Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF

HOMA BAY ORPHAN LIVELIHOOD PROJECT

Final Report

Submitted by :

East Africa Ltd

ETC East Africa Ltd

ABC Place, Waiyaki Way, P.O. Box 76378, Nairobi, Kenya. Phone: +254 (0)20 4 445 421/2/3 Fax: 254 (0)20 4 445 424 Email :[email protected].

Acknowledgements

The ‘Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project “HOLP”’ was commissioned by Heifer International Kenya (HIK) and carried out by ETC East Africa Ltd.

The study was conducted by Bell Okello and Evelyn Otieno, and carried out between April 15th and May 21st 2008 first with preparatory activities in Nairobi followed by field work in Southern Nyanza.

The consultants wish to express their gratitude to all those who contributed to making the study a success, resulting in the production of this report. First, the consultants heartily thank the beneficiaries who willingly volunteered information and participated in the interviews and focus group discussions. Special thanks go to Alex Kirui, the

Country Director of Heifer International Kenya, and his headquarters based team, Crispin Mwatate, Deputy Country Director, Dr, Reuben Koech, the monitoring and evaluation coordinator, Dr Julius Owade, the regional coordinator and his entire team, heads of departments in Migori, Homa Bay and Suba Districts, CARD, ICIPE, PLAN Kenya, WVK, CCF, OIP, among others. The consultants are deeply indebted to the team of committed enumerators who

diligently administered questions in the project area under trying conditions.

The consultants bear responsibility of the contents of this report.

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Pro ject - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft iii Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE................................................................................................................................. vi

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project (HOLP) ............................................................. 1

1.2. Objectives of HOLP ..................................................................................................... 1

1.3. Project Context and Rationale ..................................................................................... 2

1.4. Objectives of the Impact Assessment .......................................................................... 2

1.5. Approach and Methodology......................................................................................... 2

2. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................. .................................................... 3

2.1 General Findings on Project Implementation ............................................................... 3

2.1.1 Project Activities .................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Population ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1.3 Dairy goat farming ................................................................................................. 5

2.1.4 Kitchen gardens .................................................................................................... 9

2.1.5 Strengthening capacity of OVC caregiver community groups ...............................10

2.1.6 Psychosocial and medical care.............................................................................11

2.1.7 Capacity building of partner organisations ............................................................11

2.2 Impact of the Project...................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Impact on OVCs ...................................................................................................11

2.2.2 Impact on OVC caregivers and family members...................................................14

2.2.3 Impact on the wider community ............................................................................15

3. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT...................... ....................................................17

3.1 Assessment of HOLP Partners ...................................................................................17

3.2 Lessons Learnt and Challenges Faced by the Project ................................................18

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... ...............................................21

4.1 Conclusions................................................................................................................21

4.2 Recommendations......................................................................................................23

4.2.1 Recommendations to improve implementation and enhance impact:....................23

4.2.2 Recommendations on deepening project impact – from beneficiaries, actors and 25

stakeholders ......................................................................................................................25

APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................26

Appendix 1: Terms of Reference.........................................................................................26

Appendix 2: Approach and Methodology.............................................................................30

Appendix 3: Questionnaire ..................................................................................................34

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Pro ject - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft iv Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya

Appendix 4: Checklist for Focus Group Discussions............................................................40

Appendix 5: Checklist for Discussions With OVCs ..............................................................42

Appendix 6: List of Focus Group Discussion Members........................................................43

Appendix 7: Organisations and Staff Members Interviewed.................................................49

Appendix 8: Analyses of Partner Organisations...................................................................51

Appendix 9: Derived Project Logframe ................................................................................52

Appendix 10: HIK/HOLP Feedback Workshop Participants .................................................55

Appendix 11: Assorted Tables With Additional Data on the Project .....................................57

Appendix 12: Bibliography...................................................................................................64

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Pro ject - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft v Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADPP Animal Draft Power Programme AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome AMREF African Medical Research Foundation CAHW Community Animal Health Worker CARD Community Action for Rural Development CBO Community Based Organisation CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CIFF Children’s Investment Fund Foundation CMAD Community Mobilisation Against Desertification CORP Community Own Resource Person DCO District Children Officer DDO District Development Officer DLPO District Livestock Production Officer DVO District Veterinary Officer ECF East Coast Fever ERS Economic Recovery Strategy for Employment and Wealth Creation FFS Farmer Field School FGD Focus Group Discussion FMD Foot and Mouth Disease GoK Government of Kenya HIK Heifer International Kenya HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HOLP Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project HPI Heifer Project International ICIPE International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development JAM Justice and Mercy (Oyugis) KES Kenya Shilling KIOF Kenya Institute of Organic Farming LABALU Lake Basin Land Use Programme LoA Letter of Agreement MoLD Ministry of Livestock Development MTR Mid Term Review NAAC National Aids Control Council NDGFA Nyanza Dairy Goat Farmers’ Association NGO Non Governmental Organisation NSA Non State Actor OIP Oyugis Integrated Project OVC Orphaned and Vulnerable Children OVI Objectively Verifiable Indicator PBA Pure Breed Alpine PBS Pure Breed Sannen PCM Project Cycle Management PLWA People Living With AIDS POG Passing on the Gift PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper SELLO Strengths, Emerging Lessons, Limitations and Opportunities SOFO Successes, Obstacles, Failures and Opportunities SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Pro ject - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft vi Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya

PREFACE This report presents the findings of the impact of the Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project (HOLP), implemented by Heifer International Kenya (HIK) in five districts of southern Nyanza, Kenya. The impact assessment was carried out between April 25th and May 15th 2008. Four key chapters make up the report with chapter one introducing the project context and the assignment. The second chapter presents the impact of the project, while chapter three discusses the challenges and lessons learnt. In chapter four, the report gives the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment. Appendices are provided at the end of the report containing important data on various issues including the approach, tools, and findings (already discussed in chapter two and three).

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Pro ject - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft 1 Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project (HOLP)

Heifer International – Kenya (HIK) formulated the Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project (HOLP) in response to requests from locally based organisations, particularly St Francis Sisters’ Congregation of the Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay and Lake Basin Land Use Programme (LABALU). According to these organisations, the project area was suffering a high prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS, poverty, and significantly, the impact of the two dynamics left a huge burden of Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVCs) to relatives and well wishers still alive. Social surveys conducted at household levels show that these OVCs live with caregivers who are equally challenged, from HIV/AIDS or poverty, and quite often both. Most of the caregivers are relatives of the OVCs, although many are either very old or very young people, because the majority of those who have died as a result of HIV/AIDS are in the age group 20-45 years.

1.2. Objectives of HOLP

According to the revised project proposal1 HOLP was formulated and designed with the goal of providing orphans and their families in Homa Bay with a means to self-reliance and alternatives to engaging in high risk behaviour. The objective of the project is to “increase the incomes and food security of the project orphan families”. Specifically, the project aims to:

• Train 800 orphans and caregivers on sustainable dairy goat farming, record keeping, HPI cornerstones, gender and leadership skills;

• Purchase and distribute 800 dairy goats to 800 orphans and their families, who will in turn pass on 800 dairy goats to other 800 orphans

• Link the orphans and their families to other partners for HIV/AIDS related support and mentoring the orphans so that they mature into responsible adults.

The hierarchy of project objectives has been reviewed as follows:

Goal: To contribute to improved livelihoods of OVCs and their host families/care givers

Purpose/Objective: To equip OVCs and their care givers/host families with tools and resources to develop economically viable agricultural enterprises and enhance their access to life necessities

Outputs/Results:

• OVCs and their care givers provided with dairy goats and requisite skills for their husbandry

• Organic farming in kitchen gardens for nutritious foods for home use and sale promoted

• Capacity of community groups of OVC caregivers strengthened

• OVCs and their caregivers provided with medical and psychosocial support

• Capacities of local partner organisations enhanced

HIK implemented the project in partnership with three local NGOs/CBOs, Animal Draft Power Programme for organic farming, Lake Basin Land Use Programme (LABALU) for community mobilisation and capacity building of community groups, and St. Francis Sisters’ Congregation for psychosocial and medical care between January 2005 and December 2007.

1 Homa Bay Orphans Livelihood Project – By Julius Owade; HIK


1.3. Project Context and Rationale

Rising poverty levels and the HIV/AIDS scourge have dominated dynamics in Kenya’s socio-economic map over the last two decades (1990s and 2000s). Within the country, no region has been as hard hit as the southern Nyanza with respect to poverty and HIV/AIDS. Whereas poverty levels in the country are estimated to be about 54 percent, these districts record levels of over 60percent. HIV/AIDS infections and impact in this region significantly correlate with the poverty figures, where the region records incidences of over 25 percent, while the national averages are now down to six percent. According to District Development Plans for the area, HIV/AIDS prevalence rates range from 24 percent in Homa Bay to 34 percent in Suba, although statistics released by National Aids Control Council (NACC) for 2006 show a much lower prevalence of 7.3 percent in Rachuonyo to 21 percent in Homa Bay.

Many studies have demonstrated the relationship between HIV/AIDS and poverty in the project area (e.g. see IFAD reports on the identification and formulation of Southern Nyanza Community Development Project 2003). The Government of Kenya (GoK) and Non-State Actors (NSA), especially Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) have over the last ten years made concerted efforts to fight both poverty and HIV/AIDS in the area. Most GoK led interventions are constrained by the on-going institutional reforms of the ministries, which are now tending towards facilitation (of actors) and less implementation (activities and projects), thereby leaving a huge implementation gap. Many NGOs and CBOs have moved into the southern Nyanza Districts to compliment GoK efforts and help mitigate the situation. The massive need for support and assistance to the twin problems of the effects of high poverty and HIV/AIDS levels has provided NSAs with opportunities to try out more people-oriented and impact-driven innovations (social experimentation and engineering) that are now slowly bearing fruits.

1.4. Objectives of the Impact Assessment

The Terms of Reference (ToR) has stated that the objective of the impact assessment is to determine the impact of Phase 1 of HOLP, assess the effectiveness of the partners and propose ways and means of enhancing impact, improving efficiency and effectiveness of a planned second phase.

The objective as stated in the ToR (Appendix 1) has been recast into the following specific objectives:

• Assess and determine the impact of the project on key socio-economic indicators of the orphaned and vulnerable children and their caregivers.

• Assess the impact of the project activities on the environment.

• Examine the effectiveness of the partnerships between HIK and locally based implementation partners (ADPP, LABALU, St. Francis Sisters Congregation) and collaborating ministries.

• Make recommendations that would be used in future for similar projects targeting Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVCs).

1.5. Approach and Methodology

The impact assessment was carried out in participatory manner, with a review of relevant project documentation preceding fieldwork that employed standard data gathering tools like closed questionnaires, checklists for focus group discussions and key informant interviews, and field observations (Appendix 2 -10). Appendix 11 provides additional data from the survey and the Bibliography is presented in Appendix 12.


2. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 2.1 General Findings on Project Implementation

2.1.1 Project Activities

The project was commissioned in 2005 in Homa Bay and Migori Districts, with activities focusing on HIV/AIDS OVC caregiver community groups in selected divisions. The main project activities planned are summarised in Text Box 1.

Text Box 1: Summary of major project activities

1. Introduce and promote dairy goat production

1.1 Provide OVCs and their caregivers with dairy goats

1.2 Train OVCs and their caregivers on appropriate dairy goat husbandry

1.3 Promote production of appropriate dairy goat forages among OVC farm families

1.4 Promote consumption of dairy goat milk among OVCs and their families

1.5 Support the marketing of dairy goat milk within project area

2. Promote crop production through using organic farmi ng in kitchen gardens

2.1 Provide OVCs and their caregivers with inputs for kitchen gardens

2.2 Train OVCs and their caregivers on sustainable and environmentally friendly integrated organic farming for their kitchen garden

2.3 Encourage OVCs and their care-giving families to consume nutritious foods

2.4 Promote the marketing of organically produced nutritious foods to enhance incomes of OVCs and their caregivers

3. Strengthen community caregiver groups

3.1 Build and strengthen capacities of community groups of OVC caregivers through training

3.2 Train community groups on enterprise development: record keeping, costing, marketing and

market linkages

4. Provide social support and medical care for HIV/AID S affected and infected families

4.1 Support OVCs and their caregivers with psychosocial support

4.2 Facilitate OVCs and their caregivers to access medical care

4.3 Encourage and facilitate OVCs to attend school

5. Build capacities of partner organisations

5.1 Facilitate workshops and seminars to build capacity of participating partner organisations

5.2 Support participating partner organisations to access necessary equipment and facilities for the work

5.3 Offer supervisory support to the partner organisations

All these project activities (See Text Box 1) were implemented, except for those on giving OVCs and their families’ psychosocial support and medical care in the area of HIV/AIDS.


2.1.2 Population

A total of 482 respondents took part in the study with most respondents coming from Homa Bay District. Female respondents comprised 35 percent of those interviewed (Table 1).

Table 1: Respondents by gender in each of the proje ct districts

Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total Males 120 101 16 57 25 39 358 Females 35 52 0 15 8 14 124 Total 155 153 16 72 33 53 482

The study also captured the number of respondents who were heads of the households. About four percent (4%) of the respondents did not indicate whether or not they headed the households they were responding on behalf of. However, 72% of those interviewed were the heads of their households whereas 24% indicated that they were not (Table 2). At least 49% of those who indicated that they were heads of households were females. From the data, the youngest head of household was an 18 year old male from Kogutu Ngala group in Migori, who was an OVC as well as a guardian to six of his siblings and a nephew, all between the ages of nine and fifteen years.

Table 2: Number of respondents heading households

Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total Yes 107 111 16 52 24 36 346 No 46 35 0 14 6 17 118 Unspecified 2 7 0 6 3 0 18 Total 155 153 16 72 33 53 482

The respondents ranged from 14 to 90 years of age (Table 3). The youngest were a fourteen and fifteen year old males from Homa Bay and Migori District respectively. The oldest respondent whose age recorded was a 90 year old widow from Homa Bay who lives alone.

Table 3: Respondents by age

<18 yrs 18-25 yrs 26-35 yrs 36-55 yrs >55 yrs Unspecified Total Female 11 78 176 80 13 358 Male 2 10 25 55 29 3 124 Total 2 21 103 231 109 16 482

The survey captured a total of 2,354 orphans between the ages of 0- 24 years. The majority of this population (53 percent) fell within the 11-24 age bracket followed by 27 percent between the ages of six and ten. Children between 0-5 years comprised 20 percent of the orphan population. Vulnerable children made up 50 percent of the total orphan population while 26 percent were total orphans and 25 percent were partial orphans (Table 4).


