Monitoring Toolkit for School Gardens, Community Gardens, Institutional Gardens & Backyard Gardens

EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION (TCE)
Monitoring Toolkit
Gardens
including Community, School,
Backyard and Institutional
garden projects
September, 2008
by
Andy Lyons, RIACSO
Stanley Dlamini, Swaziland ECRU
REGIONAL INTERAGENCY COORDINATION SUPPORT OFFICE
(RIACSO)
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

THE FAO PROJECT MONITORING TOOLKIT SERIES
This monitoring toolkit is one of a series that has
been developed by the FAO Regional Interagency
Coordination Support Office (RIACSO) in
Johannesburg, South Africa. The goal of these
toolkits is to strengthen and harmonize monitoring
and evaluation of supported emergency activities
throughout the southern Africa region. To achieve
this goal, these toolkits provide a core set of
indicators and data collection templates that enable
common data collection and the aggregation of
results across multiple project sites within countries and the region.
Other Monitoring Toolkits Developed by FAO/TCEO
⇒ Conservation Agriculture
⇒ Input Trade Fairs
⇒ Small Stock
⇒ Transboundary Animal Diseases
⇒ Small Scale Irrigation
The audience for this monitoring toolkit is anyone who is involved in implementing garden projects.
This includes FAO staff at country and regional levels, as well as implementing partners at specific
project sites, government extension officers, NGO staff, and consultants.
This is the second version of the gardens monitoring toolkit. The first version was developed in October
2006. This version reflects additional feedback from regional reviews and a season of pilot testing in
Swaziland. The main changes in this version are the inclusion of supplemental indicators and data
collection templates for specific types of garden projects, and some rearranging of the sections.
These toolkits are a work in progress. To be successful they must address regional cross-cutting
information needs on project effectiveness, while also accommodating a diverse set of working
conditions, operational resources, and information requirements of numerous national and local users.
This is not an easy task, hence feedback from users is essential. Please channel all feedback through
your local FAO Emergency Coordination Unit (ECU). Comments should be sent to the Regional
Information Officer at RIACSO.
How to use this Toolkit
1. Review the core output and outcome indicators (page 3)
2. Review the sample data collection forms (page 23)
3. Meet with project staff and implementing partners and reach
consensus on:
a. Indicators and data collection instruments (Annex II, page
ii
23)
b. A workplan for data collection, processing, and analysis
(page 15)
4. Implement the workplan.
5. Review and present results back to stakeholders
6. Revise workplan as needed.
Development of this toolkit has been made possible by the generous support of
The Government of the Republic of South Africa under OSRO/RAF/510/SAF.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
An Introduction to Garden Projects ...........................................................................................................1
Monitoring Garden Projects ......................................................................................................................1
Categorizing Garden Projects................................................................................................................2
Gardening Core Indicators ....................................................................................................................3
Data Collection Workplan.....................................................................................................................6
Pre-activity planning.........................................................................................................................8
Selection of beneficiaries ..................................................................................................................8
Baseline household survey................................................................................................................8
Training...........................................................................................................................................10
Planting, production, harvesting, and sales.....................................................................................10
End-of-season review......................................................................................................................12
Terminal evaluation ........................................................................................................................12
Post-project evaluation....................................................................................................................15
Making a M&E Workplan.......................................................................................................................15
References................................................................................................................................................17
Annex I. FAO’s Regional Monitoring Strategy for southern Africa .......................................................19
Basic vs. Preferred Standards for Monitoring .....................................................................................20
Measuring Targeting, Household Vulnerability and HIV/AIDS Impact.............................................21
Annex II. Sample Data Collection Forms................................................................................................23
Adapting the forms..............................................................................................................................23
Garden Beneficiary Selection Worksheet ...........................................................................................24
Garden Diary Section 1: Planting & Harvesting .................................................................................25
Garden Diary Section 2: Profit and Loss Statement............................................................................26
Garden Diary Section 3: Rainfall (Format 1) ......................................................................................27
Garden Diary Section 3: Rainfall (Format 2) ......................................................................................28
Garden Diary Section 4: Tracking Market Prices ...............................................................................29
Production and Sales Summary...........................................................................................................30
Instructor's Training Log.....................................................................................................................31
Garden Seasonal Summary .................................................................................................................32
(for all gardens) ...................................................................................................................................32
Household Garden Survey...................................................................................................................35
School Garden Survey.........................................................................................................................39
Institutional Garden Survey.................................................................................................................41
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Classification of gardens..............................................................................................................2
Table 2. Garden core indicators.................................................................................................................4
Table 3. Data collection tasks for each phase of implementation..............................................................7
iii

AN INTRODUCTION TO GARDEN PROJECTS
Gardens have been one of the mainstays of food security projects for many years, and for good
reason. Gardening is a core livelihood strategy for almost all social strata in nearly all parts of
Africa, so it is relatively easy to get participation for garden projects in both rural and urban settings.
Gardening is also an extremely versatile development activity; projects can be designed to achieve a
variety of goals from better nutrition, increased incomes, HIV/AIDS mitigation, to market
development. From an implementation standpoint, the logistics of garden projects are somewhat
easier than field crops because they tend to be located near settlements and often at a central location
such as a school or water point. The relatively low requirements for land and inputs also make
gardening a viable livelihood strategy for the poorest households, making these projects attractive to
government and donors who want to help this hard-to-reach population.
Successful garden projects must be tailored to fit the local agronomic conditions, dietary
preferences, cultural traditions, and market context (FAO 2001). Experience has also taught us that
“traditional” garden projects create the greatest impact when combined with one or more
complementary activities, for example small livestock production, savings schemes, health and
nutrition education, market development, or small-scale irrigation. For additional information on
garden projects, see the References section (page 17).
What is a garden?
Gardens are not easily defined because there is as much variation in the
characteristics of gardens as there is in the diverse contexts in which they’re
found. Even among experts there is no consensus on where the line falls
between gardens and field cultivation. Most gardens are smaller and
cultivated more intensely than field crops, and have a more diverse crop
mixture. Gardens are also more likely to be irrigated, fertilized, fenced, closer
to homes, and cultivated year round. However there isn’t a single universal
standard that can be applied across the board, as exceptions can be found to
all of the above criteria1.
Fortunately, for the purposes of monitoring the term ‘garden’ is just a label or
category for a project, and we don’t need to worry too much about trying to
precisely measure it. The local understanding of a ‘garden’ should be
followed rather than trying to adopt an external or complicated set of criteria.
The bottom line: if the project document says it’s a garden, then it’s a garden.
MONITORING GARDEN PROJECTS
To strengthen the monitoring of garden projects, we need to:
1. Develop a system for classifying the different types of garden projects
2. Define core indicators
3. Develop criteria for identifying food insecure households and households impacted by
1
AIDS
4. Design a plan for the logistics or “nuts and bolts” of data collection and analysis
1 see also FAO (2001): Information Sheet 1: Definition and Concept of Home Gardens in Africa
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x3996e/x3996e13.htm]

Categorizing Garden Projects
From a monitoring standpoint, gardens are not the easiest to monitor due to the great diversity in
contexts and project designs. Among the garden projects supported by FAO in southern Africa, there
are nutrition gardens as part of home-based care programmes, school gardens, community gardens,
drip kit gardens, seed production gardens, hospital gardens, urban gardens, and gardens at Junior
Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLS). While all of these garden projects share some common
characteristics, such as vegetable production, most also have specific objectives or emphases that are
tailored to the local context (Figure 1). The general and specific goals of a garden project should be
defined in the project document. For example a community garden project might have a heavy
emphasis on demonstrating the benefits of a new technology such as treadle pumps, whereas a
backyard garden project might place a strong emphasis on improving household nutrition levels.
Figure 1. Cross-cutting and project-specific objectives of garden projects
household
gardens
2
school
gardens
community
gardens institutional
gardens
cross-cutting
objectives
project
specific
objectives
We need a way to categorize garden projects so that monitoring tools and protocols can be tailored
appropriately, and results disaggregated when needed. For the purposes of this toolkit, gardens will
be classified following the scheme used by Machakaire and Hobane (2005), shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Classification of gardens
Type of Garden Characteristics
community garden a large joint garden where multiple individuals keep separate plots but
share equipment, infrastructure, training, and maintenance
responsibilities.
communal garden a garden managed by a group of people who share both responsibilities
and production, either equally or according to some formula agreed upon
by the group
household garden a garden maintained by a single household, also known as a backyard or
kitchen garden
institutional garden a garden managed primarily for nutrition or income by an institution,
such as a hospital, neighborhood care point, orphanage, church, or prison
school garden a garden based at a school often with educational objectives in addition
to nutrition
In addition to defining categories for the different types of gardens, to design data collection we also
need to think about the structure of garden projects. This will help us define indicators and decide
what needs to be measured and how. Figure 2 below illustrates a generic hierarchical structure that
suits many garden projects.

