1

Rural Resilience (R4) Process Evaluation Report


October 2013



2
Abbreviations

ANASIM Agence Nationale de l’Aviation Civile et de la Météorologie
ANCAR Agence Nationale de Conseil Agricole et Rural
CBO Community Based Organisation
CNAAS Compagnie Nationale D’Assurance Agricole Du Senegal
DAC Development Assistance Criteria
FFA Food for Assets
GoS Government of Senegal
INP L’Institute Nationale de Pedologie
MEL Monitoring Evaluation and Learning
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAPIL Programme d’Appui à la Petite Irrigation Locale
P-FiM People First Impact Method
RC Red Cross family including SRC, IFRC and ICRC
SO WFP Sub-Office
UN United Nations
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP United Nations World Food Programme
R4 Rural Resilience Initiative


3
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ……………………………………………….………………………………………………….….
A. R4 contextually relevant …………………………………………………………….……………………………………..
B. Programme design largely appropriate.……………………………………………………………………….…….
C. High staff appropriation of R4 vision.………………………………………………………………………………….
D. Synergy challenges among and between partners………..…………………………………………………….
E. Coordination and planning………………………………..………..…………………………………………………….
F. Recommended R4 action commitments to improve programme performance, scale up and
roll out………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

PART 1 Background………………………………………….………………………………………………….
1.1.0. Context ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.1.1. R4 in Senegal ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1.1.2. Current achievements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1.1.3. Current expenditure against community priorities………………………………………………………
1.1.4. Evaluation methodology……………..……………………………………………………………………...............
PART 2 Community findings and perspectives on R4's contextual relevance ………..
2.1.0. Positive change areas ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.1.1. Improved agricultural production and food security…………………………………………………..
2.1.2. Improved social cohesion (linked to livelihood activities)……………………………………………..
2.1.3. Increased income and improved nutrition………………………………………………………………………..
2.1.4. Increased education access……………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.1.5. Improved sanitation coverage………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.2.0. Overall areas for improvement………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.2.1. Increased poverty………………………………………………………………………..
2.2.2. Lack of social solidarity………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.2.3. Lack of education access and quality………………………………………………………………………………….
2.2.4. Lack of access to information and capacity building…………………………………………...……………

2.3.0. Analysis of the drivers of change………………………………………………………………………………………
2.4.0. Community change aspirations related to R4 programme design………………………………………..
2.4.1. Agro-forestry, irrigation & nutrition management information………………………………………….
2.4.2. Social solidarity………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.4.3. Credit access………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.4.4. Girl child education / forced / early marriage……………………………………………………………………..
2.4.5. Infrastructure (health, roads, village planning)………………………………………………………………………
2.4.6. WASH……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2.4.7. Registration of births…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2.5.0. Proposed community vision actions………………………………………………………………………………….…
2.5.1. Community labour / material / financial contribution……………………………………………………
2.5.2. Social and behaviour change……………………………………………………………………………………..
2.5.3. Social solidarity / associations………………………………………………………………………………………
2.5.4. Petty trading………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.5.5. Advocacy to Government……………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.5.6. Irrigation dams………………………………………………………………………………………
2.5.6. Learning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4
2.6.0. Community investment priorities related to R4 programme design…………………………………….
2.7.0. Community views on vulnerability…………………………………………………………………………………………….
PART 3 Partner and staff findings and perspectives……………………………………….….
3.1.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3.1.1. High staff appropriation of R4 vision………………………………………………….
3.1.2. Partner capacity building………………………………………………………………………………………………
3.1.3. Leadership and leadership development……………………………………………………………………………..
3.1.4. Decentralise management structure………………………………………………………………………………
3.1.5. Integrate and build on Senegalese experience…………………………………………………….

4.0. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Annex 1 Terms of Reference ………………………………………………………………………………………….
Annex 2 Field exercise participants ………………………………………………………………………………..
Annex 3 People First Change Method Summary………………………………………………………………
Annex 4 Validation Workshop Participants………………………………………….
Annex 5 Action Centered Leadership Model…………………………….
Annex 6 Ownership and motivation around decisions……………………..
Annex 7 Communication Pyramid…………………………………………..
Annex 8 Model of Team Working Development……………
Annex 9 Herzberg's Motivators and Hygiene Factors………………



5
Authorship
The findings in the report are the statements, views and perspectives of representative community
groups; partner, WFP and Oxfam America staff, as openly shared by them. Paul O’Hagan People First
Impact Method (P-FIM
©
2010) presents these findings in the report which are not necessarily the
views of WFP.

Acknowledgments
This evaluation and report was commissioned by WFP and the field exercises convened and
organised in Tambacounda by the WFP Sub-Office. I would like to acknowledge all the 16
organisations that committed staff / volunteers to the field work and thank WFP for making the
process happen.
Limitations
Given the small geographical area (furthest less than 1.5 hour’s drive) and high participation of
various organisations there were no major limitations in the evaluation exercise. Some of the field
work findings represent the changing and seasonal nature of people’s needs and concerns. It was
carried out in the run up to the Eid (Tobaski) festival when there are large scale regional movements
of rams (male sheep) and pastoralists. These are sold and slaughtered as part of this Islamic feast to
remember Abraham’s sacrifice of a ram in place of his son Isaac. Communities were also
approaching harvests of maize, millet and in some areas rice – some are expecting bumper harvests
– so for example the need for grain stores and cereal banks is preoccupying people’s minds. It would
have been preferable if a larger number of organisations had attended the final validation workshop
including partner staff responsible for implementation at field level and; a full day rather than a half
would have allowed longer group work on recommendations.



6
Executive Summary
A process evaluation of the R4 Senegal pilot initiative took place between 06 September and
25 October 2013. The overall goal was to i) understand how R4 is working and to document
implementation achievements and challenges for internal learning ii) identify ways in which
the pilot program and the R4 model can be improved and replicated at larger scale. R4
focusses on building the resilience of communities to climatic shocks.
This was done by cross referencing findings from 2 community dialogue processes involving
24 staff and volunteers from 16 organizations. They facilitated in teams of 3, goal free and
goal focussed (resilience) dialogues with 8 representative social and economic groups
(including vulnerable people) spread over 2 days in 7 villages of Koussanar Commune,
Tambacounda Region, Senegal. These involved 281 and 206 community members
respectively. The intention was to understand context from the community perspective as a
basis to understand the relevance and appropriateness of R4.

15 R4 project site visits; 42 key informant interviews; 4 focus groups with 15 staff from 3
implementing partners, Oxfam and WFP; 3 learning and action workshops and; review of
project documentation were also part of the evaluation.

How to use this report
The report is in 4 main parts 1) 8 page Executive Summary covers key findings,
recommendations and agreed actions 2) Part 1: Details on R4 and evaluation methodology
3) Part 2: Community perspectives from field work 4) Part 3: Perspectives from staff of all
participating stakeholders.

Key findings

A. R4 contextually relevant
Assumptions in the R4 project design about resilience challenges (context) of communities
in Koussanar are largely accurate. Addressing poverty and climate related food insecurity
and disasters emerged as the top priorities from the community perspective. People want
to improve agricultural production, food security and manage income and food resources
better. They did not however attribute climate related shocks as the main cause of poverty
or food security cf. 2.3.0 - analysis of the drivers of change. They also appreciate the
importance of improved social cohesion / solidarity. At the same time there are other issues
related to resilience that it is important that R4 is fully aware of. These are education access
and quality and; sanitation coverage. Considerations of these felt community priorities
could be given in the FFA component. R4’s explicit goal is to increase the resilience of the
most vulnerable. Forced and early marriage causing girls to drop out from primary

7
education, while a cultural practice, is often a poverty
related issue
1
particularly at times of shock
2
that
emerged. If R4 has its intended impact then this might
be a monitoring indicator to be considered. Different
cultural groups had various challenges to directly
understand what resilience meant. It was therefore
very important that the concept was captured in the
cultural concepts and local languages before teams
engaged discussion in the field. There is no direct
translation of resilience from French or English into
Wollof, Mandinka or Fula. Heated debate was
prompted among the 24 field work participants to
translate 4 target questions into Soce, Wollof and Fula
in a way that would be understood at community level
– it would have created confusion in the community
discussions if participants had not been clear
themselves. The concept was easier to grasp in Wollof.
Communities were given a voice on what they feel is important in their lives and what is
working and not working over the past 2 years – this goes beyond the R4 project. This
enabled a better understanding of R4 in context related to community issues and priorities.
Positive overall changes in order of priority reflected in the goal free community dialogues
were 1) Improved agricultural production and food security 2) Improved social cohesion
(linked to livelihood activities) 3) Increased income and improved nutrition 4) Increased
education access and 5) Improved sanitation coverage. The first 3 changes may have been
contributed to by R4 – however it is too early to attribute direct impact to R4.
The top negative overall changes in the overall context in order of priority were: 1)
Increased poverty 2) Climate related food insecurity and disasters 3) Lack of social solidarity
4) Lack of education access and quality 5) Lack of access to information and capacity
building. People also mentioned i) Forced and early marriage ii) Poor basic service coverage
including water access ii) Increased livestock disease iv) Agro-Pastoral conflicts and v)
Diseases caused by poor sanitation. The most positive and equally negative drivers of
change were communities themselves and local government departments. When the causes
of these changes were attributed, drought and pastoralist movements were considered
from the community perspective important though lesser negative change drivers.
Several groups found this process a new and welcome experience – to be included and able
to discuss in a free non prescriptive way about their own lives and priorities. The goal free
discussion was critical in establishing respect and trust so that openness was maximised in

1
2003, Early Marriage and Poverty: Exploring links for policy and programme development, Forum on Marriage and the Rights of Women
and Girls
2
2013, Minimum standards for child protection in humanitarian action, Global Protection Cluster (search forced and early marriage)
Figure 1 Stone belts protect fragile soils from
dispersal with rainwater run off

8
the goal focussed discussion on resilience a day later. In the first discussion communities
discussed what was important to them; In the second they were asked questions that would
be useful for the R4 programme.
B. Programme design largely appropriate
Community groups were given the opportunity to express what they would like to see
changed in relation to their own resilience. In order of priority what they clearly
communicated was: 1) Agriculture and forest management – combined with better
management of their own harvests – improved “how to do” information and more
equipment / tools in these areas 2) Improved social solidarity 3) Credit access 4) WASH 5)
Girl child education and an end to forced and early marriage 6) Infrastructure for health,
roads and planning of the layout of houses (due to fire risk) and 7) Registration of births so
that children are not prohibited from education access or other social protection safety nets
(once registered in primary school and if the household is vulnerable it could be eligible to
FCFA 25000 per quarter) etc.

