Prepared by:
TANGO International
Commissioned by:
World Vision
ENDLINE SURVEY FOR
EMERGENCY FOOD 
SECURITY PROJECT 
(EFSP) HOST 
COMMUNITIES
WORLD VISION
JANUARY 2022
2 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
DISCLAIMER 
The opinions expressed are those of the evaluation team and do not necessarily reflect those of the 
World Vision. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. 
Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by World Vision of the opinions expressed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The evaluation team would like to acknowledge the contribution of World Vision staff at headquarters 
and in Bangladesh. Special thanks to Henrik Sturve, Temple Jagha, Sisay Wagnew, Makhan Dutta, Md.
Rajab Ali, Asif Ahmed, Kallal Shing, Md. Barek, Liton Roy and Amit Rozario.
The evaluation team would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Grameen Bikash Foundation 
(GBF) Team Leader, Qualitative Researchers, Survey Coordinator, and data collection teams. 
Thank you to the project participants and respondents who contributed their time and valuable insights 
to this study.
KEY PERSONNEL FOR THIS EVALUATION
Evaluation Team
Bruce Ravesloot, Team Leader
Towfique Aziz, Senior Evaluator
Chloe Hein, Senior Evaluator
Md. Nasir Uddin, Technical Field Manager
Chandler Smith, Researcher
Luna Falk, Researcher
 
