Consortium for Rehabilitation and 
Development (CORAD) 
Final Evaluation of the Livelihood Expansion 
and Asset Development Program 
A USAID-funded Title II program, grant number: 
FFP-A-00-07-00007-00 
 
This final evaluation report is made possible by the generous support of the 
American people through the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Consortium for 
Rehabilitation and Development (CORAD) and do not necessarily reflect the 
views of USAID or the United States Government. 
 LI
AN
(L
Fin
Duns
Sanu
Sylve
  
October 2
Sanusi S. D
Senior Par
Tel: +2327
Email: ssde
VELIH
ND A
EAD)
nal Ev
stan Spe
usi Deen
etta Scot
25, 2009
Deen     
rtner
6608663
een@yahoo.co
E
HOO
ASSET
) PRO
valua
encer
n
tt
om
ENTERP
OD EN
T DEV
OGRA
ation
Dunstan
Senio
Tel: +2
Email: dscspe
PRISE D
5 Sir Sam
F
NHAN
VELO
AMM
n S. C. Spencer
or Partner
3276610441
encer@gmail.
DEVELO
muel Lewis
reetown ~
NCEM
OPME
ME 
r  
.com      Email:
OPMENT
Road ~ P.
Sierra Leo
MENT
ENT 
Ch
Tel
chrispinwilson
T SERVI
M. B. 108
one
T
hrispin E. Wilso
Senior Partn
l: +2327678789
n@hotmail.co
ICES LTD
  
i
on
er
90
om
D
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... viii
I - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1: Programme Objectives................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Programme Location and Activities.............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Evaluation Objectives:................................................................................................................... 3
II - STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 3
III - ASSET OWNERSHIP ........................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Make of Dwellings......................................................................................................................... 5
IV - AGRICULTURE ................................................................................................................ 6
4.1 Farmers Field Schools and Use of Improved Production Practices ..............................................6
4.2 Post Harvest Losses....................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Crop Production ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.4 Sale of Farm Produce .................................................................................................................. 11
4.5: Food Security ............................................................................................................................. 13
V - GOOD GOVERNANCE ................................................................................................... 14
5.1 Training .......................................................................................................................................14
5.2: Contacts with Local Authorities................................................................................................. 15
5.3 Understanding of Good Governance .......................................................................................... 15
VI - YOUTH EMPOWERMENT ............................................................................................ 16
6.1: Job Creation ............................................................................................................................... 16
6.2: Business Management and Vocational Training........................................................................17
6.3: Youth Participation in Livelihood Activities: .............................................................................. 19
VII - HEALTH AND NUTRITION ........................................................................................ 20
7.1: Maternal and Newborn Care Practices...................................................................................... 21
7.2: Prevalence of Underweight Children......................................................................................... 23
7.3: Breast Feeding Practices............................................................................................................ 26
7.4: Infant Feeding Practices............................................................................................................. 26
7.5: Complementary Feeding............................................................................................................ 27
7.6: Prevalence of Illness and Health Care Seeking Behaviour.........................................................28
iii
VIII - FINDINGS OF FOCUS GROUP AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ............. 30
8.1 Impact of LEAD Programme and achievement of Objectives.....................................................31
8.2 Programme Sustainability........................................................................................................... 33
8.3 Governance ‐ Engagement with Local Government Authorities:...............................................36
8.4 Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Compliance..................................................................36
8.5 Bird Flu: .......................................................................................................................................36
8.6:  Best Practices Employed and Gaps to be Addressed................................................................37
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE – INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED (Reduced 
Survey) ..................................................................................................................................... 39
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................ 42
ANNEX 3: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES ........................ 58
  
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4‐1: Most Important Measure Adopted by LEAD Farmers to Reduce Post Harvest Losses in
2008 compared to farmers in the baseline survey ................................................................................. 8
Table 4‐2: percentage of Beneficiary Households cultivating Main Food and Tree Crops...................10
Table 4‐3: Acreage and production of main food and tree crops by beneficiary households and by
households in target communities....................................................................................................... 10
Table 4‐4: percentage of beneficiary households making sales of food and tree crop products in 2006
compared to 2008.................................................................................................................................11
Table 4‐5: Sales of food and tree crops by beneficiary households.....................................................12
Table 7‐1: Distribution of children under five years by age group in evaluation survey......................24
Table 7‐2: Prevalence of moderate and severe underweight among the youngest children in the
Evaluation Survey..................................................................................................................................24
Table 7‐3: Prevalence of underweight children by gender...................................................................25
Table 7‐4: Types of liquids given to children under 6 months old........................................................27
Table 7‐5: Comparison of the treatment seeking behaviour of mothers during the baseline and the
evaluation survey (% utilising different service providers)...................................................................29
  
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Make of walls of dwellings of households............................................................................5
Figure 3.2: Make of roofs of dwellings ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4.1 Participation of LEAD farmers in Agricultural improvement Activities..................................6
Figure 4.2: Use of Improved Farming Practices by Beneficiary households compared to households in
the baseline survey .................................................................................................................................7
Figure 4.3: Length of time farmers have been practicing soil conservation techniques........................7
Figure 4.4: Percentage post harvest crop losses reported by LEAD beneficiaries..................................8
Figure 4.5: Farmers Use of post harvest pesticides in 2008 compared to 2006 ....................................9
Figure 4.6: Changes in crop production and productivity between 2006 and 2008 among LEAD
beneficiaries..........................................................................................................................................11
Figure 4.7: Percentage change in quantities of food crops sold and the value of sales.......................12
Figure 4.8: Months of inadequate household provision recorded in baseline (2006‐2007) and the
population survey (2008‐2009)............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4.9: Categories of food consumed by households 24 hours prior to baseline and population
surveys..................................................................................................................................................14
Figure 5.1: Group involvement in good governance training and contact with local authorities........15
Figure 5.2: Beneficiary's description of the elements of good governance .........................................16
Figure 6.1: Role of LEAD in Job Creation............................................................................................... 16
Figure 6.2: Training received by youths................................................................................................ 17
Figure 6.3: Participants' recollection of topics covered in business management training .................18
Figure 6.4: Proportion of youths that reported receiving training in different vocations ...................18
Figure 6.5: participation of youths in LEAD Livelihood activities..........................................................19
Figure 6.6: Participants' recollection of Topics covered in input supply/Marketing workshop...........19
Figure 6.7: Access of Youths to LEAD economic activities....................................................................20
Figure 7.1: Proportion of women that received Antenatal care (ANC) ................................................21
Figure 7.2: Possession of maternal health card by mothers.................................................................22
Figure 7.3: Place of delivery by mothers............................................................................................... 22
Figure 7.4: Providers of birth assistance............................................................................................... 23
Figure 7.5: Proportion of Underweight children in baseline and evaluation surveys..........................25
Figure 7.6: Early initiation of breastfeeding ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 7.7: Foods given to children the previous day...........................................................................28
Figure 7.8: Illness of children in preceding two weeks.........................................................................29
  
vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ANC Ante Natal Care 
ARI Acute Respiratory Tract Infection 
CHC Community Health Club 
CHO Community Health Officer 
CI Confidence Interval 
CORAD Consortium for Rehabilitation and Development 
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
DDS Dietary Diversity Score 
EBF Exclusive Breast Feeding 
EMY Economically Marginalised Youth 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
FFA Food For Assets 
FFP Food For Peace 
FFS Farmers Field School 
GG Good Governance 
GMP Growth Monitoring Programme 
GoSL Government of Sierra Leone 
H5N1 Bird Flu Virus 
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score 
IEE Initial Environmental Examination 
IMR Infant Mortality Rate 
INGO International Non-Governmental Organization 
IVS Inland Valley Swamp 
LEAD Livelihood Enhancement and Asset Development Programme 
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security 
MCH Maternal and Child Health 
MDG Millennium Development Goal 
ME Margin of Error 
MED Micro Enterprise Development 
MIHFP Months of Inadequate Household Food Provision 
MTASP Medium Term Agricultural Strategic Plan 
MYAP Multi Year Assistance Programme 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
ORS Oral Rehydration Salts 
PHU Peripheral Health Unit 
PITT Performance Indicator Tracking Table 
PVO Private Voluntary Organization 
SLIHS Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey 
SSL Statistics Sierra Leone 
SUG Start Up Grant 
TBA Traditional Birth Attendants 
TOR Terms of Reference 
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
VAM Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping 
VDC Village Development Club 
VGF Vulnerable Group Feeding 
VHC Village Health Club 
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
VS&L Village Savings and Loan 
VWC Village Welfare Committee 
WATSAN Water and Sanitation 
WFP World Food Programme 
WHO World Health Organization 
WVSL World Vision Sierra Leone
  
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives
The Livelihood Enhancement and Asset Development (LEAD) programme is a three year
USAID/FFP‐funded initiative that is implemented by the Consortium for Rehabilitation and
Development (CORAD).1 The goal is to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable populations
in 32 chiefdoms (including five major towns) in six Districts in Sierra Leone. The programme
began in March 2007, and the baseline study was conducted in April‐June 2007.  
The purpose of the final evaluation is to provide information to the CORAD partners,
USAID/FFP, GoSL, and other stakeholders to encourage learning regarding the programme’s
achievements and to provide lessons learnt or learned for replication of similar economic
development and agricultural productivity projects.
Enterprise Development Services (EDS) conducted the Final Evaluation in May – July, 2009
employing both quantitative and qualitative methods to:  
1. generate selected information and compare final programme results against the
established targets to determine the impact of the LEAD programme;
2. ascertain any additional impacts that the LEAD project has had on communities
served;  
3. determine the relevance of activities implemented by each partner;
4. identify best practices that have contributed to the overall impact of the LEAD
programme (implementation strategies, interventions, etc.);
5. determine  whether CORAD partners’ business practices were well‐received by the
communities that were supported and if they were conducive to promoting
community ownership; and
6. ascertain any gaps that still exist in communities that were targeted  that should be
addressed through other programming.
Main Findings
Agriculture
One of the goals of the Farmers Field Schools (FFS) implemented by the LEAD programme
was to train farmers in the use of new agricultural techniques that can help them to
improve upon their farming performance. The baseline survey showed that only 13 % of the
total household heads interviewed were members of a FFS. This proportion increased to
over 80%, among LEAD beneficiary households with about 60% of households participating
in Inland valley swamp (IVS) development and community seed multiplication activities, and
a much lower proportion (about 22%) participating in tree crop improvement activities. The
evaluation survey found that use of improved practices increased significantly among LEAD
beneficiary households compared to the situation among households in the community
                                                           
1 CARE (prime), World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Africare   
ix
during the baseline survey e.g households using improved varieties rose from 18% to 80%,
bunding of IVS from 8% to 60%, and use of crop rotations from 6% to 48%.
Under LEAD, the average percentage post harvest loss declined for all crops with the most
significant declines for rice (from 15% to 9%) and for cassava (from 9% to 5%). This is due to
the fact that the proportion of farmers adopting loss prevention measures has increased.
While about 57 % of farmers reported undertaking no loss prevention method during the
Baseline Survey, the proportion who adopted no measure was much lower among the
beneficiary farmers ranging from a low of 8 % for upland rice to 48 % for sweet potatoes.
Post harvest pesticides are not used much in Sierra Leone with over 80 % of farmers not
using any and the small proportion of beneficiary farmers who used pesticides have reduced
their usage over the three years of the LEAD programme.
One of the main objectives of the LEAD programme was to increase household farm
production. The evaluation survey results indicated that crop production and productivity
increased significantly among the LEAD beneficiaries. The biggest increases in average
household production were for cassava (77%), lowland rice (66%0 and vegetables (65%),  
Since output increases were always greater than acreage increases, except in the case of
groundnuts, it is evident that the gains in productivity far outstrip any gains from acreage
expansion. In fact crop area declined for many crops (Figure 4.6). Only for groundnuts does
it appear that expansion of area and price increases are the main factors causing the
increase in value of production.
An important source of income for farmers, often the only source, is the sale of their farm
produce. The results of the evaluation survey indicate that more of the beneficiary
households made sales in 2008 than in 2006 although it was only for groundnuts and
vegetables that the increase was substantial and that average quantities of food crops sold
per household increased by a low of 27% for groundnuts to a high of about 75% for cassava,
lowland rice and vegetables, the principal food crops targeted by LEAD.
Food Security
With regards to food security, the evaluation results are that LEAD has had little effect on
the pattern of food provisioning which was for the 12 months preceding the baseline survey
(2006‐2007) the same as in the 12 months preceding the population based survey (2008‐
2009). Shortages still generally occurred in the period June to October (the well known
“hungry period”), with the month of August being the time of greatest food insecurity, while
families had the greatest access to food from November to March.
However, overall the households in the population survey in 2009 had more diversified diets
than those in the baseline survey in 2007. The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
value for the entire baseline sample was 6.7, while it was 8.3 for the target communities in
2009, indicating that households in the baseline sample, on average, consumed food from
approximately 7 food groups while the households in the target communities on the
average consumed from 8 food groups. Furthermore, the percentage of households
consuming meats, eggs, fish and beans, i.e. proteins, is substantially higher in the 2009
survey households than the 2007 baseline households.
x
Good Governance
Over 63 % of respondents in the beneficiary survey reported that they obtained training in
Good Governance under LEAD. Respondents in the beneficiary survey had a good
understanding of the basic elements of good governance as demonstrated by the fact that
almost 90 % selected consultation, accountability and transparency as elements of good
governance from a list of 6 choices.
Less than 49 % of respondents had any contact with any local authority member, which
meant that there was limited opportunity for the communities to use this strengthened
capacity in negotiating community concerns with local authorities. However knowledge of
the principles learnt would have positive influence on governance in the beneficiary
communities.  
Youth Empowerment
The evaluation survey revealed that the LEAD programme had minimal effect on job
creation for the youth. Although 82 % of youths interviewed during the beneficiary survey
considered themselves gainfully employed, with 68 % working for themselves and the rest
working for someone else, over 67%, reported that LEAD programme did not help them in
securing their present occupation.  
The evaluation also revealed that the LEAD programme did not prioritize vocational training
for youths. Just over 42% of youths in the beneficiary survey reported that they received
training in business with the vast majority (89%) trained in business management, 91% in
the Village Savings and Loan scheme and only 12.5 % in vocational skills.
With regards to participation in livelihood activities, youths in the LEAD programme areas
were most active in farmers’ group activities (83%), with much lower participation rates in
other important activities for economically marginalised youths such as marketing
associations (29%) and the workshop on development of input supply and market plans
(22%)
Nutrition and Health
The survey revealed that the nutritional status of children in the LEAD survey has improved
generally. Global malnutrition (<‐2SD) dropped from 19.4% in the baseline to 14.2% in the
evaluation. However, severe underweight has worsened slightly during the LEAD
implementation period. This could be a result of the high morbidity observed during t he
evaluation survey.  
Male children are more underweight than female children in both the baseline and the
evaluation surveys. Twice as many underweight children are found in the under twos (6 – 23
months) than in the 24 – 59 months group. The critical period of brain growth and
development is during foetal life and up to the third year of life. The findings of this survey
imply that up to 14% of children in the survey under five years could have abnormal brain
xi
growth and development. This will have adverse effects on the future social and economic
development in the project area and nationally. However it is encouraging to note that the
LEAD project activities have actually reduced the prevalence of underweight children in the
target communities.
Since the baseline survey was conducted, there has been an increase in the percentage of
women reporting they received antenatal care during their last pregnancy. Many more
women now deliver their babies in a health facility such as a hospital or PHU or clinic and
are assisted by health care workers than during the baseline survey. Delivery at home has
markedly declined since the baseline survey was conducted. This is an improvement in
maternal care practices and should help to reduce the maternal mortality rate in the LEAD
project districts.
Early initiation of breastfeeding has increased since the baseline survey was conducted (45%
versus 37%). Among the 44 children under six months 13.6 % were given a liquid drink
besides breast milk during the first three days after delivery. Water is given very early to
infants with 48% of mothers responding that they gave their baby water to drink the
previous day. However, since this leaves over 50% who did not receive water, it is likely that
the percentage of mothers practicing exclusive breast feeding has risen markedly, compared
to the baseline figure of 8.5%.  
The complementary foods most commonly given to babies were reported by 72% of the
mothers to be cereals, with only 19% of mothers reporting that they gave foods in the
animal protein group such as meat. However 64% of the mothers reported giving fish to
their children. The fact that over 66% of children were given palm oil and pepper suggests
that the family meal is the most commonly given complementary food to breast milk.
Although better than the baseline, the complementary diet is inadequate in iron content.
Iron is important for blood formation and the newborn infant has a store of iron that
becomes depleted at six months. From six months an adequate source of iron must
therefore be provided in the infant’s diet. Porridge introduced at this stage must contain a
good amount of iron.
Morbidity in the children is very high.  The infectious diseases of diarrhoea, ARI and fever
(most likely malaria) had a high prevalence among these children in the previous two weeks
before the survey and their prevalence was even higher than during the baseline survey.
Fever (most likely malaria) was the most common childhood illness reported. These diseases
are usually an outcome of poor environmental sanitation and poor water supply. The
evaluation also found that there was little or no WATSAN intervention in most LEAD
communities.  
Surprisingly, a rather high percentage of the mothers in the survey did not seek treatment
anywhere for diarrhoea (61.9%) and for ARI (45.7%) even though this survey found that they
were aware of the serious consequences of acute diarrhoea and ARI through the LEAD
project sensitization and community health interventions.
xii
Impact of LEAD Programme and achievement of Objectives
Generally, respondents confirmed that the process for the selection of interventions that
LEAD supported in their communities was participatory. Furthermore, the evaluation
confirmed that the interventions addressed critical development issues in the national
poverty reduction strategy, including improvement in farmers’ productivity for national food
security and poverty reduction, and achievement of MDG targets for reduced maternal and
infant mortality by 2015.  
In every community in which Focus Group Interviews were conducted the health and
sanitation intervention (“Well body programmes”) were identified as the LEAD activity that
brought the most significant change to their communities by both male and female
participants.
The survey revealed that most nursing mothers had become aware of the benefits of
Exclusive Breast Feeding as recommended by LEAD and were making effort to comply with
the practice, although as shown by the quantitative analysis over half had not succeeded  
and were offering their babies supplementary feeding against the recommendations.
Another LEAD activity communities reported as having brought significant change to
community life was the VS&L programme. This activity was particularly appreciated by
women and youths.
The other activities in the LEAD programme have had varying degrees of impact on
beneficiary communities. The FGIs confirmed that farm production technologies introduced
in the Farmers Field School have changed agricultural practices in the communities. Most
communities ranked the Food for Assets component highly, especially in terms of support
for community road maintenance and income generating assets such as fish ponds.
The Safety Net or Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programme encouraged communities to
take collective responsibility for their old and vulnerable members. The village welfare
committees formed in the communities, plan yearly safety net projects to support the
vulnerable in their villages. However, there are serious questions relating to the
sustainability of the VGF intervention.
The intervention which was most severely criticised during the FGI, because it was clearly
not implemented according to the regular model is the Start‐Up Grants (SUG) programme.
Almost universally it emerged during the FGIs that selection of beneficiaries was not
transparent and the business records of SUG beneficiaries were poorly kept. An added
failure by CARE was the non disbursement of the second tranche of the grant to recipients
as the programme ran out of funds which might have severely eroded the climate of trust
between farmers and small businesses on the one hand and development partners on the
other.
  