More consideration in R4 could be given to the critical importance of i) information,
knowledge and communication (communication for social and behaviour change) ii) health
aspects of resilience and iii) opportunities for DRR mainstreaming in schools
3
i.e. how
schools can be involved in making themselves more resilient – fire belts etc. Children then
likely to discuss key improved resilience behaviours at home with their parents. The graphs
that present the field findings in Part 2 of the report can help inform monitoring and
evaluation indicators for the programme and a review of the log frame assumptions.

In terms of what communities said that they could do to help themselves without external
assistance in order of priority are: 1) Work requiring community labour, material and
financial contributions 2) acting as agents for social and behavior change in their own
communities 3) forming associations and increasing social solidarity 4) petty trading 5)
advocacy to local government for services 6) irrigation dams and 7) acquiring knowledge.
Some of these findings relate very well to the R4 community assets work. R4 could add
value to these community led initiatives.
When asked if they had additional resources in their families and communities – how they
would spend them, in order of priority they said the following: Trading / Business; Livestock;
Cereal banks; Agricultural equipment / Farm inputs; Education; Public infrastructure; Mutual
support / solidarity; Saving and land purchase. There is good cross over with the core
components of R4. These investments relate directly to existing community based insurance
mechanisms which are important not to be undermined with new products.


3
2007 ISDR, Towards a culture of prevention: disaster risk reduction begins at school, good practices and lessons learned


9
Asked who they felt in their communities are most in need of additional support during a
crisis in order of priority people said 1) Those living with disabilities 2) Elderly 3) Disaster
victims 4) Children 5) Widows 6) Women (this was a general category and could be given
precision in further community discussions) 7) People without livestock or cash for petty
trading. More attention could be given to community based vulnerability criteria in R4
interventions and engaging communities at every stage of programme design - by using a
similar “light but robust” process engaging a cross section of representative community
groups, especially vulnerable people. Consecutive exercises would build an excellent
community based profile and double with other M & E requirements.
C. High staff appropriation of R4 vision
There is a high appropriation of the R4 vision among WFP, Oxfam and partner staff. Some
described R4 as being like a large boat that moves more slowly than a car but can
accommodate a larger number of people. Others described a vision of healthy and resilient
food secure communities.
D. Synergy challenges among and between partners
There has been a lack of synergy particularly in implementation of activities between and
among partners, WFP and Oxfam. The challenge has been in how to make things work more
effectively. Motivation has fluctuated at various stages of the pilot. These are essentially
team working, leadership and structure related issues. R4 was described by one as a “soup
made by many chefs and the challenge was in how to get the soup tasty?” Another person
said that R4 is like a “2 storey house” with many organizations in it represented by lots of
windows. However there is a staircase between the 2 levels which represents challenges of
communication between the different management layers. The long process for drawing up
implementing partner contracts and delayed transfers for seasonally sensitive work is
recognized as a key area to be addressed. The next 5 months will be critical for protecting
and seeing evidence of the utilisation of investments made to date such as dams, erosion
belts, small holder irrigation wells and credit and savings groups.
E. Coordination and planning challenges
For various reasons the process of finalizing
Letters of Agreement between WFP and
partners was felt to be far too long. On the
WFP side there was an expectation that
partners would pre-finance and start their
activities earlier. Expectations may not have
been fully clear on both sides (agreement
may not mean actual “agreement” -
especially if partners have limited options).
This needs to be addressed in the scale up
Figure 2 Rice planted late

10
“Learn from your mistakes
once and then make new
ones.”
and roll out. Fund transfers for seasonally sensitive work such as dam construction, rice
seed distributions and well digging were late. A dam wall collapsed partly because it was
being constructed too late in the season to withstand flooding (combined with negotiation
over budgets and materials required) (communities are aware of delays and the impact of
management and planning and feel these should be addressed).
Due to planning delays rice is not seeding yet in most places and its maturation will depend
on water retention through the dry season in the marsh areas – whether this happens is yet
to be seen. The best rice viewed during field visits was of a women’s group who had planted
their own seeds on seeing the delay with seed distributions.
Slow contract agreement, under budgeting and late transfers had a high impact on de-
motivating staff and partners - some felt that an added complication was that not all
partners were used to working together. Responsibility needs to be taken for the impacts.
Remaining work
needs to be done in
coming months to
ensure that
investments to date
are guaranteed and
not lost including – back planting the stone belts with
Vetiver and creation of a second stone line back planted
with Vetiver. It will not be known until first quarter 2014
if the dry season market gardens are fully in use.
Partners particularly PAPIL felt that inputs had been
under-budgeted (future discussions should be very
robust and frank on both sides); In the case of the rice
field dams from an external lay person’s perspective they
seem to have been constructed quickly and “on the
cheap.” Reducing budgets and late transfers combined
with other factors to produce the quality of work existing. Water and particularly flood
water is powerful – it requires the resources and quality of materials to withstand it e.g.
more expensive asphalt instead of local laterite for the concrete mix. For a new project the
choice of construction contractors can be haphazard in this sub-region - given the variable
quality and spread of technical schools etc – most people learn “on the job”. There is a lot of
trial and error involved to find (companies) people who know what they are doing and can
do the job to standard. This requires very close monitoring (daily) of all construction work by
staff with the relevant level of experience to see that it is on track – especially at the early
stages. This does not require civil engineering qualifications but a good combination of
common sense and practical experience. For example a “lay person” might ask why the
longer dams had no supporting pillars on the rear side to support the structure? All of these
Figure 3 Collapsed dam wall constructed at
wrong time of year

11
issues can be worked out with good leadership and relationships of synergy between WFP
and among partners and WFP / OA where questions are freely asked in all directions.
Collectively there is enough capacity to get it right. Decisions on construction design should
take into consideration what communities have experienced and seen locally – otherwise
there is a risk that communities will be “participated in but not own the outcome.” Work it
out with the partners and communities at the outset with due regard to the skills and know-
how of communities and local artisans before implementation. Working alone in isolation
with a top down authoritative approach will not get the required results. It is OK to make
mistakes – the challenge is to develop a working culture among the R4 team (inclusive of all
parties) and on all sides to review, learn and then work differently. Criticism and blame will
not achieve the desired results. Last quarter 2014 will determine if the rice field dams,
gabions and stone belts have withstood a second rainy season.
Longer term issues for the impact of the
market gardens are: The water table at
garden wells visited are deep (40 metres) for
the region. Experience in the similar context
of The Gambia has raised concerns of
uncovered market garden wells posing a risk
to young children falling into them – this
should be considered. One group in the field
work spoke about the punishing nature of a
“woman’s” work as something that they
wanted to see changed. Lifting water this
distance for bucket irrigation is a huge task.
Consideration could be given to low cost small holder irrigation options that alleviate the
labour burden on women. If women can do dry season gardening at another location with
less work (lowland marshes), then that could jeopardise these investments. Likewise
attention to land tenure issues and support of women’s groups to obtain occupancy rights
and land leases for the gardens is critical in strengthening long term resilience and safe
guarding rights.
Key recommendations
Greater attention to “soft” side aspects of effective team working - Decentralisation of
decision making and management structure to as close as possible to the regions. These
emerged as valuable lessons from the evaluation. Recommended areas for review and
improvement are 1) Capacity building of partners 2) Leadership 3) R4 management
structure and 4) Capitalization of Senegalese experience (particularly in relation to insurance
products). These aspects were fully explored in 2 learning workshops at the end of the
evaluation process. Key lessons learned from the Koussanar pilot can be applied in the scale
up and roll out to other regions – while emphasizing the need to understand context and
capacity in each
Figure 4 Garden well at Dawadi

12
F. Recommended R4 action commitments to improve programme performance, scale up and roll out





No Finding Recommended Action Response Responsible Deadline
1 R4 contextually
relevant

 R4 documentation on climate related shocks in light of the attribution
findings in this report (and other community based evaluations on the
impact of the drought
4
) needs to consistently say that climate change is
a negative impact but not the only one from the community perspective
– the challenge is adaptation and response

2 Programme design
largely relevant and
appropriate

 Programme activities align closely with community needs and change
aspirations – attention needs to be given to integration and coverage of
activities to ensure impact.
5
Annual community based participatory
goal free and goal focussed assessments. Responsively amend
strategies and activities based on findings

3 High staff
appropriation of R4
vision
 There is a major gap between the external profile and publicity
surrounding R4 with lack of supporting evidence from the Senegal pilot.
Vision without action is a dream and activity without a dream is empty.


4 2012, FAO, Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - Mwingi, Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6495.aspx, 2012, FAO, Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - East Pokot,
Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6496.aspx, 2012, FAO,Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - Turkana, Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6494.aspx Communities themselves and government
followed by UN, NGO and Red Cross inaction or lack of coverage of services were found, as in this exercise, to be greater drivers of negative impact than climate related factors.
5 There will otherwise be challenges for R4 in Senegal (how the different components jointly create actual impact) to stand up to a rigorous external evaluation using the OECD DAC criteria endorsed by the UN
Evaluation Groups Norms and Standards.
Figure 5 Participatory ranking of key issues requiring attention

13
This gap needs to be closed based on actual evidence and learning
emerging from application of a “light” user friendly and useful (to
communities) M&E system – it is otherwise misleading to the public
4 Synergy challenges
among and between
partners

 Capacity needs to be in place or developed (with external input if
necessary) that understands and is able to create team working, two-
way communication (not theory) and develop synergies to get the best
results

 Joint participatory development and simplification of core project
documentation – log frame, M&E strategy and plan

 Development of a constructive feedback dynamic between and among
partners, OA and WFP with an emphasis on improvement in all
directions

 Key meetings should involve key staff from field level both partner and
WFP (OA)

5. Coordination and
planning challenges
 Partner capacity building
 Involve implementing staff and partners in key programme design
processes at all stages

 Simulation exercise to highlight team working dynamics involving
implementing partners in planned roll out regions before work begins

 Capture and agree key learning points and team working practices
emerging from the above

6. Decentralise
management
structure
 Put capacity at the frontline line of implementation both in partners and
WFP

 Ensure that Rome / Boston and Dakar levels play a more responsive and
demand based field support role

 Draw on external facilitation for key processes so that management staff
can fully engage as participants in these events


14
7. Integrate and build
on Senegalese
experience
 Communities to be fully involved at all social levels in all stages of
programme design – the findings in this report demonstrate how they
can be meaningfully involved in a “light” manner useful to them