3
Figure 2. Elements of garden projects
Level Description Measurable characteristics
country level

the ECU is the main coordinating
body at the country level
number of project sites
project site

A geographic area (e.g., district)
where garden projects are
supported, usually by a single
implementing partner
number of gardens in the site
gardens

An area, usually fenced, where
gardening takes place.
Management can be by a single
individual, a community group, or
an institution such as a school or
hospital.
size of garden
area under irrigation
number of
beneficiaries
Variables
measured at the
garden level
production and income
crop diversification
cultivation methods technology
production
training provided
one or more beneficiaries
Individuals who belong to a
household and participate and
benefit from a garden activity
vulnerability level
household demography
nutritional status
time labour
gardening skills
income
Monitoring as a Tool for Participant Education
measured at the
individual level
Including beneficiaries in monitoring is a good practice in general, and is
particularly important for garden projects. Garden projects require a high
level of labour input, and if the project isn’t perceived to be working in the
eyes of the participants then it will be very difficult to sustain. Furthermore
monitoring plays an important role in the learning process which is an
explicit goal of most garden projects. Many of the suggested tools in this
toolkit therefore are built upon a strategy of using monitoring not only for
assessment but also as a tool for training.
Variables
Gardening Core Indicators
During an ME workshop in February 2006, FAO Emergency Coordinators from southern
Africa identified a set of core indicators for garden projects (Lyons, 2006). These are presented
in Table 2 below.

The difference between output and outcome indicators
Monitoring is often divided into looking at the process of conducting an
activity, and its ultimate impact. Process is measured by describing the
immediate outputs, such as the number of inputs distributed or people
trained. Impact is evaluated by defining and measuring the medium and long-term
outcomes of an activity. In order to claim that an activity made a
difference, we need evidence of both the process and the final impact. Hence
most monitoring systems simultaneously keep track of both by defining
separate indicators for outputs and outcomes.
4
Table 2. Garden core indicators
Indicator Interpretation
Output Indicators
1. Number of gardens established,
by type, size, and age
This indicator will tell us the number of gardens
supported, how many are new, and distribution of
their sizes.
2. Number crops per garden,
disaggregated by type and size of
garden
This indicator will capture patterns of crop
diversification in the supported gardens, and
whether certain garden types or sizes are more
diverse than others.
3. Number of beneficiaries,
disaggregated by gender and level
of vulnerability
This indicator captures the overall scope of garden
projects in terms of beneficiaries. This information
can also be presented in map form.
4. Number of gardens using
promoted technologies,
disaggregated by type of technology
Many garden projects are designed to demonstrate
the effects of promoted technologies, such as
biocontrol plants or live fencing. This indicator will
capture the types and extent of new technologies
tested.
Basic
5. Number of beneficiaries trained,
disaggregated by type of training
and gender
Training is a key element of most garden projects,
this indicator will capture both the types of training
offered as well as number of beneficiaries
6. Number of students who benefit
from the garden, disaggregated by
type of benefit (instruction, school
feeding, take vegetables home, etc.)
Students can benefit from school gardens in a
variety of ways. This indicator will simultaneously
highlight the breadth and depth of impact.
School
7. Number of hours of instruction
time per week, disaggregated by
subject
This indicator reflects the degree to which the
garden is used for educational purposes, and the
variety of topics integrated into garden activities
Outcome Indicators
8. Quantity of production
disaggregated by crop
Production for consumption or income is one of the
primary outcomes of most garden projects.
7. Quality of dietary intake / meals
served (Food Consumption Score)
The Food Consumption Score is an index of the
consumption of major food groups in the past week,
weighted by their nutritional content. It is a good
outcome indicator for access to food and the ability
to transform food into a diet.
Basic
9. Number of months of production
per year
This indicator captures one of the main goals of
garden projects which is to smooth out food
production throughout the year, particularly during
the ‘hungry season’

Indicator Interpretation
5
10. Number of households who ate
or sold produce from supported
gardens, disaggregated by level of
vulnerability
Although this indicator doesn’t capture the type or
degree of impact, this is a core indicator that cuts
across most activities supported by FAO
11. Cropping intensity Cropping intensity is the ratio between the total
amount of area cultivated summed over all growing
cycles in a year, divided by the physical area
prepared for cultivation. It is a measure of intensity
of the land and captures whether a garden is being
fully utilized.
12. Income generated from garden
sales
Income is an important asset for livelihood security
and one of the desired outcomes of many household
and community garden projects.
Preferred
13. Percentage of beneficiary
households who practice garden
skills for a second year with little or
no direct support
This is one of the long-term indicators that reflects
the level of sustainability of an activity.
What about measuring nutritional status?
Most people involved in garden projects hope to ultimately see an
improvement in the nutritional status of participants and their families.
However, in most cases nutritional status is not necessarily a good indicator
for a garden project because garden projects by themselves only address
some of the factors that affect nutritional status. Garden projects should
improve availability, access, and diversity of food, but improved nutritional
status also depends on good health and hygiene, maternal and child care,
skills in food storage, and the ability to prepare well-balanced nutritious
meals.
If a garden project has these additional health and nutrition components (e.g.,
through joint programming with government or UNICEF), then an indictor
for nutritional status would make sense. As an alternative, dietary intake is a
reasonably good outcome indicator that captures both availability and the
ability to transform crops into a diet. Dietary intake can be measured using
the Food Consumption Score which is relatively simple to measure and
captures both the diversity of a diet as well as its nutritional content.
Therefore this indicator gives us a viable means for tracking how we may be
contributing to changes in nutritional status before and after the project.

6
Data Collection Workplan
At a glance: Basic level data collection
· Pre-activity planning: conduct a baseline assessment of the physical
characteristics of a sample of supported garden sites (does not apply to
new gardens)
· Early in the season: conduct a baseline household survey on a sample
of individual participants (backyard and community gardens only)
· Training: trainers maintain a simple training log, recording the numbers
of people trained and topics covered
· Planting, harvesting, and sales: garden owners/managers keep a diary
of planting, harvesting, and sales activity
· End of season: garden managers and extension officers compile a
summary of the season, including training provided, crops planted,
production, and sales
· End of project: an end-of-project beneficiary survey is repeated using
the same sample as the baseline
The most challenging component of many ME systems is data collection. A data collection
workplan is used to plan the amount of time, human resources, transport, and other resources needed
to collect data. A good data collection workplan recognizes the tradeoffs between the information
needs, available resources for fieldwork, and the project context. The most important characteristic
of a data collection workplan is that it is viable, even if that means collecting less data than you
would ideally like.
Figure 3. Data Collection Workplan
info needs
indicators
staff
operational
resources
project
context
data collection
workplan
A data collection workplan takes into account the information needs, operational resources, and
project context to come up with a plan for data collection, processing, and analysis that is viable.
Table 3 below describes the main steps in implementing a garden project and the accompanying data
collection tasks at each step of the process. The sections that follow describe the data collection
tasks in greater detail. This table can serve as a guide for a data collection workplan, but is

