Mid-term Evaluation Report - FEAD Project 
March - April 2016 
Mid-term evaluation: Food Emergency Assistance Project in Diffa (FEAD)
Implemented by Samaritan’s Purse Niger, funded by USAID / FFP
Agreement No. AID-FFP-G-15-00068
Effective date and completion date: June 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016 
To: USAID-FFP-EFSP
By: Samaritan’s Purse
Report submission date: February 28, 2017 
Software used for report: Microsoft Office Word 2010 
US Point of Contact:
Francis Horton, Regional Director West Africa
Address: 801 Bamboo Rd., Boone, NC 28607 
E-mail: FKHorton@samaritan.org 
Telephone: (828) 278-1450 
Niger Point of Contact:
Carl Becker, Country Director 
Address: B.P. 2499, Niamey, Niger 
E-mail: cbecker@samararitan.org
Telephone: +227 96 29 81 93 
Table of Contents
1. Summary.................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Project presentation and humanitarian situation .............................................................. 5
2.2. Mid-term evaluation objectives ........................................................................................ 7
3. Methodology............................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Preparation of the random sampling ..................................................................................... 9
3.2 Drawing of households to investigate ................................................................................ 10
3.3 Training of enumerators ...................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Data collection..................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Data entrance and analysis .................................................................................................. 14
4. Principal results of the evaluation ......................................................................................... 14
4.1 Situation of the displaced populations ............................................................................. 14
4.2 Reception of food assistance ............................................................................................ 17
4.3 Measured indicators of the project ................................................................................... 18
4.3.1. Coping Strategies Index average (CSI) ...................................................................... 19
4.3.2 Prevalence of households using emergency coping strategies ..................................... 20
4.3.3 Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) .................................................................. 22
4.3.4 Percentage of households with a borderline or poor Food Consumption Score (FCS) 23
4.3.5 Prevalence of acute malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months .................................. 24
4.3.6 Prevalence of acute malnutrition in women ................................................................. 25
4.3.7 Percenteage of women who can list at least six hygiene and nutrition practices (this 
survey constitutes the final survey for this indicator) ........................................................... 26
4.3.8 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding for children under 6 months old (final survey for 
this indicator) ........................................................................................................................ 27
4.3.9 Prevalence of children 6 to 23 months of receiving an minimum acceptable diet (final 
survey for this indicator) ....................................................................................................... 27
4.3.10 Percentage of women’s gardening group participants contributing to the saving funds 
to support gardening activities (final survey for this indicator) ............................................ 28
4.3.11 Average production of vegetables by women ............................................................ 29
4.3.12 Average production of millet and cowpeas per household ........................................ 30
4.3.13 Use of sustainable farming techniques (final survey for this indicator) .................... 31
4.3.14 Rate of adoption of sustainable agricultural techniques (final survey for this 
indicator) ............................................................................................................................... 32
Acronyms 
ARCAD Support for the Resiliency of Communities in Diffa
CSI Coping Strategy Index 
DP Displaced peoples
FCS Food Consumption Score 
FEAD Food Emergency Assistance in Diffa 
FFP Food for Peace 
GAR Gardening
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score 
HEA Household Economic Analysis 
HH Household 
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP Internally Displaced Person
MUAC Mid-Upper Arm Circumference
MMD Mata Masu Dubara (local language)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NSPAMM Nutrition Supplement to Prevent Acute Malnutrition and Mortality 
PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
PLW Pregnant and Lactating Women
SC Super Cereal
SC+ Super Cereal Plus
SFT Seeds for Training 
SP Samaritan’s Purse
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
3 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
WFP World Food Programme 
WHO World Health Organization
1. Summary
The Food Emergency Assistance in Diffa (FEAD) Project is a food security emergency 
intervention for displaced and host populations in the Department of Bosso. It follows the
Support for the Resiliency of Communities in Diffa (ARCAD) project that was funded by 
USAID/FFP/EFSP which ended in July 2015, and has provided food assistance to vulnerable 
people in the same department since July 2014. 
This report presents the results of the mid-term evaluation survey conducted with the 
beneficiaries in 16 villages in the Department of Bosso. 
The information contained in this report describes both the methodology of the mid-term 
evaluation, and the results of the survey with a view to making a comparison of the results to 
show the progression of the living conditions of the beneficiary population. This evaluation will 
in turn help to determine to what extent the set of results indicators were achieved in terms of 
objectives provided for in the logical framework of the project. 
This evaluation focused on five categories of beneficiaries of the project and was conducted in 
March 2016 for Seeds for Training (SFT) beneficiaries and during the month of April 2016 for 
the other categories of beneficiaries. It should be noted that this evaluation also serves as the
final survey for the beneficiaries of SFT and gardening.
At the end of this mid-term evaluation, several key findings were noted, namely: 
 The coping strategy index (CSI) average in the households (HHs) is 13.9 while the result 
for the Baseline was 14.3 ; 
 46.9% of HHs were using emergency coping strategies in the last 30 days preceding the 
assessment;
 27.8% of surveyed HHs had a poor or limit food consumption score (FCS); 
4 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
 98.8% of women beneficiaries were able to list at least six hygiene and nutrition 
practices compared to 62% of the baseline survey; 
 Results from this survey also showed a Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) of 
4.6 which is equal to the Baseline result of 4.6; 
 The prevalence of acute malnutrition in women was 10.8% and the prevalence of acute 
malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months was 5.8% compared to 13.7% and 7% from 
the baseline survey respectively;
 The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding among the children under the age of six 
months was 75% compared to 40% in the baseline; 
 The prevalence of children 6 to 23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet was
54.5% compared to 41.2% at the baseline survey; 
 The percentage of gardening women who contributed to group savings to support the 
activities of gardening was 35.0%;
 The percentage of farmers who used at least two sustainable agricultural practices in the
past 12 months was of 95.1% widely over the 29.3% of the baseline; 
 The average production per farmer for millet was 182.6kg, and for cowpeas 17.3kg, 
respectively, compared to 80.5kg and 13.9kg before the implementation of the activities; 
 The average production of vegetables per woman of the total 80 targeted beneficiaries
who participated in the project was 114.1kg, compared to 144.6 kg per woman at the 
baseline. Of the 80 beneficiaries who participated in the project, only 53 women 
produced sufficient yields. Thus, when calculating only the women who produced, the 
average production was 172.2kg per woman. 