Table 4: Nature and number of Orphans

Total Orphans Partial Orphans Vulnerable Children

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Nature of

Orphan No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total

0-5 yrs 35 1% 23 1% 45 2% 42 2% 183 7% 173 7% 501

6-10 yrs 94 4% 83 3% 76 3% 73 3% 176 7% 196 8% 698

11-24 yrs 249 10% 184 7% 201 8% 140 6% 286 11% 275 11% 1,335

Total 378 15% 290 11% 322 13% 255 10% 645 25% 644 25% 2,534 Source: HOLP Impact Assessment data

2.1.3 Dairy goat farming

HOLP settled for dairy goats as one of the key inputs to improving the livelihoods of OVCs and their caregivers. The dairy goats were expected to provide benefits that would include milk, cash from milk sales, and manure to be used in the kitchen gardens.

To actualise this, HOLP proposed to provide two dairy goats (does) for each of the families in the OVC caregivers groups. Half of the group members were to receive the goats directly from HIK, while the remaining half was to receive the goats through Heifer’s practical cornerstone of Passing On the Gift (POG). In addition, each group was provided with a buck for breeding purposes as well as to improve the existing local goat breeds.

In support of dairy goat farming, the project also trained the beneficiaries on practical and profit oriented dairy goat husbandry. Training was also conducted on the benefits to be derived from the dairy goats and management skills to optimise the benefits. With the dairy goats came some equipment like spray pumps etc. By the end of 2007, HOLP had provided 912 families, catering for more than 7,176 OVCs, with 1,131 dairy goats directly and through POGs (Table 5).

Table 5: Distribution of Dairy goats, families and OVCs in the project area by December 2007

Source: HIK Homa Bay office. Note: These figures exclude the bucks and any distributions made after December 2007. Note figures for Rongo and Migori have been combined because Rongo was only recently hived off Migori District

According to the HIK Homa Bay office records, all the 55 groups were provided with breeding bucks. Of the goats distributed, 665 were pure breeds, and the rest were crosses and POGs, which were either pure breeds or crosses). The 482 respondents captured by the study revealed that they received a total of 558 goats between the years 2005 and 2008 (Table 6). The survey also found that 14.5 percent of these goats were Alpine, 56.8 percent Sannen and 28.7 percent crosses.

District Dairy Goats Families OVCs

Homa Bay 384 350 2,899

Migori 388 345 2,521

Nyando 18 18 149

Rachuonyo 128 120 1,053

Suba 71 79 554

Total 989 912 7,176


Table 2.6: Number of Goats Received by the Responde nts

Row Labels 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Homa-bay 62 65 70 1 198

Migori 54 100 40 0 194

Nyando 0 0 15 0 15

Rachuonyo 0 3 46 9 58

Rongo 9 17 14 0 40

Suba 1 35 17 0 53

Grand Total 126 220 202 10 558 Source: HOLP Impact Assessment data From the focus group discussions and interviews with key resource persons, it is evident that the dairy goats have performed extremely well. The following are clear indicators of the goats’ performance to date:

• 71 percent of the goats have kidded with a twining rate of 37 percent. • Out of a sample of 482 beneficiaries who received dairy goats between 2005 and 2007,

548 goats had kidded 583 times, with a total of 797 kids.

The project spent a considerable amount of resources to train OVCs and their caregivers on dairy goat husbandry. But not all beneficiaries attended all training sessions since some of them were absent when some of the topics were taught. More than 95 percent of the beneficiaries received training on various aspects of goat husbandry that focused on dairy goat housing, feeding, disease management, rearing kids, forage production, milking, marketing, business skills and nutrition among others. Majority (98 percent) of the respondents indicated that they would like to have more training, to enhance their skills and to consolidate the lessons already taught.

Members of the family including OVCs of age also attended some training, although many learnt goat husbandry techniques practically as they observed their care-givers in action. This is an important aspect of the project because it ensures that almost any member of the household can take care of the goats when the guardians are away.

Visits to beneficiary farms show that the training was effective and most beneficiaries were trying to manage their goats as trained (see photos 1 and 2).

Photo 1: A young orphan with a Sannen goat

Photo 2: A woman feeds her dairy goat


Figure 1: Percent use of milk from dairy goats

Home79%

Sell20%

Give away1%

How families use goat milk on daily basis (l)

All families have set aside land for goat forage including Napier grass and fodder trees, while sweet potatoes are grown not only for domestic consumption, but to feed the vines to the goats too.

Milk yields are in general, below the potential of the dairy goats (Table 7), although it can be improved through better feeding. Research by FARM AFRICA and HIK show that dairy goat’s potential for milk production is on average seven litres a day, but under good management.

Maximum daily milk yields ranged from four to seven litres while the minimum recorded was half a litre among the districts. From Table 7, mean daily milk yields stands at 2.1 litres, against a potential of six to seven litres. During Focus Group Discussions (FGD), a farmer in Ogongo, Suba reported daily milk yields of seven litres. These production figures exclude milk left for the children. Goats that had twinned were left with more milk, to feed the twins.

Table 7: Summary of milk yields from the first two goats

District Homa Bay

Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total

No. of first goats milked 129 125 12 50 26 46 388 Daily milk yield from first goat 284.5 256.8 28.0 96.9 53.5 101.1 820.7 Mean yield for first goat 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1 No. of second goats milked 10 17 1 1 8 37 Daily milk yield from second goat 18.5 28.5 3.0 0.5 9.8 60.3 Mean yield for second goat 1.9 1.7 3.0 0.5 1.2 1.6 Source: HOLP Impact Assessment data

Almost 50 percent of the milk produced is used for various purposes at home (Figure 1), especially in tea, and other foods especially vegetables. A little milk was left to go sour, and some sold in the neighbourhood. A few households (five percent) produced ghee from the milk. Using milk in tea, vegetables etc ensures that the little milk is shared by a large number of family members. Young children and those who are sick are given a little milk to drink.

Although Figure 1 shows that a significant amount of the milk is sold, all respondents whose goats have kidded use milk at home, and only 35 percent sell some. Probably those with higher milk yields sell, while most use the milk at home. Use to which milk is put was similar among the entire project Districts (Table 8). At least 93 percent of all who have milked their dairy goats have done some value addition or processing which takes various forms like boiling, making ghee etc. Out of the 395 respondents who undertake some processing, 78 percent boil, another 78 percent mix the milk with vegetables, while 30 percent ferment the milk. At least five percent of them produce ghee from goat milk. Fermented milk is a delicacy


Figure 2: % Distribution of dairy goat milk markets

among the Luo community, and this is the milk mostly given to children, although some take fresh boiled milk.

Table 8: Daily use of milk from dairy goats (in lit res per day)

District Home consumption Sold Give away Homa Bay 1.8 1.3 0.6 Migori 1.7 1.3 0.9 Nyando 1.8 1.2 1.0 Rachuonyo 1.4 1.0 0.8 Rongo 1.9 0.8 Suba 1.8 1.5 0.5 Mean 1.7 1.2 0.8 Source: HOLP Impact Assessment data

The survey revealed a daily mean milk production of some 846.72 litres, which if sold a the mean selling price of KES 35In general, dairy goat milk prices are much higher than milk from cows on a unit basis. Dairy goat milk prices ranged from a low mean of KES 25 in Suba District to KES 48.5 a litre in Homa Bay, while milk from cows is sold at KES 20-25 a litre (Table 9). Most of the milk is sold to neighbours, while a few people have ‘contracts’ to deliver milk and are paid on a monthly basis for their delivery. Data from the field show that 42 percent of the milk is sold to neighbours, and 38 percent is contracted (Figure 2). These data indicate that there is adequate demand for dairy goat milk in the area.

Indeed during focus group discussions, beneficiaries were full of praise for the dairy goat milk using several adjectives to describe the ‘miracle’ milk.

Table 9: Mean milk prices in the five districts (in KES per litre)

Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total

Minimum 15 10 30 20 30 10 20

Maximum 65 65 30 100 60 40 30

Average 36 33 30 46 41 25 35 Source: HOLP Impact Assessment data

Selling of bucks: Quite a number of beneficiaries have generated money directly by selling bucks that were brought up in their homes. This assessment found that on average, a buck is


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 2006 2007 Grand Total

Nu

mb

er

of

de

ath

s

Number of deaths by year and type

Alpine Crosses Saanen Grand Total

Figure 3: Percent use of milk from dairy goats

sold at about KES 10,000 to 15,000. Buyers come from mainly outside the project area. However, the marketing aspect for bucks has not yet been well coordinated.

As a consequence, and because of the interest generated in the region on dairy goats, the Nyanza Dairy Goat Farmers Association (NDGFA) was recently formed and registered. Part of its role will be to support farmers in marketing of their produce. Of those enumerated, 81 (17 percent) had sold a goat, mostly bucks (96 percent) at a mean cost of KES 9,650. Those enumerated had revenue of at least KES 781,350. This is money that the poor community within the project area hardly generate, and is set to rise. At the time of the mission, there were close to 100 bucks waiting to be sold, and this would generate approximately KES 1.0 million.

Despite the valiant efforts of the goat owners, quite a few have died over the years, with the numbers increasing annually (Figure 3), although the death rates have gone down.

These deaths rob the owners of incomes and other benefits. By the end of 2007, 129 goat deaths were reported by the respondents out of the 1345 captured by the study. The numbers were split evenly between males and females (63:66). However, more of the Pure Bred Sannen (PBS) died (43 percent) compared to Pure Bred Alpines (PBA) - (24 percent) and cross breeds (33 percent). From the total of all goats recorded during the survey (1345 goats), ten percent (10%) have died over a two and a half year period, which translates to about four percent per annum(4% p.a.). The FGDs revealed that most of the goats reported dead comprised of stillbirths and goat kids.

2.1.4 Kitchen gardens

HOLP promoted kitchen gardens with the aim of enhancing household food security, conserving the environment and, in particular, to provide the OVCs and their caregivers with nutritious foods, especially indigenous vegetables. An opportunity to do this arose with the up-take of dairy goat husbandry, and the promotion of organic farming. In the set up, families were to use goat manure in the production of local vegetables that have proved to be nutritious with positive effects among HIV/AIDS patients. At the time of the evaluation, 92 percent of respondents had active kitchen gardens where they practiced organic farming at the time of the mission. Kitchen gardens ranged in size from a mean of 285m2 to 485m2, although the smallest was just 4m2.

Beneficiaries were given a package of seeds and tools for their kitchen gardens. Training was carried out by ADPP, using organic farming techniques developed by ICIPE and the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF). At least 91 percent of the respondents attended the trainings, which were broadly on the following topics:


Figure 4: Vegetables grown in kitchen gardens

Laying out the kitchen gardens, raised bed systems, double digging, use of organic pesticides, composting and use of liquid manure. Other members of the households also benefited from the training directly and by observing their guardians practically doing the duties.

Some of the crops grown in the kitchen gardens are presented in Figure 4. Like in the case of goat milk, produce from the kitchen gardens were used at home and some sold in the nearby markets for income. All the respondents consumed the produce at home, 62 percent sold some of the produce in the nearby markets, while 14 percent gave some of the produce to the needy including schools.

On a monthly basis, those who sold their produce from the kitchen gardens earned an average of KES 629, with a range of KES 30 to 8,000 per month. Some of the beneficiaries have literally transformed the kitchen gardens into commercial enterprises (see photos 3 and 4). From the sample of beneficiaries enumerated, monthly incomes from the kitchen gardens totalled close to KES 210,000.

Besides the crops grown in the kitchen gardens, most beneficiaries grew other crops in their farms. Quite a number have started applying organic farming techniques in these farms as well.

For both dairy goat production and kitchen gardening, all OVCs within the families

participated in various activities. OVCs interviewed were quite adept at carrying out routine husbandry activities in both the goat pens and kitchen gardens.

Photo 3: Beneficiaries harvesting from the kitchen gardens

Photo 4: From kitchen garden to commercial vegetable farming

2.1.5 Strengthening capacity of OVC caregiver community groups

A total of 55 OVC caregiver community groups participated in the project. As a pre-requisite to receive project inputs, the groups underwent training to strengthen their management governance activities that were aimed at enhancing group cohesion and orient their activities towards the set objectives. Also, the groups were required to formally register with the social


services and, in doing so, become legal entities. With the registration, the groups were able to open Bank Accounts through which, they were to manage their financial dealings. Most of the training was delivered by LABALU, although HIK and ADPP also conducted some of the training.

After this initial capacity building exercise, the groups were taken through Heifer Cornerstones, and helped to plan for their activities guided by the principles of Project Cycle Management (PCM). The groups drew their plans of actions, including activities, inputs, expected outputs etc. The groups also planned to have regular meetings, and elaborated on their ‘constitutions’ to include modalities of working with HOLP.

However, the capacity strengthening activities were not adequate. Groups were still having problems related to group dynamics, and on occasions, governance issues. Therefore, this input was not adequately delivered, and may have other consequences to the sustainability of the project.

2.1.6 Psychosocial and medical care

This component was meant to better integrate OVCs in their caregiver families, support the ‘new family’ set up and assist with provision of medical care, counselling on HIV/AIDS and encourage the OVCs to attend school. However, none of the activities planned under this component were delivered by the partner – St Francis Sisters. Therefore, the project beneficiaries missed out on the potential benefits from this intervention.

2.1.7 Capacity building of partner organisations

Under this activity, capacities of the three partner organisations were to be strengthened. HOLP provided LABALU and ADPP with resources for office equipment and facilitated their movements. In addition, HOLP invited all the organisations to attend important training workshops and seminars on areas of interest from time to time.

However, the capacity building exercise was not well targeted, and there are no records of capacity needs of these organisations. Whereas ADPP was satisfied with the capacity building it received, both LABALU and St. Francis Congregation were unhappy with it.

Therefore, it is deduced that the project implemented most of the key activities, with some extremely well implemented, while others like strengthening local capacities could have been better implemented. Significantly, components that HOLP was charged with were fully implemented and extremely well too, while implementation by the partners in general, fell short of expectations.

2.2 Impact of the Project

In examining the impact of the project, impact felt by the four different sub-target groups distilled from the project documents have been distinguished. These sub-target groups are classified as OVCs, caregivers, the wider community and the implementing partners.

