JANUARY 2019 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Nigeria. It was prepared independently by the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity, DevTech Systems, Inc., under Task Order 16-00001. EVALUATION FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS PROJECT EVALUATION FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS PROJECT Cooperative Agreement No. AID-620-A-13-00004 Submitted to: Dr. Chidimma Anyanwu, Contracting Officer Representative, USAID/Nigeria Mrs. Whitney Jensen Rodrigues, Alternate Contracting Officer Representative, Prepared by: Ms. Joy Larson, Team Leader Dr. Albert Ugochukwu, Senior Agricultural Economist Mr. Bassey Archibong, Resilience Expert Mr. Augustus Emenogu, Social Scientist Mr. Emmanuel Amile, M&E Specialist Submitted by: Ms. Traci L. Dixon, Chief of Party, The MEL Activity, DevTech Systems, Inc Cover Photo Credit: Ms. Morgana Wingard for USAID. Draft Submitted: October 4, 2018 Final Submitted: January 23, 2019 DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. i | NIGERIA: FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS PROJECT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................................................III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................1 Background 1 Evaluation Purpose.................................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Design and Methods..........................................................................................................................................1 Key Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations by Evaluation Question...........................................................1 SECTION 1. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................6 1.1 Feed the Future Livelihoods Overview ......................................................................................................6 1.2 Expected Results ..............................................................................................................................................7 1.3 Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Target Communities And Beneficiaries......................................................................................................9 1.5 Activities...........................................................................................................................................................11 SECTION 2. EVALUATION BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................13 2.1 Evaluation Purpose.........................................................................................................................................13 2.2 Audience...........................................................................................................................................................13 2.3 Evaluation Questions.....................................................................................................................................13 SECTION 3. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................14 3.1 Data Collection Methods.............................................................................................................................14 SECTION 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................22 4.1 EQ1: How have the SILCs affected access to finance for beneficiaries of the Livelihoods activity and how do these households utilize that finance?................................................................22 4.2 EQ 2: How did the intervention package in the NE affect early economic recovery and the progression of beneficiaries along the pathway from stabilization to recovery and resilience? ...........................................................................................................................................................................26 4.3.1 EQ 3: How effective was the model of agriculture-led growth in promoting balances between personal consumption and income generation through market engagement?..............................37 4.3.2 EQ 3: Caseworker Model ............................................................................................................................45 4.4 EQ 4: What are the contributing factors and barriers to increased local/state government investments in poverty reduction programs and services? ................................................................48 4.5 EQ 5: To what extent are any results achieved likely to be sustained after the activity ends? 53 ii | NIGERIA: FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS PROJECT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEXES ..........................................................................................................................................................................A ANNEX A. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................ a ANNEX B. Sample frame, sample distribution, and data collection tables ............................................................p ANNEX C. Questions guiding data collection for each evaluation question ......................................................s ANNEX D. Agricultural Productivity Data .....................................................................................................................u ANNEX E. SILC Tables....................................................................................................................................................... y ANNEX F. Team Biodata iii | NIGERIA: FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS PROJECT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACRONYMS ADP Agriculture Development Program CCFN Catholic Caritas Foundation of Nigeria CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CMRC Community Market Research Committee CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil Society Organization DC Development Committee DDI Diamond Development Initiatives EGE Economic Growth and Environment EQ Evaluation Question FA Field Agent FCT Federal Capital Territory FEWS Net Famine and Early Warning System Network FGD Focus Group Discussion FHH Female Head of Household FOMWAN Federation of Muslim Women’s Associations in Nigeria FTF Feed the Future FY Fiscal Year GON Government of Nigeria HH Household HHH Head of Household IDP Internally Displaced Person IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table JDPC Justice Development and Peace Commission KII Key Informant Interview LEP Local Economic Plan LGA Local Government Area LPP Livelihoods Planning Process M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MFB Microfinance Bank MFI Microfinance Institution MHH Male Head of Household NC North Central NE Northeast NW Northwest PG Producer Group PGMC Producer Group Marketing Committee PRP Poverty-reduction Program PSP Paid Service Provider QIP Quick-impact Projects SILC Savings and Internal Lending Community SOSMEDA Sokoto State Small Scale and Medium Enterprises Development Agency TOC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar USG United States Government VAD Village Agro-input Dealer VDC Village Development Committee WDC Ward Development Committee 1 | NIGERIA: FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS PROJECT FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our evaluation team would like to express its thanks to all the individuals who took the time to be interviewed and share their perspectives on and experiences with the USAID/Nigeria Feed the Future Livelihoods Project. Many thanks to Mrs. Traci Dixon, Chief of Party and Mr. Olufemi Gisanrin, MEL Specialist and the staff of DevTech Systems, Inc., who implements the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity in Abuja for providing constant and ongoing support to the team during all phases of the evaluation. Additionally, we would like to give a special thanks to the USAID/Nigeria Office of Economic Growth and Environment and our facilitators in the field, including Abdullahi Moh'd Bala Ribah in Kebbi State, Abubakar Bandado and Ishaq Jabo in Sokoto State, and Tanko Jidde and Ahmad Yahusa in northeast Nigeria, without whom we would not have been able to garner community support for interviews and focus group activities. We are deeply grateful to all of the people who assisted with transportation and data collection. We would like to thank Catholic Relief Services for providing quick and thorough responses to our evaluation requests, particularly Kehinde Oteju. 1 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Feed the Future (FTF) Nigeria Livelihoods Project (“the Activity”) is a United States dollar (USD) 17,637,060, five-year activity awarded from July 2, 2013, to July 1, 2018, by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Nigeria to Catholic Relief Services (CRS). CRS worked in partnership with Catholic Caritas Foundation of Nigeria, Mercy Corps, the Federation of Muslim Women Association of Nigeria, and eight civil society organizations (CSOs) to implement the Activity as initially designed in rural communities in the northwestern (NW) Nigerian states of Sokoto and Kebbi as well as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). In 2017, USAID expanded the geographic scope to include the northeastern (NE) Nigerian states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe. The goal of the Activity was to help reduce poverty and increase economic security, while helping local governments increase their capacity to provide poverty-reduction programs (PRPs); the expansion involved interventions designed to increase agriculture productivity and income. EVALUATION PURPOSE This final performance evaluation is intended to provide an independent examination of the overall progress and accomplishments of the FTF Nigeria Livelihoods project to inform decision-making and future programming. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS This evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to collect, analyze, and triangulate quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation team carried out a quantitative household (HH)-level survey to quantify activity achievements, compare performance measures, and quantify the productive and economic status of 361 activity beneficiary HHs, including 257 male and 104 female heads of household (FHH) in six states and 16 local government areas (LGAs). The evaluation team also reviewed and collected qualitative data to clarify and supplement the survey findings with rich contextual data. The evaluation team conducted 31 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 254 participants (110 males and 144 females), including 10 FGDs in the NE and 21 in the NW. Participants from PGs, SILCs, caseworkers, and liaisons took part in these discussions. The evaluation team also conducted 31 semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with Livelihoods’ staff, agro￾producers, private sector representatives, government representatives, and public health workers. KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY EVALUATION QUESTION EQ 1: HOW HAVE THE SAVINGS AND INTERNAL LENDING COMMUNITIES AFFECTED ACCESS TO FINANCE FOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY AND HOW DO THESE HOUSEHOLDS UTILIZE THAT FINANCE? Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILCs) are the primary source of informal funding for Livelihoods Activity beneficiaries, as many rural communities lack access to commercial forms of credit. Overall, 52 percent of the survey respondents in the NW and FCT, and 67 percent of survey 2 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION respondents in the NE, reported being a member of a SILC. Forty-seven percent of FCT SILC members, 36 percent of Sokoto SILC members, and 35 percent of Kebbi State SILC members had borrowed funds from their SILC. How SILC members utilized that finance varied by gender and region. In general, SILC members utilized their funds for health care services, the purchase of farm inputs, recovery from shocks, investment in business startup, and the payment of school fees. Most FGD participants reported that accessing loans was easier through the saving culture of SILCs when compared to commercial banks and microfinance institutions (MFIs). Although many signed up for bank accounts, which was encouraged by the Activity, they remained unable to fulfill the cumbersome procedural and collateral requirements of commercial banks and MFIs in order to obtain loans. Conclusion: SILCs provide important funding streams that enable HHs to recover from shocks, purchase inputs, and meet health care needs. As they are often the only access to reliable funds for many rural communities, SILCs have played a critical role in providing access to finance for those who reported being unaware of how to apply for loans and formally access credit. Recommendations (EQ1): ▪ SILCs should be strengthened, as they help in breaking the cycle of poverty in many communities. ▪ The Activity should consider addressing SILC member demands for larger loans, perhaps by linking established SILC groups to local MFIs. The Activity should also help develop members’ knowledge and skills about how to effectively use additional funding and ensure that MFIs understand how to package financial products for poorer populations. EQ 2: HOW DID THE INTERVENTION PACKAGE IN THE NORTHEAST AFFECT EARLY ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND THE PROGRESSION OF BENEFICIARIES MOVING ALONG THE PATHWAY TO PROGRESS? Key early economic-recovery interventions and the progression of beneficiaries along the pathway to progress included: ▪ Formation and strengthening of SILC groups to help make capital available for the purchase of farm inputs, household needs, and replace assets by supported members. ▪ Empowerment of producer groups in the NE, including women, youth, and vulnerable populations, to understand agriculture both as a long-term commercial business and as a source of good family nutrition. Signs of recovery included expenditures on simple farm tools that included hoes, basins, and machetes, and the purchase of livestock (48 percent of women and 59 percent of men across the three states had purchased goats in the previous year). HHs reported eating healthier quantities of protein, but only 10 percent of children under five in Yobe State and 17 percent of the children in Borno State had reportedly eaten green leafy vegetables as part of their meal in the week prior to the survey. In the NE states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, women continue to carry key responsibilities in the maintenance of families, but their potential to contribute to family and economic development is not fully realized (CRS Baseline Survey, 2017). Discussions with female leaders and small business owners indicated that land continues to be a serious issue for female farmers. While there are opportunities to 3 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION cultivate small plots of land for vegetables, it is difficult for many female farmers to acquire larger￾hectare plots for the cultivation of other crops, such as maize and cowpea, which could increase their income. Many FGD participants reported that they received training in groundnut milling. This supports the CRS statement that “The project trained 326 women in the NE from various producer groups on groundnut processing, oil milling, and other byproducts in the groundnut commodity value chain.” Conclusion: The NE HH evaluation showed some signs of early economic recovery, including productive changes in agricultural production and practices, asset purchases, access to financing for basic needs, and some dietary diversity. When HHs achieved positive changes in indicators like these, they also increased their resilience and ability to cope with shocks which helps to move these HHs toward economic recovery. Recommendations (EQ2): ▪ Livelihoods activities in the NE should adopt strategies designed to meet the needs of each LGA, given climate and insecurity issues. ▪ In locations where for cultural reasons women cannot be involved in crop or animal production, a strategy should be deliberately designed to accommodate them in post￾harvest activities. ▪ Finally, training should be designed to include skills and practices that participants can incorporate right away, and which yield a combination of immediate short-term and additional long-term results. Women engaged in small enterprises should be provided basic integrated microenterprise fundamentals training, which will help to expand their level of financial literacy and engagement. EQ 3: HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE MODEL OF AGRICULTURE-LED GROWTH IN PROMOTING HOUSEHOLD BALANCES BETWEEN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION AND INCOME GENERATION THROUGH MARKET ENGAGEMENT? The agriculture-led growth model promoted by the Activity included cash transfers, payment vouchers, linkage to input suppliers and markets, and participation in producer associations. Each of these created positive impacts to beneficiary HHs. With cash transfers and payment vouchers, beneficiary HHs were able to purchase farm inputs and engage in agricultural production to provide food for HH consumption and extra for sale to generate income. Periodic agricultural shows, where beneficiaries redeemed their vouchers, served as an avenue for farmers to formally connect with the village agro-input dealers (VADs), who doubled as input providers and a source of advice to farmers on input usage and improved agronomic practices. HHs with additional (extra) output after meeting the HHs’ personal consumption sold it either directly in the market or through the Producer Group Marketing Committees (PGMCs) for additional income. Conclusion: The Activity has had positive impact on HH beneficiaries’ agricultural income. Female engagement in agriculture and markets have driven more sources of income within the HH to provide for children and family nutritional well-being and education. However, access to financing for non-farm income-generating activities remains a barrier, especially in the FCT. PGMCs have not been very effective in securing better prices for farmers and therefore needs to be strengthened. 4 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Recommendations (EQ3): In future activity designs, goals should include improving links between farmers and input suppliers and reducing bulk packaging, to make inputs more accessible to smaller, resource-poor producers. EQ 4: WHAT ARE THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO INCREASED LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN POVERTY-REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES? Moving local and state governments to increase investments in PRPs and services require an increased understanding of local priorities for poverty-reduction assistance and an increased capacity to develop action plans and budgets. Communities and LGAs have improved linkages and communication mechanisms to ensure community priorities are understood and that community members can advocate for necessary resources. In FGDs, community leaders stated that the Livelihoods project had successfully established Ward Development Committees (WDCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs), which engage LGAs in setting priorities for inclusion in Local Economic Plans (LEPs). These development committees help ensure that community voices are heard and amplified. Local government officials reported during KIIs that LGAs have demonstrated improved capacity to identify and address local development needs and to implement LEPs that are responsive to those needs. In the NE region, collapsed governance structures and the prevailing humanitarian situation made activity engagement with LGAs more difficult. The instability of LGA structures remains a major concern for the sustainability and implementation of PRPs. Barriers to increased local and state government investment in PRPs and services include a limited capacity to effectively manage service implementation and budgetary restrictions. Conclusions: Action plans must be strategic in engaging LGA officials and continue to be reflective of a set of community-stakeholder (i.e., VDC and WDC) priorities. Due to the lack of authority and budgetary constraints of LGAs, such action plans must be institutionalized. The strategy of establishing agricultural extension agents as liaisons to LGAs seems to be beneficial. The Agricultural Extension Agents are based in the communities as posted by the Government of Nigeria (GON), so they continued even at the end of the Activity to render extension services to Activity beneficiaries and other members of the communities where the Extension Agents were posted. Recommendations (EQ4): In future projects, implementers need to strategically engage LGAs to advocate for a stronger response to community priorities, possibly by making the release of counterpart funding contingent upon local officials engaging in a participatory process. EQ 5: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE ANY RESULTS ACHIEVED LIKELY TO BE SUSTAINED AFTER THE ACTIVITY ENDS? Sustaining the current upward trend in agricultural productivity triggered by the Livelihoods activities, the adoption of improved technologies, and income diversification will depend on the continued availability and timely access to agricultural inputs and financing by farmers and HHs. The Activity has helped Nigerians within the coverage areas to adopt new coping skills, behaviors, and practices that may be sustained. Weak linkages between producers to input markets may threaten productivity gains, sustainability, and food security. Producer Group FGDs revealed that SILCs are not always able to meet the needs of farmers (who need to borrow funds for purchasing inputs all at the same time and who frequently cannot repay the loans until the harvest), which means SILC funds are unavailable for long 5 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION periods of time. Evidence from both the survey and the FGDs suggests that HHs will continue to use the new skills they have learned after the end of the project. HHs reported that they had adopted new behaviors, such as tracking income and expenditures. Conclusion: The sustainability of some activities in the NE will depend upon the strength of the existing partnerships with other projects and organizations operating in the region. Support to development committees in continuously engaging LGAs and increasing strategic advocacy engagements with the respective state governments to meet financial commitments to PRPs is critical to sustaining outcomes. Recommendations (EQ5): Future activities should include interventions that strengthen the capacity of LGAs to manage the replication of poverty-reduction activities in other wards. ▪ Due to the unstable nature of LGAs, LGA action plans should be institutionalized to ensure continuity. It is not enough to increase the number of targeted LGAs with specific poverty-reduction lines in their annual budgets. LGAs must also create development committees, if none are present, to follow-up on action plan implementation and PRPs. Recommendations (Cross-cutting): Future activities should consider how to better capture the impact of services on women. Women spouses tend to use SILCs differently than men. In future surveys, it would be valuable to capture these differences in greater detail to better understand how female SILC beneficiaries can better be supported and female SILC groups strengthened. 6 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS OVERVIEW The Feed the Future (FTF) Nigeria Livelihoods Project (“the Activity”) is a United States dollar (USD) 17,637,060, five-year activity, awarded from July 2, 2013, to July 1, 2018, by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Nigeria to Catholic Relief Services (CRS). CRS worked in partnership with Catholic Caritas Foundation of Nigeria (CCFN), Mercy Corps, the Federation of Muslim Women Association of Nigeria (FOMWAN) and eight civil society organizations (CSOs) to implement the Activity, as initially designed, in rural communities in the northwestern (NW) Nigerian states of Sokoto and Kebbi, as well as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). In 2017, USAID expanded the geographic implementation scope to include the northeastern (NE) Nigerian states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe. The goal of the Activity when implemented in Sokoto, Kebbi, and the FCT was to help 42,000 households (HHs) reduce poverty and increase economic security, while helping local governments increase their capacity to provide poverty-reduction programs (PRPs). The Activity set out to help the most vulnerable HHs to improve agricultural productivity by promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, creating better access to inputs, and improving market engagement for producers. Another critical approach was linking farmers with other farmers in functional groups, such as producer groups (PGs), to bolster the social cohesion and trust needed to collectively and successfully engage in markets. The expansion of the Activity into the crisis-affected states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe began in January 2017 to support a minimum of 10,000 additional farming HHs. This expansion was designed to empower those communities suffering from conflict, displacement, and decreased agricultural production to move away from dependence on humanitarian assistance by stabilizing agricultural production and strengthening market linkages. The NE expansion involved interventions designed to increase agriculture productivity and incomes. The foundation of the Livelihoods project’s approach was agricultural-led growth, with an emphasis on diversifying production, diversifying incomes, and improving nutrition. The project set out to help the most vulnerable1 HHs to improve agricultural productivity by promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, creating better access to inputs, connecting agro-producers with PGs, and improving market engagement for producers. Efforts to increase and diversify HH income included encouraging beneficiaries to join savings and internal lending communities (SILCs) and helping HH members to learn the skills needed to invest in small businesses. The project was also designed to improve the nutritional status of HHs, particularly those with children and pregnant and/or lactating women, by encouraging nutrient-rich food production, educating beneficiaries on the benefits of a diverse diet, and increasing incomes to enable HHs to purchase nutrient-rich diverse foods. The Livelihood Planning Process (LPP), managed by CRS, was key to carrying out this project’s multi￾sector, HH-centric strategy. Using a case management approach to reach HHs with individual support and coping skills, the project trained community liaisons to help HHs identify assets, set goals, and develop livelihoods plans to achieve those goals. They also linked HHs with activity-provided resources 1 Vulnerable HHs were selected using a point system that included criteria (such as wealth) and in consultation with local communities. For process and criteria see, CRS. Technical Application February 3, 2013, p.7. 