2. Introduction
 2.1. Project presentation and humanitarian situation
The FEAD Project was implemented by Samaritan's Purse (SP) Niger. It was an emergency 
project for the food security of the population in the Department of Bosso. Its timeline was for a 
period of one year from the month of June 2015 through November 2016. The project was
implemented in the catchment areas for the benefit of vulnerable HHs in 18 villages in two 
5 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
communes of the Department of Bosso (Diffa region) who were concerned with the distribution 
of food and seeds with a very short cycle, and also in other villages affected by gardening 
challenges among women. The catchment villages had been severely affected by the Boko 
Haram insurgents, and the project aimed to ensure the food security of the targeted beneficiaries. 
In the project proposal, SP planned to target 2,279 HHs for the lean season and 2,474 beneficiary 
HHs in the post-lean season. Among these beneficiaries, were the displaced people composed of 
refugees, some returnees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). The size of the displaced 
population has been changing, and humanitarian organizations are working hard to cover most of 
this population with life-saving interventions. However, at baseline, it had been estimated that 
more than 100,000 people hailed from Nigeria. This number increased to approximately 241,000 
displaced people (DP) in all categories during the month of May 2016 according to UNHCR. 
Night attacks by the Boko Haram militants continue to cause the displacement of the population 
to the north of the Department of Bosso, the place judged to be the calmest from the security
point of view. The humanitarian community is continuing to better coordinate response in the 
region to meet the needs of the affected population. A significant number of humanitarian 
actions are especially focused on food distribution in the region. 
The FEAD Project’s overarching aim was to provide emergency food assistance to the DPs in 
the Diffa Region. The project comprised of two strategic objectives, namely: 
1. Increased food access at the household level among targeted beneficiaries. 
2. Improved nutrition and dietary diversity to prevent acute malnutrition.
These objectives were to be achieved through various integrated activities.
Training in sustainable farming techniques followed the distributions of seeds with a very short 
cycle. These were conducted for 782 host HHs during the winter period. During the lean period, 
three targeted unconditional food distributions were carried out from July through September 
2016. Maize, cowpeas, and oil were distributed to each HH. In addition to these provisions, the 
6 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Super Cereal Plus (SC+), super cereal and oil were also distributed to HHs in which pregnant 
and/or lactating women (PLW) as well as children from 6 to 59 months had been identified. 
These activities continued throughout the post-lean season. Four additional distributions were 
conducted from November 2016 to February 2016 in favor of 2,474 vulnerable HHs.
In addition to these activities, FEAD also continued to support two gardening women groups in 
the villages of Toumour and N’Gouba that it inherited from the ARCAD Project. The 80 
gardening women were in two groups, and had participated in the ARCAD project since 2014. 
These women were actively involved in the awareness-raising and nutritional education activities 
including gardening, savings and credit.
 2.2. Mid-term evaluation objectives
This survey aimed to: 
• Measure the performance indicators for the project to ascertain the current food situation 
of the beneficiaries of the project;
• To compare the values of these obtained indicators with those of the baseline in order to 
better recognize the nature of the results achieved.
The direct beneficiaries of the FEAD Project were identified during operational targeting using
the Household Economic Analysis (HEA) method. This method was used because it provides a 
minimum complete set of information, including all the relevant variables and it ensures that the 
collection of information is comprehensive. This methodology is credible in identifying the most 
vulnerable HHs in a community. 
The data collection for this mid-term evaluation was conducted from March 10-13, 2016, for the 
SFT beneficiaries (which is the final evaluation), April 9-13, 2016, for the women benefitting 
from gardening activities (which is the final evaluation), and April 25-30, 2016 for the other 
three categories, (host, DPs, and the PLW) about a month after the last food distribution. 
7 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Figure 1: Map of the area of intervention of the project (Bosso and Toumour communes) 
(Source: OCHA)
A total of 16 beneficiary villages were selected in catchment areas of intervention and supported 
with food by the FEAD Project. The geographical coordinates of the villages as well as the 
reasons for their selection are summarized in the following table.
Following the security events which have caused the displacement of people from their home 
villages, some villages were replaced by others in food distributions. This was the case of 
Tchoukoujani, Fie Boulwa Koura, Djarawa, Yarwa Koura, and Yarwa Gana. To complete the 
gap, the beneficiaries of these villages were replaced by the ones from Bourbourwa, Mandawa, 
Kalkali, Guwaso, and N’gueldjoungoudo villages.
8 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Table 1: Intervention villages of the project 
N Commun
es
Villages GPS Coordinates Village 
Targeting 
Rationale
Latitude (N) Longitude 
(E.)
