|ZIMBABWE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID/ZIMBABWE PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT April 2013 The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) contracted with NEDICO Zimbabwe for a final evaluation of the Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe Project (PRIZE).. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID/ZIMBABWE PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID/ZIMBABWE PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT USAID/Zimbabwe Title II Project “Promoting  Recovery  in  Zimbabwe  (PRIZE)” EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2013 New Dimension Consulting (Zimbabwe) 3 Anzac Drive, Meyrick Park, Harare, Zimbabwe. P.O.BoxA2020, Harare, Telephone Number: +263 4 311 181/+263 4 311 182 and 2931464. Fax: +263 4 311 181Office Mobile: +263 772 802 787 Mobile: +263 774 061 851 and +263 712 800 641Email:victoria@nedico.co.zw, nedico@nedico.co.zw; Website:www.nedico.co.zw Evaluation team: Victoria James (Team Leader), Amos Milanzi (Evaluation Design Specialist), Muchanyara Jarawaza (Food Security, Livelihoods, and Environmental Management Specialist), Simon Madyiwa (Irrigation and Water Infrastructure Specialist), Killian Mutiro (Market Linkages and Agribusiness Specialist), and Alice Willard (Evaluation Technical Advisor) DISCLAIMER The  authors’  views  expressed  in  this  publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report i | Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - The Evaluation Team would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by the PRIZE team (especially Timothy Bishop, Sasha Angelevski, and Angela Tavares) in mobilizing national, provincial, district and ward stakeholders as well as community members, for the different data collection efforts. The PRIZE team, at headquarters and in the field, provided sound advice that made it possible for the evaluation team to accomplish data collection objectives on time without sacrificing the necessary evaluative objectivity. The USAID/Zimbabwe FFP team (Carol Jenkins, Laureen Reagan, Fanuel Cumanzala, Thabisani Moyo, and Justin Mupeyiwa) facilitated interviews with key stakeholders in the donor community, as well as supporting efforts to complete the evaluation on time. The evaluation team believes the collaborative effort contributed towards a quality evaluation report. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report ii | Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - ........................................................................................................................................ I TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................II LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... VII 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 BACKGROUND TO PRIZE PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 6 1.4.1 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4.2 Evaluation Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 7 2. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 EVALUATION QUESTION NO. 1: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE PROJECT ACHIEVE THE INTENDED GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND RESULTS AS DEFINED BY THE PRIZE RESULTS FRAMEWORK? ........................................................................... 8 2.1.2 TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE PROJECT INCREASE INCOME FOR TARGETED 5,800 VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS? 16 2.1.2 HOW HAVE THE TARGETED 14,000 VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS ENGAGED IN MECHANISMS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF ECONOMIC SHOCK? ........................................................................................................................20 2.3 EVALUATION QUESTION NO. 2: TO WHAT EXTENT DID PROGRAM ACTIVITIES REACH VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLD WITH APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY?...................................................23 2.4 EVALUATION QUESTION NO. 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO BE SUSTAINABLE?26 3. CROSSCUTTING ISSUES ................................................................................................................................30 3.1 GENDER .....................................................................................................................................................30 3.2 ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................................................30 3.3 HIV/AIDS ..................................................................................................................................................31 4. RESILIENCE......................................................................................................................................................32 5. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ......................................................34 6. LESSONS LEARNED........................................................................................................................................35 7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................37 8. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................39 ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................................................40 ANNEX 1. MISSION EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................40 ANNEX 2: MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES .......................................................................................46 ANNEX 3. EVALUATION DESIGN .....................................................................................................................53 ANNEX 4. PRIZE RESULTS FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................................73 ANNEX 5. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED .....................................................................................................92 ANNEX 6: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ....................................................................................................99 ANNEX 7. MAP OF PROJECT INTERVENTION DISTRICTS ............................................................................100 ANNEX 8. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS (SURVEY, KII, FGD, MSC) ...............................................101 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report iii | Page LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: PRIZE Results Framework .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Percentage of households reported using two or more PRIZE-promoted technologies 11 Figure 3: Comparison of numbers of household meals per day ................................................... 13 Figure 4: Utilization of crop and livestock related assets ............................................................. 15 Figure 5: Average monthly income in PRIZE supported districts versus provincial and national figures ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 6: Sources of household income ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 7: Average monthly household income and contribution of vegetable production/sales by district ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 8: Savings held by individual VS&L member by implementing partners (years 1 and 2) 21 Figure 9: Percentage of population purchasing cereal in four most affected PRIZE districts ...... 22 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report iv | Page LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Evaluation respondent profile ........................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Usual number of meals for the household per day during the past seven days by district ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3: PRIZE project increased food production indicators ...................................................... 14 Table 4: Income for marketing groups by partner and type of group ........................................... 17 Table 5: Highest and lowest utilized interventions (by percentage) ............................................. 28 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report v | Page LIST OF ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AEO Agricultural Extension Officer AGRITEX Agricultural Technical and Extension services ARDA Agricultural and Rural Development Authority AREX Agricultural Research and Extension Services CA Conservation Agriculture CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CEO Chief Executive Officer CF Conservation Farming CFA Cash For Assets CFSAM Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission CMLU Commodity Management and Logistics Unit CoP Chief of Party CRS Catholic Relief Services C-SAFE Consortium for the Southern Africa Food Emergency CTDO Community Technology Development Organization DA District Administrator DAEO District Agriculture Extension Officer DDF District Development Fund DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DSSO District Social Services Officer DVS Department of Veterinary Services EMA Environmental Management Authority FaaB Farming as a Business FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FEWS NET Famine Early Warning System FFA Food for Assets FFP Food for Peace FFS Farmer Field School FGD Focus Group Discussion GDP Gross Domestic Product GNU Government of National Unity GOZ Government of Zimbabwe HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score HH Household(s) HHSS Household Hunger Scale Score IEE Initial Environmental Examination IGA Income-Generating Activity IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table ISAL Internal Savings and Lending ITT Indicator Tracking Table LPD Livestock Production Department MAHFP Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report vi | Page MDGs Millennium Development Goals MWAGD Ministry of Women Affairs, Gender and Community Development ODA Official Development Assistance ORAP Organization of Rural Associations for Progress PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan PRIZE Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe RDC Rural District Council SIG Small Investment Grant UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VGF Vulnerable Group Feeding VS&L Village Savings and Lending WAEO Ward Agriculture Extension Officer ZimVac Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report vii | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation Purpose The final performance evaluation assessed progress made towards reducing food insecurity for vulnerable households in Beitbridge, Bulilima, Gwanda, Mangwe, Matobo, Mberengwa, Mudzi, and Rushinga, the eight districts targeted by the Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) Project. PRIZE began as a two year emergency food assistance project, extended in the middle of its second year for a third year. The nature of emergency assistance in the longer timeframe was important in framing the evaluation questions and the overall context of food security. The evaluation used the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) guidance (1999) that defines  food  security  as  “When all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life”. The evaluation  assessed  the  project’s  achievements  in  meeting  its  goals,  objectives,  and  expected   results through a series of key evaluation questions, as follows: 1. To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? 2. To what extent did PRIZE activities reach vulnerable households with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? a. How was the beneficiary targeting process transparent and effective in reaching vulnerable households? b. Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most/least to improved household food security? c. How did the timing of each intervention influence its contribution to improved food security? 3. To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? a. Why are some PRIZE interventions utilized by beneficiaries and communities more than others? b. Which PRIZE interventions are communities replicating with their own resources? c. What mechanisms are in place to ensure the continued functionality of the various assets created? In addition to answering the evaluation questions, the evaluation addressed the following themes:  Resilience  Lessons Learned  Cross-cutting Issues PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report viii | Page Methods The Evaluation used a mixed methods design utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data with a focus on achievements to date. PRIZE conducted a baseline, but there were challenges with results for key indicators in particular the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) and the Household Hunger Scale (HHS). As a result, the evaluation did not make reference to them, nor to any other information from the  project’s baseline. However, the evaluation utilized data from the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac, 2010 and 2012) for historical comparison. The Evaluation team collected data in all eight PRIZE Project implementation districts1 . These data collection efforts included: 480 household questionnaires, 64 focus group discussions (FGDs), 225 key informant interviews (KII; at national, provincial, district, and community levels), 11 most significant change stories (MSC), and 24 site visits. Key Findings Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in 8 districts of Zimbabwe by 20122 . Evaluation Question No. 1: To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? Strategic Objective 1: Emergency food needs of 151,280 individuals are addressed. PRIZE provided emergency food assistance to transitorily food insecure individuals in the eight project districts. The project was also responsive to emerging local needs, especially as initial estimates of individuals requiring emergency food assistance derived from the ZimVac (2010) had underestimated actual need. PRIZE consultations with the UN World Food Programme (WFP), Rural District Councils (RDCs), and other community stakeholders concurred that ZimVac estimates had been conservative and the number of individuals in need of emergency food was higher. The actual number of transitorily food insecure individuals was 202,483 as opposed to 151,280 as initially estimated. PRIZE used 3,600 MT of food approved as contingency resources and reached 202,239 individuals with emergency food assistance. This represents 99.9 percent of individuals who required emergency food. 1 Beitbridge, Bulilima, Gwanda, Mangwe, Matobo, Mberengwa, Mudzi, and Rushinga 2 Annex 4 provides the PRIZE Results framework PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report ix | Page Strategic Objective 2: 112,097 vulnerable households have re-established food security. IR 2.1:112,097 vulnerable households have increased food production. Evaluation findings demonstrated that, despite challenges like the most recent drought, PRIZE contributed towards increased food production. Farmers and PRIZE project staff concurred that there was potential for further improvements in food production when all productive assets are completed3 . Productive assets were created/rehabilitated, beneficiaries were beginning to utilize assets, and beneficiaries were adopting PRIZE-promoted sustainable agriculture technologies. The project repaired and created new productive water, agriculture, and livestock assets to facilitate improved production capacity among community farmers. PRIZE created/rehabilitated 1,303 productive assets, or 100 percent of the targeted 1,303 assets (PRIZE Quarterly Program Performance Report, October-December 2012 & Indicator Tracking Table, 2013). Beneficiaries were utilizing productive assets and 128 percent of the targeted 112,097 households had access to created/rehabilitated productive assets by the end of March 2013 (PRIZE Data, 2013). Nearly 69 percent of beneficiaries reported using at least one PRIZE￾promoted agriculture technology, indicating strong potential for increased food production among beneficiary households. The utilization of created/rehabilitated assets was important because it facilitated agriculture production outside the traditional rainy season. Water-related assets provided improved access to water for irrigation, while rehabilitation and expansion of irrigation schemes allowed more farmers to produce food throughout the year as opposed to the traditional rain-fed season. However, there was a negative trend in the utilization of livestock-related assets throughout year two as a result of a severe drought and an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. On average, PRIZE beneficiaries had more access to food compared to national households. Overall, 95 percent of PRIZE beneficiaries reported eating at least two meals per day compared to 87 percent who reported eating the same number of meals per day nationally (ZimVac, 2012). Food consumption levels above national averages demonstrated PRIZE contributions towards increasing access to food. This was corroborated in survey findings where 90.8 percent of beneficiaries highlighted that PRIZE increased their access to food. The project increased food production potential for targeted individuals and was on course to achieve project targets for key indicators on increasing food production by June 2013 (PRIZE IPTT, 2012) 4 . 3 PRIZE had almost six months of operation remaining when the evaluation team conducted the data collection. Percentages achieved thus did not reflect the final totals for the project. 4 Note that PRIZE ended in June 2013. While the project was winding down during the evaluation (data collection occurred in February 2013), the communities had not yet harvested their crops. However, the potential harvests looked good in most gardens. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report x | Page IR 2.2: 5,800 vulnerable households have increased income. Evaluation results indicated that, despite implementation challenges, PRIZE interventions had a positive impact on incomes among targeted households. The project trained farmers on Farming as a Business (FaaB) and linked trained farmers to markets. Training farmers initiated the transformation  of  farmers’  focus  from  subsistence  to  commercial  agriculture,  which  has  the potential to increase their income. PRIZE increased combined income from marketing groups specializing in cereals and dry grains, horticulture, and livestock. Prior to the project, the marketing groups had a combined income of US$383,104 and, at the time of evaluation, their combined income had increased to US$1,183,157 (308 percent increase). Farmers reported that they now determined agricultural production by market trends and, in some instances; they were only producing a crop if they had marketing agreements with potential buyers. Market-driven agriculture  production  increased  farmers’  income  as  it  reportedly  reduced  post-harvest losses associated with the previous approach where farmers looked for markets during harvest time. PRIZE also linked farmers to private companies that provided trainings and inputs, as well as to other companies that bought agriculture produce. Companies that provided training helped ensure farmers had high quality output with higher market value, which contributed to increased income. Private sector companies buying from farmers helped ensure that farmers had a guaranteed market, which also reduced post-harvest losses. PRIZE beneficiaries had an average income of US$82.50 based on the evaluation. The average monthly household income in PRIZE beneficiary households was 21 percent (US$14) higher than the average monthly income for the eight PRIZE districts where average monthly income stood at US$68 (ZimVac, 2012). IR 2.3: 14,400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. Evaluation findings indicated that beneficiaries were adopting mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of shocks. The project increased the average amount of money saved per individual in a Village Savings and Loan (VS&L) group from year one to year two by 181.7 percent. Year one analysis of total savings and total number of group members showed each VS&L group member had saved an average of US$18.33. Similar analysis for year two showed that each VS&L member had average savings of US$51.65, showing an increase of 181 percent over one year. Participation  in  a  VS&L  effectively  trebled  a  household’s  ability  to  save. Just over half (42 out of 80) community key informants in Beitbridge, Bulilima, Mberengwa, and Rushinga districts noted the use of VS&L as being critical in promoting community savings. PRIZE reports highlighted that VS&L groups sometimes cashed out during the hunger season to give vulnerable households an extra injection of cash to buy food (PRIZE ARR, 2012). The evaluation survey supported this finding, as 83 of 152 VS&L beneficiaries reported borrowing to cover expenses such as school fees or food purchases. Village savings and lending groups linked to productive assets, such as irrigation schemes or gardens, had higher capital thresholds compared to groups not linked to any PRIZE productive assets. PRIZE further trained beneficiaries in selecting, planning, and managing (SPM) income- PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report xi | Page generating activities. Qualitative analysis showed that SPM training recipients felt that they were now better equipped to engage in income generating activities. Evaluation Question No. 2: To what extent did program activities reach vulnerable households with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? The PRIZE project had well-documented targeting criteria that included a community mobilization framework, Food for Assets (FFA) worker selection criteria, lead farmer selection criteria, and a Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) registration manual. Almost all (95.2 percent) households were satisfied with the PRIZE targeting criteria. Qualitative findings also supported the above conclusion as 16 of 29 general focus group discussions characterized the targeting process as fair, especially the use of the vulnerability ranking. All 480 sampled households indicated that project interventions were well timed. PRIZE interventions were appropriate, with over half (27 out of 52) of District Key Informants characterizing interventions as such. Similarly, 63 percent of community key informants indicated that interventions were appropriate. A total of 20 (out of 29) general focus group discussions further characterised PRIZE interventions as appropriate. Evaluation Question No. 3: To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? The evaluation is cognizant of the fact that sustainability is not a fixed point, but replication and continued use of assets are strong indications that communities valued specific PRIZE interventions. PRIZE was an emergency project and achieving sustainability was not one of its objectives. However, the project did not operate in a vacuum, or with inexperienced partners, or without some idea of the next steps. Ascertaining what PRIZE has accomplished, and what elements of that emergency programming remained, could provide the next project with a clear starting point. Training farmers in FaaB strengthened the continuum from production to marketing. Marketing groups gave farmers collective strength in negotiating prices and creating stronger, sustainable partnerships with private sector companies. Communities have also started replicating some PRIZE interventions, indicating a demand that supports long-term sustainability. PRIZE ensured that the Rural District Councils had a bigger role in the administration of livestock sale pens. Each RDC charged 7.5 percent of the sale price for each herd of cattle sold during the auctions. Supporting revenue collection promoted sustainability as RDCs expressed confidence in facilitating auctions without PRIZE support. The PRIZE project had a training of trainer approach utilizing the lead farmer approach for crop production and community based para-veterinary workers for livestock production. This approach increased community-based access to knowledge for farmers in contexts where Government-supported extension services lacked resources for better coverage. Transferring capacities to the local structures is critical for sustainability, as farmers can continue accessing technical support beyond PRIZE. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report xii | Page CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES Gender The PRIZE project promoted gender mainstreaming across all activities. Certain activities had much higher participation from women, in particular VS&L, where 85 percent of VS&L beneficiaries were female. PRIZE ensured there was 50-50 representation of women and men in committees for activities such as DRR, AMC, and Marketing Groups. Women constituted 57 percent of livestock lead farmers and 56 percent of farmers trained in improved livestock practices. Environment Environmental Management is a priority for the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) and PRIZE acknowledged this. The project invested in an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) as per GoZ regulations. In addition, PRIZE worked closely worked with the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) at district level. PRIZE also demonstrated its willingness to mainstream environmental management through the development of an Environmental Management and Mitigation Plan (EMMP). Although an EMMP can only be effective when properly implemented and there is limited evidence of environmental monitoring, PRIZE provided a foundation for stronger environmental mainstreaming in future programs. HIV/AIDS The PRIZE project also focused on mainstreaming HIV and AIDS. The PRIZE proposal cites HIV along with gender and environmental management as three cross-cutting themes which were meant to reinforce the  strategic  objectives.  In  relation  to  HIV,  the  objective  was  to  “address the complex relationship between HIV and poverty by mainstreaming HIV in emergency relief and development programming”  CRS  Zimbabwe SYAP Proposal, 2010). Although PRIZE did not explicitly have HIV in selection criteria, there was mention of chronic illness, a viable proxy for HIV. However, the project did not have clear strategies to mainstream HIV. RESILIENCE While resilience is a long-term process, and one for which the PRIZE project cannot fully be held accountable, evidence from the evaluation demonstrated positive movement along that process continuum. PRIZE enhanced beneficiary community capacities to adapt to drought, floods, and economic shocks through promotion of diversified livelihood sources. Almost two thirds (64%) of beneficiary households reported an improved capacity to withstand shocks. Beneficiaries embraced the importance of saving, and VS&L expanded their saving options beyond crops and livestock, which are highly vulnerable to drought and disease (both of which occurred during PRIZE implementation period). Qualitative evidence showed that communities used savings from VS&L to purchase food during peak hunger months demonstrating improved capacity to withstand shocks. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report xiii | Page The capacity to buy food was critical, especially as the evaluation found that, due to drought, the cereal harvest from the previous season only lasted an average of four months. Beyond introducing a savings methodology through VS&L, PRIZE initiated attitude transformations from subsistence to commercial farming that would strengthen income sources necessary for larger savings. PRIZE empowered women and emphasized gender equity. The project was cognizant of women’s heightened vulnerability, hence VS&L focused on involving more women and allowing them control over resources used to cover household needs in the event of shocks. Qualitative evidence showed female-headed households built houses and acquired additional livestock with their increased savings. Irrigation and nutrition gardens expanded production options beyond rain-fed agriculture, which is highly vulnerable to drought. Communities were now better able to adapt to and recover from shocks. Beneficiaries reported using money from VS&L to buy stock feeds for their livestock or to purchase seed during the farming season. This demonstrated their improved capacity to mitigate shocks as households previously lost their livestock in the dry seasons due to their limited capacity to buy feed and general unwillingness to sell part of their livestock. PRIZE facilitated improved awareness of and community preparedness to deal with disasters. PRIZE trained 236 stakeholders and 1,931Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) focal persons. Though the operational period for this activity was short, there have been training outcomes with 285 DRR action plans in place at the time of evaluation. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report xiv | Page Recommendations Category/Evaluation Question Recommendations Overall Build future support on the foundations developed by PRIZE in terms of infrastructure, trainings, and stakeholder relations. Future (both emergency and longer-term development) programs need a strong M&E system with baseline values and targets for all indicators from the start of the project. Programs should consider seconding staff to key government ministries they will be working with. PRIZE highlighted that staff attrition affected their coordination with government and if possible, seconding would strengthen coordination and facilitate government commitment when required. Evaluation Question No. 1: To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? Invest in a follow-up project focusing on promoting utilization of created assets. If the follow-up is a development program, focus on social and behavior change communication especially to address low utilization of new technologies. To what extent did the project increase income for targeted 5,800 vulnerable households? Prioritize market development to create demand for potentially higher output as farmers begin to utilize productive assets. Market development should include a component focusing on improving production capacity especially for livestock. How have the targeted 14,000 vulnerable households engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shock? Link VS&L groups with the formal banking sector. This can include facilitating acceptance of group records as a potential credit history to ease challenges around access to financing. Evaluation Question No. 3: To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? Explore possibilities of providing evidence-based capacity building of asset management committees to ensure they adequately cope with their expanded role in operation and maintenance of created/rehabilitated assets. Resilience Explore possibilities of supporting implementation of existing community Disaster Risk Reduction plans created through PRIZE facilitation. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 1 1. INTRODUCTION This final performance evaluation assessed progress made by the Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) project towards reducing the food insecurity situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts5 targeted by the project. A map of target districts is in Annex 7, showing the geographic dispersal of the eight districts. The PRIZE project began in 2010 and was initially scheduled to end in 2012. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Office of Food for Peace (FFP) provided a one-year cost extension until June 2013. This performance evaluation focused on  the  project’s  achievements  in  meeting  its  goals,   objectives, and expected results. In addition, the evaluation provided plausible links between project inputs and outcomes while documenting lessons learned for use in designing and implementing similar activities, such as USAID/Zimbabwe’s  Development  Food  Assistance   Program (DFAP) starting in FY2013, or other, similar, food assistance/food security projects in the region. Findings from the performance evaluation should inform longer-term development projects in terms of design, management modalities, implementation methodologies, along with monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The lessons learned have thus focused on the types of interventions that worked well/did not work well, as well as the specific contextual factors that enabled/constrained achievements of results. The evaluation further focused on the sustainability of different interventions. Sustainability analysis outlined interventions most/least utilized by communities and reasons provided for high or low utilization. Similarly, the performance evaluation analyzed the extent to which the PRIZE project promoted resilience as defined by USAID Resilience policy guidance (2012)6 . The analysis is cognizant of the fact that the resilience policy guidance was more recent than the inception of PRIZE, but did so within the PRIZE design framework of relief-recovery-resilience, and in keeping with established resilience parameters in the wider relief and development community. The primary policy guiding the performance evaluation was the USAID evaluation policy (2011), especially the need for quality, external evaluations. The PRIZE project was also due for a final performance evaluation and fit both the policy guidance on which projects to evaluate, as well as Mission interest in determining next steps for its food security portfolio. USAID Forward provided secondary guidance, both on evaluations and on building local capacities with respect to procurement and overall substantive technical sustainability. The primary audience for the performance evaluation was the USAID/Zimbabwe FFP Office and the USAID FFP Office in Washington. The dissemination plan thus included USAID/Zimbabwe sharing evaluation findings publicly with the implementing organization and its sub-partners, government ministries, and other donors. The final evaluation report should be a public document, shared with relevant stakeholders and available on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse website (https://dec.usaid.gov). 5 The districts are Beitbridge, Bulilima, Gwanda, Mangwe, Matobo, Mberengwa, Mudzi, and Rushinga 6 The  policy  guidance  defines  resilience  as  “the  ability  of  people,  households,  communities,  countries  and  systems   to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitate inclusive growth” (USAID Resilience Policy Guidance, 2012). PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 2 1.2 BACKGROUND TO PRIZE PROJECT Implementation for the PRIZE project began in 2010, more than a  year  into  Zimbabwe’s   Government of National Unity (GNU), established in February 2009. The GNU came after years of negative economic growth characterized by hyperinflation and a cumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) decline of 50.3 percent by 2008. The situation led to a decline in key social indicators with the rate of chronic malnutrition in children under five years old reaching 33 percent in 2009 (Food and Agriculture Organization-FAO, 2010). Politically motivated violence in 2008 and a near collapse of the agricultural sector characterized the politico-economic sphere prior to the start of PRIZE. The context prior to the GNU and reforms promised by the GNU contributed to the design of the PRIZE project in terms of redressing food insecurity and providing a platform for onwards economic growth. Although the GNU provided opportunities for recovery, the Zimbabwean economy remained fragile. Reasons for this included policy discord, deteriorated social and economic infrastructure, and low Official Development Assistance (United Nations Development Programme-UNDP, 2011). The macro-economic challenges affected agriculture production, as communities could not afford inputs and households that had access to inputs still recorded low yields (ZimVac, 2012), further exacerbated by prolonged droughts. Based on the broader context outlined above, PRIZE identified several key issues related to availability and access to food as outlined below (based on CRS Single-Year Assistance Programs Proposal, 2010). Availability The project identified the lack of productive assets and inputs, as well as the lack of infrastructure, as key constraints for agricultural production. As of 2010, at least 30 percent of rural water facilities were no longer functioning, due to degradation of the water supply infrastructure and an increase in the number of boreholes that had dried up due to persistent drought. The lack of technical capacity was a challenge due to limited effectiveness of extension services provided by Agricultural Extension Services (AGRITEX). Emigration of skilled staff and inadequate funding resulted in few extension officers covering large geographic areas. Access The lack of income to purchase food was a challenge especially with an estimated unemployment rate of over 80 percent. Even where food was available in markets, people with low incomes ate fewer meals, smaller quantities and poorer quality, which negatively affected their nutritional status. Limited marketing opportunities and value addition were some of the challenges at the time, especially as agricultural production of staples and cash crops had plunged, leaving little motivation for the private sector to invest in marketing, milling, processing, storage, and other value-added industries. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 3 Strategies PRIZE followed a relief to resiliency model as outlined in the project proposal. The model had two strategic objectives focusing on the satisfaction of immediate food needs, and the re￾establishment of food security. These would contribute to the ultimate goal of reducing food insecurity in eight districts in of Zimbabwe by 2012. The visual below showed the PRIZE relief to resiliency model. Source: CRS Zimbabwe Single Year Assistance Program (SYAP) Proposal. Revised June 2010 Within the model above, the figure represented the contextual transformation that occurred as individuals and households moved from food insecurity, re-established livelihoods and food security, and finally became resilient in the face of future shocks. Contextualizing the PRIZE design The PRIZE project was an emergency project, designed to reduce food insecurity. By contrast, longer-term development projects usually aim to improve food security. That fundamental directionality of minimizing a negative, as opposed to increasing a positive, should guide the reader through this final performance evaluation of PRIZE. Emergency programming tends to focus on the short-term:  providing immediate food assistance to families,  providing a safety net for households and communities,  beginning a recovery process, and  responding to sudden onset (usually environmental) disasters. Because of their short duration, emergency programs have different reporting responsibilities and requirements than longer-term programs: the M&E for emergency programs typically does not include behavior change, sustainability, or outcome measurements, for example. Longer-term programs emphasize not only recovery, but also growth: agricultural and human development, economic expansion, and market development. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 4 The first year of PRIZE responded directly to short-term food needs.    PRIZE’s  approach  to   safety nets, however, deliberately laid the groundwork for longer-term assistance by broadly focusing on small-scale community-based assets, savings and loans, and horticulture and livestock initiatives. Year one programming was purely emergency assistance, and year two implemented as a safety net through the provision of food for assets, initial training in and demonstration of resources to help the communities recover. In the middle of year two, USAID extended and expanded PRIZE through a third year, designed to reinforce that recovery and provide a stable foundation onto which longer-term programming could be built. This was especially important to PRIZE achieving its objectives, as year two of operations were affected by a severe  drought  in  Zimbabwe,  impeding  successful  outcomes  and  increasing  farmers’   aversion to risks. The evaluation team conducted a thorough analysis of what PRIZE did and did not do, what PRIZE accomplished, and what PRIZE helped to establish. The evaluation asked questions about resilience and sustainability – not  to  judge  PRIZE’s  success  or  failure  at  objectives  for   which they were not fully responsible – but to determine what an emergency program could create in a slightly longer operating context. Figure 1: PRIZE Results Framework IR 2.1: 112,097 households have increased food production IR 2.2: 5,800 vulnerable households have increased food production IR 2.3: 14,400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. Strategic Objective 2: 112,097vulnerable households have re-established food security Strategic Objective 1: Emergency food needs of 151,280 individuals are addressed IR1.1: 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals have food during the hungry season Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in 8 districts of Zimbabwe by 2012 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 5 1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Key evaluation questions provided below guided the performance evaluation: 1. To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? 2. To what extent did PRIZE activities reach vulnerable households with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? a. How was the beneficiary targeting process transparent and effective in reaching vulnerable households? b. Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most/least to improved household food security? c. How did the timing of each intervention influence its contribution to improved food security? 3. To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? a. Why are some PRIZE interventions utilized by beneficiaries and communities more than others? b. Which PRIZE interventions are communities replicating with their own resources? c. What mechanisms are in place to ensure the continued functionality of the various assets created? In addition to answering the evaluation questions, the evaluation addressed the following themes:  Resilience  Lessons Learned  Cross-cutting Issues PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 6 1.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 1.4.1 Evaluation Methods The evaluation used a mixed methods design utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data with a focus on achievements to date. While PRIZE conducted a baseline survey in 2010, most key indicators were later considered invalid due to the recall period used for time sensitive indicators. In lieu of project baseline data the evaluation utilized, ZimVac (2010 and 2012), and, where possible, PRIZE M&E data for comparisons. The evaluation team collected data in eight PRIZE Project implementation districts7 (i.e. Rushinga, Mudzi, Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo, Gwanda, Mberengwa, and Beitbridge). At the district-level, the evaluation team randomly selected four wards out of those that benefitted from PRIZE interventions. The evaluation team used random number generation to select households from the PRIZE beneficiary database in each of these wards for the survey. The evaluation calculated the household sample size using 112,097 as the number of vulnerable households to have re-established food security under Strategic Objective 2. The sample size calculation used a confidence level of 95 percent, an acceptable margin of error of 4.5 percent, a response distribution of 50 percent. These preconditions yield a statistically representative minimum sample size of 473 households (http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html). To compensate for non-responses and incomplete responses, the evaluation team added a one and half percent contingency to the minimum sample size. This resulted in a sample size of 480 households. The evaluation administered 60 household questionnaires in each of the eight PRIZE project districts. The evaluation utilized a household questionnaire, an intervention-specific focus group discussion tool, a general focus group discussion tool, a most significant change documentation tool, and a key informant interview tool (adjusted for the particular type of key informant: thus, National, Provincial, District, Ward, Donor, Implementing Partner). The tools allowed stronger triangulation to increase the reliability of findings. Table 1 below provides an overview of data collection methods and respective figures reached by the Evaluation team. Table 1: Evaluation respondent profile Respondents Level Key Informant Interviews Focus Group Discussions Most Significant Change Stories Household Questionnaires Site Visits USAID 4 Implementing Partners 26 Donors 3 UN Agencies 2 Stakeholders National 3 Provincial 19 District 77 Community 91 64 16 480 24 Total 225 64 16 480 24 7 Annex 7 included a map of intervention districts. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 7 Minimizing Bias To minimize bias, the evaluation team randomly selected four evaluation wards per district. In addition, the evaluation team selected 25 households from the PRIZE beneficiary register using random number generation. The sampling design needed 15 households per ward, but the evaluation team selected 25 households to cater for non-availability of selected respondents. The evaluation team shared the 25 names of selected households with PRIZE implementing partners two days before visiting the respective wards for data collection. Two days’ notification allowed the PRIZE partners to mobilize households prior to the evaluation team’s  arrival. On arrival at ward level, the evaluation team randomly picked 15 households from the 25 mobilized as a secondary way to minimize bias and to ensure that the evaluation team could meet with at least 15 households per ward. 1.4.2 Evaluation Limitations Design Limitation: The initially preferred evaluation design (quasi-experimental) required comparable baseline data, which was not available for the PRIZE Project. However, where historical data was required, the evaluation team utilized national-level data from the ZimVac reports (2010 and 2012). The premise was that some longitudinal comparisons were useful, even if not directly comparable, to provide resonance for changes over time. Monitoring and Evaluation System: The PRIZE monitoring and evaluation system (M&E) had challenges and underwent various modifications including a complete overhaul during the life of the project, designed to improve beneficiary tracking and indicator data. As an emergency, the project did not track outcome and impact indicators. Data collection tools were continuously changed which affected collection of consistent data required to measure project performance. Timing of evaluation: The evaluation had a tight completion schedule, with data collection compressed into three weeks. The rainy season provided additional logistical challenges (damaged roads and flooded rivers) that the evaluation team met with the assistance of the PRIZE  implementation  team’s  logistical  support. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 8 2. FINDINGS This section presents findings by evaluation question, based on the Scope of Work (SOW) provided as Annex 1. 2.1 Evaluation Question No. 1: To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts of Zimbabwe by 2012. PRIZE strengthened the productive capacity of vulnerable individuals through technologies such as conservation agriculture, as well as through the creation and rehabilitation of productive assets. Trainings on post-harvest handling contributed towards reducing post-harvest losses, while market linkages allowed farmers to get fair value for their produce. The project provided relief and invested in increasing productive capacities, as well as handling and marketing of produce. The most recent drought, as well as the short timeframe for the project, constrained analysis on the extent to which targeted vulnerable individuals had yield increases attributable to PRIZE interventions. This was also true for issues of resilience and sustainability, and in fairness to PRIZE, were not design elements at onset. Strategic Objective 1: Emergency food needs of 151,280 individuals are addressed. IR 1.1: 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals have food during the hungry season. Successes PRIZE provided emergency food assistance to vulnerable individuals The project contributed towards reducing food insecurity for vulnerable households in the eight districts. PRIZE conducted emergency food provision only in year one. Initially, the project intended to provide food for 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals during the hunger season. However, this figure was revised to 202,483 after consultations with the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), Rural District Councils (RDCs), and other community stakeholders concluded that initial ZimVac (2010) estimates were lower than actual needs in targeted districts and wards. PRIZE managed to scale-up distribution based on community-level evidence The project reached 202,239 individuals with emergency food assistance. The number of individuals reached represents 99.9 percent of the revised number of individuals who needed emergency food assistance. To reach the increased number of vulnerable individuals requiring emergency food needs, PRIZE used over 3,600 MT approved as contingency resources at the beginning of the project. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 9 Emergency food ensured access to food during the hunger months for vulnerable households. In total, 167 of 480 (35 percent) sampled households received emergency food assistance and 100 percent indicated that PRIZE had increased food access at the household level. Nearly half (39 out of 80) of community-level key informants cited emergency food assistance as critical in providing food for transitorily hungry individuals in Beitbridge, Bulilima, Gwanda, Mangwe, Matobo, and Mberengwa districts. PRIZE risk mitigation strategies Traditionally, maize is the staple food in Zimbabwe, but the PRIZE project offered bulgur (which was less preferred) as an alternative. The use of a less preferred commodity was a targeting strategy to ensure the most vulnerable individuals received food and to accommodate the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) prohibitions on genetically modified organisms. The PRIZE proposal identified the potential risk of beneficiaries selling received food and used the provision of a less preferred commodity with low market value as a risk mitigation strategy. The strategy was successful as neither PRIZE reports nor evaluation findings pointed to the sale of received food. Challenges Underestimation of emergency food needs Initial numbers of individuals in need of emergency food assistance were lower than actual need. This is was not due to PRIZE miscalculation but a result of conservative estimates within the ZimVac (2010) which was used to approximate the number of individuals in need of emergency food. To avert the potential challenge of leaving out vulnerable individuals genuinely in need of emergency food assistance, PRIZE used contingency resources. Both USAID and PRIZE had anticipated that emergency food needs could have been greater as ZimVac (2010) and reports from the ground had conflicting information about the levels of food insecurity in the PRIZE operational areas. In effect, PRIZE fed far more people than originally planned, and yet did so within the timeframe allotted for the distribution: a challenge more than successfully met and overcome. 2.1.1 To what extent have 112,097vulnerable households re-established food security? Strategic Objective 2: 112,097 vulnerable households have re-established food security. PRIZE intended to address the immediate food needs of vulnerable households through food-for￾assets (FFA) activities that engaged vulnerable households in the construction or rehabilitation of productive assets. Access to new or rehabilitated productive assets would increase production and be the basis of reducing food insecurity for targeted vulnerable households. Productive assets, trainings, and other income-generating activities would contribute towards sustainably reducing food insecurity for households engaged in crops and livestock production as well as other income generating activities (PRIZE Annual Results Report, 2011). The sections below detailed information on the extent to which PRIZE beneficiaries re-established food security by each IR. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 10 IR 2.1: 112,097 vulnerable households have increased food production. Successes Productive assets created or rehabilitated. PRIZE created or rehabilitated 1,303 productive assets, constituting 100 percent of the targeted 1,303 assets (PRIZE Quarterly Program Performance Report, October-December 2012 & Indicator Tracking Table, 2013). In total, 143,485 vulnerable households had access to created or rehabilitated productive assets by the end of April 2013 (PRIZE Data, 2013). This represented 128 percent of the targeted 112,097 households. Creation and utilization of productive assets has the potential to increase food production as some assets provided access to water throughout the year especially in irrigation schemes. PRIZE trained farmers on technologies that promoted increased production PRIZE exceeded by 32 percent the target of 2,171 lead farmers earmarked for trainings on conservation agriculture. Trainings benefitted 2,886 lead farmers who established 1,076 groups and trained 14,970 farmers in CA practices. Conservation agriculture was the third most cited intervention with 158 out of 480 households reporting having benefitted from it. Targeted communities are using PRIZE promoted sustainable agriculture technologies8 Use of PRIZE promoted sustainable agriculture technologies was well underway with nearly 69 percent of trained respondents reporting using at least one PRIZE-promoted agriculture technology. Qualitative analysis complemented the above finding as 29 out of 80 community key informants noted CA as a critical intervention for increasing food production. In addition, 13 out of 29 general community focus group discussions also mentioned the use of conservation agriculture in their respective communities. 8 These agriculture technologies included: 1. Establishment of dip tank for small livestock; 2. Pasture protection and paddock management; 3. Sand abstraction and garden; 4. Water harvesting for irrigation; 5. Household granaries (small grains and maize); and 6. Conservation Agriculture. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 11 The figure below shows the percentages of households that reported using different combinations of PRIZE-promoted technologies. Figure 2: Percentage of households reported using two or more PRIZE-promoted technologies Conservation agriculture (CA) was the most used PRIZE-promoted sustainable agriculture technology with 56.3 percent of households reporting using it. This was consistent with community key informants where it was the most cited (29 out of 80 community key informants) PRIZE technology in use. Low and unreliable rainfall along with infertile soils were mentioned in 13 out of 29 general FGDs and by 29 out of 80 community key informants as some of the reasons why conservation agriculture was being adopted. This is consistent with other studies in Zimbabwe especially Marongwe et al., 2010 who concluded that “CA addresses a wide range of agricultural production challenges that include declining soil fertility, increasing production costs, climate induced erratic rainfall patterns and increased demand for food production against severely reduced production capacities of agricultural lands (2010:8)”. “Ngapha akulazulu njalo asilamadonki okulima kodwa uhlelo lwe ga-tshompo lwenze sathola isivuno”  These are low rainfall areas and some of us had no draft power so conservation agriculture has assisted us to improve our harvests. [Conservation Agriculture training beneficiary-Mangwe] There were gender variations in the use of CA with male-headed households (62 percent of male-headed households) more likely to adopt CA than female-headed households (48 percent of female-headed households). 31.5% are not using any 57.7% technology are using 1 technology 10% are using 2 technologies 0.8% are using 3 technologies PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 12 Given the significance of CA as a technology likely to increase food production and likely to re￾establish food security, qualitative analysis showed that the labor intensive nature of CA was the key reason behind low adoption by female-headed households. This is consistent with conclusions from FAO (2012) that perceived high labor demands in manual CA systems has slowed uptake of the practice. While the evidence above showed positive progress in adoption of CA, irrigation-related technologies were affected by unreliable water supply. Half (5 out of 10) of irrigation-specific focus group discussions cited limited access to reliable sources of water as the main reason behind the low adoption of some irrigation technologies like sand abstraction. General FGD respondents and community key informants further cited the labor intensive nature of sand abstraction as a reason behind its low adoption. PRIZE highlighted that sand abstraction irrigation was provided in areas where the water table was low and the drought meant it retreated to even lower levels, affecting utilization of sand abstraction technologies. Through learning, PRIZE had started providing pumps and additional infrastructure (such as canals) to replace the labor intensive buckets initially used. PRIZE further brought farmers from different areas to Pedstock to learn about less labor intensive technologies like the Family Drip System. Food consumption in supported districts is higher than the national average consumption. In total, 457 out of 480 households (95 percent) reported consuming at least two meals per day. This was higher than the national average of 89 percent of households reported having at least two meals per day (ZimVac, 2012). A comparison between the ZimVac (2012) and PRIZE evaluation (2013) showed that the project districts had the highest percentage of households having three meals per day, with PRIZE districts reporting 38.6 percent to a national level of 27 percent. Figure 2 below shows a comparison of the number of meals consumed by households at the national level, in provinces9 with PRIZE districts (ZimVac, 2012 and PRIZE Evaluation, 2013). 9 District averages were not available in the ZimVac (2012), so the evaluation used provincial averages. Given that PRIZE had targeted the most vulnerable districts in the first place, improvements in PRIZE districts offset the use of a different scale. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 13 Figure 3: Comparison of numbers of household meals per day Source: ZimVac (2012) and Evaluation Household Questionnaire data The number of meals per day varied across districts with Bulilima having the highest proportion (21percent) of households who reported having one meal per day. Mudzi district had the highest food consumption with no households consuming one meal per day and the majority of households (79.2 percent) consuming two meals per day. Table 2 below shows the percentages of households reporting different numbers of meals per day by district. Table 2: Usual number of meals for the household per day during the past seven days by district Usual number of meals for the household per day during the past seven days? Percent of Households per District10 (n=60) BB BU GW MB MU RUS MAT MAN 1 1.7 21.7 1.7 5 0 1.7 1.7 5.1 2 40 56.7 45.6 55 72.9 60.3 55.4 62.7 3 56.7 21.7 52.6 40 27.1 38 42.9 30.5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 There was positive progress on tracked indicators for increasing food production The project increased food production potential for targeted individuals. PRIZE was on course to achieve targets for key indicators on increasing food production. Table 3 below shows targets versus achievements for the following indicators. 10 District Key- BB=Beitbridge, BU=Bulilima, GW=Gwanda, MB=Mberengwa, MU=Mudzi, RUS=Rushinga, MAT=Matobo, and MAN=Mangwe 11 6 13 17 9 4.9 61 64 62 54 65 56.1 27 29 24 29 26 38.6 1 1 1 0 0 0.43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 National % Mash East % Mash Central % Mat South % Midlands % PRIZE Evaluation % 1 2 3 4 or more PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 14 Table 3: PRIZE project increased food production indicators Increased food production Indicators Target Achieved % Achievement Number (cumulative) of farmers irrigating their farmland using water from the water resources created/improved (Outcome) (PRIZE) 10,050 7,707 77 Number (cumulative) of hectares of land brought under irrigation potential by PRIZE activities (Outcome) (PRIZE) 290 977 337 Number (cumulative) of productive assets including water resources improved or created by PRIZE activities (Output) (PRIZE) 1,303 1,303 100 Number of assets (e.g. dams/irrigation, dip tank) management systems with maintenance/management committee functioning at appropriate levels (IEE) 830 616 74 Number (cumulative) of vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens created in program communities (Outcome) (PRIZE) 11,242 8,662 77 Number (cumulative) of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agriculture sector productivity (including livestock) training. 864 692 80 Source: PRIZE IPTT, 2012; (PRIZE Quarterly Program Performance Report, October-December 2012 & Indicator Tracking Table, 2013) Challenges The 2011/2012 drought affected production All three focus group discussions on nutrition gardens and all four sand abstraction focus group discussions reported that the drought affected agricultural production. In addition, 8 out of 29 general focus group discussions further underscored that the drought had affected agricultural production in their communities. Limited access to water affected production in nutrition gardens especially in Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo, and Gwanda where communities reported prioritizing water for domestic consumption and livestock. Asset utilization levels fluctuated Utilization of created/rehabilitated assets was not consistent with drops in utilization of livestock-related assets between the first and fourth quarter of 2012 (PRIZE ARR, 2012). PRIZE attributed the drop in utilization of livestock-related assets to the lower seasonal requirements for dipping animals during winter, as well as to a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease (PRIZE ARR, 2012). However, the trend for livestock assets was consistently negative throughout the year. The figure below shows utilization levels of crop and livestock-related assets in 2012. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 15 Figure 4: Utilization of crop and livestock related assets Source: PRIZE ARR, (2012) Communities reported low utilization of small livestock dip tanks and small livestock sales pens due to a variety of reasons. Small livestock dip-tanks were new to the country and communities reported skepticism around dipping small livestock, as they traditionally did not do it. Small livestock dip tanks were a pilot and the number of dip tanks developed would not correspond with the requirements for total coverage. Due to the small number of dip tanks created, communities cited long distances to small livestock dip-tanks as a disincentive. A Veterinary Officer in Matobo indicated that goats should not travel more than three kilometers from their kraal as they become difficult to control. In terms of small livestock sales pens, low utilization levels were attributed to low prices sometimes offered by buyers through the auction system. In Matobo, Mudzi, and Beitbridge, communities reported that goats still fetched higher prices on the informal market compared to the auction system conducted through established small livestock sale pens. “Low  utilization of small livestock can be attributed to contradictions in determinants of value in goats for example. From a technical perspective, a young goat with all teeth fetches the highest price while traditionally a big old goat should fetch the highest price. Communities then fail to understand why their big goat should have a lower market value than a younger, smaller one.”   Livestock Production Department Officer, Beitbridge Short implementation period The project period of an initial two years extended to three years was short especially for mentoring vulnerable farmers in the process of increasing production. A key informant from FAO highlighted that for CA to yield results, farmers need support for at least three years. The first year of PRIZE focused on relief, the second year there was a severe drought leaving the cost extension year to measure the impact of CA on production. As the evaluation data collection occurred just prior to harvest, many of the farmers would also not have realized specific production outcomes. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 16 2.1.2 To what extent did the project increase income for targeted 5,800 vulnerable households? PRIZE contributed to increased income for targeted vulnerable households through promoting market gardening within community and household gardens, through VS&L to promote small businesses, and through promoting a focus towards commercial agriculture. Additionally, market linkages and small investment grants were intended to promote increased income among farmers. The sections below provide detailed information on the extent to which the project increased income for targeted vulnerable households. IR 2.2: 5,800 vulnerable households have increased income. The project provided small investment grants (SIG) for those slightly better off because they have the capacity to fully leverage the SIG and would potentially have greater access to markets. The U.S. Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative’s  emphasis on market-led agricultural development as a means to alleviate hunger and improve livelihoods in developing countries informed this component. PRIZE aimed to facilitate benefits like employment and cash injections into rural economies from increased farm incomes, and models for recovery and resiliency strategies that other farmers could emulate (CRS, SYAP Proposal, 2010). Successes Market linkages facilitated increased income for farmers PRIZE trained farmers on Farming as a Business (FaaB) and linked farmers to private companies. Private companies included those  who  bought  farmers’  produce like FAVCO, Grills, Holiday Inn, Beitbridge, Karima Investments, Grills, Mnene Mission, and NASHGO. The companies entered into contracts with farmers in order to buy produce. Besides markets, PRIZE linked farmers to service providers like Pedstock, which provided training in irrigation infrastructure, and Ebenezer, which provided training in agriculture. Linkages with service providers contributed towards building and strengthening the capacity of farmers for increased productivity even beyond PRIZE. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 17 PRIZE further contributed towards increasing income for marketing groups. Monitoring data shows increases in incomes for groups as shown in the table below. Table 4: Income for marketing groups by partner and type of group Source: PRIZE FY 12, 2012 “Kare taingorima tisingazive kwatichatengesera. Panguva yekukohwa waizotanga kutsvaga kwekutengesera asi zvakaita semadomasi zvaiora. Ikozvino hatirime tisati tawana kwekuzotengesera”  We used to plant without an idea of where to sell and we only looked for markets at harvest. We would incur losses for perishables like tomatoes but now we look for markets first before planting. [FaaB Training recipient-Mberengwa] PRIZE-supported districts have higher average household income The PRIZE project contributed towards increased income for some targeted vulnerable households. PRIZE beneficiaries had an average income of US$82.50. The average monthly household income in PRIZE beneficiary households was US$14 higher than the overall average income for the eight PRIZE districts. PRIZE beneficiary households had average monthly incomes of US$82 (PRIZE Evaluation) while the average household income for the eight PRIZE districts was US$68 (ZimVac, 2012). Figure 5 below shows these comparisons in household income. 11 Base income refers to the amount of money individual farmers received as income from the sales of crop and animal products in the previous crop calendar before becoming PRIZE beneficiaries. Agency Type of Marketing Group Base Income11 Sales to Date ACDI VOCA Cereals and Dry Grains $576 $3,002 Horticulture $1,300 $19,775 Livestock $5,750 $13,274 CRS Cereals and Dry Grains $18,636 $13,285 Horticulture $6,065 $12,610 Livestock $0 $439,725 CARE Cereals and Dry Grains $3,956 $23,077 Horticulture $5,446 $93,450 Livestock $341,375 $567,959 Total Cereals and Dry Grains $23,168 $39,364 Horticulture $12,811 $125,835 Livestock $347,125 $1,020,958 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 18 Figure 5: Average monthly income in PRIZE supported districts versus provincial and national figures Source: ZimVac (2012) and Evaluation Household Questionnaire data There are district variations in average monthly household incomes with Rushinga having the highest reported household income (US$124.50). Mberengwa reported the lowest average household monthly income at US$67.80. PRIZE beneficiaries in Rushinga and Mangwe had more than double the income reported by the ZimVac for their districts. Vegetable production/sales promoted by PRIZE was the most common source of income All districts except Bulilima cited vegetable production/sales as a main source of income. PRIZE-promoted nutrition gardens were cited by 33 out of 80 community key informants in five districts (Mberengwa, Rushinga, Mudzi, Beitbridge, and Mangwe) as having been critical in contributing to increasing household income. In addition, 19 out of 29 general FGDs further mentioned nutrition gardens as a key income source. Twenty-one district key informants also cited nutrition gardens and orchards as critical PRIZE interventions promoting increased household income. Figure 8 below shows the sources of household income for all PRIZE￾supported districts. $108 $74 $91 $53 $60 $61 $64 $34 $68 $89 $88 $69 $68 $70 $125 $77 $76 83 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 BB BU GW MB MU RUS MAT MAN AVE ZimVaC 2012 PRIZE Evaluation PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 19 Figure 6: Sources of household income The contribution of vegetable production/sales was high (above 50%) across all but one district (Bulilima). Limited access to water affected vegetable production/sales as cited in both irrigation-specific FGDs in that district. The figure below shows the contribution of vegetable production towards average household income. Figure 7: Average monthly household income and contribution of vegetable production/sales by district 38% 19% 14% 62% 14% 8% 10% 5% 11% 3% 2% 10% 2% Casual Labor Food Crop Production/Sales Remittances Vegetable Production/Sales Livestock Production/Sales Formal Salary Petty Trade Cash Crop Production Skilled Trade/Artisan Food Assistance Gathering Natural Products Village Savings and Lending Selling Firewood $89 $88 $69 $69 $70 $125 $77 $76 50% 32% 54% 46% 49% 75% 47% 48% 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Beitbridge Bulilima Gwanda Mberengwa Mudzi Rushinga Matobo Mangwe Average Monthly Household Income (USD) Percentage contribution of vegetable production/sales PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 20 Small Investment Grant improved income for targeted farmers The project had a small investment grant (SIG) component using funds from the local mission where farmers where provided with monetary grants of up to US$2,000 with the farmer contributing 10 percent of the overall grant total received. PRIZE targeted farmers with more productive capacity, hence were less vulnerable, than for other interventions by PRIZE. Challenges A system for disseminating timely pricing information could not be created PRIZE budgeted $100,000 under the Economic Growth (EG) component of the grant to support the provision of timely pricing information to farmers. The project intended to support an initiative led by Technoserve utilizing the SMS ESOKO model promoted through their USAID EG-supported project. However, sustainability of the activity and potential return on the investment were challenges. Subsequent analysis showed that the activity would provide farmers with a potential additional income of US$50 while the cost to be paid by each farmer was $20 annually. This left only US$30 per year as potential gain for each farmer. An additional concern was the probable adoption rate from the farmers’ side as potential returns were too small. The activity was dropped, as a result of these concerns. However, PRIZE continued to use the established ZFU price information newsletter and made it available to all interested farmers. The project further encouraged farmers to maintain contact with ZFU staff in each of the districts so as to access any potentially relevant market/price information. 2.1.2 How have the targeted 14,000 vulnerable households engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shock? IR 2.3: 14,400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. The PRIZE project promoted diversification of livelihoods sources by vulnerable households as a way of mitigating impacts of economic shocks. PRIZE promoted Village Savings and Lending (VS&L) as a way of promoting community-based savings to strengthen beneficiary community capacities to respond and adapt to impacts of economic shocks. Successes The project increased the average amount of money saved per individual in a VS&L group from year one to year two by 181.7 percent on average. The year one analysis of total savings and total number of group members showed each VS&L group member had saved an average of US$18.33. A similar analysis for year two showed that PRIZE had increased the number of VS&L members from 9,986 to 25,529 and each VS&L member now had an average saving of US$51.65, an increase of US$33.32. Figure 10 below shows amounts per individual VS&L group member by implementing partner for years one and two. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 21 Figure 8: Savings held by individual VS&L member by implementing partners (years 1 and 2) Source: PRIZE IPTT, 2012 Amounts held per individual VS&L group member varied across partners. Group members in Beitbridge, Gwanda and Mberengwa had the most money (US$72.50) per individual, perhaps due to CARE’s  experience  in  VS&L. Bulilima, Mangwe and Matobo had the least amount per individual (US$34.50). Mudzi and Rushinga recorded the largest percentage (410%) increase in the amounts held per individual from year one (US$9.39) to year 2 (US$47.96). “Ini ndanga ndisina imba yezvidhina asi nekuda kwemukando ndakatanga kutenga mbudzi mbiri ikozvino ndakatopedza kuvaka imba yamuri kuona iyi”  I had no brick house and after I joined the VS&L group we saved and I managed to buy two goats and from those I have managed to build this brick house you see [VS&L member-Beitbridge] VS&L groups borrowed for productive purposes A total of 152 out of 480 respondents (32 percent) were part of VS&L, and 69 of them had taken and used loans for productive investments. Forty-two out of 80 community key informants in Beitbridge, Bulilima, Mberengwa, and Rushinga mentioned VS&L as being critical in promoting community savings. Respondents from the Ministry of Women Affairs, Gender and Community Development Provincial Office in Matebeleland South pointed out two reasons why VS&L mitigated against economic shocks. The first reason referenced giving women power to make saving decisions, while the second reason referred to diversifying sources of livelihoods from crop and livestock. Promoting resilience through diversifying sources of livelihoods was critical as shocks like drought affected both crops and livestock. PRIZE reports further highlighted that VS&L groups sometimes cashed out during the hunger season to give vulnerable households an extra injection of cash to buy food (PRIZE ARR, 2012). $9 $20 $26 $48 $73 $35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ACDI/VOCA CARE CRS Deposits per Member in USD Year 1 Deposits per Member in USD Year 2 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 22 There were positive returns on investment for group members who borrowed for productive purposes. Households that used loans from VS&L for productive investments had healthy returns (54.9%) on their investments. Productive investments included petty trade (buying and selling), buying inputs for market gardens, and buying small livestock for sale. The average amount of investment was US$78.10 with a return of US$121 for any loan that VS&L members borrowed in year two of the project. VS&L provided families with community sources of borrowing for covering immediate consumption needs VS&L group members borrowed money to cover immediate household needs. Group members used money from non-productive borrowing to buy food and pay school fees. Nearly 55 percent (n=152) of VS&L beneficiaries reported borrowing to cover those types of household expenses. Group members from Beitbridge, Gwanda, Matobo, Mudzi, and Rushinga all reported having used money from VS&L to buy food. VS&L broadened the saving options for families to access money to buy food, without selling their livestock as they previously did. The ZimVac (2012) reported the need to purchase food as the most cited reason for selling cattle or goats. Drought affected PRIZE districts and the ZimVac (2012) cites Beitbridge, Gwanda, Mangwe, and Matobo as having the highest numbers of people purchasing cereal. The figure below shows the percentage of populations accessing food through purchases in the four PRIZE districts. Figure 9: Percentage of population purchasing cereal in four most affected PRIZE districts Source: ZimVac, 2012 45% 75% 69% 70% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Beitbridge Gwanda Mangwe Matobo PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 23 Challenges Lack of stable sources of income threatens VS&L group viability There were indications that VS&L groups linked to productive assets, such as irrigation schemes or gardens, had higher capital thresholds compared to groups not linked to any productive assets. An example was that the VS&L group at Chimhanda Irrigation scheme in Rushinga had deposits of US$1,000, while the one at Sontala (Matobo), not linked to any productive assets, had deposits of only US$33. In the absence of a productive asset, other sources of money for VS&L contributions included casual labor, vegetable production/sales, and remittances that were reportedly unreliable in providing stable income for VS&L. 2.3 Evaluation Question No. 2: To what extent did program activities reach vulnerable household with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? PRIZE offered an integrated package of interventions to vulnerable households in targeted districts using a combined approach of short-term food assistance, improving productive assets, promoting savings-led loans, and enhancing linkages to markets. The project created productive community and household infrastructure through food-for-assets. The promotion of VS&L improved access to food as well as productive loans for investing in diversified income generation activities. This combination, and integration, of short and long-term measures formed PRIZE’s  strategy  for  reducing food insecurity and building long-term resilience to future shocks and hazards affecting food production and access. The following section illustrates how PRIZE’s  strategy  worked. How was the beneficiary targeting process transparent and effective in reaching vulnerable households? PRIZE had well-documented targeting criteria PRIZE project had well-documented targeting criteria that included a community mobilization framework, FFA worker selection criteria, lead farmer selection criteria, and a VGF registration manual (the box on the next page shows an example from SIG). The vast majority of households (95 percent) expressed satisfaction with the PRIZE targeting criteria. Beneficiaries included those who were supported through VGF as well as those who received benefits from all the other Strategic Objectives. There was no statistically significant association (p-value=0.302) between district and levels of satisfaction with the targeting process. Most (49 out of 80) community key informants reported high levels of satisfaction with the targeting process and over half (16 out of 29) of the general FGDs noted this satisfaction as well. Sixteen of 29 general FGDs characterized the targeting process as fair especially the use of vulnerability ranking. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 24 Group members for VS&L in Mudzi, Rushinga, Beitbridge, and Gwanda said they chose group members based on community networks, thereby minimizing potential for conflict. “People  who  joined  FFA  were   identified, ranked and selected by communities in the presence of village heads. Those identified as most vulnerable were prioritized and the  food  always  came  when  we  did  not  have  any  food  left.”  [FFA  beneficiary,  Kezi Matobo] Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most/least to improved household food security? PRIZE contributed towards improved access to food for vulnerable households Almost at the same level of targeting, 91 percent of respondents reported that PRIZE interventions improved their ability to produce and access food. There were no significant variations across districts with Bulilima having the least percentage (81.7 percent) of households reporting improved household food security. Gwanda had the highest percentage (98.3 percent) of households reporting improved access to food through PRIZE12. Nutrition gardens, VS&L, and Conservation Agriculture contributed the most towards improving food security Community key informants cited nutrition gardens as having contributed the most (23 out of 80 community key informants) to improved food security, followed by VS&L (20 out of 80 community key informants), and conservation agriculture (6 out of 80 community key informants). Thirteen out of 29 general FGDs cited nutrition gardens as having contributed the most to improved food security. Informants noted that nutrition gardens contributed towards food production for both consumption and sales. Community Agritex extension officers highlighted that these gardens were critical in improving food security, especially when linked with reliable sources of water. Household level data showed 62 percent of respondents cited vegetable production/sales as the primary source of income. Twelve out of twenty-nine general FGDs cited VS&L as having contributed towards improving food security for vulnerable households. Six out of twenty-nine general community FGDs cited conservation agriculture as having contributed the most to improving food security for households. 12 Source: Evaluation Household questionnaire Small Investment Grants Proposal Evaluation Criteria  Consistency with and integration into overall PRIZE objectives  Sustainability  Clearly defined targets and measurable indicators  Timeframe for completion (less than one year)  Applicant experience and capacities  Constraints and risks, and methods to address them  Adherence to proposal format PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 25 CONSERVATION FARMING MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORY MANGWE DISTRICT Mr. Khupe (79) stays with his grandchild and daughter who is mentally challenged. They survive only on crop farming which Mr. Khupe usually does by himself if his daughter is not feeling well. In the past, Mr. Khupe yielded not more than 5kgs of maize because of the low rainfalls and high temperatures in the region. In 2010, Mr. Khupe benefited from the food rations provided by ORAP for vulnerable households. The food rations alleviated starvation, as they were only able to have one meal per day and at times would not eat. In the same year, he received training in conservation farming bringing more change into his life. Since he adopted conservation  farming,  Mr.  Khupe’s   family has not gone to beg for food or do casual labor for the rich in the community. At the bare minimum, Mr. Khupe can harvest about 300kgs of maize and 400kgs of sorghum. He sells some of his crop produce in order to raise money for school fees and books for his grandson and to meet other household needs. According to Mr. Khupe, conservation farming unlike ox drawn farming, does not allow soil erosion and runoff but allows water to be contained in a small basin for the crop to sustain its growth. Mr. Khupe today continues to teach other community members who are now replicating his method of farming after they have witnessed the drastic change of his life since he started practicing conservation farming. How did the timing of each intervention influence its contribution to improved food security? All 480 sampled households indicated that project interventions were well timed. Respondents reported that the project conducted FFA between July and September (in line with the Government FFA window) when there were no rains and communities were not working in their fields. This meant that there were fewer competing labor needs. PRIZE timed training on FaaB to coincide with completion of productive assets to allow communities to use the skills they had gained as soon as possible. Half (26 out of 52) district key informants agreed with these reports on the timing of PRIZE interventions. However, one key informant in Mangwe said ORAP did not plan together with Agritex on scheduling of activities resulting in PRIZE activities clashing with the district Master Farmer training program. The evaluation team documented one timing challenge in Bulilima although all other districts reported satisfaction with PRIZE project timing. The challenge was reported at Gampo Dam where FFA reportedly stretched into December. A combination of rains and competing household labor needs meant that dam rehabilitation was not completed. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 26 2.4 Evaluation Question No. 3: To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? The evaluation used the definition of sustainability as, “when host country partners and beneficiaries are empowered to take ownership of development processes, including financing, and  maintain  project  results  and  impacts  beyond  the  life  of  the  USAID  project”  (USAID  Project   Design Guidance). The discussion below outlines sustainability in relation to PRIZE and is cognizant  of  the  project’s  objectives  as  well  as  challenges  within  the  context. Training farmers in FaaB strengthened the continuum from production to marketing. Marketing groups gave farmers collective strength in negotiating prices and creating stronger, sustainable partnerships with private sector companies. Farmers in Mudzi, Rushinga, Bulilima, and Mberengwa reported having adopted the bulking up approach where they jointly agreed on what to grow. PRIZE ensured that the Rural District Councils (RDC) had a bigger role in the administration of livestock sale pens. Each RDC charged 7.5 percent of the sale price for each herd of cattle sold during the auctions. The money would contribute towards strengthening RDC capacities to facilitate livestock auctions without external financial assistance. The money covered associated administrative costs including per diems for GoZ stakeholders present during auction sales. The RDCs had the sole responsibility for organizing livestock auctions with relevant market players without financial input from PRIZE The PRIZE project had a training of trainer approach utilizing the lead farmer approach for crop production and community-based para-veterinary workers for livestock production. This approach increased community-based access to knowledge for farmers in contexts where GoZ extension services lacked sufficient resources for better coverage. The project created relationships necessary for sustainability with some local government offices. One example was the Veterinary Department, which provided acaricides for rehabilitated dip tanks in all districts. In Mudzi the department had also provided acaricides for small livestock dip tanks, though in Matobo the department did not do so. Additional synergies created for sustainability included facilitating creation of relations between companies and farmers, ensuring that the partnerships grow outside the influence of the project. PRIZE key informants indicated that the following partnerships were created and were going to continue beyond the project:  Seed-co and Pioneer provided inputs for demonstration plots;  Pedstock provided training on high yielding tomato varieties and drip irrigation. They also supplied kits and tomato seed for demonstration plots;  Windmill provided training to beneficiaries on the use of gypsum to enhance production of groundnuts. Windmill went further to establish demonstration plots in the communities to improve the use and application of gypsum;  A partnership with ICRISAT in Gwanda provided technical assistance on rangeland management at Guyu pasture protection project as well as fodder growing; and  A partnership with Esigodini Training Center provided Barna grass cuttings for PRIZE￾created pastures. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 27 The project also based asset sustainability on community-based institutional structures, specifically asset management committees. Community members chosen to be part of asset management committees also utilized the created assets, hence had incentives to provide strong oversight. The FFA approach promoted community ownership of assets since the workers were also asset users. A community key informant in Rushinga said the fact that FFA workers were beneficiaries of assets meant they had incentives to ensure that the assets created were of high quality. Why are some PRIZE interventions utilized by beneficiaries and communities more than others? PRIZE project had six13interventions designed to work towards moving people from acute food insecurity towards improved food security. Communities utilized some interventions more than others as discussed below. Conservation Agriculture was the most used PRIZE-promoted technology PRIZE targeted communities previously not practicing CA though partners had prior experience in promoting CA in other areas (CRS SYAP Proposal, 2010). Conservation agriculture was the most used PRIZE-promoted sustainable agriculture technology with 56 percent of households reporting using it. Communities attributed the high utilization of conservation agriculture to its potential to increase yield for in low rainfall regions. PRIZE analysis of data from 264 lead farmers showed CA increased yield from 0.1MT/Ha to 1.6MT/Ha (ARR, FY 12, CRS Zimbabwe, 2012). The increase could be too high as the analysis focused on lead farmers selected based on demonstrated capacity in farming. While the yields may be in some dispute, the fact that farmers throughout the districts adopted and were practicing CA showed that the technology was of immediate value to risk-averse farmers. Mberengwa district had the highest percentage (87 percent) who reported using CA, followed by Mudzi and Rushinga, where 70 percent of sampled households reported using CA. All community key informants in Mberengwa, Mudzi, and Rushinga mentioned CA as being important in promoting improved food security. Gwanda and Mangwe reported the lowest use of CA. The ZimVac (2012) ranked the two districts as having the highest (Gwanda 57.2 percent) and second highest (Mangwe 53.3 percent) food insecure populations of all districts in Zimbabwe. This low use of CA and high levels of food insecurity in Gwanda and Mangwe might have meant that the recent drought affected the use of CA. However, crop production might not be the appropriate intervention for promoting food security in those districts. A provincial key informant in the Department of Irrigation mentioned that crop production outside irrigation schemes is difficult to promote due to perennial droughts in the region. 13 The six interventions were Market Linkages, VS&L, CA, Livestock Production, FFA, and VGF. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 28 Other PRIZE-promoted technologies not yet used fully Communities did not fully use other PRIZE promoted technologies, with the lowest being grazing schemes (0.2 percent), model granary (1 percent), and sand abstraction irrigation14 (1.3percent). PRIZE documentation noted that that these were new technologies, hence the number of beneficiaries from assets with low levels of use was small. PRIZE further highlighted that the intention was for communities to start appreciating the technology and utilize the assets created even after the project. Water challenges and the labor-intensive nature of the technologies contributed to the low utilization of technologies like sand abstraction irrigation (mentioned at two out of four sand abstraction specific FGDs). Grazing schemes were still at the pilot stage and there were eight pasture protection sites for the whole project. This could have contributed to the low levels of use reported, as well as the drought that sent many herds out of the district to other pastures. Key informants in Matebeleland South said interventions like fodder production were not used mostly because of limited access to water and multiple competing needs for available water. Over half (32 out of 52) of district key informants cited nutrition gardens, rehabilitation of irrigation schemes, conservation agriculture, VS&L, cattle sales pens, and dip tank rehabilitation as the most sustainable interventions. Community key informants also ranked VS&L, cattle dip￾tank rehabilitation, and conservation agriculture as the most sustainable interventions. Three out of five community key informants in Mangwe and Mberengwa cited keyhole gardens as an intervention that was not likely to be successful. Only twenty three percent of respondents who benefitted from the establishment of small livestock sale pens said they would continue using it. Less than half of respondents who benefitted from cattle sale pens (36.2 percent), livestock production groups (40 percent), and pasture protection and paddock management (41.7 percent) said they would continue using them. Table 5: Highest and lowest utilized interventions (by percentage) Highest Lowest Intervention percent beneficiaries who will continue to use Intervention percent beneficiaries who will continue to use Nutrition gardens and orchards 81.5 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock 23.1 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes 74.4 Cattle sales pens 36.2 VS&L 67.6 Livestock production groups 40 CA 60 Pasture protection and paddock management 41.7 14 The percentage of sand abstraction gardens only applies to a small percentage of gardens which used the technology. It does not include all community gardens. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 29 Which PRIZE interventions are communities replicating with their own resources? Overall, communities are already replicating VS&L, CA, and nutritional gardens based on findings from District Key Informant Interviews, Community Key informant interviews and general community FGDs. In addition, 17 out of 80 community key informants reported replication of VS&L. Thirteen out of 25 community FGDs also mentioned VS&L as an intervention already under replication. The two key reasons provided for strong replication of VS&L included its easy  methodology  as  well  as  noticeable  impact  in  beneficiaries’  lives.  The project surpassed the targeted VS&L members and savings held by individuals increased from US$18.33 in year one to US$51.65 in year two (PRIZE IPTT, 2012). Communities in Mberengwa district are already replicating conservation agriculture as mentioned by four out of five district key informants. The high replication of CA in Mberengwa was consistent with household survey findings where the district had the highest percentage (86.7 percent) of households that reported adopting the technology. To complement evaluation findings, PRIZE also reported that 77 percent of farmers trained in conservation agriculture practiced CA on some portion of their fields despite the fact that less than five percent of farmers received any inputs (CRS FY12 ARR Questions and Answers, 2012). The PRIZE project created/rehabilitated 1, 303 assets that communities were now utilizing (PRIZE Indicator Tracking Table, 2013). Creation/resuscitation of asset management committees was a key sustainability strategy for assets created, as these committees would assume responsibility for management and maintenance of assets beyond PRIZE. Across most districts and for all assets visited, there were asset management committees in place. At the end of year two, the project had 616 assets that had management systems with maintenance or management committees functioning at appropriate15 levels. This was against a target of 830 giving a 74 percent achievement (PRIZE Quarterly Program Performance Report, October-December 2012 & Indicator Tracking Table, 2013). Nine out of 10 irrigation schemes visited reported having asset management committees while eight out of 10 reported having an asset management fund. A further seven out of 10 reported having a constitution, although only one out of 10 reported having an asset management plan in place. Community key informants (26 percent) and focus group discussions (22 percent) identified the creation of asset management funds as important in the sustainability of assets. Community key informants and general FGD participants cited the development of a constitution to regulate access and utilization of the asset as key to asset sustainability. Local leaders also endorsed asset management and utilization constitutions for most dip tanks, sale pens, and gardens, adding official support to buttress the community engagement. 15 According to the PRIZE IPTT, 2011, appropriate meant 1) the group agreed upon a written document or a 'constitution' that clearly outlined roles and responsibilities of the community maintenance group and assigned specific duties to specific people. 2) The group kept track of all performed duties through a written log explaining when and what they did. 3) Through a visual spot check, evidence shows that the dam, irrigation and/or water catchment structures were in good, functioning condition. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 30 3. CROSSCUTTING ISSUES 3.1 Gender The PRIZE project encouraged a  combination  of  women’s  and  men’s  participation  and  influence   in decision-making to facilitate achievement of optimal food security results. Successes The PRIZE project lead farmer selection criteria clearly outlined the need to adhere to gender equality, based on a 52:48 ratio between females and males. The project increased income for more women who constituted 85 percent of VSL& where deposits per individual increased from US$18.33 in year one to US$51.65 in year two (PRIZE IPTT, 2012). PRIZE established management committees upon completion of assets and stipulated that 50 percent of the committee members should be women. This applied for all committees formed under PRIZE such as DRR, AMC, and Marketing Groups. Women constituted 57 percent of livestock lead farmers and 56 percent of farmers trained in improved livestock practices. Culturally significant, women comprised approximately half of those utilizing the livestock assets such as sales pens and dip tanks (both cattle and small livestock) (PRIZE Quarterly Program Performance Report, October-December 2012). Twenty out of 52 district key informants also highlighted that the project paid specific attention towards equal participation of both men and women, while 51 out of 80 community key informants also reiterated the same. PRIZE assigned physically less demanding tasks to women during FFA and scheduled FFA working hours at times that did not clash with other household chores predominantly shouldered by women (Ward Councilor, Rushinga). 3.2 Environment Successes The PRIZE project ensured adherence to environmental regulations with an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) prior to the start of the project. The core of PRIZE activities related to conservation agriculture and training of farmers, for which USAID-related environmental guidance recommended categorical exclusion. The Project Management Unit (PMU) conducted training on Regulation 216 compliance on environmental protection for PRIZE project staff in February 2011. The USAID Mission in Harare also conducted a technical training on Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) implementation (CRS ARR FY 12, 2012). PRIZE developed an Environmental Management and Mitigation Plan (EMMP), together with the monitoring forms, which included the Environmental Screening Form (ESF) and the EMMP monitoring form. Partners monitored their activities using these forms at the same time identifying potential impacts at project sites and mitigation measures put in place as necessary. The project conducted pre-assessments to identify potential negative environmental impacts on the rehabilitation activities before those activities began. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 31 PRIZE partners complied with all IEE-approved mitigation and monitoring measures in the creation/rehabilitation of community assets through FFA. Furthermore, all PRIZE community assets received the appropriate approval as required by the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) (CRS ARR FY 12, 2012). Challenges Initially, PRIZE partners faced challenges with district staff from the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) who refused to support project activities and provide necessary approvals. However, PRIZE managed to engage the EMA national office and a directive was given resulting in improved relations. The evaluation team also observed environmental challenges at some assets: for example, the community had deposited sand from dam scooping on nearby river banks where it would be easily washed back into the river causing siltation (Mbevayalikunge Dam in Beitbridge district). 3.3 HIV/AIDS Successes The project further focused on mainstreaming HIV and AIDS. The project proposal outlined that “PRIZE  will  mainstream  HIV  by  ensuring  that  HIV  awareness  is  integrated  into  project   activities, that vulnerable HIV-affected households benefit from project activities, and that the multiple effects of HIV on communities and project interventions are considered when PRIZE activities  are  designed  and  implemented”  (CRS  SYAP  Proposal,  Revised  2010).  Chronic illness, often used as a proxy for HIV, was one of project beneficiary targeting criteria. Challenges Despite the proposal outlining the intention to mainstream HIV, there is no mention of HIV in the PRIZE Annual Results Review for both 2011 and 2012. The project did not have clear strategies to mainstream HIV, nor was there any indication of this focus in any of the evaluation data collection. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 32 4. RESILIENCE The  evaluation  utilized  the  definition  of  resilience  as  “the  ability  of  people,  households,   communities, countries and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth” (USAID Resilience Policy Guidance, 2012). Resilience is a process for which PRIZE project was not fully held accountable, but the evidence demonstrated movement along that process continuum in a positive way. The PRIZE project as an emergency single year assistance project laid the foundation for achievement of key components of resilience, namely increased adaptive capacity of beneficiary communities, improved ability to address and reduce risks and improved social and economic conditions of vulnerable populations (Resilience Policy, 2012). Successes Increased adaptive capacity for beneficiary communities PRIZE  project  increased  beneficiary  communities’  capacity to adapt and respond to drought, floods and economic shocks through promotion of diversified livelihood sources. Sixty-four percent of beneficiary households reported having improved capacity to withstand shocks as a result of PRIZE support. PRIZE facilitated community savings beyond livestock and crops, traditionally accepted methods of storing wealth. Cash-based savings through VS&L ensured communities responded to shocks like droughts where they took loans to buy seed and in some instances feed for their livestock. Average savings per individual VS&L member increased by US$33 over one year and cash from loans has been used to buy food in the event of drought or poor harvest. The capacity to buy food is critical especially as the evaluation found that due to drought, cereal harvest from the previous season lasted an average of only four months. Beyond introducing a savings methodology through VS&L, PRIZE initiated attitude transformations from subsistence to commercial farming which will strengthen income sources necessary for larger savings. One key informant in Beitbridge said: VS&L groups have been able to establish income generation activities and communities are now better able to cope with the droughts without always expecting food from donors (District Key Informant, Beitbridge District). Improved ability to address and reduce risk PRIZE facilitated improved awareness of and community preparedness to deal with disasters. A total of 236 stakeholders and 1,931Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) focal persons were trained and facilitated the development of DRR plans in consultation with community members DRR (PRIZE ITT, October-December 2012). Though the timeframe was short, there have been training outcomes with 285 DRR action plans in place at the time of evaluation. PRIZE built community capacities to respond to context-specific shocks, for example 685 para-veterinary workers (PRIZE ITT, October-December 2012) were trained to provide community-based advice where disease outbreaks, poor cattle feeding methods, and droughts all combined to affect livestock production. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 33 Key informants such as the Mangwe District Administrator highlighted that para-veterinary workers assisted in giving early warning signs (livestock-related, for example, disease or general condition of the livestock) before disasters, thus ensuring farmers were better prepared, resulting in minimal impact of shocks. Improved social and economic conditions of vulnerable populations PRIZE implemented interventions that empowered women and had emphasis on gender equity. The project was cognizant of their heightened vulnerability to shocks, hence VS&L focused on involving more women. Supporting more women to save through VS&L allowed women some control over resources which they used to cover household needs. Qualitative evidence showed female-headed households were managing to build houses and acquiring some livestock.A PRIZE project beneficiary from the Phucuka VS&L club in Bulilima said: PRIZE assisted me to diversify my business. Currently, I sell groceries, school uniforms, and buy maize  and  process  into  ‘maputi’  –popped maize. My net monthly income increased from about ZAR1500 to ZAR2000 per month. I have managed to build two decent houses at my rural homestead, bought five donkeys and 28 goats. Some of the money I use to buy food and pay school fees for my grandchild. PRIZE Project laid foundation for Resilience of Vulnerable Populations Ms Biziwe Dube is a widow of old age, who struggled in an area of frequent droughts and low rainfall and could not travel long distances to fetch water for gardening. In the past she depended upon relief rations and begging from the community for her family to survive. With no employment, three grandchildren to feed and send to school Biziwe’s  life  significantly  changed  in  2012   when she benefitted from a USAID supported food security program targeted at vulnerable populations. She and other community members received training on nutrition/market gardening, crop production and village savings and lending. To support the knowledge acquired and build resilience against low rainfall and severe water shortages, ORAP provided the community with a new motorized water pump which ensures adequate and consistent supply of water for the garden throughout the year. The garden produces diverse crops for consumption and resale such as onions, spinach, butternuts, and giant chaumollier. Ms Dube’s  income  from  the  vegetable  sales  has  improved her economic  and  social  conditions.  She  now  pays  for  her  grandchildren’s  school  fees,  buys  extra   food and pays contributions for village savings and lending. Her total income to date has managed to build 2 decent huts, bought chickens and one goat. “ORAP  support  made  a  huge   difference in my life, even at the height of drought this year; my family has enough to feed. PRIZE  is  the  source  of  my  pride.” PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 34 5. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Positive Unintended Consequences Increased investment in education The project did not focus on increasing access to education but communities reported that the income they received from gardens and VS&L helped them send their children to school. Five out of 10 community key informants in Mberengwa and three out of seven district key informants in Mudzi mentioned improved investments in education because of increased income from project activities. Assets used as venues and platforms for other social gatherings According to the community key informants (Mudzi, Mberengwa), PRIZE assets provided venues for social gatherings, in addition to business for which they were created. Villagers, including VS&L group members, used livestock market days as their sales day, selling food, crafts, and clothing, while at the same time engaging in other social interactions. This contributed to improved community relations while further popularizing the PRIZE brand. Creation of casual labor opportunities Operational FFA assets, such as irrigation schemes and gardens, created casual labor employment16. Seven out of 12 key informants in Rushinga mentioned increased casual labor opportunities through asset creation. This was significant as casual labor was cited by 37.7 percent (n=480) of households as a primary source of income. Negative Unintended Consequences Beneficiaries sharing project rations Community and district key informants reported that communities sometimes shared the rations they received from FFA and VGF. This was mainly because the need for food rations was higher. Although the practice reflected community harmony and sharing, it meant food rations would be inadequate for the selected households. Tension between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries Some communities reported tension between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of PRIZE activities. The evaluation sampled beneficiaries, hence all reported satisfaction with the selection criteria, but that also meant that the beneficiary group would have heard from their neighbors regarding non-selection. The following quotation below illustrated some of the tensions between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries: “Nekuda kwekuti vamwe vakasiiwa pakusarudzwa kupinda muzvirongwa, vakasara vakatsamwa vavakuti vanhu veCARE. Izvi zviri kuunza kusagadzikana munharaunda”.  