Final Performance Evaluation of 
Food For Peace-funded
Development Food Assistance 
Programs in Democratic Republic 
of Congo
Final Evaluation Report
August 2016
DRC
ii
This document was prepared for the United States Agency for International 
Development, Food For Peace – Democrtic Republic of Congo Mission. 
Prepared by: 
The Mitchell Group, Inc. with the support of the Centre de Renforcement des 
capacités et d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et Développement 
Lans Kumalah, Program Coordinator 
Aboubekrine Kone, Program Manager 
John McCauley, Technical Manager 
Brandy Jones, Team Leader
Barthelemy Kalambayi Banza, Technical Specialist 
Yves Reynaud, Technical Specialist 
Madeleine Kasay, Technical Specialist 
Christophe Alimasi, Technical Specialist 
Principal contacts: 
Lans Kumalah, Program Coordinator, TMG, Inc., Washington, DC, lansk@the￾mitchellgroup.com 
John McCauley, Technical Manager, TMG, Inc., Washington, DC, johnm@the￾mitchellgroup.com 
Brandy Jones, Team Lead, TMG, Inc., Washington, DC/Dakar, Senegal, 
bjdrls@gmail.com 
Implemented by: 
The Mitchell Group, Inc. 
1816 11th Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20001 
Tel: 202-745-1919
iii
DEVELOPMENT FOOD ASSISTANCE 
PROGRAMS IN THE DEMOCRATIC 
REPUBLIC OF CONGO 
Final Performance Evaluation Report 
AUGUST 2016
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
This evaluation would not have been successful without support and assistance from the 
USAID/DRC mission and their Implementing Partners. Their assistance was critical during 
the preparation of the field work and during the actual data collection. Particularly, we 
would like to thank Jonathan Armah, John Kalima, and Wivine Toronzoni for their 
availability, guidance, and logistical support. Their efforts facilitated our ability to move 
around the DRC using the safest and securest travel options. Furthermore, without their 
guidance and responsiveness, our work would have been delayed and the quality of the 
data collection diminished. 
The evaluation team also wishes to express its appreciation to the Implementing 
Partners for providing extensive support, by sharing documentation and discussing their 
programs, and also providing critical logistical support and guidance to the teams while 
in the field collecting data. 
Food for the Hungry provided invaluable support, shared maps, delivered all requested 
documentation, and supported team movements between Kalemie and Moba 
territories. They also provided crucial advice that permitted the team to avoid increased 
challenges in the field. Henry Maandebo and Louis Masudi were regularly available by 
phone and did not hesitate to provide the team with timely and necessary support. 
ADRA was also quite helpful with the execution of the mission. Joseph Menakuntuala, 
was supportive early on, not only in sharing documentation and resources requisite to 
inform the evaluation prep for JENGA II, but also in providing maps upon request for 
North Kivu and supporting the site selection process for the mission. 
Given the security situation in North Kivu, the evaluation team had to adjust its 
approach to collecting data, and Mercy Corps graciously offered to accompany the team 
to the field during the entire data collection process in North Kivu. This proved to be 
extremely invaluable and helped the team to avoid any security incidents while in the 
field, despite the fact that several incidents occurred near and around the villages where 
data collection took place. Jean Daniel and the staff provided critical insights and 
guidance that helped the team navigate a very challenging context. 
Finally, many others made the evaluation possible -- most importantly the community 
members who shared information with the evaluation team. We extend sincere 
gratitude to all who facilitated and assisted our work. We appreciate the time, energy 
and efforts made on our behalf, and we acknowledge the incredible work being done in 
a very challenging and difficult context. 
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................... viii 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ix 
I. Evaluation Description ........................................................................................................... 1 
1. Objective of the Evaluation ............................................................................ 1 
2. Map and Locations ........................................................................................... 1 
3. Data Collection Methodologies ................................................................... 4 
4. Documents Reviewed ...................................................................................... 5 
5. Activities in the Field ........................................................................................ 6 
6. The Evaluation Team ........................................................................................ 7 
7. Relationship with Implementing Partners ................................................ 7 
8. Challenges Encountered ................................................................................. 8 
II. North Kivu: Mercy Corps RISE (SIMAMA) DFAP ...................................................... 11
A. Summary of Program Objectives ............................................................................. 11
B. Findings ............................................................................................................................. 12
1. Effectiveness of Training Models ................................................................. 12
2. Links to Markets and Public Services ......................................................... 14
3. Changes in Incomes and Livelihoods ......................................................... 15
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices ..................................................................... 17
5. Changes in Gender Norms ............................................................................. 19
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions ................................ 20
7. Results of Governance & Conflict Resolution Initiatives ..................... 21
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions .................................................... 22
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ........................................................................... 24
1. Strengths .............................................................................................................. 24
2. Weaknesses ......................................................................................................... 25
3. Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives.............................. 26
vi 
D. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 33
III. South Kivu: ADRA Jenga II DFAP..................................................................................... 35
A. Summary of Program Objectives ............................................................................. 35
B. Findings ............................................................................................................................. 36
1. Effectiveness of Training Models ................................................................. 36
2. Links to Markets and Public Services ......................................................... 38
3. Changes in Incomes and Livelihoods ......................................................... 39
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices ..................................................................... 40
5. Changes in Gender Norms ............................................................................. 41
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions ................................ 43
7. Results of Governance & Conflict Resolution Initiatives ..................... 44
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions .................................................... 45
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ........................................................................... 47
1. Strengths .............................................................................................................. 47
2. Weaknesses ......................................................................................................... 47
3. Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives .............................. 48
D. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 57
IV. Tanganyika and South Kivu: ............................................................................................... 59
Food for the Hungry Tuendelee Pamoja DFAP 
A. Summary of Program Objectives ............................................................................. 59
B. Findings ............................................................................................................................. 60
1. Effectiveness of Training Models ................................................................. 60
2. Links to Markets and Public Services ......................................................... 62
3. Changes in Incomes and Livelihoods ......................................................... 63
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices ..................................................................... 64
5. Changes in Gender Norms ............................................................................. 66
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions ................................ 67
vii 
7. Results of Governance & Conflict Resolution Initiatives ..................... 68
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions .................................................... 69
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ........................................................................... 70
1. Strengths .............................................................................................................. 70
2. Weaknesses ......................................................................................................... 71
3. Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives .............................. 72 
D. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 79
V. Evaluation Summary and Recommendations ............................................. 82
1. Comparative Insights Across the Three DFAPs ....................................... 82
2. Overall Best Practices and Strengths .......................................................... 82
3. Overall Constraints, Weaknesses, and Failures ....................................... 84 
4. Overall Effectiveness of DFAPS in Meeting Objectives ........................ 85
5. Recommendations for Follow-on Activities ............................................. 87
VI. Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 91
Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 93
 A1. List of Villages Visited ................................................................................................ 94
 A2. List of Documents Reviewed by the Evaluation Team ................................... 95 
 A3. Summary Table of Mercy Corps Program Outcomes ..................................... 96 
 A4. Summary Table of ADRA Program Outcomes .................................................. 97 
 A5. Summary Table of Food for the Hungry Program Outcomes ..................... 98
 A6. List of Key Informant Interviews ............................................................................. 99
 A7. List of Focus Group Discussions ............................................................................. 107 
 A8. Interview and Discussion Guides ........................................................................... 120 
 A9. Mini-Survey Questionnaire and House Visit Guide ......................................... 137 
 A10. Select Findings from Mini-Surveys and House Visits .................................... 158 
 A11. GPS-Based Map of Evaluation Sites ..................................................................... 160 
viii 
LIST OF ACRONYMS 
ADRA:
ANC:
Adventist Development and Relief Agency
Ante-Natal Checkup
CARG: Comité Agricole et Rural de Gestion
CDC: Community Development Committee
CEWS:
CF:
Communty Early Warning System
Comité Foncier
CIG: Common Interest Group
CRESPoD: Centre de Renforcement des capacités et d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et 
Développement
CSB: Corn Soy Blend
CSPA: Community System for Priority Action
DTP: Diphtheria, Tetanus Polio
ENA: Essential Nutrition Actions
FBA:
FC:
Farmers Business Association
Congolese Franc
FFS: Farmers Field School
FG: Focus Group
HC: Health Center
IDP: Internally Displaced Persons
INERA: Institut National de Recherches Agronomiques
IITA: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IP: Implementing Partner
ITN: Insecticide-Treated Bed Nets
IYCF: Infant and Young Child Feeding
LDC: Local Development Committee
LIFEPACO: League of Congolese Women Farmers
MV: Measles Vaccine
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
OPV: Oral Polio Vaccine
PM: Producer Multipliers
PSC: Pre-School Checkup
RAC: Rural Agricultural Council
RECO: Relais Communautaire (Community liaison worker)
RTNC: Radio Télévision Nationale Congolaise
SBCC: Social and Behavior Change Communication
SCU: Solidarity Credit Union
SENASEM:
SFCG:
National Seed Service
Search for Common Ground
SYDIP: Syndicat de Defenses d’Interet Paysans
VAA: Village Agricultural Association
VSLA: Village Savings and Loan Association
YFV: Yellow Fever Vaccine
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In December 2015, USAID commissioned The Mitchell Group (TMG) to conduct an 
evaluation of its Food for Peace (FFP) development programs in Eastern DRC. The USAID 
FFP portfolio consisted of three distinct Development Food Assistance Programs 
(DFAPs). The programs sought to address food security, maternal health, and improved 
livelihoods through five years of programming that totaled over $150 million of inputs 
and programming for communities throughout North Kivu, South Kivu, and Tanganyika, 
with a complex set of development programming and activities. Broadly, the programs 
aimed to address challenges brought about by violence and displacement of citizens in 
the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998. 
To implement the DFAPs, USAID’s FFP office partnered with three international non￾governmental organizations (NGOs): Mercy Corps, Adventist Development and Relief 
Agency (ADRA), and Food for the Hungry (FH). The Implementing Partners (IPs) 
undertook separate projects related to food security. While each project addressed 
USAID/FFP’s core food security activities (Agriculture and Livelihoods; Health and 
Nutrition; and Resilience), secondary goals included improvements related to USAID’s 
cross-cutting areas of Governance and Gender. 
This final evaluation is an independent review of the programs. To evaluate the success 
of the DFAPs with respect to the core and secondary objectives, the evaluation team 
focused on eight key components: 1) effectiveness of training models 2) links to markets 
and public services 3) changes in income and livelihoods 4) changes in nutrition 
practices 5) changes in gender norms 6) outputs of disaster risk reduction interventions 
7) results of governance and conflict resolution initiatives and 8) the sustainability of 
program interventions. 
Field data was collected during the period of February 1 - March 25, 2016 in North Kivu, 
South Kivu, and Tanganyika provinces. In total, the evaluation team visited 36 villages 
and conducted over 100 focus group discussions, 170 individual interviews, and over 
300 mini-surveys and house visits. The data collection effort was undertaken by a team 
of five consultants with expertise in the relevant areas of agriculture, governance, 
gender, maternal health and nutrition. The analysis of the data suggests that the three 
DFAPs all performed reasonably well, but with some distinct strengths and weaknesses. 
Mercy Corps’ RISE Program 
The RISE program sought to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable families in North 
Kivu. The program was based on three key strategic objectives: 1) diversified production 
x
and increased incomes for small farmers, 2) improved nutritional status of nursing 
mothers and children under 5, and 3) better governance of food security. Activities 
included livestock rearing, agricultural diversification, fighting plant diseases, pest 
control, access to markets, economic information provision, and credit programs.
Strengths: 
1) The SBCC trainings were effective particularly in reaching direct beneficiaries. 
2) Community Interest Groups helped to bolster production through improved market 
information. 
3) Agricultural programs improved storage options, bolstering sales and incomes. 
4) Village Savings and Loan Associations serve as a critical safety net for beneficiaries, 
providing access to capital that would not exist without program support. 
5) Agricultural service roads and food-for-work initiatives provided access to markets 
and improved productivity. 
Weaknesses: 
1) Follow-on trainings were ineffective in reaching potential new beneficiaries. 
2) A high level of duplication exists in the provision of health and nutrition programs. 
3) Market access and value chain activities realized only limited success. 
4) Programs suffered from a late start. 
5) Communities perceive material handouts to be a central component of the program, 
which potentially can undermine sustainability and willingness to participate absent 
benefits. 
ADRA’s JENGA II Program 
The objective of the Jenga Jamaa II program was to reduce long-term food insecurity 
among vulnerable families in the Fizi, Uvira and Kalehe areas of South Kivu. The program 
was structured around four key strategic objectives: improving producer incomes, 
improving childhood nutrition, strengthening women’s economic status, and improving 
community resilience to shocks. Specific activities included irrigation practices, access to 
credit, hygiene practice demonstrations, latrine construction, women’s literacy training, 
plant distribution, and the training of CDCs among others. 
Strengths: 
1) Literacy trainings effectively improved opportunities for direct beneficiaries. 
2) Soil and water projects assisted whole communities in bolstering production. 
3) Farmers Business Associations (FBAs) helped producers to improve production and 
sales. 
4) Women were empowered by literacy and health trainings and empowerment groups. 
xi
Weaknesses: 
1) Literacy trainings did not spill over to non-beneficiaries. 
2) Only direct beneficiaries benefited from improved market access. 
3) Community Development Committees suffered from inadequate representation. 
4) CDCs and CSPAs lacked clear action plans and strategies for autonomy. 
Food for the Hungry’s Tuendelee Pamoja Program 
The objective of the Tuendelee Pamoja program was to improve food security among 
vulnerable families in two ways: by improving socio-economic conditions, and by 
improving the health and nutrition of individuals, women, and young children. Specific 
activities included, among others, agricultural training, seed multiplication and 
distribution, rearing livestock to improve soil fertility, credit associations, tree planting, 
good cooking practices, and hygiene demonstrations. 
Strengths: 
1) Trainings with practical demonstrations were effective. 
2) Agricultural and reforestation activities boosted production and improved soils. 
3) Credit associations allowed women and small producers to generate income. 
4) The program strengthened awareness regarding child care, sanitation, and nutrition. 
5) Awareness regarding gender equality has improved. 
Weaknesses: 
1) SBCC training organization was often unclear and haphazard. 
2) Cascade training did not effectively reach non-beneficiaries. 
3) Interest rates were too high for many beneficiaries to effectively exploit credit 
opportunities. 
4) Subsidization of seed multiplication centers undermined long-term sustainability. 
5) CDC effectiveness was limited by concerns over representation and transparency. 
Overall Recommendations 
 Literacy trainings should be replicated in future FFP programs, putting renewed 
emphasis on coaching and developing teacher trainers from the local population. 
The programs provide double benefits by expanding literacy and teaching 
substantive content, but improvements must be made in the cascading of skills. 
 Nutrition, sanitation, and health awareness activities should be a centerpiece of FFP 
programs. The activities should focus on practical demonstrations for women, 
particularly pregnant women and mothers of young children. They should also 
include listening groups and creative exchanges of information. 
xii 
 Community Development Committees and other local committees that address 
Disaster Risk Reduction and Conflict Management must be reformulated. The 
concept is practical and important, but future iterations must do a better job of 
ensuring transparent operating processes. Membership should be determined in a 
representative fashion. 
 Farmers Business Associations and Reforestation projects should be reinforced and 
continued. FBAs can be given the lead in local agricultural initiatives, and regular 
awareness campaigns should be conducted by the FBAs to serve the interests of 
small producers. Reforestation can be coupled with food-for-work activities. 
 Gender-based initiatives should be made more participatory. Awareness of the 
importance of gender equality seems to have improved among both women and 
men as a result of DFAP activities. However, in order to transform that awareness 
into behavioral change, men must actively benefit from women’s gains and must see 
those gains in action. 
1
I. EVALUATION DESCRIPTION 
1. Objective of the Evaluation 
The objective of this report is to evaluate USAID’s Food For Peace (FFP) development 
initiative in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. With the broad goal of addressing 
the food security crisis in Eastern DRC, USAID’s FFP office partnered with three 
international non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Mercy Corp, Adventist 
Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), and Food for the Hungry (FH). The three 
Implementing Partners (IPs) led separate consortiums that implemented food security 
programs. While each project addresses USAID/FFP’s core food security activities 
(Agriculture and Livelihoods; Health and Nutrition; and Resilience), a secondary goal was 
that they also include in various ways, aspects related to USAID’s cross-cutting areas of 
Governance and Gender. Specific activities under each sector differ, as well. 
This final evaluation constitutes an independent review of the effectiveness of the FFP 
activities. It was conducted by The Mitchell Group (TMG), an independent international 
development consulting organization contracted by USAID. Through document review 
and seven weeks of field work, TMG has reviewed the work of each Development Food 
Assistance Program (DFAP). The joint evaluation of those DFAPs will enable USAID to 
assess program results; identify major barriers to achieving expected results; and 
document the best practices, strengths, weaknesses, and constraints involved in 
sustaining program achievements. The evaluation findings will ultimately assist USAID 
and its IPs, as well as DRC’s national stakeholders, in the design and implementation of 
follow-on activities and lessons learned. 
The evaluation centered on changes related to the following core themes: 1) 
effectiveness of trainings, 2) links to markets and public services, 3) changes in 
household incomes and livelihoods, 4) changes in nutrition, 5) changes in gender norms 
and equality, 6) disaster risk reduction (DRR), 7) governance and conflict resolution, and 
8) sustainability of the interventions. In addition, the evaluation team sought to identify 
strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned.
2. Map and Locations 
The joint evaluation took place across three provinces: North Kivu, South Kivu, and 
Tanganyika. In North Kivu, Mercy Corps (partnering with Catholic Relief Services) 
undertook its RISE program aimed primarily at addressing agricultural livelihoods, 
maternal and infant nutrition, and governance. In South Kivu, ADRA (partnering with 
World Vision and Johns Hopkins University) conducted its Jenga Jamaa II program, 
whose principal objectives were to address food security, nutrition, women’s 
empowerment, and community resilience. Finally, Food for the Hungry (partnering with 
2
Search for Common Ground) conducted its Tuendelee Pamoja program in both 
Tanganyika and South Kivu. The primary strategic objectives included food security, 
nutrition, sanitation and water, women’s empowerment, and community resilience. 
See Figure 1 below for a map of the DFAP locations and the sites visited during the 
course of the evaluation.1
 The eastern part of the country suffers from ongoing 
instability, which complicated both the implementation of the programs and the 
evaluation. Not coincidentally, the region is also in dire need of food security assistance. 
The implementing partners thus had to balance security challenges against the 
imperative of providing thorough and consistent training and assistance to beneficiary 
communities. 
Figure 1. Map of evaluation locations. 
 
1 See Annex A11 for GPS-based locations of the evaluation sites from Google Maps. Map includes all sites whose 
names were locatable with GPS software.
3
In each province, the evaluation team aimed to visit 12 villages to evaluate DFAP 
effectiveness. The exception was the FH program: because the work was spread across 
Tanganyika and South Kivu, the evaluation team visited 9 villages in Tanganyika and an 
additional 3 villages in South Kivu. All sites included in the evaluation are classified as 
rural, extremely low income lacking many basic services; this is to be expected given the 
objectives of the DFAPs and the targeted intervention areas. 
Regarding the distribution of villages across provinces, USAID/DRC indicated that they 
wanted data collected in Fizi Territory, on the Plaine de Ruzizi and throughout the North 
Kivu intervention zones, as well as in a World Vision intervention zone. They also 
requested that we collect data on Food for the Hungry’s work in both Tanganyika (Moba 
and Kalemie territories) and South Kivu (Walungu Territory). Based upon these 
requirements, the team distributed the number of villages proportionally across the 
three provinces and the three DFAPs. Thus, the evaluation team assigned 15 villages in 
South Kivu distributed between World Vision (three villages in Kale), ADRA (nine villages 
in Fizi, Uvira and the Plaine de Ruzizi), and Food for the Hungry (three villages in 
Walungu Territory). Twelve villages in North Kivu for Mercy Corps were divided between 
Lubero and Rutshuru territories. The nine remaining villages were selected in Tanganyika 
to evaluate Food for the Hungry programs. 
To identify specific villages for evaluation, the team used health zone and administrative 
maps and randomly identified villages that were distributed throughout the intervention 
zones, going as far out as 100km, which were also on the IPs’ participating site list and 
which met the distribution requirements outlined above. Before finalizing the list, the 
team then met with the USAID/DRC mission and the relevant IPs to confirm accessibility 
and security. Based upon feedback from the mission and the IPs, and in some cases 
dialogue with security officials and UN agencies such as the World Food Programme, 
the team finalized the list independently. See Table A1 in the Annex for a list of the 
villages that comprised the locations for the evaluation. 
Regarding the program activities that took place in each province, not all strategic 
objectives were addressed at all locations for the Mercy Corps DFAP. Thus, the 
evaluation team visited some sites that received the full package of interventions and 
other sites that received only a limited set of interventions. The strategic objectives 
addressed at each of the North Kivu/Mercy Corps sites are as follows: 
- Butare: Full package (Agriculture and Value Chains, PM2A and Maternal Health, 
and Governance) 
- Bambo Centre: Full package 
- Katendere: Full package 
4
- Kivumu: PM2A and Maternal Health, Governance 
- Magheria: PM2A and Maternal Health, Governance 
- Rushege: Full package 
- Rwabangi: Full package 
- Muhangi: Agriculture and Value Chains, Governance 
- Minoli: Full package 
- Musienene: Agriculture and Value Chains, Governance 
- Lukanga: Agriculture and Value Chains, Governance 
- Ngeleza: Full package 
3. Data Collection Methodologies 
The evaluation relied on four data collection methodologies: Focus group discussions, 
in-depth interviews, mini-surveys, and house visits. 
Focus group discussions constituted the most intensive and data-rich component of the 
evaluation. In total, the evaluation team conducted 103 focus group discussions. The 
groups involved between 5 and 12 people and were formed with sector experience in 
mind (i.e. health, agriculture, DRR, and governance). In addition, the team conducted 
focus groups with exclusively female participants in order to better gauge the gender 
equality component of the DFAP activities. Finally, because the evaluation team was 
interested in determining the effectiveness of the programs in terms of their impact on 
beneficiary households and individuals, we also conducted a limited number of focus 
groups with non-beneficiaries in order to create a comparative point of reference. These 
focus groups covered the same broad issues but did not focus on specific DFAP 
activities. Details on the focus groups conducted for this evaluation can be found in 
Annex A7. 
In addition to focus groups, the evaluation team conducted 170 in-depth interviews with 
key stakeholders. These included leaders of local groups associated with the DFAP 
programs (i.e. farmers’ groups, women’s groups, local governance structures), key 
beneficiaries (i.e. farmers who completed the trainings and followed through on 
recommended practices), and other leaders at the village level. Interviews explored 
topics similar to the focus group discussions—exploring outcomes related to the core 
objectives of the DFAPs—but were targeted based on the area of expertise or 
experience of the interviewee. Details on the in-depth interviews that the evaluation 
team conducted can be found in Annex A6. 
Mini-surveys were the third instrument used in data collection. In total, the evaluation 
team conducted 308 mini-surveys, primarily with beneficiaries but also with non￾beneficiaries. Given the small sample size per village and the irregularity with which 
direct trainees transmitted skills and knowledge to indirect beneficiaries, the mini-survey 
5
component of the data collection focuses on changes to direct beneficiaries against a 
baseline of those who had no contact with the program to that point. Other data 
collection methods address impacts on indirect beneficiaries. Respondents included 207 
women and 101 men. Finally, the evaluation team conducted 320 house visits in 
conjunction with the mini-surveys. They allowed the evaluation team a closer look at 
living conditions and practices potentially associated with DFAP programs. The survey 
instrument for the mini-survey and protocols for the house visits are located in Annex 
A9. Please see Annex A10 for tables of select findings from the mini-surveys and house 
visits, disaggregated by beneficiary status. The findings presented here are intended to 
offer insight into key outcomes related to health, gender, and livelihoods; some of those 
findings are also discussed in the body of the report. 
To select households and respondents for the mini-surveys and house visits, the data 
collectors divided the village by quadrants, with each data collector taking two 
quadrants and randomly selecting two households in each quadrant via a random-walk 
procedure starting from key points of departure. As the evaluation was conducted 
during the rainy season (an active part of the agricultural cycle), it was often challenging 
to locate participants who were often in fields far from their village. In case of absences, 
data collectors continued to other households using a sampling gap of three 
households until they located a home with a head of household or spouse that was 
available to participate in the mini-survey. For each village, pre-established target 
numbers were assigned to each data collector in terms of women, men, beneficiaries 
and non-beneficiaries.
4. Documents Reviewed 
In addition to data collection in the field, the evaluation also extensively documented 
the work of Implementing Partners. The evaluation team requested, received from the 
IPs, and reviewed, a range of documents including statements of work, project site 
descriptions, proposed indicators, and annual reports. 
Technical Specialists for TMG reviewed documentation prior to undertaking field work 
to better understand the procedures established by the implementing partners, the 
challenges they faced, and the outcomes they sought to achieve. A listing of the 
documents reviewed, organized by DFAP, is included in Table A2 in the Annex. 
Regarding training information disseminated by the IPs to beneficiaries, the IPs relied on 
health and nutrition, financial, agricultural, DRR, and local governance information 
viewed as standard in the international community (derived from, for example, the 
World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
6
Nations, and the World Bank). The evaluation team did not encounter instances in which 
the information conveyed in trainings differed from international standards and norms.
5. Activities in the Field 
In each province, the evaluation team began its work by making contact with 
Implementing Partners. Doing so was necessary for security and transportation 
purposes, to ensure that the evaluation team traveled to and remained in safe areas. In 
addition, contact with the IPs gave the evaluation team insight into the difficulties that 
the IPs faced: in some cases, activities were cut short due to security threats, and in 
other cases, IPs described related work conducted by other aid organizations in the 
province. The team of four Technical Specialists then separated into two groups of two, 
each supported by four locally hired assistants. The two groups conducted evaluation 
activities in separate villages simultaneously, while the Team Lead worked between the 
two locations. The evaluation team conducted 12 days of active research in Tanganyika 
(February 8 – 19), 14 days of active research in South Kivu (February 20 – March 6), and 
17 days of active research in North Kivu (March 7 – 23). 
In each village, the evaluation team followed protocols to obtain authorization and work 
effectively. The Team Lead met with local government officials and traditional leaders to 
explain the purpose of the visit. With cooperation from local leadership, Technical 
Specialists divided the tasks of facilitating focus groups, conducting in-depth interviews, 
and carrying out surveys and house visits. Local assistants provided translation support 
and other logistics. 
A critical aspect of the evaluation was to identify key informants and targeted 
beneficiaries. The evaluation team typically started with a contact in a local DFAP 
beneficiary group such as an organization leader, and identified potential participants 
and interviewees with that contact’s assistance. Using a snowball sampling procedure, 
the evaluation team was able to extend the set of participants beyond those identified 
by primary contacts, and the IPss had no input on the sources of data. Key informants 
generally included the following: farmers, producers, women farmers, local association 
members and leadership, and representatives of public institutions (health and 
agriculture). Beneficiary households were the primary focus of focus group and survey 
data, though as noted, non-beneficiaries were also represented in the data. 
In total, the evaluation team undertook the following data collection exercises: 
- North Kivu (12 villages): 36 Focus Groups, 50 Interviews, 110 Surveys/ house visits 
- South Kivu (15villages): 44 Focus Groups, 79 Interviews, 128 Surveys/house visits 
- Tanganyika (9 villages): 23 Focus Groups, 41 Interviews, 70 Surveys/house visits
7
6. Evaluation Team 
To conduct the evaluation, TMG organized a team of experts with specialization in the 
substantive areas addressed by the DFAPs. During the data collection phase in the field, 
the evaluation team traveled together to Health Zones and then broke into two groups, 
each with two Technical Specialists and four supporting assistants (hired locally by 
TMG’s local partner, CRESPOD). The Technical Specialists were responsible for 
facilitating focus groups and conducting in-depth interviews with key informants. The 
assistants provided language and logistical support in the field (as interpreters, note 
takers, etc.) and assisted with the mini-surveys. The Team Lead, Dr. Brandy Jones, 
supervised the evaluation team through the course of the data collection, moving 
between the two groups to provide oversight, ensure consistency, and address 
challenges as they arose. The Technical Manager, Dr. John McCauley, provided design 
input and supervised the evaluation output and reporting from TMG Headquarters in 
Washington, DC. Team members are listed below in Table 1. 
Table 1. Evaluation Team Members 
Name Title Area of Expertise Role on the Team/
Principal Activity
John McCauley Technical Manager Research and 
Methodology
Provide technical guidance 
for planning and oversight of 
deliverables
Brandy Jones Team Leader Research, 
Methodology, and Field 
Coordination
Leadership of team in the 
field, presentation to donors 
and production of 
deliverables
Yves Reynaud Technical Specialist Agriculture and 
Governance 
Field work, data collection, 
analysis and writing
Christophe Alamasi Technical Specialist Nutrition and Gender Field work, data collection, 
analysis and writing
Madeline Kasay Technical Specialist Nutrition and Gender Field work, data collection, 
analysis and writing
Barthelémy
Kalambayi
Technical Specialist Agriculture and 
Governance
Field work, data collection, 
analysis and writing
7. Relationship with Implementing Partners 
The evaluation team adopted a strategy of relying on the IPs primarily for initial 
logistical support from headquarters and for background information, with only limited 
logistical support in the field. As this was to be an independent evaluation, the 
evaluation team assured its own transportation and visited villages independently for 
data collection. The decision was made not to request input from the IPs on the 
successes or failures of their DFAPs, on the grounds that doing so would invite the 
8
potential for reframing of program shortcomings. Thus, the evaluation team interacted 
with the IPs upon arrival in each province and obtained information on transportation 
strategies, security risks, and background related to the completion of tasks. The IPs 
proved to be willing and effective partners in these matters, and their familiarity with 
local conditions was important to the success of the evaluation, particularly with respect 
to movement, security, and context in the insecure areas of North Kivu. In Tanganyika, 
the IP was approached following approval from the USAID Mission to provide assistance 
with transport between Kalemie and Moba territories, using the project-purchased boat 
to travel more quickly by lake from one site to the other. 
Aside from receiving IP assistance with information such as maps and security 
information and occasional support in terms of movements between territories, the 
evaluation team remained largely independent. 
An exception was the evaluation work conducted in North Kivu. After careful and 
protracted discussions with the USAID/DRC Mission, it was decided that the evaluation 
team would be accompanied by Mercy Corps in both territories where data were to be 
collected. This decision was made primarily as a result of the heightened security risks 
due to kidnappings and communal violence in the region. The role of Mercy Corps 
during those field visits was to accompany the team to the villages in a separate vehicle 
in order to ensure increased security and support in case of any incidents. Once the 
evaluation team was on site, the Mercy Corps staff agreed to allow the evaluation team 
to work independently with no interference. 
8. Challenges Encountered 
Several challenges arose that affected the ability of the team to conduct the evaluation 
of the three DFAPs. As we note below, the team found strategies to mitigate each of 
those concerns. 
First, infrastructural challenges affected the ability of the evaluation team to move 
and communicate efficiently. Road conditions were a major impediment to the work. 
Furthermore, the field work was conducted during the rainy season and most roads 
were not paved, so their condition deteriorated following rainfall or use by large 
transport vehicles. Slow travel speeds required significant planning and coordination of 
logistics to ensure safe departure and return from the field. The team could not visit 
villages that were further than 100km out unless they were in more developed areas 
with secure housing in which the team could lodge overnight. Otherwise, the team 
conducted day trips to areas that were accessible in a maximum range of 100km. The 
team was able to collect data in all of the territories and locations that the mission 
identified as critical for their purposes, particularly in areas that are typically difficult to 
9
access for various reasons such as Fizi Territory, Plaine de Ruzizi, Rutshuru Territory, and 
Lubero Territory. 
Poor cellular coverage also posed challenges. To overcome this constraint, the team 
used thuraya phones to communicate in order to coordinate movements, share security 
information, and seek logistical support. Limited electricity posed yet another 
infrastructural challenge; in a proactive measure, the team charged its equipment before 
leaving reliable electricity areas. 
The consequence of these infrastructural challenges faced by the evaluation team is that 
some of the most remote areas included in the DFAP areas were not included in the 
evaluation. To the extent that program implementation differed in those areas—which it 
may have since the IPs would have faced the same infrastructural challenges in 
implementing their programs—the results of this evaluation are likely biased in favor of 
the more accessible sites. The locations from which data were collected were themselves 
hard to reach, so the potential differences are likely to be of degree rather than kind. 
Second, insecurity concerns were routine for the evaluation team. In 2012 and 2013, 
conflict related to the M23 Rebellion severely affected Eastern DRC. International staff 
from all NGOs evacuated Goma, and the conflict created more than 200,000 Internally 
Displaced Persons (IDP) in North Kivu alone. Consequences of the conflict persist, and 
the work of the evaluation team was affected. This was particularly true in North Kivu, 
where one team—in the Rutshuru/Birambizo health zone—had to be supervised 
remotely. In several areas, the team was advised to take precautions to avoid any 
security incidents. Below we highlight the most security sensitive areas and the actions 
taken to address the risk: 
 In some areas of South Kivu, such as Fizi territory and Plaine de Ruzizi, it was advised 
that the team be mindful about the timing of movements and the areas in which 
they traveled. Areas such as Baraka in Fizi and some parts of Plaine de Ruzizi were 
excluded all together and the team avoided remaining in Plaine de Ruzizi beyond 
15:30 per the advice of partners and locals. Where possible, if data collection was not 
complete, the team returned the following day. 
 In parts of Tanganyika and South Kivu such as Walungu Territory, it was advised that 
the team remain vigilant for armed bandits and kidnappers. Data was collected in 
these areas but the team avoided spending the night outside of Moba and Kalemie 
to reduce any risks. 
10
 Risks of kidnapping and violence in North Kivu required that the team adjust its 
approach completely. In Rutshuru, a team of local data collectors from the territory 
were remotely supervised to conduct the field work. It was advised that 
internationals would be targeted. As an added measure of security in both Lubero 
and Rutshuru, the team was accompanied by the Implementing Partner, Mercy 
Corps. 
The consequence of various insecurity challenges could very well mean that the 
evaluation team may have been disposed to avoid areas that would best illustrate the 
impact of conflict resolution activities. However, while security was a constant concern, 
the above mentioned adjustments and proper planning allowed the team to both avoid 
any major security incidents while in the field, and also gather data from some of the 
more security-challenged areas of DFAP implementation. 
Third, uneven application of interventions concerning the RISE program by Mercy 
Corps, complicated the evaluation team’s work. As Mercy Corps did not implement the 
full package of activities across its intervention zones, the sites that received visits had to 
be selected with consideration for locations that received as many interventions as 
possible. This was compounded by the fact that Rutshuru was the only location that 
received PM2A, again as a result of the M23 violence that affected the region in 2013. 
As such, the evaluation team had to split the villages between Rutshuru (6) and Lubero 
(6) territories. Citing ongoing insecurity in parts of Rutshuru Territory, RISE made the 
decision (with donor approval) to significantly scale down activities in Rwanguba, Binza, 
and Rutshuru Health Zones (HZ) in Rutshuru Territory, and in Karisimbi Health Zone in 
Nyiragongo Territory. All activities were ultimately concluded except for a final season of 
seed multiplication, support to women and youth associations, and follow-up with 
Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs). The shift did not entail any changes in 
the overall numbers of beneficiaries but did include scaling up activities in Birambizo HZ 
as well as geographic expansion to two new territories, Lubero and Beni (from the 2013 
annual report). 
The consequence of uneven application of interventions is that the results of the data 
collection for evaluation purposes could be biased against those programs that started 
late or were cut short, even if the implementation itself was effective. To address this 
concern, we have taken pains to note the cases in which implementation plans had to 
be altered, so as not to create inappropriate comparisons or expectations. 
Fourth, social desirability bias can affect responses to sensitive topics. This is 
especially true regarding matters such as gender equality; men understand that gender 
equality is increasingly viewed as a desired norm, so they may express opinions in 
11
keeping with that norm even if doing so does not reflect their actual opinion. There is 
little way of escaping this challenge short of experimental methods, but the fact that 
some males described behaviors contradicting their stated opinions suggests that some 
degree of social desirability bias exists in the evaluation. Biased responses may also arise 
when individuals discuss assets, as they may believe that their responses condition 
future material distribution. The evaluation team did not encounter obvious examples of 
this, but they worked hard to keep discussions and interviews as open as possible and to 
use non-judgmental language to mitigate potential bias in responses. 
To the extent that social desirability bias affected responses to the evaluation team, the 
effects of gender interventions in particular may be weaker than they appear (since the 
most likely source of such bias would be males inflating their support for gender equity). 
This must be kept in mind when evaluating results; there is little proven strategy for 
overcoming such biases using observational methods. 
II. NORTH KIVU: MERCY CORPS DFAP 
A. Summary of Program Objectives 
The Mercy Corps-led RISE/SIMAMA2
 program sought to reduce food insecurity 
among vulnerable families in North Kivu. The program is based on three key strategic 
objectives: 1) diversified production and increased incomes for small farmers; 2) 
improved nutritional status of pregnant and nursing mothers and children under 5; and 
3) better governance of food security. 
The Strategic Objective of diversifying production and increasing incomes for small 
farmers is structured around new agricultural practices, creating and strengthening 
value chains, and improving the technical and economic environment. Work on this 
objective covers eight activities: varietal improvement, livestock rearing, pest and plant 
disease control (including fighting cassava mosaic disease and Banana Xanthomonos 
Wilt), storing and processing produce, access to markets, developing agricultural 
infrastructures, economic information, and agricultural credit. 
The Strategic Objective of improving the nutritional status of mothers and 
children is based on improved access to health services, preventing malnutrition and 
malnutrition-related diseases, and promoting improved diet and nutrition. More than 10
 