Grai
n 
defici
t
Displace
d 
1 Bosso Bague 13.36.577' 013.04.569' Yes Yes
2 Bosso Bague kiessa 13.36.020' 013.01.398' Yes Yes
3 Bosso Borbouyari 13.49.641' 013.13.090' No Yes
4 Bosso Djarawa 13.50.466' 013.12.097' Yes Yes
5 Bosso Fie Boulwa 
Koura
13.49.297' 013.12.699' Yes Yes
6 Bosso Mille 13.47.643' 013.14.920' Yes Yes
7 Bosso Tchoukoudjani 13.50.214' 013.11.593' No Yes
8 Bosso Yarwa gana 13.18.707' 012.36.009' Yes Yes
9 Bosso Yarwa koura 13.49.178' 013.14.728 Yes Yes
10 Toumour Djariho 13.53.501' 012.45.263' Yes Yes
11 Toumour Gagorce 13.52.051' 012.29.080' Yes No
12 Toumour Kachacho 13.41.983' 013.10.039' No Yes
13 Toumour Kakarwa 13.43.413' 013.04.439' Yes Yes
14 Toumour Karo 14.06.240' 012.28.240' Yes No
15 Toumour Nguelgnale 14.11.904' 012.24.647' No Yes
16 Toumour Sayam 13.50.901' 012.37.860' Yes Yes
3. Methodology 
3.1 Preparation of the random sampling 
Four samples corresponding to the four categories of beneficiaries were prepared separately on 
the basis of the comprehensive lists of HHs. However, for the nutrition and gardening
beneficiaries, 100% (80 women) were surveyed. Using the 
site www.raosoft.com/samplodesize.html with a 90% level of confidence and 10% margin of 
error, then inputting the total number of HHs in the ‘population’ section; the result is a primary 
sample "recommended sample size," which is 65 for the category of communities, 64 for DPs, 51
for PLW, and 61 for SFT beneficiaries. On each primary sample, it is necessary to add 20% of 
9 
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
the last sample to obtain the final number of HHs to be interviewed. Therefore, the total HHs 
who were interviewed by category was 78 for the host community, 77 for DPs, 61 for the PLW, 
and 73 for SFT beneficiaries. There were 80 gardening beneficiary women. The margin of 20% 
added to the first four categories was considered to be a reserve for questionnaires during data 
entry to subsequently eliminate certain questionnaires, which would not have sufficient
information or would present errors.
3.2 Drawing of households to investigate 
For each category, the drawing was done so that each HH had the same chance to be 
interviewed. To begin with, the survey team proceeded with the determination of the sampling 
interval by dividing the population by the previously-obtained final sample. Then a random 
number was drawn between 1 and the whole part of the first sampling interval using the function 
"HAZARD BETWEEN BOUNDS" on an Excel Spreadsheet. The first figure given by this 
function corresponds to the order number determining the first HH among those who were to be 
surveyed. In this way, the next HH to be investigated is determined by adding each time the 
sampling interval to the previous HH. On the Excel spreadsheet, the HHs to investigate were
marked by thick boxes to identify them during the data collection exercise. 
The purpose of this survey was to assess the impact of the food distributions carried out by the 
project and to know the level of food security for the beneficiary HHs, and also to gauge the 
level of improved nutrition and dietary diversity in the HHs.
Table 2: Categories of surveyed beneficiaries for the evaluation
No. Description of the category Sampling rate
1 Host communities - (HC) (which have been targeted in 
different villages of the FEAD Project)
Level of confidence = 90 % 
Margin of error = 10%
2 Displaced households - (DH) (which have been 
targeted in different villages of the FEAD Project)
Level of confidence = 90 % 
Margin of error = 10%
10
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
3 
Pregnant and lactating women (PLW) beneficiaries 
of the NSPAMM Program (who have been targeted in 
the first two categories)
Level of confidence = 90 % 
Margin of error = 10%
4 
Gardening women of Toumour and N’Gouba (Gar)
(beneficiaries of the ARCAD Project which the FEAD 
Project accompanied with trainings on gardening, 
nutrition, and savings systems)
All of the 80 women 
beneficiaries
5 
SFT Beneficiaries (millet and cowpeas) (which were 
targeted in the first category)
Level of confidence = 90 % 
Margin of error = 10%
 
To calculate the samples of the first three categories as well as the fifth category of beneficiaries, 
the 90% level of confidence and 10% margin of error were applied by using the 
website www.raosoft.com/samplodesize.html. For beneficiaries of category four, all of the 80 
women were surveyed because of the small sample size. 
On the basis of these calculations, the total sample was 321, but 369 beneficiaries were surveyed
in the course of the evaluation exercise. 
Table 3: Sample for evaluation by category of beneficiaries 
Total number 
of households 
Sample size 
used
Number of 
completed 
surveys
Category 1: Host communities 1,502 65 78
Category 2: Displaced peoples 972 64 77
Category 3: Pregnant and 
Lactating Women
196 51 61
Category 4: Gardening women 80 80 80
Category 5: SFT beneficiaries 571 61 73
11
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
(millet and cowpeas)
TOTAL 321 369
All of the indicators contained in the logical framework were measured during this evaluation. 
The list of indicators per category of beneficiaries is presented in the table hereunder. 
