ /____ /_________/   NOM DU RAPPORTEUR :………………………………….
(Pour pouvoir identifier le GAP‐RU, les enquêteurs doivent demander soit
GAP_RU soit Groupe SAP soit groupe Météo)
Introduction  
Bonjour ! Mon nom est : __________________________________ . Je suis ici avec mon
collègue _____________________ . Nous sommes ici dans le cadre du projet MYAP/NEMA qui
est sous financement de l’USAID et mis en exécution par 5 organisations : Catholic Relief
Services (CRS), Save the Children Federation Inc, Helen Keller International (HKI) et deux ONG
locaux Caritas et Tassaght. Le projet NEMA a été mis en œuvre durant 4 ans (2009‐2012) dans
votre zone. Dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet durant cette période, je voudrais
m’entretenir avec vous sur des questions relatives aux activités du projet. Je pourrais vous
poser des questions sensibles, mais les informations que vous me donnerez resteront
strictement confidentielles. Ces informations seront utilisées uniquement pour mieux
capitaliser les acquis du projet.  
L’interview prendra environ une heure. La participation à cette évaluation est volontaire et
vous pouvez refuser de répondre à des questions particulières ou   à toutes les questions.
Cependant je vous serais très reconnaissant(e) de bien vouloir me fournir le maximum
d’informations et en toute sincérité.  
Nom des membres de l’équipe :
Identification 
Page 2 of 8
 Date de collecte : ___________________ 
Nom et prénom de l’agent de collecte ___________________________________________ 
CERCLE : ______________________________ COMMUNE ______________________________
VILLAGE : ______________________________ 
Nombre de membre GAP – RU : T /______/ 
H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
Nombre de membre GAP – RU Présents : T /______/ 
H : /_____/ F : /_____ / 
1. Pourquoi avez-vous mis en place ce groupe ? 
(Enquêter : Cherchez la ‘raison d’être’ dugroupe, cocher dans la case qui s’applique]. 
- Pour surveiller les différents risques auxquels la communauté est exposée /____/ 
- Pour soutenir la communauté en cas de crise/problème grave /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
2. Sur quelle base les membres du groupe ont-ils été choisis ? (cocher les cases qui s’appliquent 
aux réponses données, puis préciser s’il y a autres)
- Volontariat /____/ 
- Disponibilité /____/ 
- Etre personne-ressource /____/ 
- Au moins un lettré dans le groupe /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
3. Quelles sont les activités menées par le groupe depuis sa création ? (noter toutes activités 
menées par le groupe avec le programme NEMA)
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Quelles informations collectez-vous ? (cocher les cases qui s’appliquent aux réponses données, puis 
préciser s’il y a autres) 
- Santé humaine /____/ 
- Agriculture (état des champs, ennemis des cultures…) /____/ 
- Elevage (épizootie, état des pâturages, animaux..) /____/ 
- Environnement (feu de brousse, inondations …) /____/ 
- Sécurité/conflits /____/ 
- Pluviométrie /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
5. Quelle utilisation faites-vous des données collectées ? (cocher les cases qui s’appliquent aux 
réponses données, puis préciser s’il y a autres) 
- Envoie au niveau de la réunion SAP Communale /____/ 
- Informer et sensibiliser la communauté sur les problèmes majeurs /____/ 
Page 3 of 8
- Informer les autorités communales en cas de crise rapide /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
6. A quand remonte la dernière date de collecte de données du GAP- RU ? (noter le 
mois________________ (Note a l’enquêteur : si la dernière se situe avant Mars 2012, demander 
à savoir pourquoi ? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
7. Quelle orientation ou formation avez-vous reçue du projet Nema dans le cadre du GAP￾RU? (cocher les cases qui s’appliquent aux réponses données, puis préciser s’il y a autres) 
- Orientation sur les rôles et responsabilités du groupe /____/ 
- Identification et suivi des indicateurs de déclenchement de crise /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Quelle appréciation faites-vous sur la qualité (compréhension, déroulement) de la 
formation/orientation: 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
9. En quoi la création de ce groupe GAP-RU a été utile dans votre village ? (cocher les cases 
qui s’appliquent aux réponses données, puis préciser s’il y a autres) 
- Connaître la quantité de pluie tombée dans mon village /____/ 
- Connaître les prix des denrées par mois /____/ 
- Connaître les prix des animaux /____/ 
- Connaitre l’évolution de la campagne /____/ 
- Prévention des chocs et catastrophe /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelles difficultés avez-vous rencontrées dans la mise en œuvre des activités du GAP￾RU? (cocher les cases qui s’appliquent aux réponses données, puis préciser s’il y a autres) 
- Aucune /____/ 
- Tenue régulière des réunions villageoises /____/ 
- Participation à la réunion SAP au niveau commune /____/ 
- Enregistrement des données dans le cahier/fiche /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
________________________________________________________________________ 
Page 4 of 8
11. S’il y a eu difficulté, quelles solutions avez-vous trouvées? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles sont les dispositions prises pour continuer les activités du GAP RU dans le 
village? (noter les dispositions citées par les participants) 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
15. Quels sont les facteurs qui facilitent la continuation des activités entreprises avec le 
programme NEMA dans le cadre du GAP-RU? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________ 
16. Quels pourraient être les facteurs limitant la continuation des activités GAP –RU 
dans le village ? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
17. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez-vous pour consolider les acquis du 
projet NEMA? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Page 5 of 8
18. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes.(Note : prêter attention aux récits 
pertinents par rapports aux réussites, histoires de changements) 
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________ 
Page 6 of 8
Alphabétisation :
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre village? 
(préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________ 
 
1. Combien de personne ont participé aux sessions de formation Alpha dans votre village? 
(préciser en hommes, femmes) (noter le nombre)________________________ 
 
2. Combien était volontaire (ceux du village, qui ont suivi la formation sans être membre d’un 
groupement du projet) ? (noter le nombre) ________________________ 
3. Quels sont les modules (gafe) que vous avez appris lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
(cocher les cases correspondantes)
- La lecture /____/ 
- L’écriture /____/ 
- Le Calcul /____/ 
 
4. Quels sont les thèmes (Kalan sen, images) discutés lors des séances d’alphabétisation ? 
- Santé / Hygiène /____/
- Education /____/
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de culture /____/ 
- Pratique de techniques améliorées de commercialisation /____/ 
- Utilisation des fumures organiques /____/
- Calcul du rendement, compte d’exploitation /____/
- Protection et conservation de l’environnement /____/
- Autres à préciser /____/
- _________________________________________________
5. Parmi vous, combien de personnes formés peuvent lire, écrire et calculer après les 
sessions alpha dans votre groupement en homme, femme? (Note a l’enquêteur : il s’agit de 
noter le nombre de personnes qui répondent aux trois critères : lire, écrire et calculer) : Total : 
/________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
 
6. Parmi les personnes formées combien sont en train d’appliquer la formation reçue ?: 
(noter le nombre, et si c’est l’ensemble des formés qui lisent, écrivent etc calculent qui n’appliquent , posez la 
question suivante) Total : /________ / H : /________ /, F : /______/ 
7. Pour ceux qui n’appliquent pas les formations reçues, demander pourquoi? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
8. Comment utilisez-vous ce que vous avez appris actuellement (en général et dans la 
gestion des activités des différents groupes) ? (Note à l’enquêteur : laisser les participants répondre 
et cocher les réponses correspondantes sans lire la liste des options ci-dessous)
Page 7 of 8
- A faciliter le remplissage des outils des associations et groupements /____/ 
- A pouvoir écrire et lire son nom /____/ 
- A faire des correspondances en langue locale /____/ 
- Autres à préciser /____/ 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
9. Quels sont les effets de la formation en alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en 
tant que membres de votre groupement? (Note à l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, 
demander à avoir des exemples individuels pour illustrer les effets)
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
10. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place pour continuer les séances 
d’alphabétisation dans le village? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
11. Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être améliorés pour consolider les acquis de 
l’alphabétisation dans votre village? 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
12. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites-vous dans le cadre du suivi et 
renforcement des activités d’alphabétisation? 
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ 
Page 8 of 8
13. Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes (Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents 
par rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis 
durant le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne et approfondissez son récit en 
donnant le nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ 
QUESTIONS NUTRITION : (a poser aux hommes)  
1. Quels changements significatifs avez‐vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq ans.
Pendant le projet NEMA 
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Actuellement 
2. Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites‐vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les suggestions évoquées par les participants à
l’entretien)
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
LISTE DE PRESENCE DES MEMBRES RENCONTRES 
PRENOM ET NOM POSTE OCCUPE TELEPHONE 
 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
1
Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups 
A. AEG 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Depuis que le groupement a été crée, quels 
changements/différences avez-vous constaté 
dans vos vies en termes de production, 
augmentation revenu, disponibilité de stock 
alimentaire, vente des produits sur le marché…: 
(Note a l’enquêteur : laisser les membres 
répondre et noter toutes les réponses.)
 Village de Ngono : Actuellement, la production n’a pas augmente de façon significative malgré l’application des nouvelles 
techniques, cela a été du à la mauvaise pluviométrie. Ce qui a pour conséquence la baisse des rendements 
 Disponibilité d’une caisse sociale au sein du groupement 
 Disponibilité du stock alimentaire 
 Vente de produit sur le marché 
 Diminution de l’exode rurale 
 Village de Fombory : Nous avons constaté une augmentation du revenu des membres et de la disponibilité des stocks 
alimentaires. Nous avons également constaté une augmentation de nos chiffres d’affaire par la vente des produits sur le 
marché. Le groupement disposait une caisse et tous les membres faisaient la cotisation 
 Village Kiro : Avant la création du groupement, nous n’étions pas organisés, la formation du groupement nous a réuni au 
tour des activités génératrices de revenu qui ont entrainée une augmentation des revenus de femme de toutes femmes 
participantes. Cela a permis de subvenir à certains besoins familiaux sans demander le concours des maris.
Quels sont les changements que vous avez 
constatés en appliquant les techniques apprises 
pendant NEMA? 
