1 
CASH BASED FOOD SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE (EVD) – 
AFFECTED SIERRA LEONEANS IN KENEMA DISTRICT, IMPLEMENTED BY CATHOLIC 
RELIEF SERVICES (CRS) SIERRA LEONE
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) - Sierra Leone Program
Prepared by: 
MSD Consulting Limited - Sierra Leone
Evaluation Consultants:
Baimba Abdulai Koroma – Lead Consultant (Food Security and Cash Transfer Evaluation Expert) 
Momoh Thomas Bockarie (Socio-economic and Livelihood Expert) 
March 1, 2018
2 
Acknowledgements 
This final evaluation report is made possible by the generous support of the American people 
through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Our sincere thanks go to Catholic Relief Services (CRS) - Sierra Leone Program staff for 
providing MSD the support needed to undertake this important evaluation. MSD Consulting 
Limited appreciates your valued inputs into this report. 
We extend our special thanks to the Emergency Food Security Activity (EFSA) Project 
implementing team and partners for the evaluation ownership they manifested. 
Our thanks go to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for 
providing the funds for the planning and implementation of the EFSA intervention and its 
evaluation process through CRS - Sierra Leone. Without this funding, the EFSA intervention 
would have not been initiated to contribute to filling the gaps of food insecurity and malnutrition 
as a result the EVD. 
We are grateful to the participants and implementing partners who participated in this 
evaluation process by providing relevant information that has been used to produce this report. 
We also recognize the important role played by field data collection supervisors and 
enumerators whose names are attached to this report.
We hope that findings, lessons learned and recommendations incorporated into this 
evaluation report will be used by stakeholders, especially in the design and implementation of 
related future programs in Sierra Leone and/or other developing countries. 
DISCLAIMER 
The contents of this evaluation report are the responsibility of MSD consulting limited – Sierra 
Leone and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................iii
Acronyms..............................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................iv
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................vi
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Justification of the Final Evaluation ................................................................................. 1
1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation....................................................................... 2
2.0 Methodology of the Evaluation ........................................................................................ 3
2.1 Evaluation Design and Approach .................................................................................... 3
2.2 Data Collection................................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination ................................................... 4
2.3.1 Sampling Techniques................................................................................................... 4
2.3.2 Sample Size Determination.......................................................................................... 6
2.4 Data Management and analysis...................................................................................... 7
2.4.1 Data Processing........................................................................................................... 7
2.4.2 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Recruitment and Training of Data Collectors................................................................... 8
2.6 Evaluation Ethics............................................................................................................. 8
2.7 Limitations of the Evaluation ........................................................................................... 9
3.0 Analysis and Findings ..................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Household Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................ 9
3.2 Household Socio-economic Characteristics .................................................................. 12
3.2.1 Household Income and Livelihood Sources................................................................ 12
3.2.2 Average Normal Household Expenditure Patterns ..................................................... 13
3.3 Outcomes of the Intervention ........................................................................................ 14
3.3.1 Household Hunger Scale (HHS)................................................................................. 14
3.3.2 Household Dietary Diversity Score............................................................................. 15
3.3.3 Household Food Consumption Score......................................................................... 18
3.3.4 Reduced Coping Strategies Index (RCSI) .................................................................. 20
3.3.5 Meal Frequency and Type.......................................................................................... 20
3.3.6 The EFSA Cash Utilization by Participants................................................................. 21
3.3.7 The EFSA Capacity Building Training and Participant Practices ................................ 24
3.4 Change in Agricultural & Financial Assets Owned by Households ................................ 29
3.5 Appropriateness of Project Design ................................................................................ 33
3.6 Intervention Relevance and Strategic Fit....................................................................... 34
3.7 Efficiency of the EFSA Implementation ......................................................................... 38
3.8 Effectiveness of the EFSA Implementation.................................................................... 39
3.8.1 Coverage of the EFSA Intervention............................................................................ 39
3.8.2 Cash Transfer Processes........................................................................................... 39
3.9 Constraining and Facilitating Factors of Project Implementation ................................... 41
3.10 Partnerships, Collaborations and Coordination ........................................................... 42
3.11 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning ................................................... 44
3.12 Cross Cutting Issues: Gender Mainstreaming and Sustainability of Project Activities ..45
3.12.1 Gender Mainstreaming............................................................................................. 45
3.12.2 Sustainability of Project Activities ............................................................................. 47
4.0 Lessons Learned, Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................. 49
4.1 Lessons Learned........................................................................................................... 49
4.2 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................... 50
References ........................................................................................................................ 52
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 53
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
iv
Acronyms 
ACC Anti-Corruption Commission
CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability assessment
CIC Community Identification Committee
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
DMHT District Health Management Team 
EFSA Emergency Food Security Activity
EVD Ebola Virus Disease
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HHSP Household Hunger Scale and Prevalence
KDC Kenema District Council 
KIIs Key Informants Interviews
KOBO Open Data Kit platform used for primary data collection
MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
LPMT Light Proximity Means Test
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDGs Millennium Developments Goals
MoSWGCA Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affairs
MSD Management for Sustainable Development
NaCSA National Commission for Social Action
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring 
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SLDHS Sierra Leone Demographic Health Survey
SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Scientists
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
SLDHS Sierra Leone Demographic Health Survey
WFP The United Nations World Food Program
WHO World Health Organization
List of Tables
Table 1a: Summary of Respondents’ Category and Response Rate
Table 1b: Average Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) 
Table 2: Food Consumption Score Benchmarks
Table 3: Food Consumption Score
Table 4: Reduced Coping Strategies Index
Table 5: Meal Frequency by Age Group
Table 6: Comprehensive Knowledge of Participants on the Five Main Classes of Food
Table 7: Availability of Water and Soap at hand washing Stations
Table 8: Comprehensive Percentage of Households practicing at least 3 of 5 good 
agricultural practices
List of Figures
Figure 1: % Distribution of Age of Household Respondents
Figure 2: % Distribution of Age of Household Heads
Figure 3: % of Household Main/Primary Sources of Income
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
v 
Figure 4: % of Average Normal Household Expenditure of Income 
Figure 5: % of Average Household Hunger Score
Figure 6: Variety of Food Groups Consumed by Households 
Figure 7: Average Household Dietary Diversity by Category
Figure 8: Type of Meals Prepared within the last 24hrs before the Survey 
Figure 9: % of Average Household EFSA Cash Expenditure Pattern
Figure 10: Types of Foods Purchased with EFSA Cash 
Figure 11: % of Main Classes of Food Identified by Household Participants
Figure 12: % of Sample Respondents Practicing Hygiene Behavior
Figure 13: % of Participant Households that Mentioned Good Agronomic Practices
Figure 14a: % of Household Participants Practicing Backyard Gardening
Figure 14b: Good Financial and Business Management Skills
Figure 15: Effect of top-up payments on household farm land size in Phases 1& 2
Figure 16: % of Participants who used EFSA Cash to acquire new Farm Tools
Figure 17: % of Participants who Acquired Livestock with EFSA Cash
Figure 18: % of Participant Satisfaction with Distance Travelled to pay point
Figure 19: % of Participant Satisfaction with Waiting Time
Figure 20: Female and Male Headed Household Satisfied with 2 of 3 Process Categories 
Figure 21: % of Category of Distance covered by Participant to Pay Point
Figure 22: % of Respondents Waiting Time to receive Cash
Figure 23: % of Participant Household Decision Making on EFSA Cash Expenditure
Figure 24: % of Participant Belief for Continuity of Project Activities in the future
Figure 25: % of Activities Undertaken by Participants to Sustain or Maintain the EFSP Cash 
Received 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
vi 
Executive Summary
The outbreak of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in Sierra Leone was unprecedented. It 
contributed to high food insecurity and dismal economic situations. The increased second 
order impacts from the control measures in the prolonged fight against the EVD, eventually 
reduced households purchasing power, food production level and economic access to 
diversified nutritious food consumption. This left about only 11.2 % of all Sierra Leonean 
households food secured with only 5.6% of all households in Kenema district (CFSVA, 2015). 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Sierra Leone with funding from, USAID, responded to the need 
to urgently address the acute food insecurity, malnutrition and dismal economic situations, 
and to complement government effort towards achieving implementation of the National Ebola 
Recovery Strategy. CRS designed and implemented a two-Phased cash-based Emergency 
Food Security Activities (EFSA) intervention in nine chiefdoms in Kenema district. The 
intervention was mainly focused on distributing unconditional cash transfers to enable the 
most vulnerable and affected EVD households to recover from the shocks of Ebola and to 
meet their food and nutrition needs. 
In line with international best practices, this intervention required independent evaluation, 
which CRS and USAID eventually commissioned for accountability and future cash-based 
intervention design and implementation purposes, and to permit them make conclusions on 
achievement (or non-achievement) of intervention results based on evidence. 
The overall objective of the evaluation was to conduct performance evaluation of the cash￾based EFSA intervention, through assessing the relevance, appropriateness, efficiency, 
effectiveness and contribution towards improving food security amongst the participating 
households in nine intervention chiefdoms of Kenema district. The evaluation provides 
answers to following questions:
❖ To what extent did households that participated in the EFSA achieve food security and 
improved resilience as measured by key quantitative outcome indicators? 
❖ To what extent did the EFSA contribute to improving the ability of project participants to 
mitigate, adapt, and recover from the economic impacts of the Ebola? 
❖ To what extent were the systems, processes, and procedures used by EFSA for 
delivering cash transfers and non-cash assistance to participants effective, efficient, and 
sustainable during the period of program implementation? 
❖ To what extent did collaboration and coordination with public and private sector 
stakeholders result in enhancing the capacity to deliver cash transfers as a form of social 
protection and food assistance to vulnerable households during the emergency and 
recovery Phases? 
Through participatory approach, the evaluation was conducted using mixed-method 
evaluation design. With the use of two-stage cluster as well as purposive sampling techniques 
respectively for quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, the evaluation was 
conducted to present findings in response to the above evaluation questions. A mobile-based 
household survey questionnaire designed on a KOBO collect platform was used to collect 
quantitative data on key intervention and other outcome indicators. Focus group discussions 
(FGD) and key informant interview (KII) guides were used as qualitative tools to collect in￾depth information and to enhance triangulation. 
Below are the key findings, lessons learned, conclusion and recommendations of the 
evaluation.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
vii 
Key Findings
Primary Household Income and Livelihood Sources 
❖ Crop farming continues to be the main household income source, with 91.4% of 
participants who said that they depend on crop farming as their primary source of income 
compared to 70.8% who said so at baseline. Petty trading follows, which on average 
increased from 0.9% at base line to 3.0% at end line. Casual or agricultural labor markedly 
decreased from 25.5% at baseline to 0.2% at end line. 
Average Normal Household Expenditure Patterns
❖ On average, 57% of participant household normal income is spent on food; followed by 
agriculture (14.7%), health care (10%), education (8.7%), and savings (4%). Expenditure 
on food in Phase I seems to be slightly more than the average value at 57% by 1.3%. The 
decrease in expenditure on food item as expected by the EFSA intervention is 
compensated for by increases in expenditure on the non-food items including education, 
health care, agriculture and savings.
Household Hunger Scale (HHS)
 Analysis for HHS for done for Phase II only as the Phase I baseline data for this indicator 
was incomplete. For Phase II, the proportion of households with Little or no Hunger 
increased significantly from 2.1% at baseline to 78.2% at endline, which led to a 
corresponding decrease in the proportions of households with Moderate Hunger from 
84.3% at baseline to 20.7% at endline and those with Severe Hunger from 13.6% at 
baseline down to 1.1% at endline. 
 Claims on the improved changes are justified by results from a one-tailed two independent 
sample t-test of statistical significance conducted on average household hunger score, 
revealing a statistically significant difference between the sample baseline value drawn 
from Phase II baseline census dataset compared to the endline value for Phase II with 
respect to the HHS indicator. 
 Further justification is drawn from similar statistical test of significance, revealing the 
statistically significant difference between the sample endline value of Phase I dataset 
compared to the endline value of Phase II. 
 Evidence from the two test results are the fact that the one-tailed p-value obtained these 
tests being far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 (p=0.000 <0.001) 
measured at 95% confidence level. 
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
 The average dietary diversity for households in Phase I changed from 2.3 at baseline to 
6.1 at endline, indicating an increase, while the average dietary diversity for Phase II
households changed from 7.7 at baseline to 6.6 at endline, indicating a slight drop. 
Reasons for the decrease of HDDS in Phase II could be the sensitivity of HDDS to 
variations in seasons and road network conditions. See section 3.3.2 for a detailed 
explanation. 
 Phase I participants at endline were found to be consuming more diversified food; as a 
result, there is a marked increase in the proportion of households with HDDS of 5 and 
above from 25% at baseline to 61.8% at end line. This has led into a dramatic decrease 
of participants households with HDDS of 0-4 from 75% down to 38.2%.
 Claims on these changes, particularly Phase I are justified by the following:
• A one-tailed one sample t-test conducted with Phase I HDDS baseline taking as test 
value HDDS=2.3 revealing a statistically significant difference between sample 
endline values of Phase I dataset compared to the baseline census value for Phase I, 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
viii
with respect to the HDDS indicator. Evidence from a one-tailed t-test result shows the 
p-value to be far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 {p=
(0.000/2)=0.000 <0.001} measured at 95% confidence level.
• A one-tailed one sample t-test conducted with Phase II HDDS baseline (HDDS=7.7) 
taking as test value, revealing a statistically significant difference between sample 
endline values of Phase II dataset compared to the baseline census value of Phase 
II, with respect to the HDDS indicator. This is evidenced by a one-tailed p-value result 
seen to be far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 {p=(0.000/2)=0.000 
<0.001} measured at 95% confidence level.
• Results of a one-tailed two independent sample t-test of statistical significance 
conducted on average HDDS revealing a statistically significant difference between 
sample endline values of Phase I dataset compared to the endline value for Phase II, 
with respect to the HDDS indicator. The evidence is shown by the one-tailed p-value 
result being smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 {p= (0.042/2)=0.0245 
<0.05} measured at 95% confidence level.
Household Food Consumption Score (FCS)
❖ In the absence of baseline value, this indicator was measured based on International Food 
Consumption Score Benchmarks presented in the United Nations World Food Program 
(WFP) Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Technical guideline (2008.This was also in 
agreement with the Sierra Leone WFP Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability 
Analysis (CFSVA) report 2015
❖ The overall average household score was found to be 42.3, which is noted to be within the 
acceptable level of consumption as confirmed by the internationally recommended 
acceptable consumption level of greater than 35 score points
❖ Across phases, the average scores are also much better than the acceptable consumption 
scores especially with 48.2 score for households in Phase I. 
❖ Despite reports by 70% of all households that the food they produce is not enough to take 
them round the year (because inadequate money to buy food from the market), most of 
the foods consumed by households in both phases were either produced by themselves 
(own production) or bought from the market. This was relatively the same at baseline (78% 
for own production and 55% for purchases). 
Reduced Coping Strategies Index (RCSI)
❖ The overall average household coping strategies index was found to be 10.40. In the 
absence of EFSA baseline value, this value is noted to be slightly below the Sierra Leone 
National average of 11.96 and Kenema district average of 10.51 (CFSVA, 2015)
❖ Across phases, the average household coping strategies index for Phase II, where the 
intervention lasted, and recorded at 8.02 is well below the Sierra Leone National and 
Kenema district averages of 11.96 and 10.51 respectively. 
❖ Based on the selection criteria of participant households (being the most vulnerable in their 
communities), it could be confirmed that the RCSI at baseline would have been much 
higher than the national and district averages. In view of this, the evaluation shows some 
evidence of achievement to which the EFSA intervention would have contributed in 
reducing negative coping strategies among participant households in the intervention 
chiefdoms.
Average Household Meal Frequency
❖ On average, for all sample household members across the two phases and age brackets, 
each was found to have eaten 2 meals within the last 24 hours before their participation in 
the final evaluation. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
ix
❖ In the absence of baseline values for comparison, the evaluation team consider this value 
a good achievement. This is evident from the criteria used to have selected target 
participants and considering the level of coping strategies participant households would 
have been engaged in before their selection into the intervention. 
❖ Notwithstanding, in line with findings on HDDS and in view of the fact that almost all 
households, as found in this evaluation, ate meals prepared with vegetables (99%), 
carbohydrates (100%), proteins (99.5%) and fruits (88.9), provide evidence of diversified 
meal intake by participants.
EFSA Cash Utilization by Participants
❖ On average, over half (50%) of all the EFSA cash received from CRS was spent on food. 
The balance was spent on several non-food items including agriculture (20%), health care 
(10.3%), education (9.0%), and savings (3.7%). A similar expenditure pattern follows 
across phases. 
❖ The significant increment in expenditure on agriculture is one key factor that has enhanced 
the own-production capacity of target households, thus contributing positively to their 
overall food security situation as expressed by the HDDS, FCS and HHS.
❖ On average, almost all households spent part of their cash on rice/cereals (99.8%) and 
fish (92.8%). Others to a larger extent spent the cash on condiments (81.4%), vegetable 
oil/palm oil (74.2%), roots and tubers (52.6%). This purchase pattern follows across 
Phases. 
Distance Covered by Participants to Access Pay Points
❖ The evaluation found that most of the participants are ok with the distances they cover to 
access pay points. Overall, 55.8% of all participants cover less than 1 mile to access their 
pay points, 29.7% cover between 1 to 2 miles while 13.7% cover between 2.1 to 3 miles 
to access their pay points. Only a very small fraction of the target participants (0.8%) cover 
above 3 miles to reach a pay point. This was because CRS ensured that there were 
adequate pay points in each of the target communities.
❖ In Phase I, 49.8% covered less than 1 mile, 30.7% covered between 1 to 2 miles and 
18.4% covered between 2.1 to 3 miles. Only 1.1% covered above 3 miles. In Phase II, 
60.2% covered less than I mile, 29.0% covered between 1 to 2 miles and 10.2% covered 
between 2.1 to 3 miles. Only 0.6% covered above 3 miles. 
❖ The implementing team deliberately positioned the pay points in order to achieve this 
result.
Waiting Time at Pay Point to Access Cash
❖ The evaluation found that at cash distribution points, only a small fraction of the overall 
target participants (9.1%) were waiting above 2 hours (hrs). Which means 90.9% of all 
participants were receiving their entitlements within 2 hrs. this was noted to be a good 
achievement towards participant satisfaction about the cash transfer process. Overall, 
29.9% of all participants were receiving their cash in less than 30 minutes, 26.1% within 
30 to 59 minutes and 35.0% within 1 to 2 hrs.
❖ In Phase I, 15.4% of participants waited less than 30 minutes to receive their cash, 20.6% 
within 30 to 59 minutes and 44.2% within 1 to 2 hrs. However, a reasonable fraction of 
Phase I participants (19.9%) reported waiting over 2 hrs. before receiving cash. In Phase 
II, 40.6% of participants reported they were waiting less than 30 minutes, 30.1% were 
waiting within 30 to 59 minutes and 28.2% were waiting within 1 to 2 hrs. Only 1.1% of 
Phase II participants reported they sometimes waited above 2 hrs. 
❖ The overall picture is that waiting time was good for participants. Also, the cash distribution 
process was improved from Phase I to Phase II so that more participants waited for a 
minimal duration at the pay point. This achievement was largely driven by setting up 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
x 
adequate pay points in each target community and timely preparation of pay point 
operations. SPLASH and CRS staff were almost always on time to ensure distribution 
started promptly.
Participant Safety during and after Cash Distribution
❖ Findings show that 98.4% of all participants reported that they feel safe at the pay points 
during cash distributions while 94.9% reported that they still feel safe even after leaving 
the pay points. 
❖ In Phase I, 99.3% of the participants said they feel safe at the pay points while 98.6% said 
they still feel safe after leaving the pay points. In Phase II, 98.2% reported that they feel 
safe at the pay points while 93.9% reported they feel safe even after leaving the pay points. 
The remaining 6% who sometimes felt unsafe was as a result of the fact that they had to 
cross rivers/streams to access pay points. These findings show that across both phases, 
almost all participants had the feeling that they were safe both at the pay point and after 
collecting cash and leaving the pay point.
❖ This is supported by the fact that the evaluation did not find any evidence of threat or attack 
on any participant at the pay points or after leaving the pay points, throughout the entire 
EFSA intervention. 
Constraining and Facilitating Factors of Project Implementation
The evaluation did not find any challenge that made the achievement of any specific indicator 
impossible. Almost all the challenges encountered were purely operational in nature, which 
were addressed as the project progressed. Key ones included:
❖ NaCSA’s limited capacity in geo-targeting. This only slightly delayed the cash transfer start 
date but this was quickly addressed by hiring a consultant to do the job.
❖ Due to internal operational challenges on the part of SPLASH, payment dates were 
postponed on few occasions, but in the end payments were done and participants received 
their correct entitlements. 
❖ Some Community Identification Committee (CIC) members reported that they were not 
happy with project because they were not getting direct benefits (token) in return for their 
services. This was confirmed in KII’s with community leaders and program staff, who 
reported that they sometimes had to spend a long time encouraging CICs to continue 
working and not quit. While CICs had been sensitized about the voluntary nature of their 
work at project inception, they still felt the need to be motivated with incentives for their 
contribution to project activities such mobilization. CRS responded by providing airtime 
cards and T-shirts and this helped to reduce complaints
❖ Bad road network and poor mobile communications network slowed down the pace of 
activities including cash transfer itself and monitoring activities.
The following factors were identified as having contributed greatly in the achievement of 
results:
❖ The right partnerships were created. This ensured the right participants were targeted and 
the cash transfers done in a transparent and accountable manner. These partnerships 
also enhanced project monitoring and equipped participants with the right knowledge and 
skills to enhance project sustainability. 
❖ The use of dedicated project staff to exclusively work on the EFSA enhanced the 
effectiveness of implementation and greater project visibility at community level. This also 
enhanced project monitoring.
❖ The evaluation noted that the project was well funded. This permitted timely 
implementation of activities.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
xi
❖ Effective sensitizations on the correct use of cash received, coupled with the 
complementary trainings ensured that participants used more of the cash to access food 
than non-food items. This helped in improving their food security statuses as evidenced 
by changes in the indicators. 
