CATI SURVEY REPORT: 
FINAL PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION OF THE FEED THE 
FUTURE ETHIOPIAN VALUE 
CHAIN ACTIVITY
September 10, 2021
This report was prepared for the United States Agency for International Development by ME&A, Inc. 
CATI SURVEY REPORT:
FINAL PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION OF THE FEED THE 
FUTURE ETHIOPIAN VALUE 
CHAIN ACTIVITY
September 10, 2021
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development under USAID Contract Number: 
AID-OAA-TO-16-00008 
Submitted to:
USAID/Ethiopia 
Melat Getahun
mgetahun@usaid.gov
and
USAID/Bureau for Resilience and Food Security 
Lindsey Anna
lanna@usaid.gov
Submitted by:
Christopher Coffman, Research Specialist
Ananya Amirthalingam, Research Assistant
Contractor: 
Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning (PEEL)
ME&A 
4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210
Bethesda, MD 20814
Tel: (301) 652-4334 
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................. 1
2. METHODOLOGY/SAMPLING............................................................................................................................. 1
3. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Activity Implementation............................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 Endline ............................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Implementation of VCA Training: Findings.............................................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Endline ............................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Access to Inputs............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.3.1 Midterm.......................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Endline ............................................................................................................................................. 8
3.3.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Access to Finance .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.4.1 Endline ............................................................................................................................................. 8
3.4.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5 Yields................................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.5.1 Midterm.......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.5.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.5.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 16
3.6 Marketing/Commercial Linkages.............................................................................................................. 16
3.6.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 16
3.6.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 18
3.6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 19
3.7 Sales/Income.................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.7.1 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 19
3.7.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.8 Use of On-Farm Production ..................................................................................................................... 23
3.8.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 23
3.8.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 24
3.8.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 26
3.9 Improved Practices...................................................................................................................................... 26
3.9.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 26
3.9.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 27
3.10 Increased Investments................................................................................................................................ 27
3.10.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.10.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 29
3.11 Post Harvest ................................................................................................................................................. 29
3.11.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 29
3.11.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 30
3.12 Gender and Youth....................................................................................................................................... 30
3.12.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 30
3.12.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 33
3.12.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.13 Nutrition........................................................................................................................................................ 37
3.13.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 37
3.13.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 38
3.13.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 39
3.14 Income Diversification................................................................................................................................ 39
3.14.1 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 39
3.14.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 42
3.15 Cooperative/Association Support ........................................................................................................... 42
3.15.1 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 42
3.15.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 44
3.16 COVID-19 ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
3.16.1 Midterm........................................................................................................................................ 44
3.16.2 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 45
3.16.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 48
3.17 Political/Civil Unrest ................................................................................................................................... 48
3.17.1 Endline ........................................................................................................................................... 48
3.17.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 48
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall Quality of Support (Endline)........................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Implementation of What Farmers Learned (Endline).............................................................................. 5
Figure 3: Extent of Improvement of Access to Agricultural and Livestock Inputs Attributed to VCA 
(Midterm)..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Extent of Improvement of Access to Finance Across VCs Attributed to VCA (Endline).............. 9
Figure 5: Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee Yield Improvement (Midterm) .............................................................. 10
Figure 6: Dairy Animals Yield Improvements (Midterm)....................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Cattle, Goat, Sheep, and Poultry Yield Improvements (Midterm)..................................................... 11
Figure 8: Improved Productivity of Livestock Operations Attributed to VCA Support (Midterm)............ 12
Figure 9: Dairy Yield Improvements (Endline).......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: MLA Yield Improvements (Endline)......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Poultry Yield Improvements (Endline).................................................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Maize Yield Improvements (Endline)....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 13: Chickpea Yield Improvements (Endline) ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 14: Coffee Yield Improvements (Endline)..................................................................................................... 16
Figure 15: VCA Assistance in Crop Marketing (Midterm)..................................................................................... 17
Figure 16: Making VCA Assistance in Crop Marketing More Effective (Midterm).......................................... 17
Figure 17: VCA Assistance in Market and Sales and in Accessing Markets (Endline) ..................................... 18
Figure 18: Improvement in Commercial Linkages to Buyers (Endline) .............................................................. 19
Figure 19: Dairy Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)......................................................................................... 20
Figure 20: MLA Sales/Income Improvements (Endline).......................................................................................... 20
Figure 21: Poultry Sales/Income Improvements (Endline) ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 22: Maize Sales/Income Improvements (Endline) ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 23: Chickpea Sales/Income Improvements (Endline).................................................................................. 22
Figure 24: Coffee Sales/Income Improvements (Endline) ...................................................................................... 23
Figure 25: Average Percentage of Crop Produced for Purpose (Midterm) ...................................................... 24
Figure 26: Average Percentage of Production Used for Different Purposes by VC (Endline)...................... 26
Figure 27: Improved Practices for Crop Performance (Midterm)....................................................................... 27
Figure 28: Investments in Farming Operations (Midterm)..................................................................................... 28
Figure 29: Investments in Livestock Operations (Midterm).................................................................................. 29
Figure 30: How Livestock Inputs were Purchased (Midterm).............................................................................. 29
Figure 31: VCA Assistance Lowering Post-Harvest Losses (Midterm) .............................................................. 30
Figure 32: Household Decision-Making Regarding Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee Production and Sales 
(Midterm)................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 33: Household Decision-Making Regarding Livestock and Poultry Production & Sales (Midterm) 32
Figure 34: Empowerment from VCA Support (Midterm)...................................................................................... 33
Figure 35: VCA Influence on Women in Farmer Cooperative/Association (Endline).................................... 34
Figure 36: Women/Youth Training Received (Endline).......................................................................................... 35
Figure 37: How VCA Women’s Training Contributed to Increased Equity Between Men and Women 
(Endline) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 38: How VCA Women’s Training Contributed to Increased Opportunities for Youth (Endline) . 36
Figure 39: Extent to Which VCA Nutrition Training Improved Access to Safe and Diverse Foods (Midterm)
...................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 40: Extent to Which VCA Is Working to Improve the Nutritional Status of Women and Children 
(Endline) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 41: Participation in VCA Training Programs Related to Nutritional Habits (Endline)....................... 39
Figure 42: Increased IGAs After Receiving VCA Assistance (Endline) ............................................................... 40
Figure 43: Extent of Increased/Diversified IGAs Attributed to VCA (Endline)................................................ 41
Figure 44: IGA Effects on Household (Endline)........................................................................................................ 41
Figure 45: Farmers Belong to Cooperative (Endline) ............................................................................................. 42
Figure 46: Cooperatives Get VCA Assistance (Endline)........................................................................................ 42
Figure 47: Provision of Cooperative/Association Services Since VCA Assistance (Endline)......................... 43
Figure 48: Amount of Production Bought From Cooperative/Association Members Since VCA Support 
(Endline) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 49: Operations of Cooperatives Since Receiving VCA Support (Endline)............................................ 44
Figure 50: COVID-19 Effect on Agriculture Production and Agriculture Sales (Midterm)........................... 45
Figure 51: COVID-19 Effect on Agriculture (Endline)............................................................................................ 46
Figure 52: Type of COVID-19 Support Received From VCA (Endline)............................................................. 47
Figure 53: Usefulness of VCA COVID-19 Support (Endline)................................................................................ 47
Figure 54: Effects of Political/Civil Unrest on Agriculture/Agribusiness (Endline)........................................... 48
ACRONYMS
Acronym Description
CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
IGA Income-Generating Activity
IPM Integrated Pest Management
LOA Life of Activity
ME&A ME&A, Inc.
MLA Meat and Live Animals
PHH Post-Harvest Handling
PICS Purdue Improved Crop Storage Bags
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Region
THM Transformative Household Methodology
USAID United States Agency for International Development
RFS Bureau for Resilience and Food Security
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VC Value Chain
VCA USAID/Ethiopia Value Chain Activity
1 
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This document presents a summary report of the results of the midterm and endline computer-assisted 
telephone interview (CATI) surveys conducted as part of the midterm and endline performance 
evaluations of the USAID/Ethiopia Value Chain Activity (VCA) conducted by ME&A Inc. (ME&A) under 
the USAID Bureau for Resilience and Food Security (RFS) Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and 
Learning (PEEL) Project. The report is intended as a stand-alone report to supplement the final VCA 
evaluation report submitted to USAID/Ethipopia and RFS. The purpose of this stand-alone report is to 
present a comprehensive summary of the major findings from the the two CATI surveys in a format that 
allows USAID/Ethiopia and RFS to understand their relevance to VCA’s value chain support interventions 
and USAID agricultural support programming. 
Also motivating this report is that, for reasons of space and narrative flow, the final evaluation report was 
not able to provide a comphrehensive presentation of CATI survey results meaning that a number of 
potentially salient findings were necessarily edited out of the report. Further, while ME&A’s CATI sub￾contractor GeoPoll did provide comprehensive PowerPoint slide decks summarizing each of the two CATI 
survey results, these were long, dense presentations with results presented out of context in terms of 
their relevance to VCA and USAID. This report thus seeks to fill in the gaps related to comprehensiveness 
and context/relevance found in these other two reporting formats. 
The mid-term and endline CATI surveys were admininstered to samples of approximately 500 beneficiary 
small farmers each drawn from VCA’s client farmer database. The midterm CATI survey was originally 
intended as one of several data collection methods for the mid-term VCA performance evaluation 
scheduled to begin March 2020. The Mission, however, cancelled the mid-term evaluation due to concerns 
about the emerging coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, it elected to proceed with 
the CATI survey, as it is done entirely by mobile phone and does not require face-to-face interactions. In 
lieu of the midterm performance evaluation, the Mission opted to substitute a final performance 
evaluation, which took place during the first half of 2021 and which also included a CATI survey, albeit a 
different version and administered to a different sample of beneficiary farmers, again drawn from VCA’s 
client farmer database, than the midterm CATI survey.
