1. 2. Introduction
A description of the sector and the study,
Providing the reader with sufficient methodological explanations to gauge the credibility of the
conclusions and to acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant.
This report contains results of the end-term review (ETR) of the Support to Improved Nutrition
Status of Vulnerable Groups in Malawi (SINSM) carried out from the 26th
of October till the 20th
of
November2015. The SINSMprogramme wasa pilotprogramme implementedbythe Department of
Nutrition and HIV and AIDS (DNHV) jointly with the line Ministry of Health (MOH), the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Security (MOAFS), the Ministry of Gender (MOG) and the Ministry of
Education (MOE) and also with the NGO’s “Welthungerhilfe” (WHH) and the Foundation for
Irrigation and Sustainable Development (FISD).
The programme consisted of two (2) Programme Estimates (PE): PE1 from 01/02/2011 – 30/09/2012
and PE2 from 01/11/2012 – 31/10/2014. Each PE had five (5) Result Areas (RA): 1) Support to
nutritional productsdistributiontovulnerable groups(PE1) andSupporttoschool mealsprogramme
(PE2);2) Strengthencapacity in nutrition for the communities and other stakeholders; 3) Nutrition
Surveillance System strengthened to enable tracking of malnutrition for timely and rational
response;4) Capacityof healthfacilitiestomanage nutritionalrehabilitationimprovedand5) Project
coordination and management activities improved. In PE21
two (2) Grants of each € 750,000 (+ €
172,000) were allocated to WHH2
and FISD3
for the school feeding programme.
The programme’stotal allocated amount through two (2) MOU was € 7,650,000. Under PE1 + 48% of
the total budgetwas absorbed and under PE2 + 77%. The DNHA used € 4,840,000 and the Grants for
school feeding € 1,500,000 and an extra Grant for CBS of € 172,000 was allocated. Therefore the
expenditure for the whole SINMS (2011-2014) was € 4,840,000 + € 1,500,000 + € 172,000 = €
6,510,000. This is 85% of the total allocated amount.
The SINSM programme was implemented in ten (10) Districts in Malawi. It aimed to contribute on
the improvement of the nutritional status of all Malawians with special emphasis on vulnerable
groupssuch as pregnant and lactating women, children below the age of 5 years, both school aged
and school going children, orphans and people living with HIV and AIDS through improved service
delivery systems in 10 selected Districts. In each district the SINSMhad a food and nutrition focal
point: one in the District’s Health Office and one in the District’s Agriculture Development Office.
The school feeding programme was implemented by the District’s Education Management (DEM)
Office through the DEMeducation health and nutrition officer.
The two main purposes of this ETR were according to the Terms of Reference (annex 1):
1 The expenditure for the two Grants €1,500,000were under Special Commitment andnot included in thePE2 expendituresummary. The
School Meals Programme also benefited on a Supply Contract for Corn Soya Blend (CBS) –value €172,000 (source: NAO).
2 Supporting improved nutritionand health and building institutional capacity for sustainable home grown school meal programmes in
Malawi'(01/01-31/12/14).
3 Sustainable School Meals Initiative (SSMI) (01/01-31/12/14).

2. 1. To make an overall independent assessment about the performance of the SINSM paying
particular attention to analysis of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability,
coherence and the EU added value of the programme.
2. Analysis of substantial conclusions on the feasibility of the programme design and the
implementation for reaching the stated objectives.
The first period of the ETR was an inception period during the first week (26-30 October 2015) that
was followed by an inception meeting on the 2nd
of November with the EUD, NAO, DNHA, MOH,
MOAFS etc. An official inception report was sent to the EUD in which the methodology of the ETR
was more detailed and a detailed work plan was presented. The second and third week of the
assignmentwasusedtovisitthe ten (10) Districts in which the SINSMwas implemented4
. The field
visitstook place fromMondaythe 2nd
of NovembertillFridaythe 13th
of November, during the field
visit only 9 Districts were visited. All the implementing partners5
were extensively interviewed.