Selection  processes  for  FFA  and  VGF   have promoted labeling of individuals in the community according to implementing organization and this has left communities divided. 16Casual labor is part of the rural economy and a key source of income for many households. However, in some instances, it can be a negative especially if households neglect their own production in order to work for their neighbors, or if the labor is strictly to get enough to feed your family simply for that day. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 35 6. LESSONS LEARNED The evaluation team drew lessons from evaluation findings while broadening their analytical focus to include the use of the consortium model, the capacity of local partner organizations, timeliness of intervention activities, and general coordination and linkages with other USAID￾funded activities, other donor activities, and GoZ activities. i. PRIZE flexibility ensured the project adapted and scaled up support based on emerging evidence showing greater than anticipated need. PRIZE initially intended to provide emergency food assistance to 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals. The project consulted with stakeholders in the targeted districts and jointly agreed that estimates of food insecure individuals were conservative. PRIZE and stakeholders in targeted districts reviewed targets upwards and scaled up the number of individuals who received emergency food assistance. Beyond having targets and templates, PRIZE demonstrated the importance of community consultations to ensure support provided responded to the actual need in affected communities. ii. Combining International and local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) requires a clear skills transfer approach International NGOs such as CRS, CARE, and ACDI/VOCA brought experience in implementing Title II projects while local NGOs such as Community Technology Development Organization (CTDO) and ORAP brought strong local presence and stakeholder networks. The INGOs used Training of Trainer approaches with their local partners, resulting in reported improved local partner capacity in value chains and market linkages. PRIZE ensured there were sector experts who were seconded to the PMU and who provided support to consortium partners when required. This facilitated optimum utilization of expertise as experts were not restricted to their specific agencies but to the consortium. However, there could be additional value in ensuring national NGOs have people seconded to the PMU especially as part of capacity building and skills transfer. iii. Carefully harnessing local structures and resources facilitated achievement of (likely) sustainable outcomes in an efficient manner Emergency food assistance was the only PRIZE intervention without a community contribution component. This meant that FFA or other interventions required initial community buy-in and support in the form of labor or other locally available materials, such as stones in dam construction/rehabilitation. The project constructed and rehabilitated livestock sale pens with the RDCs taking over administration for sustainability. Group members in VS&L received training, but contributed their own resources as savings. PRIZE linked farmers to sources of inputs as well as buyers, but the relations have grown without additional PRIZE facilitation and farmers have gone on to establish their own linkages. The approach adopted by PRIZE showed that communities did not always expect projects to provide everything. It was critical to map existing structures and resources that could be entry points for interventions. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 36 iv. Collaboration, openness, and bi-directional sharing of information were critical for consortium functionality. PRIZE managed to create a successful information sharing structure where PMU and agencies staff participated in scheduled Project Managers and Consortium Steering Committee meetings and consortium Technical Working Groups. These were led by seconded Technical Quality Coordinators (TQCs) from each of the consortium agencies. Technical Quality Coordinators had information from all agencies and there was sharing across the consortium. Further, agency staff and Program Managers engaged in exchange visits between different operational areas in order to increase sharing of best practices and lessons learned. v. Strong engagement and coordination with appropriate implementation-level government departments was key to the achievement of sustainable project results PRIZE managed to create strong relations with different government departments in executing projects. Rural District Councils are now able to sustain cattle auctions while ward-based Agritex Officers provide localized support to farmers. While PRIZE shared all project reports with GoZ, more value could have been added if GoZ was constantly represented in PRIZE Steering Committee meetings, which were held every two months to discuss project reports. vi. A strong M&E system was critical for effective documentation of achievement of project goal, objectives, and activities. PRIZE understood the importance of strong M&E and in response to weaknesses noted, the project invested in addressing those weaknesses. Two Data Quality Assessments (DQAs) were undertaken in November 2011 and February 2012 to ensure a strong system of data collection and consistency. The M&E system was then overhauled in February 2012 with a re-launch of the SMILER17 system and a revision of data collection instruments. Due to initial challenges, the project defined outcome indicators, which PRIZE did not then track. In some instances, PRIZE did not establish targets, constraining performance measurement. vii. Promoting resiliency was possible but interventions chosen for that purpose should be allocated sufficient time. PRIZE contributed towards strengthening community capacities to respond to shocks. Communities are aware of various ways of mitigating shocks especially as VS&L diversified saving options beyond crops and livestock. Increasing and diversifying income formed the core of the approach, but communities had not sufficiently diversified their livelihoods and their savings had not sufficiently grown to allow them to recover from more severe shocks, such as floods. The analysis is cognizant of the earlier stated fact that resilience is a process for which PRIZE could not be fully held accountable, but the evaluation evidence still demonstrated positive movement against resilience indicators. 17 SMILER stands for simple measurement of indicators for learning and evidence-based reporting. This is a system developed by CRS to provide M&E guidance for projects PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 37 7. CONCLUSIONS PRIZE contributed towards reducing food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in targeted districts. The project was cognizant of high levels of vulnerability at project inception hence had a relief component that provided food to vulnerable individuals. PRIZE strengthened the productive capacity of vulnerable individuals through technologies such as conservation farming, as well as through creation and rehabilitation of productive assets. Trainings on post-harvest handling contributed towards reducing post-harvest losses, while market linkages allowed farmers to get fair value for their produce. The project provided relief and invested in increasing productive capacities, including the handling and marketing of produce. However, the project did not consistently measure outcome indicators, affecting performance reporting (in part due to the baseline, in part due to changes in FFP M&E requirements, and finally, in part due to the shift in evaluation responsibility from the project to the Mission). The drought as well as the short timeframe (a single complete growing season) constrained analysis on the extent to which targeted vulnerable individuals had yield increases attributable to PRIZE interventions. Evaluation Question No. 1: To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? PRIZE managed to address emergency food needs of targeted communities. In addition, the project successfully facilitated creation/rehabilitation of productive infrastructure for recovery. Utilization of productive infrastructure is in progress, with more farmers benefitting. More land has been brought under irrigation potential while targeted individuals are eating more. PRIZE supported farmers are earning more and there is potential for more income, especially if all created assets become functional. Evidence from the evaluation and observations showed that communities are beginning to shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture. More crop production is now market-driven and more farmers are producing cash crops. Supported farmers are now better organized and are better equipped to negotiate prices and cut transport costs through group marketing. Small investment grants increased income and training has ensured farmers produce quality output, which fetch competitive prices on the market. How have the targeted 14,000 vulnerable households engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shock? PRIZE-supported communities are now saving through VS&L. Communities are willing to save their own resources and all they required was the method of doing it. There are attitude level changes with communities now diversifying saving options beyond crops and livestock. Savings from VS&L have provided community-based, easily accessible borrowing options. More women are now able to buy food and cover other immediate household needs. Beneficiaries are building capacities to respond to shocks. Pooling local financial resources provides a viable alternative given multiple challenges related to accessing loans through the formal financial system. Beneficiary capacities to respond to shocks were affected by weak livelihood sources where although households wanted to save, they had no stable sources of income from which to get money for contributions. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 38 Evaluation Question No. 2: To what extent did program activities reach vulnerable household with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? PRIZE targeted the right beneficiaries with the right interventions. Timing was appropriate, both in terms of sequencing and in terms of alignment with local cropping calendars. Nutrition gardens, VS&L, and conservation agriculture contributed the most towards improving food security mostly because communities adopted them and the results were visible in the short to medium term. Evaluation Question No. 3: To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? PRIZE was an emergency project and although sustainability was assessed, there are limitations on the extent to which the project could have achieved sustainability. There is strong community ownership of created/rehabilitated assets and some activities are already being replicated by communities. Overall, VS&L, Conservation Agriculture, and Nutrition Gardens were the most replicated activities. The project instituted structures and systems for sustainable market-driven production. Farmers are improving their capacities to improve the quality of their produce and linkages with private sector companies are in place for capacity building, production, as well as marketing synergies. Due to time and design constraints of the project, new technologies have been introduced and are still being adopted. Resilience While resilience is a long-term process and one for which the PRIZE cannot fully be held accountable, evidence from the evaluation demonstrated positive progress in improved community capacities to adapt to and recover from shocks. Communities are more aware of potential shocks in their contexts are beginning to put in place mitigation mechanisms. Beneficiaries are embracing the importance of saving and VS&L expanded saving options beyond livestock, which is vulnerable to drought and disease-both of which occurred during PRIZE implementation period. Irrigation and nutrition gardens expanded production options beyond rain-fed agriculture which is vulnerable to drought. Communities are now better able to adapt to and recover from shocks but the their adaptive capacities need to be further enhanced to ensure they adequately prepare for and are able to respond to more severe shocks like floods, which occurred in some PRIZE districts. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 39 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Category/Evaluation Question Recommendations Overall Build future support on the foundations developed by PRIZE in terms of infrastructure, trainings, and stakeholder relations. Future (both emergency and longer-term development) programs need a strong M&E system with baseline values and targets for all indicators from the start of the project. Programs should consider seconding staff to key government ministries they will be working with. PRIZE highlighted that staff attrition affected their coordination with government and if possible, seconding would strengthen coordination and facilitate government commitment when required. Evaluation Question No. 1: To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? Invest in a follow-up project focusing on promoting utilization of created assets. If the follow-up is a development program, focus on social and behavior change communication especially to address low utilization of new technologies. To what extent did the project increase income for targeted 5,800 vulnerable households? Prioritize market development to create demand for potentially higher output as farmers begin to utilize productive assets. Market development should include a component focusing on improving production capacity especially for livestock. How have the targeted 14,000 vulnerable households engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shock? Link VS&L groups with the formal banking sector. This can include facilitating acceptance of group records as a potential credit history to ease challenges around access to financing. Evaluation Question No. 3: To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? Explore possibilities of providing evidence-based capacity building of asset management committees to ensure they adequately cope with their expanded role in operation and maintenance of created/rehabilitated assets. Resilience Explore possibilities of supporting implementation of existing community Disaster Risk Reduction plans created through PRIZE facilitation. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 40 ANNEXES ANNEX 1. MISSION EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK Statement of Work (SOW) USAID/Zimbabwe Office of Food for Peace Performance Evaluation for Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) I. Introduction On July 1, 2012, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) awarded a $42 million cooperative agreement AID-FFP-A-10- 00018 to Catholic Relief Services (CRS), in consortium with ACDI/VOCA and CARE, to implement a Title II emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in  Zimbabwe.  USAID/Zimbabwe’s  Economic  Growth  Office  also  contributed  $2   million in Economic Support Funds in order to promote market linkage and value chain activities. USAID/FFP provided a one-year cost extension, raising the total funding for project to more than $54 million and extending the project until June 30, 2013. Through  this  solicitation,  USAID  seeks  an  evaluation  firm  (referred  to  in  this  document  as  “the  Contractor”)  to   conduct a final performance evaluation to determine to what extent the PRIZE project achieved its goals, objectives, and expected results. II. Project Background The PRIZE project was designed to contribute to the USAID Mission Results Framework, supporting both Assistance Objective 3 and parts of Assistance Objective 4, listed below. The project provides basic support to vulnerable populations through provision of humanitarian assistance (IR 3.1) and begins to support basic economic activities (IR 3.2) through training and market linkages. Activities focusing on conservation agriculture, rehabilitation of irrigation schemes, and training in farming as a business contribute to IR4.1. USAID/Zimbabwe Results Framework-2009-2012 Assistance Objective 3 Livelihoods Maintained and Restored/Economy Stabilized and Growing IR 3.5: Increased Private Sector Productivity IR 4.2: Increased Agricultural Competitiveness Assistance Objective 4 Increased Income and Employment Generated by the Agricultural Sector IR 4.1: Increased Agricultural Production IR 3.1: Persons Affected by Crisis Assisted IR 3.2: Basic Economic Activity and Livelihoods Maintained/Restored IR 3.3 Macro-economic Foundation for Economic Growth Created IR 3.4: Improved Business Enabling Environment PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 41 The PRIZE project follows a relief to resilience hypothesis, which contends that meeting immediate food needs and improving production and assets in vulnerable households will improve the ability of vulnerable populations to access food and withstand future shocks. Following this hypothesis, PRIZE offers an integrated package of activities to vulnerable households in targeted districts using short-term food assistance combined with activities that aim to improve productive assets, promote savings-led loans, increase productivity, and enhance market linkages. PRIZE defines vulnerable households under SO1 as food-insecure and labor constrained and for activities under SO2 as food- insecure and non-labor constrained. PRIZE Results Framework Note: SO1 activities were completed during year one while SO2 activities were conducted years one through three. SO2 targets have been updated as per the 2012 cost-extension. Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in 8 districts of Zimbabwe by 2012. IR 1.1: 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals have food during the hungry season. SO2: 112,097 vulnerable households have reestablished food security. IR 2.1: 112,097 vulnerable households have increased food production. IR 2.2: 5,800 vulnerable households have increased income. IR 2.3: 14,400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. During the first year, PRIZE addressed the transitory food needs of food-insecure individuals by providing unconditional food transfers using a vulnerable group feeding model that promoted the conservation of household assets for the next planting season (see SO1 in PRIZE Results Framework). Starting near the end of year one and continuing through the end of project, PRIZE conducted activities aimed at reestablishing household food security through conditional food transfers or food-for-assets activities and capacity building activities (see SO2 in PRIZE Results Framework). PRIZE activities under SO2 include training in farming as a business, conservation agriculture, seed security, and improved livestock practices, enhancing market linkages and value chains, establishing Village Savings and Loan (VSL) groups, and food-for-asset activities that use Title II commodities to support the construction and development of community assets such as dams, community gardens, and livestock dip tanks. In FY2012, the PRIZE project received a one-year cost extension allowing the project to increase the number of people reached by project activities under SO2. The extension was intended to allow PRIZE an opportunity to begin the transition to more sustainable activities that promote resiliency to emergency conditions. The extension also allowed PRIZE to address emergency needs that may arise between the time the initial program was due to end in June  2012  and  the  start  of  FFP’s  Development  Food  Assistance  Program  (DFAP),  around  June  2013. III. Evaluation Purpose and Use This final performance evaluation aims to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable  households  in  the  eight  districts  targeted  by  PRIZE.  This  implies  evaluating  the  project’s  achievements  in   meeting its goals, objectives, and expected results. The final evaluation should provide plausible links between project inputs and outcomes/impacts and document lessons  learned  for  use  in  designing  and  implementing  similar  activities,  including  USAID/Zimbabwe’s  DFAP   starting in FY2013. Within USADI, the evaluation will be shared Mission-wide and with USAID Washington. USAID/FFP will share evaluation findings publicly with the implementing organization and its sub-partners, government ministries, and other donors. The final evaluation report will be a public document that will be distributed to relevant parties and posted on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse website (https://dec.usaid.gov). USAID intends to use the evaluation to inform future programming, including the development of a Work Plan for USAID/Zimbabwe’s  upcoming  DFAP. Intellectual property: USAID shall solely and exclusively own all rights to work created in connection with this contract, including all data, documents, information, copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets or other proprietary rights in and in to the work. The Contractor is not allowed to withhold any information related to this contract, as this will become public information. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 42 IV. Key and Specific Evaluation Questions in Order of importance: Note: The Contractor should reference Annex A for proposed methods and data sources for answering each question. 1. To what extent did the project achieve the intended goal, objectives, and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? 2. To what extent did PRIZE activities reach vulnerable households with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? a. How was the beneficiary targeting process transparent and effective in reaching vulnerable households? b. Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most/least to improve household food security? c. How did the timing of each intervention influence its contribution to improved food security? 3. To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable? a. Why are some PRIZE intervention utilized by beneficiaries and communities more than other others? b. Which PRIZE interventions are communities replicating with their own resources? c. What mechanisms are in place to insure the continued functionality of the various assets created? In addition to answering the evaluation questions, the Contractor should address the following themes in the evaluation and report:  Sustainability: This is an extension of evaluation question three but may be addressed more broadly as findings allow. This refers the degree to which the program results or activities will be maintained or continued after the program ends. Examples of this principle include, but, are not limited to, the degree to which consumption gains are maintained or productive assets, market linkages, and village savings activities will continue to be used or implemented following the end of the program. This topic should be discussed broadly but also as it relates to the one-year cost extension, which intended to allow PRIZE to enhance sustainability e.g. how likely are the program activities conducted during year three to contribute to increased sustainability of activities and assets created?  Resilience: USAID defines resilience as the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth. Given that the PRIZE project was based on a relief to resilience model, discuss to what extent beneficiaries have improved as a result of the project. Resilience can be discussed in the context of increased adaptive capacity, improved social and economic conditions of beneficiaries, and a reduced need or expectation for humanitarian assistance. It may be useful to discuss changes in the humanitarian caseload (normalized by severity of shock) in PRIZE and non-PRIZE project areas.  Lessons Learned: The evaluator is expected to document key lessons learned- both positive and negative. Some lessons learned may relate to beneficiary targeting, effectiveness of the resiliency model and actual resilience of target beneficiaries, project management and the use of the consortium model, the capacity of local partner organizations, timeliness of intervention activities, and coordination and linkages with other USAID-funded activities, other donor activities, and Government of Zimbabwe activities.  Cross Cutting Issues: The Contractor should discuss cross-cutting issues as they emerge throughout the evaluation process. Cross-cutting issues may include gender and environmental concerns. V. Methodology This is a performance evaluation and must meet USAID requirements for a quality performance evaluation as defined in the January 2011 USAID Evaluation Policy. The evaluator is expected to use both quantitative and qualitative methods of data acquisition (see Annex A for additional guidance). Though a PRIZE baseline was conducted, due to data quality issues associated with the original survey, the Contractor should not utilize baseline data as a reference point. Whenever possible data collected should be disaggregated by gender. See Annex B for PRIZE monitoring framework. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 43 1. Quantitative Methodology The quantitative portion of the evaluation will necessitate a beneficiary household-based survey where beneficiary households are those households that participated in or befitted from the project and reside within PRIZE operational districts. This part of the survey is intended to report on indicators that require household information (see Annex A for additional guidance). The evaluator should propose a sample size that will allow the data to be statistically significant at project level. The study sample should be equally distributed across the eight PRIZE districts. The draft evaluation design matrix (Annex A) outlines key indicators to be collected and reported. The contractor may add or modify some of these indicators but should not lose focus of the primary question. USAID expects the contractor to:  Review all project related documents listed below and extract information relevant to this evaluation.  Document how sampling will be conducted to allow the results to be representative of the entire project population.  Design a household questionnaire which will collect information on all quantitative questions of the evaluation as defined in the draft evaluation design matrix (Annex A).  Prepare a household questionnaire guide for use by enumerators in the field. The questionnaire should link the question to the indicator it is addressing and explaining information which needs to be gathered from the household for that purpose.  Prepare a data entry, cleaning, and analysis plan including the software to be used and the analytical framework for various variables to be used in the report. 2. Qualitative Methodology The qualitative portion of this evaluation shall respond to descriptive and non-experimental elements of the evaluation questions. The purpose of the qualitative study is to unpack reasons for different levels of achievement of project objectives and results and to add depth, richness, and context to findings from quantitative study. Key informant and focus groups should be sampled across the eight PRIZE districts covering a cross-section of project activities. The number of focus groups and key informants should be large enough to allow conclusions to be generalized at the project level. USAID expects the contractor to:  Document how the key informants and focus groups will be identified and sample  Design a focus group discussion guide and key informant interview guide  Prepare a data collation and analysis plan including if any analysis software will be used The data collection plan should include both elements of data acquisition clearly showing how the two processes- quantitative and qualitative data collection – will be conducted and coordinated. The Contractor should always demonstrate how qualitative results will be combined with quantitative results to for m an integral report. Firms bidding on this evaluation will submit a written description of the proposed methodology for each component of the evaluation, including a budget and evaluation design matrix (which may build on Annex A of this solicitation). The applicant will also include a proposed timeline for completion by the aforementioned tasks. Limitations to the evaluations including those associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g. selection bias, recall bias, sample size, etc.) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 44 VI. Existing Performance Information The following documents are available to provide background on the project and its implementation to date.  CRS Promoting Recovery In Zimbabwe (PRIZE)Project Proposal  Year one and two performance indicator progress reports  Year one and two PRIZE Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT)and Results Reports  List of Assets created through Food-for Asset activities  FY2009 FFP Annual Project Statement  PRIZE baseline survey report  PRIZE baseline supporting information and questionnaire VII. Evaluation deliverables 1. Statements: Signed statements attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing or potential conflict of interest relative to the project evaluated by each evaluation team member. (Note: evaluation team composition shall be approved by USAID ) 2. Evaluation Design and Work Plan: Shall be presented to USAID by the lead evaluator within one week of the award of the contract and shall be approved by USAID before additional work can commence. a. The evaluation design will include: i. Detailed evaluation design matrix, including methods, sampling, data sources, and data collection plan used to address each key question and should describe known limitations to the evaluation designed. ii. Draft questionnaire and other data collection instruments, including questionnaire guide iii. Detailed evaluation timeline that includes data cleaning and analysis b. The work plan will include the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements and delineate the roles and responsibilities of members of the evaluation team. 3. Oral Presentation of Preliminary Results: The team will provide an oral presentation of preliminary findings to USAID and other key stakeholders in a separate meeting within one week following field data collection. 4. Draft Evaluation Report: Draft evaluation report (meeting the criteria below) delivered to USAID for review within 15 business days from the date of the oral presentation. 5. Final Evaluation Report: The final report will be provided to the USAID/Zimbabwe in electronic form within 10 business days following receipt of comments from USAID. (Note: USAID may require an additional review and comments on the report if it does not meet quality standards and all components outlined in the SOW.) 6. Data and records: All data and records from the evaluation must be submitted to USAID in an easily readable and organized electronic format along with the final report. Reporting Format: The final report must be professionally written in American English, should not exceed 45pages (excluding appendices), and must include the following sections: 1. Executive Summary: An executive summary: summarizes the key points and findings, e.g. brief project purpose and background, key evaluation questions, methods, findings, and recommendations. Please bear in mind that many managers and senior USAID officials will only read the Executive (3-5pp) 2. Introduction: Purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1pp) 3. Background: Brief overview of PRIZE project in Zimbabwe, project strategy and activities implemented in response to the problem and purpose of the evaluation (2-3pp.) 4. Methodology: Describes evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1pp.) 5. Findings/ Conclusions/ Recommendations: Addressing the key evaluation questions as well as lessons learned sustainability, and cross-cutting issues. (17-20pp.) 6. Sustainability: Summarize to what degree activities will continue to after the program ends, and to what degree vulnerable households will remain resilient to future shocks (2-5pp.) 7. Resilience: Discuss to what extent the program improved the resilience of beneficiaries to respond to future shocks(2-5pp.) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 45 8. Lessons Learned: Distilled lessons from the program and where future activities can incorporate best practices and lessons learned from the PRIZE program for maximum programmatic impact. Include a list of key logistical and/or administrative issues, if any and other lessons learned as outlined in section IV (2-5pp.) 9. Cross-cutting Issues: Discuss cross-cutting issues i.e. how the program effectively included or excluded gender and the environment, etc. 10. References: Including bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews and focus group discussions 11. Annexes: Annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interviews lists and 12. Tables: Should be succinct, pertinent and readable VIII. Evaluation Performance Period The Contractor shall complete this activity, including the final report, within eleven weeks of the start of the assignment. Once USAID approves the personnel to comprise the team, the documents for pre-field review, listed above in section VII, will be sent to the evaluation team. A six-day workweek is authorized for this activity. The majority of this evaluation will be conducted in the eight PRIZE districts. This evaluation is set to commence on or about January 10, 2013. The Contractor should be fully available for contract negotiations between December 24, 2012 and January 5, 2013 (excluding weekends and national holidays). The following Level of Effort (LOE) is suggested: Activity Location Days based on 6-day work week Document Review Contractor’s  Office 3 Produce Eval Design &Workplan Contractor’s Office 5 Pre-field Meetings USAID 1 Training & Field Testing Contractor’s  Office 3 Finalization and Printing of Tools & Manuals Contractor’s  Office 2 Field: Data collection Field 14 Information Synthesis and Compilation Contractor’s  Office 4 Post-field Meetings USAID 1 Writing and Packaging of Evaluation Results (Draft Report) Contractor’s  Office 15 Finalization of Evaluation Results (Final Report Contractor’s  Office 5 Total Business Days 53 Note: It is recommended that data entry be conducted concurrently with data collection to reduce time needed for data entry at the end of data collection period. The contractor may include costs of data capturers in the data collection budget. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 46 ANNEX 2: MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES18 INTERVENTION: VILLAGE SAVINGS AND LENDING 2.1 DISTRICT: BULILIMA, WARD 10, VILLAGE 3: PHUCUKA VS&L CLUB Mrs. Yengiwe Khumalo got involved in PRIZE project in 2010 as a VS & L cluster facilitator in Bulilima district. As a community they had started own club (Phucuka Club with 42 members) similar to VS and L in 2009. Each member contributed ZAR100 per month with 20% interest charged per month for loans borrowed. At the end of each year we would buy different assets and groceries and share amongst ourselves. In 2010, eight members of the Phucuka group including myself were trained by ORAP on selection, planning, management of VS & L activities, bookkeeping and marketing. The training enlightened me on issues which were not  working  well  and  hindering  the  group’s  success. The group membership was too big to be effective; secondly we would share all the money at the end of each year and start the following year from scratch. But PRIZE taught us not to spend all the money but save some as capital for income generating activities (IGAs). We learned the need to engage  diversified  income  generating  projects  to  raise  enough  income  to  pay  members’  monthly  subscriptions,  repay   borrowed loans and still be able to make a profit. We decided to form smaller groups out of Phucuka Club while maintaining Phucuka as the main group for smaller groups. Grouping was done according to business trading lines such as bakery, drink making, candle making, manufacturing of floor polish and dishwasher. Members agreed to continue contributing ZAR100 per month to main group. The money was split into two components, i.e., half ZAR50 went towards buying groceries and the remaining ZAR50 for loaning. The main group (Phucuka Club) savings fund accumulated ZAR85 000 by December 2012. Among the smaller groups, I joined the one doing baking consisting of 6 women. We contributed ZAR200 per person as capital for the bakery business. We initially used pots to bake buns and doughnuts, producing 80 buns per day and selling locally at ZAR1 per bun. The demand increased and we decided to build a homemade oven in December 2011. Currently, the group produces an average of 250 buns per day. The group bakes doughnuts if there are special functions within the community. The group maintains bookkeeping records. At personal level, before PRIZE I was into buying and selling without market analysis. PRIZE assisted me to diversify  my  business.    