Final Program Performance Evaluation 
 For 
USAID Mercy Corps School Environment and Education Development for Somalia (SEEDS) Program 
Evaluation Team: 
Fatuma Hussein (Lead consultant) 
Ibrahim Dahiye (Assisting consultant) 
August, 2012 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
i 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
School Environment and Education Development for Somalia (SEEDS) was a USAID funded Primary 
Education Program that was initially designed for three years, from 30th September 2008 to 29th 
September 2011, but was later modified to include secondary education and extended to 21st June 
2012.The program was intended to improve access to basic education, water services and sanitation in 
school communities in Somalia. It adopted a holistic approach to improve the education environment; 
encompassing infrastructure development, school supplies, as well as capacity development for school 
management that targeted Community Education Committees (CECs), teachers and education officials. 
The focus was to create more learning spaces for children to expand the availability of basic education 
opportunities. This was achieved through the construction of new and rehabilitation of existing 
classrooms and water and sanitation infrastructure, in-service training of teachers, improving school 
management, and provision of technical assistance to the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other 
government officials. In September 2010, the program expanded in scope to include Maternal and Child 
Health Care. 
Following the end of the program in July 2012, the final evaluation was conducted. The evaluation 
reviewed the program activities and analyzed the extent to which outputs and outcomes had been met 
during the program period. The purpose of the final evaluation was to assess the performance and the 
impact of the program and provide information and recommendations that will inform the ongoing 
Somali Youth Leaders Initiative (SYLI). Specifically, it was aimed to evaluate whether program objectives 
were achieved with high quality outputs and accountability to beneficiaries; to conduct an in-depth 
qualitative evaluation of the effects of the program on selected Mercy Corps school communities in 
comparison with other communities; and to identify and document best practices and lessons learned 
for future programming. Additionally, the evaluation also aimed at highlighting the program’s relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact and ownership. 
The evaluation process employed a cross-sectional design where both quantitative and qualitative data 
was collected within a period of two weeks from parents of the school children, head teachers of the 
sampled schools, school children, Community Education Committee members (CEC) and Mercy Corps 
staff. All program regions were covered by the evaluation including Maroodhijeex, Togdheer, and 
Sanaag regions from Somaliland and Nugal, Mudug, and Karkaar from Puntland. Due to security issues, 
South/Central region was not covered by the evaluation. Schools in all these regions were stratified 
based on the program uptake level (high, medium or low) and 36% of supported schools selected (as 
done in the midline). The number of schools selected was proportionate to the number in each region. 
As a result of the program interventions, there was improved access to basic education. Based on the 
evaluation, about 41,000 students enrolled in SEEDS supported schools, surpassing the target by 21,000. 
A 19% increase in the admission of girls in supported schools was also determined, as compared to the 
1% decline in non-supported schools. 
Based on the findings of the evaluation, water and sanitation infrastructure was improved in the target 
communities. About 211,000 people had access to improved drinking water, while 42,000 people had 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
ii
access to sanitation facilities. In total, 71% of the households accessed water more easily (within 0-30 
minutes) from their households. 
 Improved teaching and learning in target schools was realized as depicted by the high proportion of 
teachers who showed improved outcomes on skill assessments (88.9%) as compared to the target of 
60%.There was also improved school management and improved Somali participation in education, 
water and sanitation. 
Access to maternal and child health care also improved. About 51% of pregnant women accessed 
antennal care from registered health establishments. Half of the households around the supported 
schools had the nearest health facility within 1-5km range indicating easy access. Improvement of the 
schools’ learning environments was the most easily identified and conspicuous effect of the program. 
This was achieved through the building and rehabilitation of classrooms, as well as the provision of 
desks and other learning material. The program also succeeded in building the capacity of teachers, 
CECs and MOE staff. Overall this program improved the learning environment, WASH activities, and 
maternal and child health care for the target schools and communities. 
It was generally concluded that the SEEDS program to a great extent achieved its objectives as depicted 
by the majority of the targets which were met. Improvement was shown in all the indicators monitored 
over time with most of them depicting more than 100% achievement rate. Only few indicators were not 
or close to full achievement as compared to the targets. These were; number of people in target areas 
with access to improved sanitation facilities as result to SEEDS assistance (83.1%), proportion of schools 
that designed and implemented activities in the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) (60%), proportion of 
MoE officials planning, implementing and evaluating their education portfolio (88%), and number of 
births assisted and/or referred by trained birth attendants (31.2%). The best achieved target was the 
number of health care providers trained with SEEDS funding (296%).Most numerical targets superseded 
the 100% achievement rate and this was attributed to the sound planning and implementation of the 
program. This indicates the effectiveness of the program. Although the evaluation did not provide a 
detailed cost-benefit analysis, there were anecdotal and qualitative indications that the program was 
cost effective in its use of resources. Indications for sustainability for the SEEDS program was shown by 
community participation at all levels of programming and the programmatic efforts to train the 
community in water resources management and joint monitoring between program staff, MOE staff and 
CEC members. 
This evaluation exercise generated a number of recommendations. It was generally recommended that 
further funding be provided for the SEEDS program for continuation. The extension or new funding 
should be programmed to contribute to: 
 Filling the needs and gaps in the community including inclusion of extra curriculum activities in 
schools (e.g. Physical Education (PE) and playing fields which are missing in schools). 
 Water in more schools. There is need to build water tanks in more schools to assure longer-time 
availability of water. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
iii
 Building more classrooms to reduce overcrowding in some schools. This may also reduce shift 
attendance which may inflict strain on teachers. 
 Construction/rehabilitation and staffing of more health facilities to further improve access to 
health services particularly the antenatal care services. 
 Enrolling more girls in the program. Although the program has resulted in more girls being 
admitted in school by 20% between 2010 and 2012, this could not be compared to the 384% for 
boy’s enrolment. There is a need for an in-depth study to investigate why the enrolment of girls 
is still low. 
 Scaling–up by extending the program to other regions identified with similar needs. For 
instance, the admission of boys in non-supported schools only increased by 19% and for girls it 
declined by 1% between 2010 and 2012. The non-supported areas need the SEEDS program. 
 To use the lessons learned and the best practices from the SEEDS program to influence the 
development of Somali education policy 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
DEFINITION OF TERMS viii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Program overview 1
1.2.1 SEEDS program objectives 2
1.2.2 SEEDS program theory of change 2
1.3 SEEDS evaluation objectives 3
1.3.1 SEEDS evaluation purpose 3
1.3.2 SEEDS evaluation objectives 3
1.4 Conflict of interest declaration 3
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 Evaluation design 4
2.2 Evaluation areas 4
2.3 Sample size determination 4
2.4 Sampling design 4
2.4.1 Sampling of schools to be interviewed 4
2.4.2 Sampling for parent’s survey 5
2.4.3 Sampling for other groups considered for the evaluation 5
2.5 Data collection 5
2.6 Training and pre-testing 7
2.7 Data analysis and interpretation 7
3 EVALUATION FINDINGS 8
3.1 Program achievements 8
3.1.1 Access to basic education 8
3.1.2 Access to water and sanitation 9
3.1.3 Access to teaching and learning 11
3.1.4 School management and participation of MoE staff 13
3.1.5 Maternal and child health care 14
3.2 Program performance 18
3.2.1 Relevance 18
3.2.2 Effectiveness 18
3.2.3 Efficiency 18
3.2.4 Sustainability 18
3.2.5 Impact 19
3.3 Comment on theory of change verses the evaluation findings 19
3.4 Implication for future programming 19
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
v 
3.4.1 Lessons learned 19
3.4.2 Best practices 20
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS 21
5 APPENDICES 22
Appendix 1: Evaluation TOR 22
Appendix 2: Parents questionnaire 25
Appendix 3: Teachers questionnaire 31
Appendix 4: Children FGD guides 32
Appendix 5: Staff KII guide 34
Appendix 6: CEC FGD guides 37
Appendix 7: Education officers KII guides 39
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 
Table 1: Summary of data collection tools and number of surveyed participants 7
Table 2: Program achievements in access to basic education 8
Table 3: Program achievement in access to water and sanitation 9
Table 4: Indicators of sanitation as reported by parents 11
Table 5: program achievements in access to teaching and learning 12
Table 6: Distribution of attendance as reported by head teachers in schools supported by Mercy Corps 
 13
Table 7: Performance on school management 14
Table 8: Achievements in MOE participation 14
Table 9: Achievements in maternal and health care 15
Table 10: Maternal and child health seeking behaviors (when sick) 17
Figure 1: Evaluation sampling profile 6
Figure 2: Distribution of constructors of piped and borehole water systems 10
Figure 3: Time taken to reach the nearest source of water as indicated by parents 10
Figure 4: Admission trend of boys and girls compared between 2010 and 2012 12
Figure 5: Comparison of teacher profile in supported and non-supported schools 13
Figure 6: Distance away from the health facility providing maternal and child health services 16
Figure 7: Distribution of places to access antenatal care as reported by parents (%) 16
Figure 8: Change in child and maternal mortality since past 5 years as reported by parents 17
Figure 9: Proportion of parents trained in water source management 19
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
vii 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
AFREC Africa Rescue Committee 
CEC Community Education Committee 
CfBT Centre for British Teachers Education Trust 
DEO District Education Office 
ICU Islamic Courts Union 
IDP Internally Displaced Person 
IMC International Medical Committee 
MOE Ministry of Education 
NGO Non-governmental Organization 
SEEDS School Environment and Education Development for Somalia 
SIP School Improvement Plan 
TFG Transitional Federal Government 
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 
UIC Union of International Courts 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
viii 
DEFINITION OF TERMS 
Evaluation Rigorous analysis of completed or ongoing activities that determine or 
support effectiveness and efficiency of a program.