 Village NGono : Apprentissage des nouvelles techniques, Amélioration de la conservation, Augmentation de la Production 
et Augmentation des revenus
 Village Fombory : L’application des techniques de production nous avait permis d’exploiter une peinte superficie pour 
obtenir une bonne production a la récolte. Nos revenus avaient considérablement augmenté. Tout cela était du a un 
changement positif de nos pratiques agricole
 Village Ibissa (groupement Benkadi) : Nous avons constate une augmentation de la production, de la résistance des plans 
au manque de pluie, de la fertilisation du sol, augmentation du poids des épis.
Que pensez de ces nouvelles techniques de 
production que vous avez apprises pendant 
NEMA?
 Village NGONO : Ce sont des bonnes techniques et permettent d’augmenter la production et amoindris les efforts pendant 
les travaux. (allègement des travaux) (NGONO)
 Village Fombory : Elles sont bonnes et nous travaillons avec cette technique pour assurer l’augmentation continue de notre 
production. A travers nous, beaucoup d’autres producteurs avaient commencé adopté ces nouvelles techniques dans leur 
champs respectif.
 Village Bore : Moins de dégâts sur les cultures, augmentation de la production et des revenus de nos groupements.
 Village Kiro : Les techniques culturales enseignées par NEAMA, en les appliquant on obtient une bonne production qui a 
permis d’augmenter considérablement nos revenus 
 Village Ibissa : Les nouvelles techniques apprises sont bonnes parce qu’elles s’adoptent bien à notre sol et nous a permis 
d’augmenter la production 
Quelles sont les techniques que vous appliquez 
maintenant? Pourquoi
Fombory, Pataka, NGONO, Bore
 Production et la fabrication de fumures organiques qui permet de maintenir l’humidité et d’augmenter la production
 Technique de conserver du Niébé pour éviter des attaques des insectes, Technique de cerclage : faire le désherbage avec la 
dabas.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
2
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
 Traitement phytosanitaire pour lutter les ennemis des cultures (insectes)
 Conservation des produits pour la bonne gestion des stocks alimentaire 
 Village Fombory : Fertilisation et le maraichage (application permet d’exploiter une petite superficie pour un grand 
rendement.
 Village Kiro : Nous continuons les techniques de conservation, de semis et nous appliquons dans nos champs toutes les 
techniques apprises parce que l’expérience nous a montré qu’elles sont plus rentables que nous anciennes pratiques 
culturales traditionnelles.
Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé la 
continuation de l’application des techniques 
apprises ?
 Village NGono : Tenue régulière des réunions. La dernière réunion remonte le lundi 11 Novembre 2013 (Village de 
NGONO). Les nouvelles techniques sont efficaces
 Fertilisation du sol
 Village de Fombory : Dans notre village, nous sommes dépendant de l’agriculture, la nouvelle était améliorée vulgarisée
par le projet était la bienvenue pour l’amélioration de nos rendements. Nous avons l’impact de cette nouvelle technique sur 
notre production et nos revenu, c ‘est pour cette raison que nous continuons l’application des ces nouvelles techniques 
apprises. Malgré le retrait brusque du projet, nous avons pu bénéficier de certaines connaissances à travers les formations et 
les champs de démonstrations dans nos parcelles respectives. Cela constitue une bonne raison pour nous pour continuer le 
peu que nous avions apprises avec le projet. Si le projet restait pendant long temps dans notre village, la population allait 
bénéficier de beaucoup de nos nouvelles connaissances. 
 Village Ibissa : l’augmentation de la production, diminution de nos heures de travail donc on se fatigue moins et nous nous 
épanouissons de plus. 
Quels sont les facteurs qui empêchent 
l’application des techniques apprises pendant 
NEMA? 
 Village Fombory : Pas de traitement phyto à cause de la cherté des produits et le manque d’appareil 
 Village NGONO : Insuffisance de fond pour l’approvisionnement en engrais et pour l’embouche et la rareté de la pluie. 
 Village Bore : Insuffisance des superficies cultivables, manque d’équipements agricoles (charrue, bœufs de labour), 
difficultés financières pour le financement des plans d’affaires. 
Depuis le départ de NEMA, quelles sont les 
dispositions prises pour continuer les activités 
d’agro entreprise dans votre village ? (Noter les 
réponses)
Multiplication des réunions extraordinaires pour sensibiliser les membres 
 Village de Petaka : Mise en place d’un Champs collectif de Niébé avec les nouvelles techniques (parcelles ou champs 
d’école) pendant la saison 
 Les cotisations entre les membres pour mener les activités 
 Village Ibissa :Avec la panne de la moto pompe de la parcelle commune du groupement, nous avons fait un prêt d’argent a 
chaque membre avec un intérêt de 10% a embourse. Actuellement chaque membre continue ses activités dans jardin
individuel.
Quelles sont les difficultés aux quelles sont 
confrontés le groupement AEG actuellement?
 Difficultés financières à cause de l’arrêté des activités SILC 
 Mauvaise campagne agricole 2012-2013
 Perte de 4 hectares d’arachide
 (Village de NGONO) : Manque d’équipement agricole et insuffisance de petits matériels pour le maraichage 
 Village de Fombory : Dans notre village à Fombory, nous continuons à travailler comme groupement AEG mais les 
principales difficultés auxquelles nous sommes confrontée, restent le manque d’emballage (Sacs vides) pour la conservation 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
3
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
de nos récoltes, les attaques de nos récoltes de Niébé insectes par les insectes, l’approvisionnement en engrais et une 
insuffisance en équipement agricole comme le traducteur. Comme difficultés, nous notons également le manque de puits 
maraicher, d’équipements pour le maraichage et le manque de clôture du périmètre maraicher où les femmes font la 
production des légumes 
 Village Bore : Nous sommes un regroupement de femmes, depuis le retrait du projet NEMA, nous n’avons pas trouvé de 
source financement pour continuer nos activités. Nous sommes 27 femmes et nous n’avons pas accès à la terre
 Village Kiro : Nous avons un manque de matériel et nous dépendons beaucoup des hommes surtout dans les activités de 
nos champs 
 Village Ibissa : Panne de la pompe au niveau du périmètre maraicher rendant difficile les activités maraichères, dégâts 
causés par les rongeurs, Manque de clôture du périmètre maraicher (avec le grillage)
Quelles sont les solutions que vous avez 
apportées à ces difficultés ?
 Village de Fombory : Pour le problème de sac d’emballage, nous avons contacté notre partenaire CRS pour nous faciliter 
la mise en relation avec un fournisseur. Le groupement dispose des fonds pour payer l’emballage avec ses propres fonds 
mais il y a un problème de disponibilité au niveau même du fournisseur (AEG du village Fombory)
 Village Ibissa : Utilisation des branches d’arbre avec des épines pour empêcher le dégât des animaux sur le périmètre
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
vos activités d’agro entreprises
Villages Fombory, Bore, 
 Le Reprise immédiate des activités du projet pour nous assister dans le financement de nos chiffres d’affaires.
 Formation en Alpha et Domaine agricole 
 Village Fombory, Ibissa : Le retour rapide du projet NEMA pour la continuation des activités initiées avec le groupement, 
cela va permettre de bien comprendre l’approche, de garantir l’appropriation et la vulgarisation des bonnes pratiques dans le 
village 
 Village Kiro : Nous sollicitons l’aide en matériel agricole (Charrue, bœufs de labour, ânes et charrette) et intrants agricole 
(augmentation en semences améliorées)
Impact de la Formation des membres en 
Alphabétisation pendant le projet NEMA
 Village Fombory : Dans notre groupement, 30 personnes (25 hommes et 5 femmes) ont participé à la session de formation 
en Alphabétisation. Nous avons appris à lire, écrire et à calculer. Parmi les membres 10 personnes (9 hommes et 1 femme) 
savent a la fois lire, écrire et faire des petits calculs. Cette formation nous a permis de faire une bonne tenue de nos 
documents de gestion (remplissage des outils de gestion de l’association : PV des réunions, le mouvement de caisse, 
l’enregistrement des noms). 
 Village Bore, Ibissa : l’alphabétisation nous a permis de tenir les outils de gestion (tenue des PV pendant les réunion), de 
faire des correspondance. Les dettes et les recettes des activités commerciales étaient notées dans notre registre. 
Recommandations pour alphabétisation  Village Fombory : Le retour immédiat du projet NEMA pour la poursuite de l’alphabétisation a fin d’augmenter le nombre 
de personnes qui peuvent lire, écrire et faire des petits calculs.
 Village Ibissa : Renforcer les capacités des membres en lecture, calcul et en écrire. Augmenter le nombre d’auditeurs et 
appuyer a la construction d’un centre d’Alphabétisation des groupements dans le village. 
B. SILC 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
4
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Continuer Actuellement, le SILC n’est pas fonctionnel (NGono)
Depuis que les activités SILC ont commencé, 
quels changements/différences constatez-vous 
dans vos vies? (Noter les changements évoqués 
par les participants, demander des exemples 
concrets pour soutenir les propos)
 Village Ngono : Autonomie financière, Epargne –Formation d’un groupement 
 Village Fombory. Renforcement du climat social (25 membres composés de 2 hommes et 23 femmes).
Le SILC est fonctionnel et le groupement disposait des épargnes et des caisses mais actuellement les activités de SILC ont été 
arrêtées en Mais 2013 après le partage de l’argent entre les membres. Nous avons appris beaucoup de choses pendant le SILC. 
Village de Kiro : le groupement est fonctionne et création a entrainé une cohésion sociale entre les membres a travers la 
solidarité et l’entraide entre les membres du groupement. Notre revenu a augmenté nous permettant de subvenir à certains 
besoins primaires de nos familles sans demander aux maris. Nous utilisons également des légumes provenant du maraichage 
dans nos sauces.