incomplete because it doesn't specify individual personnel who will be assigned for each task,
geographic areas, transport requirements, amount of time needed, budget requirements, etc.
Table 3. Data collection tasks for each phase of implementation
Data Implementation Phase Collection Tasks
Basic Preferred (in addition to basic)
7
pre-activity planning
garden baseline
assessment
(page 8)
· discussions with stakeholders
· conduct a baseline assessment
of the existing garden sites (page
32) with sample size of 20% (min
20, max 30) (excluding new
gardens)
· focus group discussions with potential
participants
· baseline sample size for improved
garden projects: 40% (min 20, max 60),
including ¼ non-supported gardens
selection of beneficiaries
(page 8)
· garden beneficiary selection
worksheet (page 24)
· 2% (maximum 50) of the Garden
Beneficiary Selection Worksheets
randomly selected for entry into the
monitoring database for analysis of the
selection process
baseline household
assessment
(page 8)
· administer baseline household
survey (page 35)
· random selection of beneficiaries
· sample size 5% (min 30, max
200)
· sample size 10% (min 30, max 400)
· 25-30% of sampled households should
be non-beneficiaries
· GPS coordinates recorded
training
(page 10)
· training log maintained (page 31) · additional knowledge assessments and
evaluations
planting production
(page 10)
· garden owner/manager records
key events in garden diary (page
25)
· same sample as baseline
harvesting and sales
(page 10)
· garden manager fills in monthly
production and sales summary
(page 30)
· same sample as baseline
end-of-season review
(page 12)
· garden manager fills in seasonal
summary sheet (page 32)
· GPS coordinates for each garden
recorded
· additional focus group discussions
terminal evaluation
(page 12)
· administer end-of-project
household survey with same
sample as baseline (page 35)
· stakeholder interviews
· focus group discussions
· separate focus groups for men/women
· external consultant contracted for
evaluation
post-project evaluation
(page 15)
· revisit some of the sampled households
for semi-structured interviews
· stakeholder interviews
· focus group discussions
repeat as needed

Pre-activity planning
During the pre-activity planning phase, the details of the project design are finalized, sites identified,
and roles and responsibilities of partners defined. For improved garden projects (as opposed to new
gardens), this is also an opportunity to collect some baseline data on the existing garden sites using
the Garden Seasonal Summary (page 32). The focus of this assessment is on the physical
characteristics of the garden – size, infrastructure, water source, etc. If production and sales data for
the previous season are available, these can be entered as well. These data will be used as a baseline
comparison for physical improvements to the gardens. All ‘Garden Seasonal Summary Sheets’
should be entered into the monitoring database.
While it may not be possible to visit all of the existing gardens for a baseline assessment, the Basic
monitoring standard calls for 20% of project sites to be visited (maximum 20), while the Preferred
standard encourages at least 40% of the existing gardens to be assessed (maximum 50). These sites
should be randomly selected so that they are representative of all gardens in the project area. For
small garden projects, it may be feasible to make a baseline assessment of all the supported gardens.
In addition, the Preferred level of monitoring encourages baseline measurements for some non-supported
gardens. These “control group” gardens should be similar to the project sites as much as
possible, with the exception of level of external support. Garden projects supported by another
programme would generally not be a good choice for the control group, because we are not usually
trying to compare projects against each other.
The Preferred monitoring standard also calls for some focus group discussions with potential
beneficiaries to learn more about gardening practices, skills, markets, water sources, inputs
availability, etc. Such discussions normally take place at the beginning of a project anyway, a focus
group discussion is merely a more structured format for focusing and recording the discussion.
Selection of beneficiaries
The selection of beneficiaries is a big process which is frequently community-based. These factors
put limits on the amount of data that can be feasibly collected. The information required at this stage
is therefore not detailed information on each and every beneficiary, but general information on the
process and criteria by which beneficiaries are selected. The Garden Beneficiary Selection
Worksheet (page 24) is designed to help the groups doing the selection to be systematic about the
criteria they use, but is not intended to be collected and entered into the monitoring database at the
Basic level of monitoring. However the Preferred standard calls for a randomly selected sample of
beneficiary selection worksheets (2% with a maximum of 50) to be entered so that a profile of the
targeting criteria used can be generated.
Baseline household survey
The Household Garden Survey (page 35) is the first of two household-level surveys used in
backyard and community gardens to collect more detailed information on the household and their
previous experiences with gardening. Data from the baseline survey is also used to determine the
level of vulnerability of households, which will say something about the targeting methods, and the
percentage of participants that come from households affected by HIV/AIDS.
The baseline survey should be conducted near the beginning of the garden project, for example
during the selection of beneficiaries or soon after the planting activities begin. The same households
that are selected for the baseline survey will be revisited during the end-of-project survey, hence it is
very important that the households for the baseline survey are selected randomly so that they
8

represent the entire population of participants. A good way to randomly select households for the
baseline survey is to:
1. decide the total number of participants to be surveyed, based on the needs and resources
9
available for fieldwork, data entry, etc.
2. decide which area(s) will be visited, making sure that at least some households are included
from each agro-ecological region, market zone, urban proximity, etc.
3. decide how many participants will be visited in each of the sampled areas (either divide the
total desired sample size by the number of areas evenly, or make the sample size in each
area proportionate to the total number of participants in each area)
4. take the participant list from each of the selected areas, and select the every nth name on the
list, where:
n =
total number of beneficiaries in the area
desired number of households for surveying
The Basic standard of monitoring calls for 5% of participants to be selected for the baseline survey,
with a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 200 for the entire project. If the Preferred standard is
used, the total sample size should be 10% of the total number of beneficiaries, with a minimum of
30 and a maximum of 400, of which ¼ to should be non-participant households for comparison
purposes. Non-participant households should also be selected as randomly as possible, from the
same areas as the participant households, and be involved in other gardening activities if possible.
The Preferred standard also recommends recording GPS coordinates of sampled households in order
to facilitate relocating the same household during the end-of-project household survey and
visualizing the spatial patterns in vulnerability and project outcomes.
Our office staff is small and our implementing partners
don’t have the capacity to do survey work.
What should we do?
In the real world, operational constraints and institutional dynamics can make
it difficult to survey an even moderate sample like 5%, particularly when a
project has a late start or field staff have no experience or incentives to do
survey work. In these cases, you should still survey as many households as
resources permit, and concentrate on making the exercise a learning
experience for project staff and partners. Although the small sample size may
make it difficult to make definite conclusions about the project as a whole,
some interesting lessons can be learned even from small surveys. If nothing
else, you are guaranteed to learn some lessons on implementing surveys, such
as the amount of time and training needed for enumerators, changes needed
to the survey forms, human resources needed for the data entry process, etc.
This can help you plan better for the following season.
In addition to downsizing the sample, other options may also exist for
conducting surveys with limited resources. Many organizations seek to share
the costs of data collection by partnering with other organizations. For
example the Swaziland ECU uses university students as enumerators when
they come for attachment. In Zimbabwe, FAO coordinated 27 NGOs to
implement a survey to collectively measure the impact of a number of similar
input provision schemes.