Currently,  I  sell  groceries,  school  uniforms,  and  buy  maize  and  process  into  ‘maputi’  – popped maize. My monthly net income has grown to about ZAR1500 to ZAR2000 per month, compared to before PRIZE Project support when I used to get a net profit of only about ZAR500. I have managed to build 2 (two) decent houses at my rural homestead, bought 5 (five) donkeys and 28 goats. Some of the money  I  use  to  buy  food  and  pay  school  fees  for  my  grandchild.    I  accumulated  these  assets  in  two  years’   time, something I never dreamt of. Now I am able to pay my VS & L subscriptions plus loans without struggle, before PRIZE I used to ask money from my husband to pay for my dues for VS & L activities. Whilst I stay in a rural set-up, there is no difference with those who think they are better off staying in towns – I have a solar powered TV,  radio  and  lighting.  I  am  no  longer  dependent  on  my  husband’s  salary as before, am now helping my husband in caring  for  our  family.  I  am  happy  that  I  have  influenced  positive  change  in  other  people’s  lives  through  VS  &  L.  For   example, I held my golden jubilee celebration party on 17 August, 2012 and invited people including my relatives who came as far as Lower Gweru. They appreciated what we are doing in this community and appreciated the potential benefits of VS & L. When they went back, they started a VS & L group and have invited me to go and train them on IGA skills i.e. bakery, manufacturing drinks, floor polish and candles. I will go for that training this coming April. 18 Grammar  in  the  MSC  reflects  the  informants’  own  words.    This  is  accepted  social  science  practice to preserve their authentic voices as much as possible. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 47 2.2 BEITBRIDGE VILLAGE, SAVINGS AND LENDING MS. LIZA NCUBE Ms. Liza Ncube is a widow, a mother of six, living with HIV/AIDS and currently staying with her two daughters and four grandchildren. Three of the grandchildren are enrolled in school and she is responsible for payment of their school fees and their upkeep. Her daughters earn little income through casual work in the nearby farms. Before 2011, Ms Ncube’s  family  was  one  of  the  poorest  in  her  community,  staying  in  a  shaky  hut,  had  challenges  in   accessing adequate and nutritious food, could hardly have any money, on average ate one meal per day and always had to go begging for food. Her first engagement with PRIZE was in 2011 when she was selected by the community, to be one of the workers under FFA on dam rehabilitation she also received VS and L training and since July 2011 has been a member of one of the VS and L groups. The group contributes monthly subscriptions of R100 and borrows each other loans at 20% interest rate per month. Within the group, they have individually started income generating projects, Ms. Ncube does buying and selling of bread, live goats and cooked goat meat. Her market is the neighboring commercial farms where lots of workers come from afar to pick oranges during the picking season. She buys live goats at an average cost of R150 –R200 and sells them for about R250-R400 depending on size and quality. The proceeds from these activities enable her to pay for her VS and L monthly subscriptions, pay back borrowed loans and remain with profit which she uses for household requirements. In June 2012 Ms. Ncube bought 5 bags of cement, 7 zinc roofing sheets and bricks to finish building her house using her VS and L shares and dividends. As a VS & L group they also managed to buy a goat for each member. To date she is now able to pay school fees for her grandchildren, and buy clothes, adequate and nutritious food. She is longer a beggar, but now a business woman and a community referral point for those who want to start up their VS and L group and small businesses. “My  life  has  completely  changed,  some  villagers  come  to  me  and  ask how I managed to build a house within such a short time, and I feel very proud in narrating and teaching how VS & L have enabled me to move away from poverty. This has given me confidence and self-esteem. Now I have peace of mind and this has contributed a lot to my living positively with HIV. I will remain active in VS & L activities, and I intend to buy a donkey and a scotch cart  by  June  2013.  Now  I  look  to  the  future  with  hope.  I  just  want  to  thank  CARE  for  transforming  my  life”. 2.3 DISTRICT: RUSHINGA VS AND L: MS. NOSTER BAREWA Ms. Noster Barewa is a 30 year old from Rushinga District. She does sewing for a living and has been doing it for the past six (6) years. However, she used to get as little as US$5 per month from sewing and had to supplement her income through casual labor. As her earnings from sewing were limited, she could not save and perpetually struggled to provide for her family of four (4). In 2011, she was invited to join training on VS and L by Community Technology Development Trust (CTDO) Commutech and she attended. The training provided insights on creating quality products, conducting market analysis, keeping records and saving. She began to ensure the products were of higher quality and has negotiating a contract with a local primary school to supply uniforms. But since she received training from PRIZE and joined a VS and L group she can now access loans to use as capital for her sewing business. Her income per month from sewing has increased to from about $5 per month to $40. She uses her dividends and shares from VS and L pay school fees for her children and ensure the family has access to  food.  Because  of  the  VS&L  group  Ms.  Barewa’s  life  has  changed  for  the  better  and  even  other  community   members who are part of the VS and L group are her immediate markets. 2.4 District: Rushinga VS & L: Ms.Toitasei Mususa Ms. Mususa is a divorcee with two children. Before PRIZE she earned a living through casual labor where she would earn $1 to $2 per day or doing illegal gold panning along Mazowe river banks. Most of the times, she would beg for food and other requirements from relatives with some who felt she was a burden since they were struggling as well. Her family survived on one meal per day, she and the children looked very impoverished, she could not afford to pay school fees for her children and now and again they were sent back from school. She lived a stressful life  and  usually  contemplated  suicide  to  ‘escape’  the  misery. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 48 Ms. Mususa got involved with PRIZE in 2012 when she was selected as one of the FFA workers for the establishment of Nyamukurungi garden. She was also allocated a piece of land in the garden, received trainings from CTDO on horticultural production, conservation agriculture, marketing, disaster risk reduction and village savings and lending (VS & L). Since August 2012 she is a member of a local VS and L group. She borrowed her first VS & L monthly subscription of $5 from her mother, and she was the first member to borrow a loan of $30 from the fund that she used as capital to in  a  business  of  buying  and  selling  mobile  phone  airtime  (‘juice  cards’).   In addition to selling juice cards, she up scaled and diversified her business in November 2012, and started ordering sandals  (‘mapushi’).    The  sandals  were  on  high  demand:  in  December she sold 50 pairs and in January 2013 sold 150  pairs.  All  the  proceeds  from  the  business  have  transformed  Ms.  Mususa’s  family  life.  She  is  managing  to  pay   school fees of $40 per term for her two children, something which she used to fail to do. Her family is no longer begging for food and can now afford at least two meals every day. Ms. Mususa managed to buy 2 goats, kitchen utensils, blankets and clothing for her family and managed to buy agricultural inputs on time and hired casual laborers to help with weeding. “I  have  gained  dignity  among  this  community  and  within  my  extended  family,  now  easily  participate  in  community   gatherings and contribute to discussions at public meetings without fear. Through VS &L I feel as if I am employed, I am earning more than $100 per month (as net profit). I am also practicing CA, and have been able to harvest enough grain for my family when the season is favorable. My family looks healthy, my children have friends now – they are no longer being shunned by other children as used to happen before. VS and L is a real bank, it enables one to get capital for investment easily and it is an entry point into business, it calls for entrepreneurship skills and one has to work hard to ensure paying back loans, subscriptions and generating profit. I give thanks to PRIZE for the enlightenment  and  empowerment  invested  in  me.”   2.5 DISTRICT: MBERENGWA Ward 18, Mataga VS & L: Ms. Jennifer Zhou Ms. Zhou is a widow who struggled financially ever since her husband died. She was failing to provide food, clothing and school fees for her son. However ever since she joined the community garden and received assistance from PRIZE her economic status has changed. To date she has managed to build her own home and is now managing  to  pay  her  child’s  school fees. Ms. Zhou and the other 66 garden members received conservation farming training, VS and L, market linkages, FAAB and management skills for the garden. CARE also provided the group with fencing material to protect the garden against livestock and thieves. Since then the produce from the garden has been tremendous, bringing not only diverse crops for consumption but also for sale. Ms. Zhou joined a VS and L group called Kushinga in 2012 and started paying subscriptions and borrowing money amongst their membership. Part of the income that she acquires from the garden is channelled towards payment of VS and L monthly subscriptions. Ms. Zhou has since resumed cross-border trader business which she had stopped doing because of financial incapacity. With the profits that she has made she managed to buy a heifer for her family. “Through  working  with  CARE  I  have  learnt  the  importance  of  working  and  collaborating  as  a  team  both  at  the   garden and in the VS and L group. For women to achieve an economic status even in their households they should always be willing to learn and work extra hard. I always encourage all the other people I train on VS and L to be vigilant and work hard and be honest and cooperate with other community members, that way we can achieve development. I thank CARE very much for their  support  and  role  in  changing  my  life  for  better”.   PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 49 INTERVENTION: LIVESTOCK AND PARA-VETERINARY TRAINING 2.6 DISTRICT: GWANDA MR. VINCENT NDLOVU I am a Para-veterinary with one wife and two children. I received PRIZE Livestock Management and Para￾veterinary Trainings in Guyu and Esigodini. Livestock management training included poultry, cattle and goats; conditions for breeding livestock; and disease prevention, control and care. Initially I did not have any livestock but since I attended the training by CARE, I bought my own. In 2012 I bought 11 chickens, 2 goats, 15 cattle (heifers). Now I have 76 chickens, 13 goats and 18 heifers. I have sold 18 goats to FAO for breeding stock. I sold these for $52 after having bought them for $20. Using the supplementing method, I would barter trade heifers for steers and sell steers and buy again. I do pen fattening of the steers so that they become marketable. Buyers do not buy heifers; these are for breeding stock only. I rear Chickens (Road Runners) through the good management skills taught by CARE on how to multiply chickens from incubation to hatching period. I am also into cattle pen fattening using cattle pen fattening meal from National Foods which goes for $13, 50 per 50kg bag. I have learnt and realized that cattle (maturity stage=70-90days) gain fat and weight very fast. I do buy cattle at $300 and sell at $700. Selling is usually at Gwanda Agriculture Auction. Since last year I have sold more than 20 cattle. I do barter exchange of heifers for steers. Heifers cost $300 and I sold steers for $700. With the $700 that I get I buy two more heifers. Sale is done after every 14 days. Per month I sell on average 10 cattle but this can go up to 15. I also leave behind some heifers for continued breeding but my breeding and selling stock is different. I do use crop residues to supplement feeding Before receiving training from CARE, I did not see the value of livestock breeding. Now I know that there is a lot of wealth in livestock which can raise my standard of living, improve my livelihood and country standards as well. The money that I get surpasses that of a person who sits in an office. Before the training, I was living with my parents but I have now bought my own house for $9 800 in Gwanda. In my rural area, I have also built a nice home for the family. Now I do not go to CARE for food rations as when I first knew about them. In 2012 alone, I managed to get $35 000. As a contribution to the community I am paying school fees for 5 orphans at Nkashe Primary School where I learnt. INTERVENTION: IRRIGATION SCHEMES 2.7 District: MUDZI Irrigation Scheme: Mr. Bernard Murehwa Mr. Bernard Murehwa worked as a teacher from 1989-92 before he moved to work for OK Zimbabwe. As the economic situation got worse, his wages became insufficient to sustain himself and his family so he decided to supplement  his  income  through  horticulture  on  his  father’s  plot  in  Mudzi  which  already  had  a  dam.  He  acquired   basic poly pipes for irrigation but his production was low owing to the fact that the dam had been highly silted and the pipes he had were inadequate. He used to produce around 300 boxes of tomatoes which did not provide enough income. In 2011, Mr. Murehwa was assisted to scoop his dam and conduct some environmental protection works on his dam by Community Technology Development Organisation (CTDO). In addition, he received irrigation equipment for his horticulture garden. To ensure he developed good business management skills, he was provided with training on Farming as a Business (FaaB). The training improved his capacity to plan before planting, record and track inputs as well as do market analysis. In 2012 he harvested and sold 1100 boxes of tomatoes and the produce fetched him $4000 after all expenses. He has managed to buy a car, three cows, plastering his house and helped his child start up a flea market with a capital injection of $1500. Mr. Murehwa now owns nurseries from where he sells seedlings to other community members. He anticipates that his production and income will increase and he looks forward to supporting other communal farmers willing to learn. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 50 2.8 District: Matobo Emadwaleni Village Small Irrigation Scheme: Mr. P. Khumalo Prior to my involvement with ORAP, I used a D60 pump which was only able to command 2 sprinklers and no more than 2 ha. I then got involved with PRIZE and ORAP in 2012 when I sought assistance to buy irrigation pipes, sprinklers, hose pipes and a D62 pump that helped me to expand my irrigated area from 2 ha to 4 ha. I contributed $200 and was given a grant of $2000 which was used by ORAP to procure a D62 for me able to command 4 sprinklers. In addition, ORAP helped me to purchase pipes, hoses and a drip kit for my garden at my house. This allowed me to open up 2 ha that I irrigate using sprinklers. I grow horticultural crops including vegetables, green mealies, cabbages, chaumollier, rape, onion, tomatoes, butternut and cucumber. I also received training in horticultural production and Farming as a Business to help sharpen my business management and recording skills. My income has increased considerably. Currently in addition to money I earn from the maize field I just made $500 from peas and carrots that I grew on my 0.15 ha drip garden at home in only 3 months. I have managed to expand my irrigated area by 2 ha as a result of the assistance. The D6 pump allows me to use either sprinklers or surface irrigation. Crop rotation is now easier. I now expect to get 8-9 tons/ha of the maize crop that has already matured in the field. I am selling my green mealies on 2 ha as you saw from the truck that came to order maize cobs here. I am earning $100/week at a price of $1 for 3 cobs. I employ 3 workers permanently. I wake up at 0100hrs to fill 20 000litres in my 2 tanks. I learnt that if one wants to maximize benefits of a loan or grant, one has to use it to the maximum and should have plans before accessing the funds. In addition, I suggest that the grant could be turned into a revolving fund in which the beneficiary should pay back 50% so that others have an opportunity to access money. I thank PRIZE for offering me training in equipment installation, use and maintenance as well as and the visit I had to Pedstock in Harare that convinced me that drip kits are productive. 2.9 District: Matobo Mahetshe Village Small Investments Grants: Mr. W. Tshuma Initially I was using water from my 20m deep well to water my crops. In 201I, I got involved with PRIZE and ORAP when the Agritex worker who was teaching me conservation farming advised me to approach ORAP for technical assistance. I then applied for funds to buy a generator, submersible pump and pipes to irrigate my field. I paid 10% of the total quotation of $2 012, while the rest was a grant from PRIZE. Out of my 2.5 ha of arable land I am currently irrigating 0.1 ha of round nuts, 0.2 ha of green mealies and 1 ha of cowpeas. Since I got assistance from ORAP and the trainings in farming I now make enough money to meet the needs of my family and to assist disadvantaged members of our society. Now I am able to pay fees for my children, pay hospital bills, buy clothes (my kids did not have shoes) and give vegetables to the elderly, things I could not do in the past. During the first season last year I sold vegetables for $150. To date neighbors come to me for help with vegetables and water for domestic use given that this is a very dry area. The most significant change in my life is that I now have a pump and generator to pump water and irrigate an area that is much larger than what I was irrigating by drawing water using a bucket. I am also able to make a lot of money as I can irrigate onions, chaumollier, cabbages, tomatoes and spinach, which are in high demand within the community. PRIZE differs from other programs in that it is the only donor program that gives grants to individuals. Other programs do not. Banks have high interest rates; therefore it is difficult to borrow money. Through this experience I have learnt and appreciated that PRIZE is interested in development whether for an individual or as a group. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 51 INTERVENTION: NUTRITION GARDENS 2.10 DISTRICT: Mangwe Ward 14, Madlaziduli Village Nutrition Garden: Ms. Biziwe Dube: Umama Osephapheme Ms. BiziweDube is a widow, staying with 3 grandchildren (one is an orphan and the other two were abandoned by her children who went to South Africa). Before 2010, Ms.  Dube’s  family life was marred with struggle begging for food, lack of clothing, living in a shaky hut and grandchildren who dropped out of primary school due to failure to pay school fees. Ms. Dube owned a small portion of land in Madlaziduli community garden that rarely reaped any produce due to water challenges. The sand abstraction pumps frequently broke down and as an old woman she struggled to use the bucket system from the nearby river. Her first encounter with ORAP was in 2010 when she started receiving monthly food rations (50kg bulgur, cooking oil and 3kg beans) for vulnerable households. The rations allowed her family to move from having one meal to having 2 meals per day, and she stopped begging for food. Her life changing moment was in 2012 when her community garden, Madlaziduli, benefited from ORAP trainings on gardening, village savings and lending, marketing and received $2000 as small grant investment to acquire a new motorized water pump. Ms. Dube is now a proud owner of 35 (1mx3m dimension) beds and grows a diverse range of vegetables including onions, spinach, butternuts and giant chomolieur which she never used to grow due to lack of knowledge. To date she produces an average of 15-20 bundles of vegetables per week selling at R10 per bundle. Ms.  Dube’s  family  has  since improved their diet and eats nutritious food every day. From her vegetable sales income she managed to build 2 decent huts, enrolled her grandchildren back to school and contribute a subscription of R20 per month for VS and L. From her VS & L shares she bought chickens and one goat in December 2012, an achievement she says she never dreamt of. “ORAP  support  made  a  huge  difference  in  my  life,  and  from  nobody  I  am  somebody.  I  am  empowered  and   enlightened.  The  community  now  values  me  as  ‘a  person’  no  more  a beggar. I can now easily associate with most of the people in this community; I am like a chick which broke out of the egg shell. ORAP emancipated me from poverty, I am now a hard worker though limping here and there but I no longer live in fear as I am guaranteed to avail food for my grandchildren every day. I thank ORAP very much because they enlightened me and my life will never  be  the  same.  PRIZE  is  the  source  of  my  pride”. . PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 52 INTERVENTION: CONSERVATION FARMING 2.11 District: Mangwe Conservation Farming: Mr. KhupeMatha Mr. Khupe (79) stays with his grandchild and mentally challenged daughter. They survive only on crop farming which Mr. Khupe usually does by himself if his daughter is not feeling well. In the past Mr. Khupe used to do crop farming but would yield not more than 5kgs of maize because of the low rainfalls and high temperatures in the region. In 2010 Mr. Khupe benefited from the food rations which were being provided for by ORAP for vulnerable households. The food rations alleviated his family from starvation as they were only able to have one meal per day and at times would beg to neighbors. In the same year he received training in conservation farming which has brought more change into his life. Since he adopted conservation farming, Mr.  Khupe’s  family  has  not  gone  to  beg  for  food  or  do  casual  labor  for  the   rich in the community. At the bare minimum Mr. Khupe can harvest about 300kg of maize and 400kg of sorghum. He sells some of his crop produce in order to raise money for school fees and books for his grandson and to meet other household needs. According to Mr. Khupe, conservation farming unlike ox drawn farming, does not allow soil erosion and runoff but allows water to be contained in a small basin for the crop to sustain its growth. Mr. Khupe today continues to teach other community members who are now replicating his method of farming after they have witnessed the drastic change of his life since he started practicing conservation farming. Since 2011 he has been selected as Ward 3 number 1 lead farmer during the community field days. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 53 ANNEX 3. EVALUATION DESIGN ZIMBABWE OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE EVALUATION DESIGN PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 54 1. Introduction This document outlines the USAID PRIZE Performance Evaluation design and workplan. It includes methods, sampling, data sources, and data collection plan used to address each key evaluation question. The document further outlines known limitations to the evaluation design. An evaluation workplan is also provided as well as a data collection plan along with logistical arrangements. Evaluation Design The Evaluation is using a quasi-experimental design focusing on the situation before the PRIZE Project and the situation after the intervention. Design Limitation: The selected Evaluation design requires comparable baseline data which is not available for the PRIZE Project. However, the Performance Evaluation will utilize national level data from the Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVAC) reports. Using ZimVAC reports to derive baseline values will also present limitations as the ZimVAC reports are national (population based) in scope while the Evaluation is focusing on the eight (8) targeted districts and within a targeted district the Evaluation only focuses on Project beneficiaries. Process Limitation: Data Quality Challenges resulted from changes in the overall Project M&E system during project implementation. The Evaluation will only use indicator data collected throughout the Project life cycle for consistency. Process Limitation: There is an unpredictable political operating environment which may affect community entry and data collection. The Evaluation is ensuring strong prior mobilisation and sensitisation of all stakeholders from National to Community level. The Evaluation Team will pay courtesy calls to District Administrators before data collection at district level. Sampling The Evaluation will be conducted in the eight (8) PRIZE Project implementation districts (i.e. Rushinga, Mudzi, Bulilima, Mangwe, Matobo, Gwanda, Mberengwa and Beitbridge). At district level, four wards will be randomly selected from those that benefitted from PRIZE interventions using random sampling through random number generation. The sampling approach is as follows: Performance Evaluation Population The Performance Evaluation population consists for all households that benefited from at least one PRIZE Project interventions under Strategic Objective 2 [SO2: 112,097 vulnerable households have re-established food security in eight (8) districts] At key informant level the population consists of all donors, national stakeholders, Government of Zimbabwe (national, provincial, district and ward levels) and Community leaders who worked closely with PRIZE Project. The Evaluation will randomly pick household respondents whilst purposive sampling is used to pick key informants at national, provincial, district and community levels. Tables 1 and 2 below provide an overview of sample sizes by data collection method. Table 1: Household Questionnaire Data Collection Method Level Number of Respondents Total Number of Wards per District Total number of Households per District Total Number of Districts Total number of Households Household Questionnaire Ward 15 4 60 8 480 Focus Group Discussion Guide Ward 2 FGDs 4 8 FGDs 8 64 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 55 Most Significant Change Ward 2 per District 8 16 Site visits Ward 2 per Ward 4 8 8 64 Household Visits [These will be used to observe and document qualitative household level success stories] Ward 2 per Ward 4 8 8 64 Table 2: Key Informants Level Type of Respondents Data Collection Method National Government Representative (Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development [Livestock Department; Irrigation Department, AGRITEX] Ministry of Labour and Social Services) Key Informant Interviews Donor Representatives Key Informant Interviews Value Chain Actors Key Informant Interviews National Partner Representative Key Informant Interviews Provincial Government Department Representatives (Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanization and Irrigation Development [Livestock Department; Irrigation Department, AGRITEX] Ministry of Labour and Social Services) Key Informant Interviews Value Chain actors Key Informant Interviews District District Administrators Key Informant Interviews Rural District Council Chief Executive Officers Key Informant Interviews Department of Social Services Key Informant Interviews District Agricultural Extension Officer Crop and Livestock District Irrigation Specialist EMA Value Chain Stakeholders Other NGOS implementing in the District Key Informant Interviews Ward Ward Councilor Lead Farmers Village Savings and Lending Groups Key Informant Interviews Community Leaders (Chiefs; Headmen; Village Heads) Key Informant Interviews Ward Agricultural Extension Workers (crop and livestock) Key Informant Interviews Women and men from large-scale irrigation schemes Key Informant Interviews Any others recommended by Implementing Partners Key Informant Interviews Household Questionnaire Respondents Inclusion Criteria Households where the questionnaire is to be administered will be randomly selected from the overall list of beneficiaries in a ward. The Evaluation requires 15 households per ward but a total of 25 Households will be randomly selected and partners will be provided with names of the households. If it is not possible to administer the household questionnaire to an initially selected household, the next nearest beneficiary household will be interviewed. The households to be included should have the following: PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 56  They should have benefitted from PRIZE Project Interventions;  The Household Head or spouse should be available on the day of interviewing;  The Household should be accessible;  The Household Head or spouse should have been part of the PRIZE Project for at least the past 12 months;  The Household Head or spouse should have been residing in the project implementation area for at least the past 12 months. Contingency  If initially selected household is unavailable, household is inaccessible or they do not fit the inclusion criteria the next nearest eligible household from the list of 25 will be interviewed. Pre-Testing Data Collection Tools will be pretested for one (1) day in Wards 13 and 14 (Rushinga District). In addition to testing the tools, the process will facilitate testing the methodology especially given the random sampling approach and the need for Enumerators to move from Household to Household. Pre-testing will be done with twenty (20) households, four (4) Key Informant Interviews, two (2) MSC stories, two (2) observation/site visits, and one (1) Focus Group Discussion (FGD). Lessons learned from Pre-testing will be incorporated into the final data collection tools and methodology for actual data collection. Wards selected for pre-testing will not be included in the Evaluation sample. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 57 a. Design Matrix including methods, sampling, data sources and known limitations Goal Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitatio ns Goal: Reduced Food Insecurity for Vulnerable Individuals in 8 Districts of Zimbabwe by 2012 To what extent did the program achieve the intended goal, objectives and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? Quantitative and Qualitative Proportion of food insecure population in target districts No target ZimVAC (Number of people food insecure at peak in May 2010, May 2011 and May 2012) ZimVAC Reports & Annual Results Report, Other Partner Reports, Data, Performance Evaluation (Household Questionnaire HHQ) Results, Key Informant Interviews (KII), Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Most Significant Change Stories (MSC) Quasi Experimental Design [Difference-in￾difference (pre￾post with￾without comparison)] 480 beneficiary Households Archived Data Extraction Tool, Household Questionnaire, Literature Review Guide, Key Informant Guide, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide Percentage Trend Analysis Disaggregated by Gender of Household Head Beneficiary Households, KII (District Level) and Partner Staff The PRIZE Project does not have a baseline PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 58 Strategic Objective 1 Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Strategic Objective 1: Emergency Food Needs of 151, 280 individuals are addressed. To what extent did the program achieve the intended goal, objectives and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? SO1.1. Did the project address Emergency food needs of 151,280 individuals ? Quantitativ e and Qualitative Number of people receiving USG￾supported emergency food assistance during peak of hunger period of first year of the project 151,280 N/A Annual Results Report, Partner Database; ZimVAC Report Archived Data Extraction Tool, Literature Review Guide, Focus Group Discussion Guide and Key Informant Guide Descriptive Statistics, Disaggregat ed by Gender of Household Head and Vulnerabilit y Status Beneficiary Households, KII (District Level) and Partner Staff Strategic Objective 2 Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standar d Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Strategic Objective 2: 112,097 Vulnerable Households have re established Food Security To what extent did the program achieve the intended goal, objectives and results as defined by the PRIZE Results Framework? SO2.0. To what extent did the targeted 112,097 vulnerable households have re￾established food security? Qualitative and Quantitativ e Months of adequate household food provisioning; Average Household Dietary Diversity Score; Percentage of beneficiary households with at least one additional livelihood strategy acquired as a result of the project. Percentage of beneficiary households who dropped at least one negative coping strategy as a result of PRIZE interventions No Target Not Available Beneficiary Households Quasi Experimental Design (Before and After); 480 Households Household Questionnaire and Archived Data Extraction Tool, Literature Review Guide, Key Informant Guide, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide, Key Informants Trend Analysis Disaggregat ed by Gender of Household Head Community Level Key Informants Lack of valid baseline for HDDS and adequate household food provision indicators PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 59 SO 2.2. To what extent did the project increase income for targeted 5,800 vulnerable households? Qualitative and Quantitativ e Percentage of beneficiaries who sold produce from PRIZE promoted priority crops; Household Income (by type of Intervention); Value of incremental sales of farmers produce collected at marketing group level) attributed to PRIZE implementation, disaggregated by product type. No Target Not available PRIZE Monitoring Database & Records kept by Farmer Groups, HHQ Results, KIIs, FGDs, Most Significant Change Stories Quasi Experimental Design (Before and After), Sample of Beneficiary Households Household Questionnaire, Literature Review Guide, Key Informant Guide, Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide, Most Significant Change (MSC) Guide Descriptive Statistics and Content Analysis (Analysis by Type of Interventio n e.g. Training in Farming as a Business, Conservatio n Agriculture, Village Savings and Lending (VSL)) Beneficiary Households, KII (District Level), Private Sector Companies, Farmers' Groups and Partner Staff SO2.3. How have the targeted 14,400 vulnerable households engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks? Quantitativ e and Qualitative Households with Diversified (more than 2 sources) Sources of Income Disaggregated by Gender; Percentage of VS&L/SILC group members who used loans or savings to establish productive investments disaggregated by sex; Portfolio Value of Group Income Not availabl e VS&L Groups records, HHQ Results, KIIs, FGDs, Most Significant Change Stories, PRIZE Database on VS&L Non Experimental , Desk Review, Sample of VS&L Groups, Sample of Households Archived Data Extraction Tool, HHQ, Focus Group Discussion Guide and Most Significant Change (MSC) Guide Descriptive Statistics and Content Analysis (Disaggreg ated by Gender) VS&L Groups/Member s, KII (District Level), Private Sector, Households, Farmers' Groups and Partner Staff PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 60 Targeting Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub- Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Targeting To what extent did program activities reach vulnerable households with appropriate interventions to reduce food insecurity? a. How was the beneficiary targeting process transparent and effective in reaching vulnerable Households? Qualitative Communities including non project beneficiaries satisfied with beneficiary selection process, Vulnerable households directly benefited from PRIZE interventions Low exclusion and inclusion errors N/A PRIZE Beneficiary targeting documents, Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Non Experimental, Desk Review Sample of communities Literature Review Guide, Key Informant Interview Guide and FGD Guide, Qualitative Content Analysis (Disaggregated by Gender and Intervention Type) KII (District Level), (Local leaders e.g. Village Head) Households and Partner Staff b. Which PRIZE interventions contributed most/least to improved household food security Qualitative and Quantitative Types of interventions used by most households as a livelihood source No target