Quelles dispositions avez-vous prises pour 
continuer les activités de SILC après le retrait 
du projet ? (noter les dispositions évoquées par 
les participants à l’entretien)
Gono, Petaka : Aucune disposition n’a été prise parce quelle attendait le retour du projet pour reprendre les activités SILC 
 Village Fombory : Réplication du SILC dans le village. SILC a été mis en place par une animatrice villageoise. Ce 
groupement est un groupement SILC de deuxième génération. Au total deux groupement ont été mis en place par le projet et 
deux autres ont été mis en par le relais communautaire
 Village Kiro : Le SILC (travail de bilan Koro) continue chez nous même après le retrait du projet. Notre dernière réunion 
est très récente et elle date du 14 Novembre 2013. Cela est consigné dans notre cahier qu’on vous a montré.
 Ibissa : le SILC est fonctionnel, la dernière réunion remonte le 11 novembre 2013
Si pas de disposition, pourquoi?
Quels sont les perspectives majeures du 
groupement depuis le retrait du projet
Village Gono, Petaka
 Apprendre la teinture 
 Apprendre la couture et vendre les habits dans le village. 
 Aider le village sur le plan de la Santé
Village Kiro :
 Continuer les activités SILC parce que nous avons compris les avantages à travers l’augmentation de nos revenus.
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
groupements du SILC ?
 Appuyer pour les AGR (activités d’embouche, Machine a coudre, Moulin), Apprentissage 
 Ajouter les thèmes de l’embouche sur la formation des membres de SILC (Fambory)
 Appuyer a la construction d’un CSCOM dans le village pour alléger la pénibilité chez les femmes. 
 Reprendre les formations sur la gestion des activités SILC en faveur de notre groupement. Ce qui permettra de renforcer 
d’avantage nos compétences dans la gestion des activités SILC 
 Eviter la période des travaux champêtres pour la mise en place des groupements SILC
Lecons apprises/ Temoignage/ proverbes. 
(Note : preter attention aux recits pertinents par 
rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de 
changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis durant 
le focus, après l’entretien approchez la personne 
et approfondissez son récit en donnant le nom, 
Témoignages : 
1. Village Dalla :
Halimatou Dicko, une femme âgée de 40 ans, mère de 6 enfants. Cette habitante du village de Dallah situé dans le cercle de 
Douentza est une ménagère qui a suivi des cours d’Alphabétisation grâce a l’intervention du projet NEMA dans leur village. 
Halimatou est la présidente du groupe SILC « Waalde Jam» qui signifie Association pour la Paix. Selon elle, avant la formation 
de leur groupement, elle était une mère de famille analphabète qui élevait ses enfants avec beaucoup de difficultés financières 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
5
sexe, l’Age, la période, le résumé sommaire) pour joindre les deux bouts. Elle a déclaré « J’étais obligée de demander de l’argent à mon mari très souvent et cela entrainait 
parfois des mésententes et des épisodes de conflits conjugaux. Si mon mari ne donnait pas d’argent, j’étais obligée de sillonner 
tout le village à la recherche crédits ou prêts » sans satisfaction. Selon, elle le SILC a créé la solidarité entre les femmes du 
village. Elle était devenue autonome faisant face à ses besoins élémentaires et ceux de ses enfants sans demander très souvent à 
son Mari. Au sein du groupement SILC, elle a également bénéficié des formations sur l’hygiène et l’alimentation des enfants. 
Elle déclare, « en plus des formations reçues, j’ai également suivi des cours d’alphabétisation, c’est ce qui a surtout ouvert mon 
esprit ». elle a maintenant un esprit ouvert, elle appris a épargner et est devenue plus autonome pour résoudre ses problèmes 
quotidiens. Pour elle, grâce au cours d’alphabétisation fonctionnelle, elle arrive à lire et écrire son nom ainsi que le nom de tous 
les membres du groupement. Pour montrer la preuve a l’équipe, après le focus group, elle a écrit le nom de toutes les femmes 
ayant participé aux discussions de groupe. En fin, Mme Halimatou, aspire à augmenter ces connaissances et entreprendre 
d’autres activités génératrices de revenu. Elle sollicite au près de Projet, de reprendre les cours d’Alphabétisation fonctionnelle 
pour les femmes de leur village. 
2. Village Kiro
Je m’appelle Noumoudjou Maiga dite Gako, j’ai 33 ans et mon numéro de téléphone est de 70585592. J’ai pris un crédit de 
10000 FCFA dans notre caisse SILC pour faire de l’embouche en payant un bouc il y a 6 mois de cela que je compte revendre 
dans un mois pour rembourser mon crédit avec un intérêt de 5 pourcent
C. Agent de Santé 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Du démarrage du projet à Mars 2012, quels 
changements avez vous constaté par rapport aux 
activité de nutrition dans les structures sanitaires 
 A Douentza, la formation du personnel de santé et des relais sur les actions essentielles en nutrition, l’hygiène et la prise en 
charge des cas de malnutrition (18 chefs de poste des CSCom, 5Agents de CSRef, 18 Aides Soignants, 18 matrones, 500 
relais communautaires en raison 5 relais par village)
 Distribution des vivres aux enfants malnutris modérés et leur ménage au niveau village
 Reference des cas sévères au CSCom 
 Supervision rapprochée des activités de nutrition sur le terrain et la formation continue de tous les acteurs (relais, agents de 
santé et animateurs) 
 Amélioration de la qualité de la prise en charge 
 élaboration des messages clés sur la nutrition, l’hygiène et la formation des animateurs de la presse locale pour la diffusion 
des messages sur les bonnes pratiques nutritionnelles et d’hygiène sanitaire 
 Construction de 17 hangars dans les CSCom pour la démonstration nutritionnelle et la diffusion des messages sur les bonnes 
pratiques nutritionnelles
changements/différences avez vous constaté 
(Points forts du projet NEMA) avant le retrait
 Augmentation du dépistage actif des cas de la malnutrition aigue et de la prise en charge des cas modérés au niveau 
communautaire par les relais communautaires et les animateurs du projet 
 Augmentation de la prise en charge des cas de malnutrition au niveau des centres du CSCom grâce à la distribution des 
vivres aux enfants malnourris modérés et la distribution de la ration de protection. Cette stratégie a entrainée une forte 
motivation des mères d’enfants pour le dépistage précoce des cas et la prise en charge immédiate au niveau communautaire.
 Diminution des cas de Malnutrition aigue sévère à référer au niveau des CSCom et du CSRef (Centre de Santé de 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
6
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
référence) suite à la prise en charge précoce et large des cas modérés
 Amélioration considérable de l’état nutritionnel des enfants de moins cinq ans grâce la distribution des vivres et aux séances 
de démonstrations au niveau des CSCom et communautaire 
 Augmentation de la consultation primaire curative au niveau des CSCom
 Renforcement de la capacité du personnel de CSCom et du CSRef pour le dépistage et la prise en charge nutritionnelle des 
cas de malnutrition (Avant le projet, je n’avais pas de formation suffisante en matière de nutrition surtout pour la prise en
charge des cas de malnutrition aigue. Avec les séries de formations organisées par nos partenaires et des supervisions 
régulières, nous avons pu améliorer considérablement la prise en charge des cas de malnutrition aiguée modérée entrainant 
ainsi une diminution des cas sévères referees dans les CSRef.
 La motivation des relais à travers les formations reçues et la distribution des vivres au niveau communautaire. 
Depuis le retrait du projet NEMA, quels 
changements/différences avez-vous constaté par 
rapport aux activités de nutrition 
 La fréquentation des CSCom a considérablement diminué et les cas de malnutrition aiguë modérée ne sont pas dépistés au 
niveau communautaire : 
 Augmentation du taux de malnutrition sévère au niveau du CSRef 
 Non fonctionnement des relais communautaires formés pendant NEMA 
Quels sont les facteurs qui ont entravé la 
continuation des activités de nutrition et de 
prise en charge des malnutris par les relais 
depuis le retrait du projet 
 Le projet s’est arrêté au moment où les acteurs impliquées dans la prise en charge et le dépistage actif avaient commencé a 
maitriser l’approche et avoir des impacts sur les indicateurs sanitaires.
 Actuellement, il y a un arrêt complet des activités de nutrition (dépistage, des démonstrations nutritionnelles et la diffusion 
des messages) par les relais communautaires qui ne fonctionnent plus à cause de la crise survenue. Apres la crise, la 
continuation des activités est bloquée à cause de la démotivation des relais, d’absence de vivres à distribuer pour les cas 
dépistés et d’absence de supervision rapprochée.
Points faibles du projet NEMA  L’inexistence d’une rencontre périodique à travers un système de monitorage des activités et des données trimestriel 
permettant de discuter tous les problèmes identifiés dans la mise en œuvre des activités du projet et proposer des solutions
conformément à la politique nationale de nutrition. 
 La non couverture de tous les villages du district sanitaire de Douentza, Sur les 262 villages, le projet ne couvert que 100 
villages représentant 100 /262. Avec les 500 relais formés, projet aurait pu prendre deux relais communautaires par village 
au lieu de 5 relais.
Quels sont les défis majeurs relatifs à la prise en 
charge des malnutris depuis le retrait du 
projet dans le centre de santé
 Avec une insuffisance du dépistage des cas de malnutrition au niveau communautaire, l’insuffisance de personnel et surtout 
le départ du MSF avec qui nous avons instauré un système de gratuité, notre défis majeur reste le maintient du niveau de 
prise en charge des cas de malnutrition sévère et la mise en place des activités de prévention pour le dépistage précoce et la 
prise en charge des cas modérés de la malnutrition. Ce défi ne pourra être relevé sans l’appui de nos partenaires avec la 
reprise des activités dans les différents villages du Douentza : 
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations avez￾vous afin de mieux renforcer les acquis dans le 
cadre de la nutrition (amélioration de l’état 
nutritionnel des enfants de moins de 5 ans)? 
 Nous sollicitons le retour du projet et la reprise des différentes activités dans 100 villages qui étaient couverts en mettant 
l’accent sur la formation de deux relais par village.