7 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION and services. Social workers from the local government assisted in training liaisons and providing ongoing support to households. The goal of reaching 42,000 HHs assumed that each of 700 community liaisons would reach 20 HHs in 28 different communities.2 1.2 EXPECTED RESULTS The overall goal for the Livelihoods project was to reduce poverty for HHs in the targeted states by increasing agricultural competitiveness. Short-term activity outcomes included: 1. Increased agricultural production and productivity; 2. Increased and diversified incomes in vulnerable households; 3. Improved nutrition and behavior change; and 4. Increased federal, state, and local government’s capacity to effectively provide poverty reduction grants. The plan for achieving production and productivity results included introducing improved agricultural practices, diversifying production of focus commodities (e.g., cowpea, millet, rice, groundnut, and small ruminants), and facilitating market engagement. To achieve increased incomes, the project worked to diversify revenue sources and increase access to financial services. To improve nutrition, the project employed community-based volunteers as liaisons with HHs to share information on the importance of a nutritious diet and encourage hygiene practice improvements. The strategy for increasing the safety net included providing cash transfers to the most vulnerable HHs, trying to ensure that extremely vulnerable HHs had access to activity services (i.e., SILC membership), and encouraging 16 targeted local government areas (LGAs) to adopt PRPs. 1.3 THEORY OF CHANGE A theory of change (TOC) explains how a project will achieve its intended results, clarifies expected outcomes, and shows what needs to improve along the way for those outcomes to occur. The Livelihood project’s TOC focuses on moving households along a “Pathway to Prosperity,” or from recovery to stability, by engaging in agriculturally-driven improvements in income and nutrition, with support from caseworkers who provide training on balancing incomes and expenditures, setting goals, and learning how to balance income and expenditures (Figure 1). 2 Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project. Livelihood Planning Process: Caseworker Model. Catholic Relief Services. 8 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 1. Pathway to Prosperity [Source: CRS]. HHs start at different places along the Pathway to Prosperity based on their income and assets. The project delivered interventions designed to help HHs address their individual needs by providing links to services to help stabilize their current situation and start to build income and assets, eventually balancing income and consumption to maximize gains. The project also critically emphasized linking farmers with other farmers in functional groups, meant to bolster social cohesion and trust needed to collectively and successfully engage in markets. Organizing collectively into groups can benefit small farmers and traders through economies of scale, access to better information, access to inputs, and information sharing. Collective groups included PGs, savings groups, and microenterprise groups. To increase HH incomes, the Activity attempted to balance agriculture for personal consumption and income generation through market engagement, improved agricultural practices, and a market-oriented approach to diversify production. To support increased incomes, CRS helped families diversify their incomes through a variety of market engagement activities, SILCs, and skills-development training, while concurrently improving the health of young children and pregnant women through diet diversification. The interrelated framework meant that an intervention intended to increase agricultural productivity and the production of focus commodities also would contribute to improved diets because of the nutrient-rich composition of the focus crops. Another important consideration for successfully moving HHs along the Pathway to Prosperity is the role of women in contributing to HH stabilization and recovery. The TOC expects women to play an increasingly equitable role in HH decision-making, with the expectation that this will lead to improvements in agriculture, income, and nutrition—and thus help families withstand shocks through increased resilience. Women tend to prioritize the well-being and education of the children in ways that lead to positive outcomes for the family. The project supported the role transformation of women by supporting their participation in collective savings groups, where they have opportunities to save and invest in income-generating activities for the health and well-being of their families. The Activity also supported women’s participation in PGs, in market engagement, and in skill-building sessions to create connections between community members and opportunities for income generation. 9 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The Livelihoods project distributed cash transfers to the poorest HHs to assist them with meeting immediate nutritional needs, recovering assets like small ruminants lost or sold during emergencies, and providing the skills or tools necessary to engage in income-generating activities, such as groundnut processing. These were made via conditional cash transfers (CCTs) to extremely vulnerable HHs based on the assessments carried by the Activity. Thereafter, the Activity engaged effectively with the beneficiaries of the CCTs in the targeted communities within their local economy to break free from the cycle of poverty and malnutrition by introducing income-generating activities and SILCs. The project also engaged local government stakeholders in its implementation to increase the likelihood that gains will be sustained through continued PRPs. 1.4 TARGET COMMUNITIES AND BENEFICIARIES USAID and CRS elected to implement the Activity in the FCT and in Kebbi and Sokoto States based on the findings of a 2012 CRS and CCFN Nigeria HH Vulnerability Assessment Report, which found that vulnerable HHs in those areas were “trapped in intergenerational and mutually reinforcing cycles of poverty and malnutrition.”3 The assessment found that these agriculturally dependent HHs had yields below potential and that HH production was too low to meet basic needs.4 Activity implementers established a rigorous, participatory beneficiary selection process in each community, where local leaders helped set criteria for selecting HHs for activity participation. The criteria for inclusion were based on community-established wealth rankings and standard project vulnerability measures, such as land ownership size and HHs facing labor constraints as with female heads of HHs (FHHs). 5 The selection process included posting the names of HHs on the front of a community leader’s house so that people in the community could weigh in on whether or not the leaders had correctly identified the most vulnerable HHs. The project’s goal for Phases A and B of the Activity was to register 24,000 HHs in Sokoto State, 6,000 HHs in the FCT, and 12,000 HHs in Kebbi State. The project rolled out the beneficiary registration process in three phases. Beginning in FY 2015, CRS initiated Phases A and B registering 25,473 HHs in Sokoto State and the FCT. The Activity expanded into Kebbi State in late FY 2015 as part of Phase B, enrolling 12,156 additional HHs. In FY 2016, the Activity registered an additional 16,957 HHs in Phase C, for a total of 42,005 HHs. The Activity employed model farmers/trainers from Phase A to assist with implementation in Phases B and C. In FY 2017, the Activity expanded into the NE, with a goal of reaching an additional 10,000 HHs in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe States. In the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) submitted in the third quarter of FY 2018, CRS reported having reached a total of 54,787 HHs.6 The project selected the target areas in each of the states and the FCT, in part, because of their challenging climates. Low yields in the target areas in the NW are partly a function of the climatic extremes that create tremendous challenges for farmers and make them good candidates for sustainable 3 Catholic Relief Services and Caritas Nigeria Household Vulnerability Assessment Report, November 2012. 4 Catholic Relief Services, Technical Application. February 8, 2013. 5 Ibid. 6 See Annex B for the distribution of HHs in the CRS beneficiary database by state. 10 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION agricultural practices. Sokoto State, located in the Sahel, is susceptible to droughts, floods along the river basins, and other climatic extremes. Traditionally, this dry, hot climate has limited the variety of crops farmers can successfully produce and market. Local traditions and the strains of a growing population can also create challenges. Sokoto has a population that was projected to be over 4.9 million in 2016, 7 based on growth projections from the 2006 population census. Sokoto State is mainly populated by Hausa people, but also include Fulani, Zabarmanci, and Buzanci ethnic groups. Most Sokoto State residents are Sunni Muslims, with a Shia minority, yet violence between the two groups is uncommon. Also based on projections from the 2006 census, the Kebbi State population was projected to be over 4.4 million8 by 2016. Kebbi is mainly populated by Hausa and some members of Fulani, Lelna, Bussawa, Dukawa, Dakarkar, Kambari, Gungawa, and Kamuku ethnic communities. Kebbi State was created out of Sokoto State in 1991 and is predominantly Muslim but does contain some Christian groups. The FCT was projected to have a population of over 3.6 million9 by 2016 and is the site of Abuja, the state capital. The climate is more conducive for agriculture than the other states due to a more moderate temperature. The vegetation in the FCT is mainly savanna with limited forest areas. Ethnic groups in the area include Gwari, Koro, Ganagana, Gwandara, Afo, and Bassa. 1.4.1 EXPANSION TO THE NORTHEAST In FY 2017, the Activity expanded into NE Nigeria, bringing a limited set of agriculture and group activities to eight LGAs in the states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, a region that had recently suffered disruptions from a conflict that has negatively influenced food security, nutrition, and livelihoods. The purpose for the expansion was to “move returnees, insurgent-affected communities, vulnerable, and [internally displaced persons] from dependence on humanitarian assistance to self-reliance by fully and actively engaging in agricultural and other economic activities.”10 The Famine and Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS Net) food security outlook for Nigeria from October 2017 to May 2018 reported that many displaced HHs in the region were highly dependent on humanitarian assistance to meet minimal food requirements and were in crisis. Borno, in the “epicenter of the insurgency,” faced a Phase Three acute food insecurity crisis, “meaning that one in five HHs would meet food consumption gaps or would be marginally able to meet food needs with the continued depletion of livelihood assets.“11 (See also the Integrated Phase Classifications for Acute Food Insecurity.12) During the insurgency, only about 20 percent of the HHs in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe were farming.13 The NE focus of the Activity was on agriculture and income generation, with the intent of helping farmers to stabilize farm production. The activities introduced in the region included the formation of PGs and SILCs, strengthening of seed access and distribution systems, and the creation of linkages between farmers and agro-input dealers. Services to HHs included training on best agronomic practices and the establishment of demonstration plots and farms. 7 City Population at www.citypopulation.info. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Nigeria Livelihoods Project. Baseline Survey Report, October 2017. 11 FEWS Net. Food Security Outlook. Populations in the northeast remain highly dependent on humanitarian assistance. June 2017 to January 2018. 12 This classification comes from the Integrated Food Insecurity Phase Classification System. 13 Catholic Relief Services. Livelihoods and Economic Recovery Assessment 2016. North East Nigeria, May 2016. 11 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Population sizes in these states were estimated to range from 3.3 million in Yobe and 4.3 million in Adamawa to over 5.8 million in Borno in 2016, based on projections from the 2006 census.14 Figure 2. Map of Nigeria showing intervention states [Source: USAID (2018)]. 1.5 ACTIVITIES The project supported various interventions designed to increase productivity and improve HH resilience. Some interventions were designed to achieve cross-cutting goals, such as the increased engagement of women in agriculture and business. Implementation included sustainability mechanisms for the caseworker model and SILCs, including local government engagement and capacity building skill sets such as budgeting and work plan design. Activities included the following. 1.5.1 IMPROVING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY AND THE ADOPTION OF IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ▪ Trained farmers how to improve agricultural productivity and post-production/post￾harvest handling practices; ▪ Facilitated the formation of PGs; ▪ Established demonstration plots and farms; and ▪ Linked PGs to financial service providers and markets for inputs and outputs. 14 City Population at www.citypopulation.info. 12 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 1.5.2 MARKET-ORIENTED PRODUCTION DIVERSIFICATION ▪ Trained HHs on how to diversify practices tailored to their context; ▪ Trained field agents and selected women in homestead farming and small-scale drip irrigation for dry season vegetable production; and ▪ Supported the formation of producer marketing committees. 1.5.3 FINANCIAL SKILLS AND MARKET ENGAGEMENT ▪ Formed SILCs; ▪ Trained HHs to identify market opportunities and engage in income-generating activities; ▪ Trained HHs on business development skills and to become micro-entrepreneurs; ▪ Formed entrepreneur peer groups and linked them with market opportunities; ▪ Formed Community Market Research Committees (CMRCs) that represent PGs for gathering and sharing market information; and ▪ CMRC members were trained in marketing basics, value addition, collective marketing, price negotiation, market selection, and other skills. 1.5.4 BRINGING WOMEN INTO THE PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY ▪ Formed SILCs; ▪ Trained caregivers, caseworkers, and liaisons to share information on nutrition and hygiene; ▪ Provided skills in financial management, business startup, market engagement, etc.; and ▪ Established safe spaces. 1.5.5 BUILDING GOVERNMENT CAPACITY TO SUSTAIN POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS ▪ Increased the number of targeted LGAs that included specific poverty reduction lines in their annual budgets; and ▪ Increased the number of targeted LGAs implementing PRPs per local development plans. The cross-cutting activities—capacity building at different levels of governance, support systems for SILCs and PGs, and embedding the caseworker model within local governments—were critical to laying the groundwork for some of the PRPs to be continued after the end of the Activity. 13 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SECTION 2. EVALUATION BACKGROUND 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE This final performance evaluation is intended to provide an independent examination of the overall progress and accomplishments of the USAID-supported FTF Nigeria Livelihoods project. The evaluation identifies achievements, performance issues, and constraints related to activity implementation and performance effectiveness, or the level to which the program produced the desired effects. The evaluation also identifies implementation results and lessons learned and provides concise, actionable recommendations to determine which component(s) of the Activity could be scaled up, modified, or redesigned in future procurements in order to increase the impact of FTF investments. 2.2 AUDIENCE The primary audience for this evaluation includes USAID/Nigeria’s Office of Economic Growth and Environment (EGE), other mission colleagues, and United States Government (USG) officials. Other audiences may include non-USG donor organizations, the Government of Nigeria (GON), and private sector firms, all of which can use the findings to improve future programs and build knowledge. 2.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation addresses the five evaluation questions (EQs) presented below. At the evaluation In￾Briefing at USAID, EGE staff requested that the evaluation team amend the EQs to include an assessment of the caseworker model and the gender framework. In response, EQ3 addresses the caseworker model, the gender framework, and its components as cross-cutting issues. 1. How have the SILCs affected access to finance for beneficiaries of the Livelihoods activity and how do these households utilize that finance? 2. How did the intervention package in the NE affect early economic recovery and the progression of beneficiaries along the Pathway to Prosperity? 3. How effective was the model of agriculture-led growth in promoting HH balances between personal consumption and income generation through market engagement? Include an evaluation of the caseworker model. 4. What are the contributing factors and barriers to increased local/state government investment in PRPs and services? 5. To what extent are any results achieved likely to be sustained after the Activity ends? 14 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SECTION 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS This final performance evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to collect, analyze, and triangulate quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions. This approach is in line with the definition of performance evaluations provided in USAID Evaluation Guidance,15 which states: "Performance evaluations encompass a broad range of evaluation methods. They often incorporate before-after comparisons, but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. Performance evaluations may address descriptive, normative, and/or cause-and-effect questions: what a particular activity or program has … how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and other questions that are pertinent to design, management, and operational decision-making.” The evaluation team (“the team”) developed its mixed-methodological approach through the careful review of the Livelihoods project’s background documents, including annual reports, HH graduation surveys, baseline surveys, assessments of services, activity manuals, and activity monitoring data. The team also gathered secondary data and background information to provide context and support where possible, including secondary sources from other donors, such as the World Bank, who were operating at or near the same geographic areas as the project. After completing the desk review, the team worked in close collaboration with USAID to develop the quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments used to carry out this evaluation. The team carried out a survey to quantify activity achievements and compare them with performance targets. This included collecting quantitative data from 361 interviews with activity beneficiaries, including 257 male heads of household (MHHs) and 104 FHHs in six states and 16 LGAs.16 Survey findings enabled the team to: (1) validate findings from other surveys, assessments, and other monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data collection carried out over the course of the Activity; and (2) quantify the productive and economic status of a representative sample of project beneficiaries. Table 1 below presents the breakdown of survey respondents by HHs, zone/state and gender. Annex B provides a further breakdown of survey respondents by LGA and sex. 15 USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 201, Evaluation Policy, 2016. 16 During the out-briefing with USAID/EGE, DevTech reported collecting 475 surveys. Three conditions explain why this number is larger than the 361 surveys reported above: (1) in the NE, the team collected 198 surveys rather than 79, in part because the team was uncertain that it would be able to travel to other locations as planned, due to pressure from local officials to interview more people. Additional information on this is provided in the evaluation limitations section; (2) four surveys were thrown out from the NW because of incomplete data; and (3) in the evaluation work plan, the evaluation team did not plan to travel to Yobe for security reasons; once in the field, it learned that Yobe was secure enough to survey. 15 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 1. Survey respondents by zone/state, HH, and sex. ZONE/STATE HH SURVEY RESPONDENTS BENEFICIARIES MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH NORTHEAST (NE) Adamawa 50 6 56 2,321 679 3,000 Borno 93 37 130 5,660 482 6,142 Yobe 10 2 12 3,505 135 3,640 NORTHWEST (NW) Kebbi 57 20 77 10,269 1,581 11,850 Sokoto 125 44 169 19,418 4,958 24,376 NORTH CENTRAL (NC) FCT 12 15 27 4,802 975 5,777 TOTAL 347 124 471 45,975 8,810 54,785 The Livelihoods project has an active M&E unit, which organized quantitative data collection as part of annual reviews, surveys, and program assessments. CRS completed a population-level survey of all HHs graduating from Phase B beneficiaries to assess the economic status of those beneficiaries upon graduation. The World Bank also conducted a baseline study in Kebbi State prior to Phase B’s registration in FY 2015. The World Bank is currently conducting a follow-up impact study, focusing on the Activity’s ability to establish a social safety net for vulnerable HHs. These types of references provided additional context to the analysis presented below. The team also collected qualitative data to clarify and supplement the survey findings with richer, contextual data useful for understanding complex environments. The project is particularly complex because of its multi-sector, HH-centric approach, where services are tailored to the needs of the HH. Key informant interview (KII) data helps to explain how activity beneficiaries perceived the interventions and their implementation. The qualitative data supported answering questions such as whether and why beneficiaries valued the interventions and how the interventions could be improved. The team conducted 10 focus group discussions (FGDs) in the NE region (50 females and 36 males) and 21 in the NW (94 females and 74 males), for a total of 110 male and 144 female participants. Participants included PG members, SILC members, caseworkers, microenterprise group members, village development committee (VDC) members, and liaisons. The qualitative data collected from these FGDs provided critical feedback from indirect beneficiaries who were members of some of the Activity’s affiliated groups such as PGs, marketing committees, and SILCs. There were a mix of groups across different communities in each state. FGDs were not conducted in Yobe due to increased security concerns, expressed by community leaders, and in FCT, where other data collection methods were used. The 16 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FGD Table 2a below shows the breakdown of the number of FGDs conducted by participant type and Table 2b shows the number of beneficiaries coded as having received PG, SILC, and LPP services. Table 2a. FGDs by participant type and location. Table 2b. Beneficiaries by type and state. FOCUS GROUPS NE NW TOTAL STATES PRODUCER GROUPS SILCs LPP SILC 3 8 11 Adamawa 3,000 102 0 Producer Group 6 7 13 Borno 6,142 895 0 Microenterprise Group 1 1 2 FCT 2,847 71 5,777 VDC 0 2 2 Kebbi 6,823 1,560 10,410 Liaisons 0 2 2 Sokoto 10,820 3,049 12,747 Caseworkers 0 1 1 Yobe 3,640 0 0 Total 10 21 31 In addition to the FGDs, the evaluation team conducted 31 semi-structured KIIs with Livelihoods activity staff, agro-producers, private sector representatives, government representatives, and public health workers. These interviews included two days of meetings at the CRS offices in Abuja with the project director and team leaders. All KIIs were conducted in person except for that with the Agricultural Team Lead of the Activity, which was conducted via telephone (the Agricultural Team Lead was out of office when the live interview was conducted, so the survey team used a telephone interview rather than skipping this critical interview). The evaluation team collected written consent from all survey participants and verbal consent from all FGD and KII participants. 