Performance The accomplishment of a given task measured against preset known 
standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed.
Relevance The extent to which objectives, implementation strategies, activities and 
methodologies were adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries.
Effectiveness The extent to which the program has done what it was intended to do for 
the beneficiaries.
Efficiency The results achieved in relation to time, efforts and resources expended.
Sustainability The extent to which results achieved can continue after the end of the 
program.
Impact The overall effects the program has had on the beneficiaries and 
participating communities and on their methods of working in the future.
Ownership The level of stakeholder and community participation/involvement and 
their feeling of who controls and makes what decisions.
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
1 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Background 
Since President Siad Barre was overthrown by opposing clans in 1991, Somalia has effectively gone 
without a central government. Years of fighting have ensued, leading to famine, disease and the deaths 
of nearly one million people. For over a decade, Somalia has been loosely governed by tribal factions 
and warlords. However, in 2004 the internationally recognized Transitional Federal Government (TFG) 
was introduced with pockets of relative stability in the north. At the same time, Somaliland, a former 
British colony in the northwest of Somalia, declared autonomy from Somalia and set up its own system 
of governance. Puntland, another seemingly breakaway state in Somalia, also established a separate 
political system, although it considers itself part of a federated Somalia, and its leader serves within the 
TFG as its president. Thus, the country’s government as a whole remains unsustainable, politically 
fractured and is recognized as being in flux, with political struggles existing between the TFG and 
the radical Islamist and Somali nationalist Union of Islamic Courts (UIC). Ongoing feuds between 
the TFG and UIC/AlShabab are fueled by clan divisions that compound the problem. Underneath the 
political divisions, clan-to-clan violence over economic infrastructure and access to natural 
resources increases the instability, especially in the southern and south-central regions. 
1.2 Program overview 
The School Environment and Education Development for Somalia (SEEDS) program is a USAID funded 
Education Program that was initially designed for three years (from 30th September 2008 to 29th 
September 2011). The program was jointly designed by a consortium consisting of Mercy Corps (as the 
prime), Centre for British Teachers (CfBT) 
Education Trust, African Rescue 
Committee (AFREC), International 
Medical Corps (IMC), and International 
Aid Services (IAS). IMC and IAS left the 
consortium leaving Mercy Corps, CfBT 
and AFREC. The goal of the SEEDS 
program is to achieve improved access 
to basic education, water services, and 
sanitation in school communities in 
Somalia. It adopted a holistic approach 
to improving the education 
environment; encompassing 
infrastructure development, supplies 
provision, as well as capacity 
development for school management that targets Community Education Committees (CECs), teachers 
and education officials. The focus has been to create more learning spaces for children to expand the 
availability of basic education opportunities through the construction of new and rehabilitation of 
existing classrooms, as well as water and sanitation infrastructure, provision of in-service training of 
A classroom and water tanks constructed by SEEDS Program
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
2 
teachers, and improving school management and provision of technical assistance to Ministry of 
Education (MOE) and other government officials. 
In the course of implementation, two major cost modifications were approved. The first modification 
made two years (September 2010) after the start of the program expanded the scope of the program to 
include Maternal and Child Health Care. The second modification made towards the end (July 2011) of 
the implementation, expanded the scope of the program to include secondary education and livelihood 
opportunities and the modification extended the life of the program to 21st July 2012. 
By the end of the program, the entire program funding of US$ 15,549,395 from USAID was expended. 
Mercy Corps received no other funding contributions to the program budget; the entire project was 
funded by USAID. There were also cases of community contribution in kind through provision of labor 
for the constructions of various project structures. In some instances, the Public-private Partnerships 
(PPS) did contribute in kind and in cash to the program. 
1.2.1 SEEDS program objectives 
The objectives of the SEEDS program was two-fold – education and maternal and child health as shown 
below: 
a) Education 
 Improved access to basic education for at least 20,000 students through the construction, 
rehabilitation or repair of at least 500 classrooms in at least 250 schools. 
 Improved access to water and sanitation for at least 50,000 people through improved water and 
sanitation infrastructure at 250 schools. 
 Improved teaching and learning in at least 250 schools through teacher training and 
support for at least 1,000 teachers. 
 Improved school management in 250 communities through support and training for 
Community Education Committees in targeted schools. 
 Improved Somali participation in education, water and sanitation through technical assistance 
to at least 100 Ministry of Education and other government officials. 
b) Maternal and Child Health 
 Improve maternal and child healthcare in Somaliland. 
1.2.2 SEEDS program theory of change 
It was hypothesized that by building education and WASH infrastructure, supporting in-service training 
of teachers, supporting school management improvement through training, and provision of technical 
assistance to MOE and other government officials, that there would be increased access to education. 
WASH improved teaching and learning, and it improved school management and Somali community 
participation. The theory of change relating to maternal and child health was that the improved 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
3 
maternal and child health care would result in the good health of children and ultimately improved 
school attendance. 
1.3 SEEDS evaluation objectives 
1.3.1 SEEDS evaluation purpose 
The purpose of evaluation was to assess the performance and the impact of the program and provide 
information and recommendations that will inform the ongoing Somali Youth Leaders Initiative (SYLI). 
1.3.2 SEEDS evaluation objectives 
i. To evaluate whether program objectives were achieved with high quality outputs and 
accountability to beneficiaries; 
ii. To conduct an in-depth qualitative evaluation of the effects of the program on selected Mercy 
Corps school communities in comparison with other communities; and 
iii. To identify and document best practices and lessons learned for future programming (examples 
of potential best practices include: monitoring of school construction processes by the CEC 
community-led tendering processes, and CEC-led school improvement plans. Possible lessons 
learned include working with the local partners in reaching wider and non-secure areas, quality 
of program outputs achieved through the local partners’ implementation, and use of local 
resource persons in facilitating trainings). 
In addition to the above evaluation objectives, the evaluation also covered the following aspects of the 
program: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact and ownership. 
1.4 Conflict of interest declaration 
The evaluation process did not present in any form a conflict of interest between the donor, Mercy 
Corps, or the consultant undertaking the evaluation. Additionally, there were no unresolved differences 
of opinion on the part of funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
4 
2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
2.1 Evaluation design 
The evaluation process employed a cross-sectional design where both quantitative and qualitative data 
was collected within a period of two weeks (8th
- 20th July 2012) from parents of the school children, 
head teachers of the sampled schools, school children, CEC members and Mercy Corps staff. 
2.2 Evaluation areas 
Three program areas were to be covered by the evaluation- namely Puntland, Somaliland and South￾central regions. The latter was not covered due to the heightened insecurity in the area. For this reason, 
only regions in the first two areas were considered. They were: Maroodhijeex, Togdeer, Sanaag from 
Somaliland and Nugal, Mudug, Karkaar from Puntland. All schools, parents, teachers, school-going 
children and others interviewed were sampled from these regions. 
2.3 Sample size determination 
After stratifying the evaluation area into regions, 36% of all schools in each region were selected. This 
selection target of 36% of all schools supported in each cluster was a replication of the midline 
evaluation. The parent sample size was based on the added program indicator of improving the access 
to health care. Fischer’s et al (1998) equation was used to determine the sample size: 
n=Z2
pq/d2
This is recommended for population N>10,000 
n= desired sample size 
z= the standard normal deviate at the required confidence level of significance set at 1.96 
p= proportion of the population that access the health services- 5% 
q = 1- p which is 1-0.05 = 0.95 
d= the level of statistical significance set as 0.05 
Therefore:- 
n= (1.96)2 * (0.05*0.95)/ (0.05)2 
 =73. A 20% attrition rate yields 88 parents. 