Table 4: Indicators measured by beneficiary category
Categories of beneficiaries
N
o 
Indicators 1 HC 2 DP 3 
PLW
4 
Gardenin
g
5 SFT HC
1 Coping Strategy Index average of 
HHs (Category 3 and 5 are included 
in 1 and 2) – CSI
X X X 
2 Prevalence of HHs who use 
emergency coping strategies 
(category 3 and 5 are included in 1 
and 2)
X X X 
3 Household Dietary Diversity Score 
(Category 3 and 5 are included in 1 
and 2) - HDDS
X X X 
4 Percent of HHs with FCS (<= 42) 
limit or poor (Category 3 and 5 are 
included in 1 and 2)
X X X 
5 Prevalence of children 6 to 59 
months with acute malnutrition
(category 3 and 5 are included in 1 
and 2)
X X X 
6 Prevalence of acute malnutrition in
women
X X 
7 % of beneficiary women who know 
at least 6 hygiene and nutrition 
practices
X
8 Prevalence of exclusive 
breastfeeding for children under 6 
months
X 
9 Prevalence of children 6 to 23 
months who receive a minimum 
acceptable diet 
X 
12
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
10 % of garden women who contribute 
to the savings of the group 
X 
11 Average production of vegetables by 
woman 
X 
12 Average production of millet, 
cowpea and moringa by HH
X
13 Percentage of SFT beneficiaries who 
used at least 2 sustainable farming 
techniques in the past 12 months
X
3.3 Training of enumerators
Four types of questionnaires were developed based on the different categories of beneficiaries to 
be interviewed. 
To carry out this investigation, two teams of four enumerators each were formed. It should be 
noted that special emphasis was placed on the level of the enumerators and the mastery of the 
local language for their selection. The enumerators were then trained on questionnaire 
administration for a day. After the training, two of the enumerators were chosen as team leaders, 
and the teams were supervised by two monitoring and evaluation assistants forming part of the 
SP staff for the collection of data in the field.
3.4 Data collection 
The collection of data for this mid-term evaluation lasted for six days for the three categories 
(host community members, DP, and PLW), four days for the fourth category (women 
beneficiaries of gardening activities) and four days for the fifth category (SFT beneficiaries of 
millet and cowpeas).
At each step, after explaining the objectives of the mission to the (customary) local authorities, 
enumerators visited HHs to interview targeted persons. At the time of the survey, when members 
13
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
from a targeted HH were absent, the HH was automatically replaced by the HH that followed in 
the chronological order on the list of beneficiaries.
3.5 Data entry and analysis 
Data entry and analysis were done on an Excel template previously established by the monitoring 
and evaluation team of the project.
All possible formulas to compute the set of indicators were incorporated into this template. To 
facilitate the data entry, each issue was represented by a code on the questionnaire. After the data 
entry, the monitoring and evaluation team carried out data cleaning and analysis. The noted 
errors were corrected by referencing the hard copies of questionnaires and triangulating the 
information captured. 
Different indicators of food security were calculated based on standard formulas used by the 
World Food Programme (WFP) in Niger.
4. Principal results of the evaluation
4.1 Situation of the displaced populations
The DPS were interviewed regarding the reasons that led them to leave their villages of origin
and 98% (63 persons out of 64) stated that they fled Boko Haram attacks. 
As shown in the figure below, most DP surveyed were IDPs (55%), who fled from the villages 
lying at the edge of the Lake Chad Basin where insurgents are very active. The returnees 
represented 27% of the respondents, and 19% were refugees.
14
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Figure 2: Status of surveyed displaced households
On the other hand, 86% of surveyed displaced people had at least 10 months' seniority in the 
villages where they were currently staying. Only 14% lasted less than 10 months in these host 
villages.
Figure 3: Distribution of surveyed displaced peoples based on their duration in the host villages
The figure below gives the time estimates that surveyed beneficiaries spent in their current host 
villages. Indeed, according to the data collected, 73% of respondents intend to remain 
19%
55% 27%
Status of displaced respondents
Refugee
Returnee
Internally displaced
86%
14%
Distribution of surveyed displaced peoples based on their 
duration in the host villages
Length >= 10 mois
Length < 10 mois
15
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
permanently in the host villages. 23% of these displaced people expect to stay there until the end 
of the conflict, and only 3% plan to stay temporarily and leave after four to five months. 
The analysis of this information shows that the majority of the displaced people left their villages
of origin in very difficult circumstances, which is why they do not want to return. Even for those 
who intend to return, their return is contingent upon an end to hostilities. 
Figure 4: Time that the beneficiaries spend in their host villages
The following table shows the main causes of food insecurity among the surveyed HHs. 
According to the collected data in this survey, insecurity was the main cause of food insecurity in 
interviewed HHs. This was further compounded by drought or poor rainfall, followed by lack of 
means for food purchases. When an analysis was done by category, host community members
were much more affected by drought and the damage to crops than the other categories. 
Table 5: Main causes of food insecurity, according to the categories of recipients surveyed
 Main cause of food insecurity by category of beneficiaries
73% 
23% 
3% 
Time that the beneficiaries spend in their host villages
Definitively
Until the end of conflict
Provisionally (4-5 months)
16
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
# %
1-
HC
2- 
DP
3-
PLW
4-
GAR
5 SFT 1-
HC
2-
DP
3-PLW 4- 
GAR
5 SFT 
Drought/poor 
rainfall 
distribution
16 1 11 18 47 24.62% 1.56% 21.57% 22.50% 77% 
Insecurity
29 60 22 51 4 44.62% 93.7% 43.14% 63.75% 7%
Lack of input 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
No physical 
access to the 
market
1 0 0 0 2 1.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3% 
No way to buy 
food 15 3 15 11 0 23.08% 4.69% 29.41% 13.75% 0.00%
Damage to 
crops 4 0 3 0 8 6.15% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 13%
TOTAL 65 64 51 80 61 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.2 Reception of food assistance 
The FEAD Project team took a keen interest in verifying whether the beneficiaries received food 
aid from other humanitarian agencies. Accordingly, the results of this survey revealed that no 
host community HHs received food assistance from other humanitarian actors in the last 30 days 
prior to the survey. However, 12.5% of DPs and 2.5% of the gardening beneficiaries received 
some assistance from International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) during the last 30 days 
prior to collection of data (Figure 5). The proportion of recipients who received a significant 
amount of aid is that of the DPs, and that is due to their mobility. They can be registered by other 
partners to receive food assistance in other towns. For the gardening beneficiaries, they did not 
benefit from the FEAD food distributions because they are in Toumour and N’gouba villages 
where another partner (ICRC) was already doing food distributions. 