Training
Most garden projects include a set of training activities in areas such as production skills, food
storage and preparation, health and nutrition, or life skills. The Basic level of monitoring requests
training staff to maintain a simple log book of training activities (see Instructor's Training Log, page
31). This template is simple enough to be used by all trainers, including community-based trainers.
At the end of each growing season, training logs should be collected and summarized and the total
number of trainings, participants, and contact hours recorded on the Garden Seasonal Summary
(page 32).
The wide array of training topics makes it difficult to provide a universal assessment tool for the
many types of training, however the Preferred monitoring standard calls for use of training
assessments appropriate for the context. Training assessments can focus on measuring changes in
awareness, knowledge, values, or behavior. A variety of assessment methods are used in training
evaluations, including interviews, observation of behavior, garden inspections, and focus group
discussions.
We do a lot of training in our garden project, so why isn’t
there an outcome indicator for the impact of training?
Many garden projects include a training component to improve participants’
skills in areas such as production, nutrition, food processing, irrigation
maintenance, or marketing. The number of topics and people trained is one of
the core output indicators for garden projects (Table 2, page 4), and a template
for recording the outputs of training is included in Annex II (page 31).
However there are no core outcome indicators for training, for two reasons.
First, measuring the impact of training properly is very intensive and beyond
the capacity of many implementing partners. You have to give knowledge
assessments and observe behavior over a period of time that often exceeds
the duration of the project. Second, it is very difficult to aggregate
information on training impact from different projects and sites, especially
when the topics of training are so varied.
This does not mean that it isn’t important to assess the impact of training,
because without assessments of training we really have no way of knowing
whether the training is relevant to the participants or if the skills are really
sinking in. However this type of focused evaluation is better suited for a
terminal evaluation or post-project assessment. Some sample questions for a
training assessment are provided in the section on terminal evaluations (page
12). In addition, projects with a heavy training emphasis are encouraged to
define additional indicators to measure specific training outcomes for specific
projects.
Planting, production, harvesting, and sales
Monitoring planting and production in gardens is difficult, because unlike field crops cultivation and
harvesting take place almost continuously. Hence for record keeping to be effective, it must
originate at the garden level, preferably updated on a daily basis.
Garden owners/managers can keep track of important events such as planting, harvesting, and sales
by maintaining a garden diary using a template such as the one shown in Annex II (page 25). The
garden manager is the individual with the overall responsibility for a garden. In an institutional
garden, this is usually a staff member of the organization. In a backyard garden, this is an individual
10

in the household. A community garden may or may not have a manager from the community. If a
garden manager is absent, an extension officer can work with the group to identify someone who
can take responsibility for record keeping, or individuals within the garden can maintain diaries for
their own plots.
Experience has demonstrated that community-level monitoring is more likely to be effective if the
information collected is relevant to local needs. Maintaining garden records is useful for many
purposes other than monitoring. Keeping a garden diary can be used for various training purposes
and demonstrating the effectiveness of various production methods. Record keeping however might
be a new skill that will require initial training and extension support. Introducing garden-level record
keeping may be particularly challenging in backyard garden projects, because vulnerable households
tend to lack formal education as well. When garden diaries don’t seem viable or the needed
resources for training and extension are lacking, the following strategies might be helpful:
· community-based extension workers, lead gardeners, or local training staff can provide
support to local garden owners/managers in record keeping
· garden-level record keeping systems can be pilot tested at a sample of garden sites
· NGO or government extension workers can take charge of record keeping, for example
11
through biweekly or monthly visits
To help compile garden-level production and sales data, it is also helpful to have intermediate
summaries that can then be aggregated into a final seasonal summary. The Production and Sales
Summary sheet (page 30) is a template for compiling daily records of production and sales into a
monthly summary. Training might also be needed for this form, including how the information can
be used to improve planning and management.
Best Practices in Implementing a Survey:
Training and Field Supervision
As much as we try to ensure that a survey form is clear and easy to use, there
has never been a survey that didn't cause some confusion in the field. Hence
an important component of survey work is providing training for
enumerators. This doesn't have to be extensive, however training is essential
to ensure that all enumerators understand the questions, translate them into
the local language in a similar manner, record answers similarly, measure the
size of fields using the same method, etc. It’s also helpful to pilot-test the
survey beforehand to catch any mistakes or confusion in the way the
questions are written.
A second best practice for survey work is field supervision. Particularly in
the early stages of data collection, it is important for survey forms to be
reviewed by a supervisor as they come in, so any problems or confusion can
be quickly identified, diagnosed, and corrected before they cause any data to
be thrown out.

End-of-season review
The end of every garden cycle warrants a review regardless of whether project support is coming to
an end or will continue for another season. The three-page Garden Seasonal Summary (page 32) is
designed to assist an end-of-season assessment by summarizing the physical features of the garden
as well as training, production, and sales activity. The seasonal summary can be filled out by garden
owners/managers, with assistance from extension staff as needed. The seasonal summary sheet relies
on the Garden Diary and/or Production and Sales Summary for production and sales data, and
training log(s) for the training summary. If production or training data are not available, these
sections should be skipped and the rest of the summary sheet filled out. All seasonal summary sheets
should be collected and entered into the monitoring database as several of the core indicators are
derived from this data.
The Preferred standard also recommends conducting some focus group discussions with participants
at the end of each season to explore issues that were missed or too complex to capture during the
season. Issues such as the impact of training, gender issues, relationship between the stakeholders,
and planning for the next season are examples of possible topics for discussion.
The other half of the story: Interpreting indicators
Indicators are useful in telling us what happened, but that's only one-half of
the story. The other half is why the observed results occurred. To enable the
reader to interpret our indicators, we must describe the context during the
reporting period. For example production and income might be low not
because participation or training was poor but because the fencing material
was delivered late. Our description of the results should describe the factors
which affected the success of the activity both positively and negatively.
Terminal evaluation
Terminal evaluations are often a contractual obligation, but should really be seen as an opportunity
to share results with partners, review experiences, document lessons learned, and make
recommendations for future garden projects. If funds are available, an outside consultant Preferred
can be helpful by bringing a wider set of evaluation skills and a broader perspective on garden
projects. However even when funds are tight, an internal evaluation is highly worthwhile for
packaging, interpreting, and communicating the results of the monitoring system.
12
The elements of a final evaluation often include:
· analysis and interpretation of project monitoring data
· interviews with major stakeholders
· focus group discussions with beneficiaries
· assessment of the broader context

An important source of information for a terminal evaluation of a backyard or community garden
project is the Post-Harvest section of the Household Garden Survey (page 37). This section of the
household survey repeats many of the same questions that were asked on the baseline, allowing a
comparison of practices. The Preferred monitoring standard calls for some non-participants to be
included in the end-of-project survey as a source of comparison data.
We haven’t got all of the monitoring data from our
implementing partners, and the terminal evaluation report is
due next week! What should we do?
Missing or delayed data is a fact of life in project monitoring, especially
when you rely on implementing partners to collect and/or enter data for you.
When you’re up against a deadline and some data hasn’t been collected
and/or entered into the monitoring database, you can still produce summaries
with what you have. Although more data usually produces more accurate
estimates of total impact, preliminary estimates can still be generated in order
to meet a reporting deadline.
Delayed data should also trigger a lesson learned for future monitoring. Was
the data collection workplan too ambitious? Were the expectations for
implementing partners clearly articulated and incorporated into the Letter of
Agreement? Were there technical problems with the fieldwork or data entry?
By diagnosing the problem you can improve the monitoring system for future
reviews.
Most terminal evaluations also include focus group discussions and interviews with stakeholders
including community leaders, partners from government, other NGOs, and donors. The Preferred
monitoring standard calls for separate focus groups for men and women to ensure that gender issues
come out clearly and without bias. Separate discussion groups may also be needed if there are other
sub-groups among the participants, such as youth or individuals living with HIV/AIDS.
Questions that should be addressed in a terminal evaluation are usually outlined in a Terms of
Reference, and should be based on the issues that emerged during the course of the season. It is
generally preferable to articulate 3-5 key issues for a project evaluation to focus on, rather than ask
every question in the book and risk getting an evaluation that is extremely general or based on
scanty evidence. See also FAO (1998) for guidelines on planning a terminal evaluation.
13

