OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTERS 
INTERNATIONAL 
Ghana Program 
Final Evaluation of the 
Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative 
Title II Development Assistance Program
By 
Joe Tabor, Mawuena Dotse, Gordon Ekekpi, and Charles Nornoo 
Submitted 30 September 2002 
By 
Joe Tabor 
Evaluation Team Leader 
TANGO International 
116 W. Cushing Street 
Tucson, Arizona 85701 USA 
Tel: (520) 617-0977 FAX (520) 617-0980 
email: tango@azstarnet.com 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
2 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The OICI Title II program in Ghana achieved its goal to increase food security among target 
populations in Northern Region through interventions that improved the availability, access and 
utilization of food. The program achieved its food availability goal by training farmers in post￾harvest processing and storage, and construction of improved storage structures. It achieved its 
food access goal by increasing women’s ability to earn micro-enterprise income through technical 
training and material support. The program achieved its food utilization goal by providing 
borehole wells, well maintenance training, and sanitation training. 
The program’s strategy of adding knowledge to existing resources was very effective at 
producing noticeable improvements in food security for all three sectors: agriculture; micro￾enterprise; and water and sanitation. To accomplish this OICI uses a team of field extension 
agents called Polyvalent Community Facilitators (PCFs), highly motivated college graduates who 
live and work with the selected groups in the communities. These extension agents promote 
changes in attitudes in addition to improving their client’s skills in agriculture, business 
development, income generation, health, water management, and sanitation. They use 
participatory approaches to teaching and learning, and use technical materials developed by OICI. 
The program has clearly reduced post-harvest losses. Data shows that training alone in harvesting 
and drying of grain has reduced grain losses to the target levels of less than 5%. The mud silos 
constructed also provides households added protection of their harvest and further assures 
household food security. The program also demonstrated that the pesticide Actellic Super® may 
not be needed if the practices just mentioned are followed. The activities promoted by the 
program are being replicated by non-program farmers. This by itself demonstrates the success of 
the program’s agriculture sector activities. A major constraint on farmers improving household 
food availability is the difficulty in accessing sufficient funds to optimally manage their farms. 
The program found ways of providing production credit to it participants but the demand far 
exceeded the funds and resources available. 
The micro-enterprise women in the program report increased incomes, ability to manage their 
businesses, and making significant contributions to household expenses. Their husbands are 
encouraging them to increase their micro-enterprise activities. This suggests major changes in 
gender roles. Another impressive secondary impact is the increase in child education as a result of 
greater incomes. Women also report improved household access to food, for example mothers 
report that they now can give their sons and daughters school lunch money. 
The program has clearly improved household food utilization by decreasing water borne disease, 
especially guinea worm and diarrheal diseases. The sanitation component of this objective was 
less supported in the design and implementation of the program and as a result the impacts are 
less apparent. The sanitation awareness generated especially through guinea worm eradication has 
set the stage for the more difficult task of changing behaviors that are required if significant 
improvements in hygiene and sanitation are to be made. 
This DAP program has allowed OICI and OICG to build their technical, managerial, and 
infrastructural capacities in food security programming. It also allowed them to demonstrate their 
abilities through this very successful program. The most impressive demonstration of their 
capacity is the collaboration and respect that they receive from governmental and non￾governmental organizations in the region. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
 1.1. Objective of SOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
 1.2. Brief description of program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 
1.3. Complementarity with USAID and GOG strategies and priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
1.4. Significant challenges faced in program implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
1.5. Overall assessment of program goal achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 
2. Agricultural sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 2.1. Brief description of interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
 2.2. Achievement of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 
 2.2.1. Meeting targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
 2.2.2. Other achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
2.3. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 
 2.4. Discussion of other agricultural evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 
3. Micro-enterprise sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 3.1. Brief description of interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 
 3.2. Achievement of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
 3.2.1. Meeting targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 
 3.2.2. Other achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 
3.3. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 
 3.4. Discussion of other micro-enterprise evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 
4. Water and Sanitation sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 
 4.1. Brief description of interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 
 4.2. Achievement of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 
 4.2.1. Meeting targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 
 4.2.2. Other achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 
4.3. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 
 4.4. Discussion of other water and sanitation evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 
5. Cross-cutting issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 
 5.1. Brief description of cross-cutting issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 
 5.2. Discussion of cross-cutting evaluation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 
5.3. Building institutional capacity to implement Title II food security programs . . . . 40 
6. Summary of Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 
7. Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 
8. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
 8.1. Agriculture sector recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 
 8.2. Micro-enterprise sector recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 8.3. Water and Sanitation sector recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 
 8.4. Non-sector specific and cross-cutting recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 
 8.5. Recommendations for improving program design and implementation . . . . . . . . . 46 
8.6. Recommendations for including Food for Work or direct distribution 
components in future program design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 
Annex A. Evaluation SOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 
Annex B. Composition of the team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 
Annex C. Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
Annex D. List of sites visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 
Annex E. List of key informants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 
Annex F. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 
Annex G. Indicator Performance Tracking Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 
Annex H. Impact Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 
Annex I. List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
4 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. Objective of SOW 
The objective of the evaluation is to provide an external and impartial assessment of the results 
achieved by the program focusing on population-level impacts, establishing plausible links 
between inputs and impacts. Further, the evaluation will document lessons learned to serve as tool 
to strengthen the design and implementation of a follow-on DAP, as well as other development 
programs in the Northern Region. 
1.2. Brief Description of Program 
The goal of the OICI Title II program in Ghana is to increase food security among target 
populations in the Northern Region of the country through interventions that impact availability, 
access and utilization of food. Specific development activities are expected to contribute towards 
the goal. Training of target farmers in post-harvest processing and storage, and construction of 
improved storage structures are expected to reduce crop production losses and therefore increase 
food availability. Food access meanwhile is promoted by increasing women’s potential to earn 
income by providing technical skills and equipment in various agro-processing activities e.g. 
improved pottery production, rice processing, cassava processing, honey and beeswax production. 
Finally, the provision of potable water wells, well maintenance and sanitation training is expected 
to enhance food utilization by reducing the incidence of water-borne diseases. 
OIC Tamale (OICT) was launched in 1999 to implement the food security program, utilizing 
resources from 100% monetization of PL 480 Title II commodities in Ghana. OICT is a 
partnership program 
between OIC 
International (OICI) and 
its affiliate, OIC Ghana 
(OICG), with OICI as 
the lead Cooperating 
Sponsor and OICG a 
Recipient Agency. OICI 
envisions that the OICT 
program will devolve to 
OICG at the expiration 
of PL 480 funding; 
hence the built-in 
institutional capacity￾building interventions 
under the current DAP. 
The program is 
operating in 141 
communities of which 75 have agricultural activities, 115 have water and sanitation activities, 
and 46 have micro-enterprise activities (Figure 1). 
Figure 1. Location of participating communities. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
5 
1.3. Complementarity with USAID and GOG Strategies and Priorities 
There have been conscious attempts by various successive governments of Ghana, NGOs, groups 
and a few individuals to fight poverty and its associated food insecurity in the country. Food 
insecurity in the three northern regions of Ghana (Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions) 
however, remain the most serious problem compared to other regions of Ghana, hence the 
presence of many development organizations in these regions. They work in the areas of 
agricultural extension services, credit, infrastructure development, child survival, health and 
nutrition, agro-forestry and primary education. 
OICI/OICG therefore by targeting the most food insecure households in the Northern Region for 
its development activities has fulfilled its mission of assisting the most vulnerable in the society 
and supporting government’s efforts to improve standard of living in the country and the 
Northern Region specifically. 
The training provided by OICI/OICG in post-harvest loss techniques, marketing and basic 
business management skills as well as the construction of household and community storage 
structures will help improve household food availability. The construction of community potable 
water sources coupled with training in pump maintenance and sanitation will also meet the target 
population’s need for clean and safe water sources. Target women are also being assisted to 
diversify and augment their income through training in beekeeping, cassava processing, pottery￾making and rice processing. All these activities will complement the government poverty 
reduction strategy in the region. 
The program’s agricultural activities also directly fit within the Mission’s objective to increase 
the market value of agricultural products. Specific intermediate results addressed by the program 
include increased use of improved production practices, improved management, improved post￾harvest handling, and increased information dissemination. The program also complements the 
Mission’s sub-goal, which is improved productive capacity of Ghana’s workforce, specifically 
those in the agricultural sector, by providing access to potable water. This intervention indirectly 
contributes to rural productivity in terms of improving health, reducing illnesses, and providing 
more productive work hours for adults and children. 
1.4. Significant Challenges Faced in Program Implementation 
The program began receiving monetization proceeds later than expected. This problem was 
amplified when the FY2000 local currency lost much of its value through rapid depreciation and 
domestic inflation. As a result of this US$500,000 short fall, OICI scaled back program targets as 
reflected in the Cooperating Sponsor Results Report and Resource Request (CSR4) submitted to 
USAID on 25 April 2001 (OIC1, 2001b). 
The first monetization proceed was received in May 2000, nine months into the first fiscal year. 
As a result, there was considerable setback in program start-up as the bulk of FY 1999 resources 
were received in FY 2000. Due to the consortium arrangement with other Cooperating Sponsors 
in Ghana, monetization proceeds are received from every call forward made throughout the year, 
and distributed proportionally across all consortium members. During FY 2000, the Ghanaian 
cedi suffered its worst drop in history (from 2900 to 6500 cedis per US$1.00 from October 1999 
to September 2000), which has decreased the amount of resources available to the program. 
Civil unrest in Saboba-Chereponi and Yendi Districts forced the program to remove its staff from 
the three communities it was working and prevented further expansion to other communities in 
these districts. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
6 
1.5. Overall Assessment of Program Goal Achievement 
1.5.1. Agriculture 
The program has clearly helped assure household food availability in its targeted communities. 
This was achieved during a period of lower than average agriculture production for the region. 
The program has achieved its goal of reducing post-harvest losses of grain and legumes to less 
than 5%. It also helped households improve their marketing of grains and legumes by enabling 
them to postponing sales until April through July when prices are at their highest. The objective 
was achieved mainly through training about better method of harvesting, post-harvest handling of 
produce, produce marketing and business skills. Mud-silo grain storage structures were also 
introduced into the communities and community members trained on how to construct them. 
These members are now making supplemental income by building mud-silos for other members 
of their communities. 
1.5.2. Micro-enterprise 
The program has clearly helped assure household food access in its 
targeted communities by promoting micro-enterprises that 
significantly increase women’s incomes. The program has exceeded 
all of the goals for this objective. The micro-enterprises are 
appropriate to the local biophysical and socioeconomic 
environments. Sustainability of these enterprises is likely since the 
products produced have local, accessible markets with excess 
demand. Because of this program intervention, women are 
contributing more toward household expenses and their husbands are 
supportive of this change in gender roles (see side box). 
1.5.3. Water and sanitation 
The program has clearly helped improve household food utilization in its targeted communities 
by decreasing water borne disease, especially guinea worm and diarrheal diseases. The program 
is expected to achieve all of the goals for this objective, including the construction of borehole 
wells for 28 communities. The sanitation component of this objective was less supported in the 
design and implementation of the program and as a result the impacts are less apparent. The 
training of 115 WATSAN committees and the sanitation awareness generated especially through 
guinea worm eradication has set the stage for the more difficult task of changing behaviors that 
are required if significant improvements in hygiene and sanitation are to be made. 
1.5.4. Organizational capacity building 
This DAP program has allowed OICI and OICG to build their technical and managerial capacities 
in food security programming. It also allowed them to demonstrate their abilities through this 
very successful program. Part of the capacity building included the recent construction of 
Kumbungu Training Center where they have already hosted MOFA trainings. They have also 
used the site for root and seed multiplication to support the program’s agricultural sector 
activities. The most impressive demonstration of their capacity is the collaboration and respect 
that they receive from governmental and non-governmental organizations in the region. 
“Our soup is no 
longer the same. 
Courtesy of our 
wives, we get 
better soup to 
eat.” Saating Naa, 
Naa Naporo, at 
Zagyuri; 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
7 
2. AGRICULTURAL SECTOR 
The primary focus for the agriculture sector was to improve food availability for households. The 
program was to achieve this by reducing household post-harvest losses of stored grains and 
legumes and by improving the marketing of the household’s farm products. 
2.1. Brief Description of Interventions 
A major factor to food insecurity in Northern Region is high post-harvest losses of grain and 
legumes1
. Poor rural storage infrastructure and inadequate marketing opportunities are major 
factors contributing to these losses (Azu, 2001). These factors also compel farmers to sell off 
most of their produce soon after harvest thereby receiving the lowest returns on their investments. 
Additionally, the recent and rapid spread of the larger grain borer (the storage pest Prostephanus 
truncatus) further threatens household food security with even higher storage losses. A key 
strategy to enhancing food security in the program’s targeted communities was to reduce post￾harvest losses through the following activities: 
• Farmer training in post-harvest food processing and storage; 
• Construction of storage facilities for households and communities; 
• Training of farmers in the maintenance of storage facilities; and 
• Training farmers in produce marketing and basic business management skills to increase 
production. 
The evaluation team found that these agricultural activities of the DAP helped assure household 
food availability and were appropriate to the local biophysical and socioeconomic environments. 
2.1.1. Construction of storage structures 
Stevenson & Andan (2000) recommended the program support for the construction of both 
household and community storage structures. Household structures would provide safer grain 
storage for meeting household food needs while community storage structures were 
recommended for relatively higher grain production areas. Both structures would help allow 
farmers to store grain longer in order to sell when prices peak, generally between April and July.
Mud-silos are new to the targeted communities in the Northern Region. They are recommended 
by the Post-Harvest Development Unit of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) and are 
considered to be the most effective structure for grain and legume storage in the region. Mud silos 
have a longer life-span (10 to 15 years) compared to indigenous structures like the kambong and 
kunchung (2 years), are capable of storing and maintaining quality of grain over longer periods 
than the indigenous structures, and they provide greater protection from the larger grain borer. 
The structures can be made from locally available materials (clay, straw and water). The major 
limiting factor to their construction is the lack of knowledge on how to build them. The program 
hired MOFA trained artisans to construct the silos in targeted communities and to train the 
residents on how to build them. Participating farmers provide construction materials (clay, straw 
and water) and meals for the OICI hired artisans. The mud silos serve as a demonstration to non-
 
1
 MOFA (2001) estimates that post-harvest losses of grains and legumes in the Northern Region range from 
25 – 35% annually. However, the impact survey found that non-program community households report 
14.4% losses (90% CI, 9.4-19.5%) (Table 4). This difference in the two data sources may be due in part to 
differences in the definition of “loss.” 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
8 
program participants and the program-trained community members are able supplement their 
income by constructing new silos as the demand increases. 
The program provided community storage structures for six high grain-producing communities 
so farmers could store their grain until prices peaked (April – July). The program provided funds 
for skilled labor, roofing materials and cement while the communities provided unskilled labor 
for the construction. In Gushegu/Karaga District the program constructed a structure in 
Shelanyilli, Nalogu, and Nyong-nayili communities. The program also constructed three 
structures in collaboration with the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), a 
local NGO, that helped mobilize the communities. Two of the structures were constructed in 
Saboba/Chereponi District for the Wapuli and Nakpanbuni communities. The third one was 
constructed in Desikura of Yendi District. The program also collaborated with MOFA in the 
rehabilitation of underutilized MOFA grain storage structures in program communities (Wantugu, 
Gaa, Kpatinga, Sung, and Shielilanyili) (Annor, 2001). 
2.1.2. Training
The program trained community members and farm households in post-harvest processing and 
storage by using well formulated and regularly updated training modules. The technical content 
of these training modules described the causes of grain and legume spoilage, techniques for 
improving harvesting and drying, the proper formulation and application of Actellic Super®, and 
safe storage and use of treated grain. The training and demonstrations provided farmers with the 
necessary skills for the effective and efficient use of the household and community storage 
structures for post-harvest loss reduction. 
Training also focused on improving farm cultivation, management, and marketing skills. The goal 
was to provide farmers with relevant knowledge, skills, and analytical tools for approaching 
farming as a business and allow more effective farm management, planning and budgeting of 
household resources. 
2.1.3. Inventory credit program/inventory storage services (ICP/ISS)
The program’s improvement of household storage practices enabled its participants to use 
ICP/ISS. The inventory credit program and inventory storage services allowed farmers the 
opportunity to sell their produce at peak price periods (April – July) rather than low price periods 
soon after harvest (October – December). ICP provided farmers with cash loans after harvests. 
The loans were secured by stored produce. This provided farmers with needed cash without 
having to sell their produce when prices are at their lowest. Farmers at the time of storage 
received 90,000 cedis (US$11.25) per 100 kg of maize stored as advance payment from the 
program. The stored gain was sold at 180,000 cedis (US$22.50) per 100 kg during the lean season 
(April-July). A total of 150.6 metric tons (MT) of grain were stored under the ICP. The ISS 
provided grain storage to farmers who did not have storage facilities for their surplus produce and 
who did not need to sell their produce for immediate cash. A total of 36.1 MT were stored under 
the ISS program. 
2.2. Achievement of Results 
The program has clearly helped assure household food availability in its targeted communities. 
This was achieved during a period of lower than average agriculture production for the region 
(Table 1). Most of the agriculture sector indicators, their baseline values and targets for this sector 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
9 
were changed from the initial DAP proposal (Annex G; OICI, 1998a&b and 2001b). The 
evaluation team found that although the indicators were improved, many lacked adequate 
definition. This left some of the LOA targets open to interpretation. 
Table 1. Average crop yields (MT/ha) in the Northern Region, Ghana. 
Crop 1998 1999 2000 2001
Maize 1.55 0.98 0.80 0.70 
Rice 1.80 2.32 2.44 2.1 
Groundnuts 0.92 0.54 0.66 0.70 
Cowpea 0.90 0.69 0.76 0.78 
Sorghum 1.11 0.92 0.72 0.80 
Source: PPMED (Agric Statistics & Census Div.) MOFA. 
2.2.1. Meeting targets 
Number of grain and legume storage facilities constructed2
. The program has already 
exceeded its revised LOA target to construct 2400 grain and legume storage facilities (OICI, 
2001b). A total of 2504 mud silos (in addition to the community storage structures) (104% of 
target) have been constructed to date and program personnel expect to construct a total 2600 for 
LOA (108% of the revised target and 87% of the initial target; OICI, 1998a&b). The structures 
have enabled program beneficiaries to participate in other activities like ICP/ISS and are greatly 
appreciated. This is an activity indicator of the program with a baseline of zero. 
In addition to structures built by the program, a significant but undetermined number of mud silos 
have been built by program trained participants and many more silos are planned for the 2002 
harvest. During interviews with the evaluation team, participants expressed a high demand for the 
mud silos even in communities where the silos have not been introduced, for example participants 
and non-participants in Kpilo, Zantelli, Kusawgu, Wambong, Tolon, Gbullung, Kanshegu, and 
Laanga indicated their desire for mud silo demonstrations and training. The impact survey 
confirms this finding (Table 2) except in two communities where three households reported using 
mud silos in 1999 but not for 2001 storage for unknown reasons. Nevertheless, the apparent high 
demand for these structures suggests that the activity is appropriate for the environment and is 
effective for the control of grain and legume storage pests. 
The program followed the recommendation of Stevenson & Andan (2000) as described above and 
also constructed three community storage structures in Yendi and Saboba/Chereponi Districts in 
collaboration with CARD and three community storage structures in Gushegu/Karaga District. 
The program also collaborated with MOFA in the rehabilitation of five underutilized MOFA 
grain storage structures in program communities under the ICP/ISS program (i.e., Wantugu, Gaa, 
Kpatinga, Sung and Shielilanyili). 
 
2
 Number of grain storage structures that the program paid for construction. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
10 
Table 2. Mud silo usage of a sample of households interviewed in the impact survey. This sample 
data is an overall estimate of silo usage. Communities with 1999 mud silo usage were introduced 
to them by the ADRA DAP. 