2.2.1 Impact on OVCs

Results from the household survey show that 98 percent of daily milk production was used at home for making tea, mixed with vegetables or fermented. Interviews with OVCs within the households revealed that they were given dairy goat milk, especially at the height of milk production. Some OVCs drink the milk raw straight after milking. Caregivers preferred to share the little milk by using it to make tea or mixed with vegetables. The rest of the milk was sold 19.8 percent and given to neighbours or schools as gifts 1.5%.


Caregivers and key resource persons interviewed during focus group discussions were emphatic that the dairy goat milk was more nutritious than milk from cattle. They went as far as stating that many OVCs who came into their families with skin diseases, and almost always fell sick were now ’shining’ and healthy because of the goat milk.

Because of the perceived superior nutritive quality of dairy goat milk (beneficiaries actually believe that it is medicinal), its price is greater than that for cattle milk.

All the OVCs interviewed eat at least lunch and super a day in addition to either tea or fermented milk. Though the baseline survey reported the same finding, the quality of meals then did not include tea or milk (less than ten percent had tea or milk). Although most households still eat ugali and vegetables, the type of vegetables have changed, with more of the organically produced indigenous vegetables. Most of the tea is made with milk from the goats – even families that do not have milk from their goats can either buy or borrow from neighbours (group members) to use at home (see Figure 1).

The following data is an indication of the impact of the project on OVC’s nutritional status:

In the survey carried out, 506 children were five years and below but growth monitoring cards were available for only 163 children. The cards showed the following:

• 131 (80.9 percent) showed normal growth;

• 23 (14.1 percent) above normal; and

• 9 (5.5 percent) were below normal weight (growth).

First, the baseline survey did not measure the nutritional status of the OVCs even indirectly, and therefore it is difficult to know if the findings above are largely as a result of the project outputs. But given that Nyanza province has always had comparatively low indices of weight vs. age for children below five, it is fair to attribute, even partly, the observed results to the project inputs.

In Magungu, a day-care centre for OVCs in Rachuonyo District that was given three dairy goats, the managers reported that none of the 118 children had fallen sick to opportunistic diseases related to HIV/AIDS in the past three months ostensibly because of the dairy goat milk.

From the data, there were 2,382 ‘children’ between ages six and 24. Of these, 1,960 were in school (82 percent). Some children below six years were also in school. When only those between six and 18 years are considered, 89.4 percent were in school (1,664 out of 1,862). Whereas it would be presumptuous to ascribe this high rate of school attendance to the project, clearly there is a link.

Most children who do not attend school are usually the vulnerable ones with no one to care for their needs including food, clothing, uniforms and books. Because their caregivers are able to sell milk, bucks or even vegetables from their gardens and get some income, basic school necessities of OVCs can be met, and are actually met.

In addition to shelter, food, health, schooling and clothing, a pressing need for most OVCs is parental love and care. All children interviewed were happy with their foster homes, and the care/attention they were getting. However, there were a few reported cases of stigma, especially in schools. Pupils in school often teased their less fortunate colleagues although the problem is now being addressed by teachers and local opinion leaders.


Figure 5: Duties that OVCs carry out in goat husba ndry and kitchen gardens

Photo 5: OVCs in a kitchen garden

Photo 6: OVC learns to feed a goat

The love and care given to OVCs is perhaps the greatest impact of the project on their lives – courtesy of the project inputs. Obviously some OVCs may not be very happy living with foster parents who are largely poor, but under the circumstances, they are better off than in the streets.

Some of the indirect benefits to the OVCs must also be mentioned. OVCs have participated in taking care of the goats, and also organic farming (see photos 5 & 6), in the process learning invaluable livelihood skills (Figure 5). When asked about their participation in the kitchen gardens and goat husbandry, the OVCs were elated that they had learned important concepts, were more than happy to help with the chores and that the chores were in no way punishing them. Some even claimed ownership over certain chores, like cleaning the pens so that they could ‘talk’ with their goats.


Figure 6: Benefits from dairy goats

2.2.2 Impact on OVC caregivers and family members

Caregivers of OVCs reported numerous benefits from the project, especially the dairy goats (Figure 6) including the much acclaimed dairy goat milk, incomes, farm yard manure and enhanced social standing within the community.

In terms of impact to the caregivers, the greatest is hope and social recognition. Owning a dairy goat is now a prestigious thing in the project area. Dairy goat milk is revered as an invaluable medicine against HIV/AIDS in the project area.

Another impact of the project as was expressed by many was that the dairy goat has been keeping the beneficiaries well occupied at home and hence reduced the hours spent on idle talk. Whereas taking care of the goats has eaten into some of their time, many claimed it was worth it, in any case, they stated, “what can we get without sweating?”

Some groups have coined a saying that loosely translates to “the dairy goats have kept us busy, and protected us from unnecessary loitering in the markets” or in Luo, “diel ogeng’o bayo”. This is an important impact because guardians are able to spend more time doing productive work. The kitchen gardens and organic farming have significantly reduced moneys spent on buying vegetables – usually kales that are not as ‘nutritive’. The money saved has gone into other domestic uses. Another important impact is the social capital built through the capacity building initiatives at group level. Beneficiaries who attend training are now better savers, use better production techniques (extended organic farming concept to their farms), while a few beneficiaries have transformed their subsistence oriented kitchen gardens into

commercial undertakings. Most female beneficiaries whose goats have kidded or access milk from neighbours claimed that the project has significantly enhanced ‘peace’ at home, especially as men tend to come back home early enough to take ‘the thick’ tea made from goat milk, as well as not intending to miss the yummy vegetables mixed with goat milk. This is a critical impact because amidst poverty and challenges posed by HIV/AIDS and the orphans, tranquillity at home is necessary to help the families go through the difficult times.

Caregivers have learnt the art and spirit of sharing, especially when they have to give milk to schools and neighbours who do not have any, but in return also receive milk when in need. The project has also helped many save money – according to LABALU, the number of group members saving in their local savings and credit schemes has increased by over 60 percent, and the money per member has also increased by close to 50 percent in the last two years.

Another impact has been innovation among the dairy goat keepers. Project beneficiaries have started innovating techniques of adding value to their produce, for example production of ghee from the milk and sold at about KES 300 per litre. The impact is that the project has created an enabling environment for innovative business people to take up opportunities of making some income.


A very significant impact of the project has been the formation and registration of the Nyanza Dairy Goat Farmers Association, which is expected to lobby and advocate on behalf of the members. The chairman of the association is a care giver from Rachuonyo Distinct. Farmers from each District are expected to register district-based chapters of the association. The significance of NDGFA is that it would like to take over the keeping of breeding records, hopefully with the support of HIK, and also streamline marketing of dairy goat products.

Therefore for the OVCs and their families, the project has enhanced social capital, built household assets, provided some basic necessities and given them hope. Therefore, the impact of the project is immediate, visible and significant.

2.2.3 Impact on the wider community

In the context of the wider community, impact can be summarised as follows:

• Many households are now taking into the concept of organic farming, and especially the number of kitchen gardens has risen dramatically in the last year. The mission counted close to 50 homes with kitchen gardens modelled on the organic farming – Push Pull technology.

• The larger community is able to purchase the ‘miracle’ dairy goat milk. Indeed the demand for the milk, especially in the urban areas like Migori and Homa Bay towns where awareness of the milk’s qualities is high, and the milk prices are relatively higher.

• There is definitely an increase in demand for dairy goats; however the supply of dairy goat does is still low because group members are still undertaking the POG, while those who finished their share of POGs are busy building their stocks/asset levels.

• Farmers from the wider community have now begun to upgrade their local goats through breeding with pure bred bucks.

The greatest impact the project has created is to give hope to thousands of OVCs and their caregivers that they can rise from their lows to succeed in life. Many actors and key resource persons accept that this is the most important impact of the project, although no one can quantify it. Nevertheless, other quantifiable impact as presented above is still very significant within the project and national context.

To a lesser extent but nonetheless important, the project has in general had a positive impact on the environment. The need to feed dairy goats with recommended nutritious forages has prompted beneficiaries to put up agroforestry trees like Caliandra, Sesbania, etc. On the other hand, there is now a significant reduction in the use of pesticides in farms because farmers have opted to use bio-pesticides they make locally and save on production costs. Growing of Napier grass is supporting the reduction of soil erosion, while intercropping using the push-pull technology developed by ICIPE is improving the soil structure and fertility (as evidenced by greater yields).

It can thus be summarised that the project has had a profound impact among the beneficiaries and their neighbours. In addition to creating hope among a very desperate people, incomes have in general improved, and families have saved money on ‘domestic’ expenses. The fact that many caregivers reported their willingness to take up a few more OVCs is enough testimony to the success of the project so far.

Examined from another angle, the project has provided empirical evidence that taking care of OVCs from within caregiver families, and not orphanages is a practical step towards better care for the OVCs. Whereas the merits or demerits of orphanages is not part of this ToR, many children would be happier staying in the free world of ‘normal homes’, doing what other children are doing, and learning ‘world dynamics’ in a natural environment, and not in the confines of


orphanages. In any case, taking all the OVCs in the project area to orphanages is to say the least impossible and not sustainable. Giving people resources that they can use to care for their loved ones, relatives and desperate children is a more practical option even if a tricky undertaking.


3. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT 3.1 Assessment of HOLP Partners

The three key implementation partners were LABALU, St Francis Congregation and ADPP and their roles are spelt out in the ToR to this assignment (Appendix 1).

LABALU was tasked with strengthening community groups and delivering training on record keeping, mobilisation of savings and credit and providing counselling to the OVCs and their families. Though it is an organisation hinged on the Catholic Archdiocese of Homa Bay, it is a semi autonomous entity; however, the church may still have considerable influence on its activities.

In terms of its performance, it is quite evident that it did a lot to mobilise the groups in the field, helped to strengthen them, but fell short of the expected training standards. LABALU does not have adequate technical capacity to implement the activities it was meant to (see details in Appendix 9). Further, LABALU seemed to have concentrated more on training the groups in rural savings and credit and encouraging them to get loans as opposed to strengthening the groups, and training them on governance and group dynamics.

St Francis Sisters Congregation was tasked with providing health services to the OVCs, food for the young and vulnerable and organising for psychosocial support to the OVCs and their families. However, the project document did not elaborate how this organisation would achieve this. Whereas it worked hard to mobilize the community groups, it is evident that St Francis Congregation had very high expectations that Heifer did not meet. As a result, it more or less did not implement any of the activities expected of it. According to HOLP and HIK records, St Francis Sisters Congregation had budgeted for KES 937,500 for its activities. It received this money, but obviously, the amount was inadequate for the intended activities, and it is not clear what it used the money for. In our considered opinion, there was a serious mismatch in the expectations of the Congregation.

Secondly, it is clear that the St Francis Sisters Congregation did not have the capacity to undertake the tasks assigned to it, and was depending on resources from HIK to set itself up in order to implement its activities, which also include working with OVCs. Capacity here is used in the broadest sense of the word, to include human and non-human resources.

ADPP performed its tasks very well, and has adequate technical expertise in organic farming. However, it delivered training without preparing manuals and modules, and one cannot ascertain whether training was uniformly delivered across the project area. It certainly is a strong organisation, but with ample opportunities to strengthen itself and perform better (Appendix 8). The mission also recognises the fact that challenges posed by the other two implementing partners to some extent affected service delivery by ADPP, which expected to find common interest groups that were already well organised, trained and strengthened. Instead, it spent time in delivering some training in group dynamics and institutional strengthening.

The mission found that ADPP has continued to offer support to the groups through more visits since the first phase ended. However, it has significantly scaled down its activities – due to resource constraints. On a positive note, ADPP offers extension services to individual farmers who visit any of its three Agrovet branches in the project area.

At another level, it may have been asking too much of these organisations to provide technical support over such a wide area. Understandably, they cannot do so for nothing, and spreading themselves too thin is in the first instance not very attractive (possibility of incurring losses), while on the other hand it offers them an opportunity to expand and learn more.


It is also important to note that some government departments collaborated very closely with HOLP in project implementation. The veterinary department, right from the headquarters in Nairobi to the field officers at the divisions and locations actively participated in various activities, not least of all in trying to give veterinary care to the goats. Community Animal Health Workers in HOLP were trained by officers from the veterinary department. Also, the Livestock production office continues to offer support including extension to the project activities. However, HOLP had to pay for most of the services from the government departments.

Plan Kenya, an NGO operating in the project area collaborated with HIK in providing building materials for goat pens to a few of the beneficiaries in Homa Bay. HIK is encouraged to enter more of such collaborations in order to reach more of the really needy families.

3.2 Lessons Learnt and Challenges Faced by the Proj ect

In their own words, project staff say that HOLP has been a fantastic learning process for them, with many challenges.

1. The first challenge was that of strengthening the community groups into legal entities that HOLP could deal with as per the practices of Heifer Kenya. HOLP had expected to find groups that were strong enough to work with, but most had not even registered with the Social Services Department, and hence had no bank accounts, which was central to the implementation of the project. The lesson here is that HIK should at least carry out a rapid institutional assessment of the capacities in community groups, and not take on face value, reports from other partners.

2. Secondly, the project experienced significant delays in accessing the funds from CIFF, which cascaded into delays in implementing other activities. As with most rural communities, such delays are usually not a good sign, especially when an organisation wants to implement activities for the first time. HIK decided to invest its own resources to move the project forward. ADPP and LABALU also used their resources to kick-start their activities. Therefore, given the dynamics of fund raising and flow of funds, it is important to know the levels of commitment to make, so that embarrassing situations are avoided.

3. There were also significant delays in procuring breeding dairy goats, and the project had to seek for goats from South Africa and Kenya (and not France as was initially planned). Of course this flexibility in sourcing for goats is highly commended, but the situation can be avoided through better planning during the proposal stage.

4. Because dairy goats were new in the area, no one could predict how they would adapt to the environment, and specifically, how they would react to animal diseases under husbandry conditions that were sub-optimal. The survey recorded at least 129 deaths from a sample of 482, (including kids) from various causes. These deaths represent massive loses to the families. A typical buck costs about KES 10,000, while a doe fetches close to KES 15,000. Deaths have been rising every year since 2005, which recorded only eight deaths rising to 56 in 2007, although the annual death rates are showing a declining trend, with mostly the new borns dying in larger numbers. Most of the deaths were reported in new born kids. The project does not have the capacity to effectively assess the cause of deaths, although enterotoxaemia, bloat and tick borne diseases e.g. East Coast Fever (ECF) are believed to be major causes of death.