88 parents were thus selected per cluster- in the six regions (Assuming almost equal populations 
among the clusters and homogeneity in characteristics). 
2.4 Sampling design 
The evaluation sampling design is summarized in the evaluation sampling profile shown in Figure 1. 
2.4.1 Sampling of schools to be interviewed 
Schools in each region were stratified into low uptake, medium uptake, and high uptake (depending on 
the number of children registered in the schools). The criteria for the stratification were based on Mercy 
Corps method of school classification based on program uptake. From each stratum, schools were 
randomly sampled. The number of schools selected was proportionate to the number of schools in each 
stratum (program uptake rate). Six unsupported schools were selected randomly from the same 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
5 
program areas for comparison with the supported schools in those same areas. Supported Head 
teachers in all schools selected were considered for the teachers’ survey while the children, separated 
as boys and girls, were randomly selected for the children’s Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). 
2.4.2 Sampling for parent survey 
Eighty-eight parents from the six regions were selected (three from Somaliland and three from 
Puntland). From each region, the 88 were proportionately allocated to the three strata (based on uptake 
rate as explained above) based on the total population of the selected schools. A further proportionate 
sampling based on individual school population was used to compute the number of parents to be 
selected from every school. For each school, the village selection process was randomized by throwing a 
pen and selecting villages along that path (where the pen-tip pointed). In each village it was determined 
which parents had children in the study schools. This was confirmed with the children’s school details. 
All qualified parents in the selected directions were interviewed until the sample number was reached. 
When the boundary covered by the respective school was arrived at before the desired sample number 
had been reached, then a new direction from the school was randomized and the same process was 
repeated until the desired number was reached. 
2.4.3 Sampling for other groups considered for the evaluation 
For children, at least two FGDs (one for boys and one for girls) were conducted in every school selected. 
All MOE officials and CEC members in the area of the schools selected were interviewed. Relevant 
Mercy Corps staffs working for the SEEDS program in the selected clusters were all interviewed as well.
2.5 Data collection 
A summary of tools used to collect data is shown in Table 1and have been annexed. Both quantitative 
and qualitative data was collected. Data from parents and head teachers were quantitatively collected 
using the structured questionnaires. Other data is qualitative. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were 
done with school children, boys and girls separately. Key Informant’s Interviews were done with the 
MOE officials, CEC members and Mercy Corps staff. 
Program documents reviewed included the program proposals (both for schools and health component 
of the program), program progress reports, baseline report and the midline evaluation report. School 
admission records and minutes of school committee meetings were also reviewed. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
6 
Figure 1: Evaluation sampling profile 
Program area
Clustering into three 
areas
Somaliland- Maroodhijeex, 
Togdeer, Sanaag
Puntland– Nugal, Mudug, 
Karkaar
South/central- Not considered 
because of insecurity in the area
Schools in each cluster stratified into Low uptake, Medium uptake and 
High uptake
Random sample schools in each strata. Target 36% of all schools supported 
in each cluster as was done in the midline. The number of schools selected 
was proportionate to the number in each stratum.
Selection of each of the groups
1. Head teachers: All head teachers in the 23 schools selected 
2. Parents: 520 parents per cluster/region 
3. Children: two FGDs (one for boys and other for girls) in the 23 schools 
(10-12 boys and 8-9 girls in each of the FGDs) 
4. MOE officials: All MOE officials in the six clusters (one in each region) 
5. CEC members: All CEC members of the considered 23 schools 
6. Mercy Corps staff: 6 staff working in the selected clusters 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
7 
Table 1: Summary of data collection tools and number of surveyed participants 
Respondent Quantitative data Qualitative data
By use of a 
questionnaire
Focus Group 
Discussions
Key Informant 
Interviews
Teachers √
Students √
Parents √
CEC members √
Health facility √
MoE staff √
Mercy Corps Staff √
Note that the MCH questionnaire was only administered to Togdheer and Sanaag 
2.6 Training and pre-testing 
All tools were developed at desk level in Nairobi. Three day-long trainings on data collection trainings 
were conducted separately in Somaliland and Puntland for all the 16 enumerators. The quantitative and 
qualitative tools were then pretested in the field and amendments were made based on pre-testing 
experiences and observations on the tools’ use. All the enumerators were confirmed able to administer 
the survey before actual data collection. 
2.7 Data analysis and interpretation 
Quantitative data was inputted into Statistical Package for Social Scientists version 17 (SPSS Vs 17) and 
analyzed based on the set objectives. The analyses were presented in the form of tables and charts 
before interpretation and report writing. Qualitative data were analyzed using a categorization method. 
For each of the guide questions (both for FGDs and KIIs), responses were classified into all possible 
categories (based on the theme of the question).This is also referred to as coding or categorizing the 
data without assigning any numerical codes. A look at the categories developed led to the realization 
that the categories were either overlapping or some were subsets of others. For this reason, categories 
were re-looked at and larger categories were developed (super categories) with sub-categories. 
Similar codes were combined and re-worded where necessary. 
All the guide questions and summarized responses in categories (where applicable) were then organized 
as per the objective set. This was followed by interpreting all the responses based on the objectives. 
This subsequently allowed triangulation of information generated within the questions from different 
sources falling under similar respective objective to respond to the objective. A clear summary per an 
objective considering all the responses given were then drafted in the fifth column of the database. 
Triangulation with other sources (quantitative data and program documents reviewed).
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
8 
3. EVALUATION FINDINGS 
3.1Program achievements 
3.1.1 Access to basic education 
The set objective of the SEEDS program was to improve access to basic education for at least 20,000 
students through the construction, rehabilitation or repair of at least 500 classrooms in at least 250 
schools. As shown in Table 2, all these targets were either achieved or surpassed with the most 
pronounced achievement being a significant increase in the students enrolled in the supported primary 
schools. This may be because the general condition of the schools encouraged attendance. A good 
learning environment was created by the building and rehabilitation of the classes. However, this has 
resulted in fresh challenges. For instance in Nugal, the school was full with two shifts (morning and 
evening) due to increased attendance. 
Table 2: Program achievements in access to basic education1
# Indicator Values (number or 
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target Achieved
2 Number of classrooms constructed 150 248 165.3%
3 Number of classrooms rehabilitated or repaired 350 516 147.4
4 Number of learners enrolled in the SEEDS supported primary 
schools
20,000 40,862 204.3
5 Proportion of leaners enrolled or having completed 3 classes 85% 87% 102.4
 
1
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
" The assistance given addressed the needs of the 
school because before the construction of classes in 
this district the pupils used to learn under a tree, but 
now they lean in a classroom which has improved 
class attendance and retention “A CEC member 
Alham Dullilahi school in Kar- kaar Region 
A class rehabilitated by the SEEDS Program
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
9 
It was observed that the rehabilitation of schools, classrooms and latrines was viewed as one of the 
practical achievements of the Mercy Corps program and greatly contributed to the remarkable 
development in the schools. Of 23 head teachers interviewed, 65.2% of them indicated that the 
classrooms rehabilitated in their respective schools were likely to remain permanent. In addition, 95.7% 
of them indicated that the classrooms were of adequate space. 
3.1.2 Access to water and sanitation 
As shown in Figure 3, the SEEDS program achieved the objective of improving access to water for at 
least 50,000 people (achievement rate 422.6%), and adequately improved peoples’ access to sanitation 
(83.1% achievement rate). The high population has led to an increase in misuse of available sanitation 
facilities making some community members to opt for alternative waste disposal methods including 
open defecation. The proportion of participants demonstrating knowledge on prevention of water and 
sanitation-related diseases increased by 27%, an achievement rate of 145%. 
Table 3: Program achievement in access to water and sanitation2
# Indicator Values (number or 
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target Achieved
1 Number of people in target areas with access to improved 
drinking water supply as result of SEEDS assistance
50,000 211,277 422.6
2 Number of people in target areas with access to improved 
sanitation facilities as result of SEEDS assistance
50,000 41,551 83.1
3 Proportion of participants showing increased knowledge on 
prevention of water and sanitation-related diseases
60% 87% 145.0
 
2
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
10
Out of all the parents interviewed who use constructed water sources (borehole and piped water), 
4.0% in Somaliland and 6.0% in Puntland used those supported by SEEDS as shown in Figure 2. Water 
sources supported by SEEDS added to the list of important sources of clean and reliable water. 
However, the majority of constructed water sources have been supported by the community and 
parents. 