Sampled Households Using Mud Silos 
District Community 1999 2001 Change (1999 to 
2001) 
Non-Program Community Households 
Gushegu/Karaga Kpataribogu 0% 0% 0% 
Savelugu/Nanton Duko 0% 0% 0% 
Tamale Rural Zujum 0% 0% 0% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Kurivuliyili 0% 0% 0% 
West Gonja Mempeasem 0% 0% 0% 
Total Households Sampled 0% 0% 0% 
Program Community Households with Agricultural Training 
Gushegu/Karaga Bulugu 13% 63% 50% 
Gushegu/Karaga Gaa 0% 43% 38% 
Gushegu/Karaga Pishigu 0% 100% 100% 
Gushegu/Karaga Pisinga 0% 0% 0% 
Gushegu/Karaga Pisinga 0% 0% 0% 
Gushegu/Karaga Zori Yapala 0% 100% 100% 
Savelugu/Nanton Damdu 38% 38% 0% 
Savelugu/Nanton Fazihini 38% 88% 50% 
Savelugu/Nanton Kanshegu 14% 43% 29% 
Savelugu/Nanton Kparigilanyili 100% 75% -25% 
Savelugu/Nanton Langa 38% 38% 0% 
Savelugu/Nanton Naprisi 100% 100% 0% 
Savelugu/Nanton Naprisi 43% 29% -14% 
Savelugu/Nanton Sahanayili 100% 100% 0% 
Savelugu/Nanton Tibali 50% 63% 13% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Gbullung 25% 25% 0% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Tali 14% 43% 29% 
West Gonja Busunu 0% 0% 0% 
West Gonja Kawonkura 0% 0% 0% 
West Gonja Kpabusu 0% 0% 0% 
West Gonja Tailorpe 0% 0% 0% 
Total Households Sampled 26% 45% 19% 
Program Community Households without Agricultural Training 
Tamale Rural Dohini 0% 0% 0% 
Tamale Rural Jakarayili 0% 0% 0% 
Tamale Rural Kobilmahagu 0% 0% 0% 
Tamale Rural Kukuo 0% 0% 0% 
Tamale Rural Zagyuri 0% 0% 0% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Gbanjong 0% 0% 0% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Kumbugu 0% 0% 0% 
Tolon/Kumbungu Logshegu 0% 0% 0% 
Total Households Sampled 0% 0% 0% 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
11 
Number of households trained in proper storage practices for grain and legumes3
. 
To date 2488 households received training in appropriate harvesting and post-harvest grain and 
legume handling and storage practices. This is 89% of the revised LOA target (2800; OICI, 
2001b) and program personnel expect to meet this target by the end of the program. The initial 
DAP target was 3600 households (OICI, 1998a&b). This is an activity indicator of the program 
with a baseline of zero. 
During community focus group discussions program beneficiaries told the evaluation team that 
the training has helped them reduce post harvest losses and that they want more training. A post 
harvest loss study (described below) supports this finding and suggests that training, by itself, in 
grain harvesting and handling reduced household grain losses enough to meet program goals. 
Number of households who receive training in farm 
marketing and business management4
. The program has 
already exceeded its revised LOA target to train 600 farm 
households in farm marketing and business management 
(OICI, 2001b) and farmers are improving their farm 
management as a result (see side box). To date 767 farm 
households (128% of target) received training and program 
personnel expect that a total of 900 will be trained for LOA 
(150% of the revised target and 112% of the initial target of 
900 household; OICI, 1998a&b). This is an activity indicator 
of the program with a baseline of zero. 
During community focus group discussions program 
beneficiaries placed a high value on this training and said it 
complemented the use of mud silos by allowing them the 
opportunity to sell their produce at peak price periods (April 
– July) rather than during low price periods soon after 
harvest (October – December). 
Number of months of stored grain and legume 
availability5
. Amevor & Donkoh (2002) estimated that a 
majority of agriculture training participants have had some 
of their 2001 harvest available for at least 8 months. The 
revised LOA target is 9 months, increased from the initial 
LOA target of “6 to 8 months” (OICI, 1998a&b and 2001b). 
A baseline value of 7.5 months was calculated by linearly 
interpolating baseline study data that was reported in 3-
month increments (Asuni, 2000, p. 15). The impact study 
results did not show any significant changes in this indicator 
between 1999 and 2001 for program households (agriculture 
 
3
 The number of households reported are the number registrants for the training program. Only a few 
people consistently missed the training sessions. They were removed from the registry and were not 
counted as trained. 
4
 The number of households reported are the number registrants for the training program. Only a few 
people consistently missed the training sessions. They were removed from the registry and were not 
counted as trained. 
5
 The number of months after harvest when only 50% of a sample of agricultural training participants still 
have stored grain. 
Thanks to OICI agricultural 
training, Mohama Yakubu 
and Sedu Karim in the 
community of Kpilo now 
cultivate less area with 
better weeding and produce 
more grain with less labor. 
The time they save is now 
spent on other productive 
activities like market trading
and annual home repair. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
12 
or non-agriculture training recipients) or for non program households. Response for all three 
groups in 1999 and 2001 averaged around seven months of availability, similar to the baseline 
estimation. Table 3 presents this data converted to person-months based on household population. 
The conversion also did not show any significant program effects. This impact indicator is not 
robust and is too sensitive to non-program effects. 
Percentage of targeted households that have reduced their post-harvest losses6
. The impact 
survey clearly shows that the program has reduced household losses of stored grain however this 
indicator does not capture the effect. One of its problems is that this indicator is poorly defined. 
The magnitude of target achievement depends on how this indicator is interpreted. Using the 
impact survey data (Annex H), a literal interpretation of the indicator is that 30% of targeted 
households (program participant households that received agricultural training) reported a 
reduction of grain loss (regardless of previous loss levels). Impact survey data also shows a 
possible spread effect within the program to participant households that did not receive 
agricultural training. This group reported a 16% reduction in post-harvest losses while non￾program households (control group) only reported 5%. Another interpretation of this indicator is 
presented in the footnote. It includes the target of another indicator in its definition (i.e., achieve 
losses less than 5%) so that it is consistent with other project goals. Following the footnoted 
definition, the impact survey data shows that 72% of targeted households (program participant 
households receiving agricultural training) have achieved losses of less than 5%. By this 
definition the program is slightly short of its LOA target of 80%. However, while targeted 
households have not achieved the target, non targeted program household have. The survey data 
shows that 80% of program participant households that do not receive agricultural training report 
less than 5% grain losses while 48% of the control group (non-program households) report having 
achieved losses less than 5%. Clearly this is not a robust indicator of program effects. Insufficient 
sample size of the survey is one of the likely problems. This indicator may be more useful if the 
data is collected in recruitment and exit interviews of all participants. The next indicator that is 
discussed uses the same data and shows significant program effects. 
Percentage of stored grain lost7
. The program has achieved its target of reducing post harvest 
losses to less than 5% (revised target of “3-5%” losses; OICI, 2001b) for those farmers receiving 
agricultural training by the program. This achievement was confirmed by two studies contracted 
by OICI, a monitoring study of July 2002 losses (Table 4; Andan, 2002c) and the impact survey 
(Table 3; Annex H). 
Regional agricultural statistics and OICI baseline post-harvest 
losses range from 20 – 30 % annually (MOFA, 2001). These 
baseline values are much higher than those reported by the 
impact survey interviewees. The average of their 1999 
reported losses were between 8 to 18%. This difference in the 
two data sources may be due in part to differences in the 
definition of “loss.” Damaged grain that is not eaten will be 
fed to livestock unless it is completely inedible. 
 
6
 Percentage of those households with a member participating in the programs agricultural training that 
have achieved post harvest losses of less than 5%. 
7
 Stored grain and legume samples collected from a sample of households with a member that has 
participated in the programs agricultural training. Percentage loss in weight determined by the “count and 
weight” method. 
Data from program 
monitoring suggests that 
pesticide use may not be 
justified or economical if 
farmers improve their 
harvesting, grain handling 
and storage methods. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
13 
Table 3. Household level changes of agriculture sector impact survey data (Annex H). 
Household Use of Actellic Person Months of Food Stored Percent Grain Lost in Storage Average Monthsa of Food Stored Before Selling 
All Households Households with food to sell Statistics 1999 2001 Change in Use 1999-2000 2001-2002 1999-2001 2001-2002 1999-2000 2001-2002 1999-2000 2001-2002 
Matched Non-Program Communities ("control," n=4) 
Mean 9% 9% 0% 121 111 18.0 17.7 3.7 4.3 6.0 6.9 
SD 30% 30% 0% 79 76 20.2 20.4 3.4 3.8 2.0 2.0 
n 32 32 32 31 31 32 32 31 31 19 19 
90% CI (1-18%) (1-18%) (0-0%) (98-145) (88-133) (12.1-23.9) (11.7-23.6) (2.7-4.7) (3.1-5.4) (5.2-6.8) (6.2-7.7) 
Matched Program Agriculture Communities ("treatment," n=4) 
Mean 10% 23% 13% 75 82 14.4 3.8 5.1 5.9 7.2 8.5 
SD 31% 43% 35% 46 50 18.8 4.4 4.3 4.6 3.1 2.8 
n 30 30 30 29 29 22 22 29 29 18 18 
90% CI (1-19%) (1-36%) (3-24%) (61-89) (67-98) (7.8-21) (2.2-5.3) (3.8-6.4) (4.5-7.3) (6.0-8.4) (7.4-9.6) 
Non-Program Communities (n=5) 
Mean 18% 18% 0% 127 106 14.7 14.4 3.3 3.5 6.0 6.9 
SD 38% 38% 0% 77 70 19.2 19.4 3.4 3.8 1.9 2.0 
n 40 40 40 38 38 40 40 39 39 20 20 
90% CI (7-28%) (7-28%) (0-0%) (106-147) (87-124) (9.7-19.7) (9.4-19.5) (2.4-4.2) (2.6-4.5) (5.3-6.7) (6.2-7.6) 
Program Agriculture Communities (n=21) 
Mean 8% 32% 24% 100 123 9.7 4.6 4.3 6.0 7.4 9.8 
SD 27% 47% 46% 73 107 13.4 7.5 4.0 5.0 2.2 1.9 
n 150 150 150 137 138 135 135 144 144 74 75 
90% CI (4-12%) (26-38%) (18-30%) (90-111) (108-138) (7.8-11.6) (3.6-5.7) (3.8-4.9) (5.3-6.7) (7.0-7.8) (9.5-10.2) 
Program Non-Agriculture Communities (n=8) 
Mean 16% 28% 13% 73 75 8.3 7.0 4.0 4.4 7.7 8.7 
SD 37% 45% 33% 47 43 15.3 15.1 4.1 4.5 1.9 1.6 
n 64 64 64 55 55 56 57 63 63 31 31 
90% CI (8-23%) (19-37%) (6-19%) (62-83) (66-85) (5.0-11.7) (3.7-10.3) (3.1-4.8) (3.5-5.4) (7.2-8.3) (8.2-9.2) 
a Months start on October with April the 7th month. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
14 
Data from this monitoring study also suggests that pesticide use on stored grain may not be 
justified or economical if farmers improve their harvesting, grain handling and storage methods. 
Post-harvest monitoring data (Andan, 2002b&c) shows that neither storage method nor use of 
Actellic Super® provides significant reduction (statistically or in magnitude) in stored grain 
losses when program promoted harvesting and post-harvest handling are used (Table 4). Follow￾up studies may show significant reductions in post harvest losses between the mud silos and other 
storage methods during years of high infestations of the larger grain borer. Continued monitoring 
is needed to evaluate this hypothesis. 
Table 4. Percent of post harvest losses by weight due to insect and mold damage for maize stored 
in mud silos, kanbongs, and jute sacks with and without treatment of Actellic Super®. Mold 
damage is reported to validate that grain in each treatment group was properly dried. 
Range Range Treatment Mean SDa
Min Max nb
 95% CIc
 Mean SD Min Max n 95% CI 
 June 2002 Insect Damage July 2002 Insect Damage 
Mud silo 
treated 2.42 1.47 0 5 12 1.48 3.35 2.00 0.93 0.5 3.5 8 1.23 2.77 
Mud silo 
untreated 2.36 2.54 0 9 22 1.24 3.49 5.80 3.28 2.5 12.5 10 3.45 8.15 
Kanbong
treated 1.75 1.32 0.5 3.5 4 0.00 3.85 5.50 4.42 2.5 12 4 0.00 12.53 
Kanbong
untreated 3.38 6.16 0 18.5 8 0.00 8.52 
Jute sack 
treated 1.79 2.10 0 6 7 0.00 3.73 2.67 1.26 1.5 4 3 0.00 5.79 
Jute sack 
untreated 3.10 3.21 0 11 21 1.64 4.56 3.50 2.14 1 7.5 8 1.71 5.29 
 June 2002 Mold Damage July 2002 Mold Damage 
Mud silo 
treated 1.25 1.12 0 4 12 0.54 1.96 2.09 1.28 0.5 5 11 1.23 2.95 
Mud silo 
untreated 0.89 1.59 0 6.5 22 0.18 1.59 3.65 1.29 1.5 6.5 10 2.73 4.57 
Kanbong
treated 0.38 0.75 0 1.5 4 0.00 1.57 2.88 0.85 2 4 4 1.52 4.23 
Kanbong
untreated 0.38 0.69 0 2 8 0.00 0.96 
Jute sack 
treated 0.71 1.29 0 3.5 7 0.00 1.90 2.33 0.76 1.5 3 3 0.44 4.23 
Jute sack 
untreated 0.38 0.53 0 1.5 20 0.12 0.63 2.00 0.93 0.5 3.5 8 1.23 2.77 
Raw data provide from study conducted by Andan (2002b&c). 
a Standard deviation (SD) 
b Sample size (n) for each treatment group decreased because of consumption of grain, not from spoilage. 
c Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Student’s t distribution. 
Percentage of households who sell farm produce at highest selling period (April-July)8
. The 
program has already exceeded its revised LOA target to increase the percentage of households 
who sell produce between April and July (OICI, 2001b). To date, the program estimates 57% of 
 
8
 Values reported by the program were unweighted averages of percentages from four groups of sales (grain 
or legumes and head of households or wives). Number (heads or wives) who sold produce (grain or 
legumes) at peak divided by those (heads or wives) that sold the particular produce during any time of the 
year, times 100. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
15 
households with participants in agricultural training have sold farm produce between April and 
July (Amevor & Donkoh, 2002). The impact survey data confirms this with an average selling 
date of mid-April (7.4 months, Table 3). The initial DAP target was 60% of participation farm 
household selling at least some surplus at market price for two seasons after training (OICI, 
1998a&b). Delaying the sale of surplus produce can substantially increase household incomes. 
An estimated 26% households sold their 1999 harvest between April – July, using the baseline 
data (Asuni, 2000) and the same methods of calculating this indicator. 
2.2.2. Other achievements 
The program has increased 
the capacity of its extension 
agents, Polyvalent 
Community Facilitators 
(PCF), to conduct 
development work and many 
PCFs plan to seek advanced 
degrees as a result of the 
experience and training they 
received through this program 
(see side box). The PCFs have 
received 11 types of training 
(modules), six of these 
modules were directly used in 
their extension work with 
farmers (three modules on 
participatory farm 
management and three on 
grain and legume storage 
techniques) and two other modules will be extended during the remaining year of the DAP. Two 
of the training modules were used to improve the technical competence of PCFs. The program 
has also increased the capacity of MOFA agricultural extension agents through training on 
participatory farm management at OICT’s newly constructed Kumbungu Training Center. 
The adoption of mud silo technology was reported to the evaluation team during community 
focus group discussions and indicates that mud silos are a sustainable technology. Mud silo 
artisans contracted by the program were required to teach several people how to build mud silos 
in each of the communities that they worked. As expected, numerous mud silos have been 
constructed by community members without the direct involvement of the program. The program 
is not monitoring this replication by program participants nor including these silos as part of its 
output indicator, “number of grain and legume facilities constructed.” Replication of mud silo 
construction could serve as a good effect indicator. 
During implementation of the DAP, some program areas (Savelugu/Nanton, Tolon/Kumbungu 
and West Gonja Districts) experienced low levels of agricultural production. As a result farmers 
were not worried about storage issues because they did not produce enough to store. Fortunately 
the program was able to link its beneficiaries to USDA funding that provided farmers 
production credit for animal traction, seed and fertilizers. This helped farmers increase 
agricultural production which in turn increased the need for post harvest storage, thus providing 
greater opportunities for the program to demonstrate its interventions. Credit support for animal 
traction (provision of bullocks, traction equipment and training) was needed because of the 
OICI’s Polyvalent Community Facilitators after a day 
of impact survey development and training in Tamale.
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
16 
limited tractor services in the region due to frequent machinery breakdowns and rather high 
maintenance costs. This allowed timelier field operations, lead to increased production, and 
enabled farmers to utilize post-harvest technologies and facilities. A total of 58 households 
benefited from this credit through the acquisition of 29 bullocks, 58 ploughs, 58 ridgers, 58 
cultivators, and 15 carts. Credit was also provided for fertilizers (15-15-15 and ammonium 
sulfate) and seed (maize and soybean) on full cost-recovery basis. A total of 1026 households 
benefited from credit for fertilizer and seed. As at the time of evaluation 55% of the loans have 
been recovered, in part due to a bad 2001 harvest from poor rainfall. Many of the farmers 
interviewed by the evaluation team want to maintain a good relationship with the program and 
plan to pay off their outstanding loans if the 2002 harvest is good. 
The site of OICT newly constructed Kumbungu Training Center was used to multiply improved 
cultivars of cassava, yam, soybean, groundnuts, and cowpea provided by MOFA for distribution 
to program clients. This program achievement increased accessibility and affordability of 
improved seed to participating farmers. Multiplying the seed at the training center exposed other 
farmers to improved seeds and planting material. The improved cassava planting material was 
made available though collaboration with MOFA, Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, 
and the Root and Tuber Improvement Program supported by USAID. After multiplying the 
material, the program distributed to targeted communities along with training on rapid cassava 
multiplication techniques. Due to targeting and scheduling problems this activity was not very 
successful in some communities in the Savelugu/Nanton and Tolon/Kumbungu Districts. Much of 
the cassava was damaged by open range livestock. Greater success was achieved in West Gonja 
District. Farmers in Busunu Kusawgu and Wambong appreciated the high yielding varieties 
(Gblemodoade) that also supported OICI’s cassava processing micro-enterprise development. The 
introduced varieties are helping to assure year round production of gari and keeping the 
processing facility near 100% utilization.
The program helped introduce a new cash crop, paprika, that has high export value potential for 
increasing the income of participating farmers. A total of 28 farmers received credit in the form 
of seed, fertilizer and other agro-chemicals for the production of paprika. This was undertaken in 
collaboration with NASEK (an international export company).
The promotion of rotational cropping with soybean cultivation has helped improve soil fertility
and provide farmers with a productive means of controlling striga, an endemic parasitic weed 
that is a major problem in the Gushegu/Karaga District. Nitrogen fixing soybeans are not 
susceptible to striga and their cultivation serves as a trap crop for striga and reduces the number 
of viable striga seeds in the soil. Cereal crops that follow in the rotation utilize residual nitrogen 
fixed by the soybean in a soil relatively free of striga seeds.
Key informants confirmed that the program has 
effective collaboration with other developmental 
partners in the agricultural sector. Partners like 
MOFA and CARD see the program as filling an 
essential gap. Mr. Adongo, MOFA’s Regional 
Director of Agriculture and Natural Resources, said 
OICI is clearly the best NGO collaborator and MOFA 
is using OICI as an example that they would like other 
NGOs to follow in the Northern Region. MOFA representatives admit that they need to provide 
better extension services. They currently provide one agent for 3000 people in Northern Region. 
MOFA welcomes programs like OICI’s that help fill the demand for information and training, 
especially programs that follow MOFA’s recommendations and priorities. OICI’s collaboration 
OICI is clearly the best 
NGO collaborator and 
MOFA is using OICI as an 
example that they would 
like other NGOs in the 
Northern Region to follow. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
17 
with MOFA is active; providing training for 42 MOFA agricultural extension agents in 
participatory farm management, training that proved useful for its OICI field level staff. This 
institutional collaboration has been duly signed through a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) 
with the relevant partners (OICI 2001c; OICI 2000g). 
