Real Time Evaluation:     Project EARLI Niger
RTE Team Lead:
Heather Dolphin, West Africa Regional Technical Advisor for M&E
CRS‐Niger RTE Team:
Abdourhimou Adamou, CRS‐Niger Manager Monitoring and Evaluation
Alto Oumarou, M&E Officer Global Fund R10 TB
Boubacar Saidou, M&E Officer CRS Program EARLI
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI    
Table of Contents
Executive Summary               i
Background                  1  
Objectives                   2  
Status of the Program the Week of the RTE         2
Methodology                 2
Findings                   3  
I. Appropriateness and Relevance         3
II. Management Effectiveness           7
III. Connectedness and Sustainability         12
IV. Coverage               13
Conclusions                  14  
Recommendations               16
  
Annex 1. Action Plan             17
Annex 2. SPHERE Standards Review      20
Annex 3. ABC Targeting Approach         23
Annex 4. List of persons interviewed           24
Annex 5. Itinerary               25
Annex 6. Terms of Reference for RTE          26
Annex 7. Data Collection Tools            32
Annex 8. Photo Gallery                                                                         74
Table of Figures
Table 1: Data Collection Methods              2
Table 2: Challenges & Good Practices            8
Table 3: Good Practices cont.                 9
Table 4: Action Plan                 17
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI    
Acronyms
CRS Catholic Relief Services
NGO Non Governmental Organization
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OFDA
Project EARLI
Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
Emergencies Agricultural Recovery and Livelihoods Intervention
in Niger
RTE Real Time Evaluation
SOS
ToR
SOS Sahel International
Terms of Reference
  
  
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
i
Executive Summary
CRS‐Niger and partner SOS Sahel International are currently intervening in Tillabery and Ouallam
departments of Tillabery Region via Project EARLI (Emergency Agriculture Recovery and Livelihoods
Interventions in Niger) to provide assistance to households in the form of cash for work and improved
seeds through seed fairs.  Project EARLI began in April 2012 and will continue until March 2013. This
Real Time Evaluation examines the relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness, management,
sustainability and scope of the response in an effort to provide information quickly that will benefit the
remaining months of the project.   
Relevance/ Appropriateness
Cash for work through land recuperation and seed fairs are providing for the immediate and
intermediate needs of vulnerable residents of Tillabery Region.   Cash provides food needed
immediately; seeds and recuperated land will provide food in the next season.   Currently there is no
assistance planned for planting season so the search for financial support is underway.  If this is agreed
to by the donor, one pre‐condition for participation in the next phase would be to first use the half‐
moon technique in participants’ own fields in order to benefit from assistance.   
The work provides equal opportunities to both men and women but women do not have the same
capacity to do the work.  Women must work longer hours usually when it is hotter.  Because it takes
women longer and there are limited tools for the work, men use the tools first and leave them for
women to use later.   Women reported returning in the evenings in order to complete the required
number of half‐moons.  Project participants all agree that the cash for work activities are appropriate
given their socio‐cultural context with the exception of a group of Peulh women who find the work
degrading to women.   In response to this, participants should be reminded that this activity is not
obligatory if there are other income earning opportunities available to them (this community is close to
the river in Tillabery Department, which could provide alternatives).   
In terms of project management processes, a regular payment schedule has not yet been achieved due
to challenges with the bank and other internal processes.  The quality control mechanism overseen by
the extension service has not been put in place.  CRS will waive its normal administrative processes to
ensure the extension services have the resources they need to mobilize.   
Program Management Effectiveness
To effectively secure payment to project participants, CRS has arranged to pay workers in each village in
the location of their choice.  CRS has contracted the services of Bank of Africa and has put in place an
internal tracking system to ensure the proper documentation that will facilitate payment every other
week.  This internal system is not yet known by agents in the field and needs reinforcement.  The bank
itself is also in the process of perfecting its systems to ensure the security of its own agents and
resources.   The single BoA payment team for the first payment was insufficient for the number of
villages and therefore payments were behind schedule.  This is a concern for CRS and partner, SOS Sahel
International as community members had been waiting and their reputation is a valued asset.   The
complaint mechanism is also just being set up and further messaging about its use are needed.  
SOS is a strong partner in terms of their programming (including Cash for Work) experience.  Its finance
systems needed reinforcement when CRS and SOS worked together on a previous project but since then
SOS has demonstrated its capacity to meet demands of CRS’ finance department.  Overall, the project’s
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
ii
response time has been rapid due in large part to the authorization from OFDA to use $300,000 to begin
project activities before they made their first disbursement.  CRS and SOS both were able to count on
available staff who had worked on similar projects in the same zone so limited training time was
required.  Additional best practices are detailed in this report.  Coordination at all levels and essential
program support have been exceptional.  M&E is a very important component so many suggestions are
made in this report for tracking important information on targeting methods, spending patterns, price
data and additional lessons learned.  The functionality of the M&E system also needs revision to make
daily and weekly data available at least every other week.  CRS is taking its security protocol seriously in
order to manage risk in this changing environment.   
Connectedness and Sustainability
EARLI has not needed to make any programmatic changes as participants’ needs have remained the
same since the proposal was written.  The only changes noted have been participants’ increased access
to credit as a result of beginning work.  Once they are paid, participants will be able to meet their daily
food needs.  To meet their intermediate food needs, EARLI is providing seeds to provide an adequate
harvest in 2012.  Men and women heads of household will receive the seeds.   
Land recuperation activities also provide support to meet intermediate needs for regenerative
techniques to communal land.  Land recuperation activities provide a measure of intermediate support
by providing 1) protective measures to the environment and 2‐  productive measures for men and
women.  These measures must be communicated and communities should be encouraged to develop
plans for how they will equitably use recuperated land and inputs to provide the greatest benefit to all,
including the most vulnerable community members.   
The cyclic nature of the disasters in this region make it clear that emergency interventions are not
sufficient to bring about sustainability therefore they must be complemented and seek to complement
development projects already operating in the zone.  EARLI can improve by linking to such development
projects in the intervention zone.   CRS can advocate with state and other humanitarian actors to
establish well‐designed development projects in the area that address the root causes of the cyclic food
emergencies.  
Coverage
To determine the intervention area, CRS systematically reviewed national harvest data and collaborated
with regional and departmental partners to choose villages with at least an 80% cereal deficit to benefit
from the cash for work activities.  Each village was allowed 100 beneficiary households regardless of the
size.  This has meant in small villages, everyone might benefit while in large villages, less than 10% might
benefit.  Households were selected using a transparent, participatory, process (See ABC Approach in
Annex 3) however, some communities visited during the RTE explained how they are reaching additional
households using a system of mutual aid within the villages.  More information is needed about the
targeting methods communities applied after using the ABC Approach.  While solidarity systems are to
be encouraged, if ration sizes are not large enough to provide a measure of food security, this finding
should serve as a call to all stakeholders (GoN, donors, INGOs etc) to invest in a longer lasting strategy
that addresses the root causes of this crisis because emergency responses are not sufficient.   
Conclusion
EARLI provides a relevant response to 2600 households in Tillabery and Ouallam for both immediate and
intermediate needs.  Certain measures are needed however to provide more appropriate activities to
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
iii
households whose members cannot perform the work without certain health risks.  EARLI’s coordination
with project stakeholders has been excellent to date so the delay in paying the extension service to
validate CFW results should be quickly resolved.  Solidarity systems within communities mean that EARLI
is benefiting more than 2600 households but it is not clear how much the ration sizes are being divided
to benefit additional households.   The M&E system should be improved to be able to capture more
information on this as well as the targeting methods used in other communities, how households are
spending their money and who is making the decisions on what to purchase.   
Recommendations
The most time sensitive recommendations include:  
 Resolve the obstacles posed by the BOA‐lead payment system preventing timely payment to
participants
 Integrate a witness system during each payment activity
 Provide means for transport so extension service can provide quality control of CFW activities
prior to payment  
 Communities must develop plans for equitable use of recuperated land and inputs, providing
the greatest benefit to all, including the most vulnerable community members
 Finalize rollout of complaint mechanism and make communities aware why it exists and how to
use it
 Document complaints for improving the program
 Increase interest of the population in adopting land recuperation techniques in their own fields   
 Provide masks and first aid kits to protect participants from dust and potential injuries
 Find financing to 1‐Cover more needs (ensure cash transfer for those without capacity to do
CFW); 2‐provide assistance (unconditional cash transfer) during the planting season ; Those who
are eligible will be those who have installed half moons in their fields
 Communicate with OCHA regarding an evaluation delegation to determine the effects of aid to
the region to date  
 Prepare and implement post‐distribution surveys with pertinent questions regarding targeting
and use of cash   
Recommendations that are important in preparation for the next phase are to:  
 Increase donor’s awareness of the need to have alternative activities for older residents whose
health may be at risk by carrying out land recuperation activities in the month of April in Niger
 Increase the awareness of the State to take this into consideration in their national policy
 Collect information on development projects in the zone and design the next project with these
links in place.
 Develop long‐term development projects in Tillabery and Ouallam departments
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
1
Background
Cyclical droughts and dependency on traditional cultivation methods leaves much of Niger’s population
prone to food insecurity. In 2010, over half of Niger’s population faced the worst food crisis in 30 years
from which they have not fully recovered. A November 2011 statement from the Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) highlighted that despite overall improvements in
agriculture production, the consequences from the food and nutrition crisis in 2010 – in particular
livestock losses, household debt levels and weakened purchasing power – have reduced the capacity of
rural populations to cope with this year’s production deficit, especially in the Tillabéry Region.1
  
A late start, irregular rains, and pests negatively impacted crops and pasture from June‐August 2011,
exposing millions to food insecurity (25% as of September).2 The cereal production deficit is 519,639
metric tons (MT), or 13.9% of national consumption needs. The Tillabéry Region has the greatest deficit
at ‐191,296 MT, producing only 61.9% of its 6‐year average (2005‐2010).3 Ninety percent of the region’s
land is degraded or eroded;4 80% of the population is considered poor;5 and annual rainfall is 200‐
300mm6 compared to 541mm nationally.7 The situation is exacerbated by high grain prices and lower
remittances in 2011 due to sociopolitical situations in neighboring countries which increases the
vulnerability of low‐income households. Agro‐pastoral households in this region have had to begin
depending on markets to meet consumption needs without the support of normal household income.  
The Government of Niger (GON) initiated an Intermediate Support Plan in October 2011, at an
estimated cost of US$84.2 million. This plan was aimed to support vulnerable populations that fall victim
to food insecurity as part of a national emergency response to the 2011 production deficit. The GON
originally estimated that while US$21 million was currently available, another $60.7 million USD is
needed to fully address the crisis.  
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Niger has therefore intervened via Project EARLI to provide assistance to
households in two departments in the Tillabéry Region following the 2011 drought. EARLI provides Cash‐
for‐Work (CFW) activities for 2,600 households to recuperate degraded communal land.  Activities are
currently taking place and will continue through June.   Beginning at the end of May, EARLI will also
provide improved varieties of seeds to 7,000 households for planting.   This RTE took place during the 6th
week of the project and is designed to respond to evaluation questions posed regarding the Cash for
Work activities in particular.   Since the RTE could only be scheduled once during the project, it was
determined that the Cash for Work activities were more interesting as CRS already has extensive
experience and expertise with seed fairs and the previous RTE conducted in Niger responded to
questions posed regarding voucher fairs.   
                                                            
1 All Africa, “Niger: Half of Villages Face Food Shortage, UN Says,” 18 November 2011. 2 September 2011 National Crop Assessment. 3 The average from 2005‐2010 was 721,991MT ; this year, the region produced 446,899MT according to GON. 4 SIG du projet PASP, GTZ 1998 5 PDES, 2000‐2004 6 Etude sur l’Approfondissement du Diagnostic et l’Analyse des systems de Production Agro‐Sylvo‐Pastoraux dans le Cadre de la Mise en Oeuvre
de la Strategie de Developpement Rural: Region de Tillabéri. 2004. 7 http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=NIGER  
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
2
Objectives
This evaluation has 4 objectives:
1. Document the results achieved as of the data collection date ;  
2. Provide a project review and recommendations for improving implementation   
3. Identify good practices and lessons learned in this response to use more widely.  
4. Promote a learning approach within CRS by reporting and communicating the outcome of the RTE
beyond CRS Niger to the agency worldwide and to partners.
Status of the Program the Week of the RTE
At the time of this evaluation, Project EARLI was in the 6th week of a 12 month project, focused on the
Cash for Work activities.  Work had begun two weeks earlier and the first payment was scheduled to
take place during data collection.  Although data collection would ideally have been done after the first
payment, the RTE was able to make certain observations that were not already obvious to the EARLI
team.   In addition, the RTE was still able to respond to questions posed in the TOR related to the
project’s relevance, management, sustainability and targeting.  Project EARLI management plans to use
the results of this evaluation to improve the cash for work activities that continue through June 2012.
Methodology
The RTE is designed to provide rapid feedback to the program implementers, permitting learning and
improvements to take place in the response operations.  This RTE was planned and carried out based on
questions presented in the terms of reference.   The main areas of inquiry were:   Relevance/
Appropriateness, Program Management Effectiveness, Sustainability and Relationships and Coverage.    
Tools were developed to answer these questions and a sampling method was established for the various
data sources.   The RTE team collected qualitative data from project participants, non‐participants,
community leaders, the extension services for the Department of the Environment, the local Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the CRS Emergencies Coordinator, the M&E and
finance officers for EARLI, and the EARLI Coordinator and M&E Officer from partner, SOS Sahel
International.  Following data collection, RTE members shared preliminary data with CRS and SOS staff in
a half day workshop at which time the recommendations were agreed upon.   The action plan was
generated following the workshop.   
In addition to addressing the questions posed in the Terms of Reference, the RTE also responded to
supplemental questions posed by the CRS Emergencies Coordinator related to the guarantee of
payment for project participants, the security of funds, the capacity of partner organization SOS Sahel
International, the effectiveness of the CFW training and whether the number of households targeted
was actually attained.  Results of that review are integrated into this evaluation report.
    