17
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Figure 5: Percentage of households that received aid in the past 30 days before the survey
4.3 Measured indicators of the project 
The data collection for this mid-term evaluation survey conducted in the month of April 2016 
intended to collect data and measure a set of 13 results indicators for the FEAD Project. These 
indicators were measured through activities that were implemented, namely: free distribution of 
food; training and distribution of seeds with a very short cycle; nutrition; gardening; and the 
implementation of the system of savings (MMD activities).
It should be noted that this investigation is the final survey for categories 4 and 5 (gardening 
women and SFT beneficiaries of millet and cowpeas) because their activities were completed at 
the time of conducting the evaluation. 
A follow-up of some of these indicators was carried out before this evaluation exercise through 
Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) inquiries. It is among these indicators, especially the
standard ones (the prevalence of HHs utilizing emergency coping strategies, simplified CSI, FCS 
and HDDS) often used by WFP in Niger to measure the impacts of food distributions to 
beneficiary HHs that the mid-term evaluation focused on measuring their significance. 
0%
12.5%
2.5%
100%
87.5% 97.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Host Community Displaced Gardener
Percentage of households that received aid in the past 30 days 
before the survey
% No
% Yes
18
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
4.3.1. Coping Strategies Index average (CSI)
The CSI measures the adoption of the strategies employed by HHs when faced with a food 
insecurity situation. This indicator was measured in the last seven days preceding the data
collection. Accordingly, it measured the number of days during which one of the following 
strategies were used by HHs: eating cheaper and less preferred foods, borrowing food from 
relatives and friends, decreasing the amount of food per meal, reducing meal consumption for
adults, and reducing the number of meals per day. Depending on its severity, each strategy has a 
certain weight and the combination of these weights are used to calculate the indicator.
The average obtained at the end of this final evaluation was 13.9, a decrease of 0.4 for this 
indicator compared to its baseline value (14.3). The highest average for this indicator was
observed at the level of gardening women (15.2). This result shows that the beneficiaries of the 
gardening activity are the most affected by food insecurity. This can be justified by the fact that 
the latter did not receive food aid from FEAD and gardening did not do well due to lack of water
for irrigation. Moreover, these beneficiaries found the support from other stakeholders involved 
in food distributions to be inadequate comparable to their needs. This was revealed from
discussions with these beneficiaries. The lowest average value for this indicator was observed in 
the host communities (12.0). It is worth noting that the host community included SFT 
beneficiaries of millet and cowpeas. 
This indicator allowed the project team to make comparisons in terms of food security between 
the different categories of beneficiaries. Accordingly, the results were a bit lower than the 
baseline. However, these results were well above the PDM results for the fiscal year 2016 with 
an average of 1.3 below the target which was <2.86. This variance between PDMs and mid-term 
assessment can be attributed to the fact that only beneficiaries who received food aid were 
interviewed in PDMs while mid-term evaluation included all beneficiary categories, including 
gardening women who did not received food commodities. In addition to that, PDMs were 
conducted two weeks after the one month ration distributions while the mid-term evaluation was
conducted one month or more after the last distribution. This shows the short-term impact of 
food distributions in this context.
The average value obtained by categories of beneficiaries is summarized in the table below.
19
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Table 6: Average of household adaptation strategies 
Beneficiary category 1 HC 2 DP 4 GAR Total Survey result
Sample 65 64 80 209
Total Scores 777 923 1212 2912 13.9 
Result 12.0 14.4 15.2 13.9
NB: Category 3 (PLW) is included in categories 1 and 2. Category 5 (SFT millet-cowpeas) is 
included in category 1 as well.
4.3.2 Prevalence of households using emergency coping strategies
This indicator was measured for the last 30 days preceding the survey. It is based livelihoods and 
is used to better understand the capacity of HHs to deal with shocks and long-term food 
insecurity.
The World Food Programme in Niger selected a list of strategies of adaptations that were shared 
with SP in 2015 (just after the Baseline Survey of the FEAD Project). These strategies were
classified into four categories, from the least severe strategy to the most severe: neutral 
strategies, stress strategies, crisis strategies, and strategies of emergency, respectively in green, 
yellow, orange and red. 
The results of the mid-term evaluation survey shows that an average of 46.9% across the three 
categories used the emergency strategies. This average was 72.1% in these same categories 
during the original survey (Baseline). This result shows that the use of emergency strategies has 
decreased by 25.2% points from the beneficiaries of the project. The reduction in the use of 
emergency strategies assume that HHs cut down on the sale of breeding animals, sale of land, 
and begging because of the food aid they received through the various distributions. 
Table 7: Prevalence of households using emergency strategies
Beneficiary 
category
1 HC 2 DP 4 GAR Total Survey results
Sample 65 64 80 209
46.9%
# of correct 
response
33 19 46 98
20
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Result 50.8% 29.7% 57.5% 46.9%
NB: Category 3 (PLW) is included in categories 1 and 2. Category 5 (SFT millet-cowpeas) is 
included in category 1 also.
The figure below shows the percentage of HHs that use different coping categories based on the 
severity of the need for food. 