Partnerships, Collaborations and Coordination
Partnerships and Collaborations
❖ The evaluation found that all the partners that were brought onboard (NaCSA, MSWGCA, 
SPLASH Mobile Money, ACC, MAFFS, DHMT and KDC) had clear roles and 
responsibilities regarding implementation of the EFSA and they all played their parts well. 
This enhanced result achievement.
Coordination
❖ The evaluation found that the EFSA was coordinated at two levels: national and district 
levels. At national level, the Cash Transfer Technical Working Group was the platform that 
brought together all agencies undertaking or have undertaken cash transfer interventions 
to share and learn. This included agencies like CRS, World Vision, Care International, 
Save the Children, ACDI/VOCA and USAID. In addition, the district level coordination was 
mainly done through partner meetings, sharing of progress reports among partners, joint 
field visits etc. The Kenema District Council (KDC) was noted to be instrumental in this. 
This coordination also added integrity and value to the whole process and gave it the 
community ownership it deserves.
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
❖ The evaluation found that the EFSA was effectively monitored at several levels. At field 
level, there were dedicated field staff assigned to the respective chiefdoms of intervention. 
These were the first line of monitors who collected field information (mainly in the form of 
PDMs) and shared with the field office in Kenema for further collation and analysis. The 
Kenema field office also supported the field staff with routine monitoring exercise. These 
efforts were also complimented by the intermittent visit by the MEAL team from the country 
office in Freetown. ACC and the joint monitoring by all the collaborating partners made 
monitoring effective and hence added integrity to the distribution process itself. It was 
found that even the donors USAID/FFP did intermittent field visits to monitor 
implementation. 
❖ The ACC was monitoring field activities through the Grievance Redress Mechanism 
(GRM). At field level, there were suggestion boxes for participants and non-participants to 
drop in their complaints and grievances. This information was routinely collected, analyzed 
and shared with relevant stakeholders. Overall, the evaluation found that the EFSA 
intervention was effectively monitored and the monitoring findings were utilized to make 
critical decisions and reforms to the project, a typical case being the review of transfer 
amount in Phase II due to market price monitoring information. 
Gender Mainstreaming
❖ The evaluation found that gender was incorporated into both phases, even though 
premium was given to it in Phase II. From the start, the EFSA was designed to have a 
minimum of 50% female participants. At the end, the evaluation noted that there were in 
fact more women participants than men. This was a good strategy to ensure women are 
not left out as in most other interventions. In Phase II, a dedicated gender focal person 
was assigned and gender-sensitive trainings were conducted for both implementing staff 
and the participants. This was a good gender incorporation strategy, which was informed 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
xii
by feedback from community review meetings that indicated the need to strengthen joint 
decision making around the use of cash received at household level. The CRS Country 
Program Gender Technical Advisor conducted technical reviews and training of 10 
extension staff. This enabled the staff to cascade the training to 263 Lead Farmers and 
5,252 Project participants. 
Sustainability of Project Activities
❖ The EFSA intervention came along with direct unconditional cash support and added 
complementary package which was largely capacity building and awareness trainings. The 
evaluation assessed the sustainability of the whole intervention along these two axes. The 
direct unconditional cash support has no immediate sustainability strategy, even though 
the plan was to handover the participants to NaCSA. The evaluation noted that NaCSA 
hasn’t got the plans yet to immediately include them into any of the ongoing interventions. 
Therefore, the main sustainability drivers were noted to come from the complementary 
trainings conducted for the participants. For instance, skills acquired from financial literacy 
training such as savings, loan and group management have strengthened farmer groups. 
Farmer group savings and loan schemes ensure that beneficiaries have continuous 
access to low interest credits; and female traders will continue to have access to capital to 
do business.
❖ In both Phases, farmer groups have embarked on self-help agricultural activities that they 
intend to continue after the EFSA ends. The evaluation noted that this is a workable 
strategy, because they currently have good quality seeds and have increased knowledge 
in improved agronomic practices. A lot of them have also acquired tools, livestock and 
inputs they can use for a long time after the support. The nutrition and hygiene trainings 
coupled with backyard gardens will help sustain nutrition outcomes at household level 
Lessons Learned
 Cash transfers are very effective in assisting vulnerable communities recover quickly from 
emergencies, as we can see by the significantly improved HDDS and HHS scores among 
both Phase I and Phase II. Comparing Phase I to Phase II beneficiaries is useful to better 
understand how the intervention affects two different groups. The slightly poorer 
performance among Phase I beneficiaries’ relative to Phase II at endline is likely due to 
the following factors:
• Phase II beneficiaries received considerably more complementary services 
(nutrition, financial management and agricultural trainings and accompaniment). 
Such ‘wrap around’ services may have been the reason for the improved outcomes 
among Phase II beneficiaries. 
• Phase II beneficiaries were also less vulnerable than those in Phase I therefore 
they had more advantages to support their recovery. This would indicate that 
benefits from cash transfers to the most vulnerable that are not accompanied by a 
similar quantity of wrap around services (whatever is appropriate to the context—
in this case it was nutrition, financial management and agricultural trainings and 
accompaniment) are limited in their duration, as the cash is an effective emergency 
life-saving measure but cannot substitute for the capacity strengthening and 
networking opportunities with government officials and future business associates. 
• In addition, Phase I beneficiaries were more vulnerable in terms of their remote 
locations making it more difficult for them to leverage the cash for more sustained 
results. Another evaluation of Phase II beneficiaries in a year’s time would also 
help determine the extent to which Phase II beneficiaries sustain the gains they 
made. 
 Establishing the right partnerships with state and non-state actors adds special value to 
quick – impact – projects like cash transfer projects. The presence of NaCSA, ACC and 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
xiii
CICs added integrity and visibility to the whole process. This has led to greater community 
acceptability of the project activities.
 NaCSA had less capacity than expected to support geographical targeting and enabling
timely registration of beneficiaries in October 2015. If the capacity of NaCSA had been 
assessed in time, remedial plans could have been determined in advance including a plan 
to provide GIS capacity strengthening to NaCSA.
 When the right participant targeting is done, cash interventions could have a very big 
positive effect on the daily lives of the participants. Their food security situation, as 
measured by the HDDS and HHS, will be significantly improved in the shortest possible 
time 
 The private sector engagement with Splash Mobile Money Ltd made it possible to conduct 
payments in very remote communities with little or no mobile network coverage or local 
banks. In the absence of effective mobile technology, a well-deployed and monitored 
offline cash transfer project can adequately replace the technology-based cash transfers. 
However, the engagement of community banks would have helped increase financial 
inclusion for farmer groups in the long-term.
 When the income of households increases in cash, they are motivated to increase their 
expenditure on other important items that were not previously prioritized as expenditure 
items when there was less or no income in the household. The EFSP cash expenditure 
patterns seem to be contrary to the expectations of the EFSP intervention that at the end 
of the intervention, 70% of the EFSP cash received by households would be spent on food 
items. However, the observed decrease in EFSP cash expenditure on food (57%) was 
compensated for by expenditures on education, health care, agriculture and savings.
Conclusions
Based on the findings highlighted above, the evaluation concludes the following:
1. The EFSA intervention was implemented and monitored effectively. As a result, the 
food security situations of the target participants has greatly improved, as recorded by 
the positive changes in the food security indicators (HHS, HDDS, FCS, RCSI). The 
intervention was therefore largely successful in achieving its intended purposes. 
2. The processes, systems and strategies employed were very effective in enhancing the 
achievement of results.
3. The sustainability of project activities is highly dependent upon the continued 
commitment of the devolved government institutions (MAFFS, DHMT, NaCSA and 
KDC) that CRS partnered with in the implementation of the EFSA.
Recommendations 
Presented below are the recommendations. The Government of Sierra Leone, being one of 
the primary audiences of this report, will be contributing to the sustained support to the farmers 
groups and households now that the EFSA intervention is complete. To this end, some of the 
key recommendations presented below are directed to the Government of Sierra Leone.
 The average meal frequency of households per day has been improved to an average 
of 2 meals due to the intervention. However, there is need for this figure to reach a 
minimum of 3 for better nutrition outcomes. Therefore, the Government of Sierra Leone 
through the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, represented by the District Health 
Management Team (DHMT) and other related community structures should continue 
sensitizing and monitoring on-going programs on nutrition and hygiene with other 
implementing partners. The Ministries of agriculture and health should work together 
to strengthen the farmer groups and their Peer Educators and Lead Farmers so that 
they can continue supporting nutrition and hygiene activities after the end of the 
project. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of the CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
xiv
 The evaluation found that Phase I beneficiaries dramatically increased their dietary 
diversity through the cash and the nutrition trainings. The advances made by Phase
II beneficiaries were more difficult to detect because the endline was done during the 
rainy season when produce diversity is more restricted. Still, the change brought to 
Phase I beneficiaries by the nutrition trainings indicates that the Government of Sierra 
Leone, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) should 
undertake regular sensitizations on the benefits of backyard gardening and the 
importance of eating diverse foods to help improve their nutritional status rather than 
selling them. In addition, MAFFS block extension officers should continue monitoring 
the participants who were trained in post harvest management technology to ensure 
they continue to employ it in their farming activities. They should also provide technical 
assistance where necessary. 
 The cash transfer process was largely appreciated by the participants (monitoring 
strategies employed, types of partnerships created, distances covered, waiting time, 
safety at pay points, etc.). The strategies employed to achieve these must be 
maintained by CRS in similar future interventions.
 The Government should work on community market access roads to increase market 
access to target communities. This would in turn help increase household income and 
sustain the food security outcomes of the project. This was a factor in why Phase II 
beneficiaries were better off than those in more remote areas served in Phase I.
 In the future, some part capacity assessment should be done before relying on national 
partners to undertake certain technical aspects of the intervention. If possible, CRS 
should build or lobby with other agencies to build NaCSA’s capacity in Geo-targeting, 
noting that they are responsible for addressing social protection and other vulnerability 
issues in the country.
 The Government should support the local banks and telecommunication companies to 
increase outreach services to the rural poor. The new businesses of Phase II 
beneficiaries would greatly benefit from such improved services. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
1 
1.1 Introduction
The effort towards achieving food security and poverty reduction in developing countries 
remains pivotal in designing and implementation of a country’s development strategic plans. 
However, natural disasters, including the May 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak into
Sierra Leone has the greatest potential to constrain citizens and make them refrain from their 
normal activities and consequently slow down their contributions to the nation’s development 
drive. In Sierra Leone, majority of citizens engage in agriculture and petty trading and this 
accounts for the greater part of the country's’ economy. The unprecedented EVD outbreak 
worsened the food security situation in Sierra Leone. In effect, the EVD created situations 
where whole families were wiped off; schools closed for almost a year; markets could not 
function on a continuous basis and to some extent completely stopped. Livelihoods were also 
interrupted by quarantine measures put in place by government on households, communities, 
chiefdoms and districts. 
Control measures in the prolong fight against the EVD with constrained livelihood and reduced 
purchasing power of poor households only left about 11.2 % of all households food secured 
in Sierra Leone (CFSVA, 2015). In Kenema district, the second order EVD impact increased 
food insecurity incidences, and thus elevating their vulnerability to poverty and leaving only 
5.6% of all households’ food secured in the district. This placed the district among those with 
the highest food insecurity incidences in the country. Notwithstanding, based on estimates at 
the end of 2014, Kenema had a cumulative EVD caseload of 496, which put the district at a 
vantage point to have been selected as one to be target for the cash transfer intervention. 
CRS with funding from USAID sought to mitigate the situation by implementing the Emergency 
Food Security Activity (EFSA) project in nine chiefdoms (Koya, Niawa, Langrama, Gaura, 
Dama, Nomo, Simbaru, Small Bo, and Tunkia) of Kenema district. The intervention 
complemented the Government of Sierra Leone National Ebola Recovery Strategy and the 
Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan (PRSP III) – The Agenda for prosperity. The project mainly 
focused on distributing unconditional cash transfers to enable the most vulnerable and 
affected EVD households to recover from the shocks of Ebola and to meet their food and 
nutrition needs during the lean season. As the project comes to a close, CRS has
commissioned an independent final evaluation that was contracted to MSD Consulting 
Limited. 
This report is the final deliverable of the evaluation exercise. It presents this introduction, the 
evaluation objectives and justification, the methodology, analysis of findings, lessons learned 
and recommendations.
1.2 Justification of the Final Evaluation
Emphasis on aid effectiveness by International Community1
is essential for accountability for 
aid resources. The cash-based EFSA evaluation demonstrates learning and accountability to 
stakeholders for actual delivery of services to participants. It permits project stakeholders to 
 
1 Drawn from the 2005 Paris Declaration and 2008 Accra Agenda for Action on development aid
effectiveness, on the level of international standards and best practices
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
2 
make evidence-based conclusions on achievement (or non-achievement) of intervention 
results. At program level, CRS will use the findings from this evaluation to:
• Share learning with partners such as the Government of Sierra Leone, the Cash 
Transfer Working Group Members and USAID.
• Plan, implement, monitor and evaluate related future cash-based food security 
interventions with approaches that can effectively and efficiently address issues 
affecting vulnerable/marginalized groups. 
1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
The overall objective of the assignment is to conduct performance and summative evaluation 
of the cash-based EFSA intervention in terms of the relevance, appropriateness, efficiency, 
effectiveness and contribution towards improving food security amongst the participating 
households in nine intervention chiefdoms of Kenema district. The evaluation provides 
answers to questions, including; 
• Determining the extent to which households that participated in the EFSA achieved 
food security and improved resilience as measured by key quantitative outcome 
indicators. 
• The extent to which the EFSA contributed to improving the ability of project participants 
to mitigate, adapt, and recover from the economic impacts of the Ebola. 
• The extent to which the systems, processes, and procedures used by EFSA for 
delivering cash transfers and non-cash assistance to participants effective, efficient, 
and sustainable during the period of program implementation. 
• The extent to which collaboration and coordination with public and private sector 
stakeholders resulted in enhancing the capacity to deliver cash transfers as a form of 
social protection and food assistance to vulnerable households during the emergency 
and recovery Phases 
Specific Objectives
 Assess the appropriateness of the EFSA intervention design and its relevance to 
priority development needs of Sierra Leone strategic plan, the target communities and 
participants. 
 Assess the performance (effectiveness) as measures of progress and impacts of the 
EFSA on target participants with specific reference to key outcome indicators as 
follows;
• Household dietary diversity score
• Household hunger scale
• Household food consumption score
• Meal frequency
• Reduced coping strategies index
• Household meal frequency
• Level of household income, livelihoods and capacity for improved food security
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
3 
 Assess the efficiency of resource utilization in the implementation of EFSA intervention
activities and output delivery
 Assess the coverage and coordination among partners in the implementation of EFSA
intervention activities and output delivery 
 Assess the extent to which gender and sustainability activities were integrated and/or 
mainstreamed into the EFSA intervention.
 Explore community’s acceptance, perceptions and attitudes towards the EFSA project
 Assess factors affecting the achievement and/or non-achievement of the project 
intervention results; and hence document evidence of lessons learnt and best 
practices as a result of the EFSA intervention.
2.0 Methodology of the Evaluation 
2.1 Evaluation Design and Approach 
A non-experimental pre-test and post-test mixed-method evaluation design with participatory 
approach was used in this evaluation. This was as a result of the fact that the approaches 
permit stakeholder involvement and the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection 
techniques and tools. The design allowed effective triangulation of information gathered from 
different stakeholders. Since implemented was done in phases, the evaluation design 
strategies used accordingly took into account variations in the different extension phases of 
the EFSA intervention. 
2.2 Data Collection
The EFSA designed logical framework, progress report, monitoring documents, evaluation 
objectives, and data collection tools used at baselines and mid-term were used to guide the 
current evaluation data collection exercise. The content (questions) of baselines and mid-term 
tools for key indicators were largely maintained to allow comparison of baseline, mid-term and 
end line values. Both quantitative and qualitative primary and secondary data were collected 
using respective data collection tools. Secondary data was collected through document review 
of secondary information. 
Quantitative primary data was collected using a mobile-based household survey questionnaire 
designed on a KOBO collect platform to collect data on intervention outcome indicators and 
other indicator variables such as capacity building training, cash transfer processes and 
utilization, gender mainstreaming, monitoring and accountability of the intervention. 
Qualitative tools used included focus group discussion (FGD) and key informant interview (KII) 
guides. The FGD guide was used to separately conduct group discussions with men and 
women participants in groups of 8-10 participants per group. Data was collected on household 
income and livelihood sources, relevance, capacity building trainings, cash transfer 
processes, monitoring and accountability, coordination and sustainability of the intervention. 
The FGD participants included, women farmers (agricultural), small-scale traders and savings 
groups. KII guide was used to collect data on relevance of EFSA intervention, effectiveness 
and efficiency, cash transfer processes, monitoring and accountability, collaboration and 
coordination among partners, sustainability, successes, challenges & lessons learnt. The KII 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
4 
participants were, community chiefs, Local Council, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food 
Security (MAFFS), National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA), Anti-Corruption 
Commission (ACC), SPLASH Mobile Money Limited, Community Identification Committees 
(CICs), and CRS EFSA intervention staff.
Project start up occurred in October, so although it is preferred to carry out the data collection 
during the lean season (when food availability is considered to be the lowest among target 
populations), the timing of this short-term recovery project did not provide that opportunity. 
Instead, HHS and HDDS are both sensitive to variations in seasons, which affect the quantities 
of food available in those communities. However, both the baseline and endline data were 
almost collected during the dry season: Phase I baseline in October, Phase II baseline in 
March and the endline data in October as well. This eliminated the effect of seasonal variation 
on the HHS and HDD outcomes to a large extent. However, the data values reported for these 
two indicators reflected food security during the dry season which is normally characterized 
as a period of ‘relative plenty’. Note this refers to staple crops. Horticulture crops are also 
available, but a little later in the dry season, beginning in January until May.
Secondary data was collected using desk review. Data was collected from existing studies on 
the EFSA intervention and cash transfer and food security (particularly in emergencies) across 
developing countries including Sierra Leone. Documents included; the EFSA narrative 
proposal, baseline(s) and midterm evaluation reports, project internal routine and annual 
monitoring reports, Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability Assessment (CSFVA, 2015), 
post distribution and market monitoring reports, emergency food security technical and 
monitoring documents by USAID, World Food Program (WFP) and FAO on key outcome 
indicators of the EFSA intervention.
2.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination
2.3.1 Sampling Techniques
A two stage cluster sampling was used. Prior to the start of intervention implementation, it was 
noted that CRS had already put communities into clusters with no more than three (3) 
communities per cluster. In cases where communities were large, they were subdivided to 
form a cluster. 
In the first stage, a simple random selection of clusters were made across all the nine EFSA 
intervention chiefdoms (Niawa, Langrama, Gaura, Koya, Dama, Nomo, Simbaru, Small Bo, 
and Tunkia) in Kenema district. 
In stage two, participants (beneficiary) households were randomly selected from communities 
within the selected clusters. In addition, purposive sampling was used to allow qualitative data 
collection across chiefdoms targeted by the intervention. The purposive sampling technique 
was used to select sample of identified stakeholder groups from which participants were 
identified and selected to participate in focus group discussions and key informant interviews 
to provide qualitative information that meet the purpose of the evaluation. KII participants were 
part of the project implementation as stakeholders. These were selected across the nine 
intervention chiefdoms and in locations where focus group discussions (FGDs) were 
conducted. See Table 1a below for the type and number of participants.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
5 
Table 1a: Summary of Respondents’ Category and Response Rate
Respondent Type Expected and Actual Number of Tools Administered 
Questionnaire KIIs FGDs
Expected Actual Expected Actual Expected Actual
Cash Participant 605 629 - - 22 22
Local Council - - 1 1 - -
MAFFS Reps - - 1 1 - -
Community/town 
Chiefs - - 22 22 - - 
Anti-Corruption 
Commission - - 1 1 - - 
Community 
Identification 
Committees (CICs)
- - 22 22
NaCSA 
Representative - - 1 1 - - 
SPLASH 
Representative - - 2 2 - - 
CRS Programme 
Management Staff - - 4 4 - - 
FGD communities (sites) were randomly selected from the list of already selected communities 
that were to be included in the endline survey. The number of sites selected in each chiefdom 
depended on the population size of that chiefdom. The minimum number of sites per chiefdom 
was one and the maximum was three. In each FGD site, only beneficiaries were allowed to
take part in the FGDs. These were also randomly selected from the list of beneficiaries for that 
community. Separate FGDs were conducted for males and females in each chiefdom, with 
either equal number of female and male FGDs or more female FGDs than male FGDs. This 
was in line with the project design which sought more female participation. 
Key Informants were not randomly selected. They were purposefully selected because CRS 
informed us of their specific roles in the project. They were either focal persons representing 
their various institutions on the project (as in the case of partner organisations) or they were 
town chiefs of the target communities or those CICs appointed by the communities to support 
CRS with implementation. For all government partners, only the project focal persons were 
interviewed, while for SPLASH two persons randomly selected from the list of SPLASH staff 
who were directly involved with the cash transfers at field level. Similarly, for CRS, 4 EFSP 
programme staff who were directly involved with the project implementation were interviewed, 
3 at the field level and 1 at the Country Office level. For the chiefs and CICs, 1 was interviewed 
per community where FGDs were conducted (note that there is only one town chief per 
community). However, where the town chiefs were not available, their deputies were 
interviewed. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
6 
2.3.2 Sample Size Determination
Census was used to collect data at baselines for both Phases I and II. Due to limited time and 
budget allocated, it was not practically feasible for the final evaluation team to have also used 
census. The appropriate statistical tests for comparing census data with probability sample 
data is provided in the data analysis section below. However, for the endline data, the
statistical formula developed by Magnani (1999) as presented in the FANTA III Sampling 
Guide (2012) with a 95% confidence level was used to determine a representative survey 
sample size of household beneficiary participants to whom online mobile-based quantitative 
survey data collection tool would be administered. The sample size determination took into 
account the design effect and key intervention outcomes indicators for which adequate 
information was available. Below is the sample size formula used:
Where,
n = required sample size of cash beneficiary respondents
D = Design effect (for a two stage cluster sampling, D=2.0 for FFP Program)
 P1 = the value of the key indicator at baseline (or a proxy value), expressed as a 
 proportion between 0 and 1
P2 = the planned target value of the key indicator at the end-line/final evaluation, 
 expressed as a proportion between 0 and 1
 Zα = the Z-score corresponding to the desired confidence level (α = 1 - a). At 95% 
 confidence level, a = 0.05, which gives α =0.95, and Zα = 1.645
 Zβ = the Z-score corresponding to the desired statistical power (β = 1 - b). Consistent 
 with FANTA III Sampling Guide (2012), for FFP program, b is typically set at 
 b = 0.2, which gives β=0.80 and Zβ = 0.840
 Design effect is the factor by which the sample size for a cluster sample would have to 
be increased to produce survey estimates with the same precision as a simple random 
sample.