2. METHODOLOGY/SAMPLING 
GeoPoll conducted real-time mobile survey interviews via voice, text, and mobile app methods with a 
sample of 500 farmers for the midterm CATI survey and 513 farmers for the endline CATI survey who 
had benefited from Activity interventions in the six targeted value chains (VCs) in each of the four 
implementation regions. The sampling frame for both midterm and endline CATI surveys was the 
comprehensive dataset of beneficiary farmers in each of the six priority VCs maintained by Fintrac. To 
create the survey samples, GeoPoll randomly selected names from the VCA beneficiary datasets for whom 
a mobile phone was listed stratified by region, gender, and VC with the aim to achieve an approximately 
equal representation across regions, a 50-50 gender split, and a sample size for each VC roughly 
proportionate to its representation in the overall beneficiary dataset.
Table 1 shows the demographic breakdown of the midterm and endline CATI survey samples. The 
midterm sample was evenly split between male and female, but the endline sample was disproportionately 
male at 61 percent male and 39 percent female.1 The sample size was similar across the regions in both 
surveys, although with relatively fewer respondents from Tigray. More than one-third of the midterm
1 By way of context, VCA’s life of activity target (LOA) for women’s participation in the Activity is 30 percent. As of March 31, 
2021, women constituted 28 percent of VCA’s client base, just below its 30 percent target. Thus, the share of women respondents
in the endline CATI survey exceeded both the share of women beneficiaries at the time of the survey and the LOA target for 
women’s participation. 
respondents are in the maize (36 percent), dairy (35 percent), and meat and live animals (MLA) 
(35 percent) VCs, with fewer respondents in the poultry (18 percent), coffee (13 percent), and chickpea 
(7 percent) VCs. The endline sample is split evenly among VCs, although with relatively more respondents 
in the maize VC. The samples for both surveys included more non-youth (30 years old or above) 
respondents than youth (15-29 years old) farmers. 
All midterm and endline survey results were tested to determine whether statistically significant difference 
existed in response patterns existed within key disaggregation categories (i.e., gender, region, VC, and age 
(youth vs. non-youth) using either a Pearson’s chi-square test2 or an ordinary least squares regression.3 
The findings below report those cases in which the chi-square or regression tests found a statistically 
significant differences within the relevant disaggregation category at one of three levels of statistical
significance: p<0.05, p<0.01, or p<0.001.4 If no statistically significant result is reported for a particular 
result and disaggregation category below, the reader may conclude that no statistically significant 
difference exists in the data.5
Table 1: CATI Survey Respondents by Gender, Region, VC, and Age
Midterm CATI Survey (N=500) Endline CATI Survey (N=513)
Sex % Sex % 
Male 50% Male 61%
Female 50% Female 39%
Region % Region % 
Amhara 25% Amhara 27%
Oromia 25% Oromia 28%
SNNPR 25% SNNPR 25%
Tigray 25% Tigray 21%
VC % VC % 
Maize 36% Maize 23%
Chickpea 7% Chickpea 17%
Coffee 13% Coffee 19%
Dairy 35% Dairy 18%
2 Chi square tests are used for categorical variables to determine whether there exists a significant difference in an outcome 
(dependent variable) (e.g., types of support received) among categories of an independent variable (e.g., gender). It does this by 
comparing observed results (or frequency counts) with expected results (frequencies) for each outcome (e.g., yes/no) and each 
group (e.g., male/female). Chi square tests the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the outcome variable of 
interest and the relevant independent variable. Using the example above to illustrate (e.g., support received as outcome variable 
and gender as independent variable), a statistically significant chi square test is interpreted to mean that there is a statistically 
significant difference in the types of support received by men and women.
3 Ordinary least squares regression is a process in which a straight line is used to estimate the relationship between two 
interval/ratio level variables. The “best-fitting line” is the line that minimizes the sum of the squared errors (hence the inclusion 
of “least squares” in the name). 4 The p-value, or probability value, is a number describing how likely it is that the data would have occurred by random chance 
(i.e., that the null hypothesis of no relationship is true). The smaller the p-value, the stronger the evidence that one should reject 
the null hypothesis and conclude a significant relationship exists. In the above context, p-values of 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 indicate a 
5 percent, 1 percent, and 0.1 percent probability that the observed relationship would have occurred by chance. 5 When reporting statistically significant differences between disaggregation groups, the report only tells whether 
the difference is statistically significant and at which significance level; it does not provide the actual values for each 
disaggregation group. This reporting format, which adopts the format used for ME&A’s population-based survey 
reports to RFS, was selected so as not to overwhelm the reader with numbers and thus avoid bogging down the 
narrative flow. In other words, what is important is that a significant difference exists and less so the absolute size 
of this difference. If USAID prefers, these numbers can be added into subsequent versions of this report.
Midterm CATI Survey (N=500) Endline CATI Survey (N=513)
Poultry 18% Poultry 18%
MLA 35% MLA 20%
Age Group % Age Group % 
29 years old and below (youth) 28% 29 years old and below (youth) 28% 
30 years old and above 72% 30 years old and above 72% 
3. FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS 
In this section, we present findings and conclusions from both the midterm and endline CATI surveys, 
categorized under the 17 key themes listed below, which align with specific outcome objectives targeted 
by VCA intercentions: 
1. Activity Implementation
2. Implementation of VCA Training
3. Access to Inputs
4. Access to Finance
5. Yield/Productivity
6. Marketing/Commercial Linkages
7. Sales/Income
8. Use of On-Farm Production
9. Improved Practices
10. Increased Investments
11. Post-Harvest
12. Gender and Youth
13. Nutrition
14. Income Diversification
15. Cooperative Support
16. COVID-19 
17. Political/Civil Unrest
Note that the endline CATI survey repeated some questions from the midterm CATI survey (i.e., adoption 
of improved production and postharvest practices, on-farm yields and income, access to finance) and also 
asked new questions to measure how Activity interventions had affected household income, nutritional 
status, livelihood diversification options, participation in non-farming income-generating activities (IGAs), 
female and youth empowerment, and other areas of interest to Fintrac and USAID/Ethiopia. Seven of the 
17 themes are applicable to both surveys. 
Note further that the conclusions found below are based solely on the perceptions of the smallholder 
beneficiary farmers who are the primary beneficiaries of VCA support, as reflected in the results of the 
CATI surveys. As such, they have not been verified using other means, at least for the purposes of this 
report.
3.1 ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION
3.1.1 Endline
Most Useful Types of VCA Support Provided
• Of the types of support received from VCA, more than half of respondents reported that training 
events were the most useful, less than one-fifth found demonstrations to be the most useful, while all 
other types of support were cited as the most useful much less frequently, rarely, or almost not at all
(Table 2). 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to find demonstrations and experience-sharing visits to be the 
most useful type of support provided (p<0.01).
• Women were more likely than men to find material support to be the most useful (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Oromia, Amhara, and SNNPR were more likely than respondents in Tigray to find 
demonstrations to be the most useful type of support provided (p<0.001). 
• Maize farmers were more likely than other VCs to find demonstrations to be the most useful type of 
support provided (p<0.01). 
• Coffee farmers were more likely than other VCs to find demonstrations, extension services, and 
material support to be the most useful types of support provided (p<0.01).
Table 2: Most Useful VCA Support Provided (Endline)
Type of Support Most Useful Second
Most Useful
Third
Most Useful Total
Training events 53.8% 15.3% 6.7% 75.8%
Demonstrations 19.1% 13.4% 5.3% 37.8%
Material support 7.4% 9.3% 2.5% 19.2%
Experience-sharing events 6.6% 8.0% 2.8% 17.4%
Extension services 3.5% 2.3% 3.9% 9.7%
Field days 3.3% 3.5% 3.9% 10.7%
Trade fairs 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 1.8%
Radio commercials 0.6% 0.0% 0.7% 1.3%
Telephone-based technical assistance (TA) 0.4% 1.6% 0.7% 2.7%
Radio talk shows 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%
Other 0.4% 4.1% 1.4% 5.9%
None 4.3% 34.2% 57.7% 96.2%
Don’t know 0% 8.0% 14.1% 22.1%
Satisfaction Level
• More than 80 percent of endline respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall quality 
of VCA’s support and the knowledge and expertise of persons providing that support (Figure 1). 
• Respondents were similarly satisfied with the knowledge and expertise of persons providing support
and the relevance, usefulness, and effectiveness of that support. 
Significant Differences
• Women were more satisfied than men with the quality of the support provided (p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Oromia were less satisfied with the quality of the support provided than respondents
in Amhara, SNNPR, and Tigray (p<0.001). 
Figure 1: Overall Quality of Support (Endline)
3.1.2 Conclusions
• Training events are the most useful types of support provided by VCA to its beneficiary farmers, 
followed at a distance by demonstrations and at an even greater distance by material support and 
experience-sharing events. No other type of support was cited by a significant number of beneficiary 
farmers as among the most useful, second more useful, or third most useful type of VCA support.
• VCA’s smallholder farmer beneficiaries are strongly satisfied with the quality of support provided by 
the Activity as well as with the quality of the persons providing the support and the relevance, 
usefulness, and effectiveness of that support.
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF VCA TRAINING: FINDINGS
3.2.1 Endline
Implementation Extent
• Two-thirds of endline respondents implemented what they learned from the training provided by VCA 
to either a good or great extent (Figure 2). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia and SNNPR implemented what they learned from the training to a greater 
extent than respondents in Amhara and Tigray (p<0.001).
Figure 2: Implementation of What Farmers Learned (Endline)
1% 4% 8%
53%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither dissatisfied
nor satisfied
Satisfied Very satisfied
3%
7%
21%
36%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Not at all A small extent A moderate extent A good extent A great extent
Effect of Implementing Trainings on Agricultural Production Outcomes
• A positive and statistically significant relationship exists between the extent to which a respondent 
implemented what s/he learned from the VCA training and a variety of agriculture, dairy, and livestock 
production outcomes (Table 3). 
• More than half of the dairy-, poultry-, maize-, and chickpea-specific outcomes covered by the survey 
exhibited this relationship indicating that adoption of practices, technologies, etc. covered by VCA 
training is, on average, associated with improved agricultural production outcomes. 
• For example, among dairy farmers, increased adoption of what they learned from the VCA trainings
is associated with increased access to vet services, artificial insemination, production inputs, machinery 
and equipment, and finance; improved animal health; increased milk yields; improved commercial 
linkages to buyers; and increased total sales and sales to collection centers and cooperatives or 
associations.