Figure 6: Percentage of households using different coping strategies
This result was higher than the average results from the PDMs which was 13.8 % compared to 
the target which was set as 14.4 %. 
Again results from the mid-term evaluation shows a result not as good as the PDMs, with a 
percentage of 46.9% as the prevalence of HHs using emergency coping strategies. The result is 
still better than the baseline. The same reasons apply in the manner that the CSI explains the 
differences between PDMs and mid-term evaluations. 
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
50.8%
29.7%
57.5% 46.9%
17.2%
19.1%
16.7%
% of HHs per strategy categories
HH neutre
HH en strategie de stresse
HH en strategies de crise
HH strategies d'urgence
21
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
4.3.3 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
This indicator measures the different categories of foods consumed by HHs in the last 24 hours 
before the survey. This means that it measures the quality of the diet of HHs surveyed. The 
household consumption required is compared to 16 food groups. The 16 food groups were also 
grouped into seven major categories. Each food category has a well-defined weight. This 
weighting varies its nutrition from 0 to 7. Therefore, HHs can be grouped depending on their 
dietary diversity, thus HHs with a poor diet (HDDS < 4.5), HHs with an average diet (4.5 <= 
HDDS <= 6) and HHs with a high diet when the HDDS >6. 
The result of this survey gave an average of 4.6 HDDS at the end of the baseline survey 
conducted in June 2015, and the target >=4.6. Although the result of this indicator remained
constant, it is attributable to outcomes of training and also the distribution of food commodities 
by the FEAD Project which ensured that the beneficiaries were able to maintain the pace of food 
diversification notwithstanding the food challenges in catchment areas. There was a slight 
difference between gardening women and the other two categories: food diversity was acceptable 
or even high among this category of beneficiaries because of the training they received, but all
thanks to small productions that were done. 
Table 8: Household dietary diversity score (HDDS)
Beneficiary 
category
1 HC 2 DP 4 GAR Total Survey 
results
Sample 65 64 80 209
Score total 298 255 417 970 4.6 
Result 4.6 4.0 5.2 4.6
NB: Category 3 (PLW) is included in categories 1 and 2. Category 5 (SFT millet-cowpeas) is 
included in category 1 also.
Category 1 and 2 beneficiaries who received food rations over the last months, shows that the 
distributed rations by themselves do not increase the number of food groups consumed by HHs. 
22
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
In this emergency context the most important aspect is to get enough food while diversity comes 
second. 
4.3.4 Percentage of households with a borderline or poor Food Consumption 
Score (FCS)
The FCS is another indicator used by WFP to measure the dietary quantity and quality of HHs. 
It measures food diversity, frequency of consumption, and the importance of each food 
consumed. In the document called "Compendium of Indicators, Strategic Results Framework" 
used in Niger, WFP uses the following scales for the classification of HHs according to the food 
consumption score (FCS): HHs with a poor FCS (lower than 28), HHs with a limited FCS
(between 28 and 42), and HHs with an acceptable FCS (above 42). The percentage of HHs that 
had a score of poor or limited food consumption by category of beneficiaries is summarized in 
the table below.
Table 9: Percentage of households with limited or poor food consumption score
Beneficiary 
category
1 HC 2 DP 4 GAR Total Survey 
results
Sample 65 64 80 209
Correct response 12 33 13 27.8 % 58 
Result 18.5 % 51.6 % 16.3 % 27.8 %
NB: Category 3 (PLW) is included in categories 1 and 2. Category 5 (SFT millet-cowpeas) is 
included in category 1 also.
In all classes, there was an average of 27.8% of HHs that had a score of poor or limited food 
consumption. By category, the highest average was observed among displaced persons (51.6%). 
This mid-term assessment shows that the target for this indicator which is 4.5% was not reached, 
and the Baseline result was 22.5%. The number of HHs with a poor or limited FCS increased for 
two reasons: the lean period negatively impacted the living conditions of these HHs from the 
food point of view limiting their FCS (the assessment was conducted in the month of April 
23
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
2016); and also the movement of people led to a supplementary charge in some places, especially 
at the level of host HHs. In this situation, whether it be host HHs or HHs displaced by 
insecurity, both sides were forced by circumstances to reduce their food intake owing to an 
increase in the number of HHs with a poor or limited FCS during this period. The situation of DP
was much more precarious. Since the distributions stopped at least one month before the 
evaluation, it was confirmed that host HHs (which include gardening women) were much more 
able to adapt and find other food sources than displaced HHs. As soon as the ration for displaced 
persons ended, the FCS decreased very rapidly.
These results were compared with the PDM findings. The percentage of HHs with a borderline 
or poor average FCS was 8%, which was much closer to the target of "less than 4.5%". This 
difference between PDMs and mid-term evaluation can be explained by the fact that only 
beneficiaries who received food commodities were interviewed in PDMs while mid-term 
evaluation included all beneficiary categories, including gardening women who did not receive
food commodities. Additionally, PDMs were conducted two weeks after the one month ration 
distributions while the mid-term evaluation was conducted one month or more after the last 
distribution. 
4.3.5 Prevalence of acute malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months
A total of 292 children aged 6-59 months were identified in surveyed HHs in the three categories 
of beneficiaries and were screened for malnutrition. The screening for malnutrition used the mid￾upper arm circumference (MUAC). The following scales are typically used in Niger: a MUAC 
lower than 110 mm indicates severe acute malnutrition and between 110 mm and 125 mm 
indicates moderate acute malnourishment. 