5. Access to veterinary services remains a huge challenge. Although the project has trained CAHWs, they are few, and their training was inadequate for the needed services.


6. This assessment has reported that milk yields are way below the potential of the goats for many of the beneficiaries. The proximate cause of the low yields lies with how and what beneficiaries feed the goats on. Some beneficiaries do not feed the goats with the recommended mix of forages, although going by the sizes and health status of the goats, most are given adequate food. Therefore, it is the quality of the feeds that is an issue, but HOLP does not have capacity to offer adequate extension services.

7. A recent challenge, and which may become a huge one is the issue of markets for bucks. Though the prices fetched so far are good – KES 10,000, many households are keeping bucks, which are not only feeding, but some are reported to be destroying the goat pens.

8. Field data also shows that capacity building – for all the activities was inadequate. Trainings were done a few times, yet the technology being introduced is new. This is echoed in beneficiaries’ passionate appeal for more training sessions, to cover goat husbandry, organic farming and strengthening of their groups.

9. The centralized management of funds in Nairobi is a challenge in that it affects the flow of funds and, subsequently, the speed with which require services can be delivered. The local regional office (now in charge of more than 1000 dairy goats) must make requests that are then processed, and, at times the requested goods are procured in Nairobi and then sent to the regional office. Though a centralized system has its merits, HIK should give serious thought to decentralizing some of its financial management – in this case, a proposal is made for monthly allocations to be retired before the next allocation is made.

10. HOLP has few and efficient staff members. However, they did not have adequate facilities to produce optimally, even if their work is rated excellent. Staff do not have adequate vehicles to travel within the project areas and have had to rely on transport from the GoK departments. Hence there is need for HIK to consider increasing the number of vehicles as well as looking into the mode of motorisation it gives staff, especially the female officers – who are not comfortable riding motorbikes over very rough terrain. Considering the nature of and amount of information the regional office deals with, to ensure that the project staff have some reasonable office space from where to operate and in order for them to provide efficient services to beneficiaries and other interested actors, equipment like computers/laptops should be made available to them all.

11. Partners’ expectations of the project remained a challenge throughout the implementation period, especially St Francis Sisters Congregation. This is a critical lesson in dealing with partners. The inclusion of a reasonable probationary period of collaboration before formalizing partnerships is therefore recommended.

12. Other collaborators like staff from GoK would like to be facilitated to move to the field where they can support HOLP beneficiaries better, especially the veterinary officers. Whereas the presence of many NGOs paying bigger allowances has complicated the nature of these collaborations, there are an adequate number of GoK staff willing to work for the cause – of course with some little facilitation – which is improving the livelihoods of the beneficiaries.

13. Effective monitoring of critical indicators was not carried out, largely due to inadequate technical capacities to do so, and also due to lack of defining the right indicators in the project log-frame. Indeed, the logframe (Appendix 9) was reviewed in order to indentify indicators to use for this assessment.


Although the challenges seem many, field based project staff proved equal to them, and were actually able to find local solutions or circumvented them to successfully implement the project activities.


4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions 1 HOLP has successfully introduced an important practical, appropriate livelihood

enhancing technology targeting a very vulnerable section of the community – OVCs and their care givers. The dairy goats introduced in the project area have adapted well and been well received by the beneficiaries despite earlier apprehensions of low technology adoption. On the other hand, promotion of organic farming techniques for production in the kitchen gardens to enhance food availability at the household level has significantly rekindled interest in kitchen gardening within the project area in general.

Dairy goats have, within the short time period, brought immense benefits to most of the project beneficiaries including milk, manure, incomes, knowledge and skills, enhanced the social standing of the OVC families and most important of all, brought hope to a largely despairing community. The importance of the dairy goats is seen in the light of the future, as its benefits accrue. Similarly, kitchen gardening has also brought numerous benefits including production of nutritious local vegetables, incomes, and an enhanced good environmental practices. Because of the higher yields realized from the organic farming technology, some beneficiaries moved from subsistence to commercial organic agriculture, earning substantial incomes to meet the needs of OVCs and their families.

The impact of these two technologies on the OVCs and their caregivers has been visible, significant and almost immediate – better nutrition reflected in the few underweight OVCs, most OVCs living happily within the foster families and accessing life’s basic necessities, and importantly, improved overall health (as evidenced by the reported decline in skin diseases and opportunistic infections). These benefits have also spread to all the children within the caregiver households, most of whom are also vulnerable by virtue of their guardians being either affected or infected with HIV/AIDS.,

2 The use of local NGOs and CBOs as implementation partners was, in a nutshell, a major lesson for HIK. Although HIK and the partners signed legal letters of agreement, the working relationship in the field would have yielded better results if the partnerships were better structured, the organisations given an incubation period to know and learn from each other and more joint planning and monitoring sessions held. Of the three implementing partners, only ADPP came close to achieving the desired level of expectations, while the other two fell short for various reasons. Critically, none of the partners have been able to monitor the progress of the groups since December 30th when the legal agreements lapsed, despite earlier stating that they were routinely working with the said groups in other endeavours.

The relatively poor performance of the local partners is ascribed to inadequate understanding of what the partnerships entailed as their different expectations were not harmonized. This was not helped by a rather unclear reporting, supervision and communication channel between the partners and HIK, and failure on HIK’s part to hold regular consultative meetings with the partners.

3 Due to lack of capacity among the partners, provision of psychosocial support and medical care components were not implemented, hence OVCs did not realize the benefits that were expected from this component. Therefore, HIK should review its approach to partnering with local organisations, paying particular attention to the human and financial capacities, long term interests and management history of the partners.


4 Whereas the field staff did extremely well, the staff compliment was rather thin, and hence the workload has tremendously increased. At initiation, HOLP was being implemented in only two Districts, but is now spread to six (Rongo was hived off Migori). This poses a challenge to the only available three field project advisors. The spatial expansion did not come with additional facilities like vehicles and computers, which would make the work of the staff more comfortable. Whereas motorbikes are a good means of transport, they can be a hindrance, especially when it rains and where the terrain is as rugged as the project area, and three of the five staff are ladies.

The enhanced spatial coverage has also proved to be a challenge to administration of the project, especially as the financial systems of HIK are fully centralized, almost always resulting in delays in money flows, that also occasion slower responses to challenges in the field, e.g. dealing with disease outbreaks.

5 Because of pressure on staff time, important monitoring data has not been analysed, therefore not used in supporting project implementation. Project advisors kept close tabs on the project activities, but this vigil did not translate into corrective measures. Therefore, the project has considerable scope to improve on its monitoring. This needs to include qualitative information and not rely heavily on quantitative data from the field as currently seems to be the case. It is doubtful if the entire country programme has a monitoring and evaluation system in place.

6 Whereas dairy goat production has faced disease and buck marketing challenges, HOLP responded strongly to the disease problem by training CAHWs, most of who are members of the groups, to offer ‘first aid’ services, and act as a link between the goat owners and GoK veterinary officers. But the training CAHWs received was only introductory and they definitely need more to become effective in their duties. Though the challenge on marketing will probably take longer to solve, however, HIK has supported beneficiaries to form an association, which will hopefully take on the role. Both the CAHWs and the dairy goat association are critical building blocks towards achieving sustainability.

7 The project has established very good working relationships with other actors on the ground, especially the service delivery departments of the government like veterinary, livestock production, DDO; Plan Kenya, World Vision, OIP, CARD, CMAD, CCF etc. these relationships are also an indication and recognition of the importance of HOLP in the area. On the other hand, it has brought in new challenges, as more actors seek to have a role to play in the success of the project – especially the GoK departments expect to be facilitated (read paid) to deliver certain services. On a positive note, these relationships have resulted in different levels of collaboration that have brought immediate benefits to the target groups and enhanced the project impact e.g. Plan Kenya supporting some groups with resources to build goat pens, while ICIPE’s Push-pull technology has significantly enhanced production in the kitchen gardens.

8 Overall, HOLP was a successful project, and has created an immediate, significant and visible impact among the beneficiaries (OVCs and their caregivers), the wider members of society, implementing partners and other actors in the district. For the beneficiaries, the project has brought nutritious food (milk and vegetables), incomes (from sale of milk, bucks and vegetables), increased household assets (dairy goats), enhanced the social standing and brought love and hope among the families. The project has also given birth to a new source of livelihood – CAHWs, who are earning some income through their services. There is still room for improvement, especially with the lessons learnt that


would enhance implementation of activities, overcoming challenges, and delivering more, better, faster with fewer resources.

HOLP has ably demonstrated that with a few inputs, local communities can manage some of the impacts of HIV/AIDS. In particular, HOLP has shown that OVCs can be better taken care of within foster homes, where they can also learn important life skills, while at the same time being children like any other.

9 In conclusion, HOLP is a simple project that is among the very few livelihood improvement initiatives with excellent targeting, extremely high technology adoption rates (especially in Nyanza province), an almost assured sustainability element (through the groups, POGs and CAHWs), easily replicable with visible and immediate impact.

4.2 Recommendations

In the proposed second phase, the two types of recommendations are made; the first in response to the challenges faced during phase I, while the second set of recommendations are largely based on the wishes of the beneficiaries and other actors.

4.2.1 Recommendations to improve implementation and enhance impact:

1 HIK implements projects through local partners, and therefore should conduct due diligence on all potential partners before committing to work with them on the long term to ensure smoother implementation of activities. Because there are many local organisations whose major interest is monetary benefits, it is proposed that HIK should engage potential partners in a pre-partnership probationary phase of up to six months, before signing full partnership agreements with them for the longer term. During this pre-partnership period, time should be spent in harmonizing expectations, laying clear working modalities, and forming an implementation team. Issues of technical capacity will emerge and a way out can be formulated at this stage.

Given the likely scenario that the spatial coverage of the second phase will be expanded, HIK should explore two possible scenarios of working with area-based or sector based partners. In the former, HIK could choose to work with a partner operating within a limited geographic area, where they are based and known. In the second scenario, HIK continues with the system used in phase I, where a partner implements a sector component over the entire project area.

The area-based partners approach is more attractive, because it reduces logistical costs like travelling. Because the organisations will be implementing activities in their area of operations, they are more likely to offer support beyond the life of the project. Of course, this arrangement also has challenges, like a partner lacking critical capacity for specific components. This is actually an opportunity for it to build its capacity through the project (also being one objective of HIK working with local partners). An organisation with the necessary technical capacity from another area (or HIK staff or consultant) can be contracted to train the organisation so that it provides the service.

2 Even as HIK would like to expand during phase II, it is critical that it objectively reviews and adjusts its staff capacity. Whereas it has a qualified Veterinary Officer as its coordinator, the administrative duties are such that he can hardly offer his veterinary skills to the beneficiaries as demanded. The project would best be served by having an additional veterinary officer to support and strengthen CAHWs, in addition to quickly responding to dairy goat disease challenges, basically to strengthen dairy goat disease management. This officer can work across several HIK projects, but be on call for HOLP emergencies and planned activities.


Secondly, as HIK expands its activities and presence in the area, it should think of having either interns or junior employees to assist the field project advisors. This will ensure that HIK builds a critical mass of well trained, practical project advisors for its portfolio that is expanding in the country. These assistants should also assist with area-based data analysis.

Lastly, on this issue, HOLP should spare resources for office space to be used by the project advisors, or enter into agreements with partners to house/host the project advisors.

3 For the second phase, and particularly in order to address the issues of psychosocial care and support, HIK should seek partnership or working arrangements with institutions that have the technical know-how, experience and resources as co-implementers of a joint project, while concentrating on its core activities of addressing livelihood challenges through livestock production and organic farming. However, HIK should avoid partnering or collaborating with organisations that may appear able to address the needs of their beneficiaries but, in the long run, stand to benefit more from HIK’s huge beneficiary base to raise money for their organisation.

4 Whereas the project collected an impressive amount of data on project activities, this data has not been processed. Secondly, the data collected was biased towards dairy goat production and kitchen gardening, while none was collected to monitor the key objectives of the project, namely, the well-being of OVCs. Part of the problem was lack of capacity to manage and analyse the data. Given that the M&E practices of HIK should be improved, for the second Phase, and probably for the entire organisation, an M&E system should be put in place and institutionalised.

Similar to this but at another level, it is recommended that all future programming of HIK should have very clear and explicit indicators for monitoring which should also be defined in unambiguous language during baseline surveys. It is important that baseline data be collected on the OVCs, as none has been collected to monitor among others, their health status, education performance and general level of happiness within the foster homes.

5 Demand for dairy goats is rising in the area and, while reproduction is also increasing, the breeding records of the goats are neither known nor stored in a database that can be easily retrieved for verification. Therefore, the breeding history of the dairy goats is not known, and this may probably impact negatively on the sale of dairy goats in future. Whereas the breeding records are best maintained by a neural body, the recent formation of the dairy goats association in the region being a positive step in that direction, HIK should probably initiate the process and hand it over to a suitable beneficiary-related institution in the future. It is also possible that HIK could build the capacity of such an institution to keep the records as part of the phase II activities.

6 At another level, phase II of the project should improve the capacity of the beneficiaries to better respond to the threat of dairy goat diseases, starting with enhancing the knowledge level and skills of CAHWs. Another proposal is that the CAHWs role should be expanded to cover the major aspects of the project – dairy goat production and husbandry, and organic farming – and therefore rename them as Community Own Resource Person (CORP). With this transformation, more resources should be spent on building the capacity of the CORP. This proposal is attractive because on the one hand, it gives HIK a direct contact with the beneficiaries at minimal cost for a long time and enables the beneficiaries to access advice and support more rapidly. On the other hand, the process will support sustainability while also offering opportunities to the CORP to


generate some income e.g. offering first aid to the goats, stocking small quantities of inputs, and even charging for advice they give (employment opportunity).

Because the CORP will require some support for start-up capital, HIK should explore the possibility of linking them up with financial institutions that promote agriculture and micro-enterprises like Equity Bank, AFC, FAULU Kenya, and KWFT among others.

7 In designing a second phase, a key lesson learnt is that ‘facilitation’ resources are needed to ensure optimal collaboration, especially from GoK. Even institutions that have adequate resources are often stretched when their staff offer technical services to other organisations, i.e. many organisations work with activity based budgets, which are pretty limiting and hence may not access resources to carry out activities beyond those already planned for.