Table 3: Implementation Significance Level on VC Outcomes by VC (Endline)
Background Characteristic
VC
Dairy MLA Poultry 
Pullets | Eggs Maize Chickpea Coffee
Outcomes 
Access to vet services <0.01 n/a <0.001 n/a n/a n/a
Access to artificial insemination <0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Animal health <0.05 <0.001 <0.05 n/a n/a n/a
Animal weight n/a <0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Access to quality feed <0.01 n/a <0.05 n/a n/a n/a
Total land under cultivation n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.001 n/a
Number of trees n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total production n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Yields <0.01 n/a n/a <0.05 <0.001 <0.001
Post-harvest losses n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.001 <0.05
Quality of product sold n/a n/a <0.01 <0.001 <0.05 n/a n/a
Commercial linkages to buyers <0.001 n/a n/a <0.001 <0.001 <0.05
Access to hybrid seeds n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.01 n/a
Seed production n/a n/a n/a <0.01 n/a
Access to spray services n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.05 n/a
Access to Purdue Improved 
Crop Storage (PICS) bags n/a n/a n/a <0.05 <0.05 n/a
Access to production inputs <0.01 n/a <0.01 n/a <0.001 n/a
Access to machinery & 
equipment <0.05 n/a <0.05 n/a <0.01 n/a
Stocking capacity n/a n/a 0.007 n/a n/a n/a
Price per unit sold <0.01 <0.05 <0.001 <0.01 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Volume of sales n/a n/a <0.01 <0.001 <0.05 <0.05 <0.001
Number of sales n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Value of sales <0.01 n/a <0.01 <0.001 n/a n/a <0.001
Sales to collection centers <0.001 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Sales to cooperatives/ 
associations <0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Income from sales n/a n/a <0.01 <0.001 n/a <0.05 <0.01
Access to finance <0.01 n/a <0.05 <0.001 <0.05 n/a
Record keeping n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
3.2.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers have, for the most part, implemented what they have learned from VCA 
support activities. 
• Implementing what beneficiary farmers have learned from VCA support activities is strongly and 
positively associated with improved agricultural, dairy, and livestock production outcomes, including 
access to production inputs and services, sales, prices, and incomes. 
3.3 ACCESS TO INPUTS
3.3.1 Midterm
• Thirty-six percent of midterm respondents who raised crops reported that their access to agricultural 
inputs had improved by a great or very great extent as a direct result of VCA support. Also counting 
those who said it improved by a moderate extent, the percentage increases to 54 percent. However, 
14 percent of midterm respondents said that VCA’s activities did not improve access to agricultural 
inputs at all as a direct result of VCA support (Figure 3).
• Twenty-four percent of midterm respondents who raised livestock reported that their access to 
livestock inputs had increased by a great or very great extent as a direct result of VCA support. 
Counting those who said it improved by a moderate extent, the percentage increases to 42 percent. 
However, 26 percent of midterm respondents said that VCA’s activities did not improve access to 
livestock inputs at all (Figure 3). Fewer than 20 percent of respondents said that credit-based supply 
contracts, out-grower schemes, financial support, and VCA grants made accessing production input
supplies easier.
Figure 3: Extent of Improvement of Access to Agricultural and Livestock Inputs Attributed 
to VCA (Midterm)
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara found it easier to access livestock inputs, out-grower schemes, and financial 
support than respondents in Tigray (0<0.01). 
• Respondents in Oromia and Tigray were less likely to say that VCA support made accessing 
agricultural inputs easier than respondents in Amhara and SNNPR (p<0.01). 
6% 7%
29%
18%
16%
11%
14%
5%
3%
21%
18%
15%
13%
26%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Don't know To a very great
extent
To a great extent To a moderate
extent
To some extent To a small extent Not at all
Agricultural Inputs Livestock Inputs
3.3.2 Endline
• Depending on the VC in which they worked, a majority of endline respondents reported that access 
to the following inputs improved to a good or great extent as a direct result of VCA support: 
veterinary services, artificial insemination, quality feed, other production inputs, machinery and 
equipment, improved technologies, improved/certified/hybrid seeds, use of commercial spray services, 
and use of hermetic storage technology or PICS bags. 
Significant Differences
• In the maize VC, access to inputs (p<0.001), hermetic storage technology (PICS bags) (p<0.001), 
production inputs (p<0.05), and machinery and equipment (p<0.001) improved more for respondents
in Oromia than for respondents in SNNPR. 
• In the chickpea VC, access to inputs (p<0.05), seed production (p<0.05), spray services (p<0.05), PICS 
bags (p<0.05), and general production inputs (p<0.05) improved more for respondents in Oromia
than for respondents in Amhara (p<0.05). 
• In the coffee VC, access to production inputs (p<0.01) and machinery and equipment (p<0.01) 
improved more for respondents in Oromia than for respondents in SNNPR (p<0.01). 
3.3.3 Conclusions
• Overall, around one-quarter to one-half of VCA beneficiary farmers have materially improved their 
access to agricultural and livestock production inputs, depending on the VC and input in question. 
• This conclusion is indicative both of meaningful improvement in accessing inputs and that large 
numbers of beneficiary farmers still lack access vital production inputs. 
3.4 ACCESS TO FINANCE
3.4.1 Endline
• More than one-half of the endline respondents said that their access to finance increased by either a 
good or great extent as a direct result of VCA support (Figure 4). This includes 60 percent of dairy 
farmers, 60 percent of MLA producers, 51 percent of poultry producers, 56 percent of maize farmers, 
51 percent of chickpea farmers, and 65 percent of coffee farmers.
• Slightly more than one-half of dairy, MLA, and poultry respondents also reported that VCA support 
had improved their record keeping by a good or great extent as a direct result of VCA support. 
Significant Differences
• In the chickpea VC, access to finance improved more among men than among women (p<0.05). 
• In the MLA VC, access to finance improved more among men than among women (p<0.05). 
• In the chickpea VC, access finance improved more for respondents in Oromia than for respondents 
in Amhara (p<0.001). 
• In the coffee VC, access to finance improved more for respondents in Oromia than for respondents 
in SNNPR (p<0.01). 
Figure 4: Extent of Improvement of Access to Finance Across VCs Attributed to VCA 
(Endline)
3.4.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers have on average increased their access to finance after receiving VCA 
support. 
• Where VCA has provided support in book or record keeping (considered a pre-requisite to qualifying 
for a loan), that support has been effective in improving the beneficiaries’ book/record keeping 
capacity.
3.5 YIELDS 
3.5.1 Midterm
Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee
• More than 80 percent of midterm respondents noted an improvement in their maize, chickpea, and 
coffee yields after receiving VCA support, and more than half noted an increase of at least 10 percent
or higher after VCA support (Figure 5). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR were more likely to increase their maize yields by greater than
10 percent than were farmers in Oromia (p<0.001). 
7%
19%
5%
45%
15%
8% 5%
8%
16%
50%
16%
6%
11%
14% 13%
39%
12%
6%
3%
17% 19%
33%
23%
4%
1%
6%
16%
18%
24%
27%
9% 7%
13% 11%
36%
29%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know Refused
Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee
Figure 5: Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee Yield Improvement (Midterm)
Dairy
• Seventy percent of midterm respondents noted an improvement in their dairy yields/productivity after 
receiving VCA support, with more than half noting a 10 percent or higher increase after VCA support 
(Figure 6). 
Significant Differences
• Women were more likely than men to note an increase in their dairy yields after VCA support 
(p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR were more likely to see an increase in their dairy yields 
after VCA support than respondents in Tigray (p<0.001). 
Figure 6: Dairy Animals Yield Improvements (Midterm)
Cattle
• Eighty-four percent of midterm respondents who raised cattle saw an increase in their cattle yields 
after receiving VCA support; more than half noted an increase of at least 10 percent after VCA 
support (Figure 7). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR were more likely to see an increase in cattle yields after receiving
VCA support, whereas farmers in Tigray were less likely (p<0.001). 
3%
6%
17%
38%
34%
2%
7% 7%
21%
38%
26%
3%
13%
18%
40%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Less than before
technical assistance
About the same 1-10% higher 11 - 20 % higher More than 20%
higher
Don't Know
Maize Chickpea Coffee
4%
8% 9%
15%
29%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Don’t Know Less than before
technical assistance
About the same 1-10% higher 11-20% higher More than 20%
higher
Sheep 
• Nearly three-fourths of midterm respondents who raised sheep saw an increase in their sheep yields 
after receiving VCA support. This was distributed equally among the different ranges of improvement: 
1-10 percent, 10-20 percent, and greater than 20 percent (Figure 7). 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to report an improvement in sheep yields after receiving VCA 
support (p<0.05). 
Poultry
• Approximately two-thirds of midterm respondents who raised poultry reported higher poultry yields 
after receiving VCA support. 
• At the same time, around one-quarter of the same set of respondents reported lower poultry yields
than before receiving VCA technical support (Figure 7). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR were more likely to report an increase in poultry yields 
after receiving VCA support than respondents in Tigray (p<0.001). 
Goats 
• Eighty percent of midterm respondents who raised goats saw an increase in their goat yields after 
receiving VCA support. Nearly half of these noted 20 percent or higher yields following VCA support 
(Figure 7). 
Figure 7: Cattle, Goat, Sheep, and Poultry Yield Improvements (Midterm)
Access to and Adoption of Improved Livestock Production Practices, Infrastructure, and 
Equipment
• Contributing to the increased livestock yields reported by midterm CATI respondents, nearly two￾thirds of midterm respondents who raised livestock said that VCA support helped improve livestock 
operations by increasing their use of good livestock husbandry practices (Figure 8).
• In addition, around two-fifths of midterm respondents who raised livestock also reported that VCA’s 
support helped them improve infrastructure for raising livestock, increased their access to veterinary 
services (and improved livestock health), and increased their access/use of livestock inputs. 
12% 11%
18%
29% 27%
3%
8% 8%
15%
20%
45%
5%
12% 13%
21%
26% 25%
2%
24%
8%
26%
13%
26%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Less than before
technical assistance
About the same 1-10% higher 11 - 20 % higher More than 20%
higher
Don't Know
Cattle Goat Sheep Poultry
• Another one-fifth of the same midterm respondents reported that VCA support helped increase their
access to improved equipment for livestock raising. 
Significant Differences
• Non-youth respondents were more likely to report increased use of livestock husbandry practices 
than youth farmers (p<0.001). 
