i
Report
On 
Final Evaluation
of
OFDA Funded Project- Integrated Emergency Response 
and Early Recovery Project in Somali Regional State, 
Ethiopia
Submitted to: Oxfam, Addis Ababa,
March 2020
TENTAM Development Training and Consulting Services PLC
Addis Ababa, N.S.Lafto Sub city Woreda 01
 Email: tentamdevtconsult@gmail.com or tenicho@gmail.com
Cell phone: +251(0) 911-316-707
Photo Credit: Kieran Doherty/Oxfam
 
Disclaimer: Some information deemed sensitive or identifiable has been redacted from this report in accordance with GDPR policy.
ii
Table of Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. ii
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... vi
Relevance and timeliness ..............................................................................................................................viii
Efficiency and timeliness ...............................................................................................................................viii
Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)...................................................................................................... ix
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................... ix
1. Project Background.........................................................................................................................................1
1.1. Project Context........................................................................................................................................1
1.2. Project Overview .....................................................................................................................................2
2. Evaluation Framework and Methodology........................................................................................................3
2.1. Evaluation framework..............................................................................................................................3
2.2. Evaluation Methodology..........................................................................................................................3
2.2.1. Data collection Procedures .................................................................................................................4
2.2.2. Quantitative Survey.............................................................................................................................4
2.2.3. Qualitative data ...................................................................................................................................5
2.2.4. Measurement and Data analysis.........................................................................................................5
2.3. Limitation.................................................................................................................................................5
3. Evaluation Findings and Discussions .............................................................................................................6
3.1. Characteristics of surveyed respondents................................................................................................6
3.2. Project Relevance & Timeliness .............................................................................................................6
3.2.1. Relevance ...........................................................................................................................................6
3.2.2. Project Efficiency.................................................................................................................................9
3.2.3. Project accomplishment: Planned activities/outputs Vs achievements ............................................10
3.2.4. Agriculture and Food Security (Sector 1): Livestock & Pharmaceutical ...........................................11
3.2.5. Economic Recovery and Markets Systems (sector 2) ......................................................................15
3.2.6. Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) _ Sector 3:..........................................................................15
3.3. Project Effectiveness.............................................................................................................................16
3.3.1. Livestock treatment and mass vaccination .......................................................................................16
3.3.2. Livestock treatment Model ................................................................................................................17
3.3.3. Economic /Livelihoods Recovery ......................................................................................................21
3.3.5. Sanitation and Hygiene promotion....................................................................................................31
3.3.6. Protection ..........................................................................................................................................35
3.3.7. Effect of delay in project implementation ..........................................................................................39
3.4. Prospect of Sustainability......................................................................................................................39
3.5. Cross Cutting Issues .............................................................................................................................41
3.5.1. Gender ..............................................................................................................................................41
3.6. Accountability and Feedback mechanism.............................................................................................42
4. Human Resource Management and Utilisation ............................................................................................43
5. Conclusion and Recommendation ................................................................................................................44
5.1. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................44
5.2. Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................44
Annex 1: Oxfam- OFDA project: Summary of performance indicators .................................................................46
Annex 2: List of People Contacted........................................................................................................................50
Annex 3: Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................52
3.3.4. Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)…………………………………………………………………. 27
iii
List of Tables 
Table 1: number of respondents across selected target Woredas of OFDA funded project ..................................4
Table 2: Sex of Respondents..................................................................................................................................6
Table 3: Marital status of surveyed HHs .................................................................................................................6
Table 4: Population under 18 years (in surveyed HHs) ..........................................................................................6
Table 5: Duration of stay in IDP camp since displacement ..................................................................................7
Table 6: project accomplishment under sector 2 .................................................................................................27
Table 7: Additional indicator on Gratuitous support.............................................................................................27
Table 9: Type and number of animals saved due to mass vaccination and treatment ........................................17
Table 10: progress on performance indicators (sector 1) .....................................................................................17
Table 11: Number of Animals possessed at baseline and project evaluation ......................................................18
Table 12: Progress against Veterinary Pharmaceutical performance ..................................................................20
Table 13: Main sources of Food ...........................................................................................................................23
Table 14: Major sources of HH income.................................................................................................................23
Table 15 Mean HDDS at baseline and end of project ..........................................................................................23
Table 16: Average CSI..........................................................................................................................................26
Table 17: progress on water supply action ...........................................................................................................28
Table 18: source of water for domestic use: during the wet season ...................................................................29
Table 19: Average Quantity water per capita per day across intervention Woredas...........................................30
Table 20: survey participant’s response about adequacy of quantity of water ....................................................30
Table 21: Roles of HH members in fetching water ...............................................................................................30
Table 22: progress on Sanitation performance indicators ....................................................................................31
Table 23: summary of water treatment practices before consumption.................................................................33
Table 24: Cleaning Practice of water collection/storage containers .....................................................................33
Table 25: Observation of Safe water storage practices........................................................................................34
Table 26: Summary of performance Hygiene promotion indicators .....................................................................34
Table 27: summary of WASH-NFIs performance indicators.................................................................................34
Table 28: summary of Protection project Performance Indicators........................................................................35
Table 29: Summary of Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence performance indicators...............36
Table30: children's school enrolment....................................................................................................................37
Table 31 summary of protection, coordination ... perforce indicators ...................................................................39
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Progress against target beneficiaries across the 4 thematic (sectors) intervention areas (source: 
Oxfam, 2020) ........................................................................................................................................................11
Figure 2: partial view of Whole supplier drug store...............................................................................................12
Figure 3: Flow of Vet treatment Services /supply chain at Region and & Woreda level......................................13
Figure 4: Proportion of people possessing different number of animals. .............................................................18
Figure 5: HH expenditure items and proportion of HHs........................................................................................22
Figure 6: % hh with low, medium and high DDS...................................................................................................24
Figure 7: % HHs across three FCS categories .....................................................................................................25
Figure 8: Proportion of households under different hunger scale categories .......................................................26
Figure 9: partial view of public toilets constructed by the project..........................................................................31
Figure 10 % HHs answering to Crt moments of Hand washing............................................................................32
Figure 11: per cent of Under 18 children Not/engaged in labour work ................................................................38
Figure 12: Child Safety.........................................................................................................................................38
Figure 13: Signboard with detail information on type intervention, .......................................................................42
Table 8: Progress on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene performance indicators…………………………………….. 20
iv
Acronyms
CAHW Community Animal Health Workers 
CCT Conditional Cash Transfer
CFW Cash for Work
CSI Coping Strategy Index
DPPB Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Bureau (DPPB)
DR Document Review
ET Evaluation Team
ETB Ethiopian Birr (Ethiopian Currency)
FCS Food Consumption Score
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FGM Female Genital Mutilation
GBV Gender Based Violence
HDDS Household dietary Diversity Score
HH Household
HRD Humanitarian Requirements Document 
IDP Internally Displaced persons/people 
KII Key Informant Interview
LMMS Last Mile Mobile Solutions
MEAL Monitoring Evaluation Accountability and Learning 
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NCE No Cost Extension 
NFI Non-Food Items
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OFDA USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
PHE Public Health and Environment
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
PVP Private Veterinary Pharmacy
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
UCT Unconditional Cash Transfer
VIP Latrine Ventilation Improved Pit Latrine 
VSLA Village Saving and Loan Associations 
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
v
TENTAM Development training and consulting services PLC, and Lead Evaluator, Tenna Shitarek, 
would like to thank, first & foremost, the IDPs in the project intervention Woredas, Private Veterinary
Pharmacy (PVP) operators, Veterinary drug wholesaler, Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) 
in the target areas for taking the time to share their views, opinions, experiences and insights. 
Secondly, he would like to thank the key stakeholders, Woreda and Regional Government offices, 
senior management and Field Office staff of Oxfam, who provided invaluable insight and information 
about the project implementation and performance.
Oxfam has entrusted us with the responsibility to undertake this final evaluation of the OFDA Funded 
project entitled, “Integrated Emergency Response and Early Recovery project”, and we 
wholeheartedly would like to thank for giving us this opportunity. Finally, the evaluator would like to 
thank the OFDA for providing the funds for undertaking this final evaluation, and in indeed the project.
Acknowledgement
vi
 
Emerging intercommunity conflicts and the effects of climate change forced millions of people in 
Ethiopia to flee their place of residence. From 2.9 million IDPs, more than 2.4 million of them have been 
displaced due to conflict, and the remaining half a million people were displaced due to climate-induced 
events (e.g. drought and flooding) (IDMC, 2017; USAID, 2019). 
IDPs in Somali Region, particularly in Jaraar as well as Doolo, Shebele, Korahe, Degahabour zones 
have been displaced from their place of origin due to consecutive failure of rainy seasons in the past 
three years since 2015. The drought situation eroded coping capacities of pastoralist and agro￾pastoralist communities in the Zone and the Region in general. In 2017, there were about 807,000 
displaced people living in 331 displacement sites in Somali region and remained displaced in 2018 and 
2019.
During discussions with IDPs, participants clearly explained that almost all of them were pastoralists 
whose herds were decimated by the drought. As they lost their animals (main source of their livelihoods) 
and left with nothing. 
The modus operandi of IDP response to date focussed on temporary solutions (emergency & life￾saving interventions). To date, neither the government nor the international community made 
substantive investments in durable solutions, such as recovering livelihoods or facilitating the IDPS 
to settle in new or their original locations. 
Therefore, IDPs remained dependent on a humanitarian lifeline that offered them limited opportunity to 
become self-reliant and failed to promote the overall resilience of the host communities in which they 
settled. According to Hollingsworth, a missed opportunity to provide lasting solutions for IDPs has only 
prolonged aid dependency and suffering of target beneficiaries (Hollingsworth, 2019). 
Nevertheless, in response to persistent situation of food insecurity, poor access to water, livestock 
disease in Jaraar Zone, Oxfam designed and implemented this project, titled ‘Integrated Emergency 
Response and Early Recovery’ in six Woredas of Jaraar Zone of Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. 
USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) funded a total of $3Million for the execution of 
the project, which specifically focussed on WASH, Agriculture and Food Security, Economic recovery 
and market system and child and women protection in the target Woredas. 
The goal of the project was to “save lives, protect livelihoods and early recovery of drought affected 
Pastoralist and agro-pastoralist in Somali Regional, Ethiopia”. The total Number of Individuals Affected 
in the Targeted Area were 4.38 million people in the Somali region, Ethiopia. From these, the total 
number of beneficiaries targeted by the project were 330,928 people (Individuals), which is composed 
of 108,651 Internally Displaced People (IDP) and 222,277 people from host community. 
The project was implemented in six drought affected Woredas, namely, Aware, Bil'ilbur, Daror, 
Dhagahabur, Gashamo and Gunagado Woredas located in Jaraar Zone of Somali Regional State, 
Ethiopia. 
To achieve the project objectives and outcomes, the project designs a distinct but interrelated major 
project components. These include: (a) Agriculture and Food Security that focussed on livestock 
vaccination, livestock treatment, which targeted to benefit 230,151 people and 690,453 animals. (b) 
Economic Recovery and Market Systems, which aims to increase income and livelihood opportunities 
for 5,280 pastoral and agro-pastoral individuals through livelihoods intervention in target Woredas. 
The main interventions include supporting livelihood restoration, creating temporary employment
opportunities. 
Under livelihoods restoration, the project provided grant for 180 HHs to engage in goat fattening, 
small businesses and restaurants. These households received a start-up grant of 12040 ETB for each 
Petty Trade and small restaurant businesses and Birr 24640 ETB for Livestock fattening. 
Under temporary employment, the project targeted 720 able bodied target beneficiaries to participate 
Executive Summary
vii
in Cash for Work (CFW) activities. In addition, 80 vulnerable households received gratuitous support 
(unconditional cash transfer). According to the project report, each beneficiary received 1500 Birr for 
four months through CFW and Gratuitous support. 
To improve access to sustainable & safe water and sanitation services, the project supported 
rehabilitation of three boreholes, constructed 50 blocks of latrines and 50 blocks of shower; each block
both the latrine and shower facilities have four rooms. In addition, the project constructed six blocks of 
Ventilation Improved Pit (VIP) latrine facilities for health units. Under this component, the project 
planned to reach a total of 94, 309 people from which, 90,259 people were IDPs. In addition, the project 
organised hygiene promotion sessions in target Kebeles. In these promotional activities, the project 
trained 60 (30 M & 30F) Community Health volunteers and reached a total 87480 people (67%female).
As the project came to an end, Oxfam Commissioned TENTAM Development Training and consulting 
Services PLC to carry out the final evaluation of the project. The data collection of the final evaluation 
was carried out from December 17 to 31 December 2019. 
The objective of the evaluation was to assess the project performance in accordance with the 
OECD/DAC evaluation criteria which including Impact, Effectiveness, Sustainability, Relevance and 
Efficiency. Each of the project specific objectives were assessed against these criteria. 
The final evaluation applied a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative data collection tools. Primary 
qualitative and quantitative data was collected through beneficiary survey using structured 
questionnaires, key informant interviews and focus group discussions using open ended questions and 
topic guides. Secondary information was collected/generated using review of relevant document 
including project proposal, project reports, research and assessment and situation update reports 
prepared by other organisations
A total of 395 (84% female) beneficiary households, who were selected through a stratified random 
sampling method, participated in the HH survey. Additional quantitative data was obtained through 
review statistical records/reports. In terms of host community & IDP composition of respondents, the 
majority (70%) were IDPs and the remaining 30% of respondents were host community members. 
The data was collected by enumerators using Mobenzi software, which is a mobile based application. 
Enumerators were recruited local based on their knowledge about the area, fluency in local language, 
and experience in mobile-based data collection tools. The enumerators were first trained/oriented about 
the purpose of the data collection, the nature of the questionnaire in detail, and on ethical issues before 
they were deployed to conduct the survey.
Similarly, qualitative information was collected using focus group discussions (FGDs), Key informant 
interview (KII) and case story and spot observation. FGDs and KIIs were conducted with project staff, 
beneficiaries and their institutions, private veterinary service providers, and local government officials. 
In addition, the evaluation team visited different sites (water points, health centres & health posts, 
schools and IDP sites) to observe and learn from the situation/conditions after project implementation. 
viii
Major Findings 
Relevance and timeliness 
Review of documents and discussion with various stakeholders revealed that the project was relevant 
and consistent with the needs and priorities of the target beneficiaries. It was also consistent with the 
priority objectives of the national and local government and Country Strategic Objectives for the 
Humanitarian Requirements Document. In all FGDs and KIIs participants agree that the project 
components including improving access to Water, NFI distribution, Economic recovery activities, 
livestock treatment and mass vaccination were relevant. These interventions were also consistent with 
Government, Donor and Oxfam’s priority actions. 
However, beneficiaries commented that the support they received was not enough in terms of the 
number of people targeted under different project components. They also added that the amount of 
cash paid for CFW as well as the unconditional cash transfer as a gratuitous support was too small to 
meet food needs of HH members. 
Given the scale of support required by existing IDPs coupled with emerging new displacements in the 
target areas means that there is a lot of pressure on the Government and humanitarian actors to 
address the problems and respond to needs of the displaced people. In this regard, most IDPs we 
talked to mentioned that they require support both in terms of short-term relief and durable solutions. 
Efficiency and timeliness 
Originally, the project was to be completed 12 months, from August 2018 to July 2019. However, project 
implementation was delayed for several months due to various factors including changes in the project 
context requiring modification of intervention that required donor’s pre-approval process particularly for 
Livestock treatment and rehabilitation of boreholes. 
As a result, the donor approved a no cost extension period by four months in order to complete 
implementation of the project until 31 December 2019. During this period, therefore, the project 
exceeded the number of target beneficiaries in all project components except in child protection 
component. On average, the project the project reached 110% of all target beneficiaries. More 
specifically, the project reached 102%, 100%, 110% and 53% of its target beneficiaries under the 
agriculture, Economic recovery & market systems, WASH and Protection components respectively. 
Agriculture Sector/component
Under this component the project implemented a number of activities to protect livestock assets of 
target beneficiaries by supporting livestock mass vaccination and livestock treatment. 
To achieve this, the project supported regional/Zonal government counterparts to vaccinate a total of 
701,866 animals, from which a total of 35,467 Households had benefited. 
With regard to livestock treatment, the project adopted a franchised service delivery model where 
veterinary drug supplier (also call whole supplier) based in Jigjig (Regional capital), Private Veterinary 
Pharmacies (based in target Woredas) and Community Animal health Workers based at Kebele level 
with in the community. For this service, a total of 6500 poor and vulnerable HHs were provided with 
received vouchers (200 Birr value per HH) in order to be able to get access to livestock treatment 
services. Through a voucher system, a total of 156,591 animals were treated during the project period.
ix
Economic recovery & market systems
This component was designed to enable target beneficiaries to engage in income generating activities, 
and participate in activities that create temporary employment creation opportunities. 
Under this component, the project identified and supported 180 HHs in livestock fattening (50 
beneficiaries), Petty trading (100 Beneficiaries) and running small restaurants (30 Beneficiaries). For 
these initiatives, the project granted Birr 24,640 (released in two rounds), Birr 12,040 and 12,040 Birr 
per beneficiaries for goat fattening, petty trading and small restaurants respectively. In addition, the 
project transferred conditional (through cash for Work) and unconditional (gratuitous) cash to 720 and 
80 HH respectively. 
Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) 
Under this component, the project rehabilitated three boreholes, which involved repair and maintenance 
of pumping system, installation of extension pipes between boreholes and public distribution points, 
construction of public water distribution points and training and awareness raising activities. In addition, 
project constructed a total of 50 blocks of latrines with three rooms each, and 50 blocks shower with 
four rooms each for communal use by the IDP population. Furthermore, the project contracted six 
ventilation Improved Latrine for six health institutions. 
Protection 
To promote child protection, the project organised community discussions and awareness raising 
meetings, constructed “child-friendly sheds in IDP sites, arranged a toll-free hotline (short code #6469) 
system for both calls and short text messages. As the figure below shows that respondents mentioned 
they participated in child protection lesson. 
Effectiveness 
Agriculture sector: The specific objective of this sector was that “Drought affected pastoral 
communities’ livelihoods are protected and restored through the provision of emergency and early 
recovery animal health services”. The major actions include livestock mass vaccination and enable 
poor and vulnerable households to get access to livestock treatment services. 
Livestock Mass Vaccination and treatment 
To reduce the risk of livestock death from opportunistic diseases and improve the health of livestock assets, 
the project provided financial and material support for regional/Zonal government counterparts to train 
CAHWs, mobilise mass vaccination of livestock in the Project target Woredas. To this effect, a total of 
701,866 animals were vaccinated in two rounds, and a total of 35,467 target Households benefited
from the action. .
In addition, the project implemented a voucher-based franchised veterinary service delivery model, 
where private service providers played key role. The project arranged/created vet drug supply chain 
by identifying and linking veterinary drug supplier (whole seller) based in Jigjiga, six Private veterinary 
pharmacies based in six target Woredas, and trained community animal health Woredas based in the 
community/target Kebeles. This implementation model was designed to poor and vulnerable 
households to be able to access veterinary services easily and locally. In this regard, a total vouchers 
value of USD 44,600 was distribute for 6500 target HHs. As a result, a total of 156,591 animals 
(majority being shoats and cattle) were treated during the life of the project. 
Economic Recovery
Under this component, the project identified different intervention that were sought to improve access 
to income and enhance recovery of beneficiaries’ financial and livestock assets. In order to enable 
target HHs get access to financial resources, the project allocated a total of USD 99,900 which was 
disbursed to 180 target HHs in the form of grant for shoat fattening, petty trading and small restaurant 
businesses. Until the end of December 2019, the project disbursed a total of USD 95,665 (95.76% of 
allocation) in two rounds for 180 target beneficiaries: that is, Birr 24,640 for 50 beneficiaries each for shoat 
x
fattening, Birr 12,040 for 100 Beneficiaries each to start/strengthen small business/petty trading and 
Birr 12,040 Birr for 30 Beneficiaries each to run small restaurants. 