2 The Mercy Corps “Resources for Improving Food Security in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo” (RISE) program 
is referred to interchangeably as SIMAMA; they are one and the same program. SIMAMA is a Swahili term meaning to 
Stand. This appellation is used more frequently by local communities, as evidenced in the interviews and focus 
groups. Both terms are used in program documents.
12
specific activities serve this objective: training and distributing equipment, disseminating 
knowledge, prevention messages and improving perceptions, detecting malnutrition, 
distributing rations, training, supervision and monitoring, behavioral research and 
information campaigns, promoting parent leaders (male and female) and support 
groups, distributing rabbits and guinea pigs, promoting vegetable gardens and food 
diversification, promoting local Corn Soy Blends (CSB), and organizing cookery contests. 
The Strategic Objective of improving governance and food security is based on two 
key themes: 1) cooperation and coordination between actors to improve transparency 
and accountability, and 2) strengthening links with territorial and provincial structures. 
Activities related to these themes include: local development plans and disaster risk 
reduction plans prepared by committees, conflict mediation, promoting and supporting 
agricultural and rural committees (with action plans and funding), and implementing 
specific micro-projects. Defining and implementing local development plans and plans 
for agricultural committees are key aspects of governance and are essential for 
sustainable outcomes. These plans also serve as cross-cutting tools that strengthen 
Strategic Objectives 1 and 2, facilitate coordination between program actors, and 
promote a long-term vision for reducing food insecurity. 
Security challenges posed notable difficulties for DFAP implementation. According to 
the Chief of Party for RISE, the initial intervention zone and range of interventions were 
modified in order to avoid problems associated with conflict; this added complexity to a 
setting in which sites were already receiving different levels of program implementation. 
As noted above, seed multiplication activities, women’s associations, and VSLA activities 
had to be cut short before the end of the implementation period, and PM2A activities 
were limited only to certain areas in Rutshuru; the Mercy Corps staff indicated that this 
was done to avoid the risk of conflict. 
B. Findings 
1. Effectiveness of Training Models 
Capacity building was a critical part of the RISE program. It took the approach of social 
and behavior change communication (SBCC), which consisted of awareness trainings for 
adults and education techniques for Lead Mothers and members of various community 
committees. These trainings covered several themes, particularly health and nutrition, 
agriculture, leadership, trade, credit, value chains, operating accounts, and gender. 
Materials were distributed that depicted best practices in easy-to-understand pictures 
and text.
Mercy Corps and its consortium members used the cascade method, which aimed to 
train a core group of direct beneficiaries on a diverse set of themes and areas including 
13
but not limited to new growing techniques, managing micro-credit, personal hygiene, 
Essential Nutrition Actions (EYA), and Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF). Typically, 
the trainings targeted 25 people who were initially supervised by an agronomist, nurse, 
or other trained practitioner. Participants were then encouraged to take the techniques 
and information they learned to their own fields, women’s groups, and other community 
outlets in order to transfer knowledge and skills to indirect beneficiaries. Some specific 
trainings included how to plant carrots and onions, how to conserve seeds for the next 
season, how to best clean clothes and utensils, and how and when to wash hands. 
A Lead Mother in Musienene offered a perspective that was shared broadly by focus 
group members who were direct beneficiaries of the trainings on agricultural production 
techniques that highlight both the benefits and the shortcomings of the training model: 
- “The SIMAMA project taught us a lot. They gave us training on how to grow crops. It 
would be good if it continued because not many of us have benefited from it so far … The 
idea was that everyone who was trained would be able to teach their peers, but they need 
to remember that we’re only human, nobody’s perfect. It will be very hard to use us to 
train other people … we were the first beneficiaries, and now we’ve got to do everything to 
get the others to join us …Say you’re a farmer-teacher in Kinyatsi, and they know that 
you’ve been given free seed. How are you supposed to tell people they have to pay for 
their seed?...That’s a problem.”
Mini-survey data indicates that the trainings reached 89% of the surveyed RISE 
beneficiaries, while only 7% of surveyed indirect beneficiaries were subsequently trained. 
While limited anecdotal evidence suggests that efforts were made to cascade—“I 
showed my neighbors how to plant cabbage, and the farmers showed people what they 
learned” (Lead Mother, Lubero)—most key informants indicated that the process of 
second line training was challenging because second line beneficiaries were not 
provided with input materials, seed, or livestock that first line beneficiaries received. 
Many non-beneficiaries reported resisting second line training unless tangible benefits 
were clear. 
Nevertheless, indirect beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (who were not slated to have 
contact with the program) reported picking up similar techniques through other means. 
For example, a focus group of non-beneficiary women in Magheria said that they had 
already been breastfeeding exclusively for a long time as instructed by the village health 
center: “… our babies are exclusively breastfed until they’re 6 months old. That’s what 
they taught us at the ante-natal checkups. We also know our children should be 
vaccinated, and when children are ill we take them to the health center.” These 
14
implemented practices mentioned were from awareness campaigns consistently used by 
Mercy Corps programs clearly indicating some overlap. Focus group respondents in 
Magheria, Kivumu, Lukanga, and Munoli noted that some SIMAMA campaigns were 
reaffirmations of the messages and skills shared through the government and religious 
health structures. 
2. Links to Markets and Public Services 
The work in this area included seed demonstrations and multiplication, studying barriers 
to the dissemination of new practices, developing and delivering training materials, 
conducting economic studies (on gross margins), social structuring through the 
establishment of Local Development Committees (LDCs), establishing savings and credit 
associations, and supporting private operators with processing equipment (such as 
shellers and mills). 
According to the mini-survey, 98% of RISE beneficiaries that participated in the survey 
reported that their agricultural practices had improved as a result of the trainings on 
storage, stocking, and pricing; in addition, 82% said their sales had increased, despite 
the fact that security challenges and implementation delays limited their ability to 
process products. Sales improvements came largely as a result of stocking and storage 
opportunities (which improved the sale of onions and potatoes) and program efforts to 
prevent crop disease (which improved the sale of cassava). One of Mercy Corps’ key 
objectives was to improve processing and market links; the program did train 26 seed 
multipliers for beans and potatoes and established Common Interest Groups (CIGs) to 
engender business opportunities related to beans, potatoes, and onions. The evaluation 
team observed that the CIGs effectively improved storage opportunities and the sharing 
of information among farmers. However, no relevant processing activities were 
undertaken by RISE, and the value chain activities began only in January 2015. 
Mercy Corps’ work in providing roads to formerly isolated communities in Rutshuru was 
seen as critical to providing access to markets. Agricultural training beneficiaries and key 
informants noted that being able to get to markets had important consequences for 
livelihoods. According to one key informant: “We didn’t have any agricultural service 
roads. A sack of cassava only used to sell for $US10 because there were no buyers, but 
the price went up when roads allowed us to get to more buyers” (LDC Member, 
Katendere). The road construction was part of the Food-For-Work program, and a 
maintenance committee was established to keep the agricultural service roads open. In 
that sense, the sustainability of these roads has been incorporated into the program 
design. 
The program also created Farmers’ Business Associations, as one particular type of 
Common Interest Group. At least 76 CIGs were created, bringing together over 2,000 
15
small producers and training them in improved agricultural techniques and business 
management and planning. The CIG members were selected from the best performing 
FFS participants. The CIGs were then used as channels to facilitate access to potential 
buyers and markets for the sale of goods and services. Here is how beneficiaries 
explained the benefit of CIGs: “We set up an association and they organized us into a 
common interest group (CIG) to sell our produce … We planned our harvest and kept what 
we needed to see us through to the next growing season … Everyone used to sell at their 
own price, but now that we share a warehouse for our produce we agree on a single price”
(beneficiary farmer, Rutshuru, North Kivu). The ability to negotiate as a collective 
prevents individual farmers from being undercut by aggressive buyers, so the sale of 
agricultural products ensures better profits for each farmer in the collective. From the 
mini-survey, 60% of respondents noted that their storage had improved, and 82% said 
that their sales had increased. The creation of CIGs and the trainings they conducted 
empowered participants with more information and with an interest in getting improved 
prices for their products as a group, thereby generating power in numbers and 
improved collection action on the part of local producers. 
RISE also sought to reinforce the link between participants and the public sector, in 
particular by supporting the Ministry of Agriculture. Overall, however, key informants 
noted that the project provided more support to the government than it received 
(President of the Comité Agricole et Rural de Gestion (CARG), Butare; Village Chief, 
Bambo Centre). One benefit from the collaboration with local communities is that the 
program signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Seed Service, 
SENASEM. Their seed inspectors made eight inspection visits to both Birambizo and 
Butembo and certified a total of 24 seed producer multipliers (PMs)—14 in Butembo 
and 10 in Birambizo. In partnership with SENASEM, Mercy Corps trained farmers in 
techniques for harvest, drying, preserving, and storing agricultural products including 
red onions, potatoes, and beans (see the RISE FY2014 narrative report). However, 
according to the CARG President in Butare, Mercy Corps implementers were the key 
actors in those trainings. Program support and collaboration with local structures was 
aimed at building capacity so that these local institutions could then provide sustainable 
support to producers after the program’s conclusion, without having to rely on staff 
from the Ministry of Agriculture. The efficacy and sustainability of that approach cannot 
yet be determined.
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
The RISE program introduced functional CIGs and Farmer Field Schools (FFSs); improved 
production techniques, pooled agricultural services, improved seed varieties, engaged in 
16
seed multiplication, organized Village Savings and Loan Associations, and added 
agricultural service roads to help increase incomes, all with the aim of sustainably 
increasing the food security and incomes of the target population. Data suggest that the 
RISE consortium had moderate success raising incomes. The support provided by the 
program allowed participants to provide for their families, and it improved financial 
solidarity in participating communities. 
Beneficiaries felt that the program has benefited their livelihoods in direct ways. The 
following are comments from Focus Group 1 (male) participants in Lukanga, North Kivu: 
- “We like SIMAMA because it has taught us so much about farming and rearing livestock, 
but we still need to learn more …” 
- “MERCY CORPS helped bring us together … The SIMAMA project has enabled us to pay 
our children’s school fees, and the money from the VSLA program makes us more 
comfortable.” 
- “MERCY CORPS gave us the bean seed, and after the harvest we’re going to give this 
seed to other farmers so that the activity continues …”
As the data suggest, these agricultural inputs and semi-formalized producer groups 
were the key to providing participants with a foundation for increased incomes and 
resources. The agricultural component of the RISE program was the most successful 
aspect of the program despite the fact that few improvements were made to the value 
chain. As noted, the program did increase access to markets through the construction of 
extension roads, which provided once isolated populations of producers with easier 
access to markets in their communities and in surrounding communities. 
In addition to the agricultural inputs, roads, and CIGs, the Village Savings and Loan 
Associations, which served as savings groups that provided access to microloans for 
members, were also highlighted as a critical source of capital for common household 
needs and income generation. Female Focus Group members in Lukanga and Rutshuru 
who accessed credit expressed the following: 
“Because of the VSLA my children are no longer turned away … Now I can pay the medical 
fees that I couldn’t afford before …” 
“In the VSLA group I’m managing to run a small business … I took 15,000 FC to pay the 
school fees … I borrowed 50,000 FC for petty commerce and for the school fees knowing 
that it had to be repaid within a certain time at a set rate of interest …”
17
“I took 20,000 FC to pay the school fees … I borrowed 60,000 FC and gave some to my 
husband for the school fees, some for household expenses and the rest for the repayments 
…”
Where the VSLAs were implemented, participants used the resources for both income 
generation and household needs. Overall 90% of the surveyed Mercy Corps beneficiaries 
felt that the program has improved their living conditions, in terms of increasing 
household income or allowing them to realize specific goals such as paying school fees 
and obtaining medical care. Note that the use of loans to pay medical fees is an ill￾advised practice since it yields no returns to help repay the loan, but ensuring the health 
of family members can be considered a financial investment in its own right. Using loans 
for school fees has a similarly delayed payoff, though it is often a concrete one if a child 
is able to reach the minimum educational requirements for stable employment. 
However, the context is so volatile and insecure in North Kivu that many of the efforts 
made by the program were undermined by ongoing and cyclical insecurity. This was 
particularly the case in 2013. 
Other changes in livelihood observed by the evaluation team include food distribution 
programs and reforestation work. The food-for-work program provided a direct benefit 
to families and also yielded productive outputs for the program. Other food distribution 
activities, such as porridge distribution, benefited a small number of households but had 
no impact beyond the direct beneficiaries of EYA programs. The reforestation activities 
created demonstrable improvement in areas where plantings took place; this was not 
quantified but was observed by the evaluation team. There are also benefits to 
sustainability in the sense that participants practiced collective action and steps were 
taken to combat natural disaster. 
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices 
The RISE Program implemented maternal health and nutrition in targeted areas of 
Rutshuru and Lubero territories. Activities included awareness trainings, malnutrition 
detection, the ENA and IYCF programs, vegetable promotion and the use of locally 
available foods, and others noted above. Beneficiaries meeting certain health and 
nutrition criteria received enriched flour and oil in Rutshuru.3
 
Mothers who had taken part in nutritional training programs and who participated in 
focus groups in Kivumu, Rushege, and Lukanga expressed knowledge gained and 
behavior changes in the following areas: 
 
3 The RISE program did not provide PM2A programming in Lubero. A clear explanation for this was never provided.
18
 Taking part in pre-natal consultations 
 Exclusive breastfeeding to children under 6 months 
 Understanding the importance of food groups to address the construction, 
protection, and energy categories in children’s health
 Eating vegetables 
 Insisting on latrine use by family members (to avoid illness and subsequent 
dehydration and malnutrition) 
Focus group participants who were direct beneficiaries of the health awareness activities 
cited the importance of vaccinations, insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs), washing hands 
before meals, and giving children balanced meals. Some mothers shared that, while 
their knowledge has improved and they try to apply it, they do not always have the 
money to give their children the kind of meals they learned about (Focus Group 2, 
Rushege; Mother Leader, Lukanga). At least as far as knowledge, however, the 
evaluation team was made aware of the following general trends from before to after 
program exposure, based on conversations with Mother Leaders and mothers in focus 
groups who benefited from the health awareness trainings: 
Changes in Nutritional Knowledge (and Reported Practice)
Before After
Women visited health clinics less 
frequently
Women widely expressed familiarity and 
use of pre-natal consultations at health 
clinics
Many women gave birth at home Several women noted that they had 
subsequent children at the health clinic
Some women were not accustomed to 
giving the colostrum (first milk; yellowish 
in color) to their newborns
Women who took part in maternal training 
indicated that they breastfeed their 
newborns within one hour of birth to take 
advantage of the yellow milk 
Some women expressed that they 
thought it was fine to move away from 
breast milk after three months 
Women widely understand that exclusive 
breastfeeding is recommended up to six 
months
Many women had little knowledge about 
the importance of multiple food groups 
Women expressed familiarity with 
constructive, protective, and energy food 
groups, and the importance of vegetables
19
Focus groups and mini-surveys revealed that the health centers frequented by project 
beneficiaries were also used by indirect beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Some 
degree of cascading likely contributed, though the non-beneficiaries also obtained 
similar knowledge through other external programs. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
Concrete activities undertaken as part of the RISE program aimed at changing behaviors 
regarding gender norms included: 
 Sexual violence training 
 Awareness workshops on girls’ education and the prevention of child marriage
 Discussions of male and female household roles, and opportunities for women to 
contribute to household decision making 
 Mixed male and female information sessions on the above topics 
Male and female project beneficiaries expressed awareness that gender equality can 
enable them to live peacefully in their homes and communities. Consistently, female 
focus group participants expressed that they want their daughters not to marry before 
18 and to be able to take on responsible jobs (FGs in Katendere, Kivumu, Rushege, and 
Magheria). They view working together in the fields as a culturally appropriate example 
of gender equality; change is promising but likely slow amongst other tasks, such as 
preparing meals, doing domestic chores, and fetching water. 
Men, generally, expressed acceptance that gender equality can have positive outcomes. 
A male-only focus group in Munoli shared the opinion that when women work, they can 
enrich the household and provide better lives for their children. However, the concern 
raised at the outset regarding socially desirable responses from male beneficiaries 
seemed to the evaluation team to affect responses from many males in the focus 
groups: they offered opinions consistent with belief in gender equality but often had 
little in the way of evidence or examples from their own context to support those claims. 
Furthermore, participants did not easily attribute those attitudes to the Mercy Corps 
activities: key informants noted that many other actors were conducting training and 
work on this issue, and Mercy Corps did not have a gender strategy at the outset of the 
program. 
The mini-surveys corroborated result findings which showed that direct beneficiaries 
and non-beneficiaries who did not have contact with the program have similar 
perceptions of gender equality and expressed similar opinions regarding various gender 
roles. Over 90% of respondents from both groups said that it was wrong that only boys 
20
were educated to the detriment of girls; 78.3% of beneficiaries and 68% of non￾beneficiaries think that domestic chores should be done by women, while 90% of 
beneficiaries and over 85% of non-beneficiaries recognize that it is wrong to beat 
women for any reason. Focus group participants expressed that they received the same 
information about gender issues from their church and other community organizations 
(see female-only FG1 in Munoli and FG2 in Kivumu). 
Moreover, gender-related activities in the Lubero area did not start until January 2015, 
and at the project’s official end were still in the training stage.4
 Under current conditions, 
it is difficult to assess what progress has been made in this domain. Meanwhile, two 
local NGOs – LIFEPACO (League of Rural Congolese Women) and SYDIP (Union for the 
defense of farmers’ interests) – have been working with local communities and 
especially their churches to raise awareness of gender issues. 
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions 
Community Early Warning Systems (CEWS) were a centerpiece of the RISE effort to 
address Disaster Risk Reduction. They use a participatory approach to engage 
stakeholders in identifying the risks of natural disasters and implementing actions to
prevent or mitigate them (such as reforestation programs to tackle soil erosion). A key 
informant expressed the benefits of the activity in the following way: 
- “When we have problems, we alert specialist services such as the CSPA, which works on 
that kind of thing. If there’s a problem with a disease, then it’s easy to spot…There are 
problems with food, and with water running through the village; we’ve given residents 
trees to deal with all that” (Fathers’ leader, Katandere).
Mini-survey results suggest that understanding of the committee’s work is widespread: 
95% of respondents knew that these committees were initiated by the project, and 80% 
stated that the community has been able to identify situations of risk and manage them 
through dialogue and awareness. 
Members of the Community Development Committees (CDC) stressed the work they do 
in response planning, for example, in terms of malaria prevention, reduction of standing 
water, and erosion control planting hedges. The early warning systems and response 
planning initiatives were not frequently mentioned by agricultural focus group 
participants, but there are times in which the initiatives are effective but not widely 
 
4 A meeting with Mercy Corps’ partner, Catholic Relief Services, on March 9, 2016 confirmed that a gender advisor did 
not arrive until August 2014, at which time a gender assessment took place prior to activities beginning.
21
observed. For example, the evaluation team was shown an area in Bamboo Village 
Centre where flooding has been largely prevented through the construction of water 
barriers by RISE participants. Much of the actual work in early warning systems seemed 
to be based on the participation of volunteers associated with the program. 
Key informants suggest that CEWS actions are hampered by the fact that committee 
members are not very representative and are not trained in planning and management. 
Specifically, key informants indicated to the evaluation team that traditional leaders 
tended to exert too much influence over committee membership, and little information 
was provided to community members ahead of time regarding roles, responsibilities, or 
the process for selection. The committees also have difficulty mobilizing resources to 
neutralize or pre-empt disasters, since reforestation interventions are very expensive 
(FBA Member, Katandere; CEWS member, Magheria). Given those challenges, it is not 
surprising that, in the mini-surveys, 61% of all respondents did not know whether the 
committees have any plans in place, and 40% of those who did know about such plans 
were unsure whether they are linked with national priorities and plans. 
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
RISE invested substantially in creating instruments and mechanisms to improve 
governance and conflict management at the community level. The program sought to 
support governance by: 
 Supporting and strengthening local associations that existed before the program; 
 Setting up committees to plan and mobilize local development initiatives (LDCs); 
mitigate natural disasters (CEWS); encourage agricultural development (CARG, 
FFS); and mediate land conflicts (LDC, LC, CIG); 
 Establishing VSLA groups that enable people to access land by buying, renting 
(sharecropping), or otherwise increasing the amount of land they cultivate. 
The evaluation team observed active commitment to community groups, especially the 
CIGs. They include farmers working together to improve agricultural techniques, yields, 
transport and marketing, and they serve as an intermediate structure between the 
isolated farmer and the local government. 
Information from stakeholders suggests that, while the concept is welcomed, challenges 
exist in the legitimacy of these structures due to issues with how committee members 
are selected and the power of village chiefs to co-opt or overrule the LDCs (Village rep, 
Magheria). As a result, they are not always representative and often lack transparency in 
the way that members are selected and benefits distributed. Many committee members 
are direct beneficiaries of the program (pastor and village rep, Munoli).
22
Regarding land access, focus group discussants indicated that this is one of the most 
critical local issues (see FGs in Katendere, Bambo Centre, and Kivumu). In the quote 
below, a beneficiary highlights how the CARG helps address local tensions related to 
land by creating channels to local authorities who manage land rights: 
- “Through the project, the head of the CARG in the village is working with plantation 
owners to see how they can help other people gain access to land. (Of course) growers 
need to know each other. The CARG set up committees to build a good relationship with 
the local authorities. Before (when there were land conflicts) people spent their money 
going to court but that was before we had the CARG” (beneficiary farmer, Bambo Centre). 
Focus group participants offered several examples of a CIG pooling resources to 
purchase land with support from the program, which could then allow them to further 
their economic activities. However, they noted that the group remains dependent on a 
clear relationship with the Government of DRC, and leaders of CARGs and LDCs noted 
that their existence will be tested when they must function without financial or technical 
support from the program (FG2, Rwabangi; FG3, Kivumu). 
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions 
Mercy Corps worked in the territories of Lubero and Rutshuru in North Kivu. In the 
Lubero area, almost everyone the evaluation team spoke to in Musienene said that the 
SIMAMA project had only worked there for a year and that all the components were still 
in the test phase (agriculture, livestock rearing, micro-credits, hygiene and sanitation).5
As a result, they did not feel that it had generated solid enough achievements to 
suggest the potential for real sustainability, especially in terms of the trainings reaching 
a critical mass of people. 
The evaluation team noted that in Lubero, various training sessions were still underway 
while they were conducting the evaluation. Some of the participants in the Focus Groups 
in Lukanga, for example, had to leave the session to attend training courses. The direct 
and indirect beneficiaries whom the evaluation team met were pessimistic about the 
sustainability of the activities undertaken by the SIMAMA project during its operational 
phase. In the village of Musienene, for example, participants in FG2 made the following 
comments about the sustainability of Mercy Corps activities: 
 
5 RISE representatives note that the program withdrew from the conflict areas of Rushuru in 2013 and re-opened 
early in 2014 in Butembo. As a result of those security challenges, the time frame for DFAP activities in Beni and 
Lubero was reduced to two years. This may have affected RISE effectiveness. 
23
- “… the project was a trial, now it needs to be perpetuated …We’re in the test phase 
because there are still not very many households and other seeds haven’t reached their 
seed cycle… this project could help because it trains us. It should continue so it can help 
other people who haven’t participated in the training. We don’t know if the project is going 
to continue or not because not many people went to the trainings.”
Some respondents expressed concern over the ability of the projects to continue in the 
future. During a focus group discussion, one agricultural VSLA beneficiary said “this 
project has changed many aspects of our daily lives, but it’s still not enough. You have to 
find us another NGO to safeguard what has been achieved…” (FG1 participant, 
Musienene). Mercy Corps wants the CARGs to play this role, but unfortunately the CARG 
in Lubero is not operational. During an interview in Lukanga, an official from the Rural 
Agricultural Council (RAC) told the evaluation team, “beneficiaries find it hard to believe 
in the RAC. We’ve even said this to the No.1 in Simama and Mercy Corps. It’s in the 
memorandum of understanding.”
Despite better program performance in the Rutshuru area, concerns about sustainability 
persist. During focus group discussions, men and women from the village of 
Katendere—beneficiaries of both the IYCF and agricultural training activities—made the 
following comments about the SIMAMA project interventions: 
“…Yes we believe that activities should continue and pray that they’ll come back … And 
we’ve learned a lot about avoiding malnutrition in our children… Now that we have 
warehouses to store our produce, we just need help finding a good market for it.”
 
Focus group participants in Rutshuru did say that they will support the road committee 
after the project leaves because it has revitalized the community. And a community 
leader in Bambo expressed more confidence in the project’s sustainability, emphasizing 
that “…activities will continue because they’re useful. Our leaders will carry on educating 
people so that we don’t go backwards.”
Regarding agricultural interventions, observations and discussions with key informants 
suggest that cassava and bean cultivation activities can be sustainable. Cuttings and 
seeds are easy to find, and beneficiaries of the project have already seen the benefits of 
lined seeding, so they are likely to continue the practice. Other indirect beneficiaries are 
likely to follow suit gradually. The sustainability of condiment crops and vegetable 
gardening, however, is less promising. A lack of seeds is likely to be a problem, and 
beneficiaries who had the opportunity to grow the crops in their fields or experimental 
schools were not able to keep an adequate supply of seeds for the following season. In 
addition, the seeds that were distributed to them through the RISE program were small 
in quantity.
24
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned (see Table A3 in the Annex) 
The findings from the Mercy Corps RISE/SIMAMA program evaluation call attention to 
both positive and negative aspects of the program. Those strengths and weaknesses 
follow. 
Strengths 
1) The SBCC trainings were effective, particularly in reaching direct beneficiaries with 
practical demonstrations and capacity building. Areas of positive impact include the 
EYA and IYCF nutritional programs, agricultural techniques, and farmers’ collectives. 
They also contributed to stated support for gender equality. This conclusion stems 
from the evidence that direct beneficiaries took part in the trainings (p. 13), 
incorporated nutrition and health learning into their own experiences (p. 17), and 
exploited credit opportunities to increase their incomes from agriculture (p. 14).
2) Community Interest Groups helped to bolster production, and participants 
particularly benefited from the VSLAs that they were able to access through the CIGs. 
Participants reported receiving loans and using them to improve production (see p. 
16). 
3) Agricultural programs increased household incomes, especially by improving storage 
options and thus bolstering sales. Participants reported that onion and cassava sales 
improved notably after storage improved (see p. 13), and they also noted gains from 
participation and collaboration in agricultural associations (p. 16). 
4) Village Savings and Loan Associations serve as a critical safety net for beneficiaries, 
improving access to health care and offsetting the costs of crises (i.e. funerals, school 
fees). Respondents noted that, without access to formal banking, these opportunities 
for loans helped in times of need (pp. 14-15).
5) Agricultural service roads, upgraded through food-for-work initiatives, were critical 
for productivity and market access. While road construction by itself is not a 
sustainable activity, the food-for-work component provided several benefits: 
resources, skill development, and access to markets. Increased sales resulted (see p. 
14). 
Early warning systems and partnerships with local government have some positive 
impacts on disaster risk reduction and improved governance provided that the different 
partners work together in a transparent manner. Stakeholders have noted that plans for 
25
developing these relationships exists, though they are not yet well known or widespread 
(pp. 19-20). 
Weaknesses 
Follow-on trainings for indirect beneficiaries were weak; a real drop-off took place after 
the training of first-line, direct beneficiaries. Furthermore, a lack of faith that programs 
would continue effectively after the conclusion of the program undermined the 
sustainability of training programs. Participants expressed being unclear about program 
handover, and many potential indirect beneficiaries indicated that trainings did not 
extend past the first line (see pp. 13, 21) 
1) A high level of duplication exists in the local provision of health and nutrition 
programs as well as gender activities (see pp. 13, 19). This is not by itself a weakness 
in the Mercy Corps program; beneficiaries do note a positive impact. However, 
Mercy Corps seems not to have taken adequate pains to determine what activities 
were already carried out by other actors in the area or to differentiate its health and 
nutrition programs.
2) Market access and value chain activities realized only limited success. Participants 
complained of adjustments and delays in the value chain activities (p. 13), which 
undermined their ability to couple processing and sales with production. 
3) Programs suffered from a late start; as the report notes, and Mercy Corps staff 
confirmed, some trainings did not begin until January 2015 (p. 13). This is in part due 
to concerns over insecurity in the region, but the effectiveness of the activities—and 
the ability to track their effectiveness—suffered due to the fact that participants only 
recently became fully organized in their participation. 
4) Communities perceive material handouts to be a central component of Mercy Corps 
programs. This is true of educational training materials as well as agricultural 
programs that distribute seeds, the livestock programs that distribute guinea pigs, 
and the nutritional programs that distributed flour and oil (see pp. 13, 16). There are 
ways to gradually phase out subsidies and handouts, and no informants or 
participants suggested that the distribution of material goods was not a valuable 
contribution in the short-term. However, the ability to perform cascade training was 
hampered by expectations and subsequent frustration on the part of potential 
second-line beneficiaries. 
26
Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives
This section draws on the evidence, strengths, and weaknesses presented above in order 
to evaluate the responsiveness of the Mercy Corps DFAP implementation to the core 
objectives of the Food For Peace initiative. Please refer to the sub-sections above for the 
evidence underpinning these summary comments on the Mercy Corps DFAP. 
1. Effectiveness of Training Models and BCC
 How well did the “training of trainers” and “cascade training” models and other 
modes of BCC contribute to the dissemination of information, skills, and 
knowledge, and with what accuracy? 
o Direct beneficiaries who were trained as part of the BCC model were in 
many cases overwhelmed with the responsibility of then training indirect 
beneficiaries. They were also hamstrung by limitations related to the 
material benefits available for distribution to indirect beneficiaries (and the 
expectations that such benefits would be forthcoming). 
 What evidence exists to suggest that information, skill, and/or knowledge 
“spilled-over” from direct program participants to non-participants? 
o Some anecdotal evidence reported above indicates that indirect 
beneficiaries observed new practices of direct beneficiaries, particularly in 
agricultural techniques. Overall, however, the evaluation team did not 
obtain evidence of a strong and systematic transfer of skills and 
knowledge from direct beneficiaries to indirect beneficiaries. 
 How did the rate/accuracy of applying the knowledge and skills change at the 
various levels? 
o A steep drop-off occurred from direct beneficiaries to indirect 
beneficiaries. Non-beneficiaries who did not have contact with the 
program did not benefit from spillover of knowledge and skills, but several 
core objectives (particularly related to nutrition and gender) are covered 
by other projects in the region, so some new knowledge and 
competencies are shared widely. 
2. Strength of Linkages to Markets and Public Services
 What is the current nature and strength of linkages between target beneficiaries 
and local market actors (e.g. increased access to inputs and credit, increased 
sales, etc.)? 
o The evaluation team characterizes the linkages between target 
beneficiaries and local market actors as adequate. Sales for many 
producers have increased as they have gained access to credit and 
27
storage. Shortcomings still exist in terms of adding value at the processing 
stage. 
 How have these changed since the projects began? 
o An important change since the project began was the construction of 
roads that enable producers to more easily get their goods to market. In 
addition, farmers have improved their stocking opportunities and are 
earning better prices for their goods by virtue of negotiating as a 
collective. These changes constitute clear improvements since the project 
began. 
 Similarly, what is the nature and strength of linkages between targeted 
communities and government and non-government agriculture extension, health, 
and nutrition services and how they changed through the projects duration? 
o The relationship between targeted communities and government actors 
was helpful to both parties, particularly in terms of partnerships with the 
Ministry of Agriculture. Local communities received training from experts, 
and the Ministry benefited from village-level implementation of important 
agricultural programs. Concerns about sustainability exist, since 
government experts cannot be expected to remain with the program. 
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
 How do beneficiaries feel the project interventions influenced household 
incomes and livelihoods? 
o Women beneficiaries of the VSLAs noted benefits in terms of making small 
investments and investing in the long-term educational opportunities of 
their children. Farmer beneficiaries felt that the project contributed 
positively to household incomes in multiple ways: VSLAs allowed them to 
expand their production, farmers’ business associations allowed them to 
store crops for sale later and to establish better prices. 
 Which interventions had greater or lesser influence on household incomes and 
livelihoods? Why? 
o VSLAs had a strong impact on livelihoods both by creating opportunities 
for new and better income streams and also by helping families to avert 
the financial impact of unforeseen circumstances. Nutritional supplements 
and the dissemination of rabbits and guinea pigs had less influence 
because the benefits were short-lived (the evaluation team did not see 
evidence of effective businesses starting from these livestock 
distributions). Plant disease control helped to improve farmers’ income by 
28
protecting more of their crops and allowing those crops to get to market. 
The construction of access roads had a clear positive impact on market 
sales. 
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices 
 The three DFAPs adopted different models to improve the nutritional status of 
beneficiaries. What can be learned about the challenges to and effectiveness 
of the different methods? 
o The Mercy Corps DFAP relied heavily on awareness trainings to expose 
women to improved nutritional behaviors, and on nutritional supplements 
as reward for meeting health and nutrition standards. The strategy proved 
effective in improving knowledge. A remaining challenge is to couple that 
knowledge with strategies for accessing the healthy foods that those 
mothers now know they need. The nutritional supplements are valuable to 
direct beneficiaries of the programs and, while they may be sufficient to 
induce behavioral changes, they also create awareness of a need (for 
nutritional supplements) that may go unmet post-DFAP. 
 How have parents’ attitudes and practices with regard to child feeding and 
care changed over the past few years? 
o There is clear evidence of parents (particularly mothers) adopting new 
attitudes toward pre-natal care, breastfeeding, and nutritional diversity 
that corresponds with the program period. It is difficult to determine the 
extent to which the DFAP trainings are spilling over: cascade training of 
indirect beneficiaries was limited, and many non-beneficiaries expressed 
that they receive the same training and information from other sources. 
Regarding practices, attention to birthing and child care issues seems to 
have improved during the life of the program; practices that demand 
resources, such as providing balanced meals, have proven more difficult 
for families to implement. 
 How do parents who have had another child since graduating from a DFAP 
nutrition intervention feed and care for this new child compared to previously 
born children? 
o Children born after their parents participated in the DFAP nutrition 
intervention are more likely to have been born in the health clinic, to have 
received pre-natal care, and to be breastfed quickly to capitalize on the 
initial colostrum. They are somewhat more likely to have received 
vaccinations for tuberculosis and yellow fever, though the standards for 
polio vaccination have remained strong due to other initiatives. 
29
 How well did these mothers eat and pursue pre- and post-natal care during 
and after their latest pregnancies? 
o Pre-natal care in particular improved as a result of the DFAP; women who 
took part in the programs were more likely to take advantage of pre-natal 
care opportunities. The evaluation team did not observe big differences in 
post-natal care, aside from mothers having improved knowledge 
regarding breastfeeding. Consumption of diverse and healthy meals does 
not seem to have changed significantly since their previous pregnancies 
due to resource limitations, though their knowledge of what constitutes a 
balanced meal certainly has. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
 Since participating in DFAP interventions, how have perceptions of male and 
female beneficiaries changed with regard to men’s and women’s roles, 
responsibilities and opportunities in: household and community decision 
making, household labor and income generation, participation in community 
and social institutions, access to and control over household and community 
resources, and freedom of speech and movement? 
o It is difficult to determine the extent to which perceptions on gender 
norms have changed as a result of the Mercy Corps DFAP. Expressed 
attitudes of both women and men indicate broad support for gender 
equity, but the evaluation team had some concerns over potential social 
desirability bias in male responses. Other programs working in the areas 
are also promoting similar changes, so those who had no contact with the 
DFAP often expressed attitudes in keeping with the program objectives. 
Women, for their part, responded positively to messages of empowerment 
and shared household duties. 
 What evidence shows that some interventions have been more or less effective 
than others in influencing the attitudes of men or women? 
o Commonly, male participants in focus groups expressed platitudes but 
offered fewer concrete examples of engagement with gender equality. This 
evidence suggests that interventions with men were less effective. Females 
generated and supported ideas involving shared workloads; their input 
suggests that the DFAP activities aimed at generating women’s 
empowerment were more effective. Finally, evidence from the mini-surveys 
suggests that attitudes are broadly supportive of gender equity, but that 
this is true among non-beneficiaries as well as beneficiaries. The evaluation 
team interprets this evidence as indicating that activities on gender norms, 
while important in contributing to improved perceptions, are not 
30
differentiated enough to allow for measurement of their discrete 
contributions to the attitudes of men and women. 
 What evidence is there that these attitudes will or will not spread more widely 
in the community after the projects end? 
o The evidence of overlap across gender programs in the region suggests 
that, because similar messages were promoted by both the Mercy Corps 
DFAP and by other actors, those consistent messages are likely to spread 
widely after the project’s end. Furthermore, even insincere but socially 
desirable perspectives, to the extent that they influenced male responses, 
eventually help to erode overt gender discrimination and may improve 
norms among younger males. 
 