Sample Evaluation Questions for a
Terminal Evaluation of a Garden Project2
Some typical issues addressed in terminal evaluations include:
· Describe the patterns in vulnerability of the beneficiaries, including
14
impact from HIV/AIDS.
· Summarize the achievements of the garden project (output and outcome
indicators). Describe any observed changes in dietary intake of the
beneficiaries.
· What training was provided, and what are the observable outcomes of
this training?
· How did beneficiaries perceive the garden project?
· How did implementing partners and other stakeholders perceive the
garden project? Describe any barriers to implementation.
· Describe any gender issues that emerged during the project. Discuss any
gender patterns in the core indicators. Discuss the roles of women in all
phases of the project (planning, implementation, evaluation), and
whether the strategies used by the project to include women were
effective.
· How did households affected by HIV/AIDS benefit from the project?
What strategies were used to mainstream the needs of HIV/AIDS
impacted households into project design? Were they effective?
· If technology trials were part of the project design, discuss the results of
the trial, the project’s strategy for information sharing, uptake, etc.
· Describe any project-specific objectives (e.g., educational achievements
in school gardens, health outreach in hospital gardens) and discuss
observed outcomes.
· What impacts did the garden project have on livelihoods? What will be
needed to protect any gains in livelihood, and what additional assistance
could be needed to maintain the progress made?
· Describe any significant changes that took place in the broader context,
such as climatic patterns, organizational or political changes, inflation,
etc., and how these changes might have affected the success of the
garden project
· Describe any unanticipated benefits or “spin-offs” that emerged from the
garden project, such as additional investment attracted, self-initiated
group activities, new relationships between the beneficiaries and
extension staff from government and private companies, expansion of
technologies demonstrated, etc.
· Describe any unexpected problems created by the garden project, such
as intra-community or intra-household conflicts, elite capture, etc.
· Describe issues concerning sustainability of the garden project
· Recommendations for future garden projects
2 see also Machakaire and Hobane (2005)

Post-project evaluation
Output and outcome indicators do a reasonably good job in tracking the short and medium term
impacts of gardens, however other anticipated results will only emerge a year or more after the
project is over. Post-project evaluations are rare in emergency programmes because there is usually
no requirement nor funding to conduct them. Nevertheless, the Preferred monitoring standard
recommends a post-project evaluation because there is no other way to determine whether the
promoted technologies and approaches for gardening are sustainable on their own or depend on
continued donor subsidies. One strategy for conducting a post-project evaluation is to make it a joint
exercise with other organizations that have also been promoting gardens, and to include evaluations
of past gardens in the ME workplan of current garden projects.
A post-project evaluation is similar in approach to a terminal evaluation, with particular emphasis on
changes in the broader context, unanticipated outcomes, creation of dependency, and sustainability
of project impact. The best way to prepare for a post-project evaluation is to ensure that the terminal
evaluation is well-documented, and data are archived in an appropriate format for re-analysis.
MAKING A MEWORKPLAN
Indicators and data collection templates are necessary, but won't collect any data by themselves or
produce any analyses. For that you need a workplan which operationalizes the details of monitoring.
Each country office needs to take the lead on developing its own workplan for garden ME as part
of its overall ME work plan in line with local resources, information needs, and operational
constraints. A monitoring workplan specifies:
· what data is going to be collected, when and by who (i.e., data collection workplan,
15
page 6)
· how, when, and where paper forms will be entered or captured in a database or spreadsheet
· who is going to do the analysis and write-up
· estimated costs and time requirements associated with the above tasks
This toolkit is not a workplan, but the tools and recommendations included provide many of the core
elements of a ME workplan. To produce a monitoring workplan, the following additional steps are
recommended:

Steps in Developing an Monitoring Workplan
1. Read through this toolkit to get an overview of what is needed and ideas for your specific
16
monitoring system.
2. In addition to the information needs which have already been identified, make a list of the most
important national and local level information needs and questions that you would like to
address through monitoring.
3. Look at the list of Basic and Preferred indicators on page 3, and decide which ones will be
adopted for your country.
4. Think about the specific factors that make households vulnerable to food insecurity in the local
context, and come up with a vulnerability index ranging from 1 to 3, based upon the responses
to questions in the baseline household survey (see discussion on page 21).
5. Think about the indicators of HIV/AIDS impact, and how to determine whether a household is
classified as impacted by AIDS based on the responses to questions in the baseline household
survey (page 35).
6. Discuss the indicators and monitoring needs with implementing partners, outlining information
needs and options for data collection.
7. Look at the sample data collection forms in Annex II, and based on the chosen indicators decide
which ones will be used and whether they need to be modified.
8. Modify the data collection forms as needed. Contact RIACSO and other users of the garden
monitoring toolkit if changes to the forms or database are needed.
9. Develop a workplan which outlines all of the needed ME tasks, including the sampling
methodology, field work, data entry, analysis, and writing. The workplan should specify the dates
and staff involved in each task.
10. Integrate monitoring responsibilities into job descriptions, individual workplans, and Letters of
Agreement.

REFERENCES
Bilinsky, P., and Swindale, A. 2005. Months of inadequate household food provisioning (MIHFP)
for measurement of household food access: Indicator guide. Food and Nutrition Technical
Assistance Project (FANTA). Washington, DC.
[http://www.fantaproject.org/publications/hdds_mihfp.shtml]
FAO. 1998. Evaluation Mission Brief. FAO Evaluation Service, Rome.
[http://www.fao.org/pbe/pbee/common/ecg/233/en/MISBRIEF.doc]
FAO. 2001. Improving nutrition through home gardening: A training package for preparing field
workers in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x3996e/x3996e00.htm]
FAO. 2004. School gardens concept note: Improving child nutrition and education through the
promotion of school garden programmes. FAO interdepartmental working group, Rome.
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/af080e/af080e00.htm]
FAO. 2005. Setting up and running a school garden. A manual for teachers, parents and
communities. FAO, Rome. [http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0218e/a0218e00.htm]
FAO. 2006. A garden for everyone self-tutorial manual. FAO Regional Office for Latin America
and the Caribbean. [http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ag002e/ag002e00.htm]
Landon-Lane, C. 2004. Livelihoods grow in gardens: Diversifying rural incomes through home
gardens. FAO Diversification Booklet 2. FAO Agricultural Support Systems Division, Rome.
[ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y5112e/y5112e00.pdf]
Lyons, 2006. A monitoring and evaluation framework for FAO emergency and rehabilitation
activities in southern Africa. FAO RIACSO, Johannesburg, South Africa
Machakaire, V., and Hobane, A.P.P. 2005. Review of garden based production activities for food
security in Zimbabwe. FAO Zimbabwe Working Group on Gardens. Harare.
Marsh, R. 1998. Building on traditional gardening to improve household food security. Food,
Nutrition and Agriculture. No. 22, pp.4-14. [ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/X0051t/X0051t02.pdf]
Mitchell, R. and Hanstad, T. 2004. Small homegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
LSP Working Paper 11. FAO Livelihood Support Programme, Rome.
[http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040905_en.htm]
Swindale, A., and Bilinsky, P. 2005. Household dietary diversity score (HDDS) for measurement of
household food access: Indicator guide. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project (FANTA).
Washington, DC. [http://www.fantaproject.org/publications/hdds_mihfp.shtml]
17

ANNEX I. FAO’S REGIONAL MONITORING STRATEGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA
Monitoring versus Evaluation
monitoring: the process of collecting information in a structured manner,
based on a specific set of goals and objectives
evaluation: the process of summarizing and analyzing information to
answer specific questions about a project
This toolkit is one of a series developed by FAO Emergency Operations Division in southern
Africa to strengthen and harmonize project monitoring and evaluation throughout the region.
Project monitoring in general serves three purposes:
· accountability – monitoring allows funders, partners, and beneficiaries to
see whether a project is being managed responsibly, is on course, and
achieving the desired impacts.
· implementation – monitoring facilitates implementation of an activity. For
example, project managers need to know the problems faced by farmers
raising small stock in order to plan training activities and procure
appropriate inputs.
· improving project design – monitoring allows project staff to make
improvements in both the design and implementation of projects, for
example targeting, the sequencing and timing of tasks, design of training,
complementary services, etc.
FAO TCEO and other humanitarian relief agencies are trying to strengthen monitoring for all of
the above reasons. To strengthen activity monitoring in seven countries in southern Africa,
FAO/TCEO is using a three-pronged approach (Lyons, 2006):
· a conceptual framework outlining a regional ME system based on the information needs
and operational resources of FAO and its partners
· a set of core outcome indicators which cut across multiple activities and project sites, in
order to show aggregated impact at national and regional levels
· a series of monitoring toolkits like this one providing guidelines and tools for monitoring
19
different types of activities
Why all this new fuss over monitoring?
What's wrong with the way we've been reporting?
Monitoring in emergency interventions is frequently a challenge due to time
constraints, limited staff resources, and the short timeframe of most projects. ME is
therefore often delayed until the project is nearly over, or focuses only on the
immediate outputs of an activity. A recent review of project terminal reports has
shown that most project reporting has not met the basic information needs of project
planners and funding agencies, who have a strong interest in project impact, lessons
learned, and the linkages between activities. Without evidence to demonstrate that
activities are producing results, the credibility of the entire programme is
questionable. This toolkit represents one mechanism to fill in some of these gaps by
providing guidelines and templates for a more systematic approach toward data
collection and analysis.

