1 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT FOR 
STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA PROJECT 
(SPRING) 
FINAL 
Submitted by: 
Kenwill International Limited 
Submitted to: 
SPRING/USAID Kampala 
Contract No.: 
617-C-00-08-00007-00 
April 2010 
This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Kenwill 
International Ltd., and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the United States Government or 
Emerging Market Groups Limited. 
i 
Table of Contents 
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 SPRING Mid-Term Review ............................................................................................... 3
1.3 Evaluation Methodology ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Evaluation Design ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................ 4
1.3.3 Data collection Methodology .............................................................................................. 4
1.3.4 Evaluation Challenges ........................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Report Layout ..................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER TWO: EVALUATION FINDINGS ........................................................................... 6
2.1 Assessment of Progress towards Attainment of Project Results ........................................ 6
2.1.1 Peace Building and Reconciliation Component ................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Economic Security and Social Inclusion .......................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Access to Justice ............................................................................................................... 15
2.1.4 Progress towards Attainment of SPRING Aim/Purpose .................................................. 18
2.2 Integration of Cross-cutting Issues ................................................................................... 19
2.2.1 Children and Youths ......................................................................................................... 19
2.2.2 Re-integration of Ex-combatants ...................................................................................... 19
2.2.3 Environment ...................................................................................................................... 19
2.2.4 Land .................................................................................................................................. 20
2.2.5 Geographic and Ethnic Divisions ..................................................................................... 20
2.2.6 Linking Grass Roots to National Processes ...................................................................... 20
2.2.7 Project Communication Activities .................................................................................... 21
2.2.7 Anti-Corruption................................................................................................................. 22
2.2.8 Mainstreaming of Gender ................................................................................................. 22
2.3 SPRING Integration Model .............................................................................................. 23
2.4 Assessment of quality of project management practices .................................................. 24
2.4.1 Effectiveness of Project Management Structures ............................................................. 24
2.4.2 Grant Management Processes ........................................................................................... 26
2.4.3 Assessment of Quality and Appropriateness of the Performance Monitoring Plan ......... 27
2.4.4 Communication with USAID and Local Development Partners ...................................... 28
2.4.5 Systems for Tracking Funding Streams ............................................................................ 28
CHAPTER THREE: CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
29
3.1 Progress towards Anticipated Outcomes .......................................................................... 29
3.1.1 Peace and Reconciliation .................................................................................................. 29
3.1.2 Economic Security and Social Inclusion .......................................................................... 30
3.1.3 Access to Justice ............................................................................................................... 31
3.2 Cross Cutting Issues .......................................................................................................... 33
3.2.1 Special Considerations and Crosscutting Issues ............................................................... 33
3.3 Communication ................................................................................................................. 33
ii 
3.3 SPRING Model ................................................................................................................. 33
3.4 Project Management ......................................................................................................... 35
3.4.1 Quality of Project Management ........................................................................................ 35
3.4.2 Effectiveness and Efficiency Grants Management Process .............................................. 36
3.4.3 Performance Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................... 36
3.4.4 Communication to USAID and Local Development Partners .......................................... 36
3.5 Overall Conclusion and Recommendation ....................................................................... 37
Reference Materials ...................................................................................................................... 39
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Annex 1: SPRING Stability Fund and AVSI Sub-grants ............................................................. 40
Annex 2: Evaluation Data Collection Tools ................................................................................. 43
Annex 3: Progress towards Planned Targets for Economic Security Component ........................ 60
Annex 4: SPRING’s Contribution to PRDP ................................................................................. 62
Annex 5: MTE Information on SPRING Communication Activities……………………………63
Annex 6: Number of farmers by vulnerability .............................................................................. 65
iii 
Abbreviations 
ACADOS : Aids Clients and Disabled Orphans Support 
ADFA : Apac District Farmers Association 
ARLPI : Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative 
AVSI : AVSI Foundation (Italy-based International NGO) 
COTR : Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative 
CPA : Concerned Parents Association 
CPAR : Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief 
CRR : Centre for Reparations and Rehabilitation 
CSM : Conflict-Sensitive Mainstreaming 
DLGs : District Local Governments 
EMG : Emerging Markets Group 
GLACCR : Great Lakes Centre for Conflict Resolution 
IRC : International Rescue Committee 
IEE : Initial Environmental Examination 
IPs : Implementing Partners 
IR : Intermediate Results 
KKA : Ker Kwaro Acholi 
KSWVO : Kisa Ber War Victims Support Organization 
LRA : Lord’s Resistance Army 
MTE : Mid-Term Evaluation 
MTR : Mid-Term Review 
NECPA : North East Chili Producers Association 
PMP : Performance Monitoring Plan 
PRDP : Peace Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda 
SO9 : Strategic Objective 9 
SPRING : Stability Peace and Reconciliation In Northern Uganda Project 
STF : Straight Talk Foundation 
UMECS : United Movement to End Child Soldering 
USAID : United States Agency for International Development 
USG : United States Government 
VSLAs : Village Savings and Loan Associations 
DA : Development Assistance 
DCOF : Displaced Children and Orphans Fund 
ESF : Economic Support Funds 
LC : Local Council 
FGD : Focus Group Discussions 
USD : United States Dollar 
UGX : Ugandan Shillings 
WACFO : Women and Children First Organization 
iv 
Acknowledgments 
This publication has been made possible through contributions of different stakeholders. Kenwill 
International Limited (KENWILL) therefore extends her appreciation to USAID and SPRING 
for entrusting her with and funding the SPRING mid-term evaluation assignment. Special thanks 
also go to SPRING Team for their input in designing, organizing and coordinating the 
evaluation, implementing partners for mobilizing farmers and participating in evaluation data 
collection processes. 
KENWILL also wishes to thank communities (beneficiaries) and different local government 
officials that agreed to participate in the evaluation processes. 
Special thanks also go to the SPRING Evaluation Team comprising consultants, KENWILL 
projects staff, and research assistants for successfully carrying out the evaluation. 
We thank you all for your valuable contributions and hope that the evaluation report will be a 
key step and resource for facilitating development of communities in Northern Uganda 
Robert Waswaga 
Team Leader 
Kenwill International Limited 
v 
Executive Summary 
This document is a mid-term evaluation for Stability, Peace, and Reconciliation in Northern 
Uganda (SPRING). SPRING is a USAID funded project which commenced with the signing of 
the contract on 13 December 2007 and will end on 13 December 2010. The project mitigates 
causes and consequences of conflict through stability, peace and reconciliation. The project 
contributes to USAID Uganda Mission strategic objective number nine (SO9) for a more 
peaceful environment and improved governance through its intermediate results. A mid-term 
evaluation of SPRING, a contractual obligation, was commissioned to assess progress towards 
intended results, identify areas for improvement, and highlight potential areas of intervention by 
USAID mission. Key findings from the mid-term evaluation are presented hereunder: 
Key Achievements by SPRING 
The overall assessment shows that SPRING is on course to achieve most of its targets and 
results. The evaluation shows that USG investment in northern Uganda communities through 
SPRING is a worthwhile venture which, if continued, will result in future resilience for the 
communities in northern Uganda. By the time of the evaluation, the project had registered 
different results which were being felt and enjoyed by beneficiaries. Some of the targets set in 
the PMP have already been realized. Below are key achievements of SPRING: 
Peace and Reconciliation 
 The PMP target for increased positive relations between communities in the north is 91 
percent and the evaluation reports 88 percent. The difference is not statistically significant, 
implying that this target is already attained. 
 The indicator of personal security (safety of property) has already exceeded its PM target of 
75 percent by 4 percentage points. 
 Structures that will significantly increase cooperation and information sharing between all 
three spheres of individual, household, and community levels have been achieved. 
 Through integration with the economic sector, SPRING has established impressive 
frameworks for effective community relations practices resulting in positive engagement 
between members of farmer groups and the various community agencies representing the 
needs of resettling communities. 
 The indicator of improved positive relations targets 96 percent by March 2010 and this survey 
indicates that 80 percent of sampled respondents feel so. 
 About 36 percent of sampled farmers reported that SPRING groups have helped them to cope 
with effects of the war. 
 The Peace Education program has contributed to the development of the national curriculum 
and policy development. 
 Twenty eight (28) organizations have been trained in conflict sensitivity programming. 
 480 facilitated events geared towards strengthening under-standing among conflict affected 
groups have been carried out. 
 This evaluation predicts that the recommended investment in the SPRING program will be 
repaid many times in terms of community harmony and the consequent potentially massive 
financial savings that can accrue from the unique arrangement of social infrastructure the 
programs have created that allows district and community agencies to work holistically 
together in strengthening local communities. 
vi 
Economic Security 
 About 66 percent of sampled farmers have experienced increases in productivity of different 
SPRING supported agricultural enterprises. Overall, productivity of SPRING supported 
enterprises has increased by 59 percent, while income or revenues from sale of such crops 
has doubled (98.7%) over the last two harvest seasons. 
 Thirty five (35) marketing committees have been formed and are supporting farmers to 
access markets and earn better prices for their produce. About 39 percent of farmers market 
their produce through marketing committees, while 27 percent market through farmer 
groups. 
 The concept of savings continues to grow among farmer groups. About 70 percent of 
sampled farmers are participating in village savings and loan association through saving and 
borrowing. Savings have been instrumental in helping families meet urgent household needs. 
 SPRING/AVSI’s support to microenterprises through business loans and vocational training 
have yielded the following benefits: i) business expansion, ii) ability to afford three meals per 
day for family members, iii) increased unity and harmony in the family, iv) ability to afford 
medical treatment for children and v) purchase of household items. Veterinary services and 
products have been taken closer to rural farmers through opening up veterinary businesses 
through the SPRING UVA Livestock Health Promotion project, increased capacity of 
veterinarians to offer technical field follow-up visits. 
Access to Justice 
 SPRING has enhanced land tenure security for her economic security beneficiaries. All 
sampled farmers (99.6%) were confident that their rights as a group to the acquired land 
where SPRING warehouses are situated were free from any outside interference and as such 
they have not had any dispute since the signing of the agreements. About 22 farmers 
supported through NECPA in Minakulu, Ngai and Otwal Sub-Counties have registered and 
acquired certificates of customary ownership for their lands with Sub-County authorities. 
 95% of SPRING farmers are aware of their land rights. 
 SPRING and CRR had carried out eight mobile legal aid clinics, referred 58 cases, and 
successfully mediated three land disputes. 
 Some farmers supported by NECPA have acquired loans from banks to further their 
economic activities using land certificates. The certificates were acquired after receiving 
information and advice on registering land under customary ownership through CRR. 
Impact on Children 
 The findings of the SPRING Child Impact report conducted in September of 2009 are 
validated by the MTE findings which show that SPRING farmers are able to respect their 
children’s rights such as access to food and better nutrition and education, health and other 
development needs. 
 Parents have been able to take their children to school by using proceeds from enterprises 
supported by SPRING as well as meet medical expenses for their children. Evidence from 
SPRING monitoring information shows 83 percent are able to meet medical expenses for 
their children and 84 percent of school going-age children (7-18) are enrolled in schools. 
vii 
 SPRING is supporting the Concerned Parents Association (CPA) and the Women and 
Children First Organization (WACFO) to implement projects that promote child care self 
support groups. 
 Supported farmers have been able to provide food for their family members, including 
children through consuming part of the harvests or using farm income to purchase food items 
 SPRING has empowered youth with vocational skills which have enabled them to employ 
themselves and earn income for supporting their families. 
 The unity and cooperation created in working in groups is invaluable to children as it 
promotes safety, security, and general wellbeing within their environments. Children are 
learning how to relate to others through the modeling of their social environments, so their 
chances of developing positive interaction skills are greatly enhanced. 
Challenges and Gaps 
 Short project timeframe has affected all activities of the project as some activities need to be 
implemented over a reasonable time (at least 2-3 years) for project management and results to 
be well felt by communities. Below are some of the major examples highlighted in the report: 
o Peace and reconciliation activities are not necessarily short- term impact activities. 
Behavior change requires a lot of complex processes and initiatives and the short 
duration of the SPRING project limits the achievability of the outcomes. The short 
term funding of the projects may impact on the ability of SPRING IPs to attract and 
retain suitably qualified and experienced staff that could be engaged on future projects. 
o Sustained support (training on roles and management) of marketing committees is 
critical for CMCs to effectively play their roles. More follow up and capacity building 
is needed for CMCs to effectively bulk and collectively market their produce. 
o The feasible timeline to realize enhanced animal productivity is two years, and the 
SPRING UVA project life span was cited to be extremely too short. 
 Prolonged dry spell in northern Uganda has negatively affected crops and yields. 
 Delayed process of signing memorandum of understanding with District Local Government 
has delayed commencement of project activities. 
 Lack of shared understanding on integration within SPRING Team and Implementing 
Partners and lack of a strong integration strategy at the beginning of the project curtailed 
level of integration at the very beginning of the project. 
 The PMP has been overtaken by change in the project strategy to where some indicators are 
not very relevant to the current project strategy and activities. 
 There is lack of regular communication between SPRING and district local governments. 
 Lack of organizational capacity of local implementing partners has required more capacity 
building support from SPRING slowing down and prolonging planned implementation 
timelines. 
Recommendations 
Against the above background, SPRING should improve different management practices and 
processes and focus her efforts to ensuring integration of different activities and monitoring 
progress against planned results and performance targets. The capacity of partners to 
successfully integrate the project will be greatly enhanced if management develops a stronger 
integration strategy to guide the project over the remaining period of the project. 
viii 
Future Interventions 
SPRING is on track to meet its targets set in the performance monitoring plan. While a six 
months extension could lead to greater impacts that are more widely felt by SPRING 
beneficiaries it is not tenable within the current contractual arrangements. USAID should 
therefore design another phase of the project focusing on economic development of communities 
in northern Uganda since there is ample evidence showing that communities are at the point of 
development. The new intervention should follow the same model of integration with economic 
security being the fulcrum of integration; with peace, reconciliation and access to justice 
supporting development activities. Peace and reconciliation are critical for a community which is 
emerging from conflict as demonstrated by the current SPRING project. However, as 
communities embark on economic development, it is only logical that economic security takes 
centre stage. Reasonable time (at least five years) should be dedicated to implementation of such 
projects to facilitate proper project implementation and overseeing of different changes attributed 
to the project. The areas of focus for peace building and justice are highlighted below: 
Peace Building and Reconciliation 
 Emphasis should be placed on peace activities that target entire households (children, 
husband, wife and the community). 
 Capacity building of IPs and local governments in conflict resolution should be enhanced. 
 Aligning economy with peace should be expanded to formal and informal business sectors as 
well as households. This should be extended to USG economic development interventions at 
household level as well. Therefore it is recommended to scale up similar intervention such as 
the International Alert, “Building A Peace Economy” project. 
 Unpacking ‘P’ in PRDP activities should be expanded to Karamoja and Teso regions to 
address spillover efforts of the LRA conflict to these regions. The recommendations from the 
research taken during the current and future phases should be reviewed and adopted to 
implement a peace project targeting different stakeholders beyond the PRDP timeframe. 
 The peace education project should be reviewed and expanded to all education institutions in 
northern Uganda. Better planning and supervision ought to be carried out to improve project 
efficiency and effectiveness. 
 Conflict sensitive mainstreaming should be an on-going activity for USAID partners and 
should be tailor-made to different contexts of supported partners. 
 More resources need to go into conflict assessment and supervisory visits by GLACCR to 
ensure that the training has been translated into change. 
 Local Governments should be supported in the same area since they (Local Governments) 
oversee and directly take charge of programming and development issues within the district. 
Access to Justice 
 The land tenure security project and mobile clinics should be scaled-up to reach individual 
farmers in more sub-counties and parishes in northern Uganda. 
 The cooperation between the formal and informal justice systems should be strengthened. 
1 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 
This chapter presents a brief project description and background to the SPRING mid-term 
evaluation, evaluation methodology and report layout. 
1.1 Project Background 
The United States Government (USG) has been working with the Government of Uganda (GoU) 
to ensure peace and security, good governance, access to social services, economic growth, and 
humanitarian assistance in northern Uganda. In August 2004, the U.S. Congress passed the 
Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act which calls upon the USG to support efforts for a just and 
lasting peaceful resolution of the conflict. To meet that objective, the Stability, Peace and 
Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING) project was designed and launched by United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2007. SPRING is an integrated 
program to promote peace and stability in northern Uganda. SPRING supports the Government 
of Uganda’s priority to establish the conditions for a transition from relief to recovery and 
development for northern Uganda as outlined in the Peace, Recovery, and Development Plan for 
Northern Uganda (PRDP) and the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP).
The purpose of SPRING is to address the causes and consequences of violent conflict in northern 
Uganda in order to promote stability, peace, and reconciliation. The purpose of the project is to 
be fulfilled by reducing conflict; preventing the escalation of social, economic, and political 
tensions; and strengthening institutions for the promotion of peace and reconciliation. SPRING 
falls under the USAID mission’s Strategic Objective (SO) 9, More Peaceful Environment and 
Improved Governance, structured as a crosscutting SO. SPRING supported core activities fall 
under three components each with a program goal and expected outcomes (intermediate results) 
that contribute to SO9 as presented hereunder: 
Component 1. Peace-Building and Reconciliation: The goal for this component is “Ugandan 
capacity to mitigate conflict and promote peace and reconciliation increased.” The expected 
outcomes for this component include: (i) institutional framework for reconciliation strengthened, 
(ii) local, district, and regional reconciliation mechanisms supported; (iii) access to accurate and 
reliable information increased; and, (iv) conflict sensitivity mainstreamed into USAID 
programming in northern Uganda. 
Component 2. Economic Security and Social Inclusion: Economic security and social 
inclusion enhancement among vulnerable and conflict-affected populations, including 
demonstrated benefits for vulnerable children is the component objective. Anticipated outcomes 
of component activities are: (i) increased access to and adoption of economic opportunities in 
conflict-affected areas; and, (ii) broad-based civic participation expanded. 
Component 3. Access to Justice: The access to justice component envisages improved access to 
justice by vulnerable and conflict-affected populations while its intended outcomes include: (i) 
access to legal aid and dispute resolution by vulnerable and conflict-affected populations 
increased; and, (ii) awareness of human rights and land/property rights increased. 
2 
Besides the three core components, SPRING has mainstreamed cross-cutting themes in its 
implementation. In some cases, special interventions have been supported by SPRING to address 
specific issues related to some of these cross-cutting themes. The cross-cutting themes include 
youths, land, geographical and ethnic divisions, and linkages between Grassroots Processes and 
National Level Processes, gender, environmental concerns and anti-corruption. 
Project Implementation Strategy 
Emerging Markets Group (EMG) (principal contractor) in partnership with (sub-contractors) 
Cardno Agrisystems, AVSI and Straight Talk Foundation Uganda (STFU) manage project 
implementation on behalf of USAID. The four organizations are referred to as “SPRING Team”. 
Cardno Agrisystems provides technical support for peace building and access to justice 
component, AVSI takes lead in implementing activities for addressing priorities of vulnerable 
youths, while STF manages project communication activities. 
Program activities are implemented by SPRING Team and Implementing Partners (IPs). 
SPRING designs and awards short-term quick impact grants to IPs and closely works with them 
to ensure proper implementation and attainment of project objectives. A request for applications 
is normally issued out for local and international organizations to submit their applications to 
SPRING office in Gulu. A pre-award survey is conducted among potentially successful 
applicants to ascertain their preparedness in managing a sub-grant and ability to adhere to grant 
management policies and guidelines. The SPRING 
Gulu Office prepares Memorandum of Negotiations (MONs) for successful applicants and 
submits them to USAID for approval before issuing of award letters and signing of sub-grant 
contracts. A total of 28 sub-grants comprising of 18 economic security, seven reconciliation and 
peace building, and three access to justice grants had been awarded by the time of the review 
(Annex 1). 
Furthermore, the current strategy involves using farmer groups as a focal point for integration of 
project activities. Farming households that are benefiting from economic security grants are also 
targeted for peace and access to justice activities. 
Target Areas and Groups 
SPRING is implemented in six districts. The six districts include four Acholi region districts of 
Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader and two Lango districts of Lira and Oyam. Economic security 
grants are being implemented in 15 sub-counties in all targeted districts. The sub-counties 
targeted by SPRING activities are: Atiak and Pabbo in Amuru district; Lakwana and Lalogi in 
Gulu district; Adwari, Okwang and Orum in Lira district; Minakulu, Ngai and Otwal in Oyam 
district; and Acholibur, Lira Palwo and Puranga in Pader district. Most of the peace building and 
access to justice activities are district-wide, though a deliberate effort by IPs has been made to 
ensure that sub-counties targeted for economic security are also targeted for the two components 
for proper integration of activities. 
SPRING direct beneficiaries include farmer households working in farming groups, farmer 
groups, secondary school teachers and students, out of school youths, investors and the local 
business community, IPs, and USAID partners. Indirect beneficiaries include members of the 
general public that have benefited from communication activities as well as community members 
3 
who will use the marketing centers (stores and processing equipment) constructed by SPRING 
in targeted sub-counties. 
1.2 SPRING Mid-Term Review 
Background 
The SPRING contract was signed in December 2007; implementation commenced in January 
2008 with preparatory work; award of sub-grants to different implementing partners commenced 
in November 2008 and ended in December 2009. SPRING has reached its mid-term point and as 
a key requirement of the contract, a Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) has been carried out by 
Kenwill International Limited (KENWILL). 
Evaluation Objectives 
SPRING MTE objectives were fivefold, namely: 
i) To examine and identify the impacts or effects/results registered and being felt by 
beneficiaries (individuals and institutions); 
ii) To assess the extent to which the project is progressing towards attaining its objectives 
corresponding to the three components; 
iii) To assess the extent to which special considerations have been promoted by or integrated into 
project implementation; 
iv) To assess the quality of project design (model) and management practices; 
v) To make appropriate recommendations for improving future project design (model), 
management and realization of project anticipated impacts. 
Expected Outputs 
Four deliverables were expected from the evaluation as presented hereunder: 
1. An inception report to be reviewed by USAID and SPRING. The report will include: 
i) Detailed work plan with a timeline for each evaluation activity to be undertaken, 
including field work. 
ii) Methodology. 
iii) Team composition and roles. 
2. MTR Report Outline 
3. Oral debriefing to USAID, to present key findings, conclusions and recommendations prior 
to submission of draft report. 
4. Draft evaluation report in both hard copies (5) and one electronic copy for review by USAID. 
5. Submission of final report in both hard copies (5) and one electronic copy incorporating 
feedback from USAID. 
Evaluation Stakeholders and Results Users 
The evaluation enlisted participation from different categories of stakeholders. These included: 
SPRING IPs, USAID officials and partners working in northern Uganda, individual farmers, 
farmer groups, marketing committees, Local Government officials (Resident District 
Commissioners, District Planners, District and Sub-county Community Development Officers, 
District and Sub-county Production Coordinators, Sub-County Chiefs and LCIII Chairpersons) 
and SPRING Team. 
4 
The intended audiences for the SPRING MTE results are: USAID officials, SPRING Team, IPs, 
and Government of Uganda. 
Tasks Accomplished 
The consultant team carried out a comprehensive review of documents, prepared an inception 
report and discussed it with SPRING Team, then made adjustments to it, trained data collectors, 
pre-tested and improved beneficiaries’ questionnaire and focus group discussion guides and 
collected data with the help of research assistants from the project area. The consultants also 
processed, cleaned and analyzed data to compile a draft SPRING MTE report which was 
submitted to SPRING and USAID for comments. 
1.3 Evaluation Methodology 
1.3.1 Evaluation Design 
A mixed evaluation design was adopted, which consisted of adopting a before (baseline) and 
after project (mid-term) evaluation design without a control group on one hand, and one-shot 
evaluation design on another hand. A before-and-after evaluation design without a control group 
involved determining the magnitude and direction of project benefits (impacts/effects) on 
beneficiaries as mirrored by result indicators in SPRING Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). 
One-shot evaluation was used to assess different aspects (project management, assessment of the 
model) of the project as at the time of the evaluation and in regard to what is expected. 
1.3.2 Sampling Procedure 
A multi-stage sampling procedure was adopted to select IPs, districts and sub-counties of 
operation and farmer groups using different methods. First step involved purposive selecting all 
seven IPs for reconciliation and peace building, five for economic security, and three for access 
to justice. This was followed by selecting three districts (Amuru, Gulu and Oyam) and four sub￾counties (Atiak, Lakwana, Minakulu and Otwal) where economic security IPs implement their 
activities and farmer groups benefiting from SPRING activities are located. Farmer groups were 
selected using cluster sampling technique. All farmers in a given selected farmer group were 
interviewed to capture information on the three components and project communication 
activities. 
It is important to note that besides IPs implementing economic security projects, IPs of peace and 
justice components were implementing district-wide activities. The Evaluation Team therefore 
interviewed some beneficiaries from these partners in focus group discussions held in Gulu 
district to gauge their level of interaction with, and benefit from, these two components. 
1.3.3 Data collection Methodology 
Data was collected using a combination of methods and tools. It consisted of interviewing 294 
farmers benefiting from SPRING activities and 27 key informants (Local Government officials, 
IPs and SPRING Team), and holding 11 focus group discussions with different categories of 
stakeholders (4 FGDs with farmer groups, 3 FGDs with marketing committees, 2 FGDs with 
youths, 1 FGD for teachers, and 1 FGD for veterinarians). A comprehensive document review 
was also carried out prior to, during and after field work. Data was collected using structured 
5 
questionnaires, focus group discussion guides and key informant interview guides for different 
categories of respondents (Annex). 
1.3.4 Evaluation Challenges 
The evaluation team faced the following challenges: 
 Most of the grants/projects under peace and justice components commenced implementation 
in the second half of 2009. In fact, some partners had just signed grant agreements. It was 
therefore challenging to evaluate progress towards results for some of these projects and 
more especially the entire peace and reconciliation component. The evaluation team assessed 
the soundness of these projects and how they are contributing, or plan to contribute, to the 
component goal1
. Additionally, beneficiaries of economic security were requested to give 
feedback on peace and justice activities as part of the integration process. 
 It was challenging to link and measure contribution for some of the peace and access to 
justice projects to component results and indicators as such activities reflected change in 
project strategy which had not been reflected by the original project monitoring performance 
plan. 
 The SPRING MTE scope of work grossly underestimated the level of effort for carrying out 
the entire exercise. The evaluation team spent more time on the exercise than anticipated. 
 Some members of the Evaluation Team fell sick immediately after field work. This delayed 
the process of completing the report in time. An extension of submission date was sought and 
granted to enable the team complete the report. 
1.5 Report Layout 
The report is organized in three parts. Part one presents preliminary information for the 
evaluation. This is followed by part two which is the main body of the report. It has three sub￾sections comprising of an introduction (brief project description, mid-term review issues, 
methodology and report layout), chapter two which presents MTE findings, and chapter three 
which presents conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations. Annexes are the third and last 
part of the report, which present additional supportive information for the evaluation. 
 
1
 This was possible for projects on which sufficient information was gathered. 
6 
CHAPTER TWO: EVALUATION FINDINGS 
This chapter presents evaluation findings along five key evaluation themes. These themes 
include i) assessment of progress towards planned results, ii) SPRING integration model, iii) 
mainstreaming of crosscutting issues, iv) project management practices v) and recommendations 
for future project designs. Key evaluation findings are presented highlighting key achievements, 
strengths and areas for improvement. Findings on each theme are presented hereunder. 
2.1 Assessment of Progress towards Attainment of Project Results 
2.1.1 Peace Building and Reconciliation Component 
The intermediate result of the component is “to enhance Ugandan capacity to mitigate conflict 
and promote peace and reconciliation increased.” The peace and reconciliation component has 
seven Stability Fund projects which started during the second half of 2009. The share of peace 
projects in the overall SPRING Stability Fund is 34.13 percent which is equivalent to USD 
1,060,052. Many of these partners had just started implementing their activities and some were 
preparing to start implementation. 
Evaluation Focus and Approach
Due to limited implementation of peace and reconciliation projects, the evaluation team was 
constrained in assessing the different behavioral changes or outcomes taking place within the 
community as a result of these project activities. Although Stability Fund projects for peace and 
reconciliation were very relevant, it was challenging to directly link them to outcome and output 
indicators presented by the SPRING PMP. The evaluation therefore assessed the different 
projects supported under the component to determine their viability, logic and partners’ capacity 
to successfully implement the activities. Comments on a selection of peace projects that were 
evaluated are presented below. 
Program Progress and Key Evaluation Findings 
The impressive proposed plans for the Peace and Reconciliation component to create and 
strengthen social fabric have more than justified the investment by USAID which, if continued, 
will result in future resilience for the communities in northern Uganda. Specifically, the Peace 
and Reconciliation component has: 
 Achieved structures that will significantly increase cooperation and information sharing 
between all three spheres of individual, household and community levels; 
 Through integration with the economic security sector, SPRING has established impressive 
frameworks for effective community relations practice resulting in positive engagement 
between members of farmer groups and the various community agencies representing the 
needs of resettling communities; 
 Through International Alert, it has created and empowered business community groups to 
become a “driving force” in engaging with investors and other service providers to achieve 
enhanced services and peace for local communities; 
 Through the Peace Education program, it has contributed to the development of the 
national curriculum and policy development. 
7 
 Through local organizations like the Great Lakes Centre for Conflict Resolution 
(GLACCR), SPRING increased the capacity of IPs to be conflict sensitive in their 
programming. 
Keys to successful Peace and Reconciliation program implementations 
 The Director of Peace and Justice Programs position is vital to the strategic development and 
direction of the program by energizing the program, providing leadership and support to IPs 
and staff in implementation strategies, work planning, priority setting and evaluation of 
outcomes. 
 Political support is vital for Peace and Reconciliation to be sustained. Most local leaders 
acknowledge the need for Peace programs but feel that right now the priority is economic 
development. In this regard there is a need to foster wider awareness at the political level of 
the benefits achieved to date by SPRING and of the potential economic and social 
contribution that the programs can deliver in the years ahead. 
 There is need to ensure that the programs can attract and retain sufficient numbers of high￾quality staff. 
Barriers to successful Peace and Reconciliation program implementations 
Despite the program’s successes to date, this evaluation identified certain elements of the 
program that limit the potential for full impact. Programmatic limitations are related to: 
 The late start for peace and justice projects meant a compromise on the implementation 
period for grants that really should have been longer. Ideally, peace and justice projects need 
to be implemented over an extended period of time, because the activities are usually 
working with latent conflicts that require the unpacking of root causes and addressing of 
behavior change at the individual and community level. 
 Uncertainty in terms of targets and poor timing of some project activities. For example 
unpacking “P” in PRDP project is commendable but what happens to results from its research 
since SPRING will be ending in December 2010. 
 Challenges of integration as stated under the section on integration and limited capacity of 
IPs. 
 Peace and reconciliation are not necessarily short- term impact activities. Behavior change 
requires a lot of back and forth processes and initiatives and the short duration of the SPRING 
project limits the achievability of the outcomes. 
 The short term funding of the projects may impact on the ability of IPs to attract and retain 
suitably qualified and experienced staff. The short term nature of funded projects does not 
provide adequate time for training staff, implementing and applying robust practice 
frameworks. 
 There is an assumption that IPs are themselves well versed with issues of peace. Engagement 
with some of the partners showed that they do have a lot of local knowledge of the 
communities but this did not directly translate into peace-building skills and practice. 
 There is lack of awareness by some key decision makers amongst the implementing partners 
of the underlying need and importance of taking an integrated approach to development. Most 
respondents looked at the SPRING funding as enabling them to continue with their own 
existing programs or “business as usual” without innovation to achieving results. 
8 
Assessment Findings on Sampled Peace Projects 
The evaluation team assessed four out of seven sampled peace projects. The team was not able to 
access sufficient information on the remaining three IPs as most staff members for these IPs 
were new and did not have adequate information on all assessment issues. A brief project 
description and strengths and areas for improvement for assessed projects are highlighted below. 
Peace Education by UMECS Phase Implementation 
Program Description and Strengths Remarks/Recommendations 
The implementation of the Peace Education program is 
the brain child of the United Movement to End Child 
Soldiering (UMECS). The goal is to mainstream peace 
education, guidance and counseling through the national 
education and teacher training systems. 
At the time of the evaluation, UMECS had just 
completed its first induction of 88 teachers who will be 
involved in the pilot project in seven secondary schools 
in the different districts. The activities that were due 
were the following: 
‐ Developing the curriculum for the pilot 
secondary school programs 
‐ Rolling out the programs in term 1 and 2 
‐ Documenting the progress 
‐ Mainstreaming into the national curriculum 
after ministry approval 
The curriculum will be supported by other activities like 
peace clubs, drama, debates and sports. 
The program is responding to the needs of children who 
have grown up in conflict zones and are still affected by 
the impact. The entire curriculum seeks to resolve issues 
like trauma, drugs abuse, alcoholism, fighting and theft 
in schools. It goes beyond the school context to address 
problems of domestic violence, religious differences and 
relationships at home and in the community. 
 Although there is an implementation strategy, the 
piloting in schools was rather rushed because the 
training manuals were not yet ready. What is 
available is a curriculum framework. The modules 
developed by the trainers did not follow any format 
and need to be more developed since some look like 
lecture notes. There will be further need to develop 
a students’ manual and a training of trainers' manual 
in addition to the facilitators’ manual. 
 It is assumed that teachers will be able to interpret 
the materials and break them down to classroom 
modules. This may not be the case because teachers 
have received different initial training. The training 
manual will need to guide the teachers on what 
activities to do, such as role plays or games and 
debating topics. 
 The teachers have not yet developed work plans for 
their individual schools. UMECS needs to play a 
supervisory role to see how each pilot school will 
kick-start the program. 
 Peace clubs might require some seed funding to 
start, and basic equipments like drums, T-shirts, 
balls and others. 
 Each school needs to have a baseline against which 
it will be measured to see whether peace education 
has caused a change within the student/ 
teacher/community environment. 
 Parents need to be involved at an early stage since 
they will give the ultimate testimonies on whether 
students have actually changed their behavior 
beyond the school gates into the households where 
they interact with siblings and community members. 
 Institutional measures will have to be set up for the 
success of the program. For example, the school 
will have to put official time and a budget for the 
school activities for both the curriculum and extra 
activities. The issue of teacher transfers has also to 
be examined to ensure continuity of the program. 
Head-teachers in private school must ensure that 
teachers in the program are on payroll. 
Unpacking the ‘P’ in PRDP BY PINCER: Phase Planning USD 200,000 for 6 months 
Program Description and Strengths Remarks/Recommendations 
The proposed program by PINCER is to conduct action 
research that is to cover districts in Acholi and Lango 
sub-regions. The organization is a think-tank and 
 The program is relevant for the situation in the 
North and to inform future USAID programs. 
However the timing of the program to inform the 
9 
consulting firm that was already running another USAID 
funded project. According to their Team Leader, very 
little attention has been given to peace per se in the 
PRDP and instead other sectors have taken priority. 
At the time of evaluation, the firm had just finished a 
comprehensive literature review and were due to start on 
the following activities: 
‐ Create dialogue with peace actors in the district 
to learn their roles, perceptions and philosophy 
of change regarding peace 
‐ Dialogue with the local populations that have 
gone through conflict experiences in the last 21 
years as well as key informants 
‐ Measure the degree of roundedness through a 
household survey to investigate trauma, 
resilience, legal and economic elements 
‐ Dialogue with national actors and validate 
findings through a stakeholders forum 
current SPRING phase may not be appropriate since 
the project ends around the same time that SPRING 
winds up. 
 At the time of evaluation, the organization had not 
yet developed a work plan on how it was going to 
implement the project given the intensity and depth 
of the task at hand. The Director needs to review 
this before the actual implementation of the project. 
 There are no process indicators that will measure 
progress. Although this is a research, it is a long 
term activity and SPRING should have some 
checklists for measuring work in progress. 
 They have not seriously considered integration and 
the opportunity still exists to formalize it in their 
strategy. 
 In another phase, the research needs to cover 
Karamoja, Teso and West Nile to give a picture of 
district spill-over effects. 
Building a Peace Economy by International Alert: Phase Implementation UGX: 500,000,000/= 
Program Description and Strengths Remarks/Recommendations 
International Alert (IA) is implementing the ‘Building a 
Peace Economy’ project in northern Uganda. It focuses 
on how investors can develop conflict sensitive 
approaches to investing in the north. This was in 
response to several investors taking the districts and 
local communities for granted. Activities include: 
‐ Aligning economy with peace where a guide 
has been developed for big investors 
‐ Enabling actors to understand the context and 
impact of conflict like politics and land 
‐ Giving ways of minimizing adverse effects and 
promoting the positive effects 
‐ Involving the business community in all 
dialogues affecting them 
IA has been getting a lot of demand for the guidelines 
and presentations from organizations like Uganda 
Investment Authority, Aga khan, Private Sector 
Foundation, and others. Districts like Kitgum have 
formed strong business associations as a result of this 
engagement. 
 The situation is still fragile and issues like the 
discovery of oil in Amuru, coming elections and the 
recovery stage of the communities affect the micro 
and macro levels and the project objectives. 
 Business people confuse peace building with 
reconciliation of returnees and ex-combatants. 
 To have greater impact, IA might have to partner 
with other organizations like banks and 
manufacturers to give the business communities a 
holistic package. The reality is that peace is the 
‘software’ that may need to be backed by 
‘hardware’ to ensure that businesses are getting a 
good deal. It is also an opportunity for the economic 
component of SPRING to see how to integrate the 
two components for full impact, e.g. by offering 
marketing skills. 
 It is recommended that the project be given an 
extension since the activities are processes and need 
follow-up to assess behavior change and to draw 
lessons learnt. 
Conflict Sensitivity Mainstreaming Training by GLACCR : Phase Implementation - USD 100,000 
Program Description and Strengths Remarks/Recommendations 
The Great Lakes Center for Conflict Resolution 
(GLACCR) is a local NGO that was tasked with 
undertaking conflict sensitivity mainstreaming training 
for all SPRING implementing partners as well as other 
USAID agencies. 
The major activity that they have undertaken is training 
of 22 SPRING partners. What they have done is to take 
the trainings to the districts since partners work with 
their local leaders during implementation. 
 The intervention was timely to ensure that SPRING 
does not intentionally or otherwise create more 
conflict in the different areas that it is going to 
operate in. Most of the participants were hearing 
about the topic for the first time and were more 
accustomed to conflict management rather than 
sensitivity. 
 When awarding the contract, it was as if all IPs 
would have a similar start date. The reality is that 
some projects are starting; others are in 
implementation, while others like Mercy Corps are 
10 
The materials that they use were developed with input 
from International Alert who were amongst the pioneer 
organizations to implement conflict sensitivity 
mainstreaming training globally. 
Activities are the following: 
‐ 2 day trainings on mainstreaming conflict 
sensitivity into planning and implementation 
‐ Developing checklists and visiting partners to 
measure them against the checklists 
‐ Plan another training of M&E 
‐ Will hold a 1 day follow-up meeting at the end 
of the project 
winding up. That means that the training on 
planning and implementation are not always 
relevant at the time. Others may need only one 
component while others might require training on 
transition and sustainability. GLACCR will need to 
customize this so that it is not ‘a one size fits all’. 
 We recommend that this becomes an ongoing 
program to encompass all the partners at their 
different stages of project cycle. More resources 
need to go into conflict assessment and supervisory 
visits by GLACCR to ensure that the training has 
been translated into change. 
 More district staff should be involved in the 
trainings. 
2.1.2 Economic Security and Social Inclusion 
Economic Security and Social Inclusion is the second component of SPRING project. The 
component goal is “Economic security and social inclusion enhanced among vulnerable and 
conflict affected populations.” By the end of January 2010, SPRING had contracted 17 
Implementing Partners with grants totaling USD 1,768,113 to implement projects and activities 
directly contributing to the attainment of component goal and its specific outcomes. The funds 
allocated to economic security projects were 56.94 percent of the SPRING Stability Fund. 
Farmer groups with an average membership of 30 are being supported by a majority of SPRING 
Implementing Partners. 
A set of activities have been implemented to enable realization of the component goal and 
outcomes. 
 Provision of agricultural production trainings to farmer groups. 
 Provision of farming inputs to farmer groups under loan arrangements. The inputs 
include improved seeds of rice, beans, chilli, ground nuts, maize and sim sim. 
 Provision and installation of agro-processing inputs; particularly groundnuts shellers, 
maize-mills, rice hullers and oil pressers. 
 Erecting of 30 warehouses and four machine houses for farmer groups. 
 Promoting collective marketing through groups 
 Promoting village savings and loan associations among farmer groups. 
 Increasing access to and consequent utilization of veterinary services, specifically in 
Amuru and Gulu districts. 
 Vocational training for youth and support to micro-enterprises. 
Component Progress Towards Outcomes 
Outcome 1: Increased access to and adoption of socio-economic opportunities in conflict 
affected areas. 
Skills Trainings and Follow-up Support 
Survey findings show that the 294 farmers sampled by the survey had attended different 
SPRING supported trainings aimed at improving production and productivity at individual 
11 
farmer and group levels. Respondents had undergone crop agronomy trainings [88%], crop 
storage/post-harvest handling (14.6%), business skills (14.3%), produce marketing (13.3%), 
group dynamics (8.8%), and produce processing (3.7%). A key observation on the approach to 
capacity building of farmers was that each IP used her own approach. For the majority of skills 
training there was no standardized approach or set minimum standards to guide capacity building 
of farmers through use of agreed training materials such as manuals. SPRING’s partner AVSI, 
however, was implementing a standardized Business Skills Training and Group Dynamics 
curriculum for its six implementing partners.. 
Ninety one percent of the survey respondents mentioned receiving agricultural related follow-up 
services. About 84 percent of this group said they were satisfied with the quality of the follow-up 
visits. The reasons for satisfaction were cited to be the following: i)guidance on prevailing crop 
production problems, ii) encouragement to scale up production and join collective marketing , 
iii) reminding them of what they had forgotten and iv) provision of market information. 
Benefits of Trainings 
The trainings conducted by SPRING IPs had helped farmers in different ways. Farmers 
confessed to registering increase in crop yields (66.3%), having crops of good quality and 
growing well (52.4%), increase in income (20.1%), able to identify crops which grow well 
(13.9%) and building peace within groups and community (6.1%). 
Provision of improved seeds 
Inputs provided by SPRING Implementing Partners to farmer groups included improved seeds of 
maize (51.4%), groundnuts (47.6%), sim sim (38.1%), rice (29.3%), and others seeds – beans 
and sunflower (8.5%). The seeds were distributed in accordance with criteria (on amount to be 
received and how to pay back to the group) set by IPs. For example, NECPA distributed chilli
seeds as grants, while KSWVO and ADFA distributed the seeds as farmer group seed loans. The 
recovery methodology of seeds from the individual farmers to the groups was twofold; some 
farmer groups required in kind recovery, while others came through cash worth [UGX 100,000]. 
Only 10 percent of 163 farmers that submitted information on repayment of seed loans in Atiak 
and Minakulu confessed to have repaid their loans. The key gaps observed in the process of 
distributing and recovering seeds from farmers included: 
 Poor quality of unshelled groundnuts [some rotten] and under-allocation of the claimed 
weight per beneficiary farmer. This was mentioned by farmer groups in Atiak Sub￾county, Amuru district, who were expecting shelled groundnuts and instead received 
unshelled groundnuts which reduced the total amount of seed received. 
 Other reasons for non-repayment of seed loans included: no crop harvest (16%), poor 
harvest (23%), group leadership not collecting the seed loan re-payment (14%), and not 
being aware of paying back the seeds (4%). 
Value addition through provision of agro-processing equipment 
SPRING supported farmers to adopt practices which enabled them to add value to their produce 
and earn better farm incomes. These included providing and installing agro-processing machines 
for groups and encouraging farmers to adopt good post-harvest management practices. 
12 
Text Box 1: Effect of Stores on Marketing of Produce 
“I have also started having hope of selling some of my 
produce since now there is a store in which I can keep 
part of my harvest that is for sale. I used to keep at home 
before but would get tempted to eat all the harvest”. 
“As committee members, we have been able to interest 
produce buyers in purchasing our produce. We do not 
have to worry about how to transport our produce to 
town anymore. We just call the buyers and they tell us to 
raise a quantity they want so that they come and buy at 
once. We don’t have to think of transport”. – FGD Notes 
for Marketing Committee Representatives at Pupwonya 
Village, Atiak Sub-county, Amuru District
Although the installing of agro-processing machines was not complete at the time of the 
evaluation, farmers were requested to indicate to the evaluation team different practices they had 
adopted to earn a better price from their produce. Different practices adopted included: storing 
produce in a cool dry place reported by 59 percent, drying seeds reported by 58 percent, sorting 
good from bad seeds reported by 36 percent, packing in gunny bags (sacks) reported by 35 
percent and cleaning the store where the harvest is kept reported by 9 percent of sampled 
respondents. Besides these practices, value addition in terms of producing new products was not 
taking place due to delayed installation of equipment. 
Promotion of the collective marketing and management of warehouses 
In a bid to promote collective marketing by farmers, SPRING supported construction of 
warehouses and formation of marketing committees. Group members contributed local materials 
(bricks and sand) for the warehouses, and in some cases a member of the group donated land on 
which the warehouse was constructed. This process promoted shared ownership and sustainable 
use of warehouses. 
Warehouses are to serve as stores and bulking centers managed by marketing committees. Each 
warehouse is managed by a collective marketing committee (CMC) constituted by 
representatives from farmer groups that own and are to use the store. Marketing committees were 
at different levels of development and execution of their roles. NECPA had a better equipped and 
experienced marketing committee compared to ADFA and KSWVO committees. A literature 
review also shows that IRC supported groups had strong and well-organized marketing 
committees functioning in accordance with defined guidelines. 
The evaluation therefore sought to ascertain whether collective marketing was happening as a 
key step of addressing value chain constraints among supported farmers. Issues explored during 
the evaluation included marketing arrangements, support from marketing committees and the 
source of information on markets. Evaluation findings are hereunder: 
 The main arrangement for marketing crops being through marketing committees was 
reported by 39 percent, followed by 
individual arrangements reported 
by 34 percent, groups reported by 
27 percent and IPs reported by nine 
percent of sampled respondents. 
 The main role of marketing 
committees in marketing crops was 
looking for good markets reported 
by 45 percent of sampled farmers. 
Other roles included bargaining for 
suitable market (26.9%) and 
controlling quality and transporting 
crops (3%). This information is 
complemented well by testimonies from the farmers presented in Text Box 1. 
 Radio stations were the main source of information on markets, reported by 64 percent of 
the sample. This was followed by SPRING IPs (46%), friends (37%), marketing 
13 
committees (35%), weekly markets (28%) and other sources like newspapers and 
cooperative societies (11%). 
The concept of collective marketing is systematically being embraced by farmers as evidenced 
by the role played by marketing committees in marking produce and providing information to 
members. The level of orientation (training on roles) of marketing committees and IP support are 
critical for marketing committees to effectively play their roles. NECPA had worked with her 
groups over the time and the marketing committee formed has quickly taken-up the challenge by 
practicing bulking and collective marketing. 
Promoting famer groups village savings and loans associations 
SPRING is promoting group savings and loans as a mechanism for sustainably addressing 
financial needs of farmers. Evaluation findings show that 70 percent of the 281 individual farmer 
survey respondents mentioned participating in VSLAs through either borrowing or saving or 
both with an average saving of UGX 136,989 at the time of the survey. Savings have been 
instrumental in helping farmers pay their children’s fees (51%), meeting urgent family needs 
(33%), medical care (17%), purchasing animals (13%) and other needs (household basic 
necessities, business start-up capital, expanding farming activities) reported by 18 percent of 
sampled respondents. 
Furthermore, 47 percent of the survey respondents mentioned having borrowed from VSLAs 
with average loan amount received being UGX 57,290. Among those who had submitted 
information on loan amounts (86 persons), 50 percent used the funds to pay children’s fees, 48 
percent opened up new businesses, 32 percent bought assorted assets, while 16 percent used the 
borrowed funds on funeral services, garden preparation and medical bills. 
Vocational Training Support to Vulnerable Youths 
SPRING’s youth and education partner, AVSI, worked with ACADOS implementing partner to 
support vulnerable youth to complete vocational skills training. Youth in Lalogi Sub-county 
whose formal vocational skills training had been halted by lack of fees for over one year were 
supported by ACADOS implementing partner to complete their education. All the youth 
interviewed within the focus group said that they were presently engaged in productive work in 
relation to their acquisition of the vocational skills. At the time of the study they had completed 
the training and were awaiting their certificates’ release. Through a focus group discussion with 
youth supported to complete vocational skills training, one participant testified that, 
“ACADOS has helped me as well as my family members. By paying my fees my 
parents were relieved of the financial burden and released to meaningfully meet 
my siblings’ educational needs. Presently, I am earning some money of which I 
partly use to financially support my immediate family members”. FGD Notes for 
ACADOS Vocational Training Beneficiaries. 
Support for micro-enterprise development. 
SPRING through ACADOS identified and supported 35 vulnerable community members who 
were already running small scale business such as restaurants (food joints) in the trading centers, 
kiosks, and crop produce business. The identification of the 35 persons was done by ACADOS 
14 
in liaison with the local leaders. The selection criteria entailed among others having a running 
business and being a person who was once abducted. The support was a loan worth UGX 
250,000 per person and was received in August 2009 with a recovery schedule of October 2009 
to March 2010. Through a focus group discussion, it was revealed that the loan beneficiaries 
have honored their schedule of loan recovery with the exception of one person who defaulted on 
one installment. The various benefits realized were mentioned to be business expansion, ability 
to afford three meals per day for family members, increased unity and harmony in the family, 
ability to afford medical treatment for children, paying rent, purchase of household items out of 
realized business profits. 
It was noted that the beneficiaries operate independently with no need for a forum to draw them 
together. This is because they operate different businesses and are a far distance apart in their 
operations. The beneficiaries expressed need for more loan allocation. 
Promotion of Access to Veterinary Services 
SPRING through UVA implementing partner has and continues to promote Livestock Health 
Services in Gulu and Amuru districts. UVA supported Private Veterinary Practitioners through 
concurrent provision of grants and loans to build on the past Veterinary Civic Action Program 
[VETCAP] implemented by the US military civil affairs team. Through the grants and loans 
support to veterinary practitioners, more farmers especially in the rural areas are being reached 
with animal health services for a fee. This effort continues to contribute to healthier and 
productive livestock that increase economic security for livestock farmers. Through focus group 
discussions with the supported veterinarians, it was pointed out that veterinary services have 
been taken closer to the rural farmers through opening up of more veterinary shops, increased 
capacity of veterinarians to offer technical field follow-up visits. Some of the supported 
veterinary practitioners bought motorcycles to enable them access farmers and their animals. 
The challenges cited by the veterinary practitioners include the low farmers’ capacity to afford 
the animal health services and the wrong attitude of expecting free services. It was also 
mentioned that the feasible timeline to realize enhanced animal productivity is two years, and the 
SPRING project life span was cited to be extremely too short [six months]. Preferred project 
duration was highlighted to be cognizant of how long the animal requires to reach maturity and 
the aspect of the gestation period. 
The sustainability efforts explored by UVA were pointed out to be the business skills trainings, 
revolving loans and the farmers’ growing uptake of private veterinary services. 
Progress towards Component Targets 
The information presented above attests to the fact that SPRING had made critical inputs for 
enhancing agricultural productivity and farm incomes of supported individuals. A review of 
SPRING monitoring data for the last two harvest seasons shows that productivity across 
SPRING supported crops has increased by 69 percent against a target of 40 percent over the 
baseline of 254 kilograms per acre2
 . It is worth noting that maize and groundnuts registered 197 
and 59 percentage increase in their productivity respectively. These changes are against the 
 
2
 Calculations are based on the average productivity for the two seasons and the baseline survey figures as presented 
by SPRING results monitoring sheet in Annex 3. 
15 
baseline of 256 kilograms for maize and 202 kilograms for groundnuts respectively. The average 
farm income (crop sales) has doubled (changed by 98.7%) against the project target of 25 percent 
over the baseline of UGX 189, 53 (Refer to Annex 3 for detailed information). 
Integration of Economic Security Projects with other Components 
Economic security projects were integrated with peace and justice components. At design level, 
NECPA and KSWVO were well integrated compared to other projects. Other projects have been 
integrated by ensuring that supported farmers benefit from activities of peace and justice 
components (partners). 
Additional Challenges in implementing the component 
 Lack of minimum standards for construction of warehouses is a challenge. The warehouses 
differ in quality and finishing. For example, some warehouses/stores had transparent iron 
sheets to aid lighting (good practice), while others did not have such provisions. In addition, 
others had large ventilation while others had very small ventilation which impact on the 
aeration process within warehouses. In other instances, processing equipment were installed 
and left very small space for sorting, cleaning and storage. One would wonder where farmers 
will store their produce and how quality will be maintained. 
 There is no intentional cross-learning across implementing partners. Whereas SPRING held 
several coordination meetings with IPs, most of these meetings were mainly addressing 
performance and compliance issues as opposed to learning and improving practices. 
 There were no generic guidelines by SPRING to guide minimum performance of project 
deliverables. 
 Timeline accorded to achieve project outcomes was unrealistic. The underlying processes of 
drawing farmers together, supporting them to work together towards progress and having to 
manage farmers’ stay together amidst success necessitate at least to operate for six seasons 
[three years]. 
 With exception of NECPA, sampled economic security partners could not point to the value 
added to their intervention by integration approach. 
 The prolonged dry spell in northern Uganda greatly affected SPRING supported activities. 
Some farmers registered zero harvests during the first planting season of 2009. 
2.1.3 Access to Justice 
The access to justice component envisages improved access to justice for vulnerable and 
conflict-affected populations as its contribution to stability and reconciliation in northern 
Uganda. The intended outcomes of this component include: (i) access to legal aid and dispute 
resolution by vulnerable and conflict-affected populations increased; and, (ii) awareness on 
human rights and land/property rights increased. This component was assessed to determine the 
progress towards component goal and expected outcomes. It should be noted that the strategy for 
attainment of above objectives has undergone two significant changes from 2007 till April 2009. 
These changes include: 
 Change from focusing on training formal justice stakeholders to strengthening informal 
justice system and supporting farmer groups through land tenure security. 
 Working through IPs as opposed to SPRING direct implementing activities. 
16 
SPRING is supporting three short-term grants as a strategy for realizing component objectives. 
These include “Empowering Farmers through Land Tenure Security” being implemented by 
Centre for Reparations and Rehabilitation, “Culture as a Tool for Development” implemented 
by Ker Kwaro Acholi [KKA] and Key Stakeholder Collaboration on Land” by Acholi Religious 
Leaders Peace Initiative [ARLPI]. All these grants started being operational during the second 
half of 2009 and in January 2010. Therefore, progress towards implementation of granted 
projects and component objective is limited. 
Progress towards Results 
a. Access to legal aid and dispute resolution by vulnerable and conflict-affected populations 
increased. 
SPRING in partnership with CRR has put in place mobile legal aid clinics to various sub￾counties where other SPRING IPs are implementing their activities with farmer groups. CRR 
provides legal advice to farmers with disputes that require legal intervention. If it is a land 
related dispute, CRR evaluates it and determines whether there is need for mediation. Cases 
where mediation is an option for dispute resolution are registered and scheduled for mediation. 
In instances where the beneficiaries have a dispute that is outside the mandate of CRR, a referral 
mechanism has been provided and the client is referred to a relevant institution. 
By the time of the evaluation, CRR had carried out eight mobile legal aid clinics, referred 58 
cases and successfully mediated three [3] land disputes. Results from the survey conducted 
among SPRING supported farmers revealed that 24 percent of them had sought redress; and 10 
percent have had the problem resolved, while 4.4 % of the respondents had the problem re-occur. 
A review of the process for providing and accessing legal aid services revealed the following 
challenges: 
 The involvement of SPRING in mobilization of clients through other IPs delays outreach 
and affects outreach effectiveness. 
 There is no mechanism for follow-up of referred clients to ascertain whether or not they 
have obtained redress. 
 The distance between the villages, parishes and sub-county (point of meeting) is long and 
makes access to the service difficult and yet a third (32.7%) of sampled farmers 
confessed to having land disputes. The nature of disputes included encroachment 
[18.7%], boundary disputes [12.9%] and retracted land gifts [4.8%]. 
 Farmers are not aware of other services provided by CRR besides assistance offered in 
signing of Land Agreements for the farmer group. 
 There is no flexibility in project outreach strategy. Legal aid and advice is limited to only 
SPRING farmer groups and yet other community members are in need of the service. 
 The outreach to farmers is limited. Survey results show that there are more land disputes 
which are not proportionate to the intervention carried out and the number of mediations 
and referrals made by CRR. 
b. Awareness of human rights and land/property rights increased 
SPRING had carried out awareness activities through its communication activities and CRR. 
SPRING radio programs have disseminated information on human/property rights and avenues 
17 
for dispute resolution while CRR had held focus group discussions with two representatives from 
each farmer group. 
Awareness on Rights 
At the time of the MTE, it was found that the majority of respondents knew where to access 
justice and the main institutions that provide the service. They also knew where to go for redress 
when they had a dispute. However, there are institutional challenges that prohibit them from 
accessing justice in certain instances. These include but are not limited to corrupt tendencies 
within the judicial system. The richer litigants are said to influence the system to their advantage 
and to the disadvantage of the poor litigants, thus denying them justice. 
The information from evaluation of communication activities revealed that SPRING radio 
messages pertaining to human rights issues are insignificant. Only 2 percent confessed to having 
heard about human rights issues from “dongo paco karacel”. 
Property Rights 
Through CRR, SPRING has supported farmers in obtaining security of tenure for the land where 
group warehouses are situated through signing of land agreements. The process begins with 
identification of the land by the community, consultations are then carried out by CRR with the 
various stake holders and the agreed terms and conditions are reduced into writing and signed by 
all relevant actors – namely, the SPRING Economic Security Implementing Partners, farmer 
group representatives, local leaders [LC I, II and III], pre-determined land owners, neighbors to 
the land being donated, elders and family members in the presence of the community members. 
By the time of the evaluation, seventeen [17] land agreements had been signed. 
Survey results from farmers showed all sampled farmers (99.6%) were confident that their rights 
as a group to the acquired land and warehouses were free from any outside interference and as 
such they have not since the signing of the agreements had any dispute. This was further 
confirmed by the farmers in the different focus group discussions that were carried out. 
Gap 
There is a mismatch between project input and existing problems pertaining to land issues. 
Training only two group representative per farmer group does not guarantee trickle down of 
acquired knowledge on human rights and land issues to other farmers and households. 
Observations on Access to Justice Component 
The synergy among different access to justice IPs is not evident. Each IP is not aware of what 
other IPs are doing, and are therefore working in isolation. This deprives them of peer learning as 
it does not promote cooperation and can easily lead to conflict. 
The current project component strategy heavily focuses on strengthening the informal justice 
system with limited focus on strengthening the formal justice system. This is partly responsible 
for invisible or lack of apparent linkage between the two systems. 
18 
The Access to Justice component is very limited in scope compared to other economic security 
and peace components. This is evidenced by limiting legal aid to only land related issues, least 
number of IPs and small share of micro-stability grants allocated to access to justice issues 
(8.9%). 
It is the evaluation team’s opinion that the scope of project on empowering farmers through land 
tenure security is too narrow to warrant full project funding or the relatively high number of staff 
currently working on the project. It is an activity that can be carried out by few staff or as a 
process based consultancy. 
2.1.4 Progress towards Attainment of SPRING Aim/Purpose 
The overall goal of SPRING is to mitigate causes and consequences of conflict in order to 
promote stability, peace, and reconciliation. The PMP defines different result areas and 
corresponding indicators for tracking progress towards attainment of SPRING’s overall goal. 
The individual farmer survey sought to ascertain progress towards the overall goal and findings 
are presented hereunder. 
Most of the farmers have been affected by conflict. Interestingly, only 6 percent have 
experienced inter-group conflict although these groups have been a solace to 36 percent of them 
in helping them to socialize after war and help them forget the deaths of their loved ones. Half of 
the respondents no longer have an issue with returnees and relate to them freely although 8 
percent are still experiencing negative issues with them and believe that their families should be 
held responsible for their actions. 
As one of the positive trends, tribalism is no longer a big problem and almost 80 percent of the 
respondents knew of an inter-marriage between Langi and Acholi. They also said they would 
elect a community leader of another tribe. Still most of them felt that their property was safe and 
that they could travel safely and freely discuss issues pertaining to conflict in northern Uganda. 
However a third of them still felt that they and their daughters will be victims of gender based 
violence. 
At least half of the respondents had participated in peace events in the last year, and most 
popular were dance and drama events. 
The above findings indicate the SPRING project aim is likely to be achieved. The population is 
already showing a sense of positive attitude even before they go through peace building training. 
A few patches of angry and traumatized people will need to be reached out to in order to address 
their resentment. 
 The indicator of improved positive relations targets 96 percent by March 2010 and this 
survey indicates that 80 percent of respondents feel so. 
 The PMP target for increased positive relations between communities in the north is 91 
percent and the evaluation reports 88 percent. The difference is not statistically significant, 
implying that this target is already attained. 
 The indicator of personal security has already exceeded its target by 4 percent. 
19 
 The number of people trained in conflict mitigation or resolution skills with USG assistance 
was 715 compared to the project target of 2,245. Most of the farmers and district persons 
interviewed wished for such training but had never received it. 
 By the time of the evaluation 3000 people had been reached through completed SPRING 
supported community based reconciliation activities, compared to the overall target of 7,015.
2.2 Integration of Cross-cutting Issues 
2.2.1 Children and Youths 
Impact of spring on the children of beneficiaries 
In order to identify how SPRING is contributing to improving welfare of children, a special 
impact study was commissioned and completed in September 2009. The study shows that 
SPRING is significantly contributing to child development and welfare within the community. A 
full assessment report can be availed by SPRING. The findings of this report are validated by 
MTE findings which show that SPRING farmers are able to respect their children’s rights such 
as access to food and better nutrition and education, health and other development needs. In 
general, MTE findings indicated the following: 
 Parents have been able to take their children to school by using proceeds from enterprises 
supported by SPRING as well as meet medical expenses for their children. Evidence from 
SPRING monitoring information shows that 83 percent of supported farmer households have 
their children going to schools, 83 percent are able to meet medical expenses for their 
children and 84 percent of school going-age children (7-18) are enrolled in schools. 
 SPRING is supporting Concerned Parents Association (CPA) to implement a project which 
promotes child care cooperatives. This project will strengthen child protection within the 
community as farmers embark on economic recovery activities. 
 Vulnerable youths have been supported through different projects under AVSI sub-grant to 
acquire vocational and business skills. These skills have enabled them to start income 
generating activities and manage their businesses. 
 Supported farmers have been able to provide food for their family members, including 
children through consuming part of the harvests or using farm income to purchase food 
items. 
 The unity and cooperation created in working in groups is invaluable to children as it 
promotes safety, security, and general wellbeing within their environments. Children are 
learning how to relate to others through the modeling of their social environments, so their 
chances of developing positive interaction skills are greatly enhanced. 
 Youths (18-25 years) constitute 19 percent of members of SPRING supported farmer groups. 
2.2.2 Re-integration of Ex-combatants 
It is estimated that over 830 ex-combatants of LRA have benefited from different projects 
supported by SPRING. This translates to about 10 percent of SPRING economic security farmer 
groups. SPRING has adopted an inclusive approach to working with ex-combatants without 
exclusively targeting them. 
2.2.3 Environment 
USAID contract with EMG requires the latter to ensure that project activities are compliant with 
the former’s policies and guidelines pertaining to sustainable use of the environment. SPRING 
20 
was covered under umbrella Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) which did not necessitate 
carrying out an environmental impact assessment. However, SPRING was required to carry out 
assessment of projects and their activities to determine compliance and file periodic reports to 
USAID. The evaluation team was informed by the SPRING Team that very few SPRING 
activities promoted the use of fertilizers or pesticides, however, with those that did, SPRING 
received prior procurement approval from the USAID contracting officer. It was observed that 
periodic reports were not filed by EMG. 
2.2.4 Land 
SPRING is funding a project for enhancing land tenure security which has enabled farmers to 
sign land agreements with owners where SPRING warehouses have been constructed. The 
project also provides legal advice and mediation services to the community on issues pertaining 
to land. These activities have led to increased level of awareness on land rights (95% of farmers 
are aware of their land rights3
). In addition, about 22 farmers supported by NECPA in Minakulu, 
Ngai and Otwal have registered their land with sub-county authorities as a result of information 
and advice received from CRR meetings with them. Some seven farmers have used certificates 
of customary ownership received from the sub-county to access loans from PostBank Uganda 
Limited. 
2.2.5 Geographic and Ethnic Divisions 
SPRING conducted a geographical assessment to identify areas which needed intervention and 
key programming issues for consideration by SPRING. The geographical assessment helped 
SPRING to select fifteen sub-counties where economic security activities are being 
implemented. SPRING also targeted sub-counties on the border between Acholi and Lango 
regions as a mechanism for addressing ethnic tensions between the two communities resulting 
from atrocities committed by LRA against the latter. 
2.2.6 Linking Grass Roots to National Processes 
The Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) is a comprehensive 
framework designed by the Government of Uganda with support from the international 
community for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the northern Uganda following two 
decades of civil war and unrest. SPRING is one of the mechanisms through which USG 
contributes to PRDP. As part of implementation mechanism, SPRING has entered into 
Memorandum of Understanding with the 6 [Six] different districts namely Kitgum, Gulu, Oyam, 
Lira, Amuru, Pader. It is important to note that SPRING is not allowed to provide direct funding 
to the District Local Governments (DLGs) by USAID policies. Detailed evaluation findings on 
SPRING’s contribution to PRDP are presented in Annex 4. In summary SPRING is contributing 
to consolidation of state authority through its land tenure security project, creation of mechanism 
for land conflict resolution and legal referrals. The economic security component is contributing 
to empowerment of conflict affected households through improving farm productivity and use of 
land. This component is also contributing to revitalization of the economy through promoting 
adoption of commercial farming. SPRING has supported different peace and reconciliation 
activities such as projects and information dissemination. 
 
3
 SPRING indicator variance analysis (Feb 26, 2010) 
21 
The above information illustrates existence of a clear strong link between SPRING and PRDP. 
However, interactions with local government officials revealed that higher local governments 
(District Local Governments-DLGs) officials were not aware of SPRING contribution to PRDP 
and their development plans, especially in Oyam district. This anomaly is attributed to lack of 
regular communication between SPRING head office/IPs and district authorities as opposed to 
sub-county authorities. 
2.2.7 Project Communication Activities 
Communication is a cross-cutting theme within SPRING and is considered a critical component 
in promoting stability and peace within northern Uganda. In the SPRING project, 
communication is included in the three components of peace and reconciliation, economic 
security and social inclusion as well as access to justice. It plays multiple roles in the transition 
process – it alleys fears, increases self-efficacy and conveys facts4
. Straight Talk Foundation (a 
consortium member) is mandated with responsibility of managing project communication 
activities. Using both print and electronic media, STF disseminates information on peace, access 
to justice and economic security through regular print (SPRING Newspaper) and radio 
programming to the community. SPRING hosts two radio programs (Dongo Paco Karacel in 
Acholi region and Peace Maker in Lango region) and produces a farmers’ newspaper in the local 
language (Luo) as part of the communication strategy. 
The evaluation therefore sought to establish which radio stations and programs SPRING farmers 
tune in to, how different programs have helped them, and most importantly whether farmers have 
ever listened to SPRING radio program (Dongo Paco Karacel) and how it has impacted on their 
lives. Detailed information on all these issues is presented Annex 5, while key findings are 
presented hereunder. 
Radio Listenership, Programs and Messages Received 
SPRING MTR findings show that Mega FM is the station with the largest listenership as 
reported by 63 percent of sampled farmers, followed by Unity FM at 26 percent and Radio Was 
at 12 percent. The rest of the radio stations mentioned were listened to by less than 10 percent 
each. 
In terms of programs listened to by sampled farmers in the three sampled sub-counties, “farmers’ 
world” program (Lobo pa lupur) on Mega FM was the most listened to program reported by 40 
percent, followed by program for farmers reported by 27 percent, SPRING supported Dongo 
Paco Karacel at 12 percent and SPRING supported ‘Peace Maker’ at nine percent. Other 
programs were mentioned by less than nine percent each. 
The top three messages received by farmers from mentioned radio programs were good farming 
methods reported by 22 percent, marketing of agricultural produce reported by 10 percent, health 
issues reported by eight percent and Dongo Paco Karacel reported by four percent of sampled 
farmers. Other messages were reported by less than five percent of sampled farmers. 
In terms of ranking of what radio program was considered most helpful, sampled farmers 
reported “farmers’ world” as the most helpful program (36.4%), followed by peace and 
 
4
 SPRING (Feb-March 08), Communication Assessment Report 
22 
reconciliation (8.8%), VSLA (3.1%) and children’s program (1.4%). The five top most reasons 
why such programs were considered most helpful were: teaching good farming methods (31%), 
giving guidance on where to market produce (16.3%) and where to get seeds (9.5%), creating 
unity (7.5%) and promoting peace and harmony (7.1%). 
Listening to SPRING Radio Messages and its Contribution to Farmers 
Sampled farmers were specially asked whether they had listened to SPRING program (Dongo 
Paco Karacel) and 29 percent of all sampled farmers had listened to this SPRING program. 
Good agriculture (farming), and reconciliation and peace, were reported to be the most helpful 
aspects of the program reported by 16 and seven percent of sampled farmers respectively. 
Discussion 
The findings presented above on SPRING communication activities indicate that the choice of 
radios for hosting SPRING programs was well-informed. Findings also show that farmers 
listened more to economic recovery related radio programs compared to other categories of radio 
programs. Farmers also attach lots of importance to radio programs promoting economic security 
compared to peace and reconciliation. Economic security benefits of radio programs are highly 
rated among SPRING farmers. This is an indicator that households are in the phase of economic 
recovery. 
2.2.7 Anti-Corruption 
The evaluation sought to ascertain whether EMG had developed and implemented the required 
anti-corruption procedures for the program. EMG had adopted the following measures in this 
regard: 
 Committees are used to procure goods and services for the project and her partners as 
well as selecting and recommending IPs to be awarded grants. 
 Carrying out pre-award assessments to ascertain levels of professionalism within 
potential partners in accordance with USAID funding policies. 
 Building capacity of partners to manage SPRING granted resources. 
 Carrying out routine monitoring and expenditure verification visits on partners. 
 Commissioning external annual and special audits for project financial activities. In 2009 
EMG/SPRING commissioned Earnest and Young to carry out a special per diem 
verification exercise for all staff after getting tips that staff had over-claimed per diem 
expenses than actual expenses. All inflated expenses are being recovered from implicated 
staff. The management has prequalified and negotiated special rates with service 
providers for hotel services as a key implementation from the audit and in order to avert 
misuse of project resources. 
It is important to note that special audits could be extended to expenditure aspects such as 
construction of warehouses, procurement of input for IPs and general services to ascertain the 
level of prudence exhibited in use of project resources. 
2.2.8 Mainstreaming of Gender 
Our discussions with the SPRING Team revealed that there were no special considerations given 
to promoting gender equity issues in project implementation. However, a review of beneficiary 
data (Annex 6) shows that 57 percent of 8,275 beneficiaries were women. Female headed 
23 
households constituted 13 percent of all beneficiaries. FGDs with farmers indicated benefits 
from SPRING supported activities such as paying school fees for children, access to food for 
household members and acquisition of social assets have acted as a uniting factor for male and 
female members of beneficiary households. The information received on peace building and 
reconciliation has helped beneficiary households to adopt dialoguing approach to solving family 
conflicts between wives and husbands. This approach has minimized domestic violence within 
supported households. 
2.3 SPRING Integration Model 
A key evaluation issue was to ascertain the extent to which three project components were being 
integrated in practice, impact of integration, limitations of integration and existing opportunities 
for integration. The SPRING Project integration can be defined as the purposeful harmonization 
and management of the functions, resources, systems and processes of the three components of 
economic security, peace and access to justice. This is done to attain stability and reconciliation 
in northern Uganda. Below are findings on different issues pertaining to SPRING’s 
programming approach of integrating the three components. 
Integration Approach 
The integration process entailed the following: 
 SPRING has supported organizations through its SPRING Stability Fund and AVSI sub￾grants to implement activities under the three components. A total of 28 grants have been 
awarded to IPs to undertake different projects. These included 18 economic security, seven 
peace and reconciliation and three access to justice grants. The total grant amount was USD 
3,105,471, with 56.94 percent allocated to economic security, 34.13 percent allocated to 
peace and reconciliation and 8.93 percent allocated to access to justice components. 
 Building an integrated team of professionals comprising of component heads and program 
managers for each IP. These included Director for Peace and Justice Components and 
economic security advisor. The Deputy Chief of Party provided oversight on economic 
security component and AVSI has a special grant for supporting vulnerable youths. 
Additionally, Straight Talk Foundation provided leadership for SPRING communication 
activities. 
 Integration was also reflected in joint projects’ appraisal, activity reviews and planning by 
SPRING staff. 
 SPRING had supported some projects which were focusing on activities belonging to more 
than one component. IPs with activities integrated at either design, implementation level or 
both included KSWVO, Mercy Corps, CPA, A4A, NECPA, GLACCR, CRR, KKA, IA, 
WACFO, and CPA groups It is important to note that NECPA had a unique opportunity of 
directly interacting with the three components within the arrangement of their project original 
design. 
 Through SPRING, IPs were addressing multiple needs of farmer groups. For example, 
farmers benefiting from economic security grants have benefited from a project on 
24 
“Empowering Farmers through Land Tenure Security” implemented by CRR (access to 
justice IP). 
 At beneficiary level, farmer groups are used as focal points for integrating all activities. 
Benefits of Integration 
The process of integrating the three components was not strong at the beginning of the project 
and during the first batch of grants. Different component heads seemed to have implemented 
their activities independent of each other. This limited the extent to which the model could 
register benefits. However, at the time of the evaluation, there were concerted efforts to have 
integration taking place as reflected by different projects placing greater emphasis on integration. 
The benefits accruing from the integration approach were: 
 Enhanced ownership and security of warehouses constructed by SPRING. This has assured 
farmers’ ownership and use of warehouses to further their economic empowerment 
aspirations without fear of losing warehouses to unscrupulous members. 
 SPRING peace building activities (including radio programs) have contributed to improving 
relationships within groups, households and communities. This has contributed to increased 
program impact as evidenced by stability and cooperation testimonies by supported groups. 
 Enabled IPs to carry out economic security activities without interruptions resulting from 
group and community conflicts. 
 Synergy and improved use of resources and efficiency of operations. 
 Promoted a holistic image of SPRING. 
 IP Staff capacity developed to be conflict sensitive in their performance and interaction with 
communities. 
 Some farmers supported by NECPA have acquired loans from banks to further their 
economic activities using land certificates. The certificates were acquired after receiving 
information and advice on registering land under customary ownership. 
Drivers for and Limiting Factors to Integration 
Driving Factors Limiting Factors 
 Desire for improved program quality 
 Joint planning and reviews 
 Competent staff in key positions 
 Capacity building for IPs 
 Leveraging of resources 
 Efficiency of operations 
 Feedback from external sources 
 Synergy 
 Availability of funding 
 Community needs which are integrated 
 Lack of a clear integration strategy at the beginning 
of the project 
 Lack of synergy by component heads to integrate 
activities at the beginning of the project 
 Inadequate leadership in facilitating integration of 
the three components. 
 Tensions in management 
 Lack of shared understanding of the integration and 
its process within SPRING Team and IPs 
 Unbalanced implementation of project components 
2.4 Assessment of quality of project management practices 
2.4.1 Effectiveness of Project Management Structures 
The MTE assessed whether SPRING management had developed project capacity to adapt and 
respond quickly to changes on the ground and how effective SPRING’s internal management 
structures were in delivering effective project activities and meeting project objectives. The 
25 
SPRING management has developed good capacity to respond to changes on the ground as 
evidenced by the following management strategies and practices: 
 Short term projects or quick impact approach has been adopted as a main strategy for 
implementing activities and realizing project objectives. The quick impact projects 
consist of short-term and innovative projects implemented by SPRING IPs.. Partners are 
awarded grants through a competitive application process. By the time of MTE, 28 
projects were being or had been supported by SPRING. 
 There was ample commitment within the SPRING Team to deliver on project targets and 
requests from USAID. SPRING management had provided room for result-based 
teamwork (delivering on specific targets and outputs). All three components of the 
project were fully under implementation as evidenced by the completed grant award 
process. The management was focusing its efforts on managing the grants and 
implementation process as they prepare for end of project evaluation and exit from the 
community. 
 SPRING management has continuously built capacity of IPs to improve project designs, 
effectively implement project activities and adhere to USAID funding guidelines. This 
was being done through formal trainings, follow-up and supervisory support and taking 
lead on certain aspects such as store construction and procurement of inputs. The capacity 
building, though not originally planned, was necessary after the pre-award assessments of 
local organizations revealed serious human resource, technical and systemic gaps which 
would have affected grant administration on the part of SPRING. 
 There was proper management of project monitoring and evaluation functions as 
evidenced by coordinated and regular monitoring of progress towards anticipated results. 
The M&E specialist was effectively carrying out M&E function through re-designing of 
M&E tools, supervising data collection, controlling data quality through spontaneous data 
verifications with different sources, processing and helping the technical heads to report 
on progress against their component or activity targets. 
 The management has closely involved IPs in decision making process to foster ownership 
and to make implementation much simpler and easier on the part of IPs. 
 Positions of project managers for each IP were created to improve project supervision 
and support to the partners. Project managers have been vital in supporting IPs during 
project implementation and acting as a quick link between SPRING management and IPs. 
 The management also hired a civil engineer to manage the process for construction of 
stores for IPs. This enabled the project to ensure store construction follows sound civil 
works guidelines. 
 High levels of professionalism have been exhibited by the staff and lauded by local 
government officials as evidenced by feedback from one of evaluation stakeholders, 
“SPRING’s approach to working with groups is very professional. We are 
always informed of their activities. I attended one of the trainings out of curiosity 
and discovered that the trainings are well organized and facilitators are very 
experienced.” Mr. Okwang Robert Alem (Chief, Minakulu sub-county, former 
Sub-county chief for Ngai Sub-county)
 Weekly reviews are held between component team leaders and project managers to 
identify and address issues which are affecting or have potential to affect attainment of 
project objectives. Additionally, the Chief of Party (COP) and component heads meet 
fortnightly to identify and agree on strategies for improving project performance. 
26 
These strategies have been adopted in order to fast-track implementation of project activities 
which had started slowly due to delayed signing of memoranda of understanding with district 
local governments. The delays were also occasioned by absence of a stronger integration 
strategy, departure of earlier technical advisors for peace and justice components and limited 
capacity of implementing partners. The limited capacity of partners has been exhibited by poor 
quality of proposals and inadequate organizational systems for managing USAID grants. 
Besides the above sound management practices, there were some areas which need to be done 
better if the project is to achieve its objectives and if management of future projects is to be 
effective as mentioned hereunder. 
 There was no clear demarcation between some roles of technical advisors and project 
managers which was a source of conflict and issuance of contradicting instructions to IPs. 
 The human resource function was not well managed as evidenced by a presence of role 
conflicts, absence of clear job descriptions and clear performance appraisal systems. 
 Whereas SPRING is highly regarded at sub-county level, district authorities felt that they 
were not well informed of what SPRING was doing and some felt excluded from project 
implementation. 
 The SPRING Team is of the opinion that the home office has not rendered adequate 
support to COP and that the COP has not given adequate support to component heads. 
 Cardno Agrisystems has not effectively played their role within the consortium. This is 
depicted by initial slow progress of the peace and justice components for which Cardno 
Agrisystems was anticipated to provide technical leadership within the consortium. 
 Some IPs felt that there was over interference by SPRING staff in their project activities 
and that SPRING has violated part of the sub-grant agreement signed with them on issues 
concerning procurement. In the words of one IP representative, 
“SPRING just complicates our lives. For example, they took away store construction from us 
without clear explanation and ended up building stores which were smaller than what we had 
planned to construct. Yet at a higher cost than originally anticipated! The increased costs 
have made some of us (IPs) to get fewer inputs than planned as they had to use part of the 
input budget to off-set increased construction cost”. Anonymous IP Representative
2.4.2 Grant Management Processes 
The evaluation assessed effectiveness and efficiency of SPRING’s grant management system. 
The system is generally effective and efficient. It takes approximately two to three months to 
have one cycle of grants awarded and activities commencing. . A total of 28 grants had been 
awarded by the time of the evaluation. Key strengths of the system included: 
 Ensuring that credible organizations access grants from SPRING. A pre-award 
assessment of due diligence is carried out on organizations with promising and potential 
projects to determine organizational strengths and weakness in managing a USAID grant. 
 Participation of district and local government in pre-award surveys which promotes 
ownership and in-built capacity building which enables partners to implement activities 
within USAID grant guidelines. 
 USAID mission clearance of potential grants is critical in ensuring that SPRING adheres 
to funding guidelines. 
 There is strong link between technical heads, grants manager and accounts department 
which strengthens adherence to guidelines in all aspects of the grant by a particular IP. 
27 
 The process minimizes risks involved in big expenditures and therefore a procurement 
ceiling of UGX 10 million (approx USD 5000) has been set for partners. Any 
procurement above this cap is carried out by SPRING to minimize risks of fraud and 
mismanagement. 
It is worth noting that effectiveness and efficiency of the grants management system at SPRING 
is constrained by the following factors: 
 Unlike international organizations, local organizations have limited capacity in designing 
good projects (includes budgeting) and most of the time do not have adequate systems for 
managing USAID grants. Although building capacity of partners was not originally 
within the design of SPRING, the management has had to provide capacity building to 
improve quality of project ideas and ensure sound systems are in place. This has tended 
to slow down the rate at which a given grant making cycle can be completed. 
 IPs are of the opinion that there is too much interference in management of project by 
SPRING staff. 
 The supervision has not been effective is some cases and as a result, some partners have 
implemented critical activities without thorough preparation. For example, UMECS was 
not able to train teachers for peace education in counseling because user manuals were 
not ready. The evaluation team was not able to access a CSM manual, except power point 
presentation, implying that the training could have been carried out without a manual. 
Such practices lower the quality of activities and reduce contribution to beneficiaries. 
2.4.3 Assessment of Quality and Appropriateness of the Performance Monitoring Plan 
The management of SPRING is supported by a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) which was 
completed in April 2009. The evaluation assessed the quality and appropriateness of SPRING in 
enabling management to track project progress and see how it can be improved. The assessment 
revealed strong points of the PMP in meeting its purpose as well as areas which need 
improvement (gaps). These two aspects are presented hereunder: 
Strengths 
 The PMP provides a good framework for generating information on different measurement 
areas. It gives a standard interpretation of different indicators and links component goals and 
outcomes. This enables different components to gauge their contribution to the project aim 
and USAID mission SO9. 
 It is quite convenient and easy to follow by implementers. Each indicator has a definition and 
an accompanying type of analysis to be conducted to generate information for it 
 It sets specific indicator targets given the baseline status and therefore SPRING management 
is able to reflect on the nature and quality of progress at any given point in time. 
Gaps 
 The indicators for measuring peace building and reconciliation and entire project 
contribution to stabilizing northern Uganda are not very elaborate in terms of clarity and their 
ability to be monitored adequately. 
 A good number of indicators, especially for access to justice component and some for peace 
building component seem to have been overtaken by changes in the project strategy. 
28 
Focusing on quick impact projects which are not solely building capacity of formal 
institutions has made many indicators redundant and not relevant. 
 The PMP does not give room for capturing detailed qualitative information on perceptions 
and attitudes as presented in stories, testimonies and quotes. Some un-intended project 
impacts or outcomes cannot be captured within the framework of the existing PMP. 
 The basis for setting targets is not clear. Consequently, some targets seem to be ambitious 
while others seem not be worth pursuance. 
 The PMP was not accompanied with data collection tools for indicators and this deprived 
project managers of testing the quality of different indicators to determine their clarity, 
relevancy, adequacy and whether they could be tracked at an affordable costs. 
2.4.4 Communication with USAID and Local Development Partners 
SPRING management keeps USAID Mission in Kampala and local development partners 
informed of project progress and any new developments through presentations at district cluster 
meetings and sharing of SPRING annual reports. In addition to project annual reports, SPRING 
management is obligated to submit quarterly reports to USAID Mission. Other communication 
avenues include sharing special reports and regularly exchanging information with the 
Contracting and Technical Representative (COTR) in charge of SPRING at USAID. 
In terms of the timeliness and sufficiency of information, sub-county local government officials 
confessed to being informed of all SPRING’s IP activities in their locations. However, district 
authorities expressed ignorance of what SPRING and some of its IPs are doing in their districts. 
In addition, it was also reported that communication with USAID has at times not been timely 
and regular. 
2.4.5 Systems for Tracking Funding Streams 
SPRING is funded through three funding streams within USAID. These included Development 
Assistance (DA), Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF), and Conflict Mitigation and 
Management (CMM) funds. The original contract between USAID and EMG required the latter 
to track and report activities funded by each of the funding activities. This condition has not be 
fulfilled by EMG as funds were not coming in at the same time and a basket approach was 
adopted in managing funds to where it was impossible to isolate funds according to sources of 
funding. In addition, the different streams of funding within USAID did not view this 
requirement as critical. For example, DCOF did not desire to be directly associated with projects 
and activities but was interested in ensuring that SPRING activities benefit children. 
29 
CHAPTER THREE: CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
This chapter presents conclusions and lessons learned from evaluation findings. It also makes 
appropriate recommendations for improving SPRING performance, and designing/management 
of future projects along key evaluation themes. 
3.1 Progress towards Anticipated Outcomes 
3.1.1 Peace and Reconciliation 
Conclusions 
 Clearly, the program objectives relating to individual and community capacity building, 
access and equity and maintaining a harmonious and peaceful society are still relevant. The 
Peace and Reconciliation component is being administered efficiently and with due diligence 
concerning compliance procedures. Nevertheless, the remaining timeframe may not be 
adequate for all results to be realized. 
 The evidence from this evaluation is that although not yet fully in practice, peace particularly 
when working in conjunction with the other two components, is a brilliantly conceived and 
potentially powerful community development and engagement concept. The component also 
functions with a relatively low quantum of inputs and requires more relationship building at 
the community level and networking. 
 Over the remaining period, more time and effort should be geared towards ensuring 
successful implementation of peace projects. This will allow for further planning such that 
the capacity of the programs can be expanded in future years. This evaluation predicts that 
the recommended investment in the SPRING program will be repaid many times in terms of 
community harmony and the consequent potentially massive financial savings that can 
accrue from the unique arrangement of social infrastructure the programs have created that 
allows district and community agencies to work holistically together in strengthening local 
communities. 
Recommendations 
It is recommended that: 
 SPRING investigates how to facilitate the provision of professional training for staff and 
consortium members in practice frameworks, developmental approaches to community 
engagement, community capacity building, advocacy and research techniques. 
 Additional dedicated resources within SPRING be planned to ensure more effective 
administration of the Peace and Reconciliation component including: 
o Specialized training for IPs of skills and program delivery methodologies while 
working with grass root communities 
o Development and implementation of an ongoing evaluation methodology that 
assesses and quantifies outcomes of Peace and Reconciliation relation to best 
practice. 
o Greater profiling of the work undertaken by and achieved by each partner 
It is recommended that the guidelines be reviewed to clarify the following: 
30 
 The roles of the managers within the programs; 
 The roles of IPs, project managers of SPRING supported IP projects versus the role of 
SPRING Technical Advisors/Director; 
 An agreed definition of what “integration” means in the context of the delivery of each 
project as a key strategy of SPRING; 
 Other forms of flexible contractual arrangements for IPs subject to satisfactory performance 
as measured/ evaluated against criteria outlined in the contract. 
3.1.2 Economic Security and Social Inclusion 
Conclusions 
The Economic Security and Social inclusion component is on right track for realizing its goal 
and registering its intended results. Evidence shows increase in productivity and farm incomes 
among supported farmers. There is ample evidence that economic security projects are benefiting 
farmers and their households. Benefiting farmers have purchased assorted household equipment, 
paid fees for their children and provided food to their family members. The success of the 
component transcends beyond the improved incomes at farmer level but rather entails established 
functional farmer structures that can secure or protect the realized immediate benefit to a 
sustainable benefit. At the moment marketing committees who are vested with the aspect of 
sustaining farmer benefits are starting to play their roles albeit need close mentoring and support. 
Although farmers seem to have appreciated and practice VSLA concepts, the same concern is 
not observed at recovery of seeds. This may relate with the attitude as well as the past which 
were characterized by hand outs during the moment of relief. 
What worked? 
To date the economic security and social inclusion component has delivered and continues to 
contribute to the following benefits: 
 Promotion of growing, bulking and marketing of high value crops, specifically chilli. 
 Improved farmers scale of crop production through training and distribution of improved 
seeds 
 The concept of marketing committees and warehouses has not fully taken-off as most stores 
have just been completed and farmers together with community members are yet to use the 
warehouses. 
 Improved farmers’ access to markets and market information. Marketing committees are 
umbrella structures that draw together several farmer groups to work together to market agro 
produce. 
 Farmer groups’ members are growing to trust each other and operate village savings and loan 
associations. 
 NECPA Farmer groups are growing in influence leading to the formation of other farmer 
groups in the neighboring sub counties where SPRING project has not mapped her 
operations. This positively though indirectly, impacts on households and child care co￾operatives over time. 
 Instilling sustainability concepts and resilience to farmer groups. The VSLA concept has 
been embraced by farmers and enabled them to meet urgent needs through withdrawal and 
use of savings and accessing loans to address different needs and challenges. A comparison 
31 
of level of savings and loans shows that loans are hedged against savings as loans are less 
than 50 percent of average savings for the sample. 
What hasn’t worked? 
 The seed loan concept has not worked out well as the recovery process is extremely poor due 
to the negative attitude of the communities who have been accustomed to free hand-outs 
during the emergency period. 
 Store constructions did not work out well as it has dragged on for a long time and there were 
no minimum standards for construction of stores. 
Recommendations 
SPRING should improve the quality of delivery of the project through institution of minimum 
standards and operational guidelines for the following 
 Generic training manuals – all training curricula undertaken by SPRING implementing 
partners should be screened and endorsed in reference to a generic manual developed and 
approved by SPRING. The standardization of the manual would entail professional 
development of a draft to which implementing partners provide an input 
 Promote horizontal learning through peer support visits at institutional [implementing 
partners] and beneficiary level. It is evident that different implementing partners have unique 
strengths demonstrated through various areas of excellence in the project implementation. 
For example, KSWVO has excelled in VSLAS and ADFA /NECPA excelled in collective 
marketing. 
 Marketing committees: Guidelines should be explicit on term of office, leadership trainings 
the committee has to undergo in a stipulated time line. A leaf could be borrowed from IRC 
guideline for management of collection points. 
All future projects with civil works activities should recruit a civil engineer or hire a civil 
engineering firm to oversee the design, procurement and execution of civil works. Outputs of 
such works should conform to minimum standards to avoid discrepancies in project products. 
3.1.3 Access to Justice 
Conclusion 
The evaluation in this component sought to assess progress towards attainment of component 
objectives and the evaluation findings lead to the following conclusions. 
a) The Land tenure Security has been a great success in provision of security of tenure to the 
SPRING farmer groups. This model of working will greatly prevent future land disputes and 
can be used as a model for other development projects in Northern Uganda. It should 
however be noted that the provision of Legal Advice and Alternative Dispute Resolution by 
the project has been limited and carried out on a small scale. This could be attributed to the 
fact that the farmers are not aware of other services being offered by SPRING or CRR apart 
from the signing of Land Agreements. 
b) SPRING’s activities on the access to Justice Component are biased towards the informal 
courts. The PRDP does not look at the L.C Courts as formal courts of justice but categorizes 
them as informal courts of Judicature. 
32 
c) The Access to Justice Implementing Partners are not aware of what activities the other co￾implementers are carrying out and there is no mechanism for proper coordination amongst 
them. 
Lessons Learnt 
 Land agreements are a source of security because of the broad based and inclusiveness of all 
relevant parties. This model prevents future land disputes and can be used as a model for 
other development projects in Northern Uganda. 
 Pure legal aid projects are not feasible for short term projects. Providing legal aid services 
requires a project with reasonable time such as five years and above as litigation process 
takes long in a country such as Uganda. 
 Training few representatives of beneficiaries on issues of human rights does not necessarily 
translate into increased awareness on human right issues for their parent groups. You need to 
train either the entire group or select a critical mass of representatives. 
Recommendations
For SPRING; 
a) The mobilization for mobile legal clinics that is coordinated by SPRING should be modified. 
The Implementing Partners should be strengthened to carry out the mobilization amongst 
themselves, then a report can be forwarded to SPRING. 
b) Furthermore, farmers should be sensitized about the services that CRR offers and encouraged 
to notify their leaders in case of a dispute such that outreach to a particular location is 
motivated by the number of cases that are reported to the Implementing Partner through their 
Leaders in the farmer group. 
c) The legal mobile Clinics should be taken closer to the people at parish level to enable people 
access them and the frequency of outreach should be increased. 
d) A mechanism for follow up referrals to some institutions that CRR has partnered with 
should be formulated and implemented. 
e) Horizontal partnerships and linkages between the implementing partners should be 
encouraged by SPRING. 
For Future Interventions 
 SPRING needs to work towards strengthening the cooperation between the formal and 
informal Justice systems such as with the current work that it is doing with the Acholi 
Religious Peace Leaders Initiative (ARLPI). This will entail provision of support to the 
formal justice system. 
 SPRING needs to increase the scope of its beneficiaries to the Legal Advice and Alternative 
Dispute resolution from farmer groups to the community. 
 SPRING should establish a mechanism that will enable it to sensitize the development 
projects about ways of obtaining security of tenure for their projects before implementation 
so as to mitigate future conflict. 
33 
3.2 Cross Cutting Issues 
3.2.1 Special Considerations and Crosscutting Issues 
SPRING projects are positively impacting on lives of children. Using proceeds from supported 
farming activities and small enterprises, farmers have been able to take their children back to 
school, provide food to them and in some instances meet medical treatment costs for sick 
children. 
Furthermore, EMG has put in place different measures to prevent or tackle occurrence of 
corruption and mismanagement of project resources. The measures developed seem to be ad-hoc 
and not well planned given the context within which the project operates. In addition, there has 
not been regular submission of environmental compliance reports by SPRING/EMG to USAID. 
Recommendations: 
It is recommended that EMG extends special attention to other expenditure aspects such as 
construction of warehouses, procurement of inputs for IPs and general services to ascertain level 
of prudence exhibited in use of project resources. This could be carried out within the framework 
of project annual financial audit. 
Further follow-up should be done to ensure vocational training students and micro-enterprises 
are well on their way to self-sustainability. 
SPRING/EMG should file periodic environmental compliance reports in line with USAID policy 
requirements. 
Future: An elaborate anti-corruption strategy ought to be developed to address any corruption 
issues with USAID funded projects.
3.3 Communication 
The findings presented above on SPRING communication activities indicate that the choice of 
radios for hosting SPRING programs was good. Findings also show that farmers listened more to 
economic recovery related radio programs compared to other categories of radio programs. 
Farmers also attach lots of importance to radio programs promoting economic security compared 
to peace and reconciliation. Economic security benefits of radio programs are highly rated 
among SPRING farmers. This is an indicator that households are in the phase of economic 
recovery. 
Recommendation 
It is recommended that SPRING and future projects dedicate significant amount of air time to 
economic security issues in their communication strategy. Households seem to have moved on 
and are seriously involved in economic recovery activities. Communication efforts should be 
geared towards addressing issues of economic development of households along the value chain 
approach used by SPRING in empowering farmers. 
3.3 SPRING Model 
Conclusion 
34 
Integrating components and activities is taking place on a small scale. Even with limited 
integration, the model is innovative and has potential to bear different benefits such as 
strengthening sustainability of projects through stabilization and promoting stability of different 
project benefits. Key limiting factors in integrating project activities were; absence of a strategy 
for integrating different program components and lack of shared understanding of integration 
approach across different stakeholders involved in the project. Due to these hindrances, all 
potential benefits of integration were not fully observable during the MTE. More time will be 
needed to see the full benefits of an integrated approach. 
Lessons Learnt 
 Leadership support is critical to successful integration. Monolithic approaches to 
programming are not conducive to having meaningful impact. 
 Integration is a deliberate and intentional process that needs to be well thought through from 
project conception 
 Transition from recovery to development provides a framework for integration 
 Tension and pain in management may slow down integration 
 Integration needs to be institutionalized so that there are support systems and structures to 
support the process 
 Integration is not a pain-free process and takes time. Poverty can overshadow all the other 
integration needs so that economic development becomes the sole focus. 
 Competent skills are needed in the integration process because attitude change takes time. If 
not managed well, integration can cause a “burn-out” among staff. 
 Not every aspect of an integrated project must be integrated. Some activities/projects need to 
be implemented independent of other components as long as they contribute to the goal and 
outcome of the component. 
Key Recommendations for Management Commitments 
 Quality and Impact: Programs should be designed to address the three critical components as 
well as the cross-cutting themes in order to reinforce integration. This should include joint 
assessments at sub-counties and in identifying IPs who will be able give holistic 
programming. Just like there was joint training in conflict sensitive training for all IPs, there 
should be joint capacity building workshops for the integration of the model 
 Intentional Learning and Sharing of Knowledge: The Chief of Party should provide 
leadership that is clear, committed, and demonstrates models of integration. He should use all 
meeting opportunities to verbalize his support for integration. He needs to institute open, 
regular, efficient communication, including opportunities for face-to-face engagement. The 
proposed action research by PINCER should address the integration of the sectors. 
 Build relationships and promote positive attitudes like humility, transparency, respect, trust 
and flexibility to change. 
 Value people, specialization, diversity, interdependence. This will require understanding the 
nature, contribution, roles, and responsibility of sectors, project support functions, and 
Implementing partners. 
35 
 Management should recognize that integration is a means to an end hence all of the sectors 
are important and none on its own can provide full stability to the community. They all need 
to be mutually accountable for quality of work, relationships, behaviors, independent actions, 
and results rather than focusing on individual sectors. 
 Joint Planning, Meetings and Monitoring: Each sector should invite the other sector heads to 
one planning/ strategy meeting per quarter although each of them may already be having an 
excessive workload. The sector heads are all specialized and strive for excellence in their 
field of expertise. There should be more deliberate team interaction in collaboration with the 
M&E Specialist to identify integration indicators. They should be specific so that they do no 
cause measurement overload on those collecting the data. 
 Communication: Staff should have 360 degree performance. Such appraisals should include 
evaluations on how effectively the staff communicates outside their immediate functional 
teams. One of the biggest threats to the integration process has been poor communication 
within the team. In addition to formal meetings, there is a need to communicate on an on￾going basis to manage tensions. 
3.4 Project Management 
3.4.1 Quality of Project Management 
The evaluation sought to determine the extent to which SPRING management is effective and 
efficient in project implementation and grants management process. It also sought to establish 
the quality of the PMP in aiding progress tracking, communication with USAID and local 
development partners and addressing special considerations in project management. Evaluation 
findings lead to the following conclusions. 
Project Capacity to Achieve Objectives 
There is sufficient capacity to enable SPRING attain its objectives. SPRING implementation is 
fully underway as evidenced by completed process for award of micro-stability grants (quick 
impact projects). The current SPRING Team is fully dedicated to successfully oversee and 
implement project activities. The slow start of the project has deprived the management of the 
opportunity to observe, assess and improve different aspects of the project. 
Recommendations 
SPRING: The Chief of Party should develop clear job descriptions for project managers to help 
review and clarify roles and responsibilities of component heads and project managers. 
Future Project: A position of human resource officer/manager should be added to critical project 
positions to improve performance of the human resource function. The HR manager should take 
charge of developing job descriptions, performance appraisal system and managing staff issues 
on the project. 
36 
3.4.2 Effectiveness and Efficiency Grants Management Process 
The SPRING grants management process is effective and efficient as evidenced by different 
mechanisms used to identify, award and manage grants. The process is transparent and credible. 
A total of 28 micro-stability grants had been awarded by SPRING at the time of the project. 
However, the efficiency of the grant management process is hindered by limited capacity of local 
IPs. This has compelled management to provide capacity building to IPs outside the original 
grants making framework within SPRING 
Lesson Learnt 
Local Partners, especially CBOs do not have sufficient capacity to manage a USAID grant 
without serious capacity building as part of preparation process. Building capacity of local IPs 
enabled them to adhere to grants guidelines and successfully implement granted projects. 
Recommendation 
Future Project: It is recommended that capacity building is included as special strategy within 
the design and implementation of any new project that plans to work with community based 
organizations. The capacity building should focus on project designs, capacity assessments and 
building systems and human resource capacity. 
3.4.3 Performance Monitoring Plan 
The SPRING PMP is considered a key resource by the management team in aiding of tracking 
results and performance. This provides a clear framework for project performance management. 
However, some components of the PMP have been overtaken by change in project strategy. A 
good number of indicators for tracking progress towards attainment of SPRING goal, peace 
building and access to justice components are not relevant. In addition, the PMP does not give 
clear basis for setting targets for each indicator. Some of the targets are questionable and seem 
not to be engaging enough and worth pursuance. 
Recommendations 
SPRING: It is recommended that SPRING team develops a new set of indicators to reflect 
change in project strategy for peace building and access to justice component. Qualitative 
indicators should be embraced since the project goal is of a qualitative nature. 
Future Projects: PMPs should be tested and adjusted before being embraced as official 
documents. There should be continued update or improvement of the PMP to reflect emerging 
changes and enhance its relevance in project management. 
3.4.4 Communication to USAID and Local Development Partners 
SPRING and her IPs should improve their communication to district local governments and 
USAID. The model of regular interaction with sub-counties during project implementation 
should be extended to the district level. SPRING officials, especially COP should regularly 
interact with districts and regularly provide information to USAID and districts on different 
issues concerning the project. 
37 
3.5 Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 
Overall, SPRING results and targets will be achieved by the end of the project. Many of the 
targets would be significantly exceeded if there was a clear integration strategy at the beginning 
and early commencement of quick impact projects. While a six months extension could lead to 
greater impacts that are more widely felt by SPRING beneficiaries it is not tenable within the 
current contractual arrangements. In regards to a future USAID project, the design should focus 
on economic development of communities in Northern Uganda since there is ample evidence 
showing that communities have reached the point of embarking on comprehensive development. 
Communities are much inclined towards economic development activities to the extent that not 
much success can be registered by projects which are exclusively focusing on non-economic 
development issues. 
Therefore, the new intervention should follow the same model of integration albeit economic 
security should be the fulcrum of integration as opposed to peace and reconciliation. Peace and 
reconciliation are critical for a community which is emerging from conflict as demonstrated by 
the current SPRING project. However, as communities embark on economic development, it is 
only logical that economic security takes centre stage. A key constraint in project 
implementation has been limited time frame. It is therefore recommended that reasonable 
timeframe (at least five years) should be dedicated to implementation of such projects to 
facilitate proper project implementation and overseeing of different changes attributed to the 
project. Additionally, a clear and comprehensive integration strategy should be developed to 
support deliberate and systematic integration of different project components. 
Furthermore, the evaluation has shown that some of the projects within the current peace and 
justice components are worth replicating and scaling up with some adjustments. Therefore, the 
next phase of SPRING should address the following issues under each of these components: 
Peace building and Reconciliation 
 Emphasis should be placed on peace activities that target entire households (children, 
husband, wife) and the community. 
 Capacity building of IPs in conflict resolution and peace building training (develop own 
materials and guidelines that show how to integrate the components). The trainings should be 
extended to lower local government officials to widen the multiplier effect of the training. 
 Aligning economy with peace should be expanded to formal and informal business sectors as 
well as households. Large, small and medium scale enterprises should be targeted to bring on 
board the entire business sector in Northern Uganda and create a business sector critical mass 
for peace in Northern Uganda. Economic development interventions funded by USG should 
be aligned with peace as well since struggle over economic resources is a key source of 
domestic violence. 
 Unpacking ‘P’ in PRDP activities should be expanded to Karamoja and Teso regions to 
address spillover efforts of the LRA conflict to these regions. The recommendations from the 
research undertaken during the current and future phases should be reviewed and adopted to 
implement a peace project targeting different stakeholders beyond the PRDP timeframe. 
 The peace education project should be reviewed and expanded to all education institutions in 
Northern Uganda. Better planning and supervision ought to be carried out to improve project 
efficiency and effectiveness. 
38 
 Conflict sensitive mainstreaming should be an on-going activity for USAID partners and 
should be tailor-made to different contexts of supported partners. Some partners should be 
trained in CSM, while others are supported in conflict assessment and some will need hands￾on support in conflict sensitive mainstreaming. 
 Local Governments should be supported in the same area since they (Local Government) 
oversee and directly carry out programming and development issues within the district. 
Access to Justice 
 The land tenure Security project should be scaled-up to reach individual farmers in more sub￾counties and parishes in Northern Uganda. Mobile legal clinic should also be replicated and 
scaled-up to benefit more communities and individuals in Northern Uganda. This project will 
contribute to widespread land disputes in the post-war Northern Uganda. A systematic 
mechanism for follow-up of legal referrals should be included in the new project. 
 Strengthening the cooperation between the formal and informal Justice systems. The current 
project strategy has focused on strengthening informal justice systems with limited support to 
formal system. The community oscillates between formal and informal justice systems and 
therefore a coherent strategy for strengthening and increasing cooperation between the two 
sectors will be handy in the transition process. 
Lessons learnt from the current project, its achievements and recommendations from this 
evaluation should be reviewed to inform the design for the next phase. 
39 
Reference Materials 
SPRING Documents 
 Request for Proposals for Managing SPRING Project USAID (August 2007) 
 Project Monitoring Plan (April 2004) 
 Annual progress report for 2008/09 
 Work plan for FY 2009/2010- December 2009 
 Impact of SPRING On children (September 2009) 
 Model for Land Tenure Security (February 2010) - Briefing paper 
 Management plan for Potika Collection Point (IRC) – Not dated 
 SPRING’S integrated approach to stabilization (Not dated) 
 Communication Assessment Plan (Fe-March 2008) 
 IP MTR Report (December 2009) 
 Baseline survey Report (March 2009) 
 SPRING Indicator Variance Analysis (Feb, 2010) 
External Documents 
 GOU (September 2007), Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda 
(PRDP) 
 EMG (October 2007), Technical proposal for Managing SPRING 
 
40 
Annexes 
Annex 1: SPRING Stability Fund and AVSI Sub-grants 
Grant # GRANTEE DISTRICT BUDGET CEILING Integration of SPRING Components 
Economic Security Grants 
STA-001 MERCY CORPS (MC) Pader $99,999 Conflict Mapping and Management Training 
STA-002 International Rescue Committee (IRC) Kitgum $99,948 
Integrated Land Tenure and Conflict 
Resolution and Group Strengthening 
through Traditional Leadership 
STA-003 North East Chili Producers Association (NECPA) Lira, Oyam, Kitgum and Pader $99,317 
Conflict sensitive training on land tenure 
issues, traditional justice, identification 
of peace promoters and Acholi-Langi 
Exchange Visits 
STA-004 Ugandan Veterinary Association (UVA) Gulu & Amuru $106,789 
STA-005 Arbeiter-Samariter Bund Deutschland (ASB) Oyam and Pader $249,894 
Integrated Conflict Resolution and 
Group Strengthening through 
Strengthening Traditional Leadership 
STA-006 Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief (CPAR) Gulu $206,962 
Integrated Land Tenure Security and 
Conflict Resolution and Group 
Strengthening through Strengthening 
Traditional Leadership 
STA-007 Kisa Ber Support to War Victims Organization (KSWVO) Amuru $249,288 Field Days, Peace Dramas and Speech Competitions on Peace & Reconciliation 
STA-009 Lira District Farmers Association (LIDFA) Lira $187,388 Integrated Land Tenure Security 
STA-010 Apac District Farmers Association (ADFA) Apac/Oyam $159,373 Integrated Land Tenure Security 
AVSI-01 Kitgum Women Beekeepers Association(KITWOBEE) Kitgum $20,646 
AVSI-02 Meeting Point Kitgum (MP) Kitgum $37,578 
AVSI-03 Women and Children First Organisation(WACFO) Amuru $26,444 Music, Dance and Drama to Promote Peacea and Reconciliation 
AVSI-04 Aids Clients and disabled orphans(ACADOS) Gulu $33,904 
AVSI-05 Gulu Youth Development Association(GYDA) I - Internal Capacity Building Gulu $1,369 
41 
Grant # GRANTEE DISTRICT BUDGET CEILING Integration of SPRING Components 
AVSI-06 Livelihoods,Education and Protection to End Child Labour(LEAP) Gulu and Pader $46,264 
AVSI-07 Northern Ugandan Youth Development Center (NUYDC) Gulu $60,493 Peace Education ( activties under design) 
AVSI-08 Gulu Youth Development Association(GYDA) II : Wheelchair Production & Nursery Gulu $52,457 
AVSI-09 WACFO - Early Child Care and Development Amuru $30,000 Early Child Care Support for Farmer Groups. 
18 Sub-total $1,768,113 
Peace and Reconciliation Grants 
STA-011 International Alert (IA) 
Gulu,Amuru,Kitgum and 
Pader $242,766 
Building a Peace Economy - Conflict 
Sensitive Economic Development 
STA-012 Atheltes for Africa (A4A) 
Gulu,Amuru,Kitgum and 
Oyam $151,157 
Youth Reconciliation Activities through 
Sport, Culture and Agriculture 
STA-014 
Great Lakes Center for Conflict Resolution 
(GLACCR) 
Gulu,Amuru,Kitgum 
,Oyam,Lira and Pader $99,493 
Conflict Sensitive Programming for 
SPRING Ips across all three SPRING 
components. 
STA-015 
United Movement to End Child Soldiering 
(UMECS) 
Gulu,Amuru,Kitgum and 
Pader $150,090 
STA-016 Gulu NGO Forum (GDNF) 
Gulu, Amuru, Pader and 
Kitgum $114,702 
Micro-stability projects across all three 
SPRING components. 
STA-018 Concerned Parents Association (CPA) Lira and Oyam $102,841 
Support to Children and Parent Groups 
through IGAs, Peace and Child Rights. 
STA-020 Pincer Group (PG) Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Pader, Lira and Oyam $199,003 
7 Sub-total $1,060,052 
Access to Justice Grants 
STA-013 Center for Reparation and Reconciliation(CRR) 
Lira, Oyam, Kitgum, and 
Pader $119,800 
Land Tenure Security Support to 
SPRING Farmer Groups. 
STA-017 Ker Kwaro Acholi (KKA) 
Kitgum, Gulu, Amuru and 
Pader $104,823 
Strengthening Traditional Leadership to 
Support SPRING Farmer Groups. 
42 
Grant # GRANTEE DISTRICT BUDGET CEILING Integration of SPRING Components 
STA-019 Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative (ARLPI) 
Kitgum, Gulu 
$52,683 
Integrating peace and justice through 
collaboration of informal and formal 
authorities in resolving land disputes. 
3 Sub-total $277,306 
28 Grant Total $3,105,471 
Source: SPRING 
43 
Annex 2: Evaluation Data Collection Tools 
A: Conflict Resolution and Peace Building Component Review Tools 
A1: KII Guide for Director for Reconciliation and Peace Building 
Name of respondent and designation in the project 
1. What are some of the strengths and weaknesses in the current management structure 
2. What, if any, needs to be changed in the management structure and for what reasons 
3. Given the scope of the project and its general funding mechanism, has it met the interim needs of its primary 
stakeholders? Why do you think so? 
4. Do you think the project will meet its ultimate needs by 2010? Why do you think so? 
5. What informed the design of the current M & E plan of the project? 
6. What do you see as the most useful elements in the area of peace-building (indicators, targets, routine data 
gathering tools, database, staff etc) of this M& E plan in tracking the project performance? 
7. What changes need to be made in the current plan to achieve the peace-building milestones and for what 
reasons 
8. To what extent has the project achieved its targets specifically in the area of peace-building as spelt out in the 
performance management plan? What indications are there that the project will meet its technical expectations 
at the end of the project? 
9. What contributions have been made by the project activities to related on-going efforts to bring peace and 
harmony in targeted areas? 
10. Overall, what difference is this project likely to bring in the area of peace building and conflict mitigation? 
11. What role has the project played in building the capacity of peace committees and local governments assisting 
the implementing partners with program development and implementation? What adjustments, if any, are 
needed for the project to realize its intended targets? 
12. What lessons and insights do we learn from what are perceived to be the project’s best practices? 
13. Any other thoughts? 
================================================================================== 
 A2: KII Guide for Grantees 
Name of the respondent, designation and Organization:
1. How long has your organisation worked with SPRING? 
2. In what areas(s) of capacity building has your organisation received from SPRING since you started working 
with SPRING project? 
3. How has SPRING’s technical assistance or interventions contributed to the achievement of your organisational 
and programmatic goals? What adjustments can be taken by SPRING to get the best out of the technical 
assistance? 
4. How different has the technical assistance helped your organization to better implement peace-building 
activities? Please cite some examples of these activities? In what areas does your organization need support to 
better implement peace-building programs in particular? 
5. From your perspective, what contributions have been made by the project activities to related on-going efforts 
to bring about peace and stability in northern Uganda? 
6. What difference is this project likely to bring in the area of peace-building by 2010? 
7. In your opinion, how has SPRING addressed the specific needs of women and vulnerable children in northern 
Uganda? What specific interventions should SPRING undertake to address the needs of women and vulnerable 
children in northern Uganda? 
8. What hurdles and challenges has your organisation experienced in the capacity building interventions of 
SPRING? 
9. Based on your experience from SPRING grant implementation approach as well as your contextual knowledge 
of northern, what specific activities or programs are needed to bring about total peace and development in 
northern Uganda? How could these activities or programs be carried out? 
10. Comment on the overall proposal development and grants award process you underwent with SPRING? Probe 
for quality of award and management process, proposals for improvement 
Sustainability Issues 
44 
1. What is your current level of funding? Probe for current annual budget, source of funds and %Age contributed 
by SPRING 
2. Besides SPRING supported project, what other interventions is your organisation implementing? What period 
do they cover? 
3. Do you have a Board? How is it constituted? What is their role? Are they trained and active 
4. What is the level of staffing? Indicate contract period and level of qualification 
5. How do farmer groups and your organisation plan to use skills acquired from the project/support? 
6. What sustainability strategies did the project adopt and promote to ensure continuity of different benefits and 
structures? 
7. What strategies does your organisation have to continue with different activities funded and products/assets 
generated by SPRING? 
8. How has SPRING helped you to become sustainable? 
Sustainability of Benefits 
9. What sustainability strategies have been designed and implemented among beneficiaries? 
10. What has worked well which can be replicated elsewhere? What has not worked well and need to be improved 
or avoided. 
Capacity Building 
11. How has SPRING built the capacity of your organisation to become effective in programme delivery? In what 
are has SPRING build the capacity of your organisation? Probe for different areas such as M&E, conflict 
sensitive programming, financial management, fundraising etc 
12. How has the capacity building helped your organisation to become effective and professional in its work? Give 
specific examples OR what are you able to do as a result of the capacity building intervention 
================================================================================== 
 A3: KII Guide for USAID Staff 
Name of staff and designation: 
1. Given the scope of the project and its general funding mechanism, has it met the interim needs of its primary 
stakeholders? Why do you think so? 
2. From your perspective, what contributions have been made by the project activities to related on-going efforts 
to bring about peace and stability in northern Uganda? 
3. Comment on the effectiveness of SPRING’s integrated stabilization approach. 
4. Do you think the project will meet its ultimate needs by 2010? Why do you think so? 
5. What difference is this project likely to bring in the area of mitigating causes and consequences of the conflict 
by 2010? 
6. In your opinion, what lessons and insights would you consider being the project’s best practices so far? 
7. What kind of support does the project needs to achieve its goals? 
8. What project management areas could be improved? 
A4: KII Guide for Local Government Leaders 
Name and Designation of Respondent 
1. How does your organisation work with SPRING project? 
2. What do you consider to be main strengths of this collaboration with SPRING? 
3. What adjustments, if any, are needed to strengthen the collaboration to help SPRING Uganda achieve its 
intended goals by 2010? 
4. In your opinion, how has SPRING addressed the specific needs of women and vulnerable children in northern 
Uganda? What specific interventions should SPRING undertake to address the needs of women and vulnerable 
children in Uganda 
5. From your perspective, what contributions have been made by the project activities to related on-going efforts 
to bring about peace and stability in northern Uganda? 
6. What difference is this project likely to bring in the area of peace-building, economic recovery and access to 
justice by 2010? 
7. How do you rate the performance of SPRING in terms of communication and grant management practices? 
8. In your opinion, what lessons and insights would you consider to be the project’s best practices so far? 
45 
9. What adjustments, if any, is needed for the project to realize its intended targets 
10. Give the development challenges/priorities of your community, what else would you recommend to 
SPRING/USAID for support? 
11. Any other thoughts 
==================================================================== 
A5: FGD Guide for Teachers 
1. Describe the training you attended which was organised by UMECS? Probe for content, purpose, training 
methods 
2. What skills did you acquire from the training? Probe for personal skills in peace building and skill for being a 
peace builder/facilitator 
3. Comment on the quality and relevance of the training? 
4. How are you applying acquired skills? Probe for application of skills at individual, school, family and 
community level 
5. How have the skills acquired helped students/schools and community members? 
6. What challenges do you face or likely to face in applying acquired skills? 
7. What suggestions do you have concerning quality and relevance of training organised by UMECS? 
B: Economic Security Component Data Collection Review Tool 
Appendix B1: FGD Guide for Farmers Group: [sampled groups] 
Appendix B1: FGD Guide for Farmers Group: 
Date: 
District: Sub county: 
Venue of meeting: Name of Group: 
Attendance: Females ………; Males ……… 
Names of Facilitators: ………………….. 
Start time: 
End time: 
Section 2: Economic Security 
IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT AFFECTED 
REGIONS 
PRODUCTION 
1. When did you start interacting with SPRING or her implementing partners? [Mention names of IPs that are 
assigned to the sub county if necessary ] {probe for awareness about SPRING/IPs} 
2. Mention the trainings that you have undergone as a result of SPRING/Implementing partner support. 
3. Mention the inputs that you have received from SPRING/Implementing partners 
4. How have the trainings and inputs impacted your life and that of your household members 
VALUE ADDITION 
5. After harvest, what do you do to your harvested crops to earn better market prices? 
SAVINGS 
6. Describe the way your group operates savings 
7. Describe the way your farmer group operates the loan scheme 
8. Comment on how the seed loan were repaid back by your farmer group members 
9. Comment on the adherence to the repayment period for members who take loans 
46 
10. How is the seed bank concept/initiative working in your farmer group 
11. How have the farmer group savings helped the farmer group members 
12. How have the farmer group loans helped the farmer group members 
13. What challenges has your farmer group encountered in running the savings and loan scheme 
14. What plans do you have for your group savings 
COLLECTIVE MARKETING 
 