xiii
Programme sustainability
By and large, communities were sufficiently sensitised on all programme interventions and
had, to a large extent, assumed ownership of programme activities. This prerequisite for
sustainability was therefore substantially met.
The evaluation found that the following LEAD interventions are likely to be sustainable:
1. FFS techniques except propagated shift from upland to IVS farming
2. The road maintenance intervention using FFA which did not introduce a new
community activity or output but merely represented a reward for something the
communities had always done and are likely to continue.  
3. Fish ponds constructed with FFA as they are an income generating activity
4. The training of community health volunteers and TBAs who are held in a high esteem
in their villages and are likely to continue serving their communities.  
5. The Growth Monitoring and Promotion programmes initiated by LEAD could be
sustained if they are taken over by Community Health Volunteers in the
communities as has already happened in some communities.
6. Many of the Good Governance (GG) trainees were youths, who were hitherto
marginalized but are now in the mainstream of decision making in their communities
and are likely to be sustainable.
7. Some of the Health and sanitation practices propagated by LEAD, such as use of
plate racks and cloth lines etc are very likely to be sustained and become permanent
features in the communities.
8. The VS&L system as implemented under LEAD was cyclical and renewable and as
such not structurally permanent. Because of the benefits perceived and recognised
by participants this is proving to be a very sustainable LEAD activity.
Interventions that are not likely to be sustainable include:
1. The Women’s garden (Baby Friendly Garden) without continued donor support by
way of tools, inputs or Food‐For‐Work.
2. The VGF and Village Welfare Committees and safety net programmes which are
dependent on donor food aid support and are consequently, inherently,
unsustainable as donor support is not permanent.  
3. The business training, which precedes the award of SUGs is the most important
element of the intervention. However, most beneficiaries lacked the background to
benefit from the concepts taught and to acquire the skills intended to be transferred
by the training.  
4. The award of SUGs which was problematic and poorly implemented, especially in
CARE areas.
5. The WATSAN component of LEAD which was fraught with challenges the two most
important of which were: 1) the poor engineering in the sinking of wells to shallow
depths which resulted in most wells being dry during most months of the year and 2)
inadequate arrangement for the proper maintenance of wells and latrines to keep
them serviceable.
xiv
Gaps to be addressed in future programming
The Evaluation identified gaps in programming that need to be addressed through other
programmes:
1. WATSAN was not prioritized in the LEAD programme in spite of the desperate
situation in most programme operational areas. The unavailability of potable water
in some communities undermined the health and sanitation interventions which
were the most highly appreciated components of LEAD.  
2. The programme’s support for the training of Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) was
complimentary to the TBA training programme of the Ministry of Health but there is
room for better coordination between the two programmes.  
3. The success of the agricultural production technologies introduced through the
Farmers Field Schools created a demand for agro‐processing equipment for
processing the increased output of community farms. This demand was greatest for
processing machinery for the increased output of cassava, which could not be sold as
fresh tuber, and to a lesser extent for small rice mills. Because this demand is not
being met through LEAD programme activities, the growth of cassava production is
constrained.
Table: Summary of Key LEAD Programme Indicators in the Baseline and Evaluation Surveys
Indicator
Baseline
Survey
Findings
Evaluation Survey Findings
2006 2006 recall 2008 recall
Months of Inadequate
Household Food
Provisioning (MIHFP)
4.6 months 4.4 months
Household Dietary
Diversity Score (HDDS)
6.7 food
groups
8.3 food groups
Average value of
household production
of selected
crops/livestock
(Leones)
390,509.88    
Upland Rice 238,780 544,338 927,585
IVS Rice 177,195 408,778 702,548
Cassava 220,885 86,309 155,591
Cocoa 664,778 142,989 224,540
Sweet Potatoes 23,878 35,277
Coffee 323,294 145,193 259,220
Oil Palm 1,084,348 97,077 167,345
Groundnuts 412,882 121,293 256,190
xv
Indicator
Baseline
Survey
Findings
Evaluation Survey Findings
2006 2006 recall 2008 recall
Vegetables 1,913 38,063 117,048
Percent of children
under 5 years who are
underweight
(percentage of children
under five years of age
with weight‐for‐age of
less than 2SD)
19.4 14.2
Percent of farmers
using sustainable
agricultural
technologies similar to
those to be introduced
through LEAD
      
Improved
varieties
18   81
IVS bunds 9   61
Contour
farming
2 21
Mulching 0   67
Crop rotations 8   49
Average of farm
production of targeted
crops per household
(in kg)
895.23    
Upland Rice 551.00 892.18 1389.74
IVS Rice 1,047.00 871.11 1446.08
Cassava 2,840.00 309.24 548.69
Cocoa 357 121.06 139.07
Sweet Potatoes 66.78 92.88
Coffee 199.50 65.48 87.43
Oil Palm 49.96 57.74 82.46
Groundnuts 204.00 602.21 656.50
Vegetables 1,913.00 83.42 137.87
Average gross sales per
household of targeted
crops (in Leones)
400,468.97
Upland Rice 238,780 126,182 179,359
IVS Rice 177,199 105,737 188,157
Cassava 220,885 58,130 98,617
Cocoa 664,778 148,306 221,744
Sweet Potatoes 17,588 27,357
xvi
Indicator
Baseline
Survey
Findings
Evaluation Survey Findings
2006 2006 recall 2008 recall
Coffee 323,294 144,460 256,873
Oil Palm 1,084,348 74,487 134,031
Groundnuts 412,882 62,808 153,223
Vegetables 81,585.75 32,902 110,773
Percent of births
attended by trained
TBA or other skilled
personnel  
      
Health worker 20 53
Trained TBA 47 37
Percent of households
reporting morbidity for
children in the past
two weeks.
  
Malaria 50   86
ARI 20   75
Diarrhoea 34 69
Percentage of
households that
sought care from a
health facility for ill
child (Clinic/Hospital)
  
Malaria 56 45
ARI 63 33
Diarrhoea 53   23
% of infants under 6
months who are
exclusively breastfed
8.5%   50%
1
FINAL EVALUATION FOR THE  
LIVELIHOOD ENHANCEMENT AND ASSET DEVELOPMENT (LEAD)
PROGRAMME
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1: Programme Objectives
The Livelihood Enhancement and Asset Development (LEAD) programme is a three year
USAID/FFP‐funded initiative that is implemented by the Consortium for Rehabilitation and
Development (CORAD).2 The programme began in March 2007, and a baseline study was
conducted in April‐June 2007.  
The LEAD programme has the goal of reducing food insecurity among vulnerable
populations in 32 chiefdoms (including five major towns) in six districts.   LEAD has the
following four major objectives:
1. Human capabilities of farmers in 16,000 poor farm households, 3,400 economically
marginalized youth, and pregnant and lactating women/children in 16,000 poor farm
households protected and enhanced.  
2. Livelihood capacities of 16,000 poor farm households and 3,400 economically
marginalized youth protected and enhanced.  
3. Three hundred and seventy‐five (375) rural communities have improved community
infrastructure and stronger linkages to service providers.  
4. Nine hundred and ninety (990) community‐based organizations in both rural and
urban areas are able to practice and demand the basic principles of good
governance, i.e., transparency, accountability and representation.
1.2 Programme Location and Activities
The LEAD programme is operational in the following areas:
District Chiefdoms CORAD Member
Koinadugu Wara Wara Yagala,  Sengbe & Kabala Town CARE
Diang, Neini, Mongo, Sulima CRS
Kono Sandor, Gbane Kandor, Lei, Soa, Gbense, Gbane,
Mafindor, Fiama, Tankoro & Koidu Town World Vision
Kailahun Upper Bambara, Peje West,  Peje Bongre, Yawei,
Penguia CRS
                                                           
2 CARE (prime), World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, Africare   
2
District Chiefdoms CORAD Member
Jawie, Mandu, Njalahun, Malema, Dia & Kailahun
Town Africare
Tonkolili Gbonkolenken, Tane, Kholifa Rowalla, Magburaka
Town   CARE
Kenema Kenema Town CRS
Bombali Makeni Town CARE
Activities for the programme were initially scheduled to start on October 1, 2006 and run for
a period of three years. However, the partners only received formal notification to begin in
March/April 2007 (a delay of approximately 7 months). Although it was expected that the
LEAD programme will continue until April 2010, an extension had not yet been approved by
Food for Peace by March 20093
. Consequently, it was decided that the final evaluation
would be conducted in the second and third quarters of 2009, to maintain the seasonality of
the Baseline Survey that was conducted in 2007.
Programme interventions include:
¾ In the area of strengthening human capabilities:
o Building the capacities of poor farmers to be able to innovate;
o Building the capacities of youth to manage micro‐enterprises or
income‐generating activities;
o Expanding the health and nutrition knowledge and skills of rural
women;
¾ Related to strengthening livelihoods:
o Improving agriculture ‐based livelihoods for poor farmers through
increased productivity and more effective agricultural marketing;
o Facilitating livelihoods opportunities for unemployed or
underemployed youth;
¾ To expand resiliency to shocks at the community‐level:
o Strengthening linkages between communities and health services;
o Improving community‐based and household‐based environmental
health;
o Restoring agricultural infrastructure;
o Facilitating the re‐establishment of community‐managed safety nets;
¾ To empower communities to affect decisions related to food security:
o Building capacities of various types of community‐based groups to
practice good governance;
o Cultivating linkages between community‐based groups and chiefdom,
district and town governments.
                                                           
3 Apparently the USAID Cognizant Technical Officer has now indicated that the official extension date is
through May 2010, though the programme is scheduled to close out as of April 2010
3
1.3 Evaluation Objectives:
The purpose of the final evaluation is to provide information to the CORAD partners,
USAID/FFP, GoSL, and other stakeholders to encourage learning regarding the programme’s
achievements and to provide lessons learnt or learned for replication of similar economic
development and agricultural productivity projects.
The primary objectives of the evaluation include:
1. To generate selected information and compare final programme results against the
established targets to determine the impact of the LEAD programme. .
2. To ascertain any additional impacts that the LEAD project has had on communities
served.  
3. To determine the relevance of activities implemented by each partner.
4. To identify best practices that have contributed to the overall impact of the LEAD
programme (implementation strategies, interventions, etc.)
5. To determine  whether CORAD partners’ business practices were well‐received by
the communities that were supported and if they were conducive to promoting
community ownership; and
6. To ascertain any gaps that still exist in communities that were targeted  that should
be addressed through other programming.
The TOR (see Annex 1) spelled out the indicators to be measured and data collection
methods to be used.
CHAPTER 2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
In conducting the final evaluation, Enterprise Development Services (EDS) used quantitative
and qualitative methods to generate data that sheds light on the results obtained by the
programme.
Population‐based Household Survey:
Respondents were selected at random from the population in the communities/towns
served by the LEAD programme. A questionnaire was designed and used to collect
information on the population‐ based indicators, including anthropometric measurements,
for comparison with data collected in the baseline survey (see Annex 2). The questionnaire
was a simplified version of that used in the baseline survey. With an estimated total
population size of 325,160 in LEAD programme communities, over 422 questionnaires were
administered (95% CI and 5% ME), including 10% allowance for non response.
Survey of Beneficiaries:
A random sample of beneficiaries of the programme was selected and interviewed using a
questionnaire that had different sections to collect data on different programme activities
4
(see Annex 2). LEAD beneficiaries participate in multiple activities, e.g. Farmer Field School
(FFS) members may also be members of Village and Savings (VS&L) groups or Micro
Enterprise Development (MED) groups and may or may not benefit from Start‐up Grants,
etc. Consequently, by using the population of beneficiaries available in the LEAD database to
determine the sample size each individual in each activity has an equal chance of getting
into the sample, implying that an individual may be selected more than once. The estimated
sample size for a total beneficiary population of 82,476 activity/beneficiaries is 420 (95% CI
and 5% ME) allowing for 10 % non response.  
Focus Group & Key Informant Survey:
To collect data such as the appreciation of community members of LEAD programme
interventions, communities with safety nets in place, IEE compliance, etc., key informants
selected by the EDS team in consultation with LEAD programme staff were interviewed
individually and in groups using appropriate check lists developed for specific interventions.  
Data collection:
Enumerators and Supervisors provided by CORAD partners interviewed the selected
farmers. They were assigned to work outside the locations served by their employer to
reduce the risk of enumerator bias. EDS designed the two questionnaires and provided the
sampling procedure for selecting respondents. EDS staff also conducted re‐interviews of a
small sample of respondents and measured crop areas using GPS equipment, to verify
interview data accuracy. Focus Group and Key Informant interviews were conducted directly
by EDS staff. Questionnaires were entered into an Excel database designed by EDS, by a
team of data entry staff provided by the WVSL.
Data Analysis:
Means, standard deviations, frequencies and frequency distributions were calculated as
necessary for questionnaire data using Excel. Comparisons were made with the findings of
the baseline survey. Qualitative information from Focus Group interviews was distilled from
consensus arrived at during the interviews.
CHAPTER 3. ASSET OWNERSHIP
As stated in the Baseline survey report, asset ownership is an important indicator of wealth
and is a useful proxy for characterizing livelihood security of households. In Sierra Leone, the
value of assets owned by rural households has been shown to correlate highly with other
livelihood indicators, and to closely mimic qualitative wealth rankings.4 Because of the
reduced scope of the final evaluation compared to the baseline survey, the quality of
housing materials is the only asset indicator measured. Because of ethnic, cultural and
environmental differences in use of housing construction materials the indicator is best
                                                           
4 Statistics Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone Integrated Household Survey 2004   
5
used for comparisons between persons living in the same or environmentally similar
locations.
3.1 Make of Dwellings
Figure 3.1 shows that mud walls are the most common form of walls of the dwellings of
households in the target communities of LEAD as well as among beneficiary households
drawn from the target communities. Corrugated iron sheets are the most common form of
roofing material (Figure 3.2). The fact that the percentage of households with cement‐block
walls and corrugated iron sheet roofs is higher among the target population than among the
beneficiary households indicate that the LEAD programme did succeed in targeting the less
wealthy in the communities – one of its programme objectives.
  
Figure 3.1: Make of walls of dwellings of households
Note: Bars show standard errors
Figure 3.2: Make of roofs of dwellings
‐40
‐20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Percent
Beneficiaries
Community
‐40
‐20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Thatch Corrugated
Iron
Tarpaulin Other
Percent
Beneficiaries
Community
6
CHAPTER 4. AGRICULTURE
4.1 Farmers Field Schools and Use of Improved Production Practices
One of the goals of the Farmers Field Schools (FFS) implemented by the LEAD programme
was to train farmers in the use of new agricultural techniques that can help them to
improve upon their farming performance. The baseline survey showed that only 13 % of the
total household heads interviewed were members of a FFS  ‐  a finding not regarded as
surprising, as the Chiefdoms of LEAD were selected in part because of the lack of agricultural
extension services. As expected, Figure 4.1 shows that participation rate is much higher –
over 80%, among LEAD beneficiary households. About 60% of households also participated
in Inland valley swamp (IVS) development and community seed multiplication activities,
with a much lower proportion (about 22%) participating in tree crop improvement activities.
Figure 4.1: Participation of LEAD farmers in Agricultural improvement Activities
  
Of much more importance than participation of agricultural improvement activities is the
proportion of farmers who actually adopt improved practices taught to them in FFS etc.
Figure 4.2 shows that use of improved practices increased significantly among LEAD
beneficiary households compared to the situation among households in the community
during the baseline survey. Figure 4.3 confirms that the improved practices were learned
mainly from LEAD, as only about 18 % were practicing soil conservation techniques (contour
farming, mulching, crop rotations and manuring before the onset of the LEAD programme.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
FFS IVS Development Seed
Multiplication
Tree
Improvements
Percent
7
Figure 4.2: Use of Improved Farming Practices by Beneficiary households compared to
households in the baseline survey
Figure 4.3: Length of time farmers have been practicing soil conservation techniques
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent
Beneficiaries
Baseline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Since 2006 Before 2006
Percent
8
4.2 Post Harvest Losses
One of the interventions of the LEAD agriculture programme was to help farmers reduce
their post harvest losses. Figure 4.4 shows that the average percentage post harvest loss
declined for all crops over the period of LEAD. The most significant declines were for rice
and cassava. This is due to the fact that the proportion of farmers adopting loss prevention
measures has increased. While about 57 % of farmers reported undertaking no loss
prevention method during the Baseline Survey, the proportion who adopted no measure
was much lower among the beneficiary farmers (Table 4.1) ranging from a low of 8 % for
upland rice to 48 % for sweet potatoes.
Figure 4.4: Percentage post harvest crop losses reported by LEAD beneficiaries
Note: Bars show standard errors
Table 4‐1: Most Important Measure Adopted by LEAD Farmers to Reduce Post Harvest
Losses in 2008 compared to farmers in the baseline survey
Crop % of farmers adopting a particular measure
None Drying
Floor
Drying
Mat
Improved
Store
Wooden
Boxes
Other
Upland rice 8 43 33 6 2 8
Lowland rice 9 39 38 7 1 7
Cassava 36 12 13 5 9 25
Cocoa 38 34 22 3 0 3
Sweet Potatoes 48 18 12 2 2 19
Coffee 36 38 19 2 1 3
Palm Oil 44 n.a. n.a. 10 n.a. 39
Groundnuts 14 44 29 2 3 8
Vegetables 34 26 21 2 1 16
Baseline (all crops) 57 5 7 10 5 16
‐4.0
‐2.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
Percent of harvest
2006
2008
Fi
4.3 Cro
One of t
productio
food and
productio
biggest i
acreage
productiv
crops (Fi
increases
crop prod
shown ea
Table 4.3
beneficia
commun
househo
househo
and more
                  
5 Methodo
measure re
those in th
used inter
price chan
a true pictu
igure 4.5: Fa
p Product
the main o
on. Table 4.
d tree crops
on and pro
ncreases w
increases,
vity far outs
igure 4.6). O
s are the ma
ductivity we
arlier in Figu
3 presents a
ary househ
ity househo
lds which c
lds assets in
e vulnerable
                       
ology Note: Be
ecorded during
his report shou
nally in this e
ges, the values
ure of real cha
‐20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Percent of HH
armers Use o
tion5
objectives of
2 shows tha
have increa
oductivity in
ere for veg
except in t
strip gains fr
Only for gro
ain factors c
ere obviously
ure 4.2.  
comparison
olds and h
olds on th
conversely p
n Figures 3.1
e households
                  
ecause of lack
g the Baseline
uld be treated
valuation repo
s for productio
nges in the va
of post harv
f the LEAD
at the propo
ased during
ncreased sig
etables. Sin
the case of
rom acreage
oundnuts do
causing the i
y due to the
n between th
households
e average
produced m
1 and 3.2 tha
s in the targ
of informatio
, direct compa
with extreme
ort comparison
on and sales in
lue of farm pro
vest pesticid
programm
ortion of ben
LEAD. Table
gnificantly a
nce output i
f groundnu
e expansion.
oes it appea
increase in v
e adoption o
he average v
in the ta
produced
ore food cr
at LEAD ben
et communi
n on conversi
arisons betwee
caution. How
ns between 20
n the two years
oduction durin
des in 2008 c
e was to in
neficiary hou
e 4.3 and Fi
among the
increases w
ts, it is ev
. In fact crop
ar that expa
value of pro
of improved
values of cro
arget comm
more cash
rops. This co
neficiary hou
ities.
on factors use
en Kg of outpu
wever, since the
006 and 2008
s need to be d
ng the period o
compared to
ncrease hou
useholds cu
igure 4.6 sh
LEAD bene
were always
vident that
p area declin
ansion of ar
duction. The
techniques
ops produce
munities ind
crops than
orroborates
useholds we
ed in convertin
t reported in t
e same conver
8 figures are v
eflated by a p
f LEAD activity
No use
Use Mo
Use Les
o 2006
usehold far
ltivating bot
how that cro
eficiaries. Th
greater tha
the gains
ned for man
rea and pric
e increases
by farmers a
d (Leones) b
dicating tha
n beneficiar
the data o
re the poore
ng local units
the Baseline an
rsion factors a
alid. Because
rice index to g
y.  
ore
ss
9
m
th
op
he
an
in
ny
ce
in
as
by
at
ry
on
er
of
nd
re
of
get
10
Table 4‐2: Percentage of Beneficiary Households Cultivating Main Food and Tree Crops
Crop % of households cultivating
crop
2006 2008
Upland Rice 67.3 77.6
Lowland Rice 64.3 69.1
Cassava 38.3 48.2
Cocoa 26.7 30.0
Sweet Potato 13.5 18.6
Coffee 31.4 35.4
Palm oil 24.7 30.0
Groundnuts 30.9 46.0
Vegetables 24.4 32.7
Table 4‐3: Acreage and production of main food and tree crops by beneficiary households
and by households in target communities
Beneficiary Households Community
Households
2006 2008 2008
Crop Acres Prod
(kg)
Prod
(Leones)
Acres Prod
(kg)
Prod
(Leones)
Prod
(Leones)
Upland Rice 2.70 892.18 544,338 3.01 1389.74 927,585 705,112
Lowland Rice 2.13 871.11 408,778 2.15 1446.08 702,548 644,664
Cassava 1.06 309.24 86,309 1.23 548.69 155,591 636,914
Cocoa 1.82 121.06 142,989 1.65 139.07 224,540 652,011
Sweet Potato 0.27 66.78 23,878 0.25 92.88 35,277 458,364
Coffee 2.17 65.48 145,193 2.02 87.43 259,220 322,045
Palm oil 1.41 57.74 97,077 1.54 82.46 167,345 120,364
Groundnuts 0.67 602.21 121,293 1.14 656.50 256,190 301,187
Vegetables 0.44 83.42 38,063 0.41 137.87 117,048 336,075
  
Figure 4
4.4 Sale
An impo
produce.
in 2006 a
substant
case of u
potatoes
Table
Cro
Upland
Lowland
Cassava
Cocoa
Sweet P
Coffee
Palm oi
Ground
Vegetab
4.6: Change
e of Farm P
rtant source
. Table 4.4 s
although it w
ial. Also, the
upland rice a
s.  
e 4‐4: Percen
op %
Rice
d Rice
a
Potato
l
nuts
bles
‐50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Percentage change
s in crop pro
Produce
e of income
hows that m
was only for
e proportion
and cassava
ntage of ben
prod
households
2006
39
37
32
26
11
31
23
27
23
oduction an
LEAD b
for farmers
more of the
r cassava, gr
n of the crop
a. But the in
neficiary ho
ducts in 200
making sale
2008
41
40
41
30
15
35
28
37
32
d productiv
beneficiaries
s, often the
beneficiary
roundnuts a
p produced t
ncreases wer
useholds ma
06 compared
es Averag
ity between
s
only source,
households
and vegetab
that was sol
re small exc
aking sales o
d to 2008
ge % of hous
2006
31
35
69
99
65
99
77
42
80
n 2006 and 2
, is the sale
made sales
les that the
d increased
cept in the c
of food and
sehold prod
Acres
Prod (
Prod (
1
2008 among
of their far
in 2008 tha
increase wa
except in th
case of swee
tree crop
uction sold
2008
27
38
68
99
73
100
81
49
84
(kg)
(Le)
11
g
m
an
as
he
et
12
Although the changes in households making sales, and the proportion of production sold
was small, Table 4.5 and Figure 4.7 show that the average quantities of food crops sold per
household increased by a low of 27 % for groundnuts to a high of about 75 % for cassava,
lowland rice and vegetable (the principal food crops targeted by LEAD), reflecting the fact
that production increases (Kg) were substantial as already shown in Table 4.3. Figure 4.7
also illustrates the fact that there were additional gains from price increases for vegetables
and groundnuts over the three year period resulting in much higher percentage increases in
the value of sales compared to increases in quantities produced.  
Table 4‐5: Sales of food and tree crops by beneficiary households
Crop 2006 2008
Sales (kg) Sales (Le) Sales (kg) Sales (Le)
Upland Rice 274.97 126,182 378.15 179,359
Lowland Rice 308.05 105,737 543.16 188,157
Cassava 212.91 58,130 371.88 98,617
Cocoa 119.52 148,306 137.76 221,744
Sweet Potato 43.72 17,588 67.51 27,357
Coffee 64.53 144,460 86.99 256,873
Palm oil 44.36 74,487 66.38 134,031
Groundnuts 254.34 62,808 323.41 153,223
Vegetables 66.94 32,902 115.56 110,773
Figure 4.7: Percentage change in quantities of food crops sold and the value of sales
0
50
100
150
200
250
Percent
Quantity sold (Kg)
Value of sales (Le)
13
4.5: Food Security
As in the baseline survey, respondents in the communities, i.e. those in the population
based survey, were asked about the food security situation in their households. A first set of
questions asked whether there were months in which the household did not have enough
food to meet the needs of its members during the 12 months prior to the survey, and on a
month‐by‐month basis.  
The data presented in Figure 4.8 show that the pattern of food provisioning is the same as
recorded for the 12 months preceding the baseline survey (2006‐2007) as in the 12 months
preceding the population based survey (2008‐2009) with non statistically significant
differences in percentage of households with inadequate  food provisioning in the different
months of the year. Shortages generally occurred in the period June to October (the well
known “hungry period”, with the month of August being the time of greatest food
insecurity, while families had the greatest access to food from November to March.
Figure 4.8: Months of inadequate household provision recorded in baseline (2006‐2007)
and the population survey (2008‐2009)  
Overall, households in the population survey in 2009 had more diversified diets than those
in the baseline survey in 2007. The Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) value for the
entire baseline sample was 6.7, while it is 8.3 for the target communities in 2008, indicating
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Percent of HH
2008‐2009
2006‐2007
14
that households in the baseline sample, on average, consumed food from approximately 7
food groups while the households in the target communities on the average consumed from
8 food groups.  
Figure 4.9 presents the percentage of households that consumed food from each of the
specified groups in the previous 24 hours in both survey periods. It is interesting to observe
that the percentage of households consuming meats, eggs, fish and beans, i.e, proteins is
substantially higher in the 2009 survey households than the 2007 baseline households.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to say whether this change is as a result of LEAD activities
spilling over into the target population since equivalent data was not collected specifically
from beneficiary households.  
Figure 4.9: Categories of food consumed by households 24 hours prior to baseline and
population surveys
CHAPTER 5. GOOD GOVERNANCE
5.1 Training
Figure 5.1 shows that over 63 % of respondents in the beneficiary survey reported that they
obtained training in Good Governance under LEAD. The training introduced principles of
community and group governance to participants. In all communities visited by the
evaluators the participants reported that they have held community workshops in which
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Popln Survey
Baseline
15
they introduced the principles of good governance, principally transparency, accountability
and democratisation, to other community members. This was a good way of creating
awareness in good community membership and leadership and in democratizing the
conduct of community affairs.  
Figure 5.1: Group involvement in good governance training and contact with local
authorities
5.2: Contacts with Local Authorities
Figure 5.1 also shows that less than 49 % of respondents in the beneficiary survey had had
any contact with any local authority member, which meant that there was limited
opportunity for the communities to use this strengthened capacity in negotiating
community concerns with local authorities.  
Nonetheless training in good governance will have a significant effect on the way
community affairs are organized and managed if the principles learnt in the training are
applied in the management of the communities.  
5.3 Understanding of Good Governance
Figure 5.2 shows that the respondents in the beneficiary survey had a good understanding
of the basic elements of good governance as demonstrated by the fact that almost 90 %
selected consultation, accountability and transparency as elements of good governance
from a list of 6 choices. They also gave good examples of the application of the principles in
the management of their homes and the administration of their villages.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Trained in GG Contacts with Local Authorities
Percent of HH
6.1: Job
Almost 8
gainfully
else (Figu
somethin
reported
It is evide
Figure 5.2:
b Creation
82 % of you
employed,
ure 6.1). Ho
ng else befo
d that the LE
ent that the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent of HH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent of Youths
Beneficiary
CHAPTE
uths intervie
with 68 %
owever, ove
ore embark
AD program
LEAD progra
Figure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gainfully
employed
's descriptio
ER 6.
ewed during
working for
r 74 % of yo
ing on their
mme did not
amme had m
e 6.1: Role o
Self employ
on of the ele
YOUTH E
g the benefi
r themselves
ouths repor
r present o
help them
minimal effe
of LEAD in Jo
ed Employe
before LE
ements of go
EMPOWE
iciary survey
s and the re
rted that the
ccupation a
in securing t
ect on job cre
ob Creation
ed
EAD
LEAD He
get jo
ood governa
ERMENT
y considere
est working
ey were em
and the maj
their presen
eation for th
Choice 1
Choice 2
Choice 3
lped to
ob?
N
Y
1
ance  
d themselve
for someon
mployed doin
jority (67 %
nt occupatio
he youth.
1
2
3
No
Yes
16
es
ne
ng
%),
n.
17
6.2: Business Management and Vocational Training
Just over 42 % of youths in the beneficiary survey reported that they received training in
business management or vocational training. Of these, about 89 % were trained in business
management, 91 % in the Village Savings and Loan scheme and 12.5 % in vocational skills
(Figure 6.2). The figures indicate that the LEAD programme did not prioritize vocational
training.
Figure 6.2: Training received by youths  
The business management training offered by LEAD was very comprehensive with eight
topics covered. As shown in Figure 6.3 just over 85 % of the beneficiaries were able to recall
all the topics taught. It appears that the greatest interest of the beneficiaries was in costing
and pricing as 100 % of them recalled that the topics were covered during the training.
Market information, record keeping and financial planning were the three least recalled
topics. These, especially financial planning and record keeping are the more technical topics
requiring greater literacy and numeracy skills to adopt. The weak educational background of
the trainees may explain why some respondents did not recall that they received training in
them.    
The youths that reported participation in vocational training indicated that they participated
in training in only three trades  ‐ carpentry, tailoring and embroidery/dressmaking out of a
list of nine trades apparently offered by the LEAD programme and listed in the beneficiary
survey questionnaire (including hairdressing construction, auto‐mechanic, information
technology, metal work and electrical/electronic engineering). As shown in Figure 6.4
approximately nine percent of youths were trained in carpentry and dressmaking and about
4.5% in tailoring. Either the other training courses were not actually offered in the LEAD
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Business Mgt VS&L Activities Vocational Training
Percent of youths trained
18
programme or the beneficiaries were so few that they did not fall into the random sample
of beneficiaries interviewed in the survey of beneficiaries.  
Figure 6.3: Participants' recollection of topics covered in business management training
Figure 6.4: Proportion of youths that reported receiving training in different vocations  
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Parcent of trainees
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Carpentry Tailoring/Embroadery Dress making
Percent of trainees
19
6.3: Youth Participation in Livelihood Activities:
As shown in Figure 6.5 youths in the LEAD programme areas were most active in farmers’
group activities. Eighty‐three percent of youths in the programme belonged to farmers
groups. Youth participation in other livelihood activities like marketing associations was
much less at 29%, with participation in the workshop on development of input supply and
market plans even less at 22 %. These youth participation rates were low considering the
importance attached by LEAD to the empowerment of economically marginalized youths. As
can be seen in Figure 6.6 the training workshop on input supply and market plans dealt with
very important topics that are beneficial in youth agribusiness development. Of the five
topics taught about 70 % of participants recalled all the subjects covered.
Figure 6.5: Participation of youths in LEAD livelihood activities
Figure 6.6: Participants' recollection of topics covered in the input supply/marketing
workshop
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Farmers Groups Marketing Assocs Input supply & Mkt
Workshop
Percent of participants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent of participants
20
The LEAD programme provided opportunities for youths to access viable economic activities
in rural areas. Figure 6.7 shows the degree to which youths participated in different LEAD
economic activities.  
Figure 6.7: Access of youths to LEAD economic activities
Farmers Field Schools (FFS) were the most popular economic activity with around 80 % of
the youths participating in them. The training offered in the schools was designed to
improve farming techniques resulting in higher crop yields and increased farm incomes.
Forty‐eight % of the youths joined Village Savings and Loan (VS&L) groups in which they
made weekly savings and had access to loans given by the groups from accumulated savings
of members – 30 % obtained short term operational loans from the VS&L associations and
22 % obtained longer term capital loans. About 17 % of youths reported that they invested
capital loans from the VS&L in farming while about 18 % invested in micro‐enterprises.
Twenty‐six % of the youths got Start‐up Grants from the project (independent of VS&L loans
from group savings) that enabled them to start businesses in their communities. Problems
with these Start‐Up Grants are discussed in Section 8 of this report on results obtained from
Focus Group Interviews.
CHAPTER 7. HEALTH AND NUTRITION
This section is particularly related to the health and nutrition situation in the project areas.
It looks at maternal and newborn care practices, prevalence of underweight children, infant
feeding practices, disease prevalence among children under five years and the health care
seeking habits by mothers for their children under five years. The information is from the
population based survey and refers to the LEAD target communities in comparison with the
situation found during the baseline survey.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
FFS VS&L Start‐Up Grants
Percent of youths
21
7.1: Maternal and Newborn Care Practices
Sierra Leone still has a high maternal mortality rate. The quality of antenatal care received
by a woman influences greatly the outcome of her pregnancy. In this survey the mother of
the youngest child in the household was asked questions about her antenatal history,
particularly related to the place where she delivered her last child. The results show that
antenatal care was received by 98.1% of the mothers during their last pregnancy (Figure
7.1). This is an improvement of 5.14% since the baseline survey was conducted. However,
only 51.9% of the mothers produced a maternal health card (Figure 7.2).  
Mothers were asked where they delivered their youngest child. The results in Figure 7.3
show that the Peripheral Health Unit (PHU) clinic was the place most commonly used for
delivery by the mothers with 27.8% of them reporting they had delivered in a PHU hut. The
next most common place of delivery was in another person’s home followed by the
mother’s own home with 21.5% and 20% respectively. Delivery in a hospital was also
common with 16.7% of the mothers reporting their youngest child was delivered in a
hospital.
Figure 7.1: Proportion of women that received antenatal care (ANC)
Received ANC,
98.1%
No ANC, 2.2%
  
22
Figure 7.2: Possession of maternal health card by mothers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Card verified Card not verified Do not possess Don't know
Percent of Mothers
Figure 7.3: Place of delivery by mothers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent of mothers
Evaluation survey
Baseline survey
Delivery at home (20%) seems to have dropped when compared with the situation at the
time of the baseline survey when it was the most common place in which mothers delivered
their babies with 51.4% of the mothers giving this as the place where the youngest child was
delivered. Also in this survey, a much higher percentage of mothers (21.5%) delivered in
another home than during the baseline when only 11.2% did so. Delivery in a TBA hut
dropped by 1 percentage point from the baseline survey and is now 13.3% compared with
14.2% in the baseline survey. In contrast to the baseline survey when only 3.3% of the
mothers reported delivering in a hospital, in this survey 16.7% of mothers reported
23
delivering their youngest child in a hospital. This is a great improvement in the utilisation of
hospitals for maternity purposes.
Another area of improvement is in the quality of assistance provided during delivery (Figure
7.4). Unlike the baseline survey when only 21% of the deliveries were assisted by trained
health workers, in this survey the  highest  percentage of deliveries (54.6%) were assisted by
a health worker (Doctor, Midwife, CHO or MCH aide).
Figure 7.4: Providers of birth assistance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent of mothers
Evaluation Survey
Baseline survey
Trained TBAs assisted 37.2% of the mothers during delivery. Here there was a reduction
from the baseline survey in which they assisted 46.3%.  In contrast to the baseline in which
nearly one tenth of the respondents did not receive assistance from anyone during delivery,
in this evaluation survey only two women (0.5%) out of 414 women responded that they
received no assistance during delivery.
There has definitely been an improvement in maternal care practices during the period of
the LEAD programme. There is a shift towards seeking care from hospitals and health
centres as well as from the TBA to health workers. This is an area of success for LEAD.
7.2: Prevalence of Underweight Children
Table 7.1 shows the distribution of children less than five years by age group in the survey
sample, indicating that there were only 44 children under six months among the youngest
children in the households.
  
24
Table 7‐1: Distribution of children under five years by age group in evaluation survey
Age Group In
Months
Frequency percentage
0 – 5 44 11.7
6 – 11 60 16
12 – 23 102 27.2
24 – 59 169 45
0 – 59 375 100
   
The percentage of underweight children is a measure of both acute and chronic
malnutrition. This survey revealed that one‐seventh of the children were underweight
(CDC/WHO 1978 reference). This is much lower than what was found in the National
Demographic Health Survey of 2008 which found that almost one –fifth of children less than
five years in Sierra Leone were underweight. Table 7.2 gives the prevalence of both global
underweight and severe underweight in the LEAD communities during the evaluation
survey.
Table 7‐2: Prevalence of moderate and severe underweight among the youngest children
in the Evaluation Survey
Age group in
months
Frequency Prevalence of Underweight Children (%)
Global underweight
(<‐2SD)
Severe Underweight
(<‐3SD)
6 – 11 60 13.1 8.3
12 – 23 102 14.7 7.8
24 ‐59 169 14.2 5.9
6 – 59 331 14.2 6.9
On the whole, the nutritional status among the children under five years in the LEAD
operational areas was much better than that in the national population. As can be seen in
the Table global underweight (<‐2SD) among these children was 14.2%, an improvement on
the baseline survey results (Figure 7.5) which was 19.4%. But in the case of severe
underweight the situation seems to have worsened slightly as a higher prevalence of severe
underweight was found during the evaluation survey (6.9%) compared to the baseline
survey (6%).  
  
25
Figure 7.5: Proportion of Underweight children in baseline and evaluation surveys
0
5
10
15
20
25
‐3SD
baseline
‐3SD
evaluation
‐2SD
baseline
‐2SD
evaluation
Percent of age group
6 ‐ 11 mths
12 ‐ 23 mths
24 ‐ 59 mths
6 ‐ 59 mths
As shown Table 7.2 global malnutrition (<‐2SD) is highest among the 12 – 23 months age
group in the evaluation survey and lowest among the 6 – 11 months age group. This is a
similar trend as that in the baseline survey when underweight prevalence was 20% in the 6
– 11 months age group, 39% in the 12 – 23 months age group and 41 % in the 24 – 59
months age group.
Severe underweight is highest among the age group 6 – 11 months (8.3%) followed by the
age group 12 – 23 months (7.8%). It is lowest among the 24 – 59 months age group. This
finding is opposite of what was found in the baseline when 4.4% of the children 6 – 11
months were severely underweight, 7.6% and 5.6% of the 12 – 23 months and 24 – 59
months age groups respectively were severely underweight (Figure 7.5).  
The evaluation survey found that there was greater malnutrition prevalence among the
males than females (Table 7.3). The global underweight prevalence among males was 17%
while among females it was 11.3%.This was the same trend observed in the baseline survey.
Among the males the 24 – 59 months age group had the highest prevalence of moderate
underweight while among females the highest prevalence of of moderate underweight was
in the 12 – 23 months age group. Also there is more severe malnutrition (<‐3SD) among the
males (10.5% than among the females (6,9 %).  
  
Table 7‐3: Prevalence of underweight children by gender
Age group in months <‐2SD <‐3SD
Males Females Males Females
6 – 11 mths 17.2 9.7 10.3 8.3
12 – 23 mths 13.7 15.7 13.7 7.8
24 – 59 mths 18.7 9.9 8.8 5.9
6 – 59 mths 17.0 11.3 10.5 6.9
26
7.3: Breast Feeding Practices
The World Health Organisation Infant and Young Child Feeding recommendation is that
children should start breast feeding within the first hour after delivery. This practice sets the
stage for a successful period of breastfeeding and ensures that the child receives colostrum
which is the first milk secreted by the mother during the first few days after delivery and is
rich in antibodies, minerals and vitamins.
To determine the rate of immediate breastfeeding, mothers/caregivers of the youngest
child in the household were asked how long after delivery the child was first breastfed.
From the results, 45% of the mothers initiated breast feeding within one hour after delivery.
Comparing this with the baseline survey reveals an improvement on the baseline survey
when it was 37 % (Figure 7.6).  During the evaluation survey 45% of the mothers reported
they were still breast feeding the youngest child less than five years of age.
Figure 7.6: Early initiation of breastfeeding
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percent of mothers
Evaluation survey
Baseline survey
7.4: Infant Feeding Practices
Water is given very early to infants by some of the mothers with 13.5% of the mothers
reporting that they gave their children under 6 months something to drink during the
first three days after delivery.
In fact water is the most commonly given drink to the youngest child with 48% of
mothers reporting that they gave their children water the day before the survey (Table
27
7.4). As this was a qualitative survey and not a quantitative one no attempt was made to
determine the quantity of water given. Milk formula (32%) and porridge with about
(27.3%) are the next most important liquids given to infants.
Table 7‐4: Types of liquids given to children under 6 months old
Type of liquid drink given yesterday Frequency Percentage
Water 21 47.7
Milk formula, Powdered milk 14 31.8
Orange juice 1 2.3
Coconut water 1 2.3
Sugar water, carbonated beverage,
soup
4 9.1
Palm wine 0 0.0
Porridge/pap (rice, bulgur, blended) 12 27.3
Cerelac or commercial baby food 1 2.3
Other 9 20.5
In the baseline survey water was also found to be the most common drink given to children
not being exclusively breastfed with 64.3% of the respondents reporting so. Thus, at the
time of the evaluation survey a lower percentage of children were found to have been given
water. That means that the situation has improved with regards to introduction of water to
children not being exclusively breastfed.
7.5: Complementary Feeding  
Breast milk is the ideal food for babies and is sufficient to meet the child’s nutritional status
up to the age of six months after which time it must be complemented with appropriate
foods. As shown in Figure 7.7 the most commonly given foods to the youngest child were
the cereals (72 %).   Starches were not so commonly given to children (37%). Vegetables
were also commonly given (64%). Meats (beef, pork, lamb, chicken snails etc) are not
commonly given to young children as only 19% of the mothers mentioned that these foods
were given. But fish or crab was given to the youngest child by 64% of the mothers the
previous day. Legumes are another protein rich food commonly given by mothers to young
children with 66% of the mothers reporting that this was given to the youngest child in the
household the previous day. Palm oil and pepper were also given by about 66% of the
mothers. The foods given as indicated above reflect the local dietary pattern and supports
the generally known fact that many children under one year are fed normal family diet of
rice and palava sauce. Compared to the situation during the baseline survey children
received better and more nutritious complementary foods.  
28
Figure 7.7: Foods given to children the previous day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percent of mothers
Evaluation survey
Baseline survey
But, meat and eggs are low in the diets of the youngest child. Breast milk cannot provide
sufficient iron to meet the dietary needs of a child after six months and so iron rich foods
need to be present in their diet. The only animal protein food reported by a good number of
the respondents was fish which does not provide appreciable amounts of iron. The children
are therefore at a risk of anaemia.
7.6: Prevalence of Illness and Health Care Seeking Behaviour
A child’s nutritional status is affected by any type of illness. When a child is sick he/she has
no appetite and also the absorption and utilization of any food eaten is markedly reduced.
This leads to malnutrition. Malnourished children have lowered immunity and are more
prone to infections leading to a worsening of the malnutrition.
In this survey, data was collected on the prevalence of illness and the health care seeking
practices of the mothers for these children. Mothers of the children or caretakers were
asked about the morbidity history of the youngest child in the household over the two
weeks period prior to the survey. From the results, the most common illness reported
among the children over the period was fever  ‐ reported in 85.8% of the children (Figure
7.8).  
Compared to the situation during the baseline survey diarrhoea was more frequent in the
children in the two weeks prior to the evaluation survey. There were even higher
frequencies of Acute Respiratory Tract Infection (Cough) and Fever reported in the
evaluation than the baseline survey. The evaluation survey thus shows that many more
children were reported ill over the preceding two weekscompared to the situation during
29
the baseline survey. This finding is unexplained given the improved nutritional status of
children found during the evaluation compared to the baseline survey periods.
Figure 7.8: Illness of children in preceding two weeks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Diarrhoea ARI Fever
Percent of mothers
Evaluation survey
Baseline survey
Regarding where they obtain treatment when the child is ill, the responses varied according
to the type of illness (Table 7.5). The PHU clinic was the most common place from which
mothers obtained treatment for their children when they got ill – for fever 45.4%, for
diarrhoea 32.7% and for ARI 22.8%. TBAs were not consulted when children were ill.
However, a very high percentage of the mothers indicated that they do not seek treatment
anywhere for diarrhoea (61.9%) and for ARI (45.65) which is of concern. The PHU clinic,
District Hospital and Drugstore) were the main places mothers obtained treatment for their
children when they were ill. But the evaluation survey revealed less use of these facilities in
compared to the baseline survey period.
Table 7‐5: Comparison of the treatment seeking behaviour of mothers during the baseline
and the evaluation survey (% utilising different service providers)
Service Provider
Type of Illness
Diarrhoea ARI Fever
Baseline Evaluation Baseline Evaluation Baseline Evaluation
No where  ‐  61.9 ‐ 45.6 ‐  19.4
District Hospital 14.7 8.5 16.8 12.1 14.0 17.4
PHU clinic 53.0 22.8 63.38 32.7 56.4 45.4
Drugstore/pharmacy 2.1 5.7 3.6 8.6 3.6 11.4
TBA 7.5 0 1.9 0 3.5 0
Traditional Healer 3.3 0 1.8 0 2.6 0
Blue flag volunteer 1.2 0.7 0.4 0 2.7 0.3
Drug peddler 17.2 0.4 11.1 0.7 14.2 4.0
Other 1.0 0 1.0 0.7 2.8 2.0
30
CHAPTER 8. FINDINGS OF FOCUS GROUP AND KEY
INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Focus Interviews and Key Informant Interviews were conducted to seek answers from
individual beneficiaries and beneficiary communities to questions posed in the TORs (Annex
‐‐‐‐), which were grouped under a number of headings as follows:
1. Impact:
• What do community members think has been the most significant change in
their communities as a result of LEAD?
• What is the level of satisfaction of community members in participating
communities (both those directly benefitted and those not directly involved in
LEAD) with regard to CORAD’s way of working with them (communication/
information sharing, level of involvement of community stakeholders, gender
considerations, and others the consultant may identify)?
• Were the activities implemented under LEAD relevant to the challenges the
communities were facing?
• How did the quality of CORAD’s interventions contribute positively or negatively
to the impacts noted?   
• For those activities in which CORAD was implementing activities according to a
particular model (FFS, VS&L, PD/Hearth), how well did partners follow the
model?
• What changes in attitudes and behaviours do community members (both men
and women) articulate with regard to the feeding practices for children under
five?
• Number of communities in which safety nets are in place
2. Sustainability:
• Is there evidence that CORAD has successfully ensured the sustainability of the
LEAD programme?   (Not only of physical changes such as the assets created
through Food for Assets, but also of any behavioural changes around
health/hygiene, good governance, saving money, and/or farming practices.)  
3. Governance:
• Number of communities demonstrated strengthened capacity in areas such as
governance, participation, and M&E
• percentage of targeted community based organizations (village development
committees, farmer groups, community health clubs, village development health
committees, youth groups, and welfare committees) practicing transparent and
democratic governance
• Number of groups effectively engaged with district councils, town councils or
chiefdom authorities around issues of community development and social
services.
31
4. IEE Compliance:   
• There is a record of random spot reviews by MYAP management staff of MYAP
adherence to IEE‐related policies, procedures, and guidelines.   
• A participatory, micro‐watershed community‐based long‐rate vision and map(s)
are prominently displayed in each MYAP community.  
• There is an approved mini‐IEE on file at the sub‐district, chiefdom, community,
and/or CORAD programme level, as appropriate, that has been properly
prepared and signed/dated by the stakeholder representatives involved—for
each proposed MYAP community‐level activity.
5. Bird Flu:
• Each LEAD community cluster involved in FFA has a brief, expert‐facilitated,
participatory plan for reducing its exposure to H5N1 and for its response if/when
H5N1 manifests itself
6. Gaps:
• What best practices (if any) can the consultants identify from LEAD that should
be documented and shared with other development stakeholders (if not already
done)?
A detailed analysis of the interventions and their impact on beneficiary communities is
presented in an assessment matrix in Annex 3. In the rest of this section the highlights of the
impacts are briefly discussed  
8.1 Impact of LEAD Programme and achievement of Objectives
“Africare has civilized us”
“We were blind, but Africare has opened our eyes”
These are quotes of appreciation expressed by FGI interviewees, in Kangama, Dea
Chiefdom, and Komboima, Malema Chiefdom respectively, both in the Kailahun District,
when asked whether the LEAD programme had brought any changes to their communities.
Similar sentiments were expressed in other LEAD operational areas.
Generally, respondents confirmed that the process for the selection of interventions that
LEAD supported in their communities was participatory. The communities were either
parties in the selection of interventions or approved the implementation of the selected
interventions based on their community needs.  
The interventions also addressed critical development issues in the national poverty
reduction strategy, including improvement in farmers’ productivity for national food
security and poverty reduction, and achievement of MDG targets for reduced maternal and
infant mortality by 2015.  
32
In every community in which FGIs were conducted the health and sanitation intervention
(“Well body programmes”) were identified as the LEAD activity that brought the most
significant change to their communities by both male and female participants. Health and
sanitation practices such as regular hand washings, use of plate racks and cloth lines,
introduced through community health clubs as well as, growth monitoring sessions and
trainings on health and sanitation, were proclaimed   activities that have had significant
impact on the beneficiary communities. The impact of these health and sanitation
interventions was enhanced by the training given to community health volunteers who were
reported to be constantly monitoring activities in their communities thereby ensuring
compliance with the introduced practices.   
It appeared that most nursing mothers had become aware of the benefits of Exclusive
Breast Feeding as recommended by LEAD and were making effort to comply with the
practice. However, the quantitative analysis in Section VII above revealed that most had not
succeeded   and were offering their babies supplementary feeding against the
recommendations. During the FGIs, adults in the communities were able to describe the
causes of diarrhoea and malaria and methods of their prevention. They were also aware of
the benefits of keeping their communities clean and free from human waste and standing
water. Due to greater  health and sanitation awareness and knowledge, communities that
were not supported with water wells and latrines prioritized Water and Sanitation
(WATSAN) as a highly desired community need. Similarly, the communities have recognized
the usefulness of community TBA huts and some that have not been supported with this
asset are building their own and requesting assistance with TBA kits from LEAD and other
NGOs.  
Another LEAD activity   communities reported as having brought   significant change to
community life was the VS&L programme. This activity was particularly   appreciated by
women and youths. Some of the VS&L groups supported by LEAD had previous bad
experiences with traditional savings associations (“Osusus”) and cooperative associations .
The innovation of the strong box with three keys, and the engendering of the savings ethics
especially for the youths was a very successful intervention. All but one  supported youth
groups  have continued their VS&L operations after the initial LEAD support, and the one
case of partial failure was linked to the SUG programme discussed below.
The other activities in the LEAD programme have had varying degrees of impact on
beneficiary communities. The FGIs confirmed that farm production technologies introduced
in the Farmers Field School have changed agricultural practices in the communities. Higher
farm productivity has resulted from the new farming methods taught in the field schools.
Farmers reported that production of some crops like cassava, sweet potatoes and
groundnuts have increased as a direct result of new planting methods taught at the field
schools. Non FFS members in the community have also adopted the new farming
techniques, in some instances, with the help of their taught neighbours. However in many
instances the FFS model was not   efficiently implemented by the CORAD partners. In
Bombali and Koinadugu Districts planting materials and inputs were almost, in all cases,
supplied late. Poor quality seeds with poor germination were supplied, and experimental
33
protocols were poorly executed so that trainees often did not realise the benefits of the
improved technologies being propagated.  
Most communities ranked the Food for Assets component highly, especially in terms of
support for community road maintenance and income generating assets such as fish ponds.
The Safety Net or Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programme, encouraged communities to
take collective responsibility for their old and vulnerable members. The village welfare
committees,  formed in the communities,   plan yearly safety net projects to support the
vulnerable in their villages. However, there are serious questions relating to the
sustainability of the VGF intervention as discussed later.
The intervention which was most severely criticised during the FGI, because it was clearly
not implemented according to the regular model is the Start‐Up Grants (SUG) programme.
SUGs are awards of cash given to selected individuals who are usually members of VS&L or
micro enterprise development (MED) groups. Almost universally it emerged during the FGIs
that selection of beneficiaries was not transparent. Non recipients were not satisfied with
the process but kept quiet for some time in anticipation that they themselves would receive
the “goodies” later. Among all the partners, records of SUG beneficiaries were poorly kept
and many examined by the Consultants were incomprehensible. An added failure by CARE
was the non disbursement of the second tranche of the grant to recipients as the
programme ran out of funds. Claims by CARE of fraudulent activities by the agents of it’s
implementing partner and beneficiaries notwithstanding, there is little justification for not
fulfilling promises made to beneficiaries which they regarded as binding contracts.
Beneficiaries who applied the grants to genuine business activities were penalised as they
were unable to make all the investments foreseen in their business plans and the climate of
trust between farmers and small businesses on the one hand and development partners on
the other has been severely eroded.
8.2 Programme Sustainability  
From the FGIs it was clear that by and large, communities were sufficiently sensitised on all
programme interventions and had, to a large extent, assumed ownership of   programme
activities. This prerequisite for sustainability was therefore substantially met. Village
committees established as vehicles for the implementation of programme activities also
served as organs for monitoring and hopefully sustaining those activities. Grassroots
initiatives had also begun to evolve in some communities. For example, in addition to
project supported annual community farm, the Komboima community in Malema Chiefdom
developed other longer term safety net projects such as a community welfare fund and a
community oil palm estate, on their own initiative; arising from the VS&L activities (Go‐Be‐
Fo) the Polio Persons Development Association (POPDA) in Makeni has commenced
investment in a housing project.  
The evaluation found that:
1. Farmers trained in LEAD FFS are unlikely to abandon the new high yielding
techniques and revert to the lower yielding traditional methods. The facilitators, who
are also leading community farmers are more likely than not to promote the new
34
methods to points where the old would be forgotten. Because many communities
are gradually adopting the new methods it is likely that they would become
widespread. However, the shift from upland to IVS farming propagated by most FFS,
although a good idea, has not been fully adopted by the intended beneficiaries.
Much more training and capital input in the development of swamps and other
incentives would be needed to move farmers from the uplands into swamp farming
on a permanent basis.
2. The road maintenance intervention using FFA does not introduce a new community
activity or output but merely represents reward for something the communities had
always done and are likely to continue. FFA has usually only provided an additional
stimulus for the activity, reinforcing the sustainability of the intervention.  
3. Fish ponds constructed with FFA are very sustainable as they are an income
generating activity and FGIs revealed that beneficiary communities have put
community management systems in place to maintain the ponds and equitable
distribute the proceeds
4. The Women’s garden (Baby Friendly Garden) was a traditional women’s activity,
which would continue with or without the LEAD intervention. However without
continued donor support by way of tools, inputs or Food‐For‐Work, the impression
obtained by the Consultants is that the women are likely to revert to the more
traditional cultivation of individual gardens rather than the group farm approach
propagated by LEAD. The crops that are grown in the Baby Friendly Gardens are
currently either grown in pure stands or intercropped with rice. This makes the idea
of special farms burdensome and not likely to be prioritized and unsustainable with
the withdrawal of donor support.
5. The trained community health volunteers and TBAs were held in a high esteem in
their villages. As long as limited access to public health personnel and facilities,
within easy reach of the communities persists, they would be willing to continue
serving in those capacities and would be appreciated in the communities. However
in the absence of arrangements to institutionalizing their positions within the
National Health Service their services might become redundant as Ministry of Health
(MOH) community health facilities develop and become available to the
communities.
6. The VGF and Village Welfare Committees are dependent on donor food aid support
and are consequently, inherently, unsustainable as donor support is not permanent.
The community safety net farms whose outputs are to replace donor food supplies
are themselves contingent on Food‐For‐Work and therefore also unsustainable. The
FGIs did not reveal any instances where additional vulnerable people not registered
under the LEAD VGF programme had been co‐opted into the programme or where
safrty net farms had been expanded beyond that supported by Food‐for‐Work.
Observations from CRS operational areas revealed that when food for work was
unavailable community welfare committees stopped work on the safety net farms.
This is clearly not a sustainable LEAD activity.
7. The Growth Monitoring and Promotion programmes initiated by LEAD could be
sustained if they are taken over by Community Health Volunteers in the
communities. The prospects of this happening would be enhanced if the volunteers
were supported with scales, weighing sacks, record cards and appropriate incentives.
During the FGIs it emerged that such support had in fact been provided in some
35
communities but not in others. In general the GMP is a service that should devolve
to public and private health clinics with time. Collaboration with MOH services would
permit for smooth transition of this activity into the public health service and ensure
the sustainability of the LEAD intervention.
8. Some of the Health and sanitation practices propagated by LEAD, such as use of
plate racks and cloth lines etc are very likely to be sustained and become permanent
features in the communities. Issues of personal hygiene for prevention of diarrhoea
would require more time and sensitization to take hold. Community‐wide issues like
environmental sanitation for malaria prevention would depend on enforcement and
community sanctions against noncompliance to community health and sanitation
rules. There are indications that many of the LEAD communities are already moving
in that direction.
9. Many of the Good Governance (GG) trainees were youths, who were hitherto
marginalized but are now in the mainstream of decision making in their
communities. Maintenance of their new status would depend on the general
recognition of the principles of good governance.  They were therefore likely to insist
on the observance of those principles by the leadership of their communities. With
the level of knowledge and awareness gained from the training the communities
were very likely to observe the new democratic principles learnt in the GG training.
The Consultants believe that the GG interventions are sustainable.
10. The business training, which precedes the award of SUGs is the most important
element of the intervention. However, most beneficiaries lacked the background to
benefit from the concepts taught and to acquire the skills intended to be transferred
by the training. There was little evidence that the training was generally well
understood by beneficiaries of the training. Although admitting to having taken the
business training, youths groups especially those surveyed in Kailahun and Kono
could not demonstrate knowledge of basic business concepts or adequately adopt
practices in record keeping. However, basic market survey and issues to be
investigated before starting a business was reasonably well understood. Thus,
although many rated the training as very beneficial, many others were not
sufficiently equipped to succeed in business from the training. The intervention as
implemented in LEAD was clearly not sustainable.
11. As discussed earlier, the award of SUGs was problematic, especially in CARE areas.
Apart from prior participation in the basic business management training, the criteria
for awarding start up grants to selected trainees and capital grants to communities
were unclear to the communities. In focus group discussions, there was a perception
of arbitrariness in the selection of award recipients among non recipients. The need
for more sensitization on the selection of grant beneficiaries especially on the
objectivity, and transparency of the criteria is advisable. The SUG programme as
implemented under LEAD is not sustainable.
12. The VS&L system as implemented under LEAD was cyclical and renewable and as
such not structurally permanent. However the groups themselves are able to alter
the rules to allow for longer savings cycles as well as gradually introduce an
institutional structure to their scheme. As observed earlier, most of the groups
sponsored under LEAD have continued to exist after direct LEAD intervention.
Because of the benefits perceived and recognised by participants this is proving to
be a very sustainable LEAD activity
36
13. During FGIs it emerged that the WATSAN component of LEAD was fraught with
challenges the two most important of which were: 1) the poor engineering in the
sinking of wells to shallow depths which resulted in most wells being dry during most
months of the year and 2) inadequate arrangement for the proper maintenance of
wells and latrines to keep them serviceable. This was not a sustainable LEAD
intervention.
8.3 Governance ‐ Engagement with Local Government Authorities:
Although there was evidence that relationship between the decentralized government
bodies and community groups such as the Village Development Committees was discussed
in the LEAD Good Governance training given to community representatives, there is still
very little appreciation of this relationship as a channel for addressing community
development and social issues. In most cases LEAD community group leaders have not
engaged local councils in addressing their development and social issues. In one case,
community leaders claim that this was to avoid the demands of rent seeking local
government officials. But in the majority of cases this lack of interaction seems to be due to
lack of awareness of how the system works and an indication that more training on this
aspect of governance is required.
8.4 Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Compliance
IEE compliance by the Multi Year Assistance Programme (MYAP) communities was
monitored and reported on by project management staff in Forms D1 and D2. The
Consultants verified that the forms were completed for the community asset creation
activities – farm to market roads, fish ponds, drying floors etc and that the assessments was
done by CORAD staff and community members.  
With regards to the requirement that there is an approved mini‐IEE on file at the sub‐
district, chiefdom, community, and/or CORAD programme level, as appropriate, the
Evaluation team found that the reports were only available at partner regional offices but
not in the communities.  
8.5 Bird Flu:
The LEAD programme design required that each LEAD community cluster involved in FFA
has a brief, expert‐facilitated, participatory plan for reducing its exposure to H5N1 and for
its response if/when H5N1 manifests itself.  
The Evaluation revealed that no CORAD partner surveyed developed, caused to be
developed, or seemed aware of any expert facilitated brief on exposure and response to
H5N1. Nor did any LEAD community have any brief for reducing exposure to H5N1 and for
responding to the virus if it manifests itself in the communities. This component of the LEAD
programme was not implemented.
37
8.6:  Best Practices Employed and Gaps to be Addressed
Needs Assessment
All communities in LEAD operational areas confirmed that they were consulted on the
selection of interventions based on their expressed needs. Following selection of the
needed support and submission of formal requests, the communities were informed of the
interventions that were approved for implementation.   This approach, which reflects the
communities’ felt needs results in their active participation in project implementation,
ownership and enhance sustainability of project interventions. For example, the
rehabilitation of feeder roads is highly prioritized by the communities to enhance access to
markets for their produce and to procure inputs and other requirements. As a result, the
FFA component of LEAD was very highly appreciated and supported by community
members.
Design and Implementation Strategies
The involvement of community members in specialized committees such as the village
Development Committees (VDC) and the Village Health Committees (VHC) for the
implementation of the programme at the community level is a good design that promotes
local ownership of the interventions and sustainability of the programme. The process
encourages learning and, enhances local initiative and self confidence in community
development activities. The practice of wide local consultations involving all segments of the
communities, men, women and youths ensures equality, mutual respect and social
cohesiveness and the active participation in programme activities.  
The training of contact farmers or Facilitators in FFS and as Community Health Volunteers
(CHV) and support for the training of Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) were good
sustainability strategies that are well demonstrated in the beneficiary communities.
Members trained in these activities acquire leadership status in their communities, which
help to promote the sustainability of the activities they supervise. For example, contact
farmers acquire advisory roles, which promote continued improvement in farming
techniques and sustainability of the farmer field school training in the communities.  
However, a down side of otherwise successful programme planning in LEAD was the
inconsistency among partners in the implementation of Community Vision Mapping, which
was only consistently implemented in Tonkolili District. Little attention was paid to this
important visual community development planning tool in the other project areas.  
Monitoring
Self monitoring of LEAD activities was performed by the VDCs and CHVs supervised by
programme monitoring and evaluation officers and field supervisors. LEAD field staff also
performed effective monitoring and had strong working relationships with community
leaders. The presence of these volunteers in the project communities make for effective and
continuous monitoring of project activities. For example the Community Health Volunteers
ensure compliance with recommended sanitation practices regarding waste disposal,
malaria prevention, use of clothes lines etc.
38
Promotion of Community Ownership
The design of the LEAD programme encouraged community ownership of the programme
and its sustainability. The following design features strongly promote community ownership
of programme activities:
• Consultations with the communities in the identification of interventions that
addressed their felt needs as a community.
• The involvement of all segments of the community, men, women and youths
ensuring community participation and ownership.  
• An inclusive project process, which ensured that no community group was
marginalised and all groups participate or were aware of programme activities in
their community.
• The formation of local implementing and monitoring committees, VDC, VWC and
VHDC in which all community groups were  represented enhanced community
ownership.
The Evaluation identified gaps in programming that need to be addressed through other
programmes:
1. WATSAN was not prioritized in the LEAD programme in spite of the desperate
situation in most programme operational areas. Tonkolili was the worst affected
district in this regard with over 60% of communities visited having no source of clean
water. In Kailahun District most areas reported 7‐9 months without adequate
potable water. The unavailability of potable water in these communities undermined
the health and sanitation interventions which were the most highly appreciated
components of LEAD. For example, although the Evaluators were informed in FGIs
that LEAD beneficiaries had been trained and understood how to prevent and treat
diarrhoea, the results of the quantitative survey in Section 7 show that the incidence
of diarrhoea was higher during the final evaluation than during the baseline survey.
This finding can be attributed to the worsening quality of available portable water
and a resultant increase in infection rate recorded in the quantitative survey.  
2. The programme’s support for the training of Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) was
complimentary to the TBA training programme of the Ministry of Health but there is
room for better coordination between the two programmes. For example, many
TBAs trained under LEAD have not been issued with certificate or TBA kits by the
MOH. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the LEAD supported TBA huts
complemented the Birth Waiting Home of the MOH. Furthermore, the LEAD partners
did not implement this component with consistency.   
3. The success of the agricultural production technologies introduced through the
Farmers Field Schools created a demand for agro‐processing equipment for
processing the increased output of community farms. This demand was greatest for
processing machinery for the increased output of cassava, which could not be sold as
fresh tuber, and to a lesser extent for small rice mills. Because this demand is not
being met through LEAD programme activities, the growth of cassava production is
constrained.
39
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE – INDICATORS TO BE MEASURED
(Reduced Survey6
)
Indicator Data
Source7
PROGRAM GOAL‐LEVEL
% of children under 5 years who are underweight (percentage of children under five
years of age with weight‐for‐age of less than 2SD)
P
Months of Inadequate Household Food Provisioning (MIHFP) P
Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) P
Average value of household production of selected crops/livestock P
Jobs created for youth (including self employment) B
# of recipients of community‐managed safety nets B
IEE Compliance:  There is a record of random spot reviews by MYAP management staff
of MYAP adherence to IEE‐related policies, procedures, and guidelines.   
F
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE ONE  
% of eligible children under 5 years participating in growth promotion programs P
# of children 0‐59 months in the target population P
% of program beneficiaries adopting at least 5 sustainable agricultural technologies
introduced through the program
B
% of communities in which at least five new agricultural practices or technologies have
been adopted.
B
% of infants under 6 months who are exclusively breastfed P
% of women to report practicing EBF with their under 6 months old infants P
# of  children 0‐59 months in the target population P
Number of economically marginalized youth who have acquired basic business
management and/or vocational skills
B
Farmers report that their post‐harvest losses and their use of pesticides are decreasing
from season to season (verified when possible with physical inspections)
B
% of children who maintain or improve their nutritional status after having graduated 
from a PD/HEARTH session
B
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE TWO
Average increase of farm production of targeted crops per household B
Average increase in gross sales per household of targeted crops B
Number of economically marginalized youth who undertake new or expanded livelihood
activities in rural areas
B
Number of economically marginalized youth who undertake new or expanded livelihood
activities in major towns
B
% of individuals who received loans from village savings and lending groups who used
that loan to undertake new or expanded livelihood activities (disaggregated by type of
activity, gender, and age)
B
LEAD participants engaged in agro‐processing activities are able to explain why and how
to prevent negative environmental and/or health impacts
B
Total agro‐processing activities in village or village cluster resulting in pollution,
contamination, or other negative environmental or health effects divided by total agro‐
processing activities in village or village cluster (with brief qualitative explanation of
findings)
B; P
Youths trained by LEAD in basic value chain analysis for potential economic
opportunities are able to explain potential basic costs and benefits of a variety of
possible economic activities, including social, economic, and environmental ‘costs’ and
B
                                                           
6 Aspects of Contractor’s Final Evaluation TOR requiring technical (engineering) expertise not covered 7 P = Population based survey; B = Beneficiary survey; F = Focus Group and Key Informant Interviews
40
Indicator Data
Source7
‘benefits’
Youths trained by LEAD in basic value chain analysis are able to describe how they would
prevent, reduce, or mitigate potential negative environmental and/or health effects
from the economic activity they are most interested in pursuing
B
Each youth or youth association that is pursuing an economic activity is consistently
checking—and making management decisions based on—several easy‐to‐measure and
analyze financial as well as environmental and/or health impact indicators related to the
activity
B
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE THREE
% of births attended by trained TBA or other skilled personnel in the past six months P
Of households reporting morbidity from malaria, ARI, or diarrhea in the past two weeks,
percentage that sought care from a health facility
P
Percentage of children under one year fully immunized P
Average percentage increase in purchases of input supply goods (seeds, tools) by
participating farmer groups
B
Percentage of program‐supported individuals (e.g. VGF beneficiaries) whose food needs
are supported/replaced by household‐  or community‐mobilized food through social
safety nets
B
Number of groups effectively engaged with district councils, town councils or chiefdom
authorities around issues of community development and social services.
F
IEE Compliance:   A participatory, micro‐watershed community‐based long‐rate vision
and map(s) are prominently displayed in each MYAP community.  
F
IEE Compliance:   There is an approved mini‐IEE on file at the sub‐district, chiefdom,
community, and/or CORAD program level, as appropriate, that has been properly
prepared and signed/dated by the stakeholder representatives involved—for each
proposed MYAP community‐level activity.
F
# and % of program participants involved in IVS cultivation, disaggregated by gender,
who per quiz successfully completed orientation in schistosomiasis and malaria
prevention
B
# and % of LEAD plant and livestock agricultural activities that correctly apply
sustainable/soil & water conserving farm techniques (e.g. contour plowing)  
B; F
Each LEAD community cluster involved in FFA has a brief, expert‐facilitated, participatory
plan for reducing its exposure to H5N1 and for its response if/when H5N1 manifests
itself
F
Each mini‐IEA includes a checklist or similar mechanism to ensure adequate drainage at
rehabilitation/construction sites; appropriate post‐harvest management, and specific
agro‐processing activities
No depressions or other negative drainage conditions are evident at any LEAD‐related
construction sites
Target community members state that they are able to meet their basic domestic
potable water needs, for X months per year, from the wells/boreholes provided through
LEAD
B; F
Water quantities per capital are adequate throughout the year per community
monitoring and inspections by LEAD project team members during the rainy and dry
seasons
Water quality meets minimum WHO standards for arsenic, coliform, nitrates, and or
nitrites—per standard tests conducted by trained LEAD staff with local GoSL (MAFS)
experts, when feasible
Proper well/borehole construction procedures are being followed.   Checks were
conducted by LEAD project staff and GoSL Health Ministry senior engineers.
Included in the water project EIA is a brief section on the potential environmental and
health hazards—as well as benefits—of Greywater
The community as a whole and households in particular are making appropriate use of
Greywater (e.g. to water trees, etc.)
B; F
41
Indicator Data
Source7
Each VIP latrine is properly located and constructed to encourage use while
eliminating/substantially reducing environmental and health risk factors
Road rehabilitation work is conducted per established norms for earthen roads, and with
expert technical oversight
There is no significant situation, ponding, or other potential problem upon site
inspection of road
A road rehabilitation plan is in place
# of communities in which safety nets are in place F
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE FOUR
# of communities demonstrated strengthened capacity in areas such as governance,
participation, and M&E
F
Percentage of targeted community based organizations (village development
committees, farmer groups, community health clubs, village development health
committees, youth groups, and welfare committees) practicing transparent and
democratic governance
F
Qualitative Data
Program
Objective
Questions Data
Source
Overall
Program
Level
♦ What do community members think has been the most significant
change in their communities as a result of LEAD?
F; B
♦ What is the level of satisfaction of community members in
participating communities (both those directly benefitted and those
not directly involved in LEAD) with regard to CORAD’s way of
working with them (communication/information sharing, level of
involvement of community stakeholders, gender considerations, and
others the consultant may identify)?
F; B
♦ Were the activities implemented under LEAD relevant to the
challenges the communities were facing?
F; B
♦ Is there evidence that CORAD has successfully ensured the
sustainability of the LEAD program?  (Not only of physical changes
such as the assets created through Food for Assets, but also of any
behavioral changes around health/hygiene, good governance, saving
money, and/or farming practices.)  CORAD wishes to see information
regarding sustainability from those areas in which it has only worked
since the start of LEAD, as well as communities with which the
consortium worked under the prior DRP project.
F; B
♦ How did the quality of CORAD’s interventions contribute positively
or negatively to the impacts noted?   For those activities in which
CORAD was implementing activities according to a particular model
(FFS, VSLA, PD/Hearth), how well did partners follow the model?
F; B
♦ What impact (if any) have the fluctuations of the market price of
basic food commodities (most notably rice) had on the overall goal
of reducing food insecurity?
F; B
♦ What best practices (if any) can the consultants identify from LEAD
that should be documented and shared with other development
stakeholders (if not already done)?
F
Program
Objective 1
♦ What changes in attitudes and behaviors do community members
(both men and women) articulate with regard to the feeding
practices for children under five?
F; B
42
ANNEX 2: QUESTIONNAIRES
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
43
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LTD (EDS)
LEAD FINAL EVALUATION‐ POPULATION SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1: Identification
Date ____________________                                  Questionnaire N° |__|__|__|
Name and Signature of Enumerator: ___________________________________________________
Name and Signature of Supervisor: ____________________________________________________
Name and Signature of EDS Supervisor (Where applicable) ________________________________  
VARIABLES RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE
District 1=Kailahun; 2=Kono; 3=Koinadugu; 4=Bombali; 5=Tonkolili |__|
Chiefdom Name Chiefdom______________________ |__|__|
Community Name Village/Site: ___________________ |__|__|
Respondent   Name of Respondent_____________________________________________
G4 Dwelling walls 1=wood; 2=corrugated iron; 3=mud; 4= cement blocks; 5=other   |__|
G5 Dwelling roof 1=thatch; 2=corrugated iron; 3=tarpaulin; 4=other |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
44
SECTION 2: Household Demographics
G1 G1 G3 G4
First Name Sex Age Marital
Status
Family status Education In
growth
promo‐
tion?
In PD/
HEARTH
Immuniz
ation?
Skilled birth
attendance?
1=Male
2=Female
Yrs Mths 1 = Married
2 = Single
3= Divorced
4= Widowed
4=Separated
1= HH head
2=spouse
3=son/daughter
4=Father/Mother
5=Sister/brother
6=extended fam
7=no family ties
Years in
formal
schooling
For
Under 5
yrs
1=Yes
2=No
For Under
5 yrs
1=Yes
2=No
For Under
1 yr
1=Full
2=Partial
3=No
For Under 6
mths
1=Yes
2=No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
45
G1 G1 G3 G4
First Name Sex Age Marital
Status
Family status Education In
growth
promo‐
tion?
In PD/
HEARTH
Immuniz
ation?
Skilled birth
attendance?
1=Male
2=Female
Yrs Mths 1 = Married
2 = Single
3= Divorced
4= Widowed
4=Separated
1= HH head
2=spouse
3=son/daughter
4=Father/Mother
5=Sister/brother
6=extended fam
7=no family ties
Years in
formal
schooling
For
Under 5
yrs
1=Yes
2=No
For Under
5 yrs
1=Yes
2=No
For Under
1 yr
1=Full
2=Partial
3=No
For Under 6
mths
1=Yes
2=No
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
46
Section 3: VALUE OF PRODUCTION:
How much of the following crops did you produce last year (2008)?
Output: Units (Code) Quantity Price per unit
(Leones)
Upland rice      
Lowland rice        
Cassava  
Cocoa      
Coffee      
Palm oil      
Palm Kernels      
Groundnuts      
Vegetables      
Units:
1. Butter/Flower Cup;   2. Jute Bag;   3. Basket;   4. Bata
5. Drum;     6. Pile     7. Banga Bag   8. PK Bag
9. Onion Bag   10. Elephant bag   11. 50 kg rice bag   12. Bulgur
Bag
13. Bundle   14. Tie     15.Bushel   16. Three
pence Pan (TP)
17. Box     18. Bowl pan   19. Gallon   20. Tomato
tin
2. Salmon cup   22. Other (Specify) ______23. Other (Specify) _____________
(G19)
Section 4: HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE (HDDS)
QUESTIONS: Yesterday or last night ‐ did anyone in HH eat? 1=Someone ate (yes)
0=No one ate (No)
Any rice, bulgur, bread, wheat, flour, noodles, sorghum, maize, millet?   |__|
Any potatoes, yams, bush yams, cassava, or any other food made from roots
or tubers?   |__|
Any vegetables including cassava leaves, potato leaves, wild mushrooms,
edible leaves and bush plants, wild herbs, pumpkin?   |__|
Any fruits including oranges, lemons, banana, mango, paw‐paw, or other
fruits?   |__|
Any meat such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, rabbit, entrails
(kidneys, liver, intestines), insects (such as termites, maggots or grubs,
snails), wild game (including bush chickens, weaver birds, other wild birds,
monkey, bats, bush rats, frogs, lizards, snakes)?
|__|
Any eggs?   |__|
Any fish or crab?   |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
47
Section 4: HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE (HDDS)
QUESTIONS: Yesterday or last night ‐ did anyone in HH eat? 1=Someone ate (yes)
0=No one ate (No)
Any food made from beans, benniseeds, peas, lentils, groundnuts, or other
nuts?   |__|
Any cheese, milk, or milk products?   |__|
Any food made with palm oil, other oil, fat, or butter? |__|
Any sugar or honey?   |__|
Any foods with pepper sauce, salt, or other condiments, or drinks like coffee,
palm wine, or tea?   |__|
(G18)
Section 5: MONTHS OF INADEQUATE HOUSEHOLD FOOD PROVISION (MIHFP)
QUESTION:  In the past 12 months, were there months in which
you did not have enough food to meet your family’s needs?
CODE FOR EACH
MONTH:
1= Enough
0=Not enough
May 2009 |__|
April 2009 |__|
March 2009 |__|
February 2009 |__|
January 2009   |__|
December 2008 |__|
November 2008 |__|
October 2008   |__|
September 2008 |__|
August 2008   |__|
July 2008   |__|
June 2008 |__|
May 2008 |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
48
Section 6: MATERNAL AND NEWBORN CARE PRACTICES (Address questions to mother or Child
minder of youngest child)
QUESTIONS CODE
G6 Did mother receive antenatal care while pregnant?
0=No; 1=Yes;    |__|
G7 Does mother have a maternal health card? (If yes, ask to see the card)
0=No; 1= Yes (card verified); 2 = Yes (card not verified); 3= Don’t know |__|
G8 Where did mother give birth?
1= Own home;  2= Another home,  3=TBA Hut; 4= Clinic/PHU;   5= Hospital;             
6= Bush; 7. Other (specify) _______________________________   |__|
G9 Who assisted with delivery?
0= No one;                              1= Health worker (doctor, midwife, CHO, MCH Aide);  
2= Trained TBA;                     3= Untrained TBA;  4= Family member or friend  
5= Other (specify) ___________________________  
|__|
Section 7: IMMEDIATE AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING (Address questions to mother or Child
minder of youngest child)
QUESTIONS CODE
G10 Have you (or “has anyone”) ever breastfed the child
0= No;           1= Yes   |__|
G11 How long after birth did you (or “someone”) start breastfeeding the child
1= Immediately after birth;  
2= After one hour
3= More than one hour
4= Do not remember  
|__|
G12 Did you or anyone give the child anything else to drink in the first 3 days after
birth besides breast milk?
0= No;           1= Yes;                2= Don’t remember   |__|
G13 Is child being breastfed at the present time?   
0= No;           1= Yes   |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
49
Section 7: IMMEDIATE AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING (Address questions to mother or Child
minder of youngest child)
QUESTIONS CODE
G13 Was the child breastfed yesterday?  
0= No                 1= Yes   |__|
G14 Did the child drink any of the following liquids yesterday?  
1= Water                                        2= Milk formula, or powdered milk  
3= Orange juice                             4= Coconut water  
5= Sugar water, carbonated beverage, soup  
6= Palm Wine                                7= Porridge or pap (rice, bulgur, blended)  
8= Cerelac or other commercially available infant and young child food
9. Other (specify) _________________________  
|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|
G15 Did the child eat the following foods yesterday? 0= No; 1= Yes
1. Any rice, bulgur, bread, wheat, noodles, sorghum, maize, millet?   |__|
2. Any potatoes, yams, bush yams, cassava, or any other food made from
roots or tubers? |__|
3. Any vegetables including cassava leaves, potato leaves, wild mushrooms,
edible leaves and bush plants, wild herbs, pumpkin? |__|
4. Any fruits including banana, mango, paw‐paw? |__|
5. Any meat such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, duck, rabbit, insects (such
as termites, maggots or grubs, snails), wild game (including bush chickens,
weaver birds, other wild birds, monkey, bats, bush rats, frogs, lizards,
snakes)?
|__|
6. Any eggs?   |__|
7. Any fish or crab? |__|
8. Any food made from beans, benni seeds, peas, lentils, groundnuts, or other
nuts? |__|
9. Any cheese, milk, or milk products?   |__|
10. Any food made with palm oil, fat, or butter?   |__|
11. Any sugar or honey?   |__|
12. Any foods with pepper sauce, salt, and other condiments? |__|
  
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Population Survey Questionnaire May
2009
50
Section 8: PREVALENCE OF ILLNESS (Address questions to mother or Child minder of youngest
child)
QUESTIONS CODE
Diarrhea ARI  
(Cough with
difficult
breathing)
Fever
(Malaria)
G16 Has the child had the illness in the past two weeks?
0= No;           1= Yes   |__| |__| |__|
G17 Where did you first go for treatment for the child’s illness?
0= No where
1= District hospital
2= Clinic/PHU
3= Drug Store or Pharmacy
4= TBA
5= Traditional Healer
6‐ Blue Flag volunteer
7= Drug peddler
8= Other (specify) ________________________
|__| |__| |__|
Section 9: WEIGHT FOR AGE
Weigh the youngest child between 6 months and 5 years old (Refer to instructions sheet)
First Name    Date of
Birth
Age
(Months)
Sex
1‐Male
2=Female
Under‐5 card?
0=No  
1=Yes
Weight (Kg)
     __ __ . __
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
51
ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LTD (EDS)
LEAD FINAL EVALUATION‐ BENEFICIARY SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1: Identification
Date ____________________                                  Questionnaire N° |__|__|__|
Name and Signature of Enumerator: __________________________________________
Name and Signature of LEAD Supervisor: ________________________________________________
Name and Signature of EDS Supervisor (Where applicable): ________________________________
VARIABLES RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE
District 1=Kailahun; 2=Kono; 3=Koinadugu; 4=Bombali; 5=Tonkolili |__|
Chiefdom Name Chiefdom______________________ |__|__|
Community Name Village/Site: ___________________ |__|__|
Respondent   Name of Respondent ____________________________________
Sex:                       1= Female             2= Male |__|
Dwelling walls 1=wood; 2=corrugated iron; 3=mud; 4= cement blocks;
5=other   |__|
Dwelling roof 1=thatch; 2=corrugated iron; 3=tarpaulin; 4=other |__|
Programme
Participation
Did you participate in the following LEAD programme
activities?  0= No       1 = Yes
Farmer Field Schools/ Farmers Associations |__|
Inland valley Swamp Development |__|
Community Seed Multiplication |__|
Tree Crops Improvement |__|
Food For Assets (Roads Rehabilitation, Drying floors, Grain
stores) |__|
Business Training & Start‐up Grants |__|
Village Savings & Loan Association |__|
Exclusive Breast feeding Programme |__|
Vulnerable Group Feeding  (VGF) |__|
Growth Monitoring Programme |__|
PD/HEARTH Programme
Community Health Clubs/VDHC |__|
Economically Marginalized Youth (EMY) Programme
Good Governance |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May, 2009
52
Section 2: VALUE OF PRODUCTION: How much of the following crops did you produce ‐ 
GPS 2008
Crop Area
Output: (Acres) Units (Code)
2008 Crop Year 2006 Crop Year (Before you joined LEAD)
Crop Area
(Acres)
Quantity
Produced
Quantity
Sold
Price per
unit
(Leones)
Crop Area
(Acres)
Quantity
Produced
Quantity
Sold
Price per
unit
(Leones)
Upland rice
Lowland rice
Cassava
Cocoa
Sweet Potato
Coffee
Palm oil
Palm Kernels
Groundnuts
Vegetables (Specify
________
Units:
1. Butter/Flower Cup; 2. Jute Bag; 3. Basket; 4. Bata
5. Drum; 6. Pile 7. Banga Bag 8. PK Bag
9. Onion Bag 10. Elephant bag 11. Tie 12. Three Pence Pan (TP)
13. Bundle 14. Bushel/50 kg rice bag 15. Bulgur bag 16. Box
17. Bowl pan 18. Gallon 19. Tomato tin 20. Salmon cup
21. Other (Specify) ________________ 22.Other (Specify) __________________
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
53
Section 3: SOIL CONSERVATION
Did you practice any soil conservation techniques in the last
season? (choose more than one option if relevant)
1 = Yes  
0 = No (Skip to Section 4)
Contour farming |__| Cover cropping |__|
Mulching |__| Crop rotation |__|
Manure application |__| Other (specify) ___________ |__|
From whom did you learn about these
techniques?
1 = LEAD staff                       2 = MAFFS technicians
3 = other farmers/friends   4 = other Specify)____
|__|
|__|
|__|  
How much of your farm do you put
under soil conservation?
1 = all                         2 = half or more than half
3 = less than half |__|
For how long have you been doing these
techniques? 1 = since 2006            2 = before 2006   |__|
Will you keep on practicing these
techniques? 1 = yes             0 = No                  3 = Don’t know |__|
Section 4: USE OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES
0 = No         1 = Yes   CODE
Which new techniques
have you learned to use
during the last 3 years
(since start of LEAD)?
(choose more than one
option if relevant)
Improved varieties (seeds/planting materials) |__|
Improved livestock breeds |__|
Bunding of IVS   |__|
Use of fertilizers/chemicals |__|
New food processing techniques |__|
New livestock feeds, vaccinations and drugs |__|
New fishing techniques |__|
Livestock fattening |__|
Use of concrete drying floor |__|
Use of improved store |__|
Prevention of Schistosomiasis (Bilharzia) |__|
Prevention of malaria |__|
Prevention of ARI (Cough with difficult breathing) |__|
Prevention of Diarrhoea |__|
Other (specify) _________________ |__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
54
Section 5: POST HARVEST ACTIVITIES
Crop/Livestock
Post Harvest Loss
(Proportion of 10)
Two most important post
harvest loss reduction
measures (see Code)
Use of post harvest pesticides
compared to 2006
0= No use
1=Use more
2=Use less
2006 2008
2008
First 2008
Measure
Second
Measure
Upland rice         
Lowland rice  
Cassava  
Cocoa
Sweet Potato
Coffee
Palm oil
Palm Kernels         
Groundnuts   
Vegetables  
(Specify _______)
  
Loss reduction measure Code:
0= None 1= Use drying floor 2= Use drying mat 3= Use improved storage facility
4= Use wooden boxes 5= Other (specify) ______________  6= Other (specify) ______________
7= Other (specify) ______________ 8= Other (specify) ______________
Please explain what actions
(if any) you take to prevent
negative environmental or
health impact of your post
harvest activities
  
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
55
Section 6: GOOD GOVERNANCE
Questions Code
Has your group been involved in training on good governance
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Does your group have any meetings or contacts with District and Chiefdom
leaders?
0 = No; 1 = Yes
|__|
What do you understand by good governance? Let respondent select three
items from list that best describe good governance:
1. Every member should try to act like s/he is the leader
2. the leader gives every member a chance to express their views
3. the leader has a small group that he works with and they do
everything secretly for the group
4. the leader and office bearers all report regularly to the whole group
5. Everything that the group does should be known by all the
members all the time.
6. Other (Specify) ______________________________________
|__||__||__|
Section 7: WEIGHT FOR AGE
Weigh one child under 5 years old who has graduated from the PD/Hearth Programme
(Refer to instructions sheet)
First Name Date of
Birth
Age
(months)
Sex Under‐5
card?
Last Weight   Current
Weight (Kg)
1=Male
2=Female
0=No  
1=Yes Date Weight(Kg)
              