Basic vs. Preferred Standards for Monitoring
One of the challenges of trying to harmonize monitoring in multiple project sites across multiple
countries is the tremendous variability in the operational contexts and resources for monitoring.
To accommodate the varying levels of staff and funding, and not over-burden offices that are
poorly resourced, the monitoring guidelines in this toolkit are classified as BASIC and
PREFERRED .
The BASIC level of monitoring covers all of the key information needs, including the core
outcome indicators, using a minimum amount of time and staff resources. The PREFERRED
standards also capture all of the core information needs, but go slightly beyond to get a better
understanding of an activity’s impact relative to the baseline conditions, a more thorough
understanding of cause and effect, and an assessment of the longer-term impact and
sustainability issues. All FAO ECUs and their implementing partners are expected to implement
a monitoring system which at a minimum meets the BASIC monitoring standards, and as many
of the PREFERRED standards as resources permit. Some ECUs may also wish to borrow from the
PREFERRED standards to meet reporting obligations under agreements from other funding
agencies or joint-programming MOUs.
Good indicators are SMART
Specific A good indicator measures one and only one characteristic or
quality, clearly and unambiguously. A common mistake is to try to
put too many characteristics into one indicator. For example, if
we are told the indicator “quantity of diversified crop production”
has dropped, we wouldn't know if the indicator fell because
production was low, or production was normal but it just wasn’t
diversified.
Measurable It is important that an indicator be measurable in a consistent
manner in different places and at different times, so that results
can be compared over time and across sites. If the indicator is
very subjective or not well-defined (e.g., the 'effectiveness' of a
training program), then it will be difficult to interpret or compare
results.
Attainable It is important that an indicator be measured easily and reliably. If
the measurement is very complicated, requires a lot of resources,
or is dependent on many factors falling into place, there is a high
risk it will not be measured at all.
Relevant Indicators are supposed to tell us whether we are reaching our
goals and objectives, so a good indicator must clearly relate to
the condition being measured.
Time-bound We need to know the time period of the measurements to be able
to interpret an indicator. The time interval and frequency of
measurement should be explicit in both the indicator definition
and reporting.
20

General Differences Between Basic and Preferred Monitoring Standards
BASIC PREFERRED
· data collection is mostly incorporated into routine
operational tasks, such as beneficiary selection
and training, thus minimizing separate stand-alone
21
tasks such as household surveys
· sample sizes for surveys are kept as small as
possible
· comparison data can be gathered at the same time
as impact assessment, for example from memory
recall or non-supported production from the same
household, instead of a control group
· only direct beneficiaries are monitored
· in addition to the collection of data during
normal operational tasks, additional focused
data collection activities are encouraged
· larger sample sizes, including some non-beneficiaries,
are used when picking
samples for more in-depth data collection
(e.g., surveys)
· participants in focus group discussions
should be stratified (e.g., by gender and/or
age) to encourage non-biased expression of
viewpoints
· a post-project assessment is encouraged to
determine whether results are sustainable
Measuring Targeting, Household Vulnerability and HIV/AIDS Impact
Like many other food security interventions, one of the primary target groups for backyard and
community garden projects are households which are vulnerable to food insecurity or nutrition
deficiencies, but are still capable of gardening (i.e., vulnerable but viable). There are numerous
factors which can cause households to become food insecure, but one factor which is of
particular importance in southern Africa is the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Many of the household
level indicators for gardens require results to be disaggregated based on the level of
vulnerability in general, and HIV/AIDS in particular, to show whether vulnerable households
are being reached and if so whether the intervention is producing benefits appropriate to their
needs.
This poses three challenges for monitoring gardening projects, 1) how do we identify
appropriate households for participation, 2) how do we measure vulnerability to food insecurity,
and 3) how do we determine whether a household has been impacted by HIV/AIDS?
Participation in a school or community garden is often linked to geographic proximity, and/or
current enrolment or membership in a group. However there are many methods for selecting
beneficiaries for backyard garden projects. Some targeting methods involve household-level
surveys followed by quantitative analysis to determine thresholds of vulnerability. Other
methods draw on local knowledge through community-based discussions to identify households
which are vulnerable but still have a capacity for raising small animals. Other methods involve
self-selection mechanisms (e.g., requiring in-kind contributions of work) to weed out all but the
targeted households. Sometimes methods are mixed, for example combining community-based
targeting with an objective validation process that randomly selects names from a community-generated
list and validates whether they meet the stated criteria. All methods have their
strengths and weaknesses, and no single method is appropriate for all contexts. In many
emergency situations, community-based targeting methods approaches are used due to
constraints of time and data.
It may not be very practical to record detailed information for every beneficiary selected for a
garden project, however it is feasible to ask the groups involved in targeting to at least record
the criteria they use in selecting beneficiaries. This has generally not been done in the past,
leaving the targeting process a black box open to criticism. The Garden Beneficiary Selection
Worksheet (page 24) has been designed to make the targeting process more systematic and
record the criteria used in targeting. This worksheet is designed to be used at the community

level and is not meant to be entered into the monitoring database. The PREFERRED monitoring
standard however recommends entering a sample of randomly selected worksheets for analysis
of the targeting process.
Secondly, we need to validate the effectiveness of our targeting method and determine whether
targeted households are benefiting from the activity. While it isn't possible to assess the
vulnerability of all participants, if we randomly select households for the household survey, our
results should be approximately correct for all participants.
Measuring the vulnerability of dozens of households is certainly easier than trying to measure
hundreds, but this still leaves us with a big methodological challenge: how does one measure
vulnerability to food insecurity? The short answer is that it varies from place to place,
depending on the type of farming system, soils, access to employment and social services, and
so on. The characteristics of a vulnerable household living on rocky soils in the highlands of
Lesotho will be quite different than the characteristics of a vulnerable family in the Zambezi
valley. The amount of land needed for food production, dependence on draft power, labour
requirements, accessibility to fertilizer, opportunities for alternative employment, and many
other factors will vary enormously from country to country and even within countries. For any
one context, multiple criteria will probably be needed to measure vulnerability to food
insecurity. The methodology and results of the national VAC survey may be of some assistance
in developing an index of vulnerability.
The same is true for determining whether a household has been impacted by AIDS. In some
countries, there are village-based AIDS support groups and one can ask direct questions to
assess whether a household has been affected by AIDS. In other places, the stigma of AIDS is
still quite strong and indirect methods or proxies must be used to avoid offending people or
worsening the stigmatization.
Each country office will therefore need to select criteria for determining how to measure
household level vulnerability to food insecurity. The end result should be a vulnerability
index that ranges from 1 to 3, where 1 = low vulnerability, 2 = moderately vulnerable, and 3 =
highly vulnerable. The vulnerability score should be based on the responses to a series of simple
yes/no questions on the Household Garden Survey (page 35). For example, the ECU in Malawi
may decide that a highly vulnerable household is one that has only one working-age adult with
five or more children, or has less than one ha of land. The Zambia ECU may decide that a
highly vulnerable household in Southern Province is one that has no cattle or draught power,
regardless of the family size or land holdings.
Similarly each household visited during the baseline and subsequent surveys must be assigned a
value of “yes” or “no” as to whether the household has been impacted by AIDS. This could be
based on whether an adult member of the household has died, someone in the household is
chronically ill, or the presence of orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs). Like vulnerability, it
will be up to each national ECU to determine how to use the responses on the baseline
household survey to identify households impacted by AIDS, with RIACSO providing assistance
when needed.
Each Emergency Coordination Unit needs to decide how to
interpret the responses on the baseline household survey to
determine the thresholds for high, moderate, and low levels of
vulnerability appropriate for the local livelihood system, and how
to determine whether a household has been impacted by AIDS.
22