 Reprendre le dépistage actif des cas de malnutrition modéré au niveau communautaire avec la distribution des vivres aux 
enfants malnourris
 Reprendre les activités de renforcement des capacités des acteurs impliqués dans la prise en charge de la malnutrition aigue 
à travers l’organisation des formations de recyclage pour les anciens (tous les relais communautaires et le personnel de 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
7
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
santé) et la formation des nouveaux agents de Santé en nutrition (Actions essentielles) et sur le protocole national de prise 
en charge de nutrition)
 En collaboration avec les structures sanitaires, mettre en place un système de monitorage régulier des activités de nutrition
développées sur le terrain.
 Des réflexions sur un système de motivation des relais communautaires pour assurer la durabilité de leurs activités sur le 
terrain
D. PD/Hearth 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
1. Selon vous quels ont été les avantages de 
votre participation au Foyer ? [On 
voudrait savoir quels bénéfices vous avez 
tiré du foyer.]
 Apprendre à faire les repas de l’enfant 
 Nous avons appris comment préparer la bouillie enrichie pour les enfants permettant d’éviter les maladies chez les enfants, 
 leur rendre propre, Nous avons appliquée ces pratiques dans nos ménages (Oualo)
2. Au cours des activités au Foyer Hearth, 
quelles difficultés avez-vous rencontrées ? 
[On cherche par exemple à savoir si elles 
ont eu des problèmes de trouver le temps 
de participer plein temps.]
 Difficultés d’obtention des condiments 
 Heure de rencontre
 Beaucoup de travaux
a. Quelles solutions avez-vous trouvées?  Cotisation des femmes pour payer les condiments (arachide et mil)
 Solidarité pour faire les travaux
Selon vous, quels sont les changements 
survenus sur l’état nutritionnel et sanitaire de 
vos enfants 
 Gain de poids. Les enfants ont rapidement gagné du poids 
 Meilleures santé pour les enfants, les enfants ne tombaient pas malades souvent
3. Actuellement, quelle appréciation faites￾vous de l’état nutritionnel des enfants dans 
votre village ? 
 Il y a plusieurs cas de malnutrition et les femmes sont obligées de se déplacer pour aller à Douentza
 Prise de poids, amélioration de l’état des enfants. La qualité des repas enrichis avec la farine du mil, poudre de pain de 
singe, laro (Mil arachide, oiselle de guinée, huile, poisson fumee).
 Bouillie enrichie avec les produits locaux (Oualo)
 Les enfants participants ont gardé leur poids et leur bonne santé (Fombori)
4. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont influencé ces 
changements survenus chez les enfants (la 
situation nutritionnelle des enfants) ?
 Les mamans venaient à Douentza pour le plumpy nuts 
 Mauvaise récolte dans le village 
 Les enfants ne pleurent plus et étaient accueillant (Fombori)
 Appuient du relais et le plumpy nuts reçu a Douentza 
5. Continuez-vous d’appliquer les bonnes 
pratiques nutritionnelles apprises pendant 
le foyer ? (noter les raisons avancées)
a. Si oui, demander pourquoi 
 Nous continuons des pratiques apprises pendant le projet. Nous avons également organisé des séances de démonstrations 
avec les recettes de la bouillie enrichies au haricot. 
 Le dépistage par l’utilisation du MUAC qui est irrégulier et la dernière activité du relais remonte à mai 2012
 Moins de Maladies chez les enfants (Ouala)
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
8
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
 Continue les bonnes pratiques apprises pendant le foyer au niveau des différents ménages avec l’appui du relais(Fombori)
1. Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en 
place pour continuer avec les bonnes 
pratiques (nutrition, Hygiène, 
assainissement) que vous apprises dans le 
foyer? (noter toutes les dispositions
 Nous continuons des pratiques apprises pendant le projet. Nous avons également organisé des séances de démonstrations 
avec les recettes de la bouillie enrichies au haricot
 La vulgarisation des bonnes pratiques à travers la visite dans les ménages (hygiène corporelle, lavage des mains..)
 Continuation d’appliquer les pratiques dans les ménages (Oualo). Nous continuons à aménager dans nos ménages respectifs
 Séchage et conservation de la poudre de Mil pour augmenter la disponibilité dans le ménage (Fombori). 
6. Depuis le retrait du projet Quels sont les 
difficultés majeures rencontrées pour la 
continuation avec les bonnes pratiques 
(nutrition, Hygiène, assainissement)? 
 Manque de Menu
 Pas de rencontre pour l’organisation du foyer 
 Coïncidence avec les travaux champêtre 
 Non assistance des maris pour les dépenses (Fombory). 
 Non application des bonnes pratiques par les mères qui n’ont pas participé au foyer 
 à cause de la paresse de certaines mères
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les 
suggestions évoquées par les participants à 
l’entretien)
 Refaire la mobilisation avec le chef de village et ses conseillers 
 Reprendre les activités de pesée dans le village en impliquant toute la communauté 
 Ouala. Nous souhaitons la reprise du foyer, sollicitons la construction d’une cuisine, nous voulons le retour du projet. 
 Poursuivre la sensibilisation des mères dans le village en faisant des témoignages pour amener les autres mères a adopter les
bonnes pratiques. 
E. PECIMA 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Femmes
Quels sont les signes de la malnutrition Fombory, Oualo,Niongolon, Petaka, Mougi, Dalla, Gono, Manko, Bore
 Ce sont les agents de santé qui connaissent les signes. Les mamans amenaient les enfants au centre pour d’autres maladies 
 Maigreur des enfants, 
 Les enfants sales 
Selon vous, quels étaient les enfants auxquels 
cette assistance vivres (critère) (farine, Huile, 
sucre du MYAP/ NEMA) était destinées
 Cette assistance était destinée aux enfants malnutris 
 Enfant malnutri (périmètre brachial jaune)
Que pensez-vous de cette assistance pour les 
enfants malnutris admis au niveau des Centre de 
Santé / villages
 L’assistance avait permis de guérir les enfants 
 L’assistance pour les enfants malnourris au centre de Sante a permis d’améliorer leur état nutritionnel (augmentation du 
poids) et les enfants étaient également plus actif, plus joyeux
 Amélioration de l’état de sante des enfants 
 Augmentation de poids 
 Hygiène corporelle
 Croissance des enfants 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
9
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Selon vous, quels sont les (Impact sur la sante 
des enfant) changements survenus sur l’état 
nutritionnel et sanitaire de vos enfants grâce à 
cette assistance?
 Le nombre d’enfants malnourris avaient diminué grâce à l’assistance du NEMA avec les dons de Farine, huile et sucre 
 Avant le projet, les mères ne fréquentaient pas le centre de sante, le lavage des mains n’étaient pas dans les habitudes. Grace 
au projet, les mères ont appris les bonnes habitudes d’hygiène et alimentaires.
 Les enfants qui ont bénéficié d’appui du projet gardent encore un bon poids et la santé
Depuis que cette assistance a été arrêtée, quels 
changements avez-vous constaté chez les 
enfants de moins de cinq ans dans le village?
 Actuellement, il n’y a pas de dépistage des enfants dans notre communauté, comme on ne connaît pas les signes de la 
malnutrition, on se sait pas si elle a augmenté ou pas. 
 Une recrudescence de la malnutrition et les enfants était obligée de se déplacer jusqu’à Douentza 
 Arrêt de l’assistance n’a pas affecte la sante des enfants 
 Poursuite des pratiques alimentaires apprises pendant le projet. 
 Les enfants ont faim et les signes de malnutrition ont commence a apparaître 
Quelles dispositions avez-vous mise en place 
dans votre village pour aider les enfants 
malnutris depuis l’arrêt de cette assistance ? ? 
(noter toutes
 Aucune disposition n’a été mise en place par manque de moyen des enfants 
Quels changements significatifs avez-vous 
constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq 
ans. Pendant le projet NEMA 
 Amélioration du poids des enfants et de leur sante 
 La santé des enfants s’est améliorée, les enfants étaient joyeux et s’amusaient beaucoup. 
 Diversification alimentaire à travers la prise en charge,
Quels changements significatifs avez-vous 
constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq 
ans. Actuellement projet NEMA 
 La santé des enfants est moins meilleure qu’avant parce qu’ils ne bénéficient pas l’assistance du projet (vivres)
 Les enfants souffrent de la malnutrition et pas d’assistance 
 Les enfants ont augmente de poids et leur sante s’est amélioré (pour ceux dont les mères ont participé au foyer elles refont 
les menus a la maison)
 Actuellement il y a une augmentation du taux de mortalité a augmente à cause de la malnutrition dans leur village (Oualo)
 Village Ibissa : Les enfants sont malades par manque d’argent pour la prise en charge des soins. Depuis les évènements, le 
centre de santé a été fermé et il y aucun enfant agent 
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les 
suggestions évoquées par les participants à 
l’entretient 
Leçons apprises 
 Augmenter de l’assistance envers les enfants malnourris à travers l’octroi des médicaments 
 Augmenter des séances de formation en nutrition
 La reprise du projet NEMA pour la poursuite des activités d’assistance en faveur des enfants malnourris. 
 Reprise des activités par le projet NEMA et renforcer la formation des mères sur la nutrition des enfants
Village Ibissa : Reprendre la formation des femmes dans le cadre du foyer et des activités de nutrition dans le village
 Le projet nous a permis d’acquérir des connaissances en matière de nutrition, hygiène, santé que nous appliquons dans notre 
famille et que nous transmettons aux autres pour s’en approprier 
Je m’appelle Aissata Ongoiba, 34 ans, mère de 6 enfants du village de fombori. Je suis membre du SILC et j’ai participé dans le 
foyer avec mon 5eme enfant du nom de Hawa. elle avait 12 mois au moment où j’ai fait le foyer avec elle. Les relais et l’ADC 
du projet avaient mesuré tous les enfants de moins de 5 ans du village et m’ont dit que Hawa était malnourris dans la bande 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
10
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
jaune (mesure anthropométrique du Poids pour Age). Ma fille Hawa était une des 16 enfants qui étaient dans la même situation 
de malnutrition. Nous avons fait plusieurs semaines avec ces 16 enfants et leurs mères pour apprendre à faire de la bouillie 
enrichie, du tô avec la sauce du poisson fumer et le laro. Nos enfants ont bien appréciés certaines recettes. Au cours du 
déroulement du foyer, on nous a appris aussi à se laver les mains avant de manger le repas ou après la toilette mais également 
avant de donner à manger à nos enfants, laver nos enfants, laver les ustensiles, balayer et jouer avec nos enfants.
