Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

Figure 8. Planting practices of programme participants and control group
Practice ACF FFS Participant (%) Control Group (%)
Row planting 92 67
Proper spacing 92 8
Source: FAO evaluation data
3.1.5 Documentation capacity enhanced at group and individual levels
Literacy is a key issue in relation to documentation capacity, as is the distinction between group
and individual level practices. All of the groups were requested to bring their full set of FFS
documentation to the focus group but only half complied, so not all records could be reviewed
during the fieldwork. Of the group documents reviewed during the evaluation (usually cash
contributions, meeting attendance and minutes, constitutions, member lists, and visitor books), all
were organised, clearly written, and in good physical condition. In most cases, the meeting and
cash records were still being maintained by the group, even though the FFS programme concluded
eight months ago (although perhaps only half of the individuals directly asked knew the current
balance of their group’s bank account). The continued prevalence of cash flow record keeping
nonetheless makes sense when considering how clear financial records can help maintain group
cohesion by increasing transparency and reducing suspicion. These are not concerns for an
individual farmer at household level, however, and probably explain in part the very low quality of
individual records reported by FAO (factoring too for literacy).
According to the FAO data summarised in Figure 9 below, an approximately equal percentage of
ACF FFS group members maintain household level records compared with the national FFS
average. Two prominent differences are however apparent from the data. The first is that despite
the inherently equal incidence of record keeping, the quality of ACF FFS participant records
appears below the national averages. More significant, perhaps, is that record keeping appears to
be far less common for non-participants in the ACF areas than for the national average reported by
FAO. If record keeping is so uncommon in the ACF areas, then even the reported 94 percent of
ACF participant records determined ‘partial/incomplete’ might nonetheless suggest a programme
accomplishment. In the control group, for example, only 5 percent of households keep records.
Participant records may have been equally absent prior to the FFS programme, and partial records
are an improvement over no records. In fact, the ACF sample reports that the main reason given
by participants for lack of records or poor quality was that they were ‘too complicated’; most nonparticipants
by comparison responded that they were ‘not trained’ in record keeping or that there is
‘no need’ (the possible responses did not, however, include ‘not literate’ or ‘unable’).
Figure 9. Comparison of household record keeping and quality
ACF (%) FAO (%)
Participants Control Participants Control
Proportion of HHs that keep records 72 5 70 31
Scanty 6 * 41 58
Quality of those
Partial/incomplete 94 * 38 33
records
Comprehensive 0 * 21 9
*Incomplete data
Source: FAO (2008) Table 20, pg 23
Despite the generally good quality of FFS group records discussed above, this conclusion is limited
to the more straightforward documents like cash flows and meetings. Only one group was able to
show the team their profitability analysis from last year, for example, or to produce their business
plan, sub-county registration certificate, programme budget, or in some cases even the specific
amount of seed they planted and harvested. This surely influences the transparency of group
documentation, which in turn is likely to contribute to less household level adoption as well.
3.2 Increased Domestic Production
Alongside improved practices throughout the production cycle is the guiding intent that these
contribute directly to increased yields and, by extension, profits and stores. Households are by no
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 25 - Farmer Field School Evaluation