4.2.2 Recommendations on deepening project impact – from beneficiaries, actors and

stakeholders

1 There was a general call for HIK to introduce dairy cows in the project area. Whereas past attempts have not succeeded, HIK’s approach to the introduction and promotion of such technologies has succeeded in other parts of the country, and stands a good chance in the project area. However attractive dairy cows are, it is doubtful that they would be suitable for this target group. Probably, and if indeed there are resources to introduce dairy cows, it should be a separate component targeting a different segment of the community and not OVCs.

2 Several requests were for HIK to augment their programme activities with the promotion of local/indigenous poultry production. The argument here was that returns from the poultry is almost immediate and it can be used by the families to begin sustaining themselves before their goats kid down and even before the long-term financial benefits of dairy goat breeding is felt within their households. Although many households keep poultry, production and productivity are low, indigenous chicken are on high demand within the urban areas (hotels) thereby fetching good returns. Secondly, demand for eggs from indigenous poultry is rising.

3 Promotion of beekeeping. There is very little beekeeping going on in the project area, and especially the more dry areas of Suba District are quite suitable. Already, OIP produces an average of 500 Kg of honey from just a few hives around Oyugis town.

Using the lessons learnt from the very successful Phase I, formulation of a second phase to HOLP is fully supported in order to consolidate and deepen the benefits and impact to the OVCs and the general community. The second phase should also expand spatially to reach more of the OVCs, as estimates put the number of orphans to be around 200,000 in the project districts, which essentially means that if other vulnerable children are included, the figure will be much larger, yet HOLP targeted just about 7,000 OVCs.


APPENDICES Appendix 1: Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project ( HOLP) was developed by Heifer Project International with the main objective of supporting orphans and vulnerable children in the Homa Bay region to develop sustainable livelihoods. The goal of the project was to provide orphans with the tools and resources needed to develop economically, socially and environmental sustainable agricultural enterprises. Through provision of the dairy goats, training in sustainable agriculture and related supplies, the HOLP will increase the incomes and nutritional levels of participating orphans and their families through the production of goat’s milk, vegetables and other products. Once children were able to feed themselves and their siblings, they would be able to focus on other necessities such as education, health and other social activities.

Homa Bay, Suba, Migori and Rachuonyo Districts have a combined population of more than 1,300,000 (1999 census). The current population is skewed toward the traditionally non-economically active groups: young people under 15 years who make up 47 percent while those over 60 years taking up 6.7 percent of total population. The balance of 47 percent of the population, which should be economically productive, is the group most seriously affected by HIV/AIDS. This has left the young and the old to take care of themselves along those that are sick. At times when they should be cared for by others, the young and elderly are being forced into caregiver roles. It is estimated that there are more than 250,000 orphans and vulnerable children in the region.

Governmental data on orphaned children estimates that 15 percent of all children have been orphaned by HIV/AIDS, which translates to 1.6 million children of ages between 0 to 15 years. Nyanza region has the highest number of orphans, with more than 20 percent of all children under the age of 15 years being orphans. These orphans are usually disadvantaged compared with children with parents. An assessment done by the government confirmed that 92 percent of children with parents have access to education compared to 88 percent of orphans. It was further confirmed that the orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) do not have the basic material needs that family would supply, shelter, food security, clothing, access to health services and feeling of belonging. HIV/AIDS has placed an enormous strain on foster families and has reduced the capacity of these families to provide and care for the children. Most orphans are taken in by families headed by single parents, grandparents or older children; families which are typically already living in poverty. The reduced family income is lowering the ability of OVC caregivers to take children to schools. Social instability rises due to poverty levels and girls may be lured into commercial sex for survival.

In order to slow down the trend of poverty progression, the needs of orphans and vulnerable children should be addressed as a matter of urgency. A programme targeting OVC, with aim of alleviating their disadvantaged positions in families and society and enabling them access all life necessities, must be developed and implemented with multi-sectoral array of partnerships. Such programmes needs to establish safety nets for children, while building sustainability and addressing their social needs: education, health, income and food security, shelter and feeling of belonging.

2. HOLP Phase 1

Under phase 1 of this project, HPI working with partners, namely the St. Francis Sisters Congregation, Lake Basin Land Use programme (LABALU) and Animal Draft Power Programme (ADPP) and the Kenya government Ministry of Livestock Development carried out the following activities:


• Placed 1131 dairy goats with 912 families who hosted 7,176 orphans; • Train members of all the families of 55 groups in the region on dairy goat management

and sustainable agriculture including organic farming; • Developed sustainable dairy goat production systems; • Developed sustainable sources of food and income through goat and crop production; • Facilitated and promoted educational opportunities for orphaned children. • Other training provided to the families included:

- Record keeping; - Gender equity - Leadership development; - Community organisation - Nutrition and hygiene; - HIV/AIDS issues.

The support was spread over three years starting from 2005 to December 2007.

Each of the partners had distinct roles to play in the implementation of the project. In summary the following were activities of each partner:

1. Heifer International (HPI) • Carry out final selection of families and orphans, sign letters of agreement (LOA) and

carry out baseline survey before training and placement of dairy goats; • Train the families and orphans on goat management, establishment and management of

fodder, goat housing, clean milking and clean environment; • Procure and place dairy goats with families; • Monitor management of the goats and farms through routine farm visits and re-training

of goat recipients; • Monitor passing on the gift to other families; • Plan and carry out mid-term, impact assessment and final evaluation. 2. Animal Draft Power Programme (ADPP) • Train on organic farming through both theory and practical activities including

establishment of demonstration gardens and field demos ; • Train on enterprise development: record keeping, costing, marketing and market

linkages; • Provide farm inputs on credit; • Monitor progress through farm visits; • Report to HPI Kenya on monthly basis. 3. Lake Basin Land Use Programme (LABALU) • Train on leadership and group dynamics; • Train on group record keeping. Records of most of group activities including meetings,

work plans, activities related to animal management and agriculture; • Train on mobilisation of rural savings and credit among members; • Participate in providing counselling services to the families and orphans; • Report to HPI Kenya on monthly basis. 4. St Francis Sisters Congregation • Provide health services to OVCs and families; • Provide food for the young and vulnerable children; • Organise community members to provide support to OVCs.


The above three partners have received backing from the Kenya government Ministries of Health and Livestock Development in provision of services and materials to the families as stated above.

3. Impact Assessment

HPI plans to expand the HOLP programme to reach many more OVCs in the same region. In order that HPI plans appropriately and identify appropriate partners, an impact assessment in the first phase will be carried out to inform planning of the second phase.

The assessment will look at the impact created on those OVCs who have been reached and their families. It will also look at effectiveness of the partners who accompanied Heifer in delivery of the services and support to the OVC.

4. Terms of reference

The assessment will look at the following areas:

1. Find out the number of orphaned and vulnerable children who received support from this programme. Segregate the numbers in sex, ages and classify the children into full or partial orphans and those with parents.

2. Look at social indicators which have had impact on livelihood of the OVC: • Availability of quality food on sustained level; • Shelter: conditions and if any improvements after the project; • Children’s education; • Clothing both for school and off school; • Access to health services; • Children’s feeling of belonging; • Level of social instability before and after the project; • Social cohesion within and among families with OVCs and who are participating in the

project. 3. Identify economic impact, if any: • Income to the families and OVCs; • Asset growth in the families with OVCs; • Ownership of land ( if it was dispossessed, was it returned to OVCs?) 4. Environmental impact: • Identify any environmental practices imparted to OVCs and families; • What is the level of awareness with children on environmental conservation; • What are the current environmental practices being used by children. 5. Assess effectiveness of the partnership used in this project ( HPI, ADPP, LABALU, St

Francis Sisters, and GOK ). 6. What were the best practices in the phase 1 of this project and the lessons learnt? 7. Identify areas of improvement in the next phase. 8. Make recommendations that will be used in the future for similar projects which target

OVCs.

5. Approach

i) The assessment to use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

ii) The consultant to visit the site and collect data and talk to all partners and Heifer staff.

In order that the assessment captures the magnitude of the impact with the beneficiaries who received training and dairy goats at different times during the project implementation, the


consultant ( assisted by HPI/K staff) will stratify the beneficiaries according to the year they received the gifts as below:

• Year 2005 beneficiaries; • Year 2006 beneficiaries; • Year 2007 beneficiaries; • Those who received pass on kids.

6. Deliverables

The consultant will deliver a written report, both hard and soft copies, including all necessary tables, graphs, charts and pictures. The report should have clearly detailed sections documenting levels of impact among beneficiaries assisted at different times during the project implementation as well as those who benefited from pass on kids.

i) The first draft report to be circulated to HPI/K for comments by end of May 2008. ii) HPI/K to provide feedback on the first draft by 5th June 2008. iii) Consultant to incorporate feedback and submit final report to HPI/K by 15th of June

2008.


Appendix 2: Approach and Methodology

The overall approach applied during the impact assessment was the use of inclusive participatory techniques in sync with ETC East Africa’s philosophical orientation as well as the desire of the client – Heifer International Kenya. The approach used entailed:

Preliminary meetings and discussions

The consultants (hereafter referred to as the team or the mission) held several discussions with representatives of the client from the onset. Initial discussions centered on gaining a better understanding of the project design, project area and activities being implemented and for the team to appreciate the nature and magnitude of the assignment. The consultants then submitted a detailed proposal on how to carry out the assignment.

Subsequent meetings were held between the team and project staff to further discuss the Terms of Reference, the proposal presented by the team, operationalisation of the assignment and logistics. Grey areas were clarified and a schedule for carrying out the assignment jointly drawn.

Literature review

The team reviewed project documents and project literature relevant to the assignment and used the information gained in designing and developing the tools used to gather information from beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Key inferences from the literature review have been integrated within this report to provide background information and to support analyses of important statistics and conclusions drawn.

Development of tools

The team settled on the following tools to gather information that would be used to determine the project impact:

1. Questionnaires administered directly to the beneficiary households.

2. Checklist of questions to guide FGDs with the following stakeholders;

a. Beneficiary groups (basically care givers and guardians)

b. Orphaned and Vulnerable Children

c. Key informants in the project areas e.g. chiefs

d. HOLP staff

e. Current and potential partnering organisations

f. Collaborating institutions like ministries, ICIPE etc

3. Guidelines for SWOT, SOFO and SELLO analyses

Review of the Logframe

In designing the questionnaire and the checklists, the team first reviewed the project logical framework (LOGFRAME) in order to use the indicators in the log-frame as a basis for formulating questions in the questionnaire and the checklists. In doing so, however, the team


did not find a list of required project indicators and had to develop a list of ‘derived indicators’ from the project documents. The derived logframe is presented as Appendix 9.

Developing the Questionnaire

Questionnaires used in this impact assessment were designed and developed through a four stage process:

• Review of project logframe, during which Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) were identified and described in line with the project’s narrative framework.

• Drawing up a preliminary list of questions that were discussed with the project officers. A questionnaire was then jointly designed and developed (team and project officers) in the field2.

• Carrying out a two-day training of ten enumerators and four project staff to ensure subsequent collection of quality information and data. To enhance understanding of the questionnaire, enumerators were requested to translate the document into the local Dholuo language, and then back-translate it into English. This process ensured that the enumerators would put the right questions to the respondents. A plenary session held with the enumerators and project staff further reviewed and fine-tuned the questionnaire.

• Following the training, the questionnaire was pretested in two project locations before final corrections were made to it.

Preparing checklists for discussions

Checklists for guiding discussions with a various selected stakeholders were developed largely based on the indicators in the derived log-frame.

The inception report

Following preliminary discussions with project staff, review of project documents and the development of preliminary tools to be used in the assessment, the team produced an inception report which included a flexible schedule that provided critical milestones to be achieved for the entire duration of the assessment.

Field work

Working together with field-based project officers, the team then conducted the data collection exercise for 10 days. This includes the period of fine-tuning the questionnaire, training of enumerators, enumeration of beneficiaries, FGDs, key informant interviews, assessment of implementation partners and potential partners. The schedule for the duration of the assignment was revised (9).

Sampling and sample size

The sampling was a multi-stage one that took into consideration each district, beneficiary group and beneficiaries who received goats between 2005 and 2007.Because of the nature of the project design and implementation framework, impact of the project were largely dependent on

2 The questionnaire was developed in the field because the project officers gave more and new information to the team that had not been accessed before. These discussions enabled the team to develop a better questionnaire than the preliminary draft developed earlier.


when the inputs were received and were expected to differ within each year. Each district was allocated an independent sample size that included, to the extent possible, representation by each of the beneficiary groups. A proportionate number of ‘reserve’ samples were picked to cater for absentee or missed cases during the actual enumeration. A total of 474 out of 912 beneficiaries formed the final sample. The beneficiary groups sampled are presented in Appendix 11. However, the actual enumeration did not strictly follow this sampling frame since adjustments were made during field work to accommodate the conditions on the ground. Distribution of sampling frame is presented in the table below. Beneficiary group sampled are presented in Appendix 11.

Distribution of samples among the districts

DISTRICT 2005 2006 2007 TOTAL HOMA BAY 59 83 32 174 MIGORI 60 83 28 171 SUBA 0 34 17 51 RACHUONYO 0 0 60 60 NYANDO 0 0 18 18 119 200 155 474

Administration of the questionnaires

Individual enumerators administered the questionnaires within the selected beneficiaries’ homes. The whole enumeration exercise was supervised by the project staff and team of consultants. Due to logistical constraints (mostly rains and distances to be covered), the team encourage some interviews to be carried out during FGDs since these FGDs were held at a centralized place. Notably, beneficiaries were interviewed individually. When a selected beneficiary was unavailable for the interview, the enumerators were asked to go for the next name in the ‘reserve’ list. If both failed, supervisors guided enumerators’ selection of the next interviewee. Focus group discussions were held in all the project districts except Nyando. Here, beneficiary groups were requested to send representatives from their groups to a central meeting place within easy reach. Using the checklist, the team led the discussions with the group representatives (each session lasted between 90-120 minutes). After the formal discussions, the team always requested that the beneficiaries put across their questions or other views that were the project staff responded to. The mission held six focus group discussions attended by over 200 beneficiaries.

Focus Group Discussions and key informant interviews

Six FGDs, each lasting between 90-120 minutes and attended by over 200 beneficiaries, were held in all the project districts except Nyando. FGDs were followed by interviews with OVCs either singly or in groups. Using the checklist, the team led the discussions and, at the end of each discussion, invited the beneficiaries put across their questions and views, which the project staff also responded to.