N/A Households, Key Informants and Community Groups Non Experimental 480 Beneficiary Households HHQ, Key Informant Interview Guide and Focus Group Discussion Guide Descriptive Statistics and Content Analysis (Disaggregated by Gender) KII (District Level), Households and Partner Staff c. How did timing of each intervention influence its contribution to improved food security Qualitative Timing for different interventions Relevance to community calendar of farming and other events N/A Households, Key Informants and Community Groups Non Experimental 480 Households and Sampled Community Members Focus Group Discussion Guide, Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis (By Gender and Vulnerability Status) Households, Partner Staff and Key Informants (District Level) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 61 Sustainability Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Sustainability To what extent are program activities likely to be sustainable a. Why are some PRIZE interventions utilised by beneficiaries and communities more than others Qualitative Factors which make some interventions more effective than others in addressing food insecurity, Access to forecasting and disaster early warning information by farmers, Proportion of type of intervention utilised N/A PRIZE FFA Database, Asset Management Committees, FGD, KII Non Experimental 480 Beneficiary Households Focus Group Discussion Guide, Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis Households, Partner Staff and Key Informants (District Level) b. Which PRIZE interventions are communities replicating with their own resources? Qualitative Level of utilisation of different assets; Types of activities being replicated by communities with own resources; Reasons for replication of activities Assets relevant to the needs of the people N/A Key Informants, Community Groups and FGDs Non Experimental Sample of communities Key Informant Interview Guide and Focus Group Discussion Guide Content Analysis Households, Partner Staff and Key Informants (District Level), Community Monitors c. What mechanisms are in place to ensure the continued functionality of the various assets Qualitative Management committees in place and already functional Community ownership of the assets, Constitution/MOUs in place; Government oversight N/A Key Informants, and FGDs Non Experimental Sample of communities, Sample of community and household infrastructure/ass Key Informant Interview Guide and Focus Group Discussion Guide, Assessment of operational state Descriptive Statistics (Disaggregated by Gender) Community Leaders, Asset Management Committees PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 62 created ets of infrastructure and conservation farming and other assets through field inspections at sample sites Resilience Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Resilience To what extent did the project improve resilience of beneficiaries to respond to future shocks? Qualitative and Quantitativ e (Community Resilience Plans if available); Available asset maintenance plans with financial mobilisation strategies where application, Strategies to promote beneficiary resilience to future shocks No Target N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental 480 Beneficiary Households, Selected Beneficiary Communities Key Informants, FGDs Content Analysis Partner Staff, USAID, Beneficiaries, KII (District Level) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 63 Lessons Learned Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Lessons Learned What were the key lessons learned in implementing the PRIZE Project a) How effective was the consortium model (project management modality) in facilitating achievement of the project Goal Qualitative Contribution towards achievement of Project Goal Achievement of Project Goal N/A Key Informants Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, KII (District) and Other Donors b) What were the lessons learned in relation to local organisations' capacities for implementin g projects? Qualitative Capacity of Local NGOs to contribute to Project Results Achievement of Project Results N/A Key Informants Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, KII (District), WFP, FEWSNET and Other Donors c) What were the lessons learned in relation to timeliness of intervention activities? Qualitative Timeliness of Interventions Achievement of Project Results N/A Key Informants Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, KII (District) and WFP d) What were the lessons learned in relation to coordination and linkages with other USAID funded activities Qualitative Level of coordination and linkages with other USAID funded activities N/A Key Informants Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff e) What were the lessons learned in Qualitative Level of coordination and linkages with N/A Key Informants Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff and Other PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 64 relation to coordination and linkages with other donor activities other Donors Guide Donors f) What were the lessons learned in relation to coordination and linkages with Government of Zimbabwe Activities Qualitative Level of coordination and linkages with Government of Zimbabwe Activities N/A Key Informants/ Partner Reports Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff and Government of Zimbabwe (National, Provincial and District Level) g) What were the lessons learned in Organisation al Development , Learning, Adaptation and sharing across the consortium Strategies for learning, adaptation and sharing across the consortium N/A Key Informants/ Partner Reports Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide Content Analysis USAID, Implementing Partners, GoZ Stakeholders, Other Funding Partners, United Nations Agencies. Mainstreaming Cross-Cutting Issues PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 65 Design Level Broad Evaluation Question Sub￾Question Type of Sub￾question Measure of Indicator Target or Standard Baseline Data Data Source Design Strategy for Question Sample or Census Data Collection Instrument Data Analysis Type of Respondent Limitations Cross-Cutting Issues How did the project incorporate cross-cutting issues? a) How did the project mainstream gender? Qualitative Strategies for incorporating gender issues Achievement of Project Goal N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide, FGD Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, Households b) How did the project mainstream Environment al Issues? Qualitative Strategies for incorporating Environmental Protection Issues Environment ally friendly implementati on strategies N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide, FGD Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, Households, Environmental Management Authority c) How did the project mainstream Disability? Qualitative Strategies for mainstreaming Disability Issues Disability friendly programming strategies N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide, FGD Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, Households, KII (District Level) d) How did the project mainstream HIV&AIDS? Qualitative HIV&AIDS Mainstreaming Strategies HIV&AIDS mainstreamin g strategies N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide, FGD Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, Households, KII (District Level) e) How did the project mainstream issues of the Elderly? Qualitative Strategies for incorporating issues affecting the Elderly Effective mainstreamin g of issues affecting the elderly N/A Key Informant s, FGDs Non Experimental Key Informant Interview Guide, FGD Guide Content Analysis USAID, Partner Staff, Households, KII (District Level) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 66 b. Data Collection and Analysis Plan to Address Each Key Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Type of Data Analysis & Presentation Data Sources Evaluation Question One (results achieved). Report section 2.2.1  Simplified table of project results (high level of Goal, SO, and IR)  Proportion of population vs. overall level of need (ZimVAC)  Frequency distribution: overall participation in assets generated (from HHS, primarily, augmented by FGD); disaggregated by gender and ward (if applicable)  Process and change management: Implementing Partner (IP) documents and KII  Commodity management (from IP documents and KII with IP)  Table: Functionality of assets generated (from IP documents, site visits, FGDs)  KII and FGD responses on what those results mean for the communities (especially food security questions)  ZimVAC statistics on HH food security in targeted districts; annual change to compare with overall results from project  IP documents (ARRs)  ZimVAC reports (from 2010, 2011, 2012)  HHS QA1.a, b (crosscheck E1); FGD Q1; District KII Q2; Community KII Q2  IP asset review; site visit notes; FGD Q1, 2, 7, 16, 18, 19, 20  Community KII Q9, FGD Q1, 2, 7, 16, 18, 19, 20  ZimVAC reports (from 2010, 2011, 2012) Evaluation Question 1.1 (income generated for 5,800). Report section 2.2.2  Bar chart: Agricultural production (by crop from HHS); total and table showing production disaggregated by district  VS&L: no. participants, frequency of loans, avg. size of loans, purpose, income generated (documents and HHS);  KII and FGD responses on process, utility, effects (footnote: N responses on this topic; basic frequency distribution on typology of responses) ; separated by ag/livestock production and VS&L activities  HHS QD1-4, E1-3 (crosscheck)  HHS QF1-3; IP reports  District KII Q2; Community KII Q2; FGD Q3, 16 Evaluation Question 1.2 (14,000 HHS engagement to mitigate shocks). Report section 2.2.3  Frequency distribution of overall participation in different interventions (project documents)  Frequency distribution of participation in different interventions (HHS)  Overall distribution of FFA by district/ward, no. HH reached, total no. days worked (disaggregated by gender); (Project documents)  No./type of HH choices in participation (ex., women headed HH tended to participate more in household-based activities); relative percentage distribution by single intervention, mode of most common interventions, mean number of interventions chosen (HHS by district/ward; with caveat about IP implementation)  HH income: frequency distribution of sources, agricultural production/value by crop (comparison with ZimVAC); pie chart with modes of HH income overall; bar chart for districts  Frequency distribution of average meals/day (from HHS); vulnerable category % distribution; correlation with head of household x average meals/day  Overall Dietary diversity (from HHS); vulnerable category %, table with district distribution  Months of food security (from HHS); correlations: with types of interventions chosen x duration of food security, duration of food security x head of household, types of interventions x head of household  FGD and KII on effect on communities of agriculture production  Marketing and linkages (KII and FGD)  IP documents, especially ARR  HHS QA1a-b  IP docs, esp. ARR  HHS QA1a, b, B1-4; IP database distribution  HHS QC1, D1-4 (cross check with E1-3); note also HHS QE10  HHS QE13  HHS QE14  HHS QE6-9  FGD Q3, 6, 7, 16, 20; Community KII 3, District KII Q3  FGD Q11, 19; District and Community KII Q2 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 67 Evaluation Question Type of Data Analysis & Presentation Data Sources Evaluation Question Two (appropriateness and reach of interventions). Report section 2.2.4  Frequency distribution of participation in interventions (IP documents)  KII and FGD: appropriateness (by district/ward)  IP database and ARR  FGD Q6-7; District KII Q4-7; Community KII Q5-8 Evaluation Question 2.1 (targeting transparent and effective). Report section 2.2.5  Frequency distribution: targeting criteria understood (by district: HHS)  KII and FGD: targeting appropriate; types of challenges x district/ward/community; resolutions  Correlations: type of household head x targeting (HHS)  HHS QB, G  District KII Q4; Community KII Q5; FGD Q4-5  HHS QB x G Evaluation Question 2.2 (most/least intervention contribution to improved food security). Report section 2.2.6  Frequency distribution: interventions x district; type of household (HHS); mode of interventions (most/least) by district, gender, type of household; note that this also requires some discussion about environmental choices; bar chart of most by district, bar chart of least by district; separate out agriculture, livestock, VS&L, irrigation as separate table by district  (From HHS) correlations: average value of production/income from project x district x choice of interventions x gender; maybe discuss respondent bias on interventions vs. what the project actually did; note also that areas with irrigation interventions may not show up at HH level, may need to use project docs for increased area under irrigation x district  Correlation: dietary diversity x intervention; months of food security x intervention; both by district and gender  FGD: frequency distribution separated out by most and then least; most significant change stories (perhaps text box or case study)  HHS QA1a-b, B  HHS QD1-4 (by Q3); project docs on irrigation coverage  HHS A1a-b x E10 and E11  FGD Q3 Evaluation Question 2.3 (timeliness of interventions). Report section 2.2.7  Graphic: general agricultural seasons in target districts (calendar)  IP documents: timing of interventions  Timing of interventions matched with agricultural seasons (i.e., you need to have the irrigation in place before planting); frequency distribution of timeliness of interventions (HHS); correlation of timeliness x intervention choices (top five) overall; then broken out by district (as a table)  KII and FGD: frequency distribution of responses (on-time) x district; frequency distribution of responses (not on time) x district; examples from KII/FGD; (if possible) modes of responses and resolutions to challenges (perhaps a text box)  Cropping calendar (from IP or ZimVAC?)  Intervention calendar  HHS QA1a-b, B  District KII Q6, Community KII Q7 Cross-cutting Issues. Report section 3  Distribution from HHS of family members (disability, elderly, chronic illness, gender, youth, environment); frequency distribution typology of household heads x district (HHS); correlations: household head x targeting  KII and FGD: frequency distribution/bar chart with key issues raised by category x district  HHS QB1-4  District KII Q11-13; Community KII Q12-14 FGD Q11-15 Evaluation Question 4 (resilience). Report section 4 (4.1 and 4.2) 4.1 Text box of key policy precepts; graphic: PRIZE theory of change 4.2 Evaluation Question 4 (resiliency)  Distribution of negative coping strategies (from HHS); match with ZimVAC  Frequency distribution of potential use of negative coping strategies; table of primary reason for/against x gender (from HHS)  Pie chart of yes/no to coping strategies (from HHS) x district; gender  USAID resilience policy  HHS QC, D1, E10-12; ZimVAC  HHS QC, D1, E10-12; ZimVAC  HHS QC, D1, E10-12; ZimVAC  District KII Q10 a and b; Community KII Q11a and b; PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 68 Evaluation Question Type of Data Analysis & Presentation Data Sources  KII and FGD: use quotes and most significant change stories; differentiate by level of respondent; district if adequate responses FGD Q10 Evaluation Question 3 (sustainability) Report section 5 (5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4) 5.1 Text box of working definition of sustainability 5.2 Evaluation Question 3 (likelihood of sustainability)  FGD and KII: text quotes and pie chart yes/no x district  IP interviews and documentation 5.2.1 Evaluation Question 3.1 (utilization of interventions)  HHS frequency of distribution of interventions x district; gender; head of household; bar chart of top five interventions x district  FGD and KII: most significant change stories, bar chart: primary interventions x district 5.2.2 Evaluation Question 3.2 (replication of interventions)  KII and FGD: compilation of narrative results x district; frequency distribution or bar chart of top five interventions replicated; approximate value of replications (based on average value from HHS of use) 5.2.3 Evaluation Question 3.3 (mechanisms to ensure continued functionality)  FGD and KII: committee experience; spares/skills/supplies challenges x district  PRIZE definition of sustainability (from project docs)  FGD Q8-9; District KII Q8; Community KII Q 10a and 10b  ARRs, inter al.  HHS QI11 (match with Q3); Community KII Q10b and 10c  FGD Q1-3, 5-9; District KII Q9; Community KII Q10b and 10c  FGD Q9  FGD Q8; Lessons Learned Report section 7  HHS: frequency distribution x type, district, gender  FGD: key points x district (bar chart); examples, recommendations on what to do next/how the community fixed something, most significant change  KII: key points x district (bar chart); examples, recommendations on what to do next/how the community fixed something; differentiation by level of informant  HHS QH 1-3  FGD Q16 - 20  Community KII Q15-18; District KII Q14-17; Donor KII Q5 and 7 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 69 c. EVALUATION WORK PLAN Detailed evaluation timeline (including data cleaning and analysis) ZIMBABWE OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE PROPOSED EVALUATION WORK PLAN FOR THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 70 Activity Location Business Days Proposed Dates (Period) Expected Outputs Submission Dates (Deadline) Inception Meeting USAID 0.5 10th January 2013 Inception Meeting Conducted 10th January 2013 Documents Review Contractor’s  Office 3 11thJanuary -22nd March 2013 Project Documents Reviewed 22nd January-March 2013 Development of Evaluation Design and Workplan (Inception Report) and (Development of Data Collection Tools) Contractor’s  Office 4 11th-18thJanuary 2013 Evaluation Design, Workplan& Data Collection tools Submitted to USAID 18thJanuary 2013 Pre-field meeting USAID 1 22nd January 2013 Pre-field logistics in place 22ndJanuary 2013 Development of Training Materials Contractor’s  Office 1.5 14th-16th January 2013 Training materials in place 17th January 2013 Training of Data Collection Team Contractor’s  Office 0.5 11th–23rdJanuary 2013 Training materials developed and Data Collection Team trained 23rdJanuary 2013 Pretesting of Data Collection Tools& Methodology Implementation Districts 1 24thJanuary 2013 Tools and Methodology Pretested 24thJanuary 2013 Finalisation and Printing of Tools and Manuals Contractor’s  Office 2 25th– 26thJanuary 2013 Data Collection Tools and Manual finalized and printed 26thJanuary 2013 Development of Data Entry Template in Epi Info 7 Contractor’s  Office 2 26th -28thJanuary 2013 Data Entry Template in place 28thJanuary 2013 Training of Data Entry Clerks Contractor’s  Office 0.5 29thJanuary 2013 Data Entry Clerks Ready for Data Entry 30thJanuary 2013 Field Data Collection Implementation Districts 16 30thJanuary-19th February 2013 Field work completed 20th February 2013 Data Entry Contractor’s  Office 4 04th -23rdFebruary 2012 Data Entry Completed 23rdFebruary 2013 Information Synthesis & Compilation- (Development of PowerPoint Presentation on Preliminary Findings)&(Data Analysis) Contractor’s  Office 4 25th-28th February2013 Debrief PowerPoint ready 28th February 2013 Post Field Meetings(Presentation on Preliminary Findings) USAID 1 01stMarch 2013 Debrief/Post Field Meeting Conducted 01stMarch 2013 Writing and Packaging of Evaluation Results (Data Analysis and Development of Draft Report) Contractor’s  Office 15 04th-18thMarch2013 Submission of Draft Evaluation Report to USAID 18thMarch 2013 Incorporating Comments and Finalisation of Evaluation Report Contractor’s  Office 4 25th-28thMarch –2013 Submission of Final Evaluation report to USAID 28th March 2013 Total 60 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 71 d. DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE ZIMBABWE OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE PROPOSED DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE FOR THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 72 Organisation/District Time TYPE OF INTERVIEWS DATE KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Harare Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 0815-0900Hrs Country Representative 21 January 0900-1200Hrs Management and Program Implementation Staff 21 January Harare ACDI/VOCA 1400-1700Hrs Management and Program Implementation Staff 21 January Harare CARE 1400-1500Hrs Management and Program Implementation Staff 22 January CRS,ACDI/VOCA,CARE, CTDT and ORAP 1500-1630 Interviews with Consortium M&E Officers 22 January Harare CTDT 0900-1200Hrs Management and Program Implementation Staff 23 January Harare Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Labour and Social Services 0900-1200Hrs Key Informant Interviews with National Level Government Stakeholders 28 January PRETESTING OF DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Travelling to Rushinga on 24th Departing Harare at 0500hrs Rushinga Ward 13 0900-1300hrs 15 households, 1 site visit 24 January 0900-1300hrs 4 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) 24 January 0900-1300hrs 1 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 24 January 0900-1300hrs 2 Most Significant Change (MSC) stories 24 January Ward 14 0900-1300hrs 15 households, 1 site visit 24 January 0900-1300hrs 4 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) 24 January 0900-1300hrs 1 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 24 January 0900-1300hrs 2 Most Significant Change (MSC) stories 24 January PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 73 ANNEX 4. PRIZE RESULTS FRAMEWORK PRIZE Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) YEAR 2 Basel ine Valu es Year 1 achi eve men t Year 3 Quarter 1 (Jul-Sept) Year Quarter 2 (Oct-Dec) Year 2 Quarter 3 (Jan- March) Year 3 Quarter 4 (July￾Sept) YEA R 2 ACHI EVE D TO DAT E LIF E OF PR OJ EC T AC HIE VE ME NT TO DA TE Quarter 1 Target Quarter 1 Achieved % of Quarter Target Met Quarter 2 Target Quarter 2 Achieved Quarter 3 Target Quarter 3 Achieved % of Quarte r Target Met Quarte r 4 Target Quar ter 4 Achi eved % of Quarter Target Met Performance Indicators Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in 8 districts of Zimbabwe by 2012. SO 1: Emergency food needs of 151,280 individuals are addressed. 1.1. Household Hunger Scale Score HHS) (Impact) (Population) (Fanta2/PRIZE) 1.27 (1.19 - 1.36) IR 1.1: 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals have food during the hungry season. 1.1.1. Number (annual) of people benefiting from USG￾supported social assistance programming (Vulnerable Group Feeding), disaggregated by sex (output) (F-process) 223722 223722 0 0.00% 0 0 #DI V/0! 0 0 #DIV/0 ! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 223 722 Male 92787 92787 0 0.00% 0 0 #DI V/0! 0 0 #DIV/0 ! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 927 87 Female 122419 122419 0 0.00% 0 0 #DI V/0! 0 0 #DIV/0 ! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 122 419 1.1.2. Percentage of FDPs displaying proper visual aids4 about food storage best practices (including non￾chemical pest-control strategies) on food distribution days (output) (IEE) 100.0% 0 100.0% 0 0 100.0% 100.00% 1 100.0 % 76.88 % 0.768817 204 SO 2: 91,605 vulnerable households have re-established food security 2.1. Months of adequate household food provisioning (Impact) (Population) (FFP) 4.11 (3.67 - 4.60) 2.2. Average Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (Impact) (Population) (FFP)6 4.03 (3.94 - 4.12) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 74 IR 2.1: 91, 605 vulnerable households have increased food production. 2.1.1. Percentage of farmers trained using 2 or more PRIZE -promoted sustainable agriculture technologies7 (Outcome) (FFP) (IEE) 0 2.1.2. Number (cumulative) of farmers irrigating their farmland using water from the water resources created/improved (Outcome) (PRIZE) 1069 7875 245 3.11% #DIV/0! 809 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 1005 0 7707 76.69 % 7707 7707 2.1.3. Number (cumulative) of hectares of land brought under irrigation potential by PRIZE activities (Outcome) (PRIZE) 695 454 928 204.63% #DIV/0! 977 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 290 928 320.61 % 977 977 2.1.4. Number (cumulative) of productive assets including water resources 8 improved or created by PRIZE activities (Output) (PRIZE) 699 433 146 33.72% #DIV/0! 181 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 266 150 56.39 % 477 1303 2.1.5. Number of assets (e.g. dams/irrigation, dip tank) management systems with maintenance/management committee functioning at appropriate9 levels (outcome) (IEE) 395 447 0 0.00% #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 601 525 87.35 % 525 616 2.1.6. Number (cumulative) of vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens created in program communities (Outcome) (PRIZE) 185 6291 67 1.07% #DIV/0! 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 1124 2 8662 77.05 % 8662 8662 2.1.7. Number (cumulative) of individuals who have received USG supported short -term agriculture sector productivity (including livestock) training, disaggregated by sex (Output) (F -process) 59 2578 67 2.60% 1421 18 1.27% 1522 0 0.00% 864 607 70.25 % 692 751 Male 347 1094 9 0.82% 593 56 9.45% 634 0 0.00% 412 234 56.80 % 299 646 Female 72 1484 0 0.00% 829 41 4.94% 891 0 0.00% 478 386 80.75 % 427 499 IR 2.2: 2, 500 vulnerable households have increased income. 2.2.1. Percentage of beneficiaries (individual farmers) who cultivated two or more PRIZE -promoted priority products (Outcome) (PRIZE) 0 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 75 2.2.2 Number (cumulative) of farmers trained in income generating strategies, disaggregated by sex (Output) (PRIZE) 2888 3201 2818 88.03% 499 $ 2 196.00 440.50 % 258 0 0.00% 3056 2659 87.01 % 76 73 1 0 5 6 1 Male 999 1195 750 62.76% 196 $ 838.00 426.81 % 121 0 0.00% 1317 692 52.54 % 22 80 3 2 7 9 Female 1889 2006 2068 103.09% 305 $ 1 358.00 445.69 % 139 0 0.00% 1739 1967 113.1 1% 53 93 7 2 8 2 2.2.3 Value of incremental sales of farmers (collected at marketing group level) attributed to PRIZE implementation, disaggregated by product type (Output) (FFP) $ 161 796.57 $ 1 894.00 #DIV/0! $ 1 196.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ (140 379.15) #DI V/0! 77 66 39 9 3 8 4 3 6 Cereal $ - $ 507.00 #DIV/0! $ 435.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ (1 976.00) #DI V/0! 12 60 2 1 2 6 0 2 Dry grains $ - $ 1 387.00 #DIV/0! $ 761.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ (1 326.00) #DI V/0! 39 71 3 9 7 1 Horticulture $ 65.00 $ 1 490.00 #DIV/0! $ 974.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ 44 931.85 #DI V/0! 11 31 60 1 1 3 2 2 5 Animal product/livestock $ 158 847.14 $ 394.00 #DIV/0! $ 395.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ (183 296.00) #DI V/0! 63 93 75 7 9 8 2 2 2 Others $ 2 884.43 $ 1 096.00 #DIV/0! $ 579.00 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! $ 1 287.00 #DI V/0! 75 31 1 0 4 1 5 2.2.4 Average number of FFA trainings that the value chain farmers participated in, disaggregated by sex (Output) (FFP) $ 2 477.00 $ 2 199.00 0 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 76 IR 2.3: 11,400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. 2.3.1. Total savings in US$ (cumulative) deposits held by USG-assisted VS&L/SILC groups. (Outcome) (F-process) $ 214 440.00 $ 691 526.00 $ 139 536.93 $ 825 698.00 592% $ - $ 560 048.46 82 56 98 $ 8 2 5 6 9 8 . 0 0 2.3.2. Percentage of VS&L/SILC group members who used loans or savings to establish productive investments10 (Outcome) (PRIZE) 2.3.3. Number (cumulative) of clients at USG assisted VS&L/SILC groups, disaggregated by sex (Output) (F-process) 9986 7225 13740 190% #DIV/0! 15289 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1306 0 #DIV/0! 8010 15543 194 % 15 54 3 2 5 5 2 9 Male 1300 3044 1848 61% #DIV/0! 2096 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2014 #DIV/0! 3324 2284 69% 22 84 3 5 8 4 Female 8686 4181 11892 284% #DIV/0! 13193 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1104 6 #DIV/0! 4686 13259 283 % 13 25 9 2 1 9 4 5 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 77 PRIZE CONSOLIDATED RESULTS 2012 LOP Targets Year 1 Achieved Year 2 to Date Achieved Goal: Reduced food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in 8 districts of Zimbabwe by 2012. SO 1: Emergency food needs of 151, 280 individuals are addressed. IR 1.1: 151,280 transitorily food insecure individuals have food during the hungry season. Activity 1.1.1: Provide emergency food aid to 151,280 individuals through vulnerable group feeding. Food Distribution Points (FDPs) a. 1 Number of FDPs distributing food during the month 124 148 114 a. 2 Number of FDPs distributing food during the month (NEW) 26 86 95 b. Number of FDPs monitored using the FDP checklist 124 178 262 c. Number of FDPs monitored displaying proper visual aids about food storage best practices 102 123 298 Households/Beneficiaries Receiving Food d.1 Number of households receiving food 24311 38973 Male headed HH 10567 15840 Female Headed HH 13744 22567 d. 2 Number of households receiving food (Newly enrolled) 4896 4677 Male headed HH 2350 1966 Female Headed HH 2546 2681 e.1 Number of individual beneficiaries within households receiving food 121557 202239 Male 52837 83778 Female 68720 109945 e. 2 Number of individual beneficiaries within households receiving food (Newly enrolled) 24483 21483 Male 11751 9009 Female 12732 12474 f. Food distributed during month in Metric Tons ( MT) 99544 1138610 Household Verification g. Number of households verified 764 2424 0 0 Male headed HH 345 1116 0 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 78 Female Headed HH 419 1609 0 Monitoring h. Number of beneficiaries dropped from food distribution 0 35729 0 Male 0 15369 0 Female 0 20360 0 i. Number of households whose rations were randomly weighed during distribution 2470 2880 645 j. Number helpdesks functioning during distribution 294 428 166 l. Number FSM questionnaires administered 2472 2310 799 SO 2: 112,097 vulnerable households have re-established food security IR 2.1: 112,097vulnerable households have increased food production. Activity 2.1.1: Create or improve 1303 productive assets. Mobilise communities to develop initial proposals a. Number of community projects approved for implementation. 450 5522 239 b. Number of households receiving food 59650 42110 20687 Male 25371 12536 7713 Female 34694 19483 13472 Number households receiving food (Newly enrolled) 4540 110 21114 Male 2179 4122 7899 Female 2361 1068 14455 c. Food distributed during month in Metric Tons ( MT) 15550 5487 4706 d. Number of households verified 2194 830 20854 Male headed HH 1010 401 9926 Female Headed HH 1184 773 10928 Implementation of FFA projects (Data Source: Asset Register) Productive Water Assets B1 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 5 7 Number of projects currently running as of the last day of the month (25th) 27 9 5 Number of projects completed (asset construction completed)by last day of the month (25th) 32 8 4 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 79 Number of assets completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 30 0 1 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers irrigating their farmland 1233 592 2183 Male 703 332 923 Female 791 375 1260 Number farmers irrigating their farmland (New) 157 37 158 Male 209 76 80 Female 52 39 60 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 402 189 696 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 82 17 42 B2 Establishment of large irrigation schemes (>5 Ha) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 3 1 Number of projects currently running 10 2 3 Number of projects completed (asset construction completed) 18 2 2 Number of assets completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 10 0 1 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers irrigating their farmland #REF! 170 645 Male #REF! 55 275 Female #REF! 115 383 Number farmers irrigating their farmland (New) 250 0 0 Male 120 0 0 Female 120 0 0 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 127 36 68 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 12 6 12 B9 Establishment of small irrigation schemes (<5 Ha) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 1 4 Number of projects currently running 9 2 5 Number of projects completed (asset construction completed) 15 2 3 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 9 0 1 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 80 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers irrigating their farmland #REF! 63 615 Male #REF! 28 229 Female #REF! 35 386 Number farmers irrigating their farmland (New) 75 0 52 Male 72 0 20 Female 31 0 32 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 263 4 32 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 22 3 14 B7 Water harvesting for irrigation Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 0 0 Number of projects currently running 2 0 0 Number of projects completed (asset construction completed) 2 0 0 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 2 0 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers irrigating their farmland 66 0 44 Male 26 0 17 Female 40 0 27 Number farmers irrigating their farmland (New) 0 0 15 Male 0 0 4 Female 0 0 11 Number (cumulative) of Ha of land brought under irrigation potential 4 0 3 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 6 0 1 B4 Dam rehabilitation with community garden Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 15 19 Number of projects currently running 39 17 28 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 42 8 18 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 39 0 4 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 81 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens 1758 155 2384 Male 786 60 667 Female 1112 95 1717 Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens (New) 220 0 701 Male 176 0 165 Female 124 0 536 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 182 14 101 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 55 11 51 B5 Sand abstraction with community garden Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 7 14 Number of projects currently running 34 12 20 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 48 3 14 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 32 0 13 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens 2240 0 2017 Male 933 72 661 Female 1102 20 1321 Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens (New) 265 52 281 Male 227 72 95 Female 128 20 415 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 171 63 77 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 36 0 61 A6 Dam rehabilitation for livestock Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 15 30 Number of projects currently running 33 2 29 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 43 10 28 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 33 0 22 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 82 Estimated number farmers benefiting 13920 8114 7987 Male 6509 3894 3966 Female 8331 4220 3995 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 227 4 64 B10 Small dam construction (multi-purpose) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 0 8 Number of projects currently running 2 2 10 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 3 0 4 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 2 0 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens 70 0 38 Male 28 0 12 Female 42 0 26 Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens (New) 0 0 0 Male 0 0 0 Female 0 0 0 Estimated number of livestock farmers benefiting 621 0 2017 Male 248 0 889 Female 373 0 1092 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 2 2 9 B11 Household wells (domestic and garden use) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 49 30 Number of projects currently running 59 29 9 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 113 52 30 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 81 25 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Estimated number households benefiting 45 62 358 Male headed HH 32 31 156 Female Headed HH 31 40 206 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 83 B8 Environmental protection works (in macro-catchment area of non-FFA dams) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) 23 15 48 Number of projects currently running 23 16 32 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 24 12 52 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 23 11 19 Productive Agriculture Assets B3 Nutrition gardens and orchards Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 61 18 Number of projects currently running 41 16 16 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 44 19 18 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 40 0 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens 1125 468 4040 Male 438 135 1003 Female 687 335 3037 Number vulnerable farmers growing vegetables in community gardens (New) 120 0 475 Male 57 0 97 Female 63 0 378 Size of land (in Hectare) brought under irrigation potential 85 17 118 