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
56
THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE TO BE COMPLETED BY BENEFICIARIES BELOW THE AGE OF 35
YEARS
Section 8: JOBS CREATED
Questions Code
Are you presently gainfully employed?
       0= No; 1= Yes |__|
If you are gainfully employed, do you work for someone else or for yourself?
1. Work for someone else
2. Work for myself
|__|
What did you do before you got the job that you now do?
1. Did nothing
2. Did something else
|__|
Did the LEAD programme help you to get this job?
       0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Section 9. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND/OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING
Have you received any Business Management or Vocational Training from LEAD? 1= Yes
(Continue) 2= No (Skip to Section 10) |__|
Questions
Code
(Enter all that
apply)
Which of the following training have you received in the LEAD Programme?
1. Business management training
2. Participation in Village Savings and Loans activities
3. Vocational training
|__||__||__|
If you received business management training, which of these topics did your training
cover?
1. Business introduction
2. Adding value
3. Marketing
4. Market information
5. Record keeping
6. Financial planning
7. Costing
8. Pricing
|__||__||__|
|__||__||__|
If you received vocational training, in which trade were you trained?
1. Carpentry
2. Tailoring/Embroidery
3. Dressmaking
4. Hairdressing
5. Construction
6. Auto‐mechanic
7. Information Technology (IT)
8. Metal work
9. Electrical and electronic engineering
10. Gara & Tie Dying
|__||__||__|
|__||__||__|
EDS ­ LEAD Final Evaluation­ Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire May,  2009
57
Section 10: NEW OR EXPANDED LIVELIHOOD ACTIVITIES IN RURAL AREAS AND TOWNS
Questions Code
(Enter selected codes)
Do you belong to a Farmers Group?
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Do you belong to a Marketing Association?
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Did you participate in training workshop on development of input supply
and market plans? (Prompt respondent)
0 = No; 1 = Yes
|__|
If you attended the workshop, which of the following topics did the
workshop cover?
1. Enterprise selection
2. market analysis
3. Producing marketing plans
4. collective marketing
5. organizational leadership
6. Others specify
|__||__||__|
|__||__||__|
Section 11: ACCESS TO VIABLE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
Questions Code
Did you participate in a FFS?
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Did you participate in a village savings and loan activity?
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Did you obtain a loan from the village savings and loan group?
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
Did you get a start up capital (loan) from your village savings and loan
group?
0 = No; 1 = Yes
|__|
What kind of business did you use the money to start? (Select one)
1. Farming
2. Micro‐enterprise
|__|
Did you get a start up grant to start your business
0 = No; 1 = Yes |__|
58
ANNEX 3: DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
Farmers Field
Schools
Introduction of new
farming systems and
techniques to farmers
groups, in four month
learning sessions,
through
experimentation on
community
demonstration farms
employing the services
of trained facilitators
selected from among
the communities’
farmers themselves.
This is a highly
appreciated
intervention on
account of the higher
yields realized from the
introduced techniques
compared to
traditional methods
and their effects on
farm productivity and
incomes.
The FFS have had
positive impact on group
farmers’ productivity,
including men, women
and youths. Non FFS
group members are also
adopting the new
techniques resulting in
community‐wide impact
on farmers’ productivity
and incomes.
Farmers are unlikely to
abandon the new high
yielding techniques
and revert to the lower
yielding traditional
methods. The
facilitators, who are
also leading
community farmers are
more likely than not to
promote the new
methods to points
where the old would
be forgotten. Entire
communities are
gradually adopting the
new methods which
would soon become
widespread.
At this stage group
activities are working
well but more
progressive farmers
will sooner or later
wish to act more on
personal initiatives and
ambitions leading to
group breakups.
With improved yields
especially of cassava
and IVS rice, follow‐up
support with
mechanized processing
becomes essential to
avoid large post
harvest losses and
sustain increased
production.
In some areas the non‐
compliance with the
model is of concern
59
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
and has resulted in
failures – such as
delivery of inputs late
and supply of poor
quality seeds.
Food For
Assets
Provision of food
support to
communities for work
in developing or
maintaining assets,
mainly roads in some
functional condition..
This is a very highly
appreciated
intervention by
communities on
account of the
incentive provided.
The quality of the labour
intensive work carried
out using, in most cases,
farm tools with no
technical supervision, is
poor and often
makeshift.
In terms of road
maintenance this
intervention does not
introduce a new
community activity or
output but merely
represent reward for
something the
communities have
always done but so
poorly, that it is
normally an annual
event.
A note of caution must
be taken about such
potentially
counterproductive
support as providing
incentives when they
are not necessary. This
may exacerbate
dependency, which
such development
programmes should
eschew.
Drying Floors Provision of a
community drying
floors to some
communities with FFS
groups that are
producing rice and do
not have one.
Due to the high post
harvest losses suffered
by farmers as a result
of inadequate drying
facilities, this is a well
appreciated support. It
consistently ranks
among the five
priorities of
Proper drying is an
important post harvest
activity in the rice value
chain with a significant
effect on product
recovery and quality. The
provision of drying floors
to rice growing
communities impacts
This intervention is a
good support for the
sustainability of the
new farming
techniques introduced
in the FFSs.
Post harvest processing
of crops from high
yielding farms of FFS
graduates is a logical
next step to the
interventions that have
been delivered, that
could affect the longer
term success of LEAD.
60
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
communities that do
not already have one.
greatly on farmers’
outputs and incomes.
Women’s
Groups
Seeds and tools are
given to women to
develop groundnut and
vegetable farms
This intervention ranks
low in the priority
ranking obtained
during focus group
interviews. That is
because it is not
innovative as women
traditionally do
vegetable gardening
and they are members
of FFS groups anyway.
This activity is
additional to their roles
in the FFS and other
health and social
activities.
The impact of this
intervention with respect
to its innovativeness,
women’s empowerment
and income effect is very
limited compared to the
FFS and non farm SUG
activities.
This is a traditional
women’s activity,
which is likely to
continue with or
without the LEAD
intervention.
A note of caution: do
not offer such
potentially
counterproductive
support as providing
incentives when they
are not necessary.
Vulnerable
Group
feeding/
Village
Welfare
The identification of
vulnerable members of
communities, who
cannot produce or
afford their food
The older members of
villages, who are the
beneficiaries, welcome
this intervention more
as manifestation of
The VGF really makes
little impact on the
intended beneficiaries as
without the donated
food they would survive
This intervention is
dependent on donor
food aid and is
consequently, per se,
unsustainable. The
This intervention is
prone to abuse as the
intended beneficiaries
share the food with
other able‐bodied
61
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
committees needs, for the supply
of food aid.
class recognition than
deliverance from
continuing or imminent
starvation. The
younger members view
it as a gift to their
community,
notwithstanding the
efforts of donors to see
that only the needy
benefit from the
donated food items.
the same way they have
always survived with the
communal support of
traditional society. The
VGF is something new
that lacks coherence
with the prevailing
norms of the host society
and is therefore of little
relevance.
community safety net
farms whose outputs
are to replace donor
food supplies are
themselves contingent
on food for work and
therefore also
unsustainable. Lessons
from CRS operational
area reveal that when
food for work is
unavailable community
welfare committees
stop work on
community safety net
farms
family members. The
traditional safety net,
which does not require
any input from the
vulnerables, is put in
jeopardy by this
initiative.
Growth
Monitoring
Programme
Taking monthly weight
and height
measurements of
children up to the age
of 5 years to ascertain
normal growth during
this critical period of a
child’s life.
Very highly
appreciated by parents
as monitoring indicator
of the state of health
of children.
Has made a good impact
in child health care. The
parents now use the
monthly weight and
height tracking
information of children
as indicator of their state
of health.
Community Health
Volunteers can sustain
this activity in their
communities if
supported with scales,
weighing sacks, record
cards and appropriate
incentives.
The national health
service should
undertake this
children’s health check
activity
Community
Health
Volunteers/
Community members
who volunteer and are
trained to coordinate
These volunteers are
highly respected for
their knowledge and
These volunteers are
effective agent for health
information
These health
volunteers enjoy the
elevated status in
Caution must be taken
to ensure that
volunteers do not
62
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
Traditional
Birth
Attendants
and promote the
adoption of good
health and sanitation
practices/Trained
traditional birth
attendants
enjoy recognition in
their communities
which is status
enhancing. Being
community members
they are effective in
the dissemination of
health information and
are appreciated on
account of their
availability with advice
and services when
required.
dissemination and
change in community
health awareness and
practices.
which they are held in
their villages and as
long as the current
limited access to public
health personnel and
facilities continue, they
will be willing to serve
in these capacities.
However there dose
not seem to be any
arrangement in place
for institutionalizing
the position of CHV
within the national
health service in the
same way as the TBAs.
This will be essential
for sustaining the
service of these
volunteers.
dispense advice and
services beyond those
for which they are
specifically trained and
authorized.
Refresher trainings and
some form of
certification for CHVs
might be appropriate
recognition and
safeguard against
impostors.
TBA‐Huts The provision of labour
huts in communities
for the safe delivery of
babies.
This intervention is
very highly appreciated
by communities in
which the labour huts
have been provided
and is high in the list of
priorities of
The labour huts are
essential facilities given
the impracticability for
most pregnant village
residents to have their
babies in hospitals. The
facilities have made a big
Given the state of
maternal health care in
the country, a large
number of babies will
still be delivered in
dwelling huts for a long
time to come.
Some donated TBA
huts are not provided
with kitchen and/or
toilet facilities. These
are essential for
maintaining the high
level of hygiene
63
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
communities with TBAs
that do not yet have
one.
difference in
environment in which
women deliver babies in
the communities with
labour huts. The huts
compliment the services
of TBAs.
Hopefully, with the
support of the national
health service with
training and kits,
villages will build their
own TBA huts, as some
have already started to
do for safe deliveries.
However this will not a
sustainable
development and
should not be
promoted as such. All
deliveris are best done
in hospitals.
necessary to keep
these multi‐user
community facilities in
clean and sterile
condition in
communities where
they are the needed.
Exclusive
Breast
Feeding
Nursing mothers feed
their new born babies
exclusively on breast
milk from birth to six
months old
This intervention is
viewed as a very
efficient child rearing
practice, which has
proven to be very
beneficial to the babies
and their families. The
practice is being
adopted by some
nursing mothers.
Based on the testimonies
of nursing mothers, EBF
has had a significant
beneficial effect on the
health and growth of the
babies. However there is
evidence from the
quantitative survey that
many mother’s claims to
adherence to EBF
practice are not true as
most give water and
Long term adherence
to the practice will be
predicated on a
number of factors
including the health
and nutritional status
of the lactating
mothers themselves..
Some non‐adherents of
EBF give hunger as
their main reason for
non‐compliance. This
factor needs to be
examined as there is
no doubt that the
health of the mother
will have an effect on
milk production and
her ability to breast
feed.
64
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
other fluids to babies
under sx months old.
Community
Health Clubs
Formation of a club or
committee of
community members
who are trained in
personal and
community health and
sanitation issues, to
disseminate health and
sanitation information
to their communities
and monitor
compliance with best
practices.
Beneficiaries find this
activity very useful in
creating awareness to
health and sanitation
issues and introduction
of practices, which
have brought changes
to the way they live as
individuals and as
communities.
The CHCs rank very high,
within the first 5
activities, in the
communities list of
priority interventions.
Adoption of introduced
health and sanitation
practices is widespread
and highly appreciated.
Some of the new
practices, such as use
of plate racks and cloth
lines, are likely to
become permanent
features in the
communities. Issues of
personal hygiene for
prevention of
diarrhoea will require
more time and
sensitization to take
hold. Community‐wide
issues like
environmental
sanitation for malaria
prevention will depend
on the enforcement of
community sanctions
against noncompliance
to health and
sanitation rules.
The health clubs
depend on the services
of nominated
volunteers who are not
compensated but offer
voluntary service to
their communities.
Withdrawal of their
services is unlikely but
should that occur, it
could place this activity
in peril
Baby Friendly
Farms
Development of farms
for the production of
crops, such a
This activity has no
special significance to
farmers and families.
BFF was never
mentioned in discussion
of activities of
These crops are
currently either grown
in pure stands or
This intervention may
be disruptive of the
farming systems and
65
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
beneseed, groundnuts
and vegetables for use
in the preparation of
formula food for
malnourished children
The recommended
crops are already being
grown by farmers.
significance that have
impacted communities
intercropped with rice.
This makes the idea of
special farms
burdensome and
without relevance.
consequently unlikely
to be sustained..
Good
Governance
Training of selected
community members
on the decentralized
governance structure,
leadership and
democratic conduct of
the affairs of
communities.
The trainees
demonstrated a sense
of pride in this newly
acquired knowledge
and an eagerness to
educate their
compatriots on the
principles of good
governance.
The good governance
training was rated highly
in the respondents’
ranking of usefulness of
LEAD interventions. The
consultant was
impressed with the
community folks
articulation of leadership
qualities and issues of
transparency,
accountability and
participation in decision
making.
Many of the trainees
were youths, who were
hitherto marginalized
but are now in the
mainstream of decision
making in the
communities.
Maintenance of their
new status depends on
the general recognition
of the principles of
good governance and
are likely to champion
the observance of
those principles by the
leadership of their
communities.
Refresher trainings
would be helpful as
some trained
community members
could not readily recall
the topics taught.
Literacy training would
help in the assimilation
of concepts and
principles such as
those taught in the GG
training.
Inland Valley
Swamps
Development of IVSs
for continuous multiple
Most beneficiaries
prefer upland farming
The programmes IVS
intervention has not had
The shift from upland
to IVS farming is still
Strong policy initiatives
are required to
66
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
Development annual cropping with
rice and vegetables
for health and
traditional reasons and
would need to be
enticed with strong
incentives to shift to
the much more
productive swamp
cultivation system.
any significant impact on
communities’ farming
systems.
just a good idea that
has not been fully
bought by the intended
beneficiaries.
discourage upland rice
farming and promote
inland valley swamp
rice farming.
Start Up
Grants
The award of cash
grants to selected
beneficiaries and
groups as business
start up capital.
The communities see
winners of the grants
as simply lucky to get a
windfall.
The grants are not likely
to have long term
significant impact on the
individuals or their
communities as start up
loans from VS&L would
have. The businesses
started with the grants
have no records to
assess them by. Records
of SUG beneficiaries
examined in Kailahun
were poorly kept and
incomprehensible.
The business training,
which precedes the
grants should be the
more important
component of the
intervention but most
beneficiaries lack the
background to benefit
from the concepts
taught and to acquire
the skills intended to
be transferred by the
training. They are
therefore not
sufficiently equipped
to succeed in business
on account of the
training.
The resources given to
ill‐equipped
beneficiaries as SUGs
would be better used
to increase the number
of capital grants to
communities for agro
processing equipment
to sustain post‐FFS
training farm outputs.
67
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
Village
Savings and
Loan
Formation of village
savings and loans
groups, which
accumulate their own
savings, lend the funds
to themselves and
eventually realizing
their savings and
interest incomes
earned among
themselves.
Beneficiaries
testimonies indicates a
deep appreciation of
the methodology as a
means of accumulation
wealth using their own
resources and meeting
their personal and
business financing
needs from their own
collective resources.
This activity has created
a great impact on the
groups financial
opportunities, enabling
them to actively save
and secure business or
personal loans,
whenever needed.
The system is cyclical
and renewable and as
such not structurally
permanent. However
the groups themselves
can alter the rules to
allow for longer savings
cycles as well as
gradually introduce an
institutional structure
to their scheme.
To be useful the
system should be able
to meet the growing
sizes of loans members
will demand.
In the long term, the
system must improve
in sophistication to
meet the variety of
financial services needs
of its members. With a
weak institutional
framework this is a
challenge.
Water and
Sanitation
Development of water
and sanitation facilities
such as water wells
and VIP latrines in
communities that do
not have these
facilities and have to
use contaminated
water from streams
and use surrounding
bushes as toilets.
These are sorely
needed facilities in
almost all LEAD
communities but the
intervention is
surprisingly very
inadequately catered
for in all programme
areas. The health and
sanitation
interventions are
severely undermined
The inadequate
attention to WATSAN in
the LEAD programme
components selection is
a missed opportunity to
make a significant impact
on the health and
sanitation status of
beneficiary communities
This component is
fraught with challenges
the two most
important of which
are: 1) the poor
engineering in the
sinking of wells to
shallow depths which
results in most wells
being dry during most
months of the year and
2) inadequate
The streams from
which communities
without wells collect
water are losing water
volume and becoming
more contaminated,
with deforestation.
Future programmes
should take into
account the expressed
needs of the
68
Intervention Description of
Intervention
Beneficiaries
Perception of benefits
of intervention
Consultant’s Impact
Assessment
Sustainability
Assessment
Issues of
Concern/Next Steps
by the lack of watsan
to complement them
in the communities.
arrangement for the
proper maintenance of
wells and latrines to
keep them serviceable.
communities, which at
present prioritize
watsan.
PD/Hearth A methodology for
rehabilitation of
malnourished children
by promoting
improved health‐
seeking, feeding, caring
and hygiene practices
at the individual,
household and
community levels
Communities have
found the programme
to be effective in
saving the lives of
children in poor
nutritional state.
The programme has had
a good impact in the
communities that have
participated.
Parents in beneficiary
communities can now
prepare the diets from
locally available items
and feed their
malnourished children.
Sustainability of the
outcome of this
intervention would be
achieved by promoting
the recovery diet for
infant feeding in the
communities.
Promote the baby
friendly diet as regular
diet for infants.