3 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
ANC Antenatal Care
BDT Bangladesh Taka
CD Cooking Demonstrations
CFW Cash For Work
CIC Camp In Charge
EFSP Emergency Food Security Program
EOPS End Of Project Status
FCS Food Consumption Score
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
GBF Grameen Bikash Foundation
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
HH Household
HHS Household Hunger Score
IGA Income Generating Activity 
IYCF Infant Young Child Feeding
KII Key Informant Interview 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MCHN Maternal and Child Health and Nutrition
MEAL Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning 
NC Nutrition Counselling 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
ODK Open Data Kit
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring 
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
PNC Postnatal Care
PPS Probability Proportional Sample to Size
RCSI Reduced Coping Strategies Index
TANGO Technical Assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations
USD United States Dollar
WASH Water, Sanitation, And Hygiene 
WV World Vision
4 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................3
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................6
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................9
A. BACKGROUND ON EFSP...........................................................................................................................9
B. OBJECTIVES OF ENDLINE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................9
ACHIEVEMENTS .........................................................................................................................................10
EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF INTERVENTIONS AND INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION:......10
2. METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................................10
A. SAMPLING STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................10
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE............................................................................................................................10
QUALITATIVE SAMPLE...............................................................................................................................11
B. DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS...................................................................................................12
DATA COLLECTION AND ENTRY................................................................................................................12
DATA QUALITY CONTROL..........................................................................................................................12
DATA ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................12
C. TEAM TRAINING.....................................................................................................................................12
D. LIMITATIONS ..........................................................................................................................................13
3. FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................................13
A. PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST TARGETS......................................................................................13
B. PROGRAM TARGETING..........................................................................................................................15
C. EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................16
IMPROVED FOOD SECURITY .....................................................................................................................16
NUTRITION.................................................................................................................................................19
INCOME......................................................................................................................................................22
D. COPING STRATEGIES AND IMPACT OF COVID-19 ................................................................................24
4. FACTORS AFFECTING RESULTS .......................................................................................................................28
A. STRENGTHS AND GOOD PRACTICES .....................................................................................................28
B. CHALLENGES...........................................................................................................................................31
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................32
6. RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................................33
7. APPENDIX.........................................................................................................................................................34
A. EFSP PROJECT INDICATORS ...................................................................................................................34
B. ADDITIONAL TABLES ..............................................................................................................................36
8. ANNEX ..............................................................................................................................................................41
ANNEX 1 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY TOOL ........................................................................................................41
ANNEX 2 QUALITATIVE TOOL .........................................................................................................................41
ANNEX 3 INCEPTION REPORT.........................................................................................................................41
ANNEX 4 QUALITATIVE DATA .........................................................................................................................41
ANNEX 5 QUANTITATIVE DATA ......................................................................................................................41
ANNEX 6 DETAILED EFSP TOPLINE INDICATOR ANALYSIS TABLES...............................................................41
ANNEX 7 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY TRAINING SCHEDULE..............................................................................41
ANNEX 8 QUALITATIVE TRAINING SCHEDULE...............................................................................................41
5 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
TABLES
Table 1: Key Indicator Endline Results Against End of Project Targets....................................................................... 6
Table 2: Quantitative Sampling Overview..................................................................................................................10
Table 3: Completed Focus Group Discussions............................................................................................................11
Table 4: Completed Key Informant Interviews...........................................................................................................11
Table 5: Key indicator values from 2019 baseline to 2021 endline...........................................................................13
Table 6: Targeting Guidelines for EFSP Interventions................................................................................................15
Table 7: Improved Food Security Indicator Values....................................................................................................17
Table 8: Project Nutrition Output Indicators..............................................................................................................21
Table 9: Participation in Savings for Transformation................................................................................................. 23
Table 10: Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) .....................................................................................................24
Table 11: Activity Areas and Indicators measured at Participant Level....................................................................34
Table 12: Sample Size Detailed Information ..............................................................................................................36
Table 13: Detailed Food Security Indicator Results....................................................................................................37
Table 14: Infant and Young Feeding Practices Indicator Values................................................................................38
Table 15: COVID-19 Impact Results............................................................................................................................39
FIGURES
Figure 1: Food Consumption Scores (FCS)..................................................................................................................17
Figure 3: Household Diet Diversity Score ...................................................................................................................18
Figure 2: Household Hunger Score (HHS)...................................................................................................................18
Figure 4: Percentage of participants with children U5 who received key nutrition messages................................19
Figure 5: Percentage of women with children U2 who can name at least 3 MCHN nutrition messages................20
Figure 6: Livelihood diversification and number of average household income sources........................................22
Figure 7: Percentage of participants engaged in project income generating activities (IGA)..................................22
Figure 8: Average number of income sources for male and female headed HHs ....................................................23
Figure 9: Mean score on the reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI).......................................................................25
Figure 10: Percentage of households with coping strategies for the impacts of COVID-19 in the past 12 months25
Figure 11: COVID-19 Cox's Bazar Timeline .................................................................................................................27
Figure 12: Impacts of COVID-19 on Households........................................................................................................28
6 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
1.Executive Summary 
Purpose. TANGO completed the baseline evaluation for the EFSP project in December 2019 and an endline 
evaluation on the impact of refugee targeted activities in December 2020.1 The purpose of this endline is to 
evaluate the impact, efficacy, and achievements of the host community interventions in relation to the overall 
program goals, objectives, results, and targets. 
Methodology. The EFSP endline evaluation of host community interventions only collected data in project￾supported host communities in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh. Data collection was facilitated through a mixed-methods 
assessment which included quantitative household surveys and qualitative interviews. The endline survey sample 
included 680 host community households participating in EFSP project activities. Endline data collection included
661 completed survey responses for a total non-response rate of 2.8%. Qualitative data collection included 20 key 
informant interviews (KIIs) and 20 focus group discussions (FGDs) which included a total of 216 host community 
members and key informants. The mixed method approach was designed based on the project activities and 
outcome indicators outlined in the EFSP Monitoring and Evaluation framework. 
Achievements Against Targets. The EFSP project exceeded all 10 key project indicator targets for host community 
households. Overall, participants report increased food security and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods, 
more income sources, strengthened awareness and promotion of key nutrition messages, reduced use of negative 
coping strategies, and improved refugee-host community relations. 
Table 1: Key Indicator Endline Results Against End of Project Targets
Indicator
Baseline Endline
Sig EOPS Status
2019 2021
Purpose 1: Increased consumption of diverse and quality foods that meet the nutritional requirements of vulnerable households in
Refugee Camps and Host Communities.
EFSP 2. Percentage of households with: 
Exceeded
Poor (0-21) Food Consumption Score (FCS) 0.9% 0.0% * <0.9%
Percentage with Borderline (>21 to 35) FCS 26.1% 0.9% *** <19.1%
Percentage with Adequate (>35) FCS 72.9% 99.1% *** >80%
Intermediate Outcome 1.1: Improved access to and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods for 34,112 refugee HHs and 5,229 host
community HHs directly impacted by the refugee influx.
EFSP4. Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household
Hunger Scale (HHS) score 10.8% 1.2% *** <7.8% Exceeded
Percent with above average food groups 47.6% 62.9% *** >50% Exceeded
Intermediate Outcome 1.2: Enhanced Refugee and Host Community HHs’ capacities to sustainably access to nutritious and diversified
food.
Percentage of HHs who have more than two sources of income as a result
of project intervention
14.5% 95.7% *** >50% Exceeded
1 Note: The refugee activities were implemented over a 12-month period. The host community activities were implemented over a 24-
month period. This is why the refugee activity endline evaluation was completed in 2020. 
7 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Percentage of households engaged in income generating activities 22.2% 99.4% *** >70% Exceeded
Output 1.2.3: Refugee and Host Community women and men are sensitized on nutrition and health and mobilized to promote the
utilization of nutritious food for children and for women of child bearing age.
Percentage of targeted participants with children U5 who can name 3 key
nutrition messages (IYCF, NC, CD) n/a 80.7% >75% Exceeded
Percentage of participants who can name 3 (at least 3) key nutrition
messages (based on the knowledge of 7 MCHN practices) 54.4% 99.4% *** >75% Exceeded
Percentage of targeted participants in the health and nutrition component with children U5 who have received
key nutrition messages for:
Exceeded Infant Young Child Feeding 10.9% 91.2% ***
Nutrition counseling 17.8% 91.2% *** >75%
Cooking demonstration 8.1% 82.0% ***
Purpose 2: Capacity of Refugees and Host Communities to withstand future shocks enhanced.
EFSP3. Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) % HHs above the mean 55.1% 16.3% *** <38.5% Exceeded
Intermediate Outcome 2.3: Social cohesion reinforced between host community and refugee HHs.
Percentage of individuals expressing improved relations between refugee
and host community n/a 98.2% n/a >38.5% Exceeded
*** p<.001, ** p<.05, * p<.01
Conclusions. EFSP host community households report substantial improvement in their food security from 
baseline. Nearly all (99.1%) respondents report adequate food consumption scores and 98.8% of host community 
households at endline report little or no hunger. Household dietary diversity also improved. The percentage of 
households reporting consumption of more than eight food groups increased from 3.8% at baseline to 35.1% at 
endline.
All nutrition indicators show considerable improvement since baseline. Project participants with children under 
the age of five (U5) report a large increase in the reception of key nutrition messages on Infant Youth Child Feeding 