ANNEX II. SAMPLE DATA COLLECTION FORMS
The sample data collection forms in this annex include:
Applies To Data Processing
23
Basic Preferred
1. Garden Beneficiary Selection
Worksheet
backyard none sample entered into
ME database
2. Garden Diary backyard,
community
none none
3. Production and Sales Summary backyard,
community
none sample entered into
ME database
4. Instructor's Training Log all gardens with a
training component
(excluding schools)
none sample entered into
ME database
5. Garden Seasonal Summary all gardens entered into ME
database
entered into ME
database
6. Household Garden Survey backyard,
community
entered into ME
database
entered into ME
database
7. School Garden Survey school entered into ME
database
entered into ME
database
8. Institutional Garden Survey institutional entered into ME
database
entered into ME
database
Adapting the forms
These sample data collection templates incorporate all the existing monitoring forms that were
submitted for review, but have been designed to be as generic as possible. Some additional
adaptation will undoubtedly still be needed to suit the local context. (To modify the forms, soft
copies in MS Word format can be obtained from the Regional Agronomist at RIACSO).
Minor design changes that won't affect data entry can be made fairly easily, such as the addition of a
logo, signature lines, labels, explanatory text, etc. Adding new fields, columns or sections is also
possible, however this could also require modification of the data processing system if the additional
information needs to be captured. If new fields, columns, or questions are needed, it is
recommended that you consult with the RIACSO office and other ECUs using the garden ME
database to see if other users would also like to adopt the new fields.
Another type of adaptation needed are the labels for the geographic references. Most countries have
administrative areas called “provinces” and “districts”, but in some countries administrative areas
are known by other names. These labels can be modified on the paper versions of the data collection
forms as needed.
We already have a monitoring system for our garden
project, why do we need to start using these new forms?
The short answer is you don't, provided that your current monitoring tools
can produce the required numeric summaries for the core outcome indicators
outlined in Table 2 (page 4). The data collection forms in this toolkit are
provided as sample templates that can be adopted when nothing comparable
is currently available. These templates have been designed to be as generic as
possible, but can be adapted at the country level to capture additional
information as needed.

Garden Beneficiary Selection Worksheet
24
Instructions
The purpose of this form is to record how people are chosen to be a beneficiary for a
garden project. This form can be used by any person or group involved in the selection
of beneficiaries, including community groups, extension officers, or project staff.
To use the form, put a check or 'x' in each column that was used to select the person.
Column headings should be changed to match the actual criteria used.
Name of beneficiary m/f Location Reason(s) for selection as a beneficiary
(check all that apply)
Explanation or
comments
Elderly
head HH
Widow
head
HH
Orphan
head
HH
Recent
death in
HH
Sick-ness
No one
employed
Many
children
Poor
harvest
last yr
No one
to send
money
No small
livestock
In-sufficient
land
No
draft
power
Active in a
group or
programme
Other
(specify)
Selection by: Date:

Garden Diary Section 1: Planting Harvesting
Instructions: Record in your notebook the dates when you planted and harvested vegetables / fruit trees / crops from the
garden. Use a separate page for each item you produce.
Vegetable / Crop: Vegetable / Crop:
Date Planted /
Harvested
Quantity Problems / Comments Date Planted /
Harvested
Quantity Problems / Comments

Garden Diary Section 2: Profit and Loss Statement
Instructions: Record in your notebook the income and costs from your garden. Use a separate page for each month. At the end of
each month, calculate the total amount of profit or loss made.
26
Profit and Loss Statement
Month:
COSTS
Date Expense Amount
Total Costs:
INCOME
Date Source Amount
Total Income:
Net Profit (income – costs):
Profit and Loss Statement
Month:
COSTS
Date Expense Amount
Total Costs:
INCOME
Date Source Amount
Total Income:
Net Profit (income – costs):

Garden Diary Section 3: Rainfall (Format 1)
Instructions: record in your notebook the number of days it
rained each month. You can either use tick-marks or write numbers.
January:
February:
March:
April:
May:
June:
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
December:

Garden Diary Section 3: Rainfall (Format 2)
Instructions: record in your notebook the days it rained each month by making a mark in the appropriate box.
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
28

Garden Diary Section 4: Tracking Market Prices
Instructions: record in your notebook the prices of different vegetables in the market, in order to know when is the best time to
plant and sell. Select only those vegetables that you have an interest in.
Market Price Market Price
Vegetable Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Production and Sales Summary
Instructions. This form is used to summarize the production and sales from a single garden for a period of time (e.g., a
month). The information on this summary sheet can come from a Garden Diary or other record keeping system. If the
amount harvested or sold is not known, write “unknown” in the quantity column. This form can be copied into a notebook or
photocopied.
30
Garden location:
GPS Coordinates:
(if known)
S:
E:
Reporting period: From:
To: baseline
Supported garden: yes no (circle one)
Crop or Product Harvested Sold
Quantity Quantity Unit Price
Comments
Prepared by:
Name Position Date

Instructor's Training Log
Instructions. This template is designed for a trainer or extension officer to record all training activities that are provided for
participants in a garden project. This form can either be photocopied or copied into a notebook. Additional columns can be
added as needed. At the end of the season, the information from the training diary should be copied onto the Garden
Seasonal Summary Sheet.
Garden name or location: District:
31
Trainer:
Training Activities
Date(s) Training Topic(s) Instructor Males Females Time (hrs) Comments

Garden Seasonal Summary
(for all gardens)
Instructions. This three-page seasonal summary sheet should be filled out by garden member(s) or manager at the
beginning of the project (baseline) and end of each gardening season. If a garden does not have a manager, an extension
officer can fill in the information. There should be one summary sheet for each garden. A copy of the Seasonal Summary
Sheet should be forwarded to the office for entry into the database.
Garden name / location:
32
District:
GPS Coordinates:
(if known)
S:
E:
Reporting period: From:
To:
baseline mid-project end of project
Supported garden: yes no
Project:
1. Size of garden: m2 / ha
2. Type of garden:
household / backyard
community with individual plots
community with group beds
school garden
Junior Farmer Field and Life School
NCP
hospital
orphanage
prison
other:
3. Number of people who grow things in the garden: ____ females ____ males
4. Age of garden: this is the first season 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years or more
5. Number of months this garden was in production in the past 12 months:
6. Number of growing cycles (seasons) this garden was used in the past 12 months:
7. Vegetables, crops and tree products grown this period:
Harvest (Item Produced tick if harvested)
(including vegetables, trees, crops)
Planted
(tick if planted) good fair poor

33
Water supply irrigation
8. Area under irrigation: m2 % of garden
9. Area rainfed only: m2 % of garden
10. Irrigation methods used:
Water Source(s):
dam borehole
well tap
stream open pits
tank other:
Water Lifting Devices
none (gravity fed)
bucket
elephant pump
rope and washer
treadle/pedal pump
diesel/petrol pump
Water Spreading
watering can / bucket
farrows
sprinklers
hoses
drip kit
other:
11. Reliability of water source: water was never a problem water level got low water source dried up
12. Comments on water supply:
continue on back if needed
Problems encountered
13. Please describes problems encountered
pest or insect damage
plant diseases
weeds
livestock damage
storm damage
theft
lack of tools
water supply
irr. equipment not available
irr. equipment broken
inputs not available (specify which):
inputs not affordable (specify which):
fuel not available
fuel not affordable
other:
14. Comments on problems encountered:
Gardening methods demonstrated
15. Which methods were used or demonstrated in the garden?
use of plants for biocontrol
kraal manure
live fencing
micro-dosing fertilizer
mulching
agro-forestry
composting
trench gardening
crop rotation
keyhole gardening
other:
other:
Physical Infrastructure Improvements
16. Please comment on any improvements to fixed infrastructure made this season to the garden site during the reporting
period (e.g., fencing, wells, tap, toilet, etc.)