• Similarly, non-youth respondents were more likely than youth respondents to report that VCA 
support increased their access to vet services/livestock health services (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara and Tigray were more likely to report that VCA support increased their 
access/use of improved livestock inputs, good husbandry practices, vet services, infrastructure for 
raising livestock, and improved equipment than respondents in Oromia and SNNPR (p<0.01). 
Figure 8: Improved Productivity of Livestock Operations Attributed to VCA Support
(Midterm)
3.5.2 Endline
Dairy
• A majority of endline dairy respondents reported a good or great increase in animal health
(73 percent), total production (62 percent), yields (67 percent), and quality of milk sold (71 percent) 
after receiving VCA support (Figure 9). 
• Of those reporting good or great improvements, two-thirds attributed the improvement to VCA 
support. 
38%
67%
45%
45%
21%
16%
1%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Increased access and use of improved livestock inputs
Increased use of good livestock husbandry practices
Increased access to veterinary services and improved
livestock health
Improved infrastructure for raising livestock
Increased access to improved equipment
DID NOT HELP
Other [specify]
DON'T KNOW
Figure 9: Dairy Yield Improvements (Endline)
MLA
• A large majority of endline MLA respondents reported an increase in animal health (80 percent) and 
animal weight (77 percent) after receiving VCA support (Figure 10). 
• Of those reporting good or great improvements, approximately four-fifths attributed the 
improvements to VCA support. 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to report that animal weight had improved after VCA support 
(p<0.05). 
Figure 10: MLA Yield Improvements (Endline)
Poultry
• A majority of endline poultry respondents reported a good or great improvement in animal health
(64 percent), quality of pullets sold (61 percent), quality of eggs sold (65 percent), and stocking 
capacity (55 percent) after receiving VCA support (Figure 11). 
• Of those who reported good or great improvements, two-thirds attributed the improvements to 
VCA support. 
1%
12% 14%
53%
20%
1%
4%
16% 17%
43%
19%
1% 1%
8%
20%
53%
14%
4%
1%
7%
17%
49%
22%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Animal Health Total Production Yields Quality of Milk Sold
3%
15%
54%
26%
2% 2% 2%
16%
58%
19%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Animal Health Animal Weight
Figure 11: Poultry Yield Improvements (Endline)
Maize
• A majority of endline maize respondents reported a good or great improvement in total land under 
cultivation (68 percent), total production (77 percent), productivity (70 percent), post-harvest losses 
(62 percent), and quality of maize sold (75 percent) after receiving VCA support (Figure 12). 
• Of those who reported good or great improvements, two-thirds attributed the improvements to 
VCA support. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report that total land under cultivation had improved 
after receiving VCA support than respondents in SNNPR (p<0.01). 
Figure 12: Maize Yield Improvements (Endline)
2%
6%
24%
45%
19%
3% 3%
5%
23%
42%
19%
6%
1% 2%
4%
21%
45%
20%
7% 6%
9%
25%
44%
11%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know Refused
Animal Health Quality of Pullets Sold Quality of Eggs Sold Stocking Capacity
2%
19%
10%
46%
22%
1% 1% 1% 3%
18%
47%
30%
1% 1% 1%
4%
23%
47%
23%
2% 1%
3%
7%
25%
41%
21%
3% 1% 2% 3%
18%
44%
31%
2% 1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a
good deal
Improved a
great deal
Don't know Refused
Total land under cultivation Total Production Productivity Post-harvest losses Quality of Maize Sold
Chickpea
• A majority or near majority of endline chickpea respondents reported a good or great improvement 
in total land under cultivation (47 percent), total production (58 percent), productivity (63 percent), 
quality of chickpeas sold (68 percent), and seed production/multiplication (51 percent) after receiving 
VCA support (Figure 13).
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report a good or great improvement in total land under 
cultivation, total production productivity, post-harvest losses, quality of chickpeas sold, and seed 
production/multiplication than respondents in Amhara (p<0.05). 
• Men were more likely than women to report a good or great improvement in the quality of chickpeas 
sold (p<.0.01). 
Figure 13: Chickpea Yield Improvements (Endline)
Coffee
• A majority of endline coffee respondents reported a good or great improvement in total land under 
cultivation (77 percent), number of coffee trees (74 percent), total coffee production (79 percent), 
productivity (89 percent), post-harvest losses (75 percent), and quality of coffee sold (89 percent) 
after receiving VCA support (Figure 14). 
• Of those who reported good or great improvements, around three-quarters attributed the 
improvements to VCA support. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report that total land under cultivation, post-harvest 
losses, the number of trees, and total coffee production had improved compared to respondents in 
SNNPR (p<0.05). 
9%
27%
13%
30%
17%
5% 7% 8%
24%
31%
27%
3% 5%
11%
18%
38%
25%
3% 2%
13%
26%
33%
22%
5% 2%
8%
18%
38%
30%
5% 3%
13%
26%
31%
20%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Total land under Cultivation Total Production Productivity
Post harvest losses Quality of chickpeas sold Seed production/multiplication
Figure 14: Coffee Yield Improvements (Endline)
3.5.3 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers have improved their yields after receiving Activity support, regardless of 
production activity and VC in which they were engaged. 
• At the same time, beneficiaries have improved their production performance across a range of 
outcomes, including depending on the VC, total production, product quality, animal health and weight, 
post-harvest losses, land cultivated, and adoption of improved animal husbandry practices. 
• Between two-thirds to three-quarters of beneficiary farmers attribute these improvements to VCA 
support. 
3.6 MARKETING/COMMERCIAL LINKAGES
3.6.1 Midterm
• Forty-four percent of midterm respondents said there was nothing that VCA did that helped them 
market their crops (Figure 15). 
• In terms of specific types of marketing support, just under one-quarter of respondents said that VCA 
had provided support to improve crop quality to increase saleability (27 percent), provided market 
information (22 percent), facilitated fixed crop prices (21 percent), facilitated out-grower relationships 
(18 percent), facilitated trade fairs or support to sample products for prospective buyers (14 percent), 
and facilitated business-to-business linkages with prospective buyers (13 percent). 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to say that VCA provided support to improve crop quality for 
saleability (p<0.01). 
• Men were more likely than women to say that VCA facilitated business-to-business linkages with 
potential buyers (p<0.05). 
1%
11% 9%
51%
26%
1% 2%
9%
13%
47%
27%
2%
7%
11%
46%
33%
2% 3% 2%
5%
52%
37%
2% 1%
9% 8%
40%
35%
5% 3% 5%
52%
37%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Total land under cultivation Number of trees Total coffee production
Productivity Post harvest losses Quality of coffee sold
Figure 15: VCA Assistance in Crop Marketing (Midterm)
• When midterm respondents were asked how VCA could improve its marketing support for its 
beneficiary farmers, the most popular responses were to provide training on producing better quality 
products (76 percent), provide more training on market prices and profit margins (66 percent), and 
assist farmers to negotiate better prices with buyer (65 percent) (Figure 16). 
Significant Differences
• Compared to respondents in Tigray, respondents in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR were more likely 
to say that VCA should provide more assistance in negotiating contracts with buyers and more training 
in producing better-quality products and understanding market prices and profit margins (P<0.01). 
• Furthermore, proportionately more male respondents thought VCA should provide training in 
understanding market prices and profit margins (P<0.01).
Figure 16: Making VCA Assistance in Crop Marketing More Effective (Midterm)
18%
21%
27%
22%
14%
13%
14%
1%
44%
6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Facilitated out-grower contracts with guaranteed seed sale
to commercial seed companies and Cooperative Unions
Facilitated fixed price for selling crops
Provided training to improve crop quality for sell-ability
Improved timely and accurate market information system
Training in providing sampling products to potential buyers
Facilitated business to business linkages with potential
buyers
Facilitated trade fairs to link with potential buyers
Other [specify]
NONE
DON'T KNOW
65%
76%
66%
12%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Assist smallholder farmers in negotiating contracts with
buyers
Provide more training in producing a better-quality
product
Provide training in understanding market prices and profit
margins
Other [specify]
DON'T KNOW
3.6.2 Endline 
• A minority of endline respondents in all six VCs (ranging from 7-35 percent) claimed to have received 
direct VCA support in marketing and sales or to access commercial markets (buyers) (Figure 17).
• Notwithstanding the lack of direct Activity support provided in marketing and sales and in access to 
commercial markets (buyers), the majority of endline respondents in each of the six VCs reported 
that commercial linkages to buyers had improved by a good or great deal after receiving support from 
VCA, including 67 percent of dairy farmers, 72 percent of MLA producers, 54 percent of poultry 
producers, 71 percent of maize farmers, 53 percent of chickpea farmers, and 71 percent of coffee 
farmers (Figure 18). 
Significant Differences
• Commercial linkages to buyers improved more for maize farmers in Oromia compared to maize 
farmers in SNNPR (p<0.05). 
• Commercial linkages to buyers improved more for chickpea farmers in Amhara compared to chickpea 
farmers in Oromia (p<0.001). 
• Commercial linkages to buyers improved more for coffee farmers in Oromia compared to coffee 
farmers in SNNPR (p<0.05).
Figure 17: VCA Assistance in Market and Sales and in Accessing Markets (Endline)
22%
26% 26%
24%
31%
35%
13%
7%
9%
23%
15%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee
Marketing and sales Accessing market linkages
Figure 18: Improvement in Commercial Linkages to Buyers (Endline)
3.6.3 Conclusions
• Relatively few of VCA’s beneficiary farmers received direct Activity support in marketing and sales or 
to access commercial markets/buyers. 
• Despite the lack of direct Activity support in these areas, beneficiary farmers, on average, managed to 
improve their market linkages to commercial buyers after receiving VCA support, with the large 
majority of these attributing the improvement to VCA support.
• The above suggest at least two possible additional conclusions, or a combination of them. One is that 
beneficiaries did receive direct VCA support in marketing and sales and accessing commercial linkages 
but did not identify it as marketing, sales, or linkages support. The other is that Activity support in 
these areas was indirect or integrated in other types of support activities that made it difficult to 
beneficiaries to identify it as marketing, sales, or linkages support. 