The sample size calculation was run using the estimated change anticipated for the two key 
indicators [Household Hunger Scale (HHS) and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)] 
(P1 and P2). This was because the calculation using the statistical formula developed by 
Magnani (1999) and using project baseline and target information (P1 and P2), resulted in 
sample sizes that were too small relative to the number of targeted beneficiaries. For instance, 
in the case of the Household Hunger Scale (HHS) indicator, the target was a 50% reduction 
in the prevalence of households with severe or moderate hunger from a 61.3% baseline value. 
Given the baseline value for Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) to be 2.3, and using 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
7 
the information, non-representative sample sizes (17) and (103) were respectively 
determined. Because of this, the evaluation team assumed a smaller anticipated change --
only 10% estimated change in each of the key outcome indicators during the life span of the 
project. This allowed the determination of a minimum required sample size of 605 beneficiary 
participants. However, accounting for non-response participants and sample representation, 
provisions were made for additional 24 response participants for flexibility.
According to Magnani (1999) as addendum in FANTA III Sampling Guide (2012) for estimating 
sample sizes during quantitative data collection, a minimum of 30 clusters represents a figure 
adequate to ensure that sample target groups are sufficiently spread across enough clusters 
of intervention coverage area. In this evaluation, a total of 32 randomly selected clusters out 
of the 112 clusters for the EFSA intervention each with a minimum of 21 household beneficiary 
respondents per cluster. This figure was determined by dividing 605 beneficiary participants 
by 30 clusters. As each cluster was made up of three (3) communities, a minimum of 7 
households (per community) ensured that each cluster would contain 21 household 
beneficiary respondents. 
The above total sample of beneficiaries was proportionally distributed among the two Phases 
across the intervention chiefdoms as follows:
Phase I: 4437 Beneficiary households 
Phase II: 5326 Beneficiary households 
Also, a total of 22 focus group discussions (one per cluster) of 8 to 10 participants per group 
(one participant per household) were conducted across the intervention chiefdoms. 
Additionally, a total of 74 key informants were interviewed (see Table 1 of appendix C).
2.4 Data Management and analysis
2.4.1 Data Processing 
The online mobile-based Kobo data collection system was integrated with skip logic to 
enhance data accuracy. The data was downloaded through MS excel and subsequently 
imported into SPSS Version 23.0 database. The data was cleaned to avoid duplication and 
other errors to ensure its quality as well as accuracy and consistency in data collection and 
analysis. Qualitative data was captured using paper based tools and in some cases recorders. 
The recorded data was transcribed and merged with paper recorded data. Data was captured 
by thematic indicators and entered into MS Word by themes, response category, and 
chiefdom, which made it easier for screening and analysis. 
2.4.2 Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analyzed by gender (sex) and the EFSA intervention Phases (Phase I
& 2) using SPSS version 23.0. 
One-tailed independent sample t-tests were conducted where the census figures from Phase
I and II Baseline census data could be tested for significance against the endline sample 
dataset. Where 2 probability samples were available, (Phase I and Phase II endline data 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
8 
sets), a one-tailed two sample t-test was conducted to ascertain the level of significance of the 
difference between the two. 
There were some gaps in data for Phase I baseline census dataset which required the 
complete module calculation of HHS. Because of the impossibility to determine HHS for 
Phase I, the analysis of HHs data in this Phase was limited to estimating the level of 
significance of the changes in outcome level of HHS indicator among Phase I and Phase II
endline and Phase II baseline datasets. Although Phase II baseline data collection was a 
census of beneficiaries, in order to make comparisons with the endline data for HHS, a sample 
was taken from the Phase II baseline census data to permit the evaluators to perform the two 
independent sample t-tests comparing the baseline and endline data sets.
It should be noted that SPSS software does not directly run a one-tailed independent sample 
t-test. However, evidence from Garth (2008), Lind et al. (2002) and Brace et al. (2000) suggest 
that the p-value for a one-tailed independent sample t-test would be obtained from SPSS 
analysis by dividing the p-value of the two-tailed independent sample t-test in half. The SPSS 
output of the two-tailed test result tables has been included in appendix A. But as the 
alternative hypotheses of this evaluation with respect to intervention indicator values are one￾tailed (a change leading to increase or decrease as the case may be in indicator values), the 
p-values are presented in the body of this report as one-tailed independent sample t-test 
results obtained at 5% level of significance and measured at 95% confidence level.
Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic content analysis of information. The analysis 
took into account identification of emerging themes and establishment of relationships 
between the said themes that were further categorized into concepts. The data was analyzed 
and findings presented within the framework of household demographic characteristics, 
income and livelihoods sources, outcomes of the intervention, cash delivery processes and 
utilization, relevance and appropriateness of the intervention, and efficiency and effectiveness 
of intervention implementation. Also, partnership and collaboration, mainstreaming gender 
and sustainability into the intervention, and monitoring and accountability of the intervention 
were analyzed. 
2.5 Recruitment and Training of Data Collectors
15 experienced data collectors (supervisors and enumerators) were recruited. Facilitated by 
lead consultants and two EFSA staff from CRS, a two days training was conducted. The 
trainees were trained on the background of the EFSA, evaluation design, sampling techniques 
and framework used, and evaluation ethics. Trainees were allowed to be taken through each 
of the data collection tools and put into smaller groups for role play sessions. This was followed 
by field pre-testing of the tools. In the role play sessions and field pre-testing exercises, 
enumerators’ were assessed on the use of the tools for effective and ethical data collection
from respondents. 
2.6 Evaluation Ethics
Evaluation ethics was maintained in the entire evaluation process. Respect for persons; 
avoiding knowingly doing harm to participants and justice of fair were observed. The team 
obtained written or verbal informed consent from participants. Participants were told about the 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
9 
confidentiality of their names and information sharing with unauthorized users. The rights of 
respondents to end their participation at any point were made clear to them. The evaluation 
team constituted both male and female to consider questions dealing with sensitive topics, 
from which participants total anonymity was assured.
2.7 Limitations of the Evaluation
1. Phase I baseline data for HHS could not be analyzed due to a gap in the frequency for 
this occurrence question: In the last month, have household members ever worried that 
the household would not have enough food due to lack of resources? Without the 
frequency data on this occurrence, the complete HHS module could not be properly 
calculated. Due to this data inadequacy, the analysis of Phase I HHs data was limited
to determining the level of significance of the difference between Phase I and Phase II 
at endline, and the difference between Phase II baseline and endline. 
2. Despite Phase II baseline data collection being a census of beneficiaries, in order to 
make comparisons with the endline sample data for HHS, a random sample of 
beneficiaries was taken from the baseline census data across Phase II intervention 
chiefdoms and communities to permit the evaluators to conduct the two independent 
sample t-tests to determine whether there were statistically significance differences 
between baseline and endline data sets for Phase II. 
3. The independent sample t-tests were only conducted for significance among HHS and 
HDDS outcome indicators. There was no baseline dataset containing data on other 
outcome indicators, including; Reduced Coping Strategies Index, Food Consumption 
Score and Meal Frequency. This limited the evaluation team from conducting similar 
independent sample t-tests to estimate and ascertain whether the associated changes 
in values of these indicators from baseline to endline were statistically significant. 
4. The absence of baseline data for certain outcome indicators made it impossible for the 
evaluation team to directly compare baseline and endline indicator values. The 
evaluation did however; compare these endline values and national survey data, which 
may have resulted in under/over estimation of attributable changes. 
5. Enumerators were sometimes faced with difficulties in accessing hard-to-reach terrains
where normal routes would have required them to cross rivers/streams using local boats 
but because this was not permitted by MSD Consulting Limited, they had to use 
alternative routes which required them to travel longer distances, use rougher roads and 
also pay additional transport fares. However, sampled communities were never replaced 
due to inaccessibility. 
3.0 Analysis and Findings
3.1 Household Demographic Characteristics
Sex and Age of Household Respondents 
A total sample of 629 respondents participated in the evaluation for both Phases I and II. There 
were 267 (42.5%) participants, with 74 male and 193 females that were surveyed in Phase I, 
while 362 (57.5%) consisting of 67 male and 295 females were contacted in Phase II. As seen 
in Figure 1, the bulk of household participants, overall and across Phases I and II of the EFSA
intervention, fall in the adult age range between 25 to 50 years and above. Majority of the
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
10 
participants are female since more females were selected to participate in the project. The 
selection criteria preferred a female matriarch of the household responsible for preparing 
meals. As revealed in the figure, more participants who happened to be within the age range 
of 25-49 years were selected as EFSA participants with only 0.3% of participant (in Phase II) 
found to be less than 18 years of age.
Figure 1: % Distribution of Age of Household Respondents 
Sex and Age of Household Heads 
Among the households surveyed, 340 are female headed households (171 in Phase I and 169 
in Phase II), while the remaining 289 are male headed households (96 in Phase I and 193 in 
Phase II). In a similar manner as household respondents, the majority of these household 
heads across the two Phases also fall within the adult age range between 25 to 50 years and 
above. The overall percentage distribution of age demographic characteristics of household 
heads is displayed in the Figure 2 below. This constitutes active members of households with 
the capacity to engage in agriculture, which is one of the major contributing sectors to growth 
of the Sierra Leone economy. The integration of capacity building activities in agronomic and 
nutrition practices into the EFSA intervention, the household demographic result presents an 
opportunity of achieving sustainability of the EFSA intervention. 
0.0 3.7
52.8
43.4
0.3 9.9
65.2
24.6
0.2 7.3
59.9
32.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
<18 yrs. 18 – 24 yrs 25 – 49 yrs 50yrs and above
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
11 
Figure 2: % Distribution of Age of Household Heads
Average Household Size of Respondents 
Over all, the average household size of participating participants in this evaluation is 5.8. 
Across phases, there are 5.9 and 5.8 in Phases 1 and 2 respectively. These average values 
are in agreement with the Sierra Leone WFP CSFVA (2015) at national average of 5.4 and at 
average of 5.8 for Kenema District. The results are also consistent with the Sierra Leone 
Demographic and Health Survey (2013) at national average of 5.9. 
Educational Level of Respondents 
In Table 2 of Appendix C, Results show that a clear majority of both participant households as 
well as their household heads in both Phases 1 and 2 have extremely low or no education. 
Numerically, a minimum of 92% was found in this evaluation for respondents and household 
heads in the two EFSP intervention Phases. There remains higher frequency of females than 
males for such level of education for both participants and household heads. In effect, this 
increases the vulnerability of women to poverty and limited access to resources. Education of 
the few for both intervention phases may only go up to primary level or attain some form of 
koranic educational level. Consistent with the predefined criteria for selection of Extremely
Poor Ebola-Affected Households being those with illiterate household heads or those with little 
or no education, this finding shows that the right beneficiaries were targeted for inclusion into 
the cash transfer scheme.
3.0
51.7
45.3
3.0
61.6
35.4
3.0
57.4
39.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
18-24yrs 25-49yrs 50yrs and Above
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
12 
3.2 Household Socio-economic Characteristics
3.2.1 Household Income and Livelihood Sources 
Figure 4 presents the main or primary sources of participant household income. On average, 
the evaluation found that crop farming continues to be the main source of household income. 
Figure 3: % of Household Main/Primary Sources of Income
Comparatively, 91.4% of participants said that they depend on crop farming as their primary 
source of income compared to 70.8% who said so at baseline. Across phases, there remains 
high degree of household dependency on crop farming. About 86.1% and 95.3% of 
respondents respectively reported having crop farming in Phases I and II as their main source 
of income. These values of respondents seem to be more than the Phase I baseline value 
measured at 70.8%. With Phase I baselines being the benchmark, petty trading as indicated 
in Figure 3 increased from 0.9% at baseline to 3.0% at end line. Casual or agricultural labor 
was found to have markedly decreased from 25.5% at baseline to 0.2% at end line. Despite 
minimal changes occurring in the percentage of household with other income sources 
86.1
0.7
6.4
0.0
4.9
1.9
95.3
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
3.6
91.4
0.3
3.0
0.2
2.2
2.9
70.8
0.0
0.9
25.5
0.0
2.8
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Crop farming
Livestock Farming
Petty trading
Casual labour
Cash Received from EFSP
Others
Baseline
All Total
Phase 2
Phase 1
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
13 
(donations/in-kind, mining or quarrying, salaried job and begging), the increase in household 
engagement in both crop farming and petty trading could be attributed to the cash contribution 
from the EFSA intervention. This contribution provides evidence of reducing the percentage 
of participants engaged in casual labor, and translated into crop farming and petty trading. 
Agricultural and financial literacy activities were integrated into the EFSA intervention and are 
highly likely to be continued in the future. Notwithstanding, the evaluation also provided some 
evidence that cash transferred to participants was considered another source of income at 
2.2% on average for all phases. (4.9% in Phase I and 0.3% in Phase II). 
3.2.2 Average Normal Household Expenditure Patterns 
Figure 4 below presents the percentage average household normal expenditure on food and 
non-food items.
Figure 4: % of Average Normal Household Expenditure of Income 
The evaluation shows that, on average, respondents reported that 57% of their normal 
household income is spent on food. Next to food are agriculture (14.7%), health care (10.0%), 
education (8.7%), and savings (4.0%). Similar patterns follow across phases, where results 
show that in the two phases of the EFSA intervention, a minimum of 56% of household income 
(56% for Phase I, and 58.3% for Phase II) is spent on food items. Expenditure on food in 
58.3
11.0
8.0
15.7
2.3
2.3
1.0
1.3
56.0
9.3
9.7
14.0
2.3
5.0
2.0
1.7
57.0
10.0
8.7
14.7
2.3
4.0
1.7
1.7
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
Food
Health care
Education
Agriculture
Transportation
Savings
Debt Repayment
Ceremonies
All Total
Phase II
Phase I
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
14 
Phase I seems to be similar as that of the average value of 57%. In particular, apart from 
expenditure on food, percentages of expenditure on non-food items across Phases can be 
seen to follow the pattern of agriculture (15.7% for Phase I and 14% for Phase II), health care 
(11.0% for Phase I and 9.3% Phase II), education (8.0% for Phase I and 9.7% Phase II), and 
savings (2.3% for Phase I and 5.0% Phase II). 
3.3 Outcomes of the Intervention
3.3.1 Household Hunger Scale (HHS)
The HHS was determined in this evaluation based on information provided by households’
beneficiary participants in response to three questions as follows:
• In the past one month (or four weeks), did you worry that your household would not 
have enough food to eat?
• In the past one month (or four weeks) did any member of the household go to sleep at 
night hungry because there was not enough food in the house?
• In the past one month (or four weeks) did any member of the household go a whole 
day and night without eating anything at all because there was no food to eat?
During analysis, data collected in respect of HHS occurrence and frequency-of-occurrence 
responses to the three questions were then coded and analysed following the steps outlined 
in FANTA II Measurement Guide (2011) on Household Hunger Scale Indicator to generate 
three household hunger levels as follows: ‘Severe Hunger’, ‘Moderate Hunger’ and ‘Little to 
no Hunger’ among participant households. 
Figure 5 below presents evaluation findings on the average hunger scores of households in 
the target chiefdoms for Phase II baseline and endline. Because of data inadequacies in 
Phase I baseline, only data for Phase II has been presented in the figure. 
The evaluation found that the proportion of households with Little or no Hunger increased 
significantly from 2.1% at baseline to 78.2% at endline. This change led to a corresponding 
decrease in the proportion of households with Moderate Hunger from 84.3% at baseline to 
20.7% at endline and those with Severe Hunger from 13.6% at baseline to 1.1% at endline. 
This marked improvement in the hunger situation of participating households was made 
possible not by the cash support alone, but rather the combination of the complimentary 
activities such as agricultural and financial management training provided by the project and 
the nutrition sensitive messaging carried out by CRS field staff throughout the project. From 
most FGDs with participant beneficiaries, it was reported that they were organised by CRS 
and encouraged to work in groups and also established group savings. According to them, 
this enabled them to produce more food and to also have access to group savings. This same 
strategy was adopted by participants in Phase I.
In Appendix B1, the results of a one-tailed two independent sample t-test of statistical 
significance comparing the sample baseline value (from the baseline census dataset) 
compared to the endline value for Phase II, revealed statistical significance. This is evident by 
the one-tailed p-value result being far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 
(p=0.000 <0.001) measured at 95% confidence level. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
15 
Figure 5: % of Average Household Hunger Score
Additionally, results from similar test of statistical significance revealed that the difference 
between the sample endline value of Phase I dataset compared to the endline value of 
Phase II, with respect to HHS indicator is also statistically significant. The evidence is drawn 
from a one-tailed p-value result being far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 
(p=0.000 <0.001) measured at 95% confidence level. The two samples were different in the 
degrees of moderate and severe hunger. Only 47.6% of Phase I beneficiaries suffered little 
or no hunger by endline, whereas 46% suffered moderate and 6.4% severe hunger (12 
months after the Phase I intervention ended). Phase II beneficiaries were significantly better 
off with 78.2% reporting little or no hunger, 20.7% moderate and 1.1% severe hunger. This 
significant difference maybe the result of 1) the longer lapse of time since Phase I 
beneficiaries stopped receiving services (1 year); or 2) the fewer wrap around complimentary 
services provided to Phase I beneficiaries; or 3) the level of vulnerability of Phase I 
beneficiaries being significantly greater among the first phase of beneficiaries. 
3.3.2 Household Dietary Diversity Score
One of the key nutrition indicators the evaluation assessed is the household dietary diversity 
score (HDDS). The findings are presented below. 
Diversity of Food Consumption
Figure 6 presents findings relating to twelve food groups that were consumed by households 
in the last 24 hours preceding the survey. 
On average, high proportion of households reported to have consumed, in the last 24 hours 
before the survey, cereals (94.9%) and fish (89.0%). In line with explanations provided in 
sections 2.2 on timing of data collection, this finding is similar to the baseline situation, though 
the frequency of consumption was less. Consumption of other food groups however, have 
increased as follows: 88.6% of participating households now consume roots and tubers 
compared to 64% at base line, vegetables (78.5%) compare to 20% at baseline, and fruits 
(68.2%) relative 37% at baseline. These are respectively followed by condiments at 56.4% 
relative to 45% at baseline. Those that consumed dietary products have increased from 3% 
at baseline to 13% at end line. Consumption of meat increased from 10% at baseline to 31.8% 
at end line and egg consumption from 1% at baseline to 20.5% at end line. 
2.1
84.3
13.6
78.2
20.7 1.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Little to no hunger Moderate hunger Severe hunger
Percentage
Household Hunger Categories
Phase 2 Baseline%
Phase 2 Endline%
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
16 
Figure 6: Variety of Food Groups Consumed by Households (Multiple Responses)
Across phases, results show that in both Phases I and II, most households consume cereals 
(88% and 100%), Fish (80.1% and 95.6%) and tubers/roots (77.5% and 96.7%). However, the 
evaluation found that when it comes to vegetables and fruits, more households in Phase II
consume these food groups than households in Phase I. On the contrary, more households 
in Phase I consume sugars and other food groups (condiments, tea, etc.) than households in 
Phase II. The overall picture is that more households, particularly in Phase II now consume 
high-density nutritious foods than those in Phase I. This is probably one reason why a higher 
proportion (85.6%) of households in Phase II have ‘little to no hunger’ score than those in 
Phase I (60.7%). The positive nutrition behaviors in Phase I seem to have some decline over 
time. In addition, few income sources have limited the food sources that Phase I participants 
88.0
77.5
53.9
51.3
30.0
80.1
30.3
16.1
24.0
28.8
63.7
67.8
100.0
96.7
96.7
80.7
33.1
95.6
23.8
10.8
30.1
14.4
32.9
48.1
94.9
88.6
78.5
68.2
31.8
89.0
26.6
13.0
27.5
20.5
45.9
56.4
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Cereals
Roots or tubers
Vegetables
Fruits
Meat, poultry, and other organ meats
Fresh or dried fish or shellfish
Pulses/Legumes/Nuts
Dietary (milk and milk products)
Oil/fats
Eggs
Sugar or honey
Miscellaneous (condiments, coffee, tea,
etc)
Percentage(%)
Foot type
All Total
Phase 2
Phase 1
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
17 
can access. This emphasizes the need for government social/agri-business services at 
community level to continue reinforcing the nutrition messages and support market access to 
farmer produce after the end of the project for long-term sustainability.
The Dietary Diversity Scores
Table 1b presents findings relating to dietary diversity scores for participant households. It 
shows that the average diversity for households in Phase I changed from 2.3 at baseline to 
6.1 at endline, indicating an increase, while the average diversity for Phase II households 
changed from 7.7 at baseline to 6.6 at endline, indicating a slight drop. 
A possible reason for this could be the sensitivity of HDDS to variations in seasons. Phase II
baseline was conducted in March, when the dry season is at its height, with plenty of food 
stuffs of different kinds are available, including fruits and vegetables. Additionally, because 
the roads are in relatively better conditions, food can be easily imported from other 
communities. The diversity during this period always tends to be relatively high. 
On the other hand, the endline was conducted in October. Though a dry season month, the 
rains were still coming. The harvest period has just ended after a long lean season that 
stretched from April to September. During this period, there is less diversity of production, as 
it is mostly rice and other staple foods that are available in most communities, thus the average 
diversity decreases a bit as seen in Table 1. Additionally, road conditions during this period 
are at their worst, as the rains have only just ended. This limits food importation. 
Table 1b: Average Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
Average Household Dietary Diversity Score
Baseline Values Phase I End line Phase II End line End line Total
Phase I
Baseline
Phase II
Baseline
Male 
(n=74)
Female 
(193) 
Total 
(n=267) 
Male 
(n=67)
Female 
(n=295) 
Total 
(n=362) 
Male 
(n=141) 
Female 
(n=488) 
Total
(n=629) 
2.3 7.7 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.4 6.4
Results of a one sample t-test conducted with Phase I HDDS baseline using the 2.3 HDDS
(baseline census value) as the test value, revealed that the difference compared to the sample 
endline HDDS of 6.1 is statistically significant. Evidence from a one-tailed t-test result shows 
the p-value to be far smaller than the threshold significance level of 0.05 {p=(0.000/2)=0.000 
<0.001} measured at 95% confidence level. 