6. Outputs of DRR Interventions 
 What is the quality of community and household disaster risk reduction 
measures and plans that were supported by the project interventions? 
o The evaluation team observed tree planting, water barriers, and drainage 
ditches developed as part of the Mercy Corps DFAP to reduce disasters 
and risks. Community planning sessions and early warning systems also 
addressed the need to be prepared for potential disasters, though their 
activities were not often observable or clearly attributable to the DFAP. 
The evaluation team did not observe systematic DRR measures at the 
household level. 
 What factors have promoted or challenged the development, implementation, 
or quality of these plans and practices? 
o The early warning system promotes the quality of DRR planning by 
collecting information on at-risk areas. The selection process for members 
of the CEWS and CDC committees is a factor that challenged the effective 
implementation of DRR plans and practices. Perceiving that traditional 
leaders held too much influence over committee members, informants 
expressed that the process did not produce the most competent or 
representative members. 
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
 What evidence exists to suggest that DFAP governance initiatives affected land 
tenure, access to land, and/or conflict within communities? 
o There is little evidence to suggest that the Mercy Corps DFAP had a 
systematic impact on land tenure and access to land. Informants 
suggested that too much of the land is still controlled by the state, so few 
opportunities for real change exist. Widespread familiarity with the 
31
existence of CEWS may constitute evidence that a foundation exists to 
mitigate conflict, though whether committees’ attention to areas of risk 
could be enough to offset future incentives for conflict is unclear. 
 Which initiatives had greater or less success and why? 
o Opportunities for community members to pool resources in order to 
obtain land proved to be an effective and sought-after opportunity, 
despite reliance on a clear relationship with the GoDRC. This worked well 
where residents were able to obtain land because those who farmed could 
keep a greater share of profits, and partners were able to share the risk as 
well as the reward. VSLAs were successful for similar reasons. The 
organization of CIGs and CARGs to bolster local governance and reduce 
conflicts was less successful, because community members saw favoritism 
and a lack of transparency in the way committee members and leaders 
were selected. 
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions: 
 What evidence exists to suggest that the capacities, practices, behaviors, 
systems and linkages critical to maintaining the food security outcomes will 
continue after the end of the project life? 
o Focus group members expressed that they developed collective action 
skills working on the reforestation programs and in agricultural collectives. 
Food-for-work beneficiaries learned maintenance skills that will help to 
sustain access roads. Numerous families indicated that credit opportunities 
allowed them to either start businesses or invest in their children’s 
education. Beneficiaries who worked in partnership with the seed team 
from the Ministry of Agriculture learned skills that they hope to be able to 
implement on their own. 
 If so, which ones? What are the factors inhibiting the sustainability of program 
interventions? 
o The most promising activities in terms of sustainability include the 
reforestation program, which reduces risk while building collective action; 
the road building program, provided that community members take part 
in maintenance; and the VSLA opportunities for credit, provided that loans 
are used for investment purposes. Factors that inhibit the sustainability of 
programs include the need to continue paying for outside expertise (i.e. 
agronomists from the Ministry of Agriculture), household expenditures 
that eat into loans without providing clear financial returns (such as 
funerals and medical emergencies), and the distribution of material 
32
benefits (supplements, animals, seeds, and training materials) that create 
expectations but that cannot be continued after the life of the project. 
9. Lessons Learned 
 What are the lessons learned from the Food for Peace portfolio design, 
implementation and M&E 
o A critical lesson learned is that program interventions are subject to 
disruption in the face of insecurity, and those disruptions can undermine 
the potential impact of the activities. Postponing activities altogether may 
in some cases be a better course of action in the context of insecurity. 
Another important lesson learned is that indirect beneficiaries are quick to 
notice the material benefits to direct beneficiaries. Cascade training 
methods need to take those expectations into account. 
 What could have been done to better ensure results were achieved and 
sustained? 
o Activities in Lubero, on gender norms in particular, began too late to 
contribute to systematic change. Much of this was a result of security 
challenges, but the IP might have streamlined its effort to put a gender 
specialist in place earlier. Cascade training methods could bring direct 
beneficiaries along gradually, with practice training sessions and feedback, 
to ensure their capacity to train indirect beneficiaries. 
 Are there innovations and methodologies that merit replication and scale up? 
o CIGs and VSLAs provided numerous benefits to beneficiaries and 
communities, in terms of improving livelihoods, transferring knowledge, 
and building collective action so that community members can sustain 
their activities independent of outside help. These measures merit 
replication. 
 What measure can future programs take to increase food security and durable 
development in the Eastern DRC. 
o Based on the Mercy Corps program, the evaluation team would 
recommend cascade training methods that prioritize training of trainers, 
scaled up CIG and VSLA programs, nutrition and gender programs that 
either collaborate directly with other actors or differentiate their activities 
with greater participatory elements and program labeling (for M&E 
purposes), reforestation and road construction that incorporates Food￾For-Work initiatives and maintenance training, and transparent processes 
for the selection of committees working on DRR and local governance. The 
following sub-section elaborates on these recommendations. 
33
D. Recommendations (again, see Table A3 in the Annex) 
The strengths, weaknesses, and program effectiveness of the Mercy Corps program 
outlined above point to a number of recommendations that the FFP office should 
consider when designing and implementing new programs. We elaborate on them here. 
 SBCC trainings proved effective and should be employed in future programs, but 
with a clear and improved process for handing over training leadership and 
cascading. Those trainings were successful on a number of fronts for direct 
beneficiaries. However, systematic coaching that could lead to cascading benefits 
from direct beneficiaries down to other indirect beneficiaries did not take place as 
anticipated. To improve the program as it was implemented in this instance, teacher￾trainings and ongoing support should be a central aspect of the beneficiary 
trainings. How: build in systematic teacher training for direct beneficiaries; devote 
time, training, feedback, and incentives to improving their competence in passing on 
knowledge; evaluate and provide feedback on early cascade training sessions 
conducted by the direct beneficiaries (with indirect beneficiaries as the target 
audience); provide similar training materials for early indirect beneficiaries and 
gradually move away from program-provided materials. With whom: direct 
beneficiaries of trainings, with clearly identified indirect beneficiaries as recipients 
and program staff as support. Why: improving the cascade process of training will 
ensure that program benefits are disseminated more widely. 
 Local interest groups and associations should be a centerpiece of subsequent FFP 
efforts to generate shared resilience. They must be well-organized and capitalize on 
initial excitement. Participants expressed clear benefits from the collaboration, and 
the associations can be fully sustainable. CIGs, VSLA, and Agricultural Associations 
must be given administrative support to ensure long-term independence. How: 
organize common interest groups and create explicit partnerships (and regular 
informational sessions and meetings) between those groups and VSLAs. With 
whom: farmers and producers in particular, but also women’s groups; formal 
financial institutions may be invited to offer assistance and collaborate with the 
VSLAs. Why: the collaboration that stemmed from CIGs and farmers associations 
was positive; if the techniques and opportunities that individuals learn there can be 
easily linked to credit opportunities, the payoffs to livelihood and food security 
should come more easily. 
 Nutrition programs should focus on clear areas of differentiation, or else work in 
coordination with other external entities. This will require in-depth analyses prior to 
the implementation of new programs, as well as a willingness and flexibility to alter 
pre-designed plans in the face of duplication. Programs that overlap with the work of 
34
other external actors could be sequenced in valuable ways through collaboration. 
Nutrition programs constitute an important and positive impact especially if 
attitudes are transformed into behaviors with coaching and follow-up. How:
collaborate with other entities, such as churches and donors, working on nutrition in 
the area. Determine areas of overlap or specialization, so that FFP activities can be 
monitored and evaluated while also contributing to widespread improvements in 
competencies. With whom: program staff can play a central role in the planning 
stages to determine what other nutrition programs are taking place. Mother Leaders 
and nurses can work with program staff and serve as liaisons between the program 
staff and direct beneficiaries. Why: the nutrition programs provided clear and 
positive benefits in terms of attitude change, but other entities are doing the same. 
In order to determine the extent to which FFP resources impact local communities, 
efforts should be undertaken to identify the specific contributions of FFP programs. 
 Road and other value chain projects should rely on food-for-work initiatives. This 
strategy will allow for short-term direct benefits to participants and longer-term gain 
in terms of market access. A clear timetable is also critical to the success of value 
chain activities, so that participants can couple their productive enterprises with 
processing and sales. How: have road infrastructure experts train beneficiaries in 
road maintenance during the course of the project. Provide food-for-work as 
remuneration for participants. Establish competency guidelines in road maintenance 
so that those beneficiaries who trained alongside experts are prepared to carry out 
the work and incorporate other indirect beneficiaries over time. With whom: direct 
beneficiaries who show promise and interest; in partnership and collaboration with 
engineers and other staff from the GoDRC. Why: a road may not seem to be a 
sustainable activity, but the access that roads provide to markets and the skill 
transfer that takes place in maintenance work can pay dividends beyond the life of a 
project. Tying the activity with food-for-work incentivizes participation and provides 
a short-term benefit that is not simply a handout. 
 Local governance, Disaster Risk Reduction, and conflict resolution strategies 
must incorporate a balance of input from stakeholders and a clear plan for ongoing 
support. Leadership should ultimately be determined by community institutions, 
and the distinct incentives of government, community members, and external actors 
should be a centerpiece of designing cooperation strategies to mitigate risk. How: 
create a public and transparent system for selecting members to committees 
responsible for DRR, local governance, and conflict; draw members from different 
villages (if the committees are multi-village), and create quotas for important identity 
groups (i.e. women, minority ethnicities, etc.). At the inception of such committees, 
develop an action plan that can be shared with the community; include activities 
35
such as drainage ditches and parcel demarcation that give community members a 
clear notion of the committees’ work. With whom: a mix of community members, 
some civil servants, some community leaders, and—importantly—others nominated 
as strong candidates. Why: the perception of a lack of representation undermined 
trust in committees working on local governance and conflict resolution. Conducting 
activities early on that can be observed by the community will reinforce trust and 
mobilize community members to support the initiatives. 
 Programs must begin on time and emphasize training over material handouts. 
Where handouts are critical to program success, we recommend phased subsidies, 
small seed packets, and participant-produced materials for trainings. These 
strategies can help to combat inflated expectations, frustration, and misconceptions 
about the program goals. How: in areas suffering from conflict, start with a small 
staff of specialist(s) and aim to build up the program around a few specific activities. 
If progress appears impossible, cancel or postpone the entire program in those areas 
in order to quickly avert creating expectations that cannot be met. Ensure that 
trainings and other programs that disseminate materials plan a round of distribution 
to indirect beneficiaries (from the direct beneficiaries who then train them using the 
cascade model); the following round of indirect beneficiaries might receive a smaller 
amount but might also profit from the investments in earlier beneficiaries (i.e. as 
their plants and animals grow/multiply). With whom: starting with direct 
beneficiaries and program staff, then incorporating rounds of indirect beneficiaries; 
maintaining oversight from program staff until direct beneficiaries are comfortable 
as trainers. Why: dissemination of material benefits is sensitive—the short-term 
benefits are important, but as participants come to expect them, expectations can 
undermine the sustainability of the program. 
III. SOUTH KIVU: ADRA DFAP
A. Summary of Program Objectives 
The objective of the Jenga Jamaa II program was to reduce long-term food insecurity 
among vulnerable families in the Fizi, Uvira and Kalehe areas of South Kivu. The program 
was structured around four key strategic objectives: 
Improve vulnerable producers’ incomes by increasing, diversifying, and selling their 
output. Improving productivity and diversifying production required the adoption of 
new practices, access to credit, irrigation, and drainage. These goals were addressed 
through five specific activities: training in farmer field schools, distributing inputs such as 
seeds and plants, promoting technologies, seed multiplication, and developing irrigation 
and drainage infrastructures. In addition, sales of agricultural produce depend on access 
36
to markets and good quality produce, which were facilitated by the following activities: 
training in commercial agriculture, strengthening value chains by improving processing, 
improving harvesting and post-harvest techniques, and developing storage 
infrastructures. 
Improve the health and nutritional status of children under 5-years-old by 
improving maternal health, child nutrition, and the management of childhood illnesses. 
The four principal activities related to maternal health are distributing rations for 
pregnant and breastfeeding women, promoting trained agricultural support groups, 
training committees, and distributing micronutrient supplements (iron). The four 
activities to improve child nutrition include support groups for mothers, cooking 
demonstrations, distributing rations for children under 2-years-old, and training health 
workers. To improve management of child illnesses, the program’s key activities are 
training support groups, hygiene practice demonstrations (handwashing), rehabilitating 
infrastructures such as roads and water sources, and constructing latrines. 
Strengthen women’s socio-economic status by improving their control over 
household resources, reducing violence against women, and increasing their 
participation in the community. To improve control over resources, the project 
undertook the following activities: training for savings groups and capacity building, 
distributing inputs, and improving access to veterinary services. To reduce violence 
against women, activities included training listening groups, training community 
development committees (CDCs), mapping protection structures, and planning 
prevention and protection activities. Women’s participation in the community was 
addressed through information and literacy training, reducing workloads through 
collaboration and streamlined domestic work, and training sessions to promote different 
kinds of produce. 
Strengthen community resilience to shocks by improving local responses to natural 
disasters. This goal was to be addressed through: 1) better natural resource 
management, training, setting up nurseries, and distributing plants; 2) improving local 
governance by training CDCs, producer groups, and agricultural planning. Setting up 
governance structures (CDCs, producer groups, and support groups) facilitates cross￾cutting planning, coordination between program actors, and a long-term vision to 
reduce food insecurity among vulnerable families. 
B. Findings 
1. Effectiveness of Training Models 
ADRA organized a complex set of SBCC capacity-building activities for beneficiaries and 
targeted members of the different committees that were created by the program. 
37
Several themes were covered: health (nutrition, hygiene, and family planning), 
leadership, agriculture, trade, credit, value chains, gender and literacy training. Specific 
trainings included: 
 Training for farmers and producers to get their products to market 
 Training health workers in sanitation and infant and young child feeding 
 Training support groups for mothers to address child nutrition and illness 
 Training in farmer field schools to promote exposure to seed varieties, awareness 
of crop diseases, and use of agricultural technologies 
 Training agents to teach literacy and numeracy through content-based learning 
The village literacy training sessions were held over several years (2011 to 2015). Most of 
the 25 participants attained literacy and numeracy by the end of the training. 
Participants expressed great satisfaction: “I never believed that I’d have a hope of 
learning to read and write at my age, but ADRA opened my eyes...” (65-year-old FG 
participant in Hongero). The evaluation team noted through focus groups in Hongero 
that the beneficiaries’ level of knowledge improved in several areas, particularly, 
governance, agriculture and maternal/infant health; they spoke comfortably of best 
practices in the focus group discussions. These gains were a function of content-based 
learning, whereby trainers taught literacy skills using content applicable to the DFAP 
strategic objectives. The literacy trainings and the spread of practical knowledge were 
bolstered with educational materials (booklets with illustrations accompanying the text) 
that covered these topics. 
However, the fact that only one cohort was trained over a five-year period was 
frustrating to non-beneficiaries. In a focus group in Kasheke that included potential 
indirect beneficiaries, participants shared frustration over not being included. 
Regarding trainings in health and nutrition, mothers who took part in focus groups in 
Munene, Kahama, Nundu, and Rutemba said that they learned to prioritize a number of 
behaviors: to routinely give birth at the health center, to breastfeed exclusively until their 
babies are 6-months-old, to wash their hands at critical times, to take their children to 
the health center if they have a fever, and to give their children supplementary feeds 
from 7 months onwards. Direct beneficiaries who took part in the IYCF trainings 
comfortably cited these behaviors in the focus groups. 
Evidence and feedback pertaining to agricultural trainings (FFS and agricultural 
processing) were overwhelmingly positive. Focus group participants broadly shared the 
view that they feel more comfortable dedicating effort to producing condiment and 
38
garden varieties in addition to staple crops. However, participants did not offer feedback 
(either positive or negative) regarding the success of new agricultural technologies and 
methods. 
Regarding the cascading method of training indirect beneficiaries, the mini-survey 
results indicate that 94.4% of beneficiaries had training access, compared with only 
22.9% of indirect beneficiaries, across the different types of ADRA trainings. 
2. Links to Markets and Public Services 
As noted above, specific activities aimed at strengthening links to markets and public 
services included training of farmers in Farmer Field Schools and workshops with 
producers to develop strategies for getting products to market. Solidarity Credit Unions 
(SCUs) and Village Savings and Loan Associations also aimed to improve opportunities 
for direct beneficiaries, particularly women, to get products to market.
Beneficiaries who took part in focus group discussions in all project health zones in the 
ADRA/South Kivu area expressed satisfaction with the program, including training, new 
plants/seed varieties, storage opportunities, reforestation activities, marketing activities, 
and local collaboration efforts, particularly in terms of generating new streams of 
income from improved access to markets. For example, from Focus Group 2 in Munene: 
- “… I took $60 in 2015 to invest in trade with my wife and I’ve already repaid it”
- …In 2013 I borrowed money to buy a field where I’d planted some trees, and now I’m 
using them to build my house”
… we started our scheme in 2012 with $100 and now we have $450. We borrow money 
and pay it back with 2,000FC interest”
… I took $20 and started a business selling dried fish. When I repaid this loan I had enough 
to carry on trading and pay my children’s school fees…”
Interviews with beneficiaries show that they are active participants in the value chain, 
processing agricultural products and making finished items such as bread and soap, 
which women make and sell in local and regional markets. Women’s SCUs and VSLAs 
were also cited as helpful in strengthening production, processing, and market access. 
One woman told us “…I use the money I made selling my produce to buy flour and palm 
oil for bread. I also make and sell soap and fritters.” (FG 1, Kahama).
In January 2015, ADRA started a campaign to collect farm produce grown by Jenga 
Jamaa II beneficiaries in several villages. Producers were shown how to store, process 
and sell their finished products. The project set up two processing plants with a rice 
39
husker and a mill to grind cassava into flour or semolina. These two machines are still at 
the experimental stage. 
Jenga Jamaa II project activities have also consolidated links with certain State and 
private structures. Project beneficiaries report using the health centers more often (FG2, 
Munene; FG2 Katongo), and at the community level a number of development-related 
associations have been set up (FFS, CIG, VSLA, SCU, CDC, VAA). Key informants indicate 
that these associations are contributing positively to the community development 
dynamic (Group leader, Muhongoza; CDC President, Kagando). The project collaborated 
with the provincial department of the Ministry of Agriculture, which made its 
agronomists available to the project and agreed that the provincial services would 
support the VSLA’s capacities so that it can become an agricultural savings and credit 
cooperative. 
A challenge that arises, however, is that the agronomists from the GoDRC worked 
closely with ADRA and were compensated for that work. It is difficult to imagine the 
same kind of sustained collaboration after Jenga Jamaa II if the credit associations are 
not able to provide remuneration themselves to the agronomists. 
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
Specific Jenga Jamaa II activities aimed at improving incomes and livelihoods included 
the Farmer Field Schools, which promoted diversifying agricultural products and 
preventing crop diseases so that more produce could make it to market; the savings and 
loan groups, which promoted access to credit for women in particular; the irrigation and 
drainage activites, which aimed to protect crops again so that a larger share of produce 
could make it to market; and the development of storage infrastructures; which aimed 
to spread agricultural sales over a greater period to avoid a glut in the market that 
would depress prices.
Overall, 77% of project beneficiaries and nearly 26% of non-beneficiaries who took part 
in the mini-surveys said that their living conditions had improved. Concretely, this was 
due to credit programs, activities to fight and prevent plant diseases, and crop storage 
innovations in particular. The qualitative data supported these findings; one project 
beneficiary in Kagando shared an experience that was echoed by the group: 
- “… we had very little money before Jenga came, we grew crops but didn’t produce very 
much, and certainly not enough to cover our household needs…. Before the project came I 
used plants for my family’s health care, and I lost my entire crop several times because the 
cassava was attacked by insects. My production has increased since ADRA came because I 
40
use products to protect my crops from insects, and I make enough money selling my 
produce to meet my family’s needs.”
Focus group discussants provided similar information in the village of Muhongoza, 
where several beneficiaries reported that their living conditions had improved. The 
following testimonies are from a mixed focus group of project beneficiaries in 
Muhongoza: 
- “… I can easily pay for healthcare and sometimes buy other seed, and I’m educating my 
children now.”
-“I can cover my household’s healthcare and buy good food thanks to ADRA …”
- “… now I can buy clothes and I also run a small business. The Jenga project taught us 
how to be autonomous… “
- “We learned how to save and because of that I’ve been able to build a metal house.” 
Some shortcomings in livelihood improvement were apparent to the evaluation team. 
First, data from household observations showed that while livelihoods improved for 
some respondents, others in very close proximity had not seen similar improvements in 
their living conditions. This appeared to be a result of the targeted nature of livelihood 
improvement programs; they serve those invited to take part, but it is much more 
difficult to engender spillover when much of the benefit comes from access to loans and 
crop storage. Furthermore, other agencies are involved in similar programs in Fizi, Uvira, 
and Kalehe, and focus group discussions with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries both 
indicated that they were often unclear about the actors behind specific program 
activities (see FG1, Kahama; FG2 Kahama). Finally, the impact from credit programs was 
tangible and almost immediate, whereas the impact from protecting and storing crops 
comes only after a season or more. For that reason, many focus group participants 
expressed greater satisfaction with the former, even if the long-term economic benefits 
from the latter are equally appealing. 
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices
During the period of Jenga Jamaa II, ADRA implemented the following activities and 
trainings related to nutrition and health: 
 Vaccinations for young children 
 Family planning (contraception, child spacing) 
 Pre- and post-natal consultations 
 Training in exclusive breastfeeding for children under 6 months and in exploiting 
colostrum milk at birth 
41
 Nutritional recommendations for children under 5 and for pregnant women 
 Promotion and assistance of childbirths at local health centers 
 Handwashing, latrine use, and disposal practices for trash 
On the whole, parents recognize that there is a difference between the health of their 
children who were born before and after the project started, and that there are several 
reasons for this. Many mothers (beneficiaries and some indirect beneficiaries, based on 
commentary from focus groups) followed the educational talks on nutrition for 
pregnant and breastfeeding women given by service providers at the health center and 
by RECOs or Mother Leaders in the community (FG1, Kasheke; FG2, Kagunga; FG2, 
Munene). Some of the key messages that numerous direct beneficiaries mentioned in 
focus groups include care for fevers at health clinics, spacing births, childbirth at health 
centers, use of mosquito nets, and exclusive breastfeeding for newborns. 
Mothers in Kagunga and Munene reported that their children born during the project 
tended to weigh more than those born before it started. Parents also said that their 
children fall ill less often than they did before the project because they have a good diet 
and most of them are vaccinated and they are also monitored during PSCs. Before the 
project, most women gave birth at home, only heard about vaccinations during mass 
campaigns (national or local vaccination days), and had little awareness of the 
importance of key food categories for children’s health, i.e. dairy, protein, vegetables 
(see FG1, Kasheke). These reported outcomes could not be verified by the evaluation 
team, so there is some risk that social desirability bias affected the responses. However, 
the change in behaviors was confirmed by a Mother Leader in Kahama and a nurse key 
informant in Muhongoza; they noted that mothers of newborns consciously sought to 
implement new behaviors regarding feeding and pre- and post-natal care. 
Key informants noted that the use of insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) has improved in 
beneficiary communities (see nurse informant, Muhongoza; Mother Leader, Nundu). 
They also said that there has been a noticeable reduction in malnutrition in their 
villages. The few cases that do arise are immediately dealt with at the health center. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
The evaluation team observed evidence (through ADRA reports, key informants, and 
focus groups) of the following concrete activities associated with the Jenga Jamaa II 
program: 
 Female literacy programs 
 Discussion groups on the role of men and women in the household 
 Awareness programs on educating young girls and preventing child marriage 
42
 Workshops on female inheritance options 
 Workshops on female participation in household decision making 
 Awareness training on sexual and domestic violence 
 Mother Leaders conducted awareness meetings with couples, religious leaders, 
and village leaders on improving gender norms 
In focus group discussions, both men and women expressed that gender awareness can 
create a healthy environment in the home and improve social relations between men 
and women (see FGs in Rutemba, Kasheke, and Biriba). Several men said that they 
should play a complementary rather than a dominant role. Corroborating those 
expressions of gender equity in the qualitative data, mini-survey results show that over 
95% of respondents are in favor of girls being educated, and over 80% are willing to 
discuss how many children they want to have with their spouse. In an all-female focus 
group discussion in Rutemba, participants tied this to the effects of the Jenga II 
program: “the program is helping us to recognize the importance of educating our 
young girls.” (see FG1, Rutemba). 
 