2.3. Challenges 
The most apparent challenges are the difficulty in accessing money to cover costs of improving 
agricultural management and production (e.g., seeds and agricultural chemicals) and to meet 
household expenses without selling produce when prices are low. These challenges must be met 
with solutions that are robust to an erratic environment of weather and markets extremes. 
2.3.1. Inadequate credit 
There has been an increase in farmers’ request for credit support in the form of traction services 
and agricultural inputs. The DAP did not make provision for this component so the program took 
the opportunity provided by USDA funding for a production credit program in response to 
farmers’ requests. This helped but did not meet the demand. Without credit support to increase 
production levels farmers would not benefit from training and other activities (e.g., post harvest 
storage, ICP/ISS program). Even ICP resources could not meet the demand. 
2.3.2. Community storage structures and transportation 
Community storage structures constructed for the ICP/ISS program were insufficient to handle 
the demand for ICP/ISS services. Some farmers incurred extra cost for transporting grain over 10 
kilometers to the community storage structures. The combination of insufficient storage and 
limited means for rural transport constrain those farmers with high levels of production. 
2.3.3. Construction of household storage structures
The demand for these mud structures is increasing. However their construction occurs in the dry 
season, posing a challenge to communities will limited access to water. Mud silo construction 
competes with home repair after the rainy season. Ironically when the rainy season is good, need 
for storage and home repair are greatest. The period of time that mud is available is often too 
small to complete both tasks. Home repair takes priority. 
2.3.4. Low agricultural production
The targeted districts experienced erratic rainfall resulting in low agricultural production during 
the program implementation period. Low production contributed to inability of some client 
farmers to fulfill their obligation to the program in the form of credit repayment. The effects of 
the drought were especially apparent on the 2001 harvest. To provide perspective, this drought 
resulted in emergency supply of basic farm inputs to drought affected household in the Northern 
Region beginning June 2002 by FAO/WFP at the request of the Government of Ghana 
(FAO/WFP, 2002).
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
18 
2.4. Discussion of Other Agricultural Evaluation Questions 
2.4.1. Measures of adoption and sustainability
Mentioned above, the erratic environment of weather and market extremes that influence farm 
and household decisions can make the measurement of adoption difficult, especially during the 
relatively brief period of a program. Many farmers used Actellic Super® for storage (32% of 
those receiving agriculture training by the program, Table 3) and expressed their willingness to 
use it again but under the condition of a good harvest in excess of their immediate household 
needs. In contrast, other program interventions are being copied (incompletely) by non￾participants based on what they see participants doing. 
The involvement of beneficiaries in the planning and transparent execution of this program 
helped guarantee the sustainability of the program. The evaluation team finds that most of the 
agricultural interventions are being adopted and are sustainable. Ironically the harvesting, post￾harvest handling, and storage techniques promoted by the program may make the use of Actellic 
Super® unsustainable by making it unprofitable and thereby discouraging its adoption. 
2.4.2. Market accessibility for inputs and outputs
Market linkages are important factors in adoption and sustainability. For example, farmers 
acknowledged the effectiveness of Actellic Super® for storage purposes and are prepared to 
purchase it if the availability and accessibility at community levels is assured. Those farmers with 
high quality grain to sell (thanks to program interventions) can have better access to markets and 
better prices as groups than as individuals. Large amounts of high quality grain provide buyers 
incentive to send trucks to remote communities. OICI has done well trying to link the production￾marketing-consumption chain but many of needed linkages and relationships are beyond the 
control and responsibility of this DAP. 
2.4.3. Keeping up with auto-adoption 
This program is among the rare few that should consider how their 
interventions are being copied by non-participants. For example, 
farmers in Tolon told the evaluation team that those non-program 
farmers whose fields border their fields copy practices that they 
learned from program training sessions (see side box). Fortunately 
the interventions being copied do not pose any harmful 
environmental impacts if they are implemented poorly. The main 
considerations are attribution and how badly executed techniques 
will reflect on the program. Another consideration is how the 
program could leverage this behavior to produce greater impact with 
minimal effort. Can participating farmers be used as community trainers? This interest in program 
activities could be demonstrated by reporting the number of “non-participating” farmers on the 
attendance register of OICI’s farmer training sessions. 
“Farmers whose 
field’s border mine 
copy whatever I do 
on my field for they 
have observed the 
marked changes on 
my field” Tolon 
Farmer 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
19 
Commenting on women 
undertaking beekeeping, 
an exclusive male 
activity, Amaama of 
Kanshegu said 
“We do not only keep 
the bees, we NOW 
converse with them” 
3. MICROENTERPRISE SECTOR 
The primary focus for the micro-enterprise sector was to increase food access for households. The 
program was to achieve this by promoting interventions that would help diversify women’s 
sources of income and thus increase their access to and control of resources. This was done 
through the training of women in improved production methods and business management. 
Women in three of the four enterprises also received production equipment. 
3.1. Brief Description of Interventions 
The enterprises proposed in the DAP were beekeeping, pottery, yam stakes and cassava chip 
production and processing. During implementation, however, yam stake production was dropped, 
rice processing added, and the three others adapted to the situation as determined by the baseline 
study in February 2000. Besides the technical training provided on the specific enterprises, 
beneficiaries were also exposed to general business and marketing training. 
The evaluation team found that the program-promoted micro-enterprises helped assure household 
food access. They were appropriate to the local biophysical and socioeconomic environments. 
None were new to the area and all the products produced have local, accessible markets with 
excess demand. 
3.1.1. Cassava processing 
Initially cassava production and processing was to focus on the production of cassava sticks and 
chips but, during implementation, OICI staff realized that processing of cassava into “gari,” or 
roasted cassava meal, was more appropriate. Gari making converts perishable fresh cassava into a 
table-ready storable form. It is a popular snack food and is a great means for ensuring food 
availability in a chronic food deficit region. The program worked with twelve communities in the 
West Gonja District to construct cassava processing and training centers in each of the 
communities. These centers were set up as fee-for-service facilities that are owned, operated and 
managed by women. The equipment purchased for each of the centers consisted of a grater, a 
screw press, sifters, roasters, and a set of pans. Equipment’s 
book value is 22 million cedis (equivalent to US$2750 per center 
or average of US$110 per beneficiary). 
3.1.2. Beekeeping 
Bee keeping is the only new micro-enterprise introduced by the 
program and it turned out to be the most demanded by women. 
Beekeeping was considered a “man’s job” in the program area 
but the program has shown that it can be easily be managed by 
women, especially considering the techniques and materials that 
were used (refer to box). The beekeeping intervention focused on 
the training, distribution of hives, production of honey and 
beeswax, processing and marketing of honey and honey-related 
products. Twenty two groups of women were organized with an 
average membership of 25. Each group was given 50 wooden 
hives, 6 sets of protective clothing, 6 smokers and 5 swarm￾catchers with a book value of 20 million cedis (equivalent to 
US$2500 per group or US$100 per beneficiary). 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
20 
3.1.3. Pottery making 
Pottery making was selected as an enterprise for the 
following reasons: (1) OICG’s 14 years of experience in 
pottery making training; (2) the Northern Region’s history 
of traditional pottery making; (3) adequate deposits of clay; 
and (4) wide demand of fired clay products for various 
domestic uses. The program recruited women in various 
communities that had pot making experience and upgraded 
their equipment, skills, knowledge, and management 
capability. The program provided six communities a 
potter’s wheel, kiln, tools, and protective shed with a book 
value of 24 million cedis (equivalent to US$3000 per 
community or US$120 per beneficiary). 
3.1.4. Yam stakes 
This intervention was replaced by rice processing. The original DAP approved activity was to 
have women establish woodlots, grow and sell stakes that would be used to support yam vines so 
they grow vertically. This management practice greatly increases yam production. At the 
beginning of the program, OICI personnel determined that this intervention would not be feasible 
for social reasons. Specifically, women in the Northern Region do not own land and establishing 
woodlots would be difficult. Moreover, women are not involved in yam cultivation and the 
intervention would cross gender roles within the household. Husbands who cultivate yam would 
likely appropriate the vine stakes without necessarily paying for them. 
3.1.5. Rice Processing 
Women in the Northern Region commonly parboil 
rice before milling and sell the improved product 
(i.e., rice in the form of Uncle Ben’s® “converted” 
rice, this rice is also more nutritious with twice the 
thiamine and riboflavin as polished rice, thus 
helping increase food utilization). OICI staff saw 
an opportunity to improve the women’s parboiling 
techniques so that they would produce a greatly 
improved product. The intervention (training) is 
widely appropriate since around a third of the 
Northern Region cultivates rice. Women buy the 
paddy from their husbands and other farmers, then through the improved techniques recover more 
marketable rice after milling and, because of its improved quality, sell it at an average 15% higher 
price than rice processed using unimproved techniques. Only training is provided for the rice 
processing intervention, no initial provision of equipment is required. Seven groups were assisted 
to obtain working capital loans to enable them procure more paddy at harvest time to maximize 
their returns. The average loan per beneficiary was 200,000 cedis (equivalent to US$25). Women 
in 14 communities have been trained. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
21 
3.2. Achievement of Results 
The program has clearly helped assure food accessibility for participating households. With one 
year remaining, the program has exceeded its LOA targets for micro-enterprise activities (Annex 
G). Program output indicators and their targets were modified slightly from the DAP proposal 
with the submission of the April 2001 CSR4 (Annex G; OICI, 1998a&b and 2001b). No impact 
indicators were developed or baseline indicator values on recruited participants measured. 
Fortunately the magnitude of the impacts was large enough to be evaluated retrospectively 
through the impact survey (Annex H). The results are described in section 3.2.2. 
3.2.1. Meeting targets 
Number of women trained in technical skills for micro-enterprise development9
. The 
program has already exceeded its LOA target to train 1500 women in technical skills for micro￾enterprise development (OICI, 1998a&b and 2001b). A total of 1698 women (113% of target) 
have been trained: 628 in bee keeping; 273 in cassava processing; 606 in rice processing; and 191 
in pottery making. Of the 1698 women, 767 have received farm marketing and business 
management training and 978 women (58%) have functioning enterprises that are promoted by 
the program. Program staff will focus the time remaining for the program on women already 
enrolled in micro-enterprise activities. This is an activity indicator of the program with a baseline 
of zero. The positive impacts of the program’s micro-enterprise activities are clearly attributable 
to the training and support that participants received (Table 5; Appendix H; and Amevor & 
Donkoh, 2002). 
Number of new micro-enterprises created10. The program has already exceeded its revised 
LOA target of 500 new micro-enterprises created (OICI, 2001b). A total of 628 new women-run 
micro-enterprises (126% of target) have been created. Beekeeping, requires minimum 
maintenance cost and practices, and yet can generate substantial revenues for small communities 
that are dependent on unreliable rain-fed farming. For example, food grains for many household 
in Kawonkura had run out but honey produced by program participants was sold to provide an 
average income of 213,000 cedis (equivalent to US$27) per season. This income allowed the 
lucky beneficiaries to access more food. Program staff expect through additional training of 
existing participants a total of 650 new micro-enterprises will be created by the end of the 
program (130% of the LOA target). This is an effect indicator of the program with a baseline of 
zero. The impact survey found that bee keeping enterprise allowed women to significantly 
increase their contributions to household expenses (Table 5 and Appendix H). 
Number of existing micro-enterprises improved11. The program has already exceeded its 
revised LOA target of 250 improved micro-enterprises (OICI, 2001b). A total of 350 women-run 
existing micro-enterprises (140% of target) have been improved. Program staff expect through 
additional training of existing participants a total of 400 existing micro-enterprises will be 
improved by the end of the program (160% of the LOA target). This is an effect indicator of the 
 
9
 The number of women reported is the number of registrants for the training program. Only a few women 
consistently missed the training sessions. They were removed from the registry and were not counted as 
trained. 
10 New micro-enterprises are those that are new to the women (i.e., bee keeping). “Created” enterprises are 
counted when women have produced a product from the enterprise. 
11 Existing micro-enterprises are those that the women have experience doing either as a business or for 
household needs (i.e., pottery making and cassava and rice processing). “Improved” enterprises are counted 
when women have produced products using techniques promoted by the program. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
22 
program with a baseline of zero. The impact survey (Table 5 and Appendix H) found that among 
the existing micro-enterprises promoted by the program rice processing showed the greatest 
overall impact, allowing many women to significantly increase their contributions to household 
expenses. 
3.2.2. Other achievements 
Program training directly and indirectly 
helped improve household access to 
food year-round. Women apply the 
business management training to 
other businesses that they operate. 
Almost all the women involved in the 
OICI enterprises have one other micro￾enterprise or trading activity that they 
are engaged in, mainly food processing. 
The example of Madam Fulera Seidu 
(side box) is a common one. More 
difficult to measure are the sociological 
impacts. These include the 
empowerment of women, allowing them 
to better support their families. These 
activities can also improve intra- and 
inter-community coordination and 
potentially reinforce community safety￾nets. The team developed other 
measures of program impacts. The 
results are summarized below and 
presented in Tables 5. 
Improved resource access12. This indicator turned out to be a poor indicator for measuring 
impact. This notwithstanding, it could be viewed as a pointer to areas that require much more 
effort to ensure that resources are made available to enhance implementation. From the 
perspective of the beneficiaries, besides rice processing, none of the other interventions improved 
access to production resources (Table 5). 
Improved ability to plan13. The respondents to the impact survey overwhelmingly (80%) 
indicated that their participation in the program has improved their planning ability, especially for 
those involved in rice processing, beekeeping and pottery enterprises (Table 5). In the pottery 
enterprises, the nature of the intervention required that they work as a group, hence the need to 
always plan activities. 
 
12 Reported average change in access to resources for running interviewees micro-business (sum of reported 
change between 1999 and 2002 where improvement = 1, no change = 0, and worse off = -1 is divided by 
the sample size and multiplied by 100%). 
13 Reported average change in ability of interviewees to plan and implement business decisions (sum of 
reported change between 1999 and 2002 where improvement = 1, no change = 0, and worse off = -1 is 
divided by the sample size and multiplied by 100%). 
Mrs. Fulera Seidu is a beekeeper and a 
breakfast porridge business operator at 
Sankpala in the West Gonja District. “I make
more money now because I am able to cost 
all my expenses in preparing my porridge. I 
save enough money to run my business and 
spend the rest on my family.”
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
23 
Table 5. Summary of impact survey result of micro-enterprise sector activities (Annex H). 
District Community Type of Enterprise 
Improved 
Resource 
Access 
Improved 
Ability to 
Plan 
Improved 
Personal 
Income 
1999 
Household 
Expenses 
Paid by 
Wife 
2002 
Household 
Expenses 
Paid by 
Wife 
Change in 
Household 
Expenses 
Paid by 
Wife 
Significance 
between 
1999 and 
2002 
Expenses, 
one tailed 
(p value)a
Proportion 
of Women 
with >10% 
Increase in 
Contribution 
to 
Household 
Expenses 
Proportion 
that 
Considers 
Enterprise 
Sustainable 
n 
Savelugu/Naton Damdu Bee Keeping -100% 43% 71% 67% 69% 2% 0.178 14% 14% 7 
Savelugu/Naton Kanshegu Bee Keeping -63% 75% 100% 48% 63% 30% 0.001 88% 100% 8 
Savelugu/Naton Langa Bee Keeping -100% 83% 100% 77% 77% 0% 0% 0% 6 
Savelugu/Naton Naprisi Bee Keeping -86% 71% 100% 31% 41% 37% 0.000 100% 100% 7 
Savelugu/Naton Sahanayili Bee Keeping 50% 75% 100% 26% 41% 110% 0.001 88% 100% 8 
West Gonja Kawonkura Bees & Cassava -71% 86% 86% 54% 57% 4% 0.178 14% 14% 7 
West Gonja Tailorpe Cassava & Bees -29% 100% 43% 66% 66% 0% 0% 0% 7 
West Gonja Busunu Cassava Processing -86% 86% 86% 59% 59% 0% 0% 0% 7 
West Gonja Kpabusu Cassava Processing 0% 0% 0% 60% 60% 0% 0% 0% 1 
Tolon/Kumbungu Gbanjong Pottery & Bees -100% 50% 100% 62% 72% 19% 0.000 100% 100% 6 
Tolon/Kumbungu Logshegu Pottery & Cassava 100% 100% 100% 25% 48% 98% 0.000 100% 88% 8 
Tamale Rural Jakarayili Pottery Making -100% 88% 100% 53% 66% 40% 0.007 63% 100% 8 
Tamale Rural Kobilmahagu Pottery Making -13% 75% 100% 60% 65% 8% 0.017 50% 100% 8 
Tamale Rural Kukuo Pottery Making -14% 43% 100% 47% 49% 5% 0.302 29% 100% 7 
Tolon/Kumbungu Kumbugu Rice & Pottery 100% 100% 100% 21% 41% 113% 0.000 100% 100% 8 
Savelugu/Naton Fazihini Rice Processing 100% 100% 100% 25% 56% 251% 0.000 100% 100% 7 
Savelugu/Naton Kparigilanyili Rice Processing 100% 100% 100% 23% 45% 140% 0.000 100% 100% 8 
Tamale Rural Zagyuri Rice Processing -88% 88% 100% 35% 45% 40% 0.009 88% 100% 8 
Totals -20% 80% 93% 45% 56% 62% 62% 73% 126 
a Paired sample (women) of two means (1999 and 2002) using the Student-t statistic, one tail. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
24 
Improved personal income14. The respondents to the impact survey indicated that nearly all 
(93%) or their personal incomes have increased under the program (Table 5). The cassava 
processing enterprises did not show as big an impact as the others. 
Percent change in women’s contribution to household expenses15. The impact survey found a 
clear increase in women’s contribution to household expenses that is attributable to the program 
(Tables 5 and 6; Appendix H). This indicator may reflect the beginning of changes in gender 
roles within the households. Women are reallocating some of their time from farming to running 
micro-enterprises. The men interviewed expressed approval for this change in their roles since the 
returns are obvious. There were several stories on how the women are able to pay school fees
and buy school uniforms for their children. For example, 53% of the women interviewed in 
Zagyuri reported that their children now go to school in uniforms because of the micro-enterprise 
income. Additionally, these mothers now provide most of the children pocket money to buy lunch 
at school. 
Table 6. Impact survey comparison of the percent of household contributions paid by women 
with micro-enterprises in project and non-project communities (Annex H). Kanshegu and 
Kawankura communities with OICI training are paired to the closest non-program community of 
similar size. 
Community (sample sizea
) 1999 2002 Improvement 
Dukob
 (n=2) 20% 20% 0% 
Kansheguc
 (n=8) 48% 63% 30% 
Mempeasemb
 (n=7) 53% 53% 0% 
Kawonkurac
 (n=7) 54% 57% 4% a Number of women interviewed in each community. 
b
 Non program (control) community. 
c
 Program (treatment) community with micro-enterprises activities (bee keeping in Kanshegu, and bee 
keeping & cassava processing in Kawonkura). 
The impact survey showed that micro-enterprise sector had the highest variability of impacts by 
communities. Table 6 shows that Kanshegu had 30% improvement in women’s contribution to 
household expenses while Kawonkura only had only a 4% improvement for the sampled 
households. The reason for this difference was not apparent but if determined may help the 
program improve targeting and/or implementation of their activities. 
3.3. Challenges 
3.3.1. Gender issues 
The success of the program makes gender analysis more important. The increase of women’s 
economic contribution to the household will result in changes in both men’s and women’s roles. 
These changes need to be viewed positively by all concerned. 
 
14 Reported average change in interviewees personal income (sum of reported change between 1999 and 
2002 where improvement = 1, no change = 0, and worse off = -1 is divided by the sample size and 
multiplied by 100%). 
15 Self reported change in women’s contribution to household expenses. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
25 
3.3.2. Dependence on trees 
All of the micro-enterprises promoted in this program are dependent on trees: firewood for 
cooking the cassava, rice, and clay pots; and shade and nectar for the bees. The need for 
maintaining tree resources for communities and households is clear but greater amounts of time 
and resources would be needed than were available during this DAP. The establishment and 
management of community or individual woodlots can be difficult because of land and tree tenure 
restrictions as well as lack of immediate returns on invested labor and resources. 
3.3.3. Expanding the target population. 
All of the micro-enterprises promoted show variable impacts among participating communities. 