Figure 2: Distribution of constructors of piped and borehole water systems 
The majority the parents of school children who were interviewed, responded that it took less than half 
an hour to access water (71%). In part, this is attributed to the building of reliable sources of clean and 
safe water for the communities around the SEED program supported schools. Only 3% (negligible) of the 
population around the schools took 3 hours or longer to access water. This is shown in Figure 3. 
Figure 3: Time taken to reach the nearest 
source of water as indicated by parents 
As depicted in Table 4 below, there were 
indications that the majority of the 
program covered populations had access 
to sound sanitation facilities. For all the 
areas, 81.5% of the households surveyed 
had toilets in their compounds. Somaliland 
is however lagging behind in access to 
toilets as compared to Puntland. In total 
(out of those who owned toilets), 86.3% 
39.4
4.0
28.6 28.0
59.1
5.9
28.6
6.4
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Community and parents Mercy Corps Government Others
% water sources used
Somaliland Puntland
0-30 min
71%
30min-1hr
16%
1-2hrs
10%
3hrs and 
above
3%
0%
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
11
had at least a pit latrine in their compounds. Most of the households wash their latrine at least every 
day and only 8.7% do not dispose of their waste appropriately. 
Table 4: Indicators of sanitation as reported by parents 
Proportion (%) of households
Sanitation Indicators All (n=520) Somaliland (n=252) Puntland (n=268)
Those with toilets 81.5 70.2 94.4
Type of toilets
Ordinary Pit latrine 78.6 76.8 80.4
VIP latrine 7.7 8.2 7.2
Flush toilet 10.3 9.8 10.8
Frequency of cleaning 
toilet
Everyday 71.5 81.0 62.5
2-3 times a week 10.4 7.6 13.0
Once a week 5.9 1.6 9.9
When necessary 10.4 7.1 13.5
Never cleaned 0.8 0.5 1.0
Others 1.1 2.1 0.0
Disposal of garbage
Disposal pit 28.4 17.0 43.2
Paid collection company 27.9 22.7 34.7
Burning 30.7 40.1 18.4
None 8.7 12.6 3.7
Others 4.3 7.7 0.0
Challenges mentioned by children in accessing water and sanitation in schools were water shortages, 
improper water management, and some toilets not designated for students and teachers separately 
(and boys and girls separately). Another challenge mentioned was related to the cleanliness of the 
toilets. In the FGDs conducted, some children mentioned that the toilets were sometimes not cleaned. 
3.1.3 Access to teaching and learning 
The objective of improving teaching and learning in at least 250 schools through teacher training 
and support for at least 1,000 teachers was almost achieved (91.5 % achievement rate). Teachers’ 
outcomes on skill assessments, and increase in teacher classroom attendance were over achieved 
(>100%- percent of percentage) as shown in Table 5. 
Table 5: Program achievements in access to teaching and learning3
 
3
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
12
# Indicator Values (number or 
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target Achieved
1 Number of educators trained with USGsupport 1000 915 91.5
3 Proportion of teachers who show improved outcomes on 
skill assessments§
60% 88.9% 148.2
% increase in teacher’s classroom attendance§
60% 80% 133.3
% increase in student’s classroom attendance§
80% 97.9% 122.4
§% achievement based on % of % 
Enrolment data was collected from the 23 supported and three non-supported schools with consistent 
data. Using 2010 data as the baseline, among the supported schools both the number of enrolment for 
boys and girls generally went up between the years 2010 and 2012. While enrolment for girls in the non￾supported4
 schools generally declined (increased then declined). It could not be determined if there 
was a shift from non-supported to supported schools. Boys generally increased for the non-supported 
as shown in Figure 4. 
Figure 4: Admission trend of boys and girls compared between 2010 and 20125
When the percent increases between 2010 and 2012 are compared, there was a marked increase 
among the girls (19.3%- not shown in Figure 4) in the supported schools, while in the non-supported 
schools, there was a decline (-1.0% increase). This shows that the SEEDS program interventions did 
result in an increase enrolment for girls. However, the number of boys admitted is still very high and not 
comparable to the number of girls admitted. 
Figure 5: Comparison of teacher profile in supported and non-supported schools 
 
4
 Supported schools were the schools that were provided with assistance from Mercy Corps. Unsupported did not 
receive assistance from Mercy Corps during the program period. 
5
 Source: School records from the schools considered for the evaluation 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
13
As depicted in Figure 5, the mean number of both male and female teachers per supported school was 
higher than for non-supported schools. It is also possible that that supported schools were more 
attractive to teachers and the trained CECs or head teachers were able to hire more teacher and retain 
them. In addition, the number of teachers trained for supported schools were significantly higher than 
those of non-supported, depicting a high SEEDS program achievement in capacity building of teachers. 
As shown in Table 6, the head teachers in the supported schools reporting full attendance had a higher 
proportion as compared to the non-supported schools. This shows that the SEED program did have 
some positive effect in school management. The students’ attendance in both supported and 
unsupported is however comparable as reported by the head teachers. 
Table 6: Distribution of attendance as reported by head teachers in schools supported by Mercy Corps 
Attendance category Proportion of full-day attendance
Supported schools (n=23) Non-supported schools (n=6)
Teachers Students Teachers Students
All 87.7 69.6 85.7 71.4
Half the number 12.3 22.7 14.3 14.3
A quarter 0 0 0 14.3
3.1.4 School management and participation of MoE staff 
The program improved school management in 104 communities through support and training for 
Community Education Committees (CECs) in targeted schools. All schools supported currently have 
functional CECs, attributable to the SEEDS program. CEC members were trained and are actively 
involved in linkages between parents, children and teachers. The members are also involved in conflict 
resolution and collectung of fees from parents to support teachers and school maintenances. Mercy 
Corps involved CECs in participating in the tendering processes of program work and they helped in 
selection of bidders and supervision of work implementation. 
8.0
1.5
7.4
3.3
0.9
2.9
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Mean male teachers Mean female teachers Mean number of trained
teachers
Number
Covered (23 schools) Non-covered (6 schools)
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
14
The program also exceeded its target of providing support to the Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) – a 
104% achievement rate was recorded against a target of 100 PTAs as shown in Table 7. Although all 
schools were reached with School Improvement Plan (SIP) activities, only two-thirds of the schools 
implemented the SIP activities. Schools were slow to take up the SIP due to some competing activities in 
the schools – demanding for the same teachers’ and head teachers’ time. 
Table 7: Performance on school management6
# Indicator Values (number or 
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target Achieved
1 Number of PTAs supported by SEEDS 100 104 104.0
2 Proportion of schools with functional CECs 100% 100% 100.0
3 Proportion of schools that designed and implemented 
activities in SIPs
100% 60% 60.0
The SEEDS program improved Somali participation in education, water, and sanitation activities 
through training and technical assistance to the targeted 100 Ministry of Education and other 
government officials. The proportion of MoE officials planning, implementing, and evaluating their 
education portfolio was also improved, but the target was missed by 12%. Just like for teachers and 
head teachers, it was mentioned that competing activities for the limited MoE staff time explained 
the non-achievement of this target. The target of reaching 100 schools that received timely 
supervisory visits was exceeded. 
Table 8: Achievements in MOE participation7
# Indicator Values (number or 
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target Achieved
1 Number of MoE administrators and officials trained 100 129 129.0
2 Number of schools that received timely supervisory visits 100 124 124.0
3 Proportion of MoE officials planning, implementing and 
evaluating their education portfolio
100% 88% 88.0
3.1.5 Maternal and child health care 
As shown in Table 9, all the targets set related to the improvement of maternal and child healthcare in 
Somaliland were achieved save for the number of births assisted and/or referred by trained birth 
attendants. Only a third of reported births were assisted and/or referred by trained birth attendants. 
This could have been due to poor reporting of births to the program. Due to the frequency of births 
occurring in the region and inaccessibility of some areas due to insecurity, it was difficult to collect 
 
6
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
7
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
15
accurate birth information. The highest achievement was in the training of health care providers in 
which 296 were trained against the target of 100, an achievement rate of 296%. 
Table 9: Achievements in maternal and health care8
# Indicator Values (number or
proportion)
% 
achievement
Target 
(FY11)
Achieved 
1 Number of ANC visits by skilled providers from SEEDS 
assisted facilities
15,000 18,263 121.8
2 Number of health care providers trained with SEEDS funding 100 296 296.0
3 Number of births assisted and/or referred by trained birth 
attendants
25000 7796 31.2
4 Proportion of functioning health committees 3 8 266.7
5 Proportion of rural populations aware of at least two health 
risks of mothers and children§
50% 60% 120.0
§
The % achievement is based on % of % computation 
Access to health care services 
An important aspect of health care services is where they are provided. The majority of communities 
around the schools supported accessed the facilities providing child and maternal health services within 
1-5 kilometers access range as shown in Figure 6. The distances to child and maternal services were 
comparable because they are provided at the same locations, within the Maternal and Child Clinics. 