In addition, the project allocated a total of USD 171,429 to benefit 720 individuals from temporary 
employment opportunity through cash for work. In addition, the project identified and provided a 
gratuitous support for 80 old and disabled people as well as pregnant/lactating women. As a result, 
each of these people received a total of Birr 6000 in four rounds (i.e. each received Birr 1500 per 
month) 
Changes in HH income
The period between implementation of economic recovery activities and the time this evaluation was 
conducted was too short less than three months to measure the impact/effect of economic recovery 
activities. Target beneficiaries explained that they are hopeful that their business would be successful 
though they could not the extent of profit they would generate. In this regard, some beneficiaries 
reported that had generated a certain profit from their investment. For example, Ayan, from Gunagado 
Kebele IDP site, received Birr 24640 in two rounds to engage goat fattening. With the grant, initially 
she bought 15 goats with an average price of US $40 per goat. After three months, she sold seven of 
her goats in Somali land at an average US $75 per goat. Then, with the money from sale of these 
animals, she again bought other 11 shoat locally. At the time of the evaluation, she reported that she 
had 19 shoats- that is she had increased her stock by four more goats. 
The target households, who were targeted for CFW activities and gratuitous support, had received 
Birr 1500 per month for four months. Most of these target HHs spent this money to buy food items
(stable and non-stable foods) for their family. According to these people, the amount of cash they 
received was too small to meet monthly food requirement of their respective family members. For 
example, they explained that birr 1500 is enough buy only 25kg of Sugar (app. Birr 600), 25 Kg rice 
(apx. Birr 600) and oil (app. Birr 250 - 300), and depending on the family size, these quantities of the 
food items last between 10 to 15 days only.
Changes in HH Food security status
Household food security status was measured using proxy food security indicators including: HH food 
consumption score (FCS), dietary diversity score (HDDS), hunger scale (HS) and Comping strategy 
Index (CSI) though these indicators were not included in the project document as key performance 
indicators (KPIs): 
HH Dietary diversity score 
The average HDDS increased from M=1.1155 (SD= 0.36325, N=407) at baseline to M= 3.1291 
(SD=1.91601, N=395) at end project. This means that the target households had their diets (on 
average) from more than 3 food group at the end of project compared to the diet composed of only 
one food group at baseline. 
However, at project end, the proportion of households who consumed from three or less number of 
food groups was 58.2%. As the figure below shows, more than 40% households improved their 
HDDS, which implies that they ate meal from more than four food groups. In other words, about 10% 
of surveyed HHs had high dietary diversity while 32% of surveyed HHs had a medium dietary 
diversity score
Household Food Consumption Score 
HH Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score calculated based on dietary frequency, food 
frequency and relative nutrition importance of different food groups. The composite food consumption 
score was grouped into three FCS categories in order to find out the proportion of HHs under the three 
xi
categories: poor consumption (FCS=between 1.0 and 21.5), borderline (FCS=between 21.5 and 35), 
and acceptable consumption (FCS=> 35.0).
The final evaluation found out that there was a significant change in the proportion of people moving 
from poor FCS category towards an acceptable FCS categories. On the one hand, proportion of people 
with poor FCS declined from 99.8% (N=407) at baseline to 64.3 % (N=395) at end on the project. On 
the other hand, proportion of people with acceptable FCS increased from 0 % (N=407) at baseline to 
16.7% (N=395) at the project end. Similarly, the proportion of people in the border line FCS category 
increased from 0.2% at baseline to 19% at the end of the project. 
Hunger Scale 
The proportion of HHs with little or no hunger increased from 70.8 % at baseline to 73.8 % at the end 
of the project showing a 3 % marginal increase. Similarly, there was a marginal improvement in the 
proportion of HHs experiencing moderate hunger, where the proportion of people declined from 29% at 
baseline to 26.3% at project end. Furthermore, at the end of the project there was no target HH who fell 
under sever hunger scale compared to 0.2% at baseline.
Average Coping Strategies Index (CSI) score for the target population”; CSI target =75
The CSI measures people’s behaviour. People do those things when they cannot access enough food. 
Bothe the baseline and the final evaluation applied a reduced CSI tool, which is a composite indicator 
consisting of five variables of different weight. Unlike the other food security indicators that shows strong 
correlation, the average CSI result shows an increase from 7.12 (N=407) at baseline to 10.15 (N=395) 
at end of the project implying that the food insecurity situation has worsened in December 2019. 
Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) 
The specific objective of this sector is “provision of life-saving emergency water supply, improved 
sustainable & safe access to water and sanitation services, and promotion of good hygiene practices 
for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities [target Beneficiaries]”. 
Water Supply
In order to improve access to safe and adequate drinking water for target beneficiaries, the project 
undertook repair and rehabilitating of three boreholes, replaced a failed pump (which used to work with 
generator) and constructed water distribution points. Until the end of December 2019, the project was 
able to complete the rehabilitation and maintenance of two boreholes (100%) and made 40% progress 
on the third site. As a result, the project record indicated that a total of 35700 people (M= 17136 & 
F=18564) have been able to get access to potable water from these sources. 
In addition, the project sought installation of a water pumps that use multiple sources to power to pump 
water- combine inputs from solar and generator energy production to ensure the pump will have enough 
power to run. It is believed that such a combined power sources create a more sustainable source of 
power for the pump than only one of the sources.
In terms of volume of water availability, the result obtained from a HH survey (that was conducted at 
project end) showed that the project was able to provide 12.44 litres of drinking water per capita per 
day compared to a target to supply 5 litres of water per capita per day. Nevertheless, 12.44 litres per 
capita per day achieved by the project is still not adequate as per the minimum standard (15 lts per 
capita per day) set in Sphere minimum standard guideline under emergency settings
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion
The project implemented different activities to improve both access to hardware and software aspects 
of sanitation & hygiene condition of target beneficiaries. In terms of hardware, the project constructed 
50 blocks of communal latrine (each with four compartments), 50 blocks of shower sheds (each with 
four compartments) in IDP sites, and six ventilation improved pit latrines for health institutions. In 
addition, the project supplied sanitation and hygiene material (WASH non-food Items) like jerry cans, 
cleaning materials and water treatment chemicals etc. 
xii
As a result, the construction of these facilities reportedly improved access to sanitation services for 
7120 people, which is 13% more than the project target of 6300 people. In addition, a spot observation 
made by enumerators during the HH survey revealed that 29% (N=395) of survey participants had hand 
washing facilities near their toilet, out of these handwashing facilities, 82% (i.e. 82% of 115 facilities) 
had water. 
With regard to the software aspect, the project promoted hygiene education through campaign for tens 
of thousands of people- on topics related to the basics and importance of hygienic practices, improve 
knowledge and practices of critical moments of hand washing, and safe collection and storage of 
drinking water. 
The secondary data obtained from project records revealed that the project reached a total of 87,259 
people through hygiene promotion education, which resulted in improved knowledge and practice of 
hand washing at critical moments, and storing water clean and make it safe for drinking. For example, 
the HH survey revealed that the proportion of households, who knew at least three (out of five) of the 
critical moments of hand washing1
, increased from 36.4% (N=407) at baseline to 74.7% (N=395) at 
project end. When compared with project plan/ target of 50%, it has exceed its plan by 24.7%. 
Furthermore, spot observations of water containers by enumerators revealed a positive practice of 
cleaning water collection and storage containers. From their observations, enumerators reported that 
the majority (78.7%, N=395) of participants kept their water collection/storage containers clean 
compared to the baseline value of 63% (N=407). 
Protection 
Child protection 
Generally, child protection cases in the project intervention Woredas are dealt with by three co‐existing 
legal systems: (a) the formal regular law, (b) Sharia law and (c) customary laws in the Somali 
community. 
According to FGD participants, the community mainly relying on customary law to solve child protection 
issues. According Head of Woreda Women and Children Affairs Office, sexual abuse is in general very 
rare, which is attributed to the severe consequences it will have for the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s 
family under Somali customary law (Gerald & Dorothy, 2011). 
Since there are a lot of children among the target communities, the protection sub-sector, the project 
specifically aimed to improve awareness and consciousness of target communities and protect 
vulnerable groups, including women, girls and boys, elders and people with disability from life 
threatening risks including GBV and other forms of violence”.
In this regard, the project organised community discussions and awareness raising meetings, 
constructed “child-friendly sheds in IDP sites, arranged a toll-free hotline (short code #6469) system for 
both calls and short text messages. Thus, the HH survey result showed that the majority (82.9%, 
N=395) of respondents remember that their awareness about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), child 
protection in general, and have also learnt methods of risks identification and mitigation. Thus, the HH 
survey result revealed that 53% (N= 275) of both men and women respondents reported that they 
have the ability and know at least 3 (out of 5) identification and mitigation method, and the remaining 
know either one (25%) or two (22%) methods.
School participation of children under 18 years
Survey households were asked about school enrolment (before and after displacement) of their children 
under the age of 18 years. The school enrolment rate of children in the IDP site compared to the 
 
1 The five critical moments of handwashing are: before preparing/handling food/ milking camel/cows, before eating 
ford, before feeding babies/other people, after visiting toilet, and after disposing baby faeces/handling waste. 
xiii
enrolment rate before displacement. The HH survey revealed that the enrolment rate of children before 
displacement and in the IDP site were 15% and 72% (N=275) respectively. 
Child labour: Children engagement in labour work
One of the right of children is to be protected from “exploitation” of labour. Surveyed HHs were asked 
if their children (U18) were engaged in labour work. The majority 93% of respondents reported that 
children were not engaged in labour work; both the baseline and the final evaluation results revealed 
that only 7% of children were engaged in labour work. 
Prospect of Sustainability
Livestock Treatment: The Voucher System 
The livestock treatment service model initiated a link between PVPs located in target Woredas and the 
veterinary drug supplier based in Jigjiga. Both the supplier and PVPs, who participated in this project 
revealed that their business relationship will continue in the future without the project. Similarly, some 
PVPs also showed interest to work with CAHWs though this link require further capacity building effort 
for CAHW (e.g. financial capacity to secure initial stock, refresher training, developing 
system/procedure to formalise the relationship between PVPs and CAHWs).
Rehabilitation of water supply schemes: 
In IDP sites, where the rehabilitation work is complete, the WASH committee had already discussed to 
set a tariff (birr 2 per Jerri can) to raise financial resources to recruit and pay for a care-taker, and avail 
financial resources for future repair and maintenance of the water scheme. 
Child Protection and feedback mechanism
With regard to community feedback mechanism, the idea of using a hotline, which has a short code 
(four digit number) was commendable. However, the mechanism was not widely and effectively used 
by the target communities. To ensure sustainability, the management of hotline services should be 
housed in appropriate government offices. So the service will continue beyond the project lifetime. 
Conclusion and Recommendation 
Conclusion
Major activities of the project (like rehabilitation of boreholes, construction of latrine, economic recovery 
activities and livestock treatment) were implemented within 3 or 4 months of the NCE period. In spite 
delay in project implementation for a considerable number of months, particularly due to a pre-approval 
process requirement related to livestock treatment and borehole rehabilitation activities, the project 
achievement exceeded its target by 10% at the end of the NCE period. 
The economic recovery activities, particularly, the provision of grant enables target HHs to engage in 
income generating businesses. From beneficiary’s point of view, this economic recovery initiative is 
promising and it is the pathway to provide durable/ lasting solution. However, given the number of need 
people that require durable solution, the current target figure (180 HHs) is very small? 
In addition, the conditional as well as unconditional cash transfer, through cash for work and gratuitous 
support enabled target beneficiaries to supplement their food needs. However, it was not enough to 
meet household basic food needs. . 
The livestock treatment and vaccination services had contributed a lot in saving livestock assets of 
target beneficiaries. Importantly, the idea of franchised livestock treatment model is commendable. 
However, to develop a well-functioning model beyond the life of the project requires long-term funding 
and effort. 
xiv
Rehabilitation/construction of water points and building the water distribution system not only reduce 
the burden of women to fetch water but it boosts the confidence of women due to improved sanitation 
and hygiene practices. 
Recommendation 
All economic recovery interventions, particularly goat/shoat fattening and trading as well as petty 
trading are promising. However, as per the minimum economic recovery standards, target households 
require functional literacy and numbery (like reading & writing and record keeping) in order to manage 
their business effectively and make informed decisions. 
Project duration: Consider negotiation of revising the timeframe with the donor: In situations of such 
lengthy project delays, with factors that well known by the donor, it important to consider revising the 
duration the actual project lifetime. In addition, as an emergency project extended delay in a project 
pre-approval process affects both the outcome as well as organisational efficiency and effectiveness. 
Therefore, requesting and negotiating a costed extension (rather than NCE) is commendable. 
Consider actual family size: Future intervention, the amount of to be transferred for both conditional 
(CFW) and unconditional (gratuitous) support requires revision based on local market price and 
household food requirement. In addition, it is important to take family size into account to determine the 
amount of cash to be transferred to target HHs. 
Scaling up economic Recovery /rehabilitation rather than emergency Project: Since 2017, the regional 
government has developed and endorsed implementation of durable solution to IDPs though it is not 
clear how much progress it made so far. Therefore, it is recommended to actively engage and consult 
the regional government when designing economic recovery activities for IDPs in the Region. 
There is high interest among target beneficiaries IDPs to get support on durable solution though 
emergency assistance is important in the short term. During designing such interventions, therefore it 
is worth to explore different option when providing start-up/investment grants to target beneficiaries: 
(a) Valuing co-investment (cost sharing)-livelihood assets are most valuable to people when they feel 
a sense of ownership over the assets, rather than view the assets as gifts. To increase buy-in, 
programs may require beneficiaries to provide some level of co-investment (even if it is in kind) in 
the assets supported by the program (SEEP, 2017);
(b) Arrange loan guaranty fund (with local financial institution) so that target beneficiaries can get 
access to economic recovery/ business start-up loan; 
(c) Provide economic recovery/ business start-up grant as a revolving fund through
(establishing/strengthening) Village Saving and Loan associations (VSLA). 
1
1. Project Background
1.1.Project Context
Emerging intercommunity conflicts and the effects of climate change forced millions of people in 
Ethiopia to flee their place of residence. From 2.9 million IDPs, more than 2.4 million of them have 
been displaced due to conflict, and the remaining half a million people were displaced due to climate￾induced events (e.g. drought and flooding) (IDMC, 2017; USAID, 2019).
Ethiopia has a history of devastating droughts, with the most recent in 2015–2016 being the worst in 
30 years. The 2016 Global Report on Internal Displacement (GRID) revealed that Ethiopia suffered 
one of its worst meteorological droughts in 50 years in 2015, following the failure of two consecutive 
rainy seasons. More than 80 per cent of the country’s agricultural yield and the employment of 85 
per cent of the workforce depend on adequate rainfall. According to the report, the drought contributed 
to the lowest soil moisture levels in at least 30 years, crop failure, below average vegetation cover 
and severe water shortages in pastoral and arable farming areas (GRID, 2016).
IDPs in Somali Region, particularly in Jaraar as well as Doolo, Shebele, Korahe, Degahabour zones 
have been displaced from their place of origin due to consecutive failure of rainy seasons in the past 
three years since 2015. The drought situation eroded coping capacities of pastoralist and agro￾pastoralist communities in the Zone and the Region in general. FEWS NET and other agencies had 
projected that the deteriorating food security situation of IDPs continued until today in the target 
Regions, particularly in Jaraar, Doolo, Korahe and Degahabour zones (potentially IPC4)2 with some 
households possibly experiencing catastrophe IPC-5 level of acute food insecurity (FAO, 2011; 
FEWSNET, 2017; OCHA, 2017). For example, in 2017, there were about 807,000 displaced people 
living in 331 displacement sites in Somali region and remained displaced in 2018 and 2019.
Following poor/below average performance of GU and Dyer rains for more than three consecutive 
years, the situation further deteriorated people’s ability to access food intensifying the food insecurity 
situation as well as access to water in the Region
In addition, FGD participants in Degahabur and Gashamo Woreda Government officials, and target 
Beneficiaries in Bulaale and Gashamo IDP sites reported that there had been a growing uncertainty 
of the weather condition in 2019. The most acute effects of the 2015 drought had continued to be felt 
during 2016, 2017, and 2018 and in 2019. Though the rate of new displacement in 2019 was not as 
such significant, FGD participants reported that many people have been joining camps in recent 
months. In Jaraar Zone in general and in the target Woredas in particular, extreme coping 
mechanisms were widespread and affecting the levels of access to Water for both Animal and Human 
use, food security, income and livestock health. 
Generally, however, several FGDs participants in Bulaale and Gashamo Woredas/IDP sites reported 
that most of them have lived in IDP camps since 2017. These IDPs have settled in IDP sites in 
sedentary Somali communities and around the outskirts of towns and cities. 
During discussions with IDPs, participants clearly explained that almost all of them were pastoralists 
whose herds were decimated by the drought. As they lost their animals (main source of their 
livelihoods) and left with nothing. Other reasons for IDPs not interested to go back to their previous 
home include lack of access to water points, grazing land, veterinary services, livestock markets, 
cash and credit in their original places. They furthered argued that, compared to their place of origin, 
the IDP sites provided them with better conditions in terms of access to water, sanitation and hygiene 
facilities as well as access to other services as the IDP sites are located close to urban centres. 
 
2 The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), also known as IPC scale, is a tool for improving food security analysis 
and decision-making. IPC4 refers to humanitarian emergency, where at least 20 percent of households face extreme food 
consumption gaps, resulting in very high levels of acute malnutrition and excess mortality;
2
Response to IDPs 
To date, responses to IDPs in Ethiopia Somali region (as well as other parts of Ethiopia) have largely 
focused on life-saving humanitarian (emergency) action. The government and its humanitarian 
partners (NGOs, Bilateral and Multilateral donors) put a lot of effort to provide basic services to IDPs.
Although humanitarian responses play a vital role in providing a safety net for those in desperate 
need, most IDPs expressed that they need development oriented, economic recovery and protection
assistance (Behigu Habte, 2018)and not just emergency support.
However, given the scale of the operation, and emerging new displacements from new areas means 
that existing IDPs still require emergency and long-term asset recovery and rehabilitation 
interventions.
In this regard, it is learnt from literature that Somali national Regional State developed and endorsed 
a regional durable solutions strategy. This strategy was the first of its kind, in both at Regional and 
national level, that was prepared (with support from Durable Solution working group) to design and 
implement durable solutions for IDP (SNRS, n.d.). This was a four-year (2017-2020) strategic 
document, which broadly understood to encompass three options: 
(i) Voluntary return to places of origin;
(ii) Local integration in areas of displacement; or
(iii) Resettlement in another location.
However, from the discussion with Woreda and Zonal government officials, it was learnt that they do 
not know about the plan/strategy nor they have the budget to implement.
Nevertheless, looking at modus operandi of IDP response so far, neither the government nor the 
international community made substantive investments in durable solutions, such as recovering 
livelihoods or facilitating the IDPS to settle in new or their original locations (ibid).
Therefore, IDPs remained dependent on a humanitarian lifeline that offered them limited opportunity 
to become self-reliant and failed to promote the overall resilience of the host communities in which 
they settled. This missed opportunity has only prolonged aid dependency and suffering
(Hollingsworth, 2019)
1.2.Project Overview
In response to persistent situation of food insecurity, poor access to water, livestock disease in Jaraar 
Zone, Oxfam designed and implemented this project, titled ‘Integrated Emergency Response and Early 
Recovery’ in six Woredas of Jaraar Zone of Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. USAID Office of Foreign 
Disaster Assistance (OFDA) funded a total of $3Million for the execution of the project, which 
specifically focussed on WASH, Agriculture and Food Security, Economic recovery and market system 
and child and women protection in the target Woredas. 
The goal of the project was to “save lives, protect livelihoods and early recovery of drought affected 
Pastoralist and agro-pastoralist in Somali Regional, Ethiopia”. The total Number of Individuals Affected 
in the Targeted Area were 4.38 million people in the Somali region, Ethiopia. From these, the total 
number of beneficiaries targeted by the project were 330,928 people (Individuals), which is composed 
of 108,651 Internally Displaced People (IDP) and 222,277 people from host community. 
The project was implemented in six drought affected Woredas, namely, Aware, Bil'ilbur, Daror, 
Dhagahabur, Gashamo and Gunagado Woredas located in Jaraar Zone of Somali Regional State, 
Ethiopia. 
To achieve the project objectives and outcomes, the project designs a distinct but interrelated major 
project components. These include: 
3
A. Agriculture and Food Security- Livestock vaccination, livestock treatment (using a voucher system), 
which is planned to benefit 230,151 people and 690,453 animals. 