The reasons for this can be many. One likely reason is the diversity of human and natural 
resources that are available in each community. The challenge in expanding the target population 
within an area is how to effectively address the resulting wider range of needs that are presented. 
This program has targeted those with resources to manage and has achieved profound impacts for 
some households. Although the program has avoided using “a mile wide and an inch deep” 
approach, based on what program staff have learned, they might consider how the width of the 
target population can be expanded without losing the depth of impacts. 
3.3.4. Literacy and numeracy a constraint on greater impacts. 
The success of the program will likely create new demands and needs. The evaluation team found 
no documentary evidence of a participant-prepared business plan or of any woman using one. The 
low levels of literacy and numeracy among the women is a likely factor. Nevertheless, there was 
ample evidence that women are now more aware of their input costs and basing their prices on 
them. Hopefully as their enterprises grow, the need for improved literacy and numeracy skills will 
be met to allow good management of larger, more complex businesses. 
3.3.5. Expanding markets. 
OICI has been helping women expand their market, for example they have helped pottery 
producers find distant markets for special-order products like flower vases. However more help is 
needed to expand their markets for products and raw materials (e.g., rice paddy). This will buffer 
them from local market extremes, such as those caused by very bad or very good harvests years. 
3.3.6. Savings and credit. 
Savings (e.g., bank accounts, livestock, private woodlots) and credit will become more important 
to assure sufficient working capital as markets expand and the demand for larger orders increase. 
Most of the micro-enterprises visited were operating well. However, few of them require some 
additional support to make them fully independent of OICT. They need to generate a pool of 
funds so that they can increase the size of their operation. For example, to convey honey from 
Kawonkura to Tamale (approximately 200 km round trip) currently requires program staff to 
identify a buyer, negotiate a price and transport the honey to Tamale. If the groups could develop 
an internally-generated pool of funds they could begin developing independence from OICI. OICI 
plans to get the enterprises to this capacity by the end of the current DAP, September 2003. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
26 
3.3.7. Specific challenges to program implementation. 
The following are more specific challenges to program implementation by type of enterprise. 
Cassava Processing 
• Managing the facilities and keeping the relevant processing records; 
• Ensuring regular, reliable and sustainable source of fuel-wood for cassava processing. 
• Processors acquisition of operational skills and proper application without regular 
supervision; and 
• Setting up a routine maintenance and usable (consumable) parts replacement system; 
Beekeeping 
• Increasing hive colonization from 35% to 90%. Current low figure could be attributed to 
problems with locating hives and the time of the year this is done; 
• Storing honey after harvest to reap relatively “higher” lean season prices later; 
• More profitable use of the beeswax either through outright sale and/or using it as the raw 
material base for another enterprise activity; 
• Reinvesting income generated into the beekeeping enterprise for higher returns; and 
• Establishment of ancillary enterprises to utilize other by-products of beekeeping (e.g., 
wax, pollen). 
Rice Processing 
• Improving access to rice mills that have the optimum calibration to process different 
varieties of rice (i.e., different sizes and shapes of grain); 
• Encouraging the rice farmers to adopt segregation of rice varieties; 
• Access of funds to buy paddy for processing and developing storage capacity for 
stockpiling enough paddy to ensure year-round processing; and 
• Ensuring regular, reliable and sustainable source of fuel-wood for rice processing. 
Pottery 
• Scheduling and sharing access to the single potter’s wheel; 
• Making enough margins to support members; 
• Ensuring regular, reliable and sustainable source of fuel-wood for the kilns; and 
• This is a vocational activity that requires more than five years to yield positive returns on 
investment. 
3.4. Discussion of Other Micro-Enterprise Evaluation Questions 
3.4.1. Targeting communities and participation requirements 
OICI has good targeting and participation in comparison to other DAPs evaluated by team 
members. We attribute OICI’s success to the relatively frequent client visits by highly motivated 
and qualified field agents coupled with a good selection of interventions. Nevertheless, targeting 
and participation appears to be an issue in some of the programs communities and is likely to 
become a bigger issue with more complicated and expensive interventions that show less 
immediate impacts (e.g., livestock production that depends on integrating activities with 
agroforestry and agriculture). The impact survey (Table 6) showed clear differences in impact 
between communities that began the same activities at the same time. Some communities prove 
more challenging than others for achieving program goals so what are the criteria for selecting a 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
27 
community or participant, and what criteria if any should be used to maintain or sever the 
relationship? These questions surfaced when the evaluation team visited Kawonkura to find that 
their new cassava processing mill has effectively sat idle for two weeks because of lack of 
knowledge about running the mill. Active participation and problem solving seemed lacking 
compared to other participating communities. OICI staff confirmed that the program has had 
difficulties with this community on other activities. 
3.4.2. Graduating from one intervention to the next 
The evaluation team got the impression that some of the women were spending all of their micro￾enterprise revenues on family and personal needs, potentially threatening the sustainability of the 
activity. This raised the question, ‘Is there an opportunity for the program to provide more 
challenging and profitable follow-on enterprises to those participants that demonstrate sufficient 
desire and capability?’ This range of activities could serve multiple purposes: (1) provide 
incentive for the participants to run their enterprises well; and (2) improve targeting of follow-on 
activities by identifying people that demonstrate the necessary skills and motivation. For example 
livestock production and related value added enterprises could provide incentive for project 
participants to better manage their less challenging, prerequisite activities (e.g., agroforestry) in 
order to demonstrate to the program that they qualify for the increased support and resources 
offered with the livestock activities. 
4. WATER AND SANITATION SECTOR 
The primary focus of the water and sanitation sector was to increase food utilization for 
households. The program was to achieve this by promoting interventions that would help 
households maintain potable water sources and sanitation and by assuring that households have 
access to safe water. This was done through (1) construction of wells and installation of pumps 
and (2) organization and training of community water and sanitation (WATSAN) committees. 
4.1. Brief Description of Interventions 
4.1.1. Wells 
The program provided selected communities with machine-drilled borehole wells with 
technology appropriate hand pumps (Afridev and Nira AF85 pumps) mounted on cement slabs. 
OICI selected communities based on criteria developed from principles of the national water and 
sanitation sector policy and strategy. These principles are: 
• Community selection based on demand and responsiveness in the provision of water 
facilities; 
• Establishment of WATSAN committees and promotion of the community ownership and 
management of the water facilities; 
• Minimum requirement of at least 5% community contribution to capital cost of facilities; 
• Communities covers 100% of the cost for facility operation and maintenance; 
• Participation of women in the planning, operation and management of facilities; 
• Involvement of the private sector in the construction of facilities, supply of materials, and 
services. 
• Maximization of health benefits by integrating the provision of water with sanitation and 
hygiene interventions. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
28 
• Offer the District Assemblies a facultative 
role in planning and implementation of 
water and sanitation interventions. 
• Offer the Community Water and 
Sanitation Agency (CWSA) a facultative 
role in the delivery of water and sanitation 
facilities. 
4.1.2. Training WATSAN committees 
OICT formed new WATSAN committees and also 
revitalized existing ones that were formed by the 
District Assemblies. OICI used existing 
community groups, if available, to form the 
nucleus for forming new WATAN committees. 
The main activities undertaken in developing 
WATSAN committees were: 
• Train WATSAN committees on hygiene 
education particularly on water borne 
diseases (e.g. guinea worm, diarrhea, etc.); 
• Provide cloth filters and training to 
residents in guinea worm endemic communities; 
• Identify and train two hand pump caretakers in each of the communities with facilities 
provided by either OICI or ADRA; 
• Provide basic tools (e.g., spanners) to the trained hand pump caretakers; 
The following disease prevention and organization management topics were discussed during the 
training sessions: 
• Guinea worm prevention; 
• Treatment of guinea worm; 
• Pump site cleanliness; 
• Water storage and treatment; 
• Environmental cleanliness; 
• Safe excreta disposal methods; 
• Construction of drainage and soak away; 
• Committee organization and meeting procedures; 
• Documentation of meetings, decisions made, etc. by writing of minutes; and 
• Basic book-keeping to track fees and operation expenses. 
Selima Mohamid and Abdulai 
Nassam, WATSAN committee 
members, stand beside their borehole 
well and pump in Gbirima. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
29 
4.2. Achievement of Results 
The program has clearly improved household food utilization by decreasing water borne disease, 
especially guinea worm and diarrheal diseases. The indicators and targets for this sector were 
completely changed from the initial DAP proposal (Annex G; OICI, 1998a&b and 2001b). 
Initially the program was to provide hand dug wells to 100 communities. At the beginning of the 
program OICI conducted an assessment of the hand-dug wells provided to communities by 
ADRA DAP (OICI, 2000f). The assessment determined that 51.5% of the hand-dug wells did not 
provide year round access to potable water. This assessment agrees with other studies conducted 
by CWSA (Government of Ghana, 2001). These studies concluded that water is unavailable 
during some part of the dry season for most of the hand-dug wells in the Northern Region 
because of the hydro-geological conditions. 
The program then decided to provide communities with more effective borehole wells that are 
safer to construct but also more expensive. The number of wells provided to communities had to 
be reduced to accommodate the available budget for water provisioning. Also the LOA target for 
number of communities trained was also reduced. No impact indicators were developed or 
baseline values of recruited participants measured. Fortunately the magnitude of the impacts was 
large enough to be evaluated retrospectively through the impact survey (Annex H). The results 
are described in section 4.2.2. 
4.2.1. Meeting targets 
Number of wells dug. To date, 19 wet wells have been drilled (68% of the revised LOA target), 
16 of them have pumps installed, and 15 of them have been released for the communities to use. 
The program staff expects to attain the revised LOA target of 28 by the end of the program. 
Number of water and sanitation committees trained. The program has already exceeded its 
revised LOA target to train 110 communities (OICI, 2001b). To date 115 WATSAN committees 
(105% of target) have been organized and received training. Program staff do not intend to 
expand WATSAN training beyond the current 115 communities. The initial LOA target was 250 
communities trained (OICI, 1998a&b). This is an activity indicator of the program with a baseline 
of zero. 
Percentage water facilities maintained by community16. To date the program reports that 
48.5% of water facilities are maintained by communities (69% of the LOA target of 70% 
maintained facilities). Program staff expects to achieve the LOA target by the end of the program. 
Percent households in intervention communities with year round access to safe water17. To 
date the program reports that 58% of the program’s WATSAN communities have year round 
access to safe water (83% of the LOA target of 70% of communities with safe water year round). 
Program staff expects to achieve the LOA target by the end of the program. 
 
16 The number of functioning water facilities divided by the total number of water facilities managed by 
program trained WATSAN committees times 100%. This indicator measures only the performance of 
ADRA wells in those communities where OICI trains WATSAN committees. Most of the well in these 
communities are hand dug and dry out during the dry season. 
17 The use of “household” in this indicator was an oversight. The actual calculation of reported values are 
based on percentage of the program’s WATSAN communities that do not have dry wells when the 
program’s monitoring team visits the well during the dry season. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
30 
Percent OICT wells that are functioning. To date the program is achieving its LOA target of 
100%; 15 out of the 15 boreholes handed over to the communities are functioning. Of the 19 wet 
wells drilled, three have not had the pumps installed, and one has not been handed over to the 
community. The pump in Tailorpe was tested and then disconnected pending the final payment of 
the community’s contribution to capital costs. Program staff expects the LOA target of 100% will 
be maintained. This achievement reflects the willingness of all communities to own and manage 
their water (including those without safe sources) through training. The reduction of water borne 
diseases was apparent and helps motive good well maintenance. 
4.2.2. Other achievements 
The program has achieved relatively high success rate in well drilling. OICT contracted WVI 
to drill the borehole wells. WVI had to drill 44 wells to produce 19 wet wells. This 43% success 
rate is remarkable considering the 30% average success rate in the Northern Region (Government 
of Ghana, 2001). WVI and OICI’s relatively high success rate is due to the geophysical and site 
selection methods being used by WVI combined with effective drilling supervision by OICT.
The program has helped communities dramatically reduce the incidence of guinea worm 
infections. The training offered by OICT and the free 
distribution of water filters has resulted in the reduction of 
guinea worm infections, even in communities without 
access to safe water. This demonstrates that training alone, 
if the benefits are noticeable, can improve food utilization 
and food security. The Regional Coordinator of the Guinea 
Worm Eradication Programme (GWEP) told the 
evaluation team that the participatory training methods 
used by OICT have led to a dramatic reduction of guinea 
worm infections especially in Gushegu/Karaga District 
that had the highest guinea worm infection rate in the 
entire Northern Region. The impact survey data (Table 7) 
showed a greater reduction of guinea worm infections in 
the program’s WATSAN communities than non-program 
communities. The data shows WATSAN training provided 
significant protection from guinea worm infections 
compared to communities with no program activities (odds ratio of 0.1, p=0.08). The data also 
showed that the WATSAN training offered better protection when compared to non-WATSAN 
program communities (odds ratio of 0.063, p= 0.008). GWEP provided data (Table 8) that did not 
show any program effects. It was not possible to investigate the discrepancy between the two data 
sets. 
Proportion of payment spent for water from 1999 to 200218. This impact survey indicator did 
not show significant project effects however program trained WATSAN communities did on 
average expend less money on water in 2002 compared to 1999 (Table 9). This savings might be 
attributed to better maintenance.
 
18 The average proportional change in per person household payments for water use. Proportional change 
was used to account for different time periods of reported values (e.g., week, month, year). The reported 
household payments were divided by number of people in households in order to reduce the variability 
caused by household size differences. 
Creating Social Stigma 
The evaluation team visited 
the community of Gbambu, 
Gushegu-Karaga District, 
where guinea worm has 
been eradicated. During a 
group interview women 
teased a man with an 
imported case of guinea 
worm. They said that his 
predicament made him 
ineligible to obtain a wife. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
31 
Table 7. Annual prevalence of guinea worm cases per 1000 of impact survey households population for those communities that interviewees 
reported cases. Communities in bold started WATSAN training during the first quarter of 2000. No data was available in blank fields. 
Program 
Communities 
Population 
(1999) 
Population 
(2002) 
Prevalence 
(1999) 
Prevalence 
(2002) 
Non-Program 
Communities 
Population 
(1999) 
Population 
(2002) 
Prevalence 
(1999) 
Prevalence 
(2002) 
Gushegu-Karaga District 
Bulugu 105 130 38.1 7.7 
Gaa 104 113 19.2 8.8 
Pishigu 83 113 60.2 8.8 Kpataribogu 178 213 78.7 9.4 
Zori Yapala 129 168 15.5 0 
Savelugu-Nanton District 
Damdu 127 138 31.5 14.5 
Fazihini 114 136 131.6 0 
Kanshegu 87 101 11.5 0 Duko 160 146 0 0 
Kparigilanyili 123 144 48.8 0 
Langa 108 127 18.5 0 
Sahanayili 138 156 21.7 0 
Tibali 137 145 36.5 0 
Tamale Rural District 
Dohini 98 77 234.7 0 Zujum 140 109 42.9 27.5 
Jakarayili 93 93 10.8 10.8 
Kobilmahagu 80 86 12.5 58.1 
Kukuo 106 101 37.7 9.9 
Tolon-Kumbungu District 
Logshegu 83 88 0 11.4 
Tali 77 88 0 0 Kurivuliyili 125 167 0 6.0 
West Gonja District 
Kawonkura 56 57 35.7 17.5 Mempeasem 84 95 0 10.5 
Kpabusu 117 131 0 7.6 
Tailorpe 80 67 25.0 14.9 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
32 
Table 8. Annual incidence of guinea worm cases per 1000 for the impact survey communities with cases reported by the Ghana Guinea Worm 
Eradication Programmea. Communities in bold started WATSAN training during the first quarter of 2000. No data was available in blank fields. 
Program 
Communities 
Population 
(2000) 
Incidence 
(1999) 
Incidence 
(2000) 
Incidence 
(2001) 
Non-Program 
Communities 
Population 
(2000) 
Incidence 
(1999) 
Incidence 
(2000) 
Incidence 
(2001) 
Gushegu-Karaga District 10 mo data 
Gaa 1020 6.9 0.0 
Pishigu 3404 5.6 4.6 Kpataribogu 681 2.9 1.8 
Savelugu-Nanton District 9 mo data 
Damdu 80HH (3 cases) (0 cases) (1 case) 
Fazihini 196 5.1 0.0 
Kanshegu 616 1.6 0.0 Duko 302 3.3 0.0 
Kparigilanyili 128 54.7 0.0 
Langa 280HH (3 cases) 
Tibali 493 8.1 0.0 
Tamale Rural District 10 mo data 
Dohini Zujun (Zujung) (0 cases) (1 case) 
Jakarayili 906 9.8 1.3 
Kobilmahagu 345 26.1 0.0 
Kukuo 4370 11.9 1.6 
Tolon-Kumbungu District 9 mo data 
Gbanjong 1203 1.7 2.5 0.0 
Gbullung 9567 0.1 0.4 
Kumbungu 15300 2.0 0.1 0.0 
Tali 2020 3.0 Kurivuliyili 
West Gonja District 8 mo data 
Busunu (0 cases) (4 cases) 
Kawonkura Mempeasem 1701 1.8 0.0 0.9 
Kpabusu (Kpabuso) 1564 3.8 4.8 
Tailorpe 630 6.3 1.6 2.4 
a Line List of Endemic Villages, 2001. b Non-program communities are adjacent to corresponding program communities.
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
33 
Table 9. Summary of water and sanitation impact survey data (Annex H). 
Average Water 
Use Payment 
(Cedis per 
Person) Districta
 Community 
1999 2002 
Proportion 
Payment 
Spent For 
Water, 
1999 to 
2002 
Proportion 
Time 
Spent 
Collecting 
Domestic 
Water, 
1999 to 
2002 
New 
Borehole 
Improve 
Water 
Use 
(-1 to 1) 
Improved 
Sanitation 
(-1 to 1) 
Non-Program Communities 
G/K Kpataribogu 547 511 -0.07 1.31 0 0 0 
S/N Duko 1743 5411 2.10 1.05 0 0 0 
T/K Kurivuliyili 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 
TR Zujum 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 
WG Mempeasem 1157 836 -0.28 0.94 0 0 0 
 Non Program Total 689 1352 0.96 
Program Communities – WATSAN 
S/N Damdu 719 655 -0.09 1.06 0 0 0 
S/N Fazihini 13446 2169 -0.84 0.31 1 1 0 
S/N Kanshegu 2422 4911 1.03 1.00 0 0 0 
S/N Kparigilanyili 849 1441 0.70 0.94 0 0 0 
S/N Langa 702 570 -0.19 1.00 0 0 0 
S/N Naprisi 3623 3948 0.09 0.03 1 1 0 
S/N Sahanayili 0 1272 +++ 0.39 1 1 0 
S/N Tibali 83 0 -1.00 1.00 0 0 0 
T/K Gbanjong 8678 15921 0.83 0.99 0 0 0 
T/K Gbullung 300 1882 5.27 0.90 1 0.88 0 
T/K Tali 1609 3230 1.01 0.86 1 0.71 0 
TR Dohini 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 
WG Kpabusu 0 16704 +++ 0.73 1 0 0 
WG Tailorpe 0 0 0 1.00 0 0 0 
 WATSAN Total 2317 3764 0.62 
 New Borehole Total 3163 4867 0.54 
Program Communities - Non WATSAN 
G/K Bulugu 0 10927 0.31 0 0.88 0 
G/K Gaa 0 0 0 1.23 0 0 
G/K Pishigu 2607 4118 0.58 1.60 0 0.13 0 
G/K Pisinga 294 200 -0.32 1.74 0 0 0 
G/K Zori Yapala 2400 2118 -0.12 1.27 0 0.13 0 
T/K Kumbugu 2140 4264 0.99 1.00 0 0 0 
T/K Logshegu 2894 6831 1.36 1.00 0 0 0 
TR Jakarayili 0 14686 +++ 1.02 0 0.63 0 
TR Kobilmahagu 9053 9496 0.05 0.79 0 -0.13 0 
TR Kukuo 23320 27203 0.17 0.84 0 0 0 
TR Zagyuri 2651 6334 1.39 1.00 0 0 0 
WG Busunu 164 4420 26.01 0.90 0 0 0 
WG Kawonkura 0 3149 +++ 0.67 1 0 0 
 Total Non WATSAN 3502 7211 1.06 a
 G/K Gushegu/Karaga, S/K Savelugu/Nanton, T/K Tolon Kumbungu, TR Tamale Rural, and WG West 
Gonja 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
34 
Proportion time spent collecting domestic water from 1999 to 200219. This indicator shows 
that well construction can, but not necessarily, result in large savings in time spent collecting 
water (Table 9). Training in household water use management may provide broader impacts than 
well construction.