Interestingly, another one sample t-test conducted with Phase II HDDS baseline of 7.7 as the 
test value is statistically significant compared to the Phase II endline of 6.6. This is evidenced 
by a one-tailed p-value result seen to be far smaller than the threshold significance level of 
0.05 {p=(0.000/2)=0.000 <0.001} measured at 95% confidence level. This decrease in HDDS 
is explained by the seasonal variation and resulting road conditions described above.
Also statistically significant are the results of a one-tailed two independent sample t-test 
showing that sample endline values of Phase I endline compared to endline for Phase II, (6.1 
vs. 6.6). The evidence is shown by the one-tailed p-value result being smaller than the 
threshold significance level of 0.05 {p=(0.042/2)=0.0245 <0.05} measured at 95% confidence 
level. The reasons for the difference are the same as those provided for HHS analysis: This 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
18 
significant difference maybe the result of 1) the longer lapse of time since Phase I beneficiaries 
stopped receiving services (1 year); or 2) the fewer complimentary services provided to Phase
I beneficiaries; or 3) the level of vulnerability of Phase I beneficiaries being significantly greater 
among the first Phase of beneficiaries. 
 
Percentage of Categorized Comprehensive HDDS with 0-4 and ≥5 
Figure 7 presents a categorized HDDS for all households in Phases 1 and 2 at two cut-off 
points: those with HDDS from 0 – 4 and those with HDDS from 5 upwards. In Phase I, 
participants were now found to be consuming more diversified food; as a result, there is a 
marked increase in the proportion of households with HDDS of 5 and above from 25% at 
baseline to 61.8% at end line. This resulted into dramatic decrease of participants with HDDS 
of 0-4 from 75% down to 38.2%.
For Phase II, a slightly different result was observed for changes from baseline to endline 
values for HDDS parameters. In this phase, slightly fewer participant households seem to 
have HDDS of 5 and above (91%) at endline as compared to those baseline (94%). Similarly, 
at endline, more households (8.8%) consume a less diverse diet (0-4 HDDS) compared to the 
baseline (6%). Possible explanations for this could be the sensitivity of HDDS to variations in 
seasons and some other factors such as road network as presented above on previous page
under “The Dietary Diversity Score”.
Figure 7: Average Household Dietary Diversity by Category
3.3.3 Household Food Consumption Score
One of the key indicators used to measure food security situation of vulnerable households is 
the Food Consumption Score (FCS). In the EFSA intervention design and implementation, 
this indicator was not monitored and so there was no baseline value for measurement of 
75.0
6.0
38.2
8.8
25.0
94.0
61.8
91.2
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Baseline Phase 1 Baseline Phase 2 Endline Phase 1 Endline Phase 2
Percentage
Phase type
0-4
≥5
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
19 
progress. However, as shown in Table 2, the WFP (2008) Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping
Technical Guidance Sheet in line with the Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability 
Analysis (CFSVA) report 2015, conducted by WFP, gives international benchmarks for poor, 
borderline and acceptable food consumption scores. 
Table 2: Food Consumption Score Benchmarks
Food Consumption Profile Food Consumption Score
Poor 1 – 21
Borderline › 21.5 – 35
Acceptable › 35
Source: WFP’s CFSVA Report 2015
Table 3 presents findings regarding the food consumption scores of households targeted by 
the EFSA intervention. There were no baselines to compare with therefore comparisons are 
based on the above international benchmarks. 
Table 3: Food Consumption Score
Food Consumption Score
Phase I Phase II All Total
Male 
(n=74)
Female 
(193) 
Total 
(n=267) 
Male 
(n=67)
Female 
(n=295) 
Total 
(n=362) 
Male 
(n=141) 
Female 
(n=488) 
Total 
(n=629) 
31.7 35.3 34.2 45.2 48.9 48.2 38.1 43.5 42.3
The evaluation assumes that all participating households were selected because they were 
the most vulnerable in their communities. Therefore, even in the absence of baseline FCS, 
one would conveniently assume that they all had poor FCS. In Table 3, results show that the 
least FCS is in the borderline profile, meaning the EFSA has contributed to lifting all targeted 
households from poor food consumption profile (1 – 21). On average, this value is rated at 
42.3 which is found to be within acceptable level of consumption and is consistent with 
internationally acceptable food consumption level of greater than 35 score points. Across 
phases, it can be further seen that only households in Phase I are still at the borderline 
consumption profile. In Phase II, all participating households have passed borderline to 
acceptable food consumption profiles, signaling a greater impact of the EFSA on Phase II 
participants than on Phase I. This is a good achievement recorded by the EFSA. 
The evaluation further found that most of the foods consumed by households in both phases 
were either produced by themselves (own production) or bought from the market. This was 
relatively the same at baseline (78% for own production and 55% for purchases). However, at 
baseline it was reported by 70% of all households that the food they produce is not enough to 
take them round the year and where they did not have enough money to buy food from the 
market, they employed some coping strategies. 
“On average, 70% of the respondents said the food grown by rural farmers cannot meet their 
food need from one season to the other”. EFSA Baseline Report Phase I. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
20 
Since the HHS, HDDS and FCS indicators of majority of the targeted households are now 
better; the evaluation concludes that the production and purchasing capacities of the target 
households have increased. This is clearly seen in the changes recorded in agricultural and 
other assets now owned by the target households and the improvements in meal frequency. 
3.3.4 Reduced Coping Strategies Index (RCSI)
In Table 4, the reduced coping strategies indices are presented for the EFSA intervention
(Phase I and II) and the national averages for Sierra Leone and Kenema district. The 
evaluation found the overall RCSI to be 10.4, which is lower compared to the CFSVA (2015) 
national average of 11.96 and the Kenema district average of 10.51. Across phases, Phase II
(8.02) is better than that for Phase I (13.31). Across gender lines, the indices show a better 
situation for households with female participants than those with male participants in Phase I
while in Phase II, the reverse was observed. When the phased indices are compared with 
national and district averages from the CFSVA (2015) report, it was found that the RCSI for 
both male and female participant households in Phase II were below these averages, 
indicating a better food security situation. However, for households in Phase I, the evaluation 
found that national and district RCSI are slightly better. Since there were no baseline 
information on the RCSI in the specific target chiefdoms, it was difficult to determine by how 
much the RCSI reduced in each of the Phases. However, based on the selection criteria of 
participant households (being the most vulnerable in their communities), one would assume
that the RCSI at baseline were much higher than the national and district averages. Which 
means the end line RCSI appears much better than would have been at baseline.
Table 4: Reduced Coping Strategies Index
National 
Average 
(CFSVA 
2015)
Kenema 
District 
Average 
(CFSVA 
2015)
Phase I Phase II All Total
Male 
(n=74)
Female 
(n=193)
Total 
(n=267)
Male 
(n=67)
Female 
(n=295)
Total 
(n=362)
Male 
(n=141)
Female 
(n=488)
Total 
(n=629)
11.96 10.51 14.36 13.31 13.60 7.52 8.13 8.02 11.10 10.20 10.40
3.3.5 Meal Frequency and Type
To assess the hunger situation of the households, the evaluation looked at the frequency with 
which meals are eaten by the various age groups in households. Table 5 shows that, on 
average, in all households, members (children and adults) eat at least two meals per day in 
both Phases. This evaluation finding of two meals per day was confirmed by FGD participants. 
For example, in Menima Community, Langrama Chiefdom participants said:
“The EFSP support has helped us a lot. It has changed our pattern of eating. Now we eat two 
times a day”
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
21 
Table 5: Meal Frequency by Age Group
Phase I Phase II All Total
Children less than 5yrs 1.8 1.8 1.8
Children 5-17yrs 1.9 1.9 1.9
Adults 18yrs and above 1.9 2.1 2.0
Source: MSD field generated data
The evaluation attempted to assess the different classes of foods they used to prepare the 
meals described in the ‘meal frequency’ section. As presented in Figure 8, it was found that 
almost all households used all the different classes of food. Most of the fruits used include 
banana, mango, pineapple, coconut. Vegetables used include potato leaves, cassava leaves, 
pepper, greens (krain krain), okra and onion. Carbohydrates used include rice, cassava, 
potato and yam. Protein included fish, meat and groundnut. This finding supports earlier 
findings on improved HDDS and FCS. 
Figure 8: Type of Meals Prepared within the last 24hrs before the Survey 
(Multiple Responses)
3.3.6 The EFSA Cash Utilization by Participants
The crux of the EFSA was to enable its participants to gain adequate access to food. As a 
result, participants were expected to spend more of the cash they receive on food. The 
evaluation attempted to assess this factor to see whether it happened or not. 
Average EFSA Cash Spent on Food and Non-Food Items by Household
The Figure 9 shows that households in both Phases spend the most of EFSA cash on food as 
expected by the project design: 55% for Phase I and 46.4% for Phase II. 
85.4
98.9 100 100
91.4
99.2 100 99.2
88.9
99.0 100.0 99.5
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Fruits Vegetables Carbohydrates Proteins
Percentage(%)
Meal type
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
22 
Figure 9: % of Average Household EFSA Cash Expenditure Pattern
Overall, targeted households spent over half (50%) of all the EFSA cash they receive on food. 
Similar expenditure pattern follows across phases. This expenditure pattern on food was also 
observed in project annual reports for Phases I and II to be 66% and 62% respectively. As 
implementation progressed to the end line, the evaluation observed that there was a gradual 
reduction in the overall expenditure on food, with subsequent increments in the expenditures 
on agriculture (20%), health care (10.3%), education (9%) and savings (3.7%). As shown in 
the figure below, these values seemed to have increased, when compared with values for 
similar non-food items in annual reports produced in October 2016 and 2017, for both Phases 
I and II respectively on EFSA cash usage per household. This large increment in expenditure 
on agriculture is one key factor that has enhanced the own-production capacity of target 
households, thus contributing positively to their overall food security situation as expressed by 
the HDDS, FCS and HHS. Also of interest is that some participating households (3.7%) saved 
some portion of the ESFP cash, with more households having saved in Phase II (5.0%) than 
in Phase I (1.7%).
The expenditure patterns seem to be contrary to the expectations of the EFSA intervention 
that at the end of the intervention, 70% of the EFSA cash received by households would have 
been spent on food items. However, the observed decrease in expenditure on food as 
hypothesized by the EFSA design is found to be compensated for by expenditures on 
55.7
11.3
7.3
18.7
2.0
1.7
1.0
1.3
0.7
0.3
46.7
9.7
10.3
21.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
50.7
10.3
9.0
20.0
2.0
3.7
1.7
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Food
Health
Education
Agriculture
Transport
Savings
Debt Repayment
Ceremonies
Housing
Clothes/Celebration
Percentage
Expenditure Item
All Total
Phase 2
Phase 1
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
23 
education, health care, agriculture and savings. This indicated that unconditional cash 
provided the participants with the dignity and opportunity to prioritize their needs for food and 
long-term recovery with the investments in agriculture to recover their main livelihood source 
for the long-term.
Types of Foods Purchased with EFSP Cash 
Figure 10 presents findings relating to the different food items on which households spend the 
EFSA cash. On average, almost all households spent part of their cash on rice/cereals 
(99.8%) and fish (92.8%). Others to a larger extent spent the cash on condiments, vegetable 
oil/palm oil, roots and tubers. This purchase pattern follows across phases. Results show that
in both phases, most households spend the cash on rice, tubers/roots (cassava, potatoes 
etc.), fish, oils and condiments. Another key food they buy most is sugar/honey. Vegetables, 
meat and eggs were observed to attract less expenditure from households. This is because 
these food items are mostly produced locally by the households themselves.
Figure 10: Types of Foods Purchased with EFSA Cash (Multiple Responses) 
10.1
40.1
100
92.5
68.5
15
27.7
15
18.4
64.4
56.9
10.9
19.3
24.3
99.7
93.1
40.9
11.9
14.9
5.8
8.8
93.9
87
15.7
15.4
31.0
99.8
92.8
52.6
13.2
20.3
9.7
12.9
81.4
74.2
13.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Vegetables
Sugar/Honey
Cereals/Rice
Fish
Roots or tubers
Beans, Peas, Lentils
Meat
Eggs
Milk/Yoghurt
Condiments (Maggie, pepper, salt etc.)
Vegetable Oil/Palm Oil
Fruits
Percentage
Type of food
All Total
Phase 1
Phase 1
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
24 
3.3.7 The EFSA Capacity Building Training and Participant Practices
Capacity Building Training on Nutrition
A key aspect of the complementary package that went with the cash was training of 
participants in good nutrition behaviors. Table 11 of Appendix C presents findings relating to 
whether participants received the trainings and if so, what impact the training has got on them. 
Overall, Results show that CRS did a good job here by delivering training to over 95% of the 
EFSA household participants. Across phases, almost all participants in both Phases were 
trained in nutrition issues: 94.4% for Phase I and 96.7% for Phase II. 
Figure 11 shows that a good number of participants in both phases knew the following as 
classes of food: Carbohydrates (100%), Proteins (97.2%), Fats and Oils, (80.6%), water 
(62%), and minerals and vitamins (52%). A similar pattern follows in both phases, however, 
when it comes to water and minerals and vitamins, participants in Phase II demonstrated a far 
better understanding than those in Phase I. Only 21.8% of Phase I participants could name 
minerals and vitamins as a class of food as against a relatively higher proportion of their 
counterparts (73.7%) in Phase II. Similar trend was noted for water as a class of food. This 
demonstrates that knowledge could decline over time if not reinforced through extension 
services. 
Figure 11: % of Main Classes of Food Identified by Household Participants
In addition, the evaluation attempted to investigate if participants were at the time currently 
applying the training knowledge to make good nutrition decisions in the households. On 
average, Table 11 of Appendix C provided evidence of a higher proportion (94.9%) of them 
positively reporting this. Across phases, the table revealed that 96% in Phase I and 94% in
Phase II reported that they are practicing the training concepts in their households. The 
evaluation was limited here because it did not probe to know how the households are applying 
those concepts. This would need further research. 
The evaluation further probed into knowing the fraction of participants who can correctly recall 
all the five classes of food they were taught in the training. Overall, the findings, as presented 
in Table 6 below, show a marked increase from 17% at baseline conducted in Phase II to 
45.2
21.8
81.3
100 93.7
74 73.7 80
100 99.7
62.0 52.0
80.6
100.0 97.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Water Minerals and
Vitamins
Fats and Oils Carbohydrates Protein
Percentage(%)
Main Classes of Food
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
25 
37.8% overall at end line. Results show that there was a slight drop (14.2%) in the proportion
of households who could correctly recall all the five classes of food in Phase I. This is due to 
the less emphasis on such capacity building opportunity in Phase I. In Phase II, a marked
improvement from 17% at Phase II baseline up to 55.3% at endline was noted in the proportion
of households who could recall all the five classes of foods they were taught in the nutrition 
training. These findings show that the increased knowledge on nutrition can positively change 
the behaviors of participants over time and regularly reinforcing messages on nutrition even 
after the end of the project would ensure sustainable nutritious food security outcomes.
Table 6: Comprehensive Knowledge of Participants on the Five Main Classes of Food
Sex of 
Respondents
Baseline
Phase II
End line
Phase I Phase II All Total
% Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Male - 14 (n=74) 18.9 40 (n=67) 59.7 54 (n=141) 38.3
Female - 24 
(n=193)
12.4 160 
(n=295)
54.2 184 
(n=488)
37.7
All 17.0 38 
(n=267)
14.2 200 
(n=362)
55.3 238 
(n=629)
37.8
Capacity Building Training on Hygiene Behavior
Table 12 of Appendix C presents findings relating to access and impact of hygiene training 
conducted for participants. On average, 96.2% of sample EFSA participant households 
reported to have received training on hygiene behavior. Across phases, it was found that 
94.4% of Phase I participants and 97.5% of participants in Phase II reported that they received 
hygiene training from CRS; this was a good turnout. 
Figure 12 reveals that, out of those who received the training, about 95.7% admitted to 
currently practicing the knowledge gained from the training. Considering the two phases, about 
91.3% of sample participants in Phase I and 98.4% in Phase II said they are currently 
practicing the knowledge acquired from the training. 
Figure 12: % of Sample Respondents Practicing Hygiene Behavior
91.3 98.9 95.7
8.7 1.1 4.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Percentage(%)
Phase 
Yes
No
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
26 
To test whether they are practicing the concepts, the evaluation asked the respondents two 
questions on hand washing and later observe few hygiene practices. Overall, Table 12 of 
Appendix C shows that 85.7% of them admitted washing their hands with soap and water 
regularly. Across phases, it was reported by 71.2% of Phase I and 96.4% of Phase II
participants that they currently wash their hands during the day. 
To further prove their knowledge, we tested their understanding on critical moments they think 
they should wash their hands. In Table 12 of Appendix C, a good proportion of them were on 
average found to have reported on a multiple response bases; especially after visiting the toilet 
(98.1%), before eating (85.9%), when there is a thought of hands being dirty (72.9), before 
food preparation (68.8%) and after cleaning children feces (51.9%). Similar trends follow 
across Phases. It was found that a good proportion of them in both Phases knew the critical 
times to wash their hands, with Phase I participants demonstrating a slightly better 
understanding. These findings were coupled with observations of hand washing areas. It was 
unfortunately found that only 38.2% of households in Phase I had hand-washing stations with 
water while a relatively higher fraction (69.1%) of Phase II participants had hand-washing 
stations with water. 
Regarding the availability of soap at hand washing stations as presented in Table 12 of 
Appendix C, a weak result was obtained for Phase I participants (70% had no soap at hand 
washing stations) while a fairly good result was observed for Phase II participants (25.4%). 
However, 29.2% of Phase I participants and 40.6% of Phase II participants had bar soap. Very 
few households had local detergents/soap at their hand washing stations. 
This finding presents a somewhat weak hygiene situation especially of Phase I participants. 
This is because water is a major factor in any good hygiene behavior. Besides, a better 
hygiene messages were delivered in the nutrition training by the EFSA Nutritionist employed 
in Phase II. 
On a comprehensive basis, when the availability of water and soap at hand washing station 
at baseline and end line were compared, the overall end line hygiene situation of households 
shown in Table 7 below was 48% at end line compared to 12% at baseline. With trends across 
phases, both phases show an impressive improvement: 12% at baseline as against 29.2% at 
end line for Phase I and 61.9% for Phase II. 
Table 7: Availability of Water and Soap at hand washing Stations
Sex respondents Baseline
Phase II
End line
Phase I Phase II All Total
% Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Water & soap 
availability at hand 
washing stations
12.0 78(n=267) 29.2 224(n=362) 61.9 224(n=362) 48.0
Capacity Building Training on Good Agronomic Practices
Table 13 of Appendix C presents findings relating to the agronomic training conducted for 
Phase II participants and whether they were practicing the concepts in their farming activities. 
Results show that almost all the participants (97%) were trained on good agronomic practices 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
27 
and most of them could recall some of the good agronomic practices. Figure 13 shows that 
almost all the sampled participants mentioned that they are currently using these good 
agronomic practices in their agricultural activities. 
Figure 13: % of Participant Households that Mentioned Good Agronomic Practices
The evaluation also tried to understand if the project beneficiaries are currently applying the 
training knowledge acquired on agronomic practices and which of the agronomic practices 
they are currently using. Over 99% of them admitted be applying the knowledge gained. 
Notwithstanding, it was found that they mostly do brushing (78.6%), clearing (75.2%), weeding
(883%), followed by padding of soil (61.5%) and leveling (62.7%). It was a good, though 
surprising finding that none of them said they do burning. This could be a good impact of the 
agronomic training.
Clearly, Table 8 shows a comparison between the baseline and end line situations of 
participant households who reported that they were practicing at least 3 out of 5 good 
agronomic practices. There was a remarkable improvement in the number of households since 
the training was conducted after baseline, moving from 68% at Phase II baseline to 94.2% at 
end line. This is a good impact of the agronomic training. 
Table 8: Comprehensive Percentage of Households practicing at least 3 of 5 good 
agricultural practices
Sex of HH Head
Phase II
Baseline
End line
Phase II
% Frequency %
Female headed 
- 160 (n=169) 94.7
Male headed 
- 181 (n=193) 93.8
All total 68% 341 (n=362) 94.2
Irrespective of agronomic training, the EFSA participants used part the cash received to buy 
seed and to pay for farm labor. The study tried to know if these efforts have had any impact 
97.4 95.2 96.9
80.9 79.5
8.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Brushing Clearing Weeding Padding or
breaking soils
clods
Leveling or
smoothening
Others
Percentage(%)
Good Agronomic Practices
Phase 2
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
28 
on their ability to do backyard gardening. Figure 14 presents the findings relating to this. Even 
though there were no baseline figures to compare with, but the relative proportion of 
respondents who said they have backyard gardens was encouraging. Overall, 85.8% for 
Phase I and 86.7% for Phase II. 
Figure 14a: % of Household Participants Practicing Backyard Gardening
When some of the backyard gardens were observed, it was noted that most of them were
planted with garden egg, okra, pepper, bitter ball, tomato, cassava leaves, potato leaves, 
onion, krain krain, greens and corn. This finding confirms why the household expenditure on 
vegetables was low. They get most of it from own-production. This is a good impact point for
the EFSA; especially when linked with to the nutrition training on food categorization and 
results on dietary diversification
Capacity Building Training on Financial and Business Management Skills
Enhanced capacity in financial and business management skills among participants was 
identified as one of the critical sustainability aspects integrated in the design and 
implementation of the EFSA intervention in Phase II. Table 16a of Appendix C presents
findings relating to the training conducted for improving the skills of household participants in 
financial and business management. On average, about 89% of the respondents reported to 
have received the training. 
Among those who reported to have been trained on financial and business management skills, 
the majority of them were better placed identify the key activities that are usually considered 
good financial and business management skills. Figure 14b show that investment was 
identified by 97.8% of the participants, 95.0% identified saving money at a bank, financial 
planning identified by 91.6% and over 89% of them identified book keeping. 
