Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project


Published on

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).

[ Originally posted on ]

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project

  1. 1. IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF HOMA BAY ORPHAN LIVELIHOOD PROJECT Final ReportSubmitted by : ETC East Africa Ltd ABC Place, Waiyaki Way, P.O. Box 76378, Nairobi, Kenya. East Africa Ltd Phone: +254 (0)20 4 445 421/2/3 Fax: 254 (0)20 4 445 424 Email
  2. 2. AcknowledgementsThe ‘Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project “HOLP”’ was commissioned by Heifer International Kenya (HIK) and carried out by ETC East Africa Ltd. th st The study was conducted by Bell Okello and Evelyn Otieno, and carried out between April 15 and May 21 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, theCountry 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.
  3. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTSPREFACE................................................................................................................................. vi1. 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 ......................................................................................... 22. 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 ............................................................................153. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT..........................................................................17 3.1 Assessment of HOLP Partners ...................................................................................17 3.2 Lessons Learnt and Challenges Faced by the Project ................................................184. 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 ......................................................................................................................25APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................26 Appendix 1: Terms of Reference .........................................................................................26 Appendix 2: Approach and Methodology.............................................................................30 Appendix 3: Questionnaire ..................................................................................................34Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draftiiiSubmitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  4. 4. 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...................................................................................................64Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draftivSubmitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  5. 5. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSADPP Animal Draft Power ProgrammeAIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeAMREF African Medical Research FoundationCAHW Community Animal Health WorkerCARD Community Action for Rural DevelopmentCBO Community Based OrganisationCBS Central Bureau of StatisticsCIFF Children’s Investment Fund FoundationCMAD Community Mobilisation Against DesertificationCORP Community Own Resource PersonDCO District Children OfficerDDO District Development OfficerDLPO District Livestock Production OfficerDVO District Veterinary OfficerECF East Coast FeverERS Economic Recovery Strategy for Employment and Wealth CreationFFS Farmer Field SchoolFGD Focus Group DiscussionFMD Foot and Mouth DiseaseGoK Government of KenyaHIK Heifer International KenyaHIV Human Immunodeficiency VirusHOLP Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood ProjectHPI Heifer Project InternationalICIPE International Centre for Insect Physiology and EcologyIFAD International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentJAM Justice and Mercy (Oyugis)KES Kenya ShillingKIOF Kenya Institute of Organic FarmingLABALU Lake Basin Land Use ProgrammeLoA Letter of AgreementMoLD Ministry of Livestock DevelopmentMTR Mid Term ReviewNAAC National Aids Control CouncilNDGFA Nyanza Dairy Goat Farmers’ AssociationNGO Non Governmental OrganisationNSA Non State ActorOIP Oyugis Integrated ProjectOVC Orphaned and Vulnerable ChildrenOVI Objectively Verifiable IndicatorPBA Pure Breed AlpinePBS Pure Breed SannenPCM Project Cycle ManagementPLWA People Living With AIDSPOG Passing on the GiftPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperSELLO Strengths, Emerging Lessons, Limitations and OpportunitiesSOFO Successes, Obstacles, Failures and OpportunitiesSWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and ThreatsImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draftvSubmitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  6. 6. PREFACEThis 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. Theimpact assessment was carried out between April 25th and May 15th 2008. Four key chapters makeup the report with chapter one introducing the project context and the assignment. The secondchapter presents the impact of the project, while chapter three discusses the challenges and lessonslearnt. 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 issuesincluding the approach, tools, and findings (already discussed in chapter two and three).Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draftviSubmitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  7. 7. 