Improved sanitation20. This indicator showed that there has been no improvement in hygienic 
disposal of human waste (Table 9). Nearly every interviewee reported defecating in the fields 
(“open range”) in 1999 and in 2002. This finding was expected and demonstrates the great need 
for latrines. 
Hand pump caretaker training. Program extension agents (PCFs) helped communities identify 
at least two hand pump caretakers per community, trained caretakers to perform basic above 
ground repairs on the pumps, and provided them with basic tools (spanners) to perform their 
duties effectively. The care takers interviewed gave the evaluation team the impression that they 
have acquired the requisite knowledge and skills for the repair of the pumps by demonstrating the 
changing the seals and other parts on the pump. The team was also impressed by the types of 
pumps selected by the program. Afridev and Nira AF85 pumps are suitable for village level 
operation and maintenance. Caretakers should be able to handle the majority of repairs on the 
pumps.
Preparation of manual for WATSAN training. For an effective facilitation of WATSAN 
training, OICI program staff prepared a manual for the extension agents (PCFs). The evaluation 
team finds the manual useful and commends OICT for the effort. The manual is of good quality 
and compares favorably with manuals prepared by other programs. The methodology is 
consistent with that of other programs.
4.3. Challenges 
4.3.1. Sanitation and hygiene education. 
Although the successes in reducing guinea worm infections through hygiene and sanitation 
education are impressive, intensification of the hygiene and sanitation messages is needed in all 
the communities. Organizing periodic follow-up workshops for the WATSAN committees and 
giving the committees materials to conduct education sessions in the communities would help fill 
this need and assure sustainability. The follow-up training could be implemented within the 
framework of general follow-up training for WATSAN committees and pump caretakers. The 
program could consider preparing hygiene messages in pictorial forms for the WATSAN 
committees. 
None of the communities visited by the evaluation team had a safe system of excreta disposal; all 
of them used open defecation (“free range”). Given this observation and the need to maximize 
health benefits through the integration of water, sanitation and hygiene education, OICT could 
consider the promotion of subsidized low-cost household ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines in 
the beneficiary communities with improved water facilities. The level of subsidy could be 
 
19 The average proportional change in time spent in collecting water for household use. The smaller the 
value the small proportional amount of time spent collecting water in 2002 compared to 1999. 
20 This indicator is an average of each interviewee’s responses regarding where they defecate (“go to the 
bush”). Each interviewee was classified either 1 for improved, 0 for no change, -1 for worse hygiene 
practices from 1999 to 2002. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
35 
consistent with what is being provided by the Community Water and Sanitation Agency in the 
Northern Region. Discussions with women in the communities indicate their desire to have safe 
sanitation. 
The most noticeable “improved” sanitation practice adopted by communities is digging a shallow 
hole for defecation and covering it after the event. This is considered an improvement on the open 
“free range” system prevalent in the communities. However, this practice is essentially ineffective 
in reducing soil borne pathogens (e.g., hookworm and round-worm) that are threats to improved 
food utilization. 
4.3.2. Documentation of WATSAN committee activities 
Despite the training offered to the WATSAN committees on organizational procedures and 
recording of transactions, the evaluation team observed that none of the WATSAN committees 
had recorded its transactions (i.e., minutes of meetings, payment register). This is principally due 
to the low level of literacy in most of the communities. Documenting WATSAN activities is 
important in validating decisions and promoting transparency and accountability of finances. 
Given the need to record the key activities of the WATSAN committees, the program could 
devise a simple and symbolic format for documenting WATSAN activities. 
4.3.3. Distribution network for spare parts. 
The evaluation team observed that the communities are not yet linked to the private sector spare 
parts distribution system for hand pumps being promoted in Tamale by CWSA through Foundries 
for Agricultural Machinery. This linkage is vital given the need for the communities to purchase 
spare parts for their pumps. Out of ten WATSAN committees interviewed, seven were unaware 
of the sources of spare parts within the new network. One community (Busunu) reported a source 
of spare parts supply (the Catholic Diocese of Damongo, its benefactor). 
4.3.4. WATSAN handbook 
The performance of the WATSAN committees could be enhanced through constant reference to a 
handbook or manual on their activities. The evaluation team observed the absence of any such 
document for the WATSAN committees. The team therefore recommends the preparation of such 
a document for the communities. 
4.4. Discussion of Other Water and Sanitation Evaluation Questions 
4.4.1. Effective use of water from boreholes 
In all the communities with boreholes that the evaluation team visited, residents are effectively 
using the water from the boreholes for drinking and other activities (e.g., cooking, washing, dry 
season gardening, etc.) The women of Tali and Naprisi in the Tolon/Kumbungu and 
Savelugu/Nanton Districts describe the water as being more precious than gold because it gives 
them life. People can benefit from additional training on rational use of water, especially as 
communities grow and water demand increases or during periods when the well cannot supply all 
of the community’s water needs (e.g., low yields during the dry season, during pump 
breakdowns). This training and knowledge will allow them to conserve potable water and use 
other water sources for purposes not requiring high quality water (e.g., gardening, washing 
clothes). Improved water management can also save time when the distance to the borehole is 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
36 
further that other, more convenient sources of water (e.g., rainwater runoff collection, especially 
from metal roofs if the conversion from thatch roofing become popular and affordable). 
4.4.2. Maintenance of hand pumps at the community level 
To complement the efforts of generating maintenance funds, OICT could improve linkages 
between communities and area mechanics that might be required for repairs beyond the capability 
of the caretakers. All the communities visited have mechanisms for the generation of funds 
towards the cost of repairs (Table 10). 
Table 10. Type of fund generation mechanisms for well maintenance instituted by the 
communities visited. 
Name of community Fund generation mechanism 
Gbirima 2000 cedis per male per month 
1000 cedis per female per month 
Tindang 1000 cedis per male per month 
 500 cedis per female per month 
Zori-Yapala pay as you fetch of 50 cedis per basin 
Busunu pay as you fetch of 50 cedis per basin 
Cheyohi dependence of community fund which 
currently stands at over 1,000,000 cedis 
Tali pay as you fetch of 100 cedis per basin 
Gbirima 500 cedis per adult per week 
Sahanayili 500 cedis per adult per month 
Naprisi 2000 cedis per landlord per month 
4.4.3. Appropriateness of technologies, practices and training being promoted 
The borehole wells provided are very appropriate and cost-effective given that hand-dug wells are 
generally ineffective in supplying year round water. Borehole wells, through their year-round 
supply of water, maintain the health benefits that leads to better food utilization. The Afridev 
pumps installed on the wells are similarly appropriate to the conditions in the rural communities 
because it is suitable for village level maintenance. The training of pump caretakers and 
WATSAN committees has also been appropriate. The supply of cloth filters and tube filters 
concurrent with guinea worm prevention training is appropriate and effective as demonstrated by 
the reduced incidence of the disease. The adoption of covering feces after defecation, should be 
considered a positive first step (although ineffective) along a difficult road of promoting 
appropriate hygiene and sanitation practices. 
4.4.4. Relationship between safe water and sanitation and food security 
The provision of safe water has contributed to an improvement in the health and living standards 
of residents of beneficiary communities. Specifically, the reduction of guinea worm cases in the 
intervention communities has resulted in the existence of a healthy and more productive 
workforce for agricultural production and its related activities. Program beneficiaries interviewed 
by the evaluation team also report noticeable reduction in diarrheal disease that inhibits food 
utilization. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
37 
5. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 
5.1. Brief Description of Cross-Cutting Issues 
5.1.1. Baseline and indicators 
Baseline data collection, indicator development, and impact monitoring were poorly integrated 
for this program. This deficiency is a product of the program design (1998) viewed from a 2002 
perspective of program monitoring and in no way reflects poorly on the program’s monitoring 
and evaluation specialist who has done an excellent job and has shown initiative in completing 
tasks outside his scope of work. Specific problems are: 
• Baseline data was collected from random households in communities that the program 
initially selected. This made the data unusable for impact assessment because the 
population within the surveyed community was different than the people selected for 
program activities and the communities surveyed were not representative of the 
communities the program eventually served. One way to avoid this problem is to have 
each newly recruited participant complete a questionnaire to establish a baseline for their 
household. 
• Much of the baseline data collected was not related to many of the program indicators 
that were later modified because of apparent deficiencies. The revised indicators were 
generally good at monitoring program activities and effects although most of them were 
incomplete in defining the variables measured. They also did not adequately measure the 
program’s impacts on achieving its food security goals. This obvious lack of integration 
is a product of inadequate support of monitoring and evaluation in the design and startup 
phases of the program. A common problem. 
Although the baseline data collected and indicators developed for this program were weak in 
measuring program impacts, all three sectors had strong positive impacts that were easily 
measured retrospectively by the evaluation team’s impact survey (Annex H). 
5.1.2. Credit and savings 
Common to all sectors was the difficulty households and communities have in acquiring credit or 
savings to provide sufficient funds to optimally manage their farms, businesses, and water 
supplies. Developing livestock production and using it as an instrument of savings is a potential 
solution to this problem and is discussed in the recommendations section. 
5.1.3. Market linkages 
Market linkages for raw materials (e.g., fertilizers, paddy for processing, pump parts) and 
products (e.g., maize, honey, gari) need to be established and strengthened to assure sustainability 
of program interventions and to reduce the negative impacts of market fluctuations or to take 
advantage of them when they occur. This is discussed further in the recommendation section. 
5.1.4. Polyvalent trainers effective in adapting to the local needs 
The program’s strategy of adding knowledge to existing resources is very effective at producing 
noticeable improvements in food security for all three sectors. To accomplish this OICI uses a 
field team of Polyvalent Community Facilitators (PCFs), most of whom are highly motivated 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
38 
college graduates who live and work with the selected groups in the communities. These 
extension agents promote changes in attitudes in addition to improving their clients’ skills in the 
agriculture, business development, income generation, health, water management, and sanitation. 
They use participatory approaches to teaching and learning, and use technical materials 
developed by OICI. 
The strategy of targeting people and households with resources and using highly trained field 
staff to improve upon what they are doing has worked very well. The polyvalent approach is 
adaptable to a wide range of constraints and opportunities occurring in the field. This allows the 
agents to respond quickly and at optimum times, leading to better rates of adoption. This strategy 
can be applied to the development continuum, effectively facilitating the transition from one state 
or level to the next. 
5.1.5. Literacy and numeracy training 
In all sectors the low level of literacy and numeracy was surfacing as a constraint to greater 
program impacts and food security. This appears to be the major barrier preventing subsistence 
farming from becoming production farming and micro-enterprises from becoming businesses. 
5.1.6. Collaboration with government and other organizations 
Collaboration with other organizations was a feature in the current OICI program and was 
documented by numerous signed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). Program activities 
were undertaken in collaboration with various supporting organizations including the Guinea 
Worm Eradication Program (GWEP) of the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
(MOFA), Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), Amex International, and World 
Vision International Ghana (WVI-G). OICI collaboration efforts in all three sectors were 
complemented by every organization’s representative that the evaluation team interviewed. The 
best collaboration occurred when the goals and methods were similar and especially when the 
collaboration was complementary (e.g., contracting with WVI for borehole drilling, supporting 
MOFA’s role of providing agricultural extension). 
5.1.7. Building on successes 
In every sector the evaluation team saw opportunities to build on program successes and the 
clients’ confidence earned by the extension agents but the lack of funding and authorization 
prevented following-up with other intervention (e.g., using the guinea worm reduction success as 
a lead-in for the introduction of more difficult interventions like pit latrines and other sanitation 
messages). This is a corollary to the above issue regarding polyvalent trainers. Timing can be 
important, especially for interventions with less dramatic effects or those that are situationally 
based (e.g., using a drought to show the benefits of soil and water conservation). 
5.1.8. Gender issues 
The program targeted women for income generation activities but a gender framework was not 
instituted in the program design. Even though a framework was not instituted the program was 
able to successfully work through gender issues as they appeared. Part of the program’s focus was 
on improving women’s access to resources. The program achieved this and documented a 
significant increase of women’s contribution to household expenses. Women also improved their 
post-harvest storage and have been assigned roles in community water management. Men appear 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
39 
to be willing participants in women’s empowerment. However there were some complaints 
expressed by the men who wanted to be a part of the training targeting women. One intervention, 
yam stakes, was abandoned because the gender issues were too complex for the short period of 
the program. 
5.1.9. Trees 
Trees are important source of fuel, construction material, shade, food, and nectar for bees. Their 
absence in program activities was most noticeable in the micro-enterprise activities but they 
would also have been complementary to activities in the agriculture sector (e.g., green manure 
and animal feed) and the water and sanitation sector (e.g., tree nursery sites near water points, 
building material for latrines). 
5.2. Discussion of Cross-Cutting Evaluation Questions 
5.2.1. Reaching target clients
Program staff report exceeding many of the program’s target numbers of clients and the ones that 
the evaluation team interviewed were generally enthusiastic. Program staff also report that many 
more people requested assistance than they can support, in some communities creating 
resentment. The training messages are well presented and eventually understood through frequent 
follow-up visits. 
5.2.2. Exit strategy 
There did not appear to be a clear exit strategy for the program, probably because there remains 
one more year for implementation. The evaluation team found that there is a great demand for all 
the program’s activities by both participants and non-participants. The program could develop an 
exit strategy that takes advantage of this demand so that it leaves within each community a local 
trainers and knowledge of how to pool and access resources to service community needs. For 
example, we found that many community members are willing to pay for the work and skill 
involved in building mud silos. 
5.2.3. Environmental impacts 
All program activities were given negative determinations for possible environmental impacts, 
some with conditions. No harmful environmental impacts were observed or were likely to have 
occurred. 
5.2.4. Cooperating sponsor collaboration 
OICI collaborated well with other cooperating sponsors. OICI’s Ghana staff participated in CRS 
sponsored food security and monetization workshops. This served to increase OICI capacity to 
manage and implement this DAP. A CRS representative told the evaluation team that CRS and 
OICI have had a good relationship would like the collaboration to continue. 
ADRA is a cooperating sponsor and mentoring organization for OICI on this DAP. ADRA staff 
in Accra and Tamale that were interviewed by the evaluation team said that collaboration was 
generally good and that they were willing to continue working together. Minor problems occurred 
early in their relationship and were resolved. They centered on the role of each organization and 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
40 
the different methodologies of the two programs. ADRA employs three college educated 
extension staff that are based in Tamale where they train community volunteers so that they can 
train others in their communities. In contrast, OICI employs 14 college educated extension staff 
that are based in the communities they serve. ADRA services many communities through many 
trained volunteers. OICI services relatively fewer communities than ADRA as a result. The 
messages delivered to the communities are similar but necessarily different as a result of the 
different approaches. 
Collaboration between cooperating sponsors is likely to be best when each sponsor has clearly 
defined and separate roles. ADRA and OICI who both do training, but differently, is not an ideal 
match. However, both should be commended for making their collaboration work. OICI’s 
collaboration with other organization like Technoserve and Heifer International might provide an 
environment for better collaboration, even with synergistic results. 
5.2.5. Sustainability 
All the programs activities will be sustainable if during the remaining year (1) relevant market 
linkages are established and strengthened, and (2) key participants in each community can 
demonstrate the ability to conduct the activity under likely adverse conditions (e.g., demonstrate 
ability to diagnose and repair a broken pump). These key participants could serve as ad hoc 
committee members. For example, the water and sanitation (WATSAN) committees have 
demonstrated the ability to provide household-level advice in hygiene and sanitation. The training 
can continue without program support if provided with community handbooks (refer to section 
8.3). Similarly OICI could identify key participants for supplemental training and use them as 
committee members to help assure program participants retain the training provided by OICI and 
potentially continue the training for other members of their communities. 
5.3. Building Institutional Capacity to Implement Title II Food Security Programs 
One of the two objectives of the program was to build the capacity of OICI and OICG in 
technical and managerial capacity for food security programming. This was achieved by training 
staff in food aid regulations, planning, implementation, monetization, and monitoring and 
evaluation, sometimes by cooperating sponsors as with monetization training by CRS as 
described above. The program has allowed OICI to exceed nearly all of its LOA indicator targets. 
The program has organized 25 skill training workshops for its staff, 62% of it LOA target of 40 
and expects to meet the target by the end of the program. The program has exceeded it LOA 
target of having 25 of its staff participate in food security workshops. To date 28 have 
participated (112% of the LOA target) and 38 are expected to have participated by the end of the 
program. All (100%) of the program’s staff have scored above 60% on their performance 
reviews, exceeding the LOA target of 80%. The evaluation team was impressed by the capacity 
OICI and the capability of its staff. The training materials used are appropriate and state-of-the￾art for what they were designed. OICI staff demonstrated good problem solving skills during 
program implementation and during this evaluation. The evaluation team has no doubts about 
OICI’s capacity to effectively manage future food security programs. Training would be very 
beneficial to the staff now that they are much higher on the learning curve and have experienced a 
full program cycle. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
41 
Additionally part of the program’s 
capacity building of OICT included the 
construction of the Kumbungu Training 
Center. To conform to OICI’s 
management structure OICT has set up a 
Kumbungu Management Committee to 
oversee activities. A consultant hired by 
OICI has developed a detailed 
marketing plan for the center. OICI has 
hosted MOFA trainings there and has 
received several requests from PVOs to 
use the new facility. The training center 
appears to be a self supporting 
component of OICT that will improve its capacity to conduct future food security programs. 
6. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 
6.1. Agriculture 
The program has clearly reduced post-harvest losses with training alone. Data shows that just by 
improving harvesting and drying of grain losses can be reduced to the target levels of less than 
5%. The demonstration and training of mud silos provides households with added protection of 
their harvest and further assures household food security. The program has also demonstrated that 
the use of Actellic Super® may not be needed if the other practices just mentioned are followed. 
A major constraint to improving household availability of food is the difficulty in farmers 
accessing sufficient funds to optimally manage their farms. The program found ways of providing 
production credit to it participants but the demand far exceeded the funds and resources that were 
available. The activities promoted by the program are being replicated by non-program farmer. 
This by itself demonstrates the success of the program’s agriculture sector activities. 
6.2. Micro-enterprise 
The program’s micro-enterprise women are reporting increased incomes and ability to manage 
their businesses. These women are reporting a significant increase in their contribution to 
household expenses. Their husbands are encouraging the women to increase their micro￾enterprise activities. This suggests major changes in gender roles. Another impressive secondary 
impact is the increase in child education as a result of greater incomes. Women also report 
improved household access to food, for example mothers report that they now can give their sons 
and daughters school lunch money. 
6.3. WATSAN 
The water and sanitation sector is achieving is objective of improving household access to potable 
water through construction of borehole wells and education on water treatment. The program’s 
stated objective to improve sanitation has fallen short, mainly because it was not supported in the 
program design or program implementation with activities and resources to significantly improve 
sanitation. Nevertheless, compared to other NGOs in Ghana, OICI has excelled in the breadth and 
quality of water and sanitation support it has offered communities. OICI in cooperation WVI with 
has set a new standard in well drilling success rates for the Northern Region. OICI has achieved 
much higher community contributions for borehole well construction than in other communities 
OICT’s Kumbungu Training Center 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
42 
in Ghana. OICI has demonstrated that the polyvalent approach is very effective for water and 
sanitation activities. A government representative of the Guinea Worm Eradication Programme 
attributes the striking reductions of guinea worm cases in the program communities to the quality 
of OICI’s extension agents and their polyvalent approach. The men and women serving on 
WATSAN committees with the help of the program have improved household food security by 
improving food utilization through reduced incidence of diarrheal disease and by improving food 
availability through reduced morbidity caused by guinea worm. 