85.8 86.7 86.3
14.2 13.3 13.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Percentage(%)
Phase
Yes
No
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
29 
Figure 14b: Good Financial and Business Management Skills
When respondents were further asked on whether they are currently applying training 
knowledge gained in their business and financial decisions, about 70.5% of them admitted 
doing so. Although progress cannot be measured in the absence of baseline values regarding 
the above indicator variables, these end line values remained evidence of enhanced 
participant knowledge in financial and business management skills, which could be attributed 
to the contributions from the EFSA intervention. 
3.4 Change in Agricultural & Financial Assets Owned by Households
To assess the level of outcomes on the EFSA intervention on the agricultural and financial 
capacities of participants, the evaluation looked at changes to four key assets category: 
Changes in Farm Land, Changes in Farm Tools, Changes in Livestock and Changes in 
Financial Capacity. The evaluation was not able to do a quantitative analysis of the real 
changes that occur (e.g. the increase in acreage cultivated or the number of farm tools added). 
The evaluation therefore relied on the self-assessment of the participants themselves about 
whether the EFSA had influenced any change in those asset categories. The findings are 
presented in the following sections. 
Change in Size of farm Land
Table 14 of Appendix C presents findings relating to the perceived change that have occurred 
in the size of farm land cultivated by the participants since they started receiving the EFSA 
cash. Results show that 94.8% of all target participants reported that they were cultivating 
some piece of land even before they started receiving the EFSA cash support. This means 
almost all the target participants were farmers before now. Across phases, slightly more 
participants in Phase II (98.1%) were cultivating farm lands before the EFSA than those in 
Phase I (90.3%). This finding supports the baseline finding that over 78% of the target 
participants were relying on subsistence farming for their own-food production. The table 
further shows that, 92.6% of all participants reported that the EFSA has helped them to 
increase the size of farm lands they are now currently cultivating. Across phases, more 
households in Phase II (95.2%) have increased their farm lands than those in Phase I (88.8%).
89.1
95
97.8
91.6
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Record Keeping Saving money at a
bank
Investment Financial Planning
Percentage(%)
Financial & business Management Activities
Phase 2 End line
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
30 
This shows an important effect of the EFSA on the agricultural capacity of the target 
participants and represents a key sustainability factor after the EFSA intervention ends.
These findings are supported by PDM reports for both Phases 1 and 2 as shown in Figure 15
below
Figure 15: Effect of top-up payments on household farm land size in Phases 1& 22
The result in Figure 15 above shows that at Phase I baseline, most participants were 
cultivating within the ranges of 0.5 – 1 hectares (53.0%) and 1.5 – 2 hectares (43.0%) of farm 
land. Only few (3.0%) participants were cultivating 2.5 hectares and above. However, with the 
EFSA intervention, a dramatic change in the size of farm land cultivated by participants 
particularly in Phase I was noted. In Phase I, a big movement was observed in the proportion 
of farmers that increased their cultivation to 2.5 hectares and above (from 3% at baseline to 
21.7% at PDM for Phase I). In the absence of baseline data for Phase II, a 42% was noted at 
PDM, which could be considered a marked change by taking Phase I baseline of 3% as the 
benchmark. These changes in the size of farm land cultivated by participants were a huge 
impact of the ESFA on the farming capacity of participants. This is a positive drive towards a 
more sustainable food security of participants.
Change in Farm Tools Owned by Households
Table 15a of Appendix C presents findings on whether the participant households have 
acquired new farm tools using the EFSA cash support. Results show that 91.1% of all 
participants reported that they had some farm tools before the EFSA support. In Phase II, 
more households (92.8%) reported this than in Phase I (88.8%). This is in line with earlier 
finding that almost all of them were farmers before the intervention. The table further shows 
the perception of participants regarding whether the EFSA has helped them to acquire new 
farm tools. As seen in Figure 16, about 73.6% of participants reported that they have at some 
 
2 Source: Annual reports Phase II (October 2017) and Phase I (2016) - Note: There was no baseline data on 
hectares cultivated by Phase I participants. But since the communities are from the similar socioeconomic settings, 
we used the baseline figures for both Phase I and 2 changes in farm land cultivated. 
1.0
53.0
43.0
3.8 3.0
54.7
19.8 21.7
0.0 4.0
54.0
42.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
0 (No change) 0.5 - 1 1.5 - 2 2.5 +
Percentage of Respondents 
Acreage of Land Cultivated
Baseline
PDM Phase 1
PDM Phase 2
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
31 
point used the EFSA cash to acquire new farm tools. This is also a key impact point for the 
EFSA on the agricultural capacity of participants. Across phases, the table shows that more 
(85.4%) of households in Phase II have acquired farm tools compared to those in Phase I
(56.6%). This large difference between Phase I and Phase II participants in the acquisition of 
farm tools can be traced to the fact that Phase II participants were exposed to good agronomic 
practices (one key tenet being having your own tools and taking good care of them) whereas 
those in Phase I were not. It may also be that those in Phase II had more tools at baseline as 
they are less vulnerable than beneficiaries in Phase I.
Figure 16: % of Participants who used EFSA Cash to acquire new Farm Tools
Type of Farm Tools Acquired by Households
Table 15b of Appendix C shows the different types of farm tools that participant households 
used the EFSA cash support to acquire. It was found that all households bought four main 
types of tools, namely: cutlass (92.6%), large hoe (80.2%), small hoe (72.6%) and shovels 
(38.3%). Across phases, the same pattern of tool acquisition was observed. However, more 
households in Phase I acquired hoes, both large (87.4%) and small (76.8%) than those in 
Phase II, 76.7% of whom acquired large hoes and 70.6% small hoes. On the contrary, more 
households in Phase II (93.9%) acquire more cutlasses than those in Phase I (90.1%). The 
same pattern of acquisition for hoes was observed for the acquisition of shovels: 43.7% 
acquisition by households in Phase I and 35.6% acquisition by households in Phase II. Overall, 
the evaluation found that a good fraction of participant households has indeed increased their 
stock of basic farm tools necessary for their everyday farming. Thanks to the EFSA 
intervention. 
Change in Quantity of Livestock 
Table 15c of Appendix C presents findings relating to the perception of the participants about 
changes they have observed in the quantities of livestock they owned before and after the 
EFSA intervention. Results show that 57.1% of all target participants had livestock before the 
EFSA intervention. Across phases, the study found that it was 66.3% of households in Phase 
I and 50.3% in Phase II that had livestock before the EFSA intervention. This confirms the 
general traditional view of the Sierra Leone context that livestock are a source of pride and 
respect at community levels. Therefore, not so many people normally have it. Despite that 
73.6
56.6
85.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
End line Total Phase 1 Phase 2
Percentage(%)
Phase Stage
% of Participants using EFSA Cash
to acquire new Farm Tools
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
32 
notion, the EFSA intervention prompted 38.6% of target households to acquire additional 
livestock. Across phases, more households (43.9%) in Phase II acquired additional livestock 
using the EFSA cash than households in Phase I (31.5%). Considering the strategic 
importance of livestock in the Sierra Leonean context, these new acquisitions are positive
impact points for the EFSA intervention. 
Additionally, the evaluation investigated the various types of livestock beneficiary household 
participants had used the EFSA cash to acquire. Figure 17 provides evidence of a higher 
proportion (90.5%) of participants reporting their acquisition of chicken. Others include ducks 
(56.8%), goats (26.1%) and sheep at 17.4%. The findings are consistent across Phases with 
higher proportion of participants acquiring chicken at 95.2% in Phase I and 87.9% in Phase II. 
Ducks was also acquired at 82.1% in Phase I and 43.3% in Phase II. These were marginally 
followed by goats and sheep in that order. These additional livestock will continue to generate 
both income and pride for the owners long after the intervention ends. 
Figure 17: % of Participants who Acquired Livestock with EFSA Cash
Change in Financial Capacity
Table 16b of Appendix C presents findings relating to the perceived change in financial 
capacity of target participants, especially relating to their savings and loan repayment abilities 
using the EFSA cash. Results show that 60.3% of all target participants reported that they now 
have some form of saving scheme. Across phases, 63.8% of households in Phase II and 
55.4% of households in Phase I reported that they have savings of different types. Drawing 
from the baseline criteria of selecting these participants (the most vulnerable in their 
households), even in the absence of a baseline situation to compare with, one would 
reasonably assume that most, if not all, of them had no savings scheme at baseline. Therefore, 
the current savings schemes they have joined could be attributed to the EFSA cash support. 
Table 16b of Appendix C further shows the different types of savings schemes that participants
have joined. Results show that the participants are into three pronounce savings scheme type: 
‘Self-Help Group Savings’ (53.0%), the traditional ‘Osusu’ (37.7%) and ‘Savings and internal 
lending Communities (SILC) scheme’ (35.1%). Findings show that households in Phase II are 
mostly into the Self-Help Group Savings scheme (67.5%) while households in Phase I are 
95.2
82.1
0.0
31.0 33.3
87.9
43.3
0.6 10.2
22.3
90.5
56.8
0.4 17.4
26.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Chicken Ducks Cows Sheep Goat
Percentage(%)
Livestock Type
Phase 1
Phase 2
End line Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
33 
more into the more traditional osusu savings scheme (54.7%) and ‘Savings and internal 
lending Communities (SILC) savings scheme (47.3%). This difference here can be attributed 
to the fact that, in Phase II, households were exposed to financial management and 
agricultural trainings. These trainings naturally made them to form themselves into groups to 
further their mutual interest. These groups were noted to have developed the self-help group 
savings mainly to support their agricultural activities.
Table 16b also presents findings relating to participants’ perception about whether the EFSA 
intervention has increased their savings ability or not. Results show that 74.1% of all target 
participants reported that the EFSA has increased their current savings ability. The evaluation 
found that 81% households in Phase II reported that they now have increased savings ability 
while in Phase I, 63.5% of households reported same. This was noted to be a good impact 
point for the EFSA, moving 74.1% of target households from very little or no savings 
capabilities to some form of savings. This indicates that these households now have enough 
food to eat and hence can save some funds for later use. The high difference noted between 
households in Phase II and those in Phase I, can be attributed to the financial and 
management trainings that Phase II households were exposed to. This means the 
complimentary package added to the Phase II intervention increased the recovery speed of 
these households more than those of Phase I. Another explanation may be the decreased 
vulnerability of Phase II beneficiaries.
3.5 Appropriateness of Project Design
The evaluation noted that the EFSA was primarily designed as a Cash-Based Food Security 
Assistance for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) – affected Sierra Leoneans in Kenema District. The 
overall objective was to trigger accelerated recovery for vulnerable households from the shock 
of Ebola through increased access to food during the lean season. The project therefore 
embarked on unconditional cash transfers to all participating households (HHs). This design 
aspect was noted to be an accurate one in achieving the overall objective. Firstly, because 
unconditional cash transfers allow participants to access a wide variety of food of their choice 
as opposed to instances were implementing partners must pre-design a generic food basket 
for all participants: one size fits all scenario. This approach confers dignity to the participants
and grants them the respect of taking decisions regarding their own households. Secondly, it 
frees the implementing partners from the burden of mobilizing all the food required to complete 
the pre-designed food basket in each distribution cycle, thus allowing project staff to focus on 
other key issues that will make the project deliver the greatest impact.
Another design aspect that was observed to be good was the addition of complementary 
activities to the main activity of cash transfer. In Phase I, good nutrition behavior and cash￾use sensitizations were usually done during cash distributions and Post Distribution Monitoring
(PDMs). This was a good design strategy to ensure the project achieved its objective. In Phase 
II, additional complementary activities were introduced, including agricultural and financial 
literacy and hygiene and sanitation trainings, food diversification and back yard garden 
component for participants. These design approaches were noted to be accurate in ensuring 
that the participants not only receive the cash, but used it wisely on nutritious foods that were
prepared and consumed under hygienic conditions and how they are to continue producing 
nutritious foods themselves, using good agronomic practices, after the EFSA is over. These 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
34 
are basic practices that will ensure food security, which will eventually lead to accelerated 
recovery from the shock of EVD.
The evaluation also noted that the project design incorporated an approach that ensures the 
right participants were targeted throughout the two phases. The establishment of partnership 
with NaCSA to lead the participant targeting using Light Proximity Means Test (LPMT) method 
was a sound approach to achieve the objective of right participant selection. This activity was 
further enhanced by allowing community participation through the Community Identification 
Committees (CICs). Notwithstanding the good design attributes highlighted above, the 
evaluation noted two key design inadequacies.
Firstly, the project design did not make provision for key partner capacity assessment before 
contracting them. NaCSA was supposed to undertake geographic targeting that should have 
mapped out up the target communities. The project design incorrectly assumed that NaCSA 
was already familiar with the process. This caused some delay in coming up with the list of 
target communities which further delayed the start of implementation. Secondly, the first phase
design did not take into account financial management and good agronomic trainings as 
complementary activities. These key impact drivers were left out. 
3.6 Intervention Relevance and Strategic Fit
Containment measures imposed by the government and its development partners to halt the 
spread of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) were found to be very effective in bringing the virus 
under control. However, its secondary effects were numerous: one major effect was disruption 
of livelihood patterns. This led to high incidence of food insecurity in the country but specifically 
to areas where the virus caused the highest destruction. Kenema district was one such area. 
In a country where nearly half of the population is food insecure (WFP’s CFSVA report 2015), 
any disruption to the normal livelihood pattern will create a shock, if not quickly addressed, 
and will force victims to resort to several negative coping strategies. According to the EFSA
Phase-1 baseline report: 
“On average, 70% of the respondents said the food grown by rural farmers cannot meet their 
food needs from one season to the other. The overall prevalence of moderate or severe 
hunger in all households surveyed was 68%. The average HH dietary diversity score (HDDS) 
in the project area is 2.3”
The above baseline findings are clear indications that Kenema district is a highly food poor 
area, even before the EVD outbreak, which exacerbated the situation. The EFSA intervention 
was therefore very relevant to the people of Kenema district, especially the direct participants; 
because its aim was to help them recover from the shock imposed by the outbreak and 
increase their access to food, especially throughout the lean season.
In terms of the evaluation sample respondents’ perceptions, almost all of them (over 99%) in 
both Phases I & II of the EFSA pointed out that the cash support was very helpful to their 
households, making them recover from further shocks of the EVD driven constraints. 
Furthermore, when asked about how their households would have coped with the EVD shock
if the cash support were not given, again over 90% in both phases said they would have coped 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
35 
with extreme difficulty. This provides evidence that the EFSA was relevant and contributed to 
the reduction of negative coping strategies. 
The evaluation further noted that the EFSA strategically fits into the first two, out of the three 
CRS’s thematic intervention areas (also known as their three signature program areas), 
namely; Emergency Response & Recovery, Agricultural Livelihoods, and Health. The
evaluation found that the EFSA project strategically fits into the first thematic area. Similarly,
the Strategic Goal 1 and Strategic Objective 1 of the USAID states “Strengthen America’s 
Economic Reach and Positive Economic Impact” and “Promote Inclusive Economic Growth, 
Reduce Extreme Poverty and Improve Food Security”. The evaluation found that the EFSA
project strategically fits into these two strategic guiding statements of USAID.
The EFSA was also strategically aligned with the government of Sierra Leone National Ebola 
Recovery Plan (2015 – 2017). One of the key objectives of the plan was “Managing and 
Mitigating Immediate Ebola Impact in the Social Sector, Gender, Children, and Social 
Protection”
The key strategies outline by the government to achieve these objectives were to “Provide 
livelihood support for EVD affected children, women, orphans, widows, widowers, and the 
elderly and disabled” and “Provide cash transfers to poor households and vulnerable groups, 
therefore benefitting local economies”.
The EFSA has therefore been directly contributing to the government’s Ebola recovery 
priorities, thus making it nationally relevant.
The evaluation further assessed the satisfaction level of the EFSA intervention participants
and presented findings relating to three key areas of participant satisfaction: distance travelled 
to pay point, satisfaction with the waiting time to receive cash, and adequacy of cash amount 
received to satisfy their food needs for three months. 
Findings show that participants are mostly satisfied with the distances they travel to access 
pay point and the time they take at the pay points before receiving cash. 
With respect to distance covered, Figure 18 revealed that on average over 92% of the 
participants were reported to be satisfied. This finding was consistent across phases, with 
92.5% and 92% of household participants proved to be respectively satisfied in Phase I and
Phase II. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
36 
Figure 18: % of Participant Satisfaction with Distance Travelled to pay point
For satisfaction with waiting time, an average of over 96% of participants as shown in Figure 
19 were found to be satisfied, with 94% of participant households in Phase I and 98.1% in 
Phase II. 
Figure 19: % of Participant Satisfaction with Waiting Time
However, for the third satisfaction area – adequacy of cash amount, the evaluation found that 
a considerable proportion of participants believed the cash they received was not enough to 
cover expenses for their household food needs for three months; 58.1% in Phase I and 41.4% 
in Phase II. These findings were noted to be consistent with those from FGD participants 
regarding the adequacy of cash amount received. The cash provided by the project was meant 
to meet 40 to 60 percent of household food needs during the lean season. The target 
households had to meet the other needs from own sources. The food security needs were 
identified at the design stage of the project.
“The cash amount we receive is OK for us. It has helped us to get food throughout until we go 
to receive another one” [FGD Participants, Ngama Community, Dama Chiefdom]
“We really thank CRS for the money they are giving us. It has helped us a lot. However, it is 
not enough for all our food needs for three months. This is because some of us have large 
families. Also, the cost of transportation and food are very expensive” [FGD Participants 
Tunkia Chiefdom] 
92.5 92.0 92.2
7.5 8.0 7.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Percentage (%)
Phases
Yes
No
94.0 98.1 96.3
6.0 1.9 3.7
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Percentage
Phases
Yes
No
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
37 
The findings above resonate with the EFSA cash expenditure pattern, indicating that, despite 
expectations of participant households in both phases to spend most of EFSA cash on food 
as per project design (and CRS field staff ‘cash use’ messaging to participants), it was found 
that 55% and 46.4% of cash that was spent on food in both phases respectively. The 
remainder of the cash was spent on other items including agriculture, health care and 
education. Analysis of household size showed that most of the family sizes slightly increased 
during project implementation. From FGDs with participants, these changes in family sizes 
were due to additional relatives who joined them after they started receiving EFSA cash. The 
cash provided by the project was meant to cover 40 to 60 percent of the food needs during 
the lean season. CRS emphasized this during project start-up meetings and at cash 
distribution points. CRS also encouraged beneficiaries to invest their money and to engage in 
crop cultivation.
In an aggregate form, a comprehensive participant satisfaction assessment for male and 
female headed households was required and subsequently done in this evaluation. Figure 20 
below shows that overall; almost all households (both male and female-headed) are satisfied 
with the cash transfer process. For female-headed households, there were huge gains in the 
satisfaction levels between baseline and end line for both phases. For male-headed 
households, there were also marked improvements in the satisfaction level of households 
between baseline and end line. This is consistent with earlier findings relating to participant 
satisfaction.
Figure 20: Female and Male Headed Household Satisfied with 2 of 3 Categories 
(Distance to pay point, Cash amount and Wait time at pay point)
These findings are supported by the project progress reports which indicated that by the end 
of the Phase I, 90% of project participants were satisfied with at least 2 to 3 categories of 
processes such as waiting time, safety at pay points and walking distances to pay points. By 
the end of Phase II of the intervention, 98% of project participants were satisfied. This is due 
to the utilization of lessons learned in Phase II, which increased the number of pay points to 
reduce walking distances, and the amount of cash grants was also increased from Le 390,000 
per household to Le 630,000 per household.
0.0
92.4 95.3
0.0
89.6 99
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Baseline Phase 1 Endline Phase 2 Endline
Percentage (%)
Phase Stage
Female headed
Male headed
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
38 
3.7 Efficiency of the EFSA Implementation
The evaluation assessed all resources categories mobilized and utilized in the implementation 
of the EFSA: financial, material and human resources.
Financial resources came in two forms: the actual cash that was transferred to participants
and funds used to implement the project. The evaluation found that each household was 
receiving Le 390,000 in Phase I and Le 630,000 in Phase II, mainly for accessing food for the 
household. In May and June of 2016 (Phase I), participants received additional one-off top-up 
payments (the Leone equivalent of $25 in May and $22.6 in July) mainly for agriculture: to 
access viable seeds and pay for farm labor. The evaluation found that in both phases 
participants were receiving the exact amount from Splash, the contracted mobile money 
transfer agent. This was partly because adequate monitoring measures were put in place, 
such as the presence of ACC, CRS, and other concerned government agencies, and partly 
because payments were always done at community centers where there was high visibility. 
Regarding funds to support the EFSA implementation, the evaluation observed that adequate 
funds were available to pay the salaries of all staff, run the field office in Kenema and the 
support units in the country office in Freetown, and to procure all required material resources. 
This indicates that all financial resources mobilized for the EFSA were adequately used in its
implementation. An impressive evidence of efficient resource utilization was noted to be the 
instance where financial gains made because of the depreciation of the SLL against the USD 
were utilized to reach additional 815 participants in Small Bo Chiefdom in Kenema district, 
who were not originally planned for in both phases. Another key evidence for effective 
utilization of financial resources was that no project activity was noted to have utilized extra 
funds outside the EFSA planned budget. The total amount of cash that was budgeted to be 
transferred to participants was $2,529,090. The evaluation found that at end line, a total of 
$2,514,665 had been transferred to participants, representing 99.4% of total planned budget. 
Only 0.6% ($14,425) was not utilized and this was noted to be due to depreciation of the Leone 
against the Dollar. This shows that the EFSA funds were efficiently utilized.
Material resources were adequate, and used exclusively for implementing the EFSA. The 
project had dedicated motor bikes supplemented by pool vehicles in the field office in Kenema. 
These were used for field visits during cash distributions, PDM, sensitizations, trainings etc. 
Every dedicated EFSA staff was observed to have a personal computer. There were also 
designated mobile phones to conduct surveys: baselines and PDMs. The evaluation team 
found that these material resources have always been up and running throughout 
implementation to date.
The evaluation found that the EFSA had seventeen dedicated staff, ten of whom were based 
in the target chiefdoms. This means, on average, one staff was in-charge of one chiefdom. 