(IYCF), nutrition counselling (NC), and cooking demonstrations (CD). The proportion of targeted participants with 
children U5 who report reception of three key nutrition messages has increased by at least 70 percentage points 
for each message from baseline to endline.
Host community households have more diverse livelihoods as a result of EFSP activities. The mean number of 
income sources that contribute to overall household income nearly tripled from 1.55 at baseline to 4.2 at endline. 
The percentage of households with more than two income sources increased from 14.5% at baseline to 95.7% at 
endline. Field interviews show that project interventions for goat rearing, chicken rearing, vegetable production, 
vendor selling, and unconditional cash transfers and Cash for Work have all contributed to increased household 
income. Male Engagement interventions are leading to changes in the mindset of male participants, and more 
men are now taking part in domestic activities (spending time with children, home cooking, and washing clothes), 
and increased acceptance that women can engage IGAs and not be limited to engagement in domestic household 
activities. 
8 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
The successful continuation of project activities despite COVID-19 related challenges is observed in the endline 
survey data, which shows that only 3.1% of host community members reported reduced support from the 
government or NGOs in response to COVID-19. The primary reported coping mechanisms in response to COVID￾19 in the last 12 months were receiving food or assistance from an NGO (81.6%), selling livestock (70.5%), using 
money from savings (68.7%), and slaughtering livestock (53.3%). At baseline, 44.6% of host community households 
scored above the mean reduced coping strategy index (rCSI) score, compared to 16.3% at endline. This indicates 
that host community households are utilizing fewer negative food-related coping strategies than they were at 
baseline. Despite challenges associated with the onset of COVID-19, the EFSP project achieved impressive results 
in targeted host communities by endline. 
***
9 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
1.Introduction 
A. Background on EFSP 
The objective of the World Vision Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) is to improve food security and 
nutrition among vulnerable refugee and host community members in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh. EFSP is a 
two-year (2019-2021) emergency food assistance project funded by the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The EFSP interventions take place over 24 months, which includes 2 months of start-up 
and 1 month of closing out. All EFSP interventions are designed to address the short-term food security crisis and 
medium-term livelihood recovery needs of 34,112 Rohingya refugees and 5,229 host community households 
throughout the Cox Bazar district.2
The EFSP is designed around two primary purposes to improve food security and nutritional status of refugees
and host community members: 
Purpose 1. Improved access to and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods for 34,112 refugee households,
while also addressing the short-term food security needs and strengthening the medium-term livelihoods 
recovery of 5,229 of the most vulnerable host community households directly impacted by the refugee influx. 
 Intermediate outcome 1.1: Improved access to and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods for 
34,112 refugee HHs and 5,229 host community households directly impacted by the refugee influx.
 Intermediate outcome 1.2: Enhanced Refugee and Host Community households’ capacities to sustainably 
access nutritious and diversified food.
Purpose 2. Capacity of Refugees and Host Communities to withstand future shocks enhanced.
 Intermediate outcome 2.1: Community assets and infrastructure restored in Host communities through 
cash for work.
 Intermediate outcome 2.2: Community savings groups strengthened.
 Intermediate outcome 2.3: Social cohesion reinforced between host community and refugee households.
EFSP interventions for host communities include Cash for Work (CFW), conditional food vouchers and 
unconditional cash transfers. These interventions targeted 5,229 host community households.3
B. Objectives of Endline Evaluation 
TANGO completed the baseline evaluation for the EFSP project in December 2019, and an endline evaluation on
the impact of refugee targeted activities in December 2020.The purpose of this endline is to evaluate the 
impact, efficacy, and achievements of the host community interventions in relation to the overall program goals, 
objectives, results, and targets. As such, this endline evaluation only includes data collected within host 
2 World Vision, Inc. (2019). Application for Emergency Food Assistance: Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host 
communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. World Vision, Inc. 3 World Vision, Inc. (2019). Application for Emergency Food Assistance: Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host 
communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. World Vision, Inc.
10 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
communities. In line with the thematic areas covered at baseline level, the endline evaluation focused on the 
following criterion and related questions: 
Achievements: to what extent have the activity’s interventions adhered to planned implementation - schedules, 
participant targeting, resource transfer composition and quantities, inputs and service delivery, and outputs - and 
achieved intended goals, purposes, and outcomes? 
Effectiveness and efficiency of interventions and intervention implementation: to what extent did the activity 
consider gender equity, protection, age, physical and emotional challenges of the participants, and risks to 
participation in various interventions in program design and implementation? 
Unintended consequences and lessons learned: what changes — expected and unexpected, positive, and 
negative — did targeted participants, community members and other stakeholders associate with the activity’s 
interventions? 
Linkages, layering, and exit strategies: to what extent did the Program take advantage of other USG and non-USG 
investments in the same space to facilitate linkages with complementary services, layering with earlierinvestments, 
and implementing an exit strategy/ies to minimize the dependency on external support? 
2.Methodology 
A. Sampling Strategy 
The EFSP endline evaluation of host community interventions only collected data in project-supported host 
communities in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh. Data collection was facilitated through a mixed-methods assessment 
which included quantitative household surveys and qualitative interviews. Qualitative data collection included key 
informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs), combined with semi-structured direct observation. 
The mixed method approach was designed based on the project activities and outcome indicators outlined in the 
EFSP Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework (see Appendix A). 
Quantitative Sample 
The quantitative household survey sampling utilized a two-stage cluster design using a Probability Proportional to 
Size (PPS) procedure. The endline survey sample included 680 host community households participating in EFSP 
project activities. Endline data collection collected 661 completed survey responses for a total non-response rate 
of 2.8%. 
Table 2: Quantitative Sampling Overview
2019 Baseline 2021 Endline
Number Percent Planned
Total Sample
Number Percent Planned
Total Sample
Planned Total Sample 350 100% 680 100%
Response Cases 340 97.1% 661 97.2%
Non-Response Cases 10 2.9% 19 2.8%
11 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
The baseline sample was 350 households for the host community, whereas the endline sample for the same group 
was 680. Although the sample sizes are different between the two rounds, the 95% confidence intervals for all 
indicators were found to be similar for both baseline and endline samples. This implies that the variability of the 
indicators is similar in the two survey rounds. Therefore, the smaller sample size at baseline does not impact the 
statistical validity of results. 
Qualitative Sample 
Qualitative data was collected in 20 key informant interviews (KIIs) and 20 focus group discussions (FGDs). The 
interviews were distributed across the same Wards included in the household survey. Sampling for FGD participants
focused on identifying members from ‘typical’ households to capture the case experience through these sessions. 
Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate the selected FGD and KII distribution across the five sampled unions (Ukhiya, Jalia 
Palong, Raja Palong, Palong Khali, Teknaf, Baharchhara, and Nhilla). 
Table 3: Completed Focus Group Discussions
Level Number of
FGDs
Participants
Union Wards Female Male Total
Palong khali 1, 4, 5, 7 4 FGD 25 9 34
Jalia palong 2, 5, 6, 7 4 FGD 28 11 39
Nhilla 4, 6, 7, 9 4 FGD 39 0 39
Raja palong 2, 5, 6, 9 4 FGD 32 4 36
Baharchhara 1, 3, 5, 7 4 FGD 46 2 48
Total 20 170 26 196
20 FGDs were completed with 196 host community members. KII respondents were identified by World Vision 
(WV) EFSP staff during the inception phase and include implementing staff, partners, and sector stakeholders. 20 
KIIs were completed for this evaluation and included a variety of key informant types to ensure information could 
be appropriately triangulated across sources. 
Table 4: Completed Key Informant Interviews
Union Number of KIIs
Completed
Informant Profile
Ukhiya 6 KII PIO, Market Actor, Uz Engineer, Veterinary Field Assistant, SAAO, WV
Official
Teknaf 7 KII Fisheries Officer, UNO, Women Affairs, Market Actor, FWA,
Community Leader, Up member
Ukhiya/Teknaf 1 KII WV Official
Baharchhara 1 KII Community leader
Jalia palong 2 KII Health Service Provider, Union member (women)
Raja palong 1 KII Community leader
Palong khali 2 KII Up member, Community Leader
Total 20
12 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
B. Data Management and Analysis 
Data Collection and Entry 
Quantitative data was collected by electronic data capture devices equipped with ODK (Open Data Kit) software. 
The use of mobile devices and an electronic questionnaire form improved data quality by allowing data validation 
rules and consistency checks to be integrated in the data collection process. Mobile devices reduced the data 
entry burden as data was entered immediately at the interviewer level and records were uploaded to a cloud 
server using the built-in internet connectivity of the devices. This allowed the quantitative data analysis team to 
review for consistency every day and ensure the data was ready for analysis as early as possible. The survey tools 
can be found in Annex 1. Qualitative data was captured via notes and entered into Excel matrices after interviews 
were completed. The qualitative topical outline is included in Annex 2, and the data entry matrices in Annex 4. 
Data Quality Control 
Quality control was assured through in-field supervision and real time data quality review. Quantitative (ODK 
uploads) and qualitative data (completed interview matrices) were submitted to TANGO at least every 2 days, 
depending on connectivity. Feedback was regularly provided to the field teams through WhatsApp and email to 
support real-time data quality assurance. 
During data collection, the Grameen Bikash Foundation (GBF) Team Leader, Survey Coordinator and supervisors 
organized daily in-briefs and de-briefs with quantitative and qualitative survey teams. In-briefs incorporated 
feedback on data quality and team members’ performance based on TANGO’s review of uploaded data and 
interviewer logs. During debriefings,the Team Leader, team supervisors and the GBF Survey Coordinator reviewed
specific questions and topics in completed tools for consistency, reliability, and accuracy. The GBF Survey 
Coordinator and team supervisors utilized additional data quality monitoring controls including re-interviewing a 
selected number of interviews and verification that non-response households were unavailable. GBF provided 
daily progress reports to TANGO via email, identifying challenges and how these were solved in line with the
established baseline protocols. Regular calls were organized between GBF and TANGO, and between TANGO and 
World Vision to provide status updates. 
Data Analysis 
Quantitative data was analyzed using STATA 15.1. Data analysis syntaxes were programmed in STATA .do files. 
Qualitative data was analyzed through MS Excel templates. 
The TANGO team utilized a strategy of triangulation by examining the issues through various lenses and different 
perspectives, including data collected through program document review, baseline survey, KIIs and FGDs. The 
endline report includes triangulated findings from both quantitative and qualitative data. 
C. Team Training 
TANGO implemented a four-day training for the quantitative survey team and a concurrent three-day training for 
the qualitative team. Participants received an orientation on general rules, normative survey and research 
13 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
practices, description of sampling methodology, use of electronic devices and ODK software. Training also 
included an in-depth review of data collection tools. The training schedules can be found in Annex 0 (quantitative 
survey training) and Annex 0 (qualitative training). 
D. Limitations 
Limitations for this endline evaluation were successfully mitigated via close coordination between the evaluation 
team and World Vision. 
i. The physical access constraints due to COVID-19 related restrictions were successfully mitigated via flexible 
data collection start dates and World Vision organizations of local clearance permissions to ensure successful 
data collection completion.
ii. The baseline evaluation did not collect Savings for Transformation (S4T) data for host community members. 
Thus, data on the extent to which host community members are involved in S4T activities can not be measured 
over time. 
3. Findings
This section is organized around the endline evaluation objectives and includes subsections on project 
achievements against output and outcome indicator targets, the effectiveness of program implementation, coping 
strategies and the impact of COVID-19. 
A. Project Achievements Against Targets 
The EFSP project exceeded all 10 project output indicator targets for host community households. Overall, the 
direction of change is positive across all indicators and participants report increased food security and 
consumption of diverse and nutritious foods, more income sources, strengthened awareness and promotion of 
key nutrition messages, reduced use of negative coping strategies, and improved refugee-host community 
relations. Table 5 presented below shows main project indicator values at baseline and endline, disaggregated 
sub-indicators, and project performance against End of Project Status (EOPS) values. Project indicators reported 
as “exceeded” denote that the point value estimates at endline have surpassed the EOPS target. 
Table 5: Key indicator values from 2019 baseline to 2021 endline
Indicator
Baseline Endline
Sig EOPS Status
2019 2021
Purpose 1: Increased consumption of diverse and quality foods that meet the nutritional requirements of vulnerable households in Refugee
Camps and Host Communities.
EFSP 2. Percentage of households with: 
Exceeded
Poor (0-21) Food Consumption Score (FCS) 0.9% 0.0% * <0.9%
Percentage with Borderline (>21 to 35) FCS 26.1% 0.9% *** <19.1%
Percentage with Adequate (>35) FCS 72.9% 99.1% *** >80%
Intermediate Outcome 1.1: Improved access to and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods for 34,112 refugee HHs and 5,229 host
community HHs directly impacted by the refugee influx.
14 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
EFSP4. Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household Hunger
Scale (HHS) score 10.8% 1.2% *** <7.8% Exceeded
Percentage of HHs with above-average food groups 47.6% 62.9% *** >50% Exceeded
Intermediate Outcome 1.2: Enhanced Refugee and Host Community HHs’ capacities to sustainably access to nutritious and diversified food.
Percentage of HHs who have more than two sources of income as a result of
project intervention
14.5% 95.7% *** >50% Exceeded
Percentage of households engaged in income generating activities 22.2% 99.4% *** >70% Exceeded
Output 1.2.3: Refugee and Host Community women and men are sensitized on nutrition and health and mobilized to promote the utilization of
nutritious food for children and for women of child bearing age.
Percentage of targeted participants with children U5 who can name 3 key nutrition messages (IYCF, NC, CD):
All 6.7% Exceeded 4 51.1% ***
Participant n/a 80.7% >75%
Percentage of participants who can name 3 (at least 3) key nutrition messages
(based on the knowledge of 7 MCHN practices)
54.4% 99.4% *** >75% Exceeded
Percentage of targeted participants in the health and nutrition component with children U5 who have received key
nutrition messages for:
Exceeded Infant Young Child Feeding 10.9% 91.2% ***
Nutrition counseling 17.8% 91.2% *** >75%
Cooking demonstration 8.1% 82.0% ***
Purpose 2: Capacity of Refugees and Host Communities to withstand future shocks enhanced.
EFSP3. Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) % HHs above the mean 55.1% 16.3% *** <38.5% Exceeded
Intermediate Outcome 2.3: Social cohesion reinforced between host community and refugee HHs.
Percentage of individuals expressing improved relations between refugee and
host community n/a 98.2% n/a >38.5% Exceeded
*** p<.001, ** p<.05, * p<.01
EOPS targets were originally set prior to the baseline evaluation, then revised in December 2019 in alignment with 
recommendations from the baseline evaluation.56 Evidence of the logic or basis for which targets were updated 
to specific levels is not documented at endline. For example, the target for “EFSP 2. % of households with poor
Food Consumption Score (FCS)” was already met at baseline: The host community percentage of households with 
poor FCS result at baseline was 0.9%, and the target is 0.9% EOPS. The target for host community households with 
adequate FCS scores was not updated after baseline, although the baseline result for host communities was 
reported at 72.9%, and the EOPS target for host community members remains at 80%. This target was 
recommended to be revised in the baseline report. An example of positive targeting adjustment after baseline is 
4 Project participants were not yet determined at baseline
5 TANGO International Ltd. (2019-2020). Baseline Survey for Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host communities 
in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Commissioned by World Vision. 6 World Vision, Inc. (2019). Application for Emergency Food Assistance: Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host 
communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. World Vision, Inc. 72DFFP19GR00058 Revised December 23, 2019
15 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
the indicator for “% of households with above average food groups”. This indicator was revised after baseline 
from an original EOPS target of 80%, to 50% based on recommendations that the original target was too ambitious 
to be achieved in the short project timeframe. At endline, this target has been achieved based on the revised 
target. 
Aside from the Intermediate Outcome 2.3 indicator for host community-refugee relations (which was not existent 
at baseline) and the percentage of households with poor Food Consumption Score (FCS) results, “exceeded” 
statuses across indicator results are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The column “SIG” 
represents the statistical significance of indicator values presented at 90.0% (*), 95.0% (**), or 99.0% (***) 
confidence levels. 
B. Program Targeting 
EFSP project activities targeted 5,229 host community households, including 26,145 individuals. Villages adjacent 
to refugee camps were prioritized for host community targeting. As such, target households were selected within 
Ukhiya and Teknaf and the five selected unions were Jalia Palong, Raja Palong, Palong Khali, Baharchhara and 
Nhila. The general and intervention-specific groups targeted by EFSP are outlined in Table 6 below. 
Table 6: Targeting Guidelines for EFSP Interventions7
Intervention
Strategies Targeted Participants
General • Households with children under 5 (U5)
• Households with pregnant or lactating women (PLW) 
• Households headed by a female
• Households with female adolescents
• Households headed by a child
• Households with a chronically ill or disabled members
Cash for Work
(CFW):
• Vulnerable households (headed by either gender) with health members able to participate in work
activities
• Households with a single source of income netting under the minimum income rate
• Households with a chronically ill member
• Households with a disabled member
• Households with children under 5 
• CFW activities intentionally encouraged female participation and leadership in certain activities. 
Unconditional Cash
Transfers
• Households without a healthy member to participate in CFW (but meets all other CFW selection criteria) 
• Pregnant head of household 
• Households with disabled, elderly or chronically ill adult 
• Child headed household 
• “Landless” households (living in a space at or less than 809.2m2) 
• Households with single income with income irregulates
• Households with income irregulates
• Households with permanent residents residing in the same village for at least one year 
7 World Vision, Inc. (2019). Application for Emergency Food Assistance: Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host 
communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. World Vision, Inc. 72DFFP19GR00058 Revised December 23, 2019
16 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Income Generating
Activities
• All 5,229 host community households 
• IGAs were designed to integrate household and refugee markets to foster increased social cohesion and
reduce economic stress on vulnerable households.
Nutrition • 150 Lead Mothers selected from the 5,229 community households 
• Programming targeted the most influential women in each project participant household. Program design
defines “influential” as the member most involved in household food purchases, cooking and
consumption of nutritious foods. 
Savings for
Transformation
(S4T)
• S4T participants were self-selected. 
• Each group elected a chairperson, secretary, treasurer and two money-counters for each committee from
the larger host community. 
The EFSP Interventions were designed to address and target the vulnerabilities and populations listed above.8 To
identify appropriate target groups, World Vision conducted a rapid market assessment in Ukhiya and Teknaf in 
April 2019 to analyze essential factors contributing to household poverty, gender dynamics, nutrition, food 
security, child protection disaster risk reduction and social protection mapping. This assessment was appropriately 
utilized by project staff to appropriately target host community participants for specific project activities as 
outlined in Table 6. Internal Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) reports show that a majority of targeted 
participants actively engaged in all respective interventions throughout all periods of programming.9 Overall,
consistent levels of participation and achievement of all program targets suggest that targeting was effective. 
C. Effectiveness 
This section assesses effectiveness of EFSP project interventions and implementation from baseline to date. Section 
organization is according to key project themes. 
Improved Food Security 
EFSP host community households report substantial improvement in their food security from baseline. Participant
food security is measured using three main output indicators, namely Food Consumption Score (FCS), Household 
Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS), and Household Hunger Score (HHS). All food security indicators (Table 7) show
positive results, as households report increased food consumption, improved dietary diversity, and decreased 
moderate or severe hunger since baseline. 
8 World Vision, Inc. (2019). Application for Emergency Food Assistance: Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) to Refugees and host 
communities in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. World Vision, Inc. 9 USAID. (2020). Post Distribution Monitoring Report for Unconditional Cash, Vegetable Seeds, and Gardening Tools in host Communities. 
World Vision Inc.; USAID. (2021). Conditional and Unconditional Cash Transfer, Multipurpose Cash Grants to Support Income Generating 
Activities, Seed and Home Gardening Tools Distribution in Host Communities. USAID.; USAID. (2021). Post Distribution Monitoring Report 
for Unconditional Cash Transfer in Host Communities. USAID.
17 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Table 7: Improved Food Security Indicator Values
Indicator Baseline
2019
Endline
2021 Sig10
1.%Of households with poor, borderline, and adequate Food 
Consumption Score (FCS) 
Average Score (FCS) 41.8 63 ***
% Poor (0-21) 0.9% 0.0% *
% Borderline (>21 to 35) 26.1% 0.9% ***
% Adequate (>35) 72.9% 99.1% ***
2.Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household 
Hunger Scale (HHS) score. 
Average Score (HHS) 0.44 0.04 ***
% No/little hunger 89.2% 98.8% ***
% moderate/severe hunger 10.8% 1.2% ***
3.%Of households with improved dietary diversity score (HDDS) Average Score (HDDS) 5.4 8.0 ***
% with >8 food groups 3.8% 35.1% ***
% with >average food 
groups
47.6% 62.9% ***
n 340 661
*** p<.001, ** p<.05, * p<.01
The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score 
based on dietary diversity, food frequency, and the 
relative nutritional importance of different food 
groups. To collect FCS data, a questionnaire asks
respondents about the frequency of their households' 
consumption of nine food groups over the previous 
seven days. To calculate the FCS, consumption 
frequencies are summed and multiplied by the 
standardized food group weight, and households are 
then classified into three groups based on their 
weighted scores - poor, borderline, or acceptable using
the World Food Program's recommended cutoff points.11 The percentage of households who report poor and 
borderline Food Consumption Scores has decreased since baseline, and nearly all (99.1%) respondents report 
adequate food consumption scores. Less than one percent (0.9%) of households at endline report a borderline 
FCS score, which is a significant reduction from 26.1% of households with borderline FCS scores at baseline (see 
Figure 1). 
Borderline Food Consumption scores are reported by 2.1% of adult female no adult male (FNM) households, 0.8% 
of male and female adult (M&F) households, and 0.0% of adult male no adult female (MNF) households (see Table 
13 in Appendix B). In focus group discussion (FGD) interviews conducted for this evaluation, EFSP participants 
report that they have been able to successfully sell their home gardening products (interviews include references 
to vegetables, eggs, chickens and in more rare cases ducks and/or fruits) for additional income, and that they have 
been able to rely on their home gardening production for household consumption as needed. Examples 
households provided for when they had to rely on household production included: in the rainy season/vegetables 
are out of season so market prices are higher, increased market prices due to COVID-19 disruptions, and COVID￾19 related restrictions limiting paid employment opportunities, and thus limiting household income. Interviews 
10 Statistical significance baseline to endline 11 USAID Food for Peace. February 2019. Indicators for Emergency Program Performance Indicator Reference Sheets. P. 7. 
Figure 1: Food Consumption Scores (FCS) 
0.0%
0.9%
99.1%
0.9%
26.1%
72.9%
0% 50% 100%
% Poor (0-21)
% Boderline (>21-
35)
% Adequate (>35)
Baseline (2019)
Endline (2021)
18 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
with EFSP participants. This qualitative data indicates that adoption of EFSP home gardening and duck and chicken 
rearing activities is increasing participant consumption levels and reducing reliance on volatile market prices of 
food. 
The Household Hunger Scale (HHS) is a food deprivation scale 
that measures the percent of households experiencing 
hunger. To collect data for this indicator, the person in the 
household in charge of food preparation is asked about the 
frequency with which three events were experienced by any 
household member in the last four weeks: 1. No food at all in 
the house 2. Went to bed hungry 3. Went all day and night 
without eating. Baseline and endline Household Hunger 
Score values are in. HHS data shows that households 
experiencing moderate and severe hunger decreased from 
10.8% at baseline to 1.2% of households at endline, which 
achieves the EOPS target of 7.8% reporting moderate and 
severe hunger. Reduced moderate or severe hunger is
inverse to the increased proportion of households who 
report little or no hunger from baseline (89.2%) to endline 
(98.8%) (see Figure 2). Field interviews found that EFSP 
participating households assert that they are experiencing fewer instances of needing to reduce the number of 
meals their household is eating as a result of their participation in EFSP activities. Specific activities cited as the 
most impactful in this regard include: the provision of agricultural inputs for home gardening, chicken and duck 
rearing, Cash for Work and unconditional cash grants, which increases participant purchasing power at market. 
Participants also report that food distributions from the Government of Bangladesh and other NGOs have reduced 
household hunger. 
The Household Diet Diversity Score (HDDS) is 
meant to provide an indication of household 
economic access to food, thus items that 
require household resources to obtain (such 
as condiments, sugar and sugary foods, and 
beverages) are included in the score. 
Individual scores are meant to reflect the 
nutritional quality of the diet. HDDS includes 
an aggregation of 12 total food groups, 
including: cereals; white tubers and roots; 
vegetables; fruits; meat; eggs; fish and other 
seafood; legumes; nuts and seeds; milk and 
43.7%
89.2%
10.8%
4.1%
98.8%
1.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Average Score
(HHS)
No/little hunger Moderate/severe
hunger
3.8%
35.1%
47.6%
62.9%
5.4 
8.0 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Baseline (2019) Endline (2021)
Percentage
HDDS Score
% HHs w/more than 8 food groups
% HHs w/more than average food groups
HDDS Average Score
Figure 3: Household Hunger Score (HHS)
Figure 2: Household Diet Diversity Score
19 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
milk products; oils and fats; sweets, spices, condiments and beverages.12 
HDDS data collected and displayed in Figure 3indicate participating households have improved dietary diversity 
since baseline. The average Household Dietary Diversity Score of households increased from 5.4 at baseline to 8.0 
at endline. The percentage of households with more than eight food groups increased from 3.8% at baseline to 
35.1% at endline. Similarly, the proportion of respondents that have more than the average number of food 
groups increased by 15.3 percentage points from baseline (47.6%) to endline (62.9%). FGD interviews with EFSP 
participants reported that households have started increasing the number of different foods into their diets as a 
result of things they’ve learned about nutrition through EFSP activities. Mothers Group meetings were widely 
cited in FGDs as a critical mechanism through which participants gained information on nutrition and diet. 
Qualitative data indicates that EFSP nutritional sessions and Mothers Group meetings, which instruct on the 
importance of dietary diversity and cooking demonstrations for pregnant and lactating women and women with 
young children, have resulted in higher awareness of diet diversity attributes and importance. In KIIs and FGDs, 
project participants report that households are now seeking better dietary diversity through consumption of 
vegetables, dairy, fruits, fish, and meat, as well as other nutritious foods. 
Nutrition 
All nutrition indicators show considerable improvement since baseline 
(See Figure 4). Project participants with children under the age of five (U5) 
report a large increase in the reception of key nutrition messages on
Infant Youth Child Feeding (IYCF), nutrition counselling (NC), and cooking 
demonstrations (CD). Of project participants surveyed, 9 out of 10 report 
reception of nutrition counselling and IYCF messaging, and 8 out of 10 
report reception of cooking demonstration messaging. The proportion of 
targeted participants with children U5 who report reception of three key 
nutrition messages has increased by at least 70 percentage points for 
each message from baseline to endline. 
The proportion of targeted participants with children U5 who can name 
all three key nutrition messages increased from 6.7% at baseline to 80.7% 
at endline, exceeding the indicator target of 75.0%. This contrasts with 
5.9% of non-participants with children U5 who could name three key nutrition messages at endline (see Table 8). 
Qualitative data from FGDs with participants and KIIs with implementers indicate that EFSP nutrition trainings are 
reaching targeted participants, and participants value the information. Participants report in FGDs that EFSP 
nutrition trainings have increased their knowledge about nutritious foods for youth and pregnant women, and 
provide healthy cooking demonstrations, nutrition counselling, and infant and young child feeding lessons to 
participants. 
12 There are no established cut-off points in terms of number of food groups to indicate adequate or inadequate dietary diversity for the 
HDDS. Because of this it is recommended to use the mean score or distribution of scores for analytical purposes and to set program 
targets or goals. 
Figure 4: Percentage of 
participants with children U5 who
received key nutrition messages
8.1%
17.8%
10.9%
82.0%
91.2% 91.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CD NC IYCF
2019 Baseline 2021 Endline
20 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Of participants with children under the age of 5 and 
women of childbearing age, nearly all (99.4%) report 
they can name at least three key maternal and child 
health and nutrition (MCHN) messages, which is an 
increase from half (54.4%) of participants at baseline. 
The proportion of participants who understand that 
pregnant women need more day-time rest increased 
by 53.2 percentage points from 40.4% at baseline to 
93.6% at endline. The percentage of women who 
report knowing infants should be exclusively 
breastfed for the first six months and should start 
consuming semi-solid and solid food after six months 
of age increased by 47.4 and 44.4 percentage points, 
respectively.
Interviews with project participants in FGDs at 
endline found that recognition of MCHN messages is 
attributed to participation in Mothers Groups, which 
have increased participants awareness about 
appropriate nutrition for Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW), infants and young children, and build practical 
skills by teaching participants to cook nutritious meals such as hotchpotch (a mutton meat stew with mixed 
vegetables). Multiple FGDs report that the Lead Mother – or the group leader – informs project participants about 
breastfeeding, nutritious cooking, antenatal and postnatal care, food diversity, and hygiene practices, and monitors 
and refers women to community health centers and hospitals. Participants reportin FGDs that Mothers Groups are
reliable and a trusted source of nutrition knowledge for PLW and mothers with children U5. However, interview 
data suggests that men are less exposed to the teachings of Mothers Groups, and report to have little or no 
knowledge of key project nutrition messages. Additional data on participant recognition of other key nutrition 
messages relating to MCHN knowledge is presented in Table 8.
Over 98.0% of all project participants report that nutritious food is important at endline. Women of childbearing 
age who report nutritious food to be important increased from 58.5% at baseline to 98.8% at endline, whereas 
the proportion of women with children under 5 (U5) who perceive nutritious food to be important increased 
from 63.0% to 99.4% between baseline and endline. FGDs conducted at endline show that participants report 
that their perceived importance of nutrition has increased, which FGD participants report is resulting in PLW, 
women of childbearing age, and women with children U5 to seek Ante-Natal Care, Post-Natal Care, rest more 
during pregnancy, consume more nutrient rich and diverse foods, adhere to learned breastfeeding practices, 
and consume iron and calcium supplements. In FGDs, participants report EFSP trainings and gardening activities, 
the efforts of Mothers Groups, and government workshops brought attention and understanding to the 
essential role that nutrition provides in achieving health and wellbeing. 
Figure 5: Percentage of women with children U2 
who can name at least 3 MCHN nutrition messages
49.3%
58.4%
90.8%
93.3%
93.6%
96.6%
96.8%
99.4%
25.6%
14.0%
43.4%
58.9%
40.4%
67.4%
50.2%
54.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
First PNC visit with 72 hours of
delivery
From 6 months of age the baby
should start with solid/semi-…
Up to 6 months of age the baby
should be exclusively breastfed
At least 4 ANC check-up during
pregnancy
More day-time rest during
pregnancy
Baby should put to mother's
breast immediately/within one…
More food intake during
pregnancy
% who can name at least 3 key
nutrition messages based on 7…
2019 Baseline
2021 Endline
21 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Table 8: Project Nutrition Output Indicators
Indicators Respondent Baseline
2019
Endline
2021 Sig13
Participants with Children Under 2 (U2)
7. %Of participants who have 
received key nutrition messages 
on Infant Youth Child Feeding, 
Nutrition Counselling, or Cooking 
Demonstrations
A) Infant Youth Child Feeding All 10.9% 68.4% ***
Participant n/a 91.2%
Non-Participant n/a 33.7%
B) Nutrition counselling All 17.8% 66.9% ***
Participant n/a 91.2%
Non-Participant n/a 29.8%
C) Cooking demonstration All 8.1% 51.9% ***
Participant n/a 82.0%
Non-Participant n/a 5.9%
Participant with Children Under 5 (U5) and Women of Childbearing Age
8.1 %Of targeted participants who can name three key nutrition 
messages (IYCF, NC, CD)
All 6.7% 51.1% ***
Participant n/a 80.7%
Non-Participant n/a 5.9%
8.2 %Of participants who can name at least 3 key nutrition 
messages (based on the knowledge of 7 MCHN practices)
All 54.4% 99.4% ***
A) At least 4 ANC check-up during pregnancy All 58.9% 93.3% ***
B) First PNC visit with 72 hours of delivery All 25.6% 49.3% ***
Participant n/a 50.5% n/a
Non-Participant n/a 47.2% n/a
C) More food intake during pregnancy All 50.2% 96.8% ***
D) More day-time rest during pregnancy All 40.4% 93.6% ***
E) Baby should put to mother's breast 
immediately/within one hour after delivery
All 67.4% 96.6% ***
F) Up to 6 months of age the baby should be breastfed All 43.4% 90.8% ***
G) From 6 months of age the baby should start with 
solid/semi-solid food
All 14.0% 58.4% ***
Participant n/a 57.8% n/a
Non-Participant n/a 59.3% n/a
9. %Of participants who feel it is important to source/ utilize nutritious food, specifically for 
women of childbearing age:
A) Women childbearing age All 58.5% 98.8% ***
B) Children U5 All 63.% 99.4% ***
C) Women or children or both All 70.6% 99.7% ***
13 Statistical significance baseline to endline
22 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Income 
The number of household income sources has increased for 
participant households since baseline. The average (mean) 
number of income sources that contribute to overall 
household income shown in Figure 6 nearly tripled from 1.55 
at baseline to 4.2 at endline. The percentage of households 
who report having more than two sources of income because 
of EFSP interventions is 95.7%: an increase from 14.5% of 
households reporting the same at baseline (and exceeding the 
EOP target of >50%). FGDs with participants report that this 
increase is due to uptake of EFSP income generating activities 
(IGA). EFSP participants report in FGDs that unconditional 
cash transfers and Cash for Work activities are also
contributing to increased household income. 
Virtually all EFSP project participants (99.4%) report 
engagement in at least one project Income Generating 
Activity (IGA) at endline, an increase from 22.2% at 
baseline and exceeding the EOP target of >70% (Figure 7). 
The most reported IGA adopted by participants at endline 
is poultry rearing (96.2%), followed by goat rearing 
(46.1%), tailoring (3.5%) and dry fish rearing (1.7%). FGDs 
and KIIs with project participants corroborate these 
findings and report that poultry and goat rearing IGAs are 
lucrative, and selling poultry and goats help participants 
purchase housing for livestock and cows for rearing. 
Survey respondents report that a higher proportion of 
household members are generating income at endline. 
Survey data shows that the percentage of household 
members who do not work decreased from 16.9% at 
baseline to 6.9% at endline. An increased percentage of household members primary occupations are own farming, 
own livestock production, agricultural wage labor, non-agricultural wage labor, self-employment (informal 
trader/vendor, own business, bricklayer, tailor), and salaried, permanent wage labor (ag/non-ag). Households who 
report housewife and domestic work as a primary occupation of household members also decreased from 27.6% 
at baseline to 24.9% at endline. 
Figure 6: Livelihood diversification and 
number of average household income 
sources
14.5%
95.7%
1.55
4.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2019 Baseline 2021 Endline
Number of income sources
Percentage
More than 2 income sources
Average income sources
Figure 7: Percentage of participants engaged
in project income generating activities (IGA)
0.6%
1.4%
1.7%
2.8%
3.5%
46.1%
96.2%
99.4%
77.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
9.5%
17.0%
22.2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
None
Face mask production and
selling
Dry fish rearing
Handicraft
Tailoring
Goat rearing
Poultry rearing
All IGAs
2019 Baseline
2021 Endline
23 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
The average number of income sources for male and female 
headed households increased since baseline (Figure 8). Female 
headed households report to have an average of 3.8 income 
sources per household, an increase from an average of 1.3 
income sources at baseline. Male headed households increased 
their number of income sources from an average of 1.6 sources 
at baseline to 4.3 sources at endline. The percentage of female 
headed households who report to have more than two income 
sources increased from 6.3% at baseline to 89.0% at endline. 
The percentage of male headed households with more than 
two income sources increased from 12.6% at baseline to 96.6% 
at endline. Both groups exceed the EOP target of >50% of 
households that have more than two sources of income. 
The increase in female engagement in income generating 
activities is reflected in the qualitative data: FGDs with men and women report that EFSP activities that specifically 
focused on men, covering the topics of gender-based violence, sharing domestic responsibilities among men and 
women, and promoting female independence, had a positive impact. FGDs with participants in Male Engagement 
interventions report that participation in these activities have helped men reduce restrictions imposed on women
in their households, which is opening new opportunities for women to generate income. FGDs and KIIs with project 
participants reported that more women now (as compared to baseline/in the past) engage in home vegetable 
production, goat and poultry rearing (selling products atmarket without the presence of a man) and in some cases, 
employment with NGOs. 
Table 9: Participation in Savings for Transformation
Savings for Transformation Baseline 2019 Endline 2021 Sig
F1. Who is in the household decides what to purchase with the cash?
Wife n/a 10.2% n/a
Husband n/a 2.7% n/a
Both husband and wife n/a 83.9% n/a
Other family member (specify) n/a 3.2% n/a
F2. What percentage of participants are involved in “Savings for 
Transformation (S4T)” activities of the WV EFSP project? n/a 97.9% n/a
F3. If yes, how do you use /what is your plan to utilize your savings from this 
activity (S4T)?
Income Generation n/a 93.7% n/a
Education n/a 37.2% n/a
Food Production n/a 67.3% n/a
For emergency need n/a 57.2% n/a
Others (specify) n/a 1.1% n/a
The baseline did not collect Savings for Transformation (S4T) data. At endline, 97.9% of reporting participants are
involved with Savings for Transformation (S4T) activities led by the EFSP project. Data collected at endline show 
that 83.9% of households report both husband and wife are responsible for making household purchasing 
1.3 
3.8 
1.6 
4.3 
0
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline Endline
Female headed HHs
Male headed HHs
Figure 8: Average number of income 
sources for male and female headed HHs
24 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
decisions. Participants report the topmost use of S4T savings is forincome generation (93.7% of respondents), food 
production (67.3% of respondents), emergency need (57.2% of respondents), and education (37.2% of 
respondents) (see Table 9). FGDs with EFSP participants report that S4T groups use savings to provide loans to 
members for payment of school/education fees, vegetable cultivation costs and emergencies. Interviews with S4T 
participants show that if a loan is taken from the S4T group for an emergency, that person does not have to pay 
interest. Interviews (FGDs) with participants show that the majority of S4T groups interviewed believe that they 
will continue savings activities even after program closure, and report that they have set goals within the group(s) 
to continue saving until they are able to open a formal bank account. These groups report that the long-term plans 
include savings goals in order to invest in longer-term livelihood activities, including the purchase or lease of land, 
purchase of cows and goats to develop rearing farms, establishing poultry farms, investment in fishing/fish 
production and investment in betel nut businesses. 
D. Coping Strategies and Impact of COVID-19 
When livelihoods are negatively affected by a shock or stress, households may adopt various mechanisms to cope 
with reduced food access. The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) is a proxy indicator of household food 
insecurity that is based on a list of five food-related coping strategies utilized in the seven days prior to a survey. 
The index reflects both the frequency of each behavior (i.e., how many times the coping strategy was used by any 
member of the household) and severity (i.e., how serious the strategy). There is no universal guideline for rCSI 
scores and therefore the metric is most successful at illustrating general trends on whether household food 
security status is improving or decreasing over time. 
Table 10: Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI)
BASELINE 
2019
ENDLINE 
2021
Sig.
Mean rCSI Score 6.8 1.0 ***
% of HHs above the mean rCSI score 44.6%14 16.3% ***
%of HHs with reduced coping strategies at least once in the past 7 days
Limit/reduce portion size at mealtimes 79.9% 5.5% ***
Reduce number of meals eaten per day 56.5% 2.0% ***
Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives 91.5% 12.7% ***
Rely on less expensive or less preferred foods 93.5% 12.3% ***
Reduce adult consumption so children can eat 66.7% 3.1% ***
*** p<.001, ** p<.05, * p<.01
14 Note in the baseline report this was reported as 55.1% of households above the mean rCSI score, however, through this endline
analysis a mistake was identified, and the correct value is 44.6%, which is reported throughout this report. 
25 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
At baseline, the mean rCSI score within the host community was 
6.8, which decreased to 1.0 at endline. At baseline, 44.6% of host 
community households scored above the mean rCSI score, 
compared to 16.3% at endline, exceeding the EOPs target of 
<38.5% of households above the mean. This indicates that since 
baseline, host community households are utilizing fewer 
negative food-related coping strategies at endline. 
Over the course of EFSP interventions, internal documentation 
and interviews with program staff and participants suggest that 
the most significant shock affecting the rCSI scores was the onset 
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Post Distribution Monitoring 
Reports from early 2020 show that many host community 
households felt food insecure and were more likely to resort to 
negative coping strategies. Host community members report in FGDs that food security was a particular issue in 
2020, because market access was more limited due to market closures and mobility restrictions, making it more
difficult to consistently access fresh foods and a variety of foods. FGDs with participants report that they do not 
have to rely on as many or as severe coping strategies than they had in the past, reportedly due to support from 
EFSP and other NGOs. For example, in response to COVID-19, EFSP provided unconditional grants to program 
participants to provide additional financial support. Survey data support this, showing that the primary reported 
coping mechanisms in response to COVID-19 in the last 12 months were receiving food or assistance from an NGO 
(81.6%), selling livestock (70.5%), using money from savings (68.7%), and slaughtering livestock (53.3%) (see Figure 
10). 
Figure 10: Percentage of households with coping strategies for the impacts of COVID-19 in the past 
12 months 
2.5%
2.8%
12.7%
14.7%
15.9%
25.2%
26.4%
53.3%
68.7%
70.5%
81.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Receive money or food from family members within community
Take out a loan from a money lender
Reduce food consumption
Take up new wage labor
Take children out of school
Receive food aid or assistance from the government (including
food/cash-for-work)
Take out a loan from friends or relative
Slaughter livestock
Use money from savings
Sell livestock
Receive food aid or assistance from an NGO (including food/cash-for￾work)
Figure 9: Mean score on the reduced 
Coping Strategies Index (rCSI)
6.8
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
Baseline 2019 Endline 2021
26 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
In order to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) implemented movement 
restrictions, gathering restrictions and closures of public spaces, including schools and private offices. These 
procedures included the closures of World Vision offices to all but essential operations. In person interventions 
could not take place and cash distribution practices were disrupted by the closures of banks and the increasingly 
limited availability of cash distribution agents (CDA).15 The second wave of lockdown, June 6-11, 2020 declared 
Cox’s Bazar a ‘red zone’ resulting in additional movement restrictions, closure of shops, banks, and most services 
five days a week. Communities saw rising cases of gender-based violence (GBV), increased social stigma and 
policing of women, as well as detriments to economic and livelihood activity.16
Despite the challenges associated with the pandemic, EFSP was able to adapt and continue to provide assistance 
to host community members. Operationally, EFSP staff were able to access online training resources and 
collectively completed 148 modules from WHO, GoB, and recommended WV e-Campus on COVID-19 prevention 
and programming impacts.17 Further, continued coordination with local governments, the food security sector, 
the United Nations, and other NGO actors enabled EFSP to develop risk matrices and contingency plans to 
minimize impacts and continue to serve the most vulnerable participants.18 By late March 2020, EFSP had 
conducted a team risk assessment to ensure flexibility in program design.
Interviews with project staff and participants indicate that EFSP was able to continue modified versions of most 
planned activities including: Any group meetings or trainings that required long hours or multiple days were 
modified to ensure smaller groups, messaging was condensed and prioritized into multiple sessions, and venues 
were adapted to ensure that proper handwashing facilities and social distance could always be maintained. Any 
activities that could be adapted to remote implementation modalities were continued. Interviews with project 
staff indicate that due to the strong presence of locally based lead mothers and lead farmers, in-person meetings 
were able to continue because these points of contact were available within the host communities throughout 
this period, even when EFSP staff were unable to travel into the sites directly. The successful continuation of 
project activities despite COVID-19 related challenges is observed in the endline survey data, which shows that 
only 3.1% of host community members reported reduced support from the government or NGOs in response to 
COVID-19 (see Figure 12).
An abbreviated timeline of COVID-19 response in the Cox’s Bazar region during the EFSP is shown in Figure 
11.
19,20,21
15 USAID. (2020). Emergency Food Security Program in Bangladesh: Fiscal Year 2020 Q2 Report. USAID. 16 USAID. (2020). Emergency Food Security Program in Bangladesh: Fiscal Year 2020 Q3 Report. USAID. 17 USAID. (2020). Emergency Food Security Program in Bangladesh: Fiscal Year 2020 Q2 Report. USAID. 18 USAID. (2020). Emergency Food Security Program in Bangladesh: Fiscal Year 2020 Q2 Report. USAID. 19 USAID. (2021). Fiscal Year 2021 Q2 Report. USAID. 20 USAID. (2021). Fiscal Year 2020 Q2 Report. USAID. 21 USAID. (2020). Fiscal Year 2020 Q3 Report. USAID. 
27 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
At endline, 97.8% of host community members reported impacts due to COVID-19 on their household (see Table 
15 in Appendix B). The primary impacts of COVID-19 on households were reduced interactions with friends and 
family (92.6%), reduced income (86.3%), reduced mobility (82.9%). Less than half of host community respondents 
reported reduced ability to purchase basic goods (32.4%), loss of labor (24.0%), or huge medical cost for treatment 
of family member(s) (16.7%) (see Figure 12). 
Figure 11: COVID-19 Cox's Bazar Timeline
28 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Figure 12: Impacts of COVID-19 on Households
4.Factors Affecting Results 
This section reports on factors affecting results, strengths and good practices, challenges, and lessons learned for 
the EFSP project. Specifically focused on interventions that appear to be influential to outcomes, lessons learned 
regarding program design and implementation, and factors that promoted or inhibited adherence to plans and 
targets. 
A. Strengths and Good Practices 
The main strengths and identified good practices that ensures continuation of interventions and progress toward 
targets are program layering and activity integration, mother’s groups, mobile cash transfers, gender-sensitive 
programming, collaborative partnerships for implementation and sustainability, and adaptive management in 
response to COVID-19. 
I. Program Layering and Activity Integration
The EFSP program layers food security, nutrition, and livelihood activities, which results in an integrated 
intervention approach for host community participants. EFSP livelihood development through income￾generating activities (IGAs) increases the number of household income sources and provides households with 
more financial capacity, which, in conjunction with program nutrition trainings, contributes to program food 
security and nutrition goals. IGAs such as household livestock rearing and agriculture production increase 
participants’ ability to achieve targets for food consumption, dietary diversity and nutrition.
II. Mothers Groups
Efforts led by Mothers Groups are increasing participants’ understanding and implementation of nutrition, 
food, and MCHN practices. The Lead Mother visits female project participants to assess household relations 
3.1%
12.1%
16.7%
24.0%
32.4%
82.9%
86.3%
92.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reduced supports from Govt. or NGOs
Loss of livestock
Huge medical cost for treatment of family member
Loss of labor
Reduced ability to buy basic needs (e.g. food, cloth –…
Reduced mobility
Reduced income
Reduced social interactions with relatives and friends
29 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
and provide services for nutrition practices, ANC and PNC, hygiene instructions, and provides pregnant women 
with health service referrals, sometimes accompanying mothers to health facilities. Mothers Groups are 
locally driven and trusted within the community, which has helped extend the reach and penetration of 
nutrition and health teachings for youth and PLW. The ability of Lead Mothers to write referrals to community 
and Upazila health centers renders Mother Groups as a facilitator between project participants and health 
services. 
Lead Mothers are respected community agents who build awareness, instruct on good practices, and link 
women in the community to needed health services. Project staff and host community participants report 
Mothers Groups to be highly effective due to communities’ existent trust and recognition of Lead Mothers, as 
well as the ability of Lead Mothers to reinforce program messaging and behaviors through both formal and 
informal manners.
III. Mobile Cash Transfers
Mobile cash transfers are more accessible and efficient than physical distributions. Implementation of mobile￾to-mobile unconditional cash transfers are more accessible and efficient than physical distributions, which are 
prone to logistical and COVID-related barriers. Interviews with staff and participants found these to be 
preferred over other methods of money disbursement and a strength of program implementation. Mobile to 
mobile cash transfers proved to be a highly effective method of implementation and is a lesson learned to be 
continued as a prioritized modality in future programming.
Cash transfers supplied by EFSP, NGOs, and the Government of Bangladesh effectively mitigate impacts to 
livelihoods, food security, and nutrition by supplementing household income. Unconditional cash transfers 
were a lifeline during rainy season flooding and mudslides, which ruined agriculture production used for food 
security, nutrition, and selling livelihoods. Cash for Work opportunities supported participants with additional 
income generating opportunities to circumvent impacts to agriculture livelihoods. Intentional design of Cash 
for Work activities that develop participant skills (e.g., construction, tailoring) can bring about new livelihood 
opportunities to project participants, and layered activities that further develop these skills through skill 
pathways can help sustain new livelihoods. However, clear linkages to new livelihood options utilizing the 
newly developed skills are needed.
IV. Gender-Sensitive Programming
For gender and social inclusion activities focused on mitigating gender-based violence (GBV) and increasing 
awareness of gender-based issues, EFSP worked with community leaders including imams, Upazila Nirbahee 
Officer (UNOs), UP chairman, Upazila Women Affairs Officer, UP members and other stakeholders. Program 
inclusion of local individuals as volunteers, facilitators, and in other positions helped programming better 
navigate challenges around language, culture, and religion. Volunteers and facilitators from EFSP project sites 
enabled the program to tap into local networks, amplify the effectiveness of reach, and strengthen 
engagement of participants in project activities. By investing in local linkages with individuals who community 
members already trusted, EFSP successfully implemented gender targeted activities.
30 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Multiple interviews with project staff and host community participants show that male engagement through 
“husband and wife groups” helped catalyze male behavior change that resulted in less gender-based violence, 
more sharing of domestic responsibilities, diminished restrictions on women, and increased participation of 
women in joint decision making for household expenses.. Participants also report these groups to catalyze 
men to help with domestic work such as watching the children or home cooking, as well as empowering 
women to act with more independence and engage in income generating activities.
V. Collaborative Partnerships for Implementation and Sustainability 
The multiple partnerships and collaborations of EFSP with other actors in Ukhiya and Teknaf reflects a thirty￾year history of working in these Upazilas. Through ongoing working meetings via the cluster system EFSP 
engages with organizations including BRAC, ACF, Oxfam, Save the Children, INGO Forum Steering Committee 
members, LINGOs, RIC, BGS, and the World Fish’s BANA project to ensure teams benefit from real time 
learning, and collaborate for joint programming when appropriate. 
The project also maintains working collaborative relationships with relevant government bodies to determine 
feasible targets, map potential administrative barriers, and identify partnerships. The project has involved 
the Government of Bangladesh in the project process since the project’s inception, when government 
approval of the project was required for programming to commence. Since then, the project has worked with 
Departments for Agriculture Extension, Livestock, Livelihoods, and Business Development, among others.
Efforts to establish and maintain good relations with involved government bodies benefits the program 
through avoidance of administrative barriers, potential to collaborate and utilize government resources, build 
capacity of local government workers and officers, and establish a foundation for sustainability after the 
project’s end. Continued partnerships and collaboration between the EFSP project and the Government of 