A la fin de cette rencontre Hawa est devenu plus grosse et plus joyeuse. Elle garde toujours son bon état même maintenant. 
Apres Hawa, j’ai eu Adiaratou qui est aujourd’hui âgée de 2 ans avec laquelle j’ai appliqué des bonnes pratiques apprises 
pendant le cas de Hawa, mes connaissances de soins aux enfants et de la préparation des recettes de bouillies que nous avons 
faites pendant le foyer . Elle aussi est en bonne santé et à un << joli corps potelé
F. CHVs (Relais) 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Relais
Continuez vous les activités après le retrait le 
projet 
Gono, Fombori, Petaka, Dalla, Oualo ,Kiro, Fombory, Oualo,Niongolon, Petaka, Mougi, Dalla, Gono, Manko, Bore
 Depuis le retrait du projet, nous n’avons fait aucune activité parce qu’on avait peur de se regrouper pendant la crise
 On ne mène aucune activité par manque de motivation depuis le retrait du projet dans notre localité
Les principales activités qui étaient menées par 
les relais communautaire 
Gono, Fombori, Petaka, Dalla, Oualo ,Kiro, Fombory, Oualo,Niongolon, Petaka, Mougi, Dalla, Gono, Manko, Bore
 La mesure des bras des enfants (Périmètre brachial)
 Identification des enfants malnourris avec prise en charge des modérés (Bande jaune) et la référence des cas sévères (Bande 
rouge) au niveau du centre de Santé
 Appui à la distribution des vivres au niveau communautaire aux enfants malnourris modérés et leurs mères 
 Renouvellement de la liste des enfants après chaque trois mois d’assistance en nutrition 
 Suivi de l’état nutritionnel des enfants avec le périmètre brachial. 
Quels changements significatifs avez-vous 
constatés chez votre enfant de moins de cinq 
ans. Pendant le projet NEMA
Village Oualo. Nous avions constaté que les enfants malnourris grossissaient et il y avait une amélioration de leur état 
nutritionnel. Ils étaient devenus joyeux et vigoureux). Les mamans étaient très contentes de voir leur enfant. 
Village Fombori. Les enfants s’amusaient entre eux et nous laissaient faire nos travaux. Ils nous accueillaient avec joie à notre 
retour à la maison
Maintenant, Quels changements significatifs 
avez-vous constatés chez votre enfant de moins 
de cinq ans. Apres le projet NEMA 
 Village Oualo : Aujourd’hui, nous ne travaillons pas à cause du retrait brusque du projet et nous ne pouvons pas donner une 
nette comparaison sur l’état nutritionnel de l’enfant 
 Ngono, Fombory, Petaka, Dalla, Kiro. Actuellement, nous ne continuons à mener les activités de nutrition depuis le retrait 
du projet mais nous constatons une augmentation des cas de malnutrition surtout après la crise, les enfants sont souvent 
malades et amaigris. Certains continuent a partir aux CSCom pour recevoir l’aliment plumpy nut. D’autres restent au 
village à cause de la distance.
 Fombori : on constate aussi beaucoup de décès des enfants surtout avec les travaux champêtres. 
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
activités de nutrition Hearth ? (noter toutes les 
Ngono, Fombory, Petaka, Dalla, Oualo
 Reprise du projet NEMA avec un accent particulier sur la nutrition des enfants
 Apporter les vivres pour les enfants car cette année les récoltes ne sont pas bonnes
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
11
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
suggestions évoquées par les participants à 
l’entretient 
 Mettre en place un système de motivation des relais pour la réalisation des activités . 
Leçons apprises Relais de Oualo. Je m’appelle, Souley Maba. Relais du village de Oualo. Avant le projet NEMA, je n’avais aucune notion sur 
la nutrition et sur la reconnaissance de la malnutrition chez les enfants. Grâces aux formations reçues et les activités menées 
avec le projet NEMA, j’ai appris comment reconnaître la malnutrition chez un enfant même s’il n’est pas malade. J’ai appris 
également comment dépister la malnutrition au niveau communautaire et comme conseiller les femmes pour la préparation des 
recettes riches en vitamines pour les enfants. Je souhaite revoir le projet NEMA dans mon village pour continuer avec les 
activités de nutrition qui avaient beaucoup aidé les enfants et les mamans de notre village. L’état nutritionnel et de santé des 
enfants était bien amélioré. Avec le retrait brusque du projet NEMA et la crise, toutes les activités ont été arrêtées même si 
certaines femmes continuent à appliquer les bonnes pratiques d’alimentation apprises dans leur ménage, Il y a encore beaucoup 
de femmes dans notre village qui ne connaissent pas ces pratiques, c’est pourquoi nous sollicitons la reprise rapide et 
immédiate des activités avec le projet NEMA 
G. Filet de Sécurité Alimentaire 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Leaders communautaires
Impact de la Crise (incursion rebelle sur la 
population 
Pouvez-vous décrire comment la sélection des 
bénéficiaires du filet de sécurité a été faite? 
Fambory, Ngono, Ouala , Kiro, Bore
 Les vulnérables sont choisis par le chef de village et ses conseiller
 Réunion des conseils du village. Distribution des cartes aux bénéficiaires (Personnes vulnérables identifiées).
 Village Oualo Réunion communautaire a travers une assemblée organisée par les leaders pour l’identification des personnes 
vulnérables dans le village (Ouala) en se basant sur les critères de vulnérabilité définie.
Quels sont les critères de ciblages des 
bénéficiaires
Les critères de sélections sont définis par le projet NEMA (Fambory, Ngono, Ouala , Kiro)
 Femmes veuves
 Personnes âgées sans enfants 
 Personnes âgées abandonnées par leurs enfants dans le village. 
 Pauvres (N’ont pas à manger) 
 Handicapé 
 Victimes d’inondations 
Apres le retrait du projet la communauté a continué à utiliser les mêmes critères pour sélectionner les personnes vulnérables
dans le village (Avec HCR et Islamique Relief) (Gono)
Que pensez-vous de l’impact du filet de sécurité 
(distribution gratuite des vivres) mené dans le 
cadre du programme NEMA dans votre village 
(Impact sur la vie des plus vulnérables)?
Fambory, Ngono, Ouala , Kiro, Bore
 Maintenir les personnes vulnérables dans le village
 permet aux personnes vulnérables d’économiser de l’argent pour faire face à d’autres problèmes à la scolarité de leur 
enfants, santé, fourniture scolaire pour les enfants 
 Ces personnes étaient une charge pour la communauté leur appui a diminué la charge de la communauté 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
12
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
 Quiétude dans la communauté et l’esprit de solidarité envers les personnes vulnérables et renforcement de la cohésion sociale
dans le village
 Soutient des personnes vulnérables pendant la période de soudure. Appui des vulnérable sans aucune autre condition. 
 D’éviter de s’endetter, ou quémander et garder leur dignité humaine (Village Gono) et n’avait plus de souci pour la 
recherche des vivres. 
 (Oualo village) : Allègement de la charge sociale au niveau communautaire pour la prise en charge des personnes vulnérables
 Diminuer les charges de la communauté envers les personnes vulnérables (Fambory) et la diminution de l’exode des bras 
valides 
Quelles ont été les faiblesses/ difficultés dans la 
mise en œuvre du filet de sécurité dans le cadre 
du NEMA ? (noter toutes les faiblesses 
évoquées)
 La crise est venue arrêtée le processus
 Présence d’insectes dans la farine de Semoule 
 Village Kiro : Nous avons souvent rencontrée des difficultés dans la mise œuvre du filet de sécurité alimentaire pour les 
vulnérables. Si par exemple on écrit 25 personnes comme bénéficiaires, à l ‘arrivée des vivres, on reçoit seulement pour 20 
personnes lors de la distribution. Les 5 autres personnes vulnérables identifiées ne bénéficiaient pas de ces vivres. Cela créait 
souvent des frustrations parmi ces personnes identifiées pour recevoir des vivres et ils retournent chez eux sans aucune ration 
alimentaire
Au niveau communautaire, quelles sont les 
stratégies mise en place pour soutenir les plus 
vulnérables à l’absence du projet? (noter toutes 
les stratégies soulignées)
Fambory, Ngono, Ouala , Kiro, Bore
 Avec le retrait brusque du projet NEMA, comme dans la tradition, la communauté fait des gestes de solidarité envers ces 
personnes vulnérables Octroi des zakat et des zakats/aumônes (NGono)
 Appui a travers les actions de solidarité traditionnelle (Aumône, 
 Village (Oualo) : La communauté continue avec le système traditionnel d’appui aux vulnérables a travers des aumônes, 
Zakat et des dons volontaires. 
 Soutien traditionnel (Fambory) : solidarité familiale 
 A Kiro, les vulnérables sont soutenus par toute la communauté à travers les actions de solidarité en les aidant à cultiver leur 
champ de la préparation des travaux jusqu’à la récolte des champs, en les appuyant pour les cérémonies de baptêmes et de 
mariage
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations 
avez-vous dans le cadre de la réduction de 
l’insécurité alimentaire au niveau de groupes 
les plus vulnérables?