3.1.1 HH LEVEL SURVEY - SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING STRATEGY The evaluation team constructed the sample frame for the HH survey from a CRS data set that listed 54,78517 HH beneficiaries in the NE states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe; the NW states of Sokoto and Kebbi; and the NC state of the FCT, which indicated whether beneficiaries were linked to a PG, SILC, or other service(s) provided through the Activity. The CRS data set also included a unique identification code for each HH (called the “barcode”), name, age, and sex of the beneficiary, as well as their location by state, LGA, ward, and community. 17 The number of beneficiaries in the IPPT is 54,787, which differs slightly from the number of beneficiaries in the beneficiary database, which identifies 54,785 beneficiaries. 17 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION For the HH-level survey, the evaluation team used a 95 percent confidence interval and a 5 percent margin of error to calculate a sample size of 361 HHs for the three zones using RaoSoft Software.18 This sample size is valid for binary responses. The team used a stratified random sampling procedure in Stata to select a representative sample of HHs from the sample frame, randomizing states, LGAs, communities, and activity codes which identified the beneficiaries linked to PGs or SILCs. By randomizing on both geographical areas and activities, the sample includes a representative number of beneficiaries who were in PGs or SILCs, which provided important data for answering EQ1, EQ2, and EQ3. Using this approach, 68 percent of the sample came from the NW, 24 percent from the NE, and 8 percent from the NC zone. The geographic distribution and sex composition of HHs in the sample frame can be found in Annex B: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Frame and Sample Distribution by Zone. A buffer list, containing 100 randomly selected HHs across the states, LGAs, and communities was generated and reserved for replacement should any or a combination of the following situations arise: ▪ If, by chance, the team were unable to reach a HH for interview; ▪ A selected HH was not willing to participate in the interview; and/or ▪ A selected HH relocated from the community for unknown reasons. Table 3 below shows the number of HHs in the sample coded as being linked to a PG or SILC group, with 225 HHs coded as members of PGs and 41 as members of SILCs distributed across the six states. Table 3. Distribution of selected HHs belonging to PGs and SILCs, by state. STATES PRODUCER GROUPS SILCs Adamawa 16 0 Borno 43 6 FCT 17 0 Kebbi 55 12 Sokoto 74 23 Yobe 20 0 3.1.2 STRATIFIED SAMPLE FOR ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTHEAST The project commenced activities in the NE in FY 2017 and key interventions included PGs, SILCs, and systems to improve access to quality seeds. To adequately address EQ2, the team drew a sample that included HHs in the NE that had benefitted from one or more of these activities; however, using random sampling for all HHs in the NE, the evaluation was not capturing HHs benefitting from SILC 18 http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html 18 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION activities because those HHs only represented 8 percent (997 out of 12,785) of the HHs in the NE. To address this issue, the team created a filtered database with 997 HHs who had all benefited from PG and SILC activities (Table 4). Table 4. Total number of HHs (sample frame) in NE involved with SILCs and PGs and sampled HHs from the groups. HHs WITHIN SAMPLE FRAME PARTICIPATINGN IN PGs & SILCs HHs SAMPLED STATE FEMALE MALE TOTAL PGs SILCs Adamawa 19 83 102 16 0 Borno 119 776 895 43 6 Yobe 0 0 0 20 0 TOTAL 138 859 997 79 6 The database for NE only included four intervention areas (PGs, SILCs, marketing committees, and seed entrepreneurs) out of the 14 variables included in the full beneficiary database (see Table 5 below). Using this database as the sample frame for the NE, the team drew 79 HHs, an amount equal to the 21 percent drawn for the overall sample for the evaluation. Each HH belongs to a PG and SILC. 19 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 5. Sample distribution for HH survey by zone/state and gender of head of household involved in SILCs and PGs. ZONE/STATE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH NORTHEAST (NE) Adamawa 14 2 16 Borno 40 3 43 Yobe 19 1 20 SUBTOTAL (NE) 70 9 79a NORTHWEST (NW) Kebbi 79 16 95 Sokoto 136 34 170 SUBTOTAL (NW) 215 50 265b NORTH CENTRAL (NC) FCT 31 7 38c TOTAL (a+b+c) 382 Because of security issues, the team was concerned that it might encounter trouble trying to reach respondents in the NE, so it used a randomized list of 100 additional HHs to serve as replacements for unavailable respondents. 3.1.3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN The survey questionnaire was designed to gather quantitative data to answer each of the five EQs as outlined below. The team deconstructed each of the EQs into a set of specific questions that guided the survey design and data collection activities. A list of these questions and the related indicators can be found in Annex C. ▪ Agricultural production and productivity, investments in agriculture, income, and sources of livelihoods (EQ2 and EQ3); ▪ Market engagement (EQ3); ▪ Membership with and experience in SILCs (EQ1); ▪ Resilience, diet, and nutrition of young children and women of childbearing age (EQ2); ▪ Experience with the livelihood planning process and the caseworker model (EQ3); 20 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ▪ Governance (EQ4); and ▪ Cross-cutting (EQ5). 3.1.4 DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES The evaluation team began the document review on March 22, 2018 and met with CRS directors and team leaders for initial interviews in Abuja on April 17 and 18, 2018. Enumerator training and data collection in Sokoto and Kebbi States in the NW, and in Adamawa and Borno in the NE, occurred from April 24 to May 6, 2018. A total of 48 enumerators (six to ten in each state) received training on the survey instrument before piloting the instrument with HHs that were not included in the sample frame. From May 7 to 9, 2018, the team concurrently conducted data collection activities in FCT, as well as qualitative data collection activities in the NE, NW, and NC zones. See Annex B for tables on FGDs and KIIs by zone. During the fieldwork, the team conducted daily field reviews of the survey, KII, and FGD responses respectively for accuracy and completeness. 3.1.5 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The greatest limitations to executing this evaluation occurred during the data collection and data cleaning phases of the evaluation. These limitations are outlined below. 1. The evaluation team found that it was very difficult in terms of quality control and efficiency to train a new set of enumerators in each state, particularly with a long survey and limited time for training and data collection. Just as enumerators were getting up to speed, the team was leaving them to train other new people in a different state. In each state, due to the time constrains, the team only had time to conduct a half day of training on the instrument, followed by half day of practice by piloting the instrument with volunteers not included in the sample frame. There was not time to translate the survey into local languages, so enumerators had to translate from English into the local language, which may mean questions may not have been interpreted to mean the same thing in every case. This meant that during data cleaning and analysis, it was particularly important to look for inconsistencies and outliers, eliminating questions and respondents/cases, if necessary, where missing or inconsistent data were discovered by the team. 2. In the NE, the evaluation team collected 198 surveys rather than 79 for two reasons: (1) the team was uncertain that it was going to be able to travel to other locations as planned; and (2) there was pressure from local officials to interview additional community-level respondents. To address this issue, prior to analyzing the data the team applied a Stata randomization procedure to select 79 surveys plus nine additional surveys, a five-percent buffer, to allow for incomplete data. This ensured that the team did not create additional bias by hand-picking the surveys to include the oversampled communities. When the team randomized the collected samples, they were also able to include the respondents from Yobe, which meant that, in the end, the team was able to analyze surveys for all three NE states. 21 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 3. The survey results presented in this evaluation report have limited external validity due, in part, to the challenges of selecting respondents in some regions, namely the NE. Given this, we are unable to estimate the precise effect of the Activity on its 54,78519 beneficiaries. 4. Collecting and analyzing data on agricultural yields is complex and traditionally unreliable for many reasons, including intercropping, inaccurate reporting due to poor recall, purposeful underreporting, and, among other things, the lack of precise plot measurements or measurements on how much of each plot was planted. FTF provides multiple options for collecting data on yields depending on the time and resources available, including farmer estimates. Because yields were not a focus of this performance evaluation, the team did not invest significant resources in collecting precise yield data. During analysis, it found that evaluation yield estimates did not match well with typical yields for some crops; this is noted where it is the case. 5. Because of the importance this activity placed on women’s market engagement and women’s participation in SILCs, it would have been better to interview more women who were beneficiaries—even though they were not the head of their HH. By using a database for the sample frame organized by head of household (HHH), some of the data results may be skewed toward the perspective of the male producers or male SILC members. For example, qualitative data provides evidence that male and female SILC users have different savings patterns and use borrowed funds for different purposes. The quantitative results do not capture these kinds of differences, because evaluation respondents were mostly male HHHs. 6. Insurgent activity during the NE fieldwork directly disrupted data collection in the Muna Dalti community in Jere LGA, Borno State. The team collected some extra surveys in other locations to account for its inability to collect data in this state/LGA/community. 7. The team used facilitators to contact communities in advance and provide the names of people that it hoped to interview. Still there were times when people on these lists were not available. In those cases, the team asked community leaders to see if people on the buffer list might be available. 19 The total number of activity beneficiaries differs depending on whether you are referencing the Activity’s Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) or the beneficiary database developed by the Activity. The IPTT reports 54,787 beneficiaries while the beneficiary database includes 54,785 beneficiaries. The difference in 2 individuals was considered insignifcant for the evaluation purposes, and the number 54,875 was used during the evaluation. 22 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SECTION 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 EQ1: HOW HAVE THE SILCs AFFECTED ACCESS TO FINANCE FOR BENEFICIARIES OF THE LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY AND HOW DO THESE HOUSEHOLDS UTILIZE THAT FINANCE? CRS implemented SILCs to provide beneficiaries with a way to form groups, save money, and create connections to other members of the community. SILC members followed bylaws and had a secure, three-key system for protecting the money. SILCs are a self-selected group of individuals who share common characteristics with the aim of saving part of their income and accessing funds to meet their individual needs through loans and share-outs from their group savings. 4.1.1 PARTICIPATION IN SAVINGS AND INTERNAL LENDING COMMITTEES A survey conducted through the Activity in 2015 reported that 27 percent20 of the HH beneficiaries in FCT and Sokoto belonged to SILCs at that time. The Activity had yet to commence in Kebbi State in early 2015. The survey conducted for this evaluation found that 70 percent of the sampled HHs in the FCT, 59 percent of Sokoto HHs, and 29 percent of Kebbi HHs belonged to SILCs, indicating an increase in SILC membership in some communities since 2015. Overall, 52 percent of the sampled beneficiaries reported that they were SILC members. In Sokoto and Kebbi FGDs, participants reported that they agreed to join SILCS, a self-selected group, to pool resources together irrespective of their individual level of vulnerability. FGD participants said that non-beneficiaries were interested and willing to join their SILC groups, but could not because groups were limited to 25 members. The team interviewed a SILC group of non-beneficiaries in Kebbi, who reported they were trying to establish their own group. A final report on SILC activities in NC and NW21 reported that 5,277 beneficiaries belonged to SILCs in Sokoto, 3,351 in FCT, and 5,630 in Kebbi State, for a total of 14,258 members. The beneficiary database identified 5,677 beneficiaries who had received SILC services. The discrepancy in the data likely resulted from CRS revalidating the beneficiary base prior to submission of their final report. In the NE, 100 percent of Yobe HHs surveyed and 63 percent of Adamawa and Borno HHs surveyed in were SILC members. In the NC state of Kebbi, 29 percent were members and in Sokoto, 59 percent. In the FCT, 70 percent of the surveyed beneficiaries were members of SILCs. FGD participants in Adamawa and Borno said they come together in groups, despite differences in their level of vulnerability and resilience status. They reported that they are motivated to be members of SILCs because it helps 20 CRS 2015 Nigeria Livelihoods Project. Annual Survey Report, November 2015. 21 Catholic Relief Services. Feed the Future Technical Progress Report. Intermediate Result 2 - Savings and Lending Communities. August 2014 to 2018. 23 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION them to address common livelihoods and resilience challenges by improving their savings culture, capacity to respond to shocks, and other basic needs. 4.1.2 ACCESS TO FINANCE THROUGH SILC LOANS OR SHARE-OUTS According to the report of the HH evaluation survey, 47 percent of FCT SILC members, 36 percent of Sokoto SILC members, and 35 percent of Kebbi State SILC members had borrowed funds from their SILC. Sokoto had the highest rate of borrowing by FHHs (53 percent), and Kebbi had highest rate of borrowing by MHHs (46 percent). Table 6. SILCs by state (includes FCT). ADAMAWA BORNO FCT KEBBI SOKOTO YOBE No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Have you ever borrowed or taken money from your SILC group? No 10 63 13 57 10 53 11 65 87 64 6 86 Yes 6 38 10 43 9 47 6 35 48 36 1 14 Sub￾total 16 100 23 100 19 100 17 100 135 100 7 100 Additionally, FGD participants in Sokoto and Kebbi states reported regularly borrowing money from the SILCs and that they were willing to continue their memberships, because it is the only means by which they can access financing when needed and/or because it has enhanced their livelihoods by investing in their businesses and purchasing agro-inputs. They stated that they can now make financial plans based on their savings and access the additional funds saved by the group, which means they have access to larger amounts of money than they would on their own. In the NE, 43 percent of Borno SILC members, 38 percent of Adamawa SILC members, and 17 percent Yobe SILC members borrowed from their SILC group last year. Fifty-eight percent of female SILC members in Borno had borrowed money within the last year. In Adamawa, 38 percent of males and 33 percent of females had taken loans from their SILCs in the previous year (see Annex E for detail). HHs in Yobe borrowed less; community leaders for the state suggested this is due to people still recovering from shocks caused by insurgent activities affecting their local economy and limiting their access to income from alternative agriculture or business activities. 4.1.3 UTILIZATION OF SILC FUNDS VIA LOAN OR SHARE-OUT As noted previously, SILC members can use loans and/or share-outs for many different purposes. Some common uses for SILC loans include health care, investments in business startups, payment of school fees, purchase of farm inputs, recovery from HH shocks (such as flooding, drought, loss of employment 24 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION by a family member, agriculture losses, or insurgent activity), and other basic family needs.22 SILC members in Kebbi and Sokoto used their loans or share-outs for the purchase of farm inputs, investment in business startups, and payment of school fees. In the NW, results from our HH survey revealed that in Kebbi, SILC members used their loans and share-outs primarily for health care services (50 percent), investments in business payment of school fees, and purchase of farm inputs (roughly 17 percent each). Please see Annex E for detailed statistical information. In Sokoto State, 45 percent of SILC members used their loans to assist with recovery from HH shocks, 38 percent purchased farm inputs, 11 percent invested in business startups, 1 percent purchased food stuffs, and 5 percent paid school fees. In the NW (Sokoto and Kebbi), male members of SILCs used loans to purchase farm inputs (39 percent), recover from HH shocks23 (37 percent), invest in business (8 percent), pay school fees (8 percent), or pay for health care services and other basic family needs (8 percent), while female SILC members used their loans to recover from HH shocks (50 percent), purchase farm inputs (30 percent), and invest in business startups (20 percent). Women used SILC loans to start small businesses more often than did men. In the NW FGDs, female SILC-member participants said they had invested their loans in microbusinesses, sometimes taking out a sequence of small loans to gradually build up one or more businesses. Male FGD participants who were more involved in agriculture discussed using the funds to purchase farm inputs. Both women and men had many success stories to share. In Maga community (Dango Wasagu LGA, Kebbi State), a beneficiary bought a sewing machine and has trained four additional women on how to use the machine. A butcher who used to slaughter and sell one ram per day is now selling two rams per day. Another participant involved in the sale of grains, who was buying two bags a day, now buys five bags for resale on market days. He is making additional income, is reinvesting the funds to expand his business, and has paid off his loan from the group. Similarly, in Rara community (Raba LGA, Sokoto State), female SILC members and FGD participants discussed having started microbusinesses and said that these businesses have helped to expand their local market as people from nearby communities come in to purchase their products. 22 Catholic Relief Services. Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILC): Voices from Africa | The benefits of integrating SILC into development programming. October 2010. 23 Borrowing for recovery from HH shocks usually is used for purchasing supplies or services needed to survive until next income is generated or purchase replacement assessts needed to generate income. This spending is different from regular consumption, investment in business or purchase of agriculture inputs because spending is unplanned and needed for survival. 25 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 7. Utilization of loan from SILC, by percentage. STATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS START-UP SCHOOL FEES PAYMENT PURCHASE OF FARM INPUTS RECOVERY FROM SHOCKS OTHERS Adamawa 0 0 0 67 0 33 Borno 11 11 33 33 11 0 FCT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kebbi 50 16.67 16.67 16.67 0 0 Sokoto 0 10 5 38 45 2 Yobe 0 0 0 0 100 0 In the NE, findings from the HH survey indicated that 100 percent of SILC-borrowed funds were spent on recovery in Yobe. These findings suggest that recovery from shocks is an ongoing and critical need in Yobe State due to insurgency-driven security instabilities, as HHs have yet to gain full access to their farms to recommence agricultural activities. Conversely, in Adamawa State most SILC members are involved in agricultural activities because of its relative level of stability. Sixty-seven percent of SILC funds in Adamawa and 33 percent in Borno State were used to purchase inputs. When analyzing the NE sex breakdown in how SILC funds or share-outs are used, the survey reveals that 43 percent of male SILC members purchased farm inputs, while other MHHs used their SILC funds to recover from HH shocks, purchase of food stuffs, clothing, investments in business startups, and to pay for health care services or other basic family needs. Fifty percent of female NE SILC members used borrowed funds to pay for their children’s school fees. This was especially true in Adamawa and Borno States, where school activities have resumed as a result of stability. Thirty-three percent of female borrowers spent their loaned funds on the purchase of farm inputs and 17 percent on HH shock recovery such as investment in food, clothing and medicals. The findings from the qualitative data demonstrate that SILCs sometimes experience solvency challenges because there are specific times of the year when all members need cash from the group at the same time (e.g., Salah,24 the commencement of farming seasons,25 and the times that school fees must be paid).26 Lack of access to formal financial services for additional funding means there is a high demand for SILCs. Some SILC groups are slow to build up their financial capital, because the group savings are constrained by what group members can contribute. This presents a larger challenge for SILCs whose membership includes a greater proportion of extremely poor HHs. 24 Salah is the end of the holy month of Ramadan in June annually. 25 The commencement of farming season in from May to June annually. 26 The timeframe for payment of school fees is January, April, and September for primary and secondary schools. 26 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.1.4 CONCLUSIONS The SILC strategy has worked well in creating access to financing among group members in the communities and these funds have been put to good use by activity beneficiaries in meeting their basic livelihood needs such as access to food, health care, recovery from HH shocks, payment of school fees, investment microbusiness startups, and agricultural activities. SILCs provide an important resource for dealing with shocks, purchasing inputs, and meeting health care needs. This was a recurring finding in both the NW, NC (FCT), and NE zones. SILCs also played a critical role in helping women to initiate small businesses. By contrast, male farmer FGD participants said that SILCs do not always meet their needs, because there are periods during the agricultural cycle when everyone needs to borrow money at the same time to purchase inputs. Despite this, due to lack of access to other sources of finance (such as microfinance institutions and/or commercial banks), SILCs have proven to be the only assured access to funds for many male and female activity beneficiaries. 4.1.5 RECOMMENDATIONS In continuing to address Nigeria’s livelihoods gaps, future activities should build on the lessons learned and challenges faced by this Activity to improve the implementation of utilization of SILC funds via loan or share-out. ▪ SILCs should be strengthened, as they help break the cycle of poverty in communities. The SILC model should be restructured to address insolvency problems during the planting season and consider the possibility of increased business-related training and community￾based entrepreneurship opportunities. ▪ The Activity should consider addressing SILC member demands for larger loans, perhaps by linking established SILC groups to local MFIs. The Activity should also help develop members’ knowledge and skills about how to effectively use additional funding and ensure that MFIs understand how to package financial products for poorer populations. ▪ SILCs are often admired by non-beneficiaries, who then want to start their own group. Activities should build in methods of starting new SILCs by making sure that information about how to contact PSPs is available to community members, perhaps through their respective development committees. ▪ Crop insurance advocacy should also be explored for SILC beneficiaries and other benefiting producers to protect producers against disasters and other forms of shock. 4.2 EQ 2: HOW DID THE INTERVENTION PACKAGE IN THE NE AFFECT EARLY ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND THE PROGRESSION OF BENEFICIARIES ALONG THE PATHWAY FROM STABILIZATION TO RECOVERY AND RESILIENCE? NE HHs interviewed showed some signs of early economic recovery, including positive changes in agricultural production and practices, asset purchases, accessing financing for basic needs, and some dietary diversity. When HHs achieve positive changes in indicators like these, they typically increase resilience and an ability to cope with shocks, which helps to keep them moving forward toward economic recovery. 27 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION In the NE, 28 percent of HHs surveyed were from Adamawa, 58 percent from Borno, and 14 percent from Yobe. All 88 HHs in the NE data set are analyzed and included in the analysis below. The expansion of the FTF Livelihoods project activity into the NE focused on agriculture and income￾generation activities, which included partnerships with local organizations and communities to strengthen seed systems, create linkages between farmers and agro-input suppliers, and assist farmers to connect with each other through PGs and collective marketing.27 The Activity also provided agriculture and business-development training. Table 8 shows the engagement of the NE beneficiaries in crop farming, livestock rearing and businesses/trading. Table 8. NE beneficiaries’ source of livelihoods. CROP FARMING % LIVESTOCK REARING % BUSINESSES /TRADING % Male 58 66 34 39 21 24 Female 21 24 9 10 6 7 Twenty-four percent female and 66 percent male respondents in the NE reported being crop farmers. Ten percent females and 39 percent of males also engaged in livestock production. Seven percent of females and 24 percent of males also reported income from businesses/trading. Having multiple sources of income is important for increasing and diversifying income; HHs in the NE survey sample reported an average of two sources of income. The Activity set a performance goal for all HHs to have three sources of income. 