Bangladesh is reported in interviews with project staff to increase EFSP program impact and help maintain 
smooth operations. Specifically, project staff report that coordination with government bodies supported 
successful implementation of Cash for Work (CFW) activities, homestead gardening, livestock rearing, and 
medical referrals, and helped the project to unlock and utilize government resources and develop capacity of 
local government personnel. 
The EFSP project is actively working with relevant government institutions to ensure project activities and 
achievements are sustained after the EFSP lifecycle concludes. Interviews with project staff indicate that a 
series of workshops are underway in which continuation of project activities are explicitly addressed across 
the project partners with the goal/expectation that the majority of this will be undertaken by the government. 
Staff report that coordination with relevant government actors is ongoing to ensure an efficient and effective 
handover of EFSP activities. 
VI. Adaptative Management and COVID Response
In response to the onset of COVID-19 and related government restrictions, EFSP staff successfully adapted 
programming to be implemented remotely as much as possible. Activities that required in-person training or 
large groups were modified to align with COVID-19 guidelines which allowed for the continuation of the 
majority of activities throughout the lockdown period and ongoing COVID-related restrictions. This efficient 
adaptive management was a significant strength of the program, particularly because of the short 
31 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
implementation timeframe (24 months), the efficient and effective response was a crucial factor that enabled 
the continuation of project activities and thus achievement of outlined objectives and end of project targets. 
Internal reports and KIIs with staff find that utilization of existing lead mothers and lead farmers, who were 
already focal points within the communities, to continue implementation of in-person activities was highly 
successful and a lesson learned for future programming adaptations and planning. 
B. Challenges 
The main factors that presented challenges to interventions or progress toward targets are climate and extreme 
weather events, scope limitations and relations between host communities and refugees.
I. Climate and Extreme Weather
Climate change and extreme weather events impact household agriculture, interrupt project activities, and 
affect infrastructure such as sewage systems and roads. Severe storms and floods damage household crop 
production, which diminishes household food security and dietary diversity and increases market prices from 
reduced supply. Rains, floods, and mudslides are weakening and destroying roads that reduces host 
community households’ access to schools, health centers, and markets. Flash floods from severe rains amplify 
health and hygiene risks due to static pools of water that include garbage and contents from latrine overflow. 
II. Scope Limitations
The EFSP project scope does not include response actions/activities to address some challenges that may 
hinder progress toward project targets, specifically climate and environmental factors that impact agriculture 
and livestock rearing activities and community infrastructure challenges that impact hygiene and sanitation.
According to key informant interviews conducted with staff, flooding and mudslides are recurrent in host 
communities during the rainy season and disrupt participant food security, nutrition, hygiene, and 
engagement in IGAs such as growing and selling agriculture. Project personnel report the EFSP scope allows
staff to visit and report on host community households impacted by natural hazards but is not designed to 
prepare host communities for future threats.
Multiple participants report inconsistent hygiene practices due to poor camp sewage systems that overflow 
into neighboring host communities, and a continued lack and inconsistency of available clean drinking water 
is requiring some participants to cope by relying on water from distant sources. While the program has 
maintained strong focus on cleanliness within the home, participants assert the program should include 
emphasis on hygiene and sanitation outside of the home, which is not included in the current program scope. 
III. Relations Between Host Communities and Camps
Though the relations between refugees and participants have reportedly improved, challenges remain. Host 
community demand for cheap labor is bringing in refugee laborers who work for less money, which is 
negatively impacting wages and availability of work for host community laborers. The influx of refugees 
resettled near host community households has decreased available land for participants to use for income 
generating activities. Some FGD interviews with host community participants report an overall perception 
32 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
that refugees are involved in illegal activity, such as stealing livestock. Host community individuals report 
fewer areas are safe to enter, which is reducing participant access to areas for firewood collection. The 
majority of FGDs indicate that the perception of host community members has improved, multi-kilometer 
distances between refugee camps and participants communities eliminates opportunities for host community 
individuals and refugees to interact and strengthen relationships. 
5.Conclusions 
The EFSP project exceeded all 10 key project indicator targets for host community activities. Overall, participants 
report increased food security and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods, participation in a higher number 
of income sources, strengthened awareness and utilization of key nutrition messages, reduced usage of negative 
coping strategies, and improved refugee-host community relations.
EFSP host community households report substantial improvement in their food security since baseline. Food
security is measured using three main output indicators, namely Food Consumption Score (FCS), Household 
Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS), and Household Hunger Score (HHS). Nearly all (99.1%) respondents report 
adequate food consumption scores. Households experiencing moderate and severe hunger decreased from 10.8% 
at baseline to 1.2% of households at endline, and 98.8% of host community households at endline report little or 
no hunger. Household dietary diversity also improved. The percentage of households reporting consumption of 
more than eight food groups increased from 3.8% at baseline to 35.1% at endline.
All nutrition indicators show considerable improvement since baseline. Project participants with children under 
the age of five (U5) report a large increase in the reception of key nutrition messages on Infant Youth Child Feeding 
(IYCF), nutrition counselling (NC), and cooking demonstrations (CD). Of project participants surveyed, 9 out of 10 
report reception of nutrition counselling and IYCF messaging, and 8 out of 10 report reception of cooking 
demonstration messaging. The proportion of targeted participants with children U5 who report reception of three 
key nutrition messages has increased by at least 70 percentage points for each message from baseline to endline.
Host community households have more diverse livelihoods as a result of EFSP activities. The mean number of 
income sources that contribute to overall household income nearly tripled from 1.55 at baseline to 4.2 at endline. 
The percentage of households who report having more than two sources of income because of EFSP interventions 
is 95.7%, marking an increase from 14.5% of households at baseline. Field interviews show that project 
interventions for goat rearing, chicken rearing, vegetable production, vendor selling, and unconditional cash 
transfers and Cash for Work have all contributed to increased household income. The most reported IGA adopted 
by participants at endline is poultry rearing (96.2%), followed by goat rearing (46.1%), tailoring (3.5%) and dry fish 
rearing (1.7%). 
Male Engagement interventions are leading to changes in the mindset of male participants, and more men are 
now taking part in domestic activities (spending time with children, home cooking, and washing clothes), and 
increased acceptance that women can engage IGAs and not be limited to engagement in domestic household 
activities. 83.9% of households at endline report both husband and wife are responsible for making household 
purchasing decisions.
33 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Over the course of EFSP interventions, the data suggests that the most significant shock affecting host community 
members was the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within March 2020 EFSP had conducted a team risk 
assessment, and any activities that could be adapted to remote implementation modalities were continued. 
Interviews with project staff and participants indicate that EFSP was able to continue modified versions of most 
planned activities. The successful continuation of project activities despite COVID-19 related challenges is 
observed in the endline survey data, which shows that only 3.1% of host community members reported reduced 
support from the government or NGOs in response to COVID-19. The primary reported coping mechanisms in 
response to COVID-19 in the last 12 months was receiving food or assistance from an NGO (81.6%). Reduced 
coping strategy index (rCSI) score results indicate that host community households are utilizing fewer negative 
coping strategies than they were at baseline. Despite challenges associated with the onset of COVID-19, the EFSP 
project achieved impressive results in targeted host communities by endline. 
6.Recommendations 
The following section highlights the key recommendations for the EFSP project from the endline evaluation. 
I. To address the identified challenges of climate change, extreme weather events and scope limitations it is 
recommended that moving forward program log frames should increase consideration of climate change and 
extreme weather event impacts into interventions and program design. For example, the rainy season brings 
severe disruptions to popular Income Generating Activities such as poultry and goat rearing, agriculture 
production, and selling crops. Planning activities around or planning project activities to mitigate these 
impacts is recommended. 
II. To address the identified risk that without explicit clear linkages participants can use to leverage their new 
skills to new livelihood or employment opportunities the observed positive results will not sustain, it is 
recommended that IGA and cash for work activities in future programming prioritize skilled activities training 
and incorporate linkages for employment after program closure. For example, participants trained in 
construction work through project activities could be linked to other NGO, government, or private company 
construction projects through project activities to ensure the skills obtained through the project can continue 
to generate income for targeted households. This could be incorporated into the 15-year development 
projects World Vision is working on. Creation of explicit linkages to employment options is recommended. 
III. To address the ongoing challenge of relations between host communities and refugees, it is recommended 
that opportunities for host and refugee households to participate in the same project activities at the same 
time is included in future program design to increase direct linkages between the two groups. Although the 
relationship is reportedly improving, increased opportunities for direct collaboration is recommended. The 
goal of this joint participation should be relationship building and knowledge sharing to provide instances of 
positive interactions between the two groups. 
***
34 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
7. Appendix 
A. EFSP Project Indicators 
Purpose 1: Increased consumption of diverse and quality foods that meet the nutritional requirements of 
vulnerable households in Refugee Camps and Host Communities
EFSP 2. % of households with poor, borderline, and adequate Food Consumption Score (FCS) 
Intermediate Outcome 1.1: Improved access to and consumption of diverse and nutritious foods for 34,112 refugee 
HHs and 5,229 host community HHs directly impacted by the refugee influx.
EFSP4. Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household Hunger Scale (HHS) score. 
% of households with improved dietary diversity score (HDDS)
Intermediate Outcome 1.2: Enhanced Refugee and Host Community HHs’ capacities to sustainably access to 
nutritious and diversified food 
% of HHs who have more than two sources of income as a result of project intervention
% of households engaged in income generating activities disaggregated by gendered HH type and by type of 
activities
Purpose 2: Capacity of Refugees and Host Communities to withstand future shocks enhanced
EFSP3. Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI)
Table 11: Activity Areas and Indicators measured at Participant Level
Improved food security and nutrition
Food Consumption Score (FCS)
Household Hunger Scale (HHS)
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
% of women who volunteer as lead mothers to promote positive nutrition practices in their communities
% of participants who have received key nutrition messages
% participants that can name 3 key nutrition messages
Improved livelihoods
35 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
% of HHs who have more than two sources of income as a result of project intervention
% of households engaged in income generating activities 
Enhanced resilience
Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI)
36 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
B. Additional Tables 
Table 12: Sample Size Detailed Information
BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS ALL Stat. 
Sig. (BL 
to EL)
HOUSEHOLD HEAD SEX
BASELINE 2019 ENDLINE 2021 FNM (Adult Female no 
Adult Male)
FEMALE HEADED MALE HEADED
# % # % Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Sig. Baseline Endline Sig.
A. SAMPLE AND 
RESPONSES
Sample Size 350 680
Response cases 340 97.1% 661 97.2% 24 52 47 92 293 569
Non-response 
cases
10 2.9% 19 2.8%
B. SAMPLE EFSP 
PARTICIPANT 
PROFILE
B1. Sex of the 
participant
Male 222 65.3% 400 60.5% 0.345 4.2% 8.6% 0.161 75.3% 68.8% 0.176
Female 118 34.7% 261 39.5% 0.345 95.8% 91.4% 0.161 24.7% 31.2% 0.176
B2. Age of the 
participant
Mean 41.1 43.2 0.070 38.2 42.8 43.4 43.7 0.920 40.7 43.1 0.075
Median 40.0 40.0
Minimum 17.0 20.0
Maximum 90.0 90.0
C. PRIME 
RESPONDENT'S 
PROFILE
C1. Who were the 
prime 
respondents?
EFSP Project 
participants
248 72.9% 412 62.3%
Household Head 37 10.9% 17 2.6%
Spouse 45 13.2% 195 29.5%
Son/daughter 7 2.1% 19 2.9%
Other household 
member
3 0.9% 18 2.7%
C2. Sex of the 
prime 
respondents
Male 193 56.8% 185 28.0%
Female 147 43.2% 476 72.0%
C3. Age of the 
prime 
respondents
37 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
Mean 39.8 38.7
Median 39.0 35.0
Minimum 16.0 16.0
Maximum 90.0 88.0
Table 13: Detailed Food Security Indicator Results
INDICATOR ALL (HOST COMMUNITY) GENDERED HOUSEHOLD TYPE
BASELINE 2019 ENDLINE 2021 Stat. 
Sig.
(BL 
to 
EL)
FNM (Adult 
Female no Adult 
Male)
MNF** (Adult 
Male no Adult 
Female)
M&F (Male and Female 
Adults) 
CNA** (Child, 
no adult)
Value 95% CI DEF Value 95% CI DEF Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Sig. Baselin
e 
Endline
1
. 
% of
household
s with 
poor, 
borderline
, and 
adequate 
Food 
Consumpt
ion Score 
(FCS) 
Average Score (FCS) 
41.8 
(40.4, 
43.1) 
 