The team also met with and held discussions and interviews with key informants in the community (leaders, teachers and chiefs) as well as key government departmental heads in Migori, Rongo and Homa Bay Districts, Plan Kenya, Kenya, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Oyugis Integrated Project (OIP), World Vision and Justice and Mercy Kenya (JAM). These discussions and interviews focused on the issue of OVCs, project performance and general thoughts on improving project impact. The team also held interviews with. As per the client’s request in the ToR, the team also met with collaborating partner organisations (LABALU, ST Francis Sisters and ADPP) in addition to holding exploratory


discussions with Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) focusing on their potential involvement in future projects.

Lastly, as part of gathering project information, the team interviewed field based project staff individually, and later, the M&E officer and the Deputy Country director.

Data collected through the questionnaires by enumerators was carefully screened with the support of the supervisors and enumerators to reduce on errors. Once obvious errors were rectified, the data was entered in a database specifically designed for this exercise and analyzed using both Excel 2007, and JMP IN, a statistical software from SAS. Information from the FGDs were collated and synthesized into summaries.

The itinerary used followed the schedule in the table below

Date and phase Outputs/deliverables Time

1. Inception phase 7 th – 19th April 2008

Inception report with data collection tools and revised time schedule

Tuesday 15th April 2008

2. Fieldwork and Data collection phase 21st April to 5th May 2008

Collection of all data in the field and cross-checking of the data collected completed

Monday 5th May 2008

3. Data analysis and reporting 6th May to 15th May 2008

Data analysed and Draft Report prepared and submitted to the Client

Thursday 15th May2008

4. Feedback to HIK Headquarters Presentation of initial findings Monday 26th

May

5. Feedback from the Client and Stakeholders’ feedback workshop

Stakeholders’ feedback workshop held Wednesday 28th May in Homa Bay

6. Submission of final report Final report presented Thursday 5th

June 2008


Appendix 3: Questionnaire

No.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR BENEFICIARIES

Interviewer _________________________________________ Date of interview _______________

INFORMED CONSENT: Hello. My name is ___________. He ifer Project International – Kenya is carrying out a final Impact Assessment of HOLP. Being a beneficiar y of the project, we kindly request you for informa tion to the questions in this questionnaire. This impact assessment will help us understand the impact of t he project and how to formulate another phase. Your pa rticipation is voluntary. You can choose not to ans wer any questions and you can stop the interview at any time. Do you agree to participate in this exercise ?

General information

1) District _________________________ Group name __________________________________ 2) Name of respondent _____________________________________ ID. No.____________________

3) Sex 1. Male□ 2. Female□ Age_____________

4) Are you the head of the household? 1. Yes □ 2. No □

5) What is your relationship to the OVC(s)? [Multiple responses possible]

1. Father □ 2.Mother □ 3.Brother □ 4.Sister □ 5.Uncle □ 6.Aunt □ 7.Grandfather □

8. Grandmother □ 9. Nephew □ 10. Niece □ 11.Self □ 12. Other □(Specify) _________________

6) How many people are members of this household? [Fill in the table below. Write or tick as appropriate]

Names M F Age Total orphan Partial orphan Vulnerabl e Child

In School?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

7) What is your social status? [Multiple responses possible] Widower □ 2. Widow □ 3. Guardian □ 4.

OVC □


8) What is the source of the goats you have? [Tick as appropriate] Source 1. Heifer 2. POG 3. Bought Other (specify Number and source)

Goat 1

Goat 2 Goat 3

Goat 4 Goat 5 Goat 6

Goat 7 Goat 8

Goat 9 Goat 10

Total

9) What type/breed of goat(s) did you receive from Heifer? 1.Black □ 2.White □ 3.Crossbreed □ 10) When did you receive the goat(s)? [Fill in the table below. Multiple responses possible]

1. 2005 2. 2006 3. 2007 4.2008 White Black

Crossbreed

11) Have you been trained on rearing your dairy goat(s)? 1. Yes □ 2. No □

[If yes, go to Q. 12, if no, go to Q.16] 12) On what subjects were you trained? [Multiple responses possible]

1.Disease control and management □ 2. Housing □ 3. Kid rearing □ 4.Fodder establishment and

management □ 5. Nutrition and feeding □ 6. Clean milk production □

13) Were these trainings useful in helping you take care of your goat(s)? 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 3. Don’t know

□

14) Would you like to have more training? 1. Yes □ 2. No □ 3. Do not know □ [If yes, go to Q. 15, if no, go to Q.16]

15) On which subjects would you like more training? [Multiple responses possible]

1.Disease control and management □ 2. Housing □ 3. Kid rearing □ 4.Fodder establishment and

management □ 5. Nutrition and feeding □ 6. Clean milk production □

7. Other (Specify) ________________________________________________________________

16) Has any other person in the family been trained on rearing dairy goat(s)? 1. Yes □ 2. No □

17) How many dairy goats do you have now? _____________________ [Fill in the table below]

Male Female Total Original (from HIK) POG Bought/Purchased Kids Total


18) What do you feed your dairy goats on?

1.Napier grass □ 2. Sweet potato vines □ 3. Fodder trees □ 4. Crop residues □

5. Concentrates □ 6. Others □ (Specify) _______________________________________

19) How many times have your goats kidded? [Fill in the table below. If none have kidded, go to Q. 30]

2005 2006 2007 2008 No. of times No. of kids No. of times No. of kids N o. of times No. of kids No. of times No. of kids

Goat 1

Goat 2

Goat 3

20) How many of your dairy goat kids have you given away (POG)?________________ 21) How much milk does each dairy goat yield per day? [Fill answers in the table below]

Litres Goat 1 Goat 2 Goat 3

22) What do you do with the milk you get from the goats? [Fill answers in the table below]

Tick here if yes How much (kg/litre) Consume at home Sell Give away

23) If you sell, where do you sell?

1. Local Market □ 2. Neighbours □ 3. Contract buyer □ 4. School □

5. Others (Specify) _________________________________________________________________________ 24) At what price do you sell your milk (litres)? KES __________________ 25) If you sell the milk, what do you use the revenue from milk sales for?

1. Pay fees for the OVC □ 2. Buy school uniform for the OVC □ 3. Buy books for the OVC □

4. Pay for health bills for the OVC □ 5. Buy other foods for the OVC□ 6. Buy clothes for the OVC □

7. Maintaining the goat(s) □ 8. Invest in farming □ 9. Invest in other livestock □

10. Other □(Specify)______________________________________________________________________

26) Has the nutritional status of the OVC improved since your goat kidded? 1. Yes □ 2.No□ 27) Check the growth chart and fill in the table below

Latest growth level Name of OVC

Age 1. Normal 2. Above normal 3. Below normal


28) Do you experience any problems with the marketing of the dairy goat milk? 1. Yes □2. No □. If yes, what problem? [Multiple responses possible]

1. No Market for goat milk □ 2. Low demand for goat milk □ 3. Low prices for goat milk □

4. Others (Specify) □ Do you do any processing or value addition to the dairy goat milk in your household?

1. Yes □ 2.No □ [If yes, go to Q. 30. If no, got to Q. 31]

29) What is the nature of processing/value addition? 1. Fermenting □ 2. Ghee production □

3. Boiling□ 4. Mix with local vegetables □

30) How many of your dairy goats have died? [Fill in the table below] Type Year No. of Male No. of Female

White Black

Crossbreed 31) What symptoms did the goat(s) display before death? [Multiple responses possible]

1. Diarrhoea □ 2. Convulsions □ 3. Difficult breathing □ 4. Sudden death □

5.Other□ (Specify) _________________________________________________________________

32) How many dairy goats have you sold? Male__________ Females__________ Total __________ [If none sold, go to Q.35]

33) At what price did you sell each goat? [Fill in the table below] Male Female

Goat 1 Goat 2 Goat 3 Goat 4 Goat 5 Goat 6 Goat 7 Goat 8 Goat 9 Goat 10

34) Is there demand for dairy goats in the project area? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

35) What problems/challenges do you face in raising the dairy goats? [Multiple responses possible]

1. Diseases □ 2. Inadequate forage □ 3. Inadequate husbandry skills □ 4. Inadequate veterinary services

□ 5. Expensive inputs □ 6. It is labour consuming □ 7. Breeding problems □

8. Maintaining goat housing □ 9. Inadequate space/land □ 10. Wild animals/snake bites □

36) Do you have some skills and experience in managing goat diseases? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

37) What happens when your dairy goat falls sick? 1. Treat it myself □ 2.Call a community animal health

worker □ 3.Call a vet doctor □ 3.Other □ (Specify) ________________________________________


38) What is your monthly average expenditure on disease management of each dairy goat? KES ______

39) Do you keep any records of the dairy goat enterprise? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

40) What role do the OVC play in dairy goat management? [Multiple responses possible]

1. Tending the feed □ 2. Cutting and feeding □ 3. Fetch and water □ 4. Petty errands □

5. Herding □ 6. Cleaning unit □ 7. Milking □ 8. Selling the products □

41) How has your household benefitted from the dairy goat(s)?

1. Gets milk for household use □ 2. Added to household revenue □ 3. Increased availability and use of farm

manure □ 4. Improved animal Husbandry knowledge/skills □ 5. Relieved household burdens □ 6.

Enhanced social standing □ 7. Nothing □

42) Do you have a kitchen garden? 1. Yes □ 2.No □ [If yes, go to Q. 43. If no, got to Q. 48]

43) What is the size of your kitchen garden? _______________ m² 44) What do you grow on your kitchen garden?

1. Crotolaria (mto) □ 2. Cowpeas (bo) □ 3. Black night shade (osuga) □ 4. Apoth □

5. Pawpaws □ 6. Spider plant (akeyo/dek) □ 7. Other □(Specify) _______________________________

45) What do you do with the produce from the kitchen garden?

1. Consume at home □ 2.Sell □ 3. Give away □ Other □ (Specify) _____________________________

46) If you sell some produce from the kitchen garden, what is your average monthly income? KES ______

47) Have you been trained on organic farming? 1. Yes □ 2.No □ [If yes, go to Q. 49. If no, got to Q. 51]

48) What subjects were you trained on? 1. Kitchen gardening layout □ 2. Raised beds □ 3. Double digging □ 4. Organic pesticides □ 5. Composting □ 6. Liquid manure □

49) Do you feel you now have adequate knowledge and skills on organic farming following the training?

1. Yes □ 2.No □

50) Have other members of your family also been trained on organic farming? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

51) What role(s) do the children play in the kitchen garden?

1. Watering □ 2. Harvesting □ 3. Weeding □ 4. Planting □ 5. Manuring □

6. Other □(Specify) ____________________________________________________________________ 52) Do you produce farm yard manure in your farm? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

53) If no, why not?

1. Lack of time labour □ 2. Knowledge/skills □ 3. Inadequate material for production □

4. I don’t like it □ 6. Other □(Specify) ________________________________________________________


54) What other agricultural activities do you engaged with in your farm?

1. Dairy cow □ 2. Poultry keeping □ 3. Maize production□ 4. Water melon □

5. Pineapple □ 6. Horticultural crops □ 7. Groundnuts □ 8. Sorghum □ 9. Green grams □

10. Beekeeping □ 11. Agroforestry □ Other □(Specify)___________________________

55) How would you compare production under organic techniques to the conventional methods?

1. Higher yields □ 2.Lower yields □ 3. More labour intensive □ 4. Less expensive □ 5.More expensive □ 6. Farm looks better and healthier □ 7. More pests and diseases □ 8. Less labour intensive □ 9. No difference □ 10. Healthier nutritious foods □

56) Do you keep records of your kitchen garden activities? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

57) Which of the trainings below have you received? [Multiple responses possible]

1. Social development □ 2. Family nutrition and hygiene □ 3. Savings and loan □ 4. Group dynamics □ 5. HIV/AIDS (gender, counselling, home-based care) □

58) Has your household income levels increased since the project begun? 1. Yes □ 2.No □

59) How many OVC under your care have moved out as independent people since the inception of the project? _____

60) How many OVC under your care have moved out and back into their homes?__________

61) Have you received training on proper hygiene and sanitation? Yes □ 2.No □ [If yes, go to Q. 63. If no, got to Q. 64]

62) Was this training useful? Yes □ 2.No □ If no, why not? ____________________________________

63) Where do you dispose of your household garbage/rubbish?

1. Garbage/compost pit □ 2. Anywhere in the farm □ 3. In the bush □ 4. Anywhere outside the house □ 64) Has a pit latrine been built in your homestead in the last two years? Yes □ 2.No □

65) Is the pit latrine in use? Yes □ 2.No □

66) If no, why not? ____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________


Appendix 4: Checklist for Focus Group Discussions

1. a) How many orphans are under your care?

b) Has the number of orphans under your care changed since you received the dairy goats? – explain.

c) Why did your family take the orphans in?

d) In your opinion, are the orphans under your care doing better or worse since the goats were introduced and kidded?

2. a) Have some orphans moved out back to their homes or as independent people? Why?

b) For those who moved, did they carry/take the goats with them?

c) If not, what became of the goats?

3. What are the reasons why some school age going orphans are out of school?

4. a) How does your group support you in taking care of the orphans?

b) Are you satisfied with the support given by the group?

c) What other support should the group extend to you?

d) From whom else do you get support and what is the nature of the support?

e) Are you happy with the way the group is managed?

5. a) Has the group been given any training? If so, on what?

b) Over what period was the training delivered?

c) Was the training useful – did you put the knowledge gained to any use?

d) Do you need more training and on what area?

e) Who gave the training?

f) What would you like to be done differently with respect to the training?

6. a) Are you comfortable with the way you manage your dairy goats?

b) What problems do you face with your dairy goats?

c) How do you cope with these problems?

d) How do you feed the dairy goats (lactating and dry) ?

e) Where do you take your does for servicing?

7. How do you determine whom to give the goats within the groups?

8. a) What problems do you face with kitchen gardening?

b) How do you cope with these problems?

9. a) What is the general feeling of the members and community in general about the dairy goats?

b) What do your neighbours think of the kitchen gardens and organic farming?

c) Do you know of any people who have purchased dairy goats (doe/buck) from anywhere after seeing yours?


d) Have you have bought your own dairy goat(s)?

e) How many of you would like to buy your own goats?

f) Is there demand for goats and milk?

10. a) How many goats are adequate to support an orphan, or household in your opinion (different age groups of orphans) ?

b) How has the dairy goat benefited the orphans How has organic farming benefited the orphans?