Depending on the results of the implementation, visits to health facilities, schools and eventually
involved communities were planned depending on available time, distances and available
beneficiariesetc.Eachvisittoa Districtstarted with a visit to the District’s Council office where the
DistrictCommissionerwasofficiallyinformed about the objective of the visit and also the District’s
PlanningDirector. All questionsrelatedtothe service implementationof the SINSMand the SINSM’s
Surveillance systembutalsothe backstoppingfromthe DNHA were intensively assessed and based
on the answerscomplementaryfieldvisitstohealthfacilitiesandinvolvedschoolswere planned. Of
each visittoa Districtthe ETR-teammade a final District’s Assessment Fiche in which main findings
and resultswere capitulated.Inageneral impressions part the overall findings were described in a
conciselyway (see annex 7.5). The fourthweek16-20th
of Novemberwasusedfor writingof the aide
memoire,debriefing and a final validation workshop in which all partners on Central and District’s
level participated. The workshop aimed at presenting the findings of the ETR to the main
stakeholders, to check the factual basis of the evaluation and to discuss the draft findings,
conclusions and recommendations made by the ETR-team.
The Terms of Reference (TOR) forthisETR detail in part2.3 the requestedservices in five (5) points.
Each pointhas a bulletednumberof “guidelines”toconcentrate and toansweron if evidence based
information is available.
ThisETR wasconstrainedbythe simple factthat ten(10) of the implicated Districts were requested
to be visitedwhileonly nine(9) effectivedayswere onlyavailable.Thereforeworkdaysof more than
8 hourswere mainly used for long distance travels and interviews. Most District’s services have an
official workinghoursfrom7.30 AM – 4.00 PM. Thiswas alsothe case for the schools and the health
facilities. Another constraint was that in a number of Districts involved staff members of
Governmentservices were new and never involved in the SINSM’s that ended up in October 2014.
Since there hasneverbeen a central coordination entity on Districts level no district’s institutional
memory was in place.
It isrequestedinthe TR to provide the readerwithsufficientmethodological explanations to gauge
the credibility of the conclusions and to acknowledge limitations or weaknesses, where relevant.
This can be done once we have analysed the optimal implementation of the programme on
4 Nkhatabay, Rhumpi,Dowa,Salima, Mangochi,Phalombe, Chikhwawa, Chiradzulo, Neno,Dedza
5 District AgricultureDevelopment Office (DADO), DistrictNutrition SINSMfocalpoint,District EducationSINSMfocal point, DistrictM&E
officer.

3. conditionthatthe DNHA suppliedoptimal support to the Districts. It also means that if the Districts
were in a position to support the sentinel sides or APE in an optimal way and a good working
surveillance system,the nutritional status of the vulnerable groups in these sites would have been
improved substantially. The methodology to work and assess these situations must although be
found out during the visits to the Districts. If the Districts and also the DNHA were in a position to
provide clear data on the nutritional and the food security status in the concerned Districts, the
assessment could point out whether the programme was able to meet its objectives. If not or
partially done aswas planned, the ETR has to find out why. The programme was, however, a kind a
pilotor testprogramme tofindout whetherthe proposed activities were able to improve the food
and nutritionsecuritystatusof the proposedvulnerable groups.If thesedataare not more available
the relevance, the efficiency, the effectiveness, the impact and certainly the sustainability and the
coherence cannot be assessed in an objective way.
In annex 7.6 the resultsandrecommendationsmade duringthe 2008 final evaluation of the ACF-UK
managed and implemented are listed in a concise way. It is important to know how the first
emergency food and nutrition security surveillance system performed and what the
recommendations were how to implement the developed system by the GOM.
Important sources were also the PE1 and PE2 official documents and the two (2) final progress
reports. In the PE1 the Human Resources that were made available for this programme were
explained but also the “ORGANOGRAM” (organisational chart) of the PE1and, the role of the
steering committee and the organisation at District level were explained (see annex 7.7).