However, the survey also showed that only just over half of respondents (52%) think that 
domestic chores can be done by members of either sex, and 38% think that household 
chores are the exclusive domain of women and girls. This includes both men and 
women; women were more supportive of the idea than men. No significant difference 
appeared in the responses of beneficiaries and potential indirect beneficiaries or those 
who had no contact with the program. 
Women contribute to household finances through income-generating activities (making 
bread, soap and fritters, drying fish), and also participate in decision-making at the 
community level. The mother leader in Kagunga linked those income generating 
activities to specific women in the community. She also noted that, when there is a 
problem at the village level, the village chief calls everyone together; and some women 
have been elected as the heads of their street. This observation was confirmed during 
group discussions: “I’m the (female) head of the street. I was elected by members of the 
village, there were men and women there on the day of the vote. Women are starting to 
be appointed to responsible positions” (beneficiary WEG, village of Rutemba). However, 
the evaluation team noted that the perspectives of these women may not be identical to 
other non-leaders in the community. Women focus group participants in several project 
sites did express, however, that they participate in decisions about the management of 
local and community resources (see FG1, Kagunga; FG1, Rutemba; FG2, Munene).
43
Women described strong satisfaction with the literacy programs (FG data in Kagunga, 
Nundu, Kahama, Munene, Biriba). There was tension on the part of some men due to 
the perceived emphasis on female beneficiaries in the program (see FG2, Kasheke), but 
this does not take away from the success of the program in reaching women. 
Furthermore, the ADRA interventions stand to reach a broader audience over time as a 
result of the multiple channels used to convey awareness regarding gender norms 
(mother leaders, churches, care providers, and community stakeholders). The literacy 
programs would need to be expanded to have the same kind of broad influence as the 
gender programs; the literacy programs appeared to cultivate a depth of learning, 
whereas the gender programs that exploited multiple channels seemed to cultivate a 
breadth of learning. 
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions 
The Jenga Jamaa II project started its interventions on disaster risk reduction by training 
local people on this issue. Specific activities included: 
 Establishing nurseries and distributing plants that help guard against erosion 
 Setting up natural resource management committees 
 Training community members in erosion prevention techniques 
 Training community members in recognizing early signs of crop disease 
 Creating drainage spaces 
Nearly 65% of respondents said that their community had identified and discussed 
potential disasters that could affect the community during the program period—
including drought, flooding, and erosion—and that they had discussed or initiated steps 
to resolve those threats (such as building barriers around low-land areas close to 
residence and creating drainage spaces). However, it was not clear to residents whether 
the Jenga II project or another actor had supported those proposed initiatives. 
Discussions with local people in focus groups confirmed that the Jenga Jamaa II project 
actively addressed disaster risk reduction in the villages where it intervenes, tackling a 
range of risks relating to agriculture (diseases that affect bananas, cassava and other 
crops) and the environment (see FG discussions in Kagando, Kasheke, Katudu, and 
Munene). The project also collaborated with the national institute for agronomic 
research (INERA), which provided improved seed and assistance with scientific research 
on plant diseases and disease-resistant crops (committee leader, Biriba).
A key informant who is a clergyman in the village of Muhongoza (Kalehe area) reported 
that the project had helped reduce water-borne diseases by digging a well for drinking 
44
water (through World Vision), and had provided information about nature conservation. 
“They taught us why we need to plant trees… They gave us trees to plant along roadsides 
and on slopes to help prevent erosion … Committees also undertake different activities 
with the support of associations to identify risks and deforestation …” Jenga II also created 
Community Early Warning Systems to coordinate the energy and efforts of community 
members around disaster risk reduction. However, key informants lamented a lack of 
training and poor capacity to mobilize resources that would ensure more widespread 
protection against erosion and flooding (Committee President, Kasheke; CDC member, 
Muhongoza). This particular informant noted that, for erosion-prevention efforts to be 
successful, trees must be planted widely and systematically; his impression was that 
program resources were not sufficient to provide a requisite number of trees. 
Reforestation coverage seemed to the evaluation team to vary fairly extensively from 
village to village; Muhongoza indeed appeared not to have extensive coverage, whereas 
Kagunga had widespread tree plantings. That observation was not quantified, and 
numerous idiosyncratic factors could explain the differences. 
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
In South Kivu, the ADRA program did not focus as explicitly on governance and conflict 
resolution as did the other IPs in their respective regions. For example, collaboration 
with local governance focused primarily on building resilience against natural disasters. 
ADRA nevertheless undertook some specific activities to fortify local governance and 
conflict resolution. Informants reported implementation of the following activities: 
 Training of Community Development Committees (CDCs) to liaise with local 
government and facilitate village level planning 
 SBCC leadership training activities aimed at developing communication and 
decision-making skills and transferring those skills to indirect beneficiaries 
 Listening groups and CDCs to raise awareness over and reduce violence against 
women 
 Committees to organize and formalize land use rights 
Discussions with local beneficiaries indicated that several different local governance 
structures and CDCs exist. Some were in place before the Jenga Jamaa II project, while 
others were created or strengthened to address village planning (FG1, Kasheke; FG1, 
Biriba). In the mini-surveys, when respondents were asked what they thought about the 
quality of governance by their respective structures, about 61% of respondents said that 
they thought their towns were well governed. Data from respondents across the Jenga 
Jamaa II project suggest that about half of the villages in the project zone have 
development committees that address administrative issues, and about one-quarter 
45
have committees to deal with land matters. However, many respondents said that the 
villages with the most land and agricultural conflicts have the fewest committees to deal 
with them, because the local population is dispersed (FG2, Nundu; FG2, Runingu; FG1, 
Munene).
Interviewees said that limited space for agricultural activities is a problem in these areas, 
even in places where the population is dispersed (see FG1, Munene; Coop President, 
Biriba). Much of the land is owned by the middle classes and politicians, who 
temporarily rent it out to local producers, but often on a limited basis or at rates that 
make profitability a challenge for small-scale farmers. Focus group discussants in 
Muhongoza also noted that many conflicts between local people revolve around 
internal family disputes over inheritance or violations of inherited property rights. The 
village chief is usually called upon to resolve these disputes, and if this is not possible 
the matter is taken to court. This was confirmed during a group interview with women 
from Muhongoza (FG1), who told us “… when there is a social conflict we consult the 
chief, who refers the case to associations or the church… if it still can’t be resolved the 
protagonists go to court.” This seems to suggest limited effectiveness from CDCs aiming 
to address land rights and conflict. 
Although mediation is often unsuccessful, other civil society organizations work 
alongside ADRA in the region to promote land use rights, some focusing more explicitly 
on conflict resolution and peaceful mediation through committees. Based on mini￾survey data, the evaluation found that 74% of survey respondents reported having 
conflict management committees in their village. Furthermore, key informants reported
close collaboration between the ADRA project, local NGOs and the local authorities, 
particularly customary bodies and community-based associations, with respect to village 
planning and land use rights. They noted, however, that community associations do not 
often select members from across the spectrum of village interests (FG2, Kahama; FG2 
Rutemba).
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions 
Key intervention areas where ADRA programs stood to generate sustainable outcomes 
include technical support for value chain activities, savings and loan associations that 
could foster the development of new businesses, the development of codes and 
ordinances related to agricultural and livestock care, formalized collaboration with local 
government structures, and the nutrition and hygiene trainings (provided that 
beneficiaries transfer knowledge to family members and indirect beneficiaries). 
The project provided funding and a large amount of technical support for processing 
facilities and IGAs in order to build and strengthen value chains in its intervention area. 
46
At the time of the evaluation, these facilities and IGAs were still not financially or 
technically autonomous. A beneficiary key informant in Kasheke noted that the viability 
of new IGAs is limited by the high interest rates charged by savings and credit 
associations, difficulties in accessing credit and making repayments, and the lack of 
written contracts. Focus group participants in Kahama and Rutemba confirmed that 
interest rates can in some cases approach 20% (FG2, Kahama; FG2, Rutemba). In the 
mini-surveys, 63% of respondents said they thought access to credit had improved, but 
only 21% had had direct access to credit. Key informants involved in the CSPAs 
indicated that they lack institutional organization. These limitations can affect the 
sustainability of value chain and income generation activities. 
Despite these challenges, participants in focus groups expressed the hope that activities 
will provide sustainable outcomes, because the project has strengthened their 
competence in agriculture, value chains, health, nutrition and gender (FGs in Rutemba, 
Katudu, Kasheke). To cite other concrete examples: 
1- In the town of Hongero: Three texts on Wiltz banana disease, on roaming animals, 
and on cassava mosaic were written by the CDC and ratified by the administration of the 
territory. These texts specify practices to be followed and penalties for violations, 
making it hopeful that the written guidelines will bolster sustainability. 
2- In the town of Hongero: The Agricultural Committee received training from World 
Vision (an ADRA partner) and then became a registered association; this farmers’ 
association stands a strong chance of sustainable collective action by virtue of its official 
status. 
3- In the village of Biriba: CIGs were working on land disputes with the government, 
traditional leaders, the prosecutor, and judges on conflict resolution. Sustainable land 
investments for CIG members are limited because the state owns much of the nearby 
land, but the cooperation that the CIGs have established with government partners 
suggests that the group will maintain an active voice. 
4- In the village of Biriba: The VSLA issued loans to members and currently no loans are 
in default (according to a focus group participant and member of the VSLA). The 
oversight that the association provides to borrowers increases the chances of 
repayment, which in turn generates interest income and allows the program to achieve 
sustainability. 
Overall, Jenga Jamaa II activities on health and nutrition, the VSLAs, and the CDC work 
offer the promise of sustainability because, in each case, a clear process for reporting, 
47
accounting, and institutionalization exists. Processing and value chain activities do not at 
this point appear sustainable due to the technical difficulties that have undermined 
profitability.
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned (see Table A4 in the Annex) 
Data outlined above from focus groups, key informants, and mini-surveys leads to a 
number of conclusions, both positive and negative, regarding the Jenga Jamaa II project: 
Strengths 
1) Literacy trainings were effective in reaching direct beneficiaries. Participants 
expressed satisfaction with obtaining new literacy and numeracy skills, and they 
spoke with fluency regarding best practices in nutrition, health, and other topics as a 
result of the content of the literacy training (see p. 34 above). 
2) Village Savings and Loan Associations were helpful in supporting new business 
endeavors, such as fish drying, bread-making, and soap-making (pp. 36-37). Women 
were particular beneficiaries of savings and loan programs and of literacy programs 
(p. 40). 
3) Farmers Business Associations and Farmer Field Schools, along with agricultural 
transformation materials, were critical in helping producers to improve their 
production, storage, pricing, and access to markets (p. 36). Small producers reported 
taking advantage of the help that FBAs provided in monitoring prices and fostering 
collaboration (p. 36) 
4) Women were empowered through literacy programs, women’s empowerment 
groups, and health and nutrition trainings. Communication on gender issues resulted 
in recognition of the importance of gender equity, particularly in terms of family 
planning and the importance of girls’ education (p. 40). 
5) Farmer Field Schools were effective in spreading information about plant diseases, 
particularly Banana wilt and mosaic disease. Farmers expressed that they adopted 
changes and those changes led directly to improvements in crop viability and in the 
profits that those farmers were able to earn in the market (p. 37). 
Weaknesses 
1) Literacy trainings were limited and did not spill over to non-beneficiaries. Village 
residents expressed frustration that they could not participate in the trainings (see p. 
35 above). 
48
2) While gender initiatives contributed importantly to creating new income 
opportunities for women and improving the acceptability of girls’ education, the 
program was less successful at transforming norms regarding the responsibilities of 
men and women and the decision-making opportunities that women can take on (p. 
40). 
3) Community development committees were limited in their effectiveness by a lack of 
community-wide representation. Participants expressed uncertainty about how 
members were selected, especially in multi-village CDCs, and efforts to formalize 
land rights and mitigate land conflict were undermined by the lack of control that 
local individuals possess over land (pp. 42-43). 
4) Interest rates were often too high to allow VSLAs to be fully exploited by project 
beneficiaries. Repayment challenges undermined the value of some investments, and 
an unexpectedly large share of potential beneficiaries forewent the opportunity to 
take on loans for investment purposes as a result of the interest rates, as well as 
some disorganization at the institutional level (p. 43). 
Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives 
This section considers the effectiveness of the ADRA program with respect to the sub￾questions associated with each core component in the evaluation Scope of Work. It 
draws on the evidence, strengths, and weaknesses presented above. Please refer to the 
sub-sections above for the evidence underpinning these summary comments on the 
ADRA DFAP. 
1. Effectiveness of Training Models and BCC 
 How well did the “training of trainers” and “cascade training” models and other 
modes of BCC contribute to the dissemination of information, skills, and 
knowledge, and with what accuracy? 
o The training of trainers and cascade model of training were not sufficiently 
effective. Educational material bolstered the spread of knowledge in some 
of the training programs, but the training of just one cohort during the 
five-year period limited the pool of first-line beneficiaries who might then 
have transmitted knowledge and skills to indirect beneficiaries. The 
evaluation team heard and observed little regarding the transfer of skills to 
indirect beneficiaries, and little systematic effort was undertaken to build a 
broader community of informed and trained community members. 
 What evidence exists to suggest that information, skill, and/or knowledge 
“spilled-over” from direct program participants to non-participants? 
49
o Spillover to non-participants came largely in the form of household 
members who benefited from the loans taken by a direct beneficiary 
family member. This is particularly the case with respect to educational 
opportunities and improved resources from new small businesses. Outside 
of the household, the evaluation team did not see evidence that spillover 
to non-participants was taking place. The limited number of direct 
beneficiaries trained in the program subsequently limited the number of 
non-participants who might have been exposed to program benefits 
indirectly. 
 How did the rate/accuracy of applying the knowledge and skills change at the 
various levels? 
o Like the Mercy Corps DFAP, a steep drop-off was evident in the acquisition 
of program skills and knowledge from the direct beneficiaries to potential 
indirect beneficiaries. Evaluating the question instead by population sub￾groups, the application of new skills and knowledge was particularly 
strong for women beneficiaries in the ADRA program. They took what 
appeared to be better advantage of credit programs to start small 
businesses, and their progress in literacy programs also stood out in 
comparison to their male counterparts. Young women with newborn 
children made noteworthy progress in terms of nutrition and health 
knowledge. 
2. Strength of Linkages to Markets and Public Services 
 What is the current nature and strength of linkages between target beneficiaries 
and local market actors (e.g. increased access to inputs and credit, increased 
sales, etc.)? 
o The nature of links between beneficiaries and local market actors centered 
largely on improving the ability of farmers to organize and take advantage 
of market opportunities. ADRA program activities stressed storage 
improvement, collaboration between farmers and producers, and creating 
access to loans for agricultural investment that would result in better 
market returns. The program focused less on physical access to markets (in 
terms of roads and networks). Efforts to stimulate the production of new 
products for sale in markets, including soap and bread, were especially 
effective for women, largely as a result of village savings and loan 
associations. 
50
 How have these changed since the projects began? 
o The commentary cited above from direct beneficiaries who used loans to 
generate new businesses and produce materials for market came at the 
conclusion of the project; all of those activities took time to establish. The 
same is true of the collaboration that evolved in the Farmer Field Schools 
and farmers’ associations. The evaluation team understood from 
participants that the notion of “eventually” should be assigned to their 
progress in value chain and market activities. By the end of the five-year 
period, however, numerous direct beneficiaries had gone from no business 
activity to profitable enterprises, or from small-scale agricultural output to 
consistent returns. 
 Similarly, what is the nature and strength of linkages between targeted 
communities and government and non-government agriculture extension, health, 
and nutrition services and how they changed through the project’s duration? 
o Linkages with the Government of DRC were critical to the success of 
agricultural improvement programs, particularly in terms of the 
collaboration between Ministry of Agriculture agronomists and farmers’ 
associations seeking to improve their produce. Those relationships were 
strong and productive, though it remained unclear at the conclusion of the 
project how those collaborations might continue. Informants also noted 
the DFAP-related committees collaborated successfully with other local 
partners and NGOs regarding land use rights. Those linkages may be 
beneficial to agricultural extension in the long-term. Nurses working with 
Mother Leaders contributed effectively to the spread of health and 
nutrition information. 
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
 How do beneficiaries feel the project interventions influenced household 
incomes and livelihoods? 
o Beneficiaries expressed tangible returns to household income as a result of 
certain ADRA activities. In particular, credit opportunities were cited as 
providing real returns in relatively short time spans. Farmers also 
expressed that efforts to fight plant diseases made an important impact on 
their ability to profit from cassava and crops by keeping a larger share of 
their produce healthy, and improved storage opportunities also yielded 
better returns, though these agricultural benefits typically appeared only 
after a year or more. In general, the positive impact of program 
interventions on income generation seemed to come in removing some of 
the uncertainty that individuals face in vulnerable environments. It should 
51
be noted that the successful income-generating interventions tended to 
target individuals (i.e. women, farmers) with little potential for spillover. As 
a result, potential indirect beneficiaries living in close proximity to those 
households saw the impact but could not themselves take advantage of 
the interventions. 
 Which interventions had greater or lesser influence on household incomes and 
livelihoods? Why? 
o The VSLAs and the interventions that allowed farmers to keep their crops 
healthy and stored safely had stronger impacts on household incomes, 
because the benefits were clearly targeted to individuals and typically 
materialized within a year. Beneficiaries did not describe notable impacts 
from the drainage activities, irrigation, or diversifying of crops, all of which 
should generate improved returns to agriculture. Those interventions may 
have appeared less successful to participants because the process from 
intervention to household income improvement takes longer to 
materialize. 
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices 
 The three DFAPs adopted different models to improve the nutritional status of 
beneficiaries. What can be learned about the challenges to, and effectiveness 
of the different methods? 
o The ADRA DFAP placed a particular emphasis on non-food related 
practices to enhance the health of beneficiaries. These strategies proved to 
be effective, perhaps because the benefits are easy to recognize and the 
implementation costs for families are low (especially if latrine and net costs 
are borne by the program). This included the promotion of mosquito nets, 
handwashing, and latrine use. Food-related nutritional trainings were also 
a feature of Jenga Jamaa II. Finally, the ADRA program included a 
component on family planning, which was not a part of the Mercy Corps 
program. Lessons in spacing of childbirths seemed particularly effective. 
 How have parents’ attitudes and practices with regard to child feeding and 
care changed over the past few years? 
o The evidence indicated that parents have placed an emphasis on providing 
multiple meals to children over the last few years, and that mothers are 
increasingly making sure to feed colostrum to their newborns. In fact, 
these messages seem to be broadly understood in the region, in part due 
to the DFAP, in part due to DFAP spillover, and in part due to other 
programs operating in the area. 
52
 How do parents who have had another child since graduating from a DFAP 
nutrition intervention feed and care for this new child compared to previously 
born children? 
o The sample size of mothers who had a child in the late stages of the 
program (so as to profit from the full training), who already had previous 
children, and who took part in the evaluation focus groups was limited, 
but those women did express a clear change in their use of health clinics 
for pre- and post-natal care. It was not uncommon for a woman to note 
that she gave birth to her first child in the home but she subsequently 
went to the health clinic to give birth. 
 How well did these mothers eat and pursue pre- and post-natal care during 
and after their latest pregnancies? 
o The evaluation team did not see a lot of evidence that mothers themselves 
were changing their diets much as a result of the DFAP nutrition trainings. 
In focus groups, conversations with Mother Leaders, and discussions with 
community leaders, the emphasis seemed to be much more on the 
nutrition of the children as opposed to the mothers, even during 
pregnancy. On the other hand, expecting mothers did make much more 
extensive use of health clinics both before and after childbirth. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
 Since participating in DFAP interventions, how have perceptions of male and 
female beneficiaries changed with regard to men’s and women’s roles, 
responsibilities and opportunities in: household and community decision 
making, household labor and income generation, participation in community 
and social institutions, access to and control over household and community 
resources, and freedom of speech and movement? 
o Perceptions of household roles did not change notably as a result of the 
DFAP program. While evidence suggests important change in terms of the 
educational opportunities afforded to girls and the prevention of child 
marriage, the dynamic within married couples appeared to be much more 
rigid and harder to change. 
 What evidence shows that some interventions have been more or less effective 
than others in influencing the attitudes of men or women? 
o Discussions with focus group members indicated that opportunities to 
obtain credit were especially effective in empowering women. In all 
villages that the evaluation team visited in South Kivu, women took part in 
focus groups who had personally taken advantage of credit opportunities, 
53
not just to meet important needs but to make investments in activities 
(like bread making and soap making) that could return profits. 
Interventions addressing opportunities for girls, including education and 
resistance to child marriage, were also particularly effective. Literacy 
trainings were not widespread but had important impacts on the women 
who took part. Interventions aimed at adding flexibility to the division of 
household labor and responsibilities were less effective. Program 
beneficiaries, men in particular, were more resistant to these interventions. 
 What evidence is there that these attitudes will or will not spread more widely 
in the community after the projects end? 
o The fact that in each village women who had gained access to credit were 
making investments and generating profits indicates that, to the extent 
that VSLAs can continue without program oversight, the benefits of access 
to credit should continue to spread after the project ends. Messages 
regarding opportunities for girls are also likely to spread more widely in 
the community after the project’s end, because norms seem to be 
changing and even husbands who wish for their wives to maintain 
conventional roles and responsibilities can nevertheless see the benefits of 
empowering their female children. 
6. Outputs of DRR Interventions 
 What is the quality of community and household disaster risk reduction 
measures and plans that were supported by the project interventions? 
o The evaluation team observed that the community outreach of the Jenga 
Jamaa II program was strong and effective in terms of spreading 
information about disaster risk and reduction. Most people knew of plans 
and activities that were taking place to prevent erosion and floods, and 
activities such as tree planting were thorough (if variable across different 
villages). There was less evidence of DRR initiatives being implemented at 
the household level; the evaluation team observed that people seemed 
supportive of the importance of such initiatives in the community but had 
a harder time recognizing the payoffs within the household (since time 
and resources for such activities would have to be drawn away from some 
other household choice). 
 What factors have promoted or challenged the development, implementation, 
or quality of these plans and practices? 
o Two things have promoted the effectiveness of the Jenga Jamaa II DRR 
interventions. First, the collaboration with state-level agronomists proved 
54
to be an important boost to program initiatives, especially with respect to 
addressing plant diseases. Second, information on strategies for avoiding 
crop diseases and drainage problems was disseminated effectively. This 
helps both with implementation and sustainability. Conversely, there was 
little clear indication to community members that the DRR initiatives were 
part of the Food For Peace program. This does not necessarily change the 
effectiveness of the programs, but support for future FFP activities could 
be stronger if the precedent of these activities were clearly linked to ADRA, 
FFP, and USAID. 
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
 What evidence exists to suggest that DFAP governance initiatives affected land 
tenure, access to land, and/or conflict within communities? 
o Discussions with key informants and focus groups, and data from the mini￾surveys, all indicated that DFAP initiatives to improve local governance and 
reduce conflict were fairly widely known. Their actual impact on land use 
rights and conflict seems to have been fairly limited, in large part because 
they ended up being superseded by chiefs and traditional structures, but 
communities also expressed in large part that their villages were well￾governed, which perhaps mitigated some of the need for CDCs and other 
program activities to push hard on land and conflict issues. 
 Which initiatives had greater or less success and why? 
o Committees established to improved land tenure and land conflict issues 
were not terribly effective; they were tasked with addressing land use 
among a dispersed population and in a context in which much of the land 
was in the hands either of the government or wealthier actors. Conflict 
resolution committees were also less effective because traditional chiefs 
tend to play a key role in these matters and communities seemed reluctant 
to move away from the status quo approach. Collaboration with local 
NGOs proved to be a fruitful strategy for the CDCs, because they were 
able to share local knowledge without being an affront to traditional 
leadership. 
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions: 
 What evidence exists to suggest that the capacities, practices, behaviors, 
systems and linkages critical to maintaining the food security outcomes will 
continue after the end of the project life? 
o Two factors suggest that communities exposed to the Jenga Jamaa II 
interventions will be able to sustain several of the food security outcomes 
55
they achieved. One is that informants shared information on a fairly well￾developed set of ordinances, codes, and formalized processes, particularly 
for livestock and agricultural exploitation. The fact that concepts have 
been formalized into rules and guidelines provides a foundation for 
farmers to disseminate teachings, follow a similar set of norms, and give 
clear guidance on best practices to other farmers. The evaluation team 
also observed strong competencies in child nutrition and health; if 
households and communities have the resources to implement more 
costly behaviors (such as building their own latrines and serving multiple, 
balanced meals), the nutrition competencies should transfer to other 
families and offspring. 
 If so, which ones? What are the factors inhibiting the sustainability of program 
interventions? 
o The Village Savings and Loan Associations were important sources of 
support for women and farmers. However, high interest rates can inhibit 
the effectiveness of these activities. Technical support for value chain 
activities and plant protection was also an effective initiative but one that 
will require new means of assuring the participation of experts in order to 
ensure sustainability, if the communities themselves do not develop 
strategies for providing remuneration. 
9. Lessons Learned 
 What are the lessons learned from the Food for Peace portfolio design, 
implementation and M&E? 
o Regarding the design and implementation of the Jenga Jamaa II program 
by ADRA, a key lesson learned is that collaboration with other actors, 
including technical experts from the state, nurses and health care officials, 
local NGOs, and traditional authorities, is critical to the success of food 
security programs. Where collaboration was strong, program activities 
were effective and showed promise for sustainability; where collaboration 
was weak or incentives for collaboration were absent, program activities 
faltered. Regarding the monitoring and evaluation, the evaluation team 
recognized that activities can be better monitored—and their impact 
better measured—if program activities are publicly labeled in such a way 
that beneficiaries and community members have a clear sense of what the 
program is contributing. An added benefit would be a boost in recognition 
for the FFP initiatives. 
56
 What could have been done to better ensure results were achieved and 
sustained? 
o The development of ordinances and guidelines concerning agricultural 
and livestock activities could be adopted to other areas, such as nutrition 
and health and local governance. Doing so creates clear expectations and 
a foundation for continued implementation even by community members 
who had no part in the ADRA program. As noted above, some activities 
could better publicize the contributions of the IP. 
 Are there innovations and methodologies that merit replication and scale up? 
o VSLAs merit inclusion in future programs like the one implemented by 
ADRA. A key to scaling up credit and loan activities is to establish interest 
rates that are low enough to attract new borrowers, which will 
progressively protect the program from the consequences of defaults. 
Collaboration with agricultural experts is also an innovation that merits 
replication in future FFP programs. Creating incentives for experts to 
remain with the program for a sustained period, or to provide periodic 
continuing education opportunities for farmers, would ensure that their 
contributions become standard practice in the protection of plants and 
animals and other activities. Similar expert contributions could be adapted 
to the health and nutrition setting, and especially the gender setting. Many 
of the health and nutrition messages were well received, and continuing 
education from experts would solidify gains. In the gender setting, 
continuing education from outside experts could help to break down 
persistent patterns of unequal household roles. 
 What measure can future programs take to increase food security and durable 
development in the Eastern DRC? 
o Based on the evaluation of the ADRA program, the evaluation team 
determined that the incorporation of experts from the state or other 
outlets to reinforce and formalize gains can increase food security and 
durable development in Eastern DRC. This would help to give Farmer 
Business Associations a leadership role, by equipping them with reliable 
techniques. Expert contributions similar to the work done by agronomists 
from the Ministry of Agriculture could be adapted to the health and 
nutrition setting, and especially the gender setting. Many of the health and 
nutrition messages were well received, and continuing education from 
experts would solidify gains. In the gender setting, continuing education 
from outside experts could help to break down persistent patterns of 
unequal household roles. We would also recommend reinforcing the 
57
training of direct beneficiaries of programs in literacy, nutrition, and 
health, so that the transfer of knowledge to indirect beneficiaries is 
stronger. Finally, better collaboration with traditional authorities, and 
better selection of committee members, would improve the impact of 
CDCs working on local governance, land, and conflict issues. 
D. Recommendations (again, see Table A4 in the Annex) 
A number of recommendations that may serve future FFP programs emerge from the 
strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned during the evaluation of ADRA’s Jenga 
Jamaa II program. 
 Literacy coaching must take place so that direct beneficiaries can train and teach 
second-level recipients. The training models themselves were effective in reaching 
direct beneficiaries, but breakdowns emerged in expanding the training to other 
recipients. An active part of literacy trainings such as those implemented by ADRA 
should thus be the coaching of strong performers and other literate village residents, 
in order to establish a team of teacher-trainers who can facilitate the sustainability 
and spread of literacy programs. How: train an initial team of direct beneficiaries; 
then train those beneficiaries in teaching and knowledge transfer so that they are 
prepared to disseminate skills and knowledge to indirect beneficiaries; next observe 
and provide feedback on their training of indirect beneficiaries; finally conduct 
feedback and evaluation sessions with indirect beneficiaries to determine the extent 
to which they benefited from the trainings. The content of these trainings could 
continue to focus on the substantive themes promoted by FFP, since the ADRA 
literacy trainings demonstrated that building literacy training around practical 
content serves multiple purposes simultaneously. With whom: program staff 
interacted effectively with direct beneficiaries, but in future FFP literacy trainings, we 
would recommend greater contact between program staff and indirect beneficiaries, 
in order to observe and verify the process of cascade training. Why: strengthening 
the process of cascade training and the dissemination of skills and knowledge to 
indirect beneficiaries will allow FFP programs to reach a much wider audience. 
 Farmer Business Associations should be given the lead in local agricultural 
initiatives. An FBA action plan can be developed for sustainability, to ensure that the 
associations function as autonomous and well-known entities at the village level. We 
recommend that they work closely with experts and collaborators, and that those 
collaborators return on a periodic basis to provide continuing education and 
updates. We also recommend that the action plans of FBAs, the guidelines they 
develop, and the ordinances they impose to ensure appropriate exploitation of 
resources be formalized and institutionalized (i.e. shared in a consistent format 
across FBAs, with sanctions for non-compliance). The FBAs should also provide 
58
regular awareness sessions for community members. The provision of agricultural 
materials may be difficult to sustain, but they can be provided in exchange for work, 
which should help to mitigate the adverse effects of seed and plant handouts that 
could create dependency or expectations. How: work with FBAs to develop written 
documentation; bring FBAs from different villages together to compare guidelines 
and determine which can be standardized. With whom: program staff must work 
closely with farmers and FBA leaders and should also serve as liaisons between FBAs 
and collaborators and experts from the Ministry of Agriculture or elsewhere. FBAs 
might also work with literacy trainers to assist with the development of formalized 
plans and documentation; this would serve to further reinforce the capacity of 
beneficiaries across strategic objectives. Why: Agricultural associations and Farmers’ 
Business Associations proved especially effective at generating collective action and 
improving incomes. The best performances were also accompanied by a measure of 
institutionalization, which both reinforces the capacity of group members and also 
facilitates the transfer of best practices to others. 
 Women’s empowerment and literacy groups proved effective and should be 
included in future programs, and local leadership of these initiatives should be 
cultivated. Village Savings and Loan Associations targeting women are an especially 
effective means of creating new income generating opportunities for women, and 
those networks can be linked to literacy programs to promote bookkeeping and 
basic accounting skills. Strategies should be developed to transfer health, nutrition, 
and gender information from women to men, which should help both to build the 
capacity of women as purveyors of information and to fortify norms of gender equity 
among the men. DFAP implementing partners must recognize that norms regarding 
household roles and responsibilities change only slowly, but that community leaders 
working in conjunction with both men and women can help to illustrate 
discrepancies and areas in which household members might mutually benefit from 
changes to the status quo. Placing emphasis on future generations (i.e. opportunities 
for female children, rather than changes to couples’ own roles and responsibilities) 
may be the most acceptable path to improved gender norms. How: replicate literacy 
trainings and VSLAs for women. Organize workshops with men and women in which 
community leaders, Mother Leaders, and successful women demonstrate alternative 
household organization; give female direct beneficiaries in these workshops the 
opportunity to demonstrate acquired skills and knowledge to male audiences, and 
create forums in which both men and women can plot strategies for allowing their 
female children to succeed. With whom: female and male direct beneficiaries, with 
assistance from prominent females in the community. Why: Gains to women from 
literacy trainings and credit opportunities were a noteworthy success of the ADRA 
program, but difficulties persisted in efforts to challenge conventional gender roles 
59
in the household. Sessions that bring men and women together and that publicize 
and emphasize skills acquired by women should gradually break down limitations 
imposed on women by traditional norms. 
 Community Development and Planning committees must begin with clear 
representation and leadership protocols. They must use transparent processes to 
select members, and they should develop clear action plans both for addressing 
crises and ensuring their autonomy and success as local organizations. Once a 
representative committee is in place, FFP implementing partners should assist in 
creating strong collaborative links between program CDCs, local government 
representatives, and traditional authorities. CDCs should prioritize the codification 
and dissemination of land use guidelines, both formal and traditional. How: open 
committee representation opportunities to a wide audience and publicize meetings 
and selection processes; assign members of CDCs to regular collaboration with 
government and traditional representatives to create guidelines on land ownership 
and use, as well as processes for acquiring land. With whom: a broad selection of 
potential CDC members, with program staff interacting closely with government and 
traditional representatives to ensure (and incentivize) their collaboration with 
program-related committees. Why: more transparent and representative committees 
with clear guidelines for raising and addressing land issues will both improve 
representation (thereby engendering greater trust and credibility among indirect 
beneficiaries) and allow villages to make headway in improving the process for 
acquiring land and monitoring its use to avoid land-related conflicts. 
IV. TANGANYIKA & SOUTH KIVU: FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY DFAP 
A. Summary of Program Objectives 
The objective of the Tuendelee Pamoja program was to improve food security among 
vulnerable families in two ways: by improving socio-economic conditions, and by 
improving the health and nutrition of individuals, women, and young children. 
The strategic objective of improving socio-economic conditions was structured 
around: 1) agriculture and producer groups, 2) natural resources and land management 
committees, 3) access to credit and to savings and credit associations, and 4) getting 
producers’ associations up and running. Regarding concrete activities related to the 
program, the agricultural activities were divided into four intervention areas: training, 
seed multiplication and distribution, rearing livestock to improve soil fertility, and 
integrated efforts to combat crop parasites. Natural resource management involved 
land use planning, rehabilitation and management, reforestation and a study on land 
60
rights. Improving access to credit involved the development of savings and credit 
associations and linking them to financial institutions. Finally, strengthening producers’ 
associations took place through studies of producers’ connections to markets, 
developing storage structures, and training. 
The strategic objective of improving individual health and nutrition was based on 
four key initiatives: 1) improving behaviors through support groups, 2) diversifying 
people’s diets, 3) community-based management of the causes of malnutrition and 
related illnesses, and 4) improving daily hygiene by developing infrastructures, setting 
up committees, and changing behaviors. Regarding concrete activities, behavior change 
through support groups involved trainings by project staff and fortifying communication 
networks among beneficiaries. Dietary diversification relied on the planting of vegetable 
gardens and fruit trees, and the promotion of good cooking practices. Nutrition 
awareness involved information sharing, community-based monitoring, and 
participation in group activities. Good hygiene practices required activities to 
disseminate information and to install and manage sanitary structures. 
The program also included cross-cutting activities to: 1) improve the gender balance in 
local decision-making and in the distribution of labor, 2) promote community 
engagement in development processes, 3) support over 200 associations and groups, 
and 4) develop over 200 hectares of land. 
Of special note is the fact that, unlike the DFAPs administered by Mercy Corps and 
ADRA, the Food for the Hungry Tuendelee Pamoja program was administered across 
two different provinces, Tanganyika and South Kivu. In this section, we present an 
overall summary of the effectiveness of the Tuendelee Pamoja program across the two 
provinces, but we also note in the concluding part of the section how implementation 
differed across Tanganyika and South Kivu. 
B. Findings 
1. Effectiveness of the Training Models 
Training was a central part of the Tuendelee Pamoja program. FH organized a cascade 
training approach for the various training activities cited above in order to strengthen 
local actors’ capacities in social behavior and change communication (SBCC). The 
development and dissemination of educational materials were also key components. 
The program developed and relied on various educational materials. These included 
educational booklets with several images and accompanying messages on each page. 
Participants in trainings—in particular the health and nutrition trainings—were then 
61
asked to perform or role play the targeted behaviors; the goal was that they would 
incorporate lessons in their own routines and share those lessons with indirect 
beneficiaries. Those materials also supported other participatory communication 
techniques such as theater. 
Participants expressed some frustration over the format and materials of the trainings. 
The following commentary was offered by focus group discussants in Moketo: 
- Had a lot of information on each page. 
- Were hard to use effectively. 
- There was no user’s guide to ensure that all the facilitators would follow the same 
procedure during the discussion groups and home visits. 
- There were no educational materials for beneficiaries to take home and distribute 
(e.g. guides on family health or family farming/livestock rearing). Several 
projects/programs produce specific educational materials for facilitators when it 
is actually the beneficiaries who need them. Households could use these 
materials after the project ends. 
- There were no supporting materials (posters, advisory cards, aide-mémoire) for 
the main materials (picture box) to diversify the channels of communication. 
- TEMBEA NA WAKATI (01- 48) audio materials: the theater piece dealt with several 
themes, which made it hard for the audience to grasp the key messages and 
relate them to the information in their booklets. 
Regarding the content of trainings, however, the evaluation team heard widespread 
feedback that the information provided in trainings contributed to behavior change. 
Focus group participants noted that the training sessions were particularly effective in 
encouraging local residents to use health services (such as pre-natal checkups and 
asking for contraception) and to adopt and maintain important nutritional habits, like 
breastfeeding and washing hands. One woman said: “the trainings given by FH made us 
think differently” (see FG2, Kabulo). Another participant told the evaluation team: “I used 
to have a baby every year, they came one after the other like stairs; now FH has taught me 
how to space my children” (see FG2, Lyapenda). A third said: “because of the information 
from FH I had my baby at the health center” (See FG2, Katudu, South Kivu).
In the mini-surveys, we found that 94% of project beneficiaries took part in some form 
of training, and that 40.6% of indirect beneficiaries in the same areas later took part in 
cascade training led by a local beneficiary. We were unable to determine the share who 
62
took part in trainings by DFAP beneficiaries as opposed to trainings by other 
organizations, because in many instances participants were unable to discern who was 
behind the programs in which they took part. 
Three challenges stand out in regard to the effectiveness of training models and the 
spread to non-beneficiaries. First, the educational materials were largely used to raise 
awareness rather than change behaviors in the short-term; beneficiaries did not report 
receiving materials that they could use for continued learning or to train other second￾line beneficiaries. Second, training times varied, some lasting a few hours and some 
lasting multiple days; in Moke, Kabulo, Kataki, and Lukalanga, focus groups complained 
that the scheduling was haphazard. Third, participants noted the absence of a clear 
mechanism for supervision and monitoring related to the SBCC training (see Focus 
Group Discussions from Mulenda, Miketo; key informant village chief in Kabuyu). 
Participants followed the theoretical sessions and practical demonstrations, especially on 
agriculture and nutrition (e.g., preparing children’s porridge), but no clear system existed 
for selecting and communicating with participants and following up later. As a result, 
non-beneficiaries in FG3 from Kabulo expressed the following: 
- “we still have our babies at home.”
 - “we don’t want to use the money we have for pre-natal checkups.”
 - “when a child is sick, it’s ok to use what we find from the forest as a purge.” 
It is also worth noting that focus group participants of the Pygmy ethnicity in Kabuyu 
saw little effort on the part of the FH program to directly reach their ethnic community. 
The implementation strategy did not distinguish between the ethnic compositions of 
different localities, but to the extent that the Pygmy represent a vulnerable population, 
explicitly targeting Pygmy-heavy areas would have served the program objectives. 
2. Links to Markets and Public Services 
Specific activities that Food for the Hungry implemented to fortify links to markets and 
public services include the following: 
 Improving access to credit through the development of VSLAs 
 Linking VSLAs to financial institutions 
 Organizing producer associations 
 Organizing trainings for farmers on accessing markets and developing collective 
opportunities for crop storage 
 Establishing a partnership with the government to enhance production from 
seeds. 
Some focus group participants indicated that they had engaged in new market 
opportunities as a result of the availability of credit and the organization of storage. For 
63
example, three farmers’ association members in Kataki did not previously cultivate 
onions, but they indicated that they have started doing so as a result of these changes 
(see FG1, Kataki). The evaluation team also met with farmers in Kabuyu who stated that 
they had increased their cultivation of garlic, beans, and onions. A female farm leader 
who served as a key informant in Moket described the process by which beneficiaries 
relied on the program to improve their links to markets: “participants first associated 
themselves with the producers’ association. From there, they learned about access to credit 
and began to take loans. Once they get a loan, they are willing to try new crops. Then 
they might continue to work with the association to put some of their crops into storage. It 
is like this that farmers are taking advantage of the program.”
There was less evidence of improved access to public services. Road infrastructure 
remains a challenge around many of the evaluation sites, and focus group participants 
expressed difficulty in getting to health clinics and markets. 
The nature and strength of the Tuendelee Pamoja program in terms of linking target 
beneficiaries to local market actors comes primarily in the improved access to credit, 
with which many have expanded their market roles. Concrete changes include greater 
quantity of goods taken to market, owing both to the ability to expand into onion and 
bean cultivation and the opportunity to store more crops. Conversely, physical access to 
markets as well as other services remains a challenge for many in the Food for the 
Hungry target areas. Beneficiaries expressed clear satisfaction with non-governmental 
farmer and producer associations, though the bulk of informants and interviewees 
indicated that links to government actors and services remain tenuous. Farmer leaders 
appreciated the government partnership through INERA (a government agency 
responsible for agricultural research), but noted that the benefits come in the longer￾term as farmers try different seeds. 
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
The Tuendelee Pamoja program included a number of activities designed to directly 
improve household incomes, such as credit programs, food-for-work activities in 
reforestation, and processing techniques (shellers and moulins, in particular). The 
reforestation activities aimed to influence long-term, community-wide incomes by 
preventing erosion. 
From the mini-survey data, 77% of survey respondents reported having attended 
training sessions related to one or more of these programs; 74% of those who attended 
thought that the agricultural sales training had helped improve their agricultural 
practices, and 51% said that it had increased their sales. A shared perspective from a 
focus group in Kataki noted benefits in credit access: 
64
- “The savings and credit group has a solidarity fund. Everyone has to pay in a small 
amount for a share in the scheme. The amount is set in the rules, and subscriptions can be 
used to cover healthcare or funeral costs.” (FG1, Kataki) 
Others also noted benefits to livelihoods from the Tuendelee Pamoja program, though 
oversight is clearly important: 
- “The training on hygiene has eliminated illnesses. There’s also micro-credit, vaccinations, 
ANCs and education. Things are going well. Incomes have gone up, and I use what I earn 
to cover the cost of school fees and clothes” (Mothers’ Leader CDC, Moket). 
- “We’re learning about diet and improving because of the Tuendelee pamoja project”
(FG2, Kabuyu).
- “Yes, there used to be savings groups but they don’t work anymore because people were 
swindlers. Often we wanted to get our money out but were told that there wasn’t any, so 
we left the group” (FG2, Lyapenda).
The Food for the Hungry baseline report indicated a specific target of 100 hectares of 
reforestation per year in order to bolster livelihoods. Reforestation has been positive, 
but agricultural stakeholders in Kikango and Miketo expressed concerns that the CDCs 
who manage the reforestation programs are not transparently selected or representative 
of the community (farm leader, Kikango; pastor-beneficiary, Miketo). In the mini-survey, 
only 54% of respondents were aware of the existence of any plans. 
According to key informants in Kikango, Miketo, and Lyapenda, processing activities 
were less successful than the credit and reforestation activities. Technical problems 
frequently arose with the processing machinery, which undermined the potential for 
profit and efficiency. 
Credit programs and food-for-work opportunities were viewed positively by participants 
in the Tuendelee Pamoja program. Beneficiaries of the program report taking on loans 
at a higher rate than non-beneficiaries (23% vs. 14.5%), and numerous focus group 
participants equated the food-for-work opportunities with having a job (FG2, Lyapenda). 
4. Changes in Nutrition and Health Practices 
Regarding diet, participants in the program indicate an understanding of the need to 
diversify their meals, and they report consuming meals more frequently: in the mini￾survey, 96.8% of beneficiaries, versus 81.3% of non-beneficiaries, stated that they 
consume at least two meals per day. 
65
Narrative reports and confirmation from key informants indicate implementation of the 
following modules related to nutrition and health practices: 
 Maternal diet 
 Family planning (spacing children, contraception) 
 HIV/AIDS 
 Malaria and intestinal worm (recognition and prevention) 
 Hygiene and sanitation (hand washing, latrines, etc.) 
 Care of newborns 
In terms of child care, breastfeeding is cited as important among both beneficiaries and 
non-beneficiaries, and in terms of vaccinations, children of beneficiaries are no more 
likely than their counterparts to be vaccinated (see Appendix Table 1.1). 
Regarding sanitation, beneficiaries in focus groups (FG2, Katudu, South Kivu; FG2, 
Kabulo) expressed greater awareness about the importance of cleanliness. In the mini￾surveys, however, the results do not differ much from non-beneficiaries: they are slightly 
more likely than their counterparts to report having handwashing stations next to the 
toilet (39% vs. 34%) and washing hands before preparing meals (95% vs. 83%). The latter 
difference is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level; the former is not. 
Beneficiaries also report being more likely to use water from wells as opposed to springs 
(39.6% vs. 15.7%, p<.05). 
A key aspect of the Tuendelee Pamoja health and nutrition activities was that 
beneficiaries were exposed to health messages across multiple communication 
channels, including nurses at local health centers, community liaisons and Mother 
Leaders in the community, and community radio programs operated by the Lokolé 
Foundation (a participatory theater initiative by one of Food for the Hungry’s 
implementation partners, Search for Common Ground). Again, this did not necessarily 
distinguish beneficiaries from non-beneficiaries. 
Key informants and focus group participants informed the evaluation team of the 
following concrete changes in nutritional behavior and knowledge (culled from the 
collection of focus groups): 
66
Changes in Nutritional Knowledge and Practice
Before After
Women visited health clinics less 
frequently
Women widely expressed familiarity and 
use of pre-natal consultations at health 
clinics
Some women were not accustomed to 
giving the colostrum to their newborns
Women who took part in maternal 
training indicated that they breastfeed 
their newborns within one hour of birth 
to take advantage of the colostrum
Women often stopped breastfeeding 
quickly, especially those who work in the 
field
Women widely noted the importance of 
continuing to breastfeed up to two years
Many women expressed that they had 
put little thought into varying food 
groups when preparing meals
Women widely expressed increased 
knowledge (if not always practice) in 
including multiple food groups
Finally, regarding malaria prevention, the survey shows that 60% of beneficiary 
households and 43.8% of non-beneficiary households said that they use treated bed 
nets; while 60.5% of beneficiaries and 78.6% of non-beneficiaries said that they had 
slept under an ITN the night before the survey. The survey also showed that 57.9% of 
pregnant beneficiaries and 50% of pregnant non-beneficiaries reported that they had 
spent the previous night under a treated bed net. Tellingly, in a focus group with non￾beneficiaries in Katanga, participants expressed that malaria prevention strategies are on 
the rise, and that they have received malaria prevention trainings from other sources. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
The Tuendelee Pamoja program addressed gender norms largely by conveying 
information and awareness through socially accepted channels: 
 Mother Leaders conducted awareness sessions and interpersonal communication 
with couples and their older children. 
 The Lokolé Foundation (through Search for Common Ground) spread information 
on gender equality through participatory theater. 
 Religious leaders shared Tuendelee Pamoja gender messages with their 
communities. 
67
 Gender listening groups (also implemented by SFCG) promoted the sharing of 
experiences, and gender champions were rewarded as exceptional contributors. 
We outline some trends in attitudes here, but we stress that the results must be treated 
with caution: because norms of gender equality are widely understood as socially 
desirable, respondents may report support for such norms even if in practice they do 
not. 
Male participants in the program noted that they should complement rather than 
dominate women in the household. Almost all participants in the discussion groups said 
that girls have just as much right to be educated as boys. For example: “The training by 
SFCG helped us see that girls should get an education before marriage is considered. They 
can get married at 20 or even 25, after finishing their studies” (FG1, village of Kataki). 
However, with regard to domestic violence, some men still think that they can hit their 
wives for failing to do what they say: “If the woman doesn’t obey her husband, then 
sometimes you need to hit her. As the saying goes ‘BIKONI, NKONZI’ - strike while the 
iron’s hot” (P1, FG1, Kataki). Women in focus groups were reluctant to discuss treatment 
within their households. 
The mini-survey asked respondents a series of questions about gender norms. In most 
cases, regarding topics such as schooling, decision making, and family size, beneficiaries 
express stronger support for gender equality. For example, 12.7% of beneficiaries vs. 
21.9% of non-beneficiaries state that men are wrong for discussing family size with their 
wives, and just 2% of beneficiaries vs. 21% of non-beneficiaries state that school should 
be reserved for boys. However, regarding beatings and involvement in outside activities, 
beneficiaries were actually less supportive of rights for women. This may be an 
idiosyncratic finding, but at a minimum, it reflects no gains from the project in this 
particular regard. 
Overall, the evaluation team observed that some awareness activities worked well; in 
particular, discouraging child marriage and appreciating the value of educated girls. 
Changes in women’s decision making and in more equitable male-female relations, 
however, continue to lag. 
6. Outputs of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions 
Specific Disaster Risk Reduction activities put into place as part of the Tuendelee Pamoja 
program included: 
 The formation of natural resource management committees 
68
 Reforestation initiatives that included the planting of trees and other erosion 
prevention techniques 
 Committees to study land rights 
The evaluation team observed reforestation areas and discussed management and land 
rights initiatives with key informants and focus groups. Those sources suggest that 
concrete steps have been taken, though the benefits are not always obvious unless a 
potential natural disaster hits the area. For example, in Lyapenda, the CDC Vice 
President explained that some committee members working on DRR viewed the 
planning sessions as “theoretical”. Members of a focus group in Kataki shared the 
opinion that “Tuendelee Pamoja has done some things so that we are ready. We don’t 
know what will happen when a serious drought or flood comes here, but at least we have 
something now (in reference to reforested areas and drainage ditches)” (FG1, Kataki). 
Mini-survey data indicates that 55% of respondents are aware of local initiatives to 
combat natural disasters. Further, 50% indicated that someone in the community has 
spoken to them about Disaster Risk Reduction measures. 
The evaluation team assesses the quality of these DRR initiatives as strong but, in some 
cases, still too abstract. Initiatives that community members can see and participant in 
(such as planting trees, digging ditches, and building barriers) provide direct benefits 
and also serve as tools to raise the awareness of DRR pending the occurrence of actual 
disasters. Natural resource management plans are equally important, but until the 
planning is transformed into outcomes, community members have greater difficulty 
perceiving the benefits. The same is true of land rights discussions; one focus group 
participant stated that “we are at the mercy of the government when it comes to land 
rights, so we just have to wait and see what changes” (FG1, Moket).
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
The Tuendelee Pamoja program promoted governance and conflict resolution through 
CDCs; they facilitate social organization and mobilization, and they help to resolve 
conflicts and negotiate innovative forms of land tenure. However, the CDCs did not 
seem to gain a lot of autonomous traction—over 80% of respondents said that the 
committees exist only because of the project—and numerous focus group discussants in 
Mulenda, Kabulo, and Mwergerera (South Kivu) noted that the CDCs still need to resolve 
serious problems in terms of the representative nature of their members. Others noted 
that the CDCs work well only when committed leaders are involved, a sentiment 
supported by in-depth interviews: 
“I was involved in resolving a conflict between neighbors and [name redacted]. There are 
land management committees that function. Land is distributed by the village chief and 
69
there’s no conflict. The technique for resolving conflicts is forgiveness; accept that you’ve 
lost so that you don’t cause conflict” (Pastor, Kataki). 
“The CDC works well. It’s planting trees, and as its president I resolve conflicts between 
farmers, herders and livestock owners myself” (Farmer and president of the CDC, Moket; 
note: the evaluation team was unable to confirm this with farmers). 
“After the leaders were elected, the CDC was composed of leaders and members of the 
group who were serious about teaching other people. But the CDC was set up after the 
distribution, so those leaders were unable to supervise things. It should have happened the 
other way round” (Farmer’s leader, Mwegerera, South Kivu).
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions 
Key informants expressed the potential for sustainability, especially in the areas of 
nutrition, agricultural techniques, and credit access: 
“Children’s diets are changing. I used not to eat vegetables, nor did my children, but with 
FH we’ve improved our vegetables and other food and we’re in good health... We joined a 
savings and credit association and got a loan for a small business. The income from this 
pays the children’s school fees. I can borrow up to 50,000 FC for food and school fees”
(beneficiary producer, Katudu, South Kivu).
“They taught us about different growing techniques and vegetable gardens. I use these 
techniques in my field and they work” (Women’s leader, Mwegerera, South Kivu. Note: 
she spoke of her current activities; implied is that, because they work, she will continue 
them).
“The children sleep under a mosquito net and drink clean water. They have a good diet 
and they’re clean. If they get sick we go to the health center (…) Pregnant women eat the 
same food as usual and the doctor at the ANC said there’s nothing they shouldn’t eat”
(Farmer and President of the CDC, Moket, discussing the change in behaviors that are 
now a norm).
However, efforts are spread over many villages in a large geographic area, and the same 
intervention model is used regardless of the local context or geographic setting. This 
can be a problem to the extent that programs prioritize certain behaviors that are not a 
central issue for community members, while overlooking more pressing concerns. 
Consider: 
“I’m involved in conflict resolution through participatory theater. This covers various 
themes, such as brave men, lazy men, inheritance problems and land conflicts. But here, 
70
there are mainly land problems, especially disputes over field boundaries because people 
are very attached to their fields” (Women’s leader, Mwegerera, South Kivu).
“The pigs that were distributed (1 between 2 families) died after a couple of months (from 
an unidentified illness that was not followed up). Meanwhile, in 5 years, there have been 2 
days of training on agriculture. This is what we needed here” (Field notes, Mwegerera, 
South Kivu). 
Regarding CDCs, focus group participants in Kikango, Miketo, Moket, and Lyapenda 
widely noted that CDCs are not fulfilling their roles and have limited financial and 
technical capacities (supported by a CDC vice president in Lyapenda). Training sessions 
are generally short and there is no learning evaluation. 
The seed multiplication stations also do not appear sustainable. They were heavily 
subsidized by the project and have no clear alternative funding streams. According to 
FH representatives, more than $100,000 in annual funding is required for the operation 
of stations, so without continued FFP support they are unlikely to persist in their current 
format. 
C. Conclusions and Lessons Learned (see Table A5 in the Annex)
The findings outlined above suggest the following strengths and weaknesses from the 
Tuendelee Pamoja program: 
Strengths 
1) The content of trainings was effective in terms of changing behaviors (see p. 57-58). 
Participants reported positive responses in terms of the practical demonstrations 
from trainings, and the cascading of trainings to indirect beneficiaries seemed to 
work somewhat better than the other DFAPs, though still with shortcomings (p. 58). 
2) Agricultural and reforestation activities were a key success in the Tuendelee Pamoja 
program. Labor and land associations emerged, and participants reported seeing the 
benefits of reforestation (p. 60), which provide downstream economic benefits. 
Participants reported that the food-for-work aspects of the reforestation activities 
were especially helpful (p. 60). 
3) Loan programs effectively supported credit associations and increased credit access. 
As noted above, beneficiaries reported obtaining small loans that allowed them to 
generate income (p. 60), and were aided by the collaboration within organizations, 
71
Agricultural beneficiaries were also able to better exploit credit opportunities by 
virtue of collaborations and input from external experts (p. 59). 
4) Child care, sanitation, nutrition, and access to clean water seems to have improved, 
at least in terms of awareness. Mini-survey data suggests that positive trends in 
handwashing and drinking clean water are apparent, and women in focus groups 
express having learned new child care and nutrition norms (p. 61-62). It is unclear 
whether the benefits from the FH activities outpace non-beneficiary improvements; 
there are overlaps in interventions. 
5) Gender equality awareness has improved. Men and women both express recognition 
of the importance of women’s roles. Behavioral challenges still persist and social 
desirability in responses cannot be ruled out in the case of some male participants, 
but the evaluation team noted that conversations on gender roles and gender equity 
were starting to open up (p. 63). 
Weaknesses 
1) SBCC training organization was often unclear and haphazard; they were also not 
appropriately tailored to local needs (i.e. agricultural vs. pastoral focus) (p. 58). Also 
noted above, participants expressed frustration with the scheduling and duration of 
trainings and they often noticed a mis-match between their priorities and the 
training focus (p. 57). 
2) Cascade training did not extend sufficiently to second-line beneficiaries, and 
supporting material was inadequate (see p. 57). Beneficiaries did not demonstrate 
an extension of training to non-beneficiaries. Participants also wanted more and 
better learning materials with which to continue education. Many potential indirect 
beneficiaries seemed to expect material handouts such as reading material and 
training booklets. 
3) Collaborative efforts to improve links to markets by creating storage options and the 
expansion of crop production were effective, but links to markets were otherwise 
undermined by poor road access (p. 59) and technical challenges in using mills and 
shellers. Links to public services were never well established during the Tuendelee 
Pamoja program (p. 59). 
72
4) Subsidization of seed multiplication centers compromises sustainability. Participants 
want lower prices for seeds, so it is possible that they will be unwilling to pay higher 
prices once subsidies end (see p. 65). 
5) CDC effectiveness was limited by concerns over representativeness and monitoring 
shortcomings (p. 64). Several participants complained about the selection process, 
and key informants indicated that the CDCs were effective only when a committed 
local leader was involved. They also lacked the autonomy that would be needed for 
sustained effectiveness beyond the life of the project. 
Program Effectiveness in Meeting Core Objectives 
This section outlines the effectiveness of Food for the Hungry’s Tuendelee Pamoja II 
program, as it relates to the core objectives of the program. It draws on the evidence, 
strengths, and weaknesses presented above. Please refer to the sub-sections above for 
the evidence underpinning these summary comments on the Food for the Hungry DFAP. 
1. Effectiveness of Training Models and BCC
 How well did the “training of trainers” and “cascade training” models and other 
modes of BCC contribute to the dissemination of information, skills, and 
knowledge, and with what accuracy? 
o There is some evidence that indirect beneficiaries were trained by the 
direct beneficiaries of the program. The dissemination of skills and 
knowledge remained fairly limited however, and frustration with the 
materials and formatting of training undermined the potential for 
widespread behavioral change. 
 What evidence exists to suggest that information, skill, and/or knowledge 
“spilled-over” from direct program participants to non-participants? 
o Evidence from mini-surveys indicates that indirect beneficiaries did benefit 
from trainings to some degree. Regarding spillover to non-participants 
who did not have contact with the program, it is difficult to assess the 
extent to which Food for the Hungry activities spilled over, because other 
projects in the region are also working on agricultural, literacy, nutrition, 
and health needs, and the non-participants that we interviewed were 
generally unable to assign responsibility for either the programs or the 
lessons they learned. 
 How did the rate/accuracy of applying the knowledge and skills change at the 
various levels? 
73
o The rate and effectiveness of trainings for direct beneficiaries themselves 
was undermined by a haphazard training format and schedule; this made 
it difficult for beneficiaries to get in a training rhythm and maintain the 
gains they had made from one period to another. Frustration with training 
materials and with lessons that were not tailored to local needs further 
limited the spread of skills and knowledge to indirect beneficiaries. 
2. Strength of Linkages to Markets and Public Services 
 What is the current nature and strength of linkages between target beneficiaries 
and local market actors (e.g. increased access to inputs and credit, increased 
sales, etc.)? 
o The nature of links to markets hinged largely on increased opportunities 
for credit among farmers, which they used to expand crop varieties and 
production and to then enhance their market presence. The strength of 
beneficiaries’ links to markets was limited, however, by the conditions of 
roads; road improvement was not a priority in the areas under evaluation. 
Furthermore, while improved credit access helped farmers, technical 
challenges limited the program’s effectiveness in improving processing 
activities. 
 How have these changed since the projects began? 
o Participants noted that, as a result of involvement in agricultural 
associations and programs, they first benefited from collaboration to a 
greater extent than they had prior to the project. They then learned about 
opportunities and took advantage of new access to credit. Finally, 
beneficiaries appeared willing to take on the cultivation of new crops in a 
way that they likely were not prior to the project. 
 Similarly, what is the nature and strength of linkages between targeted 
communities and government and non-government agriculture extension, health, 
and nutrition services and how they changed through the project’s duration? 
o Project beneficiaries did not express strong links to public services as a 
result of the Tuendelee Pamoja program. They were limited in part by poor 
road access. One bright spot was the collaboration with representatives 
from INERA. 
3. Changes in Household Incomes and Livelihoods 
 How do beneficiaries feel the project interventions influenced household 
incomes and livelihoods? 
o Beneficiaries indicated that the Food for the Hungry program contributed 
to household incomes in both direct and indirect ways. Credit access for 
74
women seemed to have the most direct impact on household livelihoods. 
Food-for-work programs also had tangible benefits on household 
livelihoods by providing supplemental food, in addition to providing less 
tangible benefits to the self-confidence of workers. Indirectly, participants 
noted that Food for the Hungry activities improved nutritional behaviors 
and the diets of both mothers and children; the impact on household 
livelihoods is not yet apparent, but participants recognized the potential. 
Furthermore, tree planting and drainage activities can pay long-term 
dividends in terms of productivity. 
 Which interventions had greater or lesser influence on household incomes and 
livelihoods? Why? 
o Credit access, both for women and for farmers, had the biggest impact on 
household incomes. Beneficiaries described putting those resources 
directly into critical household needs or income-generating activities. 
Collaboration among participants in agriculture associations also paid 
dividends, as participants learned new strategies and gained access to 
storage that enabled them to sell crops at more opportune times and thus 
for better prices. Less effective were activities aimed at the processing 
stage: participants expressed frustration with technical challenges related 
to the milling and shelling activities that otherwise could have added value 
prior to market. 
4. Changes in Nutrition Practices 
 The three DFAPs adopted different models to improve the nutritional status of 
beneficiaries. What can be learned about the challenges to and effectiveness 
of the different methods? 
o The Food for the Hungry DFAP placed emphasis on support groups to 
share skills and knowledge and reinforce behavior change. It also 
emphasized dietary changes, which proved to be a strength of the 
program: mothers expressed improvements in their own diet in a way that 
beneficiaries of the other programs did not. A challenge in relying on a 
model of support groups is the danger of losing gains to knowledge when 
meetings and support groups do not take place at regular intervals. A 
model that relies on trainings and support groups is also subject to 
shortcomings in monitoring that can undermine gains. 
 How have parents’ attitudes and practices with regard to child feeding and 
care changed over the past few years? 
75
o Participants indicated changes in behavior as a result of exposure to the 
program over the past few years. Mothers indicated awareness and 
application of improved breastfeeding techniques (giving colostrum and 
exclusively breastfeeding newborns). They also expressed greater 
familiarity with hygiene behaviors (such as handwashing) that can improve 
the care they give to newborns. 
 How do parents who have had another child since graduating from a DFAP 
nutrition intervention feed and care for this new child compared to previously 
born children? 
o The evaluation team was unable to clearly identify changes from one birth 
to the next for mothers who had participated in the program. However, 
mothers involved in the nutrition and health activities were either spacing 
their births further apart or at least expressing an understanding of the 
importance of spaced births. This suggests that children born after their 
mothers participate in the program activities stand a greater chance of 
having access to better nutrition and care. 
 How well did these mothers eat and pursue pre- and post-natal care during 
and after their latest pregnancies? 
o Dietary changes seemed to be an important benefit of the Tuendelee 
Pamoja program: mothers expressed eating more balanced meals 
themselves and feeding their children more often. Benefits to pre- and 
post-natal care were not as obvious under the program, though mothers 
did express that they used health clinics more frequently and took part in 
pre-natal consultations at health clinics. 
5. Changes in Gender Norms 
 Since participating in DFAP interventions, how have perceptions of male and 
female beneficiaries changed with regard to men’s and women’s roles, 
responsibilities and opportunities in: household and community decision 
making, household labor and income generation, participation in community 
and social institutions, access to and control over household and community 
resources, and freedom of speech and movement? 
o Men and women who participated in the program expressed a greater 
appreciation for women’s decision-making opportunities, though room for 
improvement in terms of both decision-making and a balancing of gender 
roles persists. Female income generation improved in many households, 
and there was no clear evidence to indicate that this created tensions at 
the household level. However, evidence that domestic violence may persist 
in households suggest that females still lack important freedoms. 
76
 What evidence shows that some interventions have been more or less effective 
than others in influencing the attitudes of men or women? 
o Evidence from focus groups and mini-surveys indicated that efforts to 
improve opportunities for girls have been particularly effective; both 
women and men share support for girls’ education and a reduction in the 
practice of child marriage. Participants did not express a strong preference 
for consultations with leaders over, for example, participatory theater; they 
instead emphasized the content of the various forms of communication. 
 What evidence is there that these attitudes will or will not spread more widely 
in the community after the projects end? 
o Support for girls’ opportunities among both women and men leads the 
evaluation team to believe that those changes may persist and spread 
more widely after the life of the project. This is an area in which 
households can communicate more freely and can observe the behaviors 
of other households (for example, those who send their girls to school). 
Conversely, the evidence did not convince the evaluation team that 
changes to gender roles within the household will spread as a result of the 
program: concerns of social desirability bias persist, and men who took 
part in the program did not demonstrate improved respect for the rights 
of their wives (i.e. in terms of domestic violence). 
6. Outputs of DRR Interventions 
 What is the quality of community and household disaster risk reduction 
measures and plans that were supported by the project interventions? 
o The disaster and risk reduction activities were implemented in good faith 
by the program staff and collaborators, but in some regards participants 
perceived the trainings and transfer of knowledge to be too abstract. 
Where tangible activities were undertaken, conversely, participants 
recognized the benefits to the community; this was true in several 
instances of planting projects and the construction of drainage ditches. 
Much like the ADRA interventions, the quality of DRR measures 
undertaken at the household level was weaker or more difficult to observe. 
For example, beneficiary households did not have more trees planted in 
their concessions. 
 What factors have promoted or challenged the development, implementation, 
or quality of these plans and practices? 
77
o Lack of clarity regarding control over land remains a challenge to local 
efforts to reduce disaster risks; as long as community members perceive 
the land as in the control of government, they are likely to remain of the 
view that government should address potential threats to land from 
natural or other disasters. Furthermore, the theoretical nature of 
information transfer can inhibit the transfer of skills and knowledge. 
Engaging participants in tangible activities like planting promoted the 
success of DRR efforts. 
7. Results of Governance and Conflict Resolution Initiatives 
 What evidence exists to suggest that DFAP governance initiatives affected land 
tenure, access to land, and/or conflict within communities? 
o The evidence did not suggest that Tuendelee Pamoja initiatives had a 
concrete impact on land and conflict issues in the study area. Governance 
and conflict resolution initiatives worked largely through CDCs, but 
participants generally expressed that those committees relied heavily on 
input from influential community members and that they were established 
only in response to planned activities. 
 Which initiatives had greater or less success and why? 
o Efforts to create local-level collective action through activities like planting 
trees had some positive impact on conflict mitigation; this could be a 
function of social barriers between families or identity groups coming 
down. Initiatives to address land ownership and land rights were less 
successful, perhaps because the CDCs never earned the full trust of the 
community. CDCs can be an effective tool for cultivating improvements in 
local governance and conflict resolution, but they would need to be better 
organized and more capable of sustained autonomy to make that happen. 
8. Sustainability of Program Interventions: 
 What evidence exists to suggest that the capacities, practices, behaviors, 
systems and linkages critical to maintaining the food security outcomes will 
continue after the end of the project life? 
o One indication that some aspects of the Tuendelee Pamoja program will 
persist beyond the life of the project is that focus group participants and 
key informants had begun applying techniques and lessons learned to 
their own household contexts. This was especially true of agricultural 
storage techniques, nutrition and health information related to newborn 
care and family diets, and the exploitation of loans for income generating 
purposes. 
78
 If so, which ones? What are the factors inhibiting the sustainability of program 
interventions? 
o The Village Savings and Loan Associations again appear poised to 
continue impacting household well-being beyond the life of the program. 
Nutritional trainings may be sustainable, but only to the extent that nurses, 
Mother Leaders, and other key sources of information remain involved 
with women’s support groups; the transfer of skills and knowledge from 
direct beneficiaries to indirect beneficiaries was not robust enough to rely 
solely on cascade training to sustain the program gains. Technological 
challenges in using and maintaining agricultural equipment undermined 
some of the potential for sustainability, and seed multiplication centers 
appear to require too many resources for subsidization to allow the 
activity to be sustainable. 
9. Lessons Learned 
 What are the lessons learned from the Food for Peace portfolio design, 
implementation and M&E? 
o The biggest lesson learned regarding the design and implementation of 
the Tuendelee Pamoja program is that the format, consistency, and 
appropriateness of trainings matter critically in ensuring that participants 
gain and internalize new skills. Trainings and support groups that take 
place in haphazard fashion or at irregular times discourage regular 
participation. And despite a common set of challenges in the area, it is 
important to take the pulse of the community in the early stage of 
program implementation to determine the precise concerns that threaten 
food security. In some villages, crop disease may be a central concern, 
whereas in others, land use rights may foster ongoing tensions. 
Understanding these differences could serve the effectiveness of future 
FFP activities. 
 What could have been done to better ensure results were achieved and 
sustained? 
o Committee leadership teams could be appointed early and through 
transparent processes. Prior to program implementation, program staff 
and committee members could conduct learning sessions to gather input 
from farmers, women, and other key stakeholders regarding what they 
perceive to be the biggest challenges to food security locally. 
 Are there innovations and methodologies that merit replication and scale up? 
79
o Food-for-work activities merit replication; they bolster the self-confidence 
of workers by providing an earning opportunity while also providing 
tangible benefits to the household in terms of nutrition and savings. Those 
food-for-work activities can be tied to reforestation initiatives, which merit 
broader implementation in future FFP programs. Like the food-for-work 
program, reforestation activities also provide multiple benefits, including 
protection against erosion and work opportunities. Finally, credit 
associations proved to be particularly effective for both agricultural groups 
and women’s groups.
 What measure can future programs take to increase food security and durable 
development in the Eastern DRC? 
o Based on the evaluation of Food for the Hungry’s Tuendelee Pamoja 
program, the evaluation team sees consistent and collaborative trainings, 
coupled with access to credit as preferable to subsidized enterprises and 
material distribution. Putting the appropriate information in the hands of 
beneficiaries and giving them opportunities first to apply those skills and 
then to transfer the skills to other community members can reinforce 
program sustainability. Furthermore, beneficiaries have demonstrated that 
when their access to resources improves, so too does their household 
livelihood. Seed and animal distribution can pay important dividends to 
recipient households, but innovative strategies must be developed to 
mitigate resource barriers if those programs are to continue beyond the 
life of a project. 
D. Recommendations (again, see Table A5 in the Annex)
The conclusions that the evaluation team drew from the Tuendelee Pamoja program 
suggest a number of recommendations that may serve future programming. They are as 
follows: 
 Training models should be employed in new FFP programs, but with consistency, 
tailored to local contexts, and with dedicated monitoring and follow-up on the 
cascade approach. Programs can include the production of learning materials for 
future use, in such a way that those materials do not incentivize participation simply 
for handouts. The practical demonstrations that took place during trainings, 
especially regarding nutrition, agricultural techniques, and credit collaboration, 
should serve as examples for future programming, as they generated sustainable 
gains. However, it is important to establish consistent training plans and to ensure 
that content is appropriately suited to the micro context. How: create a formal 
training format, with consequences for trainers if schedules are not maintained. Use 
80
incentives for both participants and trainers to encourage regular participation, and 
carry those strategies over into the cascade trainings. As a creative outlet, conduct 
sessions in which participants in literacy programs also design materials (posters, text 
boxes, images, audio messages) that could be laminated or copied for future use. 
With whom: emphasis should be placed on the role that trainers play, since 
evidence indicated that irregularities in trainings came not from participants but 
from the organizational side. Why: Consistent trainings allow beneficiaries to build 
on previous lessons, and the activities are more likely to remain a priority. 
 Agricultural loan programs and reforestation initiatives should feature 
prominently in future FFP initiatives. These were real bright spots in the Tuendelee 
Pamoja program, and they generated benefits to farmers, to the recipients of food￾for-work, and to the economic sustainability of other community activities. Interest 
rates for loans must be kept reasonably low, and if agricultural subsidies are 
employed in new programs, plans should be established to gradually reduce those 
subsidies over the lifespan of the program. A gradual phase-out can help both 
program actors and beneficiaries to identify an equilibrium price that will encourage 
sustainability in a variety of seeds. How: replicate reforestation programs and couple 
them with food-for-work activities so that beneficiaries who engage in planting 
activities are rewarded in tangible and appropriate ways. Sequence loans with food￾for-work to determine whether added gains can be realized from coupling those 
opportunities within households. Work with credit associations to expand loans to 
offset the risk of default, thereby allowing them to keep interest rates lower. With 
whom: program beneficiaries in consultation with implementing partner and credit 
associations. Why: These activities proved successful. Expanding food-for-work, 
credit access, and reforestation constitutes an effective strategy for providing 
immediate opportunities along with the possibility for long-term growth (through 
erosion prevention, improved self-confidence of workers, new business opportunities 
built on loans, etc.). 
 Health, nutrition, and gender programs should remain a priority for FFP, and new 
programs should bolster efforts to reach men as well as women. We are concerned 
that men express an appreciation for women’s empowerment and gender equality 
while behavioral patterns are slower to change. Expanding health, nutrition, and 
gender programs to reach men—and implicating women in that process—will create 
an opportunity for women beneficiaries to reinforce their capacity and to 
demonstrate gains in knowledge that will ultimately pay dividends for household 
81
livelihood and resilience. How: create opportunities for female participants to 
demonstrate practical skills and lessons learned at mixed gender events and 
workshops. Create friendly competitions and build on the concept of gender 
champions to convey the challenges involved in household and nutrition tasks, and 
to generate excitement among males as well as females. Rely on women leaders to 
track progress from nutritional and health trainings and to supervise the cascade 
training of those issues. With whom: male as well as female beneficiaries; women 
leaders in the community also play a critical role, and generating buy-in and support 
from key male leaders will also help to gradually improve gender norms. Why: The 
benefits from gender, health, and nutrition activities risk staying within the female 
population if explicit efforts are not undertaken to involve men proactively. The 
benefits would still be important, but additional gains to gender equity can be 
realized by allowing women to demonstrate skills and knowledge to their male 
counterparts. 
 Local governance and conflict management must be reformulated in future 
programs. A transparent selection process is required and should lead to improved 
participation. Local government must manage land distribution transparently, 
recognizing limited local supply and tensions over who rightly claims ownership of 
lands. CDC structures should be established prior to undertaking activities, and 
membership as well as leadership should be inclusive. How: publicize community 
development committees at the outset of program activities to generate widespread 
interest; also publicize transparent processes for membership and leadership. Create 
those committees and establish ground rules for reporting and collaboration before 
implementation of local governance and conflict management activities begin. With 
whom: collaboration with local government and traditional authorities should help 
to generate credibility for CDCs. Why: committees perceived as representative are 
more likely to gain the trust of community members, and clear guidelines for their 
own work and for collaboration with government and traditional structures should 
help to remove some of the ambiguity over land rights that often acts as a catalyst 
for local conflict. 
82
V. SUMMARY EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. Comparative Insights Across the Three DFAPs 
The three DFAPs took relatively similar approaches to BCC concerning nutrition and 
health activities. This may be a function of the fact that their messages and approaches 
needed to complement work being done by the government health structures and to 
reflect best practices in the industry. In many cases, the materials used to reinforce the 
trainings contained very similar content across the three DFAPs and were consistent with 
materials used by government actors. This continuity and complementarity meant that 
program beneficiaries (direct and indirect) received mutually reinforcing messages from 
multiple sources; this helps to explain why those with no contact with FFP DFAPs often 
expressed awareness of some of the same skills and knowledge. 
 