15. Mention the arrangements through which you market your crops? 
16. How has the marketing committee helped you to market your crops? Explain 
RELATIONSHIPS 
17. Do you enjoy working in a group? 
18. Do conflicts happen within members, IF YES, how do they get resolved 
19. What do you consider to be the key challenges (if any) as a farmer group in your engagements with 
SPRING/IPs 
20. What are the lessons learned as a result of your relation with SPRING/IPs 
21. What mechanisms are in place or have been attained to ensure that the project benefits are sustained beyond 
the SPRING/IPs resource support to the farmer group. 
22. Suggest what could be done [if any] to improve the delivery of services by SPRING/IPs 
IMPACT 
23. How has your engagement with SPRING/IPs affected your household food security/availability {probe for 
how many meals children do have per day as of present} 
24. Comment on your household capacity to meet the needs of children 
Section 2: Resolution and Peace-Building 
1. Tell me about the types of conflicts that you experience in 
a. Your households 
b. Your farmer groups 
c. Your communities 
d. How do you resolve them? To whom do you go for mediation 
2. Have you ever experienced inter-community conflicts, maybe with a neighbouring village? If yes, what was it 
about? 
3. Are traditional methods of conflict resolution still sufficient? Why? 
4. Which radio do you listen to mostly? 
5. What is your favourite radio programme? On which radio is it? 
6. Have you ever listened to SPRING radio programme? Guage if participants have listened to Dongo Paco 
Karacel (in Acholi) or “Peacemaker” (in Lango region) 
7. What do you enjoy about it? What is the key message that you get? 
47 
8. How did the radio messages help you? 
9. How has the SPRING promoted peace building in your relationships at individual, family, group and 
community level? 
10. What else can SPRING do to strengthen peace in your community? 
Section 3: Access to Justice 
a) What are the main issues affecting farmers in your area? (General) 
b) What is the nature of land related disputes that you encounter? 
c) Are you aware of a place where you can access justice in your Sub County? 
d) In your opinion, are these issues adequately addressed? Please justify your answer. 
e) Who are the different organisations/ CBO’s addressing access to justice issues in your area? What interventions 
have they put in place to enable community members access Justice? 
f) Describe ways of how you have been enabled to obtain security of tenure and access Justice in case of Conflict? 
g) In your opinion has the intervention by SPRING /IP’s enabled you to obtain justice / has the problem been 
resolved? 
h) What are the challenges or hindrances that are stopping people from accessing formal and informal Justice 
Systems? 
i) What can realistically be done to alleviate these challenges? 
j) What do you consider to be the key challenges in your engagements with SPRING/IP’S? 
k) What are the lessons learnt as a result of your relations with SPRING/IP’s? 
l) What could be done to improve the delivery of services by SPRING/IP’s? 
m) In your observation what has been done by the SPRING/IP’s to ensure continuity of what you have benefited 
from the project? 
n) How can the security of Tenure for the farmers be enhanced? 
o) Do you know any human or basic property rights? if so state any 3 
p) What can be done differently by SPRING in implementing its activities/ 
q) Any recommendations/ thoughts? 
==================================================================== 
B2: FGD Guide Implementing Partners: [sampled groups] 
Date: 
Name of partner: 
Area of operation: 
Area of intervention: 
Venue of meeting: 
Attendance: Females ………; Males ……… 
Names of Facilitators: ………………….. 
Start time: 
End time: 
IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT AFFECTED REGIONS 
1. When did you start interacting with SPRING. [probe for formal period of engagement]
2. Mention your target group and the interventions you are involved in with them. 
3. Mention ways of how your interaction with SPRING has facilitated or constrained the delivery of your intended 
services. 
4. What are key achievements of the project supported by SPRING? 
5. What do you consider to be any other key challenges (if any) in your engagements with SPRING 
6. What mechanisms are in place or have been attained to ensure that the project benefits are sustained beyond the 
SPRING resource support to your organization 
7. Suggest what could be done [if any] to improve the delivery of services by SPRING 
Sustainability Issues 
13. What is your current level of funding? Probe for current annual budget, sources of funds and SPRING 
Contribution, other grants and interventions outside SPRING support 
14. Do you have a Board? How is it constituted? What is their role? Are they trained and active 
48 
15. What is the level of staffing? Indicate contract period and level of qualification 
16. What sustainability strategies did the project adopt and promote to ensure continuity of different benefits and 
structures? 
17. What strategies does your organisation have to continue with different activities funded and products/assets 
generated by SPRING? 
18. How has SPRING helped you to become sustainable? 
Sustainability of Benefits 
19. What sustainability strategies have been designed and implemented among beneficiaries? 
20. How has SPRING IPs addressed capacity (leadership, management and technical) issues for farmer groups? 
21. Doe farmer groups have fully constituted and operational leadership structures? 
22. How do farmer groups plan to use skills acquired from the project/support? 
23. What has worked well which can be replicated elsewhere? What has not worked well and need to be improved 
or avoided. 
Capacity Building 
24. How has SPRING build the capacity of your organisation to become effective in programme delivery? In what 
are has SPRING build the capacity of your organisation? Probe for different areas such as M&E, conflict 
sensitive programming, financial management, fundraising etc 
25. How has the capacity building helped your organisation to become effective and professional in its work? Give 
specific examples OR what are you able to do as a result of the capacity building intervention 
B3: FGD Guide for Marketing Committee Group: 
Date: 
District: 
Sub county: 
Venue of meeting: 
Name of Group: 
Attendance: Females ………; Males ……… 
Names of Facilitators: ………………….. 
Start time: 
End time: 
IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT AFFECTED REGIONS 
1. When did you start interacting with SPRING or her implementing partners? [Mention names of IPs that are 
assigned to the sub county if necessary ] {probe for awareness about SPRING/IPs}
2. How has your interaction with SPRING/IPs affected the value of your crops sales [probe for Ground nuts, 
rice, maize, chilli, simsim, beans and “honey”] 
3. Describe ways of how you have been economically affected in relation to your engagements with SPRING 
or her Implementing partners (IPs) 
4. How has your engagement with SPRING/IPs affected your support to farmer groups 
5. Mention your key success as far as marketing farm produce 
6. What do you consider to be the key challenges (if any) in your engagements with 
a. SPRING/IPs (Specify IP) 
b. Farmer groups 
c. Local government 
d. Buyers 
7. What are the lessons learned as a result of your relation with SPRING/IPs 
8. What mechanisms are in place or have been attained to ensure that the project benefits are sustained beyond 
the SPRING/IPs resource support to your committee group 
9. Suggest what could be done [if any] to improve the delivery of services by SPRING/IPs 
B4: FGD Guide VLSAs 
Date: 
District: 
Sub county: 
Venue of meeting: 
Name of VSLA: 
49 
Attendance: Females ………; Males ……… 
Names of Facilitators: ………………….. 
Start time: 
End time: 
IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT AFFECTED REGIONS 
1. When did you start interacting with SPRING or her implementing partners? [Mention names of IPs that are 
assigned to the sub county if necessary ] {probe for awareness about SPRING/IPs}
2. How has your interaction with SPRING/IPs affected associations operations 
3. Describe ways of how you have been economically affected in relation to your engagements with SPRING 
or her Implementing partners (IPs) 
4. Mention your key success as an association 
5. As a Village Savings and Loan Association 
a. Describe the trainings you have undergone {probe for when, duration and by who} 
b. Describe the benefits realized as a result of being a member of VSLAs 
6. What do you consider to be the key challenges (if any) in your engagements with 
a. SPRING/IPs 
b. Association members 
c. Local government 
7. What are the lessons learned as a result of being a VSLA 
8. What mechanisms are in place or have been attained to ensure that the project benefits are sustained beyond 
the SPRING/IPs resource support to your association 
9. Suggest what could be done [if any] to improve the delivery of services by SPRING/IPs to your association 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 B5: FGD Guide for Vulnerable Youths – Vocational Support 
Date: 
District: 
Sub county: 
Venue of meeting: 
Name of CBO: 
Attendance: Females ………; Males ……… 
Names of Facilitators: ………………….. 
Start time: 
End time: 
IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT AFFECTED REGIONS 
1. When did you start interacting with SPRING or her implementing partners? 
2. In what ways has your interaction with SPRING/IPs affected your lives 
3. Mention the key success as a result of SPRING/IPs support to you 
4. What do you consider to be the key challenges (if any) in your engagements with 
a. SPRING/IPs 
5. What mechanisms are in place or have been attained to ensure that the project benefits are sustained beyond 
the SPRING/IPs resource support to you 
Suggest what could be done [if any] to improve the delivery of services by SPRING/IPs 
========================================================= 
 B7: Project Evaluation Interview schedule for Individual Farmers 
INTRODUCTION and INFORMED CONSENT 
Good morning/afternoon. My name is ____________. I am from KENWILL an independent research organization. 
I do not represent the government or any political party. We are conducting a Mid-Term Evaluation of SPRING 
project. With your permission, I would like to ask you some questions. Your answers will be confidential. They will 
be put together with those of other people we are talking to, to get an overall picture. It will be impossible to pick 
you out from what you say, so please feel free to tell us what you think. This interview will take about __20_ 
minutes. There is no penalty for refusing to participate. Do you wish to proceed? 
Do you agree to participate? 1. Yes 2. No ( if No. Terminate the interview and thank the respondent) 
50 
Date of the interview --------------------------------------- 
Time interview started -------------------------------------- 
Interviewer’s name------------------------------------------- 
Interviewee name ……………………………………………. 
Implementing partner [attached to] ……………………… Name of the group………..………..…….. 
How long have you been part of this group ………………………[NB: If less than six months Terminate/End the 
interview]
SECTION A: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT 
Instruction to the Interviewer: Please Circle as appropriate. Where you are required to write the response do it 
appropriately. 
1 DISTRICT 1. Amuru 2. Oyam 
2 SUB COUNTY 
3 PARISH 
4 VILLAGE (LC I) …………………………….… 
SECTION B: RESPONDENT’S SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 
 Question Response 
5 Sex of the respondent (tick as appropriate, do not ask) 1. Male 2. Female 
6 How old are you? In complete years------------------ 
7 How long since the end of insurgency have you been 
resettled in this village? 
1. In complete years ------------------ 
2. Months ………………. 
3. Have not been resettled 
4. Still in transit towards resettlement 
9 What is your highest level of education? 1.None 2. Primary 3. Secondary 4. Tertiary 
5. Others (specify)…………….
10 Besides farming what is your other source of income? 1. Trade, 2. Salaried employment, 
3. Others (specify)………………………………… 
11 What is your marital status? 1. Married\Cohabiting 2. Single/Never married 
3.Divorced\Separated, 4. Widowed 
12 How many persons stay in your household? 1 . One to five 2. Six to ten 3. Eleven to fifteen 
 4. above 15 
13 How many children stay in this household 1. None 2. …….Boy(s) 3. …. Girl(s) 
SECTION C: IR.3: ENHANCED SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC SECURITY IN CONFLICT – 
AFFECTED REGIONS
SKILLS TRAINING 
14 What types of training support have you received [NB: Probe for type of training and all organizations that 
offered the training]
 Type of training Name of organization 
 
51 
 
15 Do you receive agricultural related follow up support 
visits by___________ (SPRING/Implementing partner) 
1. Yes 2. No 
16 If yes to the above , are you satisfied with the follow up 
visits 
1. Yes 2. No 
17 If satisfied please mention why? 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
18 If not satisfied please mention why? 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
19 How has the training impacted your crop production and overall yields? 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
 SEEDS 
20. a. What type/variety of seeds did you receive from 
________________)SPRING/Implementing partner) 
52 
 b. How have the seeds helped you 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
21 When did you first receive seeds from 
SPRING/Implementing partner [NB: Probe for month 
and year] 
22 Have you used the same seeds for the subsequent season? 1. Yes 
 2. No if no give reason………………….. 
 VILLAGE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS 
23 Are you participating in a Village Savings and Loan 
Association 
1. Yes 2.No 
24 If yes, how much have you saved? State the amount in 
Uganda shillings 
Ug. Shs. ………………………….. 
25 How has your savings in the farmer group helped you? 
26 Have you ever borrowed from your farmers group? 1. Yes , how much ……………..…… 
2. No, give reason 
…………………………………………….
[skip to question 28 ] 
27 How did the loan help you? 
28 Did you pay back the seeds you received from 
SPRING/Implementing partner to the farmer group? 
[if applicable] 
1. Yes 
 
2. No, give reasons …………………. 
 VALUE ADDITION 
29 After harvest, what are you doing to your harvested crops to earn a better market price. 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
53 
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
 COLLECTIVE MARKETING 
30 Mention the arrangements through which you market your crops? 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 5………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
31 How has your marketing committee helped you to market your crops? Explain? 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 5…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
32 If no to the above question, give reasons 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
4……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
33 Where do you get marketing information for your 
produce? 
1. Radio 2. Friends 
3. Weekly markets 4. Newspapers 
5. Cooperative societies. 6. Others (specify) 
7. None 8..marketing committee 
9. SPRING/IPs 
 COMMUNICATIONS 
34 Which radio stations do you listen to? 
35 Which programs do you listen to ? [in case the respondent mentions a SPRING sponsored program – “Dongo 
Paco Karacel” for Acholi region and “Peacemaker” for the Lango region] 
54 
36 
37 What types of messages are most helpful to you and your family? Why? 
39 Have you listened to SPRING sponsored radio spots (30 second public message)? If so, which have been the 
most helpful to you? 
 MID -TERM RESULTS 
40 Explain how SPRING/implementing interventions have affected the lives of the children in your household 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 
41 Mention four ways how SPRING/IPs has affected your household quality of life 
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 
 4……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
 
SECTION D. PEACE –BUILDING AND RECONCLIATION 
42 Were you affected by conflict? Yes 
No 
1 
2 2A 
43 If yes, has membership in your farmer group 
helped you to overcome any challenges? 
44 
a] .Do you have any conflicts within your 
farmer group? Yes 
No 
1 
2 
b.] Mention the types of conflicts you 
encounter in your group 
45 If yes, how does your farmer group resolve 
conflicts within the group 
INDICATOR DATA. RELATIONS WITHIN THE ACHOLI COMMUNITY IMPROVED 
46 How does the community presently feel about 
returnees? 
47 Do you have community members that express 
negative attitude towards returnees? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
55 
48 Are you providing assistance to extended 
family members? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
49 
Do you think the families of ex-combatants 
should be held responsible for the actions of 
their relatives? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
INCREASED POSITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTH 
50 Do you know of any families in which an 
Acholi has married a Langi or vice versa? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
51 Would you elect a community leader who is 
not of your tribe? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
PERCENT OF NORTHERN UGANDA POPULATION REPORTING IMPROVED PERCEPTIONS OF 
PERSONAL SECURITY 
52 Do you feel that your property is safe? Yes 
No 
1 
2 
53 Can you travel to any part of northern Uganda 
without any fear? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
54 Do you fear that you and/your daughters will 
be victims of gender based violence? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
55 
Do you feel free to talk about the conflict issues 
in northern Uganda? 
 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
56 Do you feel that incidents of banditry have 
decreased in your community? 
Yes 
No 
1 
2 
57 
Have you heard about or participated in peace 
events in the past year? If yes mention them, 
and the institutions or individuals who 
organized them 
58 a.How do you solve conflicts? 
 b. Do you like farming in a group? Why? 
c. Do disputes happen among members? Over 
what? How does the dispute get resolved? 
SECTION E LAND: 
59 Have you had any land disputes? Yes 
No 
60 What is the nature of land disputes that you have encountered? a. Boundary disputes 
b. Encroachment 
c. Retracted land gifts 
d. Others 
(specify)………………… 
61 If yes, how was this dispute resolved? a. Mediation with an Elder 
b. Mediation with a Rwot Kweri 
c. Local Council Court 
d. Magistrates Court 
56 
62 If not why wasn’t it resolved? 
63 Has the problem gone away or re occurred? If so how was it resolved? 
If not, what has hindered the problem from being solved? 
64 Have the land Agreements for warehouses ensured farmer group land 
security? 
65 Who are the signatories to these farmer group Land Agreements? 
66 Have you had any dispute after the signing of the Agreements? 
67 If so what is the nature of the dispute? 
68 Has the dispute been resolved? 
69 Who helps you in your cultivation? a. Husband 
b. In laws 
c. Children 
d. Others …………………. 
57 
70 If yes for Children, what is the age bracket of the children who help you 
in cultivation? 
a. 3-6 
b. 5-12 
c. 12-18 
71 For how long do they cultivate? a. 1-2 hours 
b. 2-4 hours 
c. 4-6 hours 
d. 6-8 hours 
NOTE FOR INTERVIEWERS: PLEASE THANK THE RESPONDENT AND NOTE 
TIME INTERVIEW ENDED: ………………………. 
 C: Access to Justice Review Tools 
C1: Key Interview Guide for Implementing Partner 
a) For how long has your Organisation worked with SPRING? 
b) In what areas of capacity building has your organisation received from SPRING since you started working with 
SPRING project? 
c) How has SPRING’s technical assistance or interventions contributed to the achievement of your goals as an 
organisation? 
d) What adjustments can be taken by you to get the best out of the technical assistance? 
e) What is the level of governance within your organisation? 
f) What is the level of staffing? Indicate contract period and level of qualification. 
g) What activities do you carry out with the support of SPRING? 
h) How do you carry out these activities? 
i) Have you carried out any training? Who were the beneficiaries and what was the content of the training? 
Politely request for the training modules used. 
j) In your opinion were the modules relevant? Justify your rating with reason and examples. 
k) How have you enhanced people’s knowledge about where and how to access Justice? 
l) From your experience how have your interventions increased the cooperation between the formal and informal 
justice Systems? 
m) In your opinion and from your experience how have the Land Agreements contributed and ensured land 
security? 
n) How can it be done differently and more effectively? 
o) How effective is the referral mechanism in enabling community members access Justice? Do you follow up? If 
so how? Kindly request for a copy of the referral form. 
p) What are the unmet needs of your target group? 
q) In what areas does your organisation need support to better implement access to justice programmes in 
Particular? 
r) From your perspective, what contributions have been made by the project activities to enhancing conflict 
affected persons and communities accessing Justice? 
s) What difference is this project likely to bring in the area of access to justice by 2010? 
t) What challenges has your organisation experienced in implementing the activities? 
u) What monitoring system is in place to ensure effective delivery of services to the beneficiaries? 
v) What sustainability structures did the project adopt and promote to ensure continuity of the project activities/ 
benefits? 
w) Based on your experience from SPRING grant implementation approach as well as your contextual knowledge 
of Northern Uganda, what specific activities or programmes are needed to enhance access to justice in Northern 
Uganda? 
x) How could these activities be carried out? 
y) How can the access to Justice be improved to increase the number of beneficiaries accessing them? 
58 
z) In your Opinion has SPRING designed programmes that are sustainable? What could be done differently? 
aa) Any thoughts/ Recommendations? 
========================================================================== 
C2: KII Guide for SPRING Staff- Access to Justice 
a) What contributions have been made by the project activities to enable conflict affected persons access Justice? 
b) Has the project met the needs of it s primary beneficiaries? If so to what extent has it achieved its targets? 
Please justify your rating with reason. 
c) What indications are there that the project will meet its technical expectations at the end of the project? Why do 
you think so? 
d) What difference is this project likely to bring in the area of access to justice? 
e) What are the Projects best practices so far? 
f) What kind of support does the project need to achieve its goals? 
g) What have been your challenges/ hindrances in achieving your goals? 
h) Have these challenges been overcome? 
i) If not what can be done to overcome them? 
j) How effective are SPRING’s internal management structures on delivering effective project activities and 
meeting programme objectives? 
k) What are some of the strengths and weaknesses in the current management structure? 
l) What needs to be changed in the management structure? Please justify your answer. 
m) There has been a shift in the implementation of activities in the last two years. What inspired the shift? 
n) How can the access to Justice Component be improved to increase the number of beneficiaries accessing them? 
o) In your Opinion how has the M& E system enabled you to track partner’s performance? 
p) What do you see as the most useful elements in the M & E system in tracking justice performance? 
q) What changes need to be made in the current M& E system to better track partner’s performance? 
r) What means have you adopted to ensure IP’s are informed on key issues pertaining to the project? 
s) How effective are these strategies/ 
t) How can the communication be improved? 
u) Explain the nature of relationship with your IP’s. 
v) What sustainability strategies did the project adopt and promote to ensure continuity of the different benefits 
and structures? 
 D: General Review Tools 
D1: Interview Guide for COP, DCOP, Component Heads, M&E Specialist and Communication Manager 
SPRING Model 
– How is the SPRING Model working? 
– What has worked in using the model? 
– What has not worked in applying the model in project implementation? 
– What challenges have you faced in getting the model implemented and working? 
– What modifications or adaptations have you made to the original strategy to get the model working? 
– What are the benefits of using the model? 
– How can the model be further refined? 
Project Management 
How effective are SPRING’s internal management structures in delivering effective project activities and meeting 
program objectives? 
– What systems are in place and being used to aid effectively implementation of the project? 
– What are the strengths and weaknesses in the current project management structure? 
– What, if any, needs to be changed in the management structure and for what reasons 
– Given the scope of the project and its general funding mechanism, has it met the interim needs of its primary 
stakeholders? Why do you think so? 
How effective and efficient is SPRING’s Grants Management process? 
– What is your timeline for releases, approval of reports 
59 
– How many days it takes for applicants to be appraised and proposals to be assessed and feedback give to the 
applicants 
– What systems are in place to ensure proper grant management and utilisation? How efficient are these systems. 
– Need to review financial and audit reports SPRING and IPs activities 
PMP 
– What informed the design of the current M & E plan of the project? 
– How have you used the PMP in project implementation? 
– Doe the PMP serve information needs of the project? What are the existing gaps in quality of indicators and 
definitions? 
– How realistic are the PMP targets vis-à-vis the situation on the ground? How did you set performance targets 
for each indicator? 
– What do you see as the most useful elements in different project components (indicators, targets, routine data 
gathering tools, database, staff etc) of this M& E plan in tracking the project performance? 
Communication: 
– Does the project have a communication strategy? 
– What means have you adopted to ensure key stakeholders are informed on key issues pertaining to the project? 
How effective are these strategies? How can communication be improved? 
– What have been key achievements for the communication component of the project? 
Tracking Separate Funding Streams: 
– What system are you using to track separate funding streams within SPRING? Give evidence (report). What 
challenges have you experienced in tracking and managing separate funding streams? Any possible suggestions 
on how to overcome these challenges 
Environment 
– How has SPRING mainstreamed environment mitigation issues in different activities and grants? 
Progress towards Planned Targets (Output & Outcome) 
– How do you rate performance of the project? Use the performance status as documented by FY 09 annual 
report. 
– What factors explain the level of performance? 
– Do you think the project will meet its ultimate needs by 2010? Why do you think so? 
– What strategies have you adopted to catch-up with different forms of delays experienced since the start of the 
project? Please refer to entire project and each component, especially Peace building and reconciliation and 
access to justice components 
Special Considerations: 
– What has been the impact of integrated activities on vulnerable children thus far? 
– How has EMG given special attention to community-based reintegration of LRA ex-combatants? What has 
been achieved thus far and will SPRING meet its targets and objectives by the end of the project? 
– How has the project integrated gender and what is the degree of success? 
– What measures have been adopted by the contractor to strengthen and implement anti-corruption measures? 
================================================================================ 
60 
Annex 3: Progress towards Planned Targets for Economic Security Component* 
Performance Indicators 
2008 & 2009 
Baseline data 
End of 
Project 
Target 
Planned 
Target FY 
(Oct 08-
Sept 09) 
Total Achieved 
in FY 2008/09 
(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q
4) 
% 
achieved 
(FY￾target) 
Total 
Achievement 
in Quarter 1 
(Oct 09-Dec 
09) 
%ge 
Achieveme
nt in 
Quarter 1 
(Oct 09-Dec 
09) 
Average5
for two 
seasons** 
Actual 
Change 
for two 
seasons 
over 
baseline**6
 SEASON I 
DATA 
 SEASON II 
DATA 
Economic Security 
IR.3 Enhanced socially 
inclusive economic 
security in conflict 
affected regions 
20 % increase in values of 
sales (UGX) 
189,531 25% 25% 537,730 215,456.2 114% 376593 
98.7% 
Groundnuts 135,600 169,500 239,643 77% 266,418 196% 253031 86.6% 
Rice 293,000 366,250 1,270,639 334% 199,246 68% 734943 150.8% 
Maize 168386 210482 381,527 127% 279,612 166% 330570 96.3% 
Chili 358,900 
448,625 
755,738 111% 
332,796 
93% 544267 
51.6% 
Simsim 123,000 153,750 500,000 307% 105,058 85% 302529 146.0% 
Beans 58,300 72,875 78,833 35% 109,607 188% 94220 61.6% 
IR.3.
2 
Improved 
competitiveness of value￾chain actors within 
targeted sub-sectors in 
conflict affected regions 
26 % Increase in 
productivity (Kg/Acre) 
254 40% 25% 579 279 429 
69.1% 
 Groundnuts (increase by 
25%) 
202 253 243 20% 
321 
159% 282 
39.6% 
 Rice (increase by 25%) 510 638 1,272 149% 322 63% 797 56.3% 
 Maize (increase by 25%) 256 320 620 142% 760 297% 690 169.5% 
 Chili (increase by 25%) 152 190 335 120% 103 68% 219 44.1% 
5 Average for two seasons is got dividing the sum of two season values by two 
6 Average for two seasons divide by baseline value multiplied by 100 
61 
 Simsim (increase by 25%) 206 258 200 -3% 100 49% 150 -27.2% 
 Beans (increase by 25%) 196 245 805 311% 67 34% 436 122.4% 
* as end of December 2009. **Computed by the Consultant 
Source: SPRING with additional computations by the Consultant 
62 
Annex 4: SPRING’s Contribution to PRDP 
PRDP STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE PRDP Planned Actions SPRING Contribution 
SO 1: Consolidation of State 
Authority 
 Judicial Services Enhancement 
Program 
o Strengthen Provision 
and accessibility to 
Legal services by the 
General Public 
 Support mechanisms that are 
established to solve land 
conflicts and other land 
access and tenure based 
problems. 
 Ensure due process is 
available to all citizens in the 
North 
It has supported KKA, ARLPI, CRR 
to provide mechanism for land 
conflicts resolution 
ARLPI is being supported to create 
forums of both formal and informal 
justice systems stakeholders that will 
be accessible to the community at sub￾county level. The forum will help in 
land conflict resolution and mitigation 
CRR makes legal referrals and 
provides legal advice to affected 
community members 
It has enhanced land tenure security 
through facilitating farmers to sign 
land agreements on which SPRING 
warehouses have been built. 
So2: Rebuilding and empowering 
communities 
 To provide support to 
vulnerable persons as a means 
of strengthening their capacity 
to sustain themselves 
Economic security component 
strengthens capacity of individuals 
affected by conflict and vulnerable 
youths to sustain themselves. It 
provides trainings, gives inputs and 
advisory services as well as supports 
youth to acquire vocational skills. 
SO 3: Revitalization of the economy 
 Production and Marketing 
Enhancement Program 
 Enhancing land and labor 
Productivity. 
 Shift in Production Patterns 
from subsistence towards 
medium scale block farming 
to enhance incomes and food 
security. 
Supporting farmer groups to engaged 
in commercial farming as part of 
economic security and social 
inclusion. SPRING has provided 
seeds, trained farmers, constructed 
warehouses and set-up marketing 
committees to enable farmers produce 
in large quantities and access markets. 
SO4. Peace Building and 
Reconciliation 
 Coordinate all existing and 
planned efforts towards 
community reconciliation and 
strengthen mechanisms for 
political, cultural and socio 
economic recovery and 
rehabilitation of Northern 
Uganda. 
 Support mechanisms for 
intra/inter communal conflict 
management 
 Support to reintegration of ex￾combatants 
 Ensure that formal and non 
formal accountability and 
justice mechanisms are in 
place 
Supporting collaborative projects for 
reconciling Acholi and Lango 
communities (NECPA) 
SPRING is funding 10 pilot projects 
for reconciliation and peace building 
 Increase in Information 
dissemination 
 Use of the media for talk 
shows, educative messages 
and other relevant programs 
to reach the beneficiaries. 
 Using cultural, local and 
community leaders to mediate 
reconciliation among the 
communities. 
This being done through SPRING 
radio programmes (Dongo Paco 
Karacel and peacemaker) and a 
newspaper 
It has KKA to mediate between 
conflicting parties and communities 
63 
Annex 5: MTE Information on SPRING Communication Activities 
a. Radio Listenership among SPRING supported farmers in SPRING Atiak, Minakulu and Otwal 
Radio Frequency Percent (n=294) 
Mega FM 186 63.3 
Unity FM 76 25.9 
Radio Wa 67 19.4 
Rupiny 35 11.9 
Radio Lira 20 6.8 
Choice FM 17 5.8 
King FM 13 4.4 
Radio Palwak 10 3.4 
Radio Apac 6 2.0 
Radio Pader 3 1.0 
Radio Maria 1 0.3 
b. Program Listened to by SPRING Supported Farmers 
Program Frequency Percent (n=294) 
Farmers Program 116 39.5 
Program pa lupur (Program for Farmers) 79 26.9 
Dongo Paco Karacel (Coming together to develop 
homes) 
35 11.9 
Peace maker 27 9.2 
Human rights program 15 5.1 
Announcements 14 4.8 
Others (Wang’oo, drama, business) 25 8.5 
c. Messages Received from Listening to Radio programs 
Message Frequency Percent (n=294) 
Lobo pa lupur (Farmer’s world) 65 22.1 
Marketing 30 10.2 
Health issues (assorted) 23 7.8 
Human rights 14 4.8 
Dongo paco karacel 11 3.7 
Program pa lupur 8 2.7 
Politics 3 1.0 
d. Most Helpful Radio Programs listened to by SPRING supported farmers 
Program Frequency Percent (n=294) 
Farmers world program 107 36.4 
Peace and reconciliation 26 8.8 
VSLA 9 3.1 
Children’s program 4 1.4 
64 
e. Reasons why Specific Radio programs are considered helpful by Farmers 
Reason Frequency Percent (n=294) 
Teaches good farming methods 91 31.0 
Guide us on where to get good 
market (price discovery) 
48 16.3 
Know where to get seeds 28 9.5 
Creates unity 22 7.5 
Promote peace and harmony 21 7.1 
Give knowledge on where to get 
loans 
5 1.7 
Respect for human rights 5 1.7 
Other 13 4.4 
Percentage of farmers that have ever listened to Dongo Paco Karacel = 19.4% 
Most helpful messages 
Peace and reconciliation 6.8% (n=20) 
Agriculture program – 16.3% (n=48%) 
65 
Annex 6: Number of farmers by vulnerability 
 Levels of Vulnerability 
Name of 
IPS 
# 
grou
ps 
Mal
e 
Fema
le 
Grand 
Total 
As % 
of 
Total 
CH
H 
Ex￾com FHH 
HIV/
AID
S 
Non
e 
PW
D 
Youth 
(18-25) 
ASB 51 483 849 1332 16% 4 94 86 36 848 124 140 
CPAR 40 458 742 1200 15% 7 177 195 24 542 50 205 
IRC 13 474 284 758 9% 0 0 26 0 518 49 165 
KICABE
R 40 486 714 1200 15% 4 179 115 16 412 149 325 
LIDFA 30 398 502 900 11% 3 187 64 8 355 69 214 
MP 26 90 286 376 5% 1 0 119 0 247 9 0 
NECPA 21 456 408 864 10% 29 53 79 42 306 114 241 
WACFO 10 55 256 311 4% 0 15 208 23 32 31 2 
MC 5 81 114 195 2% 4 16 28 1 36 31 79 
ADFA 30 462 438 900 11% 5 63 94 18 517 70 133 
KITWO
BEE 8 58 81 139 2% 0 21 19 2 85 10 2 
ACADO
S 2 73 27 100 1% 2 25 6 4 10 2 51 
 Grand 
Total 
 
276 
 
3,57
4 
 
4,701 
 
8,275 100% 
 
59 
 
830 
 
1,03
9 
 
174 
 
3,90
8 
 
708 
 
1,557 
As a % 
of the 
Total 43% 57% 100% 1% 10% 13% 2% 47% 9% 19% 
Abbreviations: CHH :Child headed household; EX-com : Ex-combatant; FHH: Female headed household; 
HIV/AIDS: HIV/AIDS Infected person; None: No peculiar vulnerability; PWD: Person with Disability; 
Youth (18-25): Youth aged 18-25 years 
Source: SPRING