The result of this mid-term evaluation gives a percentage of acute malnutrition in children as
5.8%, while the rate was 7% at the baseline. Moreover, it can be easily seen that the prevalence 
of acute malnutrition in children was higher in gardening recipients (10.6%), which explains the 
limitation of the gardening activities with all associated difficulties that women encountered with 
the irrigation system, and which has produced very little yields. However, the general average of 
this indicator (5.8%) among all categories of beneficiaries of the project is acceptable because it 
24
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
decreased compared to the baseline (7%), and this demonstrates a particular investment in the 
project by trainings and activities of food distribution taking place to reach the target of "below 
7%".
Table 10: Prevalence of children 6 to 59 suffering from acute malnutrition
Beneficiary 
category
1 HC 2 DP 4 GAR Total Survey 
results
# of children 6-59 
months screened
104 94 94 292
5.8 % 
# of correct 
responses 
3 4 10 17
Result 2.9 % 4.3 % 10.6 % 5.8 
NB: Category 3 (PLW) is included in categories 1 and 2. Category 5 (SFT millet-cowpeas) is 
included in category 1 also.
4.3.6 Prevalence of acute malnutrition in women
Targeted PLW and gardening women were identified in the two categories of surveyed 
beneficiaries screened for malnutrition. Altogether 83 women were screened in beneficiary HHs. 
The result of this evaluation gives a prevalence of acute malnutrition in women as 10.8% 
compared to the baseline result, which showed a rate of 13.7%. This decline could be attributed 
to the distribution of the NSPAMM ration, which allowed for the improvement of the nutritional 
status of these women. Women with a MUAC <230 mm were categorized as having acute 
malnutrition. However, interpreting the results between the two categories of beneficiaries, a 
higher prevalence of acute malnutrition among gardening beneficiaries is observed. This is due 
to the fact that the latter did not produce enough with gardening activities and they were not the 
beneficiaries of food assistance. These results reached the target of less than or equal 13.7%. 
Table 11: Prevalence of acute malnutrition in women
Beneficiary category 4 GAR 3 PLW Total Survey 
result
25
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
# of women in the survey 32 51 83
# of correct responses 6 3 9 10.8% 
Result 18.8% 5.9 % 10.8%
4.3.7 Percentage of women who can list at least six hygiene and nutrition 
practices (this survey constitutes the final survey for this indicator)
A total of 80 women beneficiaries of gardening activities were surveyed on the subject. 40 
women were from Toumour and 40 are from N’Gouba. These women led gardening activities 
and benefited from the awareness-raising sessions on key family practices which include 
lifesaving information and practical ways to care for children and prevent diseases (topics that 
were covered through monthly sensitization sessions included: hand washing with soap at 
appropriate times, exclusive breastfeeding for six months, the use of mosquito nets; the 
introduction of quality complementary feeding starting at six months of age, accompanied by 
continuous breastfeeding up to 24 months; use of health centers), and savings systems. These 
women were also former recipients of the ARCAD project, through which they benefited from 
the same activities. The results of the evaluation show that there is a cumulative effect of the 
awareness activities to date in these two projects. Indeed, after the ARCAD Project, or at the end 
of the baseline survey of the FEAD Project, 62.0% of these women could list at least six
nutritional practices. The evaluation of the FEAD Project shows that 98.8% of these women 
were able to list at least six practices. It should be noted that before the two projects, the results 
of the baseline ARCAD showed that only 28.3% of these women could list the six practices. This 
shows the positive and cumulative impact of the two projects through intensive trainings with 
respect to this indicator. The target of 80% was reached.
Table 12: Percentage of women who can list at least six nutritional and hygiene practices
Beneficiary category 4 GAR. End line Result (for this indicator, this 
survey constitutes the final survey)
Sample 80
# of correct responses 79 98.8 % 
26
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Result 98.8 %
4.3.8 Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding for children under six months old 
(final survey for this indicator)
This indicator was measured through the FEAD Project with 80 women beneficiaries through 
two garden sites at Toumour and N’Gouba. After interviewing 100% of the women, it was
established that only four children were under the age of six months. The investigation also 
revealed that of the four children, three were exclusively breastfed (75.0%). From the 
representative point of view, the small number of children aged less than six months does not 
allow the FEAD Project team to make a better comparison and estimation of this indicator. 
Indeed, even at the current FEAD baseline, there were only five children aged less than six
months, and the results of this baseline survey showed that two out of the five (40%) were 
exclusively breastfed. This result obtained through data collection confirms the result of the 
previous measured indicator, and also shows the impact of various training courses on key 
family practices given to beneficiaries. The fixed target of 44.8% was reached notwithstanding 
challenges. 
Table 13: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding for children under six months old 
Beneficiary category 4 GAR. End line
Result
# of children less than 6 months 4
# of children practicing exclusive 75.0 % 
breastfeeding
3
Result 75.0 %
4.3.9 Prevalence of children 6 to 23 months receiving a minimum acceptable 
diet (final survey for this indicator)
The prevalence of children 6 to 23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet as measured by 
WHO standards was measured through 80 gardening women involved in nutritional outreach 
activities in the framework of the FEAD and ARCAD projects. There were 33 children aged 6 to 
27
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
23 months that were represented in the gardening group. Moreover, the results also show that of 
the 33 children, 18 received a minimum acceptable diet (54.5% of the children in the FEAD 
Baseline, only 41.2% of children 6-23 months had a minimum acceptable diet. The improvement 
in the minimum acceptable diet indicator in the end line survey indicates an improvement in 
dietary diversity and dietary quantity for infants and young children as a result of the training 
given to the gardening women. 