Table 1: Data Collection Methods
Method Respondents #
Focus Group Discussions Women Participants   5 groups
Men Participants 5 groups
Non‐ Participants (Men and Women) 5 groups
Direct Observation   Dai‐Kaina Payment Site, Tillabery Department 1 payment
site
Key Interviews   UN Representative, Office for the Coordination of 1 official
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
3
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Tillabéry
Village Chiefs   5 authorities
Extension Service,  Dept. of the Environment, Tillabery 1 official
Staff Interviews   CRS Staff 2 staff
SOS Sahel International Staff 2 staff
Sample Selection Methods  
Villages and village chiefs were chosen based on an initial random selection of Project EARLI villages in
each department.  Six villages were identified, 3 in the department of Ouallam and 3 in Tillabery.  The 3
villages identified in Tillabery however did not pass a security clearance so another random selection
was done after all insecure locations were eliminated.  The following 3 villages were retained:  Sona‐
Bella, Djadja Peulh and Dai‐Bery.  In Ouallam, the following 3 villages were selected: Guinao‐Bongou,
Guineao Kokarba and Tollo.  Due to the travel time required, visits to only two villages in Ouallam were
possible, however the villages retained were the two that were furthest from each other and were
supervised by two different supervisors in order to ensure some heterogeneity in the data.  Men and
women project participants were randomly selected from the list of eligible households. Non‐
participants were selected from available household members residing in every neighborhood or in
diverse sections of the village.   
Findings
Relevance/Appropriateness
Food insecurity in Ouallam and Tillabery has resulted in first, a critical need for food for nourishment
and to prevent out‐migration and second, a critical need for improved seeds to provide a sufficient
harvest in 2012. The project was conceived based on secondary data from the 2011 Agricultural
Campaign Report, coordination meetings with the Regional Coordinating Food Crisis Cell  and analysis
supplied by the Office for Disaster Assistance (OFDA).   According to all stakeholders, EARLI’s
interventions provided an appropriate response.   
According to the community leaders interviewed, EARLI is relevant because 1) it satisfies food needs as
well as provides training in the Essential Nutrition Actions which have kept children nourished and in
school 2) men have returned or not migrated 3) it will permit production of land when the rains begin in
May and 4) the recuperation of degraded land could be designated for women’s supplementary
production.
All respondents including project participants, community leaders, the local UN representative have
agreed that Project EARLI has responded to the most critical needs.  Had this RTE happened later in the
life of the project, it would have provided some analysis of prices in the area following cash payments to
determine whether CFW activities are contributing to price hikes and if so to what extent?  This should
be part of the project’s on‐going M&E system.
EARLI’s response provides the required caloric intake for 2600 households but is insufficient given the
remaining needs and remaining vulnerable population. CRS is part of a larger coordination effort to
mitigate gaps and duplications, but still, more resources will be needed to sustain the work required for
planting when the Cash for Work activities end.   
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
4
While the project’s design is precisely appropriate for the needs, its implementation can improve to
better meet participants’ needs.  In particular, a regular schedule for payment needs to be established
and respected.  The first payment was delayed due to a number of factors:  1) the bank had not resolved
concerns about security prior to scheduled payment dates and prevented its timely delivery.  2)  A single
team from the bank is not sufficient to cover 26 villages on schedule; 3) The bank did not fully
appreciate that delays in the payment schedule had serious ramifications for project participant
satisfaction and to the image of CRS and SOS Sahel;   4) SOS agents did not have a clear process to follow
for submission of necessary support documents to ensure timely payment.   
This payment delay is an important issue because a 2 week wait prior to payment is already long for
people who are hungry and who are doing hard labor.  Although some participants were unsatisfied
with a 2 week payment schedule, others felt that waiting 2 weeks had the advantage of a large enough
payment to purchase a significant quantity of provisions, whereas a single week’s payment would not.  
Regardless, at a minimum, the first payment should take place after the first week of work and continue
on a bi‐monthly basis after that.
Although some project participants were unsatisfied with the amount of the payment, it is in line with
government standards.    More messaging is needed to communicate that the project provides
assistance, not employment.
The RTE team found that certain communities are 7‐10 km from a market where they can use their cash
payments.   For better access to markets, EARLI can encourage communities to advocate that local
leaders facilitate an effective transport solution that either permits a group purchase for an entire
village or group of villages and affords community members access to government subsidized cereals or
offers a link with communities that have cereal banks and who would sell to EARLI participants.   
Flexibility  
EARLI has demonstrated its flexibility to meet needs identified during project conception and
implementation.  For example, the project is prepared to change the payment from cash to vouchers if
securing cash proves too difficult.   Also, in the planning stage, electronic payment options were
considered but discarded when analysis revealed that the costs were prohibitive.  Finally, after learning
from past experience that the traditional varieties cannot meet the same need, SOS now ensures the
use of improved seed varieties in its interventions.   
CFW Training
The Dpt. of the Environment provided a single day training to CRS, SOS and the (26) Management
Committees on the different types of land restoration techniques.  It was a practical learning exercise on
the same site where the project participants would restore land.   Each participant plotted and made  
half‐moons with the correct depth dimensions.  SOS staff and committee members were then prepared
to teach and supervise others.  Project participants received a step down training from the Management
Committee members on the land conservation technique and have been supervised by committee
members and SOS staff since work began the first week of April.  Non participants have also learned the
technique by observing participants work.  The Dept. of the Environment has made just one single visit
after the training to each site but has not returned to know whether their guidance has been followed.   
Payments were made to participants even though their work was not approved by an extension officer.   
In order to ensure the extension officers are performing their supervisory tasks within the EARLI project,
CRS needs to make available the funds needed for the Dept. of the Environment to mobilize.   CRS
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
5
requires partners such as the extension service to solicit funds separately from CRS but in this case, since
they have not yet solicited the funds, CRS needs to be proactive in providing them.  
SPHERE Standards
EARLI has met most standards set by SPHERE:   See ANNEX 3 for details on how well EARLI met each
relevant SPHERE standard.  The discussion that follows presents the areas where more improvement is
needed.
Core Standard 6: Aid worker performance
Humanitarian agencies provide appropriate management, supervisory and psychosocial support,
enabling aid workers to have the knowledge, skills, behavior and attitudes to plan and implement an
effective humanitarian response with humanity and respect.
The agents intervening on behalf of the project have been trained within the respective CRS and SOS
training formats in collaboration with the extension services, which are competent on all necessary
aspects of the project implementation for which the agents will be responsible.  Extension services are
also expected to monitor these activities.  There is however a lack of resources on the part of extension
services (Dept. of the Environment‐ Tillabery) to ensure the necessary supervision of the sites since the
beginning of the project.  This situation is due to the fact that they have not made the administrative
request as CRS’ procedures require.   However, it is CRS’ responsibility to ensure that the project
functions appropriately and therefore CRS’ responsibility to ensure each partner has the necessary
resources.
Food security and nutrition assessment standard 1:  Food security
Where people are at increased risk of food insecurity, assessments are conducted using accepted
methods to understand the type, degree and extent of food insecurity, to identify those most affected
and to define the most appropriate response.
The initial assessment of food insecurity was done based on secondary data that came from the 2011
Agricultural Campaign Report, coordination meetings with the Regional Coordinating Food Crisis Cell  
and analysis supplied by the Office for Disaster Assistance (OFDA).   The triangulation of national and
regional data from multiple sources including national and international stakeholders assured national
consensus around the issue.  What was not carried out was a discussion at the local level to identify the
most appropriate response.  Although the Cash for Work is accessible, it is not the most appropriate for
those in poor health or with limited capacity.
To identify those most affected, a targeting exercise was carried out at a department level with technical
partner, the extension service and again at the local level using participatory methods to ensure
transparent and inclusive targeting by the communities themselves with support from their local
community leadership.
Food security – Cash and voucher transfers
Standard 1: Access to available goods and services  
Cash and vouchers are considered ways to address basic needs and to protect and re‐establish
livelihoods.
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
6
Cash permits a response to essential needs for food, however the quantity is very insufficient to
cover the needs of the targeted communities.
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 1: Primary production
Primary production mechanisms are protected and supported.
Land restoration will effectively benefit agricultural activities however there isn’t a policy within
the project that links the emergency response to development projects currently underway.  
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 2: Income and employment
Where income generation and employment are feasible livelihood strategies, women and men have
equal access to appropriate income‐earning opportunities.
EARLI’S income generating activities (land recuperation) are rightfully accessible to men as well
as to women.  However, the physical capacity of women makes the work more difficult for
women compared to men.  Note that April in Niger is the hottest month of the year when the
land is most compacted and difficult to dig.  At the work sites visited by the RTE team, certain
men go to the site and finish early.  Most people observed on the sites in the heat of the day
were women.  They told us that because the work is more difficult, women work longer hours
and may need to return in the afternoon when the temperature has decreased in order to finish
digging the same number of half‐moons as the men.  There are no alternative jobs for women,
regardless of their physical condition.  Women may work longer than men but receive the same
pay.  Both donors and the GoN need to consider how to provide appropriate work for women
that gives them equal pay for the time worked.  
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 3: Access to markets
The disaster‐affected population’s safe access to market goods and services as producers, consumers
and traders is protected and promoted.
From a geographic point of view, the market access varies by locality.  Certain villages are far
from a market and without appropriate transportation infrastructure making market access
difficult without paying a significantly higher cost. The cost is considered too high even in
locations where food is accessible.  
Socio‐Cultural Context
Community leaders, CRS’ partner, SOS Sahel International and the majority of project participants have
indicated that EARLI’s activities are acceptable within their socio‐cultural context.  Peulh women
represent the minority voice that find hard labor for women to be degrading and contrary to their social
norms.  In response, SOS staff note that Peulh are a minority in a zone where Cash for Work has been
used for years.   The response from the Peulh women may be an indication that there are alternative
income generating activities accessible to them, due to their geographic location near the river.  This
may indicate the need to reinforce messages to communities that these activities are only designed to
assist them during this period of drought and that they are not obliged to accept the assistance.   
In another instance, CRS has analyzed the socio‐cultural context related to the question of gender norms
and in this case rejected a proposition to designate women to receive payment for work done by
another member of her household.  Even though a woman may make decisions about what to buy in the
market, if she did not earn it but collects the money, this could create conflict within the household.  
Therefore this RTE highlights other opportunities to promote women’s development through trainings in
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
7
essential nutrition actions and land recuperation techniques.  Each of these topics can improve
livelihood and nutritional outcomes at the household level.  The project can also promote planning at
the community level for equitable access to recuperated lands for production activities by women.   
Program and Management Effectiveness
Security of Resources
In order to secure the cash payments and to avoid this additional management task, CRS chose to use a
bank rather than its own staff to distribute payments.  To ensure the safety of project participants, CRS
has arranged for payments to take place in every village where the community has designated the
payment location.  However, the bank has not been confident of its own security measures since
payment have begun in Tillabery region which has become increasingly insecure.  This concern was not
identified and remedied prior to the payment delivery date so it has caused a delay while the bank
considers how to increase security for themselves and for the funds.  The number of teams making
payments is also insufficient for the number of villages that receive payments.  CRS is now considering
changing banks or adding another bank in order to ensure the payments are made reliably and on
schedule.  CRS is also considering returning to vouchers if it turns out that securing cash is too
problematic.
Guaranteed Payment
In order to guarantee payment to project participants, SOS agents supply to the SOS Project coordinator
a payment sheet with the names and amounts owed to each eligible project participant within 24 hours
of the last day worked.  The SOS coordinator delivers the lists to CRS who in turn provides the lists and a
check to the bank within 48 hours before the payment date.  The payment distribution team from the
bank is accompanied by CRS agents to the villages.  Once all project participants in a given village are
paid, the bank representative provides CRS the list of project participants who have received payment.  
Although the data collection tools are not yet finished, CRS will begin conducting surveys immediately
following the payment to assess the payment activity including the level of project participant
satisfaction.   
Another challenge related to ensuring payment is the confusion on the part of SOS agents regarding the
process and timeline for processing the paperwork necessary to ensure project participants were paid.  
Communities were also misinformed by SOS agents about payment dates.  As a result, they were left
waiting for a number of days at a time.  This is a serious problem for CRS’ and SOS’ image in the
communities.   The payment process should be documented and disseminated for all agents.
SOS Capacity
SOS Sahel International fights against desertification and works to increase production.  SOS has
substantial experience in food security and environmental protection.  While doing an evaluation of
possible partner organizations, CRS identified SOS as one capable of carrying out Cash for Work
programs.  Programming expertise in general is their strength.   
Overall SOS enjoys employee satisfaction in terms of logistics, human resources and finance operations.  
SOS staff appreciate the flexibility of SOS’ administrative policies that ensure financial,  human resources
and logistics support is provided in short time.   The program coordinator and field agents also note the
excellent support they receive from their superiors to identify solutions to the challenges they face in
the field.
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
8
SOS and CRS previously partnered together on another CRS food security intervention, VOICE.  At that
time, CRS found the need to provide additional orientation and support to SOS’s finance team regarding
meeting CRS’ requirements, such as how to justify expenses.  SOS has responded well to this orientation
and has not had additional problems meeting CRS’ finance expectations.  In addition, SOS has a full time
accountant dedicated to the project.   CRS will carry out a new orientation session for Project EARLI with
SOS.  The M&E Coordinator will schedule this in collaboration with CRS and SOS Finance.  Overall, SOS
has the experience and expertise necessary to carry out activities in the field.  Areas for improvement
include documentation and communication of procedures related to payments however SOS depends
on CRS for an orientation on the global payment procedure.
Factors Contributing to a Fast Response
CRS was able to implement quickly as a result of a number of factors: 1) CRS received  authorization
from OFDA to begin using $300,000 of the $1 million grant to initiate project activities.  2) Qualified staff
were available who had worked on similar projects implemented by CRS (ADVANCE, VOICE) and SOS
(VOICE) in the same zone, so less time was required for orientation and training.  Since staff were
familiar with the activities and with the organizations, their activities had greater value sooner.  3) As
SOS has experience working in the zone, they have developed relationships with the departmental and
local level authorities which greatly facilitates their support in terms of technical support from extension
services and access to populations through local and traditional authorities.  4) Planning undertaken by
CRS and SOS has facilitated a smooth project start‐up; 5) Communication between CRS and SOS has
been open, fluid and effective.  6) Collaboration with the Extension Service (Dept. of the Environment)
has also been effective.  
Factors Preventing a Faster Response
CRS might have signed 2 weeks earlier had there been better communication between CRS and SOS.  At
the moment the contract was ready for SOS’s signature, the SOS representative had just left Niger for 2
weeks.  With the exception of this delay, no other set‐backs were reported.
Table 2 : Challenges and Best Practices
Challenges   Best Practice
1) The needs are extensive.  
While the project provides for
caloric needs, health‐related and
other needs are not addressed
by this project.   
2) The number of vulnerable
people the project can assist
leaves many others unassisted
and vulnerable.   
1) As resources are limited, systems of solidarity should be
encouraged.   
2) Always provide a cash transfer to a small percent of the
population who are not able to work (elderly and disabled
residents).
3) For some, available work
activities are too strenuous
3) Alternative tasks should be available that are reasonable and
appropriate for the capacity of both men and women, including
those with limited physical capacity.
4) Unclear destination use of
recuperated land
4) Identify with communities the most strategic, long‐term
benefit of recuperated land given significant investments made
to date.
5) For an undernourished person 5) When designing the next cash for work project, arrange to
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
9
who is doing hard labor, 2 weeks
is a long time to wait before
receiving the first payment.    
provide the first payment after 1 week of work to provide
sustenance for those who are critically undernourished and who
are performing hard labor.  
6) Compared with those who dig
half‐moons, committee
members work longer hours and
have more responsibility to
verify work competed and to
prepare the following days work.   
6) Because this is community led work and because the national
policy does not permit some members to be paid more than
others regardless of the nature of the work, it is important to
recognize the dedication, the additional hours worked and the
community service spirit of committee members in a public
forum like a general assembly.  At the same time, this serves to
motivate others to be leaders in their own domain.   
7) Certain project participants do
not follow quality standards
when performing the work and
don’t accept direction from the
management committee
members.   
7) Increase the awareness of project participants regarding the
role of committee members to verify the quality of the work.  If
participants do not want to provide the required level of quality
work, they can be excluded from the project.   
8) Insufficient tools for efficiently
carrying out the land
recuperation activities.  
8) The solidarity between participants is a good practice that
should be reinforced.  
9) Beyond a minimum amount of tools, it is up to the
community to optimize their use and organize their schedules in
a way that will facilitate access to the appropriate tools at
needed times.  More message reinforcement is needed to
explain that this project is facilitating nutritional sustenance
through natural resource recuperation, not to supply
communities with tools.   
9) Some villages are so remote
that CRS and SOS need guides to
visit them.   
10) When this is required, the project should consider finding
the appropriate budget to cover these costs.
10) Insufficient number of masks
to protect against dust and  
no first aid kits for injuries.
11) CRS will make these available.
Table 3: More Best Practices
More Best Practices
12) CRS’ ABC targeting method:  This approach provides an open, transparent, participatory process
for identifying the most vulnerable households in a community.   
This RTE found multiple cases in which the communities altered the method by adding less
vulnerable families into the most vulnerable category, reducing the rations overall.  This should not
be discouraged as this access to support through community redistribution activities helps to re‐
establish individual and community self‐respect and identity, decrease vulnerability and enhance
resilience.
13) Assess results using M&E tools
It is important however to use M&E tools to learn how widespread this is and how this has impacted
households.  It is also a call to the government and all humanitarian actors that the solution offered
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
10
is insufficient and until the real causes are addressed, emergency assistance will continue to be
insufficient.
14) Assume a leadership role in the coordination effort among  humanitarian actors in the zone.
15) Capitalize on the availability of trained and experienced staff through volunteer arrangements
that keep them linked to the organization and flexible staffing procedures that uses current CRS
staff to cover temporary (2 week) staffing gap  
16) Budget for the perdiem expenses for supervisors before they move into the field
17) Create separate budget lines by Strategic Objective for future OFDA projects
18) Capitalize on the CFW opportunity to deliver longer‐lasting educational messages on relevant
topics such as land recuperation techniques and Essential Nutrition Actions that can contribute to
lasting solutions to the problems addressed through the project.
19) Effective field organization through knowledge of the zone and active support to activities and
staff in the field.
Complaint Mechanism
The process to set up the complaint mechanism is not yet finished.  Information was beginning to be
shared with the 26 sites on Thursday April 19.  When data collection began two days later, only 2 villages
out of the 5 visited understood that communities have the possibility of voicing their dissatisfaction with
the project activities.  However this is because such a mechanism existed in other previous projects.  
When it is functional, the complaint mechanism will consist of CRS staff, unrelated to project EARLI who
will take calls and meet on a regular basis to decide how to resolve complaints.   For now, the
information about the existence of this complaint mechanism and how it works must be shared.  It will
be critical that the complaints mechanism documents the complaints and how they are addressed so
that the results can be shared in and outside CRS and used to improve project designs throughout the
sector.   
Essential Supports
All CRS and SOS staff interviewed are confident that there is sufficient staff who are capable and well
trained to effectively implement the project.  CRS is particularly satisfied to have found temporary staff
within CRS to count vouchers during the seed fairs.   This will not require additional hiring while
preserving the budget.  In terms of logistics, there are also sufficient motor scooters for the agents to
carry out their work and reasonable criteria for determining the agents who are eligible to receive them.  
There is sufficient staff and budget to carry out the communication and branding activities for the
project.  T‐shirts and hats were available for the RTE team during data collection.  Although the (2) signs
had been produced, they had not yet been installed in the field.
In terms of budget, there is a need to resolve a shortage of funds for gas to permit both the SOS
Coordinator and M&E Officer to more effectively carry out monitoring tasks.   To resolve this issue, a
conversation with CRS should take place in the near future. The second issue is related to CRS’
administrative procedures.  SOS has found they present seemingly unnecessary obstacles when trying to
resolve urgent issues in the field.  SOS would like to better understand these procedures and possibly
make some suggestions to CRS on how their systems might be improved.  
  