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 prevalencerate of HIV/AIDS, poverty, and significantly, the impact of the two dynamics left a huge burdenof Orphaned and Vulnerable Children (OVCs) to relatives and well wishers still alive. Socialsurveys conducted at household levels show that these OVCs live with caregivers who areequally challenged, from HIV/AIDS or poverty, and quite often both. Most of the caregivers arerelatives of the OVCs, although many are either very old or very young people, because themajority of those who have died as a result of HIV/AIDS are in the age group 20-45 years. 1.2. Objectives of HOLPAccording to the revised project proposal1 HOLP was formulated and designed with the goal ofproviding orphans and their families in Homa Bay with a means to self-reliance and alternativesto engaging in high risk behaviour. The objective of the project is to “increase the incomes andfood 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/caregiversPurpose/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 necessitiesOutputs/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 enhancedHIK implemented the project in partnership with three local NGOs/CBOs, Animal Draft PowerProgramme for organic farming, Lake Basin Land Use Programme (LABALU) for communitymobilisation and capacity building of community groups, and St. Francis Sisters’ Congregationfor psychosocial and medical care between January 2005 and December 2007.1 Homa Bay Orphans Livelihood Project – By Julius Owade; HIKImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft1Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  8. 8. 1.3. Project Context and RationaleRising 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 hasbeen as hard hit as the southern Nyanza with respect to poverty and HIV/AIDS. Whereaspoverty levels in the country are estimated to be about 54 percent, these districts record levelsof over 60percent. HIV/AIDS infections and impact in this region significantly correlate with thepoverty figures, where the region records incidences of over 25 percent, while the nationalaverages 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, althoughstatistics released by National Aids Control Council (NACC) for 2006 show a much lowerprevalence 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 projectarea (e.g. see IFAD reports on the identification and formulation of Southern NyanzaCommunity Development Project 2003). The Government of Kenya (GoK) and Non-State Actors(NSA), especially Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Community BasedOrganisations (CBOs) have over the last ten years made concerted efforts to fight both povertyand HIV/AIDS in the area. Most GoK led interventions are constrained by the on-goinginstitutional reforms of the ministries, which are now tending towards facilitation (of actors) andless implementation (activities and projects), thereby leaving a huge implementation gap. ManyNGOs and CBOs have moved into the southern Nyanza Districts to compliment GoK efforts andhelp mitigate the situation. The massive need for support and assistance to the twin problems ofthe effects of high poverty and HIV/AIDS levels has provided NSAs with opportunities to try outmore people-oriented and impact-driven innovations (social experimentation and engineering)that are now slowly bearing fruits. 1.4. Objectives of the Impact AssessmentThe Terms of Reference (ToR) has stated that the objective of the impact assessment is todetermine the impact of Phase 1 of HOLP, assess the effectiveness of the partners and proposeways and means of enhancing impact, improving efficiency and effectiveness of a plannedsecond phase.The objective as stated in the ToR (Appendix 1) has been recast into the following specificobjectives: • 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 MethodologyThe impact assessment was carried out in participatory manner, with a review of relevantproject documentation preceding fieldwork that employed standard data gathering tools likeclosed questionnaires, checklists for focus group discussions and key informant interviews, andfield observations (Appendix 2 -10). Appendix 11 provides additional data from the survey andthe Bibliography is presented in Appendix 12.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft2Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  9. 9. 2. FINDINGS OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT2.1 General Findings on Project Implementation2.1.1 Project ActivitiesThe project was commissioned in 2005 in Homa Bay and Migori Districts, with activities focusingon HIV/AIDS OVC caregiver community groups in selected divisions. The main project activitiesplanned are summarised in Text Box 1.Text Box 1: Summary of major project activities1. 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 area2. Promote crop production through using organic farming 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 caregivers3. 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 linkages4. Provide social support and medical care for HIV/AIDS 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 school5. 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 organisationsAll these project activities (See Text Box 1) were implemented, except for those on giving OVCsand their families’ psychosocial support and medical care in the area of HIV/AIDS.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft3Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  10. 10. 