September 2021
This publication was produced by World Relief DR Congo at the request of the United States Agency for 
International Development, and represents a final end line evaluation for project number 
720FDA20GR00166.
Prepared and produced by the D-M&E Department of World Relief DR Congo.
“Emergency Response in Tanganyika Province in Democratic 
Republic of the Congo: Agriculture and Food Security Program”
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
World Relief DR Congo in general and the Department of Design-M&E in particular are
grateful for the efforts of each individual who participated in all the activities carried out within 
the framework of the execution of this great project.
World Relief DR Congo continues to be grateful to its partner USAID/BHA for this funding 
which has alleviated the suffering of 27,438 households affected by violence in the province of 
Tanganyika. The initial report, focus group discussions and key informant interviews were a 
good starting point for the journey that this report concludes.
The Department of Design-M&E conducted a review and analysis in conjunction with the 
document review of project progress reports from the twelve months of project 
implementation. The Department of Design-M&E is grateful to the entire World Relief team who 
intervened from near or far for the smooth running of the field activities within the framework of 
this project, and to everyone else who worked toward the success of this final evaluation.
This report was made possible thanks to the great efforts of 17 enumerators, including Adula wa 
sadiki, Honoré Kyanga, Jolie Kahinda, Kabwe Issa, Kabwe Kyeusi, Kabwe Mangaza, Kalume 
Silimu, Kasiwa Bahati, Kasongo Mwamba, Kavira Maombi, Kyeusi Mpalila, Luzinga Asumani,
Mugalu Siyakuwaza, Muzinga Mangaza, Mwamba Asumani, Mwamba Mulange, and Muyumba 
Omar, who went from house to house to collect the data outlined in this report. 
In the same spirit, credit goes to the project team in Kalemie under the leadership of the Project 
Manager, Mr. Joseph Kalegamire, and to the four Field M&E Assistants, Kitsa Kennedy, Janvier 
Nsengimana, Jacque Bingaya and Aline Mwamba. Last but not least, the credit goes to the drivers 
Mark Batundi and Kahite wa Kahite, without whom the assessment team would not have been 
able to go to the field to collect data. 
Without the dedication and expertise of this large and varied teams, gathering all the necessary 
information for this report would not have been possible.
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
ACRONYMS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
LIST OF TABLES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
1. SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------7
1.1 Evaluation Purpose------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
1.2 Evaluation Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
1.3 Evaluation Findings------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
1.4 Lessons Learned ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.5 Recommendations-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1.6 Report Structure---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
2.1 Context---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
2.2 Evaluation Questions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.1 Beneficiary-Based Survey----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3.1.1 Population, Sample and Sampling Strategy-------------------------------------------------------------------14
3.2 Data Collection Techniques and Sources ---------------------------------------------------------------------------11
3.2.1 Document Review --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
3.2.2. Quantitative Digital Data Collection and Human Resources ---------------------------------------------14
3.2.3 Interview with Operational Staff--------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
3.2.4 Focus Group Discussions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
3.2.5 Key Informant Interviews ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
3.3 Data Analysis-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
3.4 Evaluation Limitations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
4. EVALUATION RESULTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
4.1 Agriculture and Food Security----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
4.1.1 Agricultural Production and Food Security Improvement ------------------------------------------------17
4.1.2 Pests and Pesticides ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
4.2 Food Diversity Promotion----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
5.1 Conclusions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
5.1.1 Agriculture and Food Security ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
5.2 Recommendations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 4
Appendix A: Output & Results Indicators------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
Appendix B: Terms of Reference -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 5
ACRONYMS
CBCM…………........ Community-Based Complaint Mechanism 
CBI.………………… Cash-Based Intervention
CHW.......................... Community Health Workers
DRC……………..…. Democratic Republic of Congo
DM&E……………... Design, Monitoring and Evaluation 
FCS………...………. Food Consumption Score
FDS………...………. Food Diversity Score
FGD………...……… Focus Group Discussion
HDI………..……….. Human Development Index
IDP……..…………... Internally Displaced Persons
INGO………...…….. International Non–Governmental Organization
KII………...………... Key Informant Interview
M&E.………………. Monitoring and Evaluation
MONAGRIs.............. Agricultural Monitors
OFDA……………… Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance
PM……..…………... Program Manager
SPSS…….…………. Statistical Package for Social Scientists
UNDP………..…….. United Nations Development Programme
UNHCR……….…… United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNOCHA……..…… United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
WASH……………... Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WR……..…….…….. World Relief DR Congo
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 6
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Table 1 BHA Indicators and Respective Sampling Frames………………………………………...... 12
Table 2 Sample Calculation Information……………………………………………………….......… 13
Table 3 Target Population and Sampling…………………………………………………………….. 13
Table 4 Methods Matrices……………………………………………………………..................... 15
Figure 1 Representation of Survey Respondents by Gender………………………………………... 16
Table 5 Appreciation Levels after Distribution …………………………………………………... 17
Table 6 Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Inputs Distributed by Project……………….. 18
Table 7 Management of Post-Harvest Production…………………………………………............ 18
Table 8 Mastering Pesticide Techniques…………………………………………………………… 19
Table 9 Number of Meals per Day in Target Provinces………………………………................... 20
Table 10 Food Consumption Scores……………………………………………………………...…. 21
Table 11 Other Results from the Agricultural and Food Security Intervention………………........ 21
Table 12 Food Diversity Scores………………………………………………………………........ 23
Table 13 Hunger Index Scores…………………………………………………………………….. 23
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 7
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Evaluation Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to understand whether the objective, “to assist conflict￾afflicted returnee HHs within Tanganyika Province by giving them agricultural inputs”, as well 
as the project’s strategic objective “to improve the living conditions of people affected by 
the crisis”, were met.
The evaluation set-out to specifically address three questions: 
(1) How are the current levels of beneficiary food self-sufficiency are a direct result of the 
agriculture and food security intervention? 
(2) How effective was the intervention in improving agricultural production and its impact on 
the Hunger Index Score in beneficiary households? 
(3) Has there been an improvement of knowledge and practices on food diversity in the 
beneficiary households following the intervention?
The evaluations took place in various health areas and zones in Tanganyika province where the 
project operated. Evaluations started on June 14th and ended on June 29rd in the two respective 
Health Zones, Nyunzu and Nyemba. 
1.2 Evaluation Methodology
Using the Sample Size Calculator by “Raosoft”, 379 beneficiaries were selected to participate in 
this evaluation, 63% women and 37% men, with a confidence interval of 95% and a margin error 
of 5%. This number was derived from the project’s population size of 27,438 HHs.
The evaluation combined simple random sampling, clustered sampling, proportionate sampling
and convenience sampling techniques. Simple random sampling techniques were used because 
the project targeted only returnee HHs and host families. Cluster sampling occurred because 
beneficiary HHs were located in Nyemba and Nyemba Health Zones (Nyunzu and Kalemie 
Territories). A proportional sampling technique was employed because the sample size depends 
on the number of HHs in each of the health areas selected. Finally, convenience sampling was
used because enumerators interviewed an adult person in each beneficiary HH until the cluster 
sample was reached.
The evaluation used different techniques to reach its conclusions, including document reviews
(DRC food security literature, project technical notes, and monitoring and evaluation reports). 
A structured questionnaire guided FGDs, interviews with project staff and key informants. On￾site observations were also taken into account in this evaluation.
Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS. Besides SPSS, Microsoft Excel has been used to 
calculate certain scores. Qualitative data pulled from beneficiary impact stories, KIIs and FGDs 
were analyzed to round out the full picture of the data collection.