This ensured proximity to target participants, reducing response time and enhancing 
implementation monitoring. The other seven staff based in the Kenema field office directly 
supported these ten-extension staff. This was an efficient way of utilizing the project’s human 
resources.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
39 
3.8 Effectiveness of the EFSA Implementation
3.8.1 Coverage of the EFSA Intervention
Kenema district has sixteen chiefdoms. Nine of the chiefdoms were covered representing 56% 
of all chiefdoms. According to the CFSVA report 2015, in Kenema district, 55.2% of the 
population are food insecure (9.6% been severely food insecure and 45.6% moderately food 
insecure). According to the 2015 Sierra Leone Population and Housing Census report, 
Kenema districts has a total population of 609,891. This means approximately 58,550 people 
are severely food insecure. The EFSA reached 9,689 severely food insecure households 
within the target communities. Taking the average household size of six (6) according to the 
2015 census report, the project was then able to reach 58,134 participants. This is about 99% 
of all those who are severely food insecure. The evaluation noted that the geo-targeting was 
very accurate and allowed the EFSA to concentrate its resources to the most vulnerable 
communities in the district. In addition, the NaCSA poverty-grading tool was correctly used to 
select the final participants. 
3.8.2 Cash Transfer Processes
The evaluation assessed key aspects of the cash transfer process. Among which were 
distance covered to pay point, waiting time to receive cash at pay point, and safety during and 
after receipt of cash. These are discussed below.
Distance Covered
Figure 21 presents findings related to the issue of distance covered by participants in 
accessing the cash pay points. The evaluation found that most participants accessed the pay 
points after walking a distance covered of less than one mile. On average, over half (55.8%) 
of the respondent reported this. Across phases, 49.8% of households walked less than one
mile to access their pay points in Phase I. In Phase II, an even greater proportion of 
households accessed (60.2%) their pay points within one mile distance. 
Figure 21: % of Category of Distance covered by Participant to Pay Point
49.8
30.7
18.4
1.1
60.2
29
10.2 0.6
55.8
29.7
13.7 0.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Less than 1miles 1miles - 2miles 2.1miles - 3miles Above 3miles
Percentage(%)
Distance travelled
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
40 
“We cover only about half mile to come to this pay point” [FDG participants in Largo, Tunkia 
Chiefdom]
“We don’t have participants coming too far from the pay point. The village that is far away is 
about one mile off” [CIC in Simbaru Chiefdom]
However, few participants (1.1% for Phase I and 0.6% for Phase II) walk above 3 miles to 
access their pay point. These findings were echoed by both FGD and KII respondents across 
the intervention communities. 
“We have participants coming one village about 4 miles from here (meaning this pay point)” 
[CIC in Niawa Chiefdom]
“Although the participants were happy coming to receive their cash, some of them had 
challenges with bad road network especially bad bridges that gets flooded and sometimes 
washed away” [ CIC in Small Bo Chiefdom]
Waiting Time
Regarding the time taken by participants to receive their cash, and as seen in Figure 22 below,
the evaluation found that for Phase I, most of participants (64.8%) spend between 30 minutes 
and 2 hours. In total, about 56% of household participants usually spend a minimum of below 
30 minutes to a maximum of 59 minutes to access the payment point. In Phase II, while most 
of the participants (58.3%) also spent between 30 minutes and 2 hours, a reasonable fraction 
of them (40.6%) spent less than 30 minutes to get their cash. This is a large difference between 
Phase I and Phase II participants. This improvement in waiting time of Phase II participants
may have come because of the midterm assessment recommendations of Phase I
implementation. Overall, the evaluation found that most participants don’t have problem with 
the waiting time. This finding was again noted from discussions with ACC and NaCSA. 
Figure 22: % of Respondents Waiting Time to receive Cash
44.2
19.9 20.6
15.4
28.2
1.1
30.1
40.6
35.0
9.1
26.1 29.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1hr - 2hrs 2 hrs. and above 30 min - 59 min Less than 30 min
Percentage(%)
Time 
Phase 1
Phase 2
All Total
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
41 
“We are happy with the time we take waiting to receive our money. In most cases, the people 
giving us the money are at the center before we the participants even arrive, so we don’t stay 
too long” [FGD participants in Kanga Community, Niawa Chiefdom]
“From my own observation, the waiting time is OK for the participants because they don’t stay 
too long at the pay point. Part of the reason is that the date and time are communicated to 
them ahead of distribution date” [Town Chief Landu Community, Simbaru Chiefdom]
Participant Safety during and after Cash Distribution
Table 20 of Appendix C shows that participants feel safe both during accessing the cash at 
98.4% and after they have received and left the distribution centers at 94.9%. KII and FDG 
respondents supported both findings.
“Both the participants and those paying out the cash have always been safe. I have not heard 
of any complaint before or after the cash distribution” [Town Chief, Faama Community, Nomo 
Chiefdom]
“The pay point where we receive our cash has always been safe and secure. There has not 
been any report of conflict of any sort” [FGD Participants, Sembehun Community, Gaura 
Chiefdom]
3.9 Constraining and Facilitating Factors of Project Implementation
The evaluation did not identify specific challenges that mitigated the achievement of specific 
results. The only challenges identified were operational in nature and were addressed as 
implementation progressed. Key challenges included: 
 NaCSA’s limited capacity in geo-targeting. This only slightly delayed the cash transfer start 
date and was quickly addressed by hiring a consultant. It was reported in FDGs with 
participants that there were few instances when they waited for quite some time before 
SPLASH arrived with cash. This finding was confirmed from KII with SPLASH and was 
linked to the internal processes of approvals that sometimes delayed the processing of 
cheques for cash withdrawals. 
 Due to internal operational challenges on the part of Splash Mobile Money Ltd, payment 
dates were postponed on few occasions, but in the end payments were done and 
participants received their correct entitlements.
 Limited network connection from service providers such as Airtel and Africel and limited 
access to local banks by most project participants reduced opportunities for increased and 
long-term financial inclusion for target communities 
 Community Identification Committee (CIC) members were not budgeted for in both phases 
and they were encouraged not to register their households as participants to avoid conflict 
of interest. From KIIs with some CICs, this demotivated most of them even though they 
were still executing their required functions. Similar challenges were faced with some
community authorities who refused to take active part in the implementation because their 
households were not benefitting directly. While these community volunteers had been 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
42 
sensitized about their role in the project, CRS found it necessary to provide them with 
some incentives which included airtime cards and t-shirts. This helped to improve their 
motivation to support the project. 
 Bad road network and poor mobile communications network slowed down the pace of 
activities including cash transfer itself and monitoring activities. 
The following factors were identified as having contributed greatly in the achievement of 
results:
 The right partnerships were created; which ensured the right participants were targeted 
and the cash transfers done in a transparent and accountable manner. These partnerships 
also enhanced project monitoring and equipped participants with the right knowledge and 
skills to enhance project sustainability. Also, the management structure put in place by 
CRS to implement the project enhanced the achievement of results. This included having 
dedicated project staff based directly in the field, and routine and intermittent monitoring 
with support from country office and government agencies (MAFFS, ACC, Local Council 
etc.) 
 The use of dedicated project staff to exclusively work on the EFSA enhanced the 
effectiveness of implementation and greater project visibility at community level. This also 
enhanced project monitoring.
 The evaluation noted that the project was well funded. This permitted timely 
implementation of activities.
 Effective sensitizations on the correct use of cash received, coupled with the 
complementary trainings ensured that participants used more of the cash to access food 
than non-food items. This helped in improving their food security status as evidenced by 
changes in the indicators. 
3.10 Partnerships, Collaborations and Coordination 
 Partnerships and Collaborations
While CRS Sierra Leone was responsible for implementing the EFSA, they established several 
partnerships with concerned organizations and government agencies, which enhanced the 
efficiency and effectiveness of project activities. 
The National Commission for Social Action (NaCSA) is a statutory body under the Ministry of 
Social Welfare Gender and Children’s Affairs (MoSWGCA) responsible for implementing all
social actions relating to vulnerability issues in Sierra Leone. They have long-standing 
experience in this area. CRS partnered with NaCSA to lead the geo-targeting, registration, 
and final selection of eligible participants. The evaluation found that NaCSA effectively carried 
out these activities, except the geo-targeting aspect, which was beyond their capacity to 
handle. This delayed the start of cash transfer in Phase I, instead of starting in October 2015; 
it was actually done in January 2016. However, CRS moved quickly to rectify the problem by 
hiring a consultant to undertake the exercise. NaCSA was also involved in regular monitoring 
of project implementation through direct field visits and house-to-house participant interviews. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
43 
The CRS-NaCSA partnership helped in targeting the right participants, thus permitting project 
resources to be directed to the intended participants. They also trained CRS staff in the use 
of the LPMT poverty grading tools and shared their experiences with CRS during the 
participant registration exercise itself. This helped greatly in reducing mistakes. 
There are three Mobile Money service provides in Sierra Leone that had the potential to 
provide cash transfer services for CRS. These included Airtel, Africell and SPLASH. Due to 
poor network connectivity in most of the project locations, only SPLASH could effectively 
deliver cash to remote locations. SPLASH Mobile Money Limited is a private business entity 
specialized in money transfers (both electronic and manual). SPLASH was contracted by CRS 
to undertake direct cash delivery to all eligible participants at community level. Working with 
CRS and the CICs, they identified suitable cash delivery points (also known as pay points) 
taking into consideration distances from the communities that were expected to converge 
there for payment and the safety of the locations. The evaluation found that most of the 
communities were within walking distances (mostly within 3km) from each payment, with few 
exceptions where participants had to walk 4 – 5 km on average. 
Cash transferred to participants was normally credited into a SPLASH bank account three 
days prior to distribution date. SPLASH withdrew the cash within this period and made all 
necessary arrangements to get their staff at the pay point on time each payday. The evaluation 
found that SPLASH did a good job in ensuring that all participants received their cash. 
However, on some occasions SPLASH agents did not arrive on time at pay points and this 
delayed payments. In some cases, according to participants, SPLASH staff were at the pay 
point before participants arrived, which reduced waiting time observed by participants at the 
pay points. The CRS-SPLASH partnership enhanced the achievement of results in the areas 
of safe cash handling (because of their expertise), reduced waiting time at pay point and 
allowing CRS more time to concentrate on other project activities. 
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is the statutory body responsible for fighting all forms 
of corruption in Sierra Leone. Over the years, they have built a reputation for digging out 
corrupt officials in both the public and private sectors and prosecuting them in the high court
of Sierra Leone. The ACC supported all aspects of the project with monitoring to ensure the 
integrity of the process was maintained. They frequently aired anti-corruption messages and 
held town hall meetings with communities where they sensitized them on the dangers of 
corruption and their role in mitigating it. The evaluation also found that the ACC oversaw the 
Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM), which comprised of an ACC hotline, CRS hotline and 
suggestion boxes at community level for participants and anybody to bring up issues of 
concern (e.g. grievances, complaints, suggestions etc.)
The ACC-CRS partnership helped enhance the transparency and accountability levels of the 
entire process, especially registration and cash transfer exercises. Notwithstanding the above 
successes, the evaluation noted that there were few challenges with the GRM, especially the 
ACC hotline. FGD participants in few communities raised the issues of language barrier when 
they sometimes called and the slow response time to address their concerns. 
Other key collaborating partners were MoSWGCA, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food 
Security (MAFFS), Ministry of Health and Sanitation represented by the District Health 
Management Team (DHMT) and the Kenema District Council (KDC). All four partners were 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
44 
involved in joint monitoring of program implementation. In addition, MAFFS conducted 
trainings for both CRS staff and participants on improved agronomic practices while DHMT 
conducted trainings for both CRS staff and participants on good nutrition behavior and hygiene 
practices. The evaluation found that these three collaborating partnerships helped greatly in 
ensuring that staffs and participants understood the link between food security and good 
agronomic practices and hygiene behavior. This enabled staff to ensure participants engaged 
in agriculture and practice basic hygiene like hand washing at key times. Furthermore, 
participants learned to prepare food in clean environment, the importance of dietary diversity, 
backyard gardening etc. The evaluation found that most participants are demonstrating these 
basic training concepts. This can be seen in the impact section of the report. 
 Coordination
The EFSA was coordinated at both district and national levels. This helped a lot to increase 
efficiency and learning. At national level, there is a Cash Transfer Working Group to which 
CRS, World Vision, Care International, Save the Children, and ACDI/VOCA are members. 
This group met on weekly basis to share ideas, lessons learned, challenges and successes. 
At district level, similar meetings were held among the same NGOs and concerned 
government agencies. 
In addition to these meetings, the evaluation found that CRS shared their work plans and 
progress reports with all collaborating partners to keep them abreast with the progress of 
implementation. The evaluation found that this level of coordination permitted all cash transfer 
working group members to maintain consistency in addressing the needs of the participants
and avoided duplication of resources in any one location. For instance, CRS was servicing 
Kenema district, Save the Children was servicing Kailahun, and World Vision was servicing 
Port Loko.
3.11 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
Monitoring of project implementation was done at two levels: internal and external.
Internally, the ten EFSA field staff members based in the chiefdoms were the first line of 
monitors. The evaluation found that they were primarily engaged in monthly routine home 
visits to collect information on how participants were utilizing the cash transferred to them. 
They checked on whether households were spending more money on food or not, whether 
they were eating diversified foods and whether they were practicing good hygiene behavior. 
Added to this was the conduct of quarterly post distribution monitoring (PDM) after each cash 
distribution. The evaluation found that these monitoring exercises were regularly conducted 
and detailed information gathered and analyzed as evidenced by the routine monitoring and 
PDM reports shared with the evaluation team as secondary sources. These community-based 
staff were also engaged in monthly market price monitoring of basic foodstuffs. It was the 
outcome of this monthly market price monitoring that led to the upward revision of the transfer 
amount between Phases I and II. 
At the management level, the Project Manager and the Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability 
and Learning (MEAL) team also conducted field visits to confirm some of the reports generated 
by the chiefdom-based staffs. This included home visits, cash distribution monitoring and face￾to-face interviews with chiefdom and community authorities and staffs. This data was analyzed 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
45 
and utilized in making project decisions. The project also had two compliance officers who 
were mainly responsible for ensuring that activities were in line with established procedures. 
They monitored on-site cash distributions to ascertain that every participant received the exact 
amount. They were also responsible for checking complaints, concerns and suggestions that 
came through the participant feedback mechanism. The evaluation found that these staff 
largely did a good job in these areas, because most FGD participants said their concerns were 
addressed swiftly, except for a few cases where concerns were addressed, but slowly. 
Additionally, with regard to ACC and CRS staff, the evaluation did not find any incidence 
corruption or malpractice of any form.
From the perception of participants, the evaluation found that most participants especially in 
Phase II (85.4%) are aware of a complaint body that they can report to, in instances of any 
unfair treatment. Anti-Corruption Commission and CRS project officers were the common 
complaint structures among others that the participants are mostly aware about. According to 
participants, particularly in Phase I (92.2) and Phase II (83.8), these structures are most often 
reached through suggestion boxes and/or telephone hotlines. As a form of transparency and 
accountability, almost all participants (over 95%) are aware that the EFSA cash is donated to 
them by CRS/USAID and that none of them could complain about ever given token or money 
for being registered to be incorporated into the EFSA intervention. 
Externally, all partners monitored the project either independently or jointly. It was found that 
even the donors, USAID/Food for Peace, did intermittent field visits to monitor implementation. 
Added to these direct field monitoring, project review meetings were held after each cash 
transfer and quarterly to discuss progress, challenges and way forward. Reports from these 
reviews were shared with all stakeholders. This further ensured that all stakeholders remotely 
monitor project implementation. 
Regarding evaluations, it was found that only Phase I of the project was evaluated at mid￾term. The report showed remarkable achievements on most of the key indicators. (See Phase 
I Midterm Evaluation Report). 
The evaluation team was also convinced that findings from monitoring and evaluation were 
utilized in project implementation. Two key examples include the additional pay points 
established after the midterm review and the upward review of transfer amount informed by 
monthly market price monitoring of basic foodstuffs.
3.12 Cross Cutting Issues: Gender Mainstreaming and Sustainability of Project 
Activities
3.12.1 Gender Mainstreaming
Despite the limited gender specific strategies integrated into the design of the intervention, the 
evaluation assessed the level of gender integration into the overall project implementation. It 
was noted that the Phase I design did not incorporate much of gender issues except that a 
minimum of 50% of the total participants were supposed to be women. This target was 
achieved and surpassed in the actual participant selection for both phases. However, the 
overall gender sensitivity was partly low in Phase I, due to a stronger focus on cash delivery 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
46 
activities in initial stages of the project. However, CRS learned about the need for stronger 
emphasis on gender mainstreaming in the project during the course of implementation. 
In Phase II, there was a considerable improvement in the incorporation of gender activities 
into the project. A gender focal person was recruited and dedicated to the EFSA and supported 
by the National Gender Advisor. The minimum 50% quota for female participants was 
maintained. The evaluation also found that specific gender trainings were conducted for both 
staff and participants on decision making regarding the use of cash received. 
In terms of decision making at household level, Figure 23 revealed good gender integration 
practices. The figure shows that on average, more joint decisions were found to be made at 
end line (27.7%) compared to the midline (8.5%). In Phase II, decision making by household 
heads was 15.2%, while joint decision making among participant households was much higher
at 34.3%. About 50% of Phase II respondents were engaged in decision making by 
themselves. This result is far better when compared to Phase I end line and its midline values. 
This shows that the EFSA contributed to these changes because of the specific gender 
trainings that were conducted for both staff and participants. Further evidence is shown by the 
difference between Phase II end line at 34.3% in locations where the intervention is currently 
ongoing and Phase I end line at 18.7%, where the intervention last ended almost a year ago. 
It was noted in focus group discussions that these gender incorporations helped greatly to 
reduce intra-household conflicts that would otherwise have erupted. 
Figure 23: % of Participant Household Decision Making on EFSA Cash Expenditure 
11.7
10.1
15.2
13.0
8.5
18.7
34.3
27.7
77.2
71.2
50.0
59.0
1.5
0.0
0.6
0.3
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mid-Term
Phase 1 Endline
Phase 2 Endline
All Total Endline
Percentage
Phase Stage
Other household member
Myself
Joint decision with me
Head of Household
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
47 
3.12.2 Sustainability of Project Activities
The EFSA was designed to be a ‘shock remover’ imposed by the EVD outbreak. Therefore, 
there wasn’t much sustainability measures introduced into the design, especially in Phase I. 
The evaluation did not find that any agency has opted to continue the cash transfer activities 
after the EFSA would have ended. Therefore, this will stop after the project ends. However, 
the complimentary packages that went with the cash transfer are the sustainability measures 
incorporated into both phases. This means participants of Phase I may only be partially 
prepared to face future shocks because they were exposed only to good nutrition practices. 
However, a mitigation factor here is that Phase I participants were also given the one-off 
payment for seeds and agricultural labor and the evaluation noted that all of them used the 
money to engage in some form of agricultural activities which is expected to continue when 
the ESFA ends. Phase II participants, were exposed to all the complementary package 
activities. Therefore, it is expected that they are better prepared to face future shocks because 
of their enhanced knowledge in basic agronomic practices, sound nutrition and hygiene 
awareness and financial literacy. The evaluation further noted that most participants have 
organized themselves into agricultural and saving groups. With these, they are sure of 
accessing group labor and credits long after the EFSA ends. These groups will be linked with 
MAFFS for further support in the future.
In terms of participant perceptions about the future, the evaluation assessed the efforts and 
future plans participants have put in place to ensure continuity of the EFSA project activities 
and as well maintaining the EFSA cash. Figure 24 below presents these findings. Overall 
results show that over 73% of respondents reported to have in one way or the other put 
mechanisms in place to have the EFSA maintained and/or activities continued in the future. 
This belief still holds across phases. About 59.9% of respondent households in Phase I believe
that they can continue with what the EFSA intervention has enabled them to do even after the 
project ends. In Phase II, a higher proportion of participant households (82.9%) believe that 
they are ready to continue the current activities they are engaged in as a safeguard against
future shocks. This means a higher proportion of households in Phase I (40.1%) do not believe 
they can maintain most of the activities when the project would have ended. This is due to the 
fact that less attention was given to some of the sustainability activities, such as agronomic 
practices, in Phase I compared to the intensity in Phase II. 
59.9
82.9
73.1
40.1
17.1
26.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Percentage(%)
Phases
Yes
No
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
48 
Figure 24: % of Participant Belief in Continuity of Project Activities in the future
The evaluation went further to assess the various kinds of activities participants have 
undertaken to ensure continuity of project activities when they will no longer be receiving cash. 
On average, findings in Figure 25 show that over 73% of participant households have 
embarked on agricultural crop farming, followed by petty trading (33.4%), group savings (30%) 
and livestock farming (11.6%). These are similar across both phases. Respondent households 
in the two phases are now engaged in agriculture (52.1% for Phase I and 89% for Phase II), 
petty trading (35.6% for Phase I and 31.8% for Phase II) and group savings (38.6% for Phase 
I and 23.8% for Phase II). The figure shows that more households in Phase II are engaged in 
agriculture than those in Phase I. Similar sustainability measures are employed by both male 
and female participants. 
The strategy employed by CRS to enhance this sustainability effort has been to link the 
participants within agricultural and saving groups with MAFFS. How this linkage will be 
monitored over time to ensure its viability remains critical. If it does not work, then there is a 
threat to sustainability.
Figure 25: % of Activities Undertaken by Participants to Sustain or Maintain the EFSA Cash 
Received (Multiple Responses)
38.6
1.9
35.6
3.7
52.1
1.9
23.8
15.2
31.8
17.4
89
2.5
30.0
9.5
33.4
11.6
73.3
2.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Joined Osusu/SILC
Saved some
Doing petty trade
Invested in livestock
Invested in crop Farming
Others
Percentage(%)
Activities
All Total
Phase 2
Phase 1
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
49 
4.0 Lessons Learned, Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Lessons Learned
 Cash Transfers are very effective in assisting vulnerable communities recover quickly from 
emergencies, as we can see by the significantly improved HDDS and HHS scores among 
both Phase I and Phase II. Comparing Phase I to Phase II beneficiaries is useful to better 
understand how the intervention affects two different groups. The slightly poorer 
performance among Phase I beneficiaries’ relative to Phase II at endline is likely due to 
the following factors:
• Phase II beneficiaries received considerably more complementary services 
(nutrition, financial management and agricultural trainings and accompaniment). 