B. Economic Recovery and Market Systems: aims to increase income and livelihood opportunities for 
5,280 individuals or 900 HH from pastoral and agro-pastoral communities through livelihoods 
intervention in target Woredas. this action include supporting livelihood restoration efforts and 
creating temporary employment opportunities: (a) providing start up grant in two rounds for 180 
people for goat fattening, petty trading and run small restaurants; These households received 
12040 ETB for each Petty Trade and small restaurant businesses beneficiaries , and Birr 24640 
ETB for Livestock fattening business (b) provided gratuitous support for 80 vulnerable households 
and create temporary employment through Cash for Work (CFW) for 720 able bodied target 
beneficiaries. 
C. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: Under this component, the project aims to provide live-saving 
emergency water supply, sustainable & safe access to water and sanitation services, and 
promotion of good hygiene practices for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. 
Under this sector, the project rehabilitated three boreholes, constructed 50 blocks of latrines and 
50 blocks of shower; each block both the latrine and shower facilities have four rooms. In addition, 
the project constructed six blocks of Ventilation Improved Pit (VIP) latrine facilities for health units. 
Under this component, the project planned to reach a total of 94, 309 people from which, 90,259 
people were IDPs. 
In Hygiene Promotion, the project organised different sessions in target Kebeles to promote and 
create awareness on different aspects of hygiene and sanitation including critical times for hand 
washing, how to make water safe for drinking, appropriate method of solid waste disposal as well 
as how to control vectors, which are agents of contaminating. In these promotional activities, the 
project reached a total 87480 people (67%female). In addition, the project also trained 60 (30 M & 
30 F) Community Health. 
As stated in the project final report, a total of 36,300 people directly benefited from the water supply 
(30000 people) and Sanitation facilities (6000 people). 
The project also distributed established/strengthened and trained WASH committees, distributed 
in Latrine/shower cleaning kits. Furthermore, the project distributed NFI (like Jeri Cans) for 1000 
Vulnerable target beneficiaries (94% female) (Oxfam, 2020). 
D. Protection: with this component, the project aims to protect about 37,033 vulnerable groups of IDPs 
(like women, girls and boys, elders and people with disability) from life threatening protection risks 
like Gender based Violence (GBV) and other forms of violence. Until the end of December, the
project has reached 19683 People (all IDPs) through promotion of women and Child (girls and 
boys) rights and awareness creation sessions
2. Evaluation Framework and Methodology
2.1.Evaluation framework 
The aim of this evaluation was to assess the project in accordance with the OECD/DAC Evaluation 
criteria which include Impact, Effectiveness, Sustainability, Relevance and Efficiency. Each specific 
project objective was assessed against these five evaluation criteria in order to allow for an overall 
assessment on project performance, and the relative success of the project vis-à-vis each objective. 
Finally, the evaluation also identified lessons learnt from the project, through highlighting best practices, 
project failures, and policy recommendations and opportunities for scaling up. 
.
2.2.Evaluation Methodology
To generate qualitative and quantitative information and assess the performance of the project, the
final evaluation applied a mixed method of qualitative and quantitative data collection tools. Primary 
4
qualitative and quantitative data was collected through beneficiary survey using structured 
questionnaires, key informant interviews and focus group discussions using open ended questions and 
topic guides. Secondary information was collected/generated using review of relevant document 
including project proposal, project reports, research and assessment and situation update reports 
prepared by other organisations.
2.2.1. Data collection Procedures 
Document Review: The Evaluation team has reviewed selected documents (the baseline report, the 
project log frame, annual reports, and the project proposal) collected from Oxfam International 
Ethiopia office. Based on the document review, discussion with Oxfam staff etc. a tentative outlines 
of basic evaluation methods and tools needed for fieldwork were prepared.
Development of appropriate tools: the evaluation team used the HH survey tools which was 
developed by Oxfam and used for the baseline survey. However, some tweaking of the wording and 
a few additional questionnaires were included while maintaining the original baseline questionnaires 
were used.
2.2.2. Quantitative Survey
For the quantitative data, a cross sectional research design (with descriptive and explanatory 
function) is applied. It is descriptive because it presents detailed picture of the specific result 
indicators, which were developed in previous works; taking explanatory role, the analysis answers
why things are the way they are and do comparisons between the baseline and the End line results. 
This is based on positivist approach which was based on the idea that there is an objective ‘reality’ 
which can be accurately measured, and which operates according to natural laws that can be 
‘discovered’ by rigorous, objective research (Marlow, 1998). Accordingly, this section of the 
evaluation will objectively measure the effectiveness of the project intervention on those five result 
areas.
Sample size
All the sampling process, and HH data collection was led by Oxfam field staff. The sample size was 
determined based on the sample size used at baseline, the household survey covered all the six target 
Woredas in Jaraar Zone. Sampling units were taken from the same population, equal number of 
samples from each Woreda/Kebeles as in as in the baseline survey. The sample size for this evaluation 
survey was 398 people, which was calculated based on 95% confidence level and 5% Margin of error.
During the data collection, however, a total of 395 HHs (i.e. 99% response rate) participated in the 
survey. 
As shown in the table below, 395 HHs participated in the end line survey (see table 1 below), which is 
99% response rate.
Table 1: number of respondents across selected target Woredas of OFDA funded project
SN Woreda # respondents Remark/Kebeles 
1 Degahabur 40 Dhabiile & Bulale Kebeles
2 Gunagado 62 faramadow & Gunagado IDPs sites
3 Gashamo 103 Bodadhere, Gashamo IDP
4 Daroor 60 Karoska Host & Daror IDP
5 Aware 84 Gurdumi IDP& host; Barta
6 Bilcinbur 46 Gosololay, Galiil
Total 395
Household Data collection 
The data was collected by enumerators using Mobenzi software, which is a mobile based application. 
Enumerators were recruited local based on their knowledge about the area, fluency in local language, 
and experience in mobile-based data collection tools. The enumerators were first trained/oriented about 
5
the purpose of the data collection, the nature of the questionnaire in detail, and on ethical issues before 
they were deployed to conduct the survey.
HH survey data was collected using smart phones uploaded with Mobenzi, mobile data application. 
Each day, the data collected by enumerators was uploaded the central data server located at Oxfam 
level. After the survey was completed, MEAL manager of the project supported on the data collection 
and provided the excel version of a completed raw dataset of the final evaluation. In addition, Oxfam 
supplied the consulting team with the complete raw dataset from the baseline, which made comparison 
of the results easier.
2.2.3. Qualitative data
Qualitative data collection tools/topic guides were developed based on document reviews, discussion 
with Oxfam staff at the head and field offices and prior knowledge and experience of the consulting 
team about the project context and subject matter. 
Qualitative data was collected using Focus Group Discussion, Key Informant Interview (KII), spot 
observation, and Document Reviews (DR) and case stories. FGDs and KII participants include Oxfam 
staff, Jaraar Zone Government officials, Degahabur & Gashamo Woreda officials, Veterinary Drug
supplier, Private veterinary pharmacy Operators, Community animal health Workers (CAHW) and 
target beneficiaries. In addition, spot observation was undertaken at water supply schemes and 
communal latrines, and a case story was produced.
Furthermore, a range of different documents were reviewed. These include project document 
(proposal, MEAL framework & plan, baseline assessments, various assessment reports conducted in 
the target areas. In addition, SPHERE, LEGS, Child Protection minimum standards, government 
policy/strategy instruments and documents. 
2.2.4. Measurement and Data analysis
Completed household questionnaires were first uploaded to the central server located at Oxfam head 
office in Addis. Then, the MEAL manager at Oxfam exported and produced the complete HH survey 
dataset in excel format. Then, both baseline and end line datasets were exported to Statistical 
Package for Social Scientist (SPSS, V.24), statistical software for cleaning and analysis. Both 
datasets were checked (and cleaned) for completeness, consistency, validity and outliers before 
analysing the results. Since both the baseline and end line surveys used a cross-sectional survey 
method. In addition, Qualitative information was analysed using ‘content analysis, method. 
Oxfam provided the necessary support during throughout this final evaluation process including data 
collection compilation, data cleaning, data analysis, interpreting and reporting on project components 
including WASH, Agriculture and Food Security, Economic recovery and market system and 
protection.
For each performance indicator, descriptive analysis was performed to generate frequencies, means 
and standard deviations. The difference between baseline and end line values were calculated by 
subtracting the baseline value from the end-line values.
2.3. Limitation
Primary quantitative data was collected from all six target Woredas while qualitative data collection 
covered four Woredas in Jaraar Administrative Zone. 
While writing this report, a consolidated financial report was not obtained. So, the evaluation could not 
comment on financial performance of the project. 
6
3. Evaluation Findings and Discussions 
3.1.Characteristics of surveyed respondents 
In the Final evaluation, 395 HHs participated in the household survey. They were drawn randomly from 
both Internally Displaced People (70%) and host communities (30%) living in six-project target Woredas 
of Jaraar Zone. As shown in the table below, the majority of respondents were female constituting 84%
of respondents. 
Table 2: Sex of Respondents
Woredas
Host Community IDPs Total
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
Aware 18 46 64 4 16 20 22 62 84
Bilcinbur 2 5 7 6 32 38 8 37 45
Daroor 0 12 12 7 43 50 7 55 62
Degahabur 1 25 26 3 11 14 4 36 40
Gashamo 1 8 9 15 79 94 16 87 103
Gunagado 1 1 2 5 54 59 6 55 61
Total 23 97 120 40 235 275 63 332 395
Total/ Percent 120 (30%) 275 (70%) 63(16%) 332 (84%) 100%
With regard to marital status of surveyed HHs, the table below shows that the majority (55%) are female 
single parents followed by male single parents (35%).
Table 3: Marital status of surveyed HHs
Marital Status Freq. Percent Valid Percent Cum. Percent
Male Single parent HH 140 35.4 35.4 35.4
Female Single Parent HH 217 54.9 54.9 90.4
Monogamous family 35 8.9 8.9 99.2
Polygamous family 3 .8 .8 100.0
Total 395 100.0 100.0
In surveyed HHs, there are quite a significant number of children under 18 years of old. As the table 
below shows, the number of children (age between 6 and 18 years old) in the final evaluation were 
1089 children, and 764 children under five. At the baseline, the number of children under five and 
between 6 and 18 years of age were 862 and 994 respectively. 
Table 4: Population under 18 years (in surveyed HHs)
Age Description Final Eval. Baseline
Female population age: from 6 to 17 ( past 3 months 518 470
Male population age: from 6 to 17 ( past 3 months) 571 524
Total population from 6 to under 18 Years old 1089 994
Female under five children( past 3 months) 344 402
Male under five children( past 3 months) 420 460
Total Children under five 764 862
Total Under 18 years population 1853 1856
3.2.Project Relevance & Timeliness 
3.2.1. Relevance 
From discussion with various stakeholders (target communities, Woreda & Zonal governments, 
implementing partners etc.) and review of various reports and documents, the project actions were
relevant to and consistent with the needs of target beneficiaries. The overall objective of the project is 
“to save lives, protect livelihoods and early recovery of drought affected Pastoralist and agro-pastoralist 
in Somali Regional, Ethiopia”. This objective is in line with all Country Strategic Objectives (CSO) for 
7
the Humanitarian Requirements Document (HRD, 2018): 1) “saving lives and reducing morbidity due 
to drought and acute food insecurity; 2) Protect livelihoods; 3) Prepare for and respond to other 
humanitarian shocks including conflict / flooding /Displacement. 
The IDPs in Somali Region, particularly in Jaraar Zone (and others including Doolo, Shebele, Korahe, 
zones), have been hard hit due to failure of rainy seasons during past consecutive years. The drought 
situation eroded the livelihoods and coping capacities of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities 
the Region. 
According to various reports (UNICEF, 2017, 2018), the IDPs who were displaced following the 2015
drought continued feeling the impact of the drought until 2019. In addition, new displacements also 
continued in 2018 and 2019 as well. During our field visit at the end of December 2019, FGD and KII
participants confirmed that there had been new arrivals in December. 
During KII and FGDs with Government officials as well as drought affected IDPs in Jaraar Zone, 
Degahabur, Gunagado, Gashamo and Daroor Woredas, participants reported that IDPs had lost most 
of their livelihood asset due to severe drought that occurred in 2017, and its impact continued through 
2018 and 2019. During FGD discussion held at Bulaale Gunagado, Daroor and Gashamo IDP sites/
Kebeles, the discussants explained that the majority of the IDPs were displaced and arrived at their 
respective IDP sites before a years ago while some of the discussants indicated that they joined the 
displaced community during the last four or five months. 
The responses obtained from the HH survey also revealed that the number of years of displacement 
ranges from a few months to more than one year. At the end of project, more than 97% (N=275) of the 
IDPs reported that they had lived in the IDP camps for more than one year compared to the proportion 
of people at baseline (93%, N=323).
The difference in the proportion of people between baseline and end line can be due the time difference 
between the two surveys. The baseline was conducted in March/April 2019 while the end line survey 
was conducted after 6 or seven months. The other factor could be that more people who lived in IDP 
sites for more than one year may have participated in the survey though the selection of sampling units 
was random. 
Table 5: Duration of stay in IDP camp since displacement
Duration of stay in IDP 
Camp
Baseline End line 
Frequency Valid % Cum. % Frequency Valid % Cum. %
Between 6 & 12 months 4 1.2 1.2 1 0.4 0.4
Displaced for >1 year 299 92.6 93.8 269 97.8 98.2
Displaced for < 6 months 20 6.2 100.0 5 1.8 100.0
Total 323 100.0 275 100.0
In all FGDs and KIIs participants agree that the project components including improving access to 
Water, NFI distribution, Economic recovery activities, livestock treatment and mass vaccination were 
relevant. These interventions were also consistent with Government, Donor and Oxfam’s priority 
actions.
However, the support they received from the project was not enough in terms of the number of people 
targeted under different project components. For example, they commented that the number of people 
who were targeted for economic recovery and NFI distribution was smaller than the number of people 
8
who require the assistance. In addition, the amount of cash paid for CFW or as a gratuitous support 
was too small to address food needs of members of target HHs. Nevertheless, target beneficiaries
commented that the implementation was delayed by several months, and the number of target HHs 
was smaller than the number of needy people though any such interventions by Non-governmental 
organisations was welcomed positively.
Regardless of the number of years or months target beneficiaries spent in IDP sites, all IDPs still require 
lifesaving as well as a long-term recovery and rehabilitation interventions like income generating, asset 
recovery, and water rehabilitation interventions.
In this regard, NGOs and other actors interested in supporting IDPs in the future need to consider 
coordinating with, strengthening or advocating for implementation of the regional durable solution 
strategy that was prepared some four years ago (see SNRS’ durable solution strategic document). 
Given the scale of support required by existing IDPs coupled with emerging new displacements in the 
target areas means that there is a lot of pressure on the Government and humanitarian actors to 
address the problems and respond to needs of the displaced people. In this regard, most IDPs we 
talked to mentioned that they require support both in terms of short-term relief and durable solutions. 
During different focus group participants explained that their place of origin was severely affected by 
successive drought, and nothing was done to improve the situation. As a result, these participants 
indicated that they have no desire to go back to their previous village/location. When they were asked 
why, they explained that, “there is no water in our place of origin; we have no animals as we lost them 
during the drought, and there is nothing for us to relay on for living. So, why should we go back, they 
ask”.
In terms of access to water infrastructure, FGD participants also added that currently IDP sites are 
better than their previous place where the come from. Besides, the evaluation team observed marks of 
infrastructures visited that different agencies have invested in (such as Latrine, water and other
infrastructure facilities) to improve situation of the IDPs.
In the past, most interventions, implemented by different agencies in target Woredas, focussed on the 
traditional aid “architecture/structure”- i.e. Provision of emergency responses rather than finding lasting
or durable solutions for the displaced people. In this regard, a report on evaluation of the drought 
responses (from 2015 to 2018), which was prepared by the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation 
Steering Group (IAHESG), also confirmed that the responses focused heavily on food. The report 
further explained that “livelihood assistance was a major gap, with agriculture underfunded throughout. 
Other critical sectors (nutrition, WASH, health) were also massively underfunded in some years”
(IAHESG, 2019).
In this regard, this evaluator argued in the final evaluation report of ECHO HIP 2018 project 
(implemented by Oxfam) that “relief and emergency interventions are helpful but cannot yield a 
lasting/durable solution for IDPs who already spend more than 2 years in IDP sites” (TENTAM, 2019).
In this regard, Oxfam has taken this recommendation seriously, and integrated livelihoods 
recovery/rehabilitation and income generating interventions in the design of OFDA funded emergency 
project for Somali Region. Such a practice of leaning from implementation of previous projects, and 
taking useful recommendations is commendable for humanitarian organisations like Oxfam. In this 
regard, as a learning organisation, Oxfam taken such recommendations into account and included 
9
these components in the design of this OFDA funded project, which is being evaluated. Thus, it
incorporated economic recovery and income generating activities alongside emergency interventions￾like livestock vaccination, Cash for Work (CFW), improving access to water, promoting sanitation and 
Hygiene, and protection activities.
3.2.2. Project Efficiency 
As per its design, the project life span was 12 months, from August 2018 to July 2019. 
Project agreement was signed between Oxfam and OFDA on 25th September 2018. However, project 
implementation was delayed for several months due to various factors, which included changes in the 
project context requiring modification of intervention donor’s pre-approval on the changes and the 
Regional government decision to temporarily halt implementation of project activities. According to 
project staff, dealing with these factors took more than 5 months. According to the project manager, for 
example, the pre-approval process by the donor (mainly for livestock treatment and water rehabilitation 
interventions) took up four months. Thus, the project hardly achieved planned activities/outputs during 
the 12-moths as per the design. In order to complete project execution, therefore, Oxfam required a 
‘No Cost Extension’ (NCE) period that was approved by the donor in August 2019. Hence, the project 
lifespan was extended until the end of December 2019. 
During key Informant Interviews (KIIs), which took place with project field staff, it was reported that most 
of the project actions/ sectoral interventions were implemented between October and December 2019, 
which is during the NCE period. Therefore, Oxfam accelerated implementation of Public Health 
Environmental (PHE) activities (like improvement of water supply and public latrine) construction works, 
Cash transfer for economic recovery interventions, animal vaccination (through campaign) and 
treatment (using a voucher system), construction and promotion of “child friendly space” and other 
activities. Therefore, implementation of all project activities was completed until 31 December 2019. 
However, handover of completed activities for local government and community-based institutions were 
schedule for January 2020. According to project staff, unavailability of government officials was one of 
the reasons for extending the schedule for handover in to January 2020.
This is a 12-month project that integrates emergency and recovery interventions. It was originally
designed with a life span of 12 months from July 2018 to August 2019. The underlying assumption, 
when designing emergency projects, that project implementation is expected to start immediately. To
minimise the cost of delay of project actions, implementing agencies usually make a special 
arrangement or adapt a flexible (procurement, recruitment etc.) processes and procedures without 
compromising a check & balance and accountability mechanisms. From the perspective of emergency 
projects, where urgency of actions is critical, this project experienced a major delay to execute its 
planned activities. 
According to project staff, only a few activities were implemented. These include identification and 
training of CAHWs, conducting mass vaccination, Public Health Promotion (PHP) and protection 
activities. OFDA in particular the WASH Construction and Voucher Based Livestock Interventions. The
major activities like habitation of boreholes as well as livestock treatment interventions were 
implemented during the NCE period. 
During KII interview with staff, at least two major factors contributed to this delay:
a. After the signing of project agreement with OFDA, Oxfam made certain changes on the list of 
Veterinary drug suppliers and contractors’ list, which required pre-approval process by the Donor. 
The Donor responded positively to the request though the approval process took more than four 
or five months.
10
b) Due to this delay, to start implementation of the project in time (i.e. after nine months), the Zonal
Government officially suspended implementation of the project for about three weeks. This caused 
a lot of back and forth process of discussions and negotiations between Oxfam and Regional/Zonal 
Authorities that was concluded positively, and agreement was reached between the two parties in 
order to continue implementation of project activities. According to field staff, the delay particularly 
affected construction and rehabilitation boreholes and implementation of livestock treatment 
interventions. Therefore, these activities were implemented within the No Cost Extension (NCE) 
period from September to December 2019. 