7. LESSONS LEARNED 
7.1. Agriculture 
Substantial reductions in post harvest losses are achieved through training about improved 
harvesting techniques and sanitation practices. Pesticide use or improved grain storage 
structures may not be essential with good management. Mud-silos provide additional protection 
against the larger grain borer, a storage pest. 
The program strategy is to work with households with resources. Even among those selected the 
difficulty in households accessing funds constrained the impact of program activities. The 
relatively small amount of supplemental resources expended on this constraint had big impacts. 
Training alone achieved many of the project objectives. Farmers placed a high value on the 
program’s training program. 
7.2. Micro-Enterprise 
Low levels of literacy and numeracy are a major constraint to micro-enterprise development. 
Communities are willing to support activities breaking from traditional gender roles (e.g., bee 
keeping, cassava mill operation) 
Training alone significantly improved women’s incomes (i.e., rice processing). 
7.3. WATSAN 
Given the difficult hydro-geological conditions in northern region borehole wells are more cost 
effective than hand dug wells even though they cost more because they are effective in 
providing year-round potable sources of water. 
The polyvalent, participatory, demand-driven, OICI approach is more sustainable than the 
current system of extension service delivery approach of most programs facilitated by CWSA. 
OICI program communities will contribute 50% more toward borehole construction than 
other communities in Ghana (i.e., 1.5 million cedis per borehole compared to the 1 million cedis 
suggested by the Community Water and Sanitation Agency). 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
43 
7.4 Cross-Cutting Lessons 
A dependency relationship between program staff and participants can develop in a short time, 
especially in communities with an expectation that projects will do things that they could do for 
themselves. OICI learned early in program implementation to quickly dispel those expectations if 
they appeared and to hold participants to their commitments. 
OICI limited community participants to a maximum of 25 in order to foster participation and 
cooperation, reduce coordination problems, and assure accountability. However, limiting the 
number of participants created rivalry and conflicts between program and non-program 
community members. 
District Assemblies (DA) work at the grassroots level of development planning, implementation, 
and local governance. Their participation is essential to the sustainability of NGO programs 
however institutionalizing relationships is difficult because of their wide ranging 
responsibilities coupled with the limited resources available to them. To help assure sustainability 
of activities it is necessary that a program’s results provide enough incentive for the DA’s to 
become involved. The program design needs to also include methods for building the capacity of 
the DAs to promote a smooth take over of activities when the program phases out. 
Collaboration with other organizations is less problematic for alliances with groups that have 
similar philosophy, structures, polices, and implementation strategies. 
A program is designed based on incomplete knowledge and assumptions so obstacles to 
achieving its goals are expected, whether due to oversight or events outside the control of the 
program. Programs need to have flexible designs and access to supplemental resources to over 
come or take advantage of the unexpected. OICI was fortunate to have a Mission that supported 
needed changes in program activities and to have access to other resources that could be 
integrated into the program (e.g., USDA funding for production credit). 
8. RECOMMENDATIONS 
8.1. Agriculture Sector Recommendations 
High population levels in some program communities contribute to the misuse of agricultural 
resources, mainly land and water. This results in low agricultural productivity. Farmer training in 
soil and water conservation techniques for sustainable agricultural production can contribute 
immensely to curbing rapid land degradation. Also MOFA identifies the need to develop small 
valley irrigation systems for vegetable production in the dry season. This will provide off-season 
employment for client farmers and other community members. The program should consider 
including soil and water conservation and small scale irrigation development in future food 
security programs. 
Expansion on animal traction and rural transport will help meet farmers’ need to reduce labor 
and access markets. 
Increase support of agricultural production credit for agricultural chemicals, especially 
fertilizers. Current market prices are too high to be affordable by the small-scale farmer. 
Improving market linkages can lower cost, improve farmer net profits, and promote food 
production. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
44 
Increase funding of ICP/ISS program to help support farmers that follow improved harvesting 
and post-harvest storage of grains and legumes. 
Increase mud silo construction training to increase the local availability of skilled builders. 
Promote integrated pest management to help assure proper and cost effective pesticides use. A 
special focus could be on reducing the use of dangerous pesticides that are currently being used 
by promoting alternatives. For example the programs findings that improved harvesting and post￾harvest storage can (potentially) eliminate the need for Actellic Super® to reduce losses cause by 
pests, especially the larger grain borer.
8.2. Micro-enterprise Sector Recommendations 
Improve efforts to assure raw material availability by assessing production capacity of a micro￾enterprise site (e.g., cassava and cassava processing) or responding quickly to unexpected 
demand by helping participant find markets and production credit (e.g., paddy and rice 
processing). 
Keep encouraging participants to invest in micro-enterprises and investigate the promotion of 
ancillary enterprises that use the products or byproducts from micro-enterprises (e.g., batik and tie 
and die businesses that could make use of the beeswax). 
Investigate and find ways to expand the market for micro-enterprise products. For example, 
cooperative selling of larger orders to distant buyers or development of high value products (e.g., 
clay roofing tiles and/or flower vases). 
8.3. Water and Sanitation Sector Recommendations 
Find ways for the program to develop active participation by District Assemblies and help 
assure sustainability of water and sanitation activities.
Consider expanding water and sanitation extension services by bidding on CWSA and Village 
Infrastructure Project contracts. 
Increase hygiene and sanitation education in the communities and promote VIP latrine
construction and use. This would make the program conform completely to the national sector 
strategy. 
Prepare and provide a WATSAN handbook to each community. The handbook needs to use a 
very simple and symbolic system for recording WATSAN committee activities. The system 
should take into consideration, the low level of literacy in the communities.
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
45 
8.4. Non-Sector Specific and Cross-Cutting Recommendations 
OICI staff needs to develop an exit plan for the program where participants demonstrate that they 
can continue the activities without the support of the project21. The exit plan also needs to assure 
that participants develop and strengthen market linkages for raw materials, replacement parts, 
equipment, buyer and sellers of agricultural products. This may require group field trips for 
participants to market centers to show them the location of businesses and introduce them to 
buyers and sellers. Participants that depend on group decisions for their activities may need 
additional group development and management training to enhance group cohesion and 
sustainability. 
Begin testing methods and content for future program training and extension activities. For 
example the next program could include HIV/AIDS prevention messages in its water and 
sanitation activities or for all its activities. HIV/AIDS and gender messages might be threatening 
to participants so they would be better tested in communities that the program knows and where 
community members trust the program. This testing could develop appropriate messages (e.g., for 
hygiene and sanitation) and identifying the best audience or composition of the group (e.g., 
adding a few men to the group can make interventions possible that otherwise could not be 
implemented because of socio-cultural restrictions). 
For future programs consider including activities in all sectors for each community to exploit 
synergies. Begin testing how to integrate activities from multiple sectors, especially livestock 
production and agroforestry. Livestock production activities can involve more investments and 
require higher management capability of participants. The project could use demonstrated 
abilities of participants as a selection criteria. Agroforestry activities may be equally difficult 
because of potential resource tenure restrictions and because the benefits are not as apparent or 
immediate. To make agroforestry more effective the activity needs to satisfy multiple demands 
(e.g., crop fertility improvement, livestock feed, construction material, firewood, and source of 
nectar). Success with agroforestry activities is more likely in integrated programs. Gender and 
other socioeconomic issues remain important considerations for achieving desired impacts. The 
complexity of a more integrated program can be made manageable through specialization and 
collaboration with other sector specific organizations where OICI’s training expertise will be 
complementary (e.g., Technoserve, Heifer International). With this arrangement it is vitally 
important the goals, objectives, desired effects, and planned activities are well thought-out and 
responsibilities are clearly assigned. OICI could start testing livestock and agroforestry activities 
that will complement each other as well as the existing sector activities, especially agriculture and 
micro-enterprise. Livestock can be a source of income (e.g., primary and value added products), 
can also serve as an instrument of savings to purchase agricultural chemicals and raw material, 
and provide fertilizer for intensive cash crop agriculture. Livestock activities should avoid cattle 
because cultural restrictions severely restrict the transfer of cattle ownership due to inheritance 
practices. 
 
21 Program training indicators were based on attendance (an activity) and not on performance (an effect). 
This emphasis on training attendance as an indicator may have diverted attention from ensuring participants 
would be able to continue the activities after the program ended. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
46 
OICI could investigate the possibility of using the District Assemblies to promote inter￾community contributions (contributions from those communities with boreholes) to pay for 
borehole well construction in communities (that are neighbors to contributors) that do not have 
access to year-round potable water. The direct benefit for contributing communities is increased 
assurance of year-round access of water through sharing of a neighboring recipient community’s 
water when pumps break. This will be a difficult task considering the current level of 
collaboration between communities but is an opportunity for promoting a more civil society. 
OICI could provide its staff training to build their capacity and to use trainings as a way to retain 
the knowledge gained by those leaving the program. Experienced staff would benefit from 
advance training because of the knowledge, experience, and perspective gained from working 
during a full project cycle. Also training of replacement staff for those moving to other 
organizations could be conducted before the experienced staff leaves. This will help assure that 
job-specific project knowledge is not lost. 
8.5. Recommendations for Improving Program Design and Implementation 
OICI’s design and implementation of follow-on programs would benefit from more clear 
definition of goals, objectives, and effects than were developed for this program. The project 
implementation would be better focused if monitoring and evaluation were based on effects 
instead of activities. Training is an activity but demonstrating what was taught is an effect. For 
instance, the number of women trained in business management (activity) and number of new 
micro-enterprises functioning (effect). This would require frequent follow-up after a training 
session until the client or group of clients demonstrate the ability to complete the activity on their 
own. This would also help build in sustainability into project design and implementation. For rare 
events like pump or machine repair the project could stage tests for clients to demonstrate their 
ability to diagnose and fix a problem. 
Do not use a participatory rural assessment to establish a baseline unless the assessed population 
will be representative of the population of project clients. Consider establishing household 
baselines at the time of participant recruitment. This will allow easier household based 
progress and impact evaluation and allow better time and condition based predictions of post 
project impacts. Intake questionnaire design and testing needs to occur before indicators and 
targets are finalized. 
The program’s design could base targeting of participant and households on self selection and 
performance. This could be structured to open participation to all members in the community but 
the program could set qualification criteria narrow enough to reduce the number of participants 
for those activities that require high levels of program support. This will assure that the demand 
on project resources is manageable. This open, transparent approach can lead to self selection of 
participants, potentially reducing competition and rivalries between community members over 
project resources. It would also help distance the program for these conflicts if they emerge. 
Mentioned above, the OICI could collaborate with organizations with complementary 
activities. For example, Heifer International Ghana has considerable experience in livestock 
production promotion in the southern parts of the country is interested in extending its 
interventions to the Northern Regions. OICI could benefit from their experience with livestock 
and Heifer International can use OICI’s knowledge of program participants to better target 
recipients of livestock. Through collaboration both organizations can be much more effective. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
47 
8.6. Recommendations for Including Food for Work or Direct Distribution 
Components in Future Program Design 
Short of a major crop failure, the team is wary of recommending any food for work or direct 
distribution for future program designs that are based on activities and training like those 
conducted during this program. One reason is because it would send a mixed and confusing 
message to participants who are being trained and encouraged to produce more food or add value 
to food products. A certain level of food insecurity can help the program promote positive 
behavior changes. 
Activities that might be appropriate for food-for-work (if cash-for-work is not an option) are rural 
infrastructure development projects such as road rehabilitation or maintenance, and bridge 
building. These activities could help improve rural community’s access to markets and health 
care. 
A potential activity for direct distribution is providing food to HIV/AIDS affected households. If 
the number of HIV/AIDS households are large enough then special training activities along with 
food could be provide to affected household members. The goal would be to provide support to 
affected households so that customary safety-nets in communities are not over taxed to the point 
that affected household members migrate to cities. Also the activity could assure that the 
survivors, especially the children have the means to continue productive lives with inherited 
assets. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
48 
ANNEX A. EVALUATION SOW 
SCOPE OF WORK 
For the 
FINAL EVALUATION 
Of the 
OICI Ghana P.L. 480 Title II Program 
Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative 
(1999-2003) 22
1. INTRODUCTION 
The Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative – a P.L. 480 Title II Development 
Assistance Program (DAP) with the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID), aims to improve food availability, access and utilization among target farm households 
in the Northern Region of Ghana. This will be achieved through training in post-harvest 
processing and storage, women’s enterprise development and training in agro-processing, the 
provision of community water wells and training in well maintenance and sanitation. 
Additionally, the 5-year program aims to strengthen the organization’s technical and managerial 
capacity in the area of Title II food security programming. 
The Opportunities Industrialization Centers International (OICI) plans to submit to USAID a 
follow-on DAP for FY 2004-2008 in the first quarter of FY 2003. In order for OICI to 
incorporate the lessons learned from the current DAP in the new proposal, a Final Evaluation has 
to be conducted in the last quarter of FY 2002. This is one year earlier than projected in the 
Detailed Implementation Plan presented in the original proposal, but necessary to ensure the 
continuity of resources and smooth transition between DAPs. 
1.1 Objective of the evaluation 
The objective of the evaluation is to provide an external and impartial assessment of the results 
achieved by the program focusing on population-level impacts, establishing plausible links 
between inputs and impacts. Further, the evaluation will document lessons learned to serve as 
tool to strengthen the design and implementation of a follow-on DAP, as well as other 
development programs in the Northern Region. 
1.2 Description of the program 
1.2.1 Goal, Strategic Objectives and Intermediate Results 
The goal of the OICI Title II program in Ghana is to increase food security among target 
populations in the Northern Region of the country through interventions that impact on the 
availability, access and utilization of food. Specific development activities are expected to 
contribute towards the goal. Training of target farmers in post-harvest processing and storage, 
 
22 Adapted from FANTA Technical Brief No. 2: Title II Evaluation Scope of Work, March 2002. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
49 
and construction of improved storage structures are expected to reduce crop production losses and 
therefore increase food availability. Food access meanwhile is promoted by increasing women’s 
potential to earn income by providing technical skills and equipment in various agro-processing 
activities e.g. improved pottery production, rice processing, cassava processing, honey and 
beeswax production. Finally, the provision of potable water wells, well maintenance and 
sanitation training is expected to enhance food utilization by reducing the incidence of water￾borne diseases. 
1.2.2 Brief description of key intervention and implementation strategy 
The key intervention provided by OIC is training, conducted by Polyvalent Community 
Facilitators (PCFs) and/or other professional trainers to community farmers and women groups 
organized by the program. The training interventions are complemented by the provision of key 
agricultural inputs such as improved planting materials/seeds, pesticide, grain silos and/or storage 
structures; improved agro-processing technologies such as the use of cassava graters, screw press 
and other equipment such as potters wheel, firing kiln, and bee hives and community borehole 
fitted with hand pump and furnished with concrete soak-aways. 
1.2.3 Geographic coverage of the program 
As of June 2002, the program covered 141 communities in 7 districts of the Northern Region, 
namely Savelugu-Nanton, Tolon-Kumbungu, Gushiegu-Karaga, Yendi, West Gonja, Saboba￾Chereponi, and Tamale Rural. Specific interventions are targeted at selected communities based 
on selection criteria established by the program management. Therefore not all interventions are 
present in all communities. 
1.2.4 Description of key partners and how activities are coordinated 
Key Partner 
Organizations 
Activities 
Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS) 
CRS being the Monetization agent in Ghana, acts as the lead in the development 
of a monetization plan for all CSs including OIC for approved commodity and 
present it to the coordinating committee for approval. 
World Vision 
International 
(WVI) 
WVI brings its several years of experience in well drilling in the relatively 
difficult geological formations in the Northern Region, to bear on OICI/OICG’s 
efforts in the area of provision of potable water wells to OIC target clients; 
provides OICI concessional rates for the cost of drilling. 
Ministry of 
Food and 
Agriculture 
(MOFA) 
MOFA being the statutory government agency responsible for the development 
of agriculture has released its existing storage structures to OICT to be used for 
the implementation of an Inventory Credit Program to enhance the marketing of 
agricultural produce; possesses the technical know-how in the dissemination of 
information on improved storage structures (mud silos). 
Guinea Worm 
Eradication 
Program 
(GWEP) of 
Ministry of 
Health 
GWEP as the statutory government institution under the Ministry of Health has 
been making consistent efforts in reducing the incidence of guinea worm and 
other water related diseases in Ghana over the years. It provides OICT with 
water filters and posters for distribution to OICT and GWEP target communities. 
It also provides technical assistance to OICI in the development of appropriate 
training materials for communities. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
50 
Center for 
Agriculture and 
Rural 
Development 
(CARD) 
CARD is a local NGO with rich experience in community mobilization. It has 
mobilized beneficiary communities to contribute towards the construction of 
community storage structures being promoted by OICT and links OICT storage 
structure provision with inventory credit scheme for maize/grain marketing. 
Adventist 
Development 
and Relief 
Agency 
(ADRA) 
ADRA is a sister Cooperating Sponsor funded by USAID. ADRA has rich field 
experience and huge development constituency that demand OIC’s training 
services to complement ADRA’s efforts in silo provision and community water 
and sanitation training. ADRA works with OICT in selected three districts 
(Tolon/Kumbungu, Savelugu/Nanton and West Gonja districts) in the Northern 
Region to enhance food security of target clients. 
District 
Assemblies 
(DAs) 
The DAs are the lead government statutory agencies with the mandate to oversee 
the overall physical development of the districts. OICT involves the 
decentralized departments of the DAs in the selection of beneficiary 
communities/clients as well as sharing of program documents and other 
information which are of mutual benefit to both OICT and the DAs. 
1.2.5 Implementation history and issues to date 
OIC Tamale (OICT) was launched in 1999 as a food security program utilizing resources from 
100% monetization of PL 480 Title II commodities in Ghana. OICT is a partnership program 
between OICI and its affiliate, OIC Ghana (OICG), with OICI as the lead Cooperating Sponsor 
and OICG a Recipient Agency. OICI envisions that the OICT program will devolve to OICG at 
the expiration of PL 480 funding, hence the built-in institutional capacity-building interventions 
under the current DAP. 
The program started to receive monetization proceeds in May 2000, nine months into the first 
fiscal year. As a result, there was considerable setback in program startup as the bulk of FY 1999 
resources was received in FY 2000. Due to the consortium arrangement with other Cooperating 
Sponsors in Ghana, monetization proceeds are received from every call forward made throughout 
the year, and distributed proportionally across all consortium members. During FY 2000, the 
Ghanaian Cedi (GHC) suffered its worst drop in history (from 2,900 to 6,500 GHC to 1 USD 
from October 1999 to September 2000), which has decreased the amount of resources available to 
the program. Because of the local currency depreciation and domestic inflation, OICI scaled back 
program targets as reflected in the last Cooperating Sponsor Results Report and Resource 
Request (CSR4) submitted to USAID on 25 April 2001. 
A Midterm Evaluation was conducted in November-December 2001 by a 4-person 
evaluation team led by Dr. Mark Langworthy of TANGO, using focus group discussion, 
field-level interviews and review of key program documents. 
1.3 Brief description of how the program fits into the mission and local 
government’s strategies and priorities 
There have been conscious attempts by various successive governments of Ghana, NGOs, groups 
and few individuals to fight poverty and its associated food insecurity in the country. Food 
insecurity in the 3 northern regions of Ghana (Upper East, Upper West and Northern Regions) 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
51 
however, remain the most serious problem compared to other regions of Ghana, hence the 
presence of many development organizations in these regions. They work in the areas of 
agricultural extension services, credit, infrastructure development, child survival, health and 
nutrition, agro-forestry and primary education. 
OICI/OICG therefore by targeting the most food insecure households in the Northern Region for 
its development activities have fulfilled its mission of assisting the most vulnerable in the society 
and supporting government’s efforts to improve standard of living in the country and the 
Northern Region specifically. 
The training provided by OICI/OICG in post-harvest loss techniques, marketing and basic 
business management skills as well as the construction of household and community storage 
structures will help improve household food availability. The construction of community potable 
water sources coupled with training in pump maintenance and sanitation will also meet the target 
population’s need for clean and safe water sources. Target women are also being assisted to 
diversify and augment their income through training in beekeeping, cassava processing, pottery￾making and rice processing. All these activities will complement government poverty reduction 
strategy in the region. 