Coordination
A coordinated process was followed among state and humanitarian actors to ensure that there was no
duplication of services by intervening actors.  EARLI’s intervention also corresponds with the National
Coordination Framework  which provided direction on the appropriate interventions in designated
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
11
months of the year.  (June‐ Sept 2011: Cash transfers; February‐ May 2012: Unconditional food/cash
transfers (CFW, FFW); February‐September 2012:  Sales of cereals at moderate prices).  OCHA has called
CRS a leader in terms of coordination of emergency responses.  
The Dpt. of the Environment’s extension service has also noted appreciation for the fact that CRS has
respected their role as technical service coordinator to ensure effective coverage of gaps and
management of the work being carried out by all partners (Dept. of the Environment, the governor, Red
Cross, and NGOs).  The RTE did however, find a gap in services provided by the extension services.  They
have not yet completed CRS’ administrative procedures to receive financial support from CRS in
exchange for carrying out the quality control of the work sites every 2 weeks.  Therefore, CRS needs to
provide the necessary resources to facilitate their mobilization.  However, this will require additional
follow through to ensure there are no additional obstacles preventing them from acting.  They report
having the human resources to do the supervision and it is believed that it is at the administrative level
where there are certain obstacles.   
CRS’ Emergencies manager notes that coordination within the project is also working well.  CRS and SOS
Sahel meet every 2 weeks and more frequently if needed; CRS participates with 4 other INGOs who
coordinate the advocacy of humanitarian actions so CRS is aware of all humanitarian interventions at a
national level.  Because CRS also participates in the food security cluster, they can be sure they know
who is doing what where to avoid duplication. In terms of coordinating the services provided to project
participants, the project was designed to provide CFW to villages who hadn’t received it previously and
seed fairs to those that had already received CFW in the past.
SOS notes excellent communication as well with all its partners including CRS, local authorities including
the governor, mayor, Canton and Village Chief.  These excellent relationships ensure that when there
are problems at the village level, authorities do not hesitate to keep SOS informed.   
However there is a large gap—support to 2,600 households doesn’t begin to cover the need.  In addition
to the vulnerable, the crisis has made even “well‐off farmers” vulnerable.  Those who generate revenue
through activities other than agriculture are less affected by the crisis but since 90% of the population
depends on rain‐fed agriculture for their nutritional needs, this group is in the minority.  To cover the
gap, CRS has found $500,000 from Caritas Australia, and continues to look for additional funds to permit
residents to stay in their villages and cultivate their fields once the planting season begins.   
M&E
EARLI has sufficient M&E staff (1 officer for both SOS and CRS), agents (15 for 26 sites) and supervisors
(2 per department (4 total)) to provide the required project monitoring.  A package of tools has been
developed and was reviewed by the RTE team.  With a few small modifications, these tools meet the
initial data collection needs.   
For the M&E tools that are not yet developed, adding specific questions will be of significant value.  
Post‐distribution surveys can find out about the targeting method applied in the remaining villages,
were the participants satisfied with the alternate targeting methods and from their perspective were
the most vulnerable members chosen?  Also important is, who in the household spends the cash?  Who
decides what to buy and what is purchased?  In addition, data should be collected on market prices
before and after the payments to determine the extent to which CFW is increasing food prices in the
region.  
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
12
Monthly reporting formats can capture additional lessons learned and best practices identified
throughout the course of the project.  Data collection tools for the seed fairs are also under
development.
A data collection and analysis plan exists for EARLI.  Although data are collected daily and synthesized
weekly, they are not available to CRS except on a monthly basis.  Given the need to know completion
rates in order to make payments every two weeks, this data should be available at a minimum every 2
weeks.   
Risk Management
The zone of intervention is located along the border with Mali which is currently experiencing a
rebellion in which armed bandits often attack the population suddenly.  CRS therefore has taken the
following precautions to ensure the security of personnel and project participants:  1) Payments to
beneficiaries are assured by a bank rather than by CRS personnel to protect against bandit attacks; 2)
CRS agents must respect security instructions that are given by the Security Committee of the UN
system; 3) In the intervention zone, CRS and SOS agents must collaborate with and follow instructions
provided by GoN security forces; 4) CRS and SOS agents must respect the authorized hours of
circulation:  7am‐6pm.  In addition, project managers should remain vigilant and stay up to date on the
latest information and updates from the counsel of the Security Cluster of the UN System.   
Sustainability and Relationships
The evaluation asked whether EARLI was responsive to the changing needs of project participants.  
According to beneficiaries, the only change in their needs is that since they have started working, they
can now purchase with credit. However, the delay in payment without any information to communities
raises concern about discouraging project participants and tarnishing CRS’ image.    
Since project participants’ needs have remained the same as when the project was designed, the
intervention is still entirely appropriate.  People have returned from migration once they learned that
Cash for Work would be available and students have been able to stay in school. Once planting season
begins and Cash for Work activities end, the seed fairs will provide seeds for planning.  At that point,
project participants’ time will be consumed with planting activities so ending Cash for Work activities
will be appropriate.  At that point the challenge for the population will be how to support themselves
until they are able to harvest the seeds they plant.   To cover this future gap, funding is needed to
provide a cash transfer intervention.   
Link to Development
EARLI precisely meets the immediate needs of the population, and also provides for the intermediate
needs by providing seeds for an adequate 2012 harvest.   Men and women heads of household will
receive the seeds.   
Land recuperation activities also provide a measure of intermediate support by providing 1) protective
measures to the environment, notably grasses for pasture and erosion control and 2‐  productive
measures, including high‐value grasses for livestock pasture and provisions for production by women.  
All of these inputs will hasten the fertility process.    Communities however were unaware of these
planned inputs.  Therefore this must be communicated and they should be encouraged to develop plans
for how they will equitably use recuperated land and inputs to provide the greatest benefit to all,
notably for the most vulnerable community members.   
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
13
Finally, there is not a link to development projects that could help end the cycle of emergency
responses. This is the second RTE to make the same observation to CRS Niger regarding interventions in
the same area.  Still, more consistent, strategic interventions in the area are needed to address the root
causes of the crisis.  EARLI still has the opportunity to link land recuperation activities to longer‐term
development activities through its partnerships with the state and other NGOs .  
Coverage
The decision about the location of the intervention was determined based on the 2011 Agriculture
Campaign Report issued by the government of Niger.  Tillabery was the neediest region with a gap in
cereal production of ‐191,296 MT, producing only 61.9% of its 6‐year average (2005‐2010).8
   To identify
the beneficiary villages, CRS first coordinated with the Regional Food Crisis Cell to identify the villages
where other NGOs were not already working.   Next, a team of CRS, SOS Sahel and Dept. of the
Environment members identified the villages that had at least an 80% production deficit and where a
common land recuperation site was available.   Two thousand six hundred project participants were
targeted and 26 land recuperation sites were identified and are currently participating in CFW activities
and payment.   To keep things simple, it was decided that each site could benefit 100 households.   
However this decision did not take into account the size of the village.   If a village only had 96
households, more than everyone would benefit while a village with 1000 households would only assist
10% of its residents.  According to Mr. Diambeidou Biga, the OCHA representative in Tillabery, resources
are insufficient to cover the needs of this crisis.   Therefore a better method would be to choose a
uniform percentage of people eligible in each village to more effectively diminish gaps in aid. CRS is
aware that this was not the correct choice but was not able to change the designated number per
community because communities had already chosen eligible households.
In order to select which 100 households would benefit, CRS trained SOS staff to use a participatory
household targeting approach called the ABC Approach (See Annex 3).  This is an open transparent,
participatory process for identifying the most vulnerable households in a community.  There are a
couple weaknesses in the system, particularly if the list used to select beneficiaries is not updated to
include non‐permanent residents and exclude households that live too far away to arrive to the site
each day and work.  It must also be noted that regardless of the village visited, the RTE team found
community‐initiated self‐help mechanisms that effectively re‐distributed aid so that more people will
benefit with smaller proportions of CRS’ assistance.  In one community, for every household selected, a
neighbor’s household was assigned who would also work on the site and receive half of the payment.  In
another community, the cash is equally distributed among all residents.  More investigation is needed
into the targeting method used in the other villages and participants’ satisfaction with it.  For the
communities visited as part of the RTE, it seems that the rations calculated for each person were not
followed.  While this is important to verify, it is also worthwhile noting that support to the community’s
own self‐help mechanisms is an important aspect of promoting community resiliency.   The SPHERE
standards recognize self‐help as a cross‐cutting theme for humanitarian sector interventions to bear in
mind:   
“Community‐led initiatives contribute to psychological and social well‐being through
restoring dignity and a degree of control to disaster‐affected populations. Access to social
and financial (…) support through (…) community activities helps to re‐establish individual
and community self‐respect and identity, decrease vulnerability and enhance resilience.”
                                                            