In this regard, at least two major factors contributed to this delay: (a) a pre-approval process by the 
donor took more than four to five months; (b) Due to delay to star the project in time (i.e. after nine 
months), the Zonal Government officially suspended implementation of the project for a week. This 
caused a lot of back and forth process for Oxfam to clarify the issues/causes of the delay and negotiate 
continuation of implementation took some weeks. This negotiation was positively concluded. In the 
meantime, Oxfam made a request to the donor to extend the project lifespan to implement planned 
activities without additional cost (NCE). The request was approved in the second week of August 2019
allowing Oxfam to implement the activities within four additional months, from September to December 
2019.
According to project field office staff, the project spent much of its running/Administrative especially the 
staff cost during the 12 months, and run short of financial resources to implement the project during a 
NCE period. According to the project manager, therefore, the majority of the project outputs were 
delivered in four months, from September to December 2019. 
3.2.3. Project accomplishment: Planned activities/outputs Vs achievements 
Progress against target Beneficiaries 
The project exceeded the number of target beneficiaries in all but protection (sector 4) thematic areas. 
On average, the project reached 110% of all target beneficiaries. As the graph below shows, from the 
total target, the project reached 102%, 100%, 110% and 53% of its target beneficiaries under the 
agriculture, Economic recovery & market systems, WASH and Protection sectors respectively. With 
regard to Reaching target IDPs, the project reached 127%, 105% and 58% of target beneficiary IDPs 
respectively. Until the end of December, 2019, the project benefitted a total of 173,068 People (where 
50,060 people were IDPs). Comparing the number of people reached against its tartest, the project 
surpassed its target 1.84 times. 
11
Figure 1: Progress against target beneficiaries across the 4 thematic (sectors) intervention areas (source: Oxfam, 2020)
Given the vast area to be covered, the number of staff’s deployment could be taken as a reasonable 
one. However, the project hardly utilised these staff as efficiently and effectively as expected due to the 
lengthy preapproval process with the donor for the modification request, which consumed almost 5 
months of the project life span and regional Government’s decision to suspend implementation of 
project activities for a week time. 
3.2.4. Agriculture and Food Security (Sector 1): Livestock & Pharmaceutical
The specific objective of this sector was that “Drought affected pastoral communities’ livelihoods are 
protected and restored through the provision of emergency and early recovery animal health services”.
In general, the veterinary service delivery systems in Ethiopia is traditional where the Government 
taking the main responsibility of delivering the services at various levels: Veterinary staff providing the 
services at veterinary clinics or posts while CAHWs at field/Kebele. 
Animal health service delivery in pastoral areas has been a major challenge. The challenge is greater, 
considering the conditions in pastoral areas such as insecurity, poor infrastructure, low cash economy, 
high cost of service delivery, vastness of the area, and lack of veterinary personnel. Due to inadequate 
or lack of qualified animal health personnel in pastoral areas, personnel, among others. Due to 
inadequate or lack of AHS in pastoral areas, various service delivery initiatives, including CAHWs 
systems (started by NGOs), have emerged as an alternative options (Catley et al., 2002). The CAHWs 
system is voluntary though the government has paying for the routing animal disease information, 
reporting, surveillance as well as the prevention and control of animal diseases rampant in the pastoral 
part of Ethiopia. Community based Animal Health workers (CAHWs) have proven effective at bringing 
quality veterinary healthcare to pastoralists. However, the government can no longer offer these 
services because of budgetary constraints and fiscal deficits (Tesfaheywet (Dr) & Fitsum (Dr), 2013).
CAHWs are the most important agent that has enhanced the improved the accessibility of veterinary 
service to the pastoral areas although it was found out in this assessment that CAHWs were challenged 
by lack of sustainable drug supply source with reasonable price and lack of linkage with private 
veterinary pharmacies (PVPs), limited refresher training in the face of unfamiliar diseases “new to the 
area”. 
102% 100%
184%
53%
127% 110%
105%
55% 53%
85%
Sector1:Agriculture and
Food Security
Sector 2: Economic
Recovery and Market
Systems
 Sector 3: Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene
 Sector 4: Protection Average
Progress against target beneficiaries (%) 
% of People reached % of IDPs Reached
12
In light of policy shift towards privatization of Animal health services, the project initiated /adopted a
franchised veterinary service delivery model, where the project actively 
engaged the private sector to provide livestock treatment services for 
target beneficiaries. During the discussion with different stakeholders, it 
was learnt that the project tried to create a drug supply chain and 
services delivery by linking different private actors (Whole seller, who is 
based in Jigjiga town (the regional Capital), and Private Veterinary 
Pharmacies (PVP) which are located in Woreda towns of each target 
Woreda), and Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs). The later 
are based in each Kebele/village closer to pastoralist/) actively involved 
in provision of livestock health services to target communities. The 
figure (below) depicts the supply chain and relationship among different 
actors. 
During a KII interview with the veterinary drug supplier and one PVP from 
Gashamo, both discussants confirmed that due to limited financial 
capacity of PVPs, the supplier delivered the selected drugs on loan with 
an understanding that former pay their loan after they collect their 
payments from Oxfam by cashing vouchers collected from target 
beneficiaries via CAHWs. To strengthen the system, however, Oxfam made an advance payment of 
69,000 Birr for the PVPs at the district level.
In this arrangement, PVPs get the drugs from the supplier (whose main sources are importers in Addis 
Ababa) with or without a collateral depending on knowledge and relationship between the two parties.
As the supplier explained, some of the PVPs gave him a guarantee to assure that they would pay their 
loan upon an agreed timeframe all at once or on instalment basis. 
The project facilitated signing of memorandum of understanding between selected PVPs and CAHWs 
in each Woreda to provide the emergency veterinary service using a voucher system. The agreement 
was co-signed by two witnesses including Oxfam and Woreda livestock and pastoral development 
offices in each target Woreda. According to the agreement, CAHWs get three types of emergency 
drugs from PVPs. 
The CAHWs collect signed vouchers from beneficiary upon treating their animals. Then, the CAHWs 
return empty vials to and settle the vouchers collected from beneficiaries with PVPs. The CAHWs were 
also expected present the voucher redemption sheet signed by the beneficiaries upon receipt of the 
service. According to the agreement, CAHW will receive their payments based on the number of 
beneficiaries they served at a rate of 20 Birr per beneficiary. 
Figure 2: partial view of Whole supplier drug 
store
13
Figure 3: Flow of Vet treatment Services /supply chain at Region and & Woreda level
During the discussion with private veterinary service operators and target benefices, discussants raised 
a number of pros and cons about the services delivery model and the voucher system: 
Pros/opportunities
• The approach helped to strengthened or created linkage the supply chain from Veterinary drug 
suppliers at regional level, PVPs and CAHWs. In KII, the drug supplier in Jigjiga explained that the 
intervention helped him not only to strengthen his linkage in the vet drug supply chain with existing 
(PVP) customers, but also initiated a link with new PVPs in new Woredas. He believes that this 
relationship with continue regardless of the continuation of the project intervention.
• The project/Oxfam made a concerted effort and applied a rigorous process to ensure timely and 
efficient delivery of the treatment services, and ensure that the quality of the drugs supplied are as 
was initially identified and approved by the donor. For example, process involved: 
o Identification, and capacity assessment of vet drug suppliers at regional level. It found only 
one reliable supplier, who showed willingness to participate as per the terms and condition 
set by the project and fulfil requirements: trade license; capacity to supply a quality and 
quantity of vet drug, and willingness to provide of a written quality assurance letter denoting 
procedures to follow stock management standards and principles to manage veterinary 
pharmaceuticals under his possession.
o Identified, assessed the capacity of and selected PVPs that met legal requirements and 
willing to participate using the voucher system that was initiated by Oxfam;
o Repeatedly took samples of drugs and empty from the field to examine the quality of the 
drugs used/being used. 
14
• Facilitate signing of MoU and support the supply chain: prior discussions were held among 
actors along the supply chain and service delivery system which resulted in agreed fixed price for 
selected drugs during the lifespan of the project and signing of MoU. Willingness to provide of a 
written quality assurance letter denoting procedures to follow in managing veterinary 
pharmaceuticals under his possession.
• Training and equipping CAHWs: In fact, CAHWs were selected by the community and Offices of 
Livestock Resources and Pastoral Development in each target Woreda. The project, organised 
training for CAHWs and equipped them with basic vet Kits. In addition, both the communities and 
CAHWs were given awareness rising orientation on how the service deliver model and the voucher 
system works. 
• Determine the type of drugs and estimate value of voucher per beneficiary: the project staff 
determined the type of drugs based on a rapid assessment conducted in the target areas which 
identified most common diseases that affect live stocks, and determined quantity required per target 
beneficiary. 
Cons/challenges
• Transportation problem-particularly when transporting drugs from Jigjiga to Woredas (except 
Gashamo Woreda) 
• Two hundred birr per beneficiary is too small to treat all animals that a target household owns. 
According target beneficiaries, sometimes, some animals need treatment more than once. 
• Delay in initiating/applying the franchised model/voucher system: As per OFDA’s requirement, 
the type of Drug, Batch number, the list of suppliers (s) require preapproval, a process which takes 
many months. Thus, there was a major gap (in months) between times that whole supplier and 
types of drugs were identified, and the actual implementation of livestock treatment was started. 
According to the whole supplier, explained that because of his commitment and promise he made 
with the project he had to keep the stocks until the project receives pre-approval from the donor. As 
a result, he was restricted his ability to sell and replenish his stock- that is, limited frequently of his 
transaction. 
• Given the high demand for veterinary drugs coupled with shortage of imported items, the supplier 
argues that it was very challenging to find adequate quantity of drugs with specific batch number, 
and brand.
• The voucher system is not flexible/restricted: Because of the agreement made between PVPs, 
CAHWs and Oxfam, a beneficiary could use his/her voucher only with selected CAHW, and during 
a specific period (from September/October to December 2019. In other Words, if a target beneficiary 
or his/her animal moves out of target Kebeles in search of pasture or water, he/she cannot use the 
voucher in that new place even if there could be a CAHW in that area. In order to get his/her animal 
treated outside target intervention Kebeles, a target beneficiary is expected to pay the CAHW in 
cash for the service. Because, the CAHW in that particular Kebele might not be part of the voucher 
system. For example, according to PVP operator in Gashamo, the livestock treatment was 
implemented between October and December 2019 through the initial plan was to implement this 
intervention from April to July 2019. 
According the PVP in Gashamo, Between October and December, HHs had been moving away 
from their home due to in adequate availability of pasture and water in the target Kebeles in spite 
of the short dyer rains in the project area. 
Review of some official documents on early waning information (related to the project area) 
revealed that the PVP’s argument mentioned above had truth init. 
15
According to FEWS NET, following the below-average performance (25 -50% below average) of 
the Gu rainy season (March to May 2019), the pastoral areas in Fik, Gode and Degahabur Zones 
of Somali Region experienced poor regeneration of pasture and water sources (FEWS NET, 2020), 
which continued until the start of the short rain in mid-October 2019. This situation was also 
exacerbated due to the perpetuating effect of successive droughts since 2015. 
The months from October to December 2019 was Dyre season with short rains in most Southern 
and South-Eastern parts of Somali Region including Woredas in Degahabur. According to recent 
FEWS NET update report, the areas received above average amount of rainfall though its effect on 
regeneration of pasture and water could not be felt before January/February 2020 (FEWS NET, 
2018; 2020). 
• As a result of such movement of pastoralists, the PVP in Gashamo argued that to deliver livestock 
treatment efficiently and timely by CAHWs. Thus, the PVP has struggled to collect back the 
vouchers, which contributed for the delay of the entire voucher system as compared to the other 
woredas, where the voucher-based livestock treatment service delivery was conducted.
Misunderstanding by beneficiaries about the use of the voucher: According to some KII and FGD 
participants, in the past LMMS card similar to vouchers were used as a means of cash distribution 
(conditional /unconditional), where beneficiaries collect cash from microfinance institutions, since the 
LMMS card serve as an identity card to the beneficiaries. Thus, some of them had expected to change 
their voucher with cash. To avoid such a situation, there should be routine orientation and explanation 
for beneficiaries during and after distribution of the vouchers in the future with similar exercise
3.2.5. Economic Recovery and Markets Systems (sector 2)
The specific objective of this sector is “to increase income and livelihood opportunities for pastoral 
and agro-pastoral communities”.
As the potential of pastoralism livelihoods strategy is being threatened by climate change (like drought 
and flooding) more and more people in the target Woredas are looking for supplementary/alternative 
livelihoods options. Thus, the intent of the project support/strengthen economic recovery activities is 
commendable.
Under this component, the project identified different intervention that were sought to improve access 
to income and enhance recovery of beneficiaries’ economic. The project reached all 180 beneficiaries 
(100%) who were granted cash to start different income generating businesses.
The interventions include livestock fattening (50 beneficiaries), Petty trading (100 Beneficiaries) and
operating/running small restaurants (30 Beneficiaries), and the project granted Birr 24,640 (released in 
two rounds), Birr 12,040 and 12,040 Birr respectively per beneficiaries: which aims to increase income 
and livelihood opportunities for 180 (5,280 people) pastoral and agro-pastoral HHs through livelihoods 
intervention in all target Woredas.
3.2.6. Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) _ Sector 3: 
The specific objective of this sector is “provision of life-saving emergency water supply, improved 
sustainable & safe access to water and sanitation services, and promotion of good hygiene practices 
for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities [target Beneficiaries]”. To achieve this objective, the project 
planned and executed rehabilitation of three boreholes (1 heavy, and two light rehabilitation work). The 
main activities include repair and maintenance of pumping system, installation of extension pipes 
16
between boreholes and public distribution points, construction of public water distribution points and 
training and awareness raising activities.
Rehabilitation of Water sources
According to the project manager, implementation of borehole rehabilitation activities started in October 
2019 due to the delay caused by the preapproval process by the donor on the selected 
bidders/construction companies. 
The rehabilitation of a borehole in Bulaale (Kurusawol) IDP site, which involved heavy rehabilitation 
work (replacement of water pump, laying water distribution pipes, and construction of public distribution 
points) was completed around mid-December 2019 and become functional. In this regard, it is worth to 
mention that the project made the power system of this water supply scheme is hybrid type both with 
solar and diesel generator.
Construction of sanitation and hygiene facilities: Latrine and shower rooms
In all target IDP sites, the project constructed a total of 50 blocks of latrines with three rooms each, and
50 blocks shower with four rooms each for communal use by the IDP population. 
In IDP sites the evaluators visited, it was learnt that construction of these facilities was completed and 
handed over to beneficiaries (WASH committees) until the end of December 2019. During our visit, we 
observed that some of the latrines have already been used by beneficiaries while in other cases. The 
facilities were brand new and were not yet used by beneficiaries. According to participants, these 
facilities were handed over to the committee two or three days before this final evaluation was 
conducted, and that was why they were not yet functional. They also explained that they will have a 
meeting with their community and would soon open the facilities for their public. 
Similarly, FGD participants explained that construction of shower rooms was completed, and the 
facilities were handed over to them though target beneficiaries have not used them yet. The evaluation 
team also observed that some of the latrines were very new and did not even start functioning.
According to beneficiaries and project staff, one of the main reasons was lack of access to adequate 
water supply. The project also strengthened/established WASH committees in all IDP sites. 
3.3.Project Effectiveness
Effectiveness relates to how well outputs are converted to outcomes and impacts, such as food 
consumption, food security, improved nutrition, improved health, improved livelihoods etc. Thus, in the 
below section, this final evaluation will examine the extent of the project achievement towards its stated 
objective/outcome. In doing this, we will assess the changes in the values of performance indicators 
from the baseline value. 
3.3.1. Livestock treatment and mass vaccination 
The project supported massive vaccination of animals particularly cattle in all target Woredas of Jaraar
Zone. HH survey respondents were asked in the mass livestock vaccination and livestock treatment 
had saved their animal or not. Thus, the response revealed that only 42.3 % (N=395) of surveyed HHs 
positively responded answered that both livestock mass vaccination and the livestock treatment had 
helped their animals survive. As the table below shows, the majority (80.5%, N=190) of target HHs 
benefited from vaccination and treatment of animals. According these respondents, shoats. 
Furthermore, the table below shows that both the vaccination and treatment interventions saved more 
than 2400 animal (the majority being shoats) from 190 HHs. 
17
Table 6: Type and number of animals saved due to mass vaccination and treatment
Which Core Animal Breeds Survived: 
(count of “Yes” responses only)
Number of animals saved due to vaccination 
and treatment
Type of breeds Responses (yes) Total No 
animals
Min Mean Max Std. 
N Percent Deviation
Cattle 8 4.2% 89 0 11.13 60 20.808
Donkey 2 1.1% 4 1 2.00 3 1.414
Shoats 153 80.5% 2224 0 14.54 200 24.035
Camels 19 10.0% 87 0 4.58 25 7.633
Others 8 4.2%
Total 190 100.0% 2404
a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.
With regard to livestock treatment, project applied a franchised veterinary service model, which is worth 
explaining. 
3.3.2. Livestock treatment Model 
Under the Agriculture and Food Security sector, the main activities include emergency livestock 
vaccination, livestock treatment, and training and equipping Community Animal Health Workers 
(CAHW), selection of veterinary drug suppliers, Private Veterinary Pharmacies (PVPs), targeting 
beneficiaries and distribution of vouchers before the end of December 2019, the project delivered the 
following activities/outputs: 
• Refresher training 90 existing CAHWs in the six target Woredas;
• Trained 36 New CAHWs and equipped with Standard Vet Kits in six target Woredas;
• Organized and supported two rounds of mass livestock vaccination for 701,866 animals. A total 
of 35,467 Households (HH) benefitted from this action; 
• Established 3 platforms (Community Animal Health (CAH) Platform) in Jaraar zone where the 
CAWHs, Private Veterinary Pharmacies (PVP) and respective Government officials engaged 
for sharing and learning on community animal health system and practice regularly;
• Identified and linked one Wholesaler (at Regional Level), six Private Veterinary Pharmacies 
(PVPs, at intervention Woredas) and Community animal health Workers (CAHWs, at Kebele 
level), to ensure timely supply of vet drugs and livestock treatment. 
• Distributed vouchers 6500 HHs, who accessed livestock treatment services from 90 CAHWs in 
their respective Kebeles. As a result, these households got a total of 156, 591 animals treated 
using their voucher.
Table 7: progress on performance indicators (sector 1)
Description of performance indicators Planned 
targets
Actual/Achi
evement 
% 
Achieved
Remark
Sector Table (Sector 1): Agriculture and Food Security
Sub-Sector: Livestock
Indicator 1: Number of people benefiting 
from livestock activities 230,151 234,082 102% Pastoralist livestock devt Bureau/ 
project final report 
Indicator 2: Number of animals 
benefiting from livestock activities (Mass 
Vaccination) 
690,453 701,866 102%
Pastoralist livestock devt Bureau/ 
project final report
Indicator 3: Average animals owned per 
individual 20 11 55% Average # animal per HH (from end 
line survey 
Indicator 4: Number of people trained in 
livestock treatment 36 36 
(25M+11F)
100% 36 CAHWs, 
Indicator 5: Total USD value of vouchers 
redeemed by beneficiaries*
44,600.13 44,600.13 100% Project record/report
(200 ETB V.V voucher x 6500) + (675 
ETB – V.V x 90 CAHWs)
18
Livestock Possession
Livestock constitutes the primary livelihoods of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist community in 
Somali National Regional State. According to FGD participants, key informants and household survey 
results, however, the number of livestock possession of target beneficiaries declined due to drought 
and other associated/opportunistic diseases. 
During the project period, the number of animals per HH increased from 7.6 animals (N=295, 
SD=24.04932) at the baseline to 11 animals (N=365, SD =9.70876) at the end of the Project. Even 
though the average number of animals increased at the end of the project when compared to the 
baseline survey, the average number of animals per HH was less than the project target of 20 animals, 
Per HH. 