The program’s agricultural activities also directly fit within the Mission’s objective to increase 
the marketed value of agricultural products. Specific intermediate results addressed by the 
program include increased use of improved production practice, improved management, 
improved post-harvest handling, and increased information dissemination. The program also 
complements the Mission’s sub-goal, which is improved productive capacity of Ghana’s 
workforce, specifically of those in the agricultural sector, by providing access to potable water. 
This intervention indirectly contributes to rural productivity in terms of improving health, 
reducing illnesses, and providing more productive work hours for adults and children. 
2. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION 
The evaluation team will be composed of the following: 
a. Team Leader – an expatriate international development and evaluation specialist with 
experience in West Africa, preferably Ghana, with skills to assume the overall management 
responsibility of the evaluation (e.g., working with OICI on logistics, insuring that all team 
members fulfill their obligations, organizing and directing team interaction, planning a final 
in-country debriefing and workshop/meeting, etc.). The Team Leader must be skilled in 
articulating the different technical viewpoints of other team members, including statistical 
analysis, and will be responsible for the quality of the final evaluation report which shall have 
both qualitative and quantitative data to support findings. 
b. Agricultural Specialist – a local agricultural expert with requisite skills and experience in 
Northern Region agricultural systems, preferably with background in post-harvest 
technologies as well as understanding of agricultural marketing and project impact evaluation 
methodologies. 
c. Microenterprise Specialist – a local microenterprise specialist with requisite background and 
experience in organization of women’s groups, particularly in the Northern Region, and 
understanding of agro-processing technologies, profit-making community-based 
microenterprises, and project impact methodologies. 
d. Water and Sanitation Specialist – a local community water and sanitation expert experienced 
in the implementation and evaluation of rural community water projects including community 
mobilization in the Northern Region. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
52 
3. TEAM AND INDIVIDUAL TEAM MEMBERS SCOPE OF WORK AND 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
3.1 Impact survey 
An impact survey will be conducted and the data summarized before the evaluation team arrives 
in the field so that the results will be available to the team during the actual evaluation. OICT 
field staff will conduct the survey with guidance from the Team Leader. The Team Leader will 
direct the staff with regards to the design of the questionnaire, the sampling methodology, and the 
processing and presentation of collected data. 
3.2 Evaluation methods 
The evaluation team will use the impact survey data to provide quantitative as well as qualitative 
measures of final program impact. Although the emphasis of the final evaluation report will be in 
the analysis of quantitative data, further qualitative assessments will be provided through rapid 
appraisal methods such as focus group and key informant interviews, direct observation through 
site visits, and review of key program documents. Other strategies for data collection and 
analysis will be left open to the evaluation team to provide flexibility, however, the methodology 
will have to be submitted and approved by OICI prior to adoption. 
3.2 Evaluation questions for the overall team and the Team Leader 
The Team Leader, together with other team members, will answer the following questions. The 
list, including those in the specific technical sectors in the succeeding sections, is not exhaustive, 
and may be expanded during the course of the evaluation. 
• Design, Implementation and AchievementsAre planned activities appropriate for the food 
security problems identified in the target areas? Does the framework, assumptions and 
design match the local food security conditions? 
• How effective is the program at reaching target clients? 
• Has the goal of increasing food security among target populations in the Northern Region 
been met? 
• What interventions have been more or less successful in meeting targets and why? 
• What improvements can be/could have been made to the design in order to improve results? 
• What improvements can be/could have been made in the implementation of the program in 
order to improve results? 
• What are unexpected but important benefits or impacts of the program that should be 
recorded? 
• What are negative impacts or unintended consequences of the program that need to be 
addressed, and how? 
• What are the prospects for including a Food for Work or direct distribution component in a 
follow-on DAP? 
Behavior Change
• Are clients adopting desired practices or behaviors? 
• Which practices have clients been more inclined to adopt, and why? 
• Which practices have clients been more reluctant to adopt, and why? 
• Are there certain groups within the population with lower rates of adoption and why? 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
53 
• How can a follow-on program address these constraints to adoption? 
• Is the client to field staff ratio and frequency of contact adequate for the type of behavior 
change envisioned in the DAP? 
Capacity Building
• Are the training materials appropriate – tailored to the user, accurate and state of the art? 
Which materials need strengthening, if any, and how? 
• Is the program effectively developing the capacity of OICT and OICG to manage food 
security programs? To what extent has the capacity been enhanced through partnerships with 
CRS and ADRA? If not, how could the design or implementation be altered to improve 
capacity building? 
• Is the program effectively enabling, or developing the capacity of clients? If not, how could 
the design or implementation be altered to improve capacity building? 
Sustainability
• Are the program impacts (increase in net yields, incomes, food utilization) sustainable? 
• Are clients likely to continue adoption of better practices after the program ends? Which 
outcomes related to adoption of better practices are likely or unlikely to be sustainable, and 
why? What can be done to increase sustainability? 
• Does the program have a community exit strategy? Has OICI been able to exit successfully 
from any of its communities? 
• Has OICI moved forward to initiate some aspects of the strategy to turn over the program to 
local management? 
• Has the program effectively collaborated with local administrative bodies such as ministries, 
local councils, etc? Has the program effectively collaborated with other development 
organizations? How does the program strengthen or expand the capacity of these entities? 
What concrete actions have they taken as a result of program interventions? Will they be 
able to maintain this capacity once the DAP ends? 
Monitoring and Evaluation/Reporting
• Overall, did the program achieve its targets? If not, why not? (Provide an analysis of the 
Indicator Performance Tracking Table). 
• Were the established targets reasonable given the program context? 
• Were M&E data and anecdotal information used for management purposes? Were they 
shared with communities or clients? With other organizations in the area? 
• Is the established M&E system effective? 
3.3 Evaluation questions for the Agriculture technical sector 
The Agricultural Specialist will have primary responsibility in answering the following questions: 
• Which specific targets related to agriculture were achieved? What were success and limiting 
factors?
• Did agricultural interventions result in increased production and household food availability?
• Have farmers adopted whole technological packages or just components and why?
• Are the technologies and practices being promoted well established and appropriate to the 
local agro-ecological environments?
• Are farmers able to obtain improved and recommended inputs without program assistance 
(free or subsidized inputs)? If not, what would be required in order that they could do so?
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
54 
• Are farmer and other community groups able to maintain new productive infrastructure on 
their own? If not, why and what could be done to address this limitation?
3.4 Evaluation questions for the Microenterprise technical sector 
The Microenterprise Specialist will have the primary responsibility in answering the following 
questions: 
• Which specific targets related to microenterprise were achieved? What were success and 
limiting factors? 
• Are the technologies, practices and training being promoted appropriate to the target 
communities? 
• Did microenterprise interventions result in increased knowledge of business and business 
plans? 
• Did microenterprise interventions result in increased household incomes? 
• Is there an accessible market for the products or services produced by the microenterprises? 
• Are these microenterprises likely to remain in operation after the DAP terminates? If not, 
why and what can be done to enhance their sustainability? 
3.5 Evaluation questions for the Water and Sanitation technical sector 
The Water and Sanitation Specialist will have the primary responsibility in answering the 
following questions: 
• Which specific targets related to water and sanitation were achieved? What were success and 
limiting factors? 
• Are communities using the borehole wells? If not, why not? 
• Are communities able to maintain the borehole well and pumps on their own? If not, why 
and what could be done to address this problem? 
• What improved sanitation practices have been adopted by recipient communities? 
• Are the technologies, practices and training being promoted appropriate to the target 
communities? 
• How have the wells contributed to household food security? Can plausible links be 
established between improved access to potable water and sanitation and improved food 
utilization? 
3.6 Performance and Program Information Sources
Performance data and information on the program are in the following documents: 
1) Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative Development Activity Proposal 
2) Baseline Survey Report 
3) FY 1999 Annual Results Report 
4) FY 2000 Previously Approved Activity (PAA) 
5) FY 2001 Previously Approved Activity (PAA) 
6) FY 2000 Results Report and FY 2002-2003 Resource Request (CSR4) 
7) FY 2001 Results Report and FY 2003 Resource Request (CSR4) 
8) Semi-Annual Portfolio Review Reports (SAPRs) to USAID/Ghana 
9) Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
10) Monitoring and Evaluation Reports 
11) Program Monthly Reports 
12) Midterm Evaluation Report 
13) OIC Tamale Training Materials 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
55 
14) Feasibility Study on Potable Rural Water Supply Systems in the Northern Region 
15) Feasibility Study on Cereal and Legume Storage Systems in Northern Region 
16) Memoranda of Understanding and Program Agreements with local partner agencies 
17) FY 2002 and FY 2002 A-133 Audit Reports 
4 DELIVERABLES 
The Team Leader will be responsible for producing the draft and final reports to be submitted to 
OICI in Philadelphia in electronic form using MS Word. A first draft should be submitted 
electronically to OICI both in Philadelphia and Accra by Wednesday, 4 September 2002. Five 
(5) single-sided hardcopies of the final report will be required, in addition to the electronic files, 
by 20 September 2002. It is suggested that the report include true-to-life quotes, anecdotes, short 
case studies and photographs to enliven the report. 
The following outline is suggested for the final report – 
Title page with date 
Executive summary 
Table of Contents 
Introduction 
 Objective of SOW 
 Brief description of program 
Complementarity with USAID and GOG strategies and priorities 
Significant challenges faced in program implementation 
Overall assessment of program goal achievement 
Agricultural sector 
 Brief description of interventions 
 Achievement of results 
 Meeting targets 
 Other achievements 
Challenges 
 Discussion of other agricultural evaluation questions 
Microenterprise sector 
 Brief description of interventions 
 Achievement of results 
 Meeting targets 
 Other achievements 
Challenges 
 Discussion of other microenterprise evaluation questions 
Water and Sanitation sector 
 Brief description of interventions 
 Achievement of results 
 Meeting targets 
 Other achievements 
Challenges 
 Discussion of other water and sanitation evaluation questions 
Cross-cutting issues 
 Brief description of cross-cutting issues 
 Discussion of cross-cutting evaluation questions 
Building institutional capacity to implement Title II food security programs 
Summary of Major Findings 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
56 
Lessons Learned 
Recommendations 
 Agriculture sector recommendations 
 Microenterprise sector recommendations 
 Water and Sanitation sector recommendations 
 Non-sector specific and cross-cutting recommendations 
 Recommendations for improving program design and implementation 
Recommendations for including Food for Work or direct distribution components in 
future program design 
Annexes: 
 Evaluation SOW 
 Composition of the team 
 Evaluation Methods 
 List of sites visited 
 List of key informants 
 References 
 Indicator Performance Tracking Tables 
 Survey tools 
 List of Acronyms 
Others 
5 TIME FRAME 
Activities of the evaluation team in the field will be completed within a maximum period of 3 
weeks, excluding time allotted for the impact survey, which will be conducted by OICT staff. 
The Team Leader will be contracted for 28 person days, while the rest of the evaluation team will 
be contracted each for a maximum period of 21 person days. 
The following is a tentative schedule of activities. The Team Leader will develop a detailed time 
schedule for the evaluation team. 
Schedule
Week # Date 
Activity 
1 Document review 
1 Design of survey questionnaire 
2-3 Pre-test and conduct of impact survey in the field 
4 Processing of collected data 
5 11 Aug Arrival of Team Leader in Ghana and meeting with evaluation team 
5-6 Field work of evaluation team 
7 Data analysis and report writing. 
7 31 Aug Team Leader departs Ghana. 
8 4 Sep Submission of first draft. 
9 Report writing 
10 20 Sep Submission of final report 
/Ghana-Final Eval-SOW-ver07Aug02.doc 
/vp
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
57 
ANNEX B. COMPOSITION OF THE TEAM 
Team Leader: Joe Tabor (M.S., M.P.H.) is an expatriate international development and 
evaluation specialist with over 20 years of experience in natural resource management, 
agriculture, and public health in North America, Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. Experience 
includes the disciplines of agronomy, pedology, forestry, ecology, and epidemiology. Analytical 
skills include statistical analysis, GIS, satellite image processing, and household survey 
techniques. He can be contacted at jtabor@ag.arizona.edu. 
Agricultural Specialist: Gordon K. Ekekpi (M.Phil.) is a local agricultural expert with over 25 
years of experience and experience in Northern Region agricultural systems. Mr. Ekekpi has 
worked with government institutions in advisory capacity in the formulation and review of 
national agricultural policies, design and management of agricultural programs at the Regional 
and Sub-regional levels. He has provided technical assistance to various district and regional 
agricultural directorates of government. He has been involved in various agricultural research 
studies including program design, implementation and impact evaluations including that of 
international development NGO partners. He has been involved in co-ordination of MOFA 
HIV/AIDS and gender mainstreaming program activities. 
Microenterprise Specialist: Charles Nornoo (M.Phil.) is a Ghanaian development practitioner 
with over 11 years experience working with medium, small and micro-enterprises in West, East 
and Southern Africa for multilateral, bilateral, and national institutions. Until June 2001, Charles 
was the Program Manager for TechnoServe Ghana. He has proven skills in development 
planning, business plan preparation, design of baseline and field surveys; data collection and 
analysis; industry/sub-sector analysis; project analysis (from formulation to evaluation); project 
financing; designing viable credit programmes (micro-finance); produce marketing; gender 
analysis; growth linkages; small and micro enterprise development; and environmental impact 
assessment. He can be contacted at bds@africanus.net. 
Water and Sanitation Specialist: Francis Mawuena Dotse (M.D.S.) the Managing director of 
MAPLE Consult, is a Ghanaian community water and sanitation expert with over 29 years of 
development experience in Ghana. For the past 11 years, he has operated at very senior levels in 
the rural water supply and sanitation sector. He has managed water and sanitation projects for 
UNDP and KfW (of Germany). He has been involved in the evaluation of water and sanitation 
programs for DANIDA in 1995, 1999 and 2001 as well as for DFID in 2000 where he was team 
leader. He is currently involved in the implementation of water and sanitation projects in the 
Greater Accra, Eastern/Ashanti and Northern Regions being funded by DANIDA, KfW and the 
European Union, respectively. Previously a Senior Lecturer at the Ghana Institute of Management 
and Public Administration (GIMPA), he has extensive knowledge and expertise in Ghana’s 
decentralization process and its local government system. He is a member of the Kpando District 
Assembly where he is the chairman of the Development Planning sub-committee. Mr. Dotse has 
undertaken assignments for other international agencies such as the World Bank and UN Habitat. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
58 
ANNEX C. EVALUATION METHODS 
The findings of this evaluation were based on the convergence of evidence gathered from 
multiples sources. The evaluation team gathered relevant information using rapid appraisal 
techniques (i.e., focus group and key informant interviews, direct observations during site visits), 
a household impact survey, and document review (e.g., Baseline Study Report, CSR4s, program 
monitoring data). 
An impact survey was developed by the evaluation team after their arrival to Tamale. In July 
2002 OICT staff conducted an impact survey (Amevor & Donkoh, 2002) on current attitudes and 
conditions of its program clients. OICI/G staff and the Team Leader decided to conduct a second 
impact survey to measure program impacts that were not addressed in the July study. This survey 
was administered by OICT field staff concurrent with the final evaluation field work (Annex H). 
The results were analyzed after the evaluation field work and the finding were incorporated into 
the final draft of this report. 
At the beginning of field work the Team Leader and Micro-enterprise Specialist met with 
representatives from USAID, CRS, and ADRA in Accra (August 12-13) before traveling to 
Tamale. The team reviewed the TOR with OICT office staff and developed a plan for conducting 
the evaluation and impact survey. Each consultant developed a list of questions and topics to 
guide discussions during focus group and individual interviews of OICT clients during site visits. 
This list was developed from the “Evaluation Questions” listed in the TOR. 
The team met with OICT extension agents (Polyvalent Community Facilitators) during the 
training session on administering the impact survey. Together the evaluation team and extension 
agents identified communities to visit and schedule meeting times so that the extension agents 
could set appointments with community committees and representatives of District Associations. 
Communities were selected both randomly and on the advice of program extension agents for 
each sector. The mixture of purposeful and random sampling of communities allowed the team to 
evaluate the full range of program impacts as well as to maintain a balanced view of those 
impacts. The three sector specialists planned and conducted four days of community interviews 
(August 21-24). In order to use each consultant’s time efficiently, the evaluation team split into 
three groups with separate vehicles. This was required because the program selected many of 
communities for sector specific interventions. The team met each evening to discuss the day’s 
findings and any cross-cutting issues. The Team Leader accompanied each sector specialist on 
some of their community visits. 
The team drafted the report together in the same office to help stimulate discussion and efficiently 
share information. The OICT staff was briefed on the evaluation teams finding and were provided 
draft sections that were reviewed for accuracy. OICG and USAID were also briefed on the teams 
finding and suggestions were noted for inclusion into the final report. A second draft of the report 
was prepared by the Team Leader in the US. This draft included results of the impact survey. 
This draft was distributed via e-mail to the consultants for including finding and interpretation 
based on the impact survey and to OICI staff for review for accuracy and correction of errors. The 
final draft was edited by the Team Leader and submitted to OICI, Philadelphia USA. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
59 
ANNEX D. LIST OF SITES VISITED 
Communities Visited and Sector Information Collected (August 21-24, 2002) 
Bagurugu, Agriculture 
Busunu, Agriculture, Microenterprise, Water & Sanitation 
Cheyohi, Water & Sanitation 
Damdu, Agriculture 
Dugshegu, Microenterprise 
Fazihini, Microenterprise 
Gbambu, Water & Sanitation 
Gbayong, Microenterprise 
Gbirima, Water & Sanitation 
Gbullung, Agriculture 
Gushegu, Water & Sanitation 
Jakariyilli, Microenterprise 
Kangbagu, Agriculture 
Kanshegu, Agriculture, Microenterprise 
Kawankura, Agriculture, Microenterprise 
Kipilo, Agriculture 
Kumbungu, Microenterprise 
Kusawgu, Agriculture 
Laanga, Agriculture 
Logshegu, Microenterprise 
Naprisi, Water & Sanitation 
Nyong-Nayili, Agriculture 
Sahanayilli, Water & Sanitation 
Sankpala, Microenterprise 
Savelugu, Water & Sanitation 
Tailorpe, Water & Sanitation 
Tali, Agriculture, Water & Sanitation 
Tindang, Microenterprise, Water & Sanitation 
Tolon, Water & Sanitation 
Wambong, Agriculture 
Yangu, Agriculture 
Yiborgu, Agriculture 
Zagyuri, Microenterprise 
Zantele, Agriculture 
Zori-Yapala, Water & Sanitation 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
60 
ANNEX E. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS 
Date Organization/Location Name Job Title 
12-
Aug 
CRS-Accra Augustina Addae 
Sharon Cromer Director 
Andrew Krefft Food For Peace Officer 
Roger Lapp Assistant Controller 
Thomas Asare Financial Analyst 
Jemima Tettey￾Cofie 
Program Assistant 
Adeline Ofori-Bah Agricultural Economist 
13-
Aug 
USAID Mission to Ghana 
Fenton Sands Private Sector Office Chief. 
Mildred Taylor Program Manager 
Vincent Djarbeng Coordinator, Agric & Natural 
Resources 
13-
Aug 
ADRA-Accra 
Victoria Darko Coordinator, Health, Nutrition, 
Water & Sanitation 
19- Emmanuel Kanjo Project Officer 
Aug 
Ministry of Health – Guinea Worm 
Eradication Program Anthony Gingong 
Samuel Woode Field Project Officer: East Gonja, 
Nanumba, Saboba/Chereponi 
Elvis Agyei Credit Officer 
Adu Boahen Credit Officer 
Mrs. Eunice Odum Health /Nutrition Coordinator for 
Northern Ghana 
20-
Aug 
ADRA-Tamale 
Ochere Boadu Field Officer for Tolon,Savelugu 
& West Gonja 
20-
Aug 
CARD Naresh Shukula Program Manager 
Stephen Ofosu Water Res. 
Patrick Amoateng Project Manager 
Amponsah Mensah Acct. Mgr. 
Carl Ofan￾Aguyeman 
Operations Mgr. 