All of the DFAPs trained a core group of community leaders, including the community 
development committees or local development committees and lead mothers, as 
trainers to begin the cascade process of training. While direct beneficiary trainings were 
fairly straightforward, all three DFAPs struggled with the extension to indirect 
beneficiaries. None of the three established rigorous coaching and management 
systems for the second line training of participants, though it should be noted that the 
scope was quite large and would thus require significant inputs and human capital. The 
materials used in trainings (posters, image boxes, and radio spots) were comparable 
across DFAPs. 
 
One major distinction between the three DFAPs was that ADRA conducted literacy 
training for women as part of its Women’s Empowerment Groups that proved to be 
more dynamic. The WEGs provided opportunities to address other issues and to build 
the knowledge and capacity of members simultaneously on their rights and roles in their 
communities’ development. This approach to gender norms was more proactive than 
the training and awareness raising implemented by Mercy Corps and Food for the 
Hungry, though the listening groups established as part of the FH Tuendelee Pamoja 
program were also innovative. Regarding gender activities, all future programs must 
amplify their efforts to work with gatekeepers such as men, religious leaders and 
community leaders/elders to gain their support for improved gender relations. 
2. Overall Best Practices and Strengths of the FFP Programs 
The evaluation team identified several areas of effective DFAP implementation. Some 
were consistent across all three DFAPS and others stood out as strengths of particular 
programs. In this section, we outline best practices identified during the course of the 
evaluation; in what follows we link these practices to specific recommendations. 
83
Consistent engagement that effectively transferred knowledge and skills 
In each province, the evaluation team observed sustained commitment from the IPs. The 
infrastructural and security challenges were nearly constant, yet the participants and 
beneficiaries we interviewed expressed satisfaction that the programs were regular 
enough and thorough enough to ensure a transfer of knowledge and skills, at least to 
direct beneficiaries. In addition, local leaders indicated that the IPs remained in regular 
communication and engaged in active oversight to ensure that complications were 
addressed whenever possible. 
Literacy Trainings effectively promoted income generation and content learning regarding 
key project messages 
Training in literacy for women in particular proved to be an important strength of the 
DFAP programs. This was especially true of the Jenga Jamaa II program operated by 
ADRA. The benefits of the literacy trainings were twofold: not only did participants 
engage in a learning process that will ultimately contribute to improved livelihoods 
through literacy, but the program also served as an entry point for introducing 
information about other important topics (nutrition, autonomy, etc.) 
Road Rehabilitation and Reforestation 
The rehabilitation of roads does not count as a sustainable transfer of skills, but the 
evaluation team found that the road rehabilitation undertaken as part of the RISE 
program operated by Mercy Corps constituted one of the most important benefits to 
local communities, and a conduit for other sustainable goals. The improved roads 
proved to be critical in facilitating access to markets and the movement of goods, 
fulfilling one of the core objectives of the FFP initiatives. Coupled with food-for-work 
programs and other strategies for supporting maintenance of those roads, the roads 
can contribute to sustainable maintenance skills. Similarly, the reforestation projects 
improved local resilience to climate challenges; they also transferred skills and 
supported improved production by protecting soils. 
 