3.7 SALES/INCOME
3.7.1 Endline 
Dairy
• A majority of endline dairy respondents reported a good or great increase in price per liter of milk 
sold (63 percent), volume of milk sold (67 percent), value of milk sold (65 percent), income from milk 
sold (68 percent), and sales to cooperatives/associations (65 percent) after receiving VCA support 
(Figure 19).
• Of those who reported a good or great improvement, approximately two-thirds attributed the 
improvement to VCA support. 
2%
14% 15%
44%
23%
2% 2%
9%
16%
49%
23%
2%
8%
12%
19%
39%
15%
7%
2%
10%
16%
50%
21%
1% 1%
5%
19% 18%
34%
19%
5% 4%
10% 11%
44%
27%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a
good deal
Improved a
great deal
Don't know Refused
Dairy MLA Poultry Maize Chickpea Coffee
Figure 19: Dairy Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
MLA
• A majority of endline MLA respondents reported a good or great improvement in the price per animal 
sold (78 percent), number of animals sold (66 percent), value of animals sold (75 percent), and income 
from animals sold (68 percent) after receiving VCA support (Figure 20). 
• Of those who reported a good or great improvement, approximately two-thirds attributed the 
improvement to VCA support. 
Figure 20: MLA Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
2%
9%
22%
41%
22%
3% 1%
7%
22%
44%
23%
2% 4% 4%
23%
45%
20%
3% 1%
12%
18%
42%
26%
1% 2%
12%
16%
45%
20%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Price per liter Volume of Milk Sales Value of Milk Sales
Income from Milk Sales Sales to Cooperations/Associations
2%
17%
55%
23%
2% 3%
7%
23%
46%
20%
3% 3%
20%
49%
26%
3% 1%
12%
18%
42%
26%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Price per animal sold Number of animals sold Value of animlas sold Income from animal Sales
Poultry
• A majority of endline pullet producers reported a good or great improvement in the price per pullet 
sold (65 percent), value of pullets sold (68 percent), volume of pullets sold (67 percent), and income 
from pullets sold (64 percent) (Figure 21). 
• A majority of egg producers reported a good or great improvement in the price per egg sold 
(62 percent), value of eggs sold (67 percent), volume of pullets sold (67 percent), and income from 
pullets sold (63 percent) (Figure 21). 
Figure 21: Poultry Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
Maize
• The majority of endline maize respondents reported a good or great improvement in price per quintal 
sold (77 percent), volume of maize sold (74 percent), value of maize sold (75 percent), and income 
from maize sold (73 percent) after receiving VCA support (Figure 22).
• Of those who reported a good or great improvement, approximately two-thirds attributed the 
improvement to VCA support. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report that the price and value of maize sold had 
improved compared to respondents in SNNPR (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Oromia and SNNPR were more likely to report that income from maize sales had 
improved than respondents in Amhara and Tigray (p<0.05). 
3% 5%
19%
47%
18%
7%
1%
5%
25%
46%
16%
6% 4% 5%
17%
51%
17%
6%
2%
5%
21%
49%
18%
4% 4% 5%
20%
47%
20%
2% 1% 2%
7%
18%
51%
16%
6%
2%
6%
22%
49%
14%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a
good deal
Improved a
great deal
Don't know Refused
Price per pullet Price per eggs Value of Pullet Sales Value of Egg Sales
Volume of Pullet Sales Volume of Egg Sales Income from Pullet Sales Income from Egg Sales
Figure 22: Maize Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
Chickpea
• The majority of endline chickpea respondents reported a good or great improvement in the price per 
kilogram sold (65 percent), volume of chickpeas sold (61 percent), value of chickpeas sold
(67 percent), and income from chickpeas sold (57 percent) after receiving support from VCA 
(Figure 23).
• Of those who reported a good or great improvement, approximately one-half attributed the 
improvement to VCA support. 
Significant Differences 
• Men were more likely than women to report a good or great improvement in chickpea sales (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report a good or great improvement in the price of 
chickpeas, the volume and value of chickpeas sold, and the income from chickpeas sold compared to 
respondents in Amhara (p<0.01). 
Figure 23: Chickpea Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
1%
4%
17%
43%
34%
1% 1% 1%
4%
19%
45%
29%
1% 1%
5%
18%
50%
25%
1% 2% 1% 3%
23%
51%
22%
1% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a
good deal
Improved a
great deal
Don't know Refused
Price per quintal of maize Volume of maize Sales Value of maize Sales Income from maize Sales
1%
9%
20%
38%
27%
5%
7% 8%
18%
41%
20%
6%
3%
9%
17%
39%
28%
3% 3%
11%
24%
32%
25%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a
good deal
Improved a
great deal
Don't know Refused
Price per kg of chickpeas Volume of chickpea Sales Value of chickpea Sales Income from chickpea Sales
Coffee
• The majority of endline coffee respondents reported an good or great improvement in the price per 
coffee products sold (79 percent), volume of coffee products sold (84 percent), value of coffee 
products sold (82 percent), and income from coffee products sold (81 percent) after receiving VCA 
support (Figure 24).
• Of those who reported a good or great improvement, three-quarters attributed the improvement to 
VCA support.
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report the volume of coffee products sold improved due 
to VCA support compared to respondents in Amhara (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely to report that the value of products sold and the income 
from coffee product sold improved compared to respondents in SNNPR (p<0.05). 
Figure 24: Coffee Sales/Income Improvements (Endline)
3.7.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers in each of its six priority VCs have improved the volume and value of sales, 
sales prices, and income from sales since receiving VCA support.
• One-half to three-quarters of beneficiaries attribute these improvements to VCA support.
3.8 USE OF ON-FARM PRODUCTION
3.8.1 Midterm
Maize
• On average, midterm maize respondents consume at home just under half of the maize they grow.
This is slightly greater than the percentage of maize they sell to the market, and much greater than 
the combined percentage of maize that they gift, use for seed, and store (Figure 25). 
Significant Differences
• Women sell more of the maize they produce than men (p<0.001). 
• Women consume slightly more of the maize they produce than men (p<0.001). 
2% 5%
11%
43%
36%
2% 4% 2%
8%
43% 41%
1% 4% 4% 8%
52%
30%
1% 2% 5%
10%
43%
38%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Worse Same Improved a little Improved a good
deal
Improved a great
deal
Don't know
Price per coffee products sold of maize Volume of coffee product Sales
Value of coffee product Sales Income from coffee product Sales
• Men gift roughly twice the percentage of maize produced than women and use more maize as seed 
(p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Amhara sell more of the maize they produce than respondents in Tigray and SNNPR
(p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Amhara consume the lowest percentage of maize produced compared to the other 
three regions (p<0.001). 
• Youth sell a greater percentage of maize they produce than the non-youth (p<0.001). 
• Youth use a slightly greater percentage of maize for seed than the non-youth (p<0.01). 
• Non-youth consume a greater percentage of maize than do the youth (p<0.001). 
Chickpea
• On average, midterm chickpea respondents sell a little under two-thirds of their chickpeas to the 
market. This is nearly twice as great as the percentage that they consume at home (a little more than
one-third) and much greater than the combined percentage of chickpeas that they gift, use for seed, 
and store (Figure 25). 
Coffee
• On average, midterm coffee respondents sell to the market a little more than half of the coffee they 
produce. This is slightly greater than the percentage of coffee they consume at home (a little over 
two-fifths) and much greater than the combined percentage of coffee they gift, use for seed, and store
(Figure 25). 
Figure 25: Average Percentage of Crop Produced for Purpose (Midterm)
3.8.2 Endline
Milk
• On average, endline dairy respondents sell nearly-three fifths of the milk they produce, while 
consuming approximately a quarter of their production at home and gifting or losing less than one￾tenth (Figure 26). 
45%
49%
2% 4% 2% 1%
59%
35%
1%
7%
1%
53%
43%
2% 5% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent produced
to sell
Percent produced
to consume
Percent produced
to gift
Percent produced
for seed
Percent produced
to store
Percent produced
for other uses
Maize Chickpea Coffee
Significant Differences
• Men consume at home slightly more of the milk they produce than women (p<0.001). 
• Men sell more of the milk they produce than women (p<0.001). 
• Men gift slightly more milk they produce than women (p<0.001). 
• Men lose slightly more of milk they produce than women (p<0.001). 
MLA 
• On average, endline MLA respondents sell nearly three-fifths of the livestock they raise, while 
consuming at home about one-third and gifting or only around 10%. 
Significant Differences
• Women consume more of the livestock they raise than men (p<0.001). 
• Women sell less of the livestock they raise than men (p<0.001). 
• Women give away less of the livestock they raise than men (p<0.001).
• Women lose less of the livestock they raise than men (p<0.001).
Eggs
• On average, endline poultry respondents sell nearly three-fifths of the eggs they produce, while 
consuming at home nearly one-third and gifting or losing less than one-tenth of their eggs. 
Significant Differences
• Women consume a higher percentage of eggs produced than men (p<0.001). 
• Women gift a slightly lower percentage of their eggs then men (p<0.001). 
• Women lose slightly less of their eggs than men (p<0.001). 
• Men sell slightly more of the eggs they produced than women (p<0.001).
Poultry
• On average, endline pullet producers sell nearly three-fifths of the poultry they produce and consume 
nearly three-tenths at home. Pullets produced that are then gifted or lost constitute 12% of pullet 
production. 
Significant Differences
• Women consume more pullets at home than men (p<0.001). 
• Men sell a higher percentage of pullets than women (p<0.001). 
• Women gift a slightly lower percentage of pullets than men (p<0.001). 
• Women lose slightly more pullets raised than men (p<0.001). 
Maize
• On average, maize producers sell 40% of the chickpeas they produce and 44%, while maize production 
that is either gifted or lost constitutes 15% of total maize production. 
Chickpea
• On average, endline chickpea producers sell just over one-third of the chickpeas they produce and 
consume just under one-half. Chickpea production that is either gifted or lost constitutes less than 
10% of total production, while chickpeas used for seed equals 10% of chickpeas produced. 
Coffee
• Endline coffee respondents sell more than half of the coffee they produce, while consuming nearly 
one-third and gifting, using for seed, or losing a little more than one-tenth (Figure 26). 
Figure 26: Average Percentage of Production Used for Different Purposes by VC (Endline)
3.8.3 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers on average sell approximately between 44% and 59% of the milk, MLA, eggs, 
pullets, eggs, maize, chickpea, and coffee they produce and (with a single exception in the mid-term 
survey) sell more than they consume at home.