4.2.1 STABILIZING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION HHs in the NE mostly produce cowpea, millet, and maize and, to a limited extent, sorghum and groundnuts. Male and female farmers reported having planted anywhere from one-half hectare to seven hectares with cowpeas; this was more than expected, given that the criteria for vulnerable HHs include small land ownership. Sixty-eight percent of female farmers produced cowpeas on one hectare or less, compared with 44 percent of males. No female farmers and only 12 male farmers reported producing millet. Maize production was more common, with 72 percent of female farmers and 78 percent of male farmers reporting that they produced maize in the last 12 months. 27 Nigeria Livelihoods Project. Baseline Survey Report. October 2017. 28 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 9. Problems/challenges faced by farmers in agriculture and income generation. PROBLEM NW NE FCT # Rank # Rank # Rank Lack of credit services 179 1 st 70 1 st 20 1 st Low output prices 140 3 rd 48 4 th 16 4 th High input prices 151 2 nd 49 3 rd 19 2 nd Inputs available 112 7 th 47 5 th 18 3 rd Poor market networks 131 6 th 38 8 th 16 4 th Limited market 116 5 th 16 10th 13 6 th Lack of storage facility 110 8 th 44 6 th 16 4 th Lack of transportation 119 4 th 39 7 th 14 5 th Regulatory environment 69 10th 24 9 th 10 7 th Post-harvest losses 102 9 th 53 2 nd 4 9 th Other 15 11th 10 11th 9 8 th Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) Survey respondents reported that the scarcity or lack of affordable agricultural inputs was one of their greatest challenges (Table 9). The high price of inputs reduced profits enough to make it difficult to afford food or health care. FGD participants also reported that poor-quality seeds and the high cost of inputs were barriers to increasing productivity. Pest infestations, and the farmer’s individual inability to purchase or buy pesticides were also reported as challenges. The impact of the investment in training 87 new village agro-input dealers (VADs) in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno has not helped farmers except in Borno, where a few innovative VADs are providing herbicides and other inputs to farmers. The major constraint to VADs in the affected states was the increased control placed on inorganic fertilizers and also the state of insecurity in the affected states, making distribution and marketing of agro-input difficult. Borno state government supported the VADs by creating synergy between the security personnel, Agriculture Development Program (ADP), and VADs to allow movement of agro-inputs across the state. Despite these challenges, HHs reported being more prepared, based on the training the farmers received in the use of manures and composting, to deal with the lack of agricultural inputs as opposed to (controlled) inorganic fertilizers. The Good 29 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Agricultural Practices training beneficiaries are better prepared to deal with unavailability of inputs than before the Activity started. In Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, good-quality inputs, particularly inorganic fertilizers, are not available due to the use of such chemical fertilizers to produce improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The other available inputs tend to be of low quality and seeds are very expensive. The average seed expenditures for target crops per hectare were Nigerian naira (NGN) 3,280 (n=36)28 for maize; NGN 5,252 (n=41) for cowpeas; and NGN 1,864 (n=14) for millet. During KIIs in Biu, Borno State, the community leader who is also a lead farmer reported that outputs from individual farmers are still too low to interest industrial or commercial buyers. As a result, most farmers sell their crops in informal, local markets and, in most cases, this produce is poor in quality. This notion was supported by FGD participants in Hong LGA, Adamawa State, who reported that lower-than-commercially-viable crop quantities is, in part, the reason that the Activity established PGs. FGD participants also noted that all of the marketing committees lacked the capacity to source for external buyers and mobilized funds to support their internal systems. FGD participants reported that interventions around post-harvest have helped farmers to add value to their produce through processing, storage, and packaging. A significant number of the respondents agreed that they were trained on post-harvest handling of crops. The 2017 CRS Annual Report stated that “As part of the [activity’s] capacity-building activities, a total of 7,006 (5,494 male, 1,512 female) producer group members in the three project locations in the NE were trained on harvest and post￾harvest activities. This included training on threshing, winnowing, bagging, and non-chemical hermetic storage technology using [Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) triple layer] bags.” Although the PICS bags method for grains, particularly maize, was explained to some of the farmers, FGD participants reported that PICS bags could not be accessed and that even those that received confirmed they were not sufficient because it was not readily in the market. The Activity provided PICS bags mostly for demonstration purposes, while they were not available in the market for interested farmers to buy and use. Consequently, NE HHs were not fully able to adopt this storage practice. Agricultural production in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno is labor-intensive. Farm lands are small and fragmented and there is strong dependence on rain-fed agriculture, except for a pilot farming irrigation activity in Borno.29 In Yobe and Adamawa, none of the respondents indicated that they produced crops under irrigation during the previous year (from January to December 2017). 4.2.2 CONCLUSIONS ▪ Over the short duration of the Activity in the NE, farmers were trained in new agricultural practices and accessed some agro-input, which helped them to stabilize production and to avoid crop losses. However, these farmers still face challenges such as obtaining affordable inputs (e.g., seeds and fertilizer), PICS bags to protect crops after harvest, and irrigation for their crops. Farmers have not reached the point where they have enough agricultural produce to sell to meet both income and nutritional needs. There is a need for closer and 28 “n” in parenthesis represents number of non-blank survey responses used to calculate the average. 29 Irrigation farming was piloted in the Kaga and Jere LGAs of Borno State. 30 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION more effective collaboration with seed-producing companies and other input dealers/suppliers to ensure the availability and timely distribution of inputs to farmers. Close collaboration may help to determine and address reasons of lack access to the inputs faster. ▪ Strengthening the connections between PGs, the PGMC members, and input suppliers is needed to create connections between input suppliers and PGs in more remote areas. PGMCs are more successful at negotiating the sale of outputs at this stage than in finding good prices for inputs. ▪ Community seed farm models, like those in the NW, should be replicated and improved upon in the NE states to improve access to quality seeds. ▪ Promote local production and application of organic fertilizers and composting. 4.2.3 MEETING BASIC NUTRITIONAL NEEDS The survey results demonstrate that vegetable garden ownership is relatively low in all of the NE activity states. Only 16 out 79 survey respondents (20 percent) reported having vegetable gardens. This number may be underreported; most of the survey respondents were male and may not have reported if their wives had vegetable gardens. Female FGD participants said that almost every woman owns a vegetable farm or cultivates vegetables alongside other crops. However, while vegetable farms may exist in many communities, traditional vegetable garden production is limited to the rainy season. Home gardens produce a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, including ugwu, spinach, bitter leaf, green water leaf, onions, okra, and tomatoes. The drip-irrigation intervention piloted in Jere LGA using the UNICEF water points helped women to produce vegetables during the dry season. However, for this intervention to be scaled up, it will require greater investment in water points for drip-irrigation systems. According to one of the female leaders in Biu, “Besides the poor yield from our vegetable farms—which makes food very scarce for the family—the dry season farming which offers income from the sales of vegetables and other products is affected badly by lack of irrigation and our inability to purchase fertilizer.” HHs in the NE are feeding their children under five proteins on a regular basis, yet vegetables are not included as often in children’s meals, particularly in Yobe, where only 10 percent of surveyed HH reported including vegetables in children’s meals. See Figures 3 and 4 below. 31 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 3. Percentage of HHs that feed green leafy vegetables to children under five years (weekly). Figure 4. Percentage of HHs that feed children under five fish, meat, chicken and/or eggs (weekly). 4.2.4 ASSET BUILDING In the previous year, 48 percent of female survey respondents across the three NE states and 59 percent of male survey respondents had purchased goats. Twenty-eight percent of female survey respondents and 37 percent of male respondents had also purchased chickens for backyard farming. Some HHs also reported purchasing cattle, which FGD participants noted is an indication that HHs were increasing their wealth as evident by their investment in animal-rearing as additional source of income. This performance evaluation did not measure the extent to which the Activity contributed to this increase in wealth; however, the report establishes that the investments in livestock- and chicken￾22% 17% 25% 18% 10% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adamawa Borno Kebbi Sokoto Yobe FCT Percentage of households States 25% 30% 26% 41% 38% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adamawa Borno Kebbi Sokoto Yobe FCT Percentage of households States 32 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION rearing are linked to the Livelihoods’ activities. The FGD participants attributed ability to buy cattle to increased earnings from sale of farm produce which was directly targeted by the project. FGD participants also reported that animals are kept primarily as security and sold when immediate cash is needed to solve pressing problems. Chickens are kept not for eggs, but to sell when money is needed. Expenditures on farm tools and labor to assist on the farms indicate that farmers have some income to invest in economic recovery. Five out of six female farmers in Adamawa reported buying some combination of hoes, axes, and rakes. Twenty out of 50 male farmers in Adamawa purchased those same items, but also reported purchasing as many as four other different farm tools. The patterns were similar in the other states. In Borno, 15 female farmers spent an average of NGN 5,613 on farm tools the previous year, and men reported spending an average of NGN 13,839 on farm tools during the same time frame. The median amount that female survey respondents spent per hectare on hiring labor was NGN 20,000 (mean NGN 30,338) and males NGN 63,000 (mean NGN 90,086). The divergence between the means and medians suggest that a few larger farmers were skewing the result. Females reported selling very little of their production in the market, averaging 80 kilograms (kg) of cowpea, 207kg of maize, and 228kg of groundnuts last year. Males, on average, sold more than their female counterparts for every crop, with an average of 2,402kg of cowpea and 1,607kg of maize. On average, males only sold less than their female counterparts when it came to groundnuts. FGD participants explained that females are usually concerned about feeding their family members with the produce they grow, while males tend to grow produce for sale. The Activity provided training on exclusively for female farmers in groundnut processing and this could have increased the production of groundnuts by FHHs. The HH survey conducted by the evaluation team found that farm income increased by 47 percent and non-farm income by 39 percent from 2016 to 201730. Non-farm income-generating activities that women beneficiaries engaged in included sewing, soap-making, and bean cake production; men were more involved in vulcanizing (tire-patching) and the buying and slaughtering of animals. Farm income accounted for 69 percent of total NE incomes in 2016 and 70 percent in 2017. 4.2.5 ACCESS TO FINANCE SILCs are the main source of financing for most NE survey respondents. Commercial financing is either unavailable or the financial products do not meet farmers’ needs. Female SILCs in Borno are the most active, where 58 percent of females have borrowed money from their SILC group. SILC FGD participants explained that most members draw funds via SILC loans or share-outs. SILCs are in their nascent stage in this region, yet they have been very useful in helping members to save, access loans and share-outs when needed, and provide a venue for discussing other issues concerning members’ welfare. NE SILCs are discussed in more detail under EQ1. 30 The survey used recall questions to collect 2016 and 2017 income data, which makes observations for these years less reliable than data for 2018. 33 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.2.6 ADAPTATION TO SHOCK NE survey respondents reported their greatest challenges/difficulties were crop failure, drought, the lack of available agriculture inputs, and insecurity (Figure 5). KII respondents described lack of inputs as poor￾quality seeds and pest infestation, made more severe by farmers’ inability to afford the quantities and types of inputs needed to mitigate these threats. HH survey respondents reported that they were most concerned about crop failure and related concerns such as weeds/pests, drought, and late rains prior to when the Activity started. The Activity addressed these concerns by providing opportunities for emergency funding through SILCs and HHs in all regions used SILC funds to mitigate these risks as discussed above. Figure 5. Number of HHs that experienced drought, lack of food, high food prices, lack of access to inputs, and insecurity/violence, by zone. FGD participants noted that high input costs reduced their profits and farmers’ ability to use income to purchase food and non-food items needed by their families. Other shocks mentioned during FGDs included the high cost of accessing health care by household members and the cost of the death of a family member. 4.2.7 COPING STRATEGIES In all three NE states, government early information and warning systems about pending disasters did not function properly. Given this, respondents reported that they used different mechanisms to prepare for shocks prior to the Activity. Figures 6 and 7 below present NE HHs’ perception of shock preparedness and suggest that more respondents were prepared to deal with lack of agricultural inputs than other shocks. Some of the coping measures against lack of agricultural inputs were use of saved seeds, use of legumes as a source of nitrogen, and other cultural practices such as a land rotation and use of farmyard manures. In the past year (January to December 2017), communities were exposed to more strategies to enhance their capacity to cope with shocks and to stabilize. Additionally, a majority 6 4 1 9 6 11 14 17 18 11 36 36 37 41 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Drought Food High Food Price Lack of Agricultural Input Insecurity/Violence Adamawa Borno Kebbi 34 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION of 52 percent of all survey respondents in the NE indicated they have some sort of mechanism in their communities to respond to development issues and challenges. Figure 6. HHs reporting greater preparedness against shocks, NE. Figure 7. Types of HH activities reduced when coping with shock, by number of HHs. FGD participants also indicated that training in best agricultural practices focused more on crop production than animal husbandry, and that training in post-harvest crop-handling was helpful. Training in crop production was followed by establishing demonstration farms. Farmers indicated they increased their abilities to implement the practices taught, but that they will now need additional training—not just in agricultural practices but also in animal production, and also in how to put their new proficiencies into practice. 0 5 10 15 20 Adamawa Bomo Yobe Drought Food High Food Price Lack of Agricultural Input Insecurity and Violence 7 12 14 3 8 0 20 35 35 62 6 15 20 33 28 56 7 14 17 30 44 40 8 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Adamawa Borno Kebbi Sokoto Yobe FCT Number of Respondents States Renting a place to live Seeking health care when needed instead of waiting or not going at all Trying new foods to expand your diet School fees 35 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.2.8 GENDER AND FEMALE EMPOWERMENT In the NE states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, women continue to carry key responsibilities in the support of families; however, their potential to further contribute to family and economic development is not fully realized. Discussions with female leaders and small-business owners indicated that land ownership continues to be a serious issue for female farmers. While there are opportunities to cultivate small portions of land for vegetables, it is difficult for female farmers—as consequence of both culture and scarcity of capital—to acquire larger plots for cultivation of other crops such as maize and cowpea to increase their incomes. Most of the FGD participants reported that they received training in groundnut milling. “The activity trained 326 women in the NE from various [PGs] on groundnut processing, oil milling, and other by-products in the groundnut commodity value chain.” As discussed earlier, FGD participants and KIIs attribute the fact that FHHs sell more groundnuts than MHHs to this training and saw it as an opportunity to increase their income. FGD participants also noted that they understand the importance of engaging in small businesses and gathering market information, so that the services offered by female farmers would meet demand. More support for females engaging in microbusinesses is needed in the NE. 4.2.9 CONCLUSIONS Some farmers in the NE are showing signs of recovery. They are purchasing some new assets, such as farm tools and farm labor, and gradually increasing investment in animal rearing. However, they still struggle to increase production and preserve their produce because of the scarcity and high cost of available inputs and post-harvest equipment. While new practices promise increased resilience, the ongoing threats of pests and drought remain major concerns. Vegetable gardens, except those cultivated at the home, are scarce—but needed, at least in part to improve the nutrition for young children. The rarity of larger vegetable gardens is largely due to women having little access to land and capital to acquire larger plots of land, as discussed above. SILC membership for HHs has helped to provide a less-formal means of accessing loans, which proved difficult with the formal finance sector. While borrowing rates are still low for groups in Adamawa and Yobe states (ranging from zero to 38%, depending on location and demographics and with the exception of women in Borno), these groups are fairly new; the capital available to members may grow over time. Women are not getting the support they need to access larger plots of land for cultivation. Even though women are anxious to cultivate on a larger scale, access to land for females remains a challenge. Women are interested in more training on how to start microbusinesses and on how to choose businesses for which there is a market demand. 4.2.10 RECOMMENDATIONS Future activities should explore the promotion of local production and application of organic fertilizers, including composting. Others include training on post-harvest processing and storage practices to minimize spoilage. Though the Activity promoted the use of PICS bags for grains storage, it was only used in the case of maize. The PICS bags were also not readily available; the Activity only supported samples for demonstration purposes. Promoting the use of mini silos, use of pepper as pest control in 36 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION sealed bags, and dry blending of tomatoes for home use and other low-cost post-harvest technologies would have helped and are easily adopted by the beneficiaries. ▪ Dry season irrigation farming, particularly for vegetables, should be expanded to other drier areas of the NE to ensure year-round production of nutritious food for families. ▪ The community seed farms model is working in the NW. Similar farms should be replicated and improved upon in the NE to address the lack of availability of improved seed. ▪ Demonstration plots should be owned by farmers. It could be designed as a precondition that, to qualify as lead farmer, a small portion of your farm must be used as a demonstration plot. The project supplies improved seeds and other inputs at harvest; the lead farmer takes a percentage and the rest goes to the PG. Activity practices when demonstration plots were partly owned by the Activity did not give sense of ownership by the farmer who donated such plots, according to the FGD participants. ▪ Nutrition education on the use and combination of various food groups for children and mothers of reproductive age should incorporated into future activities. The production of nutritious food alone is not enough to ensure HH food security. ▪ Women engaged in small enterprises should be provided with basic integrated microenterprise fundamentals training. This training will help expand the level of financial literacy, innovation concepts, and also give the necessary skills to enhance local capacity for micro- and medium-sized enterprises. ▪ Participation of women varied from one location to the other. In locations where they cannot be involved in crop or animal production, women’s participation should be deliberately designed to accommodate more post-harvest activities. ▪ While men can meet easily outside, in some locations it is necessary for female ADPs, service providers, and project staff to meet women in their own houses. In order to reach more women farmers, activities must plan for extra costs—in terms of time, financial resources, and systemic support required for female staff—that may prove necessary in these types of situations. ▪ SILCs have been successful in allowing members to save money and borrow for various activities. This concept should be expanded and strengthened by supporting private service providers that will help to manage the existing groups and form new ones among interested communities. ▪ Training on agricultural practices is still key to improving production of food and food security. There is a need for refresher training on good agricultural practices and the use of simple labor-saving technologies. ▪ Training should be designed to include skills and practices that participants can incorporate immediately into their lives and see immediate results. Future activities should design a structured effort to provide support services (e.g., coaching and mentorship) after skills training, and to continue to support community leaders and 37 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION facilitators after initial training. This could enhance the sustainable outcomes of those modeling best practices within communities. 4.3.1 EQ 3: HOW EFFECTIVE WAS THE MODEL OF AGRICULTURE-LED GROWTH IN PROMOTING BALANCES BETWEEN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION AND INCOME GENERATION THROUGH MARKET ENGAGEMENT? Findings for this evaluation question are based on interviews with the Activity’s sampled HH beneficiaries in the NW, NE, and FCT. Table 10. Average HH farm and non-farm income (N) for FY 2016 and 2017. YEAR NW NE FCT FARM NON-FARM TOTAL FARM NON-FARM TOTAL FARM NON-FARM TOTAL 2016 326,492 139,073 465,565 234,171 104,810 338,981 99,360 107,857 207,117 2017 471,635 228,049 699,684 344,286 145,950 490,236 115,900 99,900 215,800 4.3.1.1 LIVELIHOODS SOURCES Households in the beneficiary states have several livelihood sources. The livelihoods source is shown below by number of HHs that claim a particular livelihood source. Figure 8. Distribution of HHs, by livelihoods source. 235 190 23 40 140 8 79 43 2 3 27 1 25 13 0 2 11 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Crop Farming Livestock/Poultry Fishery/Fishing Salaries/Wages Business Other Number of Households Source FCT NE NW 38 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 8 demonstrates that crop farming is the primary source of livelihood for many activity beneficiaries31 across the NW, NE, and FCT, followed by livestock and small businesses. Survey results show that 68 percent of the HH survey respondents claim crop farming as their primary source of livelihood, while 10 percent and 11 percent claim livestock and small businesses respectively as their source of livelihood. 