On the other hand, as shown in table 7& 8 below, the final evaluation revealed that the proportion of 
people who owns more than twenty animals increased from 11.2 % at the baseline to 19.2% at end of 
project evaluation. As shown in the below table, the proportion of people who own less than 20 animals 
decreased by 8 %-from 88.8% at baseline to 80.8%. Similarly, the proportion of people with number of 
animals between 20 and 39 increased from 9.5% at baseline to 17.3% at the end of the project while 
majority (80.8%) of surveyed HHs possess below 20 animals. 
Regarding the number of cattle and shoats per beneficiary, the table below shows two contrasting 
trends: On the one hand, the average number of shoats owned per beneficiary increased from three 
at baseline to 11 at project end; on the other hand, the number of cattle per beneficiary declined from 
11.39 at baseline to 1.8 at project end2. 
88.80%
9.50% 0.70% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30%
80.80%
17.30%
1.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Below 20
animals
from 20 to 39 From 40 to 59 from 60 to 79 from 80 to
100
Above 100
% HHs and # livestock possession
Baseline Percent End line Percent
Figure 4: Proportion of people possessing different number of animals.
19
Table 11 : Number of Animals possessed at baseline and project evaluation
Type of Animals 
Possessed
Baseline (March/April 2019) End line (Dec. 2019)
N Min Max Mean Std. Dev. N Min.
Ma
x. Mean Std. Dev.
Cattle 75 0 254 11.39 29.833 15 0 7 1.80 2.111
Donkey 45 0 35 3.38 7.206 49 0 25 1.41 3.470
Shoats 236 0 35 2.89 6.541 355 0 200 10.85 13.725
Camel 74 0 254 7.78 29.804 67 0 40 3.39 5.651
Total number of 
Animals possessed
295 0.00 278.0
0
7.6746 24.04932 365 0.00 50.
00
10.769
9
9.70876
Veterinary Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Commodities: Livestock Mass Vaccination and 
Treatment
Any damage or loss of animals is life-threatening for the people in the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist 
community of Somali Regional state/ and the project intervention Woredas. Consecutive drought in the 
project area not only affected access to water and feed/pasture for the animals but also the situation 
further weakened body condition of animals and increased their susceptibility to opportunistic livestock 
diseases.
In order to minimise the risk of these opportunistic diseases that might affect the livestock population 
in the target areas, and to protect livestock assets of beneficiaries, the implemented different activities: 
(a) Facilitated a (refresher) training for 54 existing and 36 new CAHWs. In addition, the later were also 
equipped with basic veterinary kits; 
(b) In collaboration with local administration and representatives of IDPs, identify target beneficiaries 
for livestock treatment intervention;
(c) Identified a veterinary 1 drug supplier at Jigjiga and linked with six Private Veterinary Pharmacies 
(PVP). These actors were also trained in veterinary medical commodity supply chain management 
(d) Negotiated fixed prices of the drugs with both the supplier and PVP so that target beneficiaries get 
the service at reasonable price. 
(e) Prepared and distributed veterinary treatment vouchers for selected beneficiaries. According to the 
Livestock team leader, each beneficiary received six pieces vouchers with a total value of Birr 200. 
This amount covers the cost of treatment/drugs (Birr 160), service payment for Community Animal 
Health Workers (20 Birr) and marginal profit for PVPs (Birr 20).
(f) Provided logistic and financial support to regional and zonal Livestock and Pastoralist Development
Bureau to carryout mass livestock vaccination in two rounds. 
A report prepared by Regional Bureau of Livestock and pastoralist Development revealed that that 
livestock mass vaccination was one of the main activities supported by the OFDA-funded project. 
The aim of this activity was to immunize animals against killer diseases (SRLRPDB, 2019). According 
to this report and based on the discussion with project and government staffs, the project supported 
the Regional/Zonal Bureau mainly in terms of logistics, refresher training cost, and provision food 
allowance for animal health personnel (CAHWs, Animal health technicians, community mobilizers, 
vaccination team leaders and coordinators) while undertaking the vaccination campaign. 
The vaccination campaign was carried out in two rounds, and covered all project target Woredas 
including Aware, Daror, Gashamo, Gunagado, Dhagahabur and Bil'il-bur Districts of Jaraar Zone. 
According the project final report prepared by Oxfam & the government, a total of 701,866 Heads of 
animal were vaccinated against Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, Sheep and Goat pox, Ovine and 
Bovine Pasteurollosis, Anthrax and Camel pox. The number and type of animals vaccinated include 
20
313,183 Heads of Sheep, 377,233 Heads of Goat, 8,900 Heads of Cattle and 2,550 Heads of camel. 
In addition, a total of 35,467 households (18,958 Male and 16,509 Female Headed households) or total 
of 234,082 people (44% male and 56% female) have benefited from mass vaccination campaign. 
With regard to livestock treatment activities, the project creatively tried to apply a franchised model 
that linked private sector actors and community-based service providers and using a voucher system. 
In this model the project identified vveterinary drug supplier (whole seller) at Regional level, Private 
Veterinary Pharmacies (PVP) at Woreda level, recruited and trained (with local government bodies 
CAHW), facilitated signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between PVPs and CAHW, 
established business linkage (based on agreed terms & conditions) between PVPs and the Supplier. 
Critically important here was that the implemented a rigorous quality control measures to ensure that
the types and quantities of the drugs supplied by the whole seller had the batch number and codes as 
agreed at the begging and pre-approved by OFDA. According to the livestock team leader, three types 
of broad-spectrum veterinary drugs (e.g. isometamidium chloride hydrochloride 1%) were selected 
based of assessment at field level. These drugs have a prophylactic effect (i.e. curative and preventive 
property) and can kill a variety of genera of pathogenic/disease causing micro-organisms. 
In addition, the project not only prepared and distributed vouchers but also educated target 
beneficiaries how the system/model works. Target beneficiary HHs were identified (jointly with local 
government structure) based on agreed selection criteria (like animal ownership, economically poor & 
Vulnerable etc.). a total of 6,500 HHs (52%male and 48%female) received vouchers (of value 200 
Birr/HHs) in September/October 2019 in order to get access to livestock treatment services for their 
animals (like cattle and camels) that were already sick and would be exposed to trypanosomiasis 
(mechanical and cyclical infection). Until the end of December 2019, ttherefore these households were 
able to get a total of 156,591 (23% of plan) animals treated using a voucher system. 
Table 8: Progress against Veterinary Pharmaceutical performance
Description of performance indicators Planned 
targets
Actual/Achi
evement 
% 
Achieved
Remark
Sub-Sector: Veterinary Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Commodities
Indicator 1: 
Number of veterinary facilities out of 
stock of any of the veterinary medical 
commodity tracer products, for longer 
than one week *
The project worked with one supplier and six 
Private Veterinary Pharmacies. During the KII with 
these actors, the whole seller/supplier at Jigjiga 
explained that he has reliable source of drug supply 
from importers based in Addis. The whole seller 
and the PVPs confirmed that the vet drug supply 
chain is reliable. To this effect, during the field visit, 
it was observed that both the PVP and the Whole 
seller shops had drugs and other veterinary 
commodities;
Indicator 2: 
Number of Animals Vaccinated 690,453 701,866 102%
Indicator 3
Number of animal disease outbreaks *
During FGDs and KII with target beneficiaries, 
participants indicated that there were no reported 
cases of disease outbreak.
Indicator 4
Number of people trained in veterinary 
medical commodity supply chain 
management *
7 7
100%
6 PVP owner and 1 Wholesalers were trained on 
certified vet drugs and supply chain as well as 
coordination mechanisms.
Indicator 5:
Total USD value of vouchers redeemed 
by beneficiaries*
44,600.13 44,600.13 100%
Project record/report
(200 ETB V.V voucher x 6500) + (675 ETB –
Voucher value x 90 CAHWs)
21
3.3.3. Economic /Livelihoods Recovery
Changes in HH income
These activities were implemented during the last three months in the NCE period. According to FGD 
discussants in different IDP sites (e.g. Gunagoda), target beneficiaries explained that they received the 
cash from the project in order to be able to participate in economic recovery activities. The cash transfer 
was made in September/October 2019, which was just two months before this final evaluation was 
conducted. This timeframe is too short to measure/achieve tangible profit, however, some of the 
beneficiaries reported that they were able to earn some profit. For example, , both 
from IDP site received unconditional cash transfer to engage in goat fattening (Birr 
24640) and petty trading (Birr 12040) respectively. spent her grant on shoat fattening (See Box 
1 overleaf). 
Unlike used the cash grant to expand his small business, which started before the project. 
According to him, he used some of the money to expand the shop space (size), increase the volume 
of his transaction, started to trade new items (e.g. Child clothes, shoes and hygienic items like 
shampoo. 
Conditional/Looking at implementation 
of unconditional/conditional cash 
transfer was made to target 
beneficiaries, the project transferred 
cash to target through Somali Micro 
Finance Institution (MFI). As explained 
in previous sections, the 
activities/outputs were implemented 
during the last three months of the NCE 
period. 
In addition, during FGDs in different 
IDP sites, participants mentioned that 
the amount (Birr 1500) is not enough to 
meet needs of the family of target HHs. 
According to these people, roughly, this 
money is enough to buy only 25kg of 
Sugar (apx. Birr 600), 25 Kg rice (apx. 
Birr 600) and oil (app. Birr 250 - 300). 
Depending on the family size, these 
food items may last only for 10 to 15 
days. 
Effect of Conditional Cash Distribution
Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) was designed to improve/supplement household income of target
communities. CCT was implemented in target IDPs sites/Woredas of Jaraar Zone of Somali Region. 
The conditional cash distribution a total of 80 beneficiaries participated in labour-based activities
through Cash for Work (CFW). the intension was to create temporary job opportunity from which 
participants get additional income for participating in different activities like digging trenches for 
installing extension water pipes between a reservoir (night storage) and public distribution points, for 
cleaning shower and toilet rums as a community health volunteer). In these activities, each target HH 
received Birr 1500 per month for four rounds and earned a total of Birr 6000.
Box 1: the Story of 
is an IDP living in IDP camp. There 
are 11 people (5male +6 female) in her family. Her family is 
a pastoralist family, and she also used to trade livestock to 
Somaliland before they lost their animals and asset due to 
drought during the past successive years. 
received Birr 24,640 from Oxfam in two rounds. With 
the money, she bought about 15 shoats each with an 
average price of US $40. After three months, she took
seven of her shoats to Somaliland and sold them for US 
$75 each. With the income she earned, she again bought 
11 shoats locally. During the FGD discussion (at final 
evaluation), she reported that she has 19 shoats. When 
asked, when would you sale the other shoat, she replied 
that “the price of shoat has declined now”, and she is 
waiting for the price of shoat to go up again. 
22
During different FGDs and Key informant interviews with target beneficiaries, participants explained
that the conditional cash distribution had enabled them to buy additional food for their household though 
the amount of transfer was same for all target HHs regardless of their family size. They also commented 
that the number of people selected for such temporary employment opportunity was very small 
compared to the number of needy people in IDP sites. 
In terms of how they spent this money, the majority of target beneficiaries reported that they spent their 
cash on food items for their family. in this regard, the Post Distributing Monitoring (PDM) exercise 
conducted by project MEAL staff also revealed that about 98% of surveyed households spent part of 
their cash on food items, and only as few as 23 to 25 % of respondents mentioned spending some of 
cash on clothing/shoes or debt repayment.
During FGDs in different IDP sites (e.g. Degahabur, Gashamo and Bulaale) explained that the amount 
of cash they received each month (i.e. Birr 1500) was not enough to meet the food needs of the
household members, especially for HHs with larger family size. For example in Degahabur, FGD 
participants mentioned that 1500 Birr can buy: either (a) 25kg of rice for Birr 600; 25kg wheat flour for 
Birr 550 and 3 or four litres oil for Birr 250; or (b) 25kg of rice for Birr 600; 25kg sugar for Birr 600 and 
3or4 litres oil for Birr 250. These items last only for 10 to 15 days depending on the family size of a 
household. 
Similarly, the HH survey revealed that food (staple and non-staple) the single most important 
expenditure item for the majority (92%) of surveyed HHs. As the graph below shows, at project end, 
about 92% (N=395) surveyed HHs spend their income on staple food items (81%) and non-staple food 
items (11%). Similarly, at baseline, the proportion of HHs who spend on staple and non-staple food 
items was about 93, which almost the same as the final expenditure. This result simply shows that food 
is the most import and basic necessity for target HHs, and the amount of income a household earns 
was so small that many HHs cannot afford spending on other items. However, since the HH survey 
data did not capture exact/estimated amount of expenditure (in Birr) on different items, it was difficult 
to calculate the proportion of the income a household spent on the different items particularly on food 
items. Therefore, this measurement cannot tell the food security status of surveyed HHs. 
Figure 5: HH expenditure items and proportion of HHs
38%
55%
4% 3% 4% 6% 10% 10% 2% 4% 1% 6% 5%
81%
11% 7% 3% 3%
12%
26%
14% 19%
5% 1%
15%
5%
Household Expenditure (% of HHs )
Baseline (n=397) Final_Evaluation (N=395)
23
Table 9: Main sources of Food
Source of food Frequencies
Main Sources of food for the HH (now) Baseline End Line 
Responses % of 
Cases
Responses % of 
N Percent N Percent Cases
Own Production (crop animal) 161 28.3% 39.6% 64 10.6% 18.7%
Purchasing (with Cash or Credit) 235 41.4% 57.7% 253 42.0% 73.8%
Food Assistance 90 15.8% 22.1% 167 27.7% 48.7%
Hunting/Fishing/Gathering 8 1.4% 2.0%
Borrowing 42 7.4% 10.3% 88 14.6% 25.7%
in Exchange of labour food 7 1.2% 1.7% 4 0.7% 1.2%
Gifts from neighbours/relatives 25 4.4% 6.1% 27 4.5% 7.9%
Total 568 100.0% 139.6% 603 100.0% 175.8%
Table 10: Major sources of HH income
Dietary Diversity score
Dietary diversity refers to the variety of foods consumed by individuals or households. A Household 
Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) is a frequently used indicator of food security. For both baseline and 
end of project evaluation, surveyed HHs were asked if any HH member had consumed any food from 
16 food groups over the past seven days. To calculate the individual HH Dietary Diversity score, 
however, some of the expanded food groups (Meat, Vegetable and Fruit groups) were combined back 
to generate the 12 main food groups, which is used to calculate individual scores3 (Swindale & Bilinsky, 
2006).
In this evaluation, the DDS was computed for each HH. However, it has to be noted that comparison of 
HDDS (or other proxy food security indicators) values obtained at baseline and end of project could 
mislead unless data collection for both baseline and end of project happens during similar seasons. 
With regard to this project, baseline data was collected in March/April (i.e. during Gu/sugum rainy 
season) while the evaluation data was collected in December 2019 (i.e. at the end of short Dyre rainy 
season), which are two different seasons providing/limiting HHs’ opportunity to access food. Therefore, 
comparison of the HDDS could be misleading, and should be read with caution. 
Nevertheless, this evaluation found out that the mean HDDS increased from M=1.1155 (SD= 0.36325, 
N=407) at baseline to M= 3.1291 (SD=1.91601, N=395) at project end. 
Table 11 Mean HDDS at baseline and end of project
Descriptive Statistics
 
3 For details on how, refer to FANTA document on indicators guideline on HDDS: www.fantaproject.org
39.3%
15.6%
17.4%
0.5%
9.6%
2.8%
0.8%
6.0%
1.5%
17.6%
14.1%
14.1%
23.3%
6.8%
43.0%
5.6%
11.1%
11.6%
11.6%
5.1%
1.8%
36.2%
22.8%
4.1%
S A L E O F C E R E A L S ( S O R G H U M , M A I Z E )
S A L E O F C A S H C R O P S A N D P R O D U C T S
S A L E O F L I V E S T O C K & I T S P R O D U C T S
C A S U A L L A B O U R - A G R I C U L T U R E R E L A T E D
S K I L L E D- ( P O R T E R , M A S O N R Y C A R P E N T R Y )
S A L E O F N T F P 
O T H E R P E T T Y T R A D I N G / S M A L L B U S I N E S S 
K I N S H I P / G I F T S / R E M I T T A N C E S
B E G G I N G
C A S H B A S E D A S S I S T A N C E ( N G O S , W F P , …
S A L E O F F O O D A I D
O T H E R S ( S P E C I F Y ) SOURCES OF HH INCOME
Baseline (% Cases)
Endeline (% Cases)
24
Data Collection Period N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
Baseline HH dietary Diversity score_12FG 407 1.00 3.00 1.1155 .36325
Valid N (listwise) 407
Final_ Evaluation HH dietary Diversity score_12FG 395 .00 12.00 3.1291 1.91601
Valid N (listwise) 395
As the figure below shows, the final evaluation revealed not only an increase in the mean value of 
HDDS but the HH survey revealed that all surveyed households at the baseline had low DDS (i.e. 
all consumed food from three or less number of food groups. However, at project end, the 
proportion of households who consumed from three or less number of food groups was 58.2%. As 
the figure below shows, more than 40% households improved their HDDS, which implies that they 
ate meal from more than four food groups. In other words, about 10% of surveyed HHs had high 
dietary diversity while 32% of surveyed HHs had a medium dietary diversity score. 
Figure 6: % hh with low, medium and high DDS
Household Food consumption score
Household Food Consumption Score 
Household Food Consumption (FCS) score is used as one of a proxy indicator for measuring the current 
food situation of target households. FCS is a composite score based on dietary frequency, food 
frequency and relative nutrition importance of different food groups. Food frequency is the number of 
days (in the past 7 days) that a specific food item has been consumed by a household. Household food 
consumption is the consumption pattern (frequency* diversity) of households over the past seven days. 
The data was collected in March/April 2019(baseline) and December 2019 (final evaluation). 
To compute HH food consumption score, the number of days4
(the commodity was consumed) and its 
relative weight and are multiplied during a recall period for the household. Then, based on the FCS, 
the households were classified in to three categories: poor consumption (FCS=1.0 to 21.5); borderline 
(FCS=21.5 to 35); and acceptable consumption (FCS=> 35.0).
 
4 The number of within the last seven days. Values range between 0 (low, the food item not consumed over the last 7 days) 
and 7 (max, i.e. the food item was consumed throughout the last seven days). 
LOW DDS (=< 3 
FOOD GROUP)
MEDIUM DDS (4 OR 
5 FOOD GROUPS) 
HIGH DDS 
(>= 6 FOOD 
GROUPS)
100%
58.20%
32.20%
9.60%
HH DDS categories (%)
Baseline (N=407) Endline (N=395)
25
Figure 7: % HHs across three FCS categories
Comparing the results of FCS obtained from the final evaluation (figure, above) with the three FCS 
categories, it is observed that there is a major decline in proportion people with poor FCS. As the above 
graph shows, the proportion of people with poor FCS declined from 99.8% (N=407) at baseline to 64.3 
% (N=395) at end on the project. On the other hand, the proportion of people with acceptable FCS 
increased from 0 % (N=407) at baseline to 16.7% (N=395) at the project end. Similarly, there was a 
significant increase in the proportion people with borderline FCS. The proportion of people with border 
line FCS increased from 0.2% at baseline to 19% at the end of the project. 
This shows, therefore, that there was a significant change in the proportion of people moving from poor 
FCS category towards an acceptable FCS category. 
With regard to project contribution on improving average household FCS, FGD and KII participants 
mentioned that all the conditional & unconditional cash transfers as well as the economic recovery 
interventions enabled people to buy additional food items for their family. 
Hunger Scale 
Hunger Scale (HHS) is simple indicator to measure household hunger in food insecure areas. The HHS 
is different from other household food insecurity indicators in that it has been specifically developed 
and validated for cross-cultural use (Ballard, Coates, Swindale, & Deitchler, 2011). 
This means that the HS produces valid and comparable results across cultures and settings so that the 
status of different population groups can be described in a meaningful and comparable way-to assess 
where resources and programmatic interventions are needed and to design, implement, monitor, and 
evaluate policy and programmatic interventions. As the figure below shows, the proportion of HHs with 
little or no hunger increased from 70.8 % at baseline to 73.8 % at the end of the project showing a 3 % 
marginal increase. Similarly, there was a marginal improvement in the proportion of HHs experiencing 
moderate hunger, where the proportion of people declined from 29% at baseline to 26.3% at project 
end. Furthermore, at the end of the project there was no target HH who fell under sever hunger scale 
compared to 0.2% at baseline. 
