Participatory Evaluation of our 2008 - Action Against Hunger

24. FAO cannot be relied upon for seasonally appropriate delivery of in-kind programme inputs, but
alternatives are available through increased collaboration with other farmer field school
networks and NGOs who could offer the same inputs with less delay.
25. Donor funding cycles and procurement procedures have proven counterproductive to
maximising seasonally strategic implementation.
C. Conclusions
1. Farmer field schools were an appropriate intervention within ACF’s 2008 Uganda country
strategy and its food security and livelihoods programming therein.
2. The programme was similarly appropriate for participating returnee households with respect to
their already having re-established production and shifted away from livelihood strategies
based on camp provisions affecting food, income, and expenditure.
3. The ACF FFS groups were well mobilised and appeared to have embraced practices promoted
through the programme, but information management was weak throughout, from monitoring
and reporting to record keeping and photography.
4. Programme impact on household food security and livelihoods cannot be proven but
nonetheless appears evident on the basis of qualitative analysis and triangulated proxy
indicators.
5. Future FFS programme impact could be increased through a longer programme working with
full production cycles, increased emphasis on complementary activities, and enhanced
participation and experimentation.
6. Opejal parish in Okwang sub-county (Lira) appears to have the worst food security and
livelihood situation among the three programme areas. They have less savings in their group
bank account, the fewest additional physical assets created during the programme, and
directed a greater proportion of their expenditure to household items and food and debt loan
payments compared with the groups in Aceno and Oyoro. Their crop production and
subsequent income was similarly less, although their proportion of income from own livestock is
higher.
D. Recommendations
1. The framework used to structure this evaluation should be utilised as a foundation to
developing a logframe for the next programme cycle. The evaluation framework provides a
structure for improved programme design and planning based on a logframe. Revision will be
necessary at all levels (goal, objective, outputs), but the indicators will require particular
attention. With a more strategic planning process, programme data could achieve a better
balance of quantitative and qualitative analysis than what has been possible to date. Fewer
indicators will also help streamline future M&E. This will be preferable to the abundance of
indicators used to triangulate findings in this evaluation. Regarding behaviour change, FFS
groups themselves should be consulted to identify indicators that will be more revealing of
programme impact than the more standard (but less informative) aggregates like ‘number of
groups formed’ or ‘number of participants trained’.
2. Baseline data collection must precede programme implementation so that monitoring
and evaluation can be more strategically focused, ensuring that data collection fulfils
specific information and reporting needs. Baseline data collection should be undertaken
once facilitators have completed their FFS training, participant selection has concluded, and
groups have been established. Data should be limited to the strategic minimum required to
fulfil all programme indicators and any other specific information needs (for internal/external
reporting).
3. Baseline data collection must include production levels for study/commercial crops
specific to each season and location, even if based on participant estimates of the
previous year or expectations based on typical seed rate and acreage. Without such data
Action Against Hunger Uganda - 7 - Farmer Field School Evaluation