Such wrap around services may have been the reason for the improved outcomes 
among Phase II beneficiaries. 
• Phase II beneficiaries were also less vulnerable than those in Phase I therefore 
they had more advantages to support their recovery. This would indicate that 
benefits from cash transfers to the most vulnerable that are not accompanied by a 
similar quantity of wrap around services (whatever is appropriate to the context—
in this case it was nutrition, financial management and agricultural trainings) are 
limited in their duration, as the cash is an effective emergency life-saving measure 
but cannot substitute for the capacity strengthening and networking opportunities 
with government officials and future business associates. 
• In addition, Phase I beneficiaries were more vulnerable in terms of their remote 
locations making it more difficult for them to leverage the cash for more sustained 
results. Another evaluation of Phase II beneficiaries in a year’s time would also 
help determine the extent to which Phase II beneficiaries sustain the gains they 
made. 
 Establishing the right partnerships with state and non-state actors adds special value to 
quick – impact – projects like cash transfer projects. The presence of NaCSA, ACC and 
CICs added integrity and visibility to the whole process. This has led to greater community 
acceptability of the project activities.
 NaCSA had less capacity than expected to support geographical targeting and enabling 
timely registration of beneficiaries in October 2015. If the capacity of NaCSA had been 
assessed in time, remedial plans could have been determined in advance including a plan 
to provide GIS capacity strengthening to NaCSA.
 When the right participant targeting is done, cash interventions could have a very positive 
effect on the daily lives of the participants. Their food security situation, as measured by 
the HDDS and HHS, will be significantly improved in the shortest possible time. 
 The private sector engagement with Splash Mobile Money Ltd made it possible to conduct 
payments in very remote communities with little or no mobile network coverage or local 
banks. In the absence of effective mobile technology, a well-deployed and monitored 
offline cash transfer project can adequately replace the technology-based cash transfers. 
However, the engagement of community banks would have helped increase financial 
inclusion for farmer groups in the long-term.
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
50 
 When the income of households increases, they are motivated to increase their 
expenditure on other important items that were not previously prioritized as expenditure 
items when there was less or no income in the household. The EFSP cash expenditure 
patterns seem to be contrary to the expectations of the EFSP intervention that, at the end 
of the intervention, 70% of the EFSP cash received by households would be spent on food 
items. However, the observed decrease in EFSP cash expenditure on food (57%) was 
compensated for by expenditures on education, health care, agriculture and savings.
4.2 Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the findings highlighted above, the evaluation concludes the following:
1. The EFSA intervention was implemented and monitored effectively. As a result, the 
food security situation of the target participants has been appreciably improved as 
recorded by the changes in the key food security indicators (HHS, HDDS, FCS, RCSI). 
The intervention was therefore largely successful in achieving its intended purpose. 
2. The processes, systems and strategies employed were effective in enhancing the 
achievement of results.
3. The sustainability of project activities is highly dependent upon the continued 
commitment of the devolved government institutions (MAFFS, DHMT, NaCSA and 
KDC) that CRS partnered with in the implementation of the EFSA. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
51 
Recommendations 
Presented below are the recommendations. The government of Sierra Leone, being one of 
the primary audiences of this report, who will be contributing to the sustained support to the 
farmers groups and households now that the EFSA intervention has ended. To this end, some 
of the key recommendations presented below are directed to the government of Sierra Leone.
 The average meal frequency of households per day has been improved to an average 
of 2 meals due to the intervention. There is need for this figure to reach a minimum of 
3 for better nutrition outcomes. Therefore, the Government of Sierra Leone through 
the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, represented by the District Health Management 
Team (DHMT) and other related community structures should continue sensitizing and 
monitoring on-going programs on nutrition and hygiene with other implementing
partners. The Ministries of agriculture and health should work together to strengthen 
the farmer groups and their Peer Educators and Lead Farmers so that they can 
continue supporting nutrition and hygiene activities after the end of the project. 
 The evaluation found that Phase I beneficiaries dramatically increased their dietary 
diversity through the cash and the nutrition trainings. The advances made by Phase
II beneficiaries were more difficult to detect because the endline was done during the 
rainy season when produce diversity is more restricted. Still, the change brought to 
Phase I beneficiaries by the nutrition trainings indicates that the Government of Sierra 
Leone, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) should 
undertake regular sensitizations on the benefits of backyard gardening and the 
importance of eating diverse foods to help improve their nutritional status rather than 
selling them. In addition, MAFFS block extension officers should continue monitoring 
the participants who were trained in post-harvest management technology to ensure 
they continue to employ it in their farming activities. They should also provide technical 
assistance where necessary. 
 The cash transfer process was largely appreciated by the participants (monitoring 
strategies employed, types of partnerships created, distances covered, waiting time, 
safety at pay points, etc.). The strategies employed to achieve these must be 
maintained by CRS in similar future interventions.
 The Government should work on community market access roads to increase market 
access to target communities. This would in turn help increase household income and 
sustain the food security outcomes of the project. This was a factor in why Phase II 
beneficiaries were better off than those in more remote areas served in Phase I.
 In the future, some part capacity assessment should be done before relying on national 
partners to undertake certain technical aspects of the intervention. If possible, CRS 
should build or lobby with other agencies to build NaCSA’s capacity in geo-targeting, 
noting that they are responsible for addressing social protection and other vulnerability 
issues in the country.
 The Government should support the local banks and telecommunication companies to 
increase outreach services to the rural poor. The new businesses of Phase II 
beneficiaries would greatly benefit from such improved services. 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
52 
References 
1. Andrew, Garth. 2008. Analyzing data using SPSS: A practical guide for those unfortunate 
enough to have to actually do it. Sheffield Hallam University
2. Ballard, Terri; Coates, Jennifer; Swindale, Anne; and Deitchler, Megan. 2011. Household 
Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition and Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: FANTA-2 
Bridge, FHI 360
3. Bamberger, M., Rugh, J. & Mabry, L., 2012. RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under 
Budget, Time, Data, and Political Constraints. (Second edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
4. BRACE, N., KEMP, R. & SNEGLAR, R. 2000. SPSS for Psychologists. Macmillan press
5. CARE International, 2009. Guidelines for the implementation of Baseline study for 
women’s empowerment programmes funded by Norad (2009 - 2013)
6. Kennedy, Gina; Ballard, Terri; and Dop, MarieClaude. 2013. Guidelines for Measuring 
Household and Individual Dietary Diversity. EC-FAO “Linking Information and Decision 
Making to Improve Food Security” Programme.
7. Lind, D. A., Marchal, W. G. and Mason, R. D. 2002. Statistical Techniques in Business 
and Economics. 11th Ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc
8. Magnani, R., 1999. Sampling guide. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project 
(FANTA) and Academy for Educational development. The document can be downloaded 
from www.fantaproject.org
9. Maxwell, D., and Caldwell. R, 2008. Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual. A 
Tool for Rapid Measurement of Household Food Security and the Impact of Food Aid 
Programs in Humanitarian Emergencies. Second Edition, Cooperative for Assistance 
and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE)..
10. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) or the Agenda for Prosperity (PRSP III – 
2013-2018)
11. Sierra Leone Demographic and Health Survey (2013) 
12. Sierra Leone National Ebola Recovery Plan (2015 – 2017)
13. Sierra Leone World Food Programme (WFP) Comprehensive Food Security Vulnerability 
Assessment (CSFVA), 2015. 
14. Stukel, Diana; and Deitchler, Megan. 2012. Addendum to FANTA Sampling Guide by 
Robert Magnani (1999): Correction to Section 3.3.1 Determining the Number of 
Households That Need to be Contacted. Washington, DC: FHI 360/ FANTA.
15. Swindale, Anne, and Paula Bilinsky. 2006. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) 
for Measurement of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v.2). Washington, D.C.: 
FHI 360/FANTA.
16. WFP, 2008. Food Consumption Analysis: Calculation and Use of the Food Consumption 
Score in Food Security Analysis. Technical Guidance Sheet on Vulnerability Analysis 
and Mapping 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
53 
Appendices
Appendix A: Expected Results and Indicators with Targets, Baseline and Midline 
 values and Progress for Phases 1 & 2 of the EFSP
Expected Results and Indicators
No. Indicators Target Baseline End line Remarks
1a Prevalence of HHs 
with severe or 
moderate hunger 
(Severe + Moderate)
50% 
reduction 97.9% 21.8%
Determined for only 
Phase II due to data 
inadequacy for Phase 
I 
b. Prevalence of HHs 
with severe hunger - 13.6% 1.1%
Determined for only 
Phase II due to data 
inadequacy for Phase 
I
c. Prevalence of HHs 
with moderate 
hunger - 84.3% 20.7%
Determined for only 
Phase II due to data 
inadequacy for Phase 
I 
2 Average HH dietary 
diversity score 
(Outcome)
- 2.3 6.4 - Phase I
- 7.7 6.6 - Phase II
3 Percent of targeted 
female headed HHs 
reporting satisfaction 
with at least 2 of 3 
categories 
(appropriate amount; 
degree of difficulty 
with the process, 
wait time)
- 0% 95.3% - 
4 Percent of targeted 
male headed HHs 
reporting satisfaction 
with at least 2 of 3 
categories 
(appropriate amount; 
degree of difficulty 
with the process, 
wait time) (Outcome)
- 0% 99.0% - 
5 Percent of monthly 
cash transfer spent 
on food
70% 0% 50.7%
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
54 
6 Percent of monthly 
cash transfer spent 
on non - food items 
(by category of 
expenditure 
healthcare, 
education, debt 
repayment/ 
financing, savings, 
transportation, other)
30% 0% 49.3%
7
The total number of 
households with 
HDDS =>5
- 25% 61.8% 
Phase I
- 94% 91.2% Phase II
8
The total number of 
households with 
HDDS = 0-4 
- 75% 38.2%
Phase I
6% 8.8% Phase II
9 Percentage of 
project participants 
that report practicing 
at least 3 of 5 good 
agricultural practices
- 68% 94.2% Phase II
10 Percentage of
participants who can 
site the 5 main 
classes of food.
- 17% 55.3% Phase II
11 Percent of 
households with 
soap and water at a 
hand washing station 
commonly used by 
family members.
- 12% 61.9% Phase II
12 Price per kg of key staples (rice, palm oil and beans) in targeted area
Rice 3480 - 5,120
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
55 
Common Cooking 
Salt 750 - 3,760 While prices of these 
key commodities 
increased, CRS also 
increased the amount 
of cash to participants 
to enable them cope 
with the increases. In 
addition, substitute 
foods such as beans 
and potatoes and 
cassava are also 
available to the 
participants mainly 
from own production
Fish (Bonga) 12,000 - 16,000
Maggie Cube - - x
Onion - 
- x
13 Number of participants reached (disaggregated by sex and age)
Girls under 10yrs
26,662
2,198
23,823
Less participants 
reached due to low 
population levels 
(Based on CRS 
Participant data)
Girls 10 – 17yrs “ 
4,100
Women 18yrs + “ 6,357
Boys under 10yrs “
2,722
Boys 10 – 17yrs “ 3,000
Men 18yrs + “ 5,446
14 Number of EVD-affected HHs receiving cash transfers (by gender and 
age of HH head)
Women under 20yrs
4,437
121
4,437
Women 21 – 30yrs “ 736
Women 31 – 50yrs “ 1,381
Women 51yrs + “ 1,299
Men under 20yrs “ 14
Men 21 – 30yrs “ 103
Men 31 – 50yrs “ 359
Men 51yrs + “ 424
15 Total value of cash 
transfers distributed 
to targeted 
households (by cycle 
and over life of the 
project)
$1,331,100 “ $1,203,710
Less paid out due to 
depreciation of the 
Leone
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
56 
Expected Results and Indicators: Additional for Phase II
No. Indicators Target Baseline End line Remarks
17 Percentage of 
households that 
increased their 
assets as 
measured on the 
proxy means test 
by 15% or more
25% 28% 81%
This measurement
is based on 
increase in 
household savings 
as the proxy 
indicator
18 Price per kg of key staples (rice, palm oil and beans) in targeted area While prices of 
these key 
commodities 
increased, CRS 
also increased the 
amount of cash to 
participants to 
enable them cope 
with the increases. 
In addition, 
substitute foods 
such as beans and 
potatoes and 
cassava are also 
available to the 
participants mainly 
from own 
production
Rice 3480 - 5,120
Common Cooking 
Salt 750 - 3,760
Fish (Bonga) 12000 - 16,000
Maggie Cube 2,000 - 4,000
Onion 2,000
- 3,120
18 Number of participants reached (disaggregated by sex and age)
Girls under 10yrs
26,662
4170
22, 948
Less participants 
reached due to low 
population levels
(Based on CRS 
participant data)
Girls 10 – 17yrs “ 6000
Women 18yrs + “ 8,347
Boys under 10yrs “ 994
Boys 10 – 17yrs “ 1,200
Men 18yrs + “ 2237
19 Number of EVD-affected HHs receiving cash transfers (by gender and 
age of HH head)
Women under 
20yrs 163 5,252 815 additional 
HHs reached Women 21 – 30yrs 1,174
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
57 
Women 31 – 50yrs 
4,437
1,912
Women 51yrs + 1,010
Men under 20yrs 9
Men 21 – 30yrs 163
Men 31 – 50yrs 471
Men 51yrs + 350
20 Total value of cash 
transfers 
distributed to 
targeted 
households (by 
cycle and over life 
of the project)
$1,197,990.00 $ 1,310,955
More spent due to 
815 additional HHs 
reached
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
58 
Appendix B1: Results from Statistical Test of Significance
Test Results on Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
One Sample Test for Endline Phase I with Baseline Phase I HDDS value (2.3) as 
parameter
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Av HDDS 267 6.14 3.475 .213
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 2.3
t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean 
Difference
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference
Lower Upper
Av HDDS 18.050 266 .000 3.839 3.42 4.26
One Sample Test for Endline Phase II with HDDS Baseline Phase II HDDS value 
(7.7) as parameter
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Av HDDS 362 6.63 2.095 .110
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 7.7
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the 
Difference
Lower Upper
Av HDDS -9.743 361 .000 -1.073 -1.29 -.86
Two Sample Test for Endline Phase I & Phase II
Group Statistics
Phase of EFSP N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Av HDDS Phase I 267 6.14 3.475 .213
Phase II 362 6.63 2.095 .110
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for 
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean 
Difference
Std. Error 
Difference
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference
Lower Upper
Av 
HDDS
Equal variances 
assumed 89.103 .000 -2.189 627 .029 -.488 .223 -.927 -.050
Equal variances 
not assumed -2.040 406.251 .042 -.488 .239 -.959 -.018
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
59 
Test Results on Household Hunger Scale (HHS)
Two Sample T-test for Significance difference between Phase II Baseline and 
Phase II Endline Group Statistics
Endline or Baseline N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Sum HHS Baseline 381 3.18 .856 .044
Endline 362 1.31 .647 .034
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for 
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean 
Difference
Std. Error 
Difference
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference
Lower Upper
Sum 
HHS
Equal variances 
assumed .031 .861 33.482 741 .000 1.872 .056 1.762 1.981
Equal variances 
not assumed 33.716 705.948 .000 1.872 .056 1.763 1.981
Two Sample T-tests for Significance difference between Endline Phase I & 
Endline Phase II
Group Statistics
EFSA Phase N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Total HHS Phase I 267 1.94 1.013 .062
Phase II 362 1.31 .647 .034
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for 
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean 
Difference
Std. Error 
Difference
95% Confidence 
Interval of the 
Difference
Lower Upper
Total 
HHS
Equal variances 
assumed 121.153 .000 9.503 627 .000 .631 .066 .500 .761
Equal variances 
not assumed 8.917 422.174 .000 .631 .071 .492 .770
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
60 
Appendix B2: List of Evaluation Team members
No. Name Designation
1 Baimba Abdulai Koroma Team Leader (Food Security and Cash 
Transfer Evaluation Expert)
2 Momoh Thomas Bockarie Socio-economist and Livelihood Expert
3 Sinna Massaquoi Agriculture and Gender Expert
4 Salieu A. Swaray Field supervisor
5 Alusine Festus Amara Field supervisor
6 Brima Kallon Field supervisor
7 Foday Sellu Jr. Field supervisor
8 Maada Musa Koroma Field supervisor
9 Jesse Yamba Online Kobo Mobile-based Data Collection
Platform System Designer
10 Esther Kai-Sesay Enumerator
11 Haja M. Musa Enumerator
12 Bockarie Abdulai Sylvanus Enumerator
13 Frederick M. Tamu Enumerator
14 Samuel Kamara Enumerator
15 Dauda Brima Enumerator
16 Isata Wai Enumerator
17 Amara Kallon Enumerator
18 Steven Kamara Enumerator
19 Sheku Koroma Enumerator
20 Hasanatu Amara Enumerator
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
61 
Appendix C: Analytical Tables
Table 1: Summary of Respondents’ Category and Response Rate
Respondent Type Expected and Actual Number of Tools Administered 
Questionnaire KIIs FGDs
Expecte
d 
Actual Expected
Actua
l 
Expecte
d 
Actual
Cash Participant 605 629 - - 22 22
Local Council - - 1 1 - -
MAFFS Reps - - 1 1 - -
Community Chiefs - - 22 22 - -
Anti-Corruption 
Commission - - 1 1 - - 
Community Identification 
Committees (CICs) - - 22 22
NaCSA - - 1 1 - -
SPLASH - - 2 2 - -
CRS Programme 
Management Staff - - 4 4 - - 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
62 
Table 2: Household Demographic Characteristics
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 ALL TOTAL
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
Age of Respondent
<18 yrs. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.2
18 – 24 yrs. 3 4.1 7 3.6 10 3.7 0 0.0 36 12.2 36 9.9 3 2.1 43 8.8 46 7.3
25 – 49 yrs. 36 48.6 105 54.4 141 52.8 46 68.7 190 64.4 236 65.2 82 58.2 295 60.5 377 59.9
50yrs and 
above
35 47.3 81 42.0 116 43.4 21 31.3 68 23.1 89 24.6 56 39.7 149 30.5 205 32.6
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0 141 100.0 488 100.0 629 100.0
Highest Level of Education attained by Respondents
No formal 
education
62 187 249 41 248 289 103 435 538
Primary 3 4 7 11 34 45 14 38 52
JSS 3 2 5 4 8 12 7 10 17
SSS 3 0 3 3 4 7 6 4 10
Koranic education 3 0 3 6 0 6 9 0 9
others 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 67 295 281 141 488 629
Household Head as Beneficiaries (Are you the household head?)