99.8
0.2 0
64.3
19.0 16.7
Poor (0-21) Border Line (21.5-35) Acceptable (35.5-highest)
Household Food consuption score (Binned) : % 
of HHs 
Baseline (N=407) End line (N=395)
26
Figure 8: Proportion of households under different hunger scale categories
HH Coping Strategy Index (CSI): “Average Coping Strategies Index (CSI) score for the target population”
The CSI measures people’s behaviour. People do those things when they cannot access enough food. 
At times of food shortage, people use different behavioural responses (i.e. coping strategies) to manage 
their household food shortage (food Insecurity). At times of adequate food availability, people behave 
normally, and do not need to behave differently (zero coping strategy). In other words, if the average 
CSI value of a population equals zero means that there is no need to implement a food security 
intervention in that population. 
This means, as the CSI value increases so does the food insecurity situation of a household is, and 
vice versa. In other words, the food security situation of a HH with smaller CSI is better than the food 
security situation of a household with higher CSI. The evaluation used a reduced CSI tool, which is a 
composite indicator consisting of five variables of different weight, which depends on location specific 
factors. 
As the table below shows, the average coping strategy index has increased from 7.12 (N=407) at 
baseline to 10.15 (N=395) at end of the project implying that the food insecurity situation has worsened 
in December 2019. 
Table 12: Average CSI
Descriptive Statistics
Data Collection Period N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation
Baseline Reduced Coping strategy 
scope(weighted)
407 .00 47.00 7.1229 7.67182
Final_Evaluatio
n
Reduced Coping strategy 
scope(weighted)
395 .00 46.00 10.159
5
6.47701
Difference 3.0366
Little to no hunger
in the household
(0-1)
Moderate hunger
in the household
(2-3)
Severe hunger in
the household (4-6)
70.8
29.0
0.2
73.7
26.3
HH HUNGER SCALE CATEGORIES) 
Baseline (Valid %, N=407)) Valid % Endline (Valid %, N=595) Valid %
27
Sector 2: Economic Recovery and Market Systems
Sub-Sector Livelihoods Restoration 
Description of targets Pl targets Achiev’t % chieved Remark
Indicator 1. 
# of people assisted through livelihood 
restoration activities
180 180
(F=137 & 
M=43)
100% 100= Petty trading; 30 small 
restaurant & 50 Shoat fattening
Indicator 2. 
% of beneficiaries reporting net income 
from their livelihood
70% 70% 100%
Indicator3. USD transferred to 
beneficiaries.
99,900 95,665 95.76% Project record
Sub-Sector: Temporary Employment 
Indicator 1 : 
# of Household participating in Cash For 
Work (CFW) activities(Each with group of 
20)
720 720 100%; Project record/report 
720=(M=147 &F=573)
Indicator 2: USD transferred to 
beneficiaries as CFW payments
171,429 170,412 99.41% Project record
Table 13: project accomplishment under sector 2
Table 14: Additional indicator on Gratuitous support
Sub-Sector Livelihoods Restoration
Description of targets Pl targets Achiev’t % 
Achieved
Remark
Indicator 
# of Household participating in 
Unconditional Cash Grant (UCG) 
activities
80 80 100 80
M=25 & F=55
3.3.4. Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) 
Water Supply
As stated in in the project document, the project targeted tens of thousands of people to directly utilize 
improved water services provided with OFDA funding, provide at least five liters of safe water per capita 
per day for target beneficiaries, and establish water management committees, which demonstrate 
functionality three months after establishment/training. In addition, the project planned to repair, 
rehabilitate and maintain three boreholes 100% by the end of the project. 
From the project record, it was found that the project managed to provide improved water services for 
about 35700 people (M= 17136 & F=18564), which is exceeded its target by 19%. 
With regard to improving access to water for target beneficiaries, the project completed rehabilitation, 
maintenance, improvement of water distribution systems. In addition, the project sought installation of 
a water pumps that use multiple sources to power to pump water- combine inputs from solar and 
generator energy production to ensure the pump will have enough power to run. It is believed that such 
a combined power sources create a more sustainable source of power for the pump than only one of 
the sources. This will also reduce dependence only on fossil fuel as sources of energy, and generally 
reduces the cost of fuel to run the water. Thus, according key informants, the project 100% completed 
repair and maintenance of all three boreholes. Therefore, the overall, the project made 100% progress 
on repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of water sources. 
On a related issue regarding improving access to volume of water per capita per day, the household 
survey, conducted at project end, revealed that the project achieved 12.44 (249% from plan) liters of 
water per capita per day, which is 7.44 liters more than the project target. However, it has to be noted 
that the minimum standard of water supply per capita per day set is the Sphere minimum standard 
28
guideline is 15 liters. Although the volume of water per capita per day found at the end of project was
greater than the target, both the target (5lt/person/day) and end of project evaluation survey (12.44 
lt/person/day) are below the minimum standard set under emergency context (see table below for 
more).
Table 15: progress on water supply action
Sector 3: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Sub-Sector: Water Supply 
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievem
ents
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1:
# of people directly utilizing 
improved water services 
provided with OFDA funding
30,000 35,700 119% 119%; M= 17136 & F=18564
Indicator 2 
# of liters of safe water 
provided per beneficiary per 
day
5 12.44 249%
Indicator 3
% of the water user 
committees created and or 
trained by the WASH 
program that are at least 
three months after training
80 100 125% Since this activity is implemented in 
the last quarter with the NCE period, 
the committees were in position for 
more than three months, Hence the 
evaluators cannot verify their 
functionality because, at the time of 
the evaluation the structure were less 
than 3 months old.
Indicator 4 
% of water points 
developed, repaired or 
rehabilitated that are clean 
and protected from 
contamination
100 100 100% The project planned to rehabilitate 
three water sources (boreholes). 
Thus, all three water points were 
rehabilitated 100%, 
Indicator 5: 
USD value of vouchers 
redeemed by beneficiaries.
74,250 NA Activity changed / Modified – this 
resource was shifted to Latrine and 
basing shelter activity as per the 
approval (project report)
Drinking water Sources 
Different institutions classify water and sanitation facilities into improved and unproved categories. As 
shown in figure (over leaf), improved/protected drinking water sources include piped water into dwelling, 
public tap/stand pipes, protected spring, protected dug wells, shallow wells and boreholes. On the other 
hand, tanker truck (i.e. water trucking, surface water etc. are considered unprotected water sources. 
Some literatures categorise Birkads among unprotected sources of water for drinking (WHO & UNICEF, 
2012). 
This standard classification was used to evaluate HH responses for questions on sources of drinking 
water for a household. 
Survey participants were asked about their main sources of water during dry and wet seasons. As 
shown in the table below, the proportion of HHs fetching water from improves sources (Boreholes, 
shallow wells, and protected hand dug well with hand pumps) increased from 31.2% at Baseline 
(N=407) to 33.2% at end of project (N=395). 
Furthermore, the HH survey result showed that the majority (72.4%, N=395) of them uses Birkad as 
their main source of water compared to the 45% (N=407) at baseline. 
29
More comparison of figures at baseline and end of project evaluation (during the wet season) is shown
below. 
Table 16: source of water for domestic use: during the wet season 
SN What is your sources of water for 
your domestic during Wet season_
Baseline End of Project Diff: (EOP-Baseline)
Responses Responses
N
% Cases 
(N=407) N
% Cases 
(N=395) Percent % of 
Cases 
1 Bore-hole 100 24.60% 100 25.30% -4.63% 0.75%
2 Shallow well 29 7.10% 22 5.60% -2.38% -1.56%
3
Protected hand-dug well with hand 
pump.
31 7.60% 9 2.30% -4.71% -5.34%
4
Unprotected hand dug well without 
hand pump 19 4.70% 56 14.20% 4.62% 9.51%
5 Birkad 184 45.20% 286 72.40% 6.63% 27.20%
6 pond 24 5.90% 80 20.30% 7.21% 14.36%
7 Surface Water(flood) 36 8.80% 54 13.70% 1.01% 4.83%
8 River 1 0.20% -0.19% -0.25%
9 Water trucking 53 13.00% 31 7.80% -5.73% -5.17%
10 Unprotected Stream or spring 11 2.10% 35 8.90% 3.06% 6.16%
11 Others 25 4.90%
Access to adequate quantity of Water 
According to beneficiaries, as a result of such major rehabilitation work, their access to water has 
improved a lot:
(a) Before this project, there was a frequent interruption of water supply due to lack of fuel for their 
generator. At times, the water pump could also fail to pump water. But now, they believe that lack 
of fuel will not be an issue as the solar energy is nature’s give that won’t be finished. 
(b) The quantity of water they can collect per day has also - before the project people used to get 
water only once in a day though they also miss at times when the pump was not working. As the 
FDG discussants explained, and the evaluation team also observed, with the solar system, the
reservoir is filled twice per day, which makes that water is available throughout the day. However, 
from management point of view, target beneficiaries agreed among themselves that people can 
collect water twice per day- in the morning and in the afternoon/evening. 
(c) The solar system will greatly reduce the running cost, especially the cost of fuel. 
Access to/ Quantity of water per capita per day 
As the table below shows, the per capita water that households collected the previous day (the day 
before interview) was 12.44 litres, which is two and a half times the target set in the project document, 
which was 5lts per capita per day. However, compared to the minimum water required under 
emergency situation, these figures are below the minimum Sphere standard requirement of 15lts per 
capita per day. However, compared to the baseline value of volume of water per capita per day, the 
amount declined in all intervention Woredas. 
Compared to the baseline value, however, the volume of water per capita per day declined from 18.7ltr 
(N=298) at based line to 12.44 litre per capita per day at the end of the project. This decline could be 
associated to different reasons: 
I. Even if both the baseline and the end lines were conducted in wet season, generally there was
variation of the total precipitation available to recharge the water sources during these different 
seasons. 
II. The amount of rain during Gu/Sugum season (March-May) was below average, which affected 
the regeneration/recharge of water sources for the Dyre season from October to December. 
30
III. As mentioned earlier in this report, the water schemes rehabilitated by the project were not 
handed over to the beneficiaries while data was collected at project end. As a result, the quantity 
of water that surveyed a household could collect had been affected. As the project staff, KII and 
FGD patricians noted, the rehabilitation activity was started late during the year. Some of the 
rehabilitation activities were not completed at the time of conducting this evaluation. In other 
words, the result could be different if the data collection was conducted after handing over 
completed water schemes to the community. 
Table 17: Average Quantity water per capita per day across intervention Woredas
Per capita water per day
Woreda
Baseline End of Project
N Mean Std. Deviation N Mean Std. Deviation
Aware 67 26.8420 57.36869 84 13.5621 9.24269
Bilcinbur 33 17.3054 18.72476 45 13.3684 5.57416
Daroor 43 16.9519 16.97454 61 10.9065 8.32467
Degahabur 34 10.8484 13.11047 39 10.5386 4.47593
Gashamo 74 12.8191 12.95298 99 11.5707 12.99278
Gunagado 47 24.7398 27.91880 61 12.2475 6.05537
Average 298 18.7203 32.06268 389 12.1072 9.16396
Nonetheless, when surveyed HHs were asked about their opinion whether the quantity of water they 
collect each day was enough for the HH member or not? In response, about 64% (compared to 57% 
at baseline) respondents reported that the quantity of water they collected (the previous day) was 
enough for their needs (see table below for details). 
Table 18: survey participant’s response about adequacy of quantity of water
Do you think the quantity of water that you collected each day is enough to meet 
your households’ water need?
Data Collection Period Freq. % Valid % Cum. %
Baseline Valid No 176 43.2 43.2 43.2
Yes 231 56.8 56.8 100.0
Total 407 100.0 100.0
Final 
Evaluation
Valid No 141 35.7 35.7 35.7
Yes 254 64.3 64.3 100.0
Total 395 100.0 100.0
Gender: Responsibility of HH members in fetching water
The findings of the final evaluation revealed that the responsibility of fetching water primarily lays on 
women though there is a slight decrease from 64% at Baseline to 62% at the project end. Compared 
to the baseline survey, however, the responsibility of girls and boys increased from 19 % (N=407) to 
34% (N=407) for girls and from 18% to 26% for boys. Nonetheless, all household members participate 
in fetching water. During the focus group discussion with target communities, some discussants 
indicated that men also participate in fetching water mostly when the water source is nearby. However, 
if there is no water in the village from pubic taps, distribution points it is the women who mostly take 
responsibility of fetching water. 
Table 19: Roles of HH members in fetching water
Who in the family 
fetches the water
Data Collection Period
Baseline Final Evaluation
Count 
(N=407)
percent Count 
(N=395)
percent
Men No 255 63% 244 62%
Yes 152 37% 151 38%
Women No 145 36% 150 38%
Yes 262 64% 245 62%
31
Girls No 329 81% 259 66%
Yes 78 19% 136 34%
Boys No 334 82% 291 74%
Yes 73 18% 104 26%
3.3.5. Sanitation and Hygiene promotion 
With regard to sanitation and hygiene promotion, the project intended to improve sanitation services 
through construction of communal latrines, hygiene & sanitation promotion for thousands of target 
beneficiaries, and improving hand washing facilities close to latrines, establishing, training and 
equipping WASH committees. 
Sanitation: Access to Latrine and shower facilities
The project constructed a number of latrines in IDP Caps/sites to improve access to latrine. As the table 
below shows, the majority 54% (N=395) of respondents replied that they do not have access to latrine 
despite the project built 50 Blocks (each with three rooms) of latrine in all target IDP sites. However, as 
indicated above, construction of almost all latrines were 
complete in the last week of December while the 
evaluation survey was underway. 
Proportion of households who reported having access 
to latrine increased from 28% at the baseline to almost 
60% at project end. The evaluation team observed in 
selected IDP that the project contracted a number of 
blocks with separate toilet rooms for male and female 
beneficiaries. 
In addition, the project constructed 50 blocks of 
bathing/shower rooms with four rooms per block. However, as the construction was completed at the 
end of the NCE period, the facilities did not start functioning. In some IDPs, access to water was not 
improved, which also was one of the reasons that these facilities not being used. Nonetheless, most all 
participants of FGDs in Degahabur, Gashamo and Bulaale Woredas positive acknowledged the 
construction of the facility. 
During the field visit, however, the main concern observed was that the facilities were not designated
for female and male separately. Anyone can go into any room. When asked about this, the WASH 
committee members in Gashamo, for example, replied that they had not thought about this concern, 
but further commented that they would segregate in a few days. 
As the table below shows, the construction of these facilities improved access to sanitation services for 
7120 people, which is 13% more than the project target of 6300 people. As the table below shows, the 
spot observation made by enumerators revealed that 29% (N=395) of survey participants had hand 
washing facilities near their toilet. From these handwashing facilities, 82% (i.e. 82% of 115 facilities) 
had water for hand washing. 
Table 20: progress on Sanitation performance indicators
Sub-Sector: Sanitation
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievemen
ts
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of people directly utilizing 
improved sanitation services 
provided with OFDA funding
6300 7120
(M=3418 & 
F=3702)
113% Project records/report
Figure 9: partial view of public toilets constructed by the 
project
32
Indicator 2: 
% of latrines/defecation sites in 
the target population with 
handwashing facilities that are 
functional and in use
80 29 36.3% Only 29% (N=395) of surveyed HHs have 
handwashing facilities near the toilet. From these 
facilities, 82% (N=114) of these hand washing 
facilities had water at the time of end-line HH 
survey;
(Note the target 80% set for this indicator 
deceptive as it is not indicating the domain (or 
Denominator) to calculate the coverage (%).
Indicator 3: 
# of users per functioning toilet
25 25 100% The toilet and showers were construct showers 
were; each communal latrine in the IDP sites have 
4 rooms. 
Hygiene Promotion 
With regard to hygiene promotion, the project planned to educate tens of thousands of people on the 
basics of and importance of hygienic practices, improve knowledge and practices of critical moments 
of hand washing, and safe collection and storage of drinking water. 
According to project record, the project reached its target of 87259 people through hygiene promotion 
campaign, which resulted in improved knowledge and practice of hand washing at critical moments and
storing water clean and make it safe for drinking. For example, the proportion of households who knew 
at least three (out of five) of the critical moments of hand washing5
increased from 36.4% (N=407) at 
baseline to 74.7% (N=395) at project end. When compared with its target plan of 50%, as the figure 
below shows, the project exceed its plan by 24.7%. 
Figure 10 % HHs answering to Crt moments of Hand washing
Water treatment practice before consumption 
Water treatment practices among surveyed HHs involves use of different methods including purifying 
chemical application, boiling, allowing particles to settle/sedimentation, filtering, solar and other 
methods. The proportion of people who applies one or more water treatment practice has increased 
from 65 % (N=407) at baseline to 93.4% (N=395) at end of project. In addition, the proportion of people 
 
5 The five critical moments of handwashing are: before preparing/handling food/ milking camel/cows, before eating 
ford, before feeding babies/other people, after visiting toilet, and after disposing baby faeces/handling waste. 
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Basliene (N=407) Endline _eva (N=395)
63.6%
25.3%
36.4%
74.7%
Critical Moments of handwashing responses (%) 
 Two or less number of Crt moments of hand washing
Three or more Number of Crt moments of Hand washing
33
using filtering, boiling and sedimentation methods increased from 2.7%, 7.8%, and 9.3% at baseline 
(N=258) to 33.9%, 33.9% and 15.8% (N=395) respectively at end of project evaluation. Since the 
majority obtain their water from unprotected sources, the water treatment practices observed in this 
final evaluation is commendable. 
On the other hand, the below table shows that the proportion of people practicing chemical treatment 
method has declined from 77 % at baseline to 45% at end of project evaluation. Although the project 
had supplied water purifying chemical (chlorine), FGD participants at Bulaale Kebele reported that they 
had received these chemicals in December 2019. According these participants, without such a project 
support, they had no access to water treatment chemical to purify their drinking water. 
As indicated above, the project interventions were implemented after October 2019. According to FGD 
participants in different Kebeles, the project supplied sanitation and hygiene NFIs (Jerri cans, buckets, 
water purifying chemicals and soaps) in the last quarter, and some WASH committees reported that 
they have not used the supplies (particularly, the sanitation kits for the latrines) they received from the 
project. 
Table 21: summary of water treatment practices before consumption
How is this water normally treated before 
consumption or used for domestic purposes?
Responses Percent 
of Cases
Responses Percent 
of Cases N (258) N (221) 
Chemical water purifiers (what type) (count of only 
Yes responses)
198 76.7% 99 44.8%
-Filtering 7 2.7% 75 33.9%
Allowing particles to settle down (basic 
sedimentation) (count of only Yes responses)
24 9.3% 35 15.8%
Boiling (count of only Yes responses) 20 7.8% 75 33.9%
Solar (count of only Yes responses) 13 5.0%
Do Nothing (do not treat water) (count of only Yes 
responses)
40 18.1%
Others method (count of only Yes responses) 4 1.6% 1 0.5%
Cleaning practices of water collection and storage containers
To enable target HHs use appropriate water collection and storage containers, the project distributed 
Jeri cans (20/25 lts capacity) for target IDP and to some extent host community beneficiaries. In 
addition, the project also promoted hygiene and sanitation education in all project sites.
So, in the final evaluation, survey participants were asked whether they practice cleaning their water 
collection and storage containers or not, and frequency of cleaning these materials. The finding from 
the survey shows that the majority of the respondents replied that they clean their containers either 
once per week (43.5%, N=395) or take more than a week (26%) to clean their water collection/storage 
containers.
Table 22: Cleaning Practice of water collection/storage containers
Practice of Cleaning water 
storage/collection containers
Baseline (N=407) End line (N=395)
Freq. Percent Valid 
Percent
Freq. Percent Valid 
Percent
Daily 82 20.1 20.1 55 13.9 13.9
Do not Clean at all 62 15.2 15.2 7 1.8 1.8
Every Time it is used 97 23.8 23.8 32 8.1 8.1
Four to 6 Times a week 9 2.2 2.2 8 2.0 2.0
More Than week 101 24.8 24.8 105 26.6 26.6
Once a weak 49 12.0 12.0 172 43.5 43.5
Two to Three Times a week 7 1.7 1.7 16 4.1 4.1
Total 407 100.0 100.0 395 100.0 100.0
Furthermore, spot observations of water containers showed that practices of target beneficiaries was
positive. As the table below shows, at the time of conducting the interviews for the final evaluation, the 
survey team observed that the majority (78.7%, N=395) of participants kept their water 
collection/storage containers clean. Compared to the baseline value of 63% (N=407), the proportion of 
34
HHs who kept their containers clean increased by more than 15%. Similarly, it was also observed that 
the majority (82.3%, N=395) of the surveyed HHs had kept their jug6 clean. 