 
8
 Source: SEEDS quarterly report July-September 2011 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
16
Figure 6: Distance away from the health facility providing maternal and child health services 
Figure 7: Distribution of places to access antenatal care as reported by parents (%) 
 
It was observed that there is 
still a significant gap in the 
provision of antenatal care. Half 
of mothers interviewed who 
live in their parents’ houses did 
not access antenatal care. 
Slightly above a quarter 
accessed antenatal care 
services in the MCH, which 
emerged to be the most 
accessed source of antenatal 
services. This is followed by the 
regional hospitals. The antennal 
care services are least obtained 
from the referral hospitals- only 
1.0% of the interviewed 
obtained the antennal care 
services from the referral 
hospitals. This is shown in 
Figure 7.
Health seeking behaviors 
Although the majority of the population in Somaliland take mothers and children to the hospital for 
medical treatment by qualified practitioners, an appreciable proportion prefer to use self-medication 
and visit traditional healers. This accounts for about 15.2% for mothers and 20.0% for children. 
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1-5 km 5-10 km 10-15 km
% of mothers and children
Distance away from the health facility
Maternal Child
Referral 
Hospital, 1.0
Regional 
hospital, 
14.3
MCH, 34.2
not received, 
50.5
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
17
Table 10: Maternal and child health seeking behaviors (when sick) 
Health seeking behaviors Proportion (%) of mothers and children (n=252)
Maternal Child
Do not do anything 6.7 6.1
Taken to hospital 80.6 76.4
Buy drugs in the shop/Pharmacy 6.1 11.5
Visit a traditional healer 2.4 2.4
Others 4.2 3.6
Perceived mortality as reported by parents 
There were indications that maternal and child mortality was on the decline. About a third of the 
parents interviewed indicated that compared to five years ago, maternal and child health had improved 
i.e., When asked if the number of deaths of mothers or children had decreased in the last five years, the 
majority responded ‘yes’ as shown in Figure 8. In addition, in the most recent one year span, only 1.6% 
of parents interviewed had experienced a death of a child less than five years old. Although these 
encouraging findings cannot be fully attributed to the SEEDS program, it definitely had a significant role 
to play. 
Figure 8: Change in child and maternal mortality since past 5 years as reported by parents 
62.6 65.0
1.6
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
As compared to 5 years
ago, has death among
mothers reduced?
As compared to 5 years
ago, has death among
children reduced?
In the past 1 year have
you lost an under five
year old child?
Proportion of parents who say YES
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
18
3.2 Program performance 
3.2.1 Relevance 
Relevance is the extent to which objectives, implementation strategies, activities and methodologies 
were adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries. The program has met most of its objectives and thus 
met the needs that were identified at baseline. For example, school attendance was initially low. The 
building and rehabilitation of classrooms and provision of furniture improved the learning environment 
and encouraged school enrolment and attendance. Based on the FGDs, the SEEDS program has been 
explained by community members and head teachers as meeting the needs of the community and 
schools. These needs were also identified by the local authorities (e.g. MoE) as important. These needs, 
as stated by various respondents, included improved learning environments, access to WASH, access to 
health care by mother and children, among others. The communities around the supported schools 
indicated that as the program began, these needs were being met more and more with time. 
3.2.2 Effectiveness 
SEEDS achieved its intended goals for its 
ultimate beneficiaries –the children. These 
achievements are illustrated by the percent of 
achievements as shown in section 3.1. Save for 
few set indicators, most targets were surpassed. 
The positive perception of the community in general towards the program is justified by the presence of 
the physical structures that the program has put up including classrooms, bore holes, toilets, among 
others. As reported by program staff interviewed, the program activity plan, procedures, and checks 
and balances were very good in the implementation of the program. In addition, there was a strong 
adherence to the set accounting system. 
3.2.3 Efficiency 
The evaluation exercise was not designed to reveal if the results achieved were in relation to time, 
efforts, and resources expended. This needs a detailed cost-benefit analysis to indicate if the 
achievements were commensurate to the 
resources spent on the program. However, a few 
qualitative indications show that in most cases 
modest resources were used to implement 
activities, and there were intended efforts to 
minimize expenditures while maximizing outputs. 
3.2.4 Sustainability 
“The program developed after discussion on the needs with CECs and the SEEDS program was very important for the school 
and the community” CEC member, Hajji Adam school
“Most of the program activities, about 95%, were 
completed on schedule and with minimal expenditure. We 
can confidently say that we are successful” Francis B., 
CoP, SEEDS
‘‘What has given this program an edge above the rest is 
the holistic approach of touching most felt need of the 
people, and that’s how it has gained trust and support of 
the people” Director General, MoE, Somaliland
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
19
There is a strong indication that 
the communities and schools 
were involved at all levels of the 
program cycle- from the problem 
identification, through 
implementation, and to 
monitoring and evaluation. Due to 
the infrastructure components of 
the program, such as building 
classrooms and boreholes, the 
results achieved can continue past 
the period of the program. There 
have been capacity building initiatives to ensure that these structures are maintained, even after the 
end of the program. Already about 4% of all parents in the schools in Somaliland and Puntland 
respectively were trained in water source management (Figure 9). This is an indication that Mercy Corps 
has been putting effort in the sustainability of management of water sources. In addition, there has 
been joint planning and monitoring between the program staff, MOE, and CECs and it is envisaged that 
the MOE and the CEC will continue with the monitoring even after the program exit. 
3.2.5 Impact 
It was discovered through various groups interviewed, the SEEDS program has impacted its 
beneficiaries. Although the evaluation was not designed to measure impact, a number of indications of 
SEEDS’ impact were noted. The school children indicated (in the FGDs) that they learned about hygienic 
and comfortable environments and were encouraged to attend school. The community is now more 
interested in participating in school development initiatives as indicated by the Mercy Corps staff, head 
teachers and the CECs. A good indication of the impact that WASH activities has made, is the increase 
in the number of people with an improved drinking water supply.. A total of 211,277 people had access 
to improved drinking water. In respect to maternal and child health, the fact that most parents of the 
supported schools indicated that compared to five years ago, the deaths have reduced in the 
community. This is an indication that the program impacted the health status of the community 
members. About 63% of parents indicated that deaths had reduced among mothers and 65% indicated 
deaths had declined in a span of 5 years. 
3.3 Comment on theory of change verses the evaluation findings 
The theory of change hypothesis was confirmed true by the results discussed in this report. The building 
educational and WASH infrastructure, support for in-service training of teachers, support for school 
management improvement through training and provision of technical assistance to MOE and other 
government officials increased access to education as shown by increased overall enrollment and 
admission of girls in supported schools. As a result also, access to water and sanitation, improved 
teaching and learning, improved school management and Somali participation was improved. 
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
Somaliland Puntland
% parents
Figure 9: Proportion of parents trained in water source 
management
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
20
There is no causal relationship studied between maternal and child health and school attendance, but 
there is strong evidence that the program’s work to improve maternal and child health improved overall 
child health, ultimately improving school attendance. 
3.4 Implication for future programming 
3.4.1 Lessons learned
Gender considerations are vital for the success of a program. In the schools for instance, latrines were 
made separately for boys and girls, and also seperately for male teachers and female teachers in some 
areas. This had two benefits as it encouraged the use of the latrines as well as the enrolment and 
retention of girls. 
Long term interventions are vital for institutional development and ownership. Contrary to other 
programs which are normally short-term, the SEEDS program was lasted long enough to show effects in 
the community and encourage ownership. 
A holistic/multi-sectoral approach increased the communities’ interest. The nature of the SEEDS 
program of having school, WASH and health components as a packaged intervention enabled the 
communities to clearly see that SEEDS’ view of development was not confined only to specific areas, but 
was wider in approach. This is in opposition to other projects in the area. 
3.4.2 Best practices 
The following best key practices were observed. These best practices should be encouraged in a new 
program or in scaling-up efforts of the SEEDS program. 
 Program implementation without discriminating the communities. No communities were 
discriminated on the basis of clan and the selection of beneficiaries was done based on need. 
 Government participation in the supervision of programs. This is a contributing factor and one 
of the probable explanations for the achievement and surpassing of the targets set by the 
program. Supervision was done jointly, e.g. between the SEEDS program staff, MoE staff and 
CECs. 
 Regular community awareness of the SEEDS program. This ensured that the communities had a 
favorable attitude and perception of the program. 