4.3.1.2 ACCESS TO FARM INPUTS Timely access to farm inputs, particularly seeds, has been a major constraint to Nigerian farmers. The Activity assisted farmers in accessing farm inputs through several interventions, including cash transfers, payment vouchers, and linkages to input suppliers, among others. Figures 9a and 9b below show the distribution of HH beneficiaries according to how they source their seeds and means of payment. Figure 9a. Distribution of farming HH beneficiaries according to source of seed, by region. 31 This confirms the reports of USAID (2007) and UNDP (2016) that farming is the main source of livelihood in northern Nigeria. USAID (2007). Preliminary Livelihood Zoning: Northern Nigeria. A Special Report by the Famine Early Warning System Network. Available at: https://fews.net/sites/default/files/documents/reports/ng_zonedescriptions_en.pdf. Accessed on June 3, 2018; and UNDP (2016). Livelihood and Economic Recovery Assessment 2018: Northeast Nigeria. Available at: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%20prevention/UNDP_FamineStudy_Nigeria.PDF. Accessed on June 3, 2018. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT Market Othe Programs Private Suppliers Number of Households Maize Cowpea Rice Millet Sorghum Vegetables 39 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 9b. Farming HHs’ means of input purchases, by region. Figure 9a indicates that the local market remains the farmers’ major source of seeds in the NE, NW, and NC (FCT) zones, suggesting that many farmers must pay cash to obtain seeds for planting—which proves difficult for many farmers. Consequently, some farmers obtained their seeds from other concurrent non-USAID-funded activities, while most farmers obtained their seeds on credit (see Figure 9b). In addition, some farmers did not buy seeds from the market or agro-input dealers, but rather planted seeds obtained from their farm in the previous farming season. No surveyed beneficiary in FCT purchased inputs with a payment voucher. Figure 9a further suggests that suppliers were used to purchase seed by the smallest number of the farmers. In addition to the cost, farmers complained of distance and transportation costs involved to access suppliers. Most farmers preferred purchasing from nearby markets and saving transportation costs. In order to purchase farm inputs and meet other family needs, many farming HHs borrowed money. Figure 10 below shows the distribution of HHs based on the source of the loan and amount borrowed measured against their repayment capabilities. Data show that HHs who accessed loans through SILCs repaid their loans better (because of strong internal democracy and proper monitoring of what loans were used for) than those borrowing from traditional money-lenders (based only on profit-making). Without recourse to effective use of resources, the amount outstanding from SILCs is usually lower than from other sources. Disaggregating based on zone, 62 percent, 40 percent, and 83 percent of beneficiaries accessed loans through SILCs in NW, NE, and FCT respectively. The percentage in FCT was highest, as beneficiaries accessed loans only from SILCs and money-lenders, with the majority from SILCs. The high repayment rate reported by SILC members is due to a standing rule—that any member who fails to pay back his/her loan when due will not be considered for a loan again—and may risk suspension. SILCs have given many women access to loans for agriculture and small businesses, as they cannot provide the collateral needed to obtain a loan from other sources. SILCs have also encouraged savings among women, which have helped to improve nutrition and engagement in new income￾generating activities. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT Cash Credit Input Voucher Other Number of Households Maize Cowpea Rice Millet Sorghum Vegetables 40 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 10. Amounts borrowed and HH repayment capacity. 4.3.1.3 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOME GENERATION Survey results indicate increased agricultural food production during the course of the Activity. Major crops produced by beneficiary farming HHs across include rice, millet, maize, groundnut, cowpea, and soybean. Income from farming activities of beneficiary HHs constitute more than 70 percent of the total HH income in the NW, NE, and FCT. This is attributed by key informants and FGD participants to the use of improved seed varieties and adoption of good agricultural management practices by farmers, which was promoted by the Activity. For example, the average HH yield in kg for each of the focus crops exceeded the target set by CRS for FY 2017, particularly in the NW and NE. Overall, the total annual income of HH beneficiaries increased by 50 percent, 45 percent, and 4 percent respectively in the NW, NE, and FCT from 2016 to 2017. Disaggregating by income type, farm income increased by 45 percent, 47 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, in NW, NE, and FCT; non-farm income increased by 70 percent and 39 percent in the NW and NE, respectively, from 2016 to 2017. All the value chains in the FCT recorded lower production (the study evaluated total production, volume consumed, volume sold, and volume retained) and revenues relative to those of NW and NE, while there was a 7.4 percent decline in non-farm income in 2017. The causes of lower yields and revenues in the FCT were a combination of high cost of inputs, labor, and not fully adopting the packages of practices that other regions did. Most non-farm activities were carried out by women. Women’s groups, such as SILCs, are also not well-established in the FCT compared to other states. This did not change the benefits of the intervention when compared in terms of the total amount of the income generated; the farm income presented higher values compared to amount generated by non￾farm sources. This indicates that as long as there is no significant increase in farm holding, income may not change dramatically, especially in unit prices which had no significant change between 2016 and 2017. This suggests that the Activity had positive impact on the beneficiary HHs—although at different rates, given the variation in duration of activities in the different zones. In addition, given that the reported farm income came from the sale of output, it is implied that beneficiary HHs met their consumption needs first and had extra to earn additional income, thereby balancing HH consumption 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT Ave Amount Borrowed (N) Ave Amount Repaid (N) Ave Amount Outstanding (N) Amount SILC Money Lender Family Friends Micro Finance Bank 41 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION and income generation. The decrease in non-farm income in the FCT in 2017 may reflect challenges of access to funds. Many beneficiaries in FCT (Bwari Area Council) during the HH survey reported that access to financing has been a major challenge for them and has hindered their ability to increase their scale of farm production and/or engage in other non-farm income generating activities. Comparing income by sex in Sokoto and Kebbi States, survey results indicate that the average farm and non-farm incomes of males in Sokoto State are higher than that of their counterparts in Kebbi State (66 percent and 61 percent higher for farm income, 59 percent and 67 percent for non-farm income in 2016 and 2017 respectively). Survey results show that farm sizes of male beneficiaries in Sokoto State are larger than that of Kebbi State. This potentially translates to higher output and revenue from sales. For non-farm income, more male beneficiaries in Kebbi engaged in non-farm activities than their counterparts in Sokoto. In addition, the average yield (kg) of maize, millet, and groundnut per surveyed beneficiary farmer in Sokoto are 49 percent, 54 percent, and 8 percent higher than the average yield of same crops per surveyed farmer in Kebbi State in 2017. By contrast, the average farm and non-farm income of surveyed female beneficiary farmers in Kebbi State were higher than those of Sokoto in both 2016 and 2017. It is important to note that the non-farm income of females in Kebbi State are 46 percent and 54 percent higher than those in Sokoto in 2016 and 2017 respectively; also, farm incomes are 35 percent and 26 percent higher for females in Kebbi relative to that of their counterparts in Sokoto in the years under consideration. This is not surprising, as about 67 percent of new businesses were established by female SILC members in Kebbi with funds sourced from their SILCs in 2017, compared with 46 percent of females establishing businesses in Sokoto. Further, many female beneficiaries in Kebbi State planted rice, which gives competitive output and revenue with other crops like maize, millet, and sorghum. Again, this implies that the interventions of this activity had positive impact on female beneficiaries and enhanced their income generation. Figures 11a and 11b show the distribution of beneficiary households’ output (yield in kg) and income from sale of crop produce (in NGN) in the year 2017. Figure 11a. Average HH output by crop. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 NW NE FCT Average Output (kg) Cowpea Millet Sorghum Groundnut Soybean Rice Maize Vegetables 42 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure 11b. Average HH income by crop. 4.3.1.4 MARKET ENGAGEMENT Producer Group Marketing Committees (PGMCs) were established to discourage direct “gate” sales and enable farmers obtain higher prices for their products through price negotiation. Survey findings indicate that less than 20 percent of surveyed farming HHs in all zones sold their products through the marketing committees, while more that 80 percent sold directly to buyers in the market. This did not in any way affect the profitability of the producers. During interviews with farmer beneficiaries and the PGMC, a common concern is that the off-takers (wholesalers and industry end-users) travel long distances over deplorable roads, after which—considering the cost of time and transportation—the off￾takers offered net prices lower than what producers may get in open markets within their own community. This serves as a disincentive for most farmers to sell their produce through the marketing committee. 4.3.1.5 FEMALE ENGAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE Female engagement in agriculture and markets have meant more sources of income within a HH to provide for children and family nutritional well-being and education. Establishment of vegetable gardens by females have helped to improve HH nutrition and income, particularly in the NW and NE where about 41 percent and 20 percent respectively had vegetable gardens. In the FCT, none of the surveyed HHs in Bwari Area Council had a vegetable garden. Of the beneficiaries surveyed in all the locations, only 38 percent had vegetable gardens. This low result may be due to the previously stated limitation of surveying recorded (and frequently male) HHHs—vegetable gardening is frequently conducted separately on a smaller, HH scale by the spouse—and in addition, no vegetable gardens at all recorded in the FCT in surveyed areas of Bwari Area Council. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 NW NE FCT Ave Income (Naira) Cowpea Millet Sorghum Groundnut Soybean Rice Maize Vegetables 43 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.3.1.6 BALANCING HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION WITH INCOME GENERATION Results indicate that 91 percent of all surveyed farming HHs fed their families from what they produced during the 2017 cropping season, while some had extra for sale in the market for income generation. Survey results show that quantity sold for the different crops is somewhat proportional to the output of each crop in each zone. Table 11 shows the agricultural output across the intervention states and FCT. Table 12 breaks down the percentages consumed, sold, and retained by region. The highest commercialization was for rice (80 percent sold), followed by maize (75 percent sold), with vegetables least (46 percent). The distribution of percentages of quantities sold, retained as seeds, and consumed is shown in Table 11 below. This is an indication that some beneficiary farming HHs achieved a balance between household consumption and income generation. Table 11. Agricultural output and percent consumed, sold, and retained for seeds in kg by HHs, total intervention area. Crop Total Produced (kg) Total Sold (kg) Total Retained (kg) Total Consumed (kg) % Sold % Kept % Consumed Cowpea 2183 1563.3 84.08 535.62 72 4 25 Millet 3263.3 2038.25 106.9 1118.15 62 3 34 Sorghum 2192.73 1512.15 99.602 580.978 69 5 26 Groundnut 2044.27 1301.02 89.608 653.642 64 4 32 Soybean 1995.1 1303 82.612 609.488 65 4 31 Rice 2378.1 1904.85 87.96 385.29 80 4 16 Maize 3747.74 2819.55 151.344 776.846 75 4 21 Vegetables 89.4 41.25 3.072 45.078 46 3 50 Table 12. Percentage of agricultural output consumed, sold, and retained for seeds by HHs, by region. % QTY CONSUMED %QTY SOLD % RETAINED NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT Cowpea 20 11 86 77 85 10 4 4 4 Millet 34 12 47 63 65 38 3 22 15 Sorghum 10 13 72 84 66 24 5 21 4 Groundnut 18 7 46 77 55 50 5 38 4 Soybean 24 27 42 72 67 54 4 6 4 Rice 15 15 26 82 84 70 3 1 4 Maize 10 20 38 85 74 58 4 6 4 Vegetables 36 0 0 61 27 0 3 73 0 44 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.3.1.7 CHALLENGES Restricted access to financing is a critical factor limiting farmers’ access to production inputs and expansion of productive capacity. This ranked as the largest obstacle in all the zones, followed by high input prices and low output prices resulting from farmers’ inability to negotiate higher prices. Farmers complained about poor market linkage as another major factor that reduces their bargaining power. Poor road infrastructure hinders extension delivery. Livestock farmers complained about insufficient numbers of and access to veterinary services in some areas, particularly in Sokoto and Kebbi. 4.3.1.8 CONCLUSIONS Based on the Activity’s theory of change, the Livelihoods activities expected to increase HH agriculture productivity by providing new techniques, agriculture inputs, and access to finance. This was expected to generate growth in agriculture income, which in return would generate growth in non-agriculture activities and consumption. The Activity was also designed to help HHs to balance personal consumption of the agriculture produce with income-generation from the markets—by improving market access and increasing market power through PGMCs. Evidence from the evaluation suggests that the Livelihoods activities had a positive impact on HH beneficiaries’ agricultural output and income. Sustainability of the current trend in the beneficiaries’ agricultural productivity and income diversification will largely depend on availability of and timely access to agricultural inputs and financing for farmers and HHs. There is also evidence that the Activity contributed to increasing women’s access to finance through SILCs and engagement in agriculture markets through production of groundnuts. Increased income provided more resources within a HH to provide for children and family nutritional well-being and education. Households in the NW also actively use SILCs to finance non-agriculture activities such as medical treatments and education, repaying the loans using increased income. At the same time, some interventions, the PGMCs in particular, were not as effective as expected to balance the internal consumption and sales on the market. Results show that about 18 percent, 14 percent, and 9 percent of farming HHs in the NW, NE, and FCT respectively sold their farm produce through marketing committees. This was because the off-takers—in the event that they were willing to travel long distances on deplorable roads and pay multiple taxes—found that selling prices were not competitive. Thus, these producers resolved to sell in the open market. This did not in any way affect their profitability; these HHs possibly enjoyed higher prices with no transaction (search and negotiation) costs. Other HHs in the FGDs expressed their beliefs that prices offered by PGs are lower than on the local market. Weak linkage of producers to input markets could be a disincentive that may threaten productivity gains and food security. During the FGDs, farmers complained about the distance between them and the input suppliers, especially for fertilizer and seed, and particularly that the input suppliers were not ready to open village shops closer to the farming communities. 4.3.1.9 RECOMMENDATIONS ▪ Access to inputs, such as improved seeds and fertilizer, has been a limiting factor. It is critical for USAID to investigate and understand the reasons why farmers could not easily access inputs from suppliers, particularly those that are collaborators in the project, during the Activity design. There is need for closer and more effective collaboration with seed- 45 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION producing companies and other input dealers and suppliers to ensure availability and timely distribution of inputs to farmers. Training of selected farmers in different locations on seed multiplication would be a step in the right direction. ▪ Farming HHs should be adequately sensitized to the benefits of belonging to PGs. Strengthening connections between PGs, the marketing committee members, and input suppliers is needed to create connections between input suppliers and producers in more remote areas. Marketing committees were more successful at negotiating the sale of their produce than at finding good prices for inputs. ▪ Most non-farm activities were carried out by women. Women’s groups, such as SILCs, are not well-established in the FCT compared to other states. These should be encouraged and promoted in the FCT, as they give women the opportunity of making some savings that can be used to establish small businesses for additional income to their HHs. ▪ Home gardens should be an integral part of future activities, as eating vegetables makes for a more nutritious diet. About 67 percent of the HHs surveyed did not report having a vegetable garden (note the low number of women in number of HHH sampled for survey, as discussed prior). HHs should be encouraged to establish vegetable gardens for improved nutrition, diversifying diets, and, in some cases, selling produce for income. ▪ USAID should carry out a thorough analysis of each of the value chains within the project to determine the overall competitiveness, identify key constraints, and provide ways of increasing competitiveness of the value chains in terms of output and economic return and particularly, it will reflect the value chains that will better support the HH’s income. Commercial benefits (value of income) to HHs producing agricultural products in different regions may be significantly different, and the distribution of value may be skewed away from the initial producers. 4.3.2 EQ 3: CASEWORKER MODEL Overall, HHs responded positively to the liaisons (female nutrition champions) and the lessons shared with their families through the LPP. Most HHs reported adopting new behaviors, like tracking income and expenditures, and said that they will continue using some of the LPP planning tools in the future. Many expressed that they feel they have made progress toward the goals they identified in response to the trainings. Liaisons visited 85 percent (n=261) of HHs surveyed in the NW. Eighty percent of the HHs in Kebbi said a liaison had visited their houses, compared with 84 percent in the NC (FCT) and 94 percent in Sokoto. Of the NW and NC survey respondents who had been visited by a liaison: ▪ 91 percent said they now keep track of income and expenditures; ▪ 95 percent reported that they plan to use the lessons they learned from those visits in the future; ▪ 93 percent reported that they can better cope now because of what they have learned; ▪ 93 percent said they had set goals during the LPP visits; 46 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ▪ 93 percent said they were making progress toward their goals; and ▪ 82 percent of men and 87 percent of women said that the liaisons had been helpful in connecting them with services. 4.3.2.1 LIVELIHOODS LIAISON VISITS AND TRAININGS The HH-level liaison visits and livelihoods trainings helped HHs to more effectively engage in business activities and to earn more income. One liaison reported that farmers now keep farm records, which allow them to determine if their investments in agriculture or small businesses have gained or lost money. Other liaisons reported that HHs had invested in cattle and goats or started groundnut and rice processing. The FGD participant liaisons agreed that HHs have more money now than they did before the Livelihoods project started in 2014, and that their own families benefitted from the lessons as well. One HH occupant provided personal example of how, based on liaison visits and the Activity’s trainings, she had been able to move from a mud to a brick house and was now able to pay for school fees. The FGD exercise carried out among liaisons also showed that many people were engaged in SILCs and were now taking loans, which they had never done before. 4.3.2.2 NUTRITION AND HYGIENE During FGDs in Sokoto and Kebbi, liaisons said that families most appreciated learning about exclusive breastfeeding and diverse diets. One liaison said that “the babies are healthier now and the mothers want to play with them because they are more active.” Another liaison described how she had adopted the practice of exclusive breastfeeding herself and thought her child was healthier. The FGD participant liaisons said that the mothers in Girkau in Sokoto State have noticed the changes in the children’s health and that lactating mothers are particularly interested in having the program continue. Liaisons said that they had adopted some of the practices from the lessons themselves and appreciated the change. One female FGD participant noted, “We have changed our way of eating—we now have a balanced diet.” Liaisons in Sokoto State said that most HHs that they work with have home vegetable gardens, which have helped to provide an assortment of vegetables such as amarantha, okra, and tomatoes. HHs eat some or all of their produce and sell some because they can bring a good price. FGD members said that diets are more diverse and include protein, carbohydrates, and vitamins. The changes in the communities due to the LPP were noticeable, according to a public health worker from Waje in Kebbi State who reported being able to see a significant difference between the communities with the liaisons and those without. “The children are healthier and doing better in the FTF communities.” This health worker also reported that a good relationship exists between liaisons, communities, and HHs. His observation was that the decentralized approach is effective at reaching HHs, because more people are involved in sharing information and the trainees are from the community. He noted that other communities are asking the government if they can participate because they can see the difference. 4.3.2.3 LIAISONS EMPOWERED During the FGDs, liaison participants reported enthusiastically about their experience working with HHs. They were grateful that they had the chance to help others and contribute to improving their community and hoped that they would find a way to continue doing the work in the future, even if it 47 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION was on a volunteer basis. One participant said that they had “changed people’s lives” and planned to keep using the skills they had learned. An analysis of the FGDs suggested that the liaisons were empowered by helping others in the community, by having a “job,” by being part of a group who supported each other, and by changing their own behaviors in ways that were consistent with the lessons. 4.3.2.4 CHALLENGES One KII respondent who worked with the liaisons mentioned that some of the female liaisons were older and did not have the numeracy and literacy capacity to be effective, particularly when teaching lessons on things like HH budgets. However, HHs respected these older women and felt comfortable welcoming them into their home. Literacy and numeracy were an issue for some of the other liaisons, in that they had difficulty understanding how to effectively teach some of the lessons. For this reason, CRS staff said that they wished that they had been able to offer the literacy program to all of the liaisons from the beginning. As it was, CRS found that it was necessary to develop a diary that was geared toward literate HH members, because the original training materials were too complex. The introduction to literacy training was indicative of CRS’s commitment to learning and adjusting throughout the course of the Activity. One public health worker noted that there were other WASH and health programs going on in Wasagu-Danko in Kebbi State, even though the specific communities are unknown. Various UNICEF, Open Defecation Free training, and Infant and Young Children Feeding Programs were under way, making it difficult to identify the impact of one set of health messages from another. 4.3.2.5 CONCLUSIONS The caseworker model that was used to engage families in the LPP was successful. Since the liaisons have already been trained and want to continue their work, the small stipends that would be required to keep them working with HHs would be a good investment. While this model has been successful, some FGD liaison participants discussed the need to have more training for the community in small-scale processing, such as rice processing and oilseeds milling. 4.3.2.6 RECOMMENDATION – CASEWORKER MODEL ▪ Liaisons would benefit from literacy and numeracy training in areas with low literacy rates. This training would improve the liaisons’ ability to teach about budgets and other tasks. Also, while overwhelming liaisons with additional tasks would not be advised, local health officials suggested incorporating some broader WASH subjects into the training provided to HHs, such as how to maintain water points, and avoid open defecation. Creating stronger linkages between the caseworkers/liaisons and public health officials could strengthen the ability of liaisons to connect HHs to needed services. 