Farmers’ Business Associations 
The Farmers’ Business Associations (FBAs) were strengths of each DFAP. One benefit is 
that they facilitate access to markets; they achieved this by formalizing farmers’ roles 
and opportunities (to obtain credit, to stock yields, etc.). A second advantage of the 
FBAs is that they create opportunities for sustainable food security, by promoting 
storage opportunities and collaboration among producers. The organization of FBAs is 
84
easily manageable by local leaders and participants, so if the existing FBAs are 
reinforced, they are likely to serve as sustainable outcomes of the DFAPs. 
Nutrition Information 
All three DFAPs had success in building knowledge around nutrition for children under 5 
years of age, maternal health, and hygiene. Advances in nutrition and health information 
were achieved largely through practical demonstrations, which constitutes a best 
practice. In some cases, the improved knowledge is generating demands for services 
that surpass the capacity of the national health structures, making local solutions critical.
3. Overall Constraints, Weaknesses, and Failures in Implementation 
Three important weaknesses limited the overall effectiveness of the DFAP programs: 
poor collaboration with government structures, an absence of credibility among the 
CDCs, and limited capacity to expand program benefits to indirect beneficiaries. 
Collaboration with Government Structures was inadequate to assure sustained outcomes 
To ensure sustainability, local associations will need to establish strong relationships 
with government structures, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of 
Agriculture. Local buy-in from indirect beneficiaries could also be improved if the IPs 
and the Government of DRC were to strengthen their collaboration and then expand the 
FFP initiatives. With the exception of improved collaboration between the RISE program 
from Mercy Corps and the GoDRC, the evaluation team did not see evidence of strong 
or improving collaboration between these parties. 
CDCs not selected or supported in ways that they achieved credibility in the communities 
they serve 
Concerns frequently arose that the CDCs are not selected transparently and are not 
representative of the community. Specifically, the perception exists that the committees 
exist only for the purposes of the project, and thus generating buy-in from the village in 
support of CDC initiatives remains an elusive task. Furthermore, the evaluation team 
heard complaints from beneficiaries of the Tuendelee Pamoja program from Food for 
the Hungry that the CDCs were set up after the distribution of resources, which limited 
the capacity of the committees to provide oversight of the distribution process. Had the 
committees been put in place first, the whole process may have been viewed as more 
legitimate. Even with better oversight of the distribution, however, the CDCs would 
have lacked credibility as a result of the selection process for members. Program 
beneficiaries expressed the view that CDCs were selected in opaque ways that may have 
benefited certain people at the expense of broader successes. 
85
The implementation of the cascades did not effectively disseminate knowledge and 
training to indirect beneficiaries 
Trainings in literacy, nutrition, and agricultural practices constitute some of the most 
important benefits of the FFP initiatives. Direct beneficiaries expressed clear gains from 
those programs. The programs were less effective, however, in ensuring that the gains 
spread to non-beneficiaries and indirect beneficiaries. 
A system of cascade training was put in place by the DFAPs precisely for this reason—to 
transfer skills and knowledge from those who benefited directly to those who did not. 
The trainings themselves were effective and the cascade of knowledge in some 
instances did take place, but a lack of systematic follow-up and coaching techniques 
limited the sustainability of those skills transfers. Furthermore, interviews with non￾beneficiaries suggested that those who did not benefit directly need some incentive to 
take part in cascading trainings with their fellow community members. Finally, from an 
evaluation standpoint, even where indirect benefits did spread, they are less visible and 
measurable as a result of the fact that indirect beneficiaries did not take part in the same 
types of organized activities.
4. Overall Effectiveness of the Three FFP Programs in Achieving Objectives 
Training Models: Moderate Success (for Direct Beneficiaries)
All three DFAPs demonstrated clear benefits to program participants. Notable gains 
came in the areas of literacy, nutrition, agricultural practices, savings, and family 
planning. However, there is little evidence of transfer to indirect beneficiaries. 
Links to Markets and Public Services: Little Success
The programs exhibited some successes in terms of generating access to markets and 
services. Notably, the FBAs helped to develop skills and provide organization that 
bolstered access to markets. However, there were numerous shortcomings. Programs 
sometimes started too late to be fully effective. Robust access to markets requires full 
collaboration with government structures. And additional training needs to focus on the 
entrepreneurial skills required for gaining entry into markets. 
Changing Household Incomes and Livelihoods: Moderate Success
Survey data collected as part of the evaluation suggest that beneficiaries enjoy 
improved incomes and livelihoods compared to their non-beneficiary counterparts: 
approximately 80% of beneficiary households reported some modest improvement, 
versus just 40% of non-beneficiary households. We noted several areas for 
improvement, however. The microfinance initiatives were effective, but interest rates for 
86
borrowing need to be constrained. Literacy programs were a big success, but the 
benefits to incomes will likely come only after some time, and with ongoing coaching 
and teacher training. Women’s Empowerment Groups also had a positive impact on the 
livelihood activities of women, though the extent to which those benefits will accrue to 
other women indirectly is unclear. 
Changes in Nutrition and Health: Moderate Success
All three DFAPs showed evidence of improving the nutrition of children and mothers, 
particularly through practical demonstrations. The evaluation team did not collect data 
on caloric intake or specific eating habits, but nurses, key informants, and focus group 
participants expressed important gains in awareness regarding positive health and 
nutrition behaviors. Women reported visiting clinics, vaccinating their children, and 
eating meals more frequently. Effects on child health measures will likely not be evident 
for some time, which is inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Mercy Corps, 
ADRA, and Food for the Hungry (to improve child health by project’s end). Furthermore, 
DFAP efforts often overlapped with the work of other health and nutrition providers, 
especially in the case of the Mercy Corps DFAP. Better pre-implementation analysis 
would be able to identify unique intervention strategies. 
Changes in Gender Norms: Moderate Success
Focus group discussions and interviews conducted during the evaluation suggest that 
DFAP activities helped to improve gender equality norms and acceptance. Women seem 
to have become more cognizant of the important roles they fulfill and the value of those 
roles; they express a desire to be counted and recognized as contributors to household 
and community well-being. Men, however, too frequently expressed reluctance to see 
women as contributors beyond conventionally assigned roles. From a behavioral 
perspective, domestic violence does not appear to be on the wane, traditional domestic 
roles persist, and not enough opportunities exist to transition leaders of women’s 
groups into leaders of other activities. A bright spot is the increased respect for girls’ 
education. 
Disaster Risk Reduction: Moderate Success
Planting and reforestation initiatives, particularly those undertaken through the Jenga II 
and Tuendelee Pamoja programs, were especially effective. Those initiatives will 
ultimately help to stave off crises related to climate change by preserving soil quality 
and preventing erosion. To be most effective, the nascent local initiatives associated 
with DFAP programs will need robust collaboration with government structures, and 
community early warning systems require both resources and authority in order to 
succeed long-term. Finally, shortcomings in the leadership credibility of the CDCs 
undermined what could have been greater success in reducing disaster risks. 
87
Governance and Conflict Resolution: Little Success
The DFAP programs were in some sense hamstrung by the necessity of working with 
local leaders to initiate improved governance. The RISE program effectively worked with 
farmers and herders regarding land tenure, but the durability of those efforts is less 
promising without full buy-in from both sides. The selection process for community 
leadership positions also posed a problem of credibility in terms of organizing conflict 
resolution measures. 
Sustainability of Interventions: Moderate Success
Trainings such as those orchestrated as part of the RISE program have created a 
foundation of knowledge that is likely to endure. Planting and construction will last so 
long as maintenance is prioritized both by communities and government structures. 
Microfinance initiatives are also likely to remain durable, but again, rigorous monitoring 
will be required and interest rates must be constrained. The keys to sustainability are 
broadly, strong collaboration with the national government, good cascade training of 
indirect beneficiaries, and incentives for non-beneficiaries to buy in. While many of the 
DFAP initiatives were successful, their durability hinges on these factors. To this point, 
there is some positive evidence, but that may not remain the case as the DFAP presence 
changes.
5. Recommendations for Follow-on Activities 
The strengths and weaknesses of each DFAP generated a set of recommendations 
outlined above. Here, we regroup those recommendations in order to suggest practical 
plans for follow-on activities. 
1) Literacy trainings should continue. To improve upon the Food For Peace DFAP 
activities, trainings in subsequent FFP programs should put renewed emphasis on 
coaching and developing teacher-trainers from among the local population. 
Furthermore, literacy trainings should include oversight of multiple rounds of 
cascade training, along with internal reviews and coaching sessions related to those 
trainings. This will help to ensure that benefits accrue beyond the first-line 
beneficiaries. Other recommendations related to the language trainings include: 
- Participant-developed materials that reinforce skills and reduce the emphasis 
on handout materials. 
- Continued content-learning as part of the language training. Health, nutrition, 
agriculture, and other themes provide dual benefits of improved language 
skills along with improved awareness of critical development practices. 
Language training programs should avoid placing an emphasis on handout materials. 
Unless participants themselves are contributing to the production of training 
88
materials by developing their own drawings, drawings provided by the DFAP are non￾sustainable and can potentially undermine the incentive of potential cascade 
beneficiaries to take part (if they feel they are missing out on materials that others 
before them received). 
2) Nutrition, sanitation, and health awareness activities should be a priority in 
future programming. The activities should focus on practical demonstrations for 
women, particularly pregnant women and mothers of young children. One potential 
improvement in nutrition trainings for women is to create organized activities for 
women beneficiaries to transfer knowledge and skills to their male counterparts. 
Doing so reinforces lessons learned and also can serve important gender equality 
goals. Two words of caution are in order regarding nutrition, sanitation, and health 
awareness campaigns: 
- Implementing partners should avoid excessive overlap with the activities of 
other external partners, local churches, etc. Instead, they should bolster pre￾intervention analysis to determine unique areas of intervention. Or, to the 
extent that overlapping activities are the most desirable, they should 
collaborate with other actors to sequence the interventions and carefully 
measure the contributions of each. 
- Implementing partners should avoid heavy reliance on the distribution of 
nutritional supplements or other handouts. Like the literacy materials, these 
handouts can dissuade future participation. 
3) Community Development Committees and other local committees that address 
Disaster Risk Reduction and Conflict Management must be reformulated. The 
concept is practical and important, but future iterations must do a better job of 
ensuring transparent operating processes. Membership should be determined in a 
representative fashion, particularly when committees represent multiple villages. 
Leadership should be in place prior to undertaking project initiatives, and some 
proactive activities could help establish the credibility of CDCs. Furthermore, future 
DFAPs can: 
- Include as part of the DFAP activities a collaborative, community-wide process 
for selecting leaders and members. 
- Ensure collaboration with key government structures in advance of DFAP 
activities, and carefully delineate the roles of local committees to ensure that 
they work in concert with, and not counter to, local government actors. 
- DFAPs can experiment with a range of techniques to improve transparency 
and representativeness: 
 Female quotas
89
 Rotating positions 
 Scorecards for leadership performance 
 Open vote counting 
4) Farmers Business Associations and Reforestation projects should be a central 
aspect of future FFP programming. FBAs can be given the lead in local agricultural 
initiatives, and regular awareness campaigns should be conducted by the FBAs to 
serve the interests of small producers. Activities aimed at seed variation and 
reforestation may be perceived as non-sustainable, material benefits, but if coupled 
with skills transfers through work and maintenance initiatives, those activities can 
generate lasting capacity building. The same strategies can be used to transform 
road construction into a sustainable capacity building exercise. In addition: 
- Future DFAPs should reinforce links between FBAs and credit associations in 
order to bolster production and market access. Regular collaboration and 
streamlined links that small farmers and producers can exploit will generate 
enhanced outcomes. 
- However, excessive interest rates must be constrained. This is true of credit 
associations serving multiple interest groups, from farmers to women’s 
groups to producers. 
5) Gender-based initiatives should be made more participatory. Awareness of the 
importance of gender equality seems to have improved among both women and 
men as a result of DFAP activities. However, in order to transform that awareness 
into behavioral change, men must actively benefit from women’s gains and must see 
those gains in action. Regarding how gender-based initiatives might be made more 
participatory, we recommend: 
- Skills transfers from women to men (as noted above) 
- Involving more “gatekeepers”, such as women leaders and men with standing 
in the community, in order to mitigate resistance and provide role models in 
gender equity practices. 
- Organized initiatives that involve both men and women, starting in areas that 
are not perceived as gender-specific (i.e. cultivating fields) and then 
transitioning into other activities in the household and marketplace. 
- Future DFAPs should continue to promote savings programs for women but 
should create incentives and constraints so that husbands do not extract the 
resource gains of their wives or otherwise undermine changes that can benefit 
the wellbeing of the household. 
These recommendations would be helpful in the sense that they could reasonably be 
expected to more consistently expand the value of gender-based initiatives to men. The 
90
evidence cited for both the Mercy Corps program and the FH program convinced us 
that men remain somewhat skeptical of initiatives to empower women. We expect that if 
men see and learn from the empowerment of women, a double dividend can be 
attained: women will reinforce their capacity by sharing skills with men, and men will be 
witness to the value added from women’s empowerment.
91
VI. CONCLUSION 
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), although vast in population and natural 
resources, has experienced ongoing instability. This is particularly true in the eastern 
region, where rebel forces have caused widespread violence and displacement of 
citizens since 1998 despite various attempts to establish peace. Risks due to climate 
change are also increasing. In this context, the need for programs that fortify household 
livelihoods and opportunities is incredibly high. The Food For Peace initiatives 
undertaken jointly by Mercy Corps, ADRA, and Food for the Hungry aimed to address 
these broad concerns by focusing on agriculture, health and nutrition, and resilience. As 
secondary goals, the initiatives aimed to improve gender equality and governance. 
The evaluation uncovered a number of successes outlined above, including literacy 
programs, reforestation initiatives, microfinance programs, and the establishment of 
Farmers’ Business Associations. Implicit in those successes are two important elements: 
First, information and knowledge transfers are perhaps the easiest of interventions and 
often the most effective. Behaviors changed when beneficiaries, particularly women, 
took part in informational sessions. Expanding initiatives of this sort is not only cost 
effective, but also sustainable, so long as beneficiaries themselves become leaders and 
information providers. Second, the successes highlight the importance of addressing the 
incentives of key actors. Government structures must see a payoff to supporting DFAP 
activities; participants must see a reason to continue in the programs; non-beneficiaries 
must be motivated to draw on the gains of their counterparts; and local leaders must be 
incentivized to work in the interest of their community members. The successes of the 
Food For Peace initiatives suggest that all of this is possible and can further improve the 
program’s success. 
There were also some shortcomings in the implementation of the DFAP activities. 
Collaboration across sectors and entities, and an ongoing relationship with national 
political institutions, are critical but were often neglected when implementing partners, 
local actors, and government representatives remain isolated in their interests. 
Transparency hindered some of the DFAP activities in part because of the perception of 
unfair advantages accruing to some at the expense of others. This highlights the 
importance of transparent processes; even when local leaders and actors have the 
community’s best interests at heart, perceptions matter. A third challenge comes in 
incentivizing and then observing the transfer of skills and knowledge from direct 
beneficiaries to indirect beneficiaries and newcomers to FFP priorities. The effort was 
often apparent, but the follow-up was not always as strong. 
The evaluation of the FFP initiatives in Eastern DRC leads to three final lessons. First, 
programs that involve concrete, localized activities that individuals and households can 
92
partake in without excessive reliance on government, outside actors, or handouts—such 
as literacy learning, planting, and farmer organizations—are often most effective and 
most sustainable. Second, to achieve sustainable success, activities require robust 
monitoring, coaching, and a plan for oversight. This does not need to come from 
outside sources or Implementing Partners; local actors can do that work most effectively 
and most efficiently, but it is critical to build those elements into training programs. 
Finally, the evaluation suggests that many of the FFP activities can and should be 
expanded, though USAID should be mindful of overlap and of cultivating dependence 
on outside aid. Successful activities from this FFP initiative indicate that the path to 
sustainable improvements in food security come when local actors benefit from the 
programs and then engage with systematic strategies for passing those benefits to 
others in the community. 
93
ANNEXES
94
A1. Villages visited during the FFP evaluation. 
North Kivu (MC) South Kivu (ADRA; FH) Tanganyika (FH)
BUTARE KAGUNGA LYAPENDA
BAMBO CENTRE MUHONGOZA KABUYU
KATENDERE MUSUSU3 (FH) KATAKI
KIVUMU HONGERO LUKALANGA
MAGHERIA KASHEKE MULENDA KAZADI
RUSHEGE KATUDU (FH) KABULO
RWABANGI NUNDU KIKANGO
MUHANGA KAHAMA MIKETO
MUNOLI MUNENE MOKE
MUSIENENE BIRIBA
LUKANGA KAGANDO
NGELEZA KATONGO
MWEGERERA (FH)
RUNINGU
RUTEMBA
95
A2. Documents reviewed by the TMG Evaluation Team 
Mercy Corps
 Proposal
 Statement of Work
 Proposed Indicators
 Results Framework
 Baseline Report
 Annual Report and IPTT Years (1,2,3,4,5)
 Pre-midterm Presentation
 Midterm Evaluation Report
 MYAP FY12 Narrative Report
 Success Stories FY16
 Status Map
 Strategic Objective Map and Project Site List
 Quarterly Reports
 Agricultural Value Chains Analysis and Market Development Strategic Plan
ADRA
 Proposal
 Baseline Report
 Annual Report and IPTT Years (1,2,3,4,5)
 2012 Prep Narrative
 Project Sites Description
 Formative Research Outline 
 Annual Report Operational Research
 Annual Report FY2011
 Mid Term Evaluation Report
 Annual Survey Reports
 Commodity Status Reports
 Project Site List 
 Health Services Assessment
 Formative Research Report
 Marketing Presentation
 WEG Sociocultural Study Report
Food for the Hungry
 Annual Reports and IPTT Years (1,2,3,4,5)
 NEFAP Proposal, Revised
 Results Framework
 NEFAP Baseline Survey Report
 Final Report
 Gender Barrier Analysis
 Midterm Evaluation Report
 Results Framework
 Organigram
 Program Site list
 Program Management Team Meeting Notes
96
A3. Summary Table of Mercy Corps Program 
Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Respondents indicate successful transfer of 
knowledge nutrition, agr, savings, value chain
SBCC was effective, successfully transferring 
knowledge to beneficiaries.
SBCC trainings should be continued, but 
with a clear and improved process for handing 
over training leadership and cascading. 
Coach first-line beneficiaries.
Non-beneficiaries not reached; respondents 
express breakdown after direct beneficiaries.
Follow-on trainings were weaker, and 
spillover to non-beneficiaries was poor.
Women and men report performing same 
traditional roles, though awareness changed.
SBCC activities help to alter perceptions of 
men’s and women’s roles.
Respondents unclear about how programs 
will continue and handover of responsibility.
Lack of faith that programs will continue 
effectively after the FFP programs end.
Respondents report help from CIGs in 
producing and marketing; getting loans
CIGs helped production and were bolstered 
by microfinance programs.
Local interest groups and associations
should be fortified and continued as a means 
to generate shared resilience. They must be 
well organized and capitalize on initial 
excitement.
More onion and cassava stored; aided by 
participation in agr. Associations.
Agr. programs increased household incomes, 
esp. through storage and better sales.
Respondents express lack of formal banking, 
reliance on VSLA to help in times of need.
VSLA serves as critical safety net, improving 
access to health care, offsetting crisis costs
Participants in associations report 
satisfaction: credit access, better food access.
Project associations (LCD, VSLA, CIG, VAA) 
improved access to credit and food.
Participants report frequent interaction with 
nurses and lead mothers
Awareness has increased on health and 
nutrition issues (vaccines, diet, infant care) Nutrition programs should focus on clear 
area of differentiation, or else work in 
coordination with other external entities. Participants unclear what program provides 
information; not only from FFP.
A high level of program duplication exists 
regarding health and nutrition.
Increased sales in markets as a result of road 
access.
Agricultural service roads upgraded through 
food-for-work initiatives were critical. Road and other value chain projects should 
rely on food-for-work initiatives. A clear 
timetable is critical to their success.
Complaints of adjustments and delays in 
value chain activities.
Market access and value chain activities 
realized only limited success.
Stakeholders explained plans for addressing 
natural disasters; not yet widespread.
CEWS have created a foundation for DRR; 
ongoing support is needed.
Local govt, DRR, and conflict res. will 
depend on balance of input from stakeholders 
and a clear plan for ongoing support. USAID
should gradually transfer leadership. 
Govt, community, and private interests report 
working together, with diverse interests.
CARGs are critical to local governance, 
provided three components work together.
Late start with Simama and RACs; people are 
on board but need follow-up
Simama activities have been effective but 
require organized follow-on plans; late start. Programs must begin on time and 
emphasize training. Phased subsidies, small 
seed packets, participant-produced materials 
help.
Second line beneficiaries report frustration 
with lack of materials, seed, etc.
Communities perceive material handouts as 
central component of programs.
97
A4. Summary Table of ADRA Program 
Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Participants of lit training grateful for new 
knowledge (reading, nutrition, etc)
Literacy trainings had tangible impact on 
recipients. Literacy coaching must take place so 
that beneficiaries can train and teach 
second-level recipients.
Frustration among those who could not 
participate in lit trainings.
Literacy trainings were limited and did not 
spill over to non-beneficiaries.
Noted anti-erosion benefits from 
reforestation, spillover from water access
Soil and water projects helped whole 
communities with production and mrkts Farmer Business Associations should 
take lead in local agricultural initiatives. 
An FBA action plan should be developed 
for sustainability. They should provide 
regular awareness sessions. Agr. 
Materials can be provided in exchange for 
work.
Satisfaction from reforestation, seed 
varieties; little for those outside program
Benefits in market access were only 
recognized by direct beneficiaries.
FBAs monitored prices, sought storage 
outlets; small producers took advantage.
FBAs shared information that helped 
producers with storage and pricing.
Cooperatives with huskers and mills 
realized better returns.
Agr. Transformation materials helped 
producers increase mkt potential.
Women in lit. programs expressed 
greater confidence, collaboration, mkt 
success
Women were empowered by literacy and 
capacity building. Women’s empowerment and literacy 
groups should continue, with local 
leadership. Strategies should be 
developed to transfer health, nutrition, 
and gender info from women to men. 
Rely on women to build capacity of men 
in gender norms.
Women reported great satisfaction with 
WEG; new collaborations emerged.
Women’s empowerment groups helped 
women to collaborate and raise incomes.
Women report better understanding of 
ANC protocols; change in health habits.
Community liaison and health trainings 
effectively reached women beneficiaries.
Men expressed that gender relations are 
good; express positive training impact.
Men view male/female relations as 
sound; they perceive less need for 
change.
Men and women acknowledged important 
and changing role for women.
Communication on gender issues helped 
improve attitudes on gender roles.
Participants expressed uncertainty about 
how represented in multi-village CDC.
CDCs play critical role in local gov, but 
representativeness is a big challenge Community Development and Planning 
committees must begin with clear 
representation/leadership protocols.
Members of CDCs expressed no plan for 
autonomous continuation.
No sustainable strategy exists for making 
CDCs autonomous and institutionalized.
CSPA committees lacked organization; 
members had difficulty explaining roles.
CSPAs were not fully effective; clear 
action plans are needed.
98
A5. Summary Table of Food for the Hungry Program 
Findings Conclusions Recommendations
Frustration with training times, locations, and
duration that varied too much.
Unclear organization and monitoring 
undermined success of SBCC trainings.
Training models should be continued, but 
with consistency, tailored to local contexts, 
and with dedicated monitoring and follow-up 
on cascade approach. Programs can 
incorporate the production of learning 
materials for future use, without promoting 
handouts.
Some participants report resorting to 
engrained norms and practices post-trainings.
Spread of training benefits to non￾beneficiaries depends on follow-up.
Positive response to practical demonstrations; 
communication afterward broke down.
Cascade training positive as long as cascade 
is reinforced; handouts sought.
Better reported use of vaccines; reports of 
improved nutritional awareness, clinic use.
Health trainings changed behaviors, 
especially of women. 
Mis-match in agricultural/livestock training 
needs for some respondents.
Failure to tailor trainings to local contexts 
undermines their sustainability.
Respondents wanted learning materials to 
continue education.
Lack of supporting material for educational 
trainings.
Labor and land associations emerged; 
participants report using more varieties.
Agricultural activities created new 
organizations and innovations.
Agricultural loan programs and 
reforestation initiatives should be continued. 
Interest rates for loans must be brought down, 
and agricultural subsidies should be gradually 
phased out.
Reports of obtaining small loans, aided by 
organized nature of associations.
Loan programs effectively supported credit 
associations and increased credit access.
Widespread complaints of difficulty paying 
high rates; use of loans to buy food stocks.
Credit interest rates are high, and some 
families use credit for consumption.
Households report benefitting from food-for￾work; appreciation for new timber and soil.
Reforestation helps soil, provides timber, and 
serves as a food-for-work opportunity
Participants like low prices for seeds, but do 
not want to pay more.
Subsidization of seed multiplication stations 
undermines sustainability.
Surveys show awareness of steps to improve 
sanitation/health among all respondents.
Child care, sanitation, and water improved, 
but not more than non-beneficiaries. Health, nutrition, and gender programs
should continue and should bolster their 
efforts to reach men as well as women.
Men and women note importance of women’s 
roles; men still sanctioned beatings
Gender equality awareness improved, though 
behavioral challenges persist.
Participants complained about selection 
process; expressed little trust in members
CDC effectiveness was limited by selection 
processes and monitoring. Local governance and conflict 
management must be reformulated: a 
transparent selection process is required and 
should lead to improved participation. Local 
government must manage land distribution 
transparently.
Respondents noted presence of concerned, 
influential leaders where confl mgt worked
Where conflict management improved, 
influential local leaders were involved.
Frustration over other community members 
sapping up land for cultivation.
Credit can contribute to land disputes by 
allowing people to cultivate more land.
99
A6. List of Key Informant Interviews 
ENTRETIENS INDIVIDUELS: YVES RENAUD (Technical Specialist)
KATANGA
DATE AIRE DE 
SANTE
COMMUNAUTE PROVINCE TITRE/TRAVAIL SUJET
11-Feb Kabulo Kabulo (FH) Katanga Infirmier Titulaire 
Adjoint
Guide des 
entretiens 
11-Feb Kabulo Kabulo (FH) Katanga Femme Chef de
Village
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance
12-Feb Miketo Kabuyu (FH) Katanga Chef de Village Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance
12-Feb Miketo Kabuyu (FH) Katanga Mere Leader Guide des 
entretiens + 
Finances 
12-Feb Miketo Kabuyu (FH) Katanga Pasteur Guide des 
entretiens 
12-Feb Miketo Kabuyu (FH) Katanga Cultivateur et 
commercant
Guide des 
entretiens + AGR 
12-Feb Miketo Kabuyu (FH) Katanga Pasteur Guide des 
entretiens 
13-Feb Miketo Katuki (FH) Katanga Femme Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
13-Feb Miketo Katuki (FH) Katanga Pasteur Guide des 
entretiens 
16-Feb Lyapenda Lyapenda (FH) Katanga Femme Secretaire 
CDC
Guide des 
entretiens + CDC
16-Feb Lyapenda Lyapenda (FH) Katanga Cultivateur non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
16-Feb Lyapenda Lyapenda (FH) Katanga Ancienne Femme 
Leader
Guide des 
entretiens 
17-Feb Maseba Moket (FH) Katanga Chef de 
Groupement
Guide des 
entretiens 
17-Feb Maseba Moket (FH) Katanga Pasteur Guide des 
entretiens 
17-Feb Maseba Moket (FH) Katanga Femme Leader 
CDC
Guide des 
entretiens + CDC 
17-Feb Maseba Moket (FH) Katanga Fermier President 
CDC
Guide des 
entretiens + CDC
17-Feb Maseba Moket (FH) Katanga Femme Fermier 
Leader
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
Sud Kivu
DATE AIRE DE 
SANTE
COMMUNAUTE PROVINCE TITRE/TRAVAIL SUJET
24-Feb Kalehe Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Chef de village Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance 
100
24-Feb Kalehe Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Beneficiaire 
homme
Guide des 
entretiens 
24-Feb Kalehe Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Beneficiaire 
homme et femme
Guide des 
entretiens 
25-Feb Kasheke Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Chef de Centre Guide des 
entretiens 
25-Feb Kasheke Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Chef de CEP Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
25-Feb Kasheke Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Fermiere non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
25-Feb Kasheke Kasheke (WV) Sud Kivu Femme non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
26-Feb Kakono Katudu (FH) Sud Kivu Chef de localite Guide des 
entretiens 
26-Feb Kakono Katudu (FH) Sud Kivu Fermier Leader Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture 
26-Feb Kakono Katudu (FH) Sud Kivu Femme Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
26-Feb Kakono Katudu (FH) Sud Kivu Cultivateur 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
26-Feb Kakono Katudu (FH) Sud Kivu Cultivateur 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
27-Feb Kokono Mwegerera (FH) Sud Kivu Femme Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
27-Feb Kokono Mwegerera (FH) Sud Kivu Fermier Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
27-Feb Kokono Mwegerera (FH) Sud Kivu Fermier Guide des 
entretiens 
29/02 and 
05/03
Sange Biriba (ADRA) Sud Kivu Fermiere Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture 
29/02 and 
05/03
Sange Biriba (ADRA) Sud Kivu President 
cooperative
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Cooperative
1-Mar Nundu Khahama 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Chef de village Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance
1-Mar Nundu Khahama 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Femme du Chef 
de Village
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance 
1-Mar Nundu Khahama 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Femme 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
1-Mar Nundu Khahama 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Femme 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Finances 
1-Mar Nundu Khahama 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Pecheur Guide des 
entretiens 
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu Chef de Village Guide des 
entretiens 
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu Membre du CDC Guide des 
entretiens + CDC 
101
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu President du CDC Guide des 
entretiens + CDC
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu Secretaire du 
CDC
Guide des 
entretiens + CDC 
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu Femme 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
2-Mar Nundu Munene (ADRA) Sud Kivu Infirmier d'Etat Guide des 
entretiens 
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu President du CDC Guide des 
entretiens + CDC
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu Femme President 
du CEP
Guide des 
entretiens + CEP
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu Membre du SCAP Guide des 
entretiens + SCAP
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu Chef d'Avenue Guide des 
entretiens 
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu Chef de Quartier Guide des 
entretiens 
3-Mar Ruzizi Kagunga (ADRA) Sud Kivu Tresoriere AGR Guide des 
entretiens + AGR
4-Mar Kaliba Rutemba 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Chef d'Avenue Guide des 
entretiens 
4-Mar Kaliba Rutemba 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Chef d'Avenue Guide des 
entretiens 
4-Mar Kaliba Rutemba 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Femme Leader 
AGR
Guide des 
entretiens + AGR
4-Mar Kaliba Rutemba 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Femme Leder 
Agricole
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture 
4-Mar Kaliba Rutemba 
(ADRA)
Sud Kivu Fermier non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
Nord Kivu
DATE AIRE DE 
SANTE
COMMUNAUTE PROVINCE TITRE/TRAVAIL SUJET
10-Mar Bambo Katendere Nord Kivu Chef de village Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance
10-Mar Bambo Katendere Nord Kivu Papa Leader 
(CLD)
Guide des 
entretiens + CLD
10-Mar Bambo Katendere Nord Kivu Fermier Guide des 
entretiens 
10-Mar Bambo Katendere Nord Kivu Femme non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
11-Mar Bambo Bambo Centre Nord Kivu President du CLD Guide des 
entretiens + CLD
11-Mar Bambo Bambo Centre Nord Kivu Fermier 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
11-Mar Bambo Bambo Centre Nord Kivu Femme non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
11-Mar Bambo Bambo Centre Nord Kivu Chef de village Guide des 
entretiens + 
Gouvernance 
12-Mar Bambo Butare Nord Kivu Chef de village Guide des 
102
entretiens + 
Gouvernance
12-Mar Bambo Butare Nord Kivu President du 
CARG
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
12-Mar Bambo Butare Nord Kivu Fermier 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
12-Mar Bambo Butare Nord Kivu Femme non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
13-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Rwabangi Nord Kivu Infirmier titulaire Guide des 
entretiens 
13-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Rwabangi Nord Kivu Secretaire du 
CLD
Guide des 
entretiens + CLD
13-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Rwabangi Nord Kivu Femme non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
13-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Rwabangi Nord Kivu Fermme 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + AGR
14-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Kivumu Nord Kivu Pasteur Guide des 
entretiens 
14-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Kivumu Nord Kivu Maman Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
14-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Kivumu Nord Kivu Fermier 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture
14-Mar Tongo￾Rushege
Kivumu Nord Kivu Fermier non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens 
15-Mar Tongo 
Rushege
Rushege Nord Kivu Infirmier
laborantin
Guide des 
entretiens 
15-Mar Tongo 
Rushege
Rushege Nord Kivu Maman Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
15-Mar Tongo 
Rushege
Rushege Nord Kivu Maman Leader Guide des 
entretiens 
15-Mar Tongo 
Rushege
Rushege Nord Kivu Fermiere non 
beneficiaire
Guide des 
entretiens + 
Agriculture 
103
ENTRETIENS INDIVIDUELS: BARTHELEMY KALAMBAYI ( Technical Specialist) 
TANGANYIKA
Date Communauté Sexe Activité principale
2/11/2016 Village Mulenda 
Kazadi Masculin Entretiens sur les activités de FH sur 
lesthématiques de l'évaluation
2/12/2016 Village Mulenda 
Kazadi
Masculin/Fémini
n
Entretien avec le Chef Miketo, sa femme et 
l’Intérimaire du Chef Miketo sur les activités de FH 
sur lesthématiques de l'évaluation
12/02/201
6
Village Mulenda 
Kazadi Féminin
Entretien avec 4 avec les femmes leaders
12/02/201
6
Village Mulenda 
Kazadi Masculin
Entretien avec l'Infirmier Titulaire Adjoint Centre de 
sante
12/02/201
6
Village Mulenda 
Kazadi Féminin
Entretien avec une Femme Leader
12/02/201
6
Village Mulenda 
Kazadi Masculin
Entretien avec un Pasteur
12/02/201
6
Village Mulenda 
Kazadi
Masculin/Fémini
n
Femme leader et 1 Fermier leader/Enseignant
2/13/2016 VILLAGE DE 
KATAKI Féminin Entretien avec 1 femme leader
2/13/2016 VILLAGE DE 
KATAKI Féminin Entretien 1 Femme Leader
2/13/2016 VILLAGE DE 
MUSHABA Féminin
Entretien sur le Projet Tuendelee pamoja/Food for 
the Hungry
2/13/2016 VILLAGE DE 
MUSHABA Masculin Entretien superviseur de la station semence
2/16/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKALANGA Masculin Entretien le pasteur KAFINDO KALOMBE
2/16/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKALANGA Masculin Entretien Avec le CHEF MUKULI 
2/16/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKALANGA Masculin
1. Entretien avec Fermier Leader MUKULI 
ZOMBE Marcel
2/16/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKALANGA Féminin 1. Entretien avec une maman leader 
2/17/2016
VILLAGE 
LYAPENDA Masculin
Entretien avec LE VICE PRESIDENT CDC KIPOKA 
NDAILE
2/17/2016 Village : KIKANGO Masculin
Entretien avec un fermier leader KABANDA 
CESAR
2/17/2016 Village : KIKANGO Masculin
Entretien avec le fermier leader BIENVENU 
MUSEBA
2/17/2016 Village : KIKANGO Masculin Entretien avec l’enseignant WAGU AUGUSTIN
2/17/2016 Village : KIKANGO Masculin
Entretien avec NGADWE KATANDE, KULIMA 
KABULO , KAMBAYI KYABU
SUD KIVU
104
2/24/2016
VILLAGE 
MUHONGOZA Masculin Entretien avec PASTEUR 8è CEPAC : BAHATI
VILLAGE 
MUHONGOZA Masculin
Entretien avec l’Infirmier Titulaire du Centre de 
Santé de MUHONGOZA
VILLAGE 
MUHONGOZA Masculin
Entretien avec le Président de la société civile Mr. 
MWANGILA INGUZI 
VILLAGE 
MUHONGOZA Masculin
Entretien avec BASILWANGO WABENGA : 
Président CDC MUHONGOZA et Directeur de l’EP 
MUHONGOZA
VILLAGE 
MUHONGOZA Féminin
Entretien avec GODELIVE INGUZI : membre CDC 
(multiplication des rejets)
2/25/2016
GROUPEMENT 
MBINGA/VILLAGE 
LWENGE/KASHEK
E Masculin Entretien avec Alphonse KALINDI
GROUPEMENT 
MBINGA/VILLAGE 
LWENGE/KASHEK
E Féminin
Entretien avec la MERE CHEF DE GROUPEMENT
GROUPEMENT 
MBINGA/VILLAGE 
LWENGE/KASHEK
E Masculin
Entretien Avec le PRESIDENT DU COMITE DES 
PARENTS : Gomer NYAKEZI
2/26/2016
GROUPEMENT : 
LUBONA/VILLAGE
: MUSUSU 3
Entretien avec le CHEF DU VILLAGE MUSUSU 3, 
JUSTIN MUGARA ET HORUCIRI JACK
2/26/2016
GROUPEMENT : 
LUBONA/VILLAGE
: MUSUSU 3 Féminin Mère Leader MWENZE NZIGURE
2/26/2016
GROUPEMENT : 
LUBONA/VILLAGE
: MUSUSU 3 Masculin SALVATOR MUKANISA : SECRETAIRE CDC
2/26/2016
GROUPEMENT : 
LUBONA/VILLAGE
: MUSUSU 3 Féminin NABWAMA MAREGEKO : femme paysanne
2/27/2016
Village : 
MWEGERERAII Masculin Entretien avec Mr. BIHIZIRE KAHIRA
2/27/2016
Village : 
MWEGERERAII Masculin Entretien avec Mr. INA : 
2/27/2016
Village : 
MWEGERERAII Masculin
Entretien avec Mr. IREZETE M’NAMUGADA : 
Fermier leader 
6/29/2016 VILLAGE : BIRIBA Masculin
Entretien avec MUTOTO RUBONEZA : Président 
de la jeunesse BIRIBA
6/29/2016 VILLAGE : BIRIBA Masculin
Entretien avec Mr. BALEKE LUMU : Notable du 
quartier
6/29/2016 VILLAGE : BIRIBA Masculin Entretien avec Mr. ZIHINDULA Réné: leader
3/1/2016 VILLAGE : NUNDU Masculin Entretien avec 3 leaders
3/1/2016 VILLAGE : NUNDU Masculin
Entretien avec IDI JAQUES SUMAILI : Relais 
communautaire
3/1/2016 VILLAGE : NUNDU Féminin Entretien avec: MULEBI SAFI Mère leader
105
3/1/2016 VILLAGE : NUNDU Féminin Entretien avec SALIMA AMISI : agricultrice
3/1/2016 VILLAGE : NUNDU Féminin MAKJAMBE LUSHIKANA Jeune leader
3/2/2016
VILLAGE : 
KATONGO Masculin
ENTRETIEN Avec RAMAZANI BILONDA Chef du 
village
3/2/2016
VILLAGE : 
KATONGO Masculin SAIDO SENAHURUGU Chef adjoint du village 
3/2/2016
VILLAGE : 
KATONGO Féminin Entretien avec NEEMA FATUMA Maman leader
3/2/2016
VILLAGE : 
KATONGO Féminin
Entretien avec TOBO NGEMBELECHI, femme 
allaitante
3/2/2016
VILLAGE : 
KATONGO Féminin Entretien avec PASSY NGOYERA Agricultrice
3/3/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin SHEKUBWA jacques, directeur de l’E.P. 
3/3/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin
1. Entretien avec Mr WENDO KITABU WILONDA 
PROSPER/ PREFET D’ECOLE (INSTITUT 
TECHNIQUE AGRICOLE NYAMUZIBA/RUNINHU
3/3/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin
Entretien avec Mr. KIPEO SHEFARANGA 
Agriculteur
3/3/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin 1. Entretien avec URAHA NABIGANE/Agricultrice
3/3/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin Entretien avec une femme Agricultrice
3/4/2016
VILLAGE : 
KAGANDO
Masculin
Entretien avec 3 pedrsonnes: IMANAN KALENGA 
ASUMANI/Secrétaire notable; KASHIDI 
KAPANGANA José /Secrétaire notable; TOTO 
RUNAGINA/CONSEIL AGRICOLE
3/4/2016
VILLAGE : 
KAGANDO Féminin Entretien avec :FEZA MARIE / non bénéficiaire.
3/4/2016
VILLAGE : 
KAGANDO Féminin 1. Entretien avec LALIA LAHERI Maman leader.
3/4/2016
VILLAGE : 
KAGANDO Masculin
Entretien avec KAZEYA RUKUKUYE Président 
CDC Kagando 
3/5/2016
VILLAGE : 
RUNINGU Masculin BIROZA: Président comité de dévelpmt(CD)
106
NORD KIVU
3/16/2016
VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE Féminin MASIKA Odette ; Secrétaire du Groupement 
3/16/2016
VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE Masculin KAYINKOMERE: Vice-président CARG
3/16/2016 Village Munoli KATUNGU ESPERANCE (genre)
3/16/2016
VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE Féminin Entretien avec KAVIRA FELICIANO
6/17/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MAGERIA Masculin Entretien avec le chef KATEMBO 
6/17/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MAGERIA Masculin KATEMBO (Administrateur Gestionnaire)
6/17/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MAGERIA Féminin Le Médecin du centre de santé 
6/17/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MAGERIA Masculin KAMBALE KAMUTHE Agents villageois
3/18/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKANGA Masculin ABBE KIZITO ‘ (0994054244 ; 0825470091)
3/18/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKANGA Masculin LE DIRECTEUR DE L’EP BILENA 
3/18/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKANGA Féminin MASIKA (Maîtresse à l’Ecole primaire)
3/18/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKANGA Masculin KAMBALE MUKOSA Lambert
3/18/2016
VILLAGE 
LUKANGA Masculin 3 MAMANS LEADERS
3/19/2016
VILLAGE 
MUHANGI Masculin KASEREKA , Chef de groupement 
3/19/2016
VILLAGE 
MUHANGI Masculin le chef du groupement 
3/19/2016
VILLAGE 
MUHANGI
Masculin/Fémini
n NZIVAKE (femme leader) 
3/20/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MUNOLI Masculin LE CHEF KAMBALE André
3/20/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MUNOLI Masculin le paysan multiplicateur 
3/20/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MUNOLI Masculin PALUKU KINEULI t villageois (AV).
3/20/2016
VILLAGE DE 
MUNOLI Masculin le Pasteur MUHINDO 
3/21/2016
VILLAGE 
NGELEZA : 
LOCALITE 
ISANGO Masculin LE CHIEF DE PALUKU MATEMBELA
3/21/2016
VILLAGE 
NGELEZA : 
LOCALITE 
ISANGO Masculin
KAMBALE OMER (Bénéficiaire)
3/21/2016
VILLAGE 
NGELEZA : 
LOCALITE 
ISANGO Masculin
KAMBALA BIBALYA et P2
107
A7. List of Focus Groups 
 TABLEAU DE FOCUS GROUPS: MADELEINE KASAY (Technical Specialist) 
Date Village Communauté Cible sexe Groupe d’age Activité principale/Programme
Homme Femme TOTAL
15.03.016 Katendere Avec les membres 
du CDC
9 2 11 30 à 45 ans Coordination des activités plus les 
champs 
Prog agriculture
Avec des femmes 
leaders et papas 
leaders
10 1 11 25 à 40 ans Conduire les activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages 
pProg agriculture
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
5 4 9 35 à 50 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
16.03.016 Bambo Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : femmes 
leaders, papas 
leaders, membres 
du CLD
1 8 9 24 à 45 ans - onduire les activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages 
- Prog agriculture 
-
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : fermiers 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
de – 5 ans
7 3 10 30 à 45 ans Elevage, travaux des champs
Ménages
Prog santé nutrition
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
6 4 10 25 à 49 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
17.03.016 Butare Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : femmes 
leaders, papas 
leaders, membres 
du CLD
3 9 12 - Conduire les activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages
- mProg agriculture
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
7 5 12 28 à 49 ans Elevage, travaux des champs
pProg santé nutrition
108
général : fermiers 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
de 
– 5 ans, 
membres du CLD
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
9
3 12 20 à 40 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
18.03.016 Rwabangi Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : femmes 
leaders, papas 
leaders, membres 
du CLD
3
9 12 25 à 45 ans
- Conduire les activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages
pProg agriculture
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : les 
femmes enceintes, 
allaitantes et ayant 
des enfants 
– 5ans, 
les papas
6
6 12 20 à 40 ans Travaux des champs PProg santé nutrition
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
7
2
9 25 à 35 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
19.03.016 Village 
Kavumu
avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : membres 
du CDC, femmes et 
papas leaders
9
3 12 30 à 45 ans
- Conduire les activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages
-
CProg agriculture
Avec les femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et ayant 
des enfants 
– 5ans, 
femmes leaders et 
fermiers leaders
2 10 12 25 à 45 ans
- Travaux des champs aProg santé nutrition -
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
5
2
7 20 à 40 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
109
20.03.016 Rushege avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : membres 
du CDC, femmes et 
papas leaders
9 3 12 25 à 50 ans - Coordination des activités
- activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages 
Prog agriculture
avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants –
5ans
2 7 9 18 à 30 ans - activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages
Prog santé nutrition
-
11.02 Villge 
Mulenda 
Kazadi
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
5 7 12 20 à 45 ans Travaux des champs
Prog agriculture
avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants –
5ans
12 12 19 à 35 ans Travaux des champs avec 
semences ordinaires
Prog santé nutrition
12 .02 Village 
Miketo
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
4 5 9 25 à 37ans Travaux des champs avec 
semences ordinaires
Prog agriculture 
avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants –
5ans
12 12 25 à 40 ans ravaux des champs T
Prog santé et nutrition
Avec les non 6 6 25 à 35 ans Travaux des champs (non 
110
bénéficiaires bénéficiaires)
13.02 Village 
Kataki
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
8
8 20 à 38 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires) l
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
6
2
8 24 à 45 ans Travaux des champs
Prog agriculture
15.02 Village 
Lukalanga
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
6
6 12 25 à 45 ans Travaux des champs 
Prog agriculture
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : femmes 
leaders et fermiers 
leaders
3
3
6 28 à 45 ans
- activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages
- Prog agriculture
16.02 Village 
Kikango
avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
–
5ans
8
8 24 à 35 ans
- activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages
- Travaux des champs - Prog santé et nutrition
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
7
1
8 30 à 45 ans Travaux des champs 
Prog agriculture
24.02 Village 
Kahama
avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général
Travaux de champs avec 
semences ordinaires
Prog agriculture 
avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
–
5ans
Travaux des champs 
Prog santé et nutrition
25.02 Village 
Kasheke
Avec les femmes 
Ecole /Champs 
paysans
12 12 25 à 40 ans Travaux des champs 
communautaires
Prog agriculture
111
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
5
6 11 24 à 45 ans Travaux de champs,
Prog agriculture (non 
bénéficiaires)
26.02 Village 
Katongo
Avec les femmes 
cultivatrices et 
femmes leaders
12 12 24 à 45 ans
- ravaux des champs activités de 
communication interpersonnelles 
dans les ménages
- Prog agriculture 
Avec les femmes 
leaders, femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
–
5ans
20 à 35 ans
- Travaux des champs - rog santé et nutrition
Avec les femmes 
alphabétisées
19 à 40 ans Fabrication des pains, du savon et 
des beignets
Prog transversal/genre
3.03 Village 
Runingu 
Avec les non 
bénéficiaires
4
4
8 24 à 45 ans Travaux des champs (non 
bénéficiaires)
Avec les femmes 
alphabétisées
12 12 Fabrication des pains, du savon et 
des beignets PPro transversal/genre
Avec les femmes 
leaders
7
7 30 à 40 ans
- activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages
- rog agriculture -
04.03 Village 
kagando
Avec les femmes 
alphabétisées
6
6 Fabrication des pains, du savon et 
des beignets
Prog transversale/genre r
Avec les 
bénéficiaires en 
général : femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
11 11 24 à 35 ans
- Travaux des champs Prog santé 
et nutrition
112
de – 5 ans
Avec les membres 
du comité de 
développement 
communautaire
8 2 10 28 à 45 ans - Coordination des activités
- Travaux des champs Prog 
agriculture
-
01.03 Village 
Mususu3
Avec les femmes 
leaders
8 8 25 à 45 ans - activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages 
- Travaux des champs 
rog agriculture
Avec les membres 
du comité de 
développement 
communautaire
5 3 8 30 à 45 ans - Coordination des activités
- Travaux des champs 
Prog agriculture
27.02 Village 
Mwegerera
II
Avec les femmes 
leaders
12 12 25 à 35 ans - activités de communication 
interpersonnelles dans les 
ménages
- Prog agriculture
Avec les membres 
du comité de 
développement 
communautaire
5 3 8 30 à 45 ans - Coordination des activités
TProg agriculture
29.02 Village 
Biriba
Avec les femmes 
alphabétisées
12 12 25 à 35 ans Fabrication des pains, du savon et 
des beignets
Prog transversal/genre 
24.02 Village 
Muhongeza
Avec les femmes 
enceintes, 
allaitantes et celles 
ayant des enfants 
de – 5 ans
12 12 24 à35 ans Travaux des champs
Prog santé et nutrition
113
Avec les femmes 
alphabétisées
12 12 19 à 35 ans Fabrication des pains, du savon et 
des beignets
Progr transversal/genre
Avec les membres 
du comité de 
développement 
communautaire
7 5 12 30 à 45 ans Coordination des activités
Travaux des champs
Prog agriculture
25.02 Village 
Nyabasha
Avec les femmes 
Ecole/Champs 
paysans
12 12 28 à 45 ans Travaux des champs
Communautaires
Prog agriculture
114
TABLEAU DES FOCUS GROUPS: CHRISTOPHE ALIMASI (Technical Specialist) 
DATE VILLAGE COMMUNAUTE 
CIBLE
SEXE GROUPE 
D’AGE
ACTIVITE PRINCIPALE
HOMME FEMME TOTAL Tranche
NORD 
KIVU
NORD KIVU NORD KIVU NORD 
KIVU
NORD 
KIVU
NORD 
KIVU
NORD KIVU NORD KIVU
16/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE
Membre du groupe 
d’agricole
13 13 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
16/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE
Avec petits 
commercants
2 10 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
16/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUSIENENE
Membres 
COOPERATIVE
10 10 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé nutrition
17/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MAGHERIA 
Femmes enceintes, 
allaitantes et 
femmes ayant 
enfants de moins 
de 5 ans
4 8 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
17/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MAGHERIA 
Membre du AVEC 
et GIC
4 8 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
17/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MAGHERIA 
BENEFICIARES 
EN GENERAL
1 11 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
18/03/2016 VILLAGE 
LUKANGA
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES
4 8 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
18/03/2016 VILLAGE 
LUKANGA
BENEFICIARES 
EN GENERAL
10 10 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
18/03/2016 VILLAGE 
LUKANGA
Femme enceinte, 
Allaitante et ayant 
un enfant de moins 
de 5ans
6 6 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
19/03/2016 VILLAGE Membres 12 12 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
115
MUHAGI AVA/AVEC commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
z19/03/201 6
VILLAGE 
MUHAGI
Femme enceinte, 
femme allaitante et 
ayant enfant de 
– 5 
ans
5
5 10 25 
– 65 ans Activités de communication 
interpersonnelle dans le 
ménage
Prog agriculture
19/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUHAGI
PAPA ET 
MAMANS 
LEADERS
4
7 11 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
20/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNOLI
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
20/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNOLI
FEMME 
ENCEINTE, 
ALLAITANTE, 
AYANT ENFANT 
DE 
-5 ANS
7
7 25
-65 Nutrition, Sante, et 
Alimenation des enfants
20/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNOLI
NON 
BENEFICIAIRE
6
6 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
21/03/2016 VILLAGE 
NGELEZA
BENEFICIAIRE 
EN GENERAL
1
6
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
21/03/2016 VILLAGE 
NGELEZA
BENEFICIAIRE 
EN GENERAL
8
8 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
21/03/2016 VILLAGE 
NGELEZA
FEMME 
ALLAITANTE, 
FEMME 
ENCEINTE, 
AYANT ENFANT 
DE 
– 5ANS
6
6 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
SUD KIVU SUD KIVU NON 
BENEFICIAIRE
SUD 
KIVU 
SUD 
KIVU
SUD 
KIVU
SUD KIVU SUD KIVU
24/02/2016 VILLAGE 
IHUSI/ 
SUD KIVU
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
116
KASHEKE Prog santé et nutrition
24/02/2016 VILLAGE 
IHUSI/ 
KASHEKE
Femme enceinte, 
allaitante et ayant 
des enfants de 
moins de 5 ans 
9
2 11 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
24/02/2016 VILLAGE 
IHUSI/ 
KASHEKE
NON 
BENEFICIAIRE
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce (non ben.)
25/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KASHEKE
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
25/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KASHEKE
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES 
FEMMES
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
26/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KATUDU 
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
26/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KATUDU 
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
26/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KATUDU 
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
27/02/2016 VILLAGE 
MWENEGERA
FEMMES 
ALLAITANTE, 
FEMME 
ENCEINTE ET 
AYANT DES 
ENFANTS DE 
-5 
ANS
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
29/02/2016 VILLAGE 
BIRIBA
NON 
BENEFICIARES
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
29/02/2016 VILLAGE 
BIRIBA
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
8 25 
– 65 ans Prog agriculture
05/03/2016 VILLAGE 
BIRIBA
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
7
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs
117
01/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KAHAMA
NON 
BENEFICIAIRE
8
8 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
01/03/2016 VILLAGE 
KAHAMA
NON 
BENEFICIARE
2
5
7 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
01/03/2016 VILLAGE 
KAHAMA
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs
02/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNENE
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
11 11 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs
02/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNENE
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Activités de communication 
interpersonnelle dans le 
ménage
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
02/03/2016 VILLAGE 
MUNENE
NON
BENEFICIAIRES
8
2 10 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture (non ben.)
03/03/2016 VILLAGE 
KAGUNGA/ON
GERO
FEMMES 
LEADERS
2 10 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog transversal/genre
03/03/2016 VILLAGE 
KAGUNDA/ON
GERO
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
03/03/2016 VILLAGE 
KAGUNDA/ON
GERO
BENEFICIAIRES 
WEG
5
4
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
04/03/2016 VILLAGE 
RUTEMBA
FEMMES 
COMMERCANT
11 11 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog transversal/genre
04/03/2016 VILLAGE 
RUTEMBA
ENCEINTE, 
ALLAITANTE 
ET AYANT 
ENFANT DE 
MOINS DE 5 
ANS
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
04/03/2016 VILLAGE 
RUTEMBA
BENEFICIAIRES 
MEMBRES DE 
LA 
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
118
COPERATIVE
04/03/2016 VILLAGE 
RUTEMBA
BENEFICIAIRES 
(WEG)
7
7 20
-65 Petits commerce de 
femmes ; travaux domicile
TANGANYI
KA
TANGANYIKA TANGANYIK A
11/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABULO
FEMME 
ENCEINTE, 
ALLAITANTE 
ET AYANT DES 
ENFANTS DE 
–
5ANS
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
11/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABULO
FEMMES 
MAMANS
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
11/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABULO
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES
5
7 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce (non ben.)
12/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABUYU
BENEFICIAIRES 
EN GENERAL
12 12 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
12/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABUYU
NON 
BENEFICIAIRE
11 11 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
12/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KABUYU
TANGANYIKA
8
8 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
13/02/2016 VILLAGE 
KATAKI
BENEFICIARE 
EN GENERAL
8
1
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
15/02/2016 VILLAGE 
LYAPENDA
FEMMES 
ENCEINTES, 
ALLAITANTAS 
ET AYANT 
ENFANTS DE 
MOINS DE 5 
ANS
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
15/02/2016 VILLAGE 
LYAPENDA
NON 
9
9 25 
– 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
119
BENEFICIARE Prog santé et nutrition
16/02/2016 VILLAGE 
MOKE
BENEFICIARES 
EN GENERAL
13 13 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog agriculture
16/02/2016 VILLAGE 
MOKE
NON 
BENEFICIAIRES
18 9 9 25 – 65 ans Travaux de champs et petit 
commerce
Prog santé et nutrition
16/02/2016 VILLAGE 
MOKE
FEMME 
ENCENITE, 
ALLAITANTE 
ET AYANT 
ENFANT DE -5 
ANS
6 6 25 – 65 ans Activités de communication 
interpersonnelle dans le 
ménage
Prog agriculture
120
A8. Interview and Discussion Guides 
Catégorie : Femmes avec enfant de moins de 5 ans 
Date : ____________________ Province : ______________________ 
Zone de Santé : ____________________ 
Aire de Santé: ______________________ Village : ______________________ 
Nom et prénoms de l’Animateur : ____________________ et Preneur de note : 
____________________ 
Heure début de l’entretien : ________________ Heure fin de l’entretien : 
_________________
INTRODUCTION 
Bienvenu et merci de prendre votre temps pour participer à cette discussion ce jour. Mon 
nom est ……… (modérateur) et c’est ………. (Preneur des notes). Nous travaillons pour le 
compte de The Mitchell Group (TMG) et de Centre de Renforcement des capacités et 
d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et Développement (CRESPOD). 
Nous sommes là pour évaluer les activités du projet RISE/JENGA JAMAA II/TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA relatives à la sécurité alimentaire dans votre communauté. La contribution de 
chacun de vous va nous donner une idée sur la sécurité alimentaire dans votre.
REGLES DE CONDUITE : 
Nous nous intéressons à chacune de vos opinions et vos sentiments. Il n’y a ni des bonnes 
ni des fausses réponses. Nous avons besoins de vos idées. Ainsi, aucune critique ne vous 
sera adressée. Nous vous encourageons à donner des commentaires francs qui peuvent 
améliorer notre étude. 
Certaines d’entre vous peuvent approuver ou pas les réponses des autres ; Ce qui est 
normal. Je vais vous donner la parole à tour de rôle. S’il vous plaît, n’interrompez pas l’autre 
121
pendant qu’il parle. Chacune aura le temps de s’exprimer. Cette session va durer 
approximativement ….. à…..heures 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET UTILISATION DES DICTAPHONES : 
Tout ce qui se dit dans cette salle est confidentiel et nous ne dirons à personne que vous 
avez participé à cette discussion. Un enregistreur va enregistrer ce qui est dit pour que nous 
puissions prendre correctement note de vos points de vue afin de nous aider à améliorer les 
programmes. Mon collègue va également prendre des notes pour nous aider à ce sujet. Est￾ce que vous acceptez que nous puissions enregistrer la discussion ? 
PRESENTATION DES PARTICIPANTS : 
Nous voulons que chacun de vous puisse se présenter pour mieux se connaître, en vue de 
faciliter l’entretien. 
O. Question introductive 
01. Que savez-vous du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA? 
1. Efficacité des modèles de formation en SBCC: 
1.1. Au cours de ce projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez-vous 
suivi une formation ? Si oui, dans quel domaine ? 
- Qu’aviez-vous retenu de cette formation ? 
- Aviez-vous partagé les informations reçues de cette formation par exemple sur la 
nutrition de la femme enceinte ou allaitante et de l’enfant de moins de 5 ans avec 
d’autres femmes qui n’avaient pas participé à cette formation ? 
- Si oui, pourriez-vous nous donner quelques exemples? 
- Si non, pourquoi ne l’aviez-vous pas fait? 
1.2. Au cours du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez- vous 
participé à des causeries éducatives organisées par ce projet en matière de la nutrition 
de la femme enceinte ou allaitante et de l’enfant de moins de 5 ans?
- Si oui, pouvez-vous nous citer quelques messages que vous avez retenus et qui 
vous ont aidé à changer certaines pratiques quotidiennes dans votre ménage ? 
- Si non, pourquoi n’aviez-vous pas participé à ces causeries ?
2. Force des liens avec les marchés et les services publics 
2.1. Existe-t-il des associations des femmes dans votre village ?
- Si oui, sont-elles fonctionnelles ? 
- Etes-vous membre de ces associations ? Si non, pourquoi? 
- Que font ces associations ? 
2.2. Quels sont les changements que le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA a apporté en terme de l’alimentation de la femme enceinte, de la femme 
allaitante et des enfants de moins de 5 ans dans votre ménage?
122
3. Changements dans les revenus et moyens de substance des ménages 
3.1. Existe-t-il des associations des microcrédits et d’épargne dans votre village?
- Si oui, lesquelles ? Sont-elles fonctionnelles ?
- En tant que femme, aviez-vous eu accès aux microcrédits ?
- Si oui, Qu’est ce que vous aviez fait de ce crédit ? 
- Si non, pourquoi pas ? 
4. Evolution des pratiques de nutrition 
4.1. Concernant la femme enceinte et allaitante 
4.1.1. Pouvez-vous nous dire ce que vous aviez mangé hier ? Est-ce que vous aviez 
également mangé la même chose avant-hier ? Combien des fois mangiez- vous par 
jour?
4.1.2. Lorsque vous étiez enceinte, qu’est-ce que vous faisiez ? 
- Quels types d’aliments mangiez-vous ? Combien de fois par jour ?
- Et après accouchement qu’est-ce que vous faisiez ? 
- Quels types d’aliments mangiez-vous ? Combien de fois par jour ?
4.1.3. Lorsque vous étiez enceinte, aviez-vous reçu des messages sur l’alimentation de la 
femme enceinte, de la femme allaitante et de l’enfant de moins de 5 ans ?
- Si oui pouvez-vous donner quelques messages que vous avez reçus ? 
- Aviez-vous partagé ces messages avec d’autres mères qui ne les avaient pas reçus¸
- Si oui donnez quelques exemples
- Si non pourquoi ne les aviez vous pas partagés avec d’autres femmes ?
4.1.3. Quels sont les aliments qui sont interdits à une femme lorsqu’elle est enceintes dans 
votre communauté ? Que pensez-vous de cette pratique ?
- Quelle est la situation actuelle dans votre communauté par rapport à ces aliments 
interdits ? 
4.1.5. Après l’accouchement, que faisiez-vous ?
- Quels types d’aliments mangiez-vous ? Combien de fois par jour ?
4.2. Concernant la survie de l’enfant de moins de 5 ans 
4.2.1. Pouvez-vous nous dire ce que vos enfants de moins de 5 ans avaient mangé hier ? 
Est-ce que qu’ils avaient également mangé la même chose avant-hier ? Combien des 
fois mangeaient-ils par jour?
4.2.2. Vous qui avez des enfants: 
- De moins de 6 mois, comment les nourrissiez-vous ?
- De plus de 6 mois, comment les nourrissiez-vous ?
4.2.3. Que faites vous pour éviter que vos enfants de moins de 5 ans tombent malade ? 
- Et quand ils sont malades, que faites-vous ?
4.2.4. En matière de nutrition, quand vous comparez des enfants de moins de 5 ans nés 
avant le projet et ceux qui sont nés au cours du projet, qu’est-ce que vous en dites ?
4.2.5. Dans votre village, aviez vous eu des enfants mal nourris ?
- Si oui, le projet les avait- il pris en charge? Si oui, Comment ?
- Quels types d’aliments que le projet donnait à ces enfants ? Et combien de fois par 
jour ?
- D’où provenaient ces aliments ?
- Les enfants mal nourris ayant récupéré la santé, une fois retournés à la maison 
étaient-ils suivis âpres ?
- Le projet avait-t-il renforcé les capacités des mères ayant des enfants de moins de 5 
ans mal nourris sur leur alimentation ?
123
4.2.6. Existait-il une association/organisation communautaire de soutien aux mères ayant 
des enfants ou ont eu des enfants mal nourris dans votre village ? 
- Si oui que faisait cette association/organisation ?
- Les membres de cette association/organisation avaient-ils suivi une formation sur 
les méthodes nutritionnelles des enfants de moins de 5ans ?
5. Changements dans les normes de genre 
5.1. Quel est le rôle de l’homme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples
5.2. Est-ce cette participation a toujours existé dans votre village ou bien elle est arrivée suite 
aux activités du projet ?
5.3. Pensez vous que cette participation de l’homme va continuer ou pas après le retrait du 
projet de votre village ? 
5.4. Quel est le rôle de la femme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
5.5. Est-ce cette participation de la femme a toujours existé dans votre village ou bien elle 
est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
5.6. Pensez vous que cette participation de la femme va continuer ou pas après le retrait du 
projet de votre village ?
5.7. Est-ce que les femmes participent-elles dans la prise des décisions concernant la 
gestion des ressources communautaires et des institutions locales? Donnez quelques 
exemples 
5.8. Est-ce cette participation a toujours existée dans votre communauté ou bien elle arrivée 
suite aux activités du projet ? 
6. Résultats des interventions sur la Réduction des Risques des Catastrophes (RRC) 
6.1.Durant les 5 dernières années, aviez-vous connu des catastrophes alimentaires dues à 
la sécheresse, aux maladies des plantes, des animaux, des volailles dans des 
inondations dans votre village ?
- Si oui que ce que vous aviez fait ?
- Que ce que le projet avait fait ?
- Que ce que l’état avait fait ?
7. Résultats de la gouvernance et des initiatives de résolution des conflits 
7.1. En cas des conflits communautaire dans votre village, pouvez-vous nous dire si les 
femmes participent à la résolution de ces conflits ? 
- Si oui font –elles parti du comité local de développement ? 
8. durabilité des interventions du programme 
8.1. Pourriez-vous donner quelques exemples qui montrent que les activités mise en œuvre 
par le projet vont continuer ou s’arrêter après le retrait du projet de votre village ? 
124
GUIDE DE DISCUSSION DE GROUPE 
Catégorie : NON BENEFICIAIRES DU PROJET 
Date : ____________________ Province : ______________________ 
Zone de Santé : ____________________ 
Aire de Santé: ______________________ Village : ______________________ 
Nom et prénoms de l’Animateur : ____________________ et Preneur de note : 
____________________ 
Heure début de l’entretien : ________________ Heure fin de l’entretien : 
_________________
INTRODUCTION 
Bienvenu et merci de prendre votre temps pour participer à cette discussion ce jour. Mon 
nom est ……… (Modérateur) et c’est ………. (Preneur des notes). Nous travaillons pour le 
compte de The Mitchell Group (TMG) et de Centre de Renforcement des capacités et 
d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et Développement (CRESPOD). 
Nous sommes là pour évaluer les activités du projet RISE/JENGA JAMAA II/TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA relatives à la sécurité alimentaire dans votre communauté. La contribution de 
chacun de vous va nous donner une idée sur la sécurité alimentaire dans votre.
REGLES DE CONDUITE : 
Nous nous intéressons à chacune de vos opinions et vos sentiments. Il n’y a ni des bonnes 
ni des fausses réponses. Nous avons besoins de vos idées. Ainsi, aucune critique ne vous 
sera adressée. Nous vous encourageons à donner des commentaires francs qui peuvent 
améliorer notre étude. 
Certaines d’entre vous peuvent approuver ou pas les réponses des autres ; Ce qui est 
normal. Je vais vous donner la parole à tour de rôle. S’il vous plaît, n’interrompez pas l’autre 
pendant qu’il parle. Chacune aura le temps de s’exprimer. Cette session va durer 
approximativement ….. à…..heures 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET UTILISATION DES DICTAPHONES : 
Tout ce qui se dit dans cette salle est confidentiel et nous ne dirons à personne que vous 
avez participé à cette discussion. Un enregistreur va enregistrer ce qui est dit pour que nous 
puissions prendre correctement note de vos points de vue afin de nous aider à améliorer les 
125
programmes. Mon collègue va également prendre des notes pour nous aider à ce sujet. Est￾ce que vous acceptez que nous puissions enregistrer la discussion ? 
PRESENTATION DES PARTICIPANTS : 
Nous voulons que chacun de vous puisse se présenter pour mieux se connaître, en vue de 
faciliter l’entretien. 
0. Question introductive pour les bénéficiaires du projet 
0.1.Avez-vous entendu parler du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
- Si oui, qui vous avait parlé de ce projet ? 
- Qu’est ce que vous connaissez de ce projet ? 
- Pourquoi vous ne bénéficiez pas de ce projet ?
1. Efficacité des modèles de formation en SBCC: 
1.1. Vous n’avez pas bénéficié du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA
mais certains de vos voisins y ont bénéficié. Ceux qui en ont bénéficié ont-ils partagé avec 
vous certaines informations apprises ?
- Si oui donnez quelques exemples des informations partagées 
1.2. Le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA? a organisé des séances de 
causeries éducatives dans le village. Aviez-vous entendu parler des messages sur 
l’agriculture- élevage, la santé et nutrition, eau et assainissement, le genre et la 
gouvernance, ou autres domaines ?
- Si oui donnez quelques exemples
- Si non pourquoi ? 
2. Force des liens avec les marchés et les services publics 
2.1. Parlant de la production (agricole et animale), aviez vous eu accès aux semences, aux 
bêtes, volailles ? 
- Si oui, qui vous les aviez donnés ?
- Si non que faites-vous pour augmenter votre production ?
2.2. Existe-t-il des associations des microcrédits et d’épargne dans votre village ?
- Si oui, lesquelles ?
- Sont-elles fonctionnelles ?
- Aviez-vous eu accès à ce crédit ?
- Si oui, Qu’est ce que vous aviez fait de ce crédit ? 
- Si non, pourquoi pas ? 
3. Changements dans les revenus et moyens de substance des ménages 
3.1. Selon vous, pensez vous que vos revenus ont augmenté ou pas durant ces 5 
dernières années ?
3.2. D’une manière générale, à quoi affectez vous le revenu provenant de la vente des 
produits agricole, animale et des volailles (sondez en matière de soins de santé, de la 
scolarisation des enfants filles et garçons et de l’épargne, l’achat des intrants, 
nourriture,)
4. Evolution des pratiques de nutrition 
4.1. Pouvez-vous nous dire ce que vous aviez mangé hier ? Est-ce que vous aviez 
également mangé la même chose avant-hier ? Combien des fois mangez- vous par jour?
- Et vos enfants, qu’est ce qu’ils ont mangé hier ? Combien des fois ? 
4.2. Vous qui avez des enfants : 
- De moins de 6 mois, comment les nourrissiez-vous?
126
- De plus de 6 mois, comment les nourrissiez-vous ? 
4.3. Que faites vous pour éviter que vos enfants de moins de 5 ans tombent malade ? 
- Et quand ils sont malades, que faites-vous ?
4.4. Dans votre communauté, aviez vous eu des enfants mal nourris ?
- Si oui qui vous avait informé que votre enfant avait la mal nutrition ?
- Qu’aviez-vous fait ?
4.5. Lorsque vous êtes enceintes ou votre épouse est enceinte, qu’est-ce que vous faisiez ? 
- Quels types d’aliments mangeais-tu ou mangeait – t- elle ? Combien de fois 
par jour ?
4.6. Quels sont, les aliments qui sont interdits à une femme lorsqu’elle est enceintes dans 
votre village? 
4.7. Quelles sont les raisons avancées de ces interdits ?
4.8. Après votre accouchement ou celui de votre de votre épouse que faisiez-vous ? Quels 
types d’aliments mangeais-tu ou mangeait-t-elle ? Combien de fois par jour ?
5. Quelles sont les méthodes nutritionnelles que vous connaissez pour améliorer l’état 
nutritionnel de la femme enceinte, allaitante et des enfants de moins de 5 ans ?
5. Les changements dans les normes de genre 
5.1. Selon vous quel est le rôle de l’homme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
5.2. Quel est le rôle de la femme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
5.3. Est-ce cette participation de la femme a – t- elle toujours existée dans votre village ou 
bien elle est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
- Pensez vous que cette participation de la femme va continuer ou pas après le retrait 
du projet de votre village ?
5.4. Est-ce que les femmes participent-elles dans la prise des décisions concernant la 
gestion des ressources communautaires et des institutions locales? Donnez quelques 
exemples 
6. Résultats des interventions sur la Réduction des Risques des Catastrophes (RRC)
6.1. Est-ce que il ya- t-il dans votre village : 
- Des comités locaux de développement communautaire dans votre village? 
- Des comités agricoles de gestion rurale ? 
- Ces comités ont-ils existé avant le projet ou ont été mis en place par le 
projet ? 
Si oui, Qui vous a informé ?
6.2. Quel est le rôle des ces comités ? Qu’est ce que ces comités ont fait ?
6.3.Etes-vous membres de l’un ou plusieurs de ces comités ?
6.4. Pensez vous que ces comités vont continuer ou pas après l’arrêt du projet dans votre
village ?
127
6.5. Y a- t il des comités mis en place dans votre communauté pour suivre l’exécution des 
mesures communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
- Si oui qui vous a informé de l’existence de ces comités ?
- Quelles sont ces mesures communautaires ? 
6.6. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé ou défavorisé l’exécution de ces mesures 
communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
7. Résultats de la gouvernance et des initiatives de résolution des conflits
7.1. Avez-vous des comités de gestion foncière dans votre village ?
Si oui comment le saviez-vous?
- Ces comités sont ils fonctionnels ? 
7.2. Avez-vous eu accès aux terres ? 
- Si oui comment aviez-vous accédé à ces terres ? 
- Si non pourquoi ? 
CES TROIS DER NIERES QUESTIONS SERONT ADRESSEES UNIQUEMENT POUR LE 
PROJET JENGA JAMMA II 
7.4. D’habitude, y a- t-il dans votre communauté des filles qui se marient avant 18 ans ? 
Si oui, que pensez-vous de cette situation? 
7.5. Dans votre communauté, quelles sont, selon vous les causes pour lesquelles certains 
hommes violentent leurs femmes? 
7.6. En cas de viol d’une femme/fille, que fait la famille de la survivante et la 
communauté (attitudes et réactions)? 
 