8 The average from 2005‐2010 was 721,991MT ; this year, the region produced 446,899MT according to GON.
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
14
If community‐wide re‐distribution happens consistently in all villages, that would mean that few
beneficiaries actually consume the ration sizes intended for them by the project design.  However,
rather than discouraging the mutual support that solidarity systems provide, this finding should be
interpreted as a call to the government and all humanitarian actors that the solution offered is
insufficient and until the real causes are addressed, emergency assistance will continue to be
inadequate.
Assets and Needs of all groups
The targeting system described above met with the satisfaction of all project participants as well as non
participants with whom we spoke.  All agreed that the most vulnerable have not only been targeted but
they are receiving assistance.  We asked participants to identify the assets and needs of each group in
the community (men, women, children, elderly and disabled) to find out if the project is responding to
the priority needs of vulnerable groups as well.  With the exception of children and the elderly, who
have specialized needs for more nutrient dense foods (including CSB for infants) essentially, everyone
shares the same priority need for food.   The intervention is therefore responding effectively to all
groups, since cash gives them the possibility of purchasing the foods that meet households’ special
requirements.  Each community identified different assets but they were complementary to the kinds of
assistance that is being provided:  project participants supply the fields, garden beds, tools, labor, water
in some cases, but lack the nourishment for today and the seeds for tomorrow.  Some mentioned also a
need for more half‐moons! Others cited a water source.   
Conclusions
EARLI’s response is targeted to the priority needs of the population.  Cash meets the current need for
sustenance while land recuperation activities serve the population’s intermediate term needs for more
productive land for planting.  Improved seeds to be provided beginning at the end of May will likewise
meet the population’s next most immediate need for food following the 2012 harvest.   The priority
needs of not just men and women but also infants, the elderly and disabled are addressed using a cash
for work and cash transfer intervention (3‐5% of the rations are reserved for cash transfer to
beneficiaries who cannot work).  With cash, households can purchase the unique kinds of food required
for the members of that household who may have special diet requirements.  Children have been able
to stay in school as a result of the intervention and there is the possibility that the recuperated land
could provide productive land for women.   Communities must next develop plans for how they will
equitably use recuperated land and inputs to provide the greatest benefit to all, including the most
vulnerable community members.   
All participants agreed the work is more strenuous for women, taking them longer to complete the work
than men.  Some older women and women with hypertension said the work is too strenuous, others
said they were quite capable.  Special considerations need to be made for both men and women whose
health conditions make them incapable of doing the work.  Donors and the GoN need to revisit the
requirements of 3 half‐moons for 1000f/ day.  For some members of the communities, participating in
the project represents a risk to their health however alternative tasks such as trash clean up would bring
important value to the community.  While only 3‐5% of the population is eligible to receive assistance
without working, alternative tasks that bring value to the community should be provided to community
members who cannot safely perform the land recuperation activities or the number of half moons per
day might be adjusted for those with exceptional health conditions.  To assist, the project will supply the
sites with first aid kits and masks for workers.  However, no additional tools are recommended.  Since
the objective of the project is to increase access to food, not tools, messages to communities should be
to improve coordination for optimum use of available tools.   The complaint mechanism available to
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
15
participants was not functional during the week of RTE data collection but its existence was being
announced in each community.  Documenting the complaints and how they are resolved will be valuable
not only to ensure participant satisfaction but also for future project design.   
The extension service is not currently performing the quality control measures required prior to
payment.  CRS will facilitate the administrative process in order to ensure they have the resources they
need to take on their assigned responsibilities immediately.   
There exists a concern for certain communities that live far from a market and who may have to incur
additional transport costs.   This creates an opportunity for community leadership to find collective
solutions to bring cereals to the community at a reduced cost.  There is also an opportunity to increase
recognition of the efforts of management committee members.  Some committee members have asked
for a larger stipend due to the longer hours and greater responsibility they have in preparing and
validate others’ work.  Since this is not possible without contradicting National Cash for Work guidelines,
more work can be done to recognize their efforts in lieu of payment such as public appreciation in a
general assembly for example.
The two week payment period is long for those who are malnourished and performing hard labor.  
While this is manageable after the participants have received their first payment, it is more difficult
initially.  Fortunately, many have benefitted from credit in their community from merchants who trust
CRS will pay them.  However this obligation to repay the credit makes the late payments particularly
troublesome for CRS and its partner, SOS Sahel International, as it threatens the NGOs’ images.  
Resolving the problems that have created delays in payment are a top priority.  Some of the solutions
include selecting a different bank, supplementing the current bank with another, or perhaps CRS taking
on the task.  Each possibility is currently under review. Finally, there is a need to clarify for SOS agents
the internal payment procedures to make sure all necessary documentation is in order to facilitate
payment by the bank.   
The process of selecting the intervention locations was well coordinated and used as its basis state
directives and a systematic review of secondary data, triangulated with data on regional and
departmental level gaps.   The number of households targeted in each village was not however
proportional to the size of the village, resulting in an uneven distribution of assistance within villages in
which everyone in a small village benefitted while only a small percentage of vulnerable people in a
large village did.   To select households, a participatory and transparent approach was used (ABC
Approach, see Annex 2).  However, even though the most vulnerable households were reported to CRS
and SOS, many communities in fact used a system of solidarity which allows more than 100 households
per village to benefit from the assistance.   
While this means that individuals are not receiving the ration sizes intended for them, it also means that
more than 2600 households are benefiting.  It also should be interpreted as an indication that reflects
what the state and OCHA have also said, which is that large gaps exist in the coverage of this food crisis
in this region.  The 2011 Agriculture Report shows clearly the enormous deficits in production in this
region. With the exception of the urban center of Niamey with its high population and only marginal
production, Tillabery represents the region with the largest production gap.  While seeds represent an
intermediate solution and women’s access to productive land could provide some relief from food
insecurity in the medium term, what is called for is a long‐term strategic plan.  It is important to note
that this is part of a cyclic pattern.  Ouallam department has had a food deficit for 14 out of the past 14
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
16
years.  Tillabéry has had food deficits for 11 years out of the past 14i9. Emergency interventions are not
sufficient to resolve the causes of the production deficits in the region.  Longer term, strategic thinking is
needed on a national scale.
There is excellent coordination among both partners and all stakeholders and they recognize CRS’
leadership in this area.  SOS Sahel is also recognized for their programming expertise.  Weaknesses in
finance has been overcome since VOICE although additional discussion is needed between CRS and SOS
regarding a budgetary issue related to monitoring and clarifying and possibly improving CRS’
administrative procedures.   The authorization from OFDA to begin spending up to $300,000 greatly
facilitated a fast response.
The M&E tools were reviewed and modified and suggestions provided for capturing important
information on participant perception of targeting methods, how cash is spent by who and overall
project satisfaction.   Data should also be collected on market prices before and after the payments to
determine the extent to which CFW is increasing food prices in the region.  Finally, the data collection
and analysis system needs to be agile enough to provide synthesized data at least every 2 weeks.
Recommendations
(See also Annex 1 Action Plan below.)
The most time sensitive recommendations include:  
 Resolve the obstacles posed by the BOA‐lead payment system preventing timely payment to
participants
 Integrate a witness system during each payment activity
 Provide means for transport so extension service can provide quality control of CFW activities
prior to payment  
 Communities must develop plans for equitable use of recuperated land and inputs, providing
the greatest benefit to all, including the most vulnerable community members
 Finalize rollout of complaint mechanism and make communities aware of why it exists and how
to use it
 Document complaints for improving the program
 Increase interest of the population in adopting land recuperation techniques in their own fields  
 Provide masks and first aid kits to protect participants from dust and potential injuries
 Find financing to  1‐Cover more needs (ensure cash transfer for those without capacity to do
CFW); 2‐provide assistance (unconditional cash transfer) during the planting season ; Those who
are eligible will be those who have installed half moons in their fields.
 Communicate with OCHA regarding an evaluation delegation to determine the effects of aid to
the region to date  
 Prepare and implement post‐distribution surveys with targeting and use of cash questions   
Recommendations that are important in preparation for the next phase are to:  
 Increase donor’s awareness of the need to have alternative activities for older residents whose
health may be at risk by carrying out land recuperation activities in the month of April in Niger
 Increase the awareness of the State to take this into consideration in their national policy
                                                            