48 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.4 EQ 4: WHAT ARE THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO INCREASED LOCAL/STATE GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS IN POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES? 4.4.1 INCREASED INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY The beneficiaries in the targeted LGAs now have a greater institutional capacity to implement responsive Local Economic Plans (LEPs) and to engage community forums such as Ward Development Committees (WDCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs) in the development and execution of Poverty Reduction Programs (PRPs). The Activity brought together the leadership of all seven NW LGAs in peer learning sessions to share experiences and best practices to increase LGAs’ investments in PRPs and troubleshoot challenges. The Activity brought together governments at the state level for multiple Training of Trainers workshops, where they discussed simple approaches and models to developing inclusive/reflective LEPs that would better meet the needs of the local communities they serve. According to one Kebbi State government official, these training sessions helped LGAs to better understand the needs of their vulnerable constituents, while at the same time creating platforms for WDCs and VDCs to set and put forward priorities for inclusion in local economic plans. 4.4.2 CASH TRANSFERS TO EXTREMELY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS Some of the most vulnerable HHs benefitted from cash transfers, joined SILCs, and learned how to manage money through the LPP. The Activity concluded its cash transfer program with a total of 2,740 HHs in Sokoto and the FCT. In Kebbi, 1,240 HHs received monthly and quarterly cash transfers. FGD participants in Sokoto and Kebbi reported being able to save money for the first time. Cash transfers were not provided in the NE states of Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe. It was not part of the design. 4.4.3 EFFECTIVE NORTHWEST GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT The Activity was successful in engaging key stakeholders (such as the Ministry of Agriculture, ADP, traditional rulers, farmers, extension agents in the NW states). The Activity fulfilled the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture; the Ministry contributed immensely to agricultural development and livelihoods enhancement in the NW states of Sokoto and Kebbi. For example, farmers were well-informed about the Activity, thereby promoting community ownership and actively expressing a willingness to sustain models at the end of the Activity. Targeted LGAs selected certain activity components such as improved agricultural practices that were introduced by the Activity and engagement of the LGA extension agents in supporting farmers for planned scale-up, replication, and subsequently identified capacity gaps for institutional strengthening to address the LGAs systemic challenge of over-reliance on federal and state funding mechanisms. A key informant at the Ministry of Agriculture in Sokoto State noted that “The Ministry and ADP will to continue to collaborate with research institutes in the development of, and access to improved crop varieties and livestock species. There has been human capital development in the form of seminars, trainings on improved agronomic practices, which are key for increased productivity.” 49 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.4.4 LIMITED ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTHEAST The NE expansion focused only on the implementation of SILCs and agriculture PGs, specifically those supporting agricultural productivity and increased income. The drip-irrigation intervention for vegetables was only piloted in Jere LGA, in Borno State. This pilot was limited to where there were UNICEF water points, rather than targeting homestead farms that would have reached wider beneficiaries. The difference between the NW and the NE, given the shorter implementation period, is seen in the level of adoption by the targeted LGAs. Presently, there are no LGAs which adopted all of the Activity components and included budgetary provisions in developed local development plans. Even though survey results in the NE (i.e., adoption and replication of SILCs) were mainly seen in Adamawa State, this may provide an opportunity to initiate payment for services of the liaisons in the NE. Adamawa State has experienced limited insurgent activities in the past year, compared to Borno and Yobe states.32 According to a CRS implementing partner in Borno State, “Collapsed LGA governance structures were exacerbated by the NE insurgency due to the absence of basic governance structures.” 4.4.5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES’ INCREASED CAPACITIES The Activity successfully conducted training sessions for targeted VDCs in advocacy, budgetary process engagement with local governments, and in setting development priorities. Feedback from community members during FGDs in Sokoto, Kebbi, and FCT showed that VDCs have improved problem-solving skills to better communicate among community members, thereby enhancing their representation from community to LGA (which they did not have before the Activity). Additionally, according to a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture from Sokoto State, “The Ministry of Agriculture also collaborated with the activity to facilitate the provision of inputs, post-harvest handling, processing, and use of improved technologies via engagements with development committees.” In Tangaza LGA, Sokoto State development committees successfully established a sustainability committee to advise the LGA on what activities to start and scale up. What activities they choose will depend on finances and the local capacity to implement the chosen activities. Tangaza LGA has noticed the success of the CRS literacy program and is paying allowances for facilitators, which began in March 2018. This success should be leveraged across other targeted LGAs and development committees. The project successfully organized quarterly LGA stakeholder meetings to facilitate priority setting by WDCs and VDCs. WDC and VDC members also reported that the Activity-facilitated quarterly LGA stakeholder meetings provided an effective platform for the WDCs and VDCs to put forward identified community priorities to respective LGAs; each is now better at setting their own community priorities in a participatory fashion, though the priorities may not translate directly into existing LGA PRPs. One Tangaza LGA development committee member noted, “Yes, development committees received training on how to identify community needs and setting priorities, which has been most useful in advocating for government support. This was not so in the past. This approach helps us to understand each other and provide specific support to community needs via our engagement with LGA officials.” 32 USAID Nigeria FTF North East Baseline Survey Report – October 2017. 50 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Table 13. Government investment matrix (contributing factors). CONTRIBUTING FACTORS NW NC NE SOKOTO KEBBI FCT ADAMAWA BORNO YOBE Institutional capacity Y Y Y X X X HH safety nets Y Y Y X X X Engagement of development communities Y Y Y X X X Strategic advocacy engagements to state governments Y Y Y Y Y Y Inclusive LGA/development committees’ collaboration Y Y Y Y Y Y 4.4.6 CHALLENGES: PREVAILING NORTHEAST CONFLICT The prevailing conflict in the NE led to large-scale displacements of persons and a need for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. With the gradual return to normalcy in the NE states of Borno and Adamawa, LGAs should be more active in promoting local governance initiatives (including PRPs), provided the security situation permits the full return of LGA governance structures. Only then can institutional capacity strengthening be pursued. The fluid security situation, coupled with the massive humanitarian needs prevalent across target communities, was a major challenge as most beneficiaries were accustomed to receiving handouts and non-food items from international organizations presently operating in Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno. Collapsed governance structures exacerbated the NE insurgency. The insurgency-related absence of basic governance structures, coupled with the limited technical capacity of LGA government institutions, was a significant challenge encountered by the Activity. 4.4.7 CHALLENGES IN NORTHWEST COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Engagement with the government was different in Sokoto than in Kebbi. Kebbi LGAs were more progressive and open to the activities from the onset of implementation. The LGAs in Sokoto took longer to engage, but once they accepted a concept, these targeted LGAs made bigger commitments to sustaining the Activity’s initiatives. For example, LGAs were concerned that if farmers started selling to agro-dealers they would avoid paying taxes, like they do when agricultural produce is sold in the local market. It was necessary to work with both LGAs and farmers to create a better understanding of how the marketing committee and PG models work together, and the need to register farmers so that the targeted LGAs received the appropriate taxes. 51 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Cultural differences between the states were also challenging. For example, the more conservative Muslim communities did not take to SILCs the way the others did, so fewer options were available for engagement. When replicating the SILC model, the Activity would need a different strategy for engaging women in business. A CRS implementing partner in Sokoto State noted that “Sokoto SILCs do not save as much as HHs in Kebbi State and the FCT.” He speculated that “this is because of cultural traditions, where women are not expected to become larger agricultural producers. (Muslim communities do not want [women] to become producers or to have too much exposure to other people.) Their rate of savings and sharing out was lower than other communities in the NW.” There is a need for increased sensitization and a change in how the Activity engages Muslim women. Feedback from KII respondents revealed that it is difficult for Muslim women to engage in business and to facilitate the process with the paid service providers, even where they were all female. Feedback from FGD respondents showed that targeted communities in Tangaza and Dange Shuni in Sokoto State remained more open to new ideas. 4.4.8 CONCLUSIONS ON NORTHEAST STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Continuous engagement, strategic advocacy, and sensitization remain inadequate to bridge gaps between LGAs, community stakeholders (i.e., WDCs and VDCs), and targeted beneficiary HHs. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture and ADP in Sokoto State collaborated with research institutes on the development and access to improved plant varieties and livestock species. In cooperation with these stakeholders, the Activity invested in human capital development in the form of seminars and trainings on improved agronomic practices which are critical to increase productivity in the form of inputs, post￾harvest handling, processing, technologies, and distribution. LGAs received capacity building training on things like development plans, but not enough to actually implement more complex activities. LGAs are interested in agriculture programs, SILCs, business skills acquisition, and CCT. 4.4.9 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS LGA funding through predominantly state investment hinders continuous financial commitments to support PRPs. Given the direct state investment in LGAs, LGAs often have limited autonomy to deliver on identified priority community needs put forward by the WDCs or VDCs. Accordingly, the PRP￾allocated funds remain inadequate to meet the needs of communities, and LGAs tend to focus on quick￾impact projects (QIPs) with limited impact on budgets. A development committee member in Tangaza LGA, Sokoto State noted, “Sometimes it takes the LGA a long time to respond and they do not have the funds to meet all of their requests. At least LGAs are responding, which was not the case in the past.” Additionally, the Activity’s targeted LGAs do not have adequate technical capacity and financial sustenance for a cash-transfer program implementation in the NE, due to the scale of the humanitarian emergency in the states of Adamawa, Yobe, and Borno. 52 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.4.10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY The structural instability of LGAs remains a major concern for the sustainability and implementation of PRPs. Most LGA chairmen and representatives are appointed by their respective state governor and are not elected. LGA representatives tend to be appointed for a two-year term, rather than a four-year mandate as is noted in the Nigerian constitution. This erodes electorate confidence in the ability or commitment of existing LGAs structures in meeting the needs of constituents, since they were not elected, but selected. Table 14. Government investment matrix (barriers). BARRIERS TO INVESTMENT NW NC NE SOKOTO KEBBI FCT ADAMAWA BORNO YOBE 4.4.11 CONCLUSIONS The Activity successfully supported targeted LGAs in the development of action plans in the NW and NC; VDCs and WDCs have new capacity to advocate for resources for their communities and to manage participatory decision-making and resolve conflict. Supporting development committees to continuously engage LGAs and increase strategic advocacy engagements to respective state governments to meet PRP financial commitments is crucial to sustaining the Activity’s outcomes. Worthy of note was the success of numerous SILCs in empowering respective members through loans and share-outs, whereby beneficiaries were able to access “soft” loans. Follow-up engagement sessions for the Activity promoted the adoption of income-generation activities, as extremely vulnerable HHs benefitted from poverty-reduction services. 4.4.12 RECOMMENDATIONS – LGAS AND POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS ▪ As a first step of engagement in the formation of local development plans in the NE, it is important to find out if WDC/VDC structures exist across target intervention communities. Due to the insurgency, establishing new or reactivating old WDCs/VDCs may be required. Conducting a scoping study prior to engagement is strongly recommended. For example, the Activity ensured active participation and inclusion of community members in making voluntary contributions to handle repairs of boreholes for toilets. Engagement with government agencies and LGAs to adopt/replicate activity models Limited activity implementation X X X Y Y Y Boko Haram insurgency X X X Y Y Y Extreme vulnerability of HHs X X X Y Y Y Instability of LGA structures Y Y Y Y Y Y LGA budget restrictions Y Y Y Y Y Y 53 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION in the NE, as well as expand towards new extension areas, is key to sustaining program results. ▪ Undertaking strategic advocacy engagements with local government institutions and LGAs needs to be intensified in future activities to secure the release of counterpart funding commitments. Leveraging existing participatory processes will stimulate a stronger response to community priorities. ▪ Future efforts should reinforce development committees' participation in the development and implementation of PRPs in the NE, for instance, local partners planning to replicate the SILC group and caseworker models in Adamawa State. Developed LGA action plans should reflect the priorities of the WDCs/VDCs. Furthermore, development committees can be engaged to support the implementation of already established local development plans in the NW. It was worthy to note that the NE intervention was for agricultural productivity and income generation. ▪ The involvement of targeted LGAs should commence at the onset of activity implementation to build relationships, identify development focus, and understand priority needs for each LGA. For instance, including the literacy program from the beginning of activity implementation would benefit other activities such as training. ▪ Supporting WASH committees in the NE is strongly encouraged, as this would promote sustainability of the current business model used to maintain the rehabilitated water points beyond the period of USAID/CRS involvement. ▪ Support should be given to local partners planning to replicate the SILC group and caseworker models in Adamawa State. Furthermore, development committees can be engaged to support the implementation of established LEPs in the NW. It would be beneficial to embed support for activities in budget allocations within LEPs to foster the sustainability of activity initiatives. ▪ Action plans must be strategic in engaging LGA officials and continue to reflect set priorities of community stakeholders (development committees). Such action plans must be institutionalized due to the unstable nature of LGAs, even more so with the upcoming 2019 general elections in Nigeria. To avoid loss of momentum and to sustain LGA commitments made to the Activity and targeted beneficiary HHs, the LGAs should consider linking agricultural extension agents with LGAs to serve as community social workers. ▪ Further technical capacity support should be pursued for government actors to ensure the effective linkage of extremely vulnerable HHs with cash transfers and government￾sponsored empowerment programs. 4.5 EQ 5: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE ANY RESULTS ACHIEVED LIKELY TO BE SUSTAINED AFTER THE ACTIVITY ENDS? 4.5.1 SAVINGS AND INTERNAL LENDING COMMITTEES It is expected that SILCs will keep functioning beyond the end of the project. The existing groups are successful, and members widely reported that they have every intention of continuing their membership 54 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION both for social support and saving. The SILC model may be able to expand, because the Activity trained paid service providers to be available to help with the formation of new groups for a small fee. This model has been used successfully in many other countries33 and has the potential to thrive in Nigeria, as long as new groups know how to engage PSPs for support. 4.5.2 INCREASES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOME DIVERSIFICATION The positive trends in agricultural production, productivity, and income diversification may be sustainable. The Activity has helped beneficiaries to adopt important coping skills, behaviors, and practices that should support sustainability. For example, belonging to collective groups such as PGs and SILCs can mean less risk, better support during emergencies, access to better information, and personal support from group members; all these help HHs reduce the myriad risks borne by changes in the economic climate. There are concerns that weak links to input markets may threaten productivity gains if farmers cannot continue to buy improved seeds. Even now, FGD-participant farmers reported losing crops due to pests because pesticides are unavailable or too expensive to purchase. FGD participants reported that they developed many other skills that should help them to keep growing their businesses. For example, SILC members reported that they now have better budgeting, marketing, and market opportunity assessment skills, enabling them start successful businesses. SILCs also contribute to helping businesses by providing a safe and affordable way to borrow funds for business investment. 4.5.3 SUSTAINABILITY OF NORTHEAST ACTIVITIES Key informants in the NE highlighted that partnerships with other projects and organizations in the region have been successful. For example, sharing the UNICEF-installed water points for irrigation farming is important for the sustainability of irrigation use in agriculture because the water points are already developed and maintained with non-USAID funding. These kinds of partnerships should be expanded to involve private-sector players; involvement of private-sector players is believed to be valuable in scaling up methods developed by the Livelihoods activity. Key informants and FGD participants reported that the use of lead farmers has opened up opportunities for community extension services to other farmers, such as promotion of the best practices and technologies. More lead farmers will create a critical community extension workforce. FGD participants argued that female extension staff would be helpful in sustaining the number of female farmers that use latest technologies and cultivate crops traditionally grown by men. However, both the training of the female lead farmers, and continuing female involvement in male-dominated agriculture is challenged by Muslim cultural practices in the NE. Community leader key informants suggested that VADs trained by the Activity is expected to be in operation after the Activity ends. The VADs will continue to facilitate linkages with financial institutions, dealers, and processors established by the Activity. 33 Silvia Storchi and Saltanat Rasulova. Impact evaluation of FSD Kenya’s savings groups project. September 2017. 55 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FGD participants in NE suggested that members of PGs and SILCs are eager and enthusiastic about learning new skills. They highlighted usability of the training materials developed by the Activity about these institutions: they contain many pictures and graphics, which is intended for non-literate audiences, and these materials have the capacity to reinforce best practices promoted by the Activity beyond its intervention areas. Key informants mentioned that some PGs and SILCs had exchange and learning visits between communities and selected groups. Exchange visits improve linkages among farmers and other stakeholders and allow them to replicate best practices and access resources (buyers, inputs, and equipment) without donor’s support, which will increase sustainability. 4.5.4 GOVERNMENT CAPACITY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMS SCALE-UP Although all targeted LGAs in the NW and FCT were supported in the development of exit strategies, their ability to follow through on commitments to the Activity was constrained due to a lack of specific poverty-reduction annual budget line items. For example, KIIs with government officials revealed that even though WDCs and/or VDCs were able to put forward lists of priority needs to LGAs for inclusion in the LEPs, LGA responses have been limited due to the non-availability of funds. In Sokoto State, the Small Scale and Medium Enterprise Development Agency (SOSMEDA) continued to engage the Activity in replicating the concept of microbusiness investment in other state LGAs. SOSMEDA created a special subheading in their 2017 budget to support the counterpart funding of activities and signed Memorandum of Understanding with the Activity. Inadequate funding posed serious constraints to the roll-out of the plan, but indicator funds are said to be available in 2018.34 In Adamawa State, the Ministry of Women Affairs indicated interest in replicating the SILC model to scale up and continue the intervention across all LGAs. As all Sokoto and Kebbi LGAs adopted the adult education literacy and numeracy programs and reported the benefits of such programs, having the NE liaison supervisors also attend the adult education literacy and numeracy programs would be ideal. 4.5.5 LINKAGES AMONG ACTIVITY COMPONENTS The project engaged and involved government structures and institutions for the targeting of communities and beneficiaries and in identifying the most vulnerable HHs across the intervention states. Additionally, activity linkages established ensured community liaisons were engaged by LGAs in Sokoto State for the delivery of ad hoc services (such as immunization campaigns). The Activity successfully linked development committees with LGAs to ensure active community participation in the development of LEPs, via stakeholder engagement sessions and peer learning events. The project conducted quarterly review meetings for consortium partners to review progress on each activity component, while facilitating further engagement with government stakeholders by organizing stakeholder meetings among key state actors and conducting joint monitoring visits to intervention communities. 34 CRS USAID Nigeria FTF Sustainability Plan and Exit Strategy 2017. 56 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION All targeted LGAs were supported to develop reflective action plans that included priorities put forward by the respective development committees. As a result, all supported LGAs in the NW and FCT developed action plans through the establishment of sustainability offices; LGAs in the NE supported adult literacy and numeracy programs through classroom construction. 4.5.6 PROMOTING COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP AND BUY-IN The Activity largely secured community buy-in among targeted HHs and community ownership promoted the successful adoption and implementation of various approaches, such as the safe spaces approach. This targeted adolescent girls with livelihoods empowerment initiatives, as well as promoted the distribution of smart grants to trained/graduated beneficiaries. These grant recipients committed to training at least three trainees as part of their obligation for the award. Additionally, community sensitization was key to the successful identification and registration of extremely vulnerable HHs for participation in CCTs. Community mobilizers and field agents played a major role, especially in promoting behavioral change through the distribution of materials. Because of this leadership role, communities were better positioned to sustain WASH systems. For example, at the community level in Kebbi State, community members are now assuming some responsibilities in terms of supporting the PSPs with transport logistics, as well as group-buying ledgers and leveraging safe-space participants to lead the procurement of working inputs for vocational skills training. This is an indication of community ownership and sustainability. Additionally, WASH committees and field agents in the Kanya and Maga communities of Kebbi State have supported villages to establish committees to champion rehabilitated borehole maintenance and established business models, transferring NGN 300 monthly to each beneficiary HH. There remains a need to improve gender mainstreaming and to support community structures for women, especially in the formation of new business opportunities. 