 Involve implementing staff, partners and communities in programme
design processes at all stages especially in insurance products (be open
to changing minds and direction based on learning and local input)


15
PART 1 Background
1.1.0. Context
In Senegal, poverty is a predominantly rural phenomenon, affecting agriculture and
livestock-dependant households. Weather-related shocks are a cause of food insecurity
alongside poor farming practices and lack of adaptation, extension services and inputs;
markets and lack of infrastructure etc. Such shocks trigger food crises, such as the one
experienced in 2012 and contribute to cyclical food insecurity. Supporting vulnerable rural
households to manage climate-related risk has been identified as a priority in Senegal.
1.1.1. R4 in Senegal
R4 was officially launched in Senegal in December 2012. The Rural Community of Koussanar,
located in the Tambacounda Department, was chosen as the first pilot location for R4 in
Senegal. This area was chosen based on three main criteria: high relative food insecurity
levels, high climatic variability and drought risk, and the presence of Oxfam and WFP
programmes. The Koussanar pilot is under way, having entered the implementation phase in
January 2013. Local implementation partners have been contracted, and activities started
in March 2013. Activities include building community assets which improve productivity
and reduce flood and drought risk, including lowland development for rice production and
vegetables gardens (Risk Reduction); creating new savings groups and introducing financial
literacy and professional training services in existing groups (Risk Reserves); testing a credit
system linked to cereal banks and providing non-financial services to women and farmers’

16
associations to facilitate access to credit (Risk Taking); and testing a non-commercial rainfall-
deficit index-insurance product (Risk Transfer).
The Senegalese Government is starting to formulate a country-wide rural resilience strategy.
WFP and Oxfam have been invited to assist the Government in designing this strategy, and
the R4 pilot will provide key practical insights for this process.
The Initiative’s Risk Transfer component, in particular, fits within the government’s recent
efforts to leverage insurance for food security. R4 insurance products are being developed
in close partnership with the government’s recently-created specialized body for provision
of agricultural insurance (CNAAS), as well as international experts. R4 is working closely with
national and international research institutions to understand the relevance and
appropriateness of its insurance products. This includes an ongoing ‘Remote Sensing for
Index Insurance’ research project undertaken by the WFP-IFAD Weather Risk Management
Facility (WRMF).
1.1.2. Current achievements

Activities realised in the 1
st
quarter of 2012 have been:
 Risk transfer design workshop from 26-27 February 2013. The risk transfer component is
particularly complex because of the many partners, steps and processes involved. The
workshop established a detailed schedule of activities for 2013 outlining the
responsibilities of each partner and initial planning of 2014 activities
 A local 4R technical committee was established in Koussanar. The committee meets
monthly and is responsible for the local coordination of the project and its
implementation.
 Koussanar participatory planning workshop with partners
 Community support in the formulation of requests for land (60 ha for rice and
approximately 10 ha for gardening) to the President of the Rural Committee
 Establishment of a development committee in each of the 4 main project sites
 Public awareness raising on development activities
 Starting site characterization studies (topographical surveys of the valley are finalized)
 Commencement of soil protection and restoration activities: collecting stones for
making bunds and gabion frames (400)

1.1.3. Current expenditure against community priorities
It was not possible on the basis of the information or time available to produce an analysis
of the current expenditure against community priorities found in the field work. Budget
information needs to be available in simple accessible formats – basic monthly budget
expenditure reports. It is strongly recommended that this aspect is reviewed in future R4
evaluations.


17
1.1.3. Evaluation methodology
The People First Impact Method (P-FiM) was used for the field work. It allows communities
to speak for themselves in identifying the important changes in their lives and to whom /
what these are attributable. The approach highlights key contextual dynamics within the
social, political and economic life of a community - about which implementing agencies may
not be fully aware. It thus enables stakeholders to ‘take the temperature’ in order to align
their work more closely with local priorities.

Standard agency approaches are agency and programme centric – typically seeing the world
through the eyes of the organisation and its programme. The starting point for P-FIM is
people, not projects or organisations. This is a fundamental difference in standard practice
and approaches
6
making it both different and complimentary. P-FIM understands context
from the perspective of the people. It provides agencies with clarity on the primary role and
ability of a community so the agency can positively engage with local capacity and what is
working in a timely, appropriate and cost effective way. P-FIM recognizes that community
ownership is present from the outset – their response to their issues. Agency interventions
are only part of a wider context and often only a small part. P-FIM brings openness, humility
and honesty about what is happening and what kind of impact is taking place. How can we
know what is working or not working by only looking at our organisation and its work? The
impact and contribution of an organisation emerges naturally in community discussion and
statements.

P-FIM takes a representative geographical area where people are getting on with their lives.
Local people are trained who have basic inter-personal communication skills, fluency in local

6
Sep. 2012: Expert Independent Researchers Group – Current Challenges in Evaluation. Dr. Orla Cronin positively referenced the P-FiM
approach when discussing the need to move beyond an over reliance on traditional evaluation methodologies. July 2012: Quality &
Accountability Workshop – UN Food & Agriculture Organisation. Presentation on P-FiM delivered at the inter-agency course on quality
and accountability standards in Naivasha in July 2012 hosted by FAO/IAWG. July 2012: ALNAP State of the Humanitarian System Report.
"Results from these evaluations (using P-FiM) do give a better sense of the perceptions of aid recipients on a range of issues." Feb 2012:
Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB II) – People First Impact Method & Joint Standards Initiative (HAP, People in Aid, SPHERE)
Presentation Kampala, Uganda. P-FiM presented the findings of a P-FiM exercise carried out jointly with the Joint Standards Initiative in
Mwingi, Kenya at the ECBII Inter-Active conference. Haiti Earthquake Response Mapping and analysis of gaps and duplications in
evaluations, February 2011, ALNAP, DAC, UNEG, K. Haver. "These are also opportunities to consult beneficiaries in a more meaningful
way. The CARE / Save the Children evaluation (using P-FiM) intentionally reduced the focus on the specific agency or project ". June 2011,
J. Patrick, Haiti Earthquake Response. DFID, UNEG, ALNAP Report on Emerging Evaluation Lessons – P-FiM is widely referenced in this
report especially in relation to the CARE-SCF Joint Haiti Earthquake Evaluation Report. ILRI Technical Consortium, IGAD, REGLAP -
Knowledge Management & Research (Draft) “P-FiM impact assessments repeatedly highlight dryland communities desire for information
and the fact that even basic information about livestock diseases etc. is often not accessible”. May 2012 Review of Emergency Cash
Coordination Mechanisms in the Horn of Africa: Kenya & Somalia, "FAO conducted qualitative evaluations in northern Kenya using the
People First Impact Method (P-FiM). Though the reports from these studies are not yet available (now available), the approach appears to
be appropriate: focusing more on the overall changes that have occurred within a community rather than trying to attribute all changes to
the impact of aid. This broader look at change takes other factors into account - changing context, economy, state policy, weather
patterns, etc - and looks at impact from the perspective of communities themselves." Olivia Collins (Groupe URD), May 2012 Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency. "For example during the Haiti ACT Appeal Evaluation a wide range of beneficiaries were
surveyed using the People First Impact Method, whose rigorous methodology this evaluation could not hope to repeat." Sue Enfield & Linda
Forsberg.



18
languages, insider cultural knowledge and are trusted, respected and accepted locally. The
method (i) enables a qualitative process where impact changes – whether positive, negative
or neutral – are openly discussed with a wide cross section of representative groups in a
community (including vulnerable groups) and accurately recorded (ii) the method then
works backwards to determine in a quantitative way where change is attributable to e.g. the
community, government, business, NGO, UN, Red Cross, faith organizations or an event e.g.
drought, flooding, disease etc. This inter-agency process creates honesty, objectivity,
ownership, responsibility and accountability. Programmes add to what communities and
others are already doing. On-going community based M&E can catch timely information and
changes made accordingly and; evaluations are honest, objective and rich in insight and
learning. For example during a 2011 P-FIM exercise in Haiti (when most donors and agencies
had completely stopped work in psychosocial support), psychosocial difficulties emerged as
the key community issue. In Wajir, Kenya (2012), pastoralists said that ‘cash transfers’ would
only make them poor unless underlying issues and the need for infrastructure and services
are addressed first.

The field work was carried out by 24 Senegalese people from 16 organisations with two
years as the reference period for the exercise. All community groups spoke local languages
– Wollof, Fula and Soce (Mandinka). Recommendations in Part 2 of the report are drawn
from the changes identified and responses to focus questions on resilience that followed
goal free discussions. A deliberate “goal free” approach was used in the first field work using
inter-agency teams of 3. This was followed by goal focussed discussions during a
consecutive field exercise to determine community change aspirations related to resilience.














The inter-agency team participants undertook a combination of two days training and
planning the field work. This was necessary to get the team to a place where they fully
understood the exercise objective and had understood and practiced the communication
Figure 6 Field work team

19
skills and open questioning techniques to achieve it. They were deployed in teams of three
as facilitators, reporters and observers from different organisations (to objective results and
avoid single agency bias) to meet 8 representative community groups in 7 different villages
(2 discussions took place in the same village – however in other exercises several discussions
with different groups have taken place simultaneously in the same community. The aim is to
get a representative sample of views.

The participants randomly selected and prioritised in a ranking exercise the following groups
out of a total of 24 social / livelihood groups, whom they felt were important to meet in
order to achieve the exercise objective which was to 1) “Give communities a voice, identify
and attribute change” – positive, negative and neutral 2) capture the communities own
vision of change related to resilience. This was done by people who knew the language,
area and culture and are trusted and accepted as “sons and daughters” in the community.
Our aim was to facilitate ordinary conversations with ordinary people.