Fambory, Ngono, Ouala , Kiro, Bore
 Les personnes vulnérables constituent une charge, leur soutient reste indispensable pour améliorer leur situation de sécurité
alimentaire
 Reprendre les activités au village et Augmenter la quantité des vivres devant être distribués aux personnes vulnérables 
(Fambory, Ngono ; Kiro)
 Le projet devrait mettre un accent sur les AGR en faveur des groupes vulnérables 
 Faciliter la mise en place d’une structure sanitaire dans le village pour augmenter l’accessibilité des femmes et des personnes 
vulnérables aux services de santé 
 Mettre en place des centre Alpha pour la formation des groupes cibles (Groupement, association) en Alphabétisation
 Appui en intrants pour se prendre en charge après le retrait du projet (Fambory)
 Formation des payants en technique d’aménagement des périmètres rizicoles et pour augmenter la profondeur des retenues 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
13
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
d’eau pour la riziculture. (Village Kiro)
Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ 
proverbes.(Note : prêter attention aux récits 
pertinents par rapports aux réussites, 
histoires de changements) 
Le témoignage d’un leader : L’appui à travers le filet de sécurité aux vulnérables nous rappelle de l’appui de parents pendant 
la grande sècheresse survenue vers 1945 pendant la période coloniale. A cette époque, nous parents ont reçu des aides a travers 
la distribution des vivres. C’est qui avait sauvé tout le village de la faim. L’appui du NEMA en faveur des personnes 
vulnérables ressemble à cette situation. Nous pouvons dire que l’appui du NEMA a sauvé tout le village surtout les plus 
personnes vulnérables pendant les périodes difficiles. La charge de la population a été aussi allégée surtout pendant ces 
périodes difficiles. Nous sollicitons que Le Projet NEMA reprenne ces activités dans notre village pour achever les travaux et 
les bonnes initiatives que nous avons entreprises ensemble. (Village Oualo)
H. FFW—Leaders 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Leaders 
Quels sont les avantages tirés des activités 
FFW 
 Dans notre village (Oualo), nous avons eu des avantages doubles (Double gains) dans le cadre de vivre contre le travail, nous
avons bénéficié des ouvrages (Construction du Radie, Périmètre Maraicher et deux puits) et des vivres. La construction des 
ouvrages nous a permis de réduire les difficultés pour joindre le village pendant la saison hivernage. L’enseignant du village 
affirme que la réalisation du radier a eu un impact sa consommation en Carburant. Cette consommation est passée de 1 litre 
avant la construction des radiers à 0,5 litres après la construction. Sans le radiers, ils parcourraient 6 km pour atteindre le 
village mais après la construction, la distance a été réduite à moitie (3 km seulement à parcourir). La clôture du périmètre 
maraicher a permis de diminuer la déforestation, la coupure des arbres et également la protection du périmètre contre la 
divagation des animaux. 
 Village Fombory : Le vivre pour travail a permis de réduire l’impact de la période de soudure dans certains ménages qui ont 
bénéficié des vivres. Les vivres sont venus trouver que certaines famille n’avaient pas a manger mais ces famille ont 
bénéficie des vivres pendant le travail et cela leur a permis de cultiver les champs et éviter l’humiliation vis à vis des autres 
ménages et de leur semblable. 
 Village Kiro : Les activités de Vivres contre le travail nous a apporté beaucoup d’avantage. En plus des vivres que nous 
avons bénéficié, le FFW nous a permis d’aménager nos périmètres rizicoles. Cette distribution des vivres nous a permis 
pendant les période difficiles (période de soudure) de couvrir nos besoins alimentaires et de faire des travaux physiques dans 
nos champs. En plus de ces avantages, l’activité aura permis de retenir les jeunes dans le village en freinage l’exode rural et 
d’avoir des connaissances en matière de nouvelles techniques pour la riziculture. Il y a eu aussi un renforcement de la 
solidarité entre les membres de la communauté pour entreprendre ensemble des activités d’intérêt commun. 
 Village Bore : l’aménagement des points de retenus d’eau dans la marre a permis d’augmenter la disponibilité d’eau dans la 
mare (cours d’eau) pendant les 12 mois de l’année. Nous produisons les pépinières de riz pour les transplanter pendant la 
période culturale. Il y a également une disponibilité d’eau pour les femmes pour faire les lessives et pour entreprendre les 
activités maraîchères pendant la saison sèche. Les caïmans sont préservés et restent dans la retenue d’eau pendant toute 
l’année. Avant la construction des retenues d’eau, les caïmans n’étaient pas protéger, et beaucoup d’entre eux mouraient 
pendant la saison sèche (Avril et Mai). Actuellement, les avantages de la retenue d’eau ont dépassé nos attentes. Les vivres
contre le travail, nous a également permis de bénéficier les vivres et des matériels de travail.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
14
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Quelles suggestions et recommandations 
faites-vous pour renforcer les acquis du 
projet?
 Village Kiro : La difficulté majeure était que nos femmes ne savaient pas comment préparer certains aliments qui n’étaient 
pas dans nos habitudes alimentaires (comme le petit pois et la semoule). Les vivres ont été également livrés seulement après 
les activités. Les matériels sont également arrivés en retard dans le village. Ces matériels n’étaient pas résistant, de bonne 
qualité et n’étaient pas adapté à nos sols argileux :
 Village Bore : L’Herbe plante en bordure de la mare n’a pas reçu à cause de la crise 
Leçons apprises/ Témoignage/ proverbes. 
(Note : prêter attention aux récits pertinents 
par rapports aux réussites, échec histoires de 
changements, si ces aspects sont ressortis 
durant le focus, après l’entretien approchez 
la personne et approfondissez son récit en 
donnant le nom, sexe, l’Age, la période, le 
résumé sommaire) 
Témoignage sur le Food for Work : Focus avec les Sages du Villages Dallah
Selon les sages, les activités du FFW ont eu un impact significatif sur le niveau de sécurité alimentaire de leur village. Les 
travaux de FFW ont Coïncidée au début de la période de soudure dans le village. « Dans notre village, le vivre contre le travail 
a permis à certains ménagé de protéger les semences pour la production agricole, le début de FFW a trouvé que certains 
ménages avaient déjà commencé à consommer une partie de leur semence ». Parlant de l’impact des digues, malgré que 
l’inachèvement de l’infrastructure, les sages étaient tous unanimes pour affirmer que la réalisation des digues a créé de la 
quiétude dans le village en réduisant la peur constante qui était liée à des inondations répétées des habitations dont les ménages 
étaient victimes. Pour les sages, chaque année le village était victime d’inondation avec la destruction des habitations et des 
greniers. « Grace à Dieu et l’intervention du projet, le phénomène d’inondation répétée a été maitrisée et cette digue joue un 
grand rôle dans le village, nous sollicitons au près du projet, pour la reprise des travaux afin d’achever cet ouvrage si important 
pour le village. 
I. FFW— Participants 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Comment avez-vous été choisi comme 
participants au VCT (approfondir la question 
en tenant compte de la participation des 
femmes)? (noter le processus)
-choix de 10 hommes et 10 femmes
Quels sont les appuis que le projet a apportés 
lors de la réalisation de l’infrastructure ? 
(noter les appuis énumérés par les participants, 
demander les quantités)
Dalla, Kiro, Bore
 Matériels (marteau, pelle, brouette, les fut, boite pharmaceutiques
 Octroi des vivres 
 Mise a disposition de main qualifiée
Quelle est votre appréciation de la qualité des 
infrastructures réalisées ? (noter les 
appréciations)
 Matériels fournis existent encore 
 La qualité des matériels n’était bonne (village Kiro)
Quels sont les avantages tirés des activités 
FFW 
 Village Dalla : C’était l’une des meilleures stratégies du projet du projet NEMA, car toutes les activités ont été menées pour 
les communautés avec la participation active. La distribution des vivres a surtout créé un engouement populaire et une forte 
motivation de la communautaire pour la réalisation des infrastructures communautaire. 
 Les vivres ont contribué à la satisfaction de leur besoin. Les vivres sont venus de la période de soudure
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
15
 Réduction de l’exode rurale (nous avons constaté la réduction de l’exode rurale des jeunes dans le village 
 La construction de la digue a permis de sécuriser le village contre les inondations pendant les saisons pluvieuses et 
augmenter les surfaces cultivables à travers la déviation de l’eau par la déviation 
Quelles appréciations faites-vous de la 
distribution des vivres (période de la 
distribution, qualité, quantité, etc.) ? (noter 
les réponses par rapport aux différents 
paramètres période, quantité et qualité)
Fombory, Dalla , Kiro
 la période de distribution des vivres coïncident à la période des vivres
 Double bénéficie, le village a bénéficié de l’infrastructure et rations alimentaires
 Engouement de la communauté au tour des FFW
 Les vivres sont venus pendant la période de soudure 
Quels sont les aspects à améliorer dans la 
réalisation des infrastructures utilisant le 
food for Work /VCT?
Villages Fombory, Dalla 
 Augmenter la quantité du matériel distribué 
 Les ouvriers locaux doivent être accompagnés par les œuvres qualifiés pour assurer leur formation 
 Les abreuvoirs sont très profonds et ne respectent pas les normes techniques 
Quelles suggestions et recommandations 
faites-vous pour renforcer les acquis du 
projet?
Village Dalla
 Augmenter la quantité de la ration alimentaire et Ajouter l’Huile 
 Reprendre la suite des travaux pour finaliser la digue 
 Retour immédiat du projet NEMA et les aider à augmenter la superficie du périmètre marcher
 Augmenter la longueur du Radier et augmenter la quantité des vivres a distribuer 
Village Kirio : Augmenter la profondeur de la retenue d’eau et revoir la composition des aliments en fonction des habitudes 
alimentaires de la population.
J. Alpha 
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
Homme (formateurs)
Pour ceux qui n’appliquent pas les formations 
reçues, demander pourquoi? 
Depuis la crise les séances d’alpha ont été arrêtées 
Quels sont les effets de la formation en 
alphabétisation sur vos activités quotidiennes en 
tant que membres de votre groupement? (Note à 
l’enquêteur : approfondir la question, demander 
à avoir des exemples individuels pour illustrer 
les effets)
- Savoir lire, calculer, écrire les messages téléphoniques, faire des correspondances entre les villages.