4.5.7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA BUDGETARY RESTRICTIONS The project was successful in promoting active collaboration between targeted LGAs via shared learning sessions and development committees through the quarterly stakeholder meetings. However, existing financial restrictions and limited funding by respective state governments continue to hinder the ability of LGAs to fulfill their financial commitments to the Activity. Presently, no LGA has been able to fully implement all priority mandates put forward by their respective development committees; rather than developing budgets based on action plans, they make decisions based on existing funds. 4.5.8 COLLABORATION AMONG PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS Working in a large consortium, e.g., Mercy Corps, Diamond Development Initiatives (DDI), CCFN, FOMWAN, Making Cents International, Justice Development and Peace Commission (JDPC), comes with its own inherent challenges regarding relative capacity and coordination limitations. For this reason, CRS trained its implementation partners in resource mobilization to promote sustainability in the provision of last-mile services. This was addressed by CRS by conducting periodic assessments of implementation partners to review their capacity on an ongoing basis to identify key priority engagement points for the provision of support to implementation partners. They also conducted quarterly review meetings for consortium partners to review progress on each component across the NW, NC, and NE. 57 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 4.5.9 CONCLUSIONS The Activity developed a robust sustainability plan and exit strategy that adopted a cross-cutting response mechanism and action steps for each intervention element.35 For example, the sustainability plan and exit strategy document highlighted the need to focus on the continuity of the education program to ensure that it: (1) supported existing community reading rooms with the necessary learning equipment/materials to make these viable resource centers; and (2) focused on establishing reading rooms in communities where they did not exist. The Activity did this while also advocating to the LGAs the need to take over post-literacy and education classes by funding monthly facilitator allowances. FOMWAN led the advocacy with support from the Activity. 36 Gaps, however, remain within the identified activity response mechanisms articulated in the sustainability plan for each intervention pillar (e.g., weak internal PG structures and linkage systems, low participation of major agro-dealers, not enough government technical capacity for cash transfers, as well as the need to strengthen the capacity of local implementing partners to respond to gender-based issues).37 Respondent feedback indicates that increasing government support for scaling up PRPs should be pursued at the respective state government level in addition to promoting government funding of livelihoods interventions. Beyond this, LGAs should be encouraged to engage community volunteers to facilitate the implementation of proposed government-led initiatives, such as community sensitization and engagement. This is critical for the sustainability of activity results.38 Layering emergency programming efforts in the NE and transitioning beneficiaries to the effective livelihoods-strengthening options employed in the NW ensured the Activity achieved varying levels of success recorded across the different activity elements. For example, SILCs were the most supportive in promoting income for women across target communities, in addition to giving women a voice as a collective group in these communities. 4.5.10 RECOMMENDATIONS – PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY ▪ Given the prevailing security and humanitarian situation in the NE, extensive technical support should be extended to target LGAs in the NE states, with emphasis given to LGAs that expressed interest in replicating certain activity models at scale. This will leverage existing activity collaborative mechanisms in the layering of multiple interventions to compliment the emergency response across target NE states. CRS submitted a recent case study report on learning from the NE to USAID/Nigeria. ▪ Strengthening market engagements and improving linkages with associated private sector initiatives should be pursued while LGAs are also supported to replicate different activity models at scale via training. Beyond collaborating with agro-input dealers and promoting the formal registration of marketing committees, the Activity created avenues whereby 35 Catholic Relief Services. USAID Nigeria FTF Sustainability Plan and Exit Strategy, 2017. 36 Ibid. 37 Catholic Relief Services. USAID Nigeria FTF Sustainability Plan and Exit Strategy, 2017. 38 Ibid. 58 | FEED THE FUTURE NIGERIA LIVELIHOODS ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION beneficiary-driven models could interact with private sector actors. One example was the use of voucher fairs. ▪ Opportunities exist to replicate models for other activity components (i.e., the caseworker model and development committees in the NE) by proposing an approach that takes into consideration prevailing contextual issues in the NE (such as humanitarian response, ongoing insurgency, and gradual return of governance structures, especially at the local government level). These specific models require both communal and LGA support to inform their effective adoption or replication in the NE. For example, strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture in Adamawa State is key for the replication of the SILC group and caseworker models in the NE. ▪ Institutionalize developed LGA exit strategies (action plans). Due to the unstable nature of LGAs, to ensure continuity such plans must be institutionalized—even more so given upcoming general elections in Nigeria—to avoid loss of momentum and encourage targeted LGAs to fulfill their financial commitments to the Activity and beneficiaries. It is not enough to increase the number of targeted LGAs with specific poverty reduction lines in their annual budgets; it is also necessary to support development committees to follow up on implementation of PRPs in intervention communities. 4.5.11 RECOMMENDATIONS ON CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES: GENDER AND M&E ▪ Future activities should consider how to better capture the impact of services on female spouses. The M&E beneficiary database registers HHHs, which means that in surveys such as this one the male HH is the household member typically interviewed for surveys (because his name is available). By focusing on the HHH, the survey could not capture the perspective of spouses who may have benefitted from services like SILCs and home gardens. This activity provided services to the entire HH, but our FGD findings suggest that males and females benefitted from those services differently. Women spouses tend to use SILCs differently than men, and it would be valuable to capture these differences in future surveys and to better capture the number of actual SILC beneficiaries in the M&E system. a | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEXES ANNEX A. STATEMENT OF WORK USAID/NIGERIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK USAID/Nigeria Feed the Future Livelihoods Activity BACKGROUND INFORMATION Activity Identification Data Development Objective Activity Title Broadened and Inclusive Growth Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project Award Number Project Dates AID-620-A-13-00004 July 2, 2013 to July 1, 2018 Type of Contract Project Funding Cooperative Agreement $17,637,060 Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) Implementing Partner (IP) Roland Oroh Catholic Relief Services b | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT Background The Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project is a 5-year activity (July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018) implemented by CRS and consortium partners, including Mercy Corps, Catholic Caritas Foundation of Nigeria (CCFN) and Federation of Muslim Women Associations of Nigeria. The Activity is implemented with rural communities in northern Nigeria’s Sokoto state, Kebbi state and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The project is innovative design using a multi-sector approach to help 42,000 very poor households grow agriculture production, income and improve nutrition. The Activity is implemented with eight local civil society partners, working closely with stakeholders at the community, government and private sector. On July 2, 2013, USAID awarded a USD 14,999,625 five‐year cooperative agreement with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for the implementation of the Support to Vulnerable Households activity, which is now named the Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project (Livelihoods). The Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) and Alternate AOR are Roland Oroh and Osagie Aimiuwu respectively. In January of 2017, the Activity had a limited expansion39 into Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe states in Northeast Nigeria, benefitting over 13,000 households. The foundation of the Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project approach is agricultural-led growth. The aim is to improve agricultural practices, including post-harvest storage for nutrient rich crops/livestock already being produced; and promote a market-oriented approach to diversify production. To achieve this all agricultural activities are expected to be adapted to specific agro￾ecological and cultural context. The project helps very vulnerable families to diversify income sources, implement strong and comprehensive nutrition activities in the community, and build capacity to sustain service delivery at the local level. The project also helps some of the most vulnerable families to move along the Pathway to Prosperity, by distributing cash transfer to meet nutritional needs, recover assets and overcome barriers to income-generating activities. Using CRS’ Pathway to Prosperity framework, the project matches vulnerable households and communities with the skills they need to engage effectively in the local economy. For households to prosper, they must balance agriculture for personal consumption and income generation through market engagement. Livelihoods intended improve agricultural practices and promote a market-oriented approach to diversify production. The Activity helps very vulnerable families to diversify their income and implement strong and comprehensive nutrition activities in communities. Households are at different levels along the pathway to prosperity, and the project will deliver interventions that help households graduate to higher levels and achieve maximum gains. The project will also help them recover, build, and grow to achieve prosperous and resilient agricultural livelihoods. To help some of the most vulnerable families move along the Pathway to Prosperity, Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods 39 References to the Activity are about the initially designed scope. This document will explicitly refer to the expansion when discussing the scope for the NE interventions. c | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Project will distribute cash transfers to help meet nutritional needs, recover assets and overcome barriers to income-generating activities. To support sustainability, Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods Project strengthens the institutional capacity of government systems to implement poverty reduction programs and reinforce accountability between the government and citizens. Figure A-1. Poverty reduction pathway [Source: CRS] d | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Intended Results Within the USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy, Livelihoods is located under Development Objective 1 (DO1), Broadened and inclusive growth, Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1: Agricultural Competitiveness Increased, sub-IRs 1.1.1. Agricultural Productivity Increased, 1.1.2. Market Participation Expanded, and 1.1.3. Increased Resilience of Vulnerable Households. Figure A–2. Feed the Future Results Framework (2012–2016) Figure A–3. USAID/Nigeria Economic Growth Results Framework (2015–2019 CDCS) e | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Figure A–4. FTF Nigeria Livelihoods Results Framework f | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Development Hypothesis and Goal If we increase access to improved inputs (seeds, fertilizer, management techniques, and basic to vulnerable households, they will increase their agricultural production and productivity, increase and diversify sources of income, improve nutrition and change behavior towards hygiene and sanitation then the resilience of vulnerable communities and households will increase. The goal of the Activity is, “households in targeted states have reduced poverty”. At this goal level are five key impact related indicators on income, prevalence and depth of poverty, prevalence of stunting children and households’ dietary diversity. These goals are being achieved based on the collective outcomes and outputs of the project activities across four sectoral results areas of agriculture, growth in income, nutrition and social safety net and governance. The project integrates these sectors with cross-cutting activities and outputs to reach 42,000 rural and vulnerable households; assist community level associations, enterprises, groups, organizations and leaning spaces, by facilitating formation and training of their members. The Approach and Implementation As originally designed, the Activity was intended to implement key activities leading to the achievement of four primary intermediate results: 1. Increased Agricultural Production and Productivity 2. Increase and Diversify Incomes in Vulnerable Households 3. Improved Nutrition and Behavior Change 4. Increased Federal, State, and Local Government’s Capacity to Effectively Support Poverty Reduction Activities through Grants The Expansion is implementing limited activities, specifically those surrounding agricultural productivity and increased income. Results from the Expansion will focus on agriculture productivity and increased income, although the savings and internal lending communities (SILCs) contribute to the social safety net of the households. The Activity works to improve agricultural production and productivity; diversify household income; improve household nutrition; and strengthen government institutional capacity to implement poverty reduction interventions. Households learn “savings and lending” techniques as part of asset building. To help some of the most vulnerable families, the Activity identified selected households with extreme livelihood problems and supported them with a conditional cash transfer scheme. This helps them to meet nutritional needs, recover assets, and overcome barriers to income generation. Using this framework, Feed the Future Nigeria Livelihoods project matches households and communities with the skills they need to engage effectively in the local economy and break free from the cycle of poverty and malnutrition. Each household received individualized support from a trained community liaison to help set goals, develop plans, and link to relevant activities and services. Women, youth and adolescents received support, with activities tailored to their particular challenges and aspirations. The Activity’s beneficiaries were arranged into cohorts, and the suite of interventions was initiated to cohorts stepwise. The g | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION approach allowed households from initial classes to serve as mentors and liaisons for their peers in subsequent classes. To support sustainability, the project worked closely with government systems to strengthen their institutional capacity to implement poverty reduction programs and reinforce accountability between the government and citizens. Existing Data The evaluation team will have access to the vital documents relevant to conducting this evaluation. These documents will include the technical proposal, original contract, monitoring and evaluation plan, annual work plans, quarterly and annual reports, data quality reports, contract amendments, memorandums of understanding, and any other relevant materials documenting the management, implementation process and results for the Livelihoods activity permitted by the Office of Acquisition and Assistance. USAID has authorized a cost-benefit analysis of the Livelihoods value chains and of the case worker model, and these findings will be available. Additionally, the Activity and the World Bank conducted an impact evaluation of the social safety net, specifically conditional cash transfer, component and these will be shared if complete. EVALUATION RATIONALE Evaluation Purpose The primary purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether the assistance provided by USAID/Nigeria through Livelihoods met the stated development objectives, and to understand the lessons learned from this particular intervention in Nigeria. The evaluation should provide a detailed picture of the major accomplishments and weaknesses of the Activity since its inception, and determine how its successes can be sustained. The evaluation should also elucidate the lessons that USAID should learn from this activity in terms of activity design and management. The evaluation should include specific recommendations to USAID about how activity interventions can be sustained and scaled by other Feed the Future activities, partners, private sector firms, or by the Government of Nigeria (GON). This final performance evaluation is intended to provide an independent examination of the overall progress and accomplishments of the Livelihoods activity in Nigeria. The evaluation will identify achievements, performance issues, and constraints related to activity implementation and effectiveness. The evaluation shall also identify results and lessons learned from implementation and will provide concise, actionable recommendations to determine which component(s) of Livelihoods to scale up, modify, or re-design in future procurements in order to increase the impact of FTF investments. Audience and Intended Users The primary users of the evaluation findings are the USAID EGE Office, other Mission colleagues, and other U.S. Government (USG) officials. Other audiences include non-USG donor organizations, the Government of Nigeria (GON), and private sector firms, all of whom can use the findings to improve and build knowledge. The evaluation report will also serve as a reference material for the future program design. h | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Evaluation Questions 1. How have the Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILCs) affected access to finance for beneficiaries of the Livelihoods activity and how do these households utilize that finance? 2. How did the intervention package in the northeast affect early economic recovery and the progression of beneficiaries along the Path to Progress? 3. How effective was the model of agriculture-led growth in promoting household balances between personal consumption and income generation through market engagement? 4. What are the contributing factors and barriers to increased local/state government investment in poverty reduction programs and services? 5. To what extent are any results achieved likely to be sustained after the Activity ends? Desired Recommendations Based on Findings: 1. How effective is the SILC model, and how can it be used to leverage into formal banking/credit? 2. How effective was the NE set of interventions in promoting early economic recovery and reducing the household vulnerabilities? 3. How did the agricultural and livelihoods interventions affect the household balances of income generation to consumption? 4. Which governmental engagement efforts were successful and how can these be strengthened to guard against changing governmental priorities? EVALUATION METHOD AND METHODLOGY Evaluation Design The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information required to answer the evaluation objectives. The methodology should include, but not be limited to, the following techniques to conduct the evaluation. Prior to arriving in country and conducting field work, the team should submit to USAID/Nigeria three key deliverables: 1) Document Review Summary, 2) Methodology / Detailed Work Plan, 3) Site Visit Schedule and plan. USAID/Nigeria will review these three deliverables, turning them around within two work‐weeks to the evaluation team. ▪ Document Review/Data Analysis. Prior to arriving in country and conducting field work, team members will review various documents and reports, including but not limited to the Livelihoods original agreement and amendments; USAID/Nigeria strategy document; Feed the Future Project Appraisal Document; activity quarterly and annual reports; the Activity Mid-Term Review; activity technical studies; and other relevant documents such as the specification of the Activity deliverables. USAID/Nigeria will provide the relevant documents. ▪ Key Informant Interviews. The team will conduct interviews and focus group discussions with a variety of stakeholders including USAID staff, project beneficiaries, partner banks, government staff, implementing partner staff, and other key donor partners. A list of stakeholders and contacts will be provided by USAID/Nigeria, and additional individuals may be identified by the evaluation team at any point during the evaluation prior to the drafting of the final report. i | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ▪ Site Visits. In addition to the many key informant interviews that will take place in Abuja, the evaluation team will visit activity sites to interview beneficiary communities, service providers, private sector entities engaging with beneficiaries, and federal, state, and local government authorities as indicated. USAID staff from the EGE Office and from other Mission offices may accompany the Evaluation Team as needed. EVALUATION PRODUCTS Deliverables The Evaluation Team will be responsible for producing the following deliverables: ▪ Document Review Summary and proposed outline of draft evaluation report (either prior to the field or at the end of first week of interviewing). ▪ Detailed Work Plan detailing evaluation methodological approach and draft schedule of field activities and draft and final questionnaire (s) to be used during interviews (prior to travel to the field). ▪ Summary of initial findings, including a PowerPoint Briefing (at the end of follow‐up and synthesis effort and prior to Team’s departure from Nigeria). ▪ Draft Evaluation Report. ▪ A summary of "key steps in the evaluation, key findings, recommendations and lessons learned, next steps" and a PPT of these. ▪ Final Evaluation Report (within two weeks of receiving Mission comments on draft report). ▪ One-pager summary of the evaluation report All reports are to be submitted in English in both electronic and hard copies. The Team will provide five printed copies of the Final Evaluation Reports. The consultants will be responsible for report production. The Final Evaluation Report should not exceed 30 pages in length in its body, not including title page; Table of Contents; List of Acronyms; usage of space for tables, graphs, charts, or pictures; and/ or any material deemed important and included as Annexes. The Final Evaluation Report and PowerPoint addressing the Mission's comments should be submitted in both Word and PDF formats. Once the PDF format has been approved by the Mission, the Team will submit the Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse for archiving. Reports should be submitted consistent with the Automated Directives System (ADS) 579. Reporting Guidelines USAID’s evaluation policy requires that all evaluation SOWs include USAID’s Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report (USAID Evaluation Policy, 2011). The policy also indicates that the report will outline in detail, any additional expectations USAID has regarding a report’s structure, format, and length. The format for the evaluation report is as follows (number of pages is illustrative): ▪ Executive Summary (2 pp.) j | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ▪ Table of Contents (1 pp.) ▪ Introduction (1 pp.) ▪ Background (2-3 pp.) ▪ Methodology (1 pp.) ▪ Findings/Conclusions (17- 20 pp.) ▪ Issues and Challenges (1-2 pp.) ▪ Recommendations/Future Directions (5-10 pp.) ▪ References ▪ Annexes The draft report will be submitted electronically. The final report will be submitted in five hard copies and one electronic copy. All reports will be in English. The report must: ▪ Distinguish clearly between findings, conclusions (based strictly on findings) and recommendations (based clearly on the evaluation findings and conclusions); ▪ Comply with USAID’s Evaluation Policy ▪ Ensure submission to the DEC after finalization. Dissemination Plan It is expected that USAID/Nigeria will plan a dissemination session with other technical units within the mission, implementing partners, donor community as well other stakeholders. TEAM COMPOSITION The Evaluation Team will consist of five key members, including at least one (1) international consultant (who will lead the team) and local consultants. The team members should represent a balance of several types of knowledge and expertise related to resilience programming and agriculture-led development. USAID/Nigeria recommends the following staffing structure for the evaluation: Team Leader An international Senior Evaluation Specialist with extensive experience in evaluating agriculture activities in developing countries. At least seven (7) years of experience in evaluation management, and qualitative data collection and analysis. S/he must have experience in conducting evaluations and designing performance evaluations as well as the ability to produce high quality evaluation reports in English. Strong interpersonal skills are required. The Team Leader will be responsible for the overall management of the evaluation, including coordinating and packaging the deliverables. The team leader will develop the outline for the draft report, present the report, and after incorporating USAID/Nigeria staff comments, submit the final report to USAID/Nigeria within the prescribed timeline. k | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION In addition to the responsibilities outlined above, the Team Leader will: Preparations 1. Finalize and negotiate with USAID/Nigeria the team’s work plan. 2. Establish assignment roles, responsibilities, and tasks for each team member. 