9 Real Time Evaluation Project ADVANCE Niger.   Dolphin, Heather; Abderahamane Bamba, Pape Said Coly.  
October, 2010
Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
17
 Collect  information on development projects in the zone and design the next project with these
links in place
 Develop development projects in Tillabery  and Ouallam
Annex 1: Action Plan Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
18
Action Person Responsable Due date 
Payment
 Resolve the obstacles posed by the BOA-lead payment system that are preventing timely payment to participants CRS Pgm Mgr Now 
 Identify a regular schedule that allows participants to plan their activities, motivate communities and preserve the image of 
CRS/SOS. 
CRS Pgm Mgr 7 May 
 Formalize a written payment procedure and share with all actors SOS Pgm Manager 7 May 
 Integrate a witness system by community leaders and management committee members during each payment activity. CRS Pgm Mgr/ 
Supervisors 
Next payment 
Provide workers payment in the order they arrive rather than the order of the list. CRS Pgm Mgr/ 
Supervisors 
Next payment 
Niveau Communautaire
 Help community advocate with their leaders to facilitate access to markets that provide moderately priced cereals 
 Identify links to organizations that support cereal bank interventions that could provide access to moderately priced cereals 
 By making a large cereal purchase order with an agent who can provide transport for multiple villages who are far from 
markets 
CRS Pgm Mgr/ SOS 
Pgm Manager 
7 May 
To address the complaint that 1000f is not enough, reinforce the message that EARLI is not a job, but social assistance. Agents CRS/SOS 30 April 
Communities must develop plans for equitable use of recuperated land and inputs, providing the greatest benefit to all, 
including the most vulnerable community members 
Agents CRS/SOS 30 April 
Increase community members’ awareness of the role of management committee members to validate the quality of their 
work. If workers do not want to provide the required level of quality work, they can be excluded from participating. 
Recognize the work of management committee members in a general assembly (the hours they work, their dedication to the 
community, their spirit of community service) and at the same time, motivate other members of the community to also 
assume leadership roles where useful to others. 
Agents CRS/SOS 30 April 
Increase awareness that tools available on the work sites should be efficiently managed and work schedules planned 
accordingly. EARLI intends to alleviate food insecurity, not supply communities with tools. 
Agents CRS/SOS 30 April 
Finalize the rollout of the complaint mechanism and make communities aware of why it exists and how to use it. Agents CRS/SOS Now 
Increase interest of the population in adopting land recuperation techniques in their own fields. Agents CRS/SOS 30 April 
Program and Management Effectiveness
Coordination meetings among project managers CRS/SOS Continue 
Begin monthly M&E coordination meetings CRS /SOS M&E Beginning 15 May 
Examine in the budget the possibility of paying guides when needed to visit hard to reach villages. CRS EARLI PM 30 April 
Find financing to 
1-Cover more needs (ensure cash transfer for those without capacity to do CFW) 
2-provide assistance (unconditional cash transfer) during the planting season; Those who are eligible will be those who 
have put installed half moons in their fields. 
CRS Emergencies 
Manager 
Now 
Provide masks and first aid kits to protect participants from dust and potential injuries. CRS Pgm Mgr/ SOS 
Pgm Manager 
7 May 
Document complaints for improving the program Complaint 30 April 
Annex 1: Action Plan Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
19
Develop the tool/form to do it. committee CRS 
CRS S&E 
 Document the advantages (through this RTE and elsewhere) that the authorization to use the $300,000 provided. This can 
be used with other donors 
RTA S&E 10 May 
 Discuss between CRS and SOS regarding 
 How SOS can more effectively carry out their project monitoring tasks 
 Better understand CRS’ payment authorization procedures and reflect on how to make them more agile during 
emergencies. 
CRS Pgm Mgr/ SOS 
Pgm Manager 
7 May 
 Communicate with OCHA regarding their recommendation to carry out an evaluation by a delegation that includes the 
Regional office for Livestock, Regional office for Agriculture and the Regional Food Crisis Coordinating Body. Advise them 
to have the Regional Food Crisis Coordinating Body lead the evaluation rather than OCHA to ensure that the results are 
taken seriously by all stakeholders. Regardless, CRS would definitely participate. 
CRS Emergencies 
Manager 
Now 
 Schedule a meeting to provide SOS with an orientation on project requirements in terms of finance and others. Abdourhimou with 
Moussa CRS 
Finance 
Semaine de 30 April 
 Complete M&E Tools 
 In the monthly report formats, include questions for managers to capture lessons learned and best practices 
Boubacar Seidou 15 May 
 In the post-distribution surveys, ask participants 
 The targeting method used in their communities 
 Whether they are satisfied with the targeting methods 
 Whether the most vulnerable people were chosen 
 How people spend their money 
 Who makes decisions about what to buy 
 Data should also be collected on market prices before and after the payments to determine the extent to which CFW is 
increasing food prices in the region. 
 Modify the monitoring plan to make daily and weekly data available at least every 2 weeks if not sooner. 
Boubacar Seidou Next payment : 6 May 
 Remain vigilent listening to information and advice from the Security Cluster of the UN system. CRS Pgm Mgr Now 
 Provide the means for transport so the Extension service can provide the quality control of the CFW activities prior to 
payment dates 
CRS Emergency PM 15 May 
 Use military escorts in Ayorou Zone CRS Program 
Manager 
A partir de 
 Strategize how recuperated land will be used. If it is used for grasses, it will not be available for productive use by more 
vulnerable members 
CRS Program 
Manager 
30 April 
Annex 1: Action Plan Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
20
Next Projet
Collect information on development projects in the zone and design the next project with these links in place. 
Develop long-term development projects in Tillabery and Ouallam departments 
CRS Emergency 
Manager 
Now 
Increase donor’s awareness of the need to have alternative activities for older residents whose health may be at risk by 
carrying out land recuperation activities in the month of April in Niger 
Increase the awareness of the State to take this into consideration in their national policy 
CRS Emergency 
Manager 
Next meeting with the 
regional cell for food 
security crises 
Rather than choosing the same number of beneficiaries in each village, choose a percentage of people in each village for 
there is a better proportionality of assistance to more effectively diminish gaps in aid. 
CRS Emergency & 
Pgm Manger 
Next projet 
 Provide payment after the first week before changing to a twice monthly payment schedule due to the difficulty of such 
labor without adequate nourishment 
CRS Emergency 
Manager 
 Budget for the perdiem expenses for supervisors before they move into the field CRS Emergency & 
Prgm Manager 
 Create separate budget lines by Strategic Objective for future OFDA projects CRS Emergency & 
Prgm Manager 
Annex 2: SPHERE Standards Review   Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
21
ANNEX 2:  SPHERE Standards
Core Standard 1: People‐centered humanitarian response
People’s capacity and strategies to survive with dignity are integral to the design and approach of
humanitarian response.
1) The agricultural interventions of EARLI (recuperation of land for agricultural production and  
seed provision) make up the livelihood customs of the population
2) The success of effective targeting and functional management committees depend on the full
involvement and decision making by community representatives from each land recuperation
site.   
Core Standard 2: Coordination and collaboration  
Humanitarian response is planned and implemented in coordination with the relevant authorities,
humanitarian agencies and civil society organizations engaged in impartial humanitarian action, working
together for maximum efficiency, coverage and effectiveness.
1) CRS participates in the national organizational cluster which coordinates humanitarian actors
(GoN, UN, NGOs and the Red Cross) dedicated to issues of food security.  Therefore, CRS is
informed about who does what where so as to avoid duplicating services.
2) Within the project, CRS facilitates the coordinates among Extension Services, CRS and SOS.   
3) SOS facilitates the coordination with local authorities and Extension Services
Core Standard 3: Assessment  
The priority needs of the disaster‐affected population are identified through a systematic assessment of
the context, risks to life with dignity and the capacity of the affected people and relevant authorities to
respond.
EARLI was conceived based on secondary data from the 2011 Agricultural Campaign Report,
Coordination meetings with the Regional Coordinating Food Crisis Cell and analysis supplied by the Office
for Disaster Assistance (OFDA).  What was not carried out was a discussion at the local level to identify
the most appropriate response.  It seems that while most are capable of performing the work, there are
no alternative tasks available for those with limited capacity.
Core Standard 4: Design and response
The humanitarian response meets the assessed needs of the disaster‐affected population in relation to
context, the risks faced and the capacity of the affected people and state to cope and recover.
As a result of a poor agricultural harvest, the first priority is to identify a source of income to support the
basic needs of the population until the harvest comes in.  Cash for Work responds precisely to this need.  
The other important concern of the population at the beginning of the rainy season is accessing seeds for
planting which is the objective of the seed fairs.  Note that the primary cause of vulnerability of the
population is the increasing degradation of the land.  The recuperation activity therefore in the context
of the project contributes in the medium term to an improvement of their situation.  Nevertheless, the
Annex 2: SPHERE Standards Review   Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
22
interventions currently underway in the area are far from covering the needs due to the enormity of the
needs and the very high prices of food.   
Core Standard 5: Performance, transparency and learning
The performance of humanitarian agencies is continually examined and communicated to stakeholders;
projects are adapted in response to performance.
CRS is an agency with a long experience in humanitarian aid.  CRS’ performance in this area is recognized
based on previous collaborations on similar interventions.  CRS’ continually monitors its performance
using supervisor’s monthly work plans, staff performance plans, and monthly reports.    
Core Standard 6: Aid worker performance
Humanitarian agencies provide appropriate management, supervisory and psychosocial support,
enabling aid workers to have the knowledge, skills, behavior and attitudes to plan and implement an
effective humanitarian response with humanity and respect.
The agents intervening on behalf of the project have been trained within the respective CRS and SOS
training formats in collaboration with the extension services, who are competent on all necessary aspects
of the project implementation for which the agents will be responsible.   Extension services are also
expected to monitor these activities.   There is however a lack of resources on the part of extension
services (Dept. of the Environment‐ Tillabery) to ensure the necessary supervision of the sites since the
beginning of the project.  This situation is due to the fact that they have not made the administrative
request as CRS’ procedures require.  However, it is CRS’ responsibility to ensure that the project functions
appropriately and therefore CRS’ responsibility to ensure each partner has the necessary resources.
Food security and nutrition assessment standard 1:  Food security
Where people are at increased risk of food insecurity, assessments are conducted using accepted
methods to understand the type, degree and extent of food insecurity, to identify those most affected
and to define the most appropriate response.
The initial assessment of food insecurity was done based on secondary data that came from the 2011
Agricultural Campaign Report, Coordination meetings with the Regional Coordinating Food Crisis Cell  
and analysis supplied by the Office for Disaster Assistance (OFDA).   The triangulation of national and
regional data from multiple sources including national and international stakeholders assured national
consensus around the issue.  What was not carried out was a discussion at the local level to identify the
most appropriate work tasks.  Although the Cash for Work is accessible, it is not the most appropriate for
those in poor health or with limited capacity.
To identify those most affected, a targeting exercise was carried out at a department level with technical
partner, the extension service and again at the local level using participatory methods to ensure
transparent and inclusive targeting by the communities themselves with support from their local
community leadership.  
Food security – Cash and voucher transfers
Standard 1: Access to available goods and services  
Annex 2: SPHERE Standards Review   Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
23
Cash and vouchers are considered as ways to address basic needs and to protect and re‐establish
livelihoods.
Cash permits a response to essential needs for food, however the quantity is very insufficient to cover the
needs of the targeted communities.
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 1: Primary production
Primary production mechanisms are protected and supported.
Land restoration will effectively benefit agricultural activities however there isn’t a policy within the
project that links the emergency response to development projects currently underway.  For example if
seeds of productive value were available to plant in the recuperated land, this would add greater value
to the restoration activities currently underway.   
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 2: Income and employment
Where income generation and employment are feasible livelihood strategies, women and men have
equal access to appropriate income‐earning opportunities.
EARLI’S income generating activities (land recuperation) are rightfully accessible to men as well as to
women.  However, the physical capacity of women makes the work more difficult for her compared to
the men.  Note that April in Niger is the hottest month of the year when the land is most compacted and
difficult to dig.  At the work sites visited by the RTE team, men go to the site early, and because it is not
hot and the work is easier for men, they tend to finish early.  Women go to the site after she prepared
the morning meal and works later when the temperature has increased.  Because the work is more
difficult for her, she works longer hours and may need to return again in the afternoon when the
temperature has decreased in order to finish digging the same number of half‐moons as the men.  There
are no alternative jobs for women, regardless of their physical condition.  Women may work twice or
three times longer than men but receives the same pay.  Both donors and the GoN need to consider how
to provide appropriate work for women that gives them equal pay for the time worked.  
Food security – Livelihoods Standard 3: Access to markets
The disaster‐affected population’s safe access to market goods and services as producers, consumers
and traders is protected and promoted.
From a geographic point of view, the market access varies by locality.  Certain villages are far from a
market and without appropriate transportation infrastructure making market access difficult without
paying a significantly higher cost. The cost is considered too high even in locations where food is
accessible.  
Annex 3:   Methodology ABC   Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
24
ANNEX 3
Methodology ABC :
Participatory Project Participant Targeting
Project EARLI used the ABC participatory method to choose households within villages.   
1. A general Assembly is called to inform the population how the project participants will be
selected
2. Use the same list of village households that is used for tax collection
3. Ask for 5 key informants who know everyone on the village (Imam, village chief, others ?)  
4. Share with them the process of determining the criteria for classifying households in the
Category (A) for Least Vulnerable; Category B (Semi‐Vulnerable); and Category C (Most
Vulnerable)  Other NGOs have started to use the category (D) for Extremely Vulnerable, but CRS
only uses A‐C.
5. The group of key informants determines the criteria of the three categories (A, B and C).  (Each
village will have unique criteria.)
6. The key informants categorize each household into one of the three categories.  
7. A general assembly is held to validate the results with community members who have the
chance to contest the results and come to consensus regarding an alternative proposition.
Annex 4:   List of Persons interviewed   Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
25
Ouallam Department
Guinao‐Bongou  
(10)Men and (9) Women participants
Men and Women non‐participants (7)
Djibo Oumarou, Chef de village
Tollo
(10) Men and (6) Women participants
Men and Women non‐participants (10)
Djibo Baouna, Chef de village
Yayé Hassoumi, Adjoint Chef de village
Tillabéry Department
Sona‐Bella
(12) Men and (10)Women participants
Men and Women non‐participants (8)
Younoussa Mounkaila, chef de village
Yqcouba Ibrahim, Adjoint Chef de village
Djadja Peulh
(10) Men and (11) Women participants
Men and Women non‐participants (6)  
Soumana Larabou, Chef de village
Abdoulaye Moussa, Conseiller élu
Dai‐Bery
(10) Men and (5) Women participants
Men and Women non‐participants (9)
Boubacar Mohamed, Chef de village
Moussa Goronfo, SGcomité de gestion
CRS
Mahaman Souradja, Head of Emergency Department
Boubacar Saidou, M&E Officer, Project EARLI
Lawel Mahamane Moussa, Finance Manager, Project EARLI
  