 Reduced overcrowding of classrooms through double shifts. This was an innovative way of 
reducing vulnerability to health risk and encouraged quality learning. 
 Girls friendly spaces; in some schools, one room was allocated to girls so as to freely rest during 
lunch break and this attracted girls to enroll and improved attendance. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
21
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS 
It was generally concluded that the SEEDS program achieved its objectives because the majority of the 
targets were met. Improvement was shown in all the indicators monitored over time with most of them 
depicting more than 100% achievement rate. Only few indicators were not or close to full achievement 
as compared to the targets. These were: number of people in target areas with access to improved 
sanitation facilities as result to SEEDS assistance (83.1%), proportion of schools that designed and 
implemented activities in SIPs (60%), proportion of MOE officials planning, implementing and evaluating 
their education portfolio (88%), and number of births assisted and/or referred by trained birth 
attendants (31.2%). The best achieved target was the number of health care providers trained with 
SEEDS funding (296%). Most numerical targets superseded the 100% achievement rate and this was 
attributed to the sound planning and implementation of the program. Although the evaluation did not 
provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis, there were anecdotal and qualitative indications that the 
program was cost effective in its use of resources. Indications for sustainability for the SEEDS program 
was shown by community participation at all levels of programming and the programmatic efforts to 
train the community in water resources management and joint monitoring between program staff, MOE 
staff and CEC members. This evaluation exercise generated a number of recommendations. It is
recommended that further funding be provided for the SEEDS program for continuation. The extension 
or a new program should emphasize: 
 Filling the needs and gaps in the community such as: the inclusion of extra curriculum activities 
in schools e.g. Physical Education (PE) and playing fields which are missing in schools. 
 Addressing the water shortages in more schools. There is need for water tanks in more schools 
to assure the long-term availability of water. 
 Building more classrooms to reduce overcrowding in some schools. This may also reduce shift 
attendance which may inflict strain on teachers. 
 Construction/rehabilitation and staffing of more health facilities to improve access to health 
services particularly the ante-natal care services. 
 Improving the enrolment of girls. Although the program resulted in more girls being admitted in 
school by 20% between 2010 and 2012, this could not be compared to the 384% for boy’s 
enrolment. There is a need for an in-depth study to investigate why the enrolment of girls is still 
low. 
 Scaling–up to other regions identified with similar needs to extend the program benefits to 
other regions for the benefit of more Somalis. For instance, the admission of boys in non￾supported schools only increased by 19% and for girls declined by 1% between the years 2010 
and 2012. The non-supported areas need the SEEDS program. 
 Considering the lessons learned and the best practices from the SEEDS program evaluation. 
 Influencing the development of Somali education policy using the lessons learned from the 
SEEDS program. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
22
APPENDICES 
Appendix 1: Evaluation TOR 
MERCY CORPS SOMALIA 
TERMS OF REFERENCE 
SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT AND EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT FOR SOMALIA (SEEDS) PROGRAM 
Job Title: Consultant as Final Program Evaluator 
Length of Consultancy: 30 Days (Exact dates to be determined during the signing of the contract)
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 
School Environment and Education Development for Somalia (SEEDS) is a USAID funded Education 
Program that was initially designed for three years (from 30th September 2008 to 29th September 2011). 
The program was jointly designed by a consortium consisting of Mercy Corps (as the prime), Centre for 
British Teachers (CfBT) Education Trust, African Rescue Committee (AFREC), International Medical Corps 
(IMC) and International Aid Services (IAS). IMC and IAS dropped off the consortium leaving Mercy Corps, 
CfBT and AFREC in the consortium. 
The goal of the SEEDS program is to achieve improved access to basic education and water services in 
Somalia. The program was intended to achieve improved access to basic education, water services and 
sanitation in school communities in Somalia. It adopted a holistic approach to improving education 
environment; encompassing infrastructure development, supplies provision, as well as capacity 
development for school management that targets CECs, teachers and education officials. The focus has 
been to create more learning spaces for children to expand the availability of basic education 
opportunities through construction of new and rehabilitation of existing classrooms, and water and 
sanitation infrastructure, in-service training of teachers, and improving school management and 
provision of technical assistance to MOE and other government officials. 
In the course of implementation, two major cost modifications were approved. The first modification, 
two years (September 2010) after the start of the program, expanded the scope of the program to 
include Maternal and Child Health Care. The second modification, towards the end (July 2011) of the 
implementation, expanded the scope of the program to include secondary education and livelihood 
opportunities and the modification extended the life of the program to 21st July 2012. 
Program Objectives: 
Primary Education 
Objective 1: Pupils have improved access to basic (Primary) education 
Objective 2: People in school communities have access to safe water and basic sanitation 
Objective 3: Improve teaching and learning in about 100 schools by the end of the program 
Objective 4: Improve management in about 100 school communities at the end of the program 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
23
Objective 5: Improve institutional capacity of MoE 
Maternal and Child Health 
Objective 6: Improve maternal and child healthcare in Somaliland 
Secondary Education 
Objective 1: Improve access to and equity of secondary education 
Objective 2: Improve delivery of secondary education services 
Objective 3: Improving capacity of MoE to manage education system 
Objective 4: Support creation of education and economic opportunities for in-school youth 
Since the Secondary Education has only been implemented for a very short time, this component will 
not be included in this final program evaluation. At the end of SEEDS, all the secondary interventions will 
be transferred to the new Somali Youth Leaders Initiative (SYLI), another Mercy Corps program. The 
outcomes and impact of the Secondary Education activities will therefore be captured during the 
evaluation of SYLI. 
PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EVALUATION 
The purpose of evaluation is to assess the performance and the impact of the program and provide 
information and recommendations that will inform the ongoing Somali Youth Leaders Initiative (SYLI) 
Evaluation objectives 
In terms of specific objectives the evaluation will focus: 
 To evaluate whether program objectives were achieved with high quality outputs and 
accountability to beneficiaries; 
 To conduct an in-depth qualitative evaluation of the effects/impacts of the program on selected 
Mercy Corps school communities in comparison with other communities; and 
 To identify and document best practices, lessons learned for future programming (examples of 
potential best practices include: monitoring of school construction processes by the CEC 
community led tendering processes, and CEC led school improvement plans. Lessons learned to 
be explored include working with the local partners in reaching wider and non-secure areas, 
quality of program outputs achieved through the local partners’ implementation, and use of 
local resource persons in facilitating trainings). 
In addition to the above evaluation objectives, the evaluation will also cover the following aspects of the 
program. 
 Relevance: the extent to which objectives, implementation strategies, activities and 
methodologies were adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
24
 Effectiveness: the extent to which SEEDS has done what it was intended to do for the 
beneficiaries. 
 Efficiency: the results achieved in relation to time, efforts and resources expended. 
 Sustainability: the extent to which results achieved can continue after the end of the program. 
 Impact: the overall effects SEEDS has had on the beneficiaries and participating communities 
and on their methods of working in the future. 
 Ownership: the level of stakeholder and community participation/involvement and their feeling 
of who controls and makes what decisions. 
4) GENERAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
Primary Education: 
1. Have the program implementation objectives been attained? (To focus on the program output 
indicators as described in the PMP). What challenges were encountered and or what factors 
facilitated the implementation? 
2. Have the program outcome objectives been attained? (Need to assess the achievement of the 
program outcome indicators as described in the PMP) Do beneficiary outcomes vary as a 
function of program features? That is, which aspects of the program are most predictive of 
expected outcomes? Do beneficiary outcomes vary as a function of characteristics of the 
beneficiaries or staff? 
3. Were the underlying program theories of change (hypotheses), principles and assumptions 
accurate? Are the program hypotheses still valid and relevant for the SYLI Program? Need to test 
the following; improvement of school’s sanitation facilities against increased enrolment and 
retention of girls, improved maternal and child health care against regular school attendance, 
improved school physical environment and increase and retention of both girls and boys, 
number of female teachers against enrolment of girls, 
4. How is the quality of program outcomes and products (training materials for CEC, teachers, 
and general school community on PHAST and CHAST, distributed items like desks and learning 
materials, repaired and constructed structures etc.)? Were these Products appropriate for the 
Somalia context? 
5. In what ways have human and institutional capacities increased as a result of the SEEDS 
program? Need to look at the capacity and performance of teachers, Ministry of Education staff 
and Community Education Committees 
Maternal and Child Health Care: 
1. To what extent has access to maternal and child health care services improved within the SEEDS 
target areas? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
25
2. In what ways have human and institutional (Primary health care facilities) capacities 
increased as a result of the SEEDS program? Need to look at PHC staff CHWs, TBAs etc 
3. What impact has the maternal and child healthcare program had on the school attendance 
4. How has the management of maternal and child health care system improved within the SEEDS 
target areas? 