8. durabilité des interventions du programme 
8.1. Pourriez-vous donner quelques exemples qui montrent que bien que vous n’ayez pas 
bénéficié de ce projet, les activités mise en œuvre par le projet vont continuer ou 
s’arrêter après le retrait du projet de votre village ?
128
GUIDE DE L’ENTRETIEN INDIVIDUEL 
Date : ____________________ Province : ______________________ 
Zone de Santé : ____________________ 
Aire de Santé: ______________________ Village : ______________________ 
Nom et prénoms de l’Animateur : ____________________ et Preneur de note : 
____________________ 
Heure début de l’entretien : ________________ Heure fin de l’entretien : 
_________________
Qualité de la personne interviewée : ______________________ 
INTRODUCTION 
Merci de prendre votre temps pour participer à cet entretien ce jour. Mon nom est ………). 
Nous travaillons pour le compte de The Mitchell Group (TMG) et de Centre de Renforcement 
des capacités et d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et Développement (CRESPOD). 
Nous sommes là pour évaluer les activités du projet RISE/JENGA JAMAA II/TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA relatives à la sécurité alimentaire dans votre communauté. Votre contribution va 
nous donner une idée sur la sécurité alimentaire dans votre village/communauté.
REGLES DE CONDUITE : 
Nous nous intéressons à chacune de vos opinions et vos sentiments. Il n’y a ni des bonnes 
ni des fausses réponses. Nous avons besoins de vos idées. Ainsi, aucune critique ne vous 
sera adressée. Nous vous encourageons à donner des commentaires francs qui peuvent 
améliorer notre évaluation. 
. Cette session va durer approximativement ….. à…..heures 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET UTILISATION DES DICTAPHONES : 
Tout ce qui se dit, lors de notre entretien est confidentiel et nous ne dirons à personne que 
vous avez participé à cet entretien. Un enregistreur va enregistrer ce qui est dit pour que 
nous puissions prendre correctement note de vos points de vue afin de nous aider à 
améliorer les programmes. Je prendrai également des notes pour nous aider à ce sujet. Est￾ce que vous acceptez que nous puissions enregistrer cet entretien ? 
129
PRESENTATION 
Nous voulons que chacun de nous puisse se présenter pour mieux se connaître, en vue de 
faciliter l’entretien. 
0. Question introductive 
0.1. Que savez-vous du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA? 
0.2. Quel est votre rôle dans village en tant que …………………………………… 
1. Efficacité des modèles de formation en BCC 
1.1. En tant que………………………….au cours de ce projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ 
TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez-vous suivi une formation ? Si oui, dans quel 
domaine ? 
- Qu’aviez-vous retenu de cette formation ? 
- Aviez-vous partagé les informations reçues au cours de cette formation avec 
d’autres personnes qui n’avaient pas participée à la formation ? 
- Si oui, pourriez-vous nous donner quelques exemples? 
- Si non, pourquoi ne l’aviez-vous pas fait? 
1.2. En tant que………………………….au cours du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ 
TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez- vous participé à des causeries éducatives organisées par 
ce projet ?
- Si oui, pouvez-vous nous citer quelques messages que vous avez retenus et 
qui vous ont aidé à changer certaines pratiques quotidiennes dans votre 
ménage ? 
- Si non, pourquoi n’aviez vous pas participé à ces causeries éducatives ? 
2. Force des liens avec les marchés et les services publics 
2.3. Parlant de la production (agricole et animale), aviez vous eu accès aux semences ? aux 
bêtes ? aux volailles ? 
- Si oui, qui vous les aviez donné ? 
- Si non, pourquoi n’aviez-vous pas à ces intrants ?
2.4. Existe-t-il des associations des microcrédits et d’épargne dans votre communauté ? 
- Si oui, lesquelles ? Sont-elles fonctionnelles ?
- Aviez-vous eu accès aux microcrédit ?
- Si oui, Qu’est ce que vous aviez fait de ce crédit ? 
- Si non, pourquoi pas ? 
- En tant que…………………………. Faisiez-vous parti de ces associations
2.5. L’accès aux intrants et au microcrédit a-t- il augmenté vos ventes ?
- Si oui, donnez quelques exemples
- Si non pourquoi ? donnez quelques exemples
- En tant que…………………………. Pensez- vous que les ventes dans votre village 
dans l’ensemble ont-t-ils augmenté ou pas ?
2.6. En dehors des messages vulgarisés par le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ 
TUENDELEE PAMOJA, quels sont les autres acteurs qui ont vulgarisé des messages 
sur l’agriculture/élevage, la santé, la nutrition, l’eau et assainissement, la gestion des 
revenus, la gouvernance, le genre, la gestion des catastrophes?
2.7. En tant que…………………………. Quels sont les changements que le projet 
RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA a apporté dans votre ménage et 
dans votre communauté?
130
5. Changements dans les revenus et moyens de substance des ménages 
5.1. Selon vous, pensez vous que vos revenus ont augmentés ou pas durant ces 5 dernières 
années ?
5.2. D’une manière générale, à quoi affectez vous le revenu provenant de la vente des 
produits agricole, animale et des volailles (sondez en matière de soins de santé, de la 
scolarisation des enfants filles et garçons de l’épargne et l’achat des intrants,)
6. Evolution des pratiques de nutrition 
6.1. Pouvez-vous nous dire ce que vous aviez mangé hier ? Est-ce que vous aviez 
également mangé la même chose avant-hier ? Combien des fois mangez- vous par jour?
- Et vos enfants de moins de 5 ans, qu’est ce qu’ils ont mangé hier ? Combien 
des fois ?
6.2. Que faites vous pour éviter que vos enfants de moins de 5 ans tombent malade ? 
- Et quand ils sont malades, que faites-vous ?
6.3. Lorsque vous êtes enceintes ou votre épouse est enceinte, par rapport au suivi de 
votre/sa grossesse, qu’est-ce que vous faites ? Quels types d’aliments mangeait – t￾elle ? Combien de fois par jour ?
6.4. Quel est votre opinion sur les interdits de certains aliments à une femme lorsqu’elle est 
enceintes ? 
6.5. Quelle est la situation actuelle dans votre communauté par rapport à ces aliments 
interdits ? 
4.6. Avez-vous partagé quelques nméthodes que vous avez ou votre épouse a apprises pour 
améliorer l’état nutritionnel enceinte, de la femme allaitante et des enfants de moins 5 ans ?
5. Changement dans les normes de genre 
5.1. En tant que…………………………. Quel est votre opinion concernant le rôle attribué à 
l’homme et à la femme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
5.2. Est-ce cette participation de l’homme a – t- elle toujours existé dans votre communauté 
ou bien elle est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
5.3. Pensez vous que cette participation de l’homme et de la femme va continuer ou pas 
après le retrait du projet de votre village ?
5.4. Est-ce cette participation de la femme a – t- elle toujours existé dans votre communauté 
ou bien elle est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
5.5. Est-ce que les femmes participent-elles dans la prise des décisions concernant la 
gestion des ressources communautaires et des institutions locales? Donnez quelques 
exemples 
5.6. En tant que…………………………. Est-ce cette participation à la prise des décisions 
concernant la gestion des ressources communautaires et des institutions locales a 
toujours existée dans votre communauté ou bien elle arrivée suite aux activités du 
projet ?
5.7. Pensez vous que cette participation de la femme va continuer ou pas après le retrait du 
projet de votre village ?
131
6. Résultats des interventions sur la Réduction des Risques des Catastrophes (RRC) 
6.7. En tant que…………………………. Avez-vous un rôle à jouer dans la réduction des 
risques des catastrophes dans votre communauté ? 
6.8. Est-ce qu’il y a : 
- Des comités locaux de développement communautaire dans votre village? 
- Des comités agricoles de gestion rurale ? 
- Si oui ces comités ont-ils existés avant le projet ou ont été mis en place par le 
projet ?
- Ces comités sont –ils fonctionnels ?
- Quel est le rôle des ces comités ? Qu’est ce que ces comités ont fait ?
- Les membres des ces comités ont – ils été formés ? 
- Y-a-t-il des femmes dans ces comité ? Qu’en pensez-vous ?
Si oui, dans quels domaines ? 
6.9. Pensez- vous que ces comités vont continuer ou pas après l’arrêt du projet dans votre
village ?
- Quelles sont les mesures communautaires de réduction des risques liés aux 
catastrophes alimentaires sur la sécheresse, les maladies des plantes, des animaux, 
des volailles , les inondations 
Au niveau des ménages et de la communauté qui ont été prise en charge par les 
interventions du projet?
6.10. Y a- t il des comités mis en place dans votre communauté pour suivre l’exécution de 
ces les mesures communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
6.7. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé ou défavorisé l’exécution de ces mesures 
communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
7. Résultats de la gouvernance et des initiatives de résolution des conflits 
La question 7.1 sera adressée aux bénéficiaires des projets Mercy Corps et Food 
for the Hungry 
7 .1. En tant que…………………………. Avez-vous un rôle à jouer dans les initiatives de 
résolution des conflits ? 
- Si oui lequel ?
- Si non pourquoi ?
7.1. Avez-vous des comités de gestion foncière dans votre village ?
- Ces comités sont ils fonctionnels ? 
- Les membres de ces comités ont-ils été formés ? Dans quel domaine ? 
7.2. En tant que…………………………..…. Quel est votre opinion concernant la distribution 
des terres dans votre communauté ?
7.3. Et vous-même aviez-vous eu accès aux terres distribuées par le projet?
7.4. Donnez quelques exemples qui montrent que les initiatives mises en place par le projet 
ont permises aux membres de la communauté :
- d’accéder aux terres ? 
- de résoudre les conflits au sein de la communauté 
7.5. Pouvez-vous citer quelques initiatives qui ont plus au moins bien marché dans la 
résolution des conflits fonciers?
7.6. Après le retrait du projet de votre village, à qui reviendront ces terres ?
N.B Les questions 7.6, 7.7 et 7.8 seront adressées aux bénéficiaires et aux non 
bénéficiaire du projet JENGA JAMAA II. 
7.7. D’habitude, y a- t-il dans votre communauté des filles qui se marient avant 18 ans ? 
- Si oui, que pensez-vous de cette situation? 
7.8. Dans votre communauté, quelles sont, selon vous les causes pour lesquelles certains 
hommes violentent leurs femmes? 
132
7.9. En cas de viol d’une femme/fille, que fait la famille de la survivante et la 
communauté (attitudes et réactions)? 
8. Durabilité des interventions du programme 
8.2. Pourriez-vous donner quelques exemples qui montrent que les activités mise en œuvre 
par le projet vont continuer ou s’arrêter après le retrait du projet de votre village ? 
133
GUIDE DE DISCUSSION DES GROUPES 
Catégorie : BENEFICIAIRES EN GENERAL 
Date : ____________________ Province : ______________________ 
Zone de Santé : ____________________ 
Aire de Santé: ______________________ Village : ______________________ 
Nom et prénoms de l’Animateur : ____________________ et Preneur de note : 
____________________ 
Heure début de l’entretien : ________________ Heure fin de l’entretien : 
_________________
INTRODUCTION 
Bienvenu et merci de prendre votre temps pour participer à cette discussion ce jour. Mon 
nom est ……… (Modérateur) et c’est ………. (Preneur des notes). Nous travaillons pour le 
compte de The Mitchell Group (TMG) et de Centre de Renforcement des capacités et 
d’Etudes sur la Santé, Population et Développement (CRESPOD). 
Nous sommes là pour évaluer les activités du projet RISE/JENGA JAMAA II/TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA relatives à la sécurité alimentaire dans votre communauté. La contribution de 
chacun de vous va nous donner une idée sur la sécurité alimentaire dans votre.
REGLES DE CONDUITE : 
Nous nous intéressons à chacune de vos opinions et vos sentiments. Il n’y a ni des bonnes 
ni des fausses réponses. Nous avons besoins de vos idées. Ainsi, aucune critique ne vous 
sera adressée. Nous vous encourageons à donner des commentaires francs qui peuvent 
améliorer notre étude. 
Certaines d’entre vous peuvent approuver ou pas les réponses des autres ; Ce qui est 
normal. Je vais vous donner la parole à tour de rôle. S’il vous plaît, n’interrompez pas l’autre 
pendant qu’il parle. Chacune aura le temps de s’exprimer. Cette session va durer 
approximativement ….. à…..heures 
CONFIDENTIALITÉ ET UTILISATION DES DICTAPHONES : 
Tout ce qui se dit dans cette salle est confidentiel et nous ne dirons à personne que vous 
avez participé à cette discussion. Un enregistreur va enregistrer ce qui est dit pour que nous 
134
puissions prendre correctement note de vos points de vue afin de nous aider à améliorer les 
programmes. Mon collègue va également prendre des notes pour nous aider à ce sujet. Est￾ce que vous acceptez que nous puissions enregistrer la discussion ? 
PRESENTATION DES PARTICIPANTS : 
Nous voulons que chacun de vous puisse se présenter pour mieux se connaître, en vue de 
faciliter l’entretien. 
0. Question introductive 
OI. Que savez-vous du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
1. Efficacité des modèles de formation en SBCC: 
1.3. Au cours de ce projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez-vous 
suivi une formation ? Si oui, dans quel domaine ? 
- Qu’aviez-vous retenu de cette formation ? 
- Aviez-vous partagé les informations reçues de cette formation avec d’autres 
personnes qui n’avaient pas participé à cette formation ? 
- Si oui, pourriez-vous nous donner quelques exemples des informations 
partagées? 
- Si non, pourquoi ne l’aviez-vous pas fait? 
1.4. Au cours du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA, aviez- vous 
participé à des causeries éducatives organisées par ce projet ? 
- Si oui, pouvez-vous nous citer quelques messages que vous avez retenus et 
qui vous ont aidé à changer certaines pratiques quotidiennes dans votre 
ménage ? 
- Si non pourquoi n’aviez-vous participé à ces causeries ?
2. Force des liens avec les marchés et les services publics
2.8. Parlant de la production (agricole et animale), aviez vous eu accès aux semences ?
aux bêtes ? aux volailles ? 
- Si oui, qui vous les aviez donné ? 
- Si non, pourquoi n’aviez-vous pas à ces intrants ?
2.9. Existe-t-il des associations des microcrédits et d’épargne dans votre communauté ? 
- Si oui, lesquelles ? Sont-elles fonctionnelles ?
- Aviez-vous eu accès aux microcrédit ?
- Si oui, Qu’est ce que vous aviez fait de ce crédit ? 
- Si non, pourquoi pas ? 
2.10. L’accès aux intrants et au microcrédit a-t- il augmenté vos ventes ?
- Si oui, donnez quelques exemples
- Si non pourquoi ? donnez quelques exemples
2.11. En dehors des messages vulgarisés par le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ 
TUENDELEE PAMOJA, quels sont les autres acteurs qui ont vulgarisé des messages 
sur l’agriculture/élevage, la santé, la nutrition, l’eau et assainissement, la gestion des 
revenus, la gouvernance, le genre, la gestion des catastrophes?
2.12. Quels sont les changements que le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA a apporté dans votre ménage et dans votre communauté? 
3. Changements dans les revenus et moyens de substance des ménages 
135
6.6. Selon vous, pensez vous que vos revenus ont augmenté ou pas durant ces 5 dernières 
années ?
Si non pourquoi? 
6.7. D’une manière générale, à quoi affectez vous le revenu provenant de la vente des 
produits agricole, animale et des volailles (sondez en matière de soins de santé, de la 
scolarisation des enfants filles et garçons de l’épargne et l’achat des intrants, nourriture)
7. Evolution des pratiques de nutrition 
7.1. Pouvez-vous nous dire ce que vous aviez mangé hier ? Est-ce que vous aviez 
également mangé la même chose avant-hier ? Combien des fois mangez- vous par jour?
- Et vos enfants de moins de 5 ans, qu’est ce qu’ils ont mangé hier ? Combien 
des fois ?
7.2. Que faites vous pour éviter que vos enfants de moins de 5 ans tombent malade ? 
- Et quand ils sont malades, que faites-vous ?
7.3. Lorsque vous êtes enceintes ou votre épouse est enceinte, qu’est-ce que vous faisiez ? 
Quels types d’aliments mangeais-tu ou mangeait – t- elle ? Combien de fois par jour ?
7.4. Quel est votre opinion sur les interdits de certains aliments à une femme lorsqu’elle est 
enceintes ? 
7.5. Quelle est la situation actuelle dans votre village par rapport à ces aliments interdits ?
4.6. Avez-vous partagé quelques nméthodes que vous avez ou votre épouse a apprises pour 
améliorer l’état nutritionnel de la femme enceinte, de la femme allaitante et des enfants de 
moins 5 ans ?
5. Changement dans les normes de genre
7.6. Quel est le rôle de l’homme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
7.7. Est-ce cette participation de l’homme a – t- elle toujours existé dans votre village ou 
bien elle est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
7.8. Pensez vous que cette participation de l’homme va continuer ou pas après le retrait du 
projet de votre village ? 
7.9. Quel est le rôle de la femme dans le ménage relatif 
- au partage des travaux ménagers, 
- aux soins des enfants, 
- à la prise des décisions et 
- à l’affectation des revenus? 
Donnez quelques exemples 
7.10. Est-ce cette participation de la femme a – t- elle toujours existé dans votre village ou 
bien elle est arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
7.11. Pensez vous que cette participation de la femme va continuer ou pas après le retrait 
du projet de votre village ?
7.12. Est-ce que les femmes participent-elles dans la prise des décisions concernant la 
gestion des ressources communautaires et des institutions locales? Donnez quelques 
exemples 
7.13. Est-ce cette participation à la prise des décisions concernant la gestion des 
ressources communautaires et des institutions locales a toujours existée dans votre 
village ou bien elle arrivée suite aux activités du projet ?
7.14. Pensez vous que cette participation de la femme va continuer ou pas après le retrait du 
projet de votre village ?
136
6. Résultats des interventions sur la Réduction des Risques des Catastrophes (RRC) 
6.11. Est-ce que vous avez : 
- Des comités locaux de développement communautaire dans votre village? 
- Des comités agricoles de gestion rurale ? 
- Si oui ces comités ont-ils existé avant le projet ou ont été mis en place par le 
projet ?
- Ces comités sont –ils fonctionnels ?
- Quel est le rôle des ces comités ? Qu’est ce que ces comités ont fait ?
- Les membres des ces comités ont – ils été formés ? 
Si oui, dans quels domaines ? 
6.12. Pensez- vous que ces comités vont continuer ou pas après l’arrêt du projet dans
votre village ?
6.13. Quelles sont les mesures communautaires de réduction des risques liés aux 
catastrophes alimentaires: 
- sécheresse, 
- maladies des plantes, des animaux, des volailles, 
- inondations 
Au niveau de la communauté qui ont été prises en charge par les interventions du projet?
6.14. Y a- t il des comités mis en place dans votre communauté pour suivre l’exécution de 
ces les mesures communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
7.7. Quels sont les facteurs qui ont favorisé ou défavorisé l’exécution de ces mesures 
communautaires de préventions de catastrophes?
7. Résultats de la gouvernance et des initiatives de résolution des conflits 
La question 7.1 sera adressée aux bénéficiaires des projets Mercy Corps et Food 
for the Hungry
7.10. Avez-vous des comités de gestion foncière dans votre village ?
- Ces comités sont ils fonctionnels ? 
- Les membres de ces comités ont-ils été formés ? Dans quel domaine ? 
7.11. Avez-vous eu accès aux terres ? 
7.12. Donnez quelques exemples qui montrent que les initiatives mises en place par le 
projet ont permises aux membres de la communauté :
- d’accéder aux terres ? 
- de résoudre les conflits au sein de la communauté 
7.13. Pouvez-vous citer quelques initiatives qui ont plus au moins bien marché dans la 
résolution des conflits fonciers?
7.14. Après le retrait du projet de votre village, à qui reviendront ces terres ?
N.B Les questions 7.6, 7.7 et 7.8 seront adressées aux bénéficiaires et aux non 
bénéficiaire du projet JENGA JAMAA II. 
7.15. D’habitude, y a- t-il dans votre communauté des filles qui se marient avant 18 ans ? 
- Si oui, que pensez-vous de cette situation? 
7.16. Dans votre communauté, quelles sont, selon vous les causes pour lesquelles certains 
hommes violentent leurs femmes? 
7.17. En cas de viol d’une femme/fille, que fait la famille de la survivante et la 
communauté (attitudes et réactions)? 
 