SOS Sahel International  
Mariama Issoufoudiorim , Coordinator Project EARLI
Ali Djibey, M&E Officer
Extension Services
Mr. Mohomadu Saley, Dept. of the Environment, Tillabery
OCHA, Tillabery
Mr. Diambeidou Biga, OCHA Bureau Tillabery
Annex 5: Itinerary Real Time Evaluation: EARLI CRS‐Niger
26
Itinerary RTE Project EARLI
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
16 17
RTA travels to
Niamey
18
CRS‐Niger debrief
Meeting
Evaluation Planning
Tool refinement
19
Evaluation
Planning
Tool refinement
20 Niamey
Evaluation Planning
Tool refinement
Individual Interview
CRS
21 Ouallam
(2 villages
Guineo‐Bangou,
Tollo)
Village Chief/non
participants
22 Tillabery
Group focus
Sona‐Bela
Dai‐Bery
Djadja Peuhl
+ Village
Chief/non
participants
23
Tillabery
Interview
Individuelle –1)
OCHA‐Cellule de
Coordination
Interview avec
SOS‐ M&E
Saisir les donnes
24
Tilabery
Services Technique
(Tilabery)
Site de Paiement
(Dai‐Kaina)
Interview avec CRS‐ 
Finance
25
Interview avec SOS‐ 
M&E Officer
Workshop Prep
26
Interview avec
SOS‐ Coordinator
Workshop Prep
27
Workshop ½ day
28
Team departs
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
27
Termes de Référence pour l’évaluation en temps réel 
CRS/Niger, Réponse aux urgences 2012 
Projet EARLI 
1. Introduction 
La production agricole 2011 n’a pas répondu aux attentes des populations qui tentaient 
lentement à sortir de la mauvaise récolte 2009. 
L’enquête sur la vulnérabilité à l’insécurité alimentaire de décembre 2011 fait ressortir 
des résultats très inquiétants pour beaucoup de ménages qui se trouvent en situation 
d’extrême vulnérabilité. Ces ménages n’ont pas produit et ne disposent pas de moyens 
permettant d’accéder aux produits vivriers sur les marchés. Parmi ces zones classéEs 
en situation de vulnérabilité, la région de Tillabéry se classe en tête avec les 
départements de Tillabéry, Ouallam et Filingué. 
Le gouvernement à travers le Dispositif National de Gestion des Catastrophes et Crises 
alimentaires a élaboré un plan de contingence visant à aider les populations vulnérables 
à travers les partenaires qu développement. 
Pour répondre à cet appel du Gouvernement du Niger, CRS/Niger a élaboré une 
proposition pour venir en assistance aux populations vulnérables de la région de 
Tillabéry au niveau des départements de Tillabéry et de Ouallam. 
Le projet EARLI (Emergency Agriculture Recovery and Livelihoods Interventions in 
Niger) permettra d’assurer de l’assistance à environ 2600 ménages à travers le Cash For 
Work (CFW) et des semences à prêt de 7000 ménages à travers les foires aux 
semences. 
 
2. But et objectifs de l’évaluation en temps réel « Real Time Evaluation » 
L’évaluation en temps réel est une approche particulière de l'évaluation qui permet de 
suivre la performance d'une intervention à un stade assez précoce, offrant ainsi la 
possibilité de corriger des lacunes dans «temps réel». Cette approche est 
particulièrement importante pour les interventions humanitaires car elle est différente 
des évaluations finales qui constate les faits à la fin du projet. Une évaluation en temps 
réel se consacre sur le processus de mise en œuvre d’un projet plutôt que de son 
impact ou résultat final. 
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
28
 
Eu égard à cela, on peut dire que le but global de cette étude est de permettre à 
CRS/Niger de tirer les leçons du processus de mise en œuvre très tot afin de satisfaire 
aussi bien que possible aux besoins des bénéficiaires du projet. 
Les objectifs de cette RTE sont : 
5. Documenter les réalisations atteintes jusqu’à la date de collecte ; 
6. Faire une revue de l’intervention pour sortir des critiques et recommandations afin 
d’améliorer la mise en œuvre ; 
7. Identifier les bonnes pratiques utilisées et les leçons apprises à travers ce projet ; 
8. Promouvoir les approches d’apprentissage de CRS/Niger pour rapporter et 
communiquer à travers toute l’agence de CRS et les partenaires. 
3. Méthodologie 
La mission sera principalement dirigée par la conseillère régionale en suivi et 
évaluation de CRS pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle pourrait être appuyée au niveau 
local par le chef de département suivi et évaluation de CRS/Niger, du chef de 
département des urgences et de l’équipe du projet (PM, M&E, superviseurs du projet). 
Tout autre partenaire du projet pourrait être amené à faire membre de l’équipe en 
fonction des besoins. 
Le chef de département suivi et évaluation de CRS/Niger identifiera les agents 
enquêteurs expérimentés qui pourront assurer la traduction des questions lors de la 
collecte des données sur le terrain. 
Les dispositions d’ordre logistique seront également prises pour la bonne marche des 
activités sur le terrain. 
L’équipe de l’évaluation en temps réel conduira ce travail à travers les points ci￾dessous : 
 Tenir une première séance de travail avec l’équipe du projet et le personnel de 
CRS impliqué dans la mise en œuvre afin de s’assurer sur la compréhension des 
termes de référence de l’étude (but et résultats attendus) d’une part et d’autre part 
pour mieux comprendre le projet et les niveaux atteints jusqu’ici ; 
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
29
 Tenir une rencontre avec rencontre avec tous les membres de l’équipe de 
l’évaluation afin de finaliser tous les outils de collecte, les sujets à interroger, la 
logistique et un plan de travail provisoire ; 
 Avoir des discussions avec les agents relevant de tous les niveaux de l’agence 
(CRS/Niger, WARO et HQ), les partenaires et tout autres parties prenantes afin 
de ressortir des critiques et recommandations pertinentes; 
 Discuter avec les populations affectées avec une approche participative afin de 
trianguler les informations ; 
 Discuter avec les agents charges de la mise en œuvre pour savoir les contraintes et 
difficultés pouvant entraver l’atteinte des résultats du projet; 
 Créer un plan d’action avec les dates buttoirs et les noms des personnes 
responsables que le projet pourra rapidement utiliser afin d’éviter tout retard dans 
la mise en œuvre. 
L’évaluation en temps réel sera conduite pour analyser les résultats initiaux et mettre 
un accent sur l’effectivité et l’appropriation des activités, les mécanismes de ciblage et 
l’implication des communautés dans les activités du projet. 
L’évaluation en temps réel sera conduite au même moment ou les payements des 
bénéficiaires des activités de CFW auront lieu permettant ainsi à l’équipe de mise en 
œuvre d’ajuster les lacunes pour améliorer les activités du projet sur le terrain pour les 
prochaines activités et payements. 
Les 4 critères ci dessous seront évalués pendant le RTE à travers les questions 
relatives aux réponses d’urgences. 
Pertinence/appropriation 
1. Comment est ce que la réponse de CRS coïncide avec les besoins des 
populations affectées ? 
2. Est-ce que les décisions sur la manière de répondre ont été basées sur les 
conclusions des donnes secondaires utilisées pour justifier cette intervention ? 
3. Est ce que les normes et standards de Sphère ont été atteints ? 
4. De quelle manière le projet sera fexible pour assurer les conditions et 
engagements de la réponse ? 
5. En quoi les normes et standards techniques de sphere permettent de prendre 
en compte le contexte socio culturel dans la zone d’intervention ? 
Program and management effectiveness 
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
30
1. Quels sont les facteurs internes ou externes qui affectent la rapidité de notre 
intervention au niveau national ? 
2. Comment est ce que la planification des activités pourrait permettre d’atteindre 
les résultats prévus ? 
3. Quels défis ou bonnes pratiques peut on retenir en travaillant avec les 
populations vulnérables? 
4. Dans quelles measures les populations affectées pourraient se plaindre des 
activités du projet à partir des informations qu’elles reçoivent ? (Si cette 
committee existe…) 
5. Les supports essentiels du programme (including finance, HR, logistics, media 
and communications) ont recu suffisamment des ressources et fonctionnent 
bien? 
6. Comment fonctionnent les mechanisms de collaboration au niveau de CRS et 
des different partenaires (SOS, services techniques, chef de 
canton/village/maire)? 
7. Le système de suivi a la potentiel a renseigner CRS comment il peut améliorer 
le programme? 
8. Comment les risques (par exemples crise malienne, arrivée des refugiés, et 
autres…) sont évalués, documentés et gérés ? 
Durabilité et relations 
1. De quelle manière les besoins des parties prenantes sont en train de changer ? 
2. Dans quelle mesure le programme s’adapte à ce changement de besoin des 
bénéficiaire ? 
3. Comment EARLI peut répondre aux besoins immédiats et faire un lien avec les 
programmes de développement existants ? 
4. Quelles sont les leçons apprises et les bonnes pratiques de la réponse initiale 
qui peuvent etre utile pour le suite du projet ? 
5. Qu’est-ce que les beneficiaries du projet envisage au niveau de terrre recoupere 
au cours de la mise en aeuvre ? 
Couverture (qui et combien de personnes peut-on atteindre?) 
1. Comment est-ce qu’on a pris les décisions en ce qui concerne le ciblage (des 
sous-groupes de la population ; les endroits où la réponse est effectuée ; Est-ce 
que les méthodes de ciblage sont équitables et transparentes ? 
2. Avons-nous assure une complémentarité avec les autres acteurs humanitaires, 
et dans quelle mesure? (OCHA (Tillaberi) 
3. Qui et combien de groupes différents sont ciblés et dans quelle mesure sont-ils 
atteints, avec quel niveau d’efficacité? 
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
31
4. Présentation et documentation des conclusions et recommandations 
L’équipe de RTE fera le point avec les équipes sur le terrain et des hauts représentants 
des affiliés sur ses conclusions principales lors d’une journée de réflexion, et le chef 
d’équipe va terminer un rapport préliminaire qui sera soumis pour observations. Un 
rapport final doit être publié idéalement dans les jours suivants. Le rapport doit être 
bref, ne dépassant pas 15 pages, plus les annexes courts contenant les termes de 
référence et un calendrier de la réponse. Le rapport final sera signé par la gestionnaire 
de mise en service, notant leur accord ou non avec le plan d’action, et le rapport final 
sera affiché sur le CRS global. Le bureau de programme de pays et les partenaires 
seront responsables de faire avancer le plan d’action et des recommandations 
pertinentes pour eux. 
5. Ownership, resourcing and timing 
Le chef de département suivi et évaluation sera la personne ressources pour l’équipe 
de l’évaluation en temps réel. Le tableau ci-dessous décline les rôles des acteurs dans 
le cadre de cette évaluation. 
Name Title Role Email 
Abdourhimou M &E Manager, 
CRS/Niger 
Commissioning 
Manager 
Adamou.abdourhimou@.crs.
org 
Heather 
Dolphin 
RTA M&E RTE team leader Heather.dolphin@crs.org 
Souradja 
Mahaman 
Emergency 
Coordinator, 
CRS/Niger 
RTE team member Souradja.mahaman@crs.org 
Jessica Garrel Intern, 
CRS/Niger 
RTE team member Jessica.garrel@crs.org 
Anaroua Fodi EARLI PM RTE team member Anaroua.fodi@crs.org
Saidou 
Boubacar 
EARLI M&E 
Assistant 
RTE team member Saidou.boubacar@crs.org 
6. Les hypotheses et les exigences 
 Les évaluateurs auront accès à toute la documentation et peuvent prendre part aux 
reunions pertinentes et visites au terrain ; 
 Les évaluateurs auront accès au personnel clé à la réponse dans le bureau du pays 
et/ou les bureaux des partenaires pour mener des entrevues ; 
Annex 7:  Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
32
 Tous les members de l’équipe d’évaluation pourront poser des questions 
directement aux bénéficiaires ; 
 Les évaluateurs auront la confidentialité et l’objectivité en considération durant le 
processus. 
7. Programme de mise en œuvre des principales activités et déliverables 
Date Activité Lieu Responsable Deliverables
17 avril RTA/M&E 
arrives 
Niamey Abdourhimou 
17-20 avril Séance de travaux 
de l’équipe (revue 
documentaries, 
élaboration 
questionnaires, 
planning des 
activités) 
CRS/Niger 
Office 
Niamey 
Abdourhimou, 
Souradja; 
Anaroua, 
Jessica, 
Saidou 
Méthodologie 
de collecte, 
fiches 
finalisées, 
21-23 avril Collecte des 
données 
Ouallam, 
Tillabery 
Heather; 
Abdourhimou, 
Saidou 
Fiches 
remplies 
24-28 avril Exploitation des 
fiches collectées 
CRS/Niger 
Office Niamey
Heather; 
Abdourhimou, 
Jessica; 
Saidou 
Les grandes 
lignes, 
premiers 
constats 
28 avril Restitution des 
premiers 
résultants à 
CRS/Niger 
CRS/Niger 
Office Niamey
 