2.1.2 PopulationA total of 482 respondents took part in the study with most respondents coming from Homa BayDistrict. Female respondents comprised 35 percent of those interviewed (Table 1).Table 1: Respondents by gender in each of the project 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 482The study also captured the number of respondents who were heads of the households. Aboutfour percent (4%) of the respondents did not indicate whether or not they headed thehouseholds they were responding on behalf of. However, 72% of those interviewed were theheads of their households whereas 24% indicated that they were not (Table 2). At least 49% ofthose who indicated that they were heads of households were females. From the data, theyoungest head of household was an 18 year old male from Kogutu Ngala group in Migori, whowas an OVC as well as a guardian to six of his siblings and a nephew, all between the ages ofnine and fifteen years.Table 2: Number of respondents heading households Homa Bay Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba TotalYes 107 111 16 52 24 36 346No 46 35 0 14 6 17 118Unspecified 2 7 0 6 3 0 18Total 155 153 16 72 33 53 482The respondents ranged from 14 to 90 years of age (Table 3). The youngest were a fourteenand fifteen year old males from Homa Bay and Migori District respectively. The oldestrespondent 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 482The survey captured a total of 2,354 orphans between the ages of 0- 24 years. The majority ofthis population (53 percent) fell within the 11-24 age bracket followed by 27 percent between theages 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 weretotal orphans and 25 percent were partial orphans (Table 4).Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft4Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  11. 11. Table 4: Nature and number of Orphans Nature Total Orphans Partial Orphans Vulnerable Children of Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Orphan No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %0-5 yrs 35 1% 23 1% 45 2% 42 2% 183 7% 173 7% 5016-10 yrs 94 4% 83 3% 76 3% 73 3% 176 7% 196 8% 69811-24 yrs 249 10% 184 7% 201 8% 140 6% 286 11% 275 11% 1,335Total 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 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 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. Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft 5 Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  12. 12. Table 2.6: Number of Goats Received by the RespondentsRow Labels 2005 2006 2007 2008 TotalHoma-bay 62 65 70 1 198Migori 54 100 40 0 194Nyando 0 0 15 0 15Rachuonyo 0 3 46 9 58Rongo 9 17 14 0 40Suba 1 35 17 0 53Grand Total 126 220 202 10 558Source: HOLP Impact Assessment dataFrom the focus group discussions and interviews with key resource persons, it is evident thatthe 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 ondairy goat husbandry. But not all beneficiaries attended all training sessions since some of themwere absent when some of the topics were taught. More than 95 percent of the beneficiariesreceived training on various aspects of goat husbandry that focused on dairy goat housing,feeding, disease management, rearing kids, forage production, milking, marketing, businessskills and nutrition among others. Majority (98 percent) of the respondents indicated that theywould like to have more training, to enhance their skills and to consolidate the lessons alreadytaught.Members of the family including OVCs of age also attended some training, although many learntgoat husbandry techniques practically as they observed their care-givers in action. This is animportant aspect of the project because it ensures that almost any member of the householdcan take care of the goats when the guardians are away.Visits to beneficiary farms show that the training was effective and most beneficiaries weretrying 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 goatImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft6Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  13. 13. All families have set aside land for goat forage including Napier grass and fodder trees, whilesweet potatoes are grown not only for domestic consumption, but to feed the vines to the goatstoo.Milk yields are in general, below the potential of the dairy goats (Table 7), although it can beimproved through better feeding. Research by FARM AFRICA and HIK show that dairy goat’spotential 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 halfa litre among the districts. From Table 7, mean daily milk yields stands at 2.1 litres, against apotential 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 thechildren. 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 Migori Nyando Rachuonyo Rongo Suba Total BayNo. of first goats milked 129 125 12 50 26 46 388Daily milk yield from first goat 284.5 256.8 28.0 96.9 53.5 101.1 820.7Mean yield for first goat 2.2 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1No. of second goats milked 10 17 1 1 8 37Daily milk yield from second goat 18.5 28.5 3.0 0.5 9.8 60.3Mean yield for second goat 1.9 1.7 3.0 0.5 1.2 1.6Source: HOLP Impact Assessment dataAlmost 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, andsome 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 offamily members. Young children and those who are sick are given a little milk to drink. How families use goat milk on daily basis (l) Although Figure 1 shows that a significant amount of the milk is sold, all respondents whose goats have Give away kidded use milk at home, and only 35 1% percent sell some. Probably those with Sell 20% 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 Home dairy goats have done some value 79% 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 fiveFigure 1: Percent use of milk from dairy goats percent of them produce ghee from goat milk. Fermented milk is a delicacyImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft7Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  14. 