However, the evaluation encountered certain limitations. Due to precarious security situations
in the target areas, some villages were not visited during the time of collection because of 
insecurity. Localized insecurity was in large part due to resurgence attempts of inter-communal 
conflicts between the Twa and Bantu peoples.
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 8
1.3 Evaluation Findings
The agriculture and food security component consisted of the distribution of seeds and 
agricultural tools to each beneficiary HH. Data from the evaluation shows that 100% of 
beneficiary farmers each received 15 kilograms of beans, 10 kilograms of maize and 10 kilograms 
of groundnut in staple crop seeds. Also, each beneficiary received a vegetable seed packet which 
included 50 grams of amaranth, 15 grams of cabbage, 40 grams of eggplant as well as two 
hoes per HH (for up to 27,438 beneficiary HHs). 
This therefore resulted in 27,438 HHs, or 137,634, people assisted in Tanganyika Province by 
the project (Project Indicator 1.1.2). 
The quality and quantity of these seeds were appreciated by the beneficiaries as they saw an
improvement of agricultural production and food security in their communities. Note that all the 
seeds were appreciated during the evaluation because of their productivity, but corn, groundnuts 
and eggplant were more popular because of their financial profitability. 
Besides seeds and agricultural tools, beneficiaries received technical support from WR staff 
working on the field. Agricultural Monitors assisted farmers in learning and practicing improved 
farming techniques, such as proper land preparation, crop rotation, transplanting, weeding, 
understanding the agricultural seasons to prepare in advance for and prevent pest infestations, 
bio-pesticides usage (agricultural pharmacopoeia), and row spacing. In all, 44,490 hectares were 
reached with improved agricultural techniques, well above the expected target of 18,369
hectares (Project Indicator 1.1.3).
Finally, a total of 27,429 people (9,647 men and 17,782 women) were trained in appropriate crop 
protection practices in both provinces targeted by the project, which is well above the expected 
target of 24,695 persons (Project Indicator 1.2.1). The trainings consisted of teaching pest control 
through the use of local plants which acted as bio-pesticide agents. This was of advantage to
beneficiaries as they would not need to invest money into purchasing chemically-based pest 
management solutions, as well bio-pesticides maintain healthy farming conditions. Local plants
used for pest management included tithonia, papaya, tobacco, garlic, pepper, among
others. Beneficiaries were also trained on recognizing the early warning signs of pest infestations 
or crop diseases, and appropriate response mechanisms and methods for responding to 
infestations or disease. 
As a result of these education trainings and close follow-ups, a total of 26,653.7 HH of farming 
land was protected, exceeding the target of 18,369 HHs (Project Indicator 1.2.2), and in 
total reaching 24,991 people over the target of 22,226 expected persons to apply the appropriate
crop protection procedures (1.2.3 Project Indicator). 
As a result, the number of HHs taking one meal per day decreased from 97.3% to 5.2%; HHs 
taking two meals per day increased from 2.1% to 16.6%; those taking three meals per day 
increased from 0,6% to 61%, while those eating four or more meals per day increased from 0 % 
to 16.6%. Thus, 77,6% of the beneficiary population was able to improve their access to more 
than three meals per day as a result of the intervention. 
In addition, regarding the number of months of HH food self-sufficiency resulting from 
the improvement of agricultural production (Project Indicator 1.1.1), the results of the 
evaluation have shown that 0.5% of HHs have food in-stock for a period of 1 month; 43.5% have 
food in-stock for 2 months, and a further 55,9% have food in-stock for 2.5 months. The 
evaluations found that the majority of beneficiaries have a food stock that can cover between 2 to 
2.5 months of HH food self-sufficiency resulting from improved agricultural production. 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 9
Analyses of the assessments show that the targets were slightly exceeded for this indicator, which 
was 2 months of food self-sufficiency per household. People produced enough right after the first 
growing season and easily stocked up.
Since security remains instable in the Nyunzu area, beneficiaries shared that they preferred to sell 
their excess food stock in order to keep money with them in case they had to quickly abandon 
their homes. The money is portable and can be used to buy food instead. Finally, 96% of the 
beneficiaries in the sample declared that they had enough seeds to plant for the next season on the 
basis of their harvest surplus (Project indicator 1.3.3). Compared to the target of 80%, the project 
exceeded this indicator by 16%. By analyzing the indicators measuring the food security levels 
of beneficiary households, the results show considerable performance. Thanks to this project, the 
FCS within the communities are now “acceptable”, having gone from the initial level of 26.5%% 
to 95.25% at the end of the project. 
Despite the high achievements recorded, some challenges have persisted that have affected 
beneficiary communities, in particular: 
• Excessive rains during the season A;
• Early drought during the season B;
• Wandering livestock that destroy certain crop fields; 
• Persistent insecurity in some of the villages.
1.4 Lessons Learned
After reviewing and analyzing the evaluation, patterns emerged from which ‘lessons learned’ 
were extracted.
First, the participatory approach adopted by WR in the implementation of this project allows for 
resilient communities, and allows beneficiaries, to actively participate in project activities, 
increasing the project’s sustainability. This approach will be used in future programming.
Second, the collaboration between government agricultural monitors (MONAGRI) and 
community agents/contact groups allowed beneficiaries to have an almost constant presence of 
agricultural assistance. Agricultural monitors not only taught farmers agricultural techniques, but 
provided follow-up technical support throughout the duration of the project. Given this constant 
presence, new agricultural techniques have a higher rate of adoption by the target community as 
a whole, reinforcing sustainability.
Third, the community has learned how to plant and prepare new crops in the area such as eggplant. 
Thanks to the innovative techniques introduced by WR, the community has declared that it was
able to collect enough seed from this year’s harvests to grow it for years to come. These 
declarations undoubtedly affirm the sustainability of the project.
1.5 Recommendations
Although this evaluation demonstrated how the distribution of seeds and agricultural tools in 
addition to campaigns and training on food security have greatly contributed to the lives of people 
living in these communities, WR sees an urgent need for peace consolidation interventions to 
ensure the sustainability of the new agricultural practices and certain crops introduced in the area. 
In addition, it may be recommended that peacebuilding initiatives be sponsored by donors and 
implemented by active partners, especially in the health zones of Nyunzu and Nyemba where one
can still observe mistrust between the Twa and Bantu peoples. The provocations and mistrust 
which continues to be observed between the two communities (Twas and Bantus) might 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 10 
come to the point of seeing a resurgence of violence if nothing is done to nip these seeds of conflict 
in the bud. This could destabilize agricultural activities and even the farming seasons, potentially 
creating an acute food security crisis all over again as farmers find themselves unable to plant in 
their fields. In addition, WR also sees a need for a food-processing unit as expressed by the 
communities we have served. People produce tons of maize, but you can walk miles without 
seeing any food-processing units. As a result, communities resort to archaic methods, including 
the millstone for some HHs, and others traveling up to 50 kilometers to search for mills. This is 
especially risky for women and girls and poses significant protection concerns. 
1.6 Report Structure
The rest of this report is organized into different sections, including the project overview, 
evaluation methods, evaluation results, conclusions and recommendations. The project overview 
examines the background and rationale for the project. The section on evaluation methods 
highlights the main methodological and technical steps taken during the evaluation process. 
The findings section discusses the results, and the conclusion examines lessons learned, and 
recommendations that suggest possible areas for improvement. 
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1 Context 
Straddling the Equator in the Great Lakes region of sub-Saharan Africa, DRC is the second largest 
country on the African continent with an area of 2,345,410 km2. Its hot and humid climate is 
characterized by high rainfall, sometimes reaching up to 2,000 mm per year in the basin. In 
addition, the DRC has nearly 80 million hectares of arable land, 4 million irrigable land, of which 
only 1% is cultivated. Peasant agriculture employs 70% of the working population. Its vegetation 
can support a breeding of around 40 million head of large cattle and its fishing density is estimated 
at 700,000 tons of fish per year. With this potential, the DRC is able to feed around 2 billion
people in the world. Unfortunately, the country still resorts to imports to cover the food 
deficit1
. 
Indeed, in the 2020 Human Development Index, DRC ranked 175th in the world2
. 
The country generally continues to suffer from acute malnutrition (Integrated Food 
Security Phase Classification, 2021). Conflict continues to impede the consolidation of peace, 
community development and efforts to heal a traumatized country, especially in
the Province of Tanganyika. Communal conflict has been rife since 2018 with occasional lulls;
however, total peace has not yet been fully restored to this day. This recurrent situation of conflict
in Tanganyika between guerilla militias and armed forces on the one hand, and community 
militias on the other hand, the DRC hosts the largest IDP population in Africa, with more than 
5.5 million IDPs3
. This project (being evaluated) took place due to the fact that high caseloads of 
returnees, former IDPs, especially to Nyunzu and Kalemie territories in Tanganyika Province, 
had acute needs. 
1 FAO, ‘Le pays en un coup d'œil’, 2021 2 UNDP Human Development Report 2020: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf 3 UNOCHA, DR Congo, ‘2021 Planning Summary: Operation Democratic Republic of the Congo’, July 2021: 
https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/pdfsummaries/GA2021-
DemocraticRepublicoftheCongoRegionalOffice-eng.pdf
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 11
Upon their return, returnees found destruction of property and assets as well as food insecurity as 
they were unable to plant and/or harvest in the previous agricultural season. In consultation with 
UNOCHA and the Food Security Cluster, WR was encouraged to respond to the largely unmet 
needs of returnees to these health zones as many other humanitarian actors focused on responding 
to solely IDPs. 
The project was implemented between July 2020 and June 2021 in Tanganyika Province. The 
project targeted two Health Zones, in particular Nyunzu Health Zone in Nyunzu Territory and 
Nyemba Health Zone in Kalemie Territory.
The intervention was divided into two components:
(1) Agriculture and food security, and
(2) Promotion of dietary diversity.
2.2 Evaluation Questions
The goal of the evaluation was to determine what changes took place as a result of the project. In 
accordance with the scope of work, three evaluation questions were proposed: 
(1) How are the current levels of beneficiary food self-sufficiency a direct result of the agriculture 
and food security intervention? 
(2) How effective was the intervention in improving agricultural production and its impact on 
the Hunger Index Score in beneficiary households? 
(3) Has there been an improvement of knowledge and practices on food diversity in the 
beneficiary households following the intervention?
3. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
In accordance with BHA's M&E guidance, the methods used to collect the data were guided 
by the selected indicators in alignment with the PIRS. All data collected as part of the M&E 
system has been extracted and used to support decision making at the programmatic level. 
Given the short lifespan of most of the activities for this pre-project under evaluation 
(emergency project) and the complex working environment, the evaluations only collected 
data deemed to be useful.
3.1 Beneficiary-Based Survey (BBS) 
This section covers population and sampling strategy, data collection techniques, data sources, 
data analysis as well as limitations of the evaluation.
3.1.1 Population, Sample and Sampling Strategy
Surveys collected on beneficiaries were received from beneficiaries participating in the 
intervention. In the context of the activities of this project (emergency project), the BBS was 
used to collect baseline data, post-distribution monitoring (PDM), post-harvest monitoring 
and final data. BBS therefore used a questionnaire for information from a probability 
sample of individual beneficiaries or beneficiary households. A probability sample ensures 
that each individual or household of all beneficiaries has an equal probability of being 
selected in the sample. The sampling frame only includes beneficiary and the sampling plan 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 12
should ensure that a minimum number of individuals or households are included in the 
survey to ensure that the survey results are representative of the entire cohort of 
beneficiaries with the desired level of precision. In accordance with BHA's 
recommendations, the evaluations confirm that surveys have been made on the direct 
beneficiaries of the program.
Table 1. BHA Indicators and Respective Sampling Frames
 Indicator Sampling Frame
Percentage of households which have improved their 
food consumption score (FCS)
Beneficiary farmer households 
who were supported in 
agricultural production activities 
and reached by training sessions 
on good nutritional practices
1.1.1 Number of months of household food self￾sufficiency as a result of improved agricultural 
production programming
Beneficiary farmer households 
who were supported in 
agricultural production activities
1.1.2 Number of people directly benefiting from 
improving agricultural production and/or food 
security activities
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received seed and tools as 
agriculture items
1.1.3 Number of hectares under improved agricultural 
methods
Beneficiary farmer households 
who received seed and who were 
supported in agricultural 
production activities
Percentage of people acknowledging effectiveness of 
appropriate crop protection techniques
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received crop protection 
training
1.2.1 Number of people trained in appropriate crop 
protection practices
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received crop protection 
training
1.2.2 Number and percentage of hectares protected 
against disease or pest attacks
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received crop protection 
training
1.2.3 Number and percentage of people practicing 
appropriate crop protection procedures
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received crop protection 
training
Percentage of households who report having received 
good quality seeds through direct distribution 
activities
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received seed and tools as 
agriculture items
1.3.1 Number of months of household food self￾sufficiency as a result of seed system security 
programming
Beneficiary farmer households 
who were supported in 
agricultural production activities 
and reached by training sessions 
on good nutritional practices
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 13 
1.3.2 Number of people directly benefiting from seed 
systems/agricultural input activities
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received seed and tools as 
agriculture items
1.3.3 Percentage of households with access to 
sufficient seed to plant
Individual beneficiary farmers 
who received seed and tools as 
agriculture items and who sowed 
and produced in the first growing 
season
Number and percentage of project beneficiaries who 
have been reached by the message on COVID-19 as 
part of community communication on the pandemic
The beneficiaries who responded 
to the various training sessions 
that integrated community 
communication on COVID-19 
Number and percentage of people directly benefiting 
from the project knowing at least three barrier 
measures to COVID-19 
The beneficiaries who responded 
to the various training sessions 
that integrated community 
communication on COVID-19 
Table 2. Sample Calculation Information
General information on the sample 
calculation
Notes
Margin of error 5% The margin of error is the amount of error 
we can tolerate
Confidence level 95% The confidence level is the degree 
of certainty that we can tolerate
Population size 27,438 Total number of project beneficiaries from 
whom our random sample was chosen 
Distribution of responses 50% For each questionnaire, the results we 
expected to receive
Online calculator www.raosoft.com Online formula
Sample size 379 Samples of beneficiaries to be surveyed
The sample was divided between the two health zones representing the total percentage of 
beneficiaries served during the life of the project in health zone. Precisely 73.3% of the 
beneficiaries were located in Nyunzu Health zone, which for the sample size gave us 
279 beneficiaries for our survey, and 26.7% of the beneficiaries were located in Nyemba Health 
zone, which for the sample size gave us 100 beneficiaries for our survey. 
Table 3. Target Population and Sampling
Province Health Zones Health Area Bene. HHs Sampling
TANGANYIKA NYUNZU
Muhuya 2137 29
Mangala 333 6
Changachanga 92 3
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 14 
Mulongo 3394 46
Masamba 3787 52
Kabeyamayi 2487 34
Sulumba 1672 23
Kitengetenge 1069 15
Lengwe 5144 71
Sub-total /////////////////////// 20115 279
NYEMBA
Kyoko 3377 46
Kisengo 2917 40
Nyemba 1029 14
Sub-total /////////////////////// 7323 100
Total /////////////////////// /////////////////////// 27,438 379 
The table above highlights the beneficiary HHs by health area, which were calculated using the 
Sample Size Calculator by “Raosoft”. 379 beneficiaries were selected to participate in this 
evaluation. This number was derived from the project’s population size of 27,438 HH 
beneficiaries in the Nyunzu and Nyemba Health Zones. 
3.2 Data Collection Techniques and Sources 
This evaluation used a document review, a structured electronic questionnaire, focus group 
discussions, and an interview with implementation staff and key informants. 
3.2.1 Document Review 
In order to obtain a general context of the project, literature on food security in the DRC was 
consulted. In addition, this evaluation collected data from existing documents, including the 
project proposal, the monitoring and evaluation plan, the semi-annual report, the baseline report, 
the post-distribution report in addition to monthly reports. These were important in answering 
questions about the number and type of participants, the number and type of project staff, and 
project costs. 
3.2.2. Quantitative Digital Data Collection and Human Resources 
After reviewing the main project documentation, the survey was designed in accordance with the 
main evaluation objectives and performance indicators proposed for the project. Subsequently, 
the tool was shared by relevant WR staff to share the inputs that were taken into account in the 
final tool. Finally, the final version of the survey was downloaded to the tablets via the 
ODK Collect software. 
After the availability of the data collection tool, enumerators were recruited based on their level 
of education and previous experience in data collection, age and demonstrated work ethics. 
They were given a one-day training by WR DM&E staff before proceeding with data 
collection. The training consisted of a general overview of the evaluated project, the content of 
the tool, familiarization with the ODK Collect software as well as practical questions in 
the field. After the training, a mock survey was conducted. In the field, enumerators made house￾to-house visits, and discussed directly with beneficiary HHs during data recording. 
3.2.3 Interview with Operational Staff 
After the completion of field activities, field and office staff were surveyed for the evaluation end 
line. The Project Manager, Food Security Officer, and the agronomists were interviewed to better 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 15 
understand the project’s processes and results as well as challenges and possible areas for 
improvement. 
3.2.4 Focus Group Discussions 
In order to understand the participants' experiences in regard to project interventions, 
two discussion groups were run in each health area, including a specific group for men and 
another for women using an interview guide, a facilitator and a note taker. 
These FGDs were conducted in the health zones of Nyemba and Nyunzu. The participants varied 
between 8 and 12 beneficiaries per FGD. 
During the FGDs, an interactive environment was created to ensure effective participation of all. 
Local languages were used during the discussions to allow better understanding for all 
participants. 
3.2.5 Key Informant Interviews
In order to get a balanced view of the project, interviews with key informers were held with some 
stakeholders, especially leaders of agriculture groups, village chiefs, CHWs (health center nurses) 
and other community leaders, as they had comprehensive knowledge of the 
project implementation area, project implementation process and results. 
Below are the sources of data collection summarized: 
Table 4. Methods Matrices 
Assessment Question Tools Data source
How are the current levels of 
beneficiary food self￾sufficiency a direct result of 
the agriculture and food 
security intervention? 
Document review,
Questionnaire survey, 
Interviews with staff,
FGDs, 
KIIs. 
Project proposal, monitoring and 
evaluation plan, biannual report, 
baseline report and post￾distribution report, beneficiaries,
project staff, key stakeholders
How effective was the 
intervention in improving 
agricultural production and its 
impact on the Hunger Index 
Score 
in beneficiary households? 
Questionnaire survey,
Document review, 
FGDs. 
Project proposal, monitoring and 
evaluation plan, biannual report, 
baseline report and post￾distribution report, beneficiary 
HHs
Has there been an 
improvement of knowledge 
and practices on food 
diversity in the beneficiary 
households following the 
interventions? 
Questionnaire survey,
Document review, FGDs, 
KIIs. 
Project staff, beneficiaries
 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 16 
3.3 Data Analysis 
Numerical data was analyzed using measures of central tendency and has been reported based on 
percentages throughout the report. The calculations were aided by the statistical software, SPSS. 
According to the analysis plan for these evaluations, SPSS is the software that helped 
analyze the frequencies of all variables presented in the results tables (see for example Table 
4, Table 6, Table 7, etc.). Excel helped to perform the Comparison of Means Test and come 
out of the analytical charts of the variables. It also helped to carry out weighting analyzes 
to match the level of food security (FCS) of the beneficiaries who were supervised by the 
project. 
Finally, content analysis was used to make sense of the stories that participants shared during the 
interviews. As such, recurring themes were identified during the interviews which led to the 
general conclusions reported throughout the evaluation. 
3.4 Evaluation Limitations 
As noted in the sampling section above, the security situation was relatively calm in some villages 
and somewhat precarious in others. This situation thus affected access to certain villages for both 
Nyunzu and Nyemba health zones to complete this assessment. As some targeted HHs were 
located in unsafe locations, WR had to provide security guarantees before assessment teams could 
enter communities for interviews. However, efforts have been made to triangulate data sources 
and ensure that beneficiaries were asked the right questions. These include, among others, the use 
of internal program reports, humanitarian situation reports, and the use of project start-up 
documents. 
4. EVALUATION RESULTS
To ensure the participation of women in the interviews, the evaluation questions were 
analyzed prior to being distributed into the communities to ensure that women were given 
equal opportunity to respond and represent their opinions. After this was done, the 
evaluation was performed. The following graph shows the results of the evaluation 
participants broken down by gender. 
Figure 1. Representation of Beneficiaries Surveyed by Gender 
 
 
The graph here shows that 63 % of women versus 37% of men participated in the survey 
interviews.
Men 
37%
Women
63%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 17 
Here below are presented the results of the project according to project objectives and 
performance indicators as well as data collected via the aforementioned detailed methodology 
and the attached data collection tools. 
4.1 Agriculture and Food Security 
The performance indicators were divided out by two sub-sectors: 
(1) Improving agricultural production/food security, and (2) pests and pesticides. Each is divided 
further into sub-indicators as shown below: 
4.1.1 Agricultural Production and Food Security Improvement
In this sub-sector, evaluation data was collected on four indicators, listed in chronological order 
of when the activity was completed: 
1. Number of people directly benefiting from the improvement of agricultural production 
and/or food security activities,
2. Number of months of household food self-sufficiency thanks to the agricultural 
production improvement project, 
3. Number of hectares benefiting from improved agricultural methods, 
4. Percentage of households with access to enough seeds to plant for the next season. 
To ensure food security, WR distributed seeds and trained farmers in conservation farming 
techniques. Each of these indicators is discussed below. As part of the improvement 
of agricultural production activities, WR served 137,634 farmers with seed and agricultural tools 
distributions, or 27,438 beneficiary HHs in the two targeted Health zones of Tanganyika Province 
(Project Indicator 1.1.2). 
To assess the overall appreciation levels of the inputs distributed, the questions in the evaluation 
highlighted below were asked to beneficiaries. 
Table 5. Appreciation Levels after Distribution 
Distribution Assessment Yes (%) No (%) Total (%)
Distribution at the peak of the growing season 99% 1% 100%
The distribution was well organized 100% 0% 100%
Pregnant and lactating mothers who are 
breastfeeding have been treated well 
94% 6% 100%
The distance to the distribution site was correct 
considering the distances usually traveled by 
community members
91.1% 8.9% 100%
Disabled people and those who are sick have been 
well received 
99% 1% 100%
The elderly were treated well 100% 0% 100%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 18 
Dispensing time was appropriate 97.4% 2.6% 100%
Adequacy of seeds distributed 100% 0% 100%
According to Table 4 above, the distribution took into account various aspects, including the 
treatment of certain groups with special needs such as pregnant women and mothers who are 
breastfeeding, the sick, people with disabilities, and the elderly. 100% of beneficiaries assessed 
that the needs of these individuals were met. 
However, the distance to the distribution site scored relatively less at 91.1%. Although the level 
of satisfaction is still very high, the evidence has shown that the distribution sites were initially 
decided on upon the basis of their accessibility and level of security, which was not always the 
most convenient. 
Likewise, the distribution happened around 9:30-10:30 in the morning which is when a number 
of farmers performed certain agricultural activities. This made it difficult for these farmers to 
attend the distributions.
In addition to the level of satisfaction with regard to the distribution of seeds, the evaluation 
sought to understand other variables including the appreciation of the quality and quantity of 
distributed inputs, and the management of post-harvest production. Tables 5 and 6 below have 
organized this data: 
Table 6. Assessment of the Quality and Quantity of Inputs Distributed by Project 
Specification
Community appreciation of quality
Very good good Bad Total 
(%)
Brand of hoes purchased and distributed by 
the project 64% 36% 0% 100% 
Variety of bean seed purchased and 
distributed 45% 53% 2% 100% 
Variety of corn seed purchased and 
distributed 29% 68% 3% 100% 
Variety of groundnut seed purchased and 
distributed 50% 50% 0% 100% 
Market garden seeds purchased and 
distributed 55% 45% 0% 100% 
Average Appreciation 49% 50% 1% 100%
The results as presented in this table show that on average 100% (55% and 45%) of beneficiaries 
rated the quality of inputs (seeds and agricultural tools) distributed as being of "good quality". 
Table 7. Management of Post-Harvest Production 
Productions Management Yes (%) No (%) Total (%)
We have all sold 0.8% 99.2% 100%
We have sold some and ate the rest 98.2% 1.8% 100%
We ate some, sold some and kept some 95.3% 4.7% 100%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 19 
We've eaten all produce 1% 99% 100%
We ate some and kept some for the next season 86.8% 13.2% 100%
We ate some and reserved some as food supply 73% 27% 100%
We have consumed some and given some to other people 
close to us (parents and other family members)
22.9% 77.1% 100%
From these figures, it is clear that after the harvest, 98.2 % of beneficiaries have sold some of 
their produce and consumed another part, while 95.2% have consumed some and kept a portion
to sow next season. It is also clear that 86.8% have consumed part of their crop production and 
kept another part as food stock. And in the end, 22.8% ate part of their produce and shared the 
rest with their relatives (parents and other family members). 
In addition, there was a series of capacity building trainings for members of beneficiary HHs with
ongoing monitoring. The cumulative number of land area where this occurred was 44,490 
hectares, which is much higher than the goal of 18,369 hectares (Project indicator 1.1.3). 
The results of the analysis reveal that 100% of the farmers who participated in the evaluation 
confirmed that their technical capacities have been strengthened in improved agricultural 
techniques and practices. This includes the choice of arable land, good land preparation, crop 
rotation, transplanting, weeding, compliance with agricultural seasons to prevent infestation and 
post-harvest handling. 
4.1.2 Pests and Pesticides
According to the final internal evaluation, 27,429 people, including 9,647 men and 17,782 
women, were trained in appropriate crop protection practices (Project Indicator 1.2.1 project 
indicator). 
Beneficiary HHs were trained in pest control through the use of locally growing plants such 
as papaya, datura, onion, garlic, tobacco, chili pepper and others. Bio-pesticides helped to address 
the early signs of infestations or crop diseases. Beneficiaries were taught how to implement a pest 
alert and response mechanism, and methods of responding to infestations. As a result, 26,653.7 
hectares (Project Indicator 1.2.2) have been protected against attacks by diseases or pests, 
while 24,991 people of the targeted 22,226 applied appropriate crop protection 
procedures (Project Indicator 1.2.3). 
In Table 7 below, the evaluation established the farmers' practice in terms of mastering bio￾pesticides techniques. 
Table 8. Mastering Pesticide Techniques 
Mastering Techniques Yes (%) No (%) Total 
(%)
Beneficiaries are able to make for themselves a pesticide mixture 
from local plants, and know what diseases this pesticide mixture 
can treat against 
97.3% 2.7% 100%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 20 
Beneficiaries have acquired the knowledge of fighting against 
pests in their crops by using local plants with insecticidal 
habits thanks to the project 
93.6% 6.4% 100%
Are beneficiaries able to name at least four local plants they 
commonly use in the fight against pests in their crops?
98.1% 1.9% 100%
Beneficiaries who could easily fight against pests in their crops 
by using agricultural pharmacopoeia even before the/ Project 
intervention 
1.7% 98.3% 100%
According to this table, it is clear that 97.3% of the beneficiaries have mastered and are able to 
make themselves a pesticide paste using local plants. Thus the analysis shows that prior to the 
intervention, only 1.7% of beneficiaries were able to fight against crop infestations using local 
plants with insecticidal agents. This shows that the project has effectively 
contributed to beneficiaries learning how to fight against pests infestations using local plants, 
raising the figure from 1.7% to 98.3%.
After verifying that the seed distribution, capacity building and pest control and post-harvest 
production management activities took place, the evaluation sought to establish the higher impact 
results across beneficiary HHs as a result of this intervention. 
Table 8 below highlights the improvements in the number of meals per day consumed by 
beneficiaries. 
Table 9. Number of Meals per Day in Target Province 
Number of meals Before the intervention After the intervention
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
One meal 369 97.37% 20 5.28%
Two meals 8 2.11% 63 16.62%
Three meals 2 0.52% 233 61.48%
Four or more meals 0 0% 63 16.62%
Total 379 100% 379 100%
According to Table 8, the number of meals per HH has positively changed. The number of HHs 
with one meal a day decreased from 97.3% to 5.2 %; HHs with two meals per day decreased 
from 16.6% to 2.1 %; HHs with three meals per day increased from 0.5% to 61.4 %; and HHs
with four or more meals increased from 0% to 16.1%. 
To have a full understanding of this improvement, it is necessary to understand the number 
of months of HH food self-sufficiency resulting from the improvement of agricultural 
production projects (Project Indicator 1.1.1). To have a full understanding of this improvement, 
it is necessary to understand the number of months of HH food self-sufficiency resulting from the 
improvement of agricultural production projects (Project Indicator 1.1.1). 
When asked if they had a food stock, the results of the assessments showed that the large 
proportion (89.5%) had a food stock that could go as far as covering at least 2.5 lean months, 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 21 
which is a commendable performance. During a FGD, one beneficiary from the Kitengetenge 
health area shared the following feedback with WR staff: 
“After the harvest, we had enough food. We sold some of it to meet household needs and we 
still had enough for planting the seeds. Unfortunately, today because of the increasing 
insecurity in our villages, a large quantity of our crops still remain in the fields; we are afraid 
to go there due to the insecurity. World Relief has done a good job for our community, and 
has very well supported us very well’’. 
Another way to determine whether the project achieved its objectives is by measuring the FCS’ 
and FDS’:
Table 10. Food Consumption Scores 
FCS Scores Frequency Percentage
Poor (0-28) 5 1.3%
Borderline (28.1 - 42) 13 3.4%
Acceptable (> 42) 361 95.2%
Total 379 100 %
An analysis of the FCS details indicates that 95.2% of beneficiaries fall under the ‘acceptable’ 
range, 3.4% are at ‘borderline’ while 1.3% fall under the ‘poor’ category. The scores indicate that 
there is a level of food security in terms of consumption of food groups by the surveyed 
population in the two health zones of the project. 
This analysis indicates a very good performance of the project. This performance is due to the 
beneficiaries following through with improved agricultural training practices. Beneficiaries have 
access to varying categories of food groups that induce good HH nutrition, including legumes, 
cereals, and garden vegetables, demonstrating considerable progress. 
In addition to these results, the farmers were able to meet other needs (which were not necessarily 
targeted in the initial project design) as shown in Table 10 below: 
Table 11. Other Results from the Agricultural and Food Security Intervention 
Other results Yes (%) No (%)
We had better access to health care 93.8% 6.2%
We were able to pay the tuition 49.1% 50.9%
We were able to buy land 63.2% 36.8%
We were able to buy cattle 80.6% 19.4%
We were able to purchase non-food items for household use 93.9% 6.1%
We were able to buy clothes 98.9% 1.1%
We felt worthy in our community 90.4% 9.6%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 22
According to Table 10, various unexpected outcomes were achieved, including better access to 
health care, ability to pay school fees and materials, purchase of land, purchase of livestock, 
purchase of non-food household items, clothing and even a better sense of dignity in the
community. The data presented suggests that the results are not mutually exclusive. 
In a more in-depth analysis, the appraisal interviews documented the success factors of the food 
security intervention (despite the challenges posed by insecurity during and after the 
intervention). Some success factors have been identified:
First, it was reported that WR provided the correct amount and quality of seed. According to one 
beneficiary: "Unlike other organizations, the beneficiaries received enough good quality seeds, 
which is why they were able to harvest abundantly".
Second, the timely intervention with almost everyone was appreciated by the beneficiaries. Met 
in the field, a beneficiary of the project testifies to the following:
“Ever since violence erupted in our homeland, we had to flee our village Lengwe and reside
about 75 kilometers from here (until the situation re-stabilized). Only one month after
returning to Lengwe, we saw World Relief come to our help with cabbage, amaranth, bean, 
groundnut and maize seed, and agricultural tools. We had never dreamed of having seeds to 
plant! Today, thanks to this assistance, we have harvested enough food keep some in stock, and 
have been able to sell a portion of our produce at market which in turn allowed us to provide 
for other household needs. We even have enough seed for the upcoming agricultural season. 
As head of my household, I am sure that I can now provide for my wife and my children, 
especially in buying them clothes, taking care of their medical needs, and having enough food 
to eat. May God bless the work done by World Relief, for this assistance that has really touched 
our lives and resolved a problem. Interventions such as these, are interventions really hand 
tailored for our communities who have been so affected by violence in these recent times”. 
Third, the permanent field presence of the agricultural monitors (MONAGRI) in targeted 
communities thanks to the collaboration with IPAPEL, resulted in sustainable improved practices 
and instilled knowledge. Agricultural monitors were trained to act as regular surveyors of crop 
growth progress in beneficiary farmers’ fields which aided in correctly putting into practice new 
knowledge learned. Community champions were selected to learn and then sensitize their 
community on different social behavior change practices alongside the agricultural project such 
as community health, hygiene and other WASH topics. The efforts and synergies of locally 
trained community members in addition to around the clock agricultural monitors and periodic 
visits from WR technical officers all together helped to reinforce the project goals. 
Fourth, the feedback and complaint mechanism has been helpful. The beneficiaries shared this
via the suggestion box and the toll-free hotline number made available to beneficiary 
communities. According to one FGD participant in Kitengetenge health area: “WR programming 
was based on the principle that human beings should be respected. We had the opportunity to 
share our suggestions and complaints”. 
Still, certain challenges persisted in both agricultural seasons A and B. Season A was especially 
characterized by excessive rainfall in certain health areas, followed by an intense dry spell in the 
proceeding season B. According to beneficiaries, other community members who were not 
identified as part of the World Relief program were greatly disadvantaged during these periods, 
and their crops were not able to survive past certain stages of the normal crop cycle. Beneficiaries 
interviewed in the FGD confirmed the attentiveness by the World Relief technical staff to save 
beneficiary crops during these difficult conditions. Staff used innovative techniques to counteract 
the negative effects made by the excess water or lack thereof. For example, agronomists during 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 23 
the dry spell sensitized communities to avoid agricultural practices that encouraged 
evapotranspiration. They instead suggested practices that helped the water retain its water content 
so not to destroy the nutrients needed for crop growth, such as covering fields with straw. When 
the rainfall began to saturate the soil in fields, agronomists encouraged communities to implement 
techniques such as hoeing around plant bases, to aerate the soil and encourage evapotranspiration 
and sun exposure to dry out excess water. According to the beneficiaries interviewed, these 
techniques helped to mitigate crop damage. However, despite best efforts, beneficiaries were not 
able to save enough of their crops to produce a sufficient harvest. 
4.2 Food Diversity Promotion
Household dietary diversity represents the number of different food groups consumed within the 
HH over a period of time; typically, the past 24 hours is an appropriate time period to perform 
this analysis. The table below therefore presents the results of the FDS in beneficiary HHs in the 
two provinces targeted by the project. 
Table 12. Food Diversity Scores 
Score Frequency Percentage
Poor (0 - 3.99) 0 4,1 %
Average (4 - 5.9) 1 9.2 %
Acceptable ≥ 6 378 86.7 %
Total 379 100 %
Detailed analysis of FDS’ in HHs makes it easier to measure changes in diet before and after an 
intervention. Thus, the beneficiaries surveyed are categorized into three groups depending on 
whether their dietary diversity score is low, average or acceptable. This graph reveals that the
project enabled 86.7% of beneficiary HHs to improve their diets by diversifying the food groups 
consumed within HHs, for example, under the ‘Acceptable’ level in the FDS, a HH would need 
to have consumed more than six different food groups in the last 24 hours preceding the survey). 
On the other hand, 9.2% have an average dietary diversity score and only 4.1% of 
beneficiaries remain in a situation of compromising malnutrition.
However, after having reviewed the results of the FDS’ of beneficiary HHs, our analysis ended 
up focusing on the HIS within beneficiary HHs. The s results are presented in Table 12 below. 
Table 13. Hunger Index Scores 
HIS Frequency Percentage
HHs having HIS Low (0 - 4.9) 330 87%
HHs with Moderate HIS (5 - 9.9) 49 13%
HHs with Worrisome HIS (10 - 29.9) 0 0%
HHs having HIS Alarming (30 - 49.9) 0 0%
HHs having IF Ext Alarming (≥ 50) 0 0%
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 24 
Total 379 100%
The data in this graph above shows the proportion of HHs according to the different HIS’: Low, 
moderate, severe or worrying hunger score, alarming and extremely alarming. The proportion is 
87% of HHs with a low hunger index. This sufficiently proves that the project has raised the level 
of HHs on the nutritional aspect. On the other hand, 13% of HHs are in the moderate hunger 
index, and 0% categorize as having a worrying hunger index. 
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
5.1 Conclusions 
5.1.1 Agriculture and Food Security 
In conclusion, the evaluation has confirmed the following: 
• All activities were completed as planned, some reaching their target at 100% and others 
surpassing it. Such was the case in the instance of the planned campaigns for good nutritional 
practices and their accompanying cooking demonstrations, as was the planned activity to run
two bio-pesticide campaigns and WR was able to do three by project completion. 
• Beneficiaries positively adopted new improved techniques learned through the project, such 
as crop infestation and disease control, and seed extraction from eggplants. These techniques 
learned will help communities stay resilient to food insecurity and agricultural challenges. 
• Evaluation results have confirmed that the bio-pesticides that farmers applied to their crops 
was successfully able to evade prevalent pests such as common maize-eating caterpillars and 
even the notorious Fall Armyworm. 
• Beneficiaries who have internalized good crop practices succeeded in fighting against crop 
pests using locally identified bio-pesticides and produced a good harvest. 
• Community support of the project was well received and was only disrupted in certain areas 
and villages where insecurity was rife. 
5.2 Recommendations 
Based on the evidence and lessons learned above, the following recommendations are suggested: 
• Targeted communities liked all suggested agricultural techniques made by World Relief 
meant to improve their production output. Nevertheless, negative rumors did arise around 
certain new crops such as garlic. It was noticed that by and large, beneficiaries strongly 
preferred eggplant over garlic. The evaluation team was able to fortunately discover the seed 
of discontentment: communities had been misinformed that eggplant had a high monetary 
market value compared with garlic which supposedly had a low value. Beneficiaries therefore 
wanted to forgo growing garlic in their fields in favor of eggplant. In the future, agronomists 
now understanding this miscommunication, will work with beneficiaries to ensure that they 
understand that the monetary value of garlic is just as high as other crop variants. 
• Evaluation results show that food security and practical nutrition trainings changed the lives 
of many beneficiaries, but a more nuanced SMART survey to study the nutritional impact of 
the project would be able to further reveal how the project benefited communities, 
nutritionally.
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 25
• The evaluations also left out an important piece in understanding the global impact of the 
project: how the lack of peace building interventions negatively impacted long term food 
security in areas prone to inter-community tensions and conflict. Adding peace building 
sensitization messaging into the project would have helped to contribute to a stabilization in 
the project implementation area. For future projects, WR envisions integrating peace building 
messaging into programming, working with beneficiaries in especially hot zones to 
understand how peace and unity between different ethnic groups can ultimately be the solution 
to alleviate the continuing challenges of food insecurity.
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 26 
Appendix A: Results & Output Indicators 
Sub-Sector Indicator Base 
line
Achievement:
July 20-June 
21
Annual Targets Comments
Results Indicator Percentage of households 
which have improved 
their food consumption 
score (FCS)
0% 96% 60%
Target over achieved.
1.1 Improving 
agricultural 
production/food 
security
1.1.1 Number of months 
of household food self￾sufficiency as a result of 
improved agricultural 
production programming
0.16 
2.5 2 
Target over achieved.
1.1 Improving 
agricultural 
production/food 
security
1.1.2 Number of people 
directly benefiting from 
improving agricultural 
production and/or food 
security activities
0 
137,634 164,624 
Target was officially 
updated with USAID 
at the beginning of the 
project to 137,634. 
The reason for this 
discrepancy was that 
once beneficiaries had 
been identified, it was 
found that the average 
household size in the 
two targeted health 
zones was little over 5 
persons, which was 
less than we had 
initially estimated. 
Therefore, the total 
indirect population 
was decreased to 
match the reality of the
average household size 
in communities where 
the project served. 
1.1 Improving 
agricultural 
production/food 
security
1.1.3 Number of hectares 
under improved 
agricultural methods 0 Ha 44,490.5 Ha 18,369 Ha Target over achieved.
Results Indicator Percentage of people 
acknowledging 
effectiveness of 
appropriate crop 
protection techniques
0% 95% 90% Target over achieved.
1.2 Pests and 
pesticides
1.2.1 Number of people 
trained in appropriate 
crop protection practices
0 27,429 24,695 
Target over achieved.
1.2 Pests and 
pesticides
1.2.2 Number and 
percentage of hectares 
protected against disease 
or pest attacks
0 Ha
(0%)
26,653.76Ha
(110.3%)
18,369 Ha (90%)
Target over achieved.
1.2 Pests and 
pesticides
1.2.3 Number and 
percentage of people 
practicing appropriate 
crop protection 
procedures
0 
(0%)
24 991
(101%)
22,226
90%
Target over achieved.
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 27 
Results Indicator
Percentage of households 
who report having 
received good quality 
seeds through direct 
distribution activities
0% 99% 93.7%
1.3 Seed security 
system 
1.3.1 Number of months 
of household food self￾sufficiency as a result of 
seed system security 
programming
0 2.5 2 
Target over achieved.
1.3 Seed security 
system 
1.3.2 Number of people 
directly benefiting from 
seed systems/agricultural 
input activities
0
137,634 164,624 Target was officially 
updated with USAID 
at the beginning of the 
project to 137,634. 
The reason for this 
discrepancy was that 
once beneficiaries had 
been identified, it was 
found that the average 
household size in the 
two targeted health 
zones was little over 5 
persons, which was 
less than we had 
initially estimated. 
Therefore, the total 
indirect population 
was decreased to 
match the reality of the
average household size 
in communities where 
the project served. 
1.3 Seed security 
system 
1.3.3 Percentage of 
households with access 
to sufficient seed to plant
0% 96% 80%
Target over achieved.
COVID-19
Outcome 
Indicator
Number and percentage 
of project beneficiaries 
who have been reached 
by the message on 
COVID-19 as part of 
community 
communication on the 
pandemic
0% 
99% 75%
Target over achieved.
COVID-19
Outcome 
Indicator 
Number and percentage 
of people directly 
benefiting from the 
project knowing at least 
three barrier measures to 
COVID-19
1%
45%
12,347 HHs
70%
19,207 HHs
Target not reached. 
Tanganyika Province 
was/is one of the 
areas, among other 
provinces, where 
barrier measures 
were/are largely not 
respected by the 
general population and 
therefore positive 
behavior change has 
been a challenge to 
achieve. 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 28 
Appendix B: Terms of Reference for Final Project Evaluation
Final Endline was conducted in French and local languages. 
TERMES DE REFERENCE POUR EVALUATEUR FINAL DU PROJET 
BHA/Award code : 720FDA20GR00166 Tanganyika 2020-21
Activité Travaux d’évaluation finale du projet BHA-Tanganyika
Intitulé du Projet Agriculture and Food Security Response in Tanganyika Province in 
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Objectif du 
programme
Améliorer l'accès à la nourriture et l'état général de la sécurité alimentaire des 
ménages touchés par les conflits.
Donateur USAID/BHA
Durée du Projet 12 mois (1juillet 2020 au 30 juin 2021)
Lieu de travail Zone de Santé de Nyemba et Nyunzu en Territoire de Nyunzu et Kalemie, 
province de Tanganyika.
Duré de 
l’évaluation
15 jours : Du 14 au 29 juin 2021 (Exlus les weekend)
1. Contexte 
Dans le cadre de la clôture de son projet intitulé « Agriculture and Food Security Response in 
Tanganyika Province in Democratic Republic of the Congo Awards 
« 720FDA021GR00075», financé par OFDA, et exécuté dans les Zones de Santé de Nyemba 
et Nyunzu en Territoire de Kalemie et Nyunzu, dans la province de Tanganyika ; le département 
de Suivi et évaluation de World Relief Congo cherche à conduire en toute indépendance les 
évaluations finales du projet susmentionné, dont les termes de référence sont spécifiés dans le 
présent document.
. 
2. Portée abrégée des travaux pour les évaluations externes
Objectif
L’évaluation a pour but d’évaluer la pertinence, la connectivité, la cohérence, la couverture, 
l’efficience, l’efficacité et la coordination de l’intervention.
Type
L'évaluation consistera en une évaluation des résultats, utilisée pour mesurer l’impact à court, à 
moyen et à terme du projet. 
Methods 
Outils de travail
Les outils essentiels de l’évaluation porteront directement sur les indicateurs mesurés par le projet. 