8. durabilité des interventions du programme 
8.3. Pourriez-vous donner quelques exemples qui montrent que les activités mise en œuvre 
par le projet vont continuer ou s’arrêter après le retrait du projet de votre village ? 
137
Annex 9. Mini-Survey Questionnaire and Household Visit Guide 
MINI-SURVEY 
MODULE 0 : IDENTIFICATION 
N° de la question Variable d'identification Code
01 Province /___/
02 Zone de santé /___/
03 Aire de santé /___/___/
04 Village/localité/Campement/Cité /___/___/
05 Type de ménage par rapport à la participation ou non au 
Projet FFP
1= Ayant bénéficié l’assistance du projet
2= N’ayant pas bénéficié l’assistance du projet
/___/
 
RESULTAT DE L’ENQUETE 
Questionnaire administré le : jour /___/___/ mois /___/___/ Année /___/___/
Par : Nom de l’enquêteur : .............................................................. /___/___/
Résultat : 1= rempli ; 2= Partiellement rempli ; 3= Non rempli /___/
Vérifié le : jour /___/___/ mois /___/___/ Année /___/___/
Par : Nom du vérificateur : .............................................................. /___/
Saisi le : jour /___/___/ mois /___/___/ Année /___/___/
Par : Nom de l’agent de saisie : ...................................................... /___/
138
Module 1 : Caractéristiques socio-démographiques du ménage 
N° Question
Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon choix
Codes
101 Sexe du répondant 1= Masculin 2= féminin /___/
102 Age du répondant …………………ans /___/___/
103 Lien avec le chef de ménage 1= Chef de ménage 2= Conjoint du CM
3= Enfant majeur du CM 4= Autre membre (majeur)
/___/
104 Nombre de personnes dans le 
ménage
…………………………………. (indiquez le nombre) /___/___/
105 Nombre d’enfants de – 5ans …………………………………. (indiquez le nombre) /____/
106 Nombre d’enfants de 5-17 ans …………………………………. (indiquez le nombre) /___/___/
107 Nombre d’adultes de 18 ans et plus …………………………………. (indiquez le nombre)
108 Depuis combien de temps habitez￾vous ce 
village/cité/Campement/Localité ?
1= Depuis la naissance 4= Entre 5 et 10 ans
2= Depuis moins d’1 an 5= Depuis plus de 10 ans
3= Entre 1 et5 ans 
/___/
109 Etat matrimonial du répondant 1= Célibataire 2= Marié(e) monogame 3= Marié(e) polygame 
4= Union de fait 5= Séparé(e) 6= divorcé(e) 
7= Veuf/veuve
/___/
110 Quel est votre niveau d’études ? 0= Sans instructions 1=primaire 
2=Secondaire 3=supérieur ou universitaire 
/___/
111 Quelle est votre activité principale 
actuelle ?
0= Sans emploi/ménagère
1= Cultivateur/trice
2= Eleveur/se
3= Agent de l’Etat
4= Agent dans une ONG/UN
5= Commerçant
6= Pasteur/Religieux
7= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………………….
/___/
139
Module 2 : Efficacité des modèles de formations 
N°
Question Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon 
choix
Codes
201 Aviez-vous bénéficié les formations dispensées par le 
projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
1= Oui
2= Non /____/
202 D’une manière générale, ces formations ont-elles apporté 
des améliorations dans les domaines suivants dans votre 
communauté ? 
Répondez par oui ou par Non (plusieurs réponses sont 
possibles)
A= adoption des nouvelles pratiques agricoles 
(agriculture/élevage)
B= transformation des produits 
C= vente de produits agricoles/élevages
D= stockage de produits agricoles/élevages
E= Aucune amélioration
A= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
B= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
C= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
E=/___/
203 Etes-vous satisfait de la façon dont les bénéficiaires des 
formations ont été sélectionnés ? 
Si 203=2, allez à 205
1= Oui 
2= Non
3= NSP
/___/
204 Si oui, pourquoi ? 1= Transparence des procédures (critères 
non discutables)
2= Absence des magouilles (ni corruption 
ni tribalisme)
3= Autre (à 
préciser)……………………………
/___/
205 Si non, pourquoi ? 1= Procédures opâques (critères flous)
2= choix basé sur le clientélisme (ni 
corruption ni tribalisme)
3= Autre (à 
préciser)……………………………
/___/
140
Module 3: Force des liens avec les marchés et les services publics 
301 Dans votre communauté, entre les produits 
agricoles ou d’élevage transformés et non 
transformés, lesquels se vendent bien ? 
1= Produits transformés 
2= Produits non transformés 
3= NSP
/___/
302 Selon vous, y a-t-il de plus en plus des gens 
qui reçoivent des micro-crédits ?
1= Oui 
2= Non
3= NSP
/___/
303 Aviez-vous sollicité un micro-crédit 
Si 303= 2, allez à 305.
1= Oui
2= Non
/___/
304 Si oui, l’aviez-vous reçu en entre 2010 et 
2015 ?
1= Oui
2= Non
/___/
305 Si vous n’aviez pas cherché un crédit, quelle 
en était la raison principale ? 
1= Manque d’informations
2= difficultés de préparer le dossier
3= On ne sert pas tout le monde
4= Evite les dettes
5= Autre (à 
préciser)………………………………………………
…..
/___/
306 Selon vous, y a-t-il eu amélioration ou non des 
conditions de vie de la population de votre 
communauté entre 2010 et aujourd’hui ? 
Si 306= 2, allez à 308.
Si 306= 3, allez à 309.
1= Conditions améliorées
2= Conditions de vie dégradées
3= Pas de changements
/___/
307 Si changement, quel est le principal facteur qui 
l’a permis ?
1= Interventions du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA 
II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
2= Interventions d’autres projets des partenaires (UN, 
ONG)
3= Interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………
/___/
308 Si conditions de vie dégradées, quel est le 
principal facteur qui est à la base de cette 
situation? 
1= Mauvaises interventions du projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
2= Interventions d’autres projets des partenaires (UN, 
ONG)
3= Interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………
/___/
309 En cas de Statu quo : Raison principale 1= Aucun apport des interventions du 
projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
2= Absence d’interventions d’autres projets des 
partenaires (UN, ONG) pour soutenir/renforcer les 
interventions du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ 
TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
3= Aucune interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à 
préciser)……………………………………
……
/___/
141
310 Selon vous, y a-t-il eu amélioration des 
infrastructures (routes, centres de santé, 
écoles, marchés, points d’eau, latrines, …) 
entre 2010 et aujourd’hui ? 
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
311 Est-ce que les produits agricoles/élevages se 
sont bien vendus entre 2010 et 
aujourd’hui dans cette communauté ?
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
312 En quel état préfère-t-on vendre les produits 
agricoles/élevages dans cette communauté ?
1= Non transformés
2= Transformés
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
142
Module 4 : Changements dans les revenus et moyens de substance des 
ménages 
N° Question Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon 
choix
Codes
401 Ces cinq dernières années, vos revenus se sont-ils 
améliorés ou dégradés ?
Si 401= 2, allez à 403.
1= Améliorés
2= Dégradés /___/
402 En cas d’amélioration de revenus, quels seraient les 
facteurs qui en sont responsables ?
Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
A= Bonnes interventions du projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
B= Bonnes interventions d’autres projets des 
partenaires (UN, ONG)
C= Bonnes interventions de l’Etat
D= Autre (à préciser)…………………………………
A= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
B= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
C= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
403 En cas de la dégradation de revenus, quelles pourraient 
en être les causes ?
Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
1= Mauvaises interventions du projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
2= Mauvaises interventions d’autres projets des 
partenaires (UN, ONG)
3= Mauvaises interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à préciser)……………………………
A= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
B= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
C= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
404 D’après-vous, entre 2010 et aujourd’hui, vos conditions 
de vie se sont-elles ou non améliorées ? 
Si 404= 2, allez à 406
1= Améliorées
2= Dégradées /___/
405 En cas d’amélioration de conditions de vie, quels 
seraient les facteurs qui en sont responsables ?
Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
1= Bonnes interventions du projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
2= Bonnes interventions d’autres projets des 
partenaires (UN, ONG)
143
3= Bonnes interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à préciser)……………………………
A= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
B= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
C= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
406 En cas de la dégradation des conditions de vie, quelles 
pourraient être les causes ?
Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
1= Mauvaises interventions du projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
2= Mauvaises interventions d’autres projets des 
partenaires (UN, ONG)
3= Mauvaises interventions de l’Etat
4= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………
A= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
B= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
C= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
D= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
144
Module 5 : Changement des pratiques/habitudes nutritionnelles 
N° Question Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon 
choix
Codes
501 Combien de repas consommez-vous par jour ? ……………...... nombre /___/
502 Quels aliments avez-vous l’habitude de 
consommer dans votre ménage ?
Plusieurs réponses possibles
1= Haricots
2= Patate
3= Banane
4= Manioc
5= Maïs
6= Arachides
7= Légumes (ngai-ngai)
8= Volailles
9= Chèvres
10= Autre (à préciser)…………………………………
1= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
2= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
3= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
4= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
5= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
6= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
7= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
8= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
9= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
10= 1 :Oui 2 : Non
1=/___/
2=/___/
3=/___/
4=/___/
5=/___/
6=/___/
7=/___/
8=/___/
9=/___/
10=/___/
503 Combien de fois l’avez-vous consommé au cours de la 
dernière semaine ?
……….fois /___/
504 Combien de fois par semaine consommez-vous les 
poissons ou la viande de 
chèvre/mouton/Vache/volaille ou autre?
...........fois par semaine /___/
145
N° Question Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon 
choix
Codes
505 D’où provient principalement l’eau de boisson que 
vous buvez ?
1. Robinet
2. Puits à pompe ou forage
3. Puits creusé
4. Eau de source
5. Eau de pluie
6. Eau de rivière, fleuve, lac
7. Eau en bouteille
8. Autre :……………… /___/
506 Si l’eau de boisson provient d’une source non 
aménagée, que faites-vous pour la traiter avant de la 
boire?
1= Bouillir
2= Laisser se reposer
3= Mettre un produit chimique 
4= Autre (à préciser) 
………………………………………….
/___/
507 Comment se fait l’évacuation des ordures 
ménagères ?
1. jeter décharge publique 
2. Brûler/incinérer 
3. Enfouir 
4. jeter dans la rue/caniveau 
5. jeter dans un cours d‘eau 
6. jeter dans la brousse 
7. Autre………………….
/___/
508 Votre ménage dispose-t-il une latrine 1= Oui 
2= Non
/___/
509 Votre ménage dispose-t-il des moustiquaires 
imprégnées d’insecticide ?
1= Oui
2= Non
/___/
510
Est-ce que, la nuit dernière, tous les membres du 
ménage ont dormi sous une moustiquaire 
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
511
Est-ce que, la nuit dernière, tous les enfants de moins 
de 5 ans du ménage ont dormi sous une moustiquaire 
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
512
Est-ce que, la nuit dernière, toutes les femmes 
enceintes du ménage ont dormi sous une 
moustiquaire 
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
513
Les membres de votre ménage ont-ils l’habitude de 
laver régulièrement les mains ?
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
514
Y a-t-il un dispositif de lavage des mains à côté des 
latrines ?
1= Oui
2= Non (si non passer au Module 7)
/___/
146
515
Est-ce que, d’habitude, les membres de votre ménage 
lavent-ils régulièrement les mains à ces occasions ?
Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
Répondre par : 1=oui, 2=non :
A= avant la cuisson des repas
B= avant de manger 
C= après avoir eté à la toilette 
D= après avoir fait un travail manuel 
A= 1=oui, 2=non :
B= 1=oui, 2=non :
C= 1=oui, 2=non :
D= 1=oui, 2=non :
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/D
=/___/
147
Module 6 : Changements dans les normes de genre 
N°
Question Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond au bon choix
Codes
601
Combien d’enfants en âge 
scolaire (5-17 ans) avez-vous?
Si pas d’enfants d’âge 
scolaire dans le ménage, allez 
à 606 
Nombre de filles……
Nombre de garçons……….
/___/
/___/
602
Combien des garçons 
fréquentent-ils l’école ?
…………………………………….
/___/
603
Au cas où au moins un garçon 
ne fréquente pas l’école, 
demander les raisons pour au 
plus un enfant
1= Cas de maladie 
2= Manque des moyens financiers
3= Il est moins intelligent/Ne s’applique pas bien/dérangeur
4= Les études en sont importantes pour un garçon
5= Autre (à préciser)…………………………………………………
/___/
604
Combien des filles 
fréquentent-elles l’école ?
…………………………………….
/___/
605
Au cas où au moins une fille 
ne fréquente pas l’école, 
demander les raisons pour au 
plus un enfant
1= Cas de maladie 
2= Manque des moyens financiers
3= Il est moins intelligent/Ne s’applique pas bien/dérangeur
4= Les études en sont importantes pour une fille
5= Autre (à préciser)…………………………………………………
/___/
606
A quel âge une fille peut-elle 
se marier dans votre 
communauté ?
1= moins de 18 ans
2= 18 ans et plus
/___/___/
607
A quel âge un garçon peut-il 
se marier dans votre 
communauté ?
1= moins de 18 ans
2= 18 ans et plus
/___/___/
608 Dans votre communauté, est-il 
permis, à ce jour, à un homme 
de discuter avec son 
épouse/partenaire sur les 
questions de planification 
familiale ?
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
609 Si non, pourquoi ? 1= C’est interdit par la coutume/tradition/église
2= Pour éviter d’être importunée par elle plus tard
3= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………………….
/___/
148
610 Dans votre communauté, est-il 
permis, actuellement, à un 
homme de discuter avec son 
épouse/partenaire sur les 
questions liées aux dépenses 
du ménage ?
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
611 Si non, pourquoi ? 1= C’est l’homme qui est chef 
2= cela ne rentre pas dans les attributions de la femme dans le foyer
3= Autre (à 
préciser)…………………………………………………….
/___/
Instruction : lire cette déclaration à l’intention de l’enquêté : vrai ou faux
612 Il est normal que toutes les décisions du ménage soient prises 
par l’homme
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
613 Les travaux du ménage c’est le domaine exclusif de la femme et 
de la jeune fille
1= Vrai 2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas /___/
614 L’école est réservée aux garçons, les filles doivent se préparer 
uniquement au mariage
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
615
Il est normal qu’un homme batte sa sans femme s’il estime que 
celle-ci se comporte mal.
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
616 L’argent de la femme ne lui appartient pas. Elle doit remettre 
tout à l’homme qui doit apprécier ce qu’il doit lui donner.
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
617 Une femme qui va participer aux réunions de femmes dans des 
ONG mérite avec raison des sanctions de la part de son mari.
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas
/___/
618 L’homme qui discute avec sa femme sur le nombre des enfants 
à mettre monde est un lâche
1= Vrai
2= Faux
3= Ne sait pas /___/
149
Module 7 : Santé de l’enfant et de la mère 
N° Questions Modalités Codes
701 Y-t-il dans le ménage un enfant de 
0 à 6 mois ?
Si 701= 2, allez à 705
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
702 Si oui, le bébé âgé entre 0 et 6 mois 
est-il allaité au sein?
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
703 Est-ce que cet enfant a-t-il été 
vacciné contre la rougeole TB, 
tétanos, polio?
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
704 La maman a-t-elle été suivie au 
cours de sa grossesse (vérifier 
carnet de santé)
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
705 Le vaccin peut entrainer d’autres 
maladies 1=Vrai 2= Faux
/___/
706 La poliomyélite se soigne mieux :
? 
1=Chez le tradipraticien
2=A l’hôpital
3=Autre /___/
707 Est-ce que le centre de santé de votre 
village réalise les activités de 
planification familiale?
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
150
Module 8 : Résultats des interventions sur la Réduction des Risques des 
Catastrophes (RRC) et Résolution des conflits
N° Questions Modalités Codes
801 Avez-vous l’impression que votre communauté est bien 
gérée/administrée ?
Si 801= 1, allez à 803
1= Oui 2= 
Non /___/
802
Si non, quels sont les domaines que vous pensez être mal 
gérés ?
1= Administration locale
2= Agriculture
3= Foncier
4= Santé
5= Autre (à préciser) 
……………………
/___/
803 Quels sont les différents comités de développement qui existent 
dans votre communauté ?
Si pas de comités, allez à 809
NB : Plusieurs réponses sont possibles
1= comité de développement local
2= comité de développement agricole (CARG)
3= Comité de développement sanitaire
4= comité des gestions foncières
5= Comité de gestion des conflits (divers)
6= Comité de gestion d’eau
7= Comité pour la réduction des risques des catastrophes ou des 
épidémies ?
8= Autres (à préciser)……………………………….…………..
1= 1=oui, 2=non :
2= 1=oui, 2=non :
3= 1=oui, 2=non :
4= 1=oui, 2=non :
5= 1=oui, 2=non :
6= 1=oui, 2=non :
7= 1=oui, 2=non :
8= 1=oui, 2=non :
1=/___/
2=/___/
3=/___/
4=/___/
5=/___/
6=/___/
7=/___/
8=/___/
804 Les agents des services de l’Etat font-ils partie aussi de ces 
comités ?
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
805 D’après vous, ces comités disposent-ils des micro-projets qui 
peuvent aider à résoudre des conflits ou à diminuer les risques, 
par exemple pour l’agriculture ou la santé ? 
1= Oui 2= Non
/___/
806
Si oui, avez-vous quelques exemples des activités de ces 
comités dans votre communauté ?
1=…………………………………
……….
2=…………………………………
/___/
151
……….
807
A quel moment ces comités avaient-ils été créés ?
1= Avant le projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
2= Après le projet RISE /JENGA 
JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
/___/
808
Pensez-vous que ces comités vont continuer ou pas après le 
projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
1= vont continuer
2= ne vont pas continuer
/___/
809 Pourquoi pensez-vous que les comités vont terminer après le 
projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE PAMOJA?
1= La communauté n’a pas les 
moyens financiers et techniques de 
continuer les activités
2= Personne n’a vraiment compris 
l’importance du travail abattu par 
ces projets
3= Autre (à préciser) 
………………………..
/___/
810
Pourquoi pensez-vous que les comités ne vont pas se terminer 
avec la fin du projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
1= La communauté va se prendre 
en charge et trouvera les moyens 
financiers et techniques pour 
continuer les activités
2= Il y a eu déjà transfert des 
compétences 3= Autre (à préciser) 
……………………
/___/
152
N° Question
Modalités de réponses
encercler la modalité correspond 
au bon choix
Codes
811
Votre communauté a-t-elle pu déceler des situations de risque de 
catastrophes naturels ou de conflits (à caractère ethnique ou 
foncier) durant les cinq dernières années ?
Si 811= 2, allez à 813
1= Oui
2= Non
/___/
812 Si oui, comment a-t-elle pu gérer cela ?
1= Dialogue avec la population et les 
voisins
2= Sensibilisation de la population 
sur l’attitude à tenir
3= Autre (à 
préciser)………………………
/___/
813
Etes-vous informé de l’existence des plans et des micro-projets 
exécutés pour diminuer les risques ? 
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
814
Est-ce que les comités de développement local aident à mettre en 
œuvre les politiques nationales/provinciales ou locales, par 
exemple pour adapter l’agriculture aux changements climatiques 
ou lutter contre les épidémies ?
1= Oui
2= Non /___/
815
Est-ce que le projet RISE /JENGA JAMAA II/ TUENDELEE 
PAMOJA?
A= a permis l’amélioration de l’agriculture ?
B= a permis l’amélioration de la gestion des ressources naturelles
C= a permis l’amélioration la transformation des produits ?
D= a permis l’amélioration de la vente de produits ?
A= 1=oui, 2=non :
B= 1=oui, 2=non :
C= 1=oui, 2=non :
D= 1=oui, 2=non :
A=/___/
B=/___/
C=/___/
D=/___/
Remerciez l’enquêté(e) et mettre fin à l’entretien. 
Demandez-lui l’autorisation de visiter sa concession. 
153
Household Observation Guide 
Agriculture
A observer (moyennant accord)
Entourez la réponsedonnée….
Y a-t-il un champ/jardin dans la concession/parcelle ?
Si oui, quelles plantes ?
Y a-t-il d’arbres fruitiers dans la concession/parcelle ? Commentaires (types d’:
Si oui, quelles espèces ? ……………………
Demandez en quelle année ils ont été plantés. ………………….
La technique utilisée pour les planter/semer répond-t-elle aux 
techniques modernes ? (observer si les plantes sont semés en 
ligne ou en désordre, utilisation des semences améliorées et 
fertilisants)
Oui Non
Commentaires
Demandez si ces plantes sont destinées à la consommation du 
ménage et/ou à la vente. A quel moment on avait cueilli la dernière 
fois pour la consommation. A quel moment elles avaient été 
vendues pour la dernière fois ?
A quoi avait servi l’argent acquis à la suite de la vente ?
Commentaires :
Elevage
A observer (moyennant accord)
Entourez la réponsedonnée….
Y a-t-il des traces des animaux/Volailles domestiques dans la 
concession/parcelle ? Oui Non
Si oui, quelles espèces ?
Demandez le nombre de têtes ………….. (têtes)
Demandez en quelle année a commencé ces élevages. ……………. (année)
La technique utilisée pour l’élevage répond-t-elle aux techniques 
modernes ? (la présence des mangeoires et abreuvoir, 
cage/loge, suivi sanitaire des animaux : vaccination des 
animaux)
Oui Non
Commentaires
154
Demandez si ces animaux sont destinés à la consommation du 
ménage et/ou à la vente. A quel moment on avait abattu la 
dernière fois pour la consommation. A quel moment ils avaient été 
vendus pour la dernière fois ?
A quoi avait servi l’argent acquis à la suite de la vente ? 
Commentaires :
Situation sociale
A observer (moyennant accord) Entourez la réponsedonnée….
Le chef de ménage est-il monogame ou polygame ? ….
Si monogame ou polygame, y-a-t-il des femmes apparemment 
mariées à moins de 18 ans entre 2010 et 2016 ?
OuiNon
Commentaires :
Ya-t-il succession des enfants avec un faible écarts 
intergénésique ?(espacement des naissances et planification 
familiale)
Si pas apparent, posez la question sur le nombre d’enfants de 
moins de 5 ans par femme.
Oui Non
Y-a-il des enfants de moins de 18 ans qui ne vont pas à l’école ? Oui Non
Si oui, vérifiez, combien des filles et combien des garçons Filles :………
Garçons : 
…….
Demandez les raisons Raisons filles :
Raisons 
Garçons :
Demandez : Y a-t-il des filles du ménage qui ont été mariées 
avant 18 ans entre 2010 et 2016 ? Oui Non
Si oui, cherchez à savoir le pourquoi (le ménage n’avait-il entendu 
parler de violences sexuelles ou de l’interdiction de ce genre de 
mariages par une loi ?
Commentaires :
155
Vérifiez la nature de relations entre ce ménage et un de ses voisins Bonne Mauvaise
Si mauvaise, demander s’ils ont eu un conflit ouvert ayant conduit 
à des affrontements (bagarres, insultes). 
Oui, en quelle 
année ?............ Non
Si oui, y-a-il déjà eu des médiations ?
Oui, en quelle 
année ?................. Non
Issues des médiations Réconciliation
Pas de 
réconciliati
on
Autres commentaires :
Sécurité alimentaire
A demander 
Combien de repas avez-vous mangé hier ….
Demandez, quelle était la composition de ce repas ? 
…………………………………………
………..
Combien le ménage a-t-il consommé le même repas au courant de 
la semaine passée ?
…………………………………………
………
observer Oui Non
Quel est l’état de santé de la mère ? Bon Mauvais
Quel est l’état de santé des enfants de moins de 5 ans Bon Mauvais
Commentaires (Y a-t-il des signes de malnutrition chez la mère et les enfants ? Sioui, lesquels ?)
L'usage des moustiquaires
A observer (moyennant accord) Entourez la réponsedonnée….
Combien de moustiquaires sont disponibles dans le ménage (à 
vérifier) ? …………………..
Sont-elles placées au dessus des lits/nattes avant le coucher ? Oui Non
156
Tous les lits/nattes ont-ils une moustiquaire ? Oui Non
Sont-elles toutes en bon état ? (absence de trous) Oui Non
Ont-elles été reçues ou achetées récemment (- de 3 ans) ? Oui Non
Depuis quand le ménage utilise-t-il les MII (avant 2010 ou après?
A demander
D'autres moyens de prévention du paludisme sont-ils utilisés ? Oui Non
Lesquels ?
Au cas où le ménage n’utilise pas les MII, demander pourquoi utilisez vous ou n'utilisez vous pas les 
moustiquaires comme moyens de prévention contre le paludisme ?
Autres commentaires : 
Le lavage des mains
Y a-t-il un dispositif de lavage des mains à côté des latrines ? 
(demander l’autorisation pour les voir) Oui Non
Y a-t-il dans ce dispositif quelque chose permettant de se 
désinfecter les mains (cendres, savon,…) Oui Non
Les adultes les utilisent-ils avant les repas ? Oui Non
Les adultes les utilisent-ils après les repas ? Oui Non
Les enfants les utilisent-ils avant les repas ? Oui Non
Les enfants les utilisent-ils après les repas ? Oui Non
Enfants et adultes les utilisent-ils à la sortie des toilettes ? Oui Non
Utilise-t-on d'autres moyens pour se laver les mains ? Oui Non
Lesquels ?
L'allaitement et le suivi de la grossesse
Le bébé âgé entre 0 et 6 mois est-il allaité? oui non
Pourquoi ?
Le bébé a-t-il reçu le colostrum ? (= lait des 3 premiers jours, de 
couleur jaunâtre) oui non
Les bébés allaités reçoivent-ils une autre nourriture en plus du lait 
maternel ? oui non
Pour quelleraison ?
157
La maman a-t-elle été suivie au cours de sa grossesse (vérifier 
carnet de santé) oui non
CPN 1 oui non
CPN 2 oui non
Pourquoi ?
La maman a-t-elle été suivie après sa grossesse (vérifier carnet de 
santé) oui non
CePoN 1 oui non
CePoN 2 oui non
Pourquoi ?
La vaccination
Enfant 1 : Enfant 2 :
Complétez les cases pour les enfants de 0 à 5 ans en commençant 
par le plus jeune ………………...ans
…………...
.ans
Le carnet de santé est disponible (entourez la bonne réponse) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a été vacciné contre la poliomyélite (VPO) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a été vacciné contre la rougeole Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a été vacciné contre la diphtérie, le tétanos et la 
coqueluche (DTP) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a été vacciné contre la tuberculose (BCG) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a reçu le vaccin anti amaril (VAA) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a reçu le vaccin contre l’hépatite virale B (HepB) Oui Non
Oui 
Non
L'enfant a-t-il reçu de la vitamine A Oui Non
Oui 
Non
158
Annex A10. Select Findings from Mini-Surveys and House Visits 
MERCY CORPS Survey Findings 
Characteristic Beneficiaries Non￾Beneficiaries
Percentage of households consuming less than 
two meals per day
18.1 21.4
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
yellow fever
74.2 55.6
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
polio
80.6 83.3
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
tuberculosis
58.1 50.0
Percentage reporting use of water from rivers, 
lakes, or other natural sources
28.9 55.0
Percentage stating that it is normal that all 
household decisions be made by the husband
9.6 14.3
Percentage stating that it is acceptable for 
husbands to beat their wives
29.1 40.0
Percentage who have solicited a loan 65.1 14.3
ADRA Survey Findings 
Characteristic Beneficiaries Non￾Beneficiaries
Percentage of households consuming less than 
two meals per day
30.4 31.4
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
yellow fever
67.8 63.2
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
polio
89.8 94.7
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
tuberculosis
74.6 68.4
Percentage reporting use of water from rivers, 
lakes, or other natural sources
16.5 31.5
Percentage stating that it is normal that all 
household decisions be made by the husband
17.7 8.6
Percentage stating that it is acceptable for 
husbands to beat their wives
29.6 40.2
Percentage who have solicited a loan 38.0 22.7
Percentage of respondents who took part in a 
program-related training (direct or cascade)
94.9 22.9
Percentage indicating that their livelihood 
conditions have improved over last 5 years
77.2 25.7
Percentage of mothers showing signs of 18.5 30.0
159
malnutrition
Percentage of women observed regularly during 
pregnancy
72.1 66.7
Percentage of households in which children 
under 5 show signs of malnourishment
32.9 22.8
FOOD FOR THE HUNGRY Survey Findings 
Characteristic Beneficiaries Non￾Beneficiaries
Percentage of households consuming less than 
two meals per day
3.2 18.8
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
yellow fever
67.8 63.2
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
polio
81.8 89.8
Percentage of children under 2 vaccinated for 
tuberculosis
72.1 73.3
Percentage reporting use of water from rivers, 
lakes, or other natural sources
44.5 59.4
Percentage stating that it is normal that all 
household decisions be made by the husband
22.2 34.4
Percentage stating that it is acceptable for 
husbands to beat their wives
23.8 3.1
Percentage who have solicited a loan 22.7 14.5
Select Household Observations (Pooled across DFAPs) 
Characteristic Share of 
Beneficiary 
Households
Share of Non￾Beneficiary 
Households
Fruit trees in the concession/household 61.3 63.2
Evidence of domesticated animals 64.5 57.8
Presence of a married girl aged less than 18 
between 2000 and 2016
60.3 68.2
Evidence of a succession of births by one mother 
with little gap in between
19.1 20.2
Presence of children under 18 who do not attend 
school
59.6 68.7
Mosquito nets were observed on beds 70.3 71.9
All beds in the household have mosquito nets 55.1 54.5
A handwashing station is observable near the 
latrine
38.7 24.2
160
A11. GPS-based Map of Evaluation Sites