14. among the Luo community, and this is the milk mostly given to children, although some takefresh boiled milk.Table 8: Daily use of milk from dairy goats (in litres per day) District Home consumption Sold Give awayHoma Bay 1.8 1.3 0.6Migori 1.7 1.3 0.9Nyando 1.8 1.2 1.0Rachuonyo 1.4 1.0 0.8Rongo 1.9 0.8Suba 1.8 1.5 0.5Mean 1.7 1.2 0.8Source: HOLP Impact Assessment dataThe survey revealed a daily mean milk production of some 846.72 litres, which if sold a themean selling price of KES 35Ingeneral, dairy goat milk prices aremuch higher than milk from cowson a unit basis. Dairy goat milkprices ranged from a low mean ofKES 25 in Suba District to KES48.5 a litre in Homa Bay, whilemilk from cows is sold at KES 20-25 a litre (Table 9). Most of themilk is sold to neighbours, while afew people have ‘contracts’ todeliver milk and are paid on amonthly basis for their delivery.Data from the field show that 42percent of the milk is sold toneighbours, and 38 percent iscontracted (Figure 2). These dataindicate that there is adequatedemand for dairy goat milk in thearea. Figure 2: % Distribution of dairy goat milk marketsIndeed during focus group discussions, beneficiaries were full of praise for the dairy goat milkusing 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 35Source: HOLP Impact Assessment dataSelling of bucks: Quite a number of beneficiaries have generated money directly by sellingbucks that were brought up in their homes. This assessment found that on average, a buck isImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft8Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  15. 15. 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, theNyanza Dairy Goat Farmers Association (NDGFA) was recently formed and registered. Part ofits role will be to support farmers in marketing of their produce. Of those enumerated, 81 (17percent) had sold a goat, mostly bucks (96 percent) at a mean cost of KES 9,650. Thoseenumerated had revenue of at least KES 781,350. This is money that the poor community withinthe project area hardly generate, and is set to rise. At the time of the mission, there were closeto 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 thenumbers increasing annually (Figure 3), although the death rates have gone down.These deaths rob the owners of 120incomes and other benefits. By Number of deaths by year and typethe end of 2007, 129 goat deaths Alpine Crosses Saanen Grand Totalwere reported by the respondents 100out of the 1345 captured by thestudy. The numbers were splitevenly between males andfemales (63:66). However, more 80of the Pure Bred Sannen (PBS)died (43 percent) compared to Number of deathsPure Bred Alpines (PBA) - (24 60percent) and cross breeds (33percent). From the total of allgoats recorded during the survey(1345 goats), ten percent (10%) 40have died over a two and a halfyear period, which translates toabout four percent per annum(4%p.a.). The FGDs revealed that 20most of the goats reported deadcomprised of stillbirths and goatkids. 0 2005 2006 2007 Grand Total Figure 3: Percent use of milk from dairy goats2.1.4 Kitchen gardensHOLP promoted kitchen gardens with the aim of enhancing household food security, conservingthe environment and, in particular, to provide the OVCs and their caregivers with nutritiousfoods, especially indigenous vegetables. An opportunity to do this arose with the up-take ofdairy goat husbandry, and the promotion of organic farming. In the set up, families were to usegoat manure in the production of local vegetables that have proved to be nutritious with positiveeffects among HIV/AIDS patients. At the time of the evaluation, 92 percent of respondents hadactive kitchen gardens where they practiced organic farming at the time of the mission. Kitchengardens 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 wascarried out by ADPP, using organic farming techniques developed by ICIPE and the KenyaInstitute of Organic Farming (KIOF). At least 91 percent of the respondents attended thetrainings, which were broadly on the following topics:Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft9Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  16. 16. 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 thetraining 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 ofgoat milk, produce from the kitchen gardens were used at home and some sold in the nearbymarkets for income. All the respondents consumed the produce at home, 62 percent sold someof the produce in the nearby markets, while 14 percent gave some of the produce to the needyincluding 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 kitchenFigure 4: Vegetables grown in kitchen gardens gardening, all OVCs within the familiesparticipated in various activities. OVCs interviewed were quite adept at carrying out routinehusbandry activities in both the goat pens and kitchen gardens.Photo 3: Beneficiaries harvesting from the kitchen Photo 4: From kitchen garden to commercialgardens vegetable farming2.1.5 Strengthening capacity of OVC caregiver community groupsA total of 55 OVC caregiver community groups participated in the project. As a pre-requisite toreceive project inputs, the groups underwent training to strengthen their managementgovernance activities that were aimed at enhancing group cohesion and orient their activitiestowards the set objectives. Also, the groups were required to formally register with the socialImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft10Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  17. 17. services and, in doing so, become legal entities. With the registration, the groups were able toopen Bank Accounts through which, they were to manage their financial dealings. Most of thetraining was delivered by LABALU, although HIK and ADPP also conducted some of thetraining.