• The same farmers consume at home on average around one-third of what they produce in each VC 
with a low of 28 percent and a high of 49 percent. 
• The percentage of production that is either gifted, lost, or produced for seed never exceeds 
20 percent and is consistenly in single digits or the low teens.
3.9 IMPROVED PRACTICES
3.9.1 Midterm
• From one-third to nearly two-thirds of midterm respondents growing maize, chickpea, or coffee 
reported that VCA helped them improve their on-farm performance by increasing the use of irrigation
(35 percent), improved post-harvest practices (35 percent), improved harvesting practices 
(41 percent), good agricultural practices (50 percent), chemicals (38 percent), insect/pest controls
(42 percent), fertilizer (63 percent), and improved seeds (63 percent) after receiving support from 
VCA (Figure 27). 
• Among these, increased use of fertilizer, improved seeds, and good agricultural practices were the 
most helpful forms of assistance for midterm respondents. 
28%
58%
7% 6%
31%
57%
5% 6%
32%
59%
3% 6%
30%
57%
3%
9%
40%
44%
8% 7%
35%
47%
5% 4%
10%
28%
56%
6% 5% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent produced to
consume
Percent produced to
sell
Percent produced to
gift
Percent produced then
lost
Percent produced for
seed
Dairy MLA Eggs Pullets Maize Chickpea Coffee
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR increased their use of improved seeds, fertilizer, insect/pest 
control, chemicals, good agricultural practices, and improved harvesting practices more than 
respondents in Oromia (p<0.01). 
• Men increased their use of pest control, good agricultural practices, and improved post-harvest 
practices more than women (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR increased their use of improved post-harvest practices and 
irrigation more than respondents in Tigray (p<0.01). 
Figure 27: Improved Practices for Crop Performance (Midterm)
3.9.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers growing maize, chickpea, or coffee have increased their adoption of improved 
production and post-harvest practices after receiving Activity support, although with wide variation 
in adoption rates depending on the specific practice, ranging from one-third to two-thirds of 
beneficiaries.
3.10 INCREASED INVESTMENTS
3.10.1 Midterm
Farming Operations Investments
• Nearly two-thirds of midterm respondents growing maize, chickpea, or coffee invested in improved 
seeds after receiving VCA assistance (Figure 28). 
• However, nearly one-fifth of the same respondents reported that VCA assistance did not help increase 
their investment in farming operations, which is larger than the percentage of farmers who invested 
in post-harvest storage facilities and farm tools/equipment for both production and post-production. 
63%
63%
42%
38%
50%
41%
35%
35%
1%
14%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Increased use of Improved seeds
Increased use of fertilizer
Increased use of Insect and pest controls
Increased use of ther chemicals like fungicides and…
Increased use of good agricultural practices
Increased use of improved harvesting practices
Increased use of improved post-harvest practices
Increased use of irrigation
Other
DIDN'T HELP
DON'T KNOW
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia and SNNPR were both more likely to invest in quality inorganic fertilizer and 
PICS bags than respondents in Amhara and Tigray (p<0.05). 
• Men are more likely than women to invest in both herbicides and pesticides (p<0.05). 
Figure 28: Investments in Farming Operations (Midterm)
Livestock Operations Investments
• Nearly half of the midterm respondents raising livestock invested in more routine veterinary visits 
after receiving VCA assistance (Figure 29). 
• Over a quarter of the same respondents did not invest in anything with VCA assistance, which is a 
larger amount than those who invested in own production of improved fodder crops (24%), 
mechanization (15%), and machinery and equipment (10%) (whether to improve livestock 
breed/breeding or to lower manual labor time and costs). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia and Tigray were more likely to invest in livestock than respondents in Amhara 
and SNNPR (p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Tigray were more likely to invest both in increased use of improved livestock inputs 
and more routine vet visits than respondents in Oromia, Amhara, and SNNPR (p<0.001). 
• Similarly, non-youth were more likely to invest in increased use of improved livestock inputs and more 
routine vet visits than youth (p<0.01). 
63%
37%
31%
9%
15%
44%
11%
1%
19%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Improved seed
Quality inorganic fertilizer
Appropriate herbicides and pesticides
Farm tools/equipment/and machinery for production
Postharvest storage facilities
Hermetic storage bags
Farm tools/equipment/and machinery for post-production
Other [specify]
DIDN'T HELP
DON'T KNOW
Figure 29: Investments in Livestock Operations (Midterm)
Livestock Input Purchasing
• Less than one-half (45 percent) of midterm respondents tending livestock invested in 
inputs/machinery/equipment/construction materials (Figure 30). 
• Those who did purchase the above were more likely to do so using cash rather than credit. 
Figure 30: How Livestock Inputs were Purchased (Midterm)
3.10.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers increased their investments in their crops and livestock production activities 
after receiving Activity support; however, the rate of investment varied from low to moderate 
depending on the item and was typically much lower than 50 percent (achieving this threshold only 
twice).
3.11 POST HARVEST 
3.11.1 Midterm
• More than two-fifths of midterm crop farmers reported attending a VCA training on crop post-harvest 
drying, storage, and handling practices, and more than one-third of crop farmers reported that VCA’s 
assistance helped them increase their use of improved post-harvest practices. 
24%
45%
33%
15%
10%
48%
27%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Own production of improved fodder crops
Increased use of improved livestock inputs
Improved infrastructure for raising and keeping livestock
More mechanization to lower manual labor time and costs
More machinery and equipment to improved livestock
breeds and breeding techniques
More routine veterinary visits
NONE
DON'T KNOW
23%
10%
2%
50%
14%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
With cash
On credit
Both cash and credit
You did not buy inputs/machinery/equipment
DON'T KNOW
REFUSED
• More than half of the midterm crop farmers reported that each of the following methods of VCA 
training on post-harvest practices made a big difference in lowering their post-harvest losses: training 
in integrated pest management (IPM) (59 percent), training in the use of hermetic storage bins/bags
(63 percent), training in crop drying (69 percent), and training in cleaning (59 percent) (Figure 31). 
Significant Differences
• Men found the post-harvest handling (PHH) training for both drying and IPM to be more effective at 
reducing post-harvest losses than women (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR found PHH training for cleaning to be more effective at reducing 
their post-harvest losses than respondents in Oromia and Tigray (p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Amhara and SNNPR found the PHH trainings for drying, storage bags, and IPM to be 
more effective at reducing their post-harvest losses than farmers in Oromia (p<0.001). 
Figure 31: VCA Assistance Lowering Post-Harvest Losses (Midterm)
3.11.2 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers in the maize, chickpea, and coffee VCs have increased their adoption of a 
range of post-harvest practices with adoption rates averaging in excess of 60 percent for all practices 
included in the survey.
3.12 GENDER AND YOUTH 
3.12.1 Midterm
Household Decision-Making: Crops
• Approximately two-thirds of midterm respondents growing maize, chickpea, and coffee reported that
women and men made household decisions jointly regarding the production and sale of their crops 
and another one-fifth each reported that women were the primary decision-makers or that men were 
the primary decision-makers (Figure 32). 
59%
69%
63%
59%
10%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Training in cleaning
Drying the crop
Training in the use of hermetic storage bags
Training in integrated pest management of stored
Other [specify]
NONE
Figure 32: Household Decision-Making Regarding Maize, Chickpea, and Coffee Production 
and Sales (Midterm)
Household Decision-Making: Livestock
• Just over one-half of midterm respondents raising livestock reported that women and men made 
household decisions jointly regarding the production and sale of livestock and around one-fifth each 
reported that women were the primary decision-makers or that men were the primary decision￾makers (Figure 33).
Significant Differences
• Men were much more likely than women to believe that males and females in their households made 
decisions jointly regarding the production and sale of livestock (p<0.001). 
• Men were more likely than women to believe that men were the primary decision-makers, whereas 
women were more likely than men to believe that women were the primary decision-makers 
regarding livestock production and sales (p<0.001).
• Non-youth were more likely than youth to believed that either women were the primary decision￾makers or that females and males jointly decided on livestock production (p<0.001) and sales (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray were more likely to report that males and females were 
joint decision-makers regarding livestock production and sales (p<0.01).
Household Decision-Making: Poultry
• Approximately three-fifths of midterm poultry producers reported that women and men made 
household decisions jointly regarding the production and sale of poultry, while around one-fifth each 
reported that women were the primary decision-makers or that men were the primary decision￾makers (Figure 33). 
Significant Differences
• Men were much more likely than women to believe that women and men made decisions jointly 
regarding the production and sale of poultry. 
• Men were more likely than women to believe that men were the primary decision-makers, whereas 
women were more likely than men to believe that women were the primary decision-makers 
regarding livestock production and sales (p<0.001).
18%
22%
18% 19% 16% 20% 15%
11%
17% 15%
11%
18%
65% 67%
63% 65%
73%
60%
1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Maize Production Chickpea
Production
Coffee Production Maize Sales Chickpea Sales Coffee Sales
Male by Himself Female by Herself Male and Female Jointly Other Don't Know
Figure 33: Household Decision-Making Regarding Livestock and Poultry Production and 
Sales (Midterm)
Empowerment
• Between 40-50 percent of midterm respondents reported being empowered by VCA’s training and 
TA in marketing (41 percent), on-farm production (43 percent), control over income (46 percent), 
and decision-making (46 percent), whereas fewer than 10 percent of respondents reported no 
empowerment stemming from VCA’s support (Figure 34).
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to believe that VCA support has empowered them in post-harvest 
activities and on-farm production (p<0.001). 
• Non-youth were more likely than youth to believe that VCA helped empower them in decision￾making (p<0.01) and participation and leadership (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara were more likely than respondents in the other three regions to believe that 
VCA empowered them in decision-making (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely than respondents in the other three regions to believe that 
VCA empowered them concerning control over income (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara were likely than respondents in SNNPR to believe that VCA empowered 
them concerning post-harvest activities (p<0.001). 