Table 14: Prevalence of children aged 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet
Beneficiary category 4 GAR. End line
result
# of children from 6 to 23 
months
33
54.5 % 
# of correct responses 18
Result 54.5 %
4.3.10 Percentage of women’s gardening group participants contributing to 
the saving funds to support gardening activities (final survey for this 
indicator)
There were 80 women beneficiaries of whom 40 worked on the garden site in Toumour and 40 in 
N’Gouba garden site. The assessment revealed that 28 women out of the 80 interviewed 
contributed 50 Naira per week as savings to support gardening activities, which is 35% 
compared to the baseline result of 53.2%. The decline in results is attributable to the women’s
discouragement due to various challenges (e.g. lack of water on the sites) in gardening activities 
that made some of them prefer to contribute for other purposes than to support the gardening 
activities. According to the women interviewed during this evaluation, the objectives of their 
contributions in the savings are in the chart below (Figure 7).
Table 15: Percentage of women’s gardening group participants contributing to the saving 
funds to support gardening activities (final survey for this indicator)
28
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
Beneficiary category 4 GAR. End line result
Total women 80
# of correct responses 28 35.0 % 
Result 35.0 % 
Figure 7: Reasons why the women contribute to the savings 
Between October 2015 and February 2016, all the 80 beneficiaries enrolled in the gardening 
activities contributed on average 1,019 Naira per woman. 
4.3.11 Average production of vegetables by women 
The two women gardening groups produced a total of 9,125 kg of vegetables and fruits during 
the 2015-2016 season. On average, each of the 53 women who produced crops yielded 172.2 kg 
of fruits and vegetables. The average production by all women beneficiaries (80) was 114.1 kg 
0%
20%
40% 29%
5% 1% 5%
34%
26%
Reasons why the women contribute to the savings
29
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
compared to the baseline of 144.2 kg. The drop in production at both sites was due to a severe 
water shortage which caused a decline in this indicator.
4.3.12 Average production of millet and cowpeas per household
The table below gives the average production in kilograms for the two seeds cited by HHs
beneficiaries of seed activities for training. As for the production of moringa, it should be noted 
that this will be assessed by the end of the project when recipients begin the harvest. 
The table below shows that the average production of millet and cowpeas by HH increased from 
80.5 kg at the baseline to 182.6 kg at the end line, and from 13.9 kg at baseline to 17.3 kg at end 
line respectively. Several factors can explain this result. The average increase in millet and 
cowpeas production may be due, among other things, to the use of good quality seeds coupled 
with various training courses on farming techniques from which HHs benefitted. Furthermore, 
the spike in yields can be attributed to abundant rainfall, or a drop in parasitic pressure in the 
area compared to the previous year. 
As for the moringa, this crop is not very well known or developed in the area of intervention of 
the FEAD project. Nevertheless, 61 surveyed HHs (100%) received seeds distributed by SP and 
sowed or transplanted this crop individually or collectively. The survey revealed that among the 
61 HHs who sowed or transplanted moringa, 10 HHs were producing it. Unfortunately at the 
time of the data collection, the harvest had not begun so the team could estimate production from 
data obtained from HHs.
Table 16: Average production of millet, cowpeas and moringa by beneficiary household 
Evaluations
Average production (Kg)
Millet Cowpeas Moringa
Baseline 
result 80.5 13.9 0.7
End line
result 182.6 17.3 TBD
30
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
4.3.13 Use of sustainable farming techniques (final survey for this indicator)
Table 17: Use of sustainable farming techniques by farmers
 Evaluations 
Use of sustainable farming techniques
Assisted natural 
regeneration Soaking Sowing 
time Thinning Localized 
fertilization Mulching 
Baseline 63.4% 12.2% 24.4% 12.2% 19.5% 12.2%
End line 65.6% 82.0% 88.5% 9.8% 75.4% 32.8%
A comparison of the baseline results to the final evaluation survey illustrates that the use of 
sustainable farming techniques had increased for all the techniques except for thinning. The 
improvement is especially important for seed priming, timely planting, localized fertilization, 
and mulching. This means that farmers received sufficient basics through different training
initiatives. 
The decline of this result at the level of the thinning is due to cultural beliefs of villagers who 
hold that this technique could reduce the performance of crop yields. 
Figure 8: Use of sustainable farming techniques
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Use of Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Baseline
Endline
31
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation 
4.3.14 Rate of adoption of sustainable agricultural techniques (final survey 
for this indicator)
Table 18: Beneficiaries who have applied at least two sustainable farming techniques
Beneficiaries who used at least 2 sustainable 
agriculture practices
Baseline End line
Total sample 41 61
Total correct responses 12 58
Percentage of correct responses 29,3% 95,1%
The analysis of the results of the final evaluation focused on the calculation of the rate of farmers 
who used at least two sustainable agricultural techniques during the past 12 months. Thus in the 
baseline, 12 farmers of the surveyed 41 (29.3%), knew and practiced at least two farming 
techniques out of the total six.
The results of this final survey indicated that 58 farmers of the total 61 respondents, which is 
95.1%, used at least two sustainable agricultural practices. The results gathered at this level show 
that among the 61 surveyed farmers who participated in the training sessions, 95.1% showed a 
marked interest in this training and were able to apply at least two techniques. 
5. Conclusion 
This mid-term evaluation for certain categories of beneficiaries and final for other categories 
highlighted encouraging results in regards to targets set by the FEAD Project. Indeed, the main 
indicators related to SFT and nutrition activities experienced a significant improvement when 
compared to the results of the initial investigation of this inquiry to the final assessment for these 
categories of beneficiaries.
32
 FEAD-Report of the Mid-Term Evaluation