Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

2.1 Objectives
The farmer field school evaluation seeks to achieve the following objectives:
1. To evaluate the FFS methodology and process for 12 groups in Minakulu and Okwang subcounties.
2. To evaluate FFS impact on household food security and livelihoods, according to qualitative
and quantitative data analysis generated through questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews.
3. To identify existing strengths and weaknesses in ACF FFS implementation and M&E.
4. To involve ACF staff in an applied learning opportunity and identify training needs for improved
FFS implementation and M&E.
5. To develop specific recommendations for improved FFS programming in 2009.
The evaluation analyses the FFS programme according to its core components: changes in
practices, production, and assets – and whether combined these have contributed to strengthened
participant household food security and livelihoods. However there are very little data available to
correspond with this level of specificity, as no logical framework was prepared for the programme
as a management or monitoring tool, primarily because it was not required by FAO. Monitoring
concentrated primarily on crop growth, and all data were forwarded to FAO for aggregation. Most
of the indicator analysis – and therefore the evaluation itself – is based on qualitative assessment
conducted during fieldwork and on a framework designed specifically for the evaluation. The
discussion therefore also emphasises how future FFS programmes can be monitored and
evaluated. FAO was however able to fill part the quantitative data gap, providing ACF with all data
pertaining to its FFS participants (and a control group of non-participants in the same
communities). 5 ACF was able to build on these data through primary data collection during
fieldwork to increase the evaluation scope. 6
Considering the breadth of data available but never strategically utilised, the evaluation has tried to
compile the most salient (primary and secondary) data to ensure it remains consistently accessible
and on the programmatic radar. Otherwise, more longitudinal evaluation of the farmer field school
programme over several years could lose the benefit of comparative analysis and iterative
learning. Now that this information is more consolidated than previously, everything can be
revisited in subsequent programme planning to focus on which specific data, ideas,
recommendations deserve greater attention and which can be discarded.
2.2 Methodology
Although ACF intended from the onset to evaluate its 2008 farmer field school programme, its
methodology did not begin to form until several months after the programme concluded. This
meant that data collection during implementation was not focused toward a specific analytical
purpose. That the evaluation would be an applied learning opportunity for FSL field staff was clear,
as was the broad intent to utilise rapid rural appraisal (RRA) tools. The evaluation terms of
reference (Appendix 5) ultimately centred on trying to consolidate a range of FAO and ACF data
with a better qualitative understanding of the dynamics behind the numbers so that lessons could
be learned and recommendations articulated. There were flaws in the datasets, but they
nonetheless provided direction for the evaluation fieldwork and staff discussions that coincided.
A flow diagram synthesises the evaluation approach (Appendix 6). After analysing the quantitative
data available from the FAO FFS evaluation and, to a lesser extent, from ACF programme
monitoring, information needs began to emerge. A decision was made to minimise the amount of
5 FAO Uganda (2008) Evaluation of the Farmer Field School Approach in Uganda. Their data collection and analysis
covers all implementing NGOs and includes FFS participants and an equal number of non-participant counterparts in
Kaberamaido, Amuria, Lira, Gulu, Amuru, and Kitgum districts.
6 All of the FAO data reported here were obtained directly from their monitoring unit. The data were part of FAO’s 2008
evaluation of the FFS approach in Uganda, but are disaggregated for the 12 groups facilitated by ACF. In the few cases
where specific data are reproduced from the FAO 2008 FFS evaluation report (see previous footnote), the specific table
and page numbers are provided.
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 16 - Farmer Field School Evaluation