22%
19%
54%
4%
1%
19% 19%
55%
4% 2%
21% 20%
56%
2% 1%
20% 21%
56%
2% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Male by himself Female by herself Male and female jointly Other DON'T KNOW
Livestock Production Livestock Sales Poultry Production Poultry Sales
Figure 34: Empowerment from VCA Support (Midterm)
3.12.2 Endline
Women and Youth in Farmer Cooperatives/Associations
• Approximately three-fifths of endline cooperative/association members said that VCA positively 
influenced both women’s participation in farmer cooperatives/associations and training for and 
placement in leadership positions in their farmer cooperative/association to a good or great extent
(Figure 35).
• A similar percentage of endline cooperative/association members said that VCA positively influenced 
youth participation and opportunities in their farmer cooperative/association to a good or great 
extent. 
• Almost all endline cooperative/association members said that VCA had at least some influence on
women’s participation and leadership training and placement and youth participation and opportunities 
in their farmer cooperative/association. 
Significant Differences
• Women were more likely than men to believe that VCA assistance had a great influence on both 
youth participation and opportunities in their farmer cooperative/association (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Oromia, Amhara, and SNNPR were much more likely than respondents in Tigray to 
say that VCA assistance contributed to an increase in women’s participation, leadership training, and 
leadership placement and in youth participation and opportunities in their cooperative/association
(p<0.001). 
46%
46%
18%
31%
22%
43%
41%
6%
11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
In decision making
Control over income
In access to resources
In participation and leadership
Post-harvest activities
On Farm production
In marketing
No empowerment
DON'T KNOW
Figure 35: VCA Influence on Women in Farmer Cooperative/Association (Endline)
Women and Youth Trainings Received
• More than two-fifths of endline survey respondents did not know whether they have received trainings 
on topics related to women and/or youth from VCA (Figure 36).
• Nearly three out of ten respondents said they received training on the Transformative Household 
Methodology (THM) and about one-third reported having received other trainings on women and 
youth.6 
Significant Differences
• More respondents in Oromia, SNNPR, and Tigray reported receiving THM training than respondents 
in Amhara (p<0.05). 
• More respondents in Oromia and Amhara reported receiving other trainings related to women than 
respondents in Tigray (p<0.001). 
• More respondents in Oromia reported receiving trainings related to youth than farmers in Amhara 
(p<0.001). 
• Respondents who received the most VCA support in the coffee and MLA VCs were more likely to 
receive other trainings related to women (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in the coffee, maize, and chickpea VCs were more likely to receive other trainings related 
to youth than respondents in the coffee, dairy, or MLA VCs (p<0.01) 
• Respondents who received the most VCA support in the poultry VC were less likely to receive other 
trainings related to youth (p<0.05). 
6 THM is a participatory approach used to spark dialogue within households and communities. THM looks at both productive and 
household responsibilities and identifies whether there are household members – typically women and girls – who are responsible 
for a disproportionate amount of work.
5%
9%
16%
46%
16%
8% 6%
12%
17%
40%
17%
8% 6%
12%
16%
40%
18%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
No influence A little influence Moderate influence Good influence Great influence Don't Know
Participation in farmer cooperative/association
Training for leadership positions in farmer cooperative/association
Placement in leadership positions in farmer cooperative/association
Figure 36: Women/Youth Training Received (Endline)
Women/Youth Trainings’ Contributions
• Over 90 percent of endline survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the women’s training 
provided by VCA contributed to: 
o A more equitable sharing of household decision-making about financial matters and agriculture 
or agri-business activities between women and men (Figure 37), 
o A more equitable sharing of domestic tasks between women and men (Figure 37), 
o A more equitable sharing of agriculture/agri-business tasks between women and men 
(Figure 37), 
o Increased opportunities for women to participate in agriculture/agri-business activities
(Figure 37), and 
o Increased leadership opportunities for women in agriculture/agri-business activities 
(Figure 37). 
• Over 90 percent of endline survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the youth training 
provided by VCA contributed to: 
o Increased opportunities for youth to participate in agriculture/agri-business activities
(Figure 38), and
o Increased leadership opportunities for youth in agriculture/agri-business activities (Figure 38).
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia were more likely than respondents in the other three regions to agree that
VCA’s women’s training had contributed to a more equitable sharing of decision-making about 
financial matters between women and men in their households (p<0.01). 
29%
35%
32%
43%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Transformative Household
Methodology
Other training on women Other training on youth Don't Know
Figure 37: How VCA Women's Training Contributed to Increased Equity Between Men 
and Women (Endline)
Figure 38: How VCA Women's Training Contributed to Increased Opportunities for Youth
(Endline)
1%
5% 2%
58%
34%
1%
4% 2%
55%
36%
2% 2% 3%
61%
33%
2% 4%
60%
33%
1%
4%
1%
59%
35%
1% 1% 3% 2%
59%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly agree DON’T KNOW
More equitable sharing of decision-making about financial matters
More equitable sharing of decision-making about agriculture or agri-business activities
More equitable sharing of domestic tasks
More equitable sharing of agricultural or agri-business tasks
Increased opportunities for women to participate in agriculture and agri-business activities
Increased leadership opportunities for women in agriculture and agri-business activities
1% 3% 2%
56%
36%
1% 1%
4% 2%
55%
38%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor
disagree
Agree Strongly agree DON’T KNOW
Increased opportunities for youth to participate in agriculture and agri-business activities
Increased leadership opportunities for youth in agriculture and agri-business activities
3.12.3 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers largely agree that women and men jointly make decisions about the 
production and sale of crops and livestock within farmer households.
• VCA training on gender empowerment issues contributed at the midterm to empowering beneficiary 
farmers in areas such as marketing, production, control over income, and intra-household decision￾making, although this effect was reported in fewer than one-half of training participants.
• By the endline, however, substantial majorities of beneficiary farmers who participated in Activity 
gender and youth empowerment trainings claimed that the trainings had improved women’s and 
youth’s participation and leadership opportunities within their farmer cooperatives and their overall
empowerment as measured by things like opportunities to participate and take leadership roles 
agricultural and agribusiness production and (for women) sharing of domestic and agricultural 
production tasks with men and improved intra-household decision-making.
3.13 NUTRITION
3.13.1 Midterm
Nutrition Training
• Nearly half of midterm respondents said they attended a VCA training program related to nutritional 
habits on food preservation and storage, food safety and diet diversity, and improved food preparation 
techniques (Figure 39).
• Between one-half and two-thirds of these same respondents said each of these three types of trainings 
helped them improve their household’s access to safe and diverse foods to a great or very great 
extent. 
Significant Differences
• Non-youths attended VCA trainings related to nutritional habits more than youths (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in Amhara and Oromia participated in VCA trainings on nutritional habits more than 
respondents in Tigray and SNNPR (p<0.001). 
• Respondents in Amhara, SNNPR, and Tigray were more likely than respondents in Oromia to say that 
VCA’s nutrition training helped them improve their household’s access to safe and diverse foods 
(p<0.001). 
Figure 39: Extent to Which VCA Nutrition Training Improved Access to Safe and Diverse 
Foods (Midterm)
4% 3%
9%
24%
27%
30%
3% 2% 4%
11%
19%
30%
33%
2%
4% 5%
10%
21%
24%
32%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Not at all To a small
extent
To some extent To a moderate
extent
To a great
extent
To a very great
extent
DON'T
KNOW
Food preservation and storage Food safety and diet diversity Improved food preparation techniques
Nutrition Behavior Change
• Nearly all (97 percent) of midterm respondents who received VCA nutrition support said that the 
support stimulated a behavior change in their and their children’s nutrition and eating habits. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Tigray were more likely that respondents in other regions to claim that VCA support 
stimulated behavioral changes in nutrition and eating habits (p<0.001). 
3.13.2 Endline
Nutritional Status
• Just short of one-half of endline respondents said that VCA is working to improve the nutritional 
status of women and children to a good or large extent (Figure 40).
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara were more likely than farmers in SNNPR to say that 
VCA is working to improve the nutritional status of women and children (p<0.001). 
Figure 40: Extent to Which VCA Is Working to Improve the Nutritional Status of Women 
and Children (Endline)
Nutritional Training Participation
• More than half of endline respondents said they have participated in training programs related to 
nutritional habits provided by VCA, and nearly one-third said they have not (Figure 41). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Oromia participated in nutritional habits training programs more than respondents in 
the other three regions surveyed (p<0.001). 
22%
35%
13%
16%
6%
9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Don't know
To a good extent
To a large extent
To a moderate extent
To a small extent
Not at all
Figure 41: Participation in VCA Training Programs Related to Nutritional Habits (Endline)
Nutritional Training Effects
• Nine of ten endline respondents reported that VCA nutritional training improved each of the following 
to a good or great extent in their households: access to diverse and nutritious foods; behavior change 
in the eating habits of the children, women, and adults; diversified and nutritious diets eaten by 
children, women, and adults; and the nutritional status of children, women, and adults. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara, Oromia, and SNNPR were more likely than respondents in Tigray to agree
that: 
o Household access to diverse and nutritious foods had improved after VCA’s nutritional
training (p<0.05), 
o Nutritional training stimulated behavior change in the eating habits of women and adults
(p<0.01), 
o Children, women, and adults ate more diversified and nutritious diets because of the 
nutritional training (p<0.01), and 
o Nutritional training improved the nutritional status of children and adults (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara and Oromia were more likely than farmers in SNNPR and Tigray to agree
that the nutritional training stimulated behavior change in the eating habits of children (p<0.01) and 
improved the nutritional status of women in their households (p<0.05). 
3.13.3 Conclusions
• VCA beneficiary farmers who participated in nutritional trainings increased their access to safe and 
nutritious foods, adopted improved nutritional habits, including the consumption of a more diverse 
and healthy diet for themselves and their children, and improved their and their children’s nutritional 
status. 
• While reported nutritional outcomes were generally positive at the midterm, they had become 
significantly more positive by the endline.
3.14 INCOME DIVERSIFICATION
3.14.1 Endline
Number and Diversity of Income-Generating Activities
• Since receiving VCA support, more than half of endline respondents have increased both the number 
and diversity of IGAs in their household (Figure 42). 
55% 32%
13%
Yes No Don't Know
• Of those who increased the diversity of IGAs, 76 percent increased their diversity of non-agriculture 
IGAs.
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to have increased the number of IGAs (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in the maize, chickpea, coffee, or dairy VCs were more likely to increase the number of 
IGAs than respondents in the poultry and MLA VCs (p<0.05).