Table 23: Observation of Safe water storage practices
Table 24: Summary of performance Hygiene promotion indicators
Sub-Sector: Hygiene Promotion
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achieve
ments
% 
achieve
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# people receiving direct hygiene promotion 
(excluding mass media campaigns without double 
counting)
87,259 87,259 100% Project 
record
Indicator 2: 
% of the people targeted by the hygiene promotion 
program who know at least three (3) of the five (5) 
critical times to wash hands
50 74.7 149% The baseline 
Value was 
38.1%
Indicator 3: 
% of households targeted by the hygiene 
promotion program who store their drinking water 
safely in clean container
50 78.7% 157 The baseline 
Value was 
63.6%
WASH non-Food Items 
To strengthen the capacity of target beneficiaries, ensure the continuation of the positive gains of the 
project in terms of changes knowledge, behaviour and practice of hygiene and sanitation, the project 
supported/provided non-food items to target beneficiaries. In this regard, the project distributed NFIs 
(like Jerry can, hygienic material etc.) to 6600 HHs. In this regard, HHs were asked if they had received 
NFIs and if they were satisfied or not with the NFI materials they received. The survey result showed 
that 95% of respondents positively responded for the question (see table below). 
Table 25: summary of WASH-NFIs performance indicators
Sub-Sector: WASH Non-food items
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievem
ents
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# People receiving WASH NFIs assistance 
through all modalities (without double-counting)
6,600 6600 100% 94% female Headed 
HHs; Project record
Indicator 2: 50 95 190% HH survey
 
6 Material used to take water from storage containers, 
Observe: Is water collection and storage 
containers: 
Baseline End line
count ( only Yes responses) count (only Yes responses)
N (407) Percent of Cases N (395) Percent of Cases
Clean (count of Yes) 259 63.6% 311 78.7%
Covered (count of Yes) 178 43.7% 160 40.5%
Dirty (count of Yes) 95 23.3% 33 8.4%
Smelly (count of Yes) 16 3.9% 6 1.5%
Brocken / partially covered (count of Yes) 14 3.4% 21 5.3%
Observe: Jug used to take water from the storage: 
Clean (count of Yes) 273 67.1% 325 82.3%
Dirty (count of Yes) 146 35.9% 46 11.6%
smelly (count of Yes) 37 9.1% 9 2.3%
Broken/Partially covered (count of Yes) 9 2.2% 39 9.9%
35
% of the households reporting satisfaction with the 
contents of the WASH NFIs received through 
direct distribution (i.e. kits) or vouchers use
Indicator 3: 
% of the households reporting satisfaction with the 
quality of WASH NFIs received through direct 
distribution (i.e. kits), vouchers, or cash
50 96 192% HH survey
3.3.6. Protection 
Humanitarian crisis situations usually further exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and reinforce unequal 
gender norms. As protracted displacement due to drought or conflict continues, children become 
exposed to protection issues such as child labour, trafficking and exploitation (Oxfam International, 
2016). Some studies also indicated that boys in certain pastoral areas can be at risk of physical attacks. 
In addition, women and adolescent girls are also affected, and are exposed to different kinds of 
protection issues such as rape, early and forced marriage, physical violence and beating by other 
household members. 
In this regard, the project proposal states that “although drought affects everyone, men and women 
experience the impacts of drought differently”. Thus, Oxfam included actions in order to promote 
community consciousness and awareness to address protection issues in the project area.
Under the protection sub-sector, the project specifically aimed to improve awareness and 
consciousness of target communities and protect vulnerable groups, including women, girls and boys, 
elders and people with disability from life threatening risks including GBV and other forms of violence”. 
To achieve its objective, the project implemented different activities including construction of child 
friendly centres, establishing child protection committees, facilitating awareness raising meetings and 
community workshops. In this regard, the demographic information collected from sample households 
revealed that there were more than 1089 children between the age of 6 and less than 18 years in 395 
HHs. This means, on average, there are more than 2 children per HHs. This implies that dealing with 
child protection issues (if any) is relevant. 
Table 26: summary of Protection project Performance Indicators
Sector 4: Protection
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achieve
ments
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# individuals participating in child 
protection services;
11,110 12,345 111.1% 62.5 % women and girls
Indicator 2: 
USD allocated for child protection 
programming;
136,378 102,927 75.4%
Indicator 3: 
% of targeted children reporting 
an improvement in their sense of 
safety and well-being at the close 
of the program
40 81 202% HH survey result shows that 
(N=275)
Safety is fair (21%); Good (60%) 
and poor (2%) the rest replied 
36
they did not participant in child 
safety + other workshops
Furthermore, the evaluation collected information on protection related issues through FGD, KII and 
Household surveys. The findings are summarised below: 
Child protection 
Child protection cases in the project intervention Woredas are dealt with by three co‐existing legal 
systems: (a) the formal regular law, (b) Sharia law and (c) customary laws in the Somali community. 
According to FGD participants, the community mainly relying on customary law to solve child protection 
issues. According Head of Woreda Women and Children Affairs Office, sexual abuse is in general very
rare, which is attributed to the severe consequences it will have for the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s 
family under Somali customary law (Gerald & Dorothy, 2011). 
To promote child protection, the project organised community discussions and awareness raising 
meetings, constructed “child-friendly sheds in IDP sites, arranged a toll-free hotline (short code #6469) 
system for both calls and short text messages. As the figure below shows that respondents mentioned 
they participated in child protection lesson. The above figure shows that the majority (82.9%, N=395) 
of respondents remember the awareness lesson about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), followed by 
the awareness lesson on child protection in general (68%, N=395) and history telling (47.6%, N=395). 
Table 27: Summary of Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence performance indicators
Sub-Sector: Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence
Figure 11: awareness lessons on different aspects of child 
protection
82.9%
47.6%
68.0%
37.8%
20.0%
10.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1
Awareness lessons
FGM History telling
Child protection Child labour
Child discrimination other lessons
37
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achieve
ments
% 
achiev
ed
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of individuals accessing GBV 
response services;
6217 6217 100% Oxfam doesn’t do case management, but 
6217 individuals (52% women and girl) 
were reached through GBV awareness.
Indicator 2: 
USD allocated for child protection 
programming;
136,378 102,927 75.% Project Record
Indicator 3: 
% of targeted women, men, girls 
and boys who report that they are 
more able to prevent and respond 
to GBV
75 85.5 114% N=275
Fairly (33.5%) & Highly (52%) able to 
identify and protect GBV
Awareness raising on Child protection 
In all target Woredas/IDP sites awareness raising on child protection issues was conducted by Oxfam 
protection Officer and assistant officers in collaboration with Woreda offices of women and child affairs, 
and representatives at Kebele level. 
School participation of children under 18 years
Survey households were asked about school enrolment (before and after displacement) of their children 
under the age of 18 years. As the table below shows, the school enrolment rate of children in the IDP 
site is by far greater in the IDP site than the enrolment rate before they were displaced. The HH survey 
revealed that the enrolment rate of children before displacement and in the IDP site were 15% and 
72% (N=275) respectively. 
Table28: children's school enrolment
Are all children school age in the household enrolled in any school
now
response Before displacement In the IDP camp (currently)
Frequency Valid % Frequency Valid %
No 234 85% 76 28%
Yes 41 15% 199 72%
Total 275 100% 275 100%
Child labour: Children engagement in labour work
One of the right of children is to be protected from “exploitation” of labour. Surveyed HHs were asked 
if their children (U18) were engaged in labour work. As the table below shows, the majority 93% of 
respondents reported that children were not engaged in labour work; both the baseline and the final 
evaluation results revealed that only 7% of children were engaged in labour work. 
38
Figure 11: per cent of Under 18 children Not/engaged in labour work
Child safety
In situations of HH displacement child safety is a major concern for many HHs and organisations 
working on humanitarian interventions. Because, these children could face protection risks as the 
move to a new place, or they may have lost one or both parents and become exposed to various 
risks (abduction, rape, labour abuse etc.). 
This evaluation asked parents (in HH interview & FGD), and children (in FGD) if they have had 
experienced a situation where they felt unsafe. 
Most children and adult who participated 
in FGDs in Gashamo Woreda reported 
that they never feel unsafe- They 
explained that females can go far away 
from the IDP site to collect firewood 
without any problem. There is a 
significant change in the proportion of 
people feeling safe when using latrine at 
any time. As the table above shows, the
majority (60%) respondents said child safety is good while 21% also said it fair. However, only 
2.8% HH replied that child safety is poor
When asked about their feeling of safeness when using latrines, however, about 63% (N=275) of 
the surveyed households at the final evaluation revealed that they feel safe when using latrine at 
any time.
With regard to ability of target men and women who feel that they can identify protection risks and 
mitigation measures, the HH survey, conducted at the end of project evaluation, revealed that 
53% (N= 275) of respondents know at least 3 (out of5) identification and mitigation method. The 
remaining know either one (25%) or two (22%) methods.
93%
7%
93%
7%
No
Yes
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
children Engagement in Labour work at baseline and 
end line evaluation
Final_Evaluation Baseline
Figure 12: Child Safety 
Child safety Freq. % Valid % Cum.%
Fair 57 21% 14.4 44.8
Good 164 60% 41.5 86.3
Not participated any 
GBV awareness session
43 16% 10.9 97.2
Poor 11 4% 2.8 100.0
Total 275 100% 100.0
39
Table 29 summary of protection, coordination ... perforce indicators
Sub-Sector: Protection Coordination, Advocacy, and 
Information
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achieve
ments
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of individuals trained in protection;
600 601 100.3%
Indicator 2: (custom indicator) 
% of targeted women and men who report that they 
feel more able to identify protection risks and 
mitigation measures;
70 53 75.7% HH survey, 
3.3.7. Effect of delay in project implementation
Project staff as well as Woreda officials reported that implementation of most of project activities and 
outputs did not start during the lifespan of the project (from August 2018 to July 2019) as originally 
designed. Almost all activities were implemented within a NCE period from September to December 
2019. Such a delay in project implementation, which was primarily attributed procurement procedure 
and standards and to lengthy pre-approval process (five or more months according to staff), has costed 
Oxfam in many ways: 
• Given that implementation of project activities covers a very vast area (six Woredas dispersed 
widely, shortage of time to deliver all activities (only four months), there was less time to supervise 
and ensure quality of certain construction works. The construction of a concrete based water 
reservoir requires more than three/four months to supervise and address any quality issue and 
appropriately cure the structure to ensure the necessary strength of the structure. In this regard, the 
evaluation observed that there was a wet surface on the side of a newly constructed water reservoir 
at Bulaale Kebele. In addition, the inspection ladder looks too thin to withstand the weight of an 
average person. In this regard, target beneficiaries also commented that it is very scary to climb up 
the ladder. 
• Coordination meetings and discussion with local government staff partners was minimal as partly 
due to the fact that field staff were too busy to deliver all activities within three months in target 
Woredas that are widespread. 
3.4.Prospect of Sustainability
Livestock Treatment: The Voucher System 
The idea of strengthen/promoting the private sector to provide effective and efficient veterinary service
to the pastoralist community commendable and needs a lot of effort. To ensure sustainability of such a 
service, developing the capacity of and linkage between actors at Regional, Woreda and community 
level service providers is an important and critical factor for future sustainability. Such a capacity 
building effort is a process that require time to: identify strong actors, map the supply chain and engage 
relevant government institutions effectively and proactively. 
Looking at the current practice implemented by the project, the evaluation found that:
• The voucher system is model that contributes to the sustainable veterinary service provision at the 
community level, since it engages the local actors involved in the veterinary service provision; 
Veterinary Drug Wholesaler Supplier, the district level PVPs, CAHWs and Woreda Pastoral and 
40
Livestock Office. It strengthened the tie or link between these actors and enhance the technical 
and financial capacity of the wholesaler, PVPs and CAHWs, which contributes to the sustainable 
veterinary service delivery after the project phase out.
• Thought the project intervention lived for a short period, it has initiated a link between PVP and the 
vet drug supplier based in Jigjiga. Both the supplier and PVPs, who participated in this project 
revealed that their business relationship will continue in the future without the project. Similarly, 
some PVPs also showed interest to work with CAHWs though this link requires further capacity 
building effort for CAHW (e.g. financial capacity to secure initial stock, refresher training, 
developing system/procedure to formalise the relationship between PVPs and CAHWs). What we 
observe here (PVPs and wholesale’s interest to capitalise on the working relationship that was 
initiated by the project indicates a potential for sustainability of the project’s effort- i.e. an 
opportunity & potential for continuity of benefit (livestock treatment service) flow to the community. 
Rehabilitation of water supply schemes: 
As observed during the field visit, the project completed the three-target water rehabilitation and repair 
activities planned under this project. 
In IDP sites, where the rehabilitation work is complete, the evaluation observed that communities are 
already enjoying the benefit. The WASH committee had been discussing to set a tariff (birr 2 per Jerri 
can) to raise financial resources to pay for a care taker who monitors and manages the water supply 
system as well as for repair and maintenance purposes. 
Child Protection and feedback mechanism
Child protection issues require active engagement of the formal/government structures including the
Office of Women and Children Affairs, local administration as well as the justice department. In this 
regard, the Zonal and Woreda Government actors complained that they were not actively involved in 
the implementation of the project though some office like women affairs and livestock development 
offices had reported that the level of their participation was not as much as they had expected. 
With regard to community feedback mechanism, the idea of using a hotline, which has a short code 
(four-digit number) was commendable. However, the mechanism was not widely and effectively used 
by the target communities for different reasons: 
• First, the majority of IDPs do not have cell phones. For example, in Bulaale IDP site, more than 30 
IDPs were gathered at the “child friendly shed” when the evaluation team arrived in the village. We 
asked them if each of them had a cell phone, about the content and a poster with the hotline four￾digit number and its purpose. So, we learnt they only six (out of thirty) people had cell phone, all of 
them do not know how to read and write and do not know what the content and the purpose of the 
poster was; 
• More interesting was that, in this IDP village there was no mobile network. So people have to go 
out of the village when they want to make a call. 
• In addition, the target community (except the protection and other committee members) were not 
aware of who they will be talking to through the hotline as well as how their information would be 
used;
• The MEAL manager of Oxfam must be in the office to receive calls from the hotline. However, he 
would miss calls while he was out in the field. This facility do not have a voice recording mechanism
which could be reviewed later not it would receive text messages; 
41
Economic recovery
All economic recovery interventions, particularly goat/shoat fattening and trading as well as petty 
trading, are promising. Some of the participants, who were interview for this evaluation, express that 
the financial support they received was instrumental to improve their economic condition significantly 
although they commented that the amount of injection/capital is small. 
From the perspective finding lasting solution for IDPs, the economic recovery interventions like shoat
fattening and petty trading are commendable. Because, it will enable these beneficiaries to become 
self-reliant. 
There are certain concerns, however, in terms of replicability and reaching more beneficiaries: 
a) It is very costly to reach as many IDPs as possible through individual grant unless a mechanism 
is set to revolve the grant in order to reach many IDP. 
b) Target beneficiaries lack record keeping skills, access to market information and market links. 
As a beneficiary in Gashamo explained, they depend on information obtain from brokers in order 
to sale their products/shoats. Hence, an element of value chain analysis and mapping is also 
missing. 
3.5.Cross Cutting Issues 
3.5.1. Gender 
In emergencies, the experiences of women, girls, men and boys can be very different. “Access to basic 
goods and services is compromised for all”, but women and girls could suffer the most. On the one 
hand, these sections of the household take most HH chore responsibilities (like care for babies, fetch 
water, and collect firewood), actively strive to generate income in order to supplement household 
income. In this regard, Oxfam's Aug 2017 Gender analysis report revealed that, among other thing, 
women had limited access to basic services, which increased the impact of different protection risks: 
“Absence of gender segregated latrines and shower rooms, insufficient lighting at night, lack of privacy, 
lack of access to adequate quantity of water, poor cleanliness and unsafe locations increase women's 
health and protection risks” (Oxfam 2018).
In this regard, the design and implementation of the project need to consciously integrated gender 
issues. In this regard, the evaluation observed the following
• Construction of Latrines and shower: In selected/target Intervention IDP sites, blocks of 
Latrines and shower rooms were constructed. However, these services were not separately 
designated for male and female. Thus, this requires providing further advise to the community in 
order to ensure privacy of girls and women;
• Access to adequate Water 
Women are disproportionately affected by drought and conflict, in part because of existing gender 
inequalities. In many cultures (example, Somali culture) in rural Ethiopia, the responsibility for 
collecting water falls to women and children, especially girls. We must recognize this central role of 
women in managing water, sanitation and hygiene. 
• The effort of the project to rehabilitate non-functional boreholes in order to bring water points 
(public water collection points) and sanitary facilities (communal latrines as much as possible close 
to IDP shelters has been appreciated. 
42
3.6. Accountability and Feedback mechanism
According to the accountability framework set for humanitarian standards, accountability is based on 
five dimensions: Transparency & information sharing, participation, compliant and feed mechanism, 
staff competency and Learning and continual improvement FGD and KII was conducted with 
Government official at Zonal and Woreda level as well as with target beneficiaries. Most government 
officials at Zonal and Woreda level complained about 
the lack of transparency, efforts of coordination and 
collaboration by Oxfam. In this regard, this lack of 
transparency and collaboration with the government 
had costed Oxfam in some ways: (a) according to the 
project manager, the regional government had 
suspended implementation of the project due to 
perceived delay in project implementation; (b) the 
project staff reported they were unable to complete 
one of the water rehabilitation activities. Because, 
they found it difficult mobilise target beneficiaries to 
prepare trench (on cash for wok basis) to lay water 
extension pipes from the reservoir to communal water distribution points. The issue here is that it was 
the first time in this evaluation that this challenge was discussed with the Woreda officials in Degahabur. 
Visibility
Signboard were erected at project implementation sites where communities and other stakeholders can 
easily see it. The signboards contain information about the donor and implementing agencies in English 
and local Somali language. 
During FGDs and KII, participants were asked when and what information was available to them in 
relation to this project. In most if not in all sites, participants explained that implementing organisation 
did provide relevant information about what the project is all about, type of activities as well as the 
targeting process. 
Feedback Mechanism: Complaint and Mechanism 
The project put different complaint/feedback mechanisms or channels. These include: formation of 
appeal committee (community reference groups); making direct phone call or SMS messaging to 
Oxfam MEAL staff, use Complaint/feedback desk at each IDP site, and submit complaints/feedbacks 
while the project staff are out in the village for surveys or other activities, make calls using four-digit 
(6469) hotline system or make complaints/feedback Face to face with project staff or other party. 
As explained earlier, some of the mechanisms like the hotline system were not effectively used. 
However, the MEAL manager and his assistants managed to compile certain complaints/feedbacks 
collected from target beneficiaries. In this regard, the compiled report/record showed that most of the 
complaints come through face-to-face discussions (68%) followed by through appeal committee (25%), 
2% through hotline system, 2% through FGD and 2% through direct call to the MEAL manager. The 
compiled report also indicated who the complaints/feedbacks were from, and the status of responses 
given by Oxfam. However, it did not report the type of issues raised/received raised or reported by the 
community, and the actions taken (by Oxfam or other stakeholder) to address community complaints 
or feedbacks. 
Coordination and information sharing 
Figure 13: Signboard with detail information on type 
intervention, 
43
Coordination among all stakeholders responding to a disaster situation is essential to address critical 
gaps. For a response to be effective, close coordination and collaboration are required between Oxfam 
and relevant Woreda, Zonal as well as Regional sectors. In this regard, according to government 
Officials, Oxfam office hardly made efforts to share information (about the project in general) and
collaborate with government counterparts. Nor local government bodies took a proactive initiative to 
communicate and understand the project from Oxfam and jointly identify areas of collaboration, 
coordination and support. 