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 49 15 99 B6 Homestead garden clusters Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 151 25 Number of projects currently running 198 174 1 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 385 273 25 Number of completed, certified and handed over to households #REF! 30 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number (cumulative) vulnerable farmers benefiting 873 647 1045 Male 422 392 486 Female 485 244 559 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 84 B12 Household granaries (for small grains and maize) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 8 14 Number of projects currently running 30 12 13 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 30 12 14 Number of completed, certified and handed over to households 34 0 13 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number vulnerable farmers benefiting from household granaries 178 263 341 Male 83 106 148 Female 95 157 193 Number vulnerable farmers benefiting from household granaries (New) 87 0 86 Male 42 0 44 Female 45 0 42 Productive Livestock Assets A1 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 22 2 Number of projects currently running 38 16 1 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 45 25 2 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 46 2 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number of livestock farmers using small livestocksalespen 13603 4761 1863 Male 11079 2484 1025 Female 9724 2348 838 Number of livestock farmers using small livestocksalespen (New) 4403 18 193 Male 5769 44 118 Female 3034 27 75 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 2825 22 37 A2 Establishment/rehab of cattle sales pens Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 17 1 Number of projects currently running 28 14 2 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 85 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 31 9 0 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 27 0 0 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers benefiting from selling livestock using asset 11670 3790 1601 Male 6520 3047 1052 Female 7310 2600 551 Number farmers benefiting from selling livestock using asset (New) 7660 779 260 Male 4774 1321 194 Female 4206 542 66 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 874 785 31 A3 Dip tank rehabilitation (cattle) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 66 40 Number of projects currently running 89 38 17 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 108 58 38 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 84 3 8 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability Number farmers dipping their livestock 25292 7166 14734 Male 23370 9710 10555 Female 21458 5950 4777 Number farmers dipping their livestock (New) 6864 2992 4634 Male 13200 5790 4698 Female 6336 2798 1536 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 6898 3022 156 A4 Establishment of dip tank for small livestock (pilot) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 5 9 Number of projects currently running 17 22 3 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 25 25 8 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 27 4 2 Asset Utilisation & Sustainability PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 86 Number farmers dipping their livestock #REF! 4000 915 Male #REF! 1824 595 Female #REF! 2132 336 Number farmers dipping their livestock (New) 3343 0 257 Male 3967 0 123 Female 2398 7 134 Number of asset management committees functioning at appropriate levels 1653 11 34 A5 Pasture protection and paddock management (pilot) Number of projects where work on the asset started this month (with signed MoUs) #REF! 0 4 Number of projects currently running 5 1 7 Number of projects where asset construction is completed 5 1 3 Number of completed, certified and handed over to stakeholders/communities 5 0 1 Disaster Risk Reduction & Sustainability Strategies a. Number of stakeholders trained on DRR this month/quarter 250 0 15 b. Number of DRR focal point persons trained on DRR mitigation this month/quarter 2167 0 491 Male 856 0 234 Female 1313 0 257 c. Number of DRR action plans developed 305 0 140 Activity 2.1.2: Promote conservation agriculture to 2, 171 lead farmers and their communities. Conservation Farming (CF) a. Number of extension agents trained this month 136 137 3 Male 49 73 1 Female 87 64 2 b. Number of lead farmers trained this month 2000 1716 286 Male 896 509 97 Female 1104 1207 189 c. Number of farmer groups formed this month 1489 559 310 d. Number of other farmers trained by lead farmers 19200 5134 4058 Male 7423 1670 861 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 87 Female 10777 3374 3197 Activity 2.1.3: Promote seed security for 2, 171 vulnerable farmers. a. Number of farmers trained in seed selection, protection and storage this month 1999 484 544 Male 896 161 144 Female 1103 323 400 Activity 2.1.4: Promote improved livestock practices for 5,900 vulnerable farmers. a. Number of livestock lead farmers trained this month 1315 533 176 Male 494 220 116 Female 821 313 60 c. Number of livestock farmer groups formed this month 963 197 170 b. Number of livestock farmers in livestock farmer groups trained this month 10725 1887 1497 Male 4393 890 717 Female 6302 1186 780 c. Number of para-veterinary officers trained this month 468 89 85 Male 184 58 52 Female 284 31 33 Activity 2.1.5: Promote community production through small investment grants. a. Number of proposals submitted this month 274 0 0 b. Number of grants provided this month 64 0 2 c. Number of grant monitoring and verification visits conducted this month 184 0 200 IR 2.2: 5,800 vulnerable households have increased income. Activity 2.2.1: Analyse food commodity value chains for maximum impact on livelihoods security. Priority products identified by district, to be used in endline study for IPTT 2.2.1 indicator 19 6 0 Activity 2.2.2: Create and strengthen market linkages for agriculture and livestock production. Crop products: Cereal Number of marketing groups established this month 6 4 5 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups 120 417 981 Male 55 188 306 Female 65 229 675 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 88 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups(New) #REF! 377 163 Male #REF! 172 29 Female #REF! 205 134 Total value of base income of farmers in the established marketing group (in $) #REF! 0 4225 Total value of income from product sales by farmers in the marketing groups this month #REF! 0 37235 Total Area planted to MAIZE (Ha) Total Production MAIZE (T) Quantity of Sales MAIZE (T) Value of Sales MAIZE ($) Cost of Inputs MAIZE ($) Number of business plans developed this month #REF! 0 2 Crop Products: Dry grains Number of marketing groups established this month 11 21 3 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups 389 450 1446 Male 161 218 505 Female 218 232 832 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups(New) #REF! 0 528 Male #REF! 0 89 Female #REF! 0 330 Total value of base income of farmers in the established marketing group (in $) #REF! 0 5185 Total value of income from product sales by farmers in the marketing groups this month #REF! 0 13283 Number of business plans developed this month #REF! 1 4 Horticulture Products Number of marketing groups established this month 35 26 37 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups 848 1266 3841 Male 326 500 1144 Female 522 766 2697 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups(New) #REF! 445 1815 Male #REF! 146 538 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 89 Female #REF! 299 1277 Total value of base income of farmers in the established marketing group (in $) #REF! 2075 13061 Total value of income from product sales by farmers in the marketing groups this month #REF! 2140 134795 Total Area planted to SUGAR BEANS (Ha) Total Production SUGAR BEANS (T) Quantity of Sales SUGAR BEANS (T) Value of Sales SUGAR BEANS ($) Cost of Inputs SUGAR BEANS ($) Total Area planted to TOMATOES (Ha) Total Production TOMATOES (T) Quantity of Sales TOMATOES (T) Value of Sales TOMATOES ($) Cost of Inputs TOMATOES ($) Number of business plans developed this month #REF! 12 27 Animal/Livestock Products Number of marketing groups established this month 28 15 7 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups 700 682 3363 Male 273 400 1672 Female 427 307 1709 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups(New) #REF! 127 1525 Male #REF! 41 884 Female #REF! 86 641 Total value of base income of farmers in the established marketing group (in $) #REF! 0 341618 Total value of income from product sales by farmers in the marketing groups this month #REF! 158847 304459 Number of business plans developed this month #REF! 3 4 Others (Fruit Trees, Mopane worms etc) Number of marketing groups established this month 15 5 1 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups 416 227 439 Male 164 56 98 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 90 Female 252 171 342 Number of farmers participating in the established marketing groups(New) #REF! 46 9 Male #REF! 21 8 Female #REF! 25 1 Total value of base income of farmers in the established marketing group (in $) #REF! 0 1123 Total value of income from product sales by farmers in the marketing groups this month #REF! 2886 1287 Number of business plans developed this month #REF! 2 2 Activity 2.2.3: Train 5,800 farmers in income generating strategies (FaaB, PHH and Marketing). a. Number of farmers trained in FaaB this month 2084 2888 1924 Male 862 999 646 Female 1222 1889 1278 b. Number of farmers trained in PHH this month 2074 546 626 Male 900 114 153 Female 1174 432 473 c. Number of farmers trained in Marketing this month 1639 1520 1233 Male 747 477 458 Female 892 1043 775 d. Number of farmers trained in other modules this month 2282 749 1231 Male 847 182 331 Female 1435 567 900 Activity 2.2.5: Create a system for distributing accurate and timely pricing information. a. Number of beneficiaries receiving SMS market information 1327 0 0 Male 491 0 0 Female 836 0 0 IR 2.3: 14, 400 vulnerable households have engaged in mechanisms to mitigate the impacts of economic shocks. Activity 2.3.1: Form and train 1082 village savings and loan groups. a. Number of VS&L groups actively saving to date 1326 1055 1794 b. Number of group members 12653 9256 14951 Male 5475 1198 1798 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 91 Female 6843 8044 13153 Number of group members (New) 2028 744 3081 Male 933 102 #VALUE! Female 1095 642 2718 c. Number of Cluster Facilitators trained 284 159 65 Male 80 13 10 Female 204 146 55 d. Total savings (cumulative) in US$ deposits held by VS&L groups 181368 214440 825698 e. Total amount borrowed (monthly) in US$ by group members 145912 171038 235079 Total amount withdrawn from the group in US$ by group members this month #REF! 0 327404 Activity 2.3.2: Train 5,052 village savings and loan participants in selection, planning and management of income generating activities. a. Number of groups trained in SPM this month 529 28 77 b. Number of VS&L clients/group members trained in SPM this month 3237 168 581 Male 1470 16 55 Female 1681 152 526 Cross-cutting themes a. Number of HIV/AIDS awareness sessions conducted this month 375 883 391 b. Number of Gender Awareness Campaigns conducted this month 333 820 391 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 92 ANNEX 5. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED Organization Name Designation Mobile number Email address USAID USAID Carol Jenkins Humanitarian Assistance Office Director +263 772 565 939 cjenkins@usaid.gov Laureen Reagan FFP Officer +263 772 565 957 lreagan@usaid.gov Fanuel Cumanzala Food Security Specialist +263 772 966 489 fcumanzala@usaid.gov Justin Mupeyiwa Food Security Specialist +263 772 565 950 jmupeyiwa@usaid.gov IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Catholic Relief Services Timothy Bishop Country Representative +263 772 129 252 timothy.bishop@crs.org Sasha Angelevski Chief of Party -PRIZE Project +263 772 254 534 sasha.angelevski@crs.org Angie Tavares M and E Coordinator +263 772 124 043 angela.taveres@crs.org Admire Nyereyemhuka M and E +263 772 627 847 admire.nyereyemhuka@crs.org Constantine Mandizvidza +263 773 192 740 constantine.mandizvidza@crs.org Itai Makwangudze itai.makwangudze@crs.org Loveness Mlambo￾Chimombe loveness.mlambo@crs.org Tungamirayi Nyoni tungamirayi.nyoni@crs.org Yvonne Makunde yvonne.makunde@crs.org Felicia Machingura M and E +263 772 573 253 felicia.machingura@crs.org Gwinyai Chibaira Agriculture Coordinator Petronella Chinheya FFA Tech Coordinator Wellington Dzvene Value Chain & Mkts & VS & L ACDI/VOCA Mashwell Chiringu M and E +263 773 202 769 mchiringu@acsivoca-prize.org Charles Chikwiramadara Agribusiness Technical Quality Coordinator +263 772 865 036 cchikwiramadara@acdivoca￾prize.org CARE Zimbabwe Abel.S.Whande abelwh@carezimbabwe.org Patricia Ndungu Relief Coordinator +263 772 277 440 patriciand@carezimbabwe.org Heather Van Sice CARE Programme Director +263 772125 247 heatherva@carezimbabwe.org Archbald Chikavanga M and E Specialist +263 773 483 649 archbaldch@caregwanda.org CTDO Munashe Matare M and E +263 734 470 473 munashe@ctdt.co.zw T.A Mushita Director +263 772 339 391 andrew@ctdt.co.zw DR J Mushonga Deputy Director +263 773 210 439 joe@ctdt.co.zw Fred Zinanga Program Manager +263 772 315 575 fred@ctdt.co.zw Indra Mutambikwa Project Coordinator +263 772 728 948 indra@ctdt.co.zw Munashe Matare M and E +263 734 470 473 munashe@ctdt.co.zw ORAP Thabani Moyo Programme Officer Knowledge & M & E +263 712 305 464 moyo.t@orapzenzele.org Freeman Muleya Head of Development Initiatives & Community Mobilisation +263774541372 muleya@orapzenzele.org Busani Ngwenya PRIZE Project Manager +263 712951875 ngwenyab@orapzenzele.org Donors PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 93 Department for International Development (DFID) Pete Spink +263 4 338780 p-spink@dfid.gov.uk Australian Government (AusAID) Dorothy Mufanechiya Senior Programme Manager Zimbabwe +263 772 143 604 dorothy.mufanechiya@ausaid.gov.a u European Union (EU) Joost Bakkeren Attaché-Food Security +263 772 128 249 joseph.bakkeren@ec.europa.eu UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) Liljana Jovceva Programme Officer +263 772 278 957 liljana.jovceva@wfp.org Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Jacopo D'Amelio Coordination and Information Officer +263 772 240 685 jacopo.damelio@fao.org Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Douglas Magunda Monitoring and Evaluation Unit +263 772 410 395 douglas.magunda@fao.org National Level Stakeholders (Government) Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Institute Kudzai Kusena Head of Institute Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Institute O. Chipfunde Research Officer +263 773 041 186 Ministry of Labour and Social Services Laxon Chinhengo Principal Policy Analyst chinhengo@sfd.org.zw +263 712 457 170 NATIONAL LEVEL PRIVATE SECTOR Cairns Foods Ms. Sithole Procurement Manager +263 4260411/+263773 848 629 PROVINCIAL STAKEHOLDERS GWANDA Women Affairs Ms Nozipho Dube Acting Community Development Officer +263 0284 23452 Social Welfare T. Tirivavi Provincial Social Services Officer +263 0284 22748/ 772 242 232 Ministry of Local Government Mr. Khumalo Provincial Administrator +263 0284 22431 Department of Irrigation Tamuka Moyo Acting Provincial Irrigation Engineer +263 0284 21293 AGRITEX B.M. Sibanda +263 0284 22157 GMB (Mr. Mpofu) Mr. Makuvara Acting provincial Depot Manager +263 0284 20128 EMA Mrs. Ndlovu Manager +263 0284 23173/ 772 378 862 VET Dr. Moyo Acting Provincial Vet Officer Mat South +263 0284 22692 Department of Agric Engineering M. Moyo +263 712 871 139 Forestry Commission Mr. Tshuma Acting Provincial Forestry Commission Manager +263 0284 22739 Livestock / LPD Mr. Hove +263 0284 22691/772 9024408 MARONDERA PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 94 DISTRICT AND COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS BEIT BRIDGE AGRITEX Mr. Alpha Muleya Agritex Extension Officer AGRITEX Mr. C Ndou Agricultural extension Supervisor AGRITEX Mr. Maocha District Agricultural Extension Officer AGRITEX Ms. N Chikumbu AEW Chasvingo Ward 3 Department of LPD Mr. Beven Musongwe District Livestock Specialist Department of LPD Mr. Dube Animal Health Inspector Department of LPD Ms V Zimani Livestock Officer Department of Veterinary Services Ms. Moyo Veterinary Extension Assistant Department of Veterinary Services Ms. S Moyo Veterinary Extension Assistant EMA Mrs. Chingwinya EMA Officer Forestry Commission Mr. Sithole Forestry Commission Officer Ministry Of Gender Mr. Munyoro Officer RDC Mr. Mbedzi CEO RDC Mr. Peter Moyo Assistant District Administrator Mr. P Ndlovu Shahs village head Mr. R Ncube Makombe Village Head Mrs. S Moyo Ward 8 Village Head Ms. M Shoko VS and L Cluster Leader Ms. N Ndlovu Chairperson VS and L Cluster Mr. Joshua Tendai Mahove Mr. P Ndlovu Shashi village head BULILIMA Mr. B Phiri Chairman Moza Irrigation Scheme AGRITEX Mr. Gwatiringa Agritex extension Worker Social Welfare Mr. Mushonga Provincial Coordinator +0279 24844/0775991 311 Department of Irrigation Mr. Madyira Acting Provincial Irrigation Engineer +0279 25595 AGRITEX Mr. Mugabe Provincial Head +263 772 619 872 Livestock / LPD Mr. Taderera Provincial Livestock Specialist 027921459/0778179466/0733511372 BINDURA Social Welfare Mr. Bongwe Provincial Social Service Officer 0271 6560 Department of Irrigation Mr. Chandiringa Chief Irrigation Engineer +263 773 098 350 AGRITEX Mr. Torevasei Land Engineer +263 773 879 130 Livestock / LPD Ms. Moyo Acting Chief Provincial Livestock Specialist +263 772 407 845 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 95 AGRITEX Mr. C Jani Agritex Extension Worker AGRITEX Mr. Masoja DAEO AGRITEX Ms. L Tshuma Agritex Officer AGRITEX Mr. T Chiriga Agritex Supervisor AGRITEX Ms. Muradzikwa Agritex Officer Department of Veterinary Services Mrs. J Phiri Animal Health Inspector Department of Veterinary Services Mr. K Chizororo Vet Extension Assistant MWAGD Mrs. Mandebele District Head RDC Mr. J B Ncube CEO RDC RDC Mrs. E Moyo District Administrator RDC Mr. Nyasha Majenga Assistant District Administrator RDC Ms. S Sibanda Councilor Ward 12 GWANDA AGRITEX Ms. N Mabonga Agricultural Extension Worker AGRITEX Ms. J Nleya Agricultural Extension Worker Department Of Mechanization Mr. Ngoni Badza Agricultural Technician Department Of Mechanization Mr. Mareverwa Mugove Agricultural Technician Department of Irrigation Tariro Mandisodza Dept of Irrigation Officer Department of Irrigation Mr. Potengwa Engineer Department of LPD Ms. Bulala Livestock Production Officer Department of LPD Mr. Ronald Veremu Provincial Livestock Specialist DVS Ms. H Mangena Acting District Head DVS Mr. X Ncube DVS Officer DVS Mr. M Ndlovu DVS Officer DVS Ms. A Magwala DVS Officer Provincial Social Services Mr. Totamirepi Tirivavi Officer RDC Ms. B Gwaze Assistant District Administrator RDC Ms. S Bhebhe Ward Councilor RDC Mr. K Ndlovu Councilor Ward 6 Mr. M Ndlovu Village Head Silikwe West Mr. Mpostol Nsingo Chairperson Zabajimba Garden Mr. Mandla Siziba Mr. Solomon Mpunzi Village Head Ward 5 Ms. Mildred Moyo Ndlundlu Dam Secretary Ward 5 Mr. S Nkala Councilor Ward 1 Mr. L Moyo Councilor Ward 5 MANGWE AGRITEX Mr. Moffat Ncube DAEO AGRITEX Mr. J I Moyo Agritex Supervisor PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 96 AGRITEX Mr. T Gota Agritex Extension Worker Department of Veterinary Services Mr. Sibanda Animal Health Inspector Ministry of Agriculture Mr. J Munyongani District Head Ministry of Local Government Mrs.  Gang’ate D.A RDC Mr. I Ncube Project Officer RDC RDC Ms. T Moyo Ward Councilor RDC Mr. O Maphosa Ward Councilor-Madabe RDC Mr. Ncube Councilor Ward 14 Mr. P Sibanda Paravet Mr. D Dube Paddocks Chairman Ms. M Ndlovu Secretary Simela mela Garden Ms. F Ncube Madabe VS and L Cluster Leader Mr. D Mutsu Village PIT Leader Sethi Khoza Para Vet Ward 3 MATOBO AGRITEX Ms. F Ndhlovu District Agricultural Extension Officer Department of Irrigation Mr. Mupotegwa Engineer Department of Social Services Ms. N Ncube District Head Department of Veterinary Services Dr C Shokora District Head Department of Veterinary Services Mr. D Sibanda Animal Health Inspector Ministry of Local Government Ms. L Chipungu Assistant District Administrator RDC Mr. Moyo Councilor Ward 19 RDC Mr. S Moyo Councilor Ward 14 RDC Mr. R Nyathi Councilor Ward 8 RDC Mr. E Ndlovu C.E.O Veterinary services Ms. S Mazwi Ward 19 Veterinary Officer Veterinary Services Mr. P Khumalo Vet Extension Assistant Ms. S Mathanda Antelope Irrigation Extension Officer Mr. W Nyathi VIDCO Chairperson MBERENGWA AGRITEX Mr. Benefit Hove Agricultural Extension Worker Agritex Mr. W. Makotore AEO Training & Agribusiness Department of Mechanization Ms. E. Chebani Acting District Head Department Of Social Services Mr. T. Mashavira DSSO Department of Veterinary Services Mr. A. Makovere Veterinary Officer EMA Ms. T. M. Bangure Office Assistant Ministry of Agriculture Mr. P. Manenji................................................................................................ Livestock Specialist ............................................................................. Ministry of Local Government Mr. Mtetwa DA MWAGD Mr. Lovemore Zvoushe Ward Coordinator Mr. R Muchemwa Headman PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 97 Mr. C Hamadziripi Village Head Ms. Emely Moyo VS & L Facilitator Ms. Shandurai Gijima VS & L Chairperson Ms. Jennifer Gatahwa Garden Marketing Sub-committee Chairperson Ms. Margret Moyo CA Lead farmer Ms. Maggie Muza Garden Main Committee Member Mr. Hlange Sithole Asset Management Committee Chairperson Chief Mataga Chief Mrs. Piwai Maposa VS & L Cluster Facilitator Ms. C. Mvuma Shambakodzi Restaurant Ms. T. Mudzinganyama District Conservation and Extension Officer Mr. N. Mudzungairi Acting Chief Technician Mr. G. Chirwa M&D Hardware MUDZI AGRITEX Mr. Farisai Kayeruza DAEO AGRITEX Ms. Chipo Nyamutinga WAEO AGRITEX Ms. Govere Mufanoanya Agritex Extension Worker Department of Social Services Mr. T Sedze DSSO Department of Veterinary Services Mr. W Nyambabvu Animal Health Inspector Ministry of Local Government Ms. Lucia Manhokwe Assistant District Administrator RDC Mr. J Mandinyeya Acting CEO RDC Nyamita Kamanura Councilor Ward 5 Mr. Tembo AMC Chairman Irrigation Garden Mr. Murehwa Ward Coordinator Mr. Muhamba Irrigation Scheme Coordinator Mr. K Zivanai Agricultural Extension Worker Mr. Tafadzwa Chiparanga Conservation Officer Nyadzisai Mukazika Garden Mr. Tidiness Mvundura Youth Officer Mr. Isreal Mupfava Village Head Charuruka Nakisai Mheta Youth Officer RUSHINGA AGRITEX Mr. Nziradzebere Agriculture Extension Worker AGRITEX Mr. Nekati Agritex Training Officer AGRITEX Mr. Magwenzi Agritex Administration Officer AGRITEX Ms. Tsonyo Agritex Agribusiness Officer Department of LPD Mr. Makodza Director LPD Department of Social Services Mr. Laxon Chinhengo Acting D. Director Department of Veterinary Services Mr. Gombarume Animal Health Inspector Department of Veterinary Services Mr. Pardon Mariseni Veterinary Extension Assistant PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 98 EMA Ms. Shuvai Chikombe Officer RDC Mr. K Kariro Councilor Ward 15 RDC Mr. Munyede CEO RDC Ms. Alice Mabika RDC Accounts Officer RDC Nyamita Kamanura Councilor Ward 5 Mr. W Mafeni M and E Humanitarian Officer Mr. K Kuseni GRBI Ms. S Gwizo Field Coordinator Mr. Makumbe Chairman Irrigation Scheme Mr. Killian Chiuya Headman Magaranhewe Mr. Kenneth Chidyausiku Chairman Sales pen Committee Nyadzisai Mukazika Garden PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 99 ANNEX 6: List of Documents Reviewed List of Documents Reviewed ARR FY 12 CRS Zimbabwe Cover Letter PRIZE (Catholic Relief Services-Led Consortium/Zimbabwe) AID-FFP-A-10-00018 ARR ISSUE RESPONSE #1 USAID Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Results Report PRIZE Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) Year 2 CRS Zimbabwe FFP FY12 ARR Success Story Conservation Agriculture CRS Zimbabwe FFP FY12 ARR Success Story Drought Mitigation ARR FY12 CRS Zimbabwe Attachment C SAPQ CRS Zimbabwe FFP Success Story Small Grants ARR FY12 CRS Zimbabwe Attachment Tracking Tables CRS Zimbabwe FFP FY12 ARR Success Story VS AND L ARR FY12 CRS Zimbabwe Attachment 1 Completeness Checklist Attachment A CRS-PRIZE IPTT FY11 Attachment C CRS-PRIZE SAPQ FY11 Attachment D CRS-PRIZE Tracking Table FY11 Attachment G CRS-PRIZE Baseline Study Final Report Attachment H CRS-PRIZE Supplemental Materials Attachment I CRS-PRIZE Completeness Checklist FY11 CRS PRIZE ARR FY11 Success Story 1 Market Linkages Nyamatanda Irrigation_AV Success Story 2 Dam Rehabilitation For Livestock_CRS Success Story 3 Home Gardening Boosts Vegetable Production In Dry Areas_CARE Success Story 4 New Livestock Infrastructure Improves Marketing Activities_CARE Success Story 5 Small Livestock Diptank_CRS Success Story 6 VS&L Expands Income Generating Opportunities_ACDIVOCA PRIZE Year 1 & 2 FFA Projects-USAID PRIZE Year 3 FFA Projects-USAID CRS Zimbabwe SYAP Proposal - Revised - June 18 2010 PRIZE FFA Targets For Years 1,2,3 Revised Baseline Study Report_23 JANUARY 2011 PRIZE Contact List 2013 PRIZE Consolidated ITT OCT-DEC 2012 PRIZE Consortium – Consolidated Quarterly Program Performance Report Success Story Markets. CRS Success Story AV Weir Dam. AV Success Story C.A CARE Household Dietary Diversity Score(HDDS) For Measurement Of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide Version 2 Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA), USAID (2006) Months Of Adequate Food Provisioning (MAHFP) For Measurement Of Household Food Access: Indicator Guide Version 4, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) 2, USAID (2010) Household Hunger Scale: Indicator Definition And Measurement Guide Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) 2, USAID (2011) Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac) Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report 2010. Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZimVac) Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report 2012 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 100 ANNEX 7. MAP OF PROJECT INTERVENTION DISTRICTS PRIZE Operational Areas PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 101 ANNEX 8. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS (SURVEY, KII, FGD, MSC) Household Questionnaire PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT Household Questionnaire Introducing yourself and the purpose of the interview: Good  morning/afternoon.  My  name  is  ………………………………  I  represent  [New  Dimension  Consulting-NEDICO], conducting a Performance Evaluation for the USAID funded PRIZE Project. Your household is among those randomly selected households from all households who benefitted from PRIZE Project in this ward. The information obtained from this interview will be used in Evaluating the Performance of the PRIZE Project. Confidentiality and Consent: Your answers to this interview will not be released to anyone except for this Evaluation (i.e. confidential) and we will not contact anyone you know about this interview. Your name will not be written on this form, and will never be used in connection with any of the information you tell me. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer, and you may end this interview at any time you want to. However, your honest answers to these questions will help in designing better future similar Projects in this area, Zimbabwe and other countries. I would greatly appreciate your help in responding to this questionnaire. This interview will take between 30 to 45 minutes to complete. If it is okay with you can we start this interview? Yes [ ] No [ ], Did you benefit from any PRIZE Project Interventions? Yes [ ] No [ ] If No, on any of the two questions, THANK Participant and PROCEED to the next eligible household. Enumerator Name: ________________,Enumerator ID: _________ Ward Name: _____________________,Ward ID: _________ District:_____________________, Household Number: _________ Starting Time: ___________, Ending Time: _____________, PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 102 Interview Results 1 Completed 1 2 Partially completed: Specify reason 2 SECTION A: PRIZE INTERVENTIONS A1.  Which  PRIZE  Interventions/Activities  did  you  benefit  from?  (Please  Tick  (√)  All  Interventions  Listed  by  Beneficiary)  (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Food For Assets Interventions Code Asset Food For Assets PRIZE Interventions Tick (√) Did you get the Intervention when you needed it most (Timeliness) Yes=1, No=2 1 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock 2 Establishment/rehab of cattle sales pens 3 Dip tank rehabilitation (cattle) 4 Establishment of dip tank for small livestock (pilot) 5 Pasture protection and paddock management (pilot) 6 Dam rehabilitation for livestock 7 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes 8 Establishment of large irrigation schemes >5Ha 9 Nutrition gardens + orchards 10 Dam rehabilitation with garden 11 Sand abstraction and garden 12 Home gardens 13 Water harvesting for irrigation 14 Environmental protection (in macro catchment area of dams) 15 Establishment of small irrigation schemes <5Ha 16 Small dam construction (multi-purpose) 17 Household wells (domestic and garden use) 19 Household granaries (small grains and maize) Other Interventions Code Other Interventions Tick (√) Did you get the Intervention when you needed it most (Timeliness) Yes=1, No=2 20 Establishment Asset Management Committees (AMC) 21 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 22 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 23 Village Savings and Lending (VSL) Form and train village savings and loans groups Training VS&L participants in selection, planning and management of income generating activities Income Generating Strategies Training 24 Conservation Agriculture Training of Lead farmers Seed Security Trainings 25 Livestock Production Groups 26 Small Investment Grants 27 Market Linkages PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 103 28 Distribution of accurate and timely price information 29 Food commodity value chains 30 Farming as a Business (FaaB) Training 31 Training in post-harvest handling 32 Emergency Food Assistance SECTION B: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION B1: How many people currently live in this household? _______________ B2: How many household members are: Chronically ill____ Disabled_________ Over 60 years (Elderly)______ Orphans (double-both parents dead)______ B3: Is the household head? Chronically ill____ Disabled_________ Over 60 years (Elderly)______ Orphans (double-both parents dead)______ Widowed_____ PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 104 B4: Please complete Table below for each of the household members? Member Number (No. 1 is the Respondent) B4.1 Age B4.2. Sex B4.3. Relationship to Household Head. B4.4. Marit al Status B4. 5. Rel igi on B4. 6. Ed uca tion Lev el B4.7. Does he/she have any disability or chronically ill For children aged 18 years or below. B4.10. What is his/her employm ent status B4.1 1. Deci sion Mak er B4.8. Is his/her father alive? B4.9. Is her/his mother alive? M F Y e s N D K Y N D K 1 (Respondent) 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 6 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 7 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 8 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 9 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 10 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 11 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 12 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 105 CODES FOR B4.3......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 = Household Head .....................................................................................................................................................2 = Spouse 3 = Son or daughter (natural)......................................................................................................................................................... 4 = Son or daughter in-law ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 = Grandchild............................................................................................................................................................................... 6 = Father or Mother...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 = Parent-in-law ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 = Brother or Sister (natural)........................................................................................................................................................ 9 = Stepfather/Stepmother ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 = Aunt/Uncle ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11 = Grandfather/Grandmother 12 = Worker................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 = Not related 14 = Other (specify)....................................................................................................................................................................... CODES FOR B4.4 1=Married/Co habiting 2=Never Married 3=Divorced/S eparated 4=Widowed 5=Not Applicable Codes for B4.5 1=Apostolic Sect 2=Pentecostal 3=Roman Catholic 4=Traditional 5=Muslim 6=Protestant 7=Other (Specify)______________________________ ______ CODES FOR B4.6 1=Primary 2=Secondary 3=Tertiary 4=None 5=Crèche CODES FOR B4.7 1 = Physically challenged 2 = Mentally challenged 3 = Both physically and mentally challenged 4=Speech impairment 5=Hearing impairment 6=Chronically ill19 7 = Not applicable NB:  DK=Don’t  Know CODES FOR B4.10 1 = Formally employed 2 =Informally employed 3 = Student 4 = Not employed CODES FOR B4.11 1=Husband 2=Wife 3=Respondent 4=Daughter 5=Son 6=Mother In Law 7=Father In Law 8=Father 9=Mother 10=Other, (specify) 19Ill for more than 3 months and unable to work PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 106 SECTION C: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS C1. Which assets does your household own?(MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Tick Assets Owned Number Cattle Goats Sheep Pigs Donkeys Poultry/Chickens Plough Scotch Cart Wheelbarrow Hoes/Shovels/Pick Other (specify) SECTION D: HOUSEHOLD INCOME20 20If  Respondent  Cannot  completely  remember,  PUT  Don’t  Remember  (DR) 21If any payment was made in Kind, CONVERT to monetary value D1. What is/are your sources of Income? (Tick the applicable response, you can tick more than one response) (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Source of Income Tick Casual Labour Food Crop Production/Sales Remittances Vegetable Production/Sales Livestock Production/Sales Formal Salary Petty Trade Cash Crop Production Skilled Trade/Artisan Food Assistance Gathering Natural Products Village Savings and Lending Selling Firewood Beer brewing Other, specify D2. What was the average monthly household income in 2012? US$_________ Source of Income21 Total (US$) (Exchange Rate for South African Rand=US$1:ZAR8.82 & Botswana Pula=US$1:BWP7.83) (Oanda.com, 17 January 2013) Casual Labour Food Crop Production/Sales Remittances Vegetable Production/Sales Livestock Production/Sales Formal Salary Petty Trade Cash Crop Production Skilled Trade/Artisan Food Assistance Gathering Natural Products Village Savings and Lending Selling Firewood Beer brewing Other, specify PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 107 D3. How much did you earn from each of the crops grown in the 2011/12 agriculture season? Type of Crop Annual Income in US$ Maize Soya beans Sorghum Sugar beans Tobacco Rapoko Cotton Groundnuts Roundnuts Pearl millet Finger millet Tubers Sunflower Other, specify D4. How much do you earn from each of the vegetables grown in 2012 vegetable growing period? Type of Crop Vegetable growing period in months (2012) Average Monthly Income in US$ Covo Rape Onion Tsunga Tomato Cabbage Nyevhe Cowpeas Cucumber Butternut Other, specify SECTION E: FOOD SECURITY22 E1. Which agriculture technology (ies)/methods [Adopted from PRIZE] do you use? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Tick Applicable Conservation Agriculture Water use conservation practices Drip irrigation Sand Abstraction Irrigation Animal Crash Facilities Goat Dipping Grazing schemes Model Granary Other (specify) 22If Respondent Cannot  completely  remember,  PUT  Don’t  Remember  (DR) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 108 E2. Which types of crops did you grow in the 2011/2012 agriculture season? How much do you produce (in Kgs); Sell (in Kgs) and Consume (Kgs)?? Type of Crop Tic k Annual Harvest (Kgs) Annual Quantity consumption (Kgs) Annual Quantity sold (Kgs) Maize Soya beans Sorghum Sugar beans Tobacco Rapoko Cotton Groundnuts Roundnuts Pearl millet Finger millet Tubers Sunflower Green Pepper Butternut Peas Other, specify E3. Which types of vegetables do you grow in 2012 growing period? How much do you produce? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Type of Vegetable Tick Annual Yield/Harvest(1 bundle=1kg & I bucket=20kg) Covo Bundles Rape Bundles Onion Buckets Tsunga Bundles Tomato Buckets Cabbage Heads Nyevhe Bundles Cowpeas Buckets Cucumber Buckets Green pepper Buckets Butternut Buckets Peas Buckets Other, specify E4. Which storage mechanisms do you use for your harvested crops? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Mechanism When did you start using this Mechanism? Granary Improved based on model Granary (Ground Level)-With Pesticides Granary (Ground Level)-Without Pesticides Granary (Raised)-With Pesticides Granary (Raised)-Without Pesticides Bags -With Pesticides in one of the rooms Bags -Without Pesticides in one of the rooms Other (specify) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 109 E5. Which Post-harvest challenges do you face for field and horticultural produce? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Field Crops (Tick Applicable) Horticultural Produce (Tick Applicable) Pests Lack of markets Rodents Pests Weevils Storage places Shortage of pesticides/insecticides Rotting (perishable crops) Rotting Low market prices Lack of knowledge Lack of knowledge Other (specify) E6. Does your household have any cereal (grain & ground) left from last season's harvest in stock now? Tick Yes>>E7, E9 No>>E8 E7.  If  “Yes”  to  “Q.E6”,  how  much  cereal  (grain & ground) does the household have from last season's harvest in stock now in kgs.? E8.  If  “No”  to  “Q.E6”  how  many  months  did  last  season's  harvest   last? _____________months E9.  If  Yes  to  “Q.E6”  how  many  more  months  do  you  expect  the   current stock to last _____________months E11. Do you think you will need any of the above coping strategies less often because of your participation in PRIZE interventions? Yes Explain No Explain E12. Which coping strategies did your household drop because of PRIZE Project Interventions (2010-2013)? E13. What is the usual number of meals for the household per day during the past 7 days? E10. Which Survival/Coping strategies does your household use during periods of inadequate yields (cereal-grain & ground)? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Strategy Tick Casual Labour Livestock Sales Petty Trade (small selling space at the market) Gathering Natural Products Village Savings and Lending Selling Firewood Beer brewing Selling Household Assets (e.g. scotch carts or furniture) Selling Land Other, specify Borrow Money PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 110 E14. Which type of food did the household eat yesterday (in the last 24 hours)? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Type of Food Tick Sadza, millet, sorghum, bread, rice, biscuits, noodles or foods made from cereals Potatoes, yams, cassava or foods from tubers and roots Vegetables Fruits including wild Beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, other birds, liver, kidney, heart or any organ meat Eggs Fresh or fried fish/shell fish Beans, peas, lentils or nuts Cheese, yoghurt, milk or milk products Oil, fat or butter Sugar or honey Condiments, tea or coffee SECTION F: RESILIENCE TO FUTURE SHOCKS F1: (VS&L beneficiaries ONLY) Are you a member of VS & L/SILC group member? Yes>>F2 No>>F3 F2:  If  “Yes”  to  “F1”,  did  you  use  loans  or  savings  from   VS & L/SILC to establish a productive investment (s) Types of Investments (If “Yes”)  OR   Reasons for No Investments Level of Investments (US$) Return on Investment (US$) Yes No F3: Did PRIZE Project interventions improve your ability to? Response(Tick Applicable) Why/why not Access Food Yes No Capacity to Withstand future shocks Yes No SECTION G: TARGETING G1: Are you satisfied with how PRIZE Project targeted your household? Yes No Undecided Don’t  Know  the  Targeting  Process/Criteria PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 111 SECTION H: LESSONS LEARNED H1: Which PRIZE interventions worked best for you and why? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Food For Assets Interventions Code Asset Food For Assets PRIZE Interventions Tick (√) Reason (s) Why 1 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock 2 Establishment/rehab of cattle sales pens 3 Dip tank rehabilitation (cattle) 4 Establishment of dip tank for small livestock (pilot) 5 Pasture protection and paddock management (pilot) 6 Dam rehabilitation for livestock 7 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes 8 Establishment of large irrigation schemes >5Ha 9 Nutrition gardens + orchards 10 Dam rehabilitation with garden 11 Sand abstraction and garden 12 Home gardens 13 Water harvesting for irrigation 14 Environmental protection (in macro catchment area of dams) 15 Establishment of small irrigation schemes <5Ha 16 Small dam construction (multi-purpose) 17 Household wells (domestic and garden use) 19 Household granaries (small grains and maize) Other Interventions Code Other Interventions Tick  (√) Reason (s) Why 20 Establishment Asset Management Committees (AMC) 21 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 22 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 23 Village Savings and Lending (VSL) Form and train village savings and loans groups Training VS&L participants in selection, planning and management of income generating activities Income Generating Strategies Training 24 Conservation Agriculture Training of Lead farmers Seed Security Trainings 25 Livestock Production Groups PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 112 26 Small Investment Grants 27 Market Linkages 28 Distribution of accurate and timely price information 29 Food commodity value chains 30 Farming as a Business (FaaB) Training 31 Training in post-harvest handling 32 Emergency Food Assistance 33 None H2: Which PRIZE interventions worked least for you and why? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Food For Assets Interventions Code Asset Food For Assets PRIZE Interventions Tick (√) Reason (s) Why not What can be done for it work for you 1 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock 2 Establishment/rehab of cattle sales pens 3 Dip tank rehabilitation (cattle) 4 Establishment of dip tank for small livestock (pilot) 5 Pasture protection and paddock management (pilot) 6 Dam rehabilitation for livestock 7 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes 8 Establishment of large irrigation schemes >5Ha 9 Nutrition gardens + orchards 10 Dam rehabilitation with garden 11 Sand abstraction and garden 12 Home gardens 13 Water harvesting for irrigation 14 Environmental protection (in macro catchment area of dams) 15 Establishment of small irrigation schemes <5Ha 16 Small dam construction (multi-purpose) 17 Household wells (domestic and garden use) 19 Household granaries (small grains and maize) PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 113 Other Interventions Code Other Interventions Tick  (√) Reason (s) Why 20 Establishment Asset Management Committees (AMC) 21 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 22 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 23 Village Savings and Lending (VSL) Form and train village savings and loans groups Training VS&L participants in selection, planning and management of income generating activities Income Generating Strategies Training 24 Conservation Agriculture Training of Lead farmers Seed Security Trainings 25 Livestock Production Groups 26 Small Investment Grants 27 Market Linkages 28 Distribution of accurate and timely price information 29 Food commodity value chains 30 Farming as a Business (FaaB) Training 31 Training in post-harvest handling 32 Emergency Food Assistance 33 None H3: Which three (3) main PRIZE interventions are needed (in future) to make your household more food secure? [In order of priority] Explain Why 1.___________________________________________________________________________ 2.___________________________________________________________________________ 3.___________________________________________________________________________ PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 114 SECTION I: SUSTAINABILITY I1: Which PRIZE Project interventions are you going to continue to use beyond the PRIZE Project and why? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Food For Assets Interventions Code Asset Food For Assets PRIZE Interventions Tick (√) Reason (s) Why 1 Establishment of sales pens for small livestock 2 Establishment/rehab of cattle sales pens 3 Dip tank rehabilitation (cattle) 4 Establishment of dip tank for small livestock (pilot) 5 Pasture protection and paddock management (pilot) 6 Dam rehabilitation for livestock 7 Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes 8 Establishment of large irrigation schemes >5Ha 9 Nutrition gardens + orchards 10 Dam rehabilitation with garden 11 Sand abstraction and garden 12 Home gardens 13 Water harvesting for irrigation 14 Environmental protection (in macro catchment area of dams) 15 Establishment of small irrigation schemes <5Ha 16 Small dam construction (multi-purpose) 17 Household wells (domestic and garden use) 19 Household granaries (small grains and maize) Other Interventions Co de Other Interventions Tic k (√) Reason (s) Why 20 Establishment Asset Management Committees (AMC) 21 Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 22 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) 23 Village Savings and Lending (VSL) Form and train village savings and loans groups Training VS&L participants in selection, planning and management of income generating activities Income Generating Strategies Training 24 Conservation Agriculture Training of Lead farmers Seed Security Trainings 25 Livestock Production Groups 26 Small Investment Grants 27 Market Linkages 28 Distribution of accurate and timely price information 29 Food commodity value chains 30 Farming as a Business (FaaB) Training 31 Training in post-harvest handling 32 Emergency Food Assistance 33 None END OF QUESTIONNAIRE, THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATION PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 115 Intervention Specific Focus Group Discussion Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT INTERVENTION/ASSET SPECIFICFOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation due to your involvement with the PRIZE Project. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Type of Asset/Intervention:………………………………………………………………………… Date:………………………………………………………………............................................………………………………..... Province:  …………………………………………………………………………………………… District:  ……………………………………………………………………………………………. Ward:  ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Number of Participants: Female Male .......................................................................................................................... Total Facilitator:  ………………………………………………………………………………………… Note-Taker:  ………………………………………………………………………………………. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 116 PRIZE INTERVENTIONS & FOOD SECURITY What support did the community get from PRIZE Project (on the asset/specific intervention)? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………. To what extent has the intervention/asset contribute to reducing food insecurity in this community? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY ENTRY AND BENEFICIARY SELECTION How did the Project/Intervention select beneficiaries? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Do you think the beneficiary selection criteria used by this PRIZE Project intervention/asset was transparent? (If Yes/No ask why) [Are there individuals/households that should have or not have benefitted and why] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… INTERVENTIONS TIMING AND APPROPRIATENESS Given the seasonal calendar for this area, was this intervention appropriately timed? [What was appropriately timed and what was not appropriately timed and how were you affected by timing of the intervention] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Was the intervention appropriate for this area? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ASSETS What measures has the community put in place to ensure that this infrastructure/ intervention will continue to provide benefits to the community/beneficiary households after the project ends? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… SUSTAINABILITY a. Is this intervention likely to remain functional and utilized after PRIZE Project and why? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… 8b.Is this intervention being replicated by community members on their own taking the PRIZE model (s)? Why is it or is it NOT being replicated …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… RESILIENCE What are the common food security-related shocks experienced in this area? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… If shocks cited above are to occur, does this intervention contribute to building enough household resilience (capacity to withstand and recover from shocks)? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… Does the community now have a community resilience plan (a plan that ensures the community has capacity to withstand and recover from shocks)? [If Yes, What has been done in operationalizing/using the plan] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… MAINSTREAMING ISSUES How did this PRIZE Project intervention ensure women and men Participate equally, and …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefit equally …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure protection of the Environment? PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 117 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure people with disabilities Participate equally, and …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefit equally …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure people living with HIV&AIDS participated and benefitted? Participate equally, and …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefit equally …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure the elderly participated and benefitted? Participate equally, and …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefit equally …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED What were the key challenges faced during PRIZE Project Implementation (for the specific Intervention)? [For each of the challenges how did the community and PRIZE respond] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… What were the key lessons learned by this community through participation in this intervention? …………………………………………………………………………………………… RECOMMENDATIONS What recommendations do you have for PRIZE to improve future similar interventions? …………………………………………………………………………………………… What recommendations do you have for future similar interventions/programs? …………………………………………………………………………………………… a. Were there any positive or negative unintended results of this PRIZE project intervention? If yes what were the positive results [including downstream benefits]? …………………………………………………………………………………………… If No what were the negative results [including conflicts]? …………………………………………………………………………………………… END OF THE DATA COLLECTION TOOL PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 118 General Focus Group Discussion Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT GENERAL FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation due to your involvement with the PRIZE Project. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Date:  ………………………………………………………………………………………..... Province:  ……………………………………………………………………………………… District:…………………………………………………………………………………………. Ward:…………………………………………………………………………………………… Number of Participants: Female Male .......................................................................................................................... Total Facilitator:…………………………………………………………………………………… Note-Taker:…………………………………………………………………………………. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 119 PRIZE INTERVENTIONS & FOOD SECURITY What activities have been implemented by the PRIZE Project in this area? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… In what ways and to what extent has each of the activities cited above contributed to reducing food insecurity in this community? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most to food production and access and why? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY ENTRY AND BENEFICIARY SELECTION How did the Project select beneficiaries? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Do you think the beneficiary selection criteria used by the PRIZE Project was transparent? (If Yes/No ask why) [Are there individuals/households that should have or not have benefitted and why] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… INTERVENTIONS TIMING AND APPROPRIATENESS Given the seasonal calendar for this area, were different interventions appropriately timed? [What was appropriately timed and what was not appropriately timed and how were they affected by timing of different interventions] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Are there interventions that were inappropriate for this area? [If Yes which are these, Was PRIZE informed, How did PRIZE respond, How did the community respond] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ASSETS What measures has the community put in place to ensure that infrastructure and interventions supported by the community will continue to provide benefits to the community/beneficiary households after the project ends? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… SUSTAINABILITY Of all the interventions supported by PRIZE in this area, Which ones are likely to be remain functional and utilized and why? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Which ones are less likely to be functional after the end of the project and why? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………… Which ones are being replicated by community members on their own taking the PRIZE model (s)? How are they functioning? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… RESILIENCE a. What are the common food security related shocks experienced in this area? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… If shocks cited above are to occur, what PRIZE interventions have contributed to building enough resilience (capacity to withstand and recover from shocks) for households to recover? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Does the community now have a community resilience plan (a plan that ensures the community has capacity to withstand and recover from shocks)? [If Yes, What has been done in operationalizing/using the plan] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… MAINSTREAMING ISSUES How did the PRIZE Project ensure women and men: PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 120 Participate equally, and …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefit equally …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did the PRIZE Project ensure protection of the Environment? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did the PRIZE Project ensure people with disabilities Participated …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefitted …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did the PRIZE Project ensure people living with HIV&AIDS Participated …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Benefitted? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did the PRIZE Project ensure the elderly Participated …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………… Benefitted? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………… CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED What were the key lessons learned by this community through participation in the PRIZE Project? Food Security; Market Linkages and Value Chains; Community Assets [FFA]; VS&L; Livestock; Training and Capacity Building; Disaster Risk Reduction; and Targeting and Mainstreaming Processes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………… What were the key challenges faced during PRIZE Project Implementation? [For each of the challenges how did the community and PRIZE respond] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………… RECOMMENDATIONS What recommendations can be made to PRIZE to improve on future programs? Community Entry Processes; Food Security; Market Linkages and Value Chains; Community Assets [FFA]; VS&L; Livestock; Training and Capacity Building; Disaster Risk Reduction; and PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 121 Targeting and Mainstreaming Processes …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… What recommendations do you have for future food security programs? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Were there any positive or negative unintended results of the PRIZE project? If Yes what were the positive results [including downstream benefits] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… If No what were the negative results [including conflicts]? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… END OF THE DATA COLLECTION TOOL PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 122 District Level Key Informant Interview Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT DISTRICT LEVEL KEY INFORMANT GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation due to your involvement with the PRIZE Project. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Type of Key Informant (i.e. District Administrator, Rural District Council-CEO, Agritex Officer, Livestock Officer, Veterinary Officer, Irrigation Officer, Environmental Management Agency) …………………………………………………………………………………………………. Date:………………………………………………………………....………………………..... Province:  ..……………………………………………………………………………………… District:  ………………………………………………………………………………………. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 123 PRIZE INTERVENTIONS & FOOD SECURITY What support did this district receive from PRIZE Project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………….. To what extent have the PRIZE Project interventions/assets contributed to re-established/ reduced food insecurity (probe for: food production, diversified income sources, market linkages etc) in this district? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Were there any positive or negative unintended results of the PRIZE Project interventions? If yes what were the positive results [including downstream benefits]? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… If No what were the negative results [including conflicts]? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY ENTRY AND BENEFICIARY SELECTION (TARGETING) How did the Project/Intervention select beneficiaries? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Do you think the beneficiary selection criteria used by this PRIZE Project intervention/asset was transparent? (If Yes/No ask why) [Are there individuals/households that should have or not have benefitted and why] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… INTERVENTIONS TIMING AND APPROPRIATENESS Given the seasonal calendar for this district, were PRIZE Project interventions appropriately timed? [What was appropriately timed and what was not appropriately timed and how were community members affected by timing of interventions] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… Are PRIZE Project interventions appropriate for this District? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… SUSTAINABILITY & REPLICATION Are PRIZE Project interventions likely to remain sustainable after PRIZE Project and why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Which PRIZE interventions are being replicated by community members on their own taking the PRIZE model (s)? Why is it or is it NOT being replicated ………………………………………………………………………………………………… RESILIENCE a. What are the common food security related shocks experienced in this district? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… If shocks cited above are to occur, do the PRIZE Project interventions contribute to building enough household resilience (capacity to withstand and recover from shocks)? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES How did the PRIZE Project intervention ensure women and men participated and benefitted equally? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure protection of the Environment? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… How did the Project ensure chronically ill, and vulnerable groups participate and benefit from the interventions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………… CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED What were the key challenges faced during PRIZE Project? [For each of the challenges how did the district stakeholders and PRIZE respond] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………… PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 124 What were the key lessons learned by this district through participation in PRIZE Project interventions? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… RECOMMENDATIONS What recommendations do you have for PRIZE to improve future similar interventions? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… What recommendations do you have for future food security interventions/programs in this district? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… END OF THE DATA COLLECTION TOOL PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 125 Community Level Key Informant Interview Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT COMMUNITY LEVEL KEY INFORMANT GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation due to your involvement with the PRIZE Project. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Type of Key Informant (i.e. Extension Worker, Community Leader, Councilor, Lead Farmer) Date:  ………………………………………………...............………………………………..... Province:  ..……………………………………………………………………………………… District  ...………………………………………………………………………………………. PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 126 PRIZE INTERVENTIONS & FOOD SECURITY What support did this community/ward receive from PRIZE Project? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… To what extent have the PRIZE Project interventions/assets contributed to re-established/ reduced food insecurity (probe for: food production, diversified income sources, market linkages etc) in this ward/community? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Which PRIZE interventions contributed the most to reduced food insecurity or re-established food security and why? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Were there any positive or negative unintended results of the PRIZE Project interventions? If yes what were the positive results [including downstream benefits]? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… If No what were the negative results [including conflicts]? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY ENTRY AND BENEFICIARY SELECTION (TARGETING) How did the Project/Intervention select beneficiaries? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Do you think the beneficiary selection criteria used by this PRIZE Project intervention/asset was transparent? (If Yes/No ask why) [Are there individuals/households that should have or not have benefitted and why] ………………………………………………………………………………………………… INTERVENTIONS TIMING AND APPROPRIATENESS Given the seasonal calendar for this ward/community, were PRIZE Project interventions appropriately timed? [What was appropriately timed and what was not appropriately timed and how were community members affected by timing of interventions] ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Are PRIZE Project interventions appropriate for this ward/community? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF ASSETS What measures has the community put in place to ensure that infrastructure and interventions supported by the community will continue to provide benefits to the community/beneficiary households after the project ends? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… SUSTAINABILITY & REPLICATION Of all the interventions supported by PRIZE in this area, Which ones are likely to be remain functional and utilized and why? ………………………………………………………………………………………… Which ones are less likely to be functional after the end of the project and why? ………………………………………………………………………………………… Which ones are being replicated by community members on their own taking the PRIZE model (s)? Why is it or is it NOT being replicated? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… RESILIENCE a. What are the common food security related shocks experienced in this community? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… If shocks cited above are to occur, do the PRIZE Project interventions contribute to building enough household resilience (capacity to withstand and recover from shocks)? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES How did the PRIZE Project intervention ensure women and men participate and benefit equally? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… How did this intervention ensure protection of the Environment? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… How did the Project ensure chronically ill, and vulnerable groups participate and benefit from the interventions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED What were the key challenges faced during PRIZE Project implementation in this ward/community? [For each of the challenges how did the ward/community stakeholders and PRIZE respond] ………………………………………………………………………………………………… What were the key lessons learned by this ward/community through participation in PRIZE Project interventions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… RECOMMENDATIONS What recommendations do you have for PRIZE to improve future similar interventions? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 127 What recommendations do you have for future food security interventions/programs in this ward/community? ………………………………………………………………………………………………… END OF THE DATA COLLECTION TOOL PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 128 National/Provincial Level Key Informant Interview Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT GOVERNMENT KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation as a Government representative to provide insights on the PRIZE project from a Policy perspective. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Date:………………………………………………………........................................................………………………………..... Department:…………………………………………………………………………………… Level:  National…………………………..Provincial…………………………………………………..   Position:  ………………………………………………………………………………………... PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 129 Do you know of the PRIZE Project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… How did the PRIZE Project work with your Ministry (Department)? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… To  what  extent  did  the  project  fit  into  your  Ministry/Department’s  policy  priorities? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… What were the key lessons learned in relation to coordination and linkages between the PRIZE project and your Ministry/Department? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… What were the key lessons learned in relation to shared learning between PRIZE and your Ministry/Department? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… What were the key challenges faced in relation to implementation of the PRIZE project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… What key recommendations would you provide to PRIZE in terms of future focus? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 130 Donor Key Informant Interview Guide PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT DONOR KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. You have been selected to participate in the Evaluation as a Donor Agency representative to provide insights on the PRIZE project from coordination and lesson learning perspective. Your participation in the Evaluation is voluntary. Information you provide will only be used for purposes of the Evaluation as stated. Date:  …………………………………………………………………………………..... Organisation/Agency:…………………………………………………………………… PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 131 Do you know of the PRIZE Project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… How did you work with the PRIZE Project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… What have been your experiences in relation to local NGO capacities to implementing Food Security projects? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… What were the lessons learned in relation to coordination and linkages between PRIZE and food security projects supported by your organization/agency? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… What were the lessons learned in relation to sharing and adaptation between PRIZE and other programs with similar focus? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………...... In your opinion how effective was the consortium approach used by PRIZE? [If effective/ineffective ask for explanations and examples] …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………...... What challenges did you encounter in relation to your interactions with the PRIZE project? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… What key recommendations would you provide to PRIZE in terms of future focus? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 132 Most Significant Change Story Documentation Guide ZIMBABWE OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING RECOVERY IN ZIMBABWE (PRIZE) PROJECT MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES GUIDE Since 2010, USAID/Food for Peace (FFP) has been supporting a Consortium of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (Partnering ORAP), ACDI/VOCA (Partnering CTDT) and CARE, to implement an emergency food assistance project. The project was designed to reduce food insecurity for vulnerable individuals in eight districts in Zimbabwe. In order to assess the impact of the project on the food security situation of vulnerable households in the eight districts targeted by PRIZE, this Performance Evaluation was been commissioned. As a member of this community who benefited from the PRIZE Project, you have been selected to provide your story on experiences with regard to this Project. The discussion comprises a series of questions and should take between 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Your participation in this discussion is entirely voluntary. Your responses will be treated absolutely confidential. District Name: ______________________________________ Area Name: ________________________________________ Gender: ________________________________________ Intervention: ________________________________________ Do you the storyteller: •  want  to  have  your  name  on  the  story  (tick  one)  Yes   No Name of storyteller*: * (If  they  wish  to  remain  anonymous,  don’t  record  their  name  or  contact  details  – just  write  ‘lead  farmer’  or  some  similar   description.) Are you comfortable in us taking your pictures so that we can use them in the report and any publications for wider stakeholder  dissemination  (Yes/No),  If  “Yes”  can  you  sign  here  as  evidence  of  informed  consent:  _______________ Title of story_______________________________________________________ Starting Time: __________: Finishing Time: __________Total Time:________ Name of person recording story: ________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________ Date of recording: ________________________________________ PRIZE Performance Evaluation Report 133 THE COMMUNITY WILL ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE STORIES DURING FGDS Tell me how you (the storyteller) first became involved with PRIZE project, and what your current involvement is: ................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................ ................................................................................................................ From your point of view, describe the most significant change that has resulted from your involvement with PRIZE (training/support or funding - Describe who was involved, what happened, where and when): ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................ Why is this significant to you? (What difference has it made/will it make? Why do you think this difference is important): ............................................................................................................................. ............................................. Have you participated in other similar projects in the past, and how has this one differed from those? (Read the story to the storyteller to seek authenticity) .......................................................................................................................................................................... What lessons did you learn that you want to share with others? ............................................................................................................................. ............................................. Do you have any other comments? ............................................................................................................................. ............................................. (Read the story to the storyteller to seek authenticity)