Figure 42: Increased IGAs After Receiving VCA Assistance (Endline)
Increased/Diversified Income Attributed to VCA 
• Of those endline respondents who had increased and/or diversified the number of IGAs, slightly less 
than two-thirds in each case attributed the increase/diversification to a good or great extent to VCA 
support (Figure 43). 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely than women to attribute the increased number/diversity of IGAs to VCA 
support (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in Amhara were more likely to attribute the increased number/diversification of IGAs 
to VCA support (p<0.05).
54%
37%
9%
55%
38%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes No Don't Know
Increased # of IGA Increased Diversity of IGA
Figure 43: Extent of Increased/Diversified IGAs Attributed to VCA (Endline)
Effects on Households 
• Over one-half of endline respondents said the primary effect of increasing the number/diversity of 
IGAs was an increase in household income followed at a distance by an improved diet (Figure 44).
Figure 44: IGA Effects on Household (Endline)
5%
6%
26%
43%
21%
7%
7%
20%
42%
24%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Not at all
A small extent
A moderate extent
A good extent
A great extent
Diversified IGA outside of Agriculture Extent Diversified IGA Extent
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
18%
9%
6%
2%
56%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Don’t Know 
Other
No Impact
Increased participation in IGA for youth in household
Increased participation in IGA for women in household
Improved diet (more diversified food/increased
consumption of nutritious foods)
Increased non-food household expenditures
Increased food expenditures
More stable income
Increased income
3.14.2 Conclusions
• VCA farmer beneficiaries who received support in IGA diversification successfully increased the 
number and/or diversity of their household IGAs, albeit by a small majority. Overall, those who did 
diversify their IGAs attributed it to VCA support.
• Those beneficiary farmers who did diversify their IGAs did so predominantly in non-agriculture IGAs. 
• The primary benefit to IGA diversification is increased income with an improved diet coming in a 
distant second.
3.15 COOPERATIVE/ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
3.15.1 Endline
Cooperative/Association Membership
• Nearly two-thirds of endline respondents belong to a cooperative or association (Figure 45). 
Significant Differences
• Men were more likely to be members of cooperatives or associations than women (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in the dairy, maize, chickpea, and coffee VCs were more likely to be a cooperative or 
association member than respondents in the poultry or MLA VCs (p<0.001). 
Cooperative/Association Assistance
• Nearly three-fourths of cooperative/association members in the endline survey received assistance 
from VCA to improve their cooperative’s/association’s operating capacity (Figure 46). 
Significant Differences
• Cooperative/association members in Oromia and SNNPR were more likely to receive VCA assistance, 
than members in Tigray and Amhara (p<0.001). 
Figure 45: Farmers Belong to Cooperative 
(Endline) 
Figure 46: Cooperatives Get VCA 
Assistance (Endline)
65%
33%
2%
Yes No Don't Know
72%
24%
3%
Yes No Don't Know
Level of Cooperative/Association Services
• Half of the endline cooperative/association members reported that their cooperative or association
has provided more services since receiving VCA support (Figure 47).
Significant Differences
• Cooperatives/associations in Oromia and SNNPR were more likely to offer more services after 
receiving VCA support than cooperatives/associations in Amhara and Tigray (p<0.01).
Figure 47: Provision of Cooperative/Association Services Since VCA Assistance (Endline)
Cooperative/Association Purchases From Members
• More than half of the endline cooperative/association members reported that their 
cooperative/association is buying more from its members since receiving VCA support (Figure 48).
Figure 48: Amount of Production Bought From Cooperative/Association Members Since 
VCA Support (Endline)
22%
17%
50%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Fewer services About the same as before More services Don't Know
8%
19%
62%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Buying less Buying about the same as
before
Buying more Don't Know
Significant Differences
• Cooperatives/associations in Oromia and SNNPR buy a greater amount of member production than 
cooperatives/associations in Amhara and Tigray (p<0.01). 
• Cooperatives/associations in the MLA, maize, chickpea, and coffee VCs bought more of their 
members’ production than those in the poultry and dairy VCs (p<0.01). 
Operations of Cooperatives/Associations 
• Three-fourths of cooperative/association members reported that their cooperative/association is 
operating better or much better since receiving assistance from VCA (Figure 49). 
Significant Differences
• Cooperative/association members in Oromia, Amhara, and SNNPR were more likely to report that
their cooperative/association had improved their operations than respondents in Tigray (p<0.001). 
Figure 49: Operations of Cooperatives Since Receiving VCA Support (Endline) 
3.15.2 Conclusions
• Those farmer cooperatives or associations that received VCA capacity-building support by and large 
improved the quality of services offered to their members, including purchasing more produce from 
them, and were operating better after receiving Activity capacity-building support.
3.16 COVID-19 
3.16.1 Midterm
COVID-19 Effects on Farmers
• More than half of midterm respondents reported that, despite the health crisis related to COVID-19, 
their agricultural production has remained about the same, while fewer than 20 percent said it had 
worsened (Figure 50). 
• Forty-five (45) percent of midterm respondents reported that, despite the health crisis related to 
COVID-19, their ability to sell their agricultural products has remained the same compared to
38 percent who said their ability to sell agricultural products was either somewhat or much worse. 
Significant Differences
• Youth were more unsure of how COVID-19 affected their agricultural production compared to non￾youth (p<0.05). 
1%
8% 7%
47%
28%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Much worse A little worse About the same Better Much Better Don't Know
• Youth were more likely to report that their ability to sell products during the COVID-19 pandemic 
was much worse, whereas non-youth farmers were more likely to report their ability to sell products 
was only somewhat worse (p<0.05). 
Figure 50: COVID-19 Effect on Agriculture Production and Agriculture Sales (Midterm) 
3.16.2 Endline
COVID-19 Effects on Farmers
• Two-fifths of endline respondents reported that, despite COVID-19, their total production, 
yields/productivity, production costs, sales, and income remained the same (Figure 51). 
• Nearly one-half of the respondents further reported that their total production, yields/productivity, 
production costs, sales, and income had worsened due to COVID-19. 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Tigray were more likely to experience worsened total production, productivity, 
production costs, sales, and income due to COVID-19 than other regions (p<0.01). 
• Women were more likely to report that COVID-19 had negatively affected yields/productivity, 
whereas men felt that productivity was the same or better (p<0.01). 
• Women were more likely than men to report that COVID-19 had worsened production costs and 
income (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in the poultry VC reported that COVID-19 had worsened their production costs and 
incomes more so than in the other VCs (p<0.05). 
• Respondents in the poultry, dairy, or maize VCs were more likely to report that COVID-19 had 
worsened their sales than respondents in the other VCs (p<0.05). 
6%
13%
59%
4% 6% 1%
11% 11%
27%
45%
5% 3% 1%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Much
lower/worse
Lower/worse About the same Above average Much
higher/better
Refused Don't Know
Agriculture Production Agriculture Sales
Figure 51: COVID-19 Effect on Agriculture (Endline) 
VCA COVID-19 Support
• More than half of endline respondents reported that VCA has provided them with support to help 
deal with COVID-19, with most endline farmers receiving COVID-19 prevention awareness campaign 
support or mask and hand sanitizer supplies (Figure 52). 
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Tigray were less likely to receive information from VCA about other forms of support 
for dealing with COVID-19 compared to respondents in other regions (p<0.001).
• Respondents in the maize, chickpea, and coffee VCs were more likely to receive information about 
other forms of support for COVID-19 respondents in the dairy, MLA, and poultry VCs (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in the coffee or dairy VCs were more likely to receive COVID-19 prevention awareness 
campaign support than respondents in the other five VCs (p<0.01). 
• Respondents in the maize and chickpea VCs were less likely to receive COVID-19 prevention 
awareness campaign support (p<0.05) and respondents in Amhara and Tigray and in the chickpea VC 
were more likely to receive support for mask and hand sanitizer supplies (p<0.05). 
13%
41%
19%
13% 12%
2%
12%
42%
19%
12% 12%
2%
14%
38%
19%
13% 14%
2%
13%
37%
19%
15% 14%
2%
12%
38%
20%
14% 14%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Better Same A little worse A good deal worse A great deal worse Don't know
Total Production Yield/Productivity Production Costs Sales Income
Figure 52: Type of COVID-19 Support Received From VCA (Endline)
Usefulness of VCA COVID-19 Support
• Ninety-five (95) percent of endline respondents found VCA’s COVID-19 support to be useful or very 
useful (Figure 53).
Significant Differences
• Respondents in Amhara, Tigray, and SNNPR were more likely to find the COVID-19 support useful 
or very useful, whereas farmers in Oromia were less likely to find the support useful (p<0.001). 
Figure 53: Usefulness of VCA COVID-19 Support (Endline)
2% 1%
25%
66%
85%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Nothing Other Activities were
Stopped
Other Equipment
and materials
Mask and gel Covid prevention
awareness raising
campaign
2% 3%
24%
71%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A little useful Moderately useful Useful Very useful Don't Know
3.16.3 Conclusions
• A plurality to a majority of VCA farmer beneficiaries have not been adversely affected by the COVID￾19 pandemic in terms of their production costs, production, yields, sales, and income. Those who are 
either a good deal or great deal worse are more or less matched by those who claim to be better off. 
The sum of those who are a good deal or great deal worse is still less than those who are no better 
or worse off as a result.
• Nonetheless, the (approximately) one-half of beneficiaries who received VCA COVID-19 support
have, on balance, benefited significantly from that support.
3.17 POLITICAL/CIVIL UNREST
3.17.1 Endline
Political and Civil Effects
• Thirty-eight percent of endline respondents said that political or civil instability or violence had 
worsened their agriculture or agri-business activity a good or great deal compared to approximately 
one-third who said it had no effect (Figure 54). 
Significant Differences
• Political or civil instability or violence negatively affected the agriculture or agri-business activity of 
farmers in Tigray the most relative to the other three regions (p<0.001). 
Figure 54: Effects of Political/Civil Unrest on Agriculture/Agribusiness (Endline)
3.17.2 Conclusions
• Political and civil unrest has adversely affected about the same percentage of VCA beneficiary farmers 
as those who are either no worse off or better off than before they received VCA support. 
12%
35%
11% 11%
27%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Better Same A little worse A good deal worse A great deal worse Don't know