5) EVALUATION METHODS 
The process will be participatory and the evaluation will employ a combination of different quantitative 
and qualitative methods. 
The evaluation should systematically assess program outputs and their contribution to achieving the 
outcome objectives in a reasonable sample size of school and health communities. 
The specific evaluation methods are outlined below: 
 Desk review including an analysis of documents, policy papers, national surveys and reports that 
have been produced in connection with the program thematic area. 
 Review internal Mercy Corps documents related to the SEEDS program including data already 
gathered. 
 Structured individual/household survey interviews with sampled community members. 
 Semi structured key informant interviews with respective Government Ministries, CSOs, NGOs, 
in the selected SEEDS program area. 
 Focus group discussions with various community groups; CECs and health facility management 
committees. 
Appendix 2: Parents Questionnaire 
 EVALUATION OF THE SEED PROGAM 
MCH Questionnaire 
Region._________ Questionnaire No. _________Enumerator________________ 
Supervisor_______________ 
(Mother to respond to the questions and can be assisted by the spouse or any other household 
member) 
Introduction: You are requested to answer the questions below to the best of your knowledge. 
All answers to questions below will be treated with a lot of confidentiality and at no time will 
the researcher quote your answers verbatim. 
Identification 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
26
 Religion___________________________ 
Age in year’s __________________Sex 1) Male 2) Female 
Section 1: Background
1. What is your highest education level? 
1) Primary 2) Secondary 3) College/university 4)none 5) Others Specify _______________ 
2. What is your main occupation? 
1) Student 2) Formal employment 3) Casual labor 
4) Business 5) Subsistence farming 6) Commercial farming 
7) Artisan 8) Others specify________________ 
3. Marital status? 
1) Single 2) Married 3) Divorced 
4) Separated 5) Widow/ Widower 
4. Livelihood system used by the household 
1) Pastoral 2) Agro-pastoral 3) Urban______________ 
4) Others (specify) _______________________________ 
Section 2: Household environment and sanitation
1. What are the main sources of water for the household? 
1) River 2) lake 2) piped 3) borehole 
4) Spring 5) rain 6) others specify______________ 
2. If water source is piped or borehole, who constructed or provided the water source 
1) Community and parents 2) Mercy Corps 3) Government d) Others specify 
3. Are there community committee managing the water sources? 
1) Yes 2) No 
4. From your experience, do the water management committee for piped water and borehole have 
maintenance plan? 
1) Yes 2) No 
5. What is the average time you take to reach the source of water? 
1) 0-30min 2) 30-1hr 3) 1-2 hrs. 4) 3 and above 
6. Do you treat drinking water in your household? 
1) Yes 2) No 
7. What methods do you use to treat drinking water? 
1) Boiling 2) Chemical 3) none 4) Others specify. 
8. Are there diseases that members of your household have suffered as a result of use of untreated 
water? 
1) Yes 2) No 
9. If so what are the diseases? 
1) Cholera 2) bilharzias 3) others specify_____________________ 
10. Do you have toilets in your compound? 
1) Yes 2) No 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
27
11. What type of toilets do you have? 
1) Ordinary Pit latrine 2) VIP latrines 3) flush toilets 4) none 5) Others Specify________ 
12. How frequently do you clean the toilets? 
1) Every day 2) 2 to 3 times a week 3) once a week 4) when necessary 5) 
never cleaned 6) others specify. 
13. How do you dispose of your household garbage? 
1) Disposal Pit 2) Paid collection company 3) Burning 4) None 5) Others Specify ________________ 
 5) Never cleaned 
16. Have you been trained/ taught on transmission and prevention of common ailments transmitted 
through water? 
1) Yes 2) No 
 17. If yes, who trained you______________________ 
17. Mention three ways in which diseases transmitted through water can be prevented. 
a)___________________________________________________________________________________
____
b)___________________________________________________________________________________
____
c)___________________________________________________________________________________
____
Section 3
A. Capacity building for parents 
1. Have you been trained on water source maintenance? 
1) Yes 2) No 
2. If yes, what topics were covered during the training? 
___________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____
3. If trained, which organization trained you and how long was the training 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
4. Have you been trained in hygiene practices? 
 1) Yes 2) No 
5. If yes, what topics were covered during the training? 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ 
6. If trained, which organization trained you and how long was the training in days 
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
7. What are some of the challenges you face in terms of water use and water source 
Management (name 2 key challenges) 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
28
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________ 
Section 4: Maternal and child health (Mother to respond to the questions)
Important: This section to be answered with those only from Togdheer and Sanaag 
A. Support to maternal health 
1. How long do mothers walk to find medical assistance? 
1) 1-5 Km 2) 5-10Km 3) 10-15km 4) others specify ___________ 
2. What are the common types of sickness that affect mothers in your community? 
1) Malaria 2) Diarrhea 
3) Respiratory tract infections [cold and cough, asthma, running nose, pneumonia] 
4) Skin diseases [scabies, ringworm] e) 5) others specify_________________ 
3. What actions are taken by the family members when the mother is sick? 
 1) Nothing 2) Taken to the hospital 3) Buy drugs in the shop 
 4) Visit a traditional healer 5) Send for parents 6) Others 
(specify)_____________ 
4. Do you keep any health records about the mothers? 
1) Yes 2) No 
5. If yes, which mother health records do you keep? 
1) Growth monitoring records 2) Hospital visitation Records 3) Other- specify ___________ 
6. In the past 3 month, have you received health education about mother health from any health 
providers? 
 1) Yes 2) No 
7. Compared to 5 years ago, has the deaths among mothers reduced? 
 1) Yes 2) No 
8. Who did you see for antenatal care for the last/current pregnancy? 
1 = Doctor 2 = Nurse/Midwife 3 = Auxiliary Nurse 
4 = TBA 5 = Relative/Friend 6 = other (specify) __________________________ 
7 = None 
9. Where did you receive antenatal care for last/current pregnancy? 
1 = Referral Hospital 2 = Regional Hospital 3 = MCH 
4 = Health Post 5 = Clinic 6 = Other (specify)______________________________ 
10. How many months pregnant were you when you first received antenatal care for this pregnancy? 
. __________ Months 
11.How many times did you receive antenatal care during this pregnancy? 
__________ Months 
12 How many months pregnant were you the last time you received antenatal care? 
__________ Months 
13 Where did you give birth to (NAME)? 
1 = Referral Hospital 2 = Regional Hospital 3 = MCH 
4 = Health Post 5 = Clinic 6 = other (specify) _________________________________ 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
29
14. Who assisted with the delivery? 
1 = Doctor 2 = Nurse/Midwife 3 = Auxiliary Nurse 
4 = TBA 5 = Relative/Friend 6 = Other (specify) __________________________ 
7 = None 
B. Support to health of the child 
1. How long do you walk to get Medical services for the children? 
1) 1-5 Km 2) 5-10Km 3) 10-15km 4) others specify ___________ 
2. What are the common types of sickness that affect children in your household? 
1) Malaria 2) Diarrhea 
3) Respiratory tract infections [cold and cough, asthma, running nose, pneumonia] 
4) skin diseases [scabies, ringworm] 5) others specify_________________ 
3. What actions are taken when a child is sick? 
1) Does not do anything 2) Taken to the hospital 3) Buy drugs in the shop 
 4) Visit a traditional healer 5) Send for parents 6) Others 
(specify)_____________ 
4. Do you keep any health records about the children? 
1) Yes 2) No 
5. If yes, which child health records do you keep? 
1) Growth monitoring records 2) Hospital visitation records 3) Other- specify ______ 
6. In the past 3 month, have you received health education about children health from any health 
providers? 
 1) Yes 2) No 
7. Compared to 5 years ago, has the deaths among children reduced? 
 1) Yes 2) No 
8. Has any child below 5 years of age had diarrhea in the last 2 weeks? 
1) Yes 2) No 
9. If yes, what was he/she given to drink? 
9.1 A fluid made from a special packet called ORS 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don’t know
9.2 Any other fluid different from ORS? 1)Yes 2) No 3) Don’t know
10. Did you seek advice or treatment for diarrhea? 
1) Yes 2) No
If yes, where did you seek advice or treatment? 