3. Ensure that the logistics arrangements in the field are complete. Management 1. Take the lead on preparing, coordinating team member input, submitting, revising and finalizing the assignment report. 2. Manage the process of report writing. 3. Manage team coordination meetings in the field. 4. Coordinate the workflow and tasks and ensure that team members are adhering to the schedule. Communication 1. Handle conflict within the team. 2. Serve as primary interface with USAID/Nigeria and serve as the spokesperson for the team. 3. Debrief USAID/Nigeria as the evaluation progresses, and organize a final debriefing. 4. Keep the USAID/Nigeria appraised of progress challenges, work changes, team travel plans in the field, and report preparation via phone conversation or email at least once a week. 5. Serve as primary interface with USAID/Nigeria for the submission of draft and final reports and deliverables to USAID/Nigeria. 6. Make decisions in conjunction with USAID/Nigeria about the safety and security of the team. Other team members will include: A host-country national Senior Agricultural Economist, with experience in evaluation of agricultural value chains and markets in developing countries; at least five (5) years of experience in agricultural program management and some experience working with finance for vulnerable populations. West Africa/regional experience required. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions in English and at least one major Nigerian language. Strong English language writing skills. A host country or international senior or mid-level Social Scientist with strong analytical skills, and gender expertise. The incumbent must be able to conduct interviews and focus group discussion, l | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION analyze the resulting data, and be familiar with qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Strong English language speaking and writing skills essential. A host country or international mid-level Resilience Expert, with experience in conflict-affected areas; at least three (3) years of experience in organizational capacity building/assessment required. A national Evaluation Specialist with at least five (5) years relevant experience and strong logistics and planning skills. At least one of senior technical team member must have experience analyzing data from agricultural value-chain projects. At least one of the senior team members should have significant experience with governmental engagement. USAID leaves to the offeror’s discretion other necessary team members/staff for the evaluation (e.g. logistics, scheduling and translation; data analysis). Aside from the above mentioned key personnel, the offeror must decide how the evaluation team should be structured in order to successfully address the evaluation questions. All attempts should be made for the team to be gender balanced and to include local (Nigerian) experts. A statement of potential bias or conflict of interest (or lack thereof) is required from each team member. USAID may propose internal staff from USAID/Nigeria or from Washington to accompany the team in this evaluation as observers. As observers, their role will be to provide guidance and background information, and to reply to the external evaluators’ questions. They will review and comment on the report for accuracy, but evaluators may accept or reject comments. The final report should reflect the opinions of the external evaluators and is the sole responsibility of the selected evaluation team. Conflicts of Interest All evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the Activity being evaluated. USAID/Nigeria will provide the conflict of interest forms. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS Responsibilities The funding source will be through the budget of the USAID/Nigeria Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Activity. The USAID/Nigeria Office of Economic Growth and Environment contributes to the budget of the MEL Activity. The Learning Program (TLP) /DevTech will be responsible for all offshore and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identification and fielding appropriate consultants. DevTech will arrange and schedule meetings, international and local travel, hotel bookings, working/office spaces, computers, printing and photocopying. DevTech will make all logistical arrangements, including the vehicles for travel throughout Nigeria, and should not expect any logistical support from the Mission. DevTech will also make their own arrangements about space for team meetings and equipment support for producing the report. USAID/Nigeria will provide: m | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ▪ Background documents to be provided to the evaluation team as early as possible prior to work on the evaluation, but at least two weeks before the start of the evaluation; ▪ A list of key informants, institutions, organizations, and other stakeholders; ▪ Ensure constant availability of Mission Point of Contact to provide technical leadership and direction for the evaluation team’s work; ▪ Assistance with arrangements/letters of introduction for formal and official meetings, and where necessary for high‐level meetings, will accompany teams on introductory interviews; and, but not limited to, ▪ If necessary and deemed appropriate, assist in identifying and helping set up meetings with local development partners relevant to the assignment. Performance Period The period of performance will run approximately 12 weeks, starting on or about March 15, 2018. USAID/Nigeria will designate a technical representative to work in coordination with the evaluation team; however, the Team Leader will have the primary responsibility for ensuring the final deliverables are completed in a timely manner and are responsive to the scope of work and Mission comments. n | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Draft FTF Livelihood Final Evaluation timeline and level of effort (LOE) table Item Period of Performance Number of Days Team Leader/Intl. Evaluation Specialist Senior Agricultural Economist Social Scientist, Nigerian Resilience Expert Local Evaluation Specialist Recruitment international evaluation and local team members and obtaining travel concurrence from USAID (OAA) January – February 28 Desk Review of background documents and initial preparation work towards draft data collection tools, sampling, and workplan March 15 - 20 5 5 5 5 5 Preparation and submission of draft workplan & draft data collection tools (protocols) March 21 - 23 3 3 3 3 3 International travel to Abuja, Nigeria Nov. 11 1 1 1 Submission of Workplan and evaluation design /protocols 26-Mar-18 0 0 0 0 0 USAID provides feedback on work plan and evaluation design/ protocol 30-Mar-18 0 0 0 0 0 In-country arrival (Abuja Nigeria) for international consultants April 2 – 3 2 2 0 0 0 In brief/Team Preparation Meeting with USAID 4-Apr 1 1 1 1 1 Reviewing evaluation tools to incorporate USAID comments April 5 – April 6 2 2 2 2 2 Travel day for field work 7-Apr 1 1 1 1 1 Field visits and Data Collection April 8 – 28 18 18 18 18 18 Evaluation team travels back to Abuja Nov. 25 1 1 1 Analysis of results, Report writing and preparation of ppt for USAID debrief April 30 – May 5 6 6 6 6 6 Debrief with USAID (preliminary findings) 7-May 1 1 1 1 1 Out-country travel (for International Consultants) 8-May 2 2 0 0 0 Finalizing evaluation report May 11 – May 18 7 6 6 6 6 Submission of draft report (to MEL) 18-May 0 0 0 0 0 Submission of draft report (to USAID) 30-May 0 0 0 0 0 USAID reviews and comments on final draft evaluation report May 31 - June 5 0 0 0 0 0 o | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Submission of report back to MEL with USAID feedback 6-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 Team addresses USAID comments and finalizes the report June 7 - June 14 6 4 4 4 4 Team submits reviewed report to MEL for additional review and send-off for copy editing 14-Jun 0 0 0 0 0 Submission of final report to USAID 22-Jun TOTAL LOE 54 51 47 47 47 p | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX B. SAMPLE FRAME, SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION, AND DATA COLLECTION TABLES Characteristics of CRS database used for sampling frame and randomized samples ZONE/STATE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH NORTHEAST (NE) Adamawa 2,321 679 3,000 Borno 5,660 482 6,142 Yobe 3505 135 3,640 SUBTOTAL (NE) 11,486 1,296 12,782a NORTHWEST (NW) Kebbi 10,269 1,581 11,850 Sokoto 19,418 4,958 24,376 SUBTOTAL (NW) 34,489 7,514 42,003b NORTH CENTRAL (NC) FCT 4,802 975 5,777c TOTAL (a+b+c) 54,785 Sample distribution for HH survey by zone/state and gender of HHH ZONE/STATE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH NORTHEAST (NE) Adamawa 14 2 16 Borno 40 3 43 Yobe 19 1 20 SUBTOTAL (NE) 70 9 79a q | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION NORTHWEST (NW) Kebbi 79 16 95 Sokoto 136 34 170 SUBTOTAL (NW) 215 50 265b NORTH CENTRAL (NC) FCT 31 7 38c TOTAL (a+b+c) 382 Sample distribution for HH survey by state, LGA, community, and gender STATE LGA COMMUNITY HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD MALE FEMALE TOTAL HH Adamawa Gombi Garkida 0 1 1 Gombi North 2 0 2 Guyaku 7 1 8 Hong Hong 4 0 4 Shangui 2 0 2 Thilban/Daksiri 1 0 1 Borno Biu Berum 1 0 1 Buratai 4 0 4 Garu Bula 4 0 4 Miringa 2 0 2 Piku 14 0 14 Yawi 8 1 9 Hawul Azare 6 2 8 Kukurpu 3 0 3 Kwajaffa 1 0 1 Marama 4 1 5 r | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Sakwa 1 3 4 Shaffa 1 0 1 Jere Muna Dalti 5 0 5 TOTAL 70 9 8840 Focus group discussions held in NE and NW FOCUS GROUPS NE NW TOTAL SILC 3 8 11 Producer Group 6 7 13 Microenterprise 1 1 2 VDC/WDC 0 2 2 Liaisons 0 2 2 Caseworkers 0 1 1 TOTAL 10 21 31 Key informant interviews by state ZONE STATE # INTERVIEWS NE Borno 14 Adamawa 2 Yobe 1 NW Sokoto 5 Kebbi 4 NC FCT 5 TOTAL 31 40 This number equals the 79 samples plus 5% additional respondents added as a buffer to help makes sure we could collect a sufficient number of surveys. s | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX C. QUESTIONS GUIDING DATA COLLECTION FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION 1. How have the Savings and Internal Lending Communities (SILCs) affected access to finance for beneficiaries of the Livelihoods activity and how do these households utilize that finance a. How inclusive is community participation in SILC? b. To what extent have vulnerable HHs benefited from SILCS? c. To what extent have members of SILC gained access to other financial services? d. To what extent have SILCs been a successful means of improving the livelihood of HHs? e. How well does beneficiaries of SILC utilize their funds in enhancing their well being? f. To what extent are cultural/religious values impeding adoption of SILC? g. To what extent can the community sustain SILC? h. What can be done to improve access to finance in your community apart from SILC groups? 2. How did the intervention package in the northeast affect early economic recovery and the progression of beneficiaries along the Path to Progress? a. To what extent have households stabilized production and consumption? b. To what extent do women have access to improved technologies that can improve their economic productivity? c. Have producer groups actively engaged in markets, with more income? d. Are household savings and finances more stable? e. Are households engaged in diverse food production? f. How has households' food security improved (availability, accessibility and utilization)? g. Are households less vulnerable to shocks? 3. How effective was the model of agriculture-led growth in promoting household balances between personal consumption and income generation through market engagement? Include an evaluation of the caseworker model. a. To what extent have improved technological and agronomic practices been adopted? b. To what extent has HH income increased as a result of increased output? c. Do HHs and producer groups have access to financial resources (cash transfers, grants, SILC)? d. Did beneficiaries receive training on market opportunities and business planning? e. Do producer group(s) support HHs? f. To what extent have farmers (HHs) been linked to markets/industry end-users? 4. What are the contributing factors and barriers to increased local/state government investment in poverty reduction programs and services? a. To what extent did Local Government Authorities (LGAs) implement poverty reduction programs aligned to local development plans? b. How effective have Ward and Village Development Committee (W/VDCs) been in engaging LGAs in the implementation of poverty reduction programs? c. What are the existing priority capacity needs of LGAs? d. What budgetary restrictions affect the ability LGAs to implement poverty reduction programs? 5. To what extent are any results achieved likely to be sustained after the Activity ends? t | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION a. What supports are needed to sustain existing structures (SILCs, producer groups and case workers)? b. How effective was the case worker model in promoting the implementation of poverty reduction programs; c. What might affect the increased participation of vulnerable Households in the local economy? d. How can LGAs sustain the continuous implementation of poverty reduction programs? u | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX D. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY DATA Comparison between target and actual yield of crops (per hectare), by zone 2017 TARGET BY CRS ACHIEVED BASED ON EVALUATION SURVEY CROPS NW NE FCT Maize 1,540 1,468.44 1,504.30 775 Sorghum 1,260 842 1139.40 211.25 Millet 960 1,770.80 1,180 312 Rice 700 1,028.60 849.50 500 Groundnut 420 842.08 1,040.10 160 Cowpea 840 994.50 913.50 275 Soybean 280 711.20 781.40 502 Source: CRS Performance Tracking Table (2017), CRS Performance Indicator Tracing and Achievement Tables (208, Field Survey data (April/May 2018). Average area (hectares) planted by crop/farming households, by crop and zone ACHIEVED BASED ON EVALUATION SURVEY CROPS NW NE FCT Maize 4.88 3.45 1.14 Sorghum 3.6 2.59 0.35 Millet 4.65 3.00 0.81 Rice 3.44 2.53 0.50 Groundnut 3.23 2.64 0.35 Cowpea 3.90 3.40 0.93 Soybean 1.74 2.75 0.9 Vegetables 3.67 0.72 0.01 Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) v | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Ownership of vegetable gardens RESPONSE ZONE YES NO N NW 100 146 246 NE 16 79 95 FCT 17 10 27 TOTAL 133 235 368 % 37.68 66.57 -- Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) Livestock data Livestock Livestock Numbers Average Quantity Owned Average Quantity Consumed Average Quantity Sold Average Value of Sales (Naira) NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT NW NE FCT Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) Cattle 101 21 4 9 11 4 3 3 2 5 5 1 154,674.40 154,555.60 160,000.00 Goat 175 49 8 10 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 3 33,309.30 18,121.05 43,000.00 Sheep 144 35 1 12 7 0 5 4 0 6 3 0 36,732.14 24,437.50 0 Poultry 95 30 11 16 19 10 12 7 3 4 14 6 8,013.33 30,008.33 12,960.20 Donkey 26 2 0 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 Camel 7 28 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 w | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Calculation of changes in total income, farm income and non-farm income Northwest (NW): a) % change in Total Income (2016, 2017): b) % change in Farm Income (2016,2017): c) % change in Non-Farm Income (2016,2017): Northeast (NE): a) % change in Total Income (2016,2017): b) % change in Farm Income (2016,2017): c) % change in Non-Farm Income (2016,2017): North Central (FCT): a) % change in Total Income (2016,2017): b) % change in Farm Income (2016,2017): c) % change in Non-Farm Income (2016,2017): x | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION New technology adopted from the Livelihoods project ZONE TECHNOLOGY NW NE FCT Improved seeds 204 67 12 Fertilizer 190 71 19 Drip irrigation 106 17 4 Pesticides 147 63 10 Fungicides 112 26 4 Other 18 2 4 Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) Problems/challenges faced by farmers in agriculture and income generation ZONE PROBLEM NW NE FCT FREQUENCY RANK FREQUENCY RANK FREQUENCY RANK Lack of credit services 179 1st 70 1st 20 1st Low output prices 140 3rd 48 4th 16 4th High input prices 151 2nd 49 3rd 19 2nd Inputs unavailable 112 7th 47 5th 18 3rd Poor market networks 131 6th 38 8th 16 4th Limited market 116 5th 16 10th 13 6th Lack of storage facility 110 8th 44 6th 16 4th Lack of transportation 119 4th 39 7th 14 5th Regulatory environment 69 10th 24 9th 10 7th Post-harvest losses 102 9th 53 2nd 4 9th Other 15 11th 10 11th 9 8th Source: Field Survey data (April/May 2018) y | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX E. SILC TABLES SAVINGS AND INTERNAL LENDING COMMUNITIES ADAMAWA BORNO FCT KEBBI SOKOTO YOBE Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Have you ever been a member of a SILC group? No 9 38% 12 38% 8 30% 50 71% 68 41% 0 0% Yes 15 63% 20 63% 19 70% 20 29% 99 59% 8 100% Subtotal 24 100% 32 100% 27 100% 70 100% 167 100% 8 100% Have you ever borrowed or taken a loan money from your SILC group? No 10 63% 13 57% 10 53% 11 65% 87 64% 6 86% Yes 6 38% 10 43% 9 47% 6 35% 48 36% 1 14% Subtotal 16 100% 23 100% 19 100% 17 100% 135 100% 7 100% How did you utilize Health Care Services 0 1 11% 0 3 50% 0 0 0 z | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION the loan you took from SILC? Investment in business start up 0 1 11% 0 1 17% 7 11% 0 Others 1 33% 0 0 0 1 2% 0 Payment of School fees 0 3 33% 0 1 17% 3 5% 0 Purchase of farm inputs 2 67% 3 33% 0 1 17% 25 38% 0 Recovery from Shocks 0 0% 1 11% 0 0 29 45% 1 100% Subtotal 3 100% 9 100% 0 6 100% 65 100% 1 100% As a beneficiary of SILC interventi￾ons have you started a new business with the funds? No 2 25% 12 71% 4 50% 2 33% 25 54% 2 40% Yes 6 75% 5 29% 4 50% 4 67% 21 46% 3 60% Subtotal 8 100% 17 100% 8 100% 6 100% 46 100% 5 100% How much money have you < 5000 (N) 3 25% 2 14% 0 0 0 0 > 30000 2 17% 1 7% 0 0 0 0 aa | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION received from SILC group share out in the last year? 10001 - 20000 0 2 14% 0 0 0 0 20001 - 30000 6 50% 7 50% 0 0 0 0 5001 - 10000 1 8% 2 14% 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 12 100% 14 100% 0 0 0 0 How often do you share out? Annually 3 75% 5 50% 0 0 0 0 Bi Annually 0 1 10% 0 0 0 0 Effectiv 0 0 0 0 0 1 100% Monthly 0 3 30% 0 0 0 0 Quarterly 1 25% 1 10% 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 4 100% 10 100% 0 0 0 1 100% As a member of a producer group are you participat￾ing in a SILC? No 3 30% 8 47% 10 53% 49 79% 75 49% 1 13% Yes 7 88% 9 53% 9 47% 13 21% 77 51% 7 88% Subtotal 10 118% 17 100% 19 100% 62 100% 152 100% 8 100% No 8 9 7 29 62 7 bb | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Have you received loan from the SILC group (Producer Group)? Yes 17 20 6 7 28 0 Subtotal 25 29 13 36 90 7 How much money have you received as loan from this financial institution in the last year (Producer Group)? < 5000 (N) 1 100% 1 100% 0 1 20% 1 6% 2 67% > 30000 0 0 0 1 20% 10 63% 0 10001 - 20000 0 0 0 1 20% 1 6% 0 20001 - 30000 0 0 0 2 40% 2 13% 0 5001 - 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0% 1 33% 5001 - 10000 0 0 0 0 2 13% 0 Subtotal 1 100% 1 100% 0 5 100% 16 100% 3 100% Has the loan you received from SILC helped in the growth No 6 60% 3 30% 5 45% 9 69% 42 61% 0 Yes 4 40% 7 70% 6 55% 4 31% 27 39% 2 100% Subtotal 10 100% 10 100% 11 100% 13 100% 69 100% 2 100% cc | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION of your business? How did it grow your business? Access to new markets 0 2 25% 0 2 40% 4 15% 0 Increase 0 0 0 0 0 3 100% Increase in Sales 2 33% 5 63% 5 83% 0 0 0 Increase in supplies of product 4 67% 1 13% 0 2 40% 15 58% 0 Opening of new account 0 0 1 17% 0 0 0 Opening of new branches of business around the community 0 0 0 1 20% 7 27% 0 Subtotal 6 100% 8 100% 6 100% 5 100% 26 100% 3 100% dd | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SILC MEMBERSHIP ADAMAWA BORNO FCT KEBBI SOKOTO YOBE Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage No 9 38% 12 38% 8 30% 50 71% 68 41% 0 0% Yes 15 63% 20 63% 19 70% 20 29% 99 59% 8 100% Subtotal 24 100% 32 100% 27 100% 70 100% 167 100% 8 100% Have you ever borrowed or taken a loan or share out from your SILC? Response ADAMAWA BORNO FCT KEBBI SOKOTO YOBE Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male No 67% 62% 42% 73% 33% 86% 100% 54% 47% 71% 100% 83% Yes 33% 38% 58% 27% 67% 14% 0% 46% 53% 29% 0% 17% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ee | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX F. EVALUATION TEAM BIODATA INTERNATIONAL TEAM LEADER Joy Larson Ms. Larson is an economist and evaluation expert with a background in agricultural economics. Ms. Larson has conducted impact and performance evaluations for agricultural and health interventions, including a USAID evaluation of microfinance, agricultural marketing, and enterprise development activities. Mr. Larson is skilled in conducting qualitative evaluations, from instrument and protocol design to interviews and group discussions to the analysis of qualitative data using Nvivo. Ms. Larson holds a Masters degree in Agricultural Economics and a Bachelors degree in Economics. LOCAL EVALUATOR, SENIOR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST Albert Ugochukwu, PhD. Dr. Ugochukwu brings over 15 years’ progressive professional experience in agribusiness value chain and agro-industry development, poverty reduction strategies, policy reform initiatives, social inclusion, policy analysis, project management, and capacity building. Dr. Ugochukwi has substantive experience in identification, designing and implementation of projects aimed at improving agricultural value chains for inclusive growth, poverty reduction and linkages with markets using participatory approach involving diverse stakeholders. Dr. Ugochukwu has extensive knowledge surrounding trade and development issues in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as they relate to agribusiness development, as well as, public-private partnership (PPPs) initiatives that enhance agricultural development in Africa. LOCAL EVALUATOR, SOCIAL SCIENTIST Augustus Emenogu Mr. Emenogu has nine years of professional experience and is a versatile evaluation practitioner with considerable experience working across Nigeria supporting various M&E aspects. Mr. Emenogu has worked extensively on projects funded by the Government of Nigeria as well as many international donors including USAID, DfID, Global Fund, and various UN agencies. He has considerable experience in designing and implementing robust M&E systems for data management, field surveys, mapping and establishing standard operating procedures and data collection plans across multiple technical areas. As an M&E specialist, Mr. Emenogu has had extensive hands-on experience establishing effective results￾based M&E systems. As a Certified Knowledge Manager (CKM), Mr. Emenogu specializes in reviewing existing organizational knowledge through the mapping of critical knowledge threads to develop an organizational KM profile that promotes the internal transfer of knowledge to manage transformation change. Mr. Emenogu provides analytical solutions with concise, actionable, and evidence-based insights for developing and incorporating CLA frameworks into program life cycle to promote an enabling learning environment through the integration of institutional culture, processes and resources to embed organizational learning for effective knowledge management. ff | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION LOCAL EVALUATOR, RESILIENCE EXPERT Bassey Archibong Mr. Archibong is an experienced development practitioner, specializing in the design of resilience building, climate smart agriculture for improved nutrition and social inclusion strategies in agriculture. Mr. Archibong has practical experience in value chain analysis, the use of participatory approaches and tools for baseline study, planning, monitoring and evaluation of projects. Mr. Archibong designed resilient programs focusing on household nutrition of vulnerable populations and implemented activities dedicated to equipping vulnerable groups particularly youth and women groups with the ideas, self￾confidence, and skills to create and grow their profitable, sustainable agro-enterprises and improve household livelihood. His experience includes working on USAID- and DFID-funded projects in 25 states of Nigeria. LOCAL EVALUATOR, M&E SPECIALIST Emmanuel Terhemba Mr. Terhemba is a monitoring and evaluation specialist with considerable experience in measuring results against program targets. Mr. Terhemba has experience conducting household-level surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and developing the protocols for these evaluation methodologies. gg | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ANNEX G. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST hh | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ii | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION jj | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION kk | USAID/NIGERIA FEED THE FUTURE LIVELIHOODS ANNEX: FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION