October 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. 
It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc. 
RAISE PLUS
Evaluation of Livelihood Interventions funded through USAID Famine 
Fund Support to the Productive Safety Net Program 
EVALUATION OF LIVELIHOOD INTERVENTIONS FUNDED THROUGH 
USAID FAMINE FUND SUPPORT TO THE PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET 
PROGRAM 
FINAL REPORT
Submitted by:
Weidemann Associates, Inc.
Submitted to:
USAID/Ethiopia
Contract No.:
Period of Performance:
September-November 2006
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................................III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................................IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................V
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1
1.1. COMPOSITION OF STUDY TEAM ........................................................................................................................1
1.2. OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT.................................................................................................................................1
1.3. METHODOLOGY AND CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................................2
2. SUMMARY OF THE SPSNP INITIATIVE ....................................................................4
2.1. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND OBJECTIVES................................................................................................4
2.2. COORDINATION AND PARTNER COLLABORATION............................................................................................5
2.3. TARGETING ........................................................................................................................................................5
2.4. INTERVENTIONS PROPOSED BY COOPERATING SPONSORS...............................................................................6
2.5. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS TO DATE ...................................................................................................7
3. DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ......8
3.1. PHYSICAL COVERAGE OF WOREDAS AND KABELES ..........................................................................................8
3.2. PLANNING AND TARGETING...............................................................................................................................8
3.3. COVERAGE/DEGREE OF FOCUS ........................................................................................................................10
3.4. INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTIONS...........................................................................................................................11
3.5. COST: BENEFIT ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................11
4. CROSS CUTTING ELEMENTS.............................................................................................12
4.1. SOCIAL MOBILIZATION AND GROUP FORMATION..........................................................................................12
4.2. PERFORMANCE OF REVOLVING FUNDS...........................................................................................................14
4.3. OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF GROUP ASSETS.......................................................................................15
4.4. MARKET DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................................................16
4.5. APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY USAGE ...............................................................................................................16
4.6. GENDER............................................................................................................................................................17
5. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT SUCCESS.........................................18
5.1. INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................................18
5.2. ATTITUDINAL DEVELOPMENT.........................................................................................................................19
5.3. PSNP/SPSNP COMPLEMENTARITY................................................................................................................19
5.4. REPLICATION....................................................................................................................................................21
5.5. LINKAGES WITH GOVERNMENT.......................................................................................................................22
5.6. PRIVATE SECTOR LINKAGES ...........................................................................................................................23
6. OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT.................................................................................23
6.1. ATTRIBUTION OF IMPACT................................................................................................................................23
6.2. PROGRESS TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY...........................................................................................................24
6.3. OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................................................25
7. EVALUATION OF BEST PRACTICES ..........................................................................27
7.1. TRADITIONAL ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................27
7.2. INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................28
7.3. LESS RELEVANT INTERVENTIONS ...................................................................................................................29
7.4. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................................29
8. ROLE OF COOPERATING SPONSORS IN SPSNP DEVELOPMENT
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
ii
30
8.1. NATURE OF SPSNP DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................30
8.2. ROLE OF THE COOPERATING SPONSORS .........................................................................................................31
8.3. INTERACTION BETWEEN COOPERATING SPONSORS .......................................................................................33
8.4. COOPERATING SPONSOR EXIT STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................33
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................34
10. ANNEXES...................................................................................................................................................38
ANNEX A. DESCRIPTION OF COMMON INTERVENTIONS ...............................................................................................38
ANNEX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................................46
ANNEX C: PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET SUPPORT PROGRAM- RFA...............................................................................48
ANNEX D: SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE EVALUATION......................................................................................................60
ANNEX E: KEY QUESTIONS AND CROSS REFERENCED RESPONSES .............................................................................67
ANNEX F: BENEFICIARY QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................................................................................68
ANNEX G: TABULATED RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................72
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABG Asset Building Group
ADP Area Development Program
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ALT Alternative Livelihoods Transition
CFW Cash for Work
CIDA Canadian Institute for Agricultural Development
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CS Co-operating Sponsor
DA Development Advisor
DAP Development Assistance Program
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DPPC Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission
EFSR Emergency Food Security Reserve
EC European Commission
ETB Ethiopian ETB
FAO Food and Agriculture Office
FFP Food for Peace
FFW Food for Work
FSCB Food Security Coordination Bureau
GFDRE Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IR Intermediate Result
KMA Kabele Marketing Association
MLVP Market -led livelihoods for vulnerable populations
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
ORDA Oromya Region Development Agency
PA Producers’ Association
PSNP Productive Safety Net Program
PSO Program Support Initiative
REST Relief Society of Tigray
SO Strategic Objective
SNNPS Southern Nations Nationalities’ and Peoples State
SPSNP Support to the Productive Safety Net Program
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WFP World Food Program
Final Report 
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Weidemann Associates Inc. appreciates the extensive support and cooperation of all who participated and 
assisted in the conduct of this evaluation.
In particular we would like to thank both Federal, Regional and Woreda authorities for their willingness 
to spend time with us and for their help in coordinating the work.
Our special thanks go also to the USAID office ALT staff for all their support in facilitating this study, 
for providing us with direction and facilities and for assistance in obtaining the information needed to 
conduct the study.
In addition we would like to thank the Cooperating Sponsors for their assistance in providing program 
data, and for their willingness to provide information and be available to us when needed. We particularly 
appreciate the universal cooperation of all CS field staff and their helpful organization of field visits, 
interviews and beneficiary discussion groups.
Finally, and most importantly, we would like to acknowledge our gratitude to the many SPSNP and 
OFDA beneficiaries who waited hours to speak to us, answered seemingly endless questions patiently and 
provided us with a unique insight into the problems that they are facing and the solutions that they are 
adopting to move towards sustainable household food security. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report details the evaluation of selected livelihood interventions in support of the Productive Safety 
Net Programme (PSNP) financed from the USAID Famine Fund. This is the first evaluation of such 
interventions, and covers only a proportion of the wide range of interventions undertaken by cooperating 
sponsors, many of which were only 75% complete at the time of assessment. As such, it is anticipated that 
some conclusions may be altered in the light of subsequent project developments.
SPSNP projects were required first to assist PSNP beneficiaries to graduate from the program through its 
livelihoods diversification and expansion component and secondly to address the two main elements of 
the PSNP (resource transfers and community asset building) through its capacity building component. 
The former component (livelihoods diversification and expansion) is the subject of this evaluation.
The original SPSNP proposals submitted by Co-operating Sponsors showed some uniformity of approach. 
In general, the proposals described programs and interventions that built upon Cooperating Sponsors past 
experience. Most of the proposed interventions were based around either social mobilization (e.g. savings 
and credit groups) and/or agricultural activities (e.g. backyard gardening, shoat rearing or beekeeping). In 
some cases, there was considerable infrastructural input (e.g. substantial water diversion structures), while 
in others, smaller amounts of physical inputs were provided. The proposals indicated a general awareness 
of the need for assistance in market development, and the need for attitudinal development was 
universally highlighted.
The process of project implementation appeared to have proceeded smoothly with one general exception. 
Although initial disbursements in January 2005 had been timely, the close coordination with local 
administrations required for SPSNP projects resulted in negotiations with regional authorities that delayed 
almost all projects by 4/5 months, so that in most cases project implementation did not begin until 
April/May 2005. Otherwise, Cooperating Sponsors indicated that most programs have progressed as 
expected since that time.
Project staff generally indicated that the development of a positive attitude amongst beneficiaries was a 
key element of every project, but that it required a longer time frame than was possible within a two-year 
project. Generally however, progress in project implementation can be considered good. Key indicators 
detailed in PMP documents have generally been met, although it must be accepted that for the most part, 
such indicators reflect project performance rather than project impacts. 
The overall number of beneficiaries targeted during the first 18 months of the programs totaled 83,000 
households or 415,000 beneficiaries (using the accepted approximation of five beneficiaries per 
household). This represents approximately 9% of the initial PSNP population and 6% of the revised 
figure and is slightly less than half of the coverage originally anticipated in the RFA. The total amount of 
funding spent on the development of household assets (as opposed to PSNP capacity development) 
amounted to US$8.36 million. This is equivalent to an investment of US$101 per household or US$20 per 
beneficiary.
The intervention targeting process was subject to some criticism by SPSNP beneficiaries; it is suggested 
that the targeting process should seek to generate successful economic development on the basis of 
attitude, aptitude, and capacity. The selection process should involve selected members of the community 
and the local administration, but should not be allowed to become an “equitable distribution of assets”. 
The fact that the PSNP will support the more vulnerable members of the community allows such selective 
targeting to be achieved with minimal negative humanitarian effect.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
vi
The coverage anticipated by the original Famine Fund RFA was approximately one million beneficiaries 
or 20% of the PSNP. In practice, even with a substantial reduction in coverage, the Cooperating Sponsors 
nevertheless generally indicated that the areas covered have exceeded their original expectations and that 
their resources have been overstretched as a result. The intensive targeting looked for in the RFA was 
rarely achieved. This single factor (extent of coverage) appeared to contribute most significantly to the 
level of success of different projects. A critical impetus, derived from more than one and preferably at 
least three interventions was generally considered necessary to move a household towards food security. 
Extended project coverage reduced the number of interventions at the household level to the point where 
in some cases at least 80% of beneficiaries were only receiving one intervention and consequently were 
not making discernible progress towards food security.
The finance resources available within the SPSNP envelope were originally set at a maximum of 
ETB140/beneficiary. (US$16.4 million total funding, with an expected target group of one million 
beneficiaries). In practice, investment appears to have been of the order of ETB174 (US$20) per 
beneficiary due to reduced coverage. The cost of the interventions needed to achieve sustainable food 
security is estimated at approximately US$70-90 per beneficiary (given an average household size of five 
people). This is approximately four times the level of funding initially provided for SPSNP activities.
A number of Cooperating Sponsors under SPSPN have started the process of group formation. The 
groups generally showed positive results, but it was evident that, the extent of the effectiveness of social 
mobilisation varies from Cooperating Sponsor to Cooperating Sponsor, largely as a function of the degree 
of assistance provided to the group by field staff. In particular the Evaluation Team noted deficiencies in 
the performance and management of revolving funds, which require immediate correction to avoid the 
inculcation of bad practices in credit management amongst beneficiaries.
The performance of revolving funds accumulating repayment for assets received by individuals or groups 
contrasts markedly with the performance of revolving funds in savings and credit groups. There was a 
clear sense of beneficiary ownership and self-determination in the latter case, which tended to be lacking 
in the former. It is recommended that both the Cooperating Sponsor and USAID undertake more rigorous 
monitoring of revolving funds initially offering small loans with short repayment periods and using peer 
pressure to ensure timely repayments.
Most Cooperating Sponsors have not placed significant emphasis on market development. This is due not 
only to an apparent lack of skills and capacity on their part but also to the fact that produce from SPSNP￾sponsored activities such as honey or vegetables can either be consumed locally or that no marketable 
output has so far been produced.
It was observed that in almost all aspects of all projects, appropriate technologies had been used that 
could be easily replaced or repaired by beneficiaries.
Cooperating Sponsor projects were generally well compliant with gender issues and that most 
interventions were equally distributed between genders, although some exceptions were noted. In 
particular, participation of women in study tours was les than that of men. However, in terms of impact, 
there were no significant differences between genders in the extent of increased food security reported, in 
terms of both increased cash and food availability. Generally the survey results showed little differences 
between gender disaggregated data sets. This is not unexpected. Cooperating Sponsors have had long 
exposure to gender issues in Ethiopia and have developed appropriate responses.
Key factors affecting project success include the integration of interventions. Most beneficiaries indicated 
that at least three interventions are required to achieve sustainable food security. and it was clearly 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
vii
reported and observed that greater impact was achieved if interventions were provided within the scope of 
an integrated community-based program. Field staff emphasized that the integration of programs within a 
common “software” environment (i.e. imparting a consistent philosophy of self-help and business 
development) is essential to the success and sustainability of all diversification initiatives. The integration 
of SPSNP interventions with PSNP programs was also observed to be a positive factor.
Field staff unanimously emphasized the importance of developing a positive beneficiary attitude in order 
to achieve sustainable development. To a considerable extent, all CS hardware and technical training 
interventions are effectively providing a “framework of opportunity” within which attitudinal 
development must take place.
Complementarity of PSNO and SPSNP interventions was generally observed to be good. The PSNP has 
successfully supported chronically impoverished communities and allowed SPSNP activities to be more 
successful as a result. However, it appears that Cooperating Sponsors have yet to make full use of the 
opportunities for focused development that the PSNP provides.
Given the limited resources available for SPSNP interventions, it is important that interventions should be 
easily replicated wherever possible, but experience in this area is variable. Generally, the lower cost, 
immediate impact interventions appear (not surprisingly) to be most replicable. These include backyard 
vegetable production, credit and savings groups and the provision of shoats on revolving basis. 
Frequently however, the evaluation team did observe complex and integrated interventions, especially 
those involving high initial capital costs or a significant degree of organization/administration that would 
not easily be replicated by small communities or individual households.
Interviews with field staff and local administrators indicated that all Cooperating Sponsors have 
developed good working relationships with government at the grass roots level. However, relationships 
with woreda and zonal level administration were less consistent. Generally however, the woreda
administrations have welcomed the SPSNP interventions seeing them as complementing PSNP activities 
while Cooperating Sponsors have filled resource gaps where needed.
It was noted that in most interventions, the private sector was limited to the role of buyer. There was little 
observed attempt to involve private sector participation in other roles such as seedling nursery 
management, inputs supply, repairs to equipment or out-grower schemes. In particular, only limited 
evidence was observed of Cooperating Sponsors linking groups or individual households to public sector 
financial institutions to secure micro-credit.
In almost every case, SPSNP interventions were being undertaken in woredas and kabeles that had been 
subject to previous interventions by the CS. This meant that the interventions could not be considered as 
discrete initiatives, but rather as the culmination of a series of events extending back over several years 
prior to the SPSNP intervention. Such integration of programs over time may promote synergism, but it 
tends to confound the accurate analysis of impact
In general the evaluation team was not able to assess the actual sustainability of interventions. It noted 
with concern that major group interventions required continual CS input at this stage, however, those 
interventions that provided discrete support to individual households did indeed appear to be potentially 
sustainable.
The evaluation team found plenty of evidence on the ground to assess that overall, despite shortcomings, 
the impacts of both SPSNP interventions have been positive. 87% of beneficiaries stated that the activities 
they had undertaken under SPSNP had resulted in increased production of food for their own 
consumption. Of these 37% stated that livestock production/rearing had led to the most production of 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
viii
food for own consumption. Sixteen per cent of positive respondents stated that the increase was large, 
67% stated it was moderate and 17% stated it was insignificant. However, impact has been limited where 
Cooperating Sponsors have spread themselves too thinly geographically.
Nevertheless, the SPSNP intervention can be assessed to have shown significant impact, albeit at a lower 
level, over a longer time frame and amongst a more restricted target group than originally anticipated. It is 
can also be expected that this impact will have a degree of sustainability, although again this is limited by 
the high degree of reliance upon cooperating sponsors that the more complex group interventions require.
Amongst the more traditional interventions, three activities stood out as being both well accepted, 
replicable, and generally sustainable. These were the facilitation of savings and credit groups, provision 
of shoats and establishment of household water supply systems. Each of these interventions had different 
strengths and was most appropriate in certain areas. Two areas of activity stood out as being of limited 
relevance under the current circumstances. The first of these was vocational training, which proved 
relatively costly and limited in both the number of beneficiaries that were assisted and the circumstances 
where skills could be applied. The second area of limited relevance was in the marketing of traditional 
agricultural produce. It was observed that at current levels of production, generated by SPSNP activities, 
outputs could be readily disposed of in rural markets without difficulty or additional assistance being 
required.
The underlying principles that determine the most effective practices were assessed. The importance of an 
integrated approach was recognized together with the ability to limit interventions to selected areas and 
specific target groups, including particularly those who would be able to make the best use of 
interventions. In addition, the relevance of a given intervention to the beneficiary community was 
considered critical to success.
All Cooperating Sponsor field staff reported that successful interventions also require coordination with 
local administration and in particular capacity development at the DA level so that successful 
interventions can be both sustained and replicated elsewhere. 
Limited capacity at the local administrative level is perhaps the biggest issue facing the successful 
implementation of SPSNP or any subsequent development initiative. 
The creation of successful examples should be one of the two underlying targets of the SPSNP exercise, 
and interventions should be integrated and focused to achieve this goal. The second target - of achieving 
successful replication of sound interventions depends upon the availability of local resources, and 
complementary programs will/are definitely required to facilitate this.
It appeared that most of the interventions undertaken by Cooperating Sponsors fell short of the original 
expectations of those who had drafted the initial SPSNP RFA in the sense that most interventions 
repeated previous agriculturally focuses programs and relatively few introduced new concepts or 
methodologies such as vocational training or other off-farm income generating activities. However, the 
evaluation team observed that the interphase between relief and market-orientated interventions (that are 
more typical of development) involves at least two stages. In the first, beneficiaries are assisted to achieve 
sustainable household food security with occasional surplus production. In the second, they are assisted to 
develop a consistent commercial surplus for the market with direct oversight and assistance from the 
Cooperating Sponsor. It is at this second phase of intermediate development that more market focused 
interventions are relevant. Until the second phase has been reached the traditional interventions are more 
appropriate to the level of development of both individual households and the surrounding economic 
environment.
Cooperating Sponsors have been accepted as stakeholders in the national development process to 
supplement limited local capacity. However within this context, it was observed that the role expected of 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
ix
Cooperating Sponsors by local administrations is one that attempts to achieve too much with too limited 
resources. All parties should accept that the role of the Cooperating Sponsors in development is limited 
(by capacity, resources and by national mandate) to that of assistance and demonstration or the 
establishment of pilot models that government can replicate and take to scale.
The RFA for the SPSNP indicated that Cooperating Sponsors should liaise and learn from each other in 
terms of best practices. The opportunity for collaboration in this regard has not been fully exploited.
If sustainability is to be achieved then some form of exit strategy is required. However, none of the 
Cooperating Sponsors appeared to have an exit strategy in place and nor was this an issue they mentioned 
or indicated that they had thought about. Nevertheless, given the limited resources available to carry our 
SPSNP interventions, it is necessary that Cooperating Sponsors should develop the capacity to relocate 
their programs once development has reached an appropriate stage in a given area. It will therefore be 
necessary to develop a longer-term outlook, considering how their relationship with beneficiaries should 
evolve to the point where they are managing more and more activities themselves, forging linkages with 
extension and the private sector independently of the Cooperating Sponsor. At present this aspect of the 
development process has not received adequate attention.
Key conclusions and recommendations can be summarised as:
· Extension of SPSNP programs to a five-year (total) time frame.
· Redirection of targeting processes to concentrate on aptitude, attitude and capacity. 
· Greater emphasis on the development of a positive self-help attitude.
· Integration of resources to provide at least two and preferably three interventions per household.
· Increased funding through the introduction of other donor resources.
· Greater use and profiling of savings and credit groups.
· Reinforcement of credit procedures and training of field staff in credit management.
· Increased private sector participation in the development process
· Increased community participation in the planning process
· Increased sharing of lessons learned and best practices between Cooperating Sponsors.
· The development of Cooperating Sponsor exit strategies within the context of realistically 
achievable programs.
Specific recommendations are also made for improved project design and selection.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
1
Evaluation of Livelihood Interventions funded through 
USAID Famine Fund Support to the Productive Safety Net 
Program
1. INTRODUCTION
This report details the evaluation undertaken by Weidemann Associates Inc. of selected livelihood
interventions in support of the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) financed from the USAID
Famine Fund. This is the first evaluation of such interventions. It is based upon extensive field
investigation, but covers only a proportion of the wide range of interventions undertaken by cooperating 
sponsors, many of which were only 75% complete at the time of assessment. The projects under 
evaluation are still operational and may in some cases be subject to further modification. As such, it is 
anticipated that some conclusions may be altered in the light of subsequent project developments
Under these circumstances, the conclusions of this report cannot be considered fully comprehensive, 
particularly where negative conclusions might be drawn; in which case, criticisms must be taken to refer 
to specific instances and circumstances. On the other hand, where positive conclusions and
recommendations have been made, there are reasonable grounds to assume that these have more general 
predictive value. The evaluation has therefore been undertaken from a positive perspective, of assessing 
the overall value of the projects financed by the Famine Fund, of seeking out the most effective
interventions in terms of both impact an sustainability, and of gathering insights into the transition from 
relief to development that these projects have been supporting so as to provide potential guidance for the 
design and implementation of further interventions in this critical area.
1.1. Composition of Study Team
The work was conducted by the Weidemann Associates Study Team consisting of Dr. George Gray 
(Development Specialist), Mr. Ali Dastgeer (Evaluation Expert) and Mr. Gebremeskel Desalegn 
(Agricultural Economist), working with two field interviewers (Mr. Tankir and Mr. Xiauo) who trained 
and supervised the activities of over 50 enumerators in the field. Data was subsequently processed by 
Agridev Consult. The report was compiled by the three principal consultants.
1.2. Outline of This Report
This report consists first of an introduction (this chapter) explaining the purpose of the evaluation exercise 
and giving a brief outline of the methodology used. It is followed by a chapter providing background 
information on the Support to the Productive Safety Net Program (SPSNP) initiative. The third chapter 
provides a detailed evaluation of the SPSNP initiatives from a general perspective, while the fourth 
assesses cross cutting issues including gender, relevance and sustainability. In the fifth chapter, key 
factors affecting success are discussed while the overall impact of projects is considered in chapter six. 
Chapter seven lists those interventions, which appeared to have the greatest potential impacts, while 
Chapter eight considers the role of the Cooperating Sponsors in this SPSNP development scenario. 
Finally Chapter nine presents the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. 
This evaluation made extensive use of a field questionnaire that supports the narrative text and 
conclusions. To reduce the length of the report, few of the tables generated have been reproduced within 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
2
the text. They are instead referred to either in text boxes or in the text itself. References to tables 
numbered G1 to G69 refer to the complete tabulated data set which is to be found in Annex G.
1.3. Methodology and constraints
This study used two specific methodologies to evaluate the different projects. The first methodology, 
undertaken by the principal consultants, consisted of structured interviews using detailed checklists to 
obtain general information, both on the overall environment in which programs have been implemented 
and on the specific interventions themselves. In the first instance the consultants interviewed other donors 
and agencies working in the field of livelihood development, including CIDA, EC, WFP the World Bank, 
and the Food Security Coordination Bureau (FSCB). Secondly, information was collected from each of 
the Cooperating Sponsors with regard to baseline data and their specific experiences concerning the 
implementation and outcomes of the SPSNP initiatives at the head office level. Thirdly, twelve projects 
were visited in the field1
. These had been selected by USAID, on the basis of geographical coverage and 
the activities undertaken, to be broadly representative of SPSNP interventions overall. In the course of 
field visits, the principal consultants used standardized checklists to interview project implementation 
staff, local administration (where available) and beneficiaries.
The second methodology was based upon simple questionnaire to obtain data from a cross section of 
beneficiaries regarding the relevance, impact and sustainability of the different livelihood initiatives. The 
questionnaire was presented by local teams of interviewers (educational level of Grade 10 or above) who 
were given preliminary training in the required selection and interview process. Forty respondents were 
selected from each woreda as shown in Table 1. Beneficiaries were selected to obtain a representative 
cross section in terms of gender, age and income level within each woreda. As far as possible, the 
questionnaire was structured to allow statistical significant results to be readily determined. A copy of the 
questionnaire is attached (Annex F). It is recognized that the limitation of 40 respondents per woreda
restricts the significance of results obtained at a woreda level, however, when accumulated across 11 
woredas, the results show significant trends from which useful conclusions can be drawn.
The limited time available required that the study team be divided into two groups, each group visited six 
projects in a given study area, (Table 1). The principal consultants in each team undertook structured 
interviews while the field interviewers held training sessions and supervised initial data collection. Where 
the enumeration exercise could not be completed in a single day, the field interviewers traveled separately 
within each study area to collect all completed questionnaires. In total the Evaluation Team visited 52 
separate kabeles, a full list is appended in Annex G.
Table 1. Project Sites Visisted
Woreda Cooperating 
Sponsor
In Support of: Interventions
Degua Temben REST PSNP
Aheferom REST PSNP
Cooperative development, marketing, provision of 
inputs, training, water harvesting, micro-irrigation
Enderta CRS OFDA Provision of Agricultural Assets thru’ Vouchers 
and Technical Assistance
Lay Gayint CARE/ORDA PSNP Voucher-based training within farmer groups, 
development of seed banks, off-farm income 
generation activities, savings and loan groups, 
formation of market linkage nodes.
Tach Gayint FHI PSNP Assistance in apiculture, provision of shoats, bio￾intensive gardening, new crops and varieties, 
 
1
 Ten of the project undertook SPSNP interventions and two were for similar OFDA livelihood initiatives.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
3
micro-irrigation, forestry, and attitude change
Habru STC 
(UK)/ORDA
PSNP Micro enterprise development, small scale 
irrigation, soil and water conservation, training in 
business management, restocking (shoats and 
poultry) community and family nurseries, 
apiculture, grain and seed banks, kitchen gardens 
and forage development.
Dodota Sire CRS PSNP Seed and livestock fairs, multiple uses of water, 
training in rural business development, production 
and marketing of white pea beana
Chiro CARE PSNP Voucher-based training within farmer groups, 
development of seed banks, off-farm income 
generation activities, savings and loan groups, 
formation of market linkage nodes.
Sodo Zuria World 
Version
PSNP Provision of Shoats and cattle, silk worm 
production, provision of improved seeds, pumps 
for micro irrigation, fruit trees.
Kedida Gamella CHF PSNP Savings and Credit Group, training artisans 
(weaving, pottery and business skills), Support to 
women’s business center
Meskan CHF OFDA Development of 5 asset building groups for 
poultry, shoats,vegetables and cereals
Meskan CHF PSNP Water resource development, apiculture, poultry 
rearing, silk production and marketing, enset 
processing, construction of bridges and access 
roads.
One recognized constraint of this methodology was that it did not provide a sound comparison between 
SPSNP beneficiaries and those PSNP beneficiaries who were not receiving the additional support of 
SPSNP. This was due to logistical constraints in that while the Cooperating Sponsors could assist in the 
congregation of SPSNP beneficiary discussion groups and interviewees for the evaluation team, the team 
had no means of identifying or selecting appropriate non-SPSNP beneficiaries either within the timeframe 
or with the resources available. However, in the course of beneficiary discussion groups, questions were 
repeatedly put to assess how much development SPSNP beneficiaries might have achieved using the 
resources available under the PSNP alone. Beneficiary responses were unequivocal that under the PSNP 
alone, households could be expected to achieve little development of their own assets.
It should be noted that while the original SOW of the Evaluation Team did include 2005 interventions, 
field visits were restricted to only two OFDA project sites. As a result, it has been difficult for the Team 
to draw comprehensive conclusions as to the effectiveness of OFDA FY2005 livelihood interventions in 
general. Nevertheless, the team was able to assess the two OFDA sites visited in terms of developmental 
impact and has incorporated the lessons learned within the overall conclusions of this report. 
The Scope of Work for this evaluation is included in Annex D and a summary of the key questions, cross 
referenced against the relevant sections in this report, in Annex E.
Throughout this report, the authors have avoided references to individual Cooperating Sponsors where 
possible. This is because, in the team’s opinion, the Cooperating Sponsors are all performing with equal 
effort and professionalism, but under widely differing circumstances. Moreover, it was quite clear that 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
4
most differences in performance could be ascribed mainly to individuals – not institutions. Under such 
circumstances it would be misleading to make specific references or comparisons.
2. SUMMARY OF THE SPSNP INITIATIVE
2.1. Underlying Assumptions and Objectives
The USAID SPSNP is financed from the Famine Fund, through Cooperative Agreements with a total 
award value of $16 million over a two-year period (now subject to a one year extension), the primary 
objective of which is to decrease the number of persistently poor requiring food or cash assistance to meet 
basic needs. The SPSNP is a supporting and complementary element to the PSNP (Productive Safety Net 
Programme). This larger program is based on the hypothesis that predictably vulnerable individuals 
require predictable assistance so they may protect and/or rebuild assets2
. Through the provision of 
consistent, multi-year assistance to vulnerable households and in ways that strengthen their (and their
communities’) coping abilities, targeted beneficiaries have potential to re-attain and maintain food 
security in the long-term. 
The PSNP is designed around two basic transfer mechanisms: Public Works and Direct Support for the 
labor poor, which are targeted at chronically impoverished beneficiaries over the course of a three to five 
year period, through two main components (resource transfers and community asset development). 
USAID considered that in addition to these two components, livelihood diversification and expansion are 
important elements of a program designed to achieve sustainable household food security. Increased 
income or food production opportunities, would allow PSNP beneficiaries to become self-reliant and thus 
graduate from the PSNP program. 
The SPSNP was thus required first to assist PSNP beneficiaries to graduate from the program through its 
livelihoods diversification and expansion component and secondly to address the two main components 
of the PSNP (resource transfers and community asset building) through its capacity building component. 
The former component (livelihoods diversification and expansion) is the subject of this evaluation. It 
should be emphasized that capacity development at the local administration level has not been assessed.
Under the five-year goal (FY2004-2008), USAID addresses four strategic objectives (SO) and one 
program support objective (PSO) See Annex C. Activities conducted under the SPSNP were expected to 
be primarily be reflected within Intermediate Result (IR) 4 of SO 16: “Livelihood options for the food 
insecure protected, expanded and diversified”. The assumptions underlying IR4 are detailed in Annex C. 
However, certain key elements deserve emphasis:
· The purpose of this IR is to meet people’s basic needs in a predictable manner that will reach 
them before they lose crucial assets. It is also important to provide different options to allow 
people diverse livelihoods and to enable them to meet their food needs throughout the year. 
· By protecting livelihood systems and increasing opportunities to diversify livelihood options, IR 
4, contributes to overall economic growth by enabling the chronically poor to participate in the 
market and production-based activities.
· The economic resiliency of the chronically poor will be achieved when they are able to rely on 
diverse livelihood strategies during times of both abundance and hardship, surviving the next 
shock with no outside assistance and without depleting their productive assets
 
2
 This hypothesis is quoted verbatim from the SPSNP RFA.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
5
· Under this IR, by the end of 3-5 years, it is anticipated that sustainable increases in livelihood 
diversification opportunities will exist in all targeted woredas. 
· In three years, success in protecting assets, while increasing the capacities and opportunities of 
the persistently poor to participate in rural growth, should result in the stabilization of the 
numbers of Ethiopians regularly requiring food assistance and within five years these numbers 
should begin to decline. 
The primary objective of the SPSNP was to build upon the anticipated impacts of the PSNP (protection of 
household assets development of community assets), to develop a sustainable system that would protect, 
build, and diversify household assets, such that the resiliency to manage through shocks could be 
achieved. A robust economic growth strategy was envisaged together with a new approach to engaging 
with the chronically vulnerable that would not only provide safety nets, but would assist them with 
innovative asset protection and productive expansion opportunities. 
A wide range of possible activities for livelihood diversification were envisaged including agro-forestry, 
adoption of new drought-resistant crops, efficient irrigation technologies, seed nurseries, bee-keeping, 
improved livestock marketing or training in the range of new value-added businesses that were expected 
to emerge as a result of other activities under SO16. In particular, it was expected that SPSNP projects 
would collaborate with and disseminate lessons learned from USAID/Ethiopia’s Seeds and Fertilizer 
Input Systems Program, Agribusiness and Markets, and Irrigation programs. 
In addition to the above, SPSNP projects were expected to liaise with the Agribusiness and Trade 
Expansion project and with the “Market -led livelihoods for vulnerable populations (MLVP) development 
activity. Finally, since traditional gender roles in Ethiopian society limit the country’s ability to move 
forward; women’s participation in the SPSNP was considered to be paramount and were also assessed in 
this evaluation.
2.2. Coordination and Partner Collaboration 
It was assumed that greater synergy and improved outcomes would result from coordinated activities in 
each targeted region. In addition to working closely with each other, Cooperating Sponsors were expected 
to program activities as part of the GFDRE’s Food Security Coordination Bureau (FSCB) Safety Net 
Program. Rather than operating as independent organizations, they were to operate as integral members of 
the GFDRE PSNP, programming in collaboration with government counterparts. It was also expected that 
a regional consortium operating modality would improve cooperation and coordination amongst partners, 
and would improve communication between woreda, regional and federal levels. 
Cooperating Sponsors were expected to prioritize programs in the designated SPSNP woredas based on 
the following criteria: 1) existence of other USAID programs; 2) level of need (percent chronically food 
insecure, access to health services); 3) potential for impact; 4) prior Applicant programming/investment in 
the area; and 5) evidence of woreda willingness/desire to integrate SPSNP programming into the PSNP 
framework.
Cooperating Sponsors were encouraged to develop informal partnerships with other USAID/Ethiopia 
partners or international organizations implementing programs in the selected target areas.
2.3. Targeting
SPSNP programs were expected to intensively target livelihood diversification and expansion in woredas
where they would be working closely with woredas officials so as to innovate effective PSNP elements 
with high rates of success. At the same time, programs were expected to incorporate extensive targeting
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
6
by focusing on improving systems that reach beyond initial impact woredas and by working closely with 
regional governments, so as to extend program impacts using local, zonal and regional administrative 
capacity. 
Projects were to respond to both short- and longer-term objectives. These included the use of cash and 
food resources for immediate impact, such as protecting lives and smoothing consumption, while 
addressing longer-term objectives by enhancing community and household resilience to shocks, helping 
people build a more durable and diverse livelihood base (restoring and enhancing assets, resources, 
services and infrastructure), and enhancing the capabilities of individuals through a focus on health, 
nutrition and education. All projects were to contain elements the crosscutting themes of communities as 
a focal point and women’s economic and political empowerment and to focus on water resource security. 
Overall, the SPSNP was expected to make a demonstrable contribution toward reducing famine 
vulnerability in Ethiopia.
2.4. Interventions proposed by Cooperating Sponsors
An assessment of the original proposals submitted by Co-operating Sponsors showed some uniformity of 
approach. In general, the proposals described programs and interventions that built upon Cooperating 
Sponsors past experience. With the exception of activities proposed by one new CS, there were no 
significant departures from activities that had been undertaken in previous Development Assistance 
Programs (DAP’s). This may have been in part due to the relatively brief time available for proposal 
preparation in September and October 2004. It may also have been due to the fact that at that time, no 
knowledge was available as to how the PSNP would actually be implemented and what its impact might 
be on the ground. It is not surprising therefore Cooperating Sponsors were relatively conservative in terms 
of the type of interventions that they proposed to undertake. Interventions that had been successfully 
undertaken in previous projects were repeated in these proposals, or in some cases, ongoing interventions 
were built upon within the new SPSNP framework.
Although there were some exceptions (notably the greater emphasis on off-farm income generating 
activities in SNNPR and the more unified “watershed management” approach used in Tigray. Most of the 
proposed interventions were based around either social mobilization (e.g. savings and credit groups) 
and/or agricultural activities (e.g. backyard gardening, shoat rearing or beekeeping). Training was 
provided in a wide range of different skills either as an integral part of a specific intervention (e.g. 
training in goat management), or as a central element of income diversification (e.g. in blacksmithing 
skills). In some cases, there was considerable infrastructural input (e.g. substantial water diversion 
structures), while in others, smaller amounts of physical inputs were provided. The proposals indicated a 
general awareness of the need for assistance in market development, although the degree of emphasis also 
varied considerably, and significantly, the need for attitudinal development was universally highlighted, 
to the point of being described as a separate Intermediate Result in some Results Frameworks.
This is not to say that the proposed interventions were not appropriate to complement the PSNP. In many 
cases, projects were closely linked to PSNP activities and built upon them (e.g. backyard gardening 
activities based upon water collection ponds constructed under PSNP). Equally a number of new 
technologies were introduced as part of the SPSNP activities; some appeared relevant to the overall 
development process, others less so. There was a clear sense that in this regard, most projects were 
“feeling their way” as they progressed and that learning by doing had replaced the less risky approach of 
undertaking an analysis of costs and benefits prior to the introduction of a new technology. Given the 
short time frame available for project development and implementation, this is not surprising. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
7
2.5. General overview of progress to date
The process of project implementation appeared to have proceeded smoothly with one general exception. 
Although initial disbursements in January 2005 had been timely, the close coordination with local 
administrations required for SPSNP projects resulted in negotiations with regional authorities that delayed 
almost all projects by 4/5 months, so that in most cases (with the exception of Tigray) project 
implementation did not begin until April/May 2005. This appeared to be due to the new conditions 
existing under the PSNP, including uncertainty as to the targeting of beneficiaries. However in some 
areas, the fact that Cooperating Sponsors had been working on similar initiatives in the same areas prior 
to the SPSNP programs meant that some limited activities were possible from February /March.
Cooperating Sponsors indicated that most programs have progressed as expected since that time, although 
at evaluation, implementation was inevitably no more than 75% complete and it was clear that some key 
results would not occur until November 2006 at the earliest (e.g., first harvests of honey for some 
beneficiaries) and many impacts would not be apparent until 2007.
Some interventions had progressed more slowly than expected. In some specific cases this had been due 
to logistical and administrative problems (e.g., difficulties in obtaining suitable livestock, shortage of drip 
irrigation equipment, limited availability of seed for new varieties). Generally however, there had been 
delays in two areas. First, in the implementation of market development programs and in the provision of 
market support. This was not the case in those projects for which marketing was a central theme (e.g. the 
marketing of haricot beans to international brokers, or the marketing of milk or honey), but project staff 
indicated that less emphasis than originally anticipated had been placed on marketing in those projects for 
which market development was a supporting element rather than a central issue (e.g., backyard garden 
development); on balance this may in fact have been an appropriate management response (see section 
8.1 below).
Secondly, project staff generally indicated that the development of a positive attitude amongst 
beneficiaries was a key element of every project, but that it required a longer time frame than was 
possible within a two-year project. This aspect of development was something that was not always clearly 
defined, but was variously described by project staff as “a positive outlook”, “the necessary software”, 
“being business orientated”, a “can-do” attitude”, “ a self-help outlook” and “thinking outside the box”. 
Although this last description is a hackneyed management phrase, it does perhaps best describe the need 
to move away from the fatalistic outlook, constrained both by physical and social limitations that restricts 
the choices available to many beneficiaries. 
Project staff in a number of cases highlighted the fact that “we have given them (the beneficiaries) the 
hardware (shoats, drip equipment, beehives etc) now we need to make sure they have the software”. The 
importance of this intangible element is widely recognized, but ways and means of imparting it are not 
well understood and there is a general sense that in the first 21 months of these projects, “software 
development” has not kept up with the provision of the hardware.
Generally however, progress in project implementation can be considered good. Key indicators detailed 
in PMP documents have generally been met, although it must be accepted that for the most part, such 
indicators reflect project performance rather than project impacts.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
8
3. DETAILED EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
3.1. Physical Coverage of Woredas and Kabeles 
The SPSNP projects under review have been implemented in 522 kabeles in 26 woredas. The numbers of 
kabeles and targeted beneficiaries together with associated ratios are given in Annex G . The coverage in 
terms of woredas represents a relatively small percentage (less than 10% of the total PSNP woredas in 
Ethiopia); within the PSNP woredas, coverage in terms of kabeles was much higher, averaging 61% and 
ranging from 20% of the kabeles in a woreda to 100%. Clearly at the higher levels, resources were more 
diluted and some implementation costs (such as travel) would be greater due to the wider geographical 
coverage. Within each kabele covered, the percentage of PSNP households targeted for SPSNP 
interventions averaged 37% and ranged from 3% to 100%. The percentage of PSNP households targeted 
for interventions within each woreda was very similar, at 30%, indicating that the kabeles in which the 
Cooperating Sponsors were active represented the majority of PSNP beneficiaries in their woredas.
The differences in coverage were quite marked and closely associated with the nature of the interventions 
undertaken. Thus where off-farm income generating activities had formed a significant part of the 
programs, coverage was consistently limited. Between 3% and 18% of all PSNP beneficiaries in the 
relevant kabeles received SPSNP assistance under these circumstances, as compared with between 55% 
and 76% of PSNP beneficiaries in Amhara woredas where more traditional interventions (such as the 
provision of shoats and backyard gardening) were practiced. These differences were also reflected in the 
amount of funding utilized per beneficiary. In the more focused situation of support to off-farm income 
generating activities, investment in training and other household development interventions ranged 
between US$146 and US$472 per household, while where coverage was more extensive, resources 
available to each household were understandably less, in this case between US$21 and US$60 per 
household.
In those projects where clear focus had been achieved within the context of integrated watershed 
development programs, the investment per beneficiary household was highest of all, ranging between 
US$477 and US$948 per household.
The overall number of beneficiaries targeted during the first 18 months of the programs totaled 83,000 
households or 415,000 beneficiaries (using the accepted approximation of five beneficiaries per 
household). This represents approximately 9% of the initial PSNP population and 6% of the revised 
figure and is slightly less than half of the coverage originally anticipated in the RFA. The total amount of 
funding spent on the development of household assets (as opposed to PSNP capacity development) 
amounted to US$8.36 million. This is equivalent to an investment of US$101 per household or US$20 per 
beneficiary.
3.2. Planning and targeting
The degree of project planning seemed to vary considerably according to individual circumstances. In 
those cases where the CS had very close links with local government, SPSNP activities appeared to be 
part of an integrated program (such as a watershed management plan) that had been developed in 
cooperation with the different arms of local government. Under such circumstances it also appeared that 
the CS had been able to support the local administration by providing technical skills (e.g. water 
engineers). This is significant given the clearly identified shortage of skills and coordination at the kabele
and woreda level and undoubtedly contributed to the development of a coordinated intervention package 
that was synergistic with the PSNP activities. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
9
In other cases, projects appeared to have “followed on” from previous activities undertaken by the same 
CS in the same area. This may have occurred in close collaboration with the local administration, but this 
was not always the case. The outcome of such a process was projects which appeared to be most 
appropriate to the circumstances, but which could not necessarily be viewed as an integrated response, or 
to build upon PSNP activities. Whether this apparent absence of “planning from first principles” could be 
ascribed to lack of preparation time, novelty of the PSNP environment or restricted thinking on the part of 
Cooperating Sponsors could not be determined, but it is evident that a new program, building upon the 
lessons of the last two years, should avoid the temptation to repeat traditional interventions unless they 
can be seen to contribute to an integrated approach to development within the context of the PSNP.
At a grass roots level, beneficiaries highlighted shortcomings in the planning process. On more than one 
occasion, it was learned that beneficiary communities had not participated in project planning and design 
and that the sense of community ownership had been reduced as a result. Some initiatives were being 
undertaken without enthusiasm (women caring for silk worms complained that the work was tedious and 
not remunerative “but we do it anyway because we have been asked to and it would not be right to 
refuse”. This shortcoming was as evident in those programs undertaken in close cooperation with the 
local administration as in those undertaken by the Cooperating Sponsors alone. In some cases, the 
evaluation team observed initiatives which had not been requested by beneficiaries, which included 
untested technologies and for which beneficiaries were expected to pay all or part of the costs over time 
(e.g. the provision of cream separators to dairy groups). At the same time, it was apparent that not all 
beneficiaries were aware of the responsibilities that they had taken on by becoming members of some 
business groupings, including the assets that they jointly owned and for which they were liable. 
It appeared that while overall project concepts might have been subject to community approval, detailed 
project mechanisms had not always been discussed with beneficiaries, giving rise to a paternalistic 
development process in which the CS was working out all details and beneficiaries were simply 
complying with the requirements placed before them.
The targeting process was similarly criticized by some beneficiaries, who complained that targeting by 
the community in conjunction with the CS and community administration, was not the most appropriate 
selection method. A commonly voiced criticism was that selected individuals who either spoke the 
loudest or had influence with the administration were too frequently selected as beneficiaries (indeed, 
“repeat beneficiaries”, who had taken part in more than one program over a number of years were 
observed by the evaluation team on more than one occasion) and it was recommended that the community 
elders should have a greater role in selecting beneficiaries, since they knew who had the greatest need. At 
the same time, beneficiaries occasionally complained that they had been selected to receive specific 
interventions without regard for their aptitude or needs. “They gave us chickens when we wanted sheep”, 
suggesting a somewhat arbitrary selection process that lacked detail.
Cooperating Sponsors indicated that they targeted “the poorest of the poor” and the local administration 
appeared to support this philosophy. In practice however, either as a result of undue influence exerted as 
above, or because of practical limitations the evaluation team saw little evidence that such philosophy was 
strictly applied. Beneficiaries appeared to be selected on the basis of access, capacity to develop the assets 
provided, or influence, in addition to the more formal criteria of poverty and need.
There are in fact sound arguments for moving away from an equitable selection process identifying the 
“poorest of the poor” to one that takes an individual’s capacity to successfully respond to a program of 
interventions into account. There is a clear distinction between the charitable distribution of relief, which 
normally attempts to cover all those in need and support to the process of development, where resources 
are rarely adequate to cover the entire target group. Given the restricted availability of resources and the 
vast potential target group of PSNP beneficiaries, there is a real possibility that using a “relief type” of 
targeting, resources might be so diluted as to create no discernible impact. If this is to be avoided, 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
10
targeting should instead focus on those beneficiaries who have the capacity to best utilize available 
resources and who can create both economic and visual impact within the community, on the basis that it 
is better to support a limited number of successful examples that can be followed by other beneficiaries 
using additional resources as and when they become available. The alternative, of providing limited 
support to a wide number of beneficiaries, might be equitable, but creates neither useful development nor 
effective precedents for others to follow.
It is suggested that the targeting process adopted by Cooperating Sponsors should not follow the 
traditional principles of relief targeting. Neither should it be unduly influenced by community meetings, 
but should instead seek to generate successful economic development on the basis of attitude, aptitude, 
and capacity, while avoiding the “professional beneficiary” syndrome that can lead to a select group of 
individuals becoming regular targets for successive programs. This is a more difficult targeting process 
than that required for relief exercises and it is to be expected that at the very early stages of economic 
development that SPSNP programs support, such targeting will be less than perfect. Under other 
circumstances, targeting would be based upon a front-ended matching contribution that would oblige the 
beneficiary to assume some element of ownership and risk. Within the PSNP target group, where 
beneficiary assets are extremely limited, it is difficult to impose such a requirement. This highlights the 
need for the careful and detailed selection of beneficiaries on a participatory basis where possible. Such a 
selection process should involve selected members of the community and the local administration, but 
should not be allowed to become an “equitable distribution of assets”. If the information held within the 
community can be accessed in an biased way, then it is reasonable to expect that improved targeting of 
beneficiaries who can make the best use of resources would lead to more successful interventions more 
effective demonstrations and hence more incentives for replication.
Targeting those who can make the best use of interventions may sound harsh, however, under 
circumstances where finances are limited, the achievement of successful projects that can serve to 
incentivize others is more important than diluting the impact of interventions to the point where no 
sustainable benefits are achieved. Other potentially more vulnerable members of the community may be 
sustained by PSNP support until adequate resources were available for more widespread development 
initiatives. This is one of thesignificant differences (and benefits) of the PSNP program – it permits 
greater focus on specific beneficiaries without the risk of malnutrition that would be incurred if the same 
aproach was adopted without safety net support.
The original RFA recognized that resources for SPSNP development would be limited and made
recommendations for intensive targeting that could be extensively utilized. The validity of this approach 
has been borne out by the experience of the last two years. Where intensive targeting has been possible, 
interventions have been more successful and incentives for replication greater. It is reasonable that some 
Cooperating Sponsors might prefer to engage households in multiple activities while simultaneously
reaching a large number of beneficiaries. However, given current resource limitations such a strategy will 
be limited in its effectiveness. Under such circumstances, Cooperating Sponsors who wish to achieve 
impact must either lobby for more resources, or focus activities on potential success areas/beneficiaries, 
recognizing that the PSNP will look after those who cannot be addressed immediately.
3.3. Coverage/degree of focus
The coverage anticipated by the original Famine Fund RFA was approximately one million beneficiaries 
or 20% of the PSNP. This has proved overoptimistic and the actual number of beneficiaries has been 
closer to 415,000 . Despite this apparent concentration of resources, the Cooperating Sponsors 
nevertheless generally indicated that the areas covered have exceeded their original expectations and that 
their resources have been overstretched as a result. Although the original RFA looked for the “intensive 
targeting” of resources, this was rarely achieved. It was reported that during initial negotiations with local 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
11
authorities, Cooperating Sponsors were commonly requested to extend the scope of their coverage to 
cover a greater number of kabeles than originally intended. In some cases this resulted in the coverage of 
the entire woreda and meant that field staff spent considerable time traveling from one project site to 
another (in extreme cases in excess of five hours). At the same time, the number of specific interventions 
per beneficiary was reduced to one or two at most, reducing impact at the household level and extending 
the potential time taken to achieve food security.
In only one instance did the CS report the unhindered freedom to concentrate resources in a limited area. 
In this case, the close relationship between that CS and the local administration allowed the CS a greater 
degree of autonomy. This cooperation and concentration, together with the close integration with other 
programs (including PSNP) meant that resources were more effectively utilized, and impacts at the 
household level were greater, more immediate and more successful.
This single factor (extent of coverage) appeared to contribute most significantly to the level of success of 
different projects. As discussed below (see section 5.1: “Integration of Interventions”), a critical impetus, 
derived from more than one and preferably at least three interventions was generally considered necessary 
to move a household towards food security. Extended project coverage reduced the number of 
interventions at the household level to the point where in some cases at least 80% of beneficiaries were 
only receiving one intervention and consequently were not making discernible progress towards food 
security. Conversely, in some areas here concentration of resources had been possible, approximately 
50% of targeted households had benefited from at least three interventions and anticipated achieving food 
security within four years.
3.4. Individual interventions 
Cooperating Sponsors provided as many as 22 different interventions within a given target area. For ease 
of reference and comparison, these have been categorized under the following general headings:
•Provision of inputs
•Investment in large-scale infrastructure
•Vocational Training
•Formation of and support to Savings and Credit Groups
•Household Water harvesting
•Backyard gardening
•Market facilitation
Each of these categories contains a number of different interventions, which in turn might be 
implemented in different ways by different Cooperating Sponsors. At the same time, the environment 
within which different interventions might be implemented was also subject to considerable variation. 
Thus the degree of destitution was greater in some areas than in others, while availability of markets 
might be greater in some areas (particularly in SNNPS) than in others. This variation made it difficult to 
compare different interventions objectively. Nevertheless, it was possible to observe interventions that 
were clearly successful and others that were less so. It was also possible to determine areas of potential 
improvement that could make some interventions more effective. These aspects are considered in greater 
detail below. However, since it is important to understand exactly what sort of mechanisms are being 
considered, a brief description of each of the more common interventions is given in Annex A.
3.5. Cost: Benefit Analysis
The finance resources available within the SPSNP envelope were originally set at a maximum of 
ETB140/beneficiary. (US$16.4 million total funding, with an expected target group of one million 
beneficiaries). In practice, investment appears to have been of the order of ETB174 (US$20) per 
beneficiary due to reduced coverage. Given an average household of five beneficiaries, this amount would 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
12
provide approximately ETB870 per household. In practice, this amount appeared to be less than adequate 
The average cost of a single intervention, including all necessary supports such as training rarely 
amounted to less than ETB900 (e.g. the provision of six shoats valued at ETB 150 each), and in some 
cases exceeded ETB1,200 (e.g. the installation of a hand-dug well). The evaluation team noted an average 
cost per intervention of at least ETB 1,000. 
Chronically impoverished beneficiaries repeatedly emphasized the need for more than one intervention 
per household if they were to begin to move towards sustainable food security. At least three separate 
intervention packages were considered necessary in most cases (e.g. shoat rearing, beekeeping and 
backyard gardening) in order to provide the cash income and diversity of production necessary for a 
household to support itself on an ongoing basis. In the example given above, the three enterprises might 
annually yield seven shoats (worth ETB 1,050 if sold young), 40kg of honey (valued at ETB1,600) and 
three crops of vegetables (valued at ETB 900), giving a total annual income of between ETB 3,000 and 
ETB 4,000 (US$350-460). The cost of the interventions needed to achieve such a level of income is 
estimated at approximately the same level (i.e. ETB3,000- 4,000, or US$345-460 per household), or 
US$70-90 per beneficiary (given an average household size of five people). This is approximately four 
times the level of funding initially provided for SPSNP activities.
On the basis of these field estimates, it would appear that assisting a chronically impoverished household 
to achieve a position of sustainable food security would require an investment of $400. This implies a 
total investment of $400 million to support the graduation of five million PSNP beneficiaries (assuming 
that two million PSNP beneficiaries will not be able to participate in the graduation process).
It might be argued that over time, and with experience, interventions might be better designed and 
targeted and thereby more cost-effective, reducing this overall cost. It must be recognized however that 
the figures quoted do not take all supporting costs into account. Moreover, the initial beneficiary 
households are in many cases lower cost targets (easily accessible, greater aptitude) and once such “low 
hanging fruit” have all been targeted, costs of interventions to other more remote and less developed 
households may actually increase. There are grounds therefore to conclude that the achievement 
sustainable development of most PSNP beneficiaries will cost at least $400 million.
The above cost:benefit analysis is clearly only a rough approximation. Nevertheless it serves to indicate 
the extent of investment required at this level of development. An analysis of the average costs involved 
in raising a household from destitution to sustainable food security is a guide that can assist in 
determining the feasibility of both funding levels and goals in terms of beneficiary numbers and might 
usefully be repeated and refined in future project proposals.
.
4. CROSS CUTTING ELEMENTS
4.1. Social Mobilization and Group Formation
A number of Cooperating Sponsors under SPSPN have started the process of group formation. Groups 
may be general credit and savings groups or cater to a specific activity such as groundnut, honey or fruit 
production groups. A number of positive impacts can be observed from these groups including:
· Beneficiaries have been able to undertake activities that would have otherwise been impossible 
for them to do on an individual basis due to prohibitive costs associated with the activity. 
Economies of scale and distribution of responsibilities have made production and marketing 
easier, reducing costs and increasing profits.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
13
· They provide fora for villagers to come together and discuss production methods and improved 
techniques. Villagers and the Cooperating Sponsors report that farmers who undertake study tours 
to other woredas or other regions can, on return, relate observations made during the tours and 
share ideas. At the same time, they enable the Cooperating Sponsors and government extension to 
interact with a larger number of people thereby reducing costs and increasing efficiency.
· In the case of credit and savings groups, they enable collective savings to be undertaken which 
can then be used to revolve credit. Particularly poorer farmers are able to thus access cheap, 
flexible credit for a variety of social or economic needs. Interest earned remains within the group
assisting in further building up group capital. 
· They assist in empowering villagers who can over time realise their potential and, as a group, 
undertake bigger projects in the future even without the assistance of the Cooperating Sponsor
However, the extent of the 
effectiveness of social 
mobilisation varies from 
Cooperating Sponsor to 
Cooperating Sponsor. In some 
areas, groups are actively saving 
and revolving funds, in others 
the amounts saved is meagre 
and no utilisation of it has been 
planned. This appears to be a 
reflection of the degree of 
assistance provided to the 
savings group by field staff. 
Social mobilisation does take 
time as communities have to 
develop an attitude to work 
together on a common economic 
activity: responsibilities are 
determined and duties assigned; 
bye-laws are made and applied 
and internal disputes have to be settled. At the same time, savings and regular meetings begin; internal 
lending and development of collective enterprises ensues. All this is to say that nurturing of groups takes 
time and it has been observed that the two-year period of SPSNP is too limited to enable groups to mature 
to their potential. In social mobilisation efforts around the world, it has been generally observed that it can 
take five years or more before groups can begin functioning independently. 
Successful Social Mobilisation for Credit
The credit and savings groups in Lay Gayint stood out as being 
remarkably effective. In that system, ‘Savings Advisors’ (more 
progressive than average farmers), assist in the introduction of new 
technologies to the groups. Around twenty of the 104 Savings Advisors 
are women. So far, in that woreda, 592 groups have been formed with 
10,222 members and the estimated total savings are ETB298,500. 
The groups save a small number of ETB each month and provided easily 
accessible credit to membes from group savings. Around twenty of the 104 
Savings Advisors are women. According to the Cooperating Sponsor, the 
credit and savings groups are effective entry points enabling it to reach the 
most vulnerable households better. 
On the other hand, groups nurtured by other Cooperating Sponsors were 
poorer. Inappropriate advice meant that they were lagging in revolving 
their funds or in saving as efficiently. No training in internal lending was 
provided in the courses that group leaders attended. It is recommended that 
USAID in future make social mobilisation a key prerequisite for the 
Cooperating Sponsors it funds. It should also encourage the building of the 
capacities of staff in the field in social mobilisation both through 
classroom training and exposure visits. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
14
In some cases, social mobilisation is either not envisaged within the project or is lagging behind other 
interventions. Some Cooperating Sponsors who had envisaged the establishment of Farmer Field Schools 
or Savings Groups early in their work-plans have still to begin the formation of such bodies. Ideally, it 
should have been one of the initial interventions because it takes time to develop strong groups. This lack 
of attention to it points to a lack of capacity amongst Cooperating Sponsor staff and/or inappropriate 
planning and placement of different interventions. 
4.2. Performance of Revolving Funds
It was observed, particularly in Tigray, that some Cooperating Sponsors have used assets purchased under 
the SPSNP program to established revolving funds. Equipment or livestock, for example, is purchased 
and given to a household, which is supposed to repay over a number of years. The funds built up from 
repayments are then, ideally, to be used to service other households in similar or different activities. This 
is a good mechanism to enable poor households to build assets or undertake an income-generating 
venture. Because they have to repay, there is a much better chance that they will have a greater sense of 
ownership and be more responsible. Simultaneously, it enables the Cooperating Sponsor to service a 
greater number of households with limited funds than would have been the case if grants had been given.
The attitude adopted to this revolving mechanism by some beneficiary groups and Cooperating Sponsors 
has been over-flexible. Significant-sized loans have been given for relatively large periods (3-5 years) to 
beneficiaries without emphasis on timely repayment. This attitude fails to instill financial discipline in 
loanees and repayment records were observed to be poor (<70%). 
There are a number of reasons for such an attitude. First, the Cooperating Sponsor is under no obligation 
from USAID to return any credit that is repaid to it. USAID gives grants, not loans under SPSNP. The 
Cooperating Sponsor revolves or plans to revolve the funds, but with no pressure on it to make itself part￾sustainable, it has no incentive to insist on timely repayment of principal and interest from its 
beneficiaries. Secondly, at least in the field sites visited, that while the lender is the Cooperating Sponsor, 
the beneficiary has to return the loan to the woreda/kebele administration or to his/her savings group or a 
committee consisting of the Cooperating Sponsor, woreda official and head of the department of 
agriculture and rural development. Observations indicated no strong sense of ownership of this money, 
and consequently the responsible body has little incentive to chase up defaults. Thirdly the capacity of 
Cooperating Sponsor field staff in micro-finance management is often limited and low exposure to 
successful micro-finance models has meant that an overly tolerant or paternalistic attitude has been 
accepted possible as a means of encouraging uptake.
In other parts of the world, it has been witnessed that such a lax attitude will ultimately lead to not only 
high defaults, but also to a breaking of the partnership and trust between the Cooperating Sponsor and the 
Questionnaire Data
Of the 440 beneficiaries interviewed using under the quantitative survey, 146 stated that they had received 
assistance in forming savings groups and 167 stated that they had received assistance in cooperative formation. 
(Some of them may have received assistance in both).
424 respondents replied to the question whether they had, as part of the activity/ies, joined a group or association 
promoted by the NGO. Two thirds or 75% stated they had. Of these 71% stated that their group was regularly 
saving. A quarter or 25% of these stated that on average members saved less than 1.25 ETB, 33% between 1.26 
and 2 ETB and 42% over 2 ETB. Of the 424 respondents, 
Of the 274 respondents who answered whether the group was undertaking any credit activities, 24% stated that it 
was. Only 30 members reported that they had taken credit from the group. 23% stated they had taken less than 
47.5 ETB, 43% stated that they had taken between 47.5 and 100 ETB and 33% stated they had taken over 100 
ETB.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
15
village households. It will also harm the credit-worthiness of beneficiaries making it difficult for them to 
access funds from other sources. 
The performance of revolving funds might be enhanced through a more intensive monitoring process that 
would first look for specific principles in the project design in terms of the revolving fund repayment 
process. These would include how interest rates and repayment conditions are determined, procedures in 
the event of default, the anticipated level of repayment (hopefully between 90 and 95%) and repayment 
period. In addition, the project design should clearly indicate the ownership of funds. If funds are 
provided to a group, the basis on which individuals participate in the group ownership process and what 
happens to funds revolved in the event that the group is dissolved. Finally, project design should indicate 
the purpose to which revolved funds should be put, including whether the first beneficiaries can be 
eligible to draw new loans (on the basis of sound performance) or the funds are to be specifically revolved 
to new beneficiaries. If such information is supplied in the project design or inception report, then a 
quarterly report for each loan project should include details on disbursement rates, recovery rates, 
reinvestment levels, percentage of non-performing loans, and absolute default rates, including reasons for 
any variation from original expectations. It is accepted that the Cooperating Sponsors might receive funds 
as a grant, but if it is offered to beneficiaries as revolving fund then both the beneficiaries and the 
Cooperating Sponsors must treat it as such – as a key part of the development process.
Linkages with micro-finance institutions such as WISDOM or with government banks, which lend to 
rural businesses or farmers were not witnessed in any woreda visited. Currently, businesses and income 
generating activities are at early stages and gaps in finance are filled from group savings or from the 
Cooperating Sponsor but as businesses start becoming bigger, institutional links will be required to formal 
institutions and all CSs have so far been weak in promoting such links. 
4.3. Ownership and management of group assets
The performance of revolving funds accumulating repayment for assets received by individuals or groups 
contrasts markedly with the performance of revolving funds in savings and credit groups. In the first 
instance, the financial commitments were not always well understood by beneficiaries and ownership of 
the revolving finance tended to be unclear. In the second case, each member of the savings and credit 
group was well aware of the repayment terms (since they had decided this themselves), knew who had 
received loans and could exert peer pressure to ensure repayment. There was a clear sense of beneficiary 
ownership and self-determination in the latter case, which tended to be lacking in the former.
This sense of ownership, or lack of it, extended to group assets (such as milk marketing outlets or honey 
extractors) that had been provided to producer groups and for which individual members were committed 
to make repayments. While the CS was aware of the responsibilities of group members, it was not always 
apparent that individual beneficiaries knew what was expected of them. It appeared that management and 
oversight by the CS was crowding out the development of business acumen and a sense of responsibility 
amongst beneficiaries.
It is recommended that both the Cooperating Sponsor and USAID undertake more rigorous monitoring of 
revolving funds initially offering small loans with short repayment periods and using peer pressure to 
ensure timely repayments. USAID is also recommended to encourage the capacity-building of 
Cooperating Sponsor and woreda officials in micro-finance models through classroom training and 
exposure visits. The volume of ODA to Ethiopia may shrink over the coming years, and sustainable 
microfinance systems are one mechanism through which the Cooperating Sponsors and Ethiopia as a 
whole can reduce their dependency on external assistance.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
16
4.4. Market development
Cooperating Sponsors indicated in their work plans that market linkage development was crucial to the 
activities they were undertaking. This, according to them, is also one of the hardest activities. A few 
Cooperating Sponsors are actively developing such linkages and are expecting to deepen market linkages 
further in their areas of operation. For example, market linkage activities have been undertaken for 
pottery, honey and silk producing Asset Building Groups or ABGs, where the Cooperating Sponsor has 
played a facilitating role in displaying products at events in Addis Ababa, as well as in regional markets, 
fairs and hotels. Assistance has also been provided in one woreda, to a ginger marketing ABG comprising 
60 women and to the development of a market linkage between a silk buyer in Addis Ababa and its silk 
producing ABGs. During the second quarter of 2006, over 15 kg of silk was sold by two groups in 
Meskan alone. The next step in the market development process would be the federation of ABGs into 
KMAs or Kebele Marketing Associations.
The above response is well suited to a beneficiary community situated in a relatively accessible area with 
a developed marketing structure. A contrasting methodology has been developed in the northern part of 
the country where, in order to tackle poor market systems and market information systems, the 
Cooperating Sponsor has:
· formed honey and milk cooperatives which are trained and then assisted to become self￾managed,
· built storage and distribution centres for these groups and provided them skills and equipment,
and 
· organised trainings for woreda officials and extension staff in marketing. 
With these exceptions however, most Cooperating Sponsors 
have not placed significant emphasis on market development. 
This is due not only to an apparent lack of skills and capacity 
on their part but also to the fact that produce from SPSNP￾sponsored activities such as honey or vegetables can either be 
consumed locally or that no marketable output has so far been 
produced. ORDA, for example, states that it has struggled with marketing and currently limits its role to 
only facilitating the provision of information in marketing through what it calls ‘market nodes’.
Almost all Cooperating Sponsors have lagged in the promotion of off-farm activities (with the exception 
of production-related activities such as sericulture or apiculture). Where such activities were proposed, 
they were of the traditional variety: training of men and women in pottery, masonry, carpentry and 
weaving for example or as blacksmiths. Even in these vocations, beneficiaries have found it difficult to 
find gainful employment. The output of weavers e.g. has to compete with better quality imported 
products, which are modestly priced. It is difficult, however, to see what other or new activities could be 
undertaken in the economic setting of rural Ethiopia where purchasing power is low and demand for 
marketable goods and services limited. 
4.5. Appropriate technology usage
It was observed that in almost all aspects of all projects, appropriate technologies had been used that 
could be easily replaced or repaired by beneficiaries. In some instances, where inputs had initially been 
sourced externally, local manufacture by had been encouraged allowing integration with other projects 
(e.g. In Tigray, a group of carpenters had been organized to produce frames for modern beehives). 
Circumstances were observed where the sourcing of replacement parts required the intervention of the 
CS, thus drip irrigation technology can now be sourced within Ethiopia, but this is beyond the current 
capacity of most individual beneficiaries who do not have access to the distant markets where the 
Questionnaire Data
Of the 440 beneficiaries interviewed 
using under the quantitative survey, 
only just over 10% reported receiving 
assistance in marketing.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
17
necessary materials are available. Equally it was indicated by CS field staff, that some of the more 
complex spare parts in technology provided to beneficiaries would be fabricated in their own workshops 
(as opposed to private sector manufacture) raising the question not of appropriate technology but of 
management towards sustainability. This was a consistent element of the more complex integrated 
projects- not that the technology used was inappropriate, but that its management did not always 
anticipate or develop interaction between beneficiaries and the privates sector at all levels.
4.6. Gender
Forty four per cent of questionnaire respondents were women, and all responses could be disaggregated 
by gender, allowing a useful assessment of gender related issues. The original RFA placed some emphasis 
on gender sensitive interventions. In practice it was evident that Cooperating Sponsor projects were 
generally well compliant with gender issues and that most interventions were equally distributed between 
genders. Some exceptions were noted: Poultry farming in particular was more common amongst women, 
while more men undertook small-scale irrigation, (Table G37). A larger proportion of men were provided 
with beehives, seed and seedlings, while more women were provided with poultry sheep and goats. (Table 
G40) However, it is notable that these were the only areas where differences appeared significant. 
One significant and important difference observed was the smaller proportion of women undertaking 
study tours (Table G42). Although it is recognized that social conventions may work against this, it is 
nevertheless recommended that particular attention be paid to the inclusion of women in study tours in 
future projects.
Interestingly in both cases (cash and food) a larger proportion of women reported large increases. Equally 
significantly however, more women reported using the additional cash to purchase assets and fewer 
women reported any increase in the diversity of diet as a result of the successful interventions (Tables 
G50 and G51).
The participation of women in savings groups was equivalent to that of men, although women tended to 
both save and borrow smaller amounts (Tables G62 and G64). In terms of credit it was notable that 
where respondents had borrowed money to finance activities, no differences were seen between male and 
female access to credit. Again, while as many women as men expected to expand their small businesses, 
women anticipated access to credit to the same degree as men. These results suggest that within the 
context of the SPSNP projects, gender is not a factor with regard to access to credit. This is an unexpected 
response and merits further investigation. 
The anticipations of women with regard to the achievement of sustainable food security were equivalent 
to those of men (Table G52) In both cases the modal expectation was that food security would not be 
achieved within at least three years, less than half of both men and women expected to graduate within a 
five-year time frame (from the onset of PSNP) and less than 10 % expected to achieve food security 
within the time frame of the original SPSNP program. 
Generally the tabulated results show little differences between the disaggregated data sets. This is not 
unexpected. Cooperating Sponsors have had long exposure to gender issues in Ethiopia and have 
developed appropriate responses. In addition, the proportion of female-headed households in the targeted 
communities is relatively high (in some cases over 50%) so that targeting of female beneficiaries was 
high. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
18
5. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT SUCCESS
5.1. Integration of different interventions
Because projects were so wide in their compass, many beneficiaries took part in only one intervention (as 
described in section 3.4). In some cases, this proportion was as high as 80%, in others almost all 
beneficiaries took part in at least two and sometimes three different interventions. This had a clear effect 
upon food security. Isolated interventions had little discernible impact upon food security and assets 
acquired in the course of those interventions were more vulnerable as a result. Most beneficiaries 
indicated that at least three interventions are required to achieve sustainable food security. These 
interventions need not necessarily be fully integrated and indeed an element of diversification would help 
mitigate future risk. However, it was clearly reported and observed that greater impact was achieved if
interventions were provided within the scope of an integrated community-based program.
The concept of the integrated rural development program has been well tested and found to be effective in 
some areas (such as immediate local impact), but lacking in others, particularly in terms of sustainability. 
Experience has shown that development within a selected community should be community driven if it is 
to continue once support has been withdrawn and requires a supportive environment in terms of 
government capacity if it is to be emulated elsewhere. Interviews with both woreda and kabele officials 
and with Cooperating Sponsor field staff suggest that while government policy may be supportive of 
SPSNP interventions, actual capacity to initiate parallel interventions in other woredas may be very 
limited.
Nevertheless, although the concept of integrated rural development solution may be less than adequate to 
meet the current development challenge (especially given the limited resources available), it is considered 
more effective to focus SPSNP interventions within specific areas and communities than to attempt to 
cover a greater number of beneficiaries over an entire woreda. This integration can be considered from 
two aspects. On the one hand, integration can take place within the context of an overall development 
plan. The typical example being the watershed development model developed by WFP and widely 
utilized in Tigray. Such a plan allows considerable synergy between different elements. Thus, beekeeping 
benefits from closed grazing areas, which also increase groundwater percolation and raise the water level 
in hand –dug wells, while enclosed areas also provided fodder for dairy cattle and shoats on a cut and 
carry basis during the dryer months3
. On a different level, field staff emphasized that the integration of 
programs within a common “software” environment (i.e. imparting a consistent philosophy of self-help 
and business development) is essential to the success and sustainability of all diversification initiatives.
The integration of SPSNP interventions with PSNP programs was also observed to be a positive factor. In 
those communities where community water supplies had been created, time available for fieldwork and 
other activities had been substantially increased. PSNP-developed soil conservation measures protected 
water collection cisterns from excessive silting and enhanced the value of hand-dug wells. Further 
synergies might exist if PSNP community works could be realigned to support household asset 
development, in which case the frequency of individual household water collection structures might be 
significantly increased.
 
3
 Despite the integrated nature of the Watershed Development Plan, it was noted that two frequent elements are 
inherently contradictory. On the one hand, large structures are developed by communities to collect run-of for 
subsequent household and livestock use. On the other, bunds, cisterns and land closure devices are employed to 
maximize infiltration and percolation to the water table. If these latter devices become effective then the former will 
fail.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
19
5.2. Attitudinal Development 
Field staff unanimously emphasized the importance of developing a positive beneficiary attitude in order 
to achieve sustainable development. Such attitudinal development was not well described, but could be 
assessed as an increased “self-help” mentality, increased business acumen, reduced donor dependence, 
increased self determination and a sense that the future need not be worse than the present. It was also 
universally recognized that such change can only be a gradual process and it may take five years or more 
before it can pervade an entire community. Nevertheless, such change or “software development” is 
essential to the developmental process. Without an attitude of self-determination amongst target 
households, replication will not occur, sustainability will be limited and new business initiatives will not 
begin.
The development of a positive attitude can be enhanced by three key interventions:
· Training – both technical, vocational and commercial.
· Exposure to success – “seeing is believing” was a phrase heard at every field visit.
· Provision of opportunity – generally the inputs necessary to begin new income generating 
activities.
These three elements are all essential if a positive attitude is to be successfully developed. It is trite, but 
effectively true that:
Attitude without opportunity= frustration
Opportunity without attitude= non-sustainability
Attitude + opportunity= sustainable development
To a considerable extent, all CS hardware and technical training interventions are effectively providing a 
“framework of opportunity” within which attitudinal development must take place. The significance of 
this approach cannot be overemphasized. Interventions that achieved limited commercial impact (such as 
savings and credit groups) nevertheless had a substantial positive impact upon beneficiary attitude, which 
was undoubtedly stimulating replication and self-determination. Those beneficiaries who had benefited 
from such groups could be expected to be effective recipients of future, more complex interventions.
It was clear that while all field staff recognized the significance of a positive attitude, few could define it 
clearly or describe ways in which it could be stimulated. There is a definite need to examine this area of 
development more closely and for Cooperating Sponsors to design and undertake programs with 
attitudinal development as a primary focus.
It is also clear that since the necessary changes are slow, a two or three year intervention will not be 
adequate to promote the required impact. Moreover, change can be expected to be even slower in those 
situations where interventions are diluted by being spread over a wide area or amongst a large number of 
beneficiaries. These observations were supported by most field staff and have clear implications for future 
initiatives.
5.3. PSNP/SPSNP Complementarity
SPSNP interventions are based upon the assumption that the PSNP will successfully protect individual 
household assets and will assist household development through the development of community assets. 
Experience has shown that these assumptions (and particularly the former) were largely justified. 
Although the PSNP was subject to a range of administrative and logistical problems, and continues to be 
suffer from capacity constraints at the local administrative level, the program was indeed successful in its 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
20
primary goal of protecting household assets and with the exception of some areas of Amhara, food 
security in PSNP woredas was largely sustained. This impact was judged by beneficiaries and CS field 
staff to be critical to the success of SPSNP interventions. On the one hand, field staff reported that 
beneficiaries would not have been able to participate in SPSNP interventions if they had been obliged to 
try and support themselves. On the other beneficiaries reported that without the PSNP, heads of 
households would have migrated out of the family area looking for temporary work. 
In its second goal, the PSNP has resulted in the construction of community assets such as the construction 
or rehabilitation of a range of infrastructure including roads, bridges, terracing works and soil 
conservation, water channels, water harvesting reservoirs and dams. In this respect the PSNP has had 
more mixed success and shown mixed relevance to the SPSNP. Thus, vehicle-worthy roads have been 
less relevant for subsequent activities initiated under SPSPN largely because market development and the 
production of a surplus is still in its infancy amongst SPSPN beneficiaries so that most produce can be 
brought to market on the back of donkeys. At the same time, it was learned that limited coordination and 
capacity at the woreda level had resulted in some poorly defined PSNP projects that were not well 
integrated with any overall development plan. The Evaluation team also learned that in some cases, the 
development of infrastructure was undertaken not because there was a need for it, but to create man-days 
of employment for PSNP target beneficiaries. 
On the other hand, other infrastructure, particularly the terracing works and water structures, can be seen 
as a necessary pre-condition upon which subsequent SPSNP activities have been built (although some of 
these structures had been created prior to either the SPSNP or PSNP programs). Many SPSPN activities 
could not have been undertaken at all or their output would have been less had this PSNP infrastructure 
development not preceded them. Water structures of storage and channeling in particular have enabled 
water availability for horticulture, animal husbandry and improved cereal variety cultivation. Equally, the 
undertaking of Food/Cash for Works, if implemented by the same CS that undertook SPSNP enabled both 
the CS and the beneficiaries to develop a deeper relationship with and understanding that benefited the 
implementation of SPSNP activities. This was not always the case; in some woredas, Cooperating 
Sponsors are only implementing SPSNP and did not benefit from program integration to the same extent.
With regard to food security, the universal opinion of both Cooperating Sponsors and beneficiaries was 
first that the PSNP as it is currently practiced will not result in the achievement of household food 
security in the foreseeable future. Secondly, that SPSNP interventions, when properly integrated could 
enable households to become food secure. However, the time period of two years for SPSNP was too 
short to achieve food security, (especially given that the first few months of most programs were spent in 
negotiation and were essentially planning phases). Even the expected third year extension was not 
considered enough; a longer period of between 5-10 years of sustained interventions was generally agreed 
to be necessary for any meaningful sustainable impact to be observed. Although these responses may be 
considered to exhibit a degree of “donor dependency”, the evaluation team agrees with the observation 
that a two or three year program is not long enough and that a time frame of at least five years is 
necessary to ensure lasting success.
There is one further aspect of the PSNP program that is very relevant to SPSNP initiatives – namely that 
experience has now shown that the PSNP does effectively provide a mechanism to mitigate malnutrition 
amongst destitute communities, as a result of which, SPSNP-type initiatives need not be driven by an 
over-riding urgency to assist all beneficiaries. The need to achieve universal coverage is largely met by 
the PSNP, allowing development programs to be more focused and to target for success without risk to 
the most vulnerable. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the PSNP from a developmental 
perspective – that it allows a paradigm shift in Cooperating Sponsor targeting mechanisms. It does not 
appear that this has yet been fully appreciated by all stakeholders.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
21
5.4. Replication
Given the limited resources available for SPSNP interventions, it is important that interventions should be 
easily replicated wherever possible. Experience in this area is very variable. The evaluation team found 
evidence that replication is happening in some areas and with regard to some interventions, although 
given the limited period of implementation, it is difficult to determine the extent of such replication. 
Generally, the lower cost, immediate impact interventions appear (not surprisingly) to be most replicable. 
Thus backyard vegetable production was one area where replication was clearly observable as its tangible 
benefits could be quickly appreciated. Similarly, the number of credit and savings groups organized by 
farmers themselves was rapidly increasing as non-beneficiaries approached the Cooperating Sponsor to 
provide bye-laws and to assist with registration. The provision of shoats that were revolved on an in kind 
basis is another example of a readily replicable intervention.
Frequently however, the evaluation team did observe complex and integrated interventions, especially 
those involving high initial capital costs or a significant degree of organization/administration that would 
not easily be replicated by small communities or individual households. It is difficult to see how a village 
community could undertake water diversion works of the complexity and to the standards observed in 
Enderta, or how individual households could construct 4
or water cisterns without the facilitation of 
organizations such as the Cooperating Sponsors. The provision of shoats on a cash basis, where repaid 
funds were meant to be revolved was an example of a less replicable intervention by virtue of its high 
start-up cost and lax fund management.
In general, the interventions with the greatest immediate impacts were higher cost and less replicable. 
Those with lesser (albeit immediate) impacts were more replicable. Interventions with longer-term 
impacts were intermediate in this regard. It was notable that no replication of vocational training inputs 
was reported – i.e. no trainees had been approached to pass their skills on to others.
In addition to these constraints, replication was frequently reported to be limited by the high turnover 
amongst government staff in local departments in Ethiopia. This means that those officials with whom the 
Cooperating Sponsor has developed goodwill and who have been sensitised to plan and implement 
activities in a participatory, bottom-up manner can be relocated and new Development Advisors (Das), 
unaware of the approach, take their place so that sensitization must begin again. It is noted that the 
government accepts that in order for replication to be effective resources will have to be allocated to 
capacity building of DAs in participatory planning and in concepts such as watershed management and 
market development. Most participating Cooperating Sponsors do organise training courses for woreda
officials and extension staff in their own SPSNP woredas but these are a fraction of the total woredas in 
the country. On a larger scale, WFP in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development is in the process of training up Development Agents at the woreda and kabele levels.
Finally, possibilities for effective replication are constrained by the attitude prevalent amongst some 
Cooperating Sponsors whereby inputs are provided and activities undertaken without any financial 
contribution by the beneficiaries. Cooperating Sponsors have justified this by stating that these are pilot 
activities requiring incentives for cautious beneficiaries to adopt them. In other cases, it has been argued 
that the cost of procurement of some equipment or input is beyond the financial capacity of the individual 
beneficiary or group e.g. milk selling centers or post-harvest storage centers. However, while these 
arguments may hold some weight, little attempt by the Cooperating Sponsors has been observed to shift 
this relationship towards one where beneficiaries are contributing more once the demonstration has been 
 
4
 Although no replication of hand dug wells was observed at the project sites visited, the authors learned of a project 
at Shere where an initial 15 six metre deep dug wells had been increased to 125 through unsupported replication by 
individual households.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
22
successful and borne positive results. Where cost sharing has been encouraged e.g. by the provision of 
ruminants on credit, the credit periods are long, the credit amounts significant and repayment discipline 
poor. 
As result of the circumstances described, there 
are few resources available to replicate successful 
initiatives. It may be too early for households to 
be expected to provide contributions for 
development activities as the project at this stage 
is barely 18 months old. However Cooperating 
Sponsors do not appear to have begun even 
planning how their relationships will evolve with 
their beneficiaries over the coming years. Under 
such management the level of replication will 
continue to be low.
In general it was observed that the level of replication of interventions was limited and that little 
consideration had been given to this element of the program in most cases, especially in the more 
complex, integrated cases (which tended to show the greatest impacts).
5.5. Linkages with Government
Interviews with field staff and local administrators indicated that all Cooperating Sponsors have 
developed good working relationships with government at the grass roots level (i.e. DAs and Producer 
Association (PA) administration). This includes the forging of practical working relationships with PAs 
for planning and targeting interventions, defining who can be classified as a beneficiary etc and with DAs 
for disseminating extension messages, training and transferring technology. Indeed, throughout most of 
the evaluation field visits, DAs generally accompanied Cooperating Sponsor staff wherever the evaluation 
team went.
However, relationships with woreda and zonal level administration were less consistent. Some 
Cooperating Sponsors were implicitly linked with government at all levels and experienced no difficulty 
in becoming fully integrated into the local planning process. Indeed, the balance of resources appeared to 
be such that these Cooperating Sponsor were augmenting or even substituting for limited local planning 
and administrative capacity. In other areas, limited capacity at the woreda level meant that PSNP 
interventions and community asset development projects were not well planned and it was difficult for 
Cooperating Sponsors to achieve the necessary degree of integration with the planning process. 
Generally however, the woreda administrations have welcomed the SPSNP interventions seeing them as 
complementing PSNP activities while Cooperating Sponsors have filled resource gaps where needed. In 
addition some Cooperating Sponsors were well linked to research institutions and used both results and 
material to develop SPSNP interventions. Nevertheless, effective linkages with government are not 
helped by limited local administrative capacity and a shortage of DAs. It was repeatedly noted that while 
each PA is supposed to be served by at least three DAs, there is rarely more than one available and even 
these are frequently recalled for “retraining” purposes. This aspect of development could be improved; in 
order to further strengthen linkages with government, it is recommended that Cooperating Sponsors 
undertake study tours and exposure visits of woreda officials to sites where participatory bottom-up 
development has been operated by the Cooperating Sponsor for longer periods so that they can observe 
the impact of such efforts themselves. 
Questionnaire Data
Of the 440 beneficiaries interviewed using under the 
quantitative survey, 433 answered whether they knew if 
other households had replicated their activity/ies. 22% 
replied that yes, many households had replicated, 40% 
replied that a few households had replicated while 37% 
replied that no households had replicated.
27% of men reported that their activities had been 
replicated by many households compared to a lower 15% 
of women.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
23
5.6. Private Sector Linkages
It was noted that in specific circumstances, interventions had been designed to incorporate linkages to the 
private sector, both in the sale of produce such as milk, honey or haricot beans, silk, woven goods or 
pottery. However, in most other general interventions, the private sector was limited to the role of buyer. 
There was little observed attempt to involve private sector participation in other roles such as seedling 
nursery management, inputs supply, repairs to equipment or out-grower schemes. This is very much in 
keeping with the prevailing philosophy that farmers are better served by cooperatives rather than by 
individual traders, but unless such cooperatives are well and competitively managed, such an approach 
requires continued input from the Cooperative Sponsor and limits the sustainability of the interventions. 
In particular, only limited evidence was observed of Cooperating Sponsors linking groups or individual 
households to public sector financial institutions to secure micro-credit. Given that both the Cooperating 
Sponsor’s and community’s financial resources are limited, efforts need to be made identify channels of 
credit which, as the nascent businesses and business cooperatives start planning to expand or improve, 
will be needed to cover resource gaps.
The introduction of the private sector provides new roles for the Cooperating Sponsor and assists in 
achieving an effective exit strategy with an increased probability of sustainable development. Thus the CS 
could promote private sector participation by inviting private sector players into the project as “Lead 
Farmers” or Lead Businessmen”. The CS would then play two key roles: first in selecting and introducing 
the most appropriate private sector partners and secondly as an arbiter to avoid any element of 
exploitation in negotiations between the private sector partners and PSNP beneficiaries. Once a sound 
business relationship had been established, the CS could progressively withdraw from the arrangement, 
leaving the private sector partner with the commercial incentive to ensure the sustainability of the 
beneficiary enterprises.
6. OVERALL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1. Attribution of Impact
It was noted that in almost every case, SPSNP interventions were being undertaken in woredas and 
kabeles that had been subject to previous interventions by the CS. This meant that the interventions could 
not be considered as discrete initiatives, but rather as the culmination of a series of events extending back 
over several years prior to the SPSNP intervention. In particular, where Cooperating Sponsors had been 
working over a lengthy period, a more responsive attitude could be developed amongst beneficiaries 
(although it was equally possible for a more entrenched paternalistic attitude to be developed by the 
Cooperating Sponsor).
This historical effect was evident not only in attitudinal development, but also in technical training and in 
watershed management program development, where it was commonly observed that beneficiaries had 
been subject to interventions over a significant period before the SPSNP programs had begun. 
This raises the issue of “development perspective” as a key aspect of this evaluation. From the 
perspective of a donor, USAID/Ethiopia has viewed SPSNP interventions as discrete activities, funded 
from particular sources, which can be evaluated as having specific and measurable impacts. This however 
is not the view of those who work with or benefit from these resources. 
From the perspective of a CS, many of the SPSNP interventions have been part of Cooperating 
Sponsoring programs that the CS has been carrying out with finances from different sources according to 
availability. Thus World Vision International has what are called Area Development Programs (ADPs) 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
24
into which the SPSNP and the activities undertaken under it have been adjusted. Similarly, in the case of 
REST, SPSNP is a subset of its existing 5 year plans.
From the perspective of many beneficiary households, the SPSNP initiatives are part of a continuum of 
assistance, which may be subject to changing conditionalities, but which nevertheless represents a gradual 
progression (albeit with an end that is not always clearly defined).
It is therefore difficult to identify the specific impacts of SPSNP interventions per se. Many of the 
benefits observed could not be attributed to these programs alone, but to the gradual development process 
that had evolved from partnerships between Cooperating Sponsors and beneficiary communities 
established over more than the two-year period under consideration. Such integration of programs over 
time may promote synergism, but it tends to confound the accurate analysis of impact.
6.2.Progress towards Sustainability
The sustainability of interventions will depend upon the degree of alignment to beneficiary needs as well 
as how much it contributes to income The evaluation team noted that producer groups whose objective 
seemed to be solely to support the provision of assets (such as shoats) lacked any form of inherent 
sustainability and once the supervision of the CS was withdrawn, beneficiaries who had received shoats 
would have no incentive to remain within such groups. This contrasted with groups such as savings and 
credit groups where the beneficiaries all stood to gain from the efficient functioning of the group as a 
whole.
Crop production conditions over the last three years have been above average and this can be expected to 
have created an environment favoring the sustainability of interventions. However, current observations 
suggest that actual sustainability is limited by the short implementation period of SPSNP interventions. 
Since in many cases a number of months in year one were taking up in negotiation, planning and start-up 
activities, implementation periods in most cases are no more than 18 months. Thus groups may have been 
formed but are not functioning at their optimum. Revolving funds for ruminants have not been strongly 
institutionalized at the community level – they have gone through one or at most two cycles. Activities 
such as drip irrigation have seen only one harvest and in some cases, such as fruit trees, none at all. A 
longer implementation period would have enabled more benefits, both attitudinal and physical, to have 
been realized thus ensuring greater sustainability.
In general however, most of the household level 
interventions for which infrastructural work had been 
completed could be considered to be potentially 
sustainable. Where inputs had been provided the 
benefits could generally be sustained; water￾harvesting structures required little maintenance and 
backyard gardens could be repeatedly cultivated on a 
profitable basis. Nevertheless, such sustainability 
appeared less certain in the case of the more 
complicated group intervention. In particular, interventions that required the supervision of the CS to 
ensure repayment of loans and to assist in the marketing of produce and repair of equipment would 
clearly require such continued input on an ongoing basis for at least another twelve months and possibly 
more before they might be considered self-sustaining.
Sustainability in this regard is intimately linked to the development of the necessary “software”, i.e. the 
business skills and attitude that will allow beneficiaries to make the correct decisions to ensure the 
success of marketing cooperatives and to guarantee the repayment of loans. As reported by all field staff, 
Questionnaire Data
When asked what their future plans were 
regarding the activities they were undertaking, 
34% stated that they wanted to improve them and 
52% stated they wanted to expand them. Only 1 
respondent was thinking of stopping the activity 
while 13% stated they wanted to merely maintain 
the activities at the present level and in the present 
state.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
25
such attitudinal change is a gradual process, developed by the provision of suitable opportunities and 
enhanced by success in those ventures. Once attitudinal change has been achieved, its sustainability will 
depend upon a favorable business environment that offers further opportunities for development, but such 
changes cannot be expected to occur within the 18 months that have elapsed for most interventions.
In general the evaluation team was not able to assess the actual sustainability of interventions. It noted 
with concern that major group interventions required continual CS input at this stage, however, those 
interventions that provided discrete support to individual households did indeed appear to be potentially 
sustainable.
6.3. Overall Impact Assessment
The evaluation team found plenty of evidence on the ground to assess that overall, despite shortcomings, 
the impacts of both SPSNP interventions have been positive:
· The formation of savings and credit groups has enabled people to access credit on improved 
terms. Beneficiaries no longer have to obtain credit on tough and usurious conditions and can “get 
a foot on the first rung of the micro-finance ladder”. At the same time, their own savings in the 
groups are building up and they can develop small businesses of their own choosing.
· The promotion of vegetable production has empowered female-headed households in particular 
who now grow vegetables to eat and sell. The diet within the household has diversified and small 
amounts of income are being earned from selling at home or within the local market.
· Water pumps have reduced the time taken and distance travelled by women and children to fetch 
water.
· Animal husbandry has led to the greater production of milk, increased income and restocking of 
family assets. 
· The formation of production and marketing groups has enabled the earning of greater income and 
lowering of costs as well as the introduction of appropriate, low-cost technology. The groups are 
taking the first steps towards building 
more productive businesses.
· The closer interaction of villagers 
with Development Agents, facilitated 
by the Cooperating Sponsors, has 
enabled knowledge and skills to be 
transferred and also vaccination 
campaigns of livestock to be more 
effectively carried out.
· Through all these activities, 
beneficiaries are developing a 
positive mindset of self sufficiency, 
self-determination and business 
skills.
· Women are participating more and 
expressing themselves more actively 
despite cultural inhibitions in almost all of the areas visited.
Observations supported the statement of a management member of one Cooperating Sponsor: ‘A year and 
a half after SPSNP, there is a lot more hope than I had before. There is a convergence of thinking and 
vision.’ SPSNP has enabled Cooperating Sponsors to move beyond handouts and short-term solutions 
and to experiment with developing sustainable livelihoods. Even if SPSNP were not extended, it will have 
Questionnaire Data
Of the 440 beneficiaries interviewed using under the 
quantitative survey, 431 beneficiaries answered whether the 
activities they had undertaken under SPSNP had resulted in 
increased production of food for their own consumption. Of 
these 87% of both male and female respondents replied yes 
they had and of these 37% stated that livestock 
production/rearing had led to the most production of food 
for own consumption, followed by horticulture and poultry 
rearing at 15 and 14% respectively. Other notable answers 
were small-scale irrigation at 10% and beekeeping at 7%. 
Of those who stated that production of food for their own 
consumption had increased, 16% stated that the increase 
was large, 67% stated it was moderate and 17% stated it 
was insignificant. Gender segregated, 12% of men and 20% 
of women stated that the increase was large.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
26
introduced positive models of livelihood development that other donors and the government could 
strengthen and replicate given adequate resources.
However, there are constraints, which hinder impact:
· The impact of such interventions will be 
limited if other issues impinging upon 
economic development in Ethiopia are not 
tackled too. One such issue is the high 
population growth. Not only does this have 
an effect on amount of nutrition available 
per capita and on division of land, high 
fertility also negatively affects working 
mothers’ health and productivity. Although 
this problem was frequently mentioned by 
field staff, the number of activities being 
undertaken by Cooperating Sponsors under 
family planning and contraception is 
negligible under SPSNP. 
· Impact has also been limited where 
Cooperating Sponsors have spread 
themselves too thinly geographically. This 
was undoubtedly the most significant 
observed constraint upon impact and has 
meant that activities have been dispersed 
and complementary activities may not have been undertaken due to resource constraints. Reasons 
for spreading thinly include donor pressure as well as local government pressure that the CS must 
have presence in each kebele. This pressure is not homogenous throughout the country it appears 
as some Cooperating Sponsors were observed to be working in all kebeles in some woredas and 
only in a select few in others, depending upon the demands of the particular woreda authorities. 
Where the CS has been able to concentrate its activities, impact has been significantly more 
obvious. This was particularly noticeable in the case of REST, which has been able to integrate 
several activities in a limited number of watershed sites e.g. terracing, erosion control and 
percolator trenches (under PSNP) with water harvesting, apiculture and vegetable production. 
Such sites serve as powerful demonstrations which can be effectively used for study tours and 
exposure visits for farmers from neighbouring woredas.
· It is significant that the number of potential beneficiaries in each woreda or kebele is much higher 
than the actual number of beneficiaries that have been reached. Lower outreach is chiefly due to a 
limitation of resources, otherwise Cooperating Sponsors report that the number of people 
interested in, e.g., taking up sheep and goat breeding is much more than can be serviced.
· Finally, most Cooperating Sponsors indicated the time scale of the initiative is too limited and 
that the work is only half done – even where infrastructural development projects are complete, 
positive attitudes of self-determination still need to be fostered.
Notwithstanding the above remarks, it should be noted though that in most cases, it is difficult to attribute 
any impact associated with an SPSNP activity solely to that USAID-financed intervention. Because the 
Cooperating Sponsors have been working in the woredas for several years prior to SPSNP and with 
Questionnaire Data
429 people responded to the question whether the 
activities they had undertaken under SPSPN had resulted 
in increased cash income. Of these, 83% stated that it had. 
Around 40% of these stated that the largest increase was 
due to livestock fattening/rearing, 17% stated it was due 
to horticulture, 14% said it was due to poultry, 9% due to 
small-scale irrigation and 6% due to beekeeping. Of those 
who stated that cash income had increased, 12% stated 
that the increase was large, 77% stated that the increase 
was moderate and 11% stated that the increase was 
insignificant.
Of the 351 respondents who answered what the increase 
per month in their net income had been, 25% stated that it 
was below ETB16, 27 % stated it was between ETB16 
and ETB50 and 48% stated it was over ETB50. 
Two thirds or 74% of those whose cash incomes had 
increased used it to buy food and 66% used it to buy 
household assets. Of the 426 people who responded to 
whether their household’s diet had diversified due to 
SPSNP activities they had undertaken, 80% stated that it 
had.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
27
resources from other donors, SPSNP must be seen as the culmination of a series of activities, building on 
earlier efforts. It is possible that SPSNP interventions undertaken without preceding work might have less 
impact.
Nevertheless, it is also quite clear that although the PSNP has been effective in its primary goal of 
protecting household assts and preventing food insecurity, neither beneficiaries nor those working in the 
field anticipate any significant progress towards the achievement of sustainable household food security 
unless additional interventions are put in place to develop household assets. In this regard, the SPSNP 
intervention can be assessed to have shown significant impact, albeit at a lower level, over a longer time 
frame and amongst a more restricted target group than originally anticipated. It is can also be expected 
that this impact will have a degree of sustainability, although again this is limited by the high degree of 
reliance upon cooperating sponsors that the more complex group interventions require.5
Overall therefore, SPSNP interventions have demonstrated significant benefits under particular 
circumstances. These benefits are limited in impact and will continue to be restricted unless the resources 
of either the Cooperating Sponsors or the local administration are significantly increased.
7. EVALUATION OF BEST PRACTICES
As stated in other sections of the report, the time period for the implementation of activities may be too 
short to judge whether a practice has been good. At the same time, some activities were clearly successful 
in some areas or under certain management but less successful in other areas or under different 
management. Nevertheless some general principles can be established and these are noted below:
7.1. Traditional Elements
Amongst the more traditional interventions, three activities stood out as being both well accepted, 
replicable, and generally sustainable. These were the facilitation of savings and credit groups, provision 
of shoats and establishment of household water supply systems. Each of these interventions had different 
strengths and was most appropriate in certain areas:
Savings and Credit Groups – were most relevant in the very poorest areas where beneficiaries had no 
means to access micro-finance institutions. They had the advantage of self –determination – beneficiaries 
formed their own groups, which they managed themselves and they were able to use loans for whatever 
business interest they wished. The group had a strong cohesion maintained by peer pressure and good 
loan performance. Although the impact of these groups was small, they nevertheless made a significant 
and immediate difference to the lives of those who participated in them.
Provision of Shoats – this was the most widespread intervention and was applicable to both crop and 
livestock production areas, although in crop areas, some beneficiaries indicated that ultimately they 
 
5
 It is useful to compare the SPSNP interventions with the current household development program undertaken by 
the Government to complement the PSNP. This consists primarily of micro-credit facilities that are to be made 
available to PSNP beneficiaries. FSCB administration noted that the program suffered from a lack of trained 
personnel with the result that the amount of funds disbursed had been limited. More significantly however, the 
program required significant collateral before loans could be given and this was reported by SPSNP field staff to be 
beyond the capacity of the majority of SPSNP beneficiaries. The conclusion drawn by the evaluation team was that 
this program had been pitched at a higher level of development than most SPSNP beneficiaries had yet attained. In 
this regard, interventions such as savings and credit groups, which could be accessed by the very poor, were 
particularly useful in providing “intervening rungs” on the “developmental ladder”.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
28
wished to trade their shoats for oxen. Nevertheless, as an intervention, small ruminant production was 
well suited to the limited grazing areas available, provided useful additional household income and could 
(provide the ruminants were repaid in kind) be replicated easily. The main disadvantage of this 
intervention was that it is susceptible to drought and might not be sustained through environmental shock. 
The questionnaire responses showed that this intervention was highly rated by beneficiaries, especially 
female headed households as a means of increasing income.
Establishment of Household Water Supply Systems – this was the most desired intervention, 
particularly in those areas such as in Tigray, where drought has been a recurring problem. Although the 
cost of the initial infrastructure was high (and this places a severe constraint on replication by individual 
households), the advantages to a household were immediate and included not only supplementary crop 
irrigation, but enhanced backyard gardening, including the development of household drip systems, stock 
watering and even provision of household drinking water in extreme situations.
Study Tours – the practical value of study tours was repeatedly emphasized by beneficiaries. Visiting 
successful microprojects both incentivized other beneficiaries and allowed first hand experiences to be 
passed from one beneficiary to another. In a situation of limited resources, where replication is essential if 
benefits are to be spread over a wider area, study tours deserve to be a key element of all SPSNP projects 
as a primary means of disseminating information. The survey data reported that only 26% of trainees had 
been taken on study tours6
 (Table G10). This is regrettable since beneficiaries have clearly indicated that 
they are the best means of understanding just what a particular intervention requires and what it can mean 
in terms of benefits. Study tours allow the “software” to be developed, including both technical 
knowledge and the necessary incentive to achieve comparable success. Future SPSNP initiatives should 
seek to include study tours as an integral component of every intervention such that once a given 
intervention had been successfully established then that success should be exploited to the maximum by 
demonstration to as many other beneficiaries as possible.
7.2. Innovative Activities
Although there were no innovative activities in the sense that they had not already been tested in 
neighbouring countries or elsewhere in the world, there were some activities observed by the evaluation 
team that were innovative to Ethiopia or to the area/woreda in question.
· CRS has introduced in Ethiopia and other neighbouring country what are called ‘seed fairs’ and 
‘livestock fairs’. These fairs give several buyers and sellers the opportunity to interact in one 
place simultaneously. Buying beneficiaries are given vouchers using which they can buy the seed, 
tools or ruminants of their choice – both the variety and the type. At the end of the day, CRS pays 
cash to the sellers to the value of the vouchers they have collected. A brief evaluation undertaken 
on behalf of CRS of the seed fairs gave a generally positive assessment.7
 CRS states that this 
method encourages the growth of local markets as local sellers get an opportunity to sell their 
products. Though not a primary purpose, CRS uses these fairs to disseminate information on 
HIV, nutrition and sanitation too. 
· Watershed development in Tigray by REST has been an innovative activity if seen in the national 
context. Within a given watershed, several activities at community and household level are 
 
6
 Significantly fewer women (18%) undertook study tour than men (33%). Given the significant proportion of 
female headed households in the survey, this aspect requires particular attention.
7 Bramel P.J. and Remington T, CRS Seed Vouchers and Fairs: A meta-analysis of their use in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia 
and Gambia (undated)
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
29
undertaken which complement each other including the harvesting of water, horticulture and 
drinking water for livestock. The terracing and rehabilitation of land and gully reinforcement 
allows for beekeeping, agro-forestry and livestock rearing to then take place – SPNSP activities at 
the household level being built on previous PSNP activities at the community level. REST states 
that water harvesting has been an incredible trigger especially considering that effective water 
management was ‘appalling’ in the area. The CS introduced a range of new water harvesting 
structures.
There is no systematic sharing of best practices or lessons being learnt by the various Cooperating 
Sponsors under SPSNP around the country. The progress reports submitted regularly by the Cooperating 
Sponsors to USAID also lack documentation of lessons learnt. Such sharing should be actively 
encouraged by USAID if mistakes are to be avoided and good practices adopted.
7.3. Less Relevant Interventions
Two areas of activity stood out as being of limited relevance under the current circumstances. The first of 
these was vocational training. This was clearly successful in terms first, of imparting skills to a selected 
group of individuals and secondly, of moving those individuals very rapidly towards household food 
security. However, the approach proved relatively costly and limited in both the number of beneficiaries 
that were assisted and the circumstances where skills could be applied so that beneficiaries were not 
always able to find ready markets for their skills. This was a disappointing observation given the obvious 
need to diversify household incomes away from traditional agricultural activities, but it would appear that 
such diversification requires a market that has not yet been developed in most rural areas and that such 
skills might be more appropriate to peri-urban areas.8
The second area of limited relevance was in the marketing of traditional agricultural produce. In practice, 
Cooperating Sponsors had placed less emphasis on this aspect of development than had been generally 
indicated in initial proposals. However, it was observed that at current levels of production, such 
emphasis was in fact unnecessary and with the exception of honey, milk and some specific artisanal 
products, most production generated by SPSNP activities could be readily disposed of in rural markets 
without difficulty or additional assistance being required.
7.4. Underlying Principles
There are a number of underlying principles that would appear to determine the most effective practices, 
the first of which being the importance of an integrated approach. Where interventions were integrated 
with local administrative development plans (such as watershed development plans) and where they built 
upon PSNP interventions then impacts were greater and sustainability was more probable. Secondly, and 
arising from the need for integration was the ability to limit interventions to selected areas and specific 
target groups, including particularly those who would be able to make the best use of interventions. Such 
a concentration of resources allows the development of communities who can move together towards 
food security in a sustainable way as opposed to isolated households whose future development would be 
much less certain. Thirdly, the effectiveness of practices appeared to be determined not only by the 
intervention itself, but also by its relevance to the beneficiary community and in particular by the manner 
in which it was implemented. The capacity of field staff as project managers and extension agents was 
observed to make a fundamental difference to the success or failure of interventions varying from savings 
and credit schemes to backyard gardens.
 
8
 It is important to note that 41% of beneficiaries surveyed received PSNP Food Aid only while only 25% received 
cash only, and 33% received both (Table G4). This may indicate some bias toward areas where markets would be 
less developed and market-based interventions less effective.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
30
Finally and perhaps most critically from the aspect of sustainability there is the need to coordinate with 
local administration and in particular to build capacity at the DA level so that successful interventions can 
be both sustained and replicated elsewhere. This need was recognized by all Cooperating Sponsors who 
also recognized that limited capacity in this area was a nation-wide shortcoming of local government. In 
some cases, Cooperating Sponsors have tried to avoid this shortcoming by taking on the role of the local 
administration, but this fails to recognize that ultimately local government capacity must be developed if 
the needs of the PSNP beneficiaries are to be met.
Limited capacity at the local administrative level is perhaps the biggest issue facing the successful 
implementation of SPSNP or any subsequent development initiative. Cooperating Sponsors have in the 
past taken on a role that to a considerable extent substituted for local administration in the distribution of 
relief. Such a role is not appropriate to the promotion of sustainable development. In the development 
arena, resources are limited and it is impossible to achieve the universal coverage of beneficiaries that 
might be the target of a relief exercise. Instead the best that can be hoped for is the creation of successful 
examples that can be replicated by other beneficiaries or by the local administration.
The creation of successful examples should be one of the two underlying targets of the SPSNP exercise, 
and interventions should be integrated and focused to achieve this goal. The second target - of achieving 
successful replication of sound interventions depends upon the availability of local resources, and 
complementary programs will/are definitely required to facilitate this.
8. ROLE OF COOPERATING SPONSORS IN SPSNP DEVELOPMENT
8.1. Nature of SPSNP Development
It appeared to the Evaluation Team that most of the interventions undertaken by Cooperating Sponsors 
fell short of the original expectations of those who had drafted the initial SPSNP RFA in the sense that 
most interventions repeated previous agriculturally-focused programs and relatively few introduced new 
concepts or methodologies such as vocational training or other off-farm income generating activities. 
However, it was also clear that the traditional interventions were in fact more appropriate to the level of 
development of both individual households and the surrounding economic environment.
This does not imply that the solution to graduation is to achieve diversified agricultural-based livelihoods 
on drought-prone, small fragmented, degraded parcels of land. Rather that the non-traditional and off￾farm income generating activities tried so far have limited relevance on a wide scale and will be less 
effective in achieving sustainable household food security in the majority of current economic
environments. To be more generally successful, these interventions will require increased private sector 
interest and investment in rural economies to exploit the non-traditional skills and products.
It was evident that the traditional interventions helped effectively destitute households to generate food 
and/or cash resources in various ways so that they could move towards household food security. In most 
cases this involved the production of food for the household with the possibility of a small surplus that 
could be marketed locally. In a few cases, there was a much greater emphasis on marketing (eg. the 
export of pottery or marketing of white pea-beans), and it would appear that in these cases, the 
beneficiary households had already moved beyond subsistence production to a position where much 
greater emphasis could be placed on cash crops or industries. These interventions appeared to be a second 
phase of intermediate development that is not yet appropriate for the majority of PSNP beneficiaries 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
31
because the economic environment is not conducive to such interventions (e.g. there may be no ready 
market for the goods or services). This is simplistically represented diagrammatically below:
Figure 1. Spectrum of interventions
Shoat Rearing Off-farm IGA's Ongoing market￾Backyard gardening Marketing of comm- based development 
Water harvesting ercial surpluses activities (eg. ATEA)
Savings & Credit Micro-export
Phase 2a Phase 2b Phase 3
PSNP Activities
Relief distribution
DAP Projects
Phase 1
ALT Interventions ALT/BEAT Interventions (SPSNP) BEAT Interventions
The evaluation team concluded that the interphase between relief and market-orientated interventions 
(that are more typical of development) involves at least two stages. In the first, beneficiaries are assisted 
to achieve sustainable household food security with occasional surplus production. In the second, they are 
assisted to develop a consistent commercial surplus for the market with direct oversight and assistance 
from the Cooperating Sponsor. It is at this second phase of intermediate development (Phase 2b) that 
more market focused interventions are relevant. These might be associated with economies of scale
(including organized groups or formal cooperatives) and the development of linkages to markets, finance 
and commercial technologies. If this second phase can be achieved, then more traditional developmental 
approaches become relevant whereby sustainable development without oversight is promoted. It would 
appear however, that the more market orientated second phase interventions are not appropriate until the 
first stage of achieving sustainable food security has been successfully met and only then if appropriate 
economic conditions (chiefly an adequate market) are available. Most SPSNP interventions are working 
at this first stage and this appears to be generally appropriate to the economic environment and conditions 
of the beneficiaries. The Government household development micro-credit program would appear to be 
more appropriate to “Phase 2b” of development and to be less relevant to the majority of PSNP
beneficiaries.
8.2. Role of the Cooperating Sponsors
It would appear that Cooperating Sponsors will play a role in rural development in Ethiopia for the 
foreseeable future. In this context it is helpful that all Cooperating Sponsors have established good 
working relationships at the local administration (PA) level and most have good relationships at the 
woreda level. In general they have been accepted as stakeholders in the national development process to 
supplement limited local capacity. However within this context, it was observed that the role expected of 
Cooperating Sponsors by local administrations (and indeed the role which Cooperating Sponsors appear 
to have broadly accepted) is one that attempts to achieve too much with too limited resources
The resources required to facilitate and oversee the process of economic development are generally 
greater per beneficiary than those required to distribute relief. They are also quite different in terms of 
skill sets. Hence, within the development context of SPSNP programs, it is not realistic to expect 
Cooperating Sponsors to target each and every household within their woreda/kebeles of operation, since 
both financial resources and manpower are inadequate to achieve this. 
All parties should accept that the role of the Cooperating Sponsors in development is limited (by capacity, 
resources and by national mandate) to that of assistance and demonstration or the establishment of pilot 
models that government can replicate and take to scale. To attempt to adopt a wider or more ambitious 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
32
role would be to usurp the function of government as the primary development institution in the country. 
This view was a consistent theme in discussions with donors including CIDA and WFP. 
The Cooperating Sponsors do appreciate their limitations. They indicated that they would prefer to 
consolidate their work and be enabled to undertake activities in a concentrated manner in order to have a 
bigger impact. However, with pressure from government (and donors9
) to spread extensively, they state 
that they cannot work as intensively as they would like.
In one specific case, a Cooperating Sponsor had indeed been able to work in a concentrated manner and 
had achieved significant impact as a result. The ability to achieve such focus appeared to be primarily 
derived from the close relationship between the CS and local government – to the extent that it appeared 
to be an integral part of the local administration itself - and the high standing in which the CS was held.
This approach deserves further comment. On the one hand, the approach was definitely effective in terms 
of integrating with wider development initiatives and in terms of impacts achieved. On the other hand, 
under this approach, the Cooperating Sponsor adopted a role of continued involvement and supervision 
with no apparent intention to move on from the targeted areas other than through the expansion of its own 
resources. As such, the CS definitely appeared to be substituting for, rather than supplementing the role of 
the local administration in development. Moreover, the integrated nature of the interventions meant that 
the Cooperating Sponsor played an all-encompassing role that largely excluded private sector 
involvement in marketing or service support.
Such an approach implies a degree of overall control that might be fraught with political undertones, 
especially in the arena of local (woreda and kabele level) politics. It is probably not the open model of 
development that proponents of liberalized markets and private sector economics would envisage, and it 
raises issues of paternalism, control, and freedom of choice. It also raises issues of fundamental policy –
would such an integrated approach countenance off-farm income generating activities? or would it 
concentrate the bulk of its resources on the increased intensification of agricultural production?) 
However, despite these concerns, this integrated CS/local government approach appears the most 
effective way of working at this level of development.
This is not to say that such an overall level of control would be appropriate at the next stage of 
development, where commercial concerns are of greater significance, but at what is essentially 
subsistence level agriculture, producing small and occasional surpluses for local sale, the integrated 
model appears to have greatest impact. How such an approach would be able to address subsequent stages 
of development as communities become more commercially mature remains to be seen.
It must also be noted that other less directly engaged development models adopted by other Cooperating 
Sponsors were also effective in achieving impact, albeit in a less concentrated or integrated manner. In the 
long term, these other models may be more appropriate to sustainable commercial development, but at the 
stage where households are attempting to move from chronic impoverishment to sustainable food 
security, such commercial concerns are largely secondary. In the initial stages of development, the 
concentration of resources amongst Cooperating Sponsors that can demonstrate a high degree of 
integration and linkage with local government can be expected to have the greatest short-term impact.
 
9
 Although the RFA for SPSNP was quite specific in its description of intensive and extensive targeting, 
Cooperating Sponsors still indicated perceived pressure to report large numbers of both woredas/kabele covered and 
beneficiaries targeted.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
33
8.3. Interaction between Cooperating Sponsors
The RFA for the SPSNP indicated that Cooperating Sponsors should liaise and learn from each other in 
terms of best practices. This was not observed to be happening. Instead, it was noticed that while a given 
intervention might be well undertaken in one area, a different Cooperating Sponsor undertaking a very 
similar intervention in close proximity might nevertheless achieve a much lower success rate. The main 
reasons for observed differences appeared to be small differences in implementation practice, which could 
easily be resolved if experiences were more readily shared.
In fact, instead of the cooperation that USAID/Ethiopia would have preferred, some Cooperating 
Sponsors indicated a reluctance to share experiences and knowledge on the grounds that they were in fact 
competing for funds and to allow another CS to gain insight into successful practices might result in the 
loss of “competitive edge” and consequent reduction of funding available.
This situation is regrettable since it is only the beneficiaries who suffer under such circumstances. Its 
remedy lies in the hands of USAID/Ethiopia who have to convince Cooperating Sponsors that funds are 
allocated on the basis of beneficiary need not on the basis of competitive excellence.
8.4. Cooperating Sponsor Exit Strategies
It must be recognized that most Cooperating Sponsors have been in Ethiopia, working often in the same 
woredas for years before SPSNP was developed. For example, Catholic Relief Services has been working 
in Ethiopia since the late fifties and REST since the late seventies. Similarly, ORDA was set up in 1984 
as an emergency response to famine in the northern part of Amhara region. From this perspective, a two 
or three year program such as SPSNP does not appear to justify the development of a CS exit strategy.
If sustainability is to be achieved (and sustainability is indeed an essential element of all SNPSP 
interventions) then some form of exit strategy is required. However, none of the Cooperating Sponsors 
appeared to have an exit strategy in place and nor was this an issue they mentioned or indicated that they 
had thought about. 
Under the specific circumstances of the SPSNP interventions, such a long-term attitude on the part of the 
Cooperating Sponsors is understandable. Although the original proposals anticipated a high level of 
success in moving beneficiaries towards food security, experience has shown that a longer time-frame 
than the originally specified two-year period is required and this has been consciously or unconsciously 
reflected in the CS attitude to this work. It would not be realistic to expect to leave beneficiary 
communities within a two-year time frame and Cooperating Sponsors have made no provision to do so. 
The development of an exit strategy would be relevant within the context of a five-year program 
concentrated over a specific group of beneficiaries and if an exit strategy is required then the SOW should 
be adjusted accordingly.
However, given the limited resources available to carry our SPSNP interventions, it is necessary that 
Cooperating Sponsors should develop the capacity to relocate their programs once development has 
reached an appropriate stage in a given area. It will therefore be necessary to develop a longer-term 
outlook, considering how their relationship with beneficiaries should evolve to the point where they are 
managing more and more activities themselves, forging linkages with extension and the private sector 
independently of the Cooperating Sponsor. At present this aspect of the development process has not 
received adequate attention.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
34
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary conclusion drawn by the evaluation team is that the SPSNP interventions assessed had 
resulted in positive impacts which, if continued (in the case of the SPSNP interventions) could be 
expected to result in sustainable increases in household food security. Different interventions had met 
with varying degrees of success but impact was as much related to the detail of implementation as to the 
nature of the intervention itself. In almost every case however, impacts had been diluted by excessive 
coverage and could be expected to be constrained by the limited implementation period. Nevertheless, 
where focus has been achieved, tangible progress has occurred which would not have been possible under 
the PSNP alone. It is therefore recommended that consideration should be given to extending 
SPSNP interventions over a minimum five year (in total) implementation period, during which 
time, interventions should be focused on a limited target group of beneficiaries.
The targeting of beneficiaries was observed to follow traditional relief processes including a focus on the 
poorest of the poor and to have been influenced by local administrative considerations. As a result 
resources have not been most effectively utilized. It is recommended that in future consideration 
should be given to the targeting of those who can make the best use of interventions so as to provide 
effective demonstrations of the potential benefits to others. In this regard, the use of study tours 
and demonstrations was universally acknowledged to be effective in the field and deserves greater 
attention ( as demonstrated by: a)specific project budget lines and, b) greater participation of 
women in study tours) in future.
It was recognized that the development of a positive self-help attitude amongst beneficiaries is critical to 
the success and long-term sustainability of interventions. It was also recognized that this could take at 
least five years to pervade a community. It is recommended that greater attention be given in 
programs to the development of a positive, self-help attitude, first by identifying and placing 
greater implementation emphasis on the processes involved in attitude change and secondly by 
using “hardware interventions” to support and enhance these process.
Beneficiaries clearly indicated the need for at least two and preferably three interventions per household if 
sustainable food security were to be developed. Even under these circumstances, it was not expected that 
food security would be achieved in less than five years from program initiation. It is recommended that 
programs be designed to allow for the integration of interventions to provide a truly diversified 
source of income or production, utilizing two or more interventions per household and that 
targeting be restricted to achieve this.
On the basis of the field observation, it would appear that assisting a chronically impoverished household 
to achieve a position of sustainable food security would require a minimum investment of $400. This 
implies a total investment of $400 million to support the graduation of five million PSNP beneficiaries 
(assuming that two million PSNP beneficiaries will be inherently unable to participate in the graduation 
process). This is substantially greater than the amount of funds available to the Cooperating Sponsors or
GFDRE for such development. It is therefore recommended that consideration be given to inviting 
other donor institutions to adopt or support similar SPSNP programs to increase the degree of 
coverage and speed at which household food security may be achieved.
Allowing for different circumstances and implementation techniques it was evident that the provision of 
household water resources was the most successful intervention with the greatest and most immediate 
impact. However, this was a generally costly intervention that could not be easily replicated by individual 
households. Besides this, the provision of shoats was widely accepted, generally low cost and easily 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
35
replicated if revolved in kind, while backyard gardening was an effective activity for income 
diversification that could also be readily replicated. Off-farm income generating activities were 
significantly more limited in their marketability and appropriateness to rural beneficiaries in general. It 
was evident that the most successful and widely applicable interventions were those that built upon 
traditional production activities and did not exceed the absorption capacity of local rural economies. Off￾farm income generating activities required greater assistance by the CS in developing markets.
This latter conclusion highlights the difficulties inherent in developing a truly diversified economy that is 
not completely dependent upon the weather in the rural areas. It suggests again that an integrated 
approach is required in which every aspect of economic development is developed simultaneously. The 
individual interventions undertaken by Cooperating Sponsors to develop such activities as blacksmithing, 
weaving or pottery had limited relevance to rural economies and may experience difficulties in terms of 
sustainability in the future.
Savings and credit groups were recognized as being powerful interventions that allowed beneficiaries a 
high degree of self-determination, were both replicable and sustainable and promoted the development of 
a self-help attitude. Although they did not have a great impact in financial terms, they nevertheless 
provided a first rung on the credit ladder and were particularly appropriate in the poorer areas. While 
savings and credit groups may not be relevant under every circumstance, it is recommended that 
all Cooperating Sponsors become aware of the performance of the groups facilitated by 
ORDA/CARE in Laye Gayint as examples of a successful, low cost intervention that has had 
significant impact.
It is recognized that both micro-finance and commercial sources of credit can provide useful assistance in 
economic development. However, in many cases, SPSNP programs were encouraging lax credit 
procedures that were not conducive to good loan management by beneficiaries and which would reduce 
the chances of successful participation in more stringent micro-finance or commercial credit systems in 
the future. It is therefore strongly recommended that where funds are denominated as loans they 
should be treated as such and proper loan management procedures should be enforced. If less 
stringent conditions are appropriate then matching or pure grants should be provided rather than 
encourage the abuse of credit.
In this regard it is also recommended that CS field staff be provided with further training in 
financial and particularly revolving fund management.
There was little evidence of private sector participation in most interventions beyond the role of purchaser 
of produce. No significant attempts appeared to have been made to involve commercial sources of finance 
or to involve the private sector as service providers to individuals or producer groups. This may have been 
because the scope of development is too small to attract private sector interest, but it is nevertheless 
recommended that the private sector be involved in initiatives wherever possible as a means of 
ensuring commercial viability and sustainability. The role of the Cooperating Sponsor under such 
circumstances would be to intoduce suitable partners and ensure the maintenance of equitable 
arrangements between all parties.
Beneficiary responses indicated that the extent of community participation in the SPSNP planning process 
had been limited in some instances and as a result some interventions were either misplaced or irrelevant. 
This is a fundamental error that should be avoided. At the same time, it was apparent that not all 
beneficiaries were aware of the responsibilities that they were committed to when taking parting group 
activities that could have significant impact upon future sustainability. It is recommended that the 
financing and implementation of interventions should be contingent upon demonstrable community 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
36
involvement in the planning process and that all beneficiaries be made fully aware of obligations 
entered into when becoming members of producer groups.
Cooperating Sponsors appreciate the value of study tours to inform, sensitize and motivate beneficiaries. 
However, there is little or no interaction between Cooperating Sponsors to share lessons learned or best 
practices. In fact some Cooperating Sponsors appear unwilling to share information on the basis that they 
are competing for USAID resources. It is recommended that USAID/Ethiopia develops a more 
proactive system of information sharing amongst Cooperating Sponsors while working to develop 
an attitude of trust between Cooperating Sponsors on the basis that they are operating for a 
common good and can work more effectively through cooperation. In particular, USAID might 
request a report on “lessons learned” from each CS at regular intervals throughout the program
The role of the CS in the development process is very different from the role undertaken in the provision 
of relief. In particular, resource limitations require that CS interventions be of limited duration in a given 
area and that successful interventions should then be repeated elsewhere. Current philosophies of 
Cooperating Sponsors do not reflect such an approach. Instead there is a tendency to remain active in a 
given area for an extended period, becoming in some cases as much a part of the local administration as 
the administration itself. It is recommended that this situation be reviewed and the existing policy of 
support to local government be strengthened so that Cooperating Sponsors can work to strengthen 
and supplement local administrative capacity rather than substituting for it. This may require the 
revision of CS proposals to indicate quite clearly the roles that local administration is expected to 
play in implementing development programs and the support (both technical and financial) that 
will be provided to them in order to facilitate this.
No exit strategies appear to have been considered or developed. This situation is untenable given the 
scope of the development problem and the resources available to deal with it. It cannot be expected that 
Cooperating Sponsors will continue to facilitate development in a given area ad infinitum. Neither 
however can it be expected that Cooperating Sponsors would be able to achieve sustainable food security
and leave beneficiary communities within a two-year time frame. The development of an exit strategy 
will only be realistic within the context of a minimum five-year program concentrated over a specific 
group of beneficiaries. It is therefore recommended that while ongoing and future interventions 
should be revised to include clearly defined CS exit strategies, such strategies should be set within 
the context of longer-term and focused programs that have a realistic chance of achieving 
sustainable success. 
The Evaluation Team was tasked with recommending best practices in the light of observations made at 
the twelve project sites visited. This was not possible on the basis of observations alone; specifically
because it was very clear that effectiveness depended less upon the nature of the interventions practiced 
than upon the care and professionalism given to project management. In most cases, this was determined 
more by specific individuals rather than principles or practices of any one intervention or CS.
Nevertheless, a number of recommendations can be made that might contribute to improved design and 
selection of livelihood interventions:
1. Recognizing that resources for development are normally provided within the
context of a limited (3-5 year) envelope, project designers should assess whether or 
not it is practicable to achieve development across all members of a target area and 
if not how best to achieve effective replication of interventions by non-beneficiaries. 
2. Project designs should identify criteria for targeting beneficiaries on the basis of (1) 
above – if effective replication is desired, then targeting for aptitude, attitude and 
capability becomes more important than targeting for need.
3. Project designs should make particular reference to study tours and the
encouragement of the replication of successful interventions.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
37
4. Project designs should clearly identify the level of development of targeted
beneficiaries and whether traditional activities (Phase 2a) or more market-based 
interventions (Phase 2b) are appropriate according to that level.
5. SPSNP projects should seek to provide at least two and preferably three different 
types of intervention per household.
6. Project designs should include an effective exit strategy. If an exit strategy cannot be 
included then the validity of the project must be reassessed.
7. Project designs should be shared with local administration and their buy-in to the 
concept of restricted and successful interventions serving as examples for effective 
replication should be obtained, prior to implementation.
8. SPSNP projects should pay particular attention to the development of a self-help 
positive attitude, recognizing first that this takes at least two years and more
probably five years to achieve throughout a community and secondly that the 
physical interventions effectively serve as a framework that supports the
development of such an attitude.
9. Projects should be selected on the basis at least in part of cost effectiveness. Project 
designs should include an estimate of the investment that will be required on a per 
beneficiary basis to achieve success.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
38
10. ANNEXES
Annex A. Description of Common Interventions
The entire list of interventions provided by Cooperating Sponsors is extensive (more than 20 
different initiatives were observed in different areas). The following paragraphs describe the most 
commonly observed interventions in terms of cost, impact, sustainability and ease of replication. 
In most cases, interventions were generally sound in basic concept and their success or failure 
depended to a considerable extent on individual circumstances, especially the extent to which 
Cooperating Sponsors provided initial and/or ongoing support. Detailed implementation 
procedures appeared to be critical and were not always effectively implemented. In such cases, a 
fundamentally sound concept would appear flawed, and it is important to recognize that given the 
limitations of this evaluation, the value of a practicable and effective intervention might be 
obscured by specific circumstances, including the capabilities of individual field staff.
PROVISION OF INPUTS
Provision of Shoats
Many Cooperating Sponsors provided sheep or goats to beneficiaries as a means of generating 
both food and income. The number of animals provided varied between six (five ewes and one 
ram) and one animal between two households. The most acceptable number of animals varied 
between four and six. Some households indicated that they could not manage more than six 
animals (due either to social pressure or to lack of grazing).
The cost of shoats was approximately ETB 150 per animal. The mechanism for provision to 
primary beneficiaries varied considerably. In some cases, households purchased their own 
livestock at “livestock fairs” using vouchers. In others, the beneficiaries advised project staff 
which animals they wished to purchase at local markets. In other cases, projects staff purchased 
animals without reference to beneficiaries. The first and second options were clearly preferred by 
beneficiaries who in the third case complained that they could have bought better and cheaper if 
they had been allowed to negotiate themselves.
In every case, the intervention contained a revolving element, although this also varied. In one 
instance, the primary beneficiary kept the first crop of lambs/kids and passed the adult stock on to 
a secondary beneficiary. This had the advantage of allowing a new beneficiary to receive shoats 
every six months. In another instance, the primary beneficiary passed the first crop of young 
stock to the secondary beneficiary after weaning, and kept the old stock. The secondary 
beneficiary would then sell surplus males and buy new ewe lambs with the proceeds. However, 
this meant that subsequent beneficiaries had to wait at least a year before they could receive 
young stock. Finally, in another area, the primary beneficiary was required to pay back the cash 
value of the livestock that had been provided into a “revolving fund”. The fund was notionally 
owned by a sheep and goat group, which would then decide who would receive the next shoats 
and purchase new livestock when sufficient funds had been returned. In practice, repayment of 
the loans was no more than 60% and subject to delay for various reasons. Moreover, no new 
purchases had been made although some funds had accumulated in the revolving fund account. 