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’ toinclude modalities of working with HOLP.However, the capacity strengthening activities were not adequate. Groups were still havingproblems related to group dynamics, and on occasions, governance issues. Therefore, thisinput was not adequately delivered, and may have other consequences to the sustainability ofthe project.2.1.6 Psychosocial and medical careThis component was meant to better integrate OVCs in their caregiver families, support the ‘newfamily’ set up and assist with provision of medical care, counselling on HIV/AIDS and encouragethe OVCs to attend school. However, none of the activities planned under this component weredelivered by the partner – St Francis Sisters. Therefore, the project beneficiaries missed out onthe potential benefits from this intervention.2.1.7 Capacity building of partner organisationsUnder this activity, capacities of the three partner organisations were to be strengthened. HOLPprovided LABALU and ADPP with resources for office equipment and facilitated theirmovements. In addition, HOLP invited all the organisations to attend important trainingworkshops and seminars on areas of interest from time to time.However, the capacity building exercise was not well targeted, and there are no records ofcapacity needs of these organisations. Whereas ADPP was satisfied with the capacity building itreceived, both LABALU and St. Francis Congregation were unhappy with it.Therefore, it is deduced that the project implemented most of the key activities, with someextremely well implemented, while others like strengthening local capacities could have beenbetter implemented. Significantly, components that HOLP was charged with were fullyimplemented and extremely well too, while implementation by the partners in general, fell shortof expectations.2.2 Impact of the ProjectIn examining the impact of the project, impact felt by the four different sub-target groups distilledfrom the project documents have been distinguished. These sub-target groups are classified asOVCs, caregivers, the wider community and the implementing partners.2.2.1 Impact on OVCsResults from the household survey show that 98 percent of daily milk production was used athome for making tea, mixed with vegetables or fermented. Interviews with OVCs within thehouseholds revealed that they were given dairy goat milk, especially at the height of milkproduction. Some OVCs drink the milk raw straight after milking. Caregivers preferred to sharethe little milk by using it to make tea or mixed with vegetables. The rest of the milk was sold 19.8percent and given to neighbours or schools as gifts 1.5%.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft11Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  18. 18. Caregivers and key resource persons interviewed during focus group discussions wereemphatic that the dairy goat milk was more nutritious than milk from cattle. They went as far asstating that many OVCs who came into their families with skin diseases, and almost always fellsick were now ’shining’ and healthy because of the goat milk.Because of the perceived superior nutritive quality of dairy goat milk (beneficiaries actuallybelieve 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 orfermented milk. Though the baseline survey reported the same finding, the quality of meals thendid not include tea or milk (less than ten percent had tea or milk). Although most households stilleat ugali and vegetables, the type of vegetables have changed, with more of the organicallyproduced indigenous vegetables. Most of the tea is made with milk from the goats – evenfamilies that do not have milk from their goats can either buy or borrow from neighbours (groupmembers) 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 cardswere 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, andtherefore 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 forchildren 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 diseasesrelated 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 inschool (82 percent). Some children below six years were also in school. When only thosebetween 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 fortheir needs including food, clothing, uniforms and books. Because their caregivers are able tosell milk, bucks or even vegetables from their gardens and get some income, basic schoolnecessities of OVCs can be met, and are actually met.In addition to shelter, food, health, schooling and clothing, a pressing need for most OVCs isparental love and care. All children interviewed were happy with their foster homes, and thecare/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 theproblem is now being addressed by teachers and local opinion leaders.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft12Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  19. 19. Photo 5: OVCs in a kitchen garden Photo 6: OVC learns to feed a goatThe 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 fosterparents who are largely poor, but under the circumstances, they are better off than in thestreets.Some of the indirect benefits to the OVCs must also be mentioned. OVCs have participated intaking care of the goats, and also organic farming (see photos 5 & 6), in the process learninginvaluable livelihood skills (Figure 5). When asked about their participation in the kitchengardens 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 punishingthem. Some even claimed ownership over certain chores, like cleaning the pens so that theycould ‘talk’ with their goats.Figure 5: Duties that OVCs carry out in goat husbandry and kitchen gardensImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft13Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  20. 