11. a) What type of counselling on HIV/AIDS has the project given to you?

b) Was it helpful?

c) What other support would you need?

d) DO you think that this project has contributed positively to a reduction in HIV/AIDS infections, and suffering?

12. a) How has the project benefited your households as a whole?

b) Would you have taken in the orphans without support of this project?

c) Would you take in more orphans without project support?

d) Are you in a position to continue with the project activities without more support from the project?

13. a) What did you like about this project?

b) What didn’t you like?

c) What would you like done differently, why?

14. What would you say to the organisation?


Appendix 5: Checklist for Discussions With OVCs

1. a) Are you a member of a foster household or the head of one?

b) If head of household, how many people/orphans are under your care?

c) If member of foster household, how did you come to live there?

d) Are you happy with the care you are given? If not, explain. (health, food, accommodation, clothing, emotional support)

e) What is your relationship with your foster household?

2. a) Do you go to school? If no, why?

b) If yes, who pays for your school fees, books, uniforms?

c) Who buys your clothes, shoes etc?

3. a) Are any of your parents alive?

b) If so, where are they?

c) Did your parents own any land?

d) If so, number of acres/how big?

e) Who manages the land?

f) What is done on that land now?

4. a) Do you take goat milk?

b) How often?

5. a) If you moved, did you carry/take the goats with you when you moved?

b) If not, what became of the goats?

6. a) What roles do you play in taking care of the dairy goats?

c) What difficulties do you face in managing your dairy goats


Appendix 6: List of Focus Group Discussion Members

Date Facilitator District Farmer’s Name ID No. Group Name Position

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Alfred S. Adede 1807679 Asego Division CBO Chairperson

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Alice Nyangata 1491753 St. Gabriel Member

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Charles Opiyo 303876 Kalamindi Labalu Member

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Christian Mboya Sukuma Omako Namba Secretary

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Damaris Omogi 5885018 Kalamindi Labalu Treasurer

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Fredrick Ongoro 6688164 Sukuma Omako Namba Vice Chair

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Jemima Atieno Sukuma Omako Namba Member

4/28/2008 Bell Homa Bay Rose Ouko St. Gabriel Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Agnes Deya Okello 2744742 St. Raphael Lombeni Treasurer

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Bob Erick Oyugi 24196641 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Damarice Nyangweso 10127892 Ludhe Dongo Women's Group Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Daniel Akok 205704968 Oriang' Women's Group Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Dorcas Ochomo 2544667 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Erick Otuge Otieno Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Eunice Atieno Kamire 20266166 Roka Widows' Group Secretary

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Ezra Odondi Oiro 414015 Koiro Women's Group

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Fredrick Adede 6634509 Magungu Int. Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Grace A. Ogolla 7560888 Koiro Women's Group

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Gladise Adhiambo 12707711 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Hellen Akinyi Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Hellen Atieno Onyango 9498630 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo James Odongo 5872451 Magungu Group Member



5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Jane Adhiambo 3979018

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo John Onyango Obunga 8246960 Rariw Community Project Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Joshua Otieno Aguno 25345214 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Juma George Otieno 23998142

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Lewnida Okelo Awuor Ludhe Dongo Women's Group Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Maggie Awino Omolo 934890 St. Raphael Lombeni Representative

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Margaret Auma 5849812 Magungu Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Margaret Juma Koiro Women's Group Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Mary Acheing' Abayo 1434067 Koiro Women's Group Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Mary Anyango Arogo Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Mary Anyango Otieno 8189045 Roka Widows' Group

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Ngicho N. Nyapala 1493868 Ludhe Dongo Women's Group Supervisor

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Ochomo Hellen 68810666 Magungu Int. Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Ouma Joshua Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Pamela Otieno 21061789 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Peres Atieno Wadika 9793885 Roka Widows' Group Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Perez Atieno Oyoo Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Raphael Ochieng' Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Reuben Sewe 7949131 St. Raphael Lombeni Chairperson

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Richard O. Midamba 8573792 Kadeny Self Help Group Secretary

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Serfine Atieno Ogutu 2731948 Oriang' Women's Group

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Samson Odhiambo 11798792 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Thadius Oriko Onduka 1567219 Magungu Member



5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Tom Adie 20806161 Magungu Member

5/1/2008 Bell & Evelyn Rachuonyo Wilkister Ananga Magungu Member

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Absalom A. Amuka 13185476 Runyala Self Help Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Andrew Odek 1508059 Otur Bam

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Benta A. Opiyo 1565336 Nyalienga LABALU Women Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Elias Asino Ogallo 8512513 Nyalienga LABALU Women Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Daniel Okoth 8629879 Magare Kucheka

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Elisabeth Akinyi 13185650 Daro Kech Women Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Francisca A. Omollo Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi George A. Said 5828549 Wakulima

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Getrude Adhiambo 4022093 Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi James Jondiko 10965901 Runyala Self Help Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi John Okayo 14798231 Runyala Self Help Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Josia Odero 2742623 Magare Kucheka

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Joyce Adhiambo Oyier 10026808 Sero Home Based Care

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Linet A. Aketch 1508231 Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Margaret A. Odera 1808388 Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Mary Awuor Liech 1479902 Yimbo Orphans & Widows Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Margret Ogol 1290716 Magare Kucheka

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Maurice Olal 8715561 Kawanda Women's Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Michael Ogolla 3962825 Daro Kech Women Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Phoebe Nyagwana 5856813 Sero Home Based Care

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Rose A. Odotte 1482021 Yimbo Orphans & Widows Group



4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Samson Ochia 10598175 Nyalienga LABALU Women Group

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Rose A. Abong'o 12906166 Sero Home Based Care

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Sarah Atieno Odhiambo 11499620 Wakulima

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Seline A. Otieno 14479114 Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Serphine Omollo 1510093 Rodi LABALU

4/28/2008 Evelyn Rodi Silvanus Okeyo Andata 5850460 Rodi LABALU

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Alex Ochieng' Ngela St. John Mwangaza

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Alexander Agwaya 9734706 Jema Guardian Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Amos Ayamo 13042243 Kogutu Ngala Secretary

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Benjamin Arogo Otieno 2770811 Nyangumako Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Carolus Owira 488410 Fopanet Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Charles Odhiambo Fopanet Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Clement Otieno Ombiro 10792551 Kitweru Orphans Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Dorothy Adhiambo Oluoch 9792627 St. Monica Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Edith Anyango 21342797 St. John Mwangaza

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Evalyne Achieng’ Ondoro 20890863 Jema Guardian Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Daniel Okumu 3976525 Nyangumako Treasurer

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Florence Odera 13041493 Yesu ni Bwana Chairperson

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Gaudensia Oguma 58747663 St. Monica

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Grace Ogutu Oywech Fopanet Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Hellen Adhiambo Buyu 5649160 Fopanet Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Isdora Akoth 9418196 Kitweru Orphans Secretary

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Jane Onyango Achieng’ 7317384 Nyangumako Member



4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Janet Odada 1194415 St. John Mwangaza Treasurer

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Maren Atieno 5874695 St .Monica

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Pennina Akinyi Kogutu Ngala Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Rose A. Tenge 1644381 St. Mary's Self Help Group Treasurer

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Rose Akinyi 20684102 Yesu ni Bwana

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Sabina A. Omwango Misadhi B

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Salina Adhiambo 12904923 St. John Mwangaza

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Isaiah Owalla Opedhi 775162 Kamato Olit Self Help Group

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Rose Oyugi 7301931 St. Marys Apondo

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Rose Akinyi Otieno 12673483 Kogutu Ngala Member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Roselyne Aoko Aron 10286437 Jema Guardian member

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Silpa Seje Misadhi B

4/29/2008 Evelyn Rongo Thewdora Miser Onyango 463672 Kitweru Orphans Secretary

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Apeles Arot 1485940 Umbrella Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Elisabeth Akumu 2811470 Lawe Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Hana Okach 16076617 Lawe Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Joel Odii Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo John Magar Owuor 16009779 Kamato Olit Self Help Group Chairperson

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Mary Darizu Rabilo 16010082 Ndiru Women's Group Chairperson

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Mary Were 24462301 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Millicent Achieng' O. 26833268 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Mornica Awino Akongo 7375768 Umbrella Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Moses Ondeu 9544574 Lawe Women's Group Member



5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Naboth Ochiel Ayugi 10601505 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Nashon Ochieng' 20776190 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Serfine Paul 6900401 Umbrella Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Siemeon Osienyo 10313629 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Simeon Oloo 1487197 Umbrella Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Tom Mboya Owenga 11122915 Lawe Women's Group

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Vera Kadzo Tom 13188400 Ndiru Women's Group Member

5/2/2008 Bell Suba Ogongo Winnie Achieng' 20664843 Ndiru Women's Group Member


Appendix 7: Organisations and Staff Members Intervi ewed

NAME ORGANISATION POSITION

Heifer International and (HOLP) Staff

Alex Kirui Heifer International Kenya Country Director

Crispin Mwatate Heifer International Kenya Deputy Country Director

Reuben Koech Heifer International Kenya M&E Coordiantor

Julius Owade Heifer International Kenya Regional Coordinator HOLP

Martin Wasonga Heifer International Kenya Senior Programme Advisor

Caroline Sikuku Heifer International Kenya Project Advisor – Homa Bay

Rachael Awuor Heifer International Kenya Project Advisor Migori-Rongo

Lillian Oloo Heifer International Kenya Regional Project Secretary

Collaborating Non State Actors

Doreen Achieng Baraza Plan Kenya Programme Facilitator

Benson Okinyi Plan Kenya M&E Officer

Anne Abonyo World Vision Project Officer - Suba

Collaborating GoK Departments

Dr. Alex K. Baboon Veterinary Department DVO – Homa Bay

Stephen Owori Department of Livestock Production DLPO – Suba

John Olale Children’s Department DCO

John Maruti District Planning Office DDO

Department of Livestock Production DLPO - RONGO

DVO – RONGO

Philip Onuonga Provincial Administration Chief, Magungu

Implementing Partners

John Odoyo LABALU Data Analyst

Cyprian Okidi LABALU Accountant

Dariah Monique LABALU Programmes Coordinator

Lawi Ogita LABALU Credit Officer

George Genga ICIPE Scientist

Richard Otieno CCF Areas Cluster Manager

Sr. Vincentia Achieng’ St. Francis Sisters Congregation Coordinator

Jacob Otieno ADPP Project Coordinator

James Ayimo ADPP Project Officer

Potential Partners

Philip Kajwang’ ACARD Coordinator


NAME ORGANISATION POSITION

Kennedy Okoth Otieno JAM Coordinator

Lameck Okeyo JAM Board of Trustees

Jacob Odhiambo Ogungo OIP Project Officer

George Shem Ogolla North Kanyikela Community R. Centre Coordinator

Richard Otieno CCF Area Cluster Manager

Community Animal Health Workers (HOLP)

John Okello HOLP CAHWs

Dorothy Adhiambo Oluoch HOLP CAHWs

Bernard Odhiambo Owuor HOLP CAHWs

Alexander Agwaya HOLP CAHWs

George Said HOLP CAHWs

Peter O. Opaka HOLP CAHWs

Kennedy Ochieng’ HOLP CAHWs

Tom Michael O. Bunde HOLP CAHWs


Appendix 8: Analyses of Partner Organisations Organisation Strengths Weakness Opportunities Threa ts

1. Plan Kenya (Collaborator)

• Reputable organisation • Financial stability • Adequate human and capital

resources • Well rooted within South Nyanza • Good M&E and documentation

system

• Limitation on spending (cannot purchase livestock)

• Have an adequate budget for capacity building activities

• Partnership with heifer • Demand for their services exists •

•

2. DVO, Homa Bay

(Collaborator)

• Is mandated to serve in the region in the area of livestock

• Have qualified staff • Have adequate capacity to train

• Reluctance to serve where allowances are low

• As per government policy for extension, they must collaborate

• Can work in all of Heifer’s areas of coverage

• The nature of their service provision is limited to within GoK policies

3. ADPP • 20 years’ experience operating in the region so are well known by the community members

• Have good data on all the farmers • Work with and manage 150

registered groups, each having about 30 families

• Aren’t fully dependent on donor money; they generate some of their money; can operate for upto 6 months without external funding

• Adequate, skilled staff • Good financial management

• Lack of ICT capacity • Limited M&E capacity in measuring

their health indicators • Have limited resources

• Good track record makes them a preferred choice by farmers

• Community’s positive change in attitude towards farming to accepting it as a way of earning a living

• Opportunities to work with more clients/organisations is increasing since NGOs and local government ministries are demanding for their services

• Sound capital base

• If Heifer and USAID pulled out they would be left with 20-25% in revenue

• Rising prices of fertilizer increases farming costs and decreases profits made from farm products

• Delayed payments/reimbursements by debtors e.g. GoK, from whom they get huge supply tenders, affects/limits their business capacity

4. St Francis Sisters (Partner)

• Has wide coverage-4 districts in South Nyanza

• Backed by the Catholic Church • Has worked in the area since 2002 • Works in a variety of areas including

education, health and livelihoods • Has staff capacity

• Lack of understanding the nature of partnership with HIK

• Lacks funds/funding source to carry out activities

• Willing potential partners working in the same sectors

•


Appendix 9: Derived Project Logframe

INTERVENTION LOGIC OVI MOV ASSUMPTIONS Goal To contribute to improved the livelihoods of OVCs and their host families/care givers

• 30 percent increase in incomes of 70 percent of OVCs and their care givers by 2007

Project reports National welfare reports NACC reports Impact assessment reports

Purpose/Objective To equip OVCs and their care givers/host families with tools and resources to develop economically viable agricultural enterprises and enhance their access to life necessities

• At least 70 percent of project OVCs and their care givers have increased their incomes by 50 percent by 2007

• At least 70 percent of OVCs are able to access life’s necessities by 2007, and are happy

• At least 70 percent of project OVCs and their care givers engaged in sustainable and profitable dairy goat and organic agriculture production


Outputs/Results 1. OVCs and their care givers

provided with dairy goats and skills for their husbandry

• 800 OVCs and their caregiver families ably

taking care of dairy goats and producing adequate milk for domestic use and market by end of 2007

2. Organic farming in kitchen gardens for nutritious foods for home use and sell promoted

• 800 OVCs and their care givers access nutritious foods and get additional incomes from kitchen garden by end of 2007

3. Capacity of community groups of OVC caregivers strengthened

• 55 community groups of OVCs care takers strengthened by end of 2007

4. OVCs and their caregivers provided with medical and psychosocial support

• 800 OVCs and their care givers access medical and psychosocial support by end of 2007