28 avril – 10 
mai 
Finalisation du 
rapport du RTE 
Au niveau des 
bureaux 
respectifs 
(échanges 
mails, skype) 
Heather; 
Jessica; 
Abdourhimou, 
Saidou 
Rapport final
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
33
CRS/SOS
Couverture   (Qui  et comment nous avons ciblé les bénéficiaires ?)
1. Comment est-ce qu’on a pris les décisions en ce qui concerne le ciblage ? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
a. Les endroits où la réponse est effectuée ? (La zone d’intervention du projet)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
b. Les sous-groupes de la population ? (Le choix des bénéficiaires au niveau de la zone du 
projet) 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
2. Avec quelles procédures les populations les plus vulnérables ont été ciblées ? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
3. Quelles sont les forces et faiblesses de ces procédures ? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
4. Etes‐vous satisfaits par la transparence et l’équité de vos efforts ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
34
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
35
5. Quels sont les critères utilisés pour le choix des bénéficiaires ? 
En général, les ONG utilisent les critères suivants pour classer les ménages:
1. Ménages ne disposant pas de moyens de subsistance (animaux, biens divers, manque de
transferts de revenus auprès d’autres parents) ;
2. Ménages pauvres dirigés par des personnes âgées, femmes ou handicapées ;
3. Ménages pauvres ayant beaucoup de membres ;
4. Ménages pauvres ayant trop de personnes inactives (enfants de moins de 5 ans surtout) ;
5. Ménages ayant perdus leur capital suite à un retour forcé suite aux crises ressentes en RCI,
Lybie, Nigéria.  
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
6. Qu’est ce que vous aurez aimé faire différemment ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
Pertinence et adaptation 
7. Quelles sont les parties prenantes ayant participé à la conception de l’idée du projet en 
CFW et Foires aux semences améliorées ? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………… 
8. Comment est ce que la réponse de CRS coïncide avec les besoins des populations 
affectées ? 
Groupes Moyens Besoins Comment est ce
que la réponse
de CRS coïncide
avec les besoins
des populations
affectées ?
D’où avez￾vous trouvé 
cette 
information ? 
Comment est-ce 
que ces besoins 
évoluent depuis 
le démarrage du 
projet ? 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
36
Hommes    
Femmes            
enfants          
personnes
âgées et
handicapes
        
9. Quelles sont les dispositions prises pour rendre le projet flexibles face aux choses inattendues
dans le déroulement du projet pour assurer les conditions et engagements de la réponse ?
Pouvez‐vous donner un exemple ? Et comment vous avez répondu ?   
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………..
10. Est‐ce que les décisions relatives au type d’intervention ont été basées sur les conclusions des
données secondaires utilisées pour programmer les activités du projet ?  (A compléter aussi
par une revue documentaire)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
11. Comment est ce que le contexte socio culturel du milieu a été pris en compte dans la
conception du projet ?    
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
12. En quoi le travail des terres contre l’argent est il approprié selon vous ?  
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
13. Comment assurez‐vous que la disponibilité des vivres est garantie sur les marchés de la zone ?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
37
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….. 
Management du Programme et efficacité
14. Quels sont les critères pour choisir les agents de terrain ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
38
15. Expliquez nous brièvement votre programme de formation des agents de terrain ?   
Formation Durée   Thèmes   Contenus importants
     
16. Comment CRS/SOS évalue la performance de leurs agents de terrain ?  Quels sont les critères
de la bonne performance ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
17. Quelles sont les mesures disciplinaires de CRS/SOS Sahel pour les agents de terrain qui ne
suivre pas les codes de conduite ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
18. Base sur vos échanges, interactions, expérience comme partenaires avec (CRS/SOS Sahel),
comment évaluerez‐vous leur capacité en termes de connaissance de CFW, foires de
semences leur agilité, réactivité, leadership, pour mettre en œuvre ce projet ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
19. Quels facteurs internes et externes qui ont affecté la rapidité de notre réponse au niveau 
du pays ? Y compris le plan de contingence, accès aux fonds d’urgence de CRS, 
système de déploiement de personnel, contexte local et autres ? Identifiez et prioritisez 
les facteurs qui affectent la rapidité de la réponse de CRS. 
 Facteurs qui 
ont affecté la 
Rapidité de la 
Réponse 
Comment ils ont affecté 
cette rapidité 
Ampleur de l’impact sur la 
rapidité de la réponse 
Internal 
Plan de 
contingence 
 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
39
Accès aux 
fonds 
d’urgence de 
CRS 
 
Système de 
déploiement 
de personnel 
 
Autres 
 
External 
Contexte 
Local 
 
Partenariat 
Autres 
20. Comment est ce que la programmation des activités du projet pourrait permettre 
d’atteindre les résultats prévus ? 
 
Qu’est-ce qui a bien marché 
dans la planification qui a 
permis d’atteindre les résultats 
prévus? 
Qu’est-ce qui n’a pas 
bien marché ? 
Qu’est-ce qu’on peut 
faire pour améliorer ? 
 
 
 
 
21. Dans quelles mesures les populations affectées pourraient se plaindre des activités du projet à
partir des informations qu’elles reçoivent ?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
40
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
22. Les supports essentiels du programme (incluant finances, HR, logistiques, médias et 
communications) ont reçu suffisamment des ressources et fonctionnent ils bien? 
Identifier
les
supports
essentiels
du
programm
e
Qu’est-ce qui a 
fonctionné 
exceptionnelleme
nt bien? 
Quels 
domaines ont 
besoin 
d’amélioration
? 
Quelles 
recommendatio
ns feriez-vous? 
Finances 
HR 
Logistiques 
Media et 
communicatio
ns
 
Autres? 
23. Comment fonctionne ce système de suivi?  (Qui est consulte lors du suivi des activités et avec quelle
fréquence ? A quelle niveau les supervisions se font et avec quelles fréquence ?)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
41
24. En quoi le système de suivi peut contribuer à améliorer  le programme et comment il peut
contribuer à la prise de décision ?  
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
25. Avez‐vous le documentation pour déterminer si le nombre des ménages prévues dans la
proposition ont été atteints déjà?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(SOS) Comment évaluerez‐vous le formation par le services technique sur les activités de creuseur les
demi‐lunes ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Risques 
26. Quelles sont les mesures envisagiées pour assurer la sécurité de votre personnel du 
projet dans la zone ? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
27. Comment est ce que la sécurité des bénéficiaires est garantie pour rentrer chez eux 
après les payements ? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
28. Comment vous avez envisage le guarantee des payment des beneficiares ? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
29. Comment vous avez envisage le securization de ressources ? 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
42
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
30. Avez-vous identifié d’autres risques pour le projet ? 
a. Si oui, quels risques ont été évalués ? b. Comment on-t-ils été documenté et 
gérés ? 
Risques evalués identifiés Comment on-t-ils été documentés et 
gérés (résultats)? 
Connectivité et Durabilité  
31. Comment est ce que le projet EARLY peut répondre aux besoins immédiat et faire un lien  avec
les programmes de développement existants ?   
1.  Comment EARLY répond aux besoins
immédiats ?
2. Quels sont les liens avec les programmes de
développement existants
  
  
  
Coordination
32. Comment fonctionnent les mécanismes de collaboration au niveau de CRS et des différents
partenaires ?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
43
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Synergie  
33. Avez‐vous constaté des quelconques duplications au cours de la mise en œuvre du
programme telles que le Cash For Work / distribution des semences?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
34. Avez‐vous constaté des quelconques écarts dans le service au cours de la mise en œuvre du
programme ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
35. Quelles dispositions avez‐vous prises pour assurer une complémentarité avec les autres
acteurs humanitaires ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
44
Leçons Apprises
36. Lister tous les défis dans le travail avec les personnes vulnérables. Quelles leçons 
avez-vous apprises de ces défis ? Quelles sont les bonnes pratiques que vous voudrez 
suggérer aux autres ? 
Défis Leçons Apprises Bonne Pratiques 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
45
GUIDE CONDUITE
FOCUS GROUPE AUPRES DES LEADERS COMMUNAUTAIRES DU PROJET
Présenter l’équipe,  l’objectif de la rencontre et les rôles de chaque membre de  l’équipe.  Nous
avons 2 heures pour faire cette discussion. Chaque personne est libre de donner son avis sur les
questions posées. C’est très important de savoir vos impressions sur le travaille de SOS et CRS
parce que les informations que nous allons recevoir de vous vont  nous aider à améliorer notre
projet pour les parties prenantes qui aussi expérimentent l’urgence. Est‐ce que nous pouvons
commencer maintenant la discussion?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
46
Identification de la localité
Région :   |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Département : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Commune : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Village : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Nom de Leader :___________________________________
Role :____________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
47
1. Est ce que l’activité de creusage de demi‐lunes est acceptée par vos réalités
socioculturelles (tradition, religion, organisation coutumière) ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
2. Pensez‐vous que les femmes et les hommes ont tous les mêmes droits et capacités
d’accéder aux activités créatrices de revenus menées dans ce projet ?  
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
3. Si non dites nous les raisons.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. Avez‐vous eu suffisamment d’informations sur le projet et les agences qui le conduisent  
(CRS et SOS)?  
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
5. Si oui par qui et avec quel moyen ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
6. Quelles sont les structures communautaires impliquées dans la mise en œuvre du
projet
Structure Rôle Nb réunions 
 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
48
 
 
 
7. Existe‐t‐il une structure chargée de recevoir et traiter les plaintes relatives à la mise en
œuvre de ce projet ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
8. Que pensez‐vous du comportement des agents de SOS/CRS travaillant avec vous sur ce  
Projet?  Quels sont leurs forces ?  Faiblesses ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
9. En marge de la mise en œuvre de ce projet, quelles sont les initiatives d’entraide
entreprises pour faire face à cette crise alimentaire dans votre communauté
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10. Parmi les agents de terrain intervenants dans ce projet, pensez qu’il y ait des
fonctionnaires qui font du travail que des ressortissants de votre communauté
pourraient aussi bien faire ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
11. Est‐ce que tous les bénéficiaires du projet jouissent d’un accès sûr et sans restriction aux
biens, services et systèmes du marché pendant toute la durée du programme
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
49
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
Couverture (qui et combien de personnes peut‐on atteindre?)
En général, les ONG utilisent les critères suivants pour classer les ménages: 
6. Ménages ne disposant pas de moyens de subsistance (animaux, biens divers, 
manque de transferts de revenus auprès d’autres parents) ; 
7. Ménages pauvres dirigés par des personnes âgées, femmes ou handicapées ; 
8. Ménages pauvres ayant beaucoup de membres ; 
9. Ménages pauvres ayant trop de personnes inactives (enfants de moins de 5 ans 
surtout) ; 
10. Ménages ayant perdus leur capital suite à un retour forcé suite aux crises 
ressentes en RCI, Lybie, Nigéria. 
1. Sur quelle base les différents bénéficiaires du projet ont été sélectionnés ?   
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Est‐ce que les personnes choisies sont les personnes plus nécessiteuses ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
3. Si non avez‐vous de meilleurs critères de sélection à proposer ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Comment est-ce qu’on a pris les décisions en ce qui concerne le ciblage (des sous￾groupes de la population ; les endroits où la réponse est effectuée) ? 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
50
4. Pensez que les critères de sélection aient été respectés au moment du choix des
beneficiares ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
De quelle manière les besoins des parties prenantes au projet ont changés ? Dans quelle 
mesure le programme s’adapte à leurs besoins de changement ? 
Groupes Moyens Besoins Comment est ce que la
réponse de CRS coïncide
avec les besoins des
populations affectées ?
Comment est-ce 
que ces besoins 
évoluent depuis le 
démarrage du 
projet ? 
Hommes    
Femmes          
enfants        
personnes âgées
et handicapes
      
1. Lister tous les défis dans le travail avec les personnes vulnérables. Quelles leçons 
avez-vous apprises de ces défis ? Quelles sont les bonnes pratiques que vous voudrez 
suggérer aux autres ?
Défis Leçons Apprises Bonne Pratiques
 