Formation of committees at community level: 
One of implementation strategy of the project is to form different committee of target beneficiaries for 
each project components: WASH committee, Protection committee, appeal committee, cash 
committee, NFI distribution committee etc. 
According the MEAL manager, which the evaluation team also agrees, there is no agreed principle 
among project staff how and what committee should be created and how these committees operate, 
and what incentives should be applied. Some committees have certain incentives (e.g. CHVs) in cash 
or in kind while other did not. Such inconsistent approach in establishing and incentivising community 
level committees that operate in the same community may affect the commitment and effectiveness of 
community-based committees differently. On the one hand, committees that receive incentives may 
demonstrate high level of commitment, efficiency and effectiveness. On the other hand, committees 
operating in the same community but without incentive could show low commitment and efficiency. 
According to the MEAL staff, the motivation and the working relationship between staffs of different 
units/sectors of the project and community-based committees had been different due to variation in 
provision of incentives to community based-committees. In other words, committees are interested to 
work with staffs who provided incentive but lose interest to work with staff who did come up with 
incentive. 
4. Human Resource Management and Utilisation 
At field level, the project had a Programme Manager Based in Degahabur. A livestock technical team 
leader based in Jigjiga and WASH technical Advisor, a livestock and Cash officers based in 
Degahabur), a project manager & MEAL manager, both based in Degahabur. As stated above, the 
project was implemented in six Woredas of Jaraar Zone, in Somali Regional state. The field operation 
was led by a core team of ten staff including a project manager, EFSL team leader, MEAL manager (& 
one assistant), Protection officer (& three Assistants Assistants), Emergency Food Security and 
Livelihoods (EFSL) officer (& 3 assistants), MEALMEAL Manager (& an Assistant), Logistics officer (& 
an assistant), Finance (& assistants) officers, WASH specialist/team leader, PHP and PHE officers (& 
Assistants), human resource assistant officer. 
Given the vast area to be covered, i.e. six intervention Woredas that were remotely located from one 
another, the number of staff’s deployment could be taken as a reasonable one. However, the project 
hardly utilised these staff as efficiently and effectively as expected because of the reasons explained 
earlier. 
Even though the field staff were unable to commence project activities between August 2018 and July 
2019 as originally planned, they had to make extra effort to execute almost all activities within four 
months. Therefore, with regular technical and managerial back up support from the head office in Addis 
Ababa, the field office staff made extra effort to carry out most of the planned activities within four 
months of the NCE period.
44
5. Conclusion and Recommendation 
5.1.Conclusion
Major activities of the project (like rehabilitation of boreholes, construction of latrine, economic recovery 
activities and livestock treatment) were implemented within 3 or 4 months of the NCE period. In spite 
delay in project implementation for a considerable number of months, particularly due to a pre-approval 
process requirement related to livestock treatment and borehole rehabilitation activities, the project 
achievement exceeded its target by 10% at the end of the NCE period. 
The economic recovery activities, particularly, the provision of grant enables target HHs to engage in 
income generating businesses. From beneficiary’s point of view, this economic recovery initiative is 
promising, and it is the pathway to provide durable/ lasting solution. However, given the number of need 
people that require durable solution, the current target figure (180 HHs) is very small? 
In addition, the conditional as well as unconditional cash transfer, through cash for work and gratuitous 
support enabled target beneficiaries to supplement their food needs. However, it was not enough to 
meet household basic food needs. 
The livestock treatment and vaccination services had contributed a lot in saving livestock assets of 
target beneficiaries. Importantly, the idea of franchised livestock treatment model is commendable. 
However, to develop a well-functioning model beyond the life of the project requires long-term funding 
and effort. 
Rehabilitation/construction of water points and building the water distribution system not only reduce 
the burden of women to fetch water but it boosts the confidence of women due to improved sanitation 
and hygiene practices. 
5.2.Recommendation 
All economic recovery interventions, particularly goat/shoat fattening and trading as well as petty 
trading are promising. However, as per the minimum economic recovery standards, target households 
require functional literacy and numbery (like reading & writing and record keeping) in order to manage 
their business effectively and make informed decisions. 
Project duration: Consider negotiation of revising the timeframe with the donor: In situations of such 
lengthy project delays, with factors that well known by the donor, it important to consider revising the 
duration the actual project lifetime. In addition, as an emergency project extended delay in a project 
pre-approval process affects both the outcome as well as organisational efficiency and effectiveness. 
Therefore, requesting and negotiating a costed extension (rather than NCE) is commendable. 
Consider actual family size: Future intervention, the amount of to be transferred for both conditional 
(CFW) and unconditional (gratuitous) support requires revision based on local market price and 
household food requirement. In addition, it is important to take family size into account to determine the 
amount of cash to be transferred to target HHs. 
Scaling up economic Recovery /rehabilitation rather than emergency Project: Since 2017, the regional 
government has developed and endorsed implementation of durable solution to IDPs though it is not 
clear how much progress it made so far. Therefore, it is recommended to actively engage and consult 
the regional government when designing economic recovery activities for IDPs in the Region. 
There is high interest among target beneficiaries IDPs to get support on durable solution though 
emergency assistance is important in the short term. During designing such interventions, therefore it 
is worth to explore different option when providing start-up/investment grants to target beneficiaries: 
45
(d) Valuing co-investment (cost sharing)-livelihood assets are most valuable to people when they feel 
a sense of ownership over the assets, rather than view the assets as gifts. To increase buy-in, 
programs may require beneficiaries to provide some level of co-investment (even if it is in kind) in 
the assets supported by the program (SEEP, 2017);
(e) Arrange loan guaranty fund (with local financial institution) so that target beneficiaries can get 
access to economic recovery/ business start-up loan; 
(f) Provide economic recovery/ business start-up grant as a revolving fund through
(establishing/strengthening) Village Saving and Loan associations (VSLA) 
ENDS
46
Annex 1: Oxfam- OFDA project: Summary of performance indicators
Description of performance indicators Planned 
targets
Actual/Achi
evement 
% 
Achieved
Remark
Sector Table (Sector 1): Agriculture and Food Security
Sub-Sector: Livestock
Indicator 1: Number of people benefiting 
from livestock activities 230,151 234,082 102% Pastoralist livestock devt 
Bureau/ project final report 
Indicator 2: Number of animals 
benefiting from livestock activities (Mass 
Vaccination) 
690,453 701,866 102%
Pastoralist livestock devt 
Bureau/ project final report
Indicator 3: Average animals owned per 
individual 20 11 55% Average # animal per HH (from 
end line survey 
Indicator 4: Number of people trained in 
livestock treatment 36 36 
(25M+11F)
100% 36 CAHWs, 
Indicator 5: Total USD value of vouchers 
redeemed by beneficiaries*
44,600.13 44,600.13 100% Project record/report
(200 ETB V.V voucher x 6500) + 
(675 ETB – V.V x 90 CAHWs)
Sub-Sector: Veterinary Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Commodities
Indicator 1: 
Number of veterinary facilities out of 
stock of any of the veterinary medical 
commodity tracer products, for longer 
than one week *
The project worked with one supplier and six 
Private Veterinary Pharmacies. During the KII 
with these actors, the whole seller/supplier at 
Jigjiga explained that he has reliable source 
of drug supply from importers based in Addis. 
The whole seller and the PVPs confirmed that 
the vet drug supply chain is reliable. To this 
effect, during the field visit, it was observed 
that both the PVP and the Whole seller shops
had drugs and other veterinary commodities;
Indicator 2: 
Number of Animals Vaccinated 690,453 701,866 102%
Indicator 3
Number of animal disease outbreaks *
During FGDs and KII with target beneficiaries, 
participants indicated that there were no 
reported cases of disease outbreak.
Indicator 4
Number of people trained in veterinary 
medical commodity supply chain 
management *
7 7
100%
6 PVP owner and 1 Wholesalers were 
trained on certified vet drugs and supply 
chain as well as coordination mechanisms.
Indicator 5:
Total USD value of vouchers redeemed 
by beneficiaries*
44,600.13 44,600.13 100%
Project record/report
(200 ETB V.V voucher x 6500) + (675 ETB –
V.V x 90 CAHWs)
Sector 2: Economic Recovery and Market Systems
Sub-Sector Livelihoods Restoration 
Description of targets targets Achiev’t % chieved Remark
Indicator 1. 
# of people assisted through livelihood 
restoration activities
180 180
(F=137 & 
M=43)
100% 100= Petty trading; 30 small 
restaurant & 50 Shoat fattening
Indicator 2. 
% of beneficiaries reporting net income from 
their livelihood
70% N/A Though people making good 
progress; data income/expr not 
available 
Indicator3. USD transferred to beneficiaries. 99,900 95,665 95.76% Project record
Sub-Sector: Temporary Employment 
Indicator 1 : # of Household participating in 
Cash For Work (CFW) activities(Each with 
group of 20)
720 720 100%; Project record/report 
720= (M=147 &F=573)
Indicator 2: USD transferred to beneficiaries 
as CFW payments
171,429 170,412 99.41% Project record
47
Sector 3: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Sub-Sector: Water Supply 
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievement
s
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1:
# of people directly utilizing improved 
water services provided with OFDA 
funding
30,000 35,700 119% 119%; M= 17136 & F=18564
Indicator 2 
# of litres of safe water provided per 
beneficiary per day
5 12.44 249% Despite the increase in access to per capita water 
volume from the baseline, the quantity is still less 
than the minimum standard set Sphere guideline, 
which is 15 litres per capita per day. Baseline 
Indicator 3
% of the water user committees created 
and or trained by the WASH program 
that are at least three months after 
training
80 100 125% Since this activity is implemented in the last 
quarter with the NCE period, the committees were 
in position for more than three months, Hence 
the evaluators cannot verify their functionality 
because, at the time of the evaluation the 
structure were less than 3 months old.
Indicator 4 
% of water points developed, repaired 
or rehabilitated that are clean and 
protected from contamination
100 100 100 The project planned to rehabilitate three water 
sources (boreholes) 100%. However, at the time 
of the evaluation, it had completed three water 
points 100%, 
Indicator 5: 
USD value of vouchers redeemed by 
beneficiaries.
74,250 NA Activity changed / Modified – this resource was 
shifted to Latrine and basing shelter activity as 
per the approval (project report)
Sub-Sector: Sanitation 
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievemen
ts
% 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of people directly utilizing 
improved sanitation services 
provided with OFDA funding
6300 7120
(M=3418 & 
F=3702)
113% Project records/report
Indicator 2: 
% of latrines/defecation sites in the 
target population with handwashing 
facilities that are functional and in 
use
80 29 36.3% Only 29% (N=395) of surveyed HHs have 
handwashing facilities near the toilet. From these 
facilities, 82% (N=114) of these hand washing 
facilities had water at the time of end-line HH 
survey ;
(Note the target 80% set for this indicator 
deceptive as it is not indicating the domain (or 
Denominator) to calculate the coverage (%).
Indicator 3: 
# of users per functioning toilet
25 25 100% The toilet and showers were construct showers 
were; each communal latrines in the IDP sites 
have 4 rooms. 
48
Sub-Sector: WASH Non-food items
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievements % 
achieved
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# People receiving WASH NFIs assistance 
through all modalities (without double￾counting)
6,600 6600 100% 94% female Headed 
HHs
Project record
Indicator 2: 
% of the households reporting satisfaction 
with the contents of the WASH NFIs 
received through direct distribution (i.e. 
kits) or vouchers use
50 95 190% HH survey
Indicator 3: 
% of the households reporting satisfaction 
with the quality of WASH NFIs received 
through direct distribution (i.e. kits), 
vouchers, or cash
50 96 192% HH survey
Sector 4: Protection
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievemen
ts
% 
achieve
d
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# individuals participating in child 
protection services;
11,110 12,345 111.1% 62.5 % women and girls
Indicator 2: 
USD allocated for child protection 
programming;
136,378 102,927 75.4%
Indicator 3: 
% of targeted children reporting an 
improvement in their sense of safety 
and well-being at the close of the 
program
40 81 202% HH survey result shows 
that (N=275)
Safety is fair (21%); 
Good (60%) and poor 
(2%) the rest replied they 
did not participant in child 
safety + other workshops
Sub-Sector: Prevention and Response to Gender-Based Violence
Sub-Sector: Hygiene Promotion
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achieveme
nts
% 
achieve
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# people receiving direct hygiene 
promotion (excluding mass media 
campaigns without double counting)
87,259 87,259 100% Project record
Indicator 2: 
% of the people targeted by the hygiene 
promotion program who know at least 
three (3) of the five (5) critical times to 
wash hands
50% 74.7% 147% The baseline Value 
was 36.4%
Indicator 3: 
% of households targeted by the hygiene 
promotion program who store their drinking 
water safely in clean container
50 78.7% 157 The baseline Value 
was 63.6%
49
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievemen
ts
% 
achieve
d
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of individuals accessing GBV 
response services;
6217 6217 100% Oxfam doesn’t do case 
management, but 6217 
individuals (52% women 
and girl) were reached 
through GBV awareness.
Indicator 2: 
USD allocated for child protection 
programming;
136,378 102927 75.% Project Record
Indicator 3: 
% of targeted women, men, girls and 
boys who report that they are more 
able to prevent and respond to GBV
75 85.5 114% N=275
Fairly (33.5%) & Highly 
(52%) able to identify 
and protect GBV
Sub-Sector: Protection Coordination, Advocacy, and Information 
Description of targets Planned 
targets/
Achievemen
ts
% 
achieve
d
Remark
Indicator 1: 
# of individuals trained in protection;
600 601 100.3%
Indicator 2: (custom indicator) 
% of targeted women and men who 
report that they feel more able to 
identify protection risks and mitigation 
measures;
70 53 75.7% HH survey, N= 275
53% respondents know 
at least 3 (out of5) 
identification and 
mitigation method. The 
remaining know either 
one (25%) or two (22%) 
methods.
50
Annex 2: List of People Contacted
Sn Name sex Organisation Position 
M Oxfam Project MEAL manager
M Project Manager
M Livestock Team Leader
F Degahabur WC affairs 
Office 
Focal Person
M CAHW
M WASHCO Chair person
M HEW
M Woreda WASH (technician)
F WASHCO member
F WASHCO member
M WASHCO member
M Bulaale Kebele Safety Committee
F Bulaale Kebele Safety Committee
i F Bulaale Kebele Safety Committee
F Bulaale Kebele Safety Committee
M Bulaale Kebele Community Health Volunteer (CHV)
M Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
F Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
M Bulaale Kebele Community members 9beneficiaries)
M Gunagado W/ Gunagado 
Kebele
Petty Trading –Grant beneficiary
Gunagado Kebele Safety Committee
F Gunagado Kebele Small restaurant grant beneficiary 
F Gunagado Kebele Goat fattening- grant Beneficiary
F Gunagado Kebele Petty Trading Grant Beneficiary
F Gunagado Kebele Beneficiary- other intervention
Gunagado Kebele Safety Committee
Gunagado Kebele safety committee
Gunagado Kebele Beneficiary- other intervention 
F Gunagado Kebele CHV
51
M Agriculture Office Head
M Prosperity Party Head
F BoWCA Head
M Gashamo-helth office Acting Head
M Gashamo-Livestock desk Head
Gashamo- IDP Beneficiary
F Cash Committee
F Safety Committee
F CFW beneficiary
F Cash Committee
F CFW Beneficiary
F Community member
Goat Fattening Beneficiary
Community member
CFW beneficiary
CFW beneficiary
CFW
CFW
Community member
CHV
CFW bene
CFW
Kulmiye Vet Drug whole 
seller
Vet Drug supplier
Gashamo PVP PVP
52
Annex 3: Bibliography
Ballard, T., Coates, J., Swindale, A., & Deitchler, M. (2011). Household Hunger Scale:Indicator Definition and 
Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance II Project, FHI 360.
Behigu Habte. (2018, October). Global Protection Cluster. Retrieved from Working togeter for protection: 
Addressing Internal Displacement in Ethiopia: 
https://www.globalprotectioncluster.org/2018/12/07/addressing-internal-displacement-in-ethiopia/
Ethiopia New waves of conflict cause unprecedented displacement (SPot light). (2019). In Global Report on 
Internal Displacement (GRID). Internal Displacement Monitering Centre (IDMC).
FEWS NET. (2018). Integrating Livestock Herd Dynamics into Scenario Development. Washington, DC: FEWS 
NET.
FEWS NET. (2020). ETHIOPIA Food Security Outlook: June 2019 to January 2020. Famine Early Warning Systems 
Network (FEWS NET).
Frankenberger, T. M. (2012). Community Resilience: Conceptual Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed
the Future Learning Agenda. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Gerald, J., & Dorothy, R. (2011). Child Protection in the Somali Region of Ethiopia . Tuffts University.
Hollingsworth, A. (2019, 09 12). Refugee INternational.org. Retrieved from Report: 
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2019/9/10/like-a-drop-of-water-on-a-fire-inadequate￾investment-in-durable-solutions-for-drought-idps-in-ethiopia
IAHESG. (2019). Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Drought Response in Ethiopia. Inter_agency 
Humanitarian Evaluation Steering Group.
IDMC. (2019). DISASTER DISPLACEMENT: A global review, 2008-2018 (Thematic Report). Internal Displacement 
Monitoring Centre.
IDMC. (n.d.). Ethiopia: Figure Analysis- Figure Analysis – Displacement Related to Conflict and Violence. Geneva: 
INternal Displaced Monitoring Center.
IDRC. (2015). East Africa Regional Diagnostic Study: Report Summary. Ottawa: International Development 
Research Centre.
Oxfam. (2020). Programme and Performance Report - OFDA.
Oxfam International. (2016). JOINT AGENCY CONSOLIDATED GENDER ANALYSIS : Consolidated Gender Analysis 
for the Ethiopian Drought Response. Oxfam International.
PROLONG_Consult. (2007). EVALUATION OF HUMANITARIAN AID By and For NGOs: A guide with ideas to 
consider when designing your own Evaluation Activities . European Commission.
SNRS. (n.d.). Somali Region Durable Strategy 2017-2020: The Durable Solutions Strategy of the Somali Regional 
Government of Ethiopia.
SRLRPDB. (2019). Report on Vaccination campaign Intervention in Aware,Bilcinbur,Gunagado, Degahabur, 
Gashamo and Daror Districts of Somali Regional State, ethiopia . JigJiga: Somali Regional State 
Livetock Resources and PAstoraist Development Bureau.
Swindale, A., & Bilinsky, P. (2006). Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of Household 
Food Access: Indicator Guide. FANTA Project.
Tesfaheywet (Dr), Z., & Fitsum (Dr), A. (2013). ASSESSMENT OF ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICE DATA IN THE 
PAR=STORAL AND AGRO-PASTORAL PARTS OF ETHIOPIA . PRIME Project.
UNICEF. (2018). ETHIOPIA-Humanitarian Situation Report : SitRep # 4– Reporting Period April 2018. UNICEF.
USAID. (2019). ETHIOPIA - COMPLEX EMERGENCY: FACT SHEET #1, FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 . USAID.
Van den Broeck J, A. C. (2005). Data Cleaning: Detecting, Diagnosing, and Editing Data Abnormalities. PLoS 
Med 2(10): e267.
WHO & UNICEF. (2012). Rapid Assessment of Drinking-Water Quality : A Handbook for Implementation .
Switzerland : World Health Organisation.
Project Proposal
Post Distribution monitoring
53
Annex 4: number and type of Livestock treated through mass vaccination campaign
Woreda
Number of livestock treated Type of Vaccines given
Total
Household Head
Sheep Goats camel cattle F M Total
Aware 
42,890 56,110 --- --- Peste des petits ruminants 99,000 1,570 2,349 3,919
Bililbur 43,819 54,281 --- --- Sheep and Goat Pox 98,100 2775 2444 5219
Dhagahabur 58,722 58,294 2,550 8,900 SGP, OP, BP Black leg & Anthrax 128,466 4,014 3,331 7,345
Gunagado 37,286 60,896 --- --- Peste des petits ruminants 98,182 3,343 2,448 5,791
Gashamo 44336 90232 --- --- Peste des petits ruminants 134,568 3852 3,168 7,020
Daror 86,130 57,420 --- --- Peste des petits ruminants 143,550 3,404 2,769 6,173
Total 313,183 377,233 2,550 8,900 701,866 18,958 16,509 35,467