34
Summary of Training Activities Held at Garden
Training Topic Month Comments
17. Comments on training activities:
Recommendations
18. Please write any other comments and recommendations below:
Prepared by:
Name Position Date

Household Garden Survey
(for community and backyard gardens)
Introduction. This survey is designed to learn about how people practice gardening so we can improve gardening projects.
This is not an exam, and there are no right or wrong answers. Your responses will be used to prepare a report, but neither
your, nor any other names, will be mentioned in any report and all the responses will be mixed together so there will be no
way to identify that you gave this information. We appreciate your participation in this survey, but participation is completely
voluntary and optional. Do you have time to participate?
Name: m / f GPS coordinates: S:
beneficiary non-beneficiary E:
Project: [District]:
35
[Village]:
PART I. BASELINE VISIT
Date of visit: Monitoring officer:
Homestead Details
1. Are you the head of household? yes no
2. People living in homestead Children (0-17) Adults (18-59) Elderly (60+)
for the last three months: M F M F M F
3. Is the head of the homestead: elderly widow orphan chronically ill none of these
orphan: a child 17 years old or less with at least one parent deceased
chronically ill: sick and unable to work for a total of 3 months over the last 12 months
4. Number of orphans living in homestead (aged 0-17):
5. How do you prepare your fields? by hand animal power tractor
6. Please a) list, and then b) rank according to importance, your household sources of income in the last six months.
Income Source Rank *
* Rank: 1=most important, 2=next important, etc.
7. Have any of the adult members of the household been sick and unable to work
for a total of 3 months over the last 12 months? yes no
8. Have any of the non-elderly adult members of the household died in the 12 months? yes no
9. Is anyone in this household currently receiving home-based care, ARVs, or active yes no
in an HIV support group?

BASELINE VISIT (cont'd)
10. List all forms of food or cash assistance received in the last six months, including school feeding programmes and
36
home based care:
Experience with Gardening
11. Do you currently have a household garden? yes no
If yes:
12. Which specific vegetables, crops and other items do you grow?
13. In the past 12 months, in which months did you harvest from your garden?
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (circle all that apply)
14. Were you involved with a garden project last season? no yes, specify:
Participation in the Garden Project (non-beneficiaries can skip this section)
The following questions all refer to the project garden (backyard or community)
15. What is the distance to the garden? minutes km
16. How many hours per week do you spend in the garden? hours
17. Do you have your own individual plot or garden within the project garden? yes no
18. How big is your garden plot: m2
19. Which vegetables and crops will you / have you plant?
20. What are your expectations of the garden project?
21. What training topics do you feel you need, if any?
22. Would you be interested in keeping a garden diary where you record things
like planting, harvesting, and sales? yes no
Dietary Intake
23. Over the last seven days, on how many days did you consume the following foods?
maize, maize porridge: fruits:
other cereal (e.g. rice, sorghum, millet): beef, goat, or other red meat:
cassava: poultry:
potatoes, sweet potatoes: pork:
sugar or sugar products: eggs:
beans and peas: fish:
groundnuts and cashew nuts: oils/fats/butter:
vegetables/ relish /leaves: milk / yogurt / other dairy
bread, pasta: fortified blended food (e.g. CSB, HEPS):
Form reviewed by: Approved by:

Household Survey (cont'd) Beneficiary:
PART II. POST-HARVEST / END OF PROJECT VISIT
Date of visit: Monitoring officer:
Reporting period (season):
Garden Experiences This Season
24. How many gardens did you use for growing this season?
25. Which vegetables did you harvest this season?
26. Which other products did you harvest this season (e.g., fruit, seed, herbs, livestock)?
27. For each of the items you produced in your garden, please describe how you used it (sale, consumption, gift). Also
please describe any problems experienced (e.g., production, storage, marketing)
Vegetable / Crop Harvested Used How1 Problems2
1 used how: 1=consumed, 2=sold, 3=given away, 4=stored, 5=other (specify) multiple answers OK
2 problem(s): 1=poor germination, 2=weeds, 3=insufficient watering, 4=no fertilizer, 5=too much rain, 6=harvest problems (specify),
7=storage problems (specify), 8=marketing problems (specify), 8=other (specify) multiple answers OK
28. If yes, in the past 12 months, in which months did you harvest vegetables from your garden?
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (circle all that apply)
Participation in the Garden Project (non-beneficiaries can skip this section)
29. The project garden was:
the only garden in the household primary garden of multiple gardens a secondary garden
30. Did you receive any training as part of the garden project? yes no
31. If yes, please fill specify the topics covered:
Topic Training provided by Month Comments
32. Which inputs, tools, and other items did you receive from the project?
37

33. Did you keep a diary or other record keeping system of your harvest and sales? yes no
34. If yes, please summarize the total amounts harvested and sold:
Vegetable / Crop Amount Harvested * Amount Sold * Income Generated
* include the appropriate units (heads, kg, buckets, etc.)
35. Please a) list, and then b) rank according to importance, your household sources of income in the last six months.
Income Source Rank *
* Rank: 1=most important, 2=next important, etc.
36. If you earned any income from your garden in the last 30 days, what did you do with the money? check all that apply
buy food clothes pay off debts
school fees give away buy seed or fertilizer
household items other:
38
37. Describe any other benefits from the project:
38. Do you have any recommendations for future garden projects?
Dietary Intake
39. Over the last seven days, on how many days did you consume the following foods?
cassava: poultry:

School Garden Survey
School: GPS coordinates: S:
Monitoring officer: E:
Date of visit: [District]:
Supported garden: yes no Project:
39
1. Number of students in school:
Total number
of students
Total num of
OVCs
Work in
Garden
Eat from
Garden
Take Veggies
Home
Grade
female male female male female male female male female male
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. Do students work in the garden? yes no
3. If yes, for how many hours a week and is the work part of a class?
Grade % who learn Hours per Week
in garden Agric
Science
Home
Economics
Other: Other:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

4. Do you have a feeding programming in this school? yes no
40
If yes, then:
5. How many meals per day?
6. In the last seven days, how many days did you serve:
cassava: poultry:
7. Are any of the items grown in the garden sold? yes no
If yes, what is the money used for?
8. Do students get to take items grown in the garden home? yes no
If yes, which students?

Institutional Garden Survey
(including hospital, orphanages, Neighborhood Care Points, etc.)
Site: GPS coordinates: S:
Monitoring officer: E:
Date of visit: [District]:
Supported garden: yes no Project:
41
1. Number of people who eat from this garden:
Age Range male female
0-5 yrs
6-10 yrs
11-15 yrs
16-20 yrs
20+ yrs
2. How many meals per day are prepared from this garden?
3. In the last seven days, how many days did you serve:
cassava: poultry:
4. Where do you get technical support?
5. List any inputs received from the project:
Item Quantity
Nutritional Rehabilitation Units (garden for patient families at a hospital)
6. How long has the patient been hospitalized? days
7. How many times has the patient been admitted in the
past year?
8. Distance from home to hospital?
NCP Garden (Neighbor Care Point)
9. Distance to nearest NCP?
km

Monitoring Toolkit for School Gardens, Community Gardens, Institutional Gardens & Backyard Gardens

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Monitoring Toolkit for School Gardens, Community Gardens, Institutional Gardens & Backyard Gardens

Similar to Monitoring Toolkit for School Gardens, Community Gardens, Institutional Gardens & Backyard Gardens (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Monitoring Toolkit for School Gardens, Community Gardens, Institutional Gardens & Backyard Gardens