20. 2.2.2 Impact on OVC caregivers and family membersCaregivers 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 andenhanced social standing within the community.In terms of impact to the caregivers, the greatest is hope and social recognition. Owning a dairygoat is now a prestigious thing in the project area. Dairy goat milk is revered as an invaluablemedicine against HIV/AIDS in the project area.Another impact of the project as was expressed by many was that the dairy goat has beenkeeping the beneficiaries well occupied at home and hence reduced the hours spent on idletalk. Whereas taking care of the goats has eaten into some of their time, many claimed it wasworth 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 theirFigure 6: Benefits from dairy goats subsistence oriented kitchen gardens intocommercial undertakings.Most female beneficiaries whose goats have kidded or access milk from neighbours claimedthat the project has significantly enhanced ‘peace’ at home, especially as men tend to comeback home early enough to take ‘the thick’ tea made from goat milk, as well as not intending tomiss the yummy vegetables mixed with goat milk. This is a critical impact because amidstpoverty and challenges posed by HIV/AIDS and the orphans, tranquillity at home is necessaryto help the families go through the difficult times.Caregivers have learnt the art and spirit of sharing, especially when they have to give milk toschools and neighbours who do not have any, but in return also receive milk when in need. Theproject has also helped many save money – according to LABALU, the number of groupmembers 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 havestarted innovating techniques of adding value to their produce, for example production of gheefrom the milk and sold at about KES 300 per litre. The impact is that the project has created anenabling environment for innovative business people to take up opportunities of making someincome.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft14Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  21. 21. A very significant impact of the project has been the formation and registration of the NyanzaDairy Goat Farmers Association, which is expected to lobby and advocate on behalf of themembers. The chairman of the association is a care giver from Rachuonyo Distinct. Farmersfrom each District are expected to register district-based chapters of the association. Thesignificance 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, builthousehold assets, provided some basic necessities and given them hope. Therefore, the impactof the project is immediate, visible and significant.2.2.3 Impact on the wider communityIn 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 theircaregivers that they can rise from their lows to succeed in life. Many actors and key resourcepersons accept that this is the most important impact of the project, although no one canquantify it. Nevertheless, other quantifiable impact as presented above is still very significantwithin the project and national context.To a lesser extent but nonetheless important, the project has in general had a positive impacton the environment. The need to feed dairy goats with recommended nutritious forages hasprompted beneficiaries to put up agroforestry trees like Caliandra, Sesbania, etc. On the otherhand, there is now a significant reduction in the use of pesticides in farms because farmershave opted to use bio-pesticides they make locally and save on production costs. Growing ofNapier grass is supporting the reduction of soil erosion, while intercropping using the push-pulltechnology developed by ICIPE is improving the soil structure and fertility (as evidenced bygreater yields).It can thus be summarised that the project has had a profound impact among the beneficiariesand their neighbours. In addition to creating hope among a very desperate people, incomeshave in general improved, and families have saved money on ‘domestic’ expenses. The factthat many caregivers reported their willingness to take up a few more OVCs is enoughtestimony to the success of the project so far.Examined from another angle, the project has provided empirical evidence that taking care ofOVCs from within caregiver families, and not orphanages is a practical step towards better carefor the OVCs. Whereas the merits or demerits of orphanages is not part of this ToR, manychildren would be happier staying in the free world of ‘normal homes’, doing what other childrenare doing, and learning ‘world dynamics’ in a natural environment, and not in the confines ofImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft15Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  22. 22. orphanages. In any case, taking all the OVCs in the project area to orphanages is to say theleast impossible and not sustainable. Giving people resources that they can use to care for theirloved ones, relatives and desperate children is a more practical option even if a trickyundertaking.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft16Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  23. 23. 3. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNT3.1 Assessment of HOLP PartnersThe three key implementation partners were LABALU, St Francis Congregation and ADPP andtheir roles are spelt out in the ToR to this assignment (Appendix 1).LABALU was tasked with strengthening community groups and delivering training on recordkeeping, mobilisation of savings and credit and providing counselling to the OVCs and theirfamilies. Though it is an organisation hinged on the Catholic Archdiocese of Homa Bay, it is asemi autonomous entity; however, the church may still have considerable influence on itsactivities.