No Group selected for field work Place R4 Intervention Area
1 Femmes des Foyer Kouthiacoto Yes
2 Agriculteurs Sare Hamet No
3 Groupes Promotion Feminine Koussanar Centre Yes
4 Eleves Filles Dawadi Yes
5 Eleveurs Sare Sambourou Yes
6 Exploitants Forestiers Kabiron Yes
7 Personnes Agees Pakirane No
8 Handicape Koussanar Centre Yes

No Group not selected Ranking
1 Filles Victimes Excision 7
2 Femmes Victimes de Violence 7
3 Enfants Talibes 5
4 Veuves 4
5 Chefs de Village 3
6 VIH/S 3
7 Eleves Garcons 3
8 Imams 2
9 Groupement Interet Economique 1
10 Elus Locaux 0
11 Services Techniques 0
12 Les Castres 0
13 Transporteurs 0
14 Communicateurs Traditionelle 0
15 ASC 0
16 Commercants 0


20


Group Place Girls Boys Women Men Youth F Youth M Total
Eleves Filles Dawadi 9 0 2 4 9 0 24
Femmes au Foyer Kouthiacoto 0 0 15 4 0 0 19
Exploitants Forestiers Kabiron 1 17 10 25 0 8 61
Agriculteurs Sare Hamet 1 3 22 19 0 5 50
Personnes Handicappe Koussanar Centre 0 0 1 5 1 0 7
Personnes Agees Pakirane 0 0 11 14 0 0 25
Groupements Promotion
Feminine
Case Foyer Koussanar 0 0 12 0 0 0 12
Eleveurs Sare Sambourou 3 8 20 36 6 10 83

A total of 16 discussions with community groups including vulnerable people were
conducted. 8 of these were goal free and 8 goal focussed. 281 people participated in the
goal free discussions - 44% female and 56% male.



206 people participated in the goal focussed discussions – 52% female and 48% male.
Participants of varying ages included adults, youth and children.

Group change statements form the report’s part 2 findings and recommendations. These
qualitative statements have been presented quantitatively through a systematic grouping
and ranking by their frequency of occurrence. To ensure the reliability and objectivity of the
0
100
200
300
Girls Boys Women Youth F Youth
M
Men Total
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s


Disagregation of representative goal free discussion
groups
0
50
100
150
200
250
Women Girls Youth F Men Boys Youth M Total
N
o
.

P
e
o
p
l
e

Disagregation of representative goal focussed discussion
groups

21
findings, scoring and ranking exercises were an integral part throughout the debriefing and
feedback in plenary to reduce single agency bias on the results, to accurately record
statements, test assumptions and findings. Focus was not on what the teams “thought” but
on what the groups “said” and at what communication level. Participants in the group
discussions declared 72 change statements – 29 negative, 13 positive and 2 neutral

The first exercise established a level of acceptance, respect
and trust between the community groups and inter-agency
teams that ensured the quality and honesty of the second
discussion. People in the groups found the opportunity to
freely talk about the most important things that happened
to them as therapeutic and liberating. People were
generally not used to an approach focussed on establishing
qualitative two way communication within communities
themselves that recognised and valued their lived
experience and knowledge. They very much welcomed the
approach.

The second ‘goal focussed’ field exercise was conducted by
the same inter-agency teams and with the same
representative community groups in the same locations. It focussed on: i) What changes
people wanted to see in their communities related to resilience ii) What they felt they
themselves could do to realise those changes iii) If they had additional resources of their
own how they would invest them to improve resilience and iv) Who they felt in their
communities were most in need of a “helping hand” at times of crisis. The findings from the
field work is enabling a “reality check” and qualitative deepening of the R4 resilience
approach.

Separate focus groups with WFP, OA and partner staff requested participants to 1) draw an
image without words capturing their feelings about R4 to date 2) once this was done to
write brief bullet point explanations on post it notes to illustrate their drawing 3) individual
presentations in plenary. Participants were then tasked with drawing a motivation map
highlighting the points at which they were motivated and de-motivated during their R4
journey so far 4) individual feedback in plenary. Both exercises rapidly captured insights into
key management, leadership and structural challenges. 5) Writing up of key learning points
and recommendations in plenary.

Figure 7 Participatory group ranking

22
Part 2: Community findings and perspectives on
R4's contextual relevance

This part of the report provides an opportunity to revise and develop a contextually relevant
R4 “Theory of change” based on the change aspirations of the communities themselves. It
provides feedback from the community perspective on the overall context of change –
positive, negative and neutral. These are not necessarily related to R4 interventions. This
provides R4 an opportunity to ensure that the programme is relevant and appropriate.

What is working overall? Overall improvement areas
Improved agricultural production and
food security
38% Increased poverty 66%
Improved social cohesion (linked to
livelihood activities)
31% Climate related food insecurity and
disasters
10%
Increased income and improved
nutrition
15% Lack of social solidarity 10%
Increased education access 8% Lack of education access and quality 7%
Improved sanitation coverage 8% Lack of access to information and
capacity building
7%

Between 30 September to 04 October 2013, 24 staff and volunteers from 16 organisations
based in Koussanar and Tambacounda, Tambacounda Region, Senegal, conducted
participatory field work on an inter-agency basis to give communities a voice about their
context, identify and attribute changes in their lives. These are the deeper more meaningful
“below the surface” most important differences to people in their lives (“So what”
questions) over the past 2 years and identification of the causes of these changes. The
overall context of change are the findings of the goal free discussion. This was important in
order to confirm whether or not R4 is relevant to the local context and peoples own
challenges. The overall context refers to the major events or factors impacting any part of
community members’ lives and the improvement areas reflect people’s level of satisfaction
with their life situations. The overall change findings enables the R4 partners to better
understand the relevance and appropriateness of R4 in relation to peoples wider priorities
and the areas that communities want to see change in. These findings do not necessarily
relate directly to R4.

The table above shows the most important overall positive and negative changes indicated
by community groups met in field work. In some change areas e.g. food security, people
reported positive changes, while others reported negative in the same sector. This usually
suggests uneven or unequal coverage of services.

23

Community perspectives were received firstly through a goal free discussion with group’s
representative of a cross section of people in communities. The aim of this was to
understand the context from the community perspective and to find out what were the
most important things that had happened in their lives over the past 2 years. This enabled
us to determine whether this had anything to do with the priorities set out in R4.

A second goal focussed discussion took place with the same people and the same inter-
agency teams to discuss resilience. What they would like to see changed in their
communities in relation to it; how they themselves would go about realising these changes;
how they would invest their own resources in resilience if they had surplus and; who they
felt in their community was in greater need “of a helping hand” at times of crisis.

The goal free discussion established relationships of respect and trust between the field
teams and community groups – so that the following goal focussed discussion was more
open and productive. The goal focussed discussion enabled an appreciation of what the
communities’ feelings and ideas about resilience are. Agencies involved were from
Administrative Government Departments, Community Based Organisations, Red Cross,
Caritas and National Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs). The findings in this section
are a sample based on the field work conducted.

2.1.0. Positive change areas


Change statements were consolidated into categories - positive, negative and neutral. The
13 positive change differences are reflected above and show the areas or sectors where
people felt most positive change had taken place. These are reported in detail below.

5
4
2
1 1
Improved
agricultural
production and
food security
Improved social
cohesion (linked to
livelihood activities)
Increased income
and improved
nutrition
Increased education
access
Improved sanitation
coverage N
o
.

C
h
a
n
g
e

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

Koussanar overall positive change areas
September 2013

24
2.1.1. Improved agricultural production and food security

Key Findings
 Importance of community based veterinary services
 Importance of information and knowledge to modernise farming practices
 Importance of timely food assistance to protect food security investments

Recommendations
 Ensure that R4 properly integrates community needs for farming information and
knowledge
 Closer integration of seasonal livelihoods planning to ensure that hunger safety nets
assistance has its intended impact

Livestock farmers at Sare Sambourou felt that veterinary extension services had helped to
improve animal management. This had focussed on training people in the community who
could provide services within the community e.g. vaccinations etc. This was largely seen as a
government and community led initiative. Farmers at Sare Hamet felt that due to their own
efforts that crop production had increased. SODEFITEX was very positively viewed by the
same group as helping farmers to modernise their farming methods. Food aid from WFP and
distributed by the Senegalese Red Cross at the right time and in the right quantity (improved
ration) had enabled the Sare Hamet farmers to protect their seed stocks and focus on
farming. Likewise the elderly group at Pakirane who benefitted from the same distribution
(they spoke of receiving 13 tons) felt that this had protected their food security.

2.1.2. Improved social cohesion (linked to livelihood activities)

Key Findings
 Importance of social dynamics and work in associations to achieve positive results
 Importance of women’s leadership development
 Importance of training in value addition

Recommendations
 Invest in and pay particular attention to social solidarity issues

The group of house “wives” at Kouthiacoto said that social cohesion was reinforced by
project support received. They particularly felt that women’s leadership was developed by
training. They attributed this primarily to their own efforts and equal degrees to
government, parish, UN and NGO actions. Forest exploiters (non-timber forest products) felt
that more could be achieved when people grouped together and understood organisational

25
dynamics. They spoke positively about the support of an NGO to women’s groups in value
addition to products such as Baobab fruit and “Jujube” and in vegetable gardening. This
group also felt that increased solidarity was emerging from the increased number of “forest
exploiters” – this gives them more bargaining power.

2.1.3. Increased income and improved nutrition
Key Finding
 Market gardens and micro-finance positively viewed

Recommendation
 Look at developing synergies with local actors positively viewed by communities

The house “wives” group at Kouthiacoto felt that their nutrition and income had improved
because of the market gardens. They attributed this to a combination of their own,
government and UN action. Development of petty trading as a result of micro-finance
support was positively voiced by the elderly at Pakirane. They attributed this to NGO and
parish activity.
2.1.4. Increased education access
The school girls group at Dawadi were very positive about the expansion of their school and
attributed this entirely to the community and government. They also felt that increased
space had improved results.
2.1.5. Improved sanitation coverage
A joint action by an NGO (Badianugox) and government was positively viewed by the elderly
group at Pakirane as increasing sanitation coverage by the construction of IDEV toilets.


26
« Tout s'achete, rien n'est
gratuit »

« Everything is paid for,
nothing is free »

Expoiltants Forestieres
Kabiron
2.2.0. Overall areas for improvement


From the 44 statements made by community groups, 29 were negative. These are reflected
in the graph above and show the areas or sectors where people felt most negative change
had taken place followed by a detailed report on negative findings.

2.2.1. Increased poverty
Key Findings
 Increasing poverty was the most widely found change occurring
 This confirms the intended purpose of R4
 R4 does not address all the resilience challenges

Recommendations
 Consider and address the full range of issues that are undermining resilience in order
to ensure coverage and integrated impact

People talked about the increasingly fragile nature of
their livelihoods and a degradation in their standard
of living – low nutrition particularly of children due to
low milk and meat production; increasing food
insecurity; poor soils; erratic rainfall and flood related
damage e.g. to houses; reduced crop yields; low
income and inflation of basic commodities; forced
and early marriage; recurring conflicts between
herders and farmers blamed by farmers on non-
compliance with the laws governing livestock
22
3
2 2
Increased poverty Lack of social
solidarity
Lack of education
access and quality
Lack of access to
information and
capacity building
Koussanar context
Global Negative change areas September 2013


27
movement; increase of livestock diseases as pastoralist and local herds come into contact
with each other; lack of livestock feed; bush fires; loss of draft animals; lack of financing and
credit; punishing labour intensive work; diseases caused by poor personal and
environmental sanitation e.g. malaria; lack of water and declining water table; lack of
services – all factors contributing to rural urban exodus.