In this instance it appeared that the first mechanism of revolving the adult stock had clear 
advantages in terms of replication.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
39
Acceptance of this form of intervention amongst beneficiaries appeared to be high. Sheep were 
preferred in highland areas and goats in the lowlands. In most cases, the animals were kept for 
fattening and sale as yearlings when they might fetch ETB 150 each. In terms of impact, few 
beneficiaries intended to increase their flock size beyond approximately six animals and were 
happy with the regular income that such a flock might provide. This would be equivalent to ETB 
1,200 if eight young stock were sold each year. No problems were experienced in marketing the 
fat animals, which could without exception be absorbed by local markets.
In every case, beneficiaries were provided with appropriate training in shoat rearing.
Under appropriate management, this intervention is highly replicable, sustainable, uses 
appropriate technology, generates significant impact at the household level and is widely 
accepted by beneficiaries. The disadvantages of such an intervention are that it can only be 
applied to households with access to grazing, potential overgrazing (although this would not 
occur at the low level at which shoats are currently provided) and susceptibility to drought. On 
balance however, this appears to be a useful and cost effective intervention if properly applied.
Provision of Beekeeping Inputs
Assistance with beekeeping was a common intervention particularly in the northern half of the 
country. Wide variation was observed in the degree of assistance provided, interventions 
universally included training, but might also include the provision of Kenyan top-bar beehives or 
complete modern beehives, new stock, frames, extraction equipment, formation of cooperatives, 
buildings for extraction and storage of honey, and assistance with packaging and marketing.
This intervention was particularly suitable to households without access to land and was well 
accepted by beneficiaries. The capital cost of the intervention might vary from ETB 400 for the 
provision of a Kenyan top-bar hive, to in excess of ETB 2,000 for those households who were 
provided with a complete modern beehive and full support in the form of extraction equipment 
and buildings for extraction, storage and marketing. Annual returns varied between 20 and 40 kg 
of honey, valued at ETB 40 per kg, i.e.ETB 800-1600 per year.
The degree of replication of this intervention was not high – the capital cost formed a significant 
barrier to entry (although in one instance, local carpenters had been trained to manufacture the 
new design of frames). Sustainability was not an issue, neither was the appropriateness of the 
technology, which could all be repaired locally. However, in the extreme case where extensive 
support was provided throughout the value chain, beneficiaries appeared unaware of their 
financial obligations (in terms or repaying goods and group assets provided on loan), and there 
was no apparent exit strategy on the part of the CS.
Provision of Fruit Trees
This intervention was frequently integrated with backyard gardening and comprised both 
highland fruits (apples, pears and plums) and lowland fruit trees (oranges, mangoes and 
avocadoes. In each case, beneficiaries were supplied with suitable fruit trees. In some cases, trees 
were provided as a grant while in others cash repayment was required over time. Tree seedlings 
were produced by the Cooperating Sponsors out of nurseries where local rootstocks were raised 
and imported material grafted on to them. The trees were provided as grafted seedlings and would 
generally take another two years to bear fruit in any significant quantity. Beneficiaries were 
provided with training in fruit tree management and it was anticipated that eventually assistance 
would also be provided in marketing fruit. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
40
The cost per tree was not excessive (ETB50 each). It was expected that a reasonable yield of fruit 
would give an annual return of at least ETB 100 per tree, but there had been little market analysis 
beyond the brief scrutiny of domestic markets to confirm demand and price and it is possible that 
if this intervention were to be widely employed, then prices might fall as supply rose beyond 
immediate local demand. However, there was no evidence that sufficient trees had been deployed 
in any given area for this to be a significant consideration at present.
Beneficiaries were happy to receive fruit trees and observation indicated that trees that had been 
planted in backyard gardens were generally well cared for. However, the fact that this 
intervention cannot achieve any significant return for at least two years does limit its impact 
within the scope of this evaluation.
This intervention gave rise to two major issues of concern. First, the lack of sound market 
research for the specific varieties being disseminated meant that there was no guarantee of 
sustainable markets for the produce. Secondly, although the cost of each tree seedling was low, 
and although appropriate technologies were used to produce the trees, there was no indication that 
the intervention could be replicated without the continued presence and input of the CS. It would 
be necessary for nurseries to be independently managed and commercially operated for this 
intervention to be effectively replicated.
Provision of Dairy Cows/Milk Marketing
This intervention was not widely practiced except in Tigray. It varied in scope from the provision 
of high yielding Holstein Friesian dairy cows (with appropriate training in management and milk 
production) through assistance in the formation of milk production cooperatives (using locally 
bred animals) to the construction of milk sales outlets, including the provision of cream 
separation and butter making equipment. The basic intervention was costly (in excess of ETB 
4,000 per cow) and was always associated with the creation of milk marketing groups. Additional 
costs were incurred by the group through the provision of assets (milk marketing outlets and 
processing equipment), although it was not always clear whether assets were being provided on a 
demonstration basis or as part of a business transaction.
Although the intervention was expensive, it appeared to be financially viable in that, with proper 
management, the friesian cows would produce in excess of 4,000 litres per annum with a retail 
value of ETB 4 per litre, i.e an annual revenue of ETB16,000, although there were significant 
costs to be deducted from this amount. The cows themselves were repaid at a total value of 
ETB5,000 at ETB1,000 per year for five years. Other assets were paid for by each producer 
group, using revenue from milk sales (purchased from members at three ETB per litre and sold at 
four ETB per litre. A producer group of 20 members would retail approximately 300 litres per 
day and could therefore expect an annual income of approximately ETB100,000. Local demnd 
for milk appeared to exceed supply, although surpluses were anticipated in the coming fasting 
periods, when it was intended to develop the processing lines (especially butter)
Not surprisingly, a considerable number of beneficiaries wished to be provided with improved 
dairy cows, although the intervention was limited to those with adequate fodder production 
capacity to support such an animal. In addition, a number of farmers also wished to join the 
producers group, selling milk from their own (locally bred) cows through the milk marketing 
outlet.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
41
This intervention can be viewed not so much as an individual household asset diversification 
exercise (although it does achieve this), but as a group business development initiative. The 
producer group had been provided with (and would eventually pay for) substantial assets to assist 
in the marketing of their produce. The economies of scale allowed for the employment of staff at 
the marketing outlet and the business appeared to be providing a good return to all group 
members. As such, it provided a good example to other members of the community of what could 
be achieved using the cooperative business model. 
Sustainability of livestock supply was apparently possible using local DA’s trained in AI, who 
would be able to supply straws of Holstein Friesian semen
Although the intervention appeared remarkably successful, the evaluation team noted a number of 
concerns. First, the high capital cost, largely precluded replication without the assistance of a CS, 
or access to micro-finance, which in most cases is beyond PSNP beneficiaries. Secondly, the key 
asset (the dairy cow) is vulnerable to drought and required continual high-level management to be 
productive, thus this intervention carries a higher element of risk than most. Thirdly, when 
interviewed, some group members did not appear to understand the extent of their financial 
obligations through the group. Most significantly however, there was an underlying concern that 
the group businesses were relying to a considerable extent on the support of the CS both in the 
management of the group and its financial responsibilities and in the technical aspects of the 
business. Repairs were to be referred to the Cooperating Sponsor’s workshop, sales negotiations 
with potential supermarket customers were undertaken by the CS and the proposed packaging for 
cream and butter was also to be provided by the CS.
On balance therefore, this appeared to be a cost intensive, higher risk intervention, which, while 
financially viable, relied to a considerable extent upon continual input by the CS. As such it could 
not be considered to be either replicable or sustainable as it stood at present. More work would 
need to be done both in terms of project design and in training, before the group members could 
be expected to run a milk production and marketing business without further support. 
Nevertheless, considering the short time frame in which the observed progress had been made, 
the results appeared impressive.
Backyard Gardening Equipment (Including Seeds)
This intervention covered a range of inputs, including drip irrigation equipment, improved 
vegetable seeds (including new crops), simple pumps (treadle and rope washer), and extensive 
training. The training was expected to cover marketing, but in practice this had hardly been 
necessary. In many cases, backyard gardening was integrated with the provision of water 
resources, either through hand dug wells or water collection cisterns.
Seeds were provided either directly as such, or through the distribution of vouchers that could be 
redeemed at seed fairs. The advantage of a seed fair being that the sellers had been pre-selected 
by the CS as supplying good quality seed at reasonable prices. The concept of a seed (or 
livestock) fair was appreciated by the beneficiaries and the evaluation team could find no 
evidence of collusion to redeem vouchers without providing seeds (i.e. to effectively monetize the 
vouchers).
Drip irrigation equipment was installed using small elevated tanks to hold the water supplying up 
to ten drip lines (bucket drip). Drip piping was either imported or sourced locally. Drip 
technology is now readily available within Ethiopia, although it might be beyond the capacity of 
individual households to replace or repair.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
42
The extent of training varied considerably and the results in terms of production reflected this. It 
was noticeable that while some backyard gardeners could demonstrate plots that were well laid 
out, carefully weeded, thinned and clearly productive serving as encouraging examples to other 
beneficiaries, other gardens were poorly laid out, and much less productive – even in some cases 
showing signs of water shortage despite the installation of hand dug wells. Although the poorer 
gardens might have increased the productivity of the household, they did not serve as good 
examples of the introduced techniques for other beneficiaries and in this respect, they fell well 
short of the standard that is necessary if limited resources are to have maximum impact. It was 
evident that adequate training, (which is essential if the resources provided are not only to assist 
one household to become more productive, but also to encourage other households to adopt new 
techniques) is critical to the success and replication of this intervention, but is not always 
provided.
The provision of pumps was always associated with hand dug wells or water cisterns. In all cases,
pumps were of appropriate technology and easily repairable. In some instances however, the 
availability of pumps seemed to have precluded the use of even simpler systems such as gravity 
flow or siphon.
The marketing of backyard gardening produce was listed as an area requiring assistance in some 
proposals. In practice however, at the levels of production achieved to date, marketing has not 
been an issue, since all produce has been readily absorbed by local markets.
Sericulture
This intervention was more commonly practiced in the southern part of the country. As with 
beekeeping or milk production, the industry has been introduced as an integrated intervention 
including training, provision of inputs (including both silk worms and processing equipment) and 
assistance with processing and marketing. Although the venture appeared technically sound, a 
significant proportion of beneficiaries involved in silk-worm rearing stated that the hours worked 
did not justify the financial returns. It is therefore doubtful that the industry would be sustainable 
under current economic conditions, and the degree of replication is expected to be low. Although 
silk products could be exported or sold on the tourist market, local demand appeared to be limited 
so that marketing was restricted and required the ongoing assistance of the CS.
This intervention, although technically practicable appeared to suffer from a number of 
disadvantages such that it would be difficult to justify its expansion through donor-driven 
programs unless there were sufficient private sector participation to ensure economic viability and 
sustainability.
INSTALLATION OF HOUSEHOLD WATER HARVESTING TECHNOLOGIES
This intervention included both water cisterns collecting run-off and hand dug wells. In each case, 
the installation was designed to supply enough water to irrigate an area of 20m x 10m throughout 
the year, so as to provide at least three crops of vegetables. The installations required extensive 
manual labor and could be most effectively undertaken using PSNP resources. This is currently 
only possible in specific instances (i.e. for severely disadvantaged households), but might deserve 
wider application in the future.
The cost of constructing a water storage cistern was at least ETB1,000 (120 man days plus 
materials) so that this intervention is not easily replicated by a single household, although a 
community could construct a series of such cisterns over time. Costs of a hand dug well are of a 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
43
similar order, although this will of course depend upon the depth to the water table. The effect of 
a regular and consistent water supply is to allow the production of at least three crops of 
vegetables each year, with a market value in excess of ETB 800. In this respect, the water cistern 
or hand dug well is a valuable household asset, which can allow the development of a significant 
income stream. The water can also be used for livestock during extreme periods.
Significantly, a number of households with water harvesting technologies were using their land to 
grow cereal crops and in some cases providing supplementary irrigation from their wells. It was 
difficult to assess whether or not this was the most cost-effective use of the investment, although 
it might have been most practical from the standpoint of food security. It is recommended that 
this usage be reviewed further.
This intervention is generally readily sustainable, requiring little maintenance other than the 
removal of silt. The technology is simple, low risk and well accepted by beneficiaries, in fact in
the northern part of the country, this intervention was the most popular and frequently requested.
SAVINGS AND CREDIT GROUPS
Facilitation of the formation of savings and credit groups was not a widespread intervention, but 
was well received by beneficiaries where it was practiced. Groups were formed by 15-20 close 
associates and were not necessarily linked to a particular type of production. Most but not all 
group members were PSNP beneficiaries. The CS advised group members on how much they 
should save (normally between ETB 2 and ETB 4 per month) and how to manage the 
accumulated savings. The group decided which members should benefit from the use of the funds 
and the level of interest that should be paid on the money provided. The CS also assisted in the 
formulation of bye-laws and general group management.
This intervention, (where it was well managed) appeared to be extremely successful and the 
number of savings groups was increasing rapidly as other beneficiaries learned of its advantages. 
When asked to explain why it was so attractive, beneficiaries noted that it provided access to 
finance for those who would otherwise have been unable to access traditional micro-finance, due 
to a lack of collateral, while allowing them to share in the interest earned. Beneficiaries were able 
to decide what activity they wished to finance; activities included petty trading, such as the 
purchase and sale of beer or grain, the purchase of seed for backyard gardening, or the purchase 
and fattening of livestock and allowed funds to be repaid within a short period (less than six 
months). Repayment rates appeared to be close to 100%.
The system allows a significant degree of self-determination. It encourages the development of 
small business skills and provides a first rung on the ladder of access to credit and business 
development. As an intervention, it is both sustainable and highly replicable. It is most 
appropriate to the very poorest communities where it is enthusiastically received and appears to 
result in significant empowerment.
It should be noted however that the success of savings and credit groups will depend upon the 
quality of advice provided to them. In one instance the evaluation team noted successful groups 
revolving accumulated funds through a wide range of small business channels, while in an 
adjacent area, similar groups were less successful. It appeared that the less successful groups had 
been poorly advised and were attempting to accumulate large amounts of money before making 
loans available and in one case, the financial goal would not have been achieved for 12 years. 
This meant that funds were not revolving rapidly and one of the most important aspects of the 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
44
intervention – its credit component and stimulating effect on micro-enterprises – was largely 
ineffective.
INFRASTRUCTURAL INVESTMENT
This intervention was observed as an OFDA initiative, although it might equally well have been 
financed under SPSNP. It comprised the construction of large-scale water diversions and canals 
capable of supplying irrigation water to 60 ha in one instance and 80 ha in another. The cost of 
the investment was considerable (in excess of ETB 600,000 in the first instance), although it 
could potentially increase the productivity of 300 households (the CS estimated a density of five 
households per hectare).
Given the high cost per household, it is extremely unlikely that such an intervention could be 
replicated without the intervention of a CS or local authority. However, once installed, the gravity 
flow system appeared to be highly sustainable. The technology was simple and easily maintained 
and since it would allow year-round intensive cropping of fruit and vegetables, it could bring 
significant increases in productivity and profitability if effectively managed.
In the examples seen, while initial construction had been well done, subsequent CS follow￾through in terms of water management and cropping advice was not of an equivalent standard. 
Water initially delivered through concrete canals was allowed to reach final beneficiaries through 
earth channels and seepage losses must have been high. There appeared to be little improvement 
in individual irrigation practices and drip systems, although feasible given the observed head of 
water in one area, were not used.
Observed vegetable and fruit tree cropping practices were not of a high standard and it is very 
doubtful that the full potential of the investment was being achieved. Perhaps as a result of low 
output, the marketing of produce was not a problem; all vegetables produced could be marketed 
locally.
The CS acknowledged the additional input required, particularly in the area of business 
development, but indicated that they had been unable to concentrate on the “software” aspects of 
the development due to the incremental nature of the OFDA funding. They indicated that this was 
the next priority.
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND ASSISTANCE
This was not a widespread intervention, and comprised mainly blacksmithing, carpentry, 
masonry, pottery and weaving. Beneficiaries received training in key skills, together with tools 
and in some cases, suitable premises from which to operate. Training in business management 
was also provided. These inputs were provided on a grant basis in the case of training and as a 
loan to be repaid over time in the case of tools and premises. In general the terms of repayment 
were well understood.
Beneficiaries targeted to receive training were commonly from specific “castes” in village society 
and, as village traditions change, would otherwise lack employment opportunities. They indicated 
that they were happy to be given the opportunity to develop new skills, but it was quite clear that 
the available market for those skills were limited in most cases. Most beneficiaries receiving 
carpentry, blacksmithing or masonry skills had difficulty finding subsequent commercial 
employment. Despite participation at marketing fairs, beneficiaries were most commonly 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
45
employed by the Cooperating Sponsors themselves or by the local administration. Blacksmiths 
also reported difficulty in obtaining suitable steel from which to manufacture farm implements. 
Those beneficiaries who had been trained and assisted in pottery or weaving were able to produce 
good quality products cost effectively, but were unable to compete in local markets, which 
required cheaper and lower quality materials. They were therefore obliged to source either tourist 
or export markets. While these are potentially sustainable markets for a limited number of 
producers, the market for the large-scale manufacture of these products is neither large nor easily 
accessible and appeared to require the ongoing support of the CS to ensure that a consistent 
supply of goods found effective markets.
As one of the few interventions promoting off-farm income generating activities, vocational 
training might be expected to be a key aspect of a national income diversification program. 
However, the evaluation team noted that, as currently practiced, vocational training does not 
guarantee effective income diversification. It would appear that the supporting economic 
infrastructure both in terms of inputs (such as steel) and in terms of a ready market for the skills 
or products is simply not adequately developed in the rural areas where such projects operated to 
allow for either replication or sustainability. 
The evaluation team was forced to conclude that while individual examples might be quoted as 
success stories, there are as yet no grounds to suggest that vocational training of rural SPSNP 
beneficiaries in traditional disciplines can significantly contribute to household income 
diversification on a general basis. Instead it would appear that vocational training might be 
effective in where particular skills fit specific circumstances, or that such training should take 
place in those areas (possibly peri-urban areas) where the supporting economic infrastructure, 
including a ready market, is more developed.
TECHNICAL TRAINING IN BASIC VETERINARY SKILLS
This intervention was limited in its application, but served a very necessary purpose in supporting 
other interventions in the livestock sector. Beneficiary communities selected one or more 
individuals who were trained in basic livestock health care, including castration, hoof trimming, 
vaccination, spraying and dipping, and other practices. These trainees were also provided with 
tools (e.g. bloodless castrators) on a credit basis to be repaid over time. After training, trainees 
were expected to undertake some tasks (such as hoof trimming) free of charge but were able to 
charge for other services at pre-agreed rates.
While the skills acquired provided valuable support to livestock rearing interventions, as an 
intervention itself, such training had only limited scope since the number of trainees required by 
each community was small. Moreover, the controlled pricing of activities raised concerns over 
the provision of such supports as a sustainable business. The evaluation team concluded that this 
intervention had limited potential and would need to be restructured to become replicable and 
sustainable.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
46
Annex B: Bibliography
Lincoln B and Thomas K, Interpart and Associates, Towards a food secure future: An overview 
of the approaches and activities of the Relief Society of Tigray, July 2006
Bramel P.J. and Remington T, CRS Seed Vouchers and Fairs: A meta-analysis of their use in 
Zimbabwe, Ethiopia and Gambia
Relief Society of Tigray (REST), Operational Plan for Support for Productive Safety Net and 
Livelihoods Program (SPSNP) FY2006: Funding Opportunity No: RFA 663-04-014
Famine Fund Concept Paper: Viable Livelihoods for Ultra Poor Food Insecure Populations, 
Discussion Paper prepared by USAID
Community Based Participatory Watershed Development: A Guideline produced by Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development, Ethiopia, January 2005
Robinson W.I., Lieberg A.T. and Trebbi L, Special Report: FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply 
Assessment Mission to Ethiopia, Study undertaken for FAO and WFP, Febuary 2006
USAID FewsNet Project, SNNPR Livelihood Profiles
Agridev Consult, Cash-for Relief and for Livelihood Training Project Final Evaluation: Final 
Report Submitted to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), May 2005
Abdulai, A., Barrett C.B. and Hazell P., Food Aid for Market Development in Sub-Saharan 
Africa, Study undertaken for International Food Policy Research Institute, March 2004
Slater R., Ashley S., Tefera M., Buta M. and Esubalew D., Ethiopia Productive Safety Net 
Programme (PSNP): PSNP Policy, Programme and Institutional Linkages, Study undertaken for 
DFID, September 2006
Sharp K., Brown T. and Teshome A, Targeting Ethiopia’s Productive Safey Net Programme 
(PSNP), Study undertaken for DFID, August 2006
Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP): Trends in PSNP Transfers Within Targeted 
Households (Discussion draft) by Institute of Development Studies and Indak International, July 
2006
ORDA/CARE-Ethiopia: An Overview of Lay Gayint Project presented to USAID Livelihood 
Evaluation Team, October 2006
Tsegaye D., FHI: Quarterly Report for Livelihood Program: Third Quarter Report: July -
September 2006 (October, 2006)
Food for the Hungry International, FHI, Quarterly Report for Livelihood and Capacity Building 
Program: Second Quarter Report: April-June, 2006, November 2006 
CHF International Ethiopia. Quarterly Report for USAID, April-June, 2006: Generating 
Employment and Building Independence Program (GEBI), July 2006
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
47
Relief Society of Tigray (REST), P.L. 480 Title II Support to the Productive Safety Net and 
Livelihood Program (SPSNP), Six-Month Progress Report for the Reporting Period 
January to June 2006, August 2006
Relief Society of Tigray (REST), P.L. 480 Title II Support to the Productive Safety Net and 
Livelihood Program (SPSNP), Nine Month Progress Report for the Reporting Period 
December 2004 to September 2005, November 2005
Reducing Dependency and Increasing Resiliency: Improving Capacity to Implement Safety Net 
and Farmer Led Livelihood Development Programs
Save the Children UK, FY 2005 - Third Quarter Report to USAID for the period April to June, 
2006 for Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia:Wag Hamra and North Wollo 
Gubalafto, Habru, Sekota, Dehana Woredas: Restocking Beneficiaries while Purchasing Shoats at 
Sekota Market
Catholic Relief Services, Support to the Productive Safety Net Program (SPSNP): 3rd Quarterly 
Report (April – June 2006), July 2006-11-02
World Vision Ethiopia, Support to Productive Safety Net Program, Third Quarter (April –June 
2006) Report, July 2006
Barrett C.B, Rural Poverty Dynamics:Development Policy Implications, September 2003
Concept Note for Establishment of A System of Productive Safety Nets In Ethiopia, January 
2004 (Paper by World Bank and the MoRD, Ethiopia)
Dunford B., Title II Programming in Ethiopia to Pursue a Developmental-Relief Agenda, January 
2004
Aide Memoire, Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Programme Preparation Mission, May 10-28, 
2004 by World Bank
Breaking the Cycle of Food Crises: Famine Prevention in Ethiopia, (Preliminary Copy)by 
USAID, October 2003
Capacity Building for Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program: An Awareness Creation and 
Technical Assistance Training Program for Woreda Workplan Development: A Draft Concept 
Paper, June 2004
Reconsidering Food Aid: The Dialogue Continues, (Draft), February 2006
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
48
Annex C: Productive Safety Net Support Program- RFA
INTRODUCTION
The program described herein establishes the objectives and operating principles for the 
USAID/Ethiopia’s Support to Productive Safety Net Program (SPSNP), a two-year Cooperative 
Agreement designed to protect and build household and community assets. The USAID SPSNP 
will target selected areas of Ethiopia that are repeatedly affected by climatic and economic shocks 
which strip productive assets, and render populations unable to meet basic food and non-food 
needs for an entire year. The USAID SPSNP is part of a broader Government of the Federal 
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (GFDRE) – Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP), targeting 
5-7 million chronically food insecure individuals in 242 woredas in 8 regions (Tigray, Amhara, 
Oromiya, SNNP, Afar, Somali, rural Harari and Dire Dawa). USAID/Ethiopia will award one or 
multiple Cooperative Agreements, with a total award value of $16 million. Depending upon 
resource availability in future years, the award value may be increased and or the duration 
extended. After the two-year period, USAID/Ethiopia expects the combined efforts of Recipients 
granted awards under this Cooperative Agreement will:
DECREASE THE NUMBER OF PERSISTENTLY POOR REQUIRING FOOD OR CASH 
ASSISTANCE TO MEET BASIC NEEDS
Thus, the purpose of this request is for Applicants to demonstrate how cash resources obtained 
through this Request for Application – RFA as support and compliment to the GFDRE 
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) will contribute to that goal. 
[USAID RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FUND ANY OR NONE OF THE APPLICATIONS 
SUBMITTED.]
C.1. 1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT
USAID/Ethiopia is pursuing an Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) with the short-term goal of 
establishing the foundation for reducing famine vulnerability, hunger, and poverty that will 
contribute to the long-term goal of a more peaceful, prosperous and healthy Ethiopia. The 
Support to Productive Safety Net Program (SPNSP) reflects USAID/Ethiopia’s intent to work 
towards that goal through this competitive solicitation (RFA) designed to provide cash resources 
to fund capacity building and livelihoods diversification and expansion. 
Resources under this RFA will be utilized to provide support to the GFDRE’s Productive Safety 
Net Program (PSNP). USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) will also provide Title II resources to be 
programmed in support of the GFDRE PSNP. Simultaneous to the issuance of this RFA, 
guidelines for related Title II program proposals will be issued as, Developmental Relief 
Guidelines for an Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Program. Linkages between SPSNP and Title 
II Productive Safety Net proposals are encouraged. This commitment demonstrates USAID’s 
contribution to the implementation of the broad, multi-donor funded PSNP, aimed at providing 
consistent, multi-year assistance to 5-7 million predictably vulnerable Ethiopians in 242 food 
insecure woredas.
USAID/Ethiopia’s ISP 2004-2008 furthers this commitment through its five-year strategic goal: 
Foundation Established for Reducing Famine Vulnerability, Hunger and Poverty. The protective 
and productive elements of the PSNP described herein are central to that goal and based on the 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
49
hypothesis that predictably vulnerable individuals require predictable assistance so they may 
protect and/or rebuild assets. Through the provision of consistent, multi-year assistance to 
vulnerable households and in ways which strengthen their (and their communities’) coping 
abilities, targeted beneficiaries have potential to re-attain and maintain food security in the long￾term. The PSNP is designed around two basic transfer mechanisms: Public Works and Direct 
Support for the labor poor. The two mechanisms are described in greater detail in Section C. 2. 
2. 
C.1.2. BACKGROUND
In five of the past seven years, Ethiopia has had large structural deficits in its food supplies, 
requiring substantial emergency aid to fill the gap. Over the past five years USAID alone has 
provided $882 million in food aid to Ethiopia. This has largely been food-related humanitarian 
assistance. Even in years with bumper harvests, local incentives to produce food have been 
sabotaged by poor-performing markets that cut the bottom out of farmers’ prices. Over the last 
20 years, the emergency relief cycle has repeated itself again and again. With each drought 
emergency, the overall number of hungry and destitute has risen, in addition to increases in 
human suffering, disease, social unrest and conflict. If current trends continue, by 2010 food 
deficits will nearly triple, significantly expanding the need and cost for humanitarian assistance; 
the number of malnourished children, already 50% of the current child population, will increase 
by 10% (to 34% by 2020); and per capita income, currently the lowest in Africa, will remain at 
today’s level or decline further.
The people of Ethiopia have suffered tremendously despite efforts the impact of these repeated 
emergencies, and there is no question that saving lives during crisis periods is the first priority. 
However, the unfortunate outcome of repeated crisis is that due to finite resource availability, the 
resources necessary for livelihood development programs - crucial for household asset protection 
and productivity - are frequently redirected towards humanitarian assistance interventions. 
Currently, Ethiopia is one of the largest recipient of relief resources in sub-Saharan Africa, but 
the smallest recipient of development resources. As several significant changes must occur for 
this trend to be reversed, the most important being reform of selected government policies, 
USAID/Ethiopia has recognized that its programs must also undergo change. Food aid, crucial to 
saving lives in the immediate, does not save livelihoods in the long-term. 
Over the past few years, USAID/Ethiopia has actively sought creative operating modalities which 
could potentially shift the emergency relief cycle. Through previous FFP Development 
Assistance Programs (DAPs), USAID/Ethiopia strove to combine Title II food aid assistance with 
Development Assistance (DA) resources, whereby the entirety of communities’ needs would be 
met through complimentary sectoral programming. Although DAP Cooperating Sponsors’ 
programs show positive results, the DAPs have failed in their breath and scope to adequately 
address the fundamental causes on the emergency relief cycle; thousands are reached, but 
millions are not. 
In an effort to build upon positive outcomes and ideas in DAP programs, USAID/Ethiopia, 
through a grant to Save the Children/UK, initiated the Relief to Development Program (or R2D) 
in Amhara Regional State in late 2002. 
The R2D program combines development and relief resources into a multi-year funding 
mechanism whereby household and community assets are protected and restored to stabilize 
participant food needs. Unlike DAP programs which primarily focus on the beneficiaries 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
50
themselves, central to this program is the strengthening of community, institutional and local 
government capacity. Self-sufficiency of individuals alone will not result in resiliency; local 
governments and institutions must also do more to protect and build their communities. The R2D 
program has contributed positively to the recipient communities.
RFA Applicants should review R2D program implementation principles to gain from Save the 
Children/UK’s experiences in designing their interventions. However, shortfalls in the R2D 
program have become apparent, such as food and cash resource imbalances, lack of 
complementary sector activities in health and nutrition, and issues with effective beneficiary 
targeting. USAID strongly requests that Applicants and, more specifically, selected Cooperative 
Agreement Recipients learn from the R2D program, both in terms of the positives and the 
negatives. The R2D program should not be used as a model for the SPSNP, but should be looked 
upon as a beginning framework. (Applicants may contact USAID/Ethiopia for copies for of the 
R2D program description.) 
C. 2. THE PSNP FRAMEWORK
The operating framework in which Applicants are requested to develop their programs for the 
SPSNP will vary from previous integrated cash and food development programs in a variety of 
ways. Principally, Applicants are requested to partner with government institutions responsible 
for the GFDRE PSNP, specifically focusing on the regional and woredas levels. 
Section C. 2. briefly outlines how the USAID SPSNP fits within the GFDRE PSNP and the 
USAID ISP. Subsequently, major objectives of the PSNP will be discussed, followed by a more 
detailed discussion on PSNP resources, geographic targeting, and partner roles and relationships. 
C. 2. 1. GFDRE PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
MANUAL
The GFDRE Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) Implementation Manual (PIM) (see 
Attachment 1) to this RFA description outlines the program guidelines that all partners either 
directly implementing or indirectly supporting the PSNP must follow. The PIM outlines the 
program objectives as providing transfers to the food insecure population in chronically food 
insecure woredas in a way that prevents asset depletion at the household level and creates assets 
at the community level (resource transfers in exchange for the creation of productive assets). The 
PSNP will thus address immediate human needs while simultaneously (i) supporting the rural 
transformation process, (ii) preventing long-term consequences of short-term consumption 
shortages, (iii) encouraging households to engage in production and investment, and (iv) 
promoting market development by increasing household purchasing power. The PSNP consists 
of two components: (i) a labor-intensive public works component; and (ii) a direct support 
component to ensure support to those households who have no labor at all, not other means of 
support and who are chronically food insecure. (See p. 7 GFDRE PSNP PIM, Attachment 1.)
Specific examples of activities eligible for both direct support and public works are listed in the 
GFDRE PSNP PIM. Activities should be driven by the local planning process in order to identify 
community needs and prioritize activities based on those needs. Public works activities can 
include improved land productivity and soil fertility restoration, increased land availability, 
improved market infrastructure, improved access to drinking and irrigation water, increased 
availability of fodder, improved school and health facilities and improved child care crèches. 
Some direct support beneficiaries will be able to participate in community activities such as 
community managed child care centers, child nutrition and growth promotion classes; and adult 
literacy and numeracy classes. However, other activities that fit within the Program 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
51
Implementation Guidelines (PIM) where agreed upon by the Woreda implementation body can 
also be implemented. 
The PIM includes 242 chronically food insecure woredas in 8 regions (Tigray, Amhara, Oromiya, 
SNNP, Afar, Somali, rural Harari and Dire Dawa) that have been a recipient of food aid in each 
of the last three years. The PIM states that a household is considered chronically food insecure if 
it is located in one of the 242 chronically food insecure woredas that have been assessed by a mix 
of administrative guidelines and community knowledge to have faced continuous food shortages 
(3 months gap or more) in the past three years and received food assistance. This also includes 
households that suddenly become more vulnerable as a result of a severe loss of assets and are 
unable to support themselves and any household without family support and other means of social 
protection and support. 
The PIM states that the PSNP should utilize and benefit from the participation of non￾governmental actors having relevant capacity, experience and expertise. It further mentions that 
the PSNP is a social security intervention over which the Government has primary responsibility, 
CS resources should be additional to Government safety net resources and Cooperating Sponsors 
should abide by the Government’s PIM. Given that the nature of the PSNP is to guarantee 
transfers to chronically food insecure households, it is important that PSNP capacity and 
administrative costs is kept to the program norm of 20%. The PIM states that the Government 
welcomes CS participation in the PSNP is they meet the above mentioned criteria, and even if 
they cannot meet the above criteria, the Government welcomes CS participation in other Food 
Security Program interventions (See p. 24 GFDRE PSNP PIM, Attachment 1.)
The PSNP is a component of the Government’s Food Security Program (FSP), and as such, is an 
integral feature of a coherent food security investment strategy for chronically food insecure 
woredas of the country. The Woreda Food Security Task Force has the responsibility of 
facilitating the integration of the PSNP into Woreda food security programs. As graduation from 
food insecurity is a key goal of the PSNP, it can only be achieved if the PSNP is objectively 
linked to ongoing and future food security and livelihoods programs in these areas. (See p. 7 
GFDRE PSNP PIM, Attachment 1.) 
In addition to capacity building, USAID considers livelihood diversification and expansion to be 
an important support to the implementation of a PSNP. It is only through the livelihood 
diversification and expansion that creates more opportunities for the chronically food insecure to 
make a living. With more opportunities, beneficiaries of the safety net program will be able to 
become self-reliant and thus graduate from the program. For example, rather than relying on 
rainfed agriculture alone, diversification would allow families to acquire livestock or begin petty 
trade to increase their income opportunities.
Thus, the USAID SPSNP as outlined in this RFA will address the two program components 
outlined in the PIM (resource transfers and community asset building) through its capacity 
building component and will further assist PSNP beneficiaries to graduate from the program 
through its livelihoods diversification and expansion component. The latter component is not part 
of the GFDRE PSNP but provides an important complimentary element. Applicants are 
encouraged to link program submitted for this award to Title II Safety Net Programs. 
C. 2. 2. USAID/ETHIOPIA INTEGRATED STRATEGIC PLAN 2004-2008
The PSNP is both the basis and an outcome of USAID/Ethiopia’s Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP), 
with a long-term goal of a More peaceful, prosperous and healthy Ethiopia. That goal cannot be 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
52
attained however if several aspects of the foundation of both government and civil society are not 
properly developed and strengthened. As such, USIAD/Ethiopia’s five-year strategic goal during 
the US Fiscal Year (US FY) 2004 – 2008 planning period is: Foundation Established for 
Reducing Famine Vulnerability, Hunger and Poverty. Under this five-year goal, USAID will 
address four strategic objectives (SO) and one program support objective (PSO)10:
SO 13: Capacity to Anticipate and Manage through Shocks Increased
SO 14: Human Capacity and Social Resiliency Increased
SO 15: Capacity for Good Governance Increased
SO 16: Market-led Economic Growth and Resiliency Increased
PSO 17: Knowledge Management Coordinated and Institutionalized
(See USAID/Ethiopia’s Integrated Strategic Plan summary, Attachment 2.) 
USAID, in close collaboration with its governmental and non-governmental partners, expects to 
achieve these SOs/PSO through a number of intermediate results (IRs). As elaborated in the ISP, 
these objectives are bound by two cross-sector approaches: communities as a focal point, and 
women’s economic and political empowerment. In addition, SO 13 and PSO 17 will influence 
intermediate results in all SOs. An additional theme of particular importance to USAID/Ethiopia, 
and reflected in the ISP document, is water resource security - which entails improving a 
population’s access to potable water, water for agriculture and livestock, and sanitation and 
hygiene. The five objectives and corresponding IRs that are expected to contribute towards the 
achievement of the five-year goal are presented in Figure 1.
The Program described in this RFA contributes to USAID’s IRs and SOs/PSO, and incorporates 
the above with particular attention to integrating resources into a comprehensive household and 
community with interventions centered on the themes of protecting assets, building assets and 
expanding and diversifying livelihood options to increase resiliency at the community and 
household level. USAID/Ethiopia requests Applicants to place particular emphasis on the 
importance of capacity building in communities, government, local institutions and partners, 
essential to meeting both the ISP and PSNP goals. Additionally, traditional gender roles in 
Ethiopian society limit the country’s ability to move forward; women’s participation in the 
development agenda and the SPSNP should be paramount.
Figure 1: USAID Ethiopia US FY 2004-2008 Results 
Framework
SO13: Capacity to Anticipate and Manage through Shocks Increased
IR 13.1: Integrated early warning systems strengthened*
IR 13.2: Government and partner response capacity improved*
IR 13.3: Selected crisis mgmt policies reformed and implemented*
IR 13.4: Effective coordination mechanisms strengthened*
SO14: Human Capacity and Social Resiliency Increased
 
10 A Glossary that defines key USAID terms such as "Strategic Objective," "Special Objective," "Intermediate 
Result," and related terms is found at www.usaid.gov, USAID Policies and Procedures, ADS Glossary.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
53
IR 14.1: Use of high impact health, family planning, and nutrition services, products, and practices 
increased*
IR 14.2: HIV/AIDS prevalence reduced and mitigation of the impact of HIV/AIDS increased*
IR 14.3: Use of quality primary education services enhanced*
SO15: Capacity for Good Governance Increased 
IR 15.1. Accountability by Regional and Local Governments Improved* 
IR 15.2. Civil Society Capacity to Engage Government Strengthened 
IR 15.3. Mechanisms for Conflict Prevention and Resolution Improved 
IR 15.4. Women’s Participation in Political Processes Expanded and Enhanced 
SO16: Market-Led Economic Growth and Resiliency Increased
IR 16.1: Selected essential policy reforms implemented
IR 16.2: Selected input and product markets strengthened*
IR 16.3: Natural resource management and agricultural productivity improved*
IR 16.4: Livelihood options for the food insecure protected, expanded and diversified*
PSO17: Knowledge Management Coordinated and Institutionalized
IR 17.1: Collaboration and coordination for support to strategic decisions enhanced*
IR 17.2: Ethiopian and international institutions contributing to decisions to reduce vulnerability, 
increase resiliency and promote growth*
IR 17.3: Information needed to manage shocks timely and appropriately disseminated*
IR 17.4: Rapid analysis and evaluation supports Mission program*
Activities conducted by SPSNP Recipients will contribute to the goals and objectives set 
forth by each SO of the ISP; however, the SPSNP will primarily be reflected within IR 4 of 
SO 16: 
Livelihood options for the food insecure protected, expanded and diversified 
USAID/Ethiopia’s SO 16, IR 4, is based on the premise that the more than 5 million people who 
regularly require food aid assistance for at least part of any given year are symptomatic of 
Ethiopia’s lack of economic growth and resiliency. They are among the most vulnerable to 
famine since their resistance to shock has been eroded over time with the destruction of their 
productive assets. In addition, the yearly needs of these chronically food insecure drain the 
international, national and local community as limited resources are consumed to keep people 
alive without affecting their long-term survival.
The provision of assistance to the chronically food insecure has until now been provided as part 
of the emergency appeal process, reaching the intended beneficiaries only after they have 
depleted any productive assets that might allow for recovery in subsequent years. The purpose of 
this IR is to meet people’s basic needs in a predictable manner that will reach them before they 
lose crucial assets. It is also important to provide different options to allow people diverse 
livelihoods and to enable them to meet their food needs throughout the year. These actions will 
provide a foundation upon which they can begin to participate in activities aimed at economic 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
54
growth. By protecting livelihood systems and increasing opportunities to diversify livelihood 
options, USAID/Ethiopia’s SO 16, IR 4, contributes to overall economic growth by enabling the 
chronically poor to participate in the market and production-based activities. The economic 
resiliency of the chronically poor will be achieved when they are able to rely on diverse 
livelihood strategies during times of both abundance and hardship, surviving the next shock with 
no outside assistance and without depleting their productive assets. The shrinking number of 
chronically food insecure people will lessen the diversion of resources away from the economic 
growth goal of this SO as community, government and international resources are used to 
promote growth rather than provide emergency relief.
Under this IR, by the end of 3-5 years, it is anticipated that sustainable increases in livelihood 
diversification opportunities will exist in all targeted woredas. In three years, success in 
protecting assets, while increasing the capacities and opportunities of the persistently poor to 
participate in rural growth, should result in the stabilization of the numbers of Ethiopians 
regularly requiring food assistance and within five years these numbers should begin to decline. 
The success of this IR is directly linked to the social protection, capacity building, and resiliency 
strategies undertaken in each of the Strategy’s other SOs. This reflects the interdependence of 
chronic poverty, lack of access to education and health services, lack of access to potable water 
and sanitation, lack of capacity to anticipate and manage through shock as primary factors 
contributing to the cycle of famine in Ethiopia.
While nearly all Ethiopians are poor as defined by income and productive assets, their access to 
food is most relevant to how USAID defines food insecurity and is the basis upon which USAID 
and Applicants to this proposal should respond to the challenge of preventing famine. The 
challenge is how to develop a sustainable system which protects, builds, and diversifies assets, 
such that the resiliency to manage through shocks is achieved. A robust economic growth 
strategy is of course necessary, but at the same time a new approach to engaging with the 
chronically vulnerable is required. This new approach will not just provide safety nets, but will 
assist them with innovative asset protection and productive expansion opportunities so that the 
number of chronically food insecure are reduced over time, thus increasing the self-reliant 
population that is not dependent upon foreign assistance for survival each year. 
C. 2. 3. PSNP OBJECTIVES
The overarching goal of the programs implemented under this SPSNP RFA is to:
DECREASE THE NUMBER OF PERSISTENTLY POOR REQUIRING FOOD OR CASH 
ASSISTANCE TO MEET BASIC NEEDS
USAID/Ethiopia expects Recipients to reach that goal by concentrating on activities that 
contribute to the GFDRE PSNP along two program components: 1) building the capacity of the 
GFDRE to implement a PSNP and 2) livelihoods diversification and expansion activities. The 
first component should focus on building the capacity to implement technically sound and growth 
enhancing labor based public works, skills transfers, and social investment activities through a 
sustained relationship between the recipient and their government counterparts at the regional and 
woredas levels. The second and major component should focus on providing livelihood 
diversification, employment and income generation strategies and the opportunity for small 
holders and herders to try new technologies and or make the investments necessary to increase 
their productive asset base. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
55
Applicants should develop their proposals to reflect the two program components based on the 
premise that reducing food insecurity requires:
Protecting Assets
The primary goal of the PSNP is to protect assets by meeting the basic needs of the food insecure 
through timely and targeted direct resource transfers that will prevent the sale or irreversible loss 
of productive assets. 
Building Assets 
Safety net resource transfers (food or cash) will be made in exchange for building productive 
assets. Direct resource transfer is provided in exchange for labor or actions that will build assets 
important to future economic and social resiliency. Work on infrastructure and public works (i.e. 
market places, roads, bridges, ponds, water source development and protection, pasture rotation, 
and environmental rehabilitation that will promote markets and economic growth) can all be 
considered. If deemed appropriate by the woredas implementing the program, households 
receiving direct support can also participate in enhanced social outreach programs that will 
transfer valuable skills that will facilitate asset creation for these families. 
Livelihood Diversification and Expansion Activities
To enable the chronically food insecure to become self reliant, activities to diversify and expand 
livelihood options in an environmentally sustainable manner will be an important element in 
building productive assets. Building upon assets protected and expanded by timely resource 
transfers to the food insecure, diverse and expanded livelihood options will increase resiliency to 
shocks and will pull people further up the economic ladder. Livelihood diversification means that 
families have several means by which they get by over time. In good times, this results in many 
different ways to bring in resources (agriculture, petty trade, livestock, etc). In difficult times, 
families can shift their focus to those activities that have been the least hard hit during the shock. 
A wide range of possible activities for livelihood diversification exist including agro-forestry, 
adoption of new drought-resistant crops, efficient irrigation technologies, seed nurseries, bee￾keeping, improved livestock marketing or training in the range of new value-added businesses 
expected to emerge as a result of other activities under this SO. 
In order to build on the experience of many of the Recipients, USAID/Ethiopia will be 
concurrently running a market led livelihoods for vulnerable populations (MLVP) development 
activity. This activity will utilize in-country (local hire expatriate or Ethiopian) expertise and 
short-term expatriate technical assistance to assess the overall situation and capacity to develop 
and deliver market-led livelihood packages in 242 chronic food insecurity woredas as identified 
in the PIM. Working with Cooperating Sponsors (including the Recipients) and other entities the 
MLVP contractor will then propose “livelihood packages” with a special focus on market forces. 
The livelihood packages will be designed for implementation by partners who will incorporate 
these packages into their programs under the USAID SPSNP, which has a primary objective of 
decreasing the number of persistently poor requiring resource transfers. The contractor may also 
implement the livelihood packages in selected pilot programs in order to ground truth and gain 
additional insight which will be conveyed to the SPSNP partners. Additionally, the MLVP 
contractor will provide continued technical assistance to the SPSNP partners as they implement 
the wider PSNP in coordination with the GFDRE. A further element of the MLVP technical 
assessments will be to suggest what public works projects, under the GFDRE program, would be 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
56
most beneficial to improving the market linkages which will ultimately support the proposed 
livelihoods.
When designing the livelihoods portion of the proposal Applicants should indicated how they will 
integrate the MLVP program. They should also indicate how they will consider cash for 
livelihood transfers, as well as gender division in livelihood strategies. As mentioned above, this 
livelihoods compliment to the GFDRE PSNP will be a major focus of this award. 
C. 2. 4. PSNP RESOURCE MECHANISMS 
To reduce chronic food insecurity - food access, availability, and utilization – must collectively 
be addressed on a sustainable basis and not relegated to the sidelines during crisis periods. The 
provision of food commodities alone serves only to protect lives and does not contribute to 
protecting assets or building livelihoods. Thus, food commodities must be distributed with a 
secondary objective in mind. Any resource transfer, whether food or cash, must facilitate the 
building of assets in households and communities, and serve to increase connections and 
interactions between the two. New assets may be created or present assets protected, built upon 
and expanded; assets may be physical, intellectual, or organizational in form. The only 
prerequisite being that whether individually or collectively, those targeted are better able to 
withstand the shocks of natural and/or man-made crises through timely resource transfers or 
targeted asset protection mechanisms. 
The Recipient will focus its activities through this RFA on support to the entire PSNP including 
the design and implementation of both labor based public works and direct support transfers as 
well as livelihood activities. 
Simultaneous to the issuance of this RFA, FFP will be posting Developmental Relief Guidelines 
for an Ethiopia Productive Safety Net Program. Applicants are encouraged to link their programs 
submitted under this RFA to a parallel Title II Productive Safety Net Program application.
2. 5. SPSNP PARTNER COLLABORATION
USAID/Ethiopia believes greater synergy and improved outcomes will result from coordinated 
activities in each targeted region, as defined by the PIM. As stated previously in Section C, 
Applicants are expected to work with each other and the respective regional government to 
develop coordinated proposals. Individual agreements can be signed with USAID; however, 
consortia are encouraged. However, after the issuance of Cooperative Agreements resulting from 
this RFA, the GFDRE requires a separate agreement be signed between the implementing CS and 
each Region prior to program implementation. To increase cooperation among SPSNP partners 
in each region, USAID expects Recipients to sign only one consortia agreement per region. The 
Recipient that acts as the primary signatory for each region will operate as the principle operating 
partner, coordinator, and communicator with relevant government institutions. USAID/Ethiopia 
also considers that a regional consortium operating modality will improve cooperation and 
coordination amongst partners, and serve to improve communication between woreda, regional 
and federal levels. 
USAID/Ethiopia requests Applicants to prioritize and propose programs in the designated SPSNP 
woredas based on the following criteria: 1) existence of other USAID programs; 2) level of need 
(percent chronically food insecure, access to health services); 3) potential for impact; 4) prior 
Applicant programming/investment in the area; and 5) evidence of woreda willingness/desire to 
integrate Applicant programming into the PSNP and the broader FSP framework. Recipients not 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
57
currently working in one of these regions may still be considered for support from USAID if they 
demonstrate significant impact on USAID/Ethiopia's five-year goal of reducing famine 
vulnerability. 
Intensive and Extensive targeting: The recipient is expected to intensively target the two 
activity components of 1) capacity building and 2) livelihood diversification and expansion in 
woredas where they will be working closely with woredas officials with the aim to innovate 
effective PSNP elements with high rates of success. 
Through a focus on improving systems that reach beyond woredas of intensive targeting and by 
working closely with regional governments, it will be important for recipients to extend their 
reach by extensive targeting. A focus on systems might improve marketing or improved seed 
availability for many woredas in a zone, thus working to improve the livelihood options for a 
much larger area. Furthermore, a close working relationship with regional officials responsible 
for PSNP will enable lessons learned to be disseminated through the regions to safety net 
woredas in the entire region, and will allow for the recipient to positively influence the design 
and implementation of the broader program.
C. 2. 6. PSNP WORKING PARTNERS: ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS
Applicants should ensure that program activities are programmed as part of the GFDRE’s Food 
Security Coordination Bureau (FSCB) Safety Net Program. Rather than operating as independent 
organizations, the Recipient will operate as an integral member of the GFDRE PSNP (managed 
by the FSCB; under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, MoARD), programming 
in collaboration and building the capacity of their government partners to independently program 
safety net and livelihood activities at the end of the program. This award will be made to 
Recipients who have best demonstrated how their proposed program will significantly contribute 
to and be part of the overall GFDRE PSNP. The PSNP is a Government-led program that will 
require all partners including the Recipient to operate in accordance with the GFDRE PSNP 
Program Implementation Manual (PIM). Furthermore, it is anticipated that the capacity building 
component of this award will require significant involvement in regional and woreda level 
planning for the program, by which the recipient will have to operate under as the program is 
implemented. The PIM (Attachment 1) must be used in the design of any proposal submissions. 
Livelihood activities are not considered to be part of the PSNP and thus will not be included in 
the PIM. However, livelihoods activities should be programmed in collaboration with the 
program. 
Applicants are strongly encouraged to develop informal partnerships with other USAID/Ethiopia 
partners or international organizations implementing programs in the selected target areas. This 
will serve to complement application objectives and maximize resource use to improve program 
coverage. For example, livelihood program components must be closely coordinated with 
USAID/Ethiopia agriculture and economic growth programs to benefit from their program 
activities. In particular, the programs are encouraged to collaborate with and disseminate lessons 
learned from USAID/Ethiopia’s Seeds and Fertilizer Input Systems Program, Agribusiness and 
Markets, and Irrigation programs. Applicants addressing any SO or IR under this RFA should 
consult that section in the USAID/Ethiopia ISP 2004-2008 and plan accordingly with relevant 
partners. (See Attachment 2)
The ability to protect assets and prevent destitution depends on flexibility and the ability to 
rapidly expand program coverage to those newly at risk. This approach is consistent with 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
58
USAID’s emphasis on developmental relief. Activities supported by under the Applicant’s 
program will serve as a means to reduce vulnerability over the longer-term and not merely as an 
end in themselves, even in an emergency environment. Proposals should reflect both short- and 
longer-term objectives. These include the use of cash and food resources for immediate impact, 
such as protecting lives and smoothing consumption, while addressing longer-term objectives by 
enhancing community and household resilience to shocks, helping people build a more durable 
and diverse livelihood base (restoring and enhancing assets, resources, services and 
infrastructure), and enhancing the capabilities of individuals through a focus on health, nutrition 
and education.
Recent reforms involving the GFDRE FSO and the DPPC have divided the responsibility of the 
food insecure between the chronic (FSCB) and acute (DPPC). Thus, while safety net activities 
should be programmed and implemented in collaboration with the FSCB, unpredictable or 
emergency needs are still the domain of the DPPC. Contingency planning to scale up must 
consider the distinct but interrelated roles of both the DPPC and the FSCB and how they will 
interact in times of crisis. Capacity building and contingency planning at the woreda and regional 
levels will be critical to the success of safety net programming and should be included in the 
proposal. 
Overall, USAID/Ethiopia expects that it will work to improve relationships at the federal level 
and will of course be present and involved if any major policy changes change Recipients’ status 
or relationship with regional level bureaus. The future Recipients are expected to work intimately 
with the regional level and down, as capacity strengthening is a central component to 
achievement of the PSNP. This includes however, improving communication and ensuring 
dialogue is more frequent between regional, woreda, and community level government offices 
and officials. In addition, however, the Recipient will be instrumental in ensuring the 
communication and dialogue between regional and federal levels are strengthened, as this is a 
central component to assessing needs, early warning and contingency planning. 
C. 3. PSNP SECTORAL ACTIVITY COMPONENTS
The two modes for distributing cash and food resource transfers, direct support and public works, 
are built around two program elements, 1) capacity building and 2) livelihood activities in various 
sectors, modeled by selected USAID/Ethiopia’s ISP SOs. Additionally, PSNP goals and 
objectives are ambitious and the timeline allowed brief; thus, it is strongly requested that 
Applicants share best practices from each others’ previous experiences and areas of expertise. 
One component of the overall evaluation criteria will consider Applicants demonstration of this 
request.
Applicants are encouraged to identify synergies between and among activities that may combine 
into more appropriate conceptual and/or organizational components for their own strategic 
management purposes. That is, the Recipient's program components do not have to replicate one 
or more of USAID/Ethiopia's SOs/PSO, they simply must demonstrate convergence with them. It 
is expected, however, that all Recipient programs have components addressing the cross-cutting 
themes, communities as a focal point and women’s economic and political empowerment. 
Within the Program components, Recipients are expected to identify and undertake activities with 
explicit milestones and targets to achieve defined outcomes. 
However the Recipient defines its own components, outcomes, milestones, and targets under this 
Agreement, the Program overall is expected to make a demonstrable contribution to achievement 
of USAID/Ethiopia's five-year goal of reducing famine vulnerability in Ethiopia, and to one or 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
59
more of its SOs/PSO and selected IRs as reflected in Figure 1, with appropriate consideration of 
USAID/Ethiopia's cross-cutting themes throughout Program implementation. Additionally, as 
stated previously in the document, Applicants are requested to focus on water resource security as 
USAID/Ethiopia feels this is central to the establishment of long-term food security and 
resiliency in Ethiopia. As such, it is strongly recommended Applicants read over the 
USAID/Ethiopia ISP 2004-2008 to ensure goals are clearly understood and maximum 
complementarities are reached. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
60
Annex D: Scope of Work for the Evaluation
663-T-06-013
Statement of Work
Evaluation of Livelihood Interventions funded through 
USAID Famine Fund Support to the Productive Safety Net Program
and OFDA 2005 Livelihood Annual Program Statement
PURPOSE
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission to Ethiopia seeks to evaluate 
livelihoods interventions in Ethiopia funded through the Famine Fund and OFDA Annual 
Program Statement. This evaluation will focus on the appropriateness, sustainability, and overall 
impact of the activities and will seek to provide USAID with recommendations on future 
directions in their support to chronically poor populations. USAID/Ethiopia’s Assets and 
Livelihoods Transition (ALT) Office seeks one or more experienced professionals to conduct 
research in the field and Washington over an estimated period of 43 days. 
BACKGROUND
Successive and cumulative climatic shocks, combined with the effects of economic losses in 
agricultural and livestock markets, as well as the collapse of many livelihood systems and long￾term cumulative vulnerabilities have eroded the asset base and coping strategies of millions of 
Ethiopians and resulted in unsustainable coping strategies by those most affected. The effects of 
the current crisis have caused suffering and widespread food insecurity across a broad area of 
Ethiopia resulting in massive humanitarian requirements simply to meet the minimal needs of 
approximately nine million people 
USAID programmed a total of $26.4 million for livelihood interventions and capacity building 
activities in 2005 as follows: (1) $0 million for one-year programs through the Annual Program 
Statement of OFDA and (2) $16.4 million for two-year programs under the Support to the 
Productive Safety Net Program. Both programs have objectives related to restoring and building 
household assets.
In five of the past seven years, Ethiopia has had large structural deficits in its food supplies, 
requiring substantial emergency aid to fill the gap. Over the past five years USAID alone has 
provided $882 million in food aid to Ethiopia. Even in years with bumper harvests, local 
incentives to produce food have been sabotaged by poor-performing markets that cut farmers’ 
prices. Over the last 20 years, the emergency relief cycle has repeated itself again and again. 
With each drought emergency, the overall number of people hungry, destitute and vulnerable to 
disease has risen. If current trends continue, by 2010 food deficits could nearly triple, 
significantly expanding the need and cost for humanitarian assistance; the number of 
malnourished children, already 50 percent of the current child population, will increase by 10 
percent by 2020; and per capita income, currently the lowest in Africa, will remain at today’s 
level or decline further.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
61
The people of Ethiopia have suffered tremendously despite efforts to address the impact of these 
repeated emergencies; and there is no question that saving lives during crisis periods is the first 
priority. However, the unfortunate outcome of repeated crises is that due to finite resource 
availability, the resources necessary for livelihood programs - crucial for household asset 
protection and productivity - are frequently redirected towards humanitarian assistance 
interventions. Currently, Ethiopia is one of the largest recipient of relief resources in sub￾Saharan Africa, but has been one of the smallest recipient of development resources. As several 
significant changes must occur for this trend to be reversed, the most important being reform of 
selected government policies, USAID/Ethiopia has recognized that its programs must also 
undergo change. Food aid, crucial to saving lives in the immediate future, does not save 
livelihoods in the long-term. 
Over the past few years, USAID/Ethiopia has actively sought creative operating modalities that 
could potentially shift the emergency relief cycle. Through previous FFP Development 
Assistance Programs (DAPs and R2D), USAID/Ethiopia strove to combine Title II food aid 
assistance with Development Assistance (DA) resources, whereby the entirety of communities’ 
needs would be met through complementary sectoral programming. USAID/OFDA has actively 
promoted and financed interventions which seek to help households recover from drought and 
transition to longer-term recovery. 
FAMINE FUND SUPPORT TO THE PRODUCTIVE SAFETY NET PROGRAM
In 2005 the Ethiopian Government launched the Productive Safety Net Program. The objective 
of the Productive Safety Net Program is to provide transfers to the food insecure population in 
chronically food insecure woredas in a way that prevents asset depletion at the household level 
and creates assets at the community level. The Productive Safety Net Program consists of two 
components: a labour-intensive Public Works component; and a Direct Support component to 
those households who have no labour at all, no other means of support, and who are chronically 
food insecure. Transfers can be made in either food or cash, with USAID a major food donor to 
the program. 
USAID has been a strong advocate for the argument, widely accepted, that safety nets alone will 
not help people to transition out of poverty. Transfers are set at a level to meet minimum food 
needs, there is no provision within the PSNP to build household assets and, while it can be hoped 
that community assets will improve livelihood options, community assets will have a limited 
impact on the income of individual households. USAID also recognised the numerous studies 
which showed that food insecure households are risk averse and often un-reached by mainstream 
government service delivery. USAID therefore decided to complement its funding of the PSNP 
with financing, from the Famine Fund, to support household asset building and livelihood 
diversification. The Famine Fund Support to the PSNP, therefore, enables building of 
household assets that are not addressed in the PSNP itself, yet are crucial for the achievement of 
food security. In addition there was a capacity building component aimed at increasing 
government and community capacity to maximize the benefit of the PSNP. 
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
62
Results expected through the life of activity:
· Household assets built and livelihood options diversified for 1 million people
· Structures to ensure effective implementation of safety nets in place
· The number of chronically food insecure decreased by 20 percent.
OFDA LIVELIHOODS FY2005 ANNUAL PROGRAM STATEMENT
USAID/OFDA’s mandate is to save lives, alleviate human suffering, and reduce the 
economic impact of natural and human-made disasters worldwide. In order to achieve this goal, 
USAID/OFDA’s strategy in Ethiopia in FY2005 was to meet the critical needs of populations 
affected by the ongoing complex food insecurity crisis and increase household level resilience to 
climatic, economic, and health shocks resulting in humanitarian crises. Livelihoods recovery 
initiatives were intended to support or reestablish household level coping strategies in order to 
improve current humanitarian status and increase future resilience to climatic, economic, and 
health shocks. Interventions with explicit or implicit linkages to other sectors by improving 
access or availability to services, especially health, were encouraged.
The broad goals of the OFDA Livelihoods APS are to:
· Provide emergency, life-saving assistance to those populations most at-risk from food 
insecurity;
· Assist affected populations in the recovery process to promote self-sufficiency and 
minimize dependence on external assistance;
· Increase the capacity of households and communities to cope with recurrent drought, 
economic, and health shocks to reduce the need for large emergency interventions in 
the future; and
· Inasmuch as it is possible, prepare communities to transition to longer-term
development initiatives that will further reduce vulnerability to food insecurity by 
addressing its root causes.
SCOPE OF WORK
This evaluation will focus on the household asset building and livelihood components of 
the Famine Fund financed Support to the Productive Safety Net and the OFDA livelihood 
APS. The following series of questions will be addressed:
Program Assumptions
A number of assumptions went into the design of the famine funded support to the PSNP. The 
evaluation will review some of these assumptions and the extent to which they remain relevant in 
program implementation. Assumptions include:
· That livelihood diversification can assist the poor to graduate from food insecurity;
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
63
· That there are synergies between the transfers provided under the PSNP and household asset 
building and livelihood diversification activities financed through the Famine Fund which 
will enable people to graduate from poverty
o That such a combination enables households to overcome their averseness to risk 
and to benefit from livelihood interventions
o That a combination of household asset protection and household asset building 
has greater impact.
· Are we seeing a difference in impact between Famine Fund and OFDA financed 
interventions because of these assumptions?
Impact and Effectiveness 
· Are households making progress in achieving food security:
o Increasing household incomes/food production
o Increasing resiliency
o Adopting/learning new skills that reinforce resiliency and provide opportunities 
for diversified livelihood options
· Which approaches are having the most impact in this regard? 
· Were any implementation methods less effective because of the short amount of lead time? 
Which approaches dealt best with the short lead time?
· What are the varying social and economic effects of the various projects on individuals, 
communities, gender groups, age groups, and local institutions? 
· Which approaches seemed preferred by beneficiaries? Why?
· What are the key policy or institutional constraints that limit the effectiveness of adopting 
interventions?
Sustainability/Connectedness
· Are the impacts of the livelihoods recovery projects likely to continue after USAID funding 
is withdrawn? 
o Will the improved productivity, increased income potential be sustained through 
moderate shocks?
o Have beneficiaries developed skills and experience which better enable them to 
engage in the economy and/or benefit from other interventions or service 
delivery provided by the government or financed by other donors?
· Are some approaches more sustainable than others?
· How critical is the complimentarily of PSNP and other livelihood or food security 
programming?
· How well coordinated are USAID, government, and other donor funded livelihood 
interventions synergized?
· How well are livelihood programs linked into demand driven private sector economic 
opportunities?
· Identify which woredas benefited form longer term development programs over numerous 
years (DAPs, R2D, and other assistance) as compared to woredas that have only been under 
assistance for two or fewer years with livelihood interventions.
· What are the linkages with other food security program interventions and how critical are 
these to successful diversification of beneficiary.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
64
METHODOLOGY AND ESTIMATED TIMELINE
The notional start date for the evaluation is on/about May 2006. The evaluation should start 
within 15 calendar days of the award of the task order. The evaluator will conduct the evaluation 
and complete the report in approximately 43 days.
Key informant interviews and document review in Washington, DC (3 days). The evaluator 
should meet with staff from USAID, the State Department, international NGOs, donors, and other 
knowledgeable parties. S/he may review strategic assessments, grant documents, situation 
reports, and other relevant documents. 
Field work and data collection in Ethiopia (25 days). The evaluator will meet with 
representatives of the U.S. Government, other donors, international NGOs, local NGOs, UN 
organizations, other relevant agencies, and beneficiary populations, both in the capital and in 
project implementation areas. The evaluator will also visit seed fairs, if possible. 
USAID/Ethiopia ALT office staff and the OFDA Program Officer will assist with facilitation as 
necessary, but the evaluator is expected to be as independent as possible. A total of ten Support to 
Productive Safety Net Program (SPSNP) implementing woredas (covered by eight NGOs) are 
randomly selected for the field visits. Two woredas in Tigray (Degua Temben & Aheferom), 
three woredas in Amhara (Lay Gayint, Tach Gayint & Habru), two woredas in Oromia (Dodota 
Sire & Chiro) and three woredas in SNNPR (Sodo Zuria, Kedida Gamella and Meskan) and two 
OFDA program implementing woredas will be covered. 
Writing report (10 days). The evaluator will draft the report over 10 days at a location to be 
determined. The evaluator will debrief USAID staff in Addis Ababa after completion of the field 
work.
Final report revisions and printing (3 days). Following the final oral briefings and taking into 
account any new information obtained, the evaluator will prepare and publish a final version of 
the evaluation report.
Contractor’s Profile
The contractor should possess the following set of skills:
· Experience carrying out two or more major humanitarian evaluations for a major donor, 
international NGO, or international organization;
· Specific training of post graduate level and extensive practical experience in humanitarian 
agricultural relief interventions, preferably in Ethiopia;
· Specific training and/or extensive practical experience in developing or implementing 
activities aimed at sustaining local livelihoods;
· General familiarity and sound knowledge with the humanitarian context in Ethiopia, 
particularly over the past 3 years;
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
65
· Experience implementing humanitarian relief programs in complex emergencies in various 
geographic regions around the world, preferably from several perspectives (UN/IO, NGO, 
donor); and
· Basic understanding of procedures for grant management.
DELIVERABLES
The consultants are expected to deliver the following to USAID/Ethiopia on timely basis:
Work Plan: 
· One week is allowed for the consultants to propose and submit their detailed plan of 
action for approval by USAID/Ethiopia. The work plan should briefly describe your 
understanding of the statement of work, the overall approach and how you propose to 
carry out each phase of the work.
· Bi-weekly progress report, and
· Draft and final report – The report should have an executive summary that clearly and 
concisely addresses each aspect of the terms of reference, outlines relevant findings and 
makes clear and manageable recommendations. 
· The final draft evaluation report should have the following format:
o The report format should be “Times New Roman” with 12 -font size;
o Executive Summary (not more than three pages);
o Findings, recommendations and other contents of the main report (not more than 
25 pages); and
o Annexes that include background and technical information (< 10 pages).
The evaluation shall document the findings, conclusions and recommendations. The evaluator 
will be expected to work closely with USAID/ALT office and USAID/OFDA.
USAID/Ethiopia will provide comments within two weeks of receipt of the draft. Within 15 
working days of receipt of comments, the evaluator will provide USAID/Ethiopia with the final 
version of the report, after incorporating feedback on the draft. The contractor will also send one 
copy of the final report to PPC/CDIE/DI, in order to make the document available in the USAID 
library and database. 
Prior to departure to the field, the evaluator will provide to USAID/Ethiopia a 2-3 page written 
strategy detailing how the evaluation will be completed, for review and approval. The work plan 
will include a list of potential interviewees, a draft list of interview questions, and a description of 
any other data collection instruments (e.g., surveys) to be used. The questions and instruments 
should be tailored to individual categories of respondents such as implementing partners, 
beneficiaries, government officials, and other donors.
Field Debrief: Upon completion of research in Ethiopia, the evaluator will provide a verbal 
debrief of preliminary findings to USAID staff in Addis, and will request preliminary feedback 
which may be incorporated into the final report.
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
66
Written Report: The evaluator shall write and present for review a first draft of the evaluation 
report at least one week prior to the final oral briefings (below). The report will include an 
executive summary, brief overview of the humanitarian agricultural context in Ethiopia over the 
focus period, description of methodology, and a detailed description of the evaluation’s findings 
and recommendations. Additional information including evaluator itinerary, interviewee lists, 
questionnaires, surveys, and bibliography should be included in annexes. The report should be no 
more than 25 pages, excluding annexes. Following the final oral briefings and taking into 
account any new information obtained, the evaluator will prepare and print a final version of the 
evaluation report, with the number of printed copies to be determined.
Final Oral Briefings: At least one week after distribution of the written report to OFDA and FFP, 
the evaluator will conduct two oral debriefs to present findings, one with USAID senior 
management and the other to a broader audience from both inside and outside USAID, to present 
study findings and obtain feedback.
Local Staff Requirement
Economist: 24 days @ $183 + $70 out of town per diem
Data Collector/Analyst 20 days @ $144 +$70 out of town per diem
Two Interviewers each : 20 days @ $100 +$70 out of town per diem
Logistical Assistant: 20 days @ $72 +$70 out of town per diem*
*May not apply
Total Fees: $12,712
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
67
Annex E: Key Questions and Cross Referenced Responses
Key Questions Responses 
(Section No.)
Are households making progress in achieving food security:
o Increasing household incomes/food production
o Increasing resiliency
Adopting/learning new skills that reinforce resiliency and provide 
opportunities for diversified livelihood options 
6.3, 6.2, 7.3
Which approaches are having the most impact? 7.1, 7.2, 7.4
Were any implementation methods less effective because of the short 
amount of lead time? Which approaches dealt best with the short lead 
time?
7.3, 2.5
What are the varying social and economic effects of the various projects on 
individuals, communities, gender groups, age groups, and local 
institutions? 
6.3
Which approaches seemed preferred by beneficiaries? Why? 7.1, 7.4
What are the key policy or institutional constraints that limit the 
effectiveness of adopting interventions?
5.5, 8.1, 8.4
Are the impacts of the livelihoods recovery projects likely to continue after 
USAID funding is withdrawn? 
6.2
Will the improved productivity, increased income potential be sustained 
through moderate shocks?
6.2
Have beneficiaries developed skills and experience which better enable 
them to engage in the economy and/or benefit from other interventions or 
service delivery provided by the government or financed by other donors?
8.1
Are some approaches more sustainable than others? 6.2
How critical is the complimentarily of PSNP and other livelihood or food 
security programming?
5.3
How well coordinated are USAID, government, and other donor funded 
livelihood interventions synergized?
5.2, 5.5
How well are livelihood programs linked into demand driven private sector 
economic opportunities?
5.6
Identify which woredas benefited form longer term development programs 
over numerous years (DAPs, R2D, and other assistance) as compared to 
woredas that have only been under assistance for two or fewer years with 
livelihood interventions.
6.1
What are the linkages with other food security program interventions and 
how critical are these to successful diversification of beneficiary.
5.1
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
68
Annex F: Beneficiary Questionnaire
Note: Interviewer has to be make sure that the respondent identified by the NGO is a beneficiary 
of USAID’s SPSNP. 
Date of completion: ____/October/2006
Name of interviewer: _________________
Name of woreda: _______________
Name of kabele: ________________
Name of NGO operating in area: _________________
1. Gender of respondent? a) male b) female
2. Number of household members _____
3. Has your household received food or cash or both under PSNP since you started 
participating in it? a) food b) cash c) both
4. Has your household received this benefit in exchange for work or direct transfer or both? 
a) workb) direct transfer c) both
5. Nature of productive or income generating activities (undertaken under livelihood
support) 
Note to interviewer: these are activities supported by the NGO which does not include Cash 
for Works or Food for Works. These income generating activities could include e.g 
beekeeping, silk making, livestock development, small-scale irrigation, poultry, horticulture, 
kitchen gardening etc 
(a) ____________________
(b) ____________________
(c) ____________________
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
69
(d) ____________________
6. What sort of assistance have you received in developing these activities? 
a. Provision of inputs
b. Training
c. Assistance in savings groups
d. Assistance in marketing
e. Assistance in cooperative formation
f. Other: Specify __________________
7. Which type of assistance in q.6 was the most helpful in developing these activities? 
______
8. Inputs provided by CS (e.g. seeds, hives, plants, tools, sheep, vaccinations, trees etc)
Input Month/year input given
(a) ____________________ _________________
(b) ____________________ _________________
(c) ____________________ _________________
(d) ____________________ _________________
9. Training provided with support of Cooperating Sponsor (e.g. training in bee-keeping, 
agricultural production, weaving, marketing, cultivation ,etc) 
Training Month/year training given
(a) ___________________ ___________________
(b) ___________________ ___________________
(c) ___________________ ___________________
(d) ___________________ ___________________
10. As part of the training, did you undertake any study tour? a)Yes b) No
11. Have the activities resulted in increased production of food for your own consumption? 
a)Yes b) No 
12. Which activity in q.5 has resulted in increased food consumption? __________
13. If yes to q.11, has this increase been? 1. Big 2. Moderate 3. Insignificant
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
70
14. Have the activities directly increased the amount of cash received by the household? 
a)Yes b) No
15. Which activity in q.5 has resulted in most increased cash income? __________
16. If yes to q.14, 
a. Has this increase been ? 1. Big 2. Moderate 3. Insignificant 
b. Has the increased cash been used to buy food? a)Yes b) No 
c. Has the increased cash been used to purchase household assets 
a)Yes b) No
17. Because of the activities, what have been the average increase in net household cash 
income in ETB per month? ____ ETB
18. Has the increase in production and/or increase in cash resulted in increased diversity in 
terms of nutrition? a)Yes b) No
19. How long do you expect to remain a beneficiary of the PSNP? 
a) less than one year
b)1 more year
c) 2 more years
d) three more years
e) longer than three more years.
20. Have the activities resulted in extra labour demands upon the household? 
a)Yes b) No
21. If yes, 
a. have these extra demands been met easily? a)Yes b) No
b. have these extra demands affected other income generating activities? a)Yes
b) No
22. Have the activities required extra financial resources to undertake it?
a)Yes b) No
23. If yes, what is the source:
a. NGO
b. MFI
c. Relatives/friends
d. Own 
24. What are your future plans:
a. Stop the activities
b. Maintain the activities yourself
c. Improve the activities
d. Expand the activities
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
71
25. If improve or expand the activities, how? (Do not prompt. Can tick more than one)
a. Own resources
b. Credit
c. Others. Specify ______________
26. Do you know if any households in your area have started similar activities following your 
example, without NGO support?
a) Yes, many b) Yes, a few c) No
27. As part of the activity, did you join a group or association promoted by the NGO? a) Yes 
b) No
28. How many male and female members of the group are there? ___ Males ___ Females
29. Does the group regularly save? a) Yes b) No
30. If so, how much does each member save per month? __ ETB
31. Does the group undertake credit activities? a) Yes b) No
32. If so, have you borrowed any money? a) Yes b) No
33. If yes, how much have you borrowed so far in total? ___ ETB
Final Report 
Evaluation of SPSNP and OFDA 2005 Interventions
72
Annex G: Tabulated Results
Table: G1. Levels of Project Coverage
Cooperating Sponsor W Vision W Vision FHI FHI FHI CRS CRS CRS CRS CRS
Woreda of Operation Sodo Zuria Humbo Simada Wadla Tach GayintDire DawaGorogutu Meta Kersa Dodota Sere
1 Number of Kebeles in the Woreda 44 36 36 27 15 30 30 43 35 26
2 Number of target Kebele 20 20 12 25 11 21 13 25 20 18
3 Total HH in Woreda 41182 20957 50090 25847 27826 76800 25400 46807 32970 30313
4 Total HH in Targeted Kebele 18719 10263 50090 24294 16189 19600 10892 10300 10184 11624
5 Total PSNP HH in Woreda 6851 17283 18667 8657 16189 10522 5038 8154 5742 7380
6 Total PSNP HH in targeted Kebele 4185 7691 18667 8657 16189 10522 5038 8154 5742 7380
7 Total SPSNP HH in Woreda 2152 946 2200 2000 2081 2058 5038 8154 5742 3750
8 % of SPSNP HH which are female -headed 30% 17% 47% 68% 50% 21% 20% 19% 20% 25%
9
Total Budget Under SPSNP for household 
diversification NOT PSNP capacity
development $287,673 $293,340 $469,806 $485,401 $463,904 $74,695 $182,849 $295,941 $208,400 $242,565
Budgeted Spend per Household $134 $310 $214 $243 $223 $36 $36 $36 $36 $65
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Kabele 51% 12% 12% 23% 13% 20% 100% 100% 100% 51%
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Woreda31% 5% 12% 23% 13% 20% 100% 100% 100% 51%
Percent Kabeles within a Woreda 45% 56% 33% 93% 73% 70% 43% 58% 57% 69%
Cooperating Sponsor Save UK Save UK Save UK Save UK CARE CARE CARE CARE CARE CARE
Woreda of Operation Habru Gubalafto Dehana Sekota Grawa KurfachelleLay GayintGemechisChiro Doba
1 Number of Kebeles in the Woreda 30 35 32 45 45 18 26 33 39 33
2 Number of target Kebele 6 13 5 19 36 11 26 25 28 24
3 Total HH in Woreda 38205 50461 26652 33501 41197 16670 52067 7032 8568 8985
4 Total HH in Targeted Kebele 7885 15511 6232 17509 31657 9055 47659 6101 6453 7198
5 Total PSNP HH in Woreda 9302 17539 9006 11939 10137 4559 17688 5121 5939 6971
6 Total PSNP HH in targeted Kebele 2037 6257 1696 6248 10137 4559 17688 5121 5939 6971
7 Total SPSNP HH in Woreda 1081 2614 1228 3700 7013 3451 9809 3482 4038 4740
8 % of SPSNP HH which are female -headed 32% 20% 26% 22% 23% 19% 4% 12% 12% 9%
9
Total Budget Under SPSNP for household 
diversification NOT PSNP capacity
development $149,131 $136,253 $166,559 $219,079 $144,962 $85,130 $592,840 $74,159 $85,989 $100,933
Budgeted Spend per Household $138 $52 $136 $59 $21 $25 $60 $21 $21 $21
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Kabele53% 42% 72% 59% 69% 76% 55% 68% 68% 68%
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Woreda12% 15% 14% 31% 69% 76% 55% 68% 68% 68%
Percent Kabeles within a Woreda 20% 37% 16% 42% 80% 61% 100% 76% 72% 73%
Cooperating Sponsor REST REST CHF CHF CHF CHF CHF
Woreda of Operation Degua Tembian Inticho Dalocha Kedida Gamella Meskan Silti Mareko Mean Per Person
1 Number of Kebeles in the Woreda 18 28 26 27 41 38 24 860
2 Number of target Kebele 18 12 26 27 15 25 21 522
3 Total HH in Woreda 23356 25480 28612 21158 30478 25504 816118
4 Total HH in Targeted Kebele 23356 25480 28612 8566 20052 23205 466686
5 Total PSNP HH in Woreda 7620 16025 6243 7479 4823 20052 9206 274132
6 Total PSNP HH in targeted Kebele 7620 7000 6243 7479 4823 20052 9206 221301
7 Total SPSNP HH in Woreda 1372 2725 536 1373 587 538 424 82832 414160
8 % of SPSNP HH which are female -headed 55% 53% 65% 33% 40% 40% 48%
9
Total Budget Under SPSNP for household 
diversification NOT PSNP capacity
development $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $8,359,608
Budgeted Spend per Household $948 $477 $373 $146 $341 $372 $472 $101 $20
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Kabele 18% 39% 9% 18% 12% 3% 5% 37%
Percent of PSNP households targeted within Woreda 18% 17% 9% 18% 12% 3% 5% 30%
Percent Kabeles within a Woreda 100% 43% 100% 100% 37% 66% 88% 61%
Financial Data for Rest and CHF are estimates based on interviews with Head Office Staff.
73
Questionnaire Data Analysis
Table G2
 List of woredas and kebeles visited and name of NGO operating in the area
No. Woreda Kebele NGO
1 Chiro Horemat CARE 
2 Chiro Wachu Horemat CARE 
3 Chiro Yeabedo Bobasa CARE 
4 Habru No. 6 PA CARE 
5 Habru No. 7 PA CARE 
6 Habru No.6 PA CARE 
7 Habru No.7 PA CARE 
8 Lay Gayint /Damot /04/ CARE 
9 Lay Gayint 01/Mokabia/ CARE 
10 Lay Gayint 02/Mokabia/ CARE 
11 Kedida Gamela Abonsa CHF 
12 Kedida Gamela Dega Kedida CHF 
13 Kedida Gamela Taza Agara CHF 
14 Meskan Anseno Ousume CHF 
15 Meskan Ansino Agume CHF 
16 Meskan Bati Foto CHF 
17 Meskan Beche Bulchano CHF 
18 Meskan Enseno Ousome CHF 
19 Sodo Zuria Abonsa CHF 
20 Dodota Sire Alelu Gsela CRS 
21 Dodota Sire Ebesata Hudega CRS 
22 Enderta Chelekot CRS 
23 Enderta Maygenet CRS 
24 Enderta Metkel CRS 
25 Hintalo Wejerat Metkel CRS 
26 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Afere Mamashe/ FHI 
27 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Agaye/ FHI 
28 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Arogye Gebeya/ FHI 
29 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Donsa/ FHI 
30 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Eger mesek/ FHI 
31 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Enjete/ FHI 
32 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Kebenich/ FHI 
33 Tach Gayint Kebele 02/Mesealemy Gote/ FHI 
34 Tach Gayint Kebele 08 FHI 
35 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Amba ras/ FHI 
36 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Anbo/ FHI 
37 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Aroge gebeya/ FHI 
38 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Daro Wenze/ FHI 
39 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Jaje Mariam/ FHI 
40 Tach Gayint Kebele 08/Wyera Mender/ FHI 
41 Tach Gayint Kebele 13 /Agate/ FHI 
42 Tach Gayint Kebele 3 /Kote mender/ FHI 
43 Tach Gayint Kebele 8 /Aroge Gebeya/ FHI 
44 Aheferom Feresmay REST 
45 Degua Temben Adi Azmera REST 
46 Degua Temben Ayinmbrkekin REST 
47 Degua Temben Hagereselam REST 
48 Degua Temben Ketema /Zone 1/ REST 
49 Degua Temben Ketena 2/ketema/ REST 
50 Degua Temben Tekul REST 
51 Sodo Zuria Bosa Kacha WVE 
52 Sodo Zuria Ofa Sire WVE 
74
Table G3
Name NGO operating * Gender of respondent Crosstabulation
78 42 120
65.0% 35.0% 100.0%
24 59 83
28.9% 71.1% 100.0%
49 31 80
61.3% 38.8% 100.0%
23 17 40
57.5% 42.5% 100.0%
50 30 80
62.5% 37.5% 100.0%
24 13 37
64.9% 35.1% 100.0%
248 192 440
56.4% 43.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Male Female
Gender of respondent
Total
75
Table G4
Name NGO operating * Has the HH received food or cash? Crosstabulation
52 0 66 118
44.1% .0% 55.9% 100.0%
2 55 15 72
2.8% 76.4% 20.8% 100.0%
33 36 7 76
43.4% 47.4% 9.2% 100.0%
3 0 34 37
8.1% .0% 91.9% 100.0%
79 0 0 79
100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
4 15 18 37
10.8% 40.5% 48.6% 100.0%
173 106 140 419
41.3% 25.3% 33.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Food Cash Both
Has the HH received food or cash?
Total
76
Table G5
Name NGO operating * How has HH received this benefit? Crosstabulation
111 0 5 116
95.7% .0% 4.3% 100.0%
49 21 6 76
64.5% 27.6% 7.9% 100.0%
60 11 6 77
77.9% 14.3% 7.8% 100.0%
35 0 2 37
94.6% .0% 5.4% 100.0%
79 1 0 80
98.8% 1.3% .0% 100.0%
32 5 0 37
86.5% 13.5% .0% 100.0%
366 38 19 423
86.5% 9.0% 4.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
In exchange
for work Direct transfer Both
How has HH received this benefit?
Total
77
Table G6
Name NGO operating * Type of productive or IG activities carried out under PSNP? Crosstabulation
9 7 80 48 62 34 0 7 3 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 271
3.3% 2.6% 29.5% 17.7% 22.9% 12.5% .0% 2.6% 1.1% 6.6% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
8 3 11 28 19 3 0 9 0 2 0 13 7 1 1 5 3 113
7.1% 2.7% 9.7% 24.8% 16.8% 2.7% .0% 8.0% .0% 1.8% .0% 11.5% 6.2% .9% .9% 4.4% 2.7% 100.0%
2 2 49 19 9 3 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 96
2.1% 2.1% 51.0% 19.8% 9.4% 3.1% .0% .0% 1.0% 9.4% 2.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
14 0 13 1 23 16 1 1 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82
17.1% .0% 15.9% 1.2% 28.0% 19.5% 1.2% 1.2% .0% 15.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
23 0 64 32 4 34 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160
14.4% .0% 40.0% 20.0% 2.5% 21.3% .6% .6% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
17 7 21 2 17 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
22.4% 9.2% 27.6% 2.6% 22.4% .0% .0% 14.5% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
73 19 238 130 134 90 2 29 5 42 6 13 7 1 1 5 3 798
9.1% 2.4% 29.8% 16.3% 16.8% 11.3% .3% 3.6% .6% 5.3% .8% 1.6% .9% .1% .1% .6% .4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Bee keeping Silk making
Livestock
production
Poultry
farming
Horticulture
growing
Small scale
irrigation
Vegetable
growing
Sheep
production
Goat
production
Crop
production
Improvted
seed Handicraft Enset
Coffee
production Trade Metal work Saving
Type of productive or IG activities carried out under PSNP?
Total
78
Table G7
Name NGO operating * Assistance HH received in developing productive/IG activities? Crosstabulation
71 101 57 11 42 1 283
25.1% 35.7% 20.1% 3.9% 14.8% .4% 100.0%
48 68 45 15 53 0 229
21.0% 29.7% 19.7% 6.6% 23.1% .0% 100.0%
25 36 4 15 15 0 95
26.3% 37.9% 4.2% 15.8% 15.8% .0% 100.0%
40 37 40 7 40 0 164
24.4% 22.6% 24.4% 4.3% 24.4% .0% 100.0%
71 79 0 0 17 0 167
42.5% 47.3% .0% .0% 10.2% .0% 100.0%
36 30 0 0 0 0 66
54.5% 45.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
291 351 146 48 167 1 1004
29.0% 35.0% 14.5% 4.8% 16.6% .1% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Provisions
of inputs Training
Assistance
in savings
groups
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation Other
Assistance HH received in developing productive/IG activities?
Total
79
Table G8
Name NGO operating * Which type of assistance was most helpful? Crosstabulation
34 39 17 2 21 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 117
29.1% 33.3% 14.5% 1.7% 17.9% 1.7% .0% .9% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
13 33 2 7 3 1 1 3 0 11 2 1 0 2 0 79
16.5% 41.8% 2.5% 8.9% 3.8% 1.3% 1.3% 3.8% .0% 13.9% 2.5% 1.3% .0% 2.5% .0% 100.0%
13 29 0 6 12 0 0 2 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 70
18.6% 41.4% .0% 8.6% 17.1% .0% .0% 2.9% 2.9% 1.4% 1.4% 5.7% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
3 1 5 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 41
7.3% 2.4% 12.2% .0% 73.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 4.9% 100.0%
42 28 0 4 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
52.5% 35.0% .0% 5.0% .0% 2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 2.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
14 12 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 5 13 2 0 0 50
28.0% 24.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 6.0% 2.0% .0% .0% 10.0% 26.0% 4.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
119 142 24 19 66 5 5 8 4 13 8 18 2 2 2 437
27.2% 32.5% 5.5% 4.3% 15.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% .9% 3.0% 1.8% 4.1% .5% .5% .5% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Provisions
of inputs Training
Assistance
in savings
groups
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Small scale
irrigation Beekeeping
Sheep
production
Goat
production Poultry Vegetable
Animal
husbandry
Silk
production Metal work Sebel Merete
Which type of assistance was most helpful?
Total
80
11. TABLE G9
Name NGO operating * Inputs provided by CS Crosstabulation
66 5 70 7 45 20 34 25 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 282
23.4% 1.8% 24.8% 2.5% 16.0% 7.1% 12.1% 8.9% 1.4% .0% .0% 2.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
8 6 15 0 13 0 3 20 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 21 0 93
8.6% 6.5% 16.1% .0% 14.0% .0% 3.2% 21.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.2% 3.2% 1.1% 22.6% .0% 100.0%
13 0 10 7 28 26 6 14 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 108
12.0% .0% 9.3% 6.5% 25.9% 24.1% 5.6% 13.0% 2.8% .0% .0% .0% .9% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
38 11 9 0 12 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 24 2 103
36.9% 10.7% 8.7% .0% 11.7% .0% 2.9% .0% .0% .0% 1.9% 1.9% .0% .0% .0% 23.3% 1.9% 100.0%
21 24 6 3 13 21 0 29 16 29 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 168
12.5% 14.3% 3.6% 1.8% 7.7% 12.5% .0% 17.3% 9.5% 17.3% 3.0% .6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
2 12 9 0 19 0 1 8 2 0 0 2 0 6 11 0 0 72
2.8% 16.7% 12.5% .0% 26.4% .0% 1.4% 11.1% 2.8% .0% .0% 2.8% .0% 8.3% 15.3% .0% .0% 100.0%
148 58 119 17 130 67 47 96 25 29 7 11 4 9 12 45 2 826
17.9% 7.0% 14.4% 2.1% 15.7% 8.1% 5.7% 11.6% 3.0% 3.5% .8% 1.3% .5% 1.1% 1.5% 5.4% .2% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Improved
seed Beehives Seedling Farm tools Sheep Goats Vaccination Chicken Livestock Cow
Vegetable
seeds
Horticulture
seeds Cash Silk worm Ox Tools Potato
Inputs provided by CS
Total
81
82
12. TABLE G10
% Trainees undertaking Study Tours
28 85 113
24.8% 75.2% 100.0
%
12 66 78
15.4% 84.6% 100.0
%
3 66 69
4.3% 95.7% 100.0
%
22 17 39
56.4% 43.6% 100.0
%
44 36 80
55.0% 45.0% 100.0
%
1 34 35
2.9% 97.1% 100.0
%
110 304 414
26.6% 73.4% 100.0
%
Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating Coun
t% within 
Name NGO 
operating
CAR
E
CH
F
CR
S
FH
I
RES
T
WVE
Name 
NG
Ooperatin
g
Total
Yes No
As part of the 
training, did you undertake 
any study 
tour? Total
83
13. TABLE G11
Name NGO operating * Have the activities resulted in increased production
of food for own consumption? Crosstabulation
105 13 118
89.0% 11.0% 100.0%
58 24 82
70.7% 29.3% 100.0%
58 17 75
77.3% 22.7% 100.0%
39 1 40
97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
80 0 80
100.0% .0% 100.0%
35 1 36
97.2% 2.8% 100.0%
375 56 431
87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
resulted in increased
production of food for
own consumption?
Total
84
14. TABLE G12
Name NGO operating * Which activity in Q5 has resulted in increased food consumption? Crosstabulation
0 0 28 25 24 16 5 4 4 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 113
.0% .0% 24.8% 22.1% 21.2% 14.2% 4.4% 3.5% 3.5% .0% .0% 4.4% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
1 3 6 23 6 0 3 0 4 2 3 1 1 0 2 3 10 0 68
1.5% 4.4% 8.8% 33.8% 8.8% .0% 4.4% .0% 5.9% 2.9% 4.4% 1.5% 1.5% .0% 2.9% 4.4% 14.7% .0% 100.0%
0 0 24 3 1 0 2 1 7 3 1 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 55
.0% .0% 43.6% 5.5% 1.8% .0% 3.6% 1.8% 12.7% 5.5% 1.8% 3.6% 14.5% 5.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
2 0 6 0 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 43
4.7% .0% 14.0% .0% 41.9% 20.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 16.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.3% 100.0%
11 0 49 6 1 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
12.6% .0% 56.3% 6.9% 1.1% 20.7% 1.1% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
14 3 13 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
25.5% 5.5% 23.6% .0% 21.8% .0% 21.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
28 6 126 57 62 43 23 6 15 5 4 9 18 3 2 3 10 1 421
6.7% 1.4% 29.9% 13.5% 14.7% 10.2% 5.5% 1.4% 3.6% 1.2% 1.0% 2.1% 4.3% .7% .5% .7% 2.4% .2% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Beekeeping Silk making
Livestock
production Poultry Horticulture
Small scale
irrigation
Sheep
reproduction
Goat
reproduction Training
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Improved
seed
Crop
production
Animal
fattnning Trade Metal work Handicraft 18
Which activity in Q5 has resulted in increased food consumption?
Total
85
15. TABLE G13
Name NGO operating * If yes to Q11, has this increased been? Crosstabulation
7 64 39 110
6.4% 58.2% 35.5% 100.0%
18 36 21 75
24.0% 48.0% 28.0% 100.0%
9 45 9 63
14.3% 71.4% 14.3% 100.0%
12 28 0 40
30.0% 70.0% .0% 100.0%
17 63 0 80
21.3% 78.8% .0% 100.0%
1 35 1 37
2.7% 94.6% 2.7% 100.0%
64 271 70 405
15.8% 66.9% 17.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Big Moderate Insignificant
If yes to Q11, has this increased
been?
Total
86
16. TABLE G14
Name NGO operating * Have the activities directly increased the amount of
cash received by HH? Crosstabulation
84 33 117
71.8% 28.2% 100.0%
58 23 81
71.6% 28.4% 100.0%
61 13 74
82.4% 17.6% 100.0%
40 0 40
100.0% .0% 100.0%
80 0 80
100.0% .0% 100.0%
34 3 37
91.9% 8.1% 100.0%
357 72 429
83.2% 16.8% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
directly increased the
amount of cash
received by HH?
Total
87
Table G15
Name NGO operating * Which activity in Q5 has resulted in most increased cash income? Crosstabulation
0 0 21 20 22 7 7 3 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
.0% .0% 23.9% 22.7% 25.0% 8.0% 8.0% 3.4% .0% .0% .0% 6.8% 2.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
0 3 4 25 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 10 2 59
.0% 5.1% 6.8% 42.4% 10.2% .0% 1.7% .0% 1.7% .0% .0% 1.7% .0% .0% 1.7% 3.4% 5.1% 16.9% 3.4% 100.0%
0 0 28 5 1 0 5 0 3 6 1 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 58
.0% .0% 48.3% 8.6% 1.7% .0% 8.6% .0% 5.2% 10.3% 1.7% 1.7% 12.1% 1.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
2 0 6 0 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
5.0% .0% 15.0% .0% 55.0% 17.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 7.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
9 0 51 5 1 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87
10.3% .0% 58.6% 5.7% 1.1% 21.8% 1.1% 1.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
14 2 14 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
24.6% 3.5% 24.6% .0% 22.8% .0% 22.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
25 5 124 55 65 33 27 4 4 6 1 9 12 1 1 2 3 10 2 389
6.4% 1.3% 31.9% 14.1% 16.7% 8.5% 6.9% 1.0% 1.0% 1.5% .3% 2.3% 3.1% .3% .3% .5% .8% 2.6% .5% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Beekeeping Silk making Livestock Poultry Horticulture
Small scale
irrigation
Sheep
production
Goat
production
Assistance
in marketing Training
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Improved
seed
Improved crop
production
Animal
fattening Daily labor Trade Metal work Handicraft Saving
Which activity in Q5 has resulted in most increased cash income?
Total
88
Table G16
Name NGO operating * How significant has the cash increase been? Crosstabulation
6 57 21 84
7.1% 67.9% 25.0% 100.0%
7 41 10 58
12.1% 70.7% 17.2% 100.0%
6 49 4 59
10.2% 83.1% 6.8% 100.0%
11 29 0 40
27.5% 72.5% .0% 100.0%
12 66 3 81
14.8% 81.5% 3.7% 100.0%
1 33 1 35
2.9% 94.3% 2.9% 100.0%
43 275 39 357
12.0% 77.0% 10.9% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Big Moderate Insignificant
How significant has the cash increase
been?
Total
89
Table G17
Name NGO operating * If yes to Q14, has the increased cash been used to
buy food? Crosstabulation
61 16 77
79.2% 20.8% 100.0%
25 26 51
49.0% 51.0% 100.0%
41 15 56
73.2% 26.8% 100.0%
37 2 39
94.9% 5.1% 100.0%
51 29 80
63.8% 36.3% 100.0%
34 0 34
100.0% .0% 100.0%
249 88 337
73.9% 26.1% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q14, has the
increased cash been
used to buy food?
Total
90
Table G18
Name NGO operating * If yes to Q14, has the increased cash been used to
purchase HH assets? Crosstabulation
43 39 82
52.4% 47.6% 100.0%
28 23 51
54.9% 45.1% 100.0%
32 25 57
56.1% 43.9% 100.0%
35 5 40
87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
57 23 80
71.3% 28.8% 100.0%
31 3 34
91.2% 8.8% 100.0%
226 118 344
65.7% 34.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q14, has the
increased cash been
used to purchase HH
assets?
Total
91
Table G19
Name NGO operating * Has the increase in production/cash resulted in
nutrition diversification? Crosstabulation
96 20 116
82.8% 17.2% 100.0%
28 53 81
34.6% 65.4% 100.0%
59 13 72
81.9% 18.1% 100.0%
40 0 40
100.0% .0% 100.0%
80 0 80
100.0% .0% 100.0%
37 0 37
100.0% .0% 100.0%
340 86 426
79.8% 20.2% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Has the increase in
production/cash
resulted in nutrition
diversification?
Total
92
Table G20
Name NGO operating * How long do you expect to remain a beneficiary of the PSNP? Crosstabulation
3 4 24 29 58 118
2.5% 3.4% 20.3% 24.6% 49.2% 100.0%
10 12 24 19 16 81
12.3% 14.8% 29.6% 23.5% 19.8% 100.0%
1 3 16 17 43 80
1.3% 3.8% 20.0% 21.3% 53.8% 100.0%
9 17 0 3 11 40
22.5% 42.5% .0% 7.5% 27.5% 100.0%
13 16 45 3 6 83
15.7% 19.3% 54.2% 3.6% 7.2% 100.0%
0 3 8 2 24 37
.0% 8.1% 21.6% 5.4% 64.9% 100.0%
36 55 117 73 158 439
8.2% 12.5% 26.7% 16.6% 36.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Less than
one year 1 more year 2 more years 3 more years
Longer than
3 more years
How long do you expect to remain a beneficiary of the PSNP?
Total
93
Table G21
Name NGO operating * Have the activities resulted in extra labor demands
upon the HH? Crosstabulation
15 104 119
12.6% 87.4% 100.0%
13 67 80
16.3% 83.8% 100.0%
40 40 80
50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
17 23 40
42.5% 57.5% 100.0%
9 71 80
11.3% 88.8% 100.0%
0 37 37
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
94 342 436
21.6% 78.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
resulted in extra labor
demands upon the
HH?
Total
94
Table G22
Name NGO operating * If yes to Q20, have these extra demands been met
easily? Crosstabulation
23 11 34
67.6% 32.4% 100.0%
12 2 14
85.7% 14.3% 100.0%
28 9 37
75.7% 24.3% 100.0%
16 1 17
94.1% 5.9% 100.0%
8 1 9
88.9% 11.1% 100.0%
87 24 111
78.4% 21.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q20, have
these extra demands
been met easily?
Total
95
Table G23
Name NGO operating * If yes to Q20, have these extra demands affected
other IGAs? Crosstabulation
5 29 34
14.7% 85.3% 100.0%
4 11 15
26.7% 73.3% 100.0%
3 37 40
7.5% 92.5% 100.0%
3 16 19
15.8% 84.2% 100.0%
0 9 9
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0 1 1
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
15 103 118
12.7% 87.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q20, have
these extra demands
affected other IGAs?
Total
96
Table G24
Name NGO operating * Have the activities required extra financial
resources to under take it? Crosstabulation
27 89 116
23.3% 76.7% 100.0%
25 53 78
32.1% 67.9% 100.0%
26 47 73
35.6% 64.4% 100.0%
2 36 38
5.3% 94.7% 100.0%
30 50 80
37.5% 62.5% 100.0%
2 35 37
5.4% 94.6% 100.0%
112 310 422
26.5% 73.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
required extra financial
resources to under
take it?
Total
97
Table G25
Name NGO operating * if yes to Q22, what was the source of the extra finance? Crosstabulation
4 12 10 7 33
12.1% 36.4% 30.3% 21.2% 100.0%
6 2 4 19 31
19.4% 6.5% 12.9% 61.3% 100.0%
10 5 1 11 27
37.0% 18.5% 3.7% 40.7% 100.0%
0 1 1 3 5
.0% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 100.0%
0 24 2 8 34
.0% 70.6% 5.9% 23.5% 100.0%
0 0 1 1 2
.0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%
20 44 19 49 132
15.2% 33.3% 14.4% 37.1% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
NGO MFI
Relatives/
friends Own
if yes to Q22, what was the source of the extra
finance?
Total
98
Table G26
Name NGO operating * What are your future plans? Crosstabulation
1 33 73 82 189
.5% 17.5% 38.6% 43.4% 100.0%
0 27 42 40 109
.0% 24.8% 38.5% 36.7% 100.0%
0 10 39 54 103
.0% 9.7% 37.9% 52.4% 100.0%
0 3 22 40 65
.0% 4.6% 33.8% 61.5% 100.0%
0 4 22 73 99
.0% 4.0% 22.2% 73.7% 100.0%
0 2 9 26 37
.0% 5.4% 24.3% 70.3% 100.0%
1 79 207 315 602
.2% 13.1% 34.4% 52.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Stop the
activities
Maintain the
activities
Improve the
activities
Expand the
activities
What are your future plans?
Total
99
Table G27
Name NGO operating * If improve or expand the activities, how? Crosstabulation
45 72 1 118
38.1% 61.0% .8% 100.0%
53 24 1 78
67.9% 30.8% 1.3% 100.0%
47 31 1 79
59.5% 39.2% 1.3% 100.0%
38 2 0 40
95.0% 5.0% .0% 100.0%
53 36 0 89
59.6% 40.4% .0% 100.0%
34 0 1 35
97.1% .0% 2.9% 100.0%
270 165 4 439
61.5% 37.6% .9% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Own
resources Credit Others
If improve or expand the activities,
how?
Total
100
Table G28
Name NGO operating * Do you know if any HHs in your area have started similar
activities following your example? Crosstabulation
12 44 61 117
10.3% 37.6% 52.1% 100.0%
2 25 56 83
2.4% 30.1% 67.5% 100.0%
14 42 23 79
17.7% 53.2% 29.1% 100.0%
19 21 0 40
47.5% 52.5% .0% 100.0%
48 25 7 80
60.0% 31.3% 8.8% 100.0%
1 18 15 34
2.9% 52.9% 44.1% 100.0%
96 175 162 433
22.2% 40.4% 37.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes, many Yes, a few No
Do you know if any HHs in your area
have started similar activities
following your example?
Total
101
Table G29
Name NGO operating * As part of the activity, did you join a group or
association promoted by NGO? Crosstabulation
111 7 118
94.1% 5.9% 100.0%
72 11 83
86.7% 13.3% 100.0%
40 29 69
58.0% 42.0% 100.0%
40 0 40
100.0% .0% 100.0%
36 43 79
45.6% 54.4% 100.0%
19 16 35
54.3% 45.7% 100.0%
318 106 424
75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
As part of the activity,
did you join a group or
association promoted
by NGO?
Total
102
16.1. Table G30
Name NGO operating * Does the group regularly save? Crosstabulation
56 39 95
58.9% 41.1% 100.0%
75 4 79
94.9% 5.1% 100.0%
1 39 40
2.5% 97.5% 100.0%
39 1 40
97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
31 5 36
86.1% 13.9% 100.0%
16 3 19
84.2% 15.8% 100.0%
218 91 309
70.6% 29.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Does the group
regularly save?
Total
103
Table G31
Name NGO operating * Does the group undertake credit activities?
Crosstabulation
49 35 84
58.3% 41.7% 100.0%
10 60 70
14.3% 85.7% 100.0%
1 33 34
2.9% 97.1% 100.0%
4 35 39
10.3% 89.7% 100.0%
1 31 32
3.1% 96.9% 100.0%
0 15 15
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
65 209 274
23.7% 76.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
Does the group
undertake credit
activities?
Total
104
Table G32
Name NGO operating * If so, have you borrowed any money?
Crosstabulation
23 52 75
30.7% 69.3% 100.0%
5 27 32
15.6% 84.4% 100.0%
0 5 5
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
0 10 10
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
2 8 10
20.0% 80.0% 100.0%
0 7 7
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
30 109 139
21.6% 78.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
Yes No
If so, have you
borrowed any money?
Total
105
Table G33
Name NGO operating * Household size Crosstabulation
56 36 25 117
47.9% 30.8% 21.4% 100.0%
9 34 40 83
10.8% 41.0% 48.2% 100.0%
32 28 16 76
42.1% 36.8% 21.1% 100.0%
5 23 12 40
12.5% 57.5% 30.0% 100.0%
17 26 37 80
21.3% 32.5% 46.3% 100.0%
9 15 13 37
24.3% 40.5% 35.1% 100.0%
128 162 143 433
29.6% 37.4% 33.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
<= 4 persons 5 - 6 persons >=6 persons
Household size
Total
106
Table G34
Name NGO operating * Average increase in net HH income (birr/month) Crosstabulation
21 43 11 75
28.0% 57.3% 14.7% 100.0%
37 15 8 60
61.7% 25.0% 13.3% 100.0%
3 6 53 62
4.8% 9.7% 85.5% 100.0%
0 14 26 40
.0% 35.0% 65.0% 100.0%
1 9 68 78
1.3% 11.5% 87.2% 100.0%
26 9 1 36
72.2% 25.0% 2.8% 100.0%
88 96 167 351
25.1% 27.4% 47.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
Count
% within Name 
NGO operating
CARE
CHF
CRS
FHI
REST
WVE
Name 
NGO
operating
Total
<=16 birr
16.01 -
50.00 birr >=50 birr
Average increase in net HH income
(birr/month)
Total
107
Table G35
Has the HH received food or cash? * How has HH received this benefit? Crosstabulation
163 6 1 170
95.9% 3.5% .6% 100.0%
80 21 4 105
76.2% 20.0% 3.8% 100.0%
119 8 13 140
85.0% 5.7% 9.3% 100.0%
362 35 18 415
87.2% 8.4% 4.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Has the HH
received food or cash?
Count
% within Has the HH
received food or cash?
Count
% within Has the HH
received food or cash?
Count
% within Has the HH
received food or cash?
Food
Cash
Both
Has the HH
received food
or cash?
Total
In exchange
for work Direct transfer Both
How has HH received this benefit?
Total
108
B. Analysis by Gender
Table G36
Gender of respondent * Has the HH received food or cash? Crosstabulation
108 54 78 240
45.0% 22.5% 32.5% 100.0%
65 52 62 179
36.3% 29.1% 34.6% 100.0%
173 106 140 419
41.3% 25.3% 33.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Food Cash Both
Has the HH received food or cash?
Total
Gender of respondent * How has HH received this benefit? Crosstabulation
224 13 5 242
92.6% 5.4% 2.1% 100.0%
142 25 14 181
78.5% 13.8% 7.7% 100.0%
366 38 19 423
86.5% 9.0% 4.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
In exchange
for work Direct transfer Both
How has HH received this benefit?
Total
109
Table G37
Gender of respondent * Type of productive or IG activities carried out under PSNP? Crosstabulation
33 0 109 12 28 28 10 3 9 1 6 1 4 1 245
13.5% .0% 44.5% 4.9% 11.4% 11.4% 4.1% 1.2% 3.7% .4% 2.4% .4% 1.6% .4% 100.0%
13 8 76 41 21 10 9 0 3 1 7 2 0 0 191
6.8% 4.2% 39.8% 21.5% 11.0% 5.2% 4.7% .0% 1.6% .5% 3.7% 1.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
46 8 185 53 49 38 19 3 12 2 13 3 4 1 436
10.6% 1.8% 42.4% 12.2% 11.2% 8.7% 4.4% .7% 2.8% .5% 3.0% .7% .9% .2% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Bee keeping Silk making
Livestock
production
Poultry
farming
Horticulture
growing
Small scale
irrigation
Sheep
production
Goat
production
Crop
production
Improvted
seed Handicraft Enset Metal work Saving
Type of productive or IG activities carried out under PSNP?
Total
110
Table G38
Gender of respondent * Assistance HH received in developing productive/IG activities? Crosstabulation
170 52 8 5 2 237
71.7% 21.9% 3.4% 2.1% .8% 100.0%
120 49 4 1 10 184
65.2% 26.6% 2.2% .5% 5.4% 100.0%
290 101 12 6 12 421
68.9% 24.0% 2.9% 1.4% 2.9% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Provisions
of inputs Training
Assistance
in savings
groups
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Assistance HH received in developing productive/IG activities?
Total
111
Table G39
Gender of respondent * Which type of assistance was most helpful? Crosstabulation
71 74 15 10 41 2 5 2 1 2 1 8 0 2 1 235
30.2% 31.5% 6.4% 4.3% 17.4% .9% 2.1% .9% .4% .9% .4% 3.4% .0% .9% .4% 100.0%
48 58 9 9 25 3 0 6 1 11 3 10 2 0 0 185
25.9% 31.4% 4.9% 4.9% 13.5% 1.6% .0% 3.2% .5% 5.9% 1.6% 5.4% 1.1% .0% .0% 100.0%
119 132 24 19 66 5 5 8 2 13 4 18 2 2 1 420
28.3% 31.4% 5.7% 4.5% 15.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.9% .5% 3.1% 1.0% 4.3% .5% .5% .2% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Provisions
of inputs Training
Assistance
in savings
groups
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Small scale
irrigation Beekeeping
Sheep
production
Goat
production Poultry Vegetable
Animal
husbandry
Silk
production Metal work Sebel Merete
Which type of assistance was most helpful?
Total
Table G40
Gender of respondent * Inputs provided by CS Crosstabulation
72 20 29 3 42 15 8 10 7 18 2 0 0 3 12 241
29.9% 8.3% 12.0% 1.2% 17.4% 6.2% 3.3% 4.1% 2.9% 7.5% .8% .0% .0% 1.2% 5.0% 100.0%
31 7 16 2 50 14 4 27 8 6 0 2 5 2 6 180
17.2% 3.9% 8.9% 1.1% 27.8% 7.8% 2.2% 15.0% 4.4% 3.3% .0% 1.1% 2.8% 1.1% 3.3% 100.0%
103 27 45 5 92 29 12 37 15 24 2 2 5 5 18 421
24.5% 6.4% 10.7% 1.2% 21.9% 6.9% 2.9% 8.8% 3.6% 5.7% .5% .5% 1.2% 1.2% 4.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Improved
seed Beehives Seedling Farm tools Sheep Goats Vaccination Chicken Livestock Cow
Vegetable
seeds Cash Silk worm Ox Tools
Inputs provided by CS
Total
Table G41
Gender of respondent * Training provided with support of CS Crosstabulation
44 60 0 13 33 11 6 3 2 14 1 3 0 1 6 2 0 1 1 201
21.9% 29.9% .0% 6.5% 16.4% 5.5% 3.0% 1.5% 1.0% 7.0% .5% 1.5% .0% .5% 3.0% 1.0% .0% .5% .5% 100.0%
10 34 1 3 36 34 0 3 7 15 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 1 0 152
6.6% 22.4% .7% 2.0% 23.7% 22.4% .0% 2.0% 4.6% 9.9% .0% .0% 1.3% .0% 3.3% .0% .7% .7% .0% 100.0%
54 94 1 16 69 45 6 6 9 29 1 3 2 1 11 2 1 2 1 353
15.3% 26.6% .3% 4.5% 19.5% 12.7% 1.7% 1.7% 2.5% 8.2% .3% .8% .6% .3% 3.1% .6% .3% .6% .3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Bee keeping
Agricultural
production Marketing Extension Livestock Poultry Horticulture
Goat
production Silk making
Sheep
production
Use of
improved
seed
Nursery
operation and
management Saving
Animal
fattening Pottery Metal work Forestry Vegetable
Natural
Resource
Training provided with support of CS
Total
112
Table G42
Gender of respondent * As part of the training, did you undertake any study tour?
Crosstabulation
76 154 230
33.0% 67.0% 100.0%
32 150 182
17.6% 82.4% 100.0%
108 304 412
26.2% 73.8% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
As part of the training,
did you undertake any
study tour?
Total
113
Table G43
Gender of respondent * Have the activities resulted in increased production of food for
own consumption? Crosstabulation
210 31 241
87.1% 12.9% 100.0%
164 25 189
86.8% 13.2% 100.0%
374 56 430
87.0% 13.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
resulted in increased
production of food for
own consumption?
Total
114
Table G44
Gender of respondent * Which activity in Q5 has resulted in increased food consumption? Crosstabulation
19 0 67 20 37 28 8 1 8 4 2 3 8 1 0 3 6 0 215
8.8% .0% 31.2% 9.3% 17.2% 13.0% 3.7% .5% 3.7% 1.9% .9% 1.4% 3.7% .5% .0% 1.4% 2.8% .0% 100.0%
4 4 53 34 16 13 9 2 6 1 2 5 7 2 2 0 4 1 165
2.4% 2.4% 32.1% 20.6% 9.7% 7.9% 5.5% 1.2% 3.6% .6% 1.2% 3.0% 4.2% 1.2% 1.2% .0% 2.4% .6% 100.0%
23 4 120 54 53 41 17 3 14 5 4 8 15 3 2 3 10 1 380
6.1% 1.1% 31.6% 14.2% 13.9% 10.8% 4.5% .8% 3.7% 1.3% 1.1% 2.1% 3.9% .8% .5% .8% 2.6% .3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Beekeeping Silk making
Livestock
production Poultry Horticulture
Small scale
irrigation
Sheep
reproduction
Goat
reproduction Training
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Improved
seed
Crop
production
Animal
fattnning Trade Metal work Handicraft 18
Which activity in Q5 has resulted in increased food consumption?
Total
115
Table G45
Gender of respondent * If yes to Q11, has this increased been? Crosstabulation
27 158 39 224
12.1% 70.5% 17.4% 100.0%
37 112 31 180
20.6% 62.2% 17.2% 100.0%
64 270 70 404
15.8% 66.8% 17.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Big Moderate Insignificant
If yes to Q11, has this increased
been?
Total
116
Table G46
Gender of respondent * Have the activities directly increased the amount of cash received
by HH? Crosstabulation
198 41 239
82.8% 17.2% 100.0%
158 31 189
83.6% 16.4% 100.0%
356 72 428
83.2% 16.8% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
directly increased the
amount of cash
received by HH?
Total
117
Table G47
Gender of respondent * Which activity in Q5 has resulted in most increased cash income? Crosstabulation
23 0 66 13 35 21 10 2 3 3 1 4 7 1 0 0 3 6 0
11.6% .0% 33.3% 6.6% 17.7% 10.6% 5.1% 1.0% 1.5% 1.5% .5% 2.0% 3.5% .5% .0% .0% 1.5% 3.0% .0% 100.0%
1 4 52 36 20 9 9 2 1 3 0 3 5 0 1 2 0 4 2
.6% 2.6% 33.8% 23.4% 13.0% 5.8% 5.8% 1.3% .6% 1.9% .0% 1.9% 3.2% .0% .6% 1.3% .0% 2.6% 1.3% 100.0%
24 4 118 49 55 30 19 4 4 6 1 7 12 1 1 2 3 10 2
6.8% 1.1% 33.5% 13.9% 15.6% 8.5% 5.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.7% .3% 2.0% 3.4% .3% .3% .6% .9% 2.8% .6% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Beekeeping Silk making Livestock Poultry Horticulture
Small scale
irrigation
Sheep
production
Goat
production
Assistance
in marketing Training
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Improved
seed
Improved crop
production
Animal
fattening Daily labor Trade Metal work Handicraft Saving
Which activity in Q5 has resulted in most increased cash income?
Total
118
Table G48
Gender of respondent * How significant has the cash increase been? Crosstabulation
21 152 23 196
10.7% 77.6% 11.7% 100.0%
21 121 16 158
13.3% 76.6% 10.1% 100.0%
42 273 39 354
11.9% 77.1% 11.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Big Moderate Insignificant
How significant has the cash increase
been?
Total
119
Table G49
Gender of respondent * If yes to Q14, has the increased cash been used to buy food?
Crosstabulation
145 40 185
78.4% 21.6% 100.0%
103 47 150
68.7% 31.3% 100.0%
248 87 335
74.0% 26.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q14, has the
increased cash been
used to buy food?
Total
Table G50
Gender of respondent * If yes to Q14, has the increased cash been used to purchase HH
assets? Crosstabulation
130 62 192
67.7% 32.3% 100.0%
95 55 150
63.3% 36.7% 100.0%
225 117 342
65.8% 34.2% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q14, has the
increased cash been
used to purchase HH
assets?
Total
120
Table G51
Gender of respondent * Has the increase in production/cash resulted in nutrition
diversification? Crosstabulation
202 36 238
84.9% 15.1% 100.0%
136 50 186
73.1% 26.9% 100.0%
338 86 424
79.7% 20.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Has the increase in
production/cash
resulted in nutrition
diversification?
Total
121
Table G52
Gender of respondent * How long do you expect to remain a beneficiary of the PSNP? Crosstabulation
21 36 66 33 89 245
8.6% 14.7% 26.9% 13.5% 36.3% 100.0%
15 18 50 40 65 188
8.0% 9.6% 26.6% 21.3% 34.6% 100.0%
36 54 116 73 154 433
8.3% 12.5% 26.8% 16.9% 35.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Less than
one year 1 more year 2 more years 3 more years
Longer than
3 more years
How long do you expect to remain a beneficiary of the PSNP?
Total
122
Table G53
Gender of respondent * Have the activities resulted in extra labor demands upon the HH?
Crosstabulation
50 192 242
20.7% 79.3% 100.0%
44 148 192
22.9% 77.1% 100.0%
94 340 434
21.7% 78.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
resulted in extra labor
demands upon the
HH?
Total
Table G54
Gender of respondent * If yes to Q20, have these extra demands been met easily?
Crosstabulation
50 13 63
79.4% 20.6% 100.0%
37 11 48
77.1% 22.9% 100.0%
87 24 111
78.4% 21.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q20, have
these extra demands
been met easily?
Total
123
Table G55
Gender of respondent * If yes to Q20, have these extra demands affected other IGAs?
Crosstabulation
6 61 67
9.0% 91.0% 100.0%
9 42 51
17.6% 82.4% 100.0%
15 103 118
12.7% 87.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
If yes to Q20, have
these extra demands
affected other IGAs?
Total
Table G56
Gender of respondent * Have the activities required extra financial resources to under
take it? Crosstabulation
63 174 237
26.6% 73.4% 100.0%
49 134 183
26.8% 73.2% 100.0%
112 308 420
26.7% 73.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Have the activities
required extra financial
resources to under
take it?
Total
124
Table G57
Gender of respondent * if yes to Q22, what was the source of the extra finance? Crosstabulation
13 24 9 23 69
18.8% 34.8% 13.0% 33.3% 100.0%
7 19 10 20 56
12.5% 33.9% 17.9% 35.7% 100.0%
20 43 19 43 125
16.0% 34.4% 15.2% 34.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
NGO MFI
Relatives/
friends Own
if yes to Q22, what was the source of the extra
finance?
Total
Table G58
Gender of respondent * What are your future plans? Crosstabulation
1 37 101 103 242
.4% 15.3% 41.7% 42.6% 100.0%
0 42 77 73 192
.0% 21.9% 40.1% 38.0% 100.0%
1 79 178 176 434
.2% 18.2% 41.0% 40.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Stop the
activities
Maintain the
activities
Improve the
activities
Expand the
activities
What are your future plans?
Total
125
Table G59
Gender of respondent * If improve or expand the activities, how? Crosstabulation
155 75 3 233
66.5% 32.2% 1.3% 100.0%
108 65 1 174
62.1% 37.4% .6% 100.0%
263 140 4 407
64.6% 34.4% 1.0% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Own
resources Credit Others
If improve or expand the activities,
how?
Total
Table G60
Gender of respondent * Do you know if any HHs in your area have started similar activities following
your example? Crosstabulation
66 98 78 242
27.3% 40.5% 32.2% 100.0%
29 77 83 189
15.3% 40.7% 43.9% 100.0%
95 175 161 431
22.0% 40.6% 37.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes, many Yes, a few No
Do you know if any HHs in your area
have started similar activities
following your example?
Total
126
Table G61
Gender of respondent * As part of the activity, did you join a group or association
promoted by NGO? Crosstabulation
180 54 234
76.9% 23.1% 100.0%
137 51 188
72.9% 27.1% 100.0%
317 105 422
75.1% 24.9% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
As part of the activity,
did you join a group or
association promoted
by NGO?
Total
Table G62
Gender of respondent * Does the group regularly save? Crosstabulation
112 60 172
65.1% 34.9% 100.0%
105 31 136
77.2% 22.8% 100.0%
217 91 308
70.5% 29.5% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Does the group
regularly save?
Total
127
Table G63
Gender of respondent * Does the group undertake credit activities? Crosstabulation
39 108 147
26.5% 73.5% 100.0%
26 100 126
20.6% 79.4% 100.0%
65 208 273
23.8% 76.2% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
Does the group
undertake credit
activities?
Total
Table G64
Gender of respondent * If so, have you borrowed any money? Crosstabulation
18 52 70
25.7% 74.3% 100.0%
12 57 69
17.4% 82.6% 100.0%
30 109 139
21.6% 78.4% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
Yes No
If so, have you
borrowed any money?
Total
128
Table G65
Gender of respondent * Average increase in net HH income (birr/month) Crosstabulation
42 54 104 200
21.0% 27.0% 52.0% 100.0%
46 41 62 149
30.9% 27.5% 41.6% 100.0%
88 95 166 349
25.2% 27.2% 47.6% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
<=16 birr
16.01 -
50.00 birr >=50 birr
Average increase in net HH income
(birr/month)
Total
Table G66
Gender of respondent * Members Average saving (birr/month) Crosstabulation
25 33 53 111
22.5% 29.7% 47.7% 100.0%
29 38 37 104
27.9% 36.5% 35.6% 100.0%
54 71 90 215
25.1% 33.0% 41.9% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
<=1.25 birr
1.26 - 2.
00 birr >=2 birr
Members Average saving
(birr/month)
Total
129
Table G67
Gender of respondent * Amount HH borrowed so far (birr) Crosstabulation
3 9 6 18
16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 100.0%
4 4 4 12
33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 100.0%
7 13 10 30
23.3% 43.3% 33.3% 100.0%
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Count
% within Gender
of respondent
Male
Female
Gender of respondent
Total
<=47.50 birr
47.51 -
100.00 birr >=100.00 birr
Amount HH borrowed so far (birr)
Total
130
Table G68 
Activities carried out under PSNP? * Assistance HH received? Crosstabulation
37 22 2 0 0 61
60.7 36.1 3.3 .0% .0% 100.0
8 2 0 1 0 11
72.7
%
18.2
%
.0% 9.1
%
.0% 100.0
%
11
3
83 7 6 4 21
3
53.1 39.0 3.3 2.8 1.9 100.0
24 66 4 2 11 10
7
22.4
%
61.7
%
3.7
%
1.9
%
10.3
%
100.0
%
41 35 14 5 4 99
41.4 35.4 14.1 5.1 4.0 100.0
26 25 15 4 8 78
33.3
%
32.1
%
19.2
%
5.1
%
10.3
%
100.0
%
0 2 0 0 0 2
.0% 100.0
%
.0% .0% .0% 100.0
%
14 10 0 0 1 25
56.0 40.0 .0% .0% 4.0 100.0
1 1
0 0 0 2
50.0
%
50.0
%
.0% .0% .0% 100.0
%
9 9 2 1 2 23
39.1
%
39.1
%
8.7
%
4.3
%
8.7
%
100.0
%
2 2 0 0 0 4
50.0
%
50.0
%
.0% .0% .0% 100.0
%
10 2 1 0 0 13
76.9 15.4 7.7 .0% .0% 100.0
1 0 4 0 1 6
16.7
%
.0% 66.7
%
.0% 16.7
%
100.0
%
3 1 1 0 0 5
60.0 20.0 20.0 .0% .0% 100.0
1 1 0 0 0 2
50.0
%
50.0
%
.0% .0% .0% 100.0
%
29
0
26
1
50 19 31 65
1
44.5
%
40.1
%
7.7
%
2.9
%
4.8
%
100.0
%
Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PCouSNP?
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
carried out under 
Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activitie carried out under s
PSNP? Cou
% within Type 
productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
PSNP? Cou
nt % within Type 
of productive or IG 
activities carried out under 
Bee 
Silk 
making
Livestock 
Poultry 
farming
Horticulture 
Small scale 
irrigation
Vegetable 
growing
Sheep 
Goat 
production
Crop 
Improvted 
seed
Handicr
Ense
t
Metal 
work
Savin
g
Type 
productive 
or IG 
activities carried 
out unde
rPSN
Tota
l
Provisio
nsof Trainin
Assistanc
ein 
savings group
Assistanc
in e
Assistance 
incooperati
veformati
Assistance HH received in developing 
productive/IG activities?
Tota
131
Type of productive or IG activities carried out under PSNP? * Which type of assistance was most helpful? Crosstabulation
11 16 4 2 7 1 5 1 0 0 0
21.6% 31.4% 7.8% 3.9% 13.7% 2.0% 9.8% 2.0% .0% .0% .0% 7.8%
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 25.0%
55 55 10 10 25 1 0 4 1 1 2
31.6% 31.6% 5.7% 5.7% 14.4% .6% .0% 2.3% .6% .6% 1.1% 5.7%
12 24 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 11 1
22.2% 44.4% 1.9% 1.9% 3.7% .0% .0% .0% 1.9% 20.4% 1.9% 1.9%
14 13 4 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 4
28.6% 26.5% 8.2% .0% 24.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.0% 8.2% 2.0%
9 12 3 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 1
23.1% 30.8% 7.7% .0% 25.6% 7.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.6% .0%
10 5 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0
47.6% 23.8% 4.8% .0% 9.5% .0% .0% 14.3% .0% .0% .0% .0%
0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0% 66.7% .0% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
1 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.1% 18.2% .0% .0% 63.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
2 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.4% 46.2% .0% 38.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0% .0% .0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.0% 75.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0%
119 139 23 19 66 5 5 8 2 13 8
27.6% 32.3% 5.3% 4.4% 15.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.9% .5% 3.0% 1.9% 4.2%
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Count
% within Type of
productive or IG activities
carried out under PSNP?
Bee keeping
Silk making
Livestock production
Poultry farming
Horticulture growing
Small scale irrigation
Sheep production
Goat production
Crop production
Improvted seed
Handicraft
Enset
Metal work
Saving
Type of
productive or
IG activities
carried out
under
PSNP?
Total
Provisions
of inputs Training
Assistance
in savings
groups
Assistance
in marketing
Assistance in
cooperative
formation
Small scale
irrigation Beekeeping
Sheep
production
Goat
production Poultry Vegetable
Animal
husbandry
Which type of assistance was most helpful?