 
 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
51
 
Remerciez les participants pour leur participation!
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
52
GUIDE CONDUITE
FOCUS GROUPE AUPRES DES BENEFICIAIRES DU PROJET
Présenter l’équipe,  l’objectif de la rencontre et les rôles de chaque membre de  l’équipe.  Nous
avons 2 heures pour faire cette discussion. Chaque personne est libre de donner son avis sur les
questions posées. C’est très important de savoir vos impressions sur le travaille de SOS et CRS
parce que les informations que nous allons recevoir de vous vont  nous aider à améliorer notre
projet pour les parties prenantes qui aussi expérimentent l’urgence. Est‐ce que nous pouvons
commencer maintenant la discussion?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
53
Identification de la localité
Région :   |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Département : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Commune : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Village : |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
Composition du groupe de discussion
SEXE Hommes FEMME Total
JEUNES <18   
Adultes ≥ 18 ans   
TOTAL   
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
54
Pertinence/appropriation		
12. Quels étaient les besoins les plus prioritaires de vos foyers avant le début du projet?
o ________________________________________________________________________
o ________________________________________________________________________
o ________________________________________________________________________
o ________________________________________________________________________
o ________________________________________________________________________
o ________________________________________________________________________
13. Avant la mise en œuvre du programme EARLI, comment avez‐vous satisfait ces besoins?
o Travail journalier
o Transfer de fonds de provence des parents de l’exterieur
o Autres programmes d'aide humanitaire?
o Ventes des biens?
o Acheter à crédit?
o Recevoir une aide des autres dans la communauté?
o Autres? (préciser) : _____________________________________________________
14. Maintenant, avec le programme EARLI, arrivez‐vous à subvenir à ces besoins plus
prioritaires? (après paiement seulement)
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
15. Avez‐vous participé aux séances de sensibilisation le jour de paiement?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
16. Si Oui quels sont les messages dont vous vous souvenez?
o Lavage des mains
o Allaitement maternel exclusif
o Aliment de complément
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
55
o Vaccination
o Consultation pré et post natale
o Hygiène alimentaire
o Autres (préciser) : ______________________________________________________
17. Avez‐vous participé aux séances de formation sur les techniques de confection des
demi‐lunes?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
18. Si Oui qu’est‐ce que vous a appris ?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
19. Avez‐vous pu appliquer ces pratiques ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
20. Si oui où est ce  les avez‐vous mis en pratique ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
21. Si non pourquoi vous ne les avez pas mises en pratique ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
56
22. Est ce que l’activité de creusage de demi‐lunes est acceptée par vos réalités
socioculturelles (tradition, religion, organisation coutumière)?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
23. Pensez‐vous que les femmes et les hommes ont tous les mêmes droits et capacités
d’accéder aux activités créatrices de revenues menées dans ce projet ?  
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
24. Sinon dites nous les raisons.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
25. Avez‐vous eu suffisamment d’informations sur le projet et les agences qui le conduisent  
(CRS et SOS)?  
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
26. Si oui par qui et avec quel moyen ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
27. Quelles sont les structures communautaires impliquées dans la mise en œuvre du
projet
Structure Rôle Nb réunions 
 
 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
57
 
 
28. Existe‐t‐il une structure chargée de recevoir et traiter les plaintes relatives à la mise en
œuvre de ce projet ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
29. En marge de la mise en œuvre de ce projet, quelles sont les initiatives d’entraide
entreprises pour faire face à cette crise alimentaire dans votre communauté
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
30. Parmi les agents de terrain intervenants dans ce projet, pensez qu’il y ait des étrangers
qui font du travail que des ressortissants de votre communauté pourraient aussi bien
faire ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
31. Est‐ce que tous les bénéficiaires du projet jouissent d’un accès sûr et sans restriction aux
biens, services et systèmes du marché pendant toute la durée du programme
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
32. Que pensez‐vous du comportement des agents de SOS/CRS travaillant avec vous sur ce
projet?  Quels sont leurs forces ?  Faiblesses ?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
58
Durabilité et relations
De quelle manière les besoins des parties prenantes au projet ont changés ? Dans 
quelle mesure le programme s’adapte à leurs besoins de changement ? 
Groupes Moyens Besoins Comment est ce que la
réponse de CRS coïncide
avec les besoins des
populations affectées ?
Comment est-ce 
que ces besoins 
évoluent depuis le 
démarrage du 
projet ? 
Hommes    
Femmes          
enfants        
personnes âgées
et handicapes
      
33. Les paiements par quinzaine vous convient‐il ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
34. Justifier ?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
59
Couverture (qui et combien de personnes peut‐on atteindre?)
En général, les ONG utilisent les critères suivants pour classer les ménages: 
11. Ménages ne disposant pas de moyens de subsistance (animaux, biens 
divers, manque de transferts de revenus auprès d’autres parents) ; 
12. Ménages pauvres dirigés par des personnes âgées, femmes ou 
handicapées ; 
13. Ménages pauvres ayant beaucoup de membres ; 
14. Ménages pauvres ayant trop de personnes inactives (enfants de moins de 5 
ans surtout) ; 
15. Ménages ayant perdus leur capital suite à un retour forcé suite aux crises 
ressentes en RCI, Lybie, Nigéria. 
35. Sur quelle base les différents bénéficiaires du projet ont été sélectionnés ?   
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
36. Est‐ce que les personnes choisies sont les personnes plus nécessiteuses ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
37. Si non avez‐vous de meilleurs critères de sélection à proposer ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
38. Pensez que les critères de sélection aient été respectés au moment du choix des
beneficiare ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
Comment est-ce qu’on a pris les décisions en ce qui concerne le ciblage (des sous￾groupes de la population ; les endroits où la réponse est effectuée) ? 
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
60
39. Avez‐vous des suggestions pour améliorer la mise en œuvre du projet ?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
40. Y a‐t‐il de choses que vous remarquez dans la mise en œuvre du projet qui sont
particulièrement utiles, que le projet doit continuer à faire dans les autres interventions
CRS au Niger comme celui‐ci ? Si oui, expliquez
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Remerciez les participants pour leur participation!
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
61
GUIDE CONDUITE
FOCUS GROUPE AUPRES DES NON- PARTICIPANTS 
DU PROJET
Présenter l’équipe,  l’objectif de la rencontre et les rôles de chaque membre de  l’équipe.  Nous
avons 1 heures pour faire cette discussion. Chaque personne est libre de donner son avis sur les
questions posées. C’est très important de savoir vos impressions sur le travaille de SOS et CRS
parce que les informations que nous allons recevoir de vous vont  nous aider à améliorer notre
projet pour les parties prenantes qui aussi expérimentent l’urgence. Est‐ce que nous pouvons
commencer maintenant la discussion?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
62
Identification de la localité
Département :  
Commune :  
Village :  
Composition du groupe de discussion
SEXE Hommes FEMME Total
JEUNES <18   
Adultes ≥ 18 ans   
TOTAL   
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
63
Pertinence/appropriation		
1. Quels étaient les besoins les plus prioritaires de vos foyers avant le début du projet?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Comment avez‐vous satisfait ces besoins depuis la crise alimentaire?
o Travail journalier
o Transfer de fonds de provence des parents de l’exterieur
o Autres programmes d'aide humanitaire?
o Ventes des biens?
o Acheter à crédit?
o Recevoir une aide des autres dans la communauté?
o Autres? (préciser) :  
3. Connaissez‐vous le projet mis en œuvre dans votre village par SOS International ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
4. Si OUI, A quoi consiste ce projet ?
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
64
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5. Avez‐vous des connaissances sur les techniques de confection des demi‐lunes ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
6. Si OUI, expliquez brièvement ces techniques ?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Par quel canal avez‐vous appris ces techniques ?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Avez‐vous déjà mis en pratique ces techniques ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
9. Si non pourquoi vous ne les avez pas mises en pratique ?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
10. Est ce que l’activité de creusage de demi‐lunes est acceptée par vos réalités
socioculturelles (tradition, religion, organisation coutumière)?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
65
11. Pensez‐vous que les femmes et les hommes ont tous les mêmes droits et capacités
d’accéder aux activités créatrices de revenues menées dans ce projet ?  
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
12. Sinon dites nous les raisons.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
13. Quelles sont les structures communautaires impliquées dans la mise en œuvre du
projet ?
Structure   Rôle Nb réunions
    
14. Existe‐t‐il une structure chargée de recevoir et traiter les plaintes relatives à la mise en
œuvre de ce projet ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
15. En marge de la mise en œuvre de ce projet, quelles sont les initiatives d’entraide
entreprises pour faire face à cette crise alimentaire dans votre communauté ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
66
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
16. Parmi les agents de terrain intervenant dans ce projet, pensez qu’il y ait des
fonctionnaires qui font du travail que des ressortissants de votre communauté
pourraient aussi bien faire ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
17. Que pensez‐vous du comportement des agents de SOS/CRS travaillant avec vous sur ce
projet?  Quels sont leurs forces ?  Faiblesses ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Couverture (qui et combien de personnes peut‐on atteindre?)
En général, les ONG utilisent les critères suivants pour classer les ménages:
16. Ménages ne disposant pas de moyens de subsistance (animaux, biens divers, manque de
transferts de revenus auprès d’autres parents) ;
17. Ménages pauvres dirigés par des personnes âgées, femmes ou handicapées ;
18. Ménages pauvres ayant beaucoup de membres ;
19. Ménages pauvres ayant trop de personnes inactives (enfants de moins de 5 ans surtout) ;
20. Ménages ayant perdus leur capital suite à un retour forcé suite aux crises ressentes en RCI,
Lybie, Nigéria.  
5. Sur quelle base les différents bénéficiaires du projet ont été sélectionnés ?   
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
6. Est‐ce que les personnes choisies sont les personnes plus nécessiteuses ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
Comment est‐ce qu’on a pris les décisions en ce qui concerne le ciblage (des sous‐groupes de la
population ; les endroits où la réponse est effectuée) ?   
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
67
7. Si non avez‐vous de meilleurs critères de sélection à proposer ?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
8. Pensez que les critères de sélection aient été respectés au moment du choix des
beneficiare ?
|___| (1 =oui, 2 =non)
Remerciez les participants pour leur participation
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
68
Questionnaire : services techniques
1. Est‐ce que vous êtes au courant du projet mis en œuvre par SOS/CRS ?
                    OUI                                    NON
2. Si oui, est ce que vous êtes impliqués dans la mise en œuvre ?
a.                     OUI                                    NON
3. Quel est votre rôle principal dans le cadre de ce projet ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Que pensez du partenariat avec SOS ?  
Points forts  
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Points faibles  
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Recommandations
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Synergie  
5. Est‐ce qu’il existe un cadre de concertation efficace entre les différents acteurs intervenant dans
le même domaine au niveau de votre localité ?   
                  OUI                                    NON
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
69
6. Si oui, comment marche t il ?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
7. Est‐ce que les ouvrages réalisés cadrent avec votre plan de développement en matière de
gestion des Ressources Naturelles ?
                  OUI                                    NON
Expliquez : _____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
8. Expliquez nous brièvement les différentes formations faites pour les comités de gestion ?   
Formation Durée   Thèmes   Contenus importants
     
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
70
Entretien avec OCHA
1. Parler nous de la situation que le déficit agricole 2011 a entraine dans la région de Tillabéry
2. Quelles sont les zones plus affectes ?
3. Quel son les besoins plus prioritaires ?
4. Pouvez‐vous nous faire un aperçu de la carte humanitaire des interventions des ONGs dans la
région ?  Qui faire quoi Ou ? (3W)   
5. Que pensez‐vous de la coordination des interventions dans la région ?
6. Il y a une synergie d’action ?  C'est‐à‐dire que les duplications et ou les omissions sont évitées ?
7. Que pensez vous de la réponse  CRS/SOS ?  Est‐ce que l’intervention répondre à la zone qu’il
faut répondre la zone qu’il fait  et au type d’appui qu’il faut ?
8. Autres informations d’ordre général ?
9. Sécurité dans le région‐  
Recommandations :
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
71
Evaluation du projet EARLI 
GUIDE POUR OBSERVATION DIRECTE DU PAIEMENT DES BENEFICIAIRES
1. Le Lieu du payement est il adapté:         |___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire :_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. La séance est –elle bien organisée (aiguillage, respect de l’ordre d’arrivé) :|___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire :_________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. Quel était le temps moyen d’attente des bénéficiaires :       |___|___| : |___|___|
Commentaire :________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Présence de service de sécurité sur le site de paiement.     |___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire :________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. La Méthodes d’identification de la personne payée est sécurisante (pièce d’identité,
témoignage…) ?           |___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire : _______________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
72
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Autres commentaire : ____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
73
Questions aux participants : 
7. Les bénéficiaires avaient‐ils reçu l’information sur le paiement :  |___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire :________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
8. Si oui depuis combien de temps ?       |____| jours
Commentaire : _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
9. Est‐ce que le rendez‐vous a été respecté ?     |___| (1=oui, 2=non)  
Commentaire :________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Quelle appréciation faites‐vous du temps d’attente ? |__| (1=Long. 2=Moyen, 3=Court)
Commentaire : _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
11. Combien de temps mettez‐vous pour arriver au niveau du site de paiement |___| : |___|
Commentaire : _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7: Data Collection Tools
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
74
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Le montant que vous avez reçu correspond au travail que vous avez fait ? |___| (1=oui, 2=non)
Commentaire : ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Difficultés, remarques et suggestions
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Appréciation globale de l’observateur(points positifs)
Annex 8:  Photo Gallery
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
75
Woman digs a half‐moon at a land recuperation site near mid‐day.  Guinao‐Bongou, Ouallam  
Abdourhimou Adamou
Man begins digging a half‐moon at a land recuperation site.  Guinao‐Bongou, Ouallam, Abdourhimou
Adamou
Annex 8:  Photo Gallery
Real Time Evaluation: CRS Project EARLI
76
Payment Day Dai‐Kaina, Tillabery, Heather Dolphin