2.2.2. Lack of social solidarity

Key Findings
 Communities are divided
Recommendation
 Social cohesion or “unity” is the single greatest driver of development in a community
– major attention should be given in R4 to support people on how to work together
and address causes of conflict and social upheaval
 Food / Cash / Vouchers for carefully and participative agreed community assets work
could help re-enforce social cohesion

The second biggest change was related to what people felt is a lack of social solidarity. This
was viewed as a barrier to mobilising people to work on issues of common interest that
would benefit the whole community. People living with disabilities felt that they were not
considered as equal members of the community. Political interference in community
dynamics with the giving and taking of assets was felt to be divisive (this is separate from
the regular functions of administrative government departments e.g. health and agriculture
– and the activities of elected officials).

2.2.3. Lack of education access and quality

Key Findings
 Education access and quality is a key part of the change aspirations of young people –
particularly girls who have more barriers to completing primary and secondary school

Recommendations
 Properly understand in context issues relating to girl’s life chances; design
programmes that are locally accepted and bring about positive change
 Explore how FFA activities could support education facilities
 Examine how R4 DRR activities could be mainstreamed in schools


28
Partner extension staff
need to be substantially
available to communities
in the field for practical on
hand exchange of ideas,
advice and support.
The school girls group at Dawadi spoke about the lack of teachers and class rooms to cope
with the growing number of students. Late construction of planned class rooms meant that
the community built provisional class shelters with local materials. Overall people spoke
about service provision not keeping up with population increases.
2.2.4. Lack of access to information and capacity building

Key Findings
 Critical importance of information and knowledge in themselves

Recommendations
 Information needs should be primarily determined by what communities want and
need to know e.g. practical agricultural and risk reduction input – the risk otherwise is
that organisational information needs become dominant - with communities given
little or no space to share their experience and knowledge

Various groups felt that there was a lack of
information available to them – how to do
information and knowledge relating to agriculture
and livestock rearing. Likewise other groups
particularly women felt that they needed more
capacity building – coaching approaches that
would develop their skills and knowledge. People
living with disabilities felt that they were
uninformed about what opportunities they could
access and demand from local service providers.


29
2.3.0. Analysis of the drivers of change



0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Community Government Faith
organisations
UN agencies Red Cross NGOs Business Drought Other (largely
pastoralist
migration)
R
a
n
k
i
n
g

Koussanar change driver attribution
September 2013
Positive Change Negative Change Neutral Change

30
The communities and
Government themselves
are perceived as being the
primary drivers of
important positive and
negative changes in
Koussanar

Fundamentally linked to evaluation is attribution of
change and how the various causal factors relate to
each other. This underlines the value and importance
of multi-partner approaches with strong community
based approaches working closely in support of
government services. Who and what is making a
direct difference or otherwise contributing to
positive, negative or neutral change in Koussanar?
From the perspective of the community groups the
actors and factors in the diagram above reflect the
issues that have caused or contributed to changes in
their lives over the past 2 years. This is the community perspective. NGOs, UN Agencies and
Red Cross were seen as playing an overall positive role with communities and government
playing a greater role. Some R4 partners were mentioned positively by communities for
their contribution to positive change. Further analysis and examination of funding
allocations would facilitate greater precision on the value of these interventions. The
drought event in the diagram took place in 2011. Negative attribution to communities is
usually related to factors within communities themselves e.g. conflict over livestock
corridors etc. Negative change by government, NGOs, UN, Faith Organisations and Red
Cross Member agencies is usually related to lack of coverage of services, poor community
participation and communication in interventions or non delivery on expectations raised.

The analysis in this section examines attribution of the overall change statements (it does
not attribute specific change to R4) from the perspective of the community groups. This
weighs accountability from the perspective of the affected population to reflect the
performance of all actors (including the community itself) – which may be helpful to
government and donor decision makers and agencies seeking to improve their programmes
and accountability to communities. Stakeholders are rated positively, negatively and
neutrally. Each change statement receives a 0-10 score attributed to different actors /
factors that people see as creating change in their lives. These totals are combined giving
the results in the charts above and shown against the numbered left axis.

The size of the attribution column (positive, negative, neutral) is important. If the height of
the positive attribution column is greater than the corresponding negative attribution
column then an actor or group of actors may feel they are on the right track. However the
size of negative attribution should be seriously considered, as should the overall size of the
attribution to external humanitarian actors (even when positive). If negative change
outweighs the positive change an actor or actors are making, or if the attribution column of
positive change by external actors is too high, then this provides an opportunity for
reflection, further community discussion and a possible change of strategy, to ensure that

31
positive local community, government, business and civil society results are increased. In a
healthy context; community, government, local business and local civil society action should
be strong and provide the foundation for robust and locally sustained development. Even
the smallest margin of negative of negative impact by UN agencies and NGOs should be a
cause for concern and the primary starting point for reflection.

A review of the positive attribution results clearly demonstrates the substantial positive
perceived space occupied by the community, Administrative Government and NGOs in
relation to positive change and to a lesser extent the role of UN agencies over the past two
years.

In some instances groups named agencies both positively and negatively in their
statements. Sometimes, people may not know how to differentiate between agencies e.g.
UN, NGOs and Red Cross and the community appreciation of organisations is often
horizontal regardless of whether an agency is large or small. UN agencies are in some cases
funding NGO, FO and government activities, and this is sometimes unknown by
communities. What matters to them is what and who are having results from their
perspective. A review of exercise findings alongside logframe outcomes and assumptions
would reveal what is working or not working and what requires change or additional
support. This underlines the fact that sector performance is collective from the perspective
of those on the receiving end, and that organisations are not insulated from judgement on
their performance by the affected populations. The results above show (albeit from a
relatively small representative group) who and what people feel are responsible for these
changes. These results are typical of over 21 P-FIM exercises conducted in 8 countries
experiencing humanitarian emergencies over the past 2 years. The situation on the ground
is dynamic in relation to long-term changes and can vary considerably from area to area.
The graphs provide a clear appreciation of the context within which actors are working.

Learning from the attribution results raises important questions about the need to build
positive links between communities, local actors and local government.

2.4.0. Community change aspirations related to R4 programme
design
Community groups in the goal focussed discussions were given the opportunity to i) express
what they would like to see changed in relation to their own resilience ii) what they could
do to help themselves without external assistance in order of priority to realize these
changes iii) if they had additional resources in their families and communities - how they
would spend them iv) who they felt in their communities are most in need of additional
support during a crisis. These findings follow in this section.


32


2.4.1. Agro-forestry, irrigation and nutrition management information

Key Findings
 Agro-forestry is the area where communities want to see greatest change
 High community demand for information, knowledge and training
 Lack of water viewed as a brake on development

Key recommendations
 Budgets and investment in agricultural, nutrition and forestry extension services need
to reflect demand

The area where communities want to see the greatest
change is in gaining more control and knowledge in agro-
forestry and management of their food resources. They
particularly want training in forestry, agriculture and market
gardening; gain knowledge and equipment in post-harvest
processing; planting of forest and fruit tree species; food
assistance during the hungry period between June and
September when there is no harvest and; better
management of their existing food resources. People
mentioned that a lot of food is simply wasted by poor daily,
weekly, monthly and annual calculation of how much cereal
they require. Groups felt that the lack of water was a “brake”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Agro-forestry,
irrigation &
nutrition
management
information /
equipment
Social
solidarity
Credit access Girl child
education /
forced - early
marriage
Infrastructure
(health, roads,
village
planning)
WASH Registration
of births
N
o
.

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

Koussanar population change aspirations
September 2013
Figure 8 Milling millet - challenges of
cereal management

33
on their development for example in the development of dry season vegetable gardens.
These are things that they want to see changed.

2.4.3. Social solidarity
Key Findings
 Social solidarity is a key area where people want to see change in their lives

Key recommendations
 Engage with existing competencies at community level and address causes of conflict
from this basis
 Substantial engagement in activities that support social cohesion and joint working

There is clearly a lack of social solidarity in the community that many groups said they
wanted to see changed. For people living with disabilities they want to see changes in
people prejudices and behaviour towards them.
7


2.4.4. Credit access
Key Finding
 While related - credit access - emerged as a lower change aspiration compared to agro-
forestry, WASH and social solidarity

Key recommendations
 Consider creation of demand driven linkages between community groups and local
government funds to access agricultural inputs greater than what “Savings for Change”
can support

Groups want to access credit for income
generating activities; support to youth; flour mills;
agricultural materials and; materials to fight bush
fires. While very attractive because of the low
amounts involved and community control - it is
not at all clear whether the “savings for change”
programme will enable the kind of change that
communities want to see in terms of agricultural
inputs that they require i.e. draught animals,

7
2012 People First Impact Method, “Giving Voice to Communities Affected by Crop Failure in West Africa”
www.alnap.org/resource/6960.aspx Pg. 8. “Communities and groups who were able to come together as a unified voice fared
considerably better at securing engagement of development partners and bringing development benefits to their communities”.
Figure 9 Savings for Change in Kouthiacoto Village

34
ploughs and milling machines etc. The principles of « Savings for Change » appear good
given the low amounts involved and community control. The consultant could not obtain
any evaluation evidence to demonstrate whether the approach results in significant
household asset creation and the kind of investments that communities require, to increase
agricultural production etc. People said that they want credit, but it is not clear whether this
is what they mean.
2.4.5. Girl child education / forced / early marriage
Key Findings
 Forced and early marriage is a key barrier to girls completing primary education
 It is substantially related to culture and poverty as well as other factors
Key recommendations
 Consider increased retention and learning outcomes of adolescent girls in upper
primary as an indicator of R4 success
 Consider reduction in forced and early marriage as a long term indicator of R4 success

Forced and early marriage, often as a means for the poorest families to survive times of
crisis through dowries and gifts, is a barrier to girls completing primary education when they
reach adolescence. It is often related to hunger at times of stress. Girls said that they would
like to see more completing school and receive support in communicating with their parents
about forced and early marriage. They want greater access to quality education.
2.4.6. Infrastructure (health, roads, village planning)
A number of groups felt that the lack of distance between their homes were a fire risk and
also vulnerable to destruction in heavy rains and winds. They would like to increase the
space between homes which requires government planning support. Those whose homes
had been damaged in floods would like to reconstruct with cement. The poor state of roads
which cuts of rainy season access to some villages and absence of health posts are things
that people want to see changed.

2.4.2. WASH
Key Findings
 WASH is an important priority
Key recommendation
 FFA activities particularly during the hungry season (rainy) when water borne disease
risks are highest could support community change aspirations related to improving
environmental sanitation


35
Aspirations related to WASH also includes better personal and environmental hygiene. They
spoke about increasing household latrine coverage and organising “Set Setal” i.e.
community cleaning days.
2.4.7. Registration of births
Non registration of their children’s births by parents created barriers to the practical access
to basic services and rights such as education.
2.5.0. Proposed community vision actions


The responses above relate to the question: What can you yourselves do to achieve the
changes that you want to see in your community related to resilience?

2.5.1. Community labour / material / financial contribution

Groups talked about contributing manual labour; local materials such as sand and gravel in
the case of borehole or well construction; rental of equipment and facilities that they
possess; they also mentioned financial contributions and; applying greater determination to
see things through.

2.5.2. Social and behaviour change
People especially women felt that there was more that they could do in sensitising others
about disaster risk reduction including on health such as malaria reduction through use of
bed nets. Likewise they could assist others to better manage their food rations.

2.5.3. Social solidarity / associations
Social solidarity was seen as key to 3 different groups and they felt that this was a priority to
invest their energies in including through formation of associations.

0
2
4
6
8
10
Community
labour /
material /
financial
contribution
Social and
behaviour
change
Social
solidarity /
associations
Petty trading Advocacy to
Government
Irrigation
dams
Learning
N
o
.

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

Proposed community vision actions
Koussanar Commune September 2013

36
2.5.4. Petty trading
Petty trading was viewed as an activity that people could undertake themselves to improve
household level resilience.
2.5.5. Advocacy to Government
One group talked about requesting the state to make their community a “communaute
rurale” as this would mean greater likelihood of service provision. While they did not
express this in terms of advocacy it does open up the idea of supporting communities to
advocate to local service providers.

2.5.6. Irrigation dams
Irrigations dams were put forward as a means to increase resilience through food
production. Time did not allow an opportunity to further explore how communities felt they
could do this without external assistance.

2.5.6. Learning
Learning and applying knowledge was something that people felt that they could do
themselves. This complements findings from other evaluations quoted in this report where
farmers and pastoralists often people want access to information and knowledge to
increase yields, rather than hard inputs from agencies.


37
2.6.0. Community investment priorities related to R4 programme design
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Trading /
Business
Livestock Cereal banks Farm inputs /
equipment
Education Infrastructure Solidarity Saving Land
N
o
.

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

Community investment priorities
Koussanar Commune September 2013

38

Key Findings
 The highest community investment priorities are trading / business, livestock, cereal
banks, farm inputs / equipment and education
Key recommendations
 These findings could inform fine tuning of R4 DRR activities
 Knowledge, attitudes and practices study on savings and insurance
 Build R4 concept around community investment priorities

The 8 focus groups were asked what how they would invest to improve their own resilience
- if they had additional resources available. The responses to this question reflected in the
graph above directly complements thinking around R4 design and especially priorities for
credit and insurance. Investment in trading and business; livestock; cereal banks; farm
inputs and; education are people’s highest investment priorities. It is not clear if people had
surplus resources whether they would convert them into cash for savings or insurance. The
traditional insurance strategy would be to invest in business, livestock, farm inputs and
education of children. These findings should inform the contextual appropriation of what R4
becomes in Kousannar. As mentioned previously in the report it is not clear how “Savings
for Change” meets the vision of change that communities have for themselves in relation to
resilience. It would appear that some fine tuning of R4 activities would be appropriate.


39
Disagregation of investment Priorities Group Disagregation of investment Priorities Group
Trading / Business Cereal banks
Faire du commerce (acheter des produits à bas
prix pour ensuite les revendre au moment
propice)
Filles élèves Mise en place les banques céréales Femmes de foyer
Ouvrir une boutique Personnes âgées Créer les banques de céréales Agriculteurs
Développer le commerce pour les femmes Personnes âgées Agrandissement banque de céréales Exploitants
forestière
Octroyer des crédits par les recettes générées
par le forage
Personnes âgées Education
Vendre le surplus et acheter du bétail à
revendre en case de crise (besoin)
Agriculteurs Acheter des fournitures pour les élèves Femmes de foyer
Ouverture vers d'autres coronaux (activités
génératrices de revenus)
Handicape Investir de l'éducation de nos enfants Promotion féminine
Commerce Exploitant forestière Public infrastructure
Réinvestir de l'achat d'une unité de
transformation a installer dans une autre
communauté pour générer des ressources
Promotion féminine Constructions d'infrastructures (puits, forages,
mosquées, case de santé)
Filles élèves
Acquisitions chaises et bâche matelas à louer Promotion féminine Mutual support / solidarity
Livestock Entraide et solidarité Handicape
Acheter les animaux domestiques Femmes de foyer Saving
Acheter des animaux domestiques Filles élèves Épargne Exploitants
forestière
Faire l'embouche bovine et ovine Personnes âgées Land
Vendre le surplus et acheter du bétail à
revendre en case de crise (besoin)
Agriculteurs Achat terrain / construction et laça mise en
location
Promotion féminine
Agricultural equipment / Farm inputs
Achat des matérielles agricoles (moulins à mil,
décortiqueuses a mil, égreneuses de maïs)
Femmes de foyer
Acheter des semences, de l'engrais et du
matériel agricole
Filles élèves
Achat de matérielle de transport - moulins Exploitants
forestières


40

2.7.0. Community views on vulnerability


Each group at the end of the focus discussion were asked who they considered as needing a “helping hand” in their community at times of
crisis. Asking this target question at the end of a conversation characterised by respect, trust and openness (depth of communication) added
to the significance of the responses. The aim was to gain a view of community perspectives on vulnerability and insights into community based
protection mechanisms. The community groups had a good idea themselves about who requires additional support. Further work in this area
could help to refine targeting with full community buy in and representation of everyone in having their “say.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Handicapped Elderly Disaster
victims
Children Widows Women People
without
livestock or
cash for
petty trading
Those eating
1 meal or
less a day
Sick Orphans Female
headed
households
Unemployed
school
graduates
N
o
.

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

Vulnerable Groups (Community perspective)
Koussanar Commune September 2013

41
R4 should not become an
ideological mantra – the
starting point is
communities and not
projects or organisations
PART 3 Partner and staff findings and perspectives

3.1.0. Introduction
The findings in part 3 are based on A) feedback in the
key information interviews in response to 2 questions:
i) what do you feel has gone or is working well with R4?
ii) What do you feel needs to be improved or addressed
in R4? Each interview lasted approximately 30-60
minutes B) Focus group work with WFP, Oxfam and
partner staff C) Validation workshops that focussed on
learning and action.

3.1.1. High staff appropriation of R4 vision
A number of people commented that R4 represents a learning curve for WFP. Government
partners welcomed the fact that it was moving beyond the organisation’s traditional ways of
working. One staff member described the R4 process to date as an ice-breaking ship and
another to a person on a bicycle pedalling up a very steep hill pouring with sweat! It is a
slow and hard path but one that needs to be pioneered.

3.1.2. Partner capacity building
R4 with the existing partnerships in place provides an excellent
opportunity to support and create synergies with and between
Senegalese Government ministries in their service of
communities in their endeavours to become more resilient.
One staff member portrayed the communities of Koussanar as
a sick person being treated by various partners. Each partner
had a different diagnosis of what the problem was. The key
learning point that this expressed was the challenge of
understanding context, making the right assumptions and
improved coordination and communication. In a ranking
exercise on how R4 was performing conducted with separate
focus groups of implementing partners, WFP and OA staff
there were clearly different appreciations of this. The challenge
is to develop a joint appreciation. Some staff expressed the idea of working with a single
partner to implement all activities. Partners felt that they had already gone through the
“storming” stage of team development cf. Annex 8 and were on the verge of “reforming”
and “performing.” The government already has a structure for rural development and it
would seem best to work with and in support of this rather than “re-inventing the wheel” -
which was mentioned in several Key Informant Interviews. Capacity building both of
partners and WFP / OA in creative facilitation techniques aimed at maximising productivity
Figure 10 Coordination challenges

42
and the usefulness of meetings may be something worth considering - especially to build
collaboration and ensure community perspective is central.

There was a strong tendency for staff at various levels both in Dakar and Tambacounda to
be locked into laptops, tablets and smart-phones rather than being “present” in a form
other than bodily – able to participate and achieve the job at hand – a default mode for
meetings seemed to mean laptops open and smart-phone multi-tasking (one meeting was
observed with at least 10 participants undertaking smart-phone and tablet tasks completely
unrelated to the workshop being conducted). This dynamic was deliberately controlled by
the consultant throughout the evaluation. It does however raise the question of
effectiveness in working with partners to tackle qualitative as well as quantity of tasks.

3.1.3. Leadership development
There is a real need for clear in-country leadership in R4 with the capacity to be able to
facilitate two way processes of planning, discussion and feedback between WFP, Partners
and OA. There was high consensus between partners, WFP and OA on this point. Leadership
is this context is understood as exerting deliberate influence to realise the R4 vision based
on values - within a culture of mutual respect and trust with an appreciation that
improvement through openness to two-way feedback is necessary individually and
collectively on all sides. Decision making based on input shaped and influenced first of all by
communities and then by partners at every stage of the programme cycle is strongly
recommended. Leadership and leadership development at all levels is critical to improving
R4 delivery and roll out. This is also related to simplifying and decentralising the existing
complex management and communication structure. Capacity needs to be in place or
developed (with external input if necessary) that understands and is able to create team
working, two-way gut level communication (not theory) and developing synergies to get the
best results. Focus needs to be given to personal and collective ownership, responsibility for
results and personal and professional improvement at all levels – creation of a feedback
culture in an atmosphere of respect, trust and openness. Annexes 5-9 provide some basic
ideas and models for improving team working
8
. These were distributed at the final
validation workshop.
3.1.4. Decentralise management structure
The current management structure is multi-layered and centralised. One person described it
as “A lot of people at different levels to support a small community.” It is felt as heavy with
no clear leadership. It risks that no-one takes ownership and responsibility for R4 as there is
always a layer above and the role of the community can often be lost. Staff, at key levels,
are demotivated as they do not know what is happening. There is a strong feeling that sub-
offices should be fully involved from the start and; in the choice of partners and elaboration

8
Easy reading is, Not Bosses but Leaders, John Adair, Kogan Page 2009

43
of roles and responsibilities. Group work recommendations from the final validation
workshop are that:

 Head Quarters – Dakar: Progressive retreat from HQ leaving operationalization of R4 to
the R4 Dakar team
 Dakar – Sub-Office relationship: Increased engagement and responsibility of the sub-
office with a joint role of coordination between the SO and 4R Dakar team
 Full engagement of the SO heads in R4 management decision making
 Relationships with partners: Put in place a light coordination team facilitated by the SO
 Organise an annual 4R planning meeting with external facilitation
 Partner responsible for leading thematic groups with the sub-office

3.1.5. Integrate and build on Senegalese experience
Some staff questioned the cost effectiveness of some of the investments to date and
whether there had been a real capitalisation of studies already done in Senegal on the
various R4 components. Involving partners including in CNAAS at the outset in the analysis
and decision to engage in Tambacounda first may have brought about greater synergies on
the development of the insurance products. CNAAS want to expand to all regions but in
their national poverty analysis it is not the highest priority region. PlanNet Guarantee also
felt that the processes around insurance could be significantly improved by looking at what
is going on locally. The feeling among partners is that there are a lot of researchers coming
from abroad when there is experience with various products. The sense is: design the
products with local actors, build on what is already learnt – capitalise on local experience. At
least 2 Key Informants from different organisations had provided information and
participated in key processes without feedback or copies of the reports produced. In total 7
respondents from 5 different organisations including WFP particularly felt that on the
insurance products that there had been a case of “re-inventing the wheel.” Resilience is
fundamentally linked to sustainability and therefore local ownership from the outset is key.
The challenge seems to be one of creating processes where everyone feels that their voice is
heard and respected – while benefitting from wider international experience and insights.
How things are done are as important as what is done. Key Informants certainly
acknowledged these 2 aspects.

Participants in the field work experienced a major « sea change » in how they approached,
valued and engaged with communities. This might suggest the need for review of
community engagement practice to ensure that communities play their fully role.

More widely there is a substantial wealth of experience in smallholder irrigation and farming
systems, market gardening, value chain research, agroforestry, lowland and upland
development in Senegal, Gambia and the wider sub-region that could add value to the DRR

44
aspects of 4R in Senegal. Models from East Africa and elsewhere have been piloted in
Gambia and Senegal on small holder irrigation (APROTEC Super Money Maker, treadle, drip
and solar irrigation systems) with very different attitudes to social and cultural acceptability
of these technologies.

4.0. Conclusion
There was an overall sense during the evaluation that everyone involved could see the
“forest but not the trees.” The evaluation process highlighted the widespread consensus
that exists on the key issues that need to be addressed to progress. This provided an
opportunity to gain a “helicopter vision” of the leadership and management challenges.


45
Annexe 1 Terms of Reference R4 Senegal Program Process Evaluation 2013
Background
The R4 Rural Resilience Initiative, is a multi-country initiative, resulting from a partnership between
Oxfam America and the World Food Programme, to enable poor households to strengthen their
food and income security through a combination of four risk management components: improved
resource management (risk reduction), insurance (risk transfer), microcredit (prudent risk taking),
and savings (risk reserves).
In Senegal, the R4 Initiative will test and develop a new set of integrated tools to strengthen
investments in disaster risk reduction assets that protect communities against the changes of
climate variability and to extend coverage of financial risk transfer and risk taking tools such as
insurance and credit to the most vulnerable populations.
The Communauté Rurale (CR) de Koussanar, located in the Tambacounda Department, has been
selected as the site for the R4 Pilot project in 2013. The selection of Koussanar was based on high
relative poverty and food insecurity levels, high climate variability, and the presence of Oxfam’s
community finance programme (Savings for Change) and WFP’s Food-for-Assets programme in the
area.
In 2013, the R4 Pilot in Koussanar will target an estimated 500 participants
9
. The plan is to rapidly
scale up in the following years, with a target of 6,000 participants in 2014 and 18,000 participants in
2015 and 2016. Scaling-up will follow a 2-pronged approach:
 expand in areas neighbouring Koussanar CR with similar agro-ecological conditions and
livelihood systems, to exploit R4 pilot’s partnerships and knowledge of the area.
 expand progressively to new départements to diversify contexts of implementation and
perhaps develop partnerships with programmes and institutions that best complement and
enhance R4’s risk management approach.

During the Senegal R4 inception workshop in Tambacounda, the General Objective of the Initiative
was defined as “Promote resilience in Koussanar CR”. ‘Resilience’ was broadly defined as “the ability
of members of communities to increase their assets and standard of living in ‘normal’ years, and to
protect their assets and maintain adequate levels of consumption after a shock”. It was also
proposed to measure ‘resilience’ using indicators from a number of dimensions, including food
security, livelihoods and assets, as well as health and nutrition status.
Specific objectives of the intervention were defined as:
 Increased investments, assets, and agricultural production among target households
 Protection of consumption levels and assets of target households against shocks
 Increased technical and financial capacity, particularly of women, in the target villages
 Increased solidarity within the targeted communities.
Activities will be organised under 4 components (risk reduction, risk transfer, prudent risk taking and
risk reserves) and outputs under each of them will contribute to all project objectives.

9
An R4 participant is defined as any person who participates in any R4 activity provided directly by
Oxfam America, the World Food Programme or their grantees, or who registers for an R4 financial
service provided by R4 partners. For example, An R4 participant could be a R4 financial literacy
participant; R4 risk reduction participant ; R4 community savings participant; R4 insurance
participant (paying with labor); R4 insurance participant (paying with cash); R4 credit participant

46
In this framework, WFP and Oxfam America intend to set up an Evaluation and Learning system to
inform the implementation of the R4 initiative in Senegal. It would be comprised of two distinct but
closely related components:
 A system to evaluate the process for delivering outputs, including coordination mechanisms
(Process Evaluation);
 A system to evaluate outcomes and changes of the initiative (Outcomes Evaluation)
These ToR will focus only on the first component.
Process evaluation

In 2013, the Process Evaluation will be managed by an external consultant who will conduct a
preliminary analysis of existing documents and then carry out field work in Senegal.
The process evaluation will be conducted between August and October 2013, with final results to be
available latest in November 2013.
Objectives of Process Evaluation:
1. To understand how R4 is working and to document implementation achievements and
challenges for internal learning.
2. To identify ways in which the pilot program and the R4 model can be improved and replicated
at larger scale.

Deliverables:
1. Presentation(s) to WFP and partners of preliminary conclusions and recommendations at the
end of the field mission.
2. Draft report within 15 days of field mission;
3. Final report within 15 days of receiving comments from R4 team;

Both the presentation and the report will include:
1. Conclusions about the 2013 project performance;
2. Recommendations on how to improve the following, in light of the scaling-up in new areas:
a. Design of outputs (products);
b. Delivery of outputs;
c. Implementation and coordination mechanisms among partners at country level and
globally.

Both presentations and the main report will be in English, with a summary of conclusions and
recommendations in French.
The questions leading the Process Evaluation and the Methodology to be followed are presented in
Annex 1 and 2 below.
Annex 1: Leading Questions
Effectiveness
 Were outputs delivered as expected?
 Were there constraints for the delivery of outputs?
 Were these constraints anticipated?

47
 Were there differences across sites?
 Why did these differences occur?

Efficiency
 How do implementation costs compare with similar (including quality) ‘resilience’ building
interventions in the country / region?
 Does the scale up approach lead to economies of scale?
 How can unit costs per participant be substantially reduced without compromising quality?
Access:
 Who accessed R4 outputs (gender, HH types)?
 Have there been (social, economic, physical) barriers for accessing the products (insurance,
savings, credit) by the target group?
 How can the design of the products be adjusted to improve access?
Satisfaction:
 How satisfied are R4 participants with the program and its components, including the timeliness
of delivery?
 How can different products and processes be improved to better meet the needs of
participants?

Partnerships and coordination:
 How well are local partnerships functioning (coordination, trust, relationships between R4 staff
and partners)?
 How can they be improved?
 What additional criteria should be used in selecting partners?

Gender:
 How are the experiences of male and female participants different? How can the program be
implemented in a more gender-sensitive way?
Scaling up:
 What are potential challenges to scaling up the initiative in the area selected?
 What adjustments to the program will facilitate this?
 Implications of inclusion of Cereal banks in the R4 strategy?
Annex 2: Methodology

Document review:
 Logical Framework Matrix and Theory Of Change
 National and local assessments
 Quarterly reports
 Work plan

48
 Expansion area and strategy
 Other R4 documents and reports

Secondary Analysis
 Analysis of monitoring data on participation in program: trainings, DRR works, savings, credit,
insurance take-up (all broken down by gender and amounts of $, with analysis of overlap among
different R4 components).

Semi-structured interviews:
 R4 Participants
10

 Non-participants
2

 Partners
 Staff (field, CO and HQ)
 Community leaders (chiefs, elected officials, CSOs)
 Regional government leaders
 Central level
 WFP and Oxfam
11

 Relevant UN agencies
 Donors (?)

Focus groups discussions:
 Savings groups
 DRR project teams
 Insurance purchasers and non-purchasers
 Staff

Project Site Visits


10
Randomly selected, though stratified sampling can be considered.
11
Consider preparing a questionnaire to consult R4 Global and National Team and institutional partners.

49


“P-FIM is fantastic in
successfully putting
people first.”




“P-FIM is fantastic in
successfully putting
people first.”


Annex 2 People First Impact Method (P-FiM) Summary
P-FIM is a simple low cost methodology that fully allows communities to speak for themselves, in identifying
impact changes in their lives and what the drivers of impact difference are attributable to. In this way the
starting point is people and communities and not organisations and projects. It is a powerful tool that
highlights issues humanitarian and development agencies may often be poorly aware of. P-FiM as a
mainstream approach and tool directly complements aspects of Sphere, the Good Enough Guide, Participatory
Impact Assessment (Tufts) and HAP etc. P-FiM enables humanitarian actors to accurately ‘take the
temperature’ in order to properly align interventions with local priority issues, ensure they are engaging
properly and where they can have the greatest possible impact. P-FiM simply recognises the primary driving
force of people and communities at all stages of an intervention as essential. It adds value to existing
collaborative and inter-agency initiatives.

Potential P-FIM Benefits to Agencies:
(i) Impact measured in the context where a programme or programmes are delivered
(ii) A series of P-FIM actions will provide a basis for advocacy/mainstreaming of people first approaches.