1.194 
 
63 
(61.8, 
64.9) 
1.32
6
0.00
0
 
41.2 
 
61.3 
 
42.0 
 
55.5 
 
41.8 
 
63.6 
0.00
0
 
- 
 
- 
% Poor (0-21) 0.9% 0.0% 0.06
5
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.06
5
 
- 
 
- 
% Boderline (>21 to 
35)
26.1% (17.8, 
34.5)
1.745 0.9% (0.3, 1.6) 0.84
7
0.00
0
20.4% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 0.8% 0.00
0
 
- 
 
- 
% Adequate (>35) 72.9% (64.2, 
81.6)
1.801 99.1% (98.4, 
99.7)
0.84
7 
0.00
0 
79.6% 97.9% 100.0
% 
100.0
% 
72.3% 99.2% 0.00
0 
 
- 
 
- 
n 
(unweight
ed)
340 661 24 52 2 7 314 601 1
2
. 
Prevalenc
e of 
household
s with 
moderate 
or severe 
Househol
d Hunger 
Scale 
(HHS) 
score. 
Average Score (HHS) 
0.44 
(0.27, 
0.61) 
1.986 
0.04 
(0.01, 
0.07) 
1.26
1
0.00
0
 
0.42 
 
0.04 
0.00 0.00 
0.44 
 
0.04 
0.00
0 
 
- 
 
- 
% No/little hunger 89.2% (83.7, 
94.6)
1.607 98.8% (97.9, 
99.8)
1.09
8
0.00
1
83.2% 98.1% 100.0
%
100.0
%
89.5% 98.9% 0.00
2
 
- 
 
- 
% moderate/severe 
hunger
10.8% (5.4, 
16.3)
1.607 1.2% (0.2, 2.1) 1.09
8 
0.00
1 
16.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 1.1% 0.00
2 
 
- 
 
- 
n 
(unweight
ed)
340 661 24 52 2 7 314 601 1
3
. 
% of 
household
s with 
improved 
Average Score 
(HDDS)
 
5.4 
(5.2, 5.7) 1.364 
8.0 
(7.8, 8.1) 1.28
0
0.00
0
 
4.9 
 
7.7 
 
7.5 
 
7.3 
 
5.5 
 
8.0 
0.00
0 
 
- 
 
- 
% with >8 food 
groups
3.8% (2.0, 5.6) 0.856 35.1% (30.4, 
39.8)
1.23
9
0.00
0
0.0% 30.9% 50.0% 28.7% 3.8% 35.6% 0.00
0
 
- 
 
- 
38 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
dietary 
diversity 
score 
(HDDS)
% with >average food 
groups
47.6% (41.3, 
53.8)
1.151 62.9% (58.5, 
67.3)
1.14
9 
0.00
1 
33.7% 59.9% 100.0
% 
56.6% 48.3% 63.4% 0.00
2 
 
- 
 
- 
n 
(unweight
ed)
340 661 24 52 2 7 314 601 1
Table 14: Infant and Young Feeding Practices Indicator Values
Indicator Baseline 
2019
Endline 
2021 Sig.
A. %of children 0-23 months ever breastfed 
Male 97.7% 100.0% 0.299
Female 97.2% 98.5% 0.702
All 97.5% 99.2% 0.362
B. %of children 0-23 months with immediate/early initiation (within 1 hour of birth) of breastmilk 81.5% 91.1% 0.007
C. %of children 0-23 months were given colostrum after the birth 94.7% 97.8% 0.270
D. %of children 0-23 months are still breast feeding (continue breast feeding) 94.8% 97.8% 0.218
0-5 months 95.9% 100.0%
6-8 months 100.0% 100.0% 
9-23 months 93.2% 96.0%
C. %of children 0-23 months were given drinks other than breast milk within three days after delivery 10.8% 12.2% 0.794
A. Milk (other than breast milk) 1.3% 1.4% 0.936
B. Plain water 4.1% 11.3% 0.168
C. Sugar/glucose water 2.5% 1.4% 0.603
D. Sugar-salt-water solution 0.0% 2.2% 0.087
E. Fruit juice 0.0% 4.5% 0.033
F. Infant formula 1.3% 2.2% 0.613
G. Tea/infusions 0.0% 0.0% 
H. Coffee 0.0% 0.0%
I. Honey 2.5% 3.1% 0.859
J. Others (SPECIFY) 1.3% 0.0% 0.314
39 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
D. %of children 0-5 months are exclusively breast fed 54.7% 60.2% 0.615
% Participated in health and nutrition activities (n=26) n/a 53.0%
% Not participated in health and nutrition activities (n=20) n/a 69.6%
n 24 46
E. %of children 6-23 months with minimum diet diversity (more than 3 out of 7 food groups in 24 hours) 42.9% 70.9% ***
% Participated in health and nutrition activities (n=63) n/a 76.4% 
% Not participated in health and nutrition activities (n=26) n/a 61.9%
F. %of children 6-23 months with minimum meal frequency 31.6% 69.6% ***
% Participated in health and nutrition activities (n=63) n/a 67.2% 
% Not participated in health and nutrition activities (n=26) n/a 73.6%
G. %of children 6-23 months with minimum acceptable diet (MAD) 14.9% 57.3% ***
% Participated in health and nutrition activities (n=63) n/a 61.9%
% Not participated in health and nutrition activities (n=26) n/a 50.0%
n 53 89
Table 15: COVID-19 Impact Results
INDICATOR 2020 HOST COMMUNITY ENDLINE SURVEY
ALL GENDERED HH TYPES HH HEAD SEX
FNM MNF M&F CNA Female Male
1. % of households responded that they are aware of Corona Virus (COVID-19) 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 99.8%
n 661 52 7 601 1 92 569 
40 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
2. % of households responded that their HH had impacts of Corona virus in the past 12 
months
97.8% 98.1% 100.0% 97.7% 97.9% 97.7%
n 661 52 7 601 1 92 569 
3. Impacts of 
COVID-19 
that the 
HHs had in 
the past 12 
months
A.Loss of life 0.2% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%
B.Loss of labor 24.0% 15.4% 27.9% 24.8% 19.0% 24.9%
C.Reduced income 86.3% 84.6% 71.3% 86.6% 83.6% 86.7%
D.Reduced supports from Govt. or NGOs 3.1% 7.8% 0.0% 2.8% 6.7% 2.6%
E.Reduced mobility 82.9% 78.7% 72.1% 83.3% 82.4% 82.9%
F.Loss of livestock 12.1% 19.7% 0.0% 11.6% 15.6% 11.5%
G.Reduced social interactions with relatives and friends 92.6% 92.0% 86.0% 92.7% 89.8% 93.0%
H.Loss of HH assets (including distress sales) 1.3% 4.0% 0.0% 1.1% 2.3% 1.1%
I.HH member migrated 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4%
J.HH was displaced 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%
K.Reduced ability to buy basic needs (e.g. food, cloth – example may 
be useful)
32.4% 40.9% 42.6% 31.6% 40.0% 31.2%
L.Huge medical cost for treatment of family member 16.7% 23.4% 27.9% 16.0% 22.2% 15.8%
M.Other 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4%
N.Don’t know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
O.Refused - - - - - - 
n 645 51 7 586 1 90 555 
41 TANGO: EFSP Endline Evaluation Host Community Activities tangointernational.com
8. Annex 
Annex 1 Quantitative Survey Tool 
Annex 2 Qualitative Tool 
Annex 3 Inception Report 
Annex 4 Qualitative Data 
Annex 5 Quantitative Data 
Annex 6 Detailed EFSP Topline Indicator Analysis Tables 
Annex 7 Quantitative Survey Training Schedule 
Annex 8 Qualitative Training Schedule