1 = Referral Hospital 2 = Regional Hospital 3 = MCH 
4 = Health Post 5 = Hospital 6 = Clinic 
7 = Other (specify)____ 
B. Child mortality
1. Has any of your children died in the last 1 year? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
30
1) Yes 2) No 
2. If yes, how old was the child _____________ year 
3. What was the sex of the child? 
1) Male 2) Female 
4. How many months ago did the child die? _____________ Months? 
5. What was the cause of death? 
1) Malaria 2) Diarrhea 
3) Respiratory tract infections [cold and cough, asthma, running nose, pneumonia] 
4) Skin diseases [scabies, ringworm] e) 5) others specify_________________ 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
31
Appendix 3: Teachers questionnaire 
EVALUATION OF THE SEED PROGAM 
Head Teacher’s Questionnaire
Region ________________School________________ Head Teacher________________ 
Questionnaire Number ________________Enumerator________________ Supervisor______________ 
Introduction: You are requested to answer the questions below to the best of your knowledge. 
All answers to questions below will be treated with a lot of confidentiality and at no time will the 
researcher quote your answers verbatim. 
A. Infrastructure development 
1 How many classrooms does the school have? 
1) 1 2) 2 3) 3 4) 4 and above 
2. How many new classrooms have been constructed by Mercy Corps in the school for the last 
three and a half a years? (from October 2008 to date) 
1) 1 2) 2 3) 3 4) 4 5) others specify 
4. What type of classrooms was constructed by Mercy corps? 
1) Permanent 2) Semi-permanent 3) Under trees 4) others specify 
5. Are the classrooms constructed by Mercy Corps adequate in size and space? 
1) Yes 2) No 
6. Are the classes constructed by Mercy corps having adequate ventilation? 
1) Yes 2) No 
7. Are the classes constructed by Mercy corps having adequate lighting? 
1) Yes 2) No 
Special instructions: For the questions 8-10 below, observe and record the observations accordingly 
8. What are the general conditions of the classrooms? 
1) Under construction 2) Need repairs 3) Beyond repair 4) It is good 
9. What is the type of the roofs of classrooms constructed by Mercy Corps? 
1) Iron roofed 2) Grass thatched roof 3) other specify 
10. What is the types and condition of the floor of the classrooms constructed by mercy corps? 
1) Cement smooth floor 2) Cemented rough floor 3) Earth smooth floor 
 4) Earth rough floor 5) other specify_____________________ 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
32
Appendix 4: Children FGD guides
EVALUATION OF THE SEEDS PROGAM 
FGD GUIDE- CHILDREN 
School----------------------------------------- Zone------------------------------------
Instructions for Enumerators: Please do let the children know that they should answer all 
questions. Similarly pass to them the message that this is not an examination paper, so all 
answers provided are right. Let them be as free as possible and if any of the questions is not 
clear then please re-phrase it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1. Do you like your teachers? Please mention the things you like in your teachers and the ones 
you do not like? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
2. In your opinion do parents have a role in your school? If so what have they done? If not, why 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- 
3. What activities do you usual undertake in school, a part from learning? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
4. What changes have you seen in your school over the last one and a half years? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
5. Which organizations have supported your school to create the changes? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
33
6. Can you give us examples of changes you have liked most and the ones you hated (Probe the children 
to find out why) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
7. Between boys and girls, who in your opinion, is denied opportunity to go to school? Who is denying 
them opportunity to go to school and why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------- 
8. What are some of the problems that you face in the school? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
9. What recommendations do you have for Mercy Corps in terms of improving your schools? 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
10. Have you ever seen education officers in the school? In your opinion, what are their roles? When 
they visit the school? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
34
Appendix 5: Staff KII guide 
 EVALUATION OF THE SEEDS PROGAM 
Staff Key Informant Interview Schedule 
Name: ------------------------------------------------- Position: ------------------------------------------ 
INSTRUCTION: Kindly answer all the questions as precise as you can. Your responses/feedback will be 
treated in strict confidence. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Available resources and targets: 
Do you think you have adequate resources to implement the program? 
Do you think that you will reach the target population within the program time frame? Give reasons for 
your answer 
Are the targets reasonable in view of the program span of time? 
(ii) Progress with implementation & strategies: 
In your opinion, what do you think are the most successful activities of the program and why? 
Based on current program performance do you think the program activities will solve the problems they 
were intended to solve? If yes, how? If no, give the main reasons? 
What program implementation strategies have you used during the last one and a half years? Which 
ones have worked? Explain 
What is your general assessment of performance and achievement of program targets/outputs against 
planned program activities? 
(iii) Challenges and SWOT analysis: 
What challenges have you encountered during the implementation in the last two years? 
What are your fears about successful completion of the program? 
What are some of your strengths which SEEDS program can tap to improve effectiveness? 
Are there opportunities that SEEDS program can take an advantage of? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
35
What threats do you see ahead which can affect smooth implementation of the program activities in the 
remaining year? 
(iv) Management support and skills: 
What management support have you received as you implement the program? 
Are there new skills and competencies you require to improve your capacity and effectiveness towards 
SEEDS program implementation? If yes list and briefly describe them here. 
(v) Monitoring and evaluation 
Does the program have a monitoring system? If yes, how effective is the system? 
How does information flow from the program management team to the field and back? Do you as staff 
have any feedback on difficulties /successes you encounter? 
How does the recommendations from M&E feedback into the implementation process? Are there 
recommendations from M&E that have been implemented? Please give examples 
In your opinion, how can communication channel between the community and the program 
management be improved? 
(vi)Efficiency in resource use 
Were the resources allocated for each planned activity adequate and availed on time? If not, why? 
Were each of the planned activities implemented as per the schedule? If not, why? 
Comment on the efficiency of the team responsible for the management of the program i.e. planning, 
budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation? 
Is the laid down accountability structures effective in ensuring prudent use of resources as well as 
transparent & effective reporting. 
How are decisions arrived at in the program? Who are the main decision makers and why? 
(viii) Program ownership & sustainability 
In you opinion, will the initiatives started by the program survive beyond the end of the program? 
Explain your answer. 
What structures should be put in place to ensure program sustainability? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
36
What are some of the things that you would want to see done differently during the remaining period of 
time? And finally, comment on the extent of community involvement and ownership of program 
activities. 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
37
Appendix 6: CEC FGD guides 
EVALUATION OF THE SEEDS PROGAM 
School------------------------------------ Region---------------------------------------
Assess relevance of the program to the beneficiaries (objectives and targets) 
1. Are you aware of the SEEDS program? Mention some of the activities undertaken by the 
program in this school and community? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
2. What are the school s main needs with regard to improving quality education? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
3. Do you think the SEED program is addressing the identified needs of the 
school/community? Why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What do you think should be done to ensure the program fully addresses the needs of 
the community? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What are the strengths and weakness of the SEED program strategies? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assess the performance and achievements against the program activities 
1. In your opinion what do you think are the most successful activities of the program and 
why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are the main challenges facing the SEED program in its efforts to achieve its 
objectives? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
38
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. How do you think the identified challenges can be addressed to ensure the smooth 
implementation of program activities? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assess community participation and program sustainability 
1 Was the community or school consulted in deciding which SEED program was to be 
implemented in the school/community? If so, how were they consulted? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What has been the role of parents/community in the implementation of SEED program? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What do you think should be done by SEED to improve community participation in 
program activities 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
4. In your opinion, do you think that the program initiated activities will continue after the 
end of the program? If not, why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What structures should be put in place to ensure program sustainability? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
39
Appendix 7: Education officers KII guides 
EVALUATION OF THE SEEDS PROGAM 
Education Officers Structured Questions 
Region------------------------- Name of Officer-------------------------------
INSTRUCTION: You are requested to answer the questions below to the best of your knowledge. 
All answers to questions below will be treated with a lot of confidentiality and at no time will the 
researcher quote your answers verbatim. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you aware of the SEEDS program in the region? Mention some of the activities undertaken by the 
program in this region? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many Education officers do you have in the Region? By gender? By Category? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many schools have benefited from SEEDs programme in the region? So far what changes have you 
seen in the school? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the regional Primary school enrolment? Boys and Girls 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many primary teachers in the Region are trained? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many primary teachers are untrained in the Region? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the strengths and weakness of the SEEDS program? 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your opinion what do you think are the most successful activities of the program and why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think will happen to the program initiated activities if the program phases out? Do you 
think they will be sustained and why? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How frequently do you supervise the primary school? What are some of the major observations during 
supervision? How do you address the observations? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are some of the technical assistance that you (MOE) have received from SEEDs Program? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the problems affecting enrolment and retention in the district How can enrolment and 
retention be improved? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would be your comment on the general state of the physical facilities within the schools? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How best can the quality of primary schools be improved? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Final SEEDS Program Performance Evaluation – August 2012 
41
Do you effectively provide support for all teachers in the district and what are some of the challenges 
you face? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------