5. Capacities of local partner organisations enhanced

• 3 collaborating partners strengthened by end of 2007

Activities - Put in place project staff

and facilities - Sign agreements with

• Project coordinator, 3 programme advisors,

and project assistant hired and in place • Partnership agreements signed with 3


Beneficiaries are cooperative and adopt the technologies Dairy goats adapt to the


INTERVENTION LOGIC OVI MOV ASSUMPTIONS collaborating partners for project implementation

1.1 Provide OVCs and their care

givers with dairy goats 1.2 Train OVCs and their care-

givers on appropriate dairy goat husbandry

1.3 Promote production of appropriate dairy goat forages among OVC farm families

1.4 Promote consumption of dairy goat milk among OVCs and their families

1.5 Support the marketing of dairy goat milk within project area

2. 2.1 Provide OVCs and their care

givers with inputs for kitchen gardens

2.2 Train OVCs and their care-givers on sustainable and environmentally friendly integrated organic farming for their kitchen garden

2.3 Encourage OVCs and their care-giving families to consume nutritious foods

2.4 Promote the marketing of organically produced nutritious foods to enhance incomes of OVCs and their care-givers

3. 3.1 Build and strengthen

partners • 800 goats given to OVCs and their caregivers • Training on dairy goat husbandry delivered to

800 OVCs and their caregivers • 800 caregiver families growing forages

suitable for dairy goat production • Milk from dairy goats consumed in OVC and

care giver homes • Number of dairy goat owners selling surplus

milk to local markets and amount of milk sold

• 800 OVC/caregiver families provided with inputs for kitchen gardens

• Training on environmentally friendly organic

farming delivered to 800 OVC/care giver families

• 800 OVC/caregiver families eating nutritious

foods from kitchen gardens

• 800 caregiver families sell surplus nutritious foods from kitchen gardens in local markets

• 55 community groups trained on group dynamics, record keeping, have opened accounts, hold elections etc

• Training on enterprise development, table banking, marketing etc delivered to 55

local conditions


INTERVENTION LOGIC OVI MOV ASSUMPTIONS capacities of community groups of OVC caregivers through training

3.2 Train on enterprise development: record keeping, costing, marketing and market linkages

4. 4.1 Support OVCs and their care

givers with psychosocial support

4.2 Facilitate OVCs and their care givers to access medical care, especially on HIV/AIDS

4.3 Encourage and facilitate OVCs to attend school

5. 5.1 Facilitate workshops and

seminars to build capacity of participating partner organisations

5.2 Support participating partner organisations to access necessary equipment and facilities for the work

5.3 Offer supervisory support to the partner organisations

groups

• 800 caregiver families and their OVCs

access psychosocial support • 800 care giver families and their OVCs

access medical care • All school age going OVCs in the project

attend school • At least two capacity building

seminars/workshops attended by the three partners held annually

• Collaborating partners purchase equipment

like computers to facilitate their work • Participating partner provide monthly reports

of their activities • HOLP holds at least quarterly planning or

review meetings with the partners


Appendix 10: HIK/HOLP Feedback Workshop Participant s

Name Organisation/Group ID Number

1. Joseph Riema GoK Livestock, Rachuonyo 3648723 2. Phelomena A. Umbrella Women Group 1487245 3. Peter ouma Asumbi Complex Orphans 9793537 4. Margaret Auma Otulo Yesu Ni Bwana 9904695 5. Maurice D. Nyangatta St. Gabriel Mirogi 1494558 6. Lydia A. Mingusa Lawe 11123730 7. Henry Khan Katanga Self Help Group 52213621 8. Roseline Adede Magungu Integrated Project 10559577 9. Mary Anyango Otieno Roka Widows Women Group 8189045 10. David Nyaoke Jowi Kamata Women Group 1889724 11. Mary D. Rabilo Ndiru Women Group 16010082 12. Tom M. Omwena Lawe 11122915 13. Carles Owan GoK Livestock 6776037 14. Dr. A. K. Baboon DVO 4831035 15. Richard O. Midamba Kadeny Self Help Group 8573792 16. Syprin Awino Rakwaro AEP 4183300 17. Jon Otiep Rakwaro AEP 3980781 18. Philip Kajwang CARD A4273662548554 19. Isaac Odhiambo Livestock 2548554 20. Julius D. Ocharo Livestock, Homabay 0301011 21. Elvis O. Kithine Livestock, Rongo 8089121 22. Valentine Nyarem Livestock, Rangwe 1480600 23. Jacob Ogong OIP 20203033 24. Boro. Leo v.d. Weijer OIP - 25. Ouma Ojow MOPND (DPO’s Office) 9636836 26. Daniel Okumu Nyangumako 3976525 27. Anne Abonyo World Vision 22441899 28. Caren A. Owuor Otur Bam Women’s Group 10822086 29. George Genga ICIPE Mbita 3496966 30. Rachael A. Owino HPI/K 22336886 31. Dorothy Oluoch St. Monica 9792627 32. Willys Bollo DPO Migori 21557508 33. Peter Abbott DDO Migori 14547236 34. Jane A. Ocholla Gare Women’s Group 6164840 35. George A. Nandi Livestock, Mbita 0301223 36. Grace Adoyo Orao Michura Women’s Group 11383923 37. Jacob Otieno ADPP 9814704 38. James Aimo ADPP 9307449 39. Sr. Vincentia Acieng St. Francis Integrated 1592376


Name Organisation/Group ID Number 40. Dariah Monique LABALU 10822289 41. Erick O. Ouma Livestock, Rongo 1505534 42. Magret A. Ouma Umbrella Group - 43. Doreen Baraza Plan International 13707758 44. Crispin Mwatate Heifer International Nairobi 8465863


Appendix 11: Assorted Tables With Additional Data o n the Project

1 Distribution of Questionnaires

Group Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total Andingo 12 12 Apondo 1 1 Asumbi Complex 19 19 Darokech 13 13 Dol Kodera 1 7 8 Fopanet 1 1 Imbo Orphans 6 6 Jema 10 3 13 Jobao 2 7 9 Kadeny 8 8 Kalamindi 6 6 Kamato Olit 12 12 Katanga 6 6 Kinda 4 4 Kitweru Orphans 6 6 12 Kogutu Ngala 12 1 13 Koiro 11 11 Kwer Kwero Kech 1 2 3 Lawe 15 15 Ludhe Dongo 9 2 11 Magare B 4 4 Magare Kucheka 7 7 Magungu 6 6 Misadhi B 6 2 8 Ndiru 10 10 New Kanyasanja 3 3 Nyalieng'a 10 10 Nyando Gari 1 7 8 Nyando Michura 9 9 Nyangumako 22 22 Oriang’ 5 5 Otur Bam 7 7 Rakwaro AEP 5 1 6 Rariew 1 5 6 Rodi-Labalu 8 8 Roka 11 11 Ruga Kijawa 16 16 Runyala 1 1 Saka 3 3


Group Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total Sero 6 6 St Raphael 5 5 St. Gabriel 12 12 St. John Mwangaza

6 4 10

St. Mary's Angogo 6 6 St. Marys Apondo 7 3 10 St. Monica 25 25 St. Paul Rakwaro 6 1 7 St. Raphael 6 6 St. Tobias Nyaoke 8 8 Strong wall 8 8 Sukuma Okao Number

5 5

Umbrella 16 16 United Elite 5 2 7 Wakulima 8 8 Yesu ni Bwana 10 10 Grand Total 155 153 16 72 33 53 482


Daily mean and sum of milk put to various uses (in litres) Mean Daily Use of Milk Daily Amounts of Milk Used

Home Sold Given away Home Sold Given away

Homabay 1.8 1.3 0.6 225.4 60.2 1.9

Migori 1.7 1.3 0.9 215.7 57.7 6.0 Nyando 1.8 1.2 1.0 24.0 6.0 1.0

Rachuonyo 1.4 1.0 0.8 69.0 16.3 2.3

Rongo 1.9 0.8 53.3 5.5 Suba 1.8 1.5 0.5 78.3 21.0 0.5

Mean 1.7 1.2 0.8 665.6 166.7 11.7 NB: Milk sold daily amounts to a daily mean of 167 litres with a daily mean income of KES 5,832. 2 Respondents Seeing Improvement in OVC’s Nutrition al Status (%)

Homabay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba

Yes 94.7 93.0 100.0 95.7 96.6 93.0

No 5.3 7.0 0.0 4.3 3.4 7.0

3 Major causes of goat deaths Diarrhoea Convulsions Breathing Sudden death Other symptoms

Homabay 5 9 3 28 18 Migori 10 5 4 35 23 Nyando 3 1 4 1 Rachuonyo 2 1 1 6 8 Rongo 3 5 6 10 Suba 8 4 Total 23 16 13 87 64


4 Other symptoms that killed goats according to ben eficiaries

Symptoms as explained by farmers Frequency

Accident-Fell from the unit 1

Anorexia 1

Ate paper 1

Body weakness, weight loss, lack of appetite, Hardware wires found in the stomach at post mortem 1

Chocked by milk while bottle feeding 1

Continuous bleating 1

Coughing 3

Died in the womb 5

Died while delivering 9

Dull 1

Excess salivation and bleating 1

Fever, dulnee, cough, anapaxis, confined, shipping fever 1

Fight injuries(fought with a buck) 1

Generally weak for two days 1

Had a swollen throat and a protruding stomach 1

Ingested Polythene 1

Killed by wild animals 1

Milk fever(as per vet’s post mortem) 1

Miscarriage 1

Not feeding 1

Pneumonia (according to the vet) 2

Poor appetite 1

Prolonged sickness 1

Stiff Neck 1

Sudden swelling on the neck and shivering 1

Swollen Stomach 1

Swollen stomach and anorexia 1

Swollen stomach and constipation 1

Swollen stomach and ears, a mass of water in the stomach. Rashes in the intestinal linings 1

Swollen throat and stomach 1

Swollen throat glands 1

Weak at birth 1

Wrong feed 1


5 Monthly Cost of Treating Goats (in KES)

Max Min Average

Homabay 2000 65 341

Migori 3000 20 335

Nyando 500 100 211

Rachuonyo 1000 10 243

Rongo 3000 50 332

Suba 3500 50 336

Grand Total 3500 50 319 6 Sizes of Kitchen Gardens in m 2

Sizes of kitchen gardens m2

Minimum Maximum Average

Homabay 24 2500 298

Migori 4 3751 306

Nyando 4 3200 457


Rongo 49 516 180

Suba 25 10000 486 7 Reported Crude Deaths of Goats from Sampled Benef iciaries

Males Females Total % Contribution

Crosses 22 21 43 33.3

Sannen 26 29 55 42.6

Alpine 15 16 31 24.0

Grand Total 63 66 129 100 Death rates over 2.5 years from a sample of 1345 goats 129/1345*100/2.5 = 3.8%per annum. 8 Percent of Respondents Who Know How to Manage Goa t Diseases

Yes No

Homabay 59 41

Migori 57 43

Nyando 88 13

Rachuonyo 41 59

Rongo 25 75

Suba 60 40

Grand Total 54 46


9 Where Respondents Seek Help from When Goats Fall Sick (%)

Self CAHW Vets Other

Homabay 8.4 20.5 68.1 3.0

Migori 7.5 11.8 74.5 6.2

Nyando 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Rachuonyo 4.1 1.4 81.1 13.5

Rongo 9.1 51.5 36.4 3.0

Suba 17.5 5.3 75.4 1.8

Grand Total 8.3 17.8 68.6 5.3 10 Min, Max and Mean Monthly Incomes from Kitchen G ardens in KES

Min Max Average

Homabay 30 2400 580

Migori 100 3150 718

Nyando 80 600 373


Rongo 150 2500 632

Suba 60 8000 865


11 Percent frequency of main problems facing respo ndents by district. Number of respondents in last r ow

Goat diseases

Inadequate forage

Inadequate husbandry skills

Inadequate vet services

Inadequate inputs

Labour shortages

Breeding difficulties

Goat housing

Inadequate space Wild animals

Homabay 37 35 39 34 29 33 33 27 0 0

Migori 30 22 32 27 50 41 39 47 80 33

Nyando 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rachuonyo 14 9 8 23 12 9 8 10 0 0

Rongo 8 10 13 13 2 12 11 8 20 0

Suba 7 14 8 3 7 5 9 8 0 67

# Respondents 244 168 38 86 109 78 75 51 10 3


Appendix 12: Bibliography

1. AMREF – Undated: HIV/AIDS Orphans Homa Bay Project 2. BACOSA NEWS 2005: Dairy Goat Farming in South Nyanza Region of Kenya. Eds.

Pamela Nasimiyu, Joseph Mbui and Esther Obadia. Newsletter of Baraka Agricultural College Alumni.

3. Christie Peacok 2005: Goat: Unlocking their Potential for Africa’s Farmers. FARM Africa Working Papers Series No. 2.

4. Global Health Reporting: 2007. 5. Heifer International Kenya – Undated: Homa Bay orphans Livelihood Project – Proposal

(ed. Julius Owade). HIK Reports 6. Heifer International Kenya 2005: Baseline Survey Report for Homa Bay Orphan

Livelihood Project. HIK Reports. 7. Heifer International Kenya 2006: Community Animal Health Assistants Training, Module

1. HIK 8. Heifer International Kenya 2007: HOLP Mid-term Review Report. HIK 9. IFAD 2003: Socio-Cultural, Socio-Economic and Environmental Status of the Proposed

Southern Nyanza Integrated Community Development Programme. Volume 1: Main Report.

10. Kaneko Satoshi, Emanuel Mushinzinmana, and Mohamed Karama 2007: Demographic Surveillance System in Suba District, Kenya. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of Kyushu Regional Society of Tropical Medicine.

11. NACC 2007: Annual Report for 2006. HIV prevalence and adult deaths by District, 2006. 12. Republic of Kenya 2002: National Development Plan 2002 – 2008. Government Printer,

Nairobi, Kenya. 13. Republic of Kenya 2002: Migori District Development Plan 2002 – 2008. Government

Printer, Nairobi, Kenya. 14. Sabatia Youth Development Association – SYDA Newsletter. 2006 15. UNAIDS 2006. Report of the Global AIDS Epidemic 2006. 16. World Bank 2008: Western Kenya CDD and Flood Mitigation Project. Project Information

Document.

Date post:	22-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	copppldsecretariat
View:	1,897 times
Download:	8 times

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project

Documents