D’autres supports devront être utilisés pour la bonne documentation du rapport. L’essentiel 
d’outils pour cette évaluation seront constitués de : 
1. Questionnaire d’enquête ménages digitalisé et des discussions focalisées pouvant couvrir 
la taille de l’échantillon des bénéficiaires (échantillon représentatif) ; 
2. Tablettes pour la récolte digitalisée des données qualitatives ; 
3. Les téléphones satellitaires pour relayer la connexion mobile 
4. GPS pour des coordonnées géographiques 
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 29
5. L’appareil photo pour des images du projet et des histoires d’impact
6. Les logiciels de traitement des données (SPHINX/SPSS).
Sampling method
Une méthode d'échantillonnage aléatoire sera utilisée pour sélectionner un nombre représentatif 
de ménages. Le logiciel '' Calculateur de la taille de l’échantillon appelé « Simple size calculator”
Roasoft »' sera utilisé pour déterminer la taille représentative de l'échantillon parmi les 
bénéficiaires directs, avec un seuil statistique d'erreur acceptable de 5%. 
Le tableau des nombres au hasard sera utilisé pour notamment identifier les bénéficiaires 
concernés ou à rencontrer pour les interview d’enquête en référence à la liste des bénéficiaires. 
Structured Questionnaire 
Des questionnaires seront préparés pour répondre aux principaux thèmes de l'évaluation. Après 
avoir lu les principaux documents du projet et la documentation connexe, le questionnaire sera 
conçu conformément aux principaux objectifs d'évaluation et aux indicateurs de performance 
proposés pour le projet. Après que l'outil aura été partagé par le personnel concerné par WR, les 
contributions seront reçues et prises en compte. Après la disponibilité de l'outil de collecte de 
données, les enquêteurs seront embauchés à Tanganyika en fonction de leur niveau d'éducation 
et de leur expérience antérieure en matière de collecte de données, de leur âge, de leur niveau 
d'éducation et de leur éthique démontrée. Ils seront formés pendant un (1) jour par le Chef du 
Département « Conception, Suivi et Evaluation » avant de procéder à la collecte des données. La 
formation comprendra un aperçu général du projet en cours d'évaluation, le contenu de l'outil, 
ainsi que des questions pratiques sur le terrain. Après la formation, une enquête simulée sera 
menée. Sur le terrain, les enquêteurs effectueront une visite à domicile et utiliseront 
principalement des discussions face à face avec les ménages bénéficiaires lors de l'enregistrement 
des données.
2.3. Interview with implementing staff
Après le travail sur le terrain, un entretien avec le personnel de terrain et le personnel compétent 
sera organisé afin d'obtenir leurs points de vue sur la performance du projet, les défis et les 
domaines d'amélioration possibles.
2.4. Focus Group Discussions
Afin d'avoir les expériences des participants en ce qui concerne les interventions du projet, les 
discussions des groupes de discussion seront facilitées au moyen d'un guide d'entrevue semi￾structuré, d'un animateur et d'un preneur de notes. Un environnement interactif sera créé pour 
assurer une participation efficace.
2.5. Key Informant Interviews 
Afin d'obtenir une perspective équilibrée du projet, des entretiens avec des informateurs clés 
seront organisés avec certaines parties prenantes, notamment les«notables» locaux, les dirigeants 
communautaires et les représentants des bénéficiaires, car ils sont proches et familiers avec les 
moyens de subsistance des citoyens.
Bénéficiaires
Geographic Area Returnee 
Population
Host Community 
Population Total 
Tanganyika Province, Kalemie 
Territory: Nyemba Health Zone
30,397 Individuals
5,066 HHs
3,377 Individuals
563 HHs
33,774 Individuals
5,629 HHs
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 30 
(6 new targeted villages)
Tanganyika Province, Nyunzu 
Territory Nyunzu Health Zone (11 
new targeted villages)
117,765 Individuals
19,628 HHs
13,085 Individuals
2,181 HHs
130,850 Individuals
21,809 HHs
Total Beneficiaries
148,162 Individuals
(24,694 HHs)
16,462 Individuals
(2,744 HHs)
137 634 Individuals
(27,438 HHs)
Le tableau synthétique suivant, montre ou indique la répartition géographique des ménages 
échantillon selon les zones de santé et aires de santé : 
Territoire Zone de santé Aire de santé Ménages Bénéf. Ménages enquêtés
TANGANYIKA
NYUNZU
Muhuya 2137 29
Mangala 333 6
Changachanga 92 3
Mulongo 3394 46
Masamba 3787 52
Kabeyamayi 2487 34
Sulumba 1672 23
Kitengetenge 1069 15
Lengwe 5144 71
NYEMBA
Kyoko 3377 46
Kisengo 2917 40
Nyemba 1029 14
Sous-total 27438 379 
Les activités principales suivantes ont été exécuté dans ce sous-secteur :
• Réunions communautaires pour établir des critères de vulnérabilité pour la sélection des 
bénéficiaires du projet 
• Mener des études de base pour l’implémentation du projet avec des références
• Émettre des cartes d'enregistrement et de distribution aux bénéficiaires sélectionnés
• Distribuions des semences et des outils à des ménages sélectionnés ayant accès à la terre
• Suivi après distribution et un suivi après récolte 
• Formation des bénéficiaires en pratiques agricoles améliorées 
• Formation des bénéficiaires en Techniques de protection des cultures
• Formation des bénéficiaires en Techniques de conservation des produits agricoles en 
milieux ruraux
• Mener une sensibilisation de base sur l'utilisation des graines (pour planter, ne pas manger, 
etc.)
• Campagnes de promotion des aliments locaux
Indicateurs
• Nombre de mois d'autosuffisance alimentaire des ménages grâce à l'amélioration des 
programmes de production agricole 
• Ne Nombre de personne bénéficiant directement de l'amélioration de la production 
agricole et / ou des activités de sécurité alimentaire
• Nombre d'hectares bénéficiant de méthodes agricoles améliorées
• Pourcentage de ménages ayant accès à suffisamment de semences pour planter 
Sous-Secteur 1.1 Pests et Pesticides
Les activités planifiées étaient :
720FDA20GR00166 • World Relief End line Evaluation Page | 31 
• Fournir une formation et une démonstration sur la production et l'utilisation d'extraits de 
plantes locales dans la lutte antiparasitaire
• Collaborer aux campagnes de sensibilisation en cours sur la gestion et la prévention des 
ravageurs
Indicateurs sous-sectoriels
• Nombre des personnes formées aux pratiques appropriées de protection des cultures
• Nombre et pourcentage d'hectares protégés contre les maladies ou les ravageurs
• Nombre et pourcentage de personnes appliquant des procédures appropriées de protection 
des cultures
• Nombre et pourcentage de ménages observant au moins 3 mesures barrières sur la 
COVID-19 
Timeline 
L'évaluation est effectuée au cours du dernier trimestre du projet car la majorité des activités ont 
été mises en œuvre. Le chronogramme proposé par le département se présente comme suit : 
Jours Date Designation/Etapes Location
Vendredi 11-06-021 Voyage sur terrain ( Trésor) Kalemie 
Vendredi 11-06-021 Finalisation des préparatifs de l’enquête Nyunzu
Lundi 14-06-021 Formation des enquêteurs et Pretest Nyunzu
Mardi 15-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Mercredi 16-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Jeudi 17-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Vendredi 18-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Lundi 21-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Mardi 22-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Mercredi Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Jeudi 21-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Vendredi 22-06-021 Collecte des données/Conduite des Evaluations Nyemba et Nyunzu
Lundi 
28-06-021
Fin de la collecte des données et Retour du 
Terrain
Nyemba et Nyunzu
Mardi
29-06-021
Réunion d’évaluation du travail avec les 
enquêteurs, Clôture de l’activité
Nyunzu
////////////// 31/08/021 Rapport final (version anglaise) Bureau Pays
Fait à Kalemie, le 10/06/021. 
Trésor SENDIHI 
Design,M&E Manager