Jarvis Abonang 
Ayamsegna 
Water Quality Manager 
20-
Aug 
World Vision – Ghana 
Angelina 
Nhirakwah 
Adm. Assistant 
Christopher 
Bakawerei 
Sr. Business Advisor 
Joseph Banikon Regional Accountant 
20-
Aug 
Technoserv-Tamale 
Raman Business Advisor 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
61 
Sylvester Adongon Regional Director of Agriculture – 
N/R 
21-Aug Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
Robert Dodoo Livestock Specialist 
21 Aug Gushegu/Karaga District Assembly Ms. Rita Iddi District Chief Executive 
Mr.Abdul Karim Adam District planning Officer 
22 Aug West Gonja District Assembly Mr. Zakaria Yakubu District Chief Executive 
Mr. H. Banda District Coordinating Director 
Alexander Newton Deputy Mission Director 
Andrew Kreftt PL Title II Program Officer 
Adelaide 
30-Aug. USAID-Ghana Mission 
Jim Wright 
30-Aug. Heifer International – Ghana John Heloo Country Director 
30-Aug. TechnoServe – Ghana, Accra Nick Railston-Brown Country Director 
Scott Clark Program Director 
Leon Sakho Interim Country Director 
Carla Denizard Country Director 
John Azu Technical Advisor 
OICI-Ghana 
Francis Kotobridjah Finance and Monetization Advisor 
Isaac Gyamfi Project Manager 
Florence Pul Technical Services Coordinator 
Samuel Agric. Technical Specialist 
Osman Micro-enterprise Technical Specialist
Patrick WATSAN Technical Specialist 
Paul Amevor M&E Specialist 
El Haj. BA Fusseini Board Member 
Fati Paul Board Vice-Chairperson 
OICI-Tamale 
Nurideen Moomen Executive Board Member 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
62 
ANNEX F. REFERENCES 
ADRA (no date). Manual for Community Motivators. Adventist Development and Relief 
Agency, Ghana. 
Amevor P, Donkoh K (2002). Impact Survey Report, July 2002. Food Security Training and 
Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Andan FH (2002a). Report on First Phase of Post Harvest Loss Assessments, March 2002, Food 
Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Andan FH (2002b). Second Report on Post Harvest Loss Assessment Studies, June 2002. Food 
Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Andan FH (2002c). Draft Final Report on Loss Assessment Studies and Market Surveys in Four 
Districts of Northern Region. July 2002. Food Security Training and Outreach Services 
Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Annor SY (2001). Permission letter to OIC: Collaboration with OIC in the Implementation of a 
Proposed Inventory Credit Programme – Request for the Release of Existing MOFA 
community Storage Structures. Gushegu/Karaga District Assembly 
Asuni J (2000). Baseline Survey Report, May 2000. Food Security Training and Outreach 
Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
CAPSARD (2002). End of Contract Report on Construction of Household Grain Storage Systems 
in Gushegu-Karaga District, December 2001 – April 2002. Prepared by Community 
Action Programme for Sustainable Agriculture (CAPSARD) for Food Security Training 
and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Development Initiatives Consult (2000a). Feasibility Study on potable Rural Water Supply 
Systems in the Northern Region: Final Report. 15 December 2000. Prepared by 
Development Initiatives Consult (DIC) for Food Security Training and Outreach Services 
Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
Development Initiatives Consult (2000b). Feasibility Study on potable Rural Water Supply 
Systems in the Northern Region: Annexes. 15 December 2000. Prepared by Development 
Initiatives Consult (DIC) for Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. 
OIC International, Inc. 
FAO/WFP (2002): Emergency Supply of Basic Farm inputs to drought affected farm households. 
(TCP/GHA/2803 (E). Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 
Fapohunda BM, Amevor P. (2000). Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, 20 November 
2000. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
FY 2002 and FY 2002 A-133 Audit Reports 
Government of Ghana (2001). Background document for the European Union funded Rural 
Water and Sanitation Project in the Northern Region. 
Langworthy M, Nornoo C, Ekekpi G, Amevor P (2002). Midterm Evaluation Report, January 
2002. TANGO International, Tucson, Arizona. 
MOFA (2001): State of agriculture in Ghana. Paper presented at the International Conference on 
Sustainable Food Security for all by 2020. Sept. 4th – 6th. Bonn, Germany. 
Mohammed JA (no date). Business Management Training Manual for Microenterprise 
Development. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
63 
International, Inc. 
OICI (1998a). Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative Development Activity 
Proposal, 15 April 1998. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (1998b). Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative Development Activity 
Proposal Revisions, 7 July 1998. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (1999). FY 2000 Previously Approved Activity (PAA), 15 April 1999 Food Security 
Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2000a). Memorandum of Understanding. Guinea Worm Eradication Program of the 
Ministry of Health - Ghana, OICI and OIC Tamale. 15 January 2000. 
OICI (2000b). FY 1999 Annual Results Report, March 2000. Food Security Training and 
Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2000c). Memorandum of Understanding. Adventist Development and Relief Agency - 
Ghana, OICI and OIC Tamale. 21 March 2001. 
OICI (2000d). FY 2001 Previously Approved Activity (PAA) – version submitted to USAID 
Ghana Mission 1 April 2000. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. 
OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2000e). FY 2001 Previously Approved Activity (PAA) – version submitted to USAID 
Washington submission 15 April 2000. Food Security Training and Outreach Services 
Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2000f). Report on Monitoring of ADRA Wells/Pumps, 16-22 August 2000. Food Security 
Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2000g). Memorandum of Understanding. Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, 
and OICI. 1 October 2000. 
OICI (2001a). Memorandum of Understanding. World Vision International – Ghana, OICI, and 
OIC Tamale. No date, 2 April 2001. 
OICI (2001b). FY 2000 Results Report and FY 2002-2003 Resource Request (CSR4), Revised 
Version, 25 April 2001. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC 
International, Inc. 
OICI (2001c). Memorandum of Understanding. Ministry of Food and Agriculture - Ghana, OICI 
and OIC Tamale. 29 June 2001. 
OICI (2001d). Memorandum of Understanding: Agreement for Ghana P.L.480 Title II 
Monetization... Catholic Relief Services, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, and 
0131Opportunities Industrialization Centers International. 12 November 2001. 
OICI (2001e). Environmental Screening Report Form. July 2001. Food Security Training and 
Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2001f). Survey Report on Household Food Provision August – September 2001. Food 
Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002a). Semi-Annual Portfolio Review Reports (SAPRs) to USAID/Ghana. 2nd Semester 
FY 1999 to 1st Semester FY 2002. Food Security Training and Outreach Services 
Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002b). Program Monthly Reports, Agriculture. October 2000 to June 2002. Food Security 
Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
64 
OICI (2002c). Program Monthly Reports, Water and Sanitation. October 2000 to July 2002. Food 
Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002d). Program Monthly Reports, Microenterprise Development. May 2001 to June 2002. 
Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002e). Environmental Status Report, 3 June 2002. Food Security Training and Outreach 
Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002f). FY 2001 Results Report and FY 2003 Resource Request (CSR4), 31 January 2002. 
Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICI (2002g). Pesticide Use Analysis and Action Plan for the use of Actellic Super. 20 February 
2002. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC Tamale and OIC 
International, Inc. 
OICI (2002h). Environmental Screening Forms, 31 July 2001. Food Security Training and 
Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
OICT (2001). Partnership Agreement between OICT and World Vision – Ghana. March 2001. 
OICT (no date a). Post-Harvest and Farm Management Skills Training Materials for Grains and 
Legumes. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC International, 
Inc. 
OICT (no date b). Water and Sanitation Training Manual. Food Security Training and Outreach 
Services Initiative. OIC International, Inc. 
ProNet (2000a). WATSAN Committee Training, Session Plans. Professional Network, Ghana. 
ProNet (2000b). WATSAN Committee Training, Trainers Notes and Guide. Professional 
Network, Ghana. 
Stevenson S (2001). Proceedings of Kick-Off Workshop for Inventory Credit Program, 13-15 
August 2001. Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. OIC Tamale and 
OIC International, Inc. 
Stevenson S, Andan PFH (2000). Feasibility Study on Cereals and Legume Storage Systems in 
Northern Region. Prepared by Community Action Programme for Sustainable 
Agriculture (CAPSARD) for Food Security Training and Outreach Services Initiative. 
OIC International, Inc. 
ANNEX G. INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TRACKING TABLES 
Note the strike-through entries have been amended or deleted. They are included for a 
historical perspective. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
65 
(INSERT 3 PAGES FROM EXCEL FILE) 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
66 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
67 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
68 
ANNEX H. IMPACT SURVEY 
A. Introduction 
This impact survey was conducted as part of the final evaluation of OICI’s Food Security 
Training and Outreach Services Initiative Development Activity Proposal. OICI/G staff and the 
evaluation team leader decided to supplement the impact survey conducted by Amevor & 
Donkoh (July 2002) in order to measure impacts not addressed in the July study and the 
program’s monitoring and evaluation program. This survey was administered by OICT field staff 
concurrent with the final evaluation field work. The results were analyzed after the evaluation 
field work was completed. Interpretation of the finding were incorporated into the main text of 
this final evaluation report. 
The program is starting its fourth and final year of field activities. Currently program activities 
occur in 141 communities located in seven Districts of Ghana’s Northern Region, however only 
87 communities have participated in program activities longer than a year. These communities 
provided the population on which program impacts were evaluated. 
B. Baseline study 
The baseline study was not used for the impact study because its population was not 
representative of the program’s participants. It also did not address some of the impact variables. 
The baseline survey (Asuni, 2000) contracted by OICI was administered February 23-28, 2000 by 
paid interviewers and followed a participatory rural appraisal approach. The interviewers were 
accompanied by program extension agents (PCF) to train the PCFs in survey research techniques 
and helped them understand and integrate into their assigned communities. The objectives of the 
survey were to (1) provide baseline values of key indicators (2) provide information for 
reassessing target objectives for the program and (3) identify any factors that might influence 
program activities. The survey was conducted in first three of the seven districts OIC selected for 
program activities. Households (n=322) were the primary sampling unit. A household was 
defined as the people who live together and eat from a common pot. Half of the survey 
households were randomly selected from ADRA’s lists of program participants. The other half 
were named “controls,” and were selected based on their distance from (“third house beyond”) 
the selected ADRA participant households. Approximately 11% of the households in 28 
communities were interviewed. Baseline information was not collected for 13 of the impact 
indicators identified in the DAP (indicators 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 
1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, and 1.5.2; OICI, 1998a&b and Annex G.). Eight of these indicators may 
have been interpreted as program output (activity) indicators with baselines of zero. The lack of 
baseline information on these indicators makes attribution of impacts from this program more 
speculative since DAP participants might also have received training and support from other 
programs. For example, Asuni (2000, p. 18) noted that a “large percentage (45%) of women 
interviewed earn money through processing agriculture products.” These women run business 
were classified as micro enterprises but no questions were ask about past business training they 
may have received. 
C. Survey Design 
The evaluation team designed the impact questionnaire; each consultant was initially responsible 
for developing questions to evaluate program impacts in their assigned sector, especially those 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
69 
not directly measured by the program’s monitoring and evaluation section. The questions were 
review with the program’s extension agents (PCFs). As a result some questions and sets of 
questions were modified to be more culturally appropriate. 
We used the same definition of household as the baseline survey and included some of the its 
questions so that the baseline data could be used to help validate some of the impact survey 
questions and be used to compare results from communities common to both surveys. However 
the essential baseline data could not be found to validate the impact survey. Data entry of the 
baseline questionnaires was contracted out. The questionnaires were not retained by the program 
and the names of the interviewees were not recorded in the database. If the baseline data can be 
retrieved it can be used to assess the validity the impact study questionnaire and impact analysis 
of those communities with the same interviewees. 
Due to time constraints the survey was not pre-tested, we expected that baseline data would be 
available to validate many of the questions. The questionnaire were not translated into local 
languages, however the extension agents and the evaluation team thoroughly discussed each 
question so that all the extension agents/interviewers would clearly understand the intent of each 
question. 
D. Selection of Interviewees 
The program maintained a database of participants. This data allowed us to select interviewees 
probability proportional to size within each activity stratum. A total of 2441 participants were 
identified as having been with the program longer than a year. The program generally 
concentrated on one activity in each of their participating communities. We stratified the selection 
of communities based on activities (i.e., agriculture, water & sanitation, cassava processing, rice 
processing, bee keeping, and pottery making). We then selected up to 5 communities in each 
activity strata, only 4 communities in rice processing and 3 communities in cassava processing 
had participants that were active for more than a year. From the 6 strata, 27 communities were 
randomly selected probability proportional to the number of participants in each strata. Because 
some communities have more than one program activity some activities were better represented 
by selected interviewees. For each of the 27 selected communities a list of up to 20 randomly 
selected participants was made. The interviewers selected the first 8 participants on the list that 
were available and willing to be interviewed. Five control communities were also selected to 
compare program participant responses with people residing in non-program communities. One 
control community was selected from each district based on similar size and close proximity to a 
randomly selected impact survey community (n=27). Household compounds in Northern Region 
communities are numbered so a randomized list of numbers from 1 to 50 was provided to the 
interviewers for each assigned control community. The interviewer selected from the randomized 
list the first 8 compounds with people that were available and willing to be interviewed. Some 
compounds are composed of more than one household so an additional list of randomized 
numbers was provided so that the interviewer could randomly select households within the same 
compound. A total of 216 qualifying program participants were interviewed out of a possible 
2441. A total of 40 non-program community households were interviewed for controls, 8 
households form each of the 5 regions. 
E. Survey Implementation 
The program extension agents (PCFs) are college graduates and had experience conducting the 
baseline and other surveys (Asuni, 2000; Amevor & Donkoh, 2002). The one day of training and 
discussion about survey implementation was all that was available but seemed sufficient 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
70 
considering the capability of the PCFs. Impact study was conducted by PCFs from 21-28 August 
2002. They reported that the interviews required an average of 20 minutes to administer. 
F. Data Entry 
Epi Info 6.04 software program was used for the data entry. A template was developed and 4 data 
entry clerks, graduates of University of Development Studies in Tamale were contracted to enter 
the data. The data was merged and cleaned by programs monitoring and evaluation specialist and 
sent to the team leader of the evaluation team for further cleaning and analysis. 
G. Data Analysis 
The household data on types of crops grown were consistent among the communities sampled, 
within and outside the program; therefore it was assumed that the population was relatively 
similar across strata. Descriptive statistics and comparison of means using MS-Excel (ver. 2002) 
and odds ratios were calculated using Stata (ver. 5.0). 
H. Results 
The results are reported and interpreted in the main report. OICI was provided the raw and 
transformed data in MS-Excel format. The nature of the retrospective survey design and its 
administration makes it very susceptible to recall error (i.e., interviewee can not correctly 
remember what occurred in 1999), and response and reporting bias (e.g., the interviewee responds 
in a way to make the program look good). Also the small sample size reduced the statistical 
significance of values reported so that only large impacts could be identified. 
I. Questionnaire 
Refer to following four pages. 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
71 
District: _____________________ Community: _________________________ 
Client Number: _______ Sex: ________ Date: ______________ 
1. How many people live in this house and eat from the same pot now? 
______, “We will call these people the household now.” 
2. How many people lived in this household and ate from the same pot 3 years ago (1999)? 
______, “We will call these people the household 3-years ago.” 
3. Has anyone else in your compound taken this survey? 
No O
Yes O, 4. Who took the survey? _________________________________ 
 5. Is this person in your household now? 
No O
Yes O
6. What types of cereal and grain crops did you grow on the household farm … 
(check all that apply) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001)? 
Maize O O
Rice O O
Millet O O
Sorghum O O
Do not know O O
7. What storage method do you mostly use for cereals and grain … 
(check one each) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Gourds O O
Pots O O
Grass & clay granary (kambong) O O
Mud silo O O
Basket O O
Grain bank O O
Bags O O
Do not know O O
8. What protection methods were used for cereals and grain crop storage … 
(check all that apply) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Plant material (neem, etc.) O O
Chemicals (actellic, etc.) O O
Other O O
None O O
Do not know O O
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
72 
9. How many months did the food harvest last … 
 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Number of months ________ ________ 
Do not know O O
10. What proportion of your grain harvest did you lose in storage (throw away) ... 
(check one each) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
0-3% O O
4-10% O O
11-20% O O
20-35% O O
>35% O O
Do not know O O
11. What period of the year did you sell the grain after the 1999 and 2001 harvest? 
(check one each) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? LAST YEAR (2001)? 
October to December O O
January to March O O
April to June O O
July to September O O
Did not sell grain O O
Do not know O O
12. How many people suffered from guinea worm in your household during the year 
 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? PAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Number of people from household _____ _____ 
Do not know O O 
13. How much did your household pay as water user fees per year … 
 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? PAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Cedis _____ _____ 
Did not pay O O
Do not know O O
14. How much time does it take your household to collect water daily during the dry season … 
 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? PAST YEAR (2002)? 
Time in TZ (tuozafi) preparation units _____ _____ 
Do not know O O
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
73 
15. What were your sources of DRINKING water during the dry season … 
(check all that apply) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? PAST YEAR (2001-2)? 
Pond/dug-out/dam O O
River/stream O O
Well, unprotected O O
Well, protected O O
Borehole with a pump O O
Piped water to your compound O O
Public stand pipe O O
Truck delivered O O
Other O O
16. What were/are your sources of DRINKING water during the rainy season … 
(check all that apply) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? NOW? 
Rain water O O
Pond/dug-out/dam O O
River/stream O O
Well, unprotected O O
Well, protected O O
Borehole with a pump O O
Piped water to your compound O O
Public stand pipe O O
Truck delivered O O
Other O O
17. Where did/do you go to the bush (toilet)? 
(check all that apply) 3 YEARS AGO (1999)? NOW? 
Traditional pit latrine, home O O
Traditional pit latrine, public O O
VIP, home O O
VIP, public O O
KVIP, home O O
KVIP, public O O
Free range O O
18. When did you become involved in OIC Tamale activities? 
Year ______ Season ______ Activities: __________________________ 
Not involved O
19. Have you been involved in any enterprise activities between 1999 and now? 
No O (END OF INTERVIEW) 
Yes O (CONTINUE) 
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
74 
20. Three (3) years ago (1999), did you have resources to undertake any enterprise activity? 
No O
Yes O
21. What about now, will you say you have enough resources to undertake enterprise activities? 
No O
Yes O
22. Three (3) years ago (Year 1999) were you able to plan and implement business decisions 
that earned you good returns on your investment? 
No O
Yes O
23. Are you able to plan and implement profitable business decisions on your own now? 
No O
Yes O
24. What has happened to your PERSONAL income the past 3 years (since 1999)? 
Changed Positively O
Changed Negatively O
Remained Unchanged O
Not Applicable O
25. If we are to divide total household expenses into 10 portions, how many portions were you 
contributing 3 years ago (1999)? 
________ (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10) 
Do not know O
26. If we are to divide total household expenses into 10 portions, how many portions are you 
NOW contributing? 
________ (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10) 
Do not know O
27. Do you participate in the OIC enterprise training program? 
Yes O “What type of enterprise?” __________________________ 
No O (END OF INTERVIEW) 
28. If OICT support is to stop soon, will you be able to continue with this enterprise? 
No O
Yes O
OICI/Ghana DAP Final Evaluation Report
75 
ANNEX I. LIST OF ACRONYMS 
List of Acronyms 
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency 
CARD Center for Agricultural and Rural Development 
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
CS Cooperating Sponsor 
CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency 
DA District Assembly 
DADO District Agricultural Development Officer 
DAP Development Activity Program 
DCE District Chief Executive 
DWST District Water and Sanitation Team 
FSA Food Security Advisor 
GWEP Guinea Worm Eradication Project 
LOA Life of Activity 
LPC Local Programme Committee 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MOFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
MOH Ministry of Health 
MT metric ton 
NGO Non-governmental Organization 
OICI Opportunities Industrialization Centers International, Inc. 
OICG Opportunities Industrialization Centers - Ghana 
OICT Opportunities Industrialization Centers - Tamale 
PCF Polyvalent Community Facilitator 
PM Project Manager 
RDA Regional Director of Agriculture 
TNS TechnoServe Inc 
TNS/GH TechnoServe Ghana 
TO Technical Officer 
US$ United States dollar 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
WATSAN Water and Sanitation 
WVI World Vision International