Yes 73 165 238 66 168 234 139 333 472
No 1 28 29 1 127 128 2 155 157
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 67 295 281 141 488 629
Sex of Household Head
Male 74 22 96 66 127 193 140 149 289
Female 0 171 171 1 168 169 1 339 340
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 67 295 281 141 488 629
Age of Household Head
18-24yrs 3 5 8 0 11 11 3 16 19
25-49yrs 37 101 138 46 177 223 83 278 361
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
63 
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 ALL TOTAL
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
50yrs and Above 34 87 121 21 107 128 55 194 249
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 67 295 281 141 488 629
Highest Level of Education attained by Household Head
JSS 3 1 4 3 10 13 6 11 17
Koranic education 1 2 3 6 24 30 7 26 33
No education 63 184 247 43 227 270 106 411 517
Primary 4 4 8 10 27 37 14 31 45
SSS 3 1 4 3 4 7 6 5 11
Technical 
Vocational
0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2
College/University 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Others 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 3
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 67 295 281 141 488 629
Table 3: Average Household Size
Phase I Phase II All Total
≈Average Household Size 5.93 5.76 5.83
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
64 
Table 4: Livelihoods and Income Sources
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total %
Employment Status of Household Head
Employed (In formal 
institution)
0 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 4
Self employed 80 36 116 195 39 234 275 75 350
Unemployed 113 38 151 96 28 124 209 66 275
Primary income sources
Cash Received 
from EFSP
11 2 13 1 0 1 12 2 14
Crop farming 159 71 230 278 67 345 437 138 575
Livestock Farming 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2
Others 5 0 0 5 0 5 10 0 10
Petty trading 17 0 17 2 0 2 19 0 19
Begging 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
Casual labour 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
Mining and 
quarrying
0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3
Salaried job 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 0 4
Table 5: Average Normal Household Expenditure Pattern
Food
Health
care
Educatio
n
Agricultur
e
Transpor
t
Saving
s
Debt 
Repaymen
t
Ceremon
ies
Phase I 17.34 3.24 2.30 4.72 0.73 0.68 0.32 0.42
Phase II 16.77 2.77 2.85 4.18 0.74 1.53 0.64 0.46
All Total 17.01 2.97 2.62 4.41 0.74 1.17 0.50 0.45
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
65 
Table 6: Household Hunger Scale
Household Hunger Scale
Household Hunger Categories
Phase 
Total
Phase One 
Endline
Phase Two 
Endline
Household 
Hunger 
Categories
Little to no hunger Count 127 283 410
% within Phase 
beneficiary for EFSA 47.6% 78.2% 65.2%
Moderate hunger Count 123 75 198
% within Phase 
beneficiary for EFSA 46.1% 20.7% 31.5%
Severe hunger Count 17 4 21
% within Phase 
beneficiary for EFSA 6.4% 1.1% 3.3%
Total Count 267 362 629
% within Phase 
beneficiary for EFSA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
66 
Table 7: Variety of Food Groups Consumed by Households (Multiple Responses)
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n= 193 n=267 n= 67 n=295 n=362 n=629
Phase 1 Phase 
2 
All 
Total
Cereals 62 83.8 173 89.6 235 88.0 67 100 295 100 362 100.0 597 94.9
Roots or tubers 51 68.9 156 80.8 207 77.5 65 97 285 96.6 350 96.7 557 88.6
Vegetables 47 63.5 97 50.3 144 53.9 65 97 285 96.6 350 96.7 494 78.5
Fruits 42 56.8 95 49.2 137 51.3 54 80.6 238 80.7 292 80.7 429 68.2
Meat, poultry, and other organ 
meats 23 31.1 57 29.5 80 30.0 24 35.8 96 32.5 120 33.1 200 31.8
Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 64 86.5 150 77.7 214 80.1 64 95.5 282 95.6 346 95.6 560 89.0
Pulses/Legumes/Nuts 22 29.7 59 30.6 81 30.3 16 23.9 70 23.7 86 23.8 167 26.6
Dietary (milk and milk 
products) 6 8.1 37 19.2 43 16.1 3 4.5 36 12.2 39 10.8 82 13.0
Oil/fats 13 17.6 51 26.4 64 24.0 23 34.3 86 29.2 109 30.1 173 27.5
Eggs 21 28.4 56 29 77 28.8 7 10.4 45 15.3 52 14.4 129 20.5
Sugar or honey 41 55.4 129 66.8 170 63.7 28 41.8 91 30.8 119 32.9 289 45.9
Miscellaneous (condiments, 
coffee, tea, etc) 45 60.8 136 70.5 181 67.8 38 56.7 136 46.1 174 48.1 355 56.4
Table 8: Average Household Dietary Diversity by Category
Baseline 
Phase 1 %
Baseline 
Phase 2 %
Endline 
Phase 1 %
Endline 
Phase 2 %
0-4 3327 75.0 298 6.0 111 38.2 32 8.8
≥5 1110 25.0 5028 94.0 165 61.8 330 91.2
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
67 
Reduced Coping Strategies Index
Table 9a: Days in Last Week Households have to rely on Less Preferred/Expensive Food
Days PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
0 8 23 31 22 103 125
1 34 63 97 15 70 85
2 25 66 91 23 71 94
3 5 34 39 5 41 46
4 1 3 4 1 5 6
5 0 1 1 0 3 3
6 0 3 3 1 0 1
7 1 0 1 0 2 2
Table 9b: Days in Last Week Households have to Borrow Food or Rely on help from Friends and Relatives 
Days PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
0 29 75 104 37 175 212
1 16 48 64 14 59 73
2 17 47 64 9 47 56
3 9 14 23 6 12 18
4 1 5 6 0 0 0
5 0 3 3 1 1 2
6 2 0 2 0 1 1
7 0 1 1 0 0 0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
68 
Table 9c: Days in Last Week Households have to reduce the Portion Size of Meals
Days PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
0 3 21 24 27 120 147
1 23 42 65 14 55 69
2 33 80 113 21 83 104
3 8 34 42 4 28 32
4 3 9 12 1 5 6
5 1 4 5 0 3 3
6 2 3 5 0 1 1
7 1 0 1 0 0 0
Table 9d: Days in Last Week Adult Households Members have to Reduce the Quantities of Food to have Children Eat
Days PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
0 6 23 29 33 134 167
1 27 47 74 21 64 85
2 25 83 108 7 56 63
3 7 28 35 4 22 26
4 2 4 6 2 14 16
5 3 4 7 0 2 2
6 1 3 4 0 1 1
7 3 1 4 0 2 2
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
69 
Table 9e: Days in Last Week Households have to Reduce the Number of Meals Eaten per day
Days PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
0 8 32 40 29 130 159
1 19 52 71 16 61 77
2 25 73 98 19 80 99
3 13 20 33 3 17 20
4 2 5 7 0 4 4
5 1 4 5 0 1 1
6 2 2 4 0 1 1
7 4 5 9 0 1 1
MEAL FREQUENCY
Table 10: Type of Meals Prepared within the last 24hrs before the Survey 
(Multiple Responses)
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male
n=74
% Female
n= 193
% Total
n=267
% Male
n= 
67
% Female
n=295
% Total
n=362
%
Fruits 63 85.1 165 85.5 228 85.4 61 91.0 270 91.5 331 91.4
Vegetables 74 100.0 190 98.4 264 98.9 67 100.0 292 99.0 359 99.2
Carbohydrates 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Proteins 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 65 97.0 294 99.7 359 99.2
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
70 
Table 11: The EFSA Cash Utilization
Food Health Education Agriculture Transport Savings
Debt 
Repayment Ceremonies Housing Clothes/Celebration
Phase 
1 16.5 3.4 2.2 5.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1
Phase 
2 13.9 2.9 3.1 6.3 0.6 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.4
All 
Total 15.0 3.1 2.7 6.0 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3
Table 12: Capacity Building Training on Nutrition
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
Receive training from CRS on nutrition
Yes 67 90.5 185 95.9 252 94.4 66 98.5 284 96.3 350 96.7 602 95.7
No 7 9.5 8 4.1 15 5.6 1 1.5 11 3.7 12 3.3 27 4.3
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Currently applying the training knowledge in making household diet/nutrition decision
Yes 65 97 177 95.7 242 96 65 98.5 264 92.9 329 94 571 94.9
No 2 3 8 4.3 10 4 1 1.5 20 7.1 21 6 31 5.1
Total 67 100 185 100 252 100 66 100 284 100 350 100 602 100.0
Main classes of food known by beneficiaries 
n=67 n=185 n=252 n=66 n=284 n=350 n=602
Water 40 59.7 74 40 114 45.2 53 80.3 206 72.5 259 74 373 62.0
Minerals and 
Vitamins
17 25.4 38 20.5 55 21.8 46 69.7 212 74.6 258 73.7
313 52.0
Fats and Oils 53 79.1 152 82.2 205 81.3 50 75.8 230 81 280 80 485 80.6
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
71 
Carbohydrates 71 106 181 97.8 252 100 66 100 284 100 350 100 602 100.0
Protein 60 89.6 176 95.1 236 93.7 62 93.9 281 98.9 349 99.7 585 97.2
Table 13: Capacity Building Training on Hygiene Behaviour
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total % Freq %
Receive training from CRS on hygiene behaviour
Yes 67 90.5 185 95.9 252 94.4 66 98.5 287 97.3 353 97.5 605 96.2
No 7 9.5 8 4.1 15 5.6 1 1.5 8 2.7 9 2.5 24 3.8
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Currently applying the hygiene knowledge in household 
Yes 64 95.5 166 89.7 230 91.3 66 100 283 98.6 349 98.9 579 95.7
No 3 4.5 19 10.3 22 8.7 0 0 4 1.4 4 1.1 26 4.3
Total 67 100 185 100 252 100 66 100 287 100 353 100 605 100.0
Do you wash your hands regularly?
Yes 61 82.4 129 66.8 190 71.2 66 98.5 283 95.9 349 96.4 539 85.7
No 13 17.6 64 33.2 77 28.8 1 1.5 12 4.1 13 3.6 90 14.3
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Critical moment for hand washing during the day
n=61 n=129 n=190 n=66 n=283 n=349 n=539
After cleaning 
children feaces
47 77 99 76.7 146 76.8 31 47 103 36.4 134 38.4
280 51.9
When you think 
your hands are not 
clean
42 68.9 98 76 140 73.7 50 75.8 203 71.7 253 72.5
393 72.9
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
72 
Before eating 61 100 129 100 190 100 60 90.9 213 75.3 273 78.2 463 85.9
Before food 
preparation
48 78.7 113 87.6 161 84.7 29 43.9 181 64 210 60.2
371 68.8
After visiting the 
toilet
61 100 129 100 190 100 65 98.5 274 96.8 339 97.1
529 98.1
Others 0 0 6 4.7 6 3.2 0 0 2 0.7 2 0.6 8 1.5
Availability of water at place of hand washing
Water is available 32 43.2 70 36.3 102 38.2 50 74.6 200 67.8 250 69.1 352 56.0
Water is not 
available
42 56.8 123 63.7 165 61.8 17 25.4 95 32.2 112 30.9
277 44.0
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Availability of soap or detergent or locally used cleaning agent at place of hand washing
None 47 63.5 140 72.5 187 70 14 20.9 78 26.4 92 25.4 279 44.4
Bar soap 27 36.5 51 26.4 78 29.2 37 55.2 110 37.3 147 40.6 225 35.8
Detergent 
(powder/liquid/past)
0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11.9 53 18 61 16.9
61 9.7
Liquid soap 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 45 15.3 51 14.1 51 8.1
Ash 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.4 2 3 9 3.1 11 3 12 1.9
Others (Specify) 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
73 
Table 14a: Capacity Building Training on Good Agronomic Practices
PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total %
Receive training from CRS on Agricultural practices
Yes 66 98.5 285 96.6 351 97.0
No 1 1.5 10 3.4 11 3.0
Total 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Name of five agricultural practices participants learnt about in the training (Figure 13)
n=66 n=285 n=351
Brushing 64 97.0 278 97.5 342 97.4
Clearing 65 98.5 269 94.4 334 95.2
Weeding 64 97.0 276 96.8 340 96.9
Padding or breaking soils clods 53 80.3 231 81.1 284 80.9
Leveling or smoothening 52 78.8 227 79.6 279 79.5
Others 4 6.1 25 8.8 29 8.3
Currently applying the training knowledge to make any agricultural farming decision 
Yes 66 100.0 283 99.3 349 99.4
No 0 0.0 2 0.7 2 0.6
Total 66 100.0 285 100.0 351 100.0
Agricultural practices participants are currently doing
n=66 n=285 n=351
Brushing 56 84.8 220 77.2 276 78.6
Clearing 55 83.3 209 73.3 264 75.2
Weeding 60 90.9 250 87.7 310 88.3
Padding or breaking soils clods 40 60.6 176 61.8 216 61.5
Leveling or smoothening 42 63.6 178 62.5 220 62.7
Others 8 12.1 43 15.1 51 14.5
 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
74 
Table 14b: Backyard Gardening Practices 
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total % Freq %
Do you have backyard gardening?
Yes 64 86.5 165 85.5 229 85.8 45 67.2 269 91.2 314 86.7 543 86.3
No 10 13.5 28 14.5 38 14.2 22 32.8 26 8.8 48 13.3 86 13.7
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Table 15: Change in Size of farm Land
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
 Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total % 
Did your household cultivate any farm land before you started receiving the EFSP cash? (Tick One)
Yes 170 88.1 71 95.9 241 90.3 289 98.0 66 98.5 355 98.1 459 94.1 137 97.2 596 94.8
No 23 11.9 3 4.1 26 9.7 6 2.0 1 1.5 7 1.9 29 5.9 4 2.8 33 5.2
Total 193 100.0 74 100.0 267 100.0 295 100.0 67 100.0 362 100.0 488 100.0 141 100.0 629 100.0
Has the ESFP cash helped your household to increase the size of farmland that you cultivate now 
Yes 149 87.6 65 91.5 214 88.8 274 94.8 64 97.0 338 95.2 423 92.2 129 94.2 552 92.6
No 21 12.4 6 8.5 27 11.2 15 5.2 2 3.0 17 4.8 36 7.8 8 5.8 44 7.4
Total 170 100.0 71 100.0 241 100.0 289 100.0 66 100.0 355 100.0 459 100.0 137 100.0 596 100.0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
75 
Table 16a: Change in Farm Tools Owned by Households
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
 Femal
e
% Mal
e
% Tota
l % Femal
e
% Mal
e
% Tota
l % Femal
e
% Mal
e
% Tota
l % 
Did your household own farm tools before you started receiving EFSP cash? 
Yes 165 85.5 72 97.3 237 88.8 270 91.5 66 98.5 336 92.8 435 89.1 138 97.9 573 91.1
No 28 14.5 2 2.7 30 11.2 25 8.5 1 1.5 26 7.2 53 10.9 3 2.1 56 8.9
Tota
l 193 100.
0 74 100.
0 267 100.
0 295 100.
0 67 100.
0 362 100.
0 488 100.
0 141 100.
0 629 100.
0
Has the EFSP cash helped your household to purchase any new farm tools? 
Yes 105 54.4 46 62.2 151 56.6 250 83.9 59 88.1 309 85.4 355 72.7 105 74.5 460 73.6
No 88 45.6 28 37.8 116 43.4 48 16.1 8 11.9 53 14.6 133 27.3 36 25.5 165 26.4
Tota
l 193 100.
0 74 100.
0 267 100.
0 298 100.
0 67 100.
0 362 100.
0 488 100.
0 141 100.
0 625 100.
0
Table 16b: Type of Farm Tools Acquired by Households
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total 
 Male 
(n=46) % Female 
(n=104) % 
Total 
(n= 
151)
% 
Male
(n= 
59)
% Female 
(n=250) % Total 
(n=309) % Male 
(n=105) % Female 
(n=355) % Total 
(n=460) % 
Which farm tools has your household purchase with EFSP Cash
Large hoe 42 91.3 90 86.5 132 87.4 47 79.7 190 76.0 237 76.7 89 84.8 280 78.9 369 80.2
Small hoe 36 78.3 80 76.9 116 76.8 44 74.6 174 69.6 218 70.6 80 76.2 254 71.5 334 72.6
Cutlass 43 93.5 93 89.4 136 90.1 56 94.9 234 93.6 290 93.9 99 94.3 327 92.1 426 92.6
Sickle 2 4.3 6 5.8 8 5.3 3 5.1 8 3.2 11 3.6 5 4.8 14 3.9 19 4.1
Pick Axe 3 6.5 10 9.6 13 8.6 13 22.0 21 8.4 34 11.0 16 15.2 31 8.7 47 10.2
Shovel 16 34.8 50 48.1 66 43.7 18 30.5 92 36.8 110 35.6 34 32.4 142 40.0 176 38.3
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
76 
Wheelbarrow 1 2.2 1 1.0 2 1.3 1 1.7 3 1.2 4 1.3 2 1.9 4 1.1 6 1.3
Head Pan 1 2.2 0 0.0 2 1.3 0 0.0 2 0.8 2 0.6 1 1.0 2 0.6 4 0.9
Measuring 
Tape 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.2
Others 
(Specify) 1 2.2 0 0.0 1 0.7 2 3.4 10 4.0 12 3.9 3 2.9 10 2.8 13 2.8
Table 16c: Change in Quantity of Livestock Owned by Households
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
Male 
(n=74
) 
% Femal
e 
(n=193
)
% Total 
(n=267
) 
% Male 
(n=67
) 
% Femal
e 
(n=295
)
% Total 
(n=362
) 
% Male 
(n=141
) 
% Femal
e 
(n=488
)
% Total 
(n=629
) 
%
Did your household livestock before you started receiving EFSP cash?
Ye
s
47 63.
5
130 67.
4
177 66.
3
32 47.
8
150 50.
8
182 50.
3
79 56.
0
280 57.
4
359 57.
1
No 27 36.
5
63 32.
6
90 33.
7
35 52.
2
145 49.
2
180 49.
7
62 44.
0
208 42.
6
270 42.
9
Has the EFSP cash helped your household to purchase any new livestock?
Ye
s
29 39.
2
55 28.
5
84 31.
5
25 37.
3
134 45.
4
159 43.
9
54 38.
3
189 38.
7
243 38.
6
No 45 60.
8
138 71.
5
183 68.
5
42 62.
7
161 54.
6
203 56.
1
87 61.
7
299 61.
3
386 61.
4
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
77 
Table 17a: Capacity Building Training on Financial and Business Management Skills
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total % Freq %
Receive training from CRS on financial and business management skills
Yes 38 51.4 113 58.5 151 56.6 62 92.5 260 88.1 322 89.0 473 75.2
No 36 48.6 80 41.5 116 43.4 5 7.5 35 11.9 40 11.0 156 24.8
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0 629 100.0
Activities considered as good financial and business management skills 
n=38 n=113 n=151 n=62 n=260 n=322 n=473
Record Keeping 32 84.2 98 86.7 130 86.1 60 96.8 227 87.3 287 89.1 417 88.2
Saving money at a 
bank
33 86.8 101 89.4 134 88.7 60 96.8
246 94.6 306
95.0
440 93.0
Investment 36 94.7 108 95.6 144 95.4 60 96.8 255 98.1 315 97.8 459 97.0
Financial Planning 34 89.5 98 86.7 132 87.4 57 91.9 238 91.5 295 91.6 427 90.3
Currently applying training knowledge gained in business and financial decisions
Yes 33 86.8 86 76.1 119 78.8 44 71.0 183 70.4 227 70.5 346 73.2
No 5 13.2 27 23.9 32 21.2 18 29.0 77 29.6 95 29.5 127 26.8
Total 38 100.0 113 100.0 151 100.0 62 100.0 260 100.0 322 100.0 473 100.0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
78 
Table 17b: Change in Financial Capacity of Beneficiary Households
Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
 Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total % Female % Male % Total % 
Does your household have any money savings scheme (Tick One)
Yes 113 58.5 35 47.3 148 55.4 193 65.4 38 56.7 231 63.8 306 62.7 73 51.8 379 60.3
No 80 41.5 39 52.7 119 44.6 102 34.6 29 43.3 131 36.2 182 37.3 68 48.2 250 39.7
Total 193 100.0 74 100.0 267 100.0 295 100.0 67 100.0 362 100.0 488 100.0 141 100.0 629 100.0
 Phase 1 Phase 2 All Total
 Female 
(n=113) % Male 
(n=35) % Total 
(n=148) % Female 
(n=193) % Male 
(n=38) % Total 
(n=231) % Female 
(n=306) % Male 
(n=73) % Total 
(n=379) % 
What money savings scheme does your household have?
Self-help group 
savings 38 33.6 7 20.0 45 30.4 134 69.4 22 57.9 156 67.5 172 56.2 29 39.7 201 53.0
Osusu 58 51.3 23 65.7 81 54.7 54 28.0 8 21.1 62 26.8 112 36.6 31 42.5 143 37.7
Savings and 
internal lending 
Communities 
(SILC)
60 53.1 10 28.6 70 47.3 49 25.4 14 36.8 63 27.3 109 35.6 24 32.9 133 35.1
Community 
Bank 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 1.4 1 0.3
Commercial 
bank 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Microcredit / 
microfinance 
house
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other Specify 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.0 1 2.6 3 1.3 2 0.7 1 1.4 3 0.8
 Phase I Phase II All Total
 Female 
(n=113) % Male 
(n=35) % Total 
(n=148) % Female 
(n=193) % Male 
(n=38) % Total 
(n=231) % Female 
(n=306) % Male 
(n=73) % Total 
(n=379) % 
Has the EFSP helped your household, in any way, to increase its savings ability
Yes 66 58.4 28 80.0 94 63.5 158 81.9 29 76.3 187 81.0 224 73.2 57 78.1 281 74.1 
No 47 41.6 7 20.0 54 36.5 35 18.1 9 23.7 44 19.0 82 26.8 16 21.9 98 25.9 
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
79 
Table 18: Beneficiary Satisfaction
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
Beneficiary satisfied with the distance travelled to the pay point
Yes 70 94.6 177 91.7 247 92.5 66 98.5 267 90.5 333 92.0
No 4 5.4 16 8.3 20 7.5 1 1.5 28 9.5 29 8.0
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Beneficiary consider the amount of cash receive adequate for household food needs for three 
months
Yes 40 54.1 72 37.3 112 41.9 34 50.7 178 60.3 212 58.6
No 34 45.9 121 62.7 155 58.1 33 49.3 117 39.7 150 41.4
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Beneficiary satisfied with the waiting time to receive cash at pay point
Yes 71 95.9 180 93.3 251 94.0 67 100.0 288 97.6 355 98.1
No 3 4.1 13 6.7 16 6.0 0 0.0 7 2.4 7 1.9
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Table 19: Female and Male Headed Household Satisfied with 2 of 3 Categories (distance to pay point, cash amount, wait 
time at pay point)
Type of HH 
Head
Baseline Midterm 
Phase I
Endline
Phase I Phase II
% % % %
Female headed 0 96.80 92.4 95.3
Male headed 0 94.30 89.6 99.0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
80 
Table 20: Beneficiary Access
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 All Total
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
Distance traveled to access the EFSP pay point
Less than 1miles 42 56.8 91 47.2 133 49.8 38 56.7 180 61 218 60.2 351 55.8
1miles - 2miles 21 28.4 61 31.6 82 30.7 23 34.3 82 27.8 105 29 187 29.7
2.1miles - 3miles 11 14.9 38 19.7 49 18.4 5 7.5 32 10.8 37 10.2 86 13.7
Above 3miles 0 0 3 1.6 3 1.1 1 1.5 1 0.3 2 0.6 5 0.8
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Time taken to wait at pay point to receive the cash
1hr - 2hrs 29 39.2 89 46.1 118 44.2 27 40.3 75 25.4 102 28.2 220 35.0
2 hrs. and above 12 16.2 41 21.2 53 19.9 1 1.5 3 1 4 1.1 57 9.1
30 min - 59 min 15 20.3 40 20.7 55 20.6 13 19.4 96 32.5 109 30.1 164 26.1
Less than 30 min 18 24.3 23 11.9 41 15.4 26 38.8 121 41 147 40.6 188 29.9
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Safety of beneficiary when at the pay point
Yes 74 100 192 99.5 266 99.6 66 98.5 287 97.3 353 97.5 619 98.4
No 0 0 1 0.5 1 0.4 1 1.5 8 2.7 9 2.5 10 1.6
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Safety of beneficiary after leaving pay point with cash
Yes 74 100 190 98.4 264 98.9 65 97 268 90.8 333 92 597 94.9
No 0 0 3 1.6 3 1.1 2 3 27 9.2 29 8 32 5.1
Total 74 100 193 100 267 100 67 100 295 100 362 100 629 100.0
Final Report – Final Evaluation of The CRS Cash based EFSA Assistance for EVD 
81 
Table 21: Beneficiary Belief for Continuity of Project Activities in the future
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
Yes 49 66.2 111 57.5 160 59.9 56 83.6 244 82.7 300 82.9
No 25 33.8 82 42.5 107 40.1 11 16.4 51 17.3 62 17.1
Total 74 100.0 193 100.0 267 100.0 67 100.0 295 100.0 362 100.0
Table 22: Activities Undertaken by Beneficiaries to grow or maintain the EFSP Cash received (Multiple Responses)
Activity PHASE 1 PHASE 2
Male % Female % Total % Male % Female % Total %
n=74 n=193 n=267 n=67 n=295 n=362
Joined 
Osusu/SILC
29 39.2 74 38.3 103 38.6 18 26.9 68 23.1 86 23.8
Saved 
some
3 4.1 2 1.0 5 1.9 13 19.4 42 14.2 55 15.2
Doing petty 
trade
20 27.0 75 38.9 95 35.6 5 7.5 110 37.3 115 31.8
Invested in 
livestock
4 5.4 6 3.1 10 3.7 15 22.4 48 16.3 63 17.4
Invested in 
crop 
Farming
42 56.8 97 50.3 139 52.1 61 91.0 261 88.5 322 89.0
Others 
(Specify)
1 1.4 4 2.1 5 1.9 2 3.0 7 2.4 9 2.5