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 nothave adequate technical capacity to implement the activities it was meant to (see details inAppendix 9). Further, LABALU seemed to have concentrated more on training the groups inrural savings and credit and encouraging them to get loans as opposed to strengthening thegroups, and training them on governance and group dynamics.St Francis Sisters Congregation was tasked with providing health services to the OVCs, food forthe young and vulnerable and organising for psychosocial support to the OVCs and theirfamilies. However, the project document did not elaborate how this organisation would achievethis. Whereas it worked hard to mobilize the community groups, it is evident that St FrancisCongregation had very high expectations that Heifer did not meet. As a result, it more or lessdid not implement any of the activities expected of it. According to HOLP and HIK records, StFrancis Sisters Congregation had budgeted for KES 937,500 for its activities. It received thismoney, but obviously, the amount was inadequate for the intended activities, and it is not clearwhat it used the money for. In our considered opinion, there was a serious mismatch in theexpectations of the Congregation.Secondly, it is clear that the St Francis Sisters Congregation did not have the capacity toundertake the tasks assigned to it, and was depending on resources from HIK to set itself up inorder to implement its activities, which also include working with OVCs. Capacity here is used inthe 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 cannotascertain whether training was uniformly delivered across the project area. It certainly is astrong 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 twoimplementing partners to some extent affected service delivery by ADPP, which expected to findcommon interest groups that were already well organised, trained and strengthened. Instead, itspent 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 visitssince the first phase ended. However, it has significantly scaled down its activities – due toresource constraints. On a positive note, ADPP offers extension services to individual farmerswho 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 technicalsupport over such a wide area. Understandably, they cannot do so for nothing, and spreadingthemselves 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.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft17Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  24. 24. It is also important to note that some government departments collaborated very closely withHOLP in project implementation. The veterinary department, right from the headquarters inNairobi to the field officers at the divisions and locations actively participated in variousactivities, not least of all in trying to give veterinary care to the goats. Community Animal HealthWorkers in HOLP were trained by officers from the veterinary department. Also, the Livestockproduction 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 buildingmaterials for goat pens to a few of the beneficiaries in Homa Bay. HIK is encouraged to entermore of such collaborations in order to reach more of the really needy families.3.2 Lessons Learnt and Challenges Faced by the ProjectIn 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.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft18Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  25. 25. 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.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft19Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  26. 26. Although the challenges seem many, field based project staff proved equal to them, and wereactually able to find local solutions or circumvented them to successfully implement the projectactivities.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft20Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  27. 27. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS4.1 Conclusions1 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.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft21Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  28. 28. 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 thatImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft22Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  29. 29. 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 RecommendationsIn the proposed second phase, the two types of recommendations are made; the first inresponse to the challenges faced during phase I, while the second set of recommendations arelargely 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.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft23Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  30. 30. 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 toImpact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft24Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya
  31. 31. 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 stakeholders1 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 toHOLP is fully supported in order to consolidate and deepen the benefits and impact to the OVCsand the general community. The second phase should also expand spatially to reach more ofthe 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 muchlarger, yet HOLP targeted just about 7,000 OVCs.Impact Assessment of Homa Bay Orphan Livelihood Project - May 20th 2008 – Zero draft25Submitted by ETC East Africa Ltd to Heifer International Kenya