 Tenir les procès verbaux des associations 
 Actuellement, avec la campagne, ils servent de leur connaissance pour faire la liste pour les partis politiques. 
Quelles dispositions avez-vous prises pour 
continuer les activités Alpha après le retrait du 
projet ? (noter les dispositions évoquées par les 
participants à l’entretien)
 Organisation des séances de lecture entre les formateurs 
Quels sont les aspects qui pourraient être 
améliorés pour consolider les acquis de 
l’alphabétisation dans votre village?
 Renforcement des capacités des formations 
 Fixer un salaire pour les formateurs 
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex IV. Qualitative Data from the Focus Groups. December 30, 2013. 
16
Questions Les Idées Maitresses
 Assurer le suivi-évaluation des activités Alpha pendant les formations Alpha. 
 Avoir une salle de formations équipées pour les formateurs Alpha 
 Créer des cadres d’échange d’expériences entre les formateurs 
Quelles suggestions ou recommandations faites￾vous dans le cadre du suivi et renforcement des 
activités d’alphabétisation
 Renforcer la sensibilisation au niveau communautaire pour une adhésion de la population
 Apres la formation, les formateurs villageois devraient bénéficier les attestation de formation. 
 Village Bore : Motiver les formateurs Alpha et payer les reliquats de salaire des formateurs.
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
Annex VI. 
Photo Essay Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation 
1
6.1. Evaluation Methodology 
Enumerator Training and Final Revision of the 
Forms (November 11-12, 2013): A two-day workshop 
was organized at the Caritas/Mali office in Sevare, 
during which the core survey team (led by Dr. Sidibe 
and Isack Dolo) facilitated an in-depth review of the 
semi-structured discussion guide and conducted an 
in-class simulated pilot test of the forms. During this 
same time period, the CRS M&E Specialists 
Boureima Sacko and Isack Dolo prepared a series of 
pre-coded data-entry tools (masques) to facilitate 
real-time data entry and analysis. 
Field Interviews and Initial Data Entry and 
Analysis (November 14-23, 2013): The field portion 
of the exercise was led by two inter-partner teams 
over an eight-10-day period in Bourem and 
Douentza. The teams interviewed a total of 1124 
people (482 [43%] of them women) in 117 focus 
group discussions (38 at Bourem and 79 at 
Douentza) with different groups. To facilitate 
real-time data analysis and write up, the team 
leaders facilitated an initial debriefing and data 
entry session at the end of each field day. 
Stakeholder Debriefings (December 6, 2013): A 
final debriefing with representatives of major 
partners HKI, SCI, CRS, and Caritas/Mali was 
held on Friday, December 6, 2013, followed by a 
brief debriefing of the principal conclusions with 
USAID/Mali Title II Manager John Mullenax. 
Enumerator training at the Caritas Local Office in 
Sevare (November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Data collection using the food security calendars to 
measure the Nema’s impact of household food security 
(MAHFP) before, during and after Nema in the village of 
Fombori (November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
2
6.2. S01: Livelihood Strategies More Profitable 
and Resilient 
Gender Integration: The program’s strong 
focus on gender insured that women were 
very strongly involved in almost all the 
SO1 activities and cross-cutting FFW and 
safety net activities. The Nema targets for 
women’s participation in the AEG resulted 
in a much higher representation of women 
in this activity than was anticipated, almost 
equivalent to the participation of men. 
Many women and Groups still practice the 
production techniques they learned 
Current Level of Functioning of the 
AEGs Interviewed: The majority of the 
groups that were interviewed in the final qualitative survey were considered ‘functional’. 
The researchers identified a functional group as one that continued to work on its business 
plan (plan d’affaire), organized meetings, kept minutes on the meetings, and where the 
amount of money the group had in the bank was known to the AEG members. The two 
groups that were assessed as ‘non-functional’ were groups that were no longer able to 
account for the money they received and/or had divided the group’s operating capital (fonds 
de caisse) between the members and no longer conducted meetings. 
AEG stall feeding operation in the village of Mogui 
(Douentza) (November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Rice harvest from the rice plain held by a member of 
the AEG group at Manko (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Sidibe Sidikiba).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
3
Current Level of Functioning of the SILCs 
Interviewed:
• 13 of the 15 groups that were 
interviewed during the qualitative final 
evaluation are considered functional in that 
they still consider themselves to be a group 
and they still have their core funding.
• The principal reasons given for low 
lending level of the groups were varied and 
generally related to the high level of 
insecurity in the zone. 
• Despite these problems, all 15 SILCs 
interviewed reported that they were still 
getting together regularly, still contributing 
small amounts to the group savings 
program, and still contributing to the social fund; even 10 of the 12 groups still had 
their bank accounts. 
• In general, however, the SILCs were not circulating the funds (through loans) at the 
same level they had during Nema’s support, which is completely understandable 
given the high levels of insecurity in the zone. 
• A key theme that emerged during the SILC focus groups was the impact that each 
group’s membership in the SILC had on their ability to manage the crisis. 
Members of a SILC at Moudankane (Bourem) (November 
2013) (Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
4
Current Level of Functioning of the FFW-Supported 
Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral 
Infrastructure: A total of 30 of the 143 agro-sylvo￾pastoral infrastructures created by the program 
during Years 1-4 to help local communities build 
agro-enterprise development and better manage risk 
were visited during the final qualitative survey. This 
survey showed that 85% of the completed 
infrastructures were still functional, though the level 
of maintenance was lower than desired in most 
cases. 
Only one of the infrastructures visited—a fully 
operational perimetre marachiere (irrigated vegetable 
garden) in the village of Oualo—was completely non￾functional (locked up) for more than one year. The 
reasons for the non-functioning of this infrastructure 
are not fully understood, but appear to be related to internal problems within the AEG that was in 
charge of it. 
Current status of a dune fixation project built with Nema 
food for work at Djindo (Bourem) (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Well created to promote irrigated gardening at Boumbam 
(Douentza) (November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo). 
S01 FFW Irrigated Gardening Perimeter at Oualo 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Sidibe Sidikiba).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
5
6.3. S02: Children Under 5 Years Less 
Vulnerable to Illness and Malnutrition 
Activities of the Nema-Created Health Committees 
and Nema-Trained Community Health Volunteers 
(November 2013): Based on the focus group 
discussions conducted during the final qualitative 
survey, the evaluation concluded that:
• Most of the committees set up by the program 
to support the program’s nutrition, hygiene, and 
sanitation activities are not functional (e.g. Health 
committees, Adduction D'eau Sommaire [AES] 
management committee, etc.);
• In most of the villages visited, the Ministry of 
Health’s CHVs that Nema had trained (650 
community-based volunteers, 500 in Douentza and 
150 in Bourem) were no longer actively supporting 
any sort of health and nutrition activities although a 
few them did appear to participate in CSCOM outreach activities for vaccination; and 
• Almost all the Nema community-based nutrition activities (growth monitoring, replication of 
PD/Hearth activities, and household nutrition demonstration) stopped soon after the program 
withdrawal. 
The only functional CHV was found in one Bourem village—Moundekane--where he conducts 
screening of malnourished children in partnership with the NGO Médecins sans Frontières (MSF). 
Several groups of beneficiaries that met during the focus groups attributed these setbacks to the lack 
of Nema food to care for malnourished children: 
• "Since the withdrawal of the program, we did not conduct any activity because we were 
afraid to get together during the crisis"; and others asserted 
• "We did not conduct any activity due to lack of motivation and food since the withdrawal of 
the program from our community." 
Nutrition and Sanitation Practices of the Mothers Who Participated in the PD/Hearth Activities:	
  	
  
The results of the final evaluation focus group sessions with the mothers of malnourished children 
suggest that some mothers continue to apply improved feeding and hygiene practices learned 
especially during the Nema program despite the complete cessation of growth monitoring of 
children by the CHVs. This was especially true in the villages benefitting from the Nema-sponsored 
PD/Hearth activities. During the focus groups, the women testified that:
• “We continue the practices learned during the program and we also organized 
demonstrations sessions with porridge recipes fortified with beans;" 
• “We continue to apply the practices in households (Oualo Village);” and 
• “We are drying and storing millet powder to increase its availability in the household which 
facilitates the preparation of fortified porridge (Hombori village).”
Child being weighed at the CSCOM in Moundekane 
(Bourem) (November 2013) (Photographer :Boureima 
Sacko).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
6
Community-Based Activities Offered by the Local Offices of 
the Ministry of Health: In addition to the qualitative data 
collection, the evaluation team conducted in-depth interviews 
with eight health workers at three CSCOMs in Bourem and 
three CSCOMs in Douentza, the focal point of nutrition and 
the chief medical officer (hospital director) in Douentza. 
During the first four years, the Nema program trained large 
numbers of CSCOM and CSREF staff in essential nutrition 
actions, hygiene, and care of acute malnutrition at the 
CSCOMs and community level. Program records show that 
the program facilitated the training of 30 CSCOM station 
heads (12 in Bourem and 18 in Douentza), five CSREF agents, 
18 nursing assistants, 18 midwives, 500 CHVs (5 per village) 
at Douentza, and 150 CHVs plus 27 midwives at Bourem. 
Unfortunately, almost all of the government staff members 
trained by Nema are no longer at their original posts. 
Many of the new staff, as well as the few who are still at 
their posts, expressed their appreciation for the training 
and made suggestions for how to improve the care of 
malnourished children in the former Nema villages.
Evolution of the Drinking Water Strategy: Given the high cost of wells (especially the large 
diameter wells that were needed), the program planned to fund this component from the sale 
of MYAP food. Unfortunately, due to a shift in Mali government policy that reduced the 
capacity of the Nema program to generate cash through 
the monetization (e.g. sale) of MYAP commodities, the 
program was forced to reduce the number of water 
points from 60 to 49, out of which only 15 began 
construction (8 were completed; 7 remain unfinished 
though they have water). Out of those 15 wells 
completed, only one (in the village of Agamore) failed 
to produce water. This successful record of well 
construction, which was a notable accomplishment for 
villages a with history of multiple well failures, is 
attributed to the program’s strong collaboration with 
the state water service and strong supervision by the 
SO3 field team’s water specialists.