P-FIM takes a representative geographical area (e.g. 1-5 year programme) of people and communities who are
getting on with their lives. Local people are trained on P-FiM who have basic development skills, understand
language and culture and are trusted locally. The method (i) enables a qualitative process where primary
changes are openly discussed with representative groups making up a community - whether positive, negative
or indifferent - and recorded (ii) the method then works backwards to determine in a quantitative way where
change is attributable to e.g. leadership in the community, government actions, local business, NGO, UN etc.
The method makes no assumptions about impact and what drives it - with often surprising impact results
revealed. It is community owned and driven. P-FiM fundamentally asks “So what?” questions . . . “So what
difference has that made to people’s lives?” and “who or what is responsible for the change or impact?”

There are two biases that often colour project and organisational impact evaluation approaches:

 What impact are we actually having? Typically organisations and their programmes are the focus of
impact/ evaluation measurement to meet standard quality, accountability and donor requirements.
 How can we know the actual impact of a project/programme if we only consider projects and
organisations? What about the depth and breadth of what is around the project or organisation in terms
of change impacts? P-FIM measures impact in the context of the project and as such, the impact of the
project can be tested.

While participatory approaches and accountability at community level are given increased importance, the
standard organisation/project focus is still emphasised by donors and agencies. A typical end of project impact
evaluation involves external (sometimes local) evaluators who carry out desk and field exercises to determine
the positive or negative qualitative and (mostly) quantitative impact achieved by a project (which in itself is
important). However, by over focusing on the organisation and project and the role of external evaluations -
the full honest views of local people and communities on what is working or not working (or whether correct
or needed in the first place) and what other factors (often not actions of the project) have caused impact - are
typically unheard or not considered.

Why People First Impact Method (P-FIM)? Our fundamental question is “Are we doing things right and are
we doing the right things?” To put this into a programme/project context, the assumption column of a
logframe requires that donors and agencies fully consider the wider context to ensure that proposed
programmes are relevant. In this way it can be said that ‘impact lives in the assumptions’ - weak assumptions
lead to inappropriate responses. P-FIM references ‘project cycle approaches’ and effectively links with other

50
evaluative / impact tools in humanitarian and development contexts. It is a simple methodology that can
bridge an essential gap within existing approaches.

The knowledge base and pedigree underpinning P-FiM draws on key concepts from Existentialist and
Personalist Philosophy, Psychosocial Methods and beyond. It is an integrated and holistic view of human
nature, freedom and potential - people’s needs and rights. Key concepts are: people come first; local
relationships of trust are fundamental; people have a right to life with dignity; a non agency centric and non
project approach facilitates objectivity and honesty; an integrated holistic appreciation of human development
is vital; quality and depth of respectful communication with people is essential.

Since 2010, 598 national front line staff from 240 organisations have been trained and engaged 5,602
community members in multiple inter-agency exercises as part of major evaluations and assessments
convened by the European Commission, National Drought Management Authority (Kenya), FAO, Action of
Churches Together (ACT Alliance), UNHCR, War Child Canada, War Child Holland, Norwegian Church Aid,
Trocaire, Children in Crossfire, UNICEF, CARE, Save the Children, Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECBII),
WFP and Global Communities in 8 countries – Senegal, Kenya, South Sudan, Haiti, Sudan (Darfur), Burundi,
Gambia and Liberia. P-FiM has been referenced independently in major humanitarian learning reports and
presented at international conferences on community voices / DRR / Climate change / Humanitarian standards
/ Global Evaluation Reviews.

For more information: contact@p-fim.org or http://www.linkedin.com/pub/people-first-impact-method-p-
fim/53/339/841


51
Annex 2 Field Exercise Participants
No. Name Position Name of Organisation
1 François KITAL Chef Division Genie Rurale Direction Régionale du
Développement Rurale
2 Cheikh Sidy COLY Animateur CARITAS
3 Amy DIOP Agent de Développement CARITAS
4 Aissatou DIALLO Représentante communauté Communauté de Koussanar
5 Marie SOUARE Professeur Alphabétisation Représentante communauté
6 Mohamed SEYE Stagiaire PROGEDE
7 Fatoumata DIALLO Relais La Lumière
8 Thiané THIAM President Association des handicapés Association Régionale des Handicapés
9 Moussa SANE Membre Association des handicapés Association Régionale des Handicapés
10 Dagua DIALLO Conseiller polyvalent Bamtaare/Sodefitex
11 Ousseynou SAKHO Relais Bamtaare/Sodefitex
12 Boubacar DABO Directeur regional de la jeunesse et des
operations de secours
Croix Rouge
13 Youssouf
DIEDHIOU
Enseignant secouriste Croix Rouge
14 Coumba GINDO Member GPF Comité consultatif des femmes
15 Seynabou NDAO Membre GPF Comité consultatif des femmes
16 Kéba Bourama
DIATTA
Agent technique Services des Eaux et forêts
17 Estella NAKOUYE Employée Sama Mbéy
18 Ali Bocar ANNE Agent de Suivi Agence Régionale de Développement
19 Evelyne BENDIA Représentante Présidente GPF Groupement des femmes bassari de
Koussanar
20 Agnes MANE Représentante Présidente GPF Groupement des femmes Catholiques
de Koussanar
21 Mamadou Lamine
DABO
Etudiant SCHOOL?
22 Martial FAYE Etudiant SCHOOL?
23 Khady DIOUF Etudiant SCHOOL?
24 Madeleine DIOUF Etudiant SCHOOL?



52
Annex 3 Key Informant Interviews
No. Name Position Name of Organisation
1 Dr. Bakayoko Tech. Advisor Min. Agriculture Office Prime Minister
2 Inge Breuer Country Director WFP
3 Ebrima Sonko Country Director Oxfam
4 Tenin Fatimata Dicko Snr. Prog. Officer R4 Oxfam
5 Natalie Manga MEL Officer Oxfam
6 Aliou Bassoum Reg. Communication & Advocacy Officer Oxfam
7 Mamadou Wane National Prog. Officer R4 WFP
8 Robert Dekker Head of Programmes WFP
9 Jean-Noel Gentille Prog. Policy Officer WFP Rome
10 Phillipe Crahay Resilience and Prevention Unit Consultant WFP Rome
11 Isabelle Confession M&E Officer WFP
12 Cheikh Wade M&E Assistant WFP
13 Amadou Ndiaye Director General CNAAS
14 Omar Diouf Proj. Officer CNASS
15 Yacine Fall Training & Distribution Expert PlaNet Guarantee
16 Galine Yanon Index Expert Assistant PlaNet Guarantee
17 Wanja Kaaria Dep. Country Director WFP
18 Amayel Sow R4 Prog. Assistant WFP
19 Fabio Bedini R4 Prog. Advisor WFP Rome
20 Bibata Sankar Head Sub. Office WFP Tambacounda
21 Florence Ndour R4 Focal Point WFP Tambacounda
22 William Dick Insurance Expert Independent Consultant
23 Niels Balzar Risk Transfer Advisor WFP
24 Sophia Belay R4 Global Lead Oxfam
25 Digane Joof R4 local coordinator CADL
26 Sada Niane Resp. Suivi & Evaluation ANCAR
27 Mamadou Ndiaw Resp. Suivi & Evaluation WFP SO
28 Lansana Diedhiou WFP SO
29 Mare Ndiaye Delegue INP Tambacounda
30 Fary Der Thiam R4 Point Focal PAPIL
31 Djiby Tamsa President Com. Gest. Dawady
32 Abelau Karin Yafa PAPIL
33 Bady Ndao Relais Communautaire Com. Gest. Kouthiacoto
34 Cheikh Sadibou Sy Chef du Service Financier (DG ai) ANCAR
35 Babacar Kebe Responable Suivi & Evaluation ANCAR
36 Khaly Sylla Responable de Capitalisation ANCAR
37 Pape Diagne Technical Director INP
38 Thiendella Babou Agent Comptable Particulier INP
39 Younoussa Mballo Coordinateur National du PAPIL PAPIL
40 M. Ballo Directeur PAPIL
41 PAPIL
42 Ousman Ndiaye Chef de Department Climat ANASIM
43 Oumar Konte Chef Service Climatologique ANASIM



53


“P-FIM is fantastic in
successfully putting
people first.”




“P-FIM is fantastic in
successfully putting
people first.”


Annex 4 Validation Workshop Participants

No. Name Postion Name of Organisation
1 Issa Amadou Ndiaye Directeur General ANCAR
2 Aliou Bassoum Charge de Communication / Plaidoyer Oxfam
3 Arona Doumbia RSEC pi PAPIL
4 Tenin Fatimata Dicko Snr. Prog. Officer R4 Oxfam
5 Diabel Ndiaye Chef Bureau Climat Application ANACIM
6 Aliou Bassoum Reg. Communication & Advocacy Officer Oxfam
7 Mamadou Wane National Prog. Officer R4 WFP
8 Robert Dekker Head of Programmes WFP
9 Moustapha Fall Directeur General Ajoint CNAAS
10 Malick Ndowe Conseiller Politique R4 Oxfam
11 Mamadou Dabo Chargee de Programme PAM
12 Bakalilou Diaby Chargee de Programme DR PAM
13 Amadou Ndiaye Director General CNAAS
14 Fatouma Diadie HOSO Ziguinchor PAM
15 Ousmane Badju Chargee de Programme PAM
16 Galine Yanon Index Expert Assistant PlaNet Guarantee
17 Fabio Bedini R4 Prog. Advisor WFP Rome
18 Bibata Sankar Head Sub. Office WFP Tambacounda
19 Florence Ndour R4 Focal Point WFP Tambacounda



54
Annex 5 Action Centered Leadership Model (John Adair)




Team
Task
Individual

55
Annex 6 Ownership and motivation around decisions



Leader
decides
Leader
presents
decision
Leader
consults
Team
participates

56
Peak
Feeling & Emotions
Ideas & Judgement
Fact and Data
Greetings and Small Talk
Withdrawal
© This version People First Impact Method 2013
Annexe 7 Communication Pyramid


57
Annex 8 Model of Team Working Development (based on Tuckman)







Forming
Storming
Reforming
Performing

58
Annex 9 Herzberg's Motivators
and Hygiene Factors

company policy and administration
relationship with peers salary
work conditions relationship with supervisor
supervision
personal life
relationship with subordinates status security

achievement
recognition
work itself
responsibility
advancement
personal growth
'motivators'
'hygiene' (or 'maintenance') factors
Hygiene factors are merely a launch pad - when damaged or undermined we have no
platform, but in themselves they do not motivate.
© alan chapman 2001-4

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.