Photo of Aliatou—one of the children recuperated by 
the Nema PECIMA program (Bourem) (November 
2013) (Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Nema funded potable water point Village Niongolo 
(Douentza) (November 2013) (Photographer: Issiaka 
Ongoiba).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
7
Evolution of the Sanitation Strategy: The 
proposal anticipated that the program would 
build public awareness about latrines. The 
initial strategy focused on the construction of 
model platform latrines in the villages selected 
for the PD/Hearth program. It was anticipated 
that the model latrines, in combination with the 
dissemination of the radio and CDA messages 
that promoted the use of latrines, would 
accelerate the adoption of improved latrines. 
To facilitate the construction of latrines, the 
program trained and equipped 13 masons. The 
model latrines were constructed of imported 
materials (2 iron bars and 3 cement bags) 
provided by the Nema program, for two latrines 
in each PD/Hearth village. A total of 10 model 
latrines were built in the PD/Hearth villages in the Year 3 and 14 in Year 4 for a total of 24. 
Given the program’s weak record on encouraging latrine use, the mid-term evaluation 
recommended that the program put more emphasis on this issue in the second half of the 
program. Based on this recommendation, the MYAP team put in place a technical team to 
carry the community-led total sanitation (CLTS, also known as the assainissement total 
piloté par la communauté or ATPC) activities in the intervention villages in collaboration 
with the Mali government state sanitation services. Four pilot villages were chosen to host 
the first awareness workshops on the CLTS approach. After 
an initial training workshop, each community was asked to 
commit to building latrines. This approach led to the 
construction of 142 latrines during the last two months of 
Year 3 and 190 latrines in Year 4 totaling 332 latrines built 
by the communities without any financial support from the 
program.	
  	
  
This approach has contributed significantly to the 
improvement of hygiene practices in the beneficiary 
communities where it was pilot tested. Unfortunately, this 
good approach initiated by the program was only 
introduced in four of the 130 communities during Year 3 of 
the program and was interrupted by the rebel incursion in 
the program intervention areas. 
Latrine at Boumbam (Douentza) (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Focus group with the mothers who participated in 
one village’s Hearth/DP program (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Sidibe Sidikiba).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
8
 
Volunteer Mothers at Dansa (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Abdoul Wahab).
Children who participated in one of the Dansa 
village’s Hearth/DP program several years ago 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Abdoul 
Wahab).
One of the Dansa mothers who participated in the 
Nema Hearth DP activities (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Abdoul Wahab).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
9
6.4. S03: Targeted Communities Manage Shocks 
More Effectively 
Limited Functioning of the GAP/RU 
Committees as Intended in the Proposal:
Only eight (38%) of the 21 GAP/RU 
committees contacted during the final 
evaluation survey are considered ‘functional’ 
in the sense that they still collect and report 
rainfall data in the local community; only one 
of the 21 still transmits data to the SAP. Most 
committees are referred within the village as 
the meteo (rainfall gauge), which reflects the 
villagers’ opinion that their principal role is 
for data collection, not response. 
Limited Functioning of the Safety Net 
Committees as Intended in the Proposal but 
New Role in Orchestrating Emergency 
Response: Although only 33% of the Safety Net Committees were considered 
functional in terms of the original purpose that they were supposed to perform, they 
have become the principal point of contact for most of humanitarian food assistance 
coming in. 
Current Level of Functioning of the FFW-Supported Activities Designed to Reduce 
Environmental Risk and Promote Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral 
Enterprise Development: Out of the seven non-FFW￾facilitated infrastructures visited by the final evaluation 
survey team, 100% were still functional. Out of the 26 
FFW facilitated infrastructures visited, 78% were 
functional. In general, however, the level of maintenance 
is sub-standard and most maintenance committees do not 
appear to function. 
Some GAP/RU continue to report the rainfall data. 
Photo shows the most recent rainfall readings of the 
GAP/RU at Moundakene (Bourem) (November 
2013) (Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Rural road and bridge built with Nema FFW (Douentza) 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
10
Digue (dike) created with Nema FFW that protects the 
village of Boumbam from seasonal flooding (Douentza) 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
11
6.5. Cross-Cutting: Basic Literacy, Good 
Governance and CBO (Community Based 
Organization) Capacity 
Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported 
Literacy Activities (November 2013):
During the 15 focus group interviews with the 
SILCs and the 14 focus group interviews with the 
AEGs, the evaluation team asked a series of 
questions about the level of involvement and 
benefits of literacy training. These interviews 
suggest that most of the Nema-­‐trained literacy 
trainers (formateurs) are still living in the village,
though not one of them has organized any literacy 
training since the Nema program ended. The same 
interviews reflected some of the CAP data, which 
showed that only between 30-­‐50% of the SILC 
and AEG members trained in literacy during the 
program were considered able to read, write, and 
conduct basic calculations.
Although the ratio of persons trained to persons able 
to read, write, and perform basic calculations was low, most of the persons who attended the focus 
groups were vocal in their appreciation of the training and the role that the literacy training played in 
helping them manage their groups. One of the most frequent demands for follow-up assistance in the 
focus groups with the SILCs and AEGs was for 
literacy training.	
  
Current Level of Activity of the Nema-Supported 
CBOs (November 2013): Based on the focus group 
discussions, the evaluation team developed a matrix 
with which they assessed the degree of functionality 
of the groups they encountered. Although many of the 
groups were still functional, they were considered 
weak. It is not a surprise that some of the strongest,
most-­‐functional groups were the AEGs and SILCs,
whose training emphasized their becoming 
autonomous from the start. Most groups emphasized 
the critical importance of the literacy training in 
helping them manage the tools and funds needed to 
execute their core functions, and requested
Photograph of a tailor at Dallah who learned how to read 
and write in one of the Nema sponsored literacy centers 
(Douentza) (November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Some AEGs continue to organize meetings. Slide shows a 
PV (proces verbal) of a meeting of the Ouari AE (Bourem) 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex VI. Photo Essay. December 30, 2013. 
12
that the program re-start some of the literacy training to 
help them better manage these tools.	
  
The strongest organizations in the current context are 
those related to income-generating activities (IGAs)—the 
SILCs and AEGs—but, unfortunately, the program closed 
before most of these groups could file for their official 
legal recognition from the government as cooperatives 
(for the AEGs and SILCs) or as networks (reseau). This 
type of legal recognition is critical to their sustainability 
and impact since it affects their ability to access micro￾finance and a host of other government supports, as well 
as to benefit from other donor programs.
One of the chief weaknesses across all of the local 
organizations was the weak capacity to manage budgets and 
accounting. This was especially true for the AEGs, 
which received large budgets from the programs 
before they were really ready to manage them . 
The general consensus from many focus groups 
and MYAP staff was that the program ended 
before the groups were sufficiently trained in 
financial management.
Nema trained literacy trainer (November 2013) 
(Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Cross-cutting registration papers of the AEG at Dallah 
(November 2013) (Photographer: Isack Dolo).
Final debriefing at CRS office in Bamako (December 2013) 
(Photographer: Boureima Sacko).
Nema Final Qualitative Evaluation. Annex V. Key Informant Interviews. December 30, 2013. 
 1
Annex V. Key Informant Interviews 
Structures Names
Gouvernorat Mopti Saïdou Tangara, Directeur de Cabinet
Mamadou Gaoussou Traoré, Conseiller aux affaires administratives
Direction Régionale de la Santé 
Mopti (DRS)
Dr Mama Coumaré (Directeur)
Dr Aminata Coulibaly (Point Focal Nutrition)
DRACPN Direction régionale de 
l'assainissement du contrôle de la 
pollution et Nuisance 
Daouda Traoré (point focal ATPC)
Souleymane Koné, Chef division Contrôle
Mamadou Traoré, Chargé de contrôle et de nuisance
Croix Rouge Malienne Makan Sissao, Coordinateur
Direction Regionale action sociale 
Mopti Ibrahima Abba Sangaré (Directeur)
Action sociale Douentza Aldjouma Maiga (Technicien)
Secteur Agriculture de Douentza Amadou Tandina (Chef Secteur)
Secteur Agriculture de Bourem Sidi Maiga (Chef Secteur)
Caritas Mali at Mopti
Armand Kassogué (Coordinateur)
Pierre Togo (Chef du projet MYAP)
Emmanuel Goita (Superviseur MYAP)
Denis Sodio (Charge de Suivi Evaluation MYAP)
Caritas Mali San Etienne Toe (Chef du Projet MYAP)
Save The Children Int. (SCI)
Abdousalam T. Maiga (Charge, SILC, Nutrition et Alphabétisation sur MYAP)
 Actuellement Field Manager in Gao
Sidiki Diarra (Conseiller en sécurité alimentaire
Katie Sogoba (Coordinateur MYAP/SAVE)
Victoria Hotkins (Directrice des programmes quality)
Helen Keller International (HKI)
Dr Diarra Houleymata (Country Director Mali)
Dr Lazare Coulibaly (Chef de Département Nutrition)
Dr Fatou Koite (Coordinatrice MYAP/HKI)
Dr Aboubacar Halidou Maiga (Superviseur)
Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
Sean Gallagher (Représentant Résident)
Scott Braunschweig (Head Of Program)
Kerri Agee (Coordinatrice MYAP)
Adama Sangare (Coordinateur Adjoint MYAP)
Abderahamane Bamba (Chef de Departement M&E)
Isack Dolo (Superviseur M&E)
Boureima Sacko (M&E Officer)
Chery Traore (PM Agro-Entreprise)
Fanta Kone (APM SILC)
Robert Diarra (APM Filet de Sécurité et Inclusion)
Ousmane Maiga (Senior Program Manager)
Other Abdel Kadere Sidibe (Ancien responsible Hearth/DP a Douentza)
USAID John Mullenex, Food for Peace Officer