Report on Impact Evaluation of Worth Literacy-Led Saving and Credit Program

USAID SIDA

Report on Impact Evaluation of Worth Literacy-led Saving and Credit Program

Submitted to Pact - Ethiopia

Worth Women Empowerment A Pilot Project Implemented in program Amhara, Oromiya and SNNPR: Ethiopia 2006-2008

January, 2009 Addis Ababa

DEPAC PLC

Senidu Abebe Bahre H/selassie Mobile: 0911-24-28-09 Mobile: 0913-09-81-45

E_ mail [email protected] E_mail: [email protected]

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

1 Table of Contents

Contents Page Executive Summary……………………………………………………………. 1 1. General Background and Program Context 1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………….. 5 1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation……………………………………………….. 1.3 Significance of the Evaluation…………………………………………… 1.4 Assessment Criteria……………………………………………………… 8 1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Evaluation 9 1.6 Organization of the Report……………………………………………… 10 2. Methodology and Sampling Techniques 2.1 Selecting a Methodological Approach…………………………………… 11 2.2. Data Sources and Instruments …………………………………………. 12 2.3 Drawing the Sample for ………………………………………………… 12 2.4 Method of Data Analysis………………………………………………… 15 3. Evaluation Findings: The Group Study 3. 3.1 Worth Program Capacity Building Evaluations………………………….. 16 3.2 Relevance of the program……………………………………………….. 17 3.3 Group Saving and Credit Evaluation…………………………………….. 20 3.4 Evaluation of Group Loans …………………………………………….. 25 3.5 Evaluation of Group Collective Action …………………………………. 33 4. Evaluation Findings: The Individual Study 4.1 Background Characteristics of Households ……………………………… 37 4.2 The Literacy Component of Program……………………………………. 39 4.3 Worth Program and Children‘s Education……………………………….. 42 4.4 Worth Program and Gender Equality……………………………………. 44 4.5. worth Program and Village Bank: Saving and Credit…………………….. 47

2 4.6 Worth Program and Micro-enterprise Development……………………... 49 5. Networking and Sustainability 5.1 Connectedness ………………………………………………………...... 54 5.2 Program Sustainability…………………………………………………… 58

6. Conclusions …………………………………………………………………... 61

7. Challenges…………………………………………………………………….. 64

8. Recommendations…………………………………………………………… 65

Annexes ……………………………………………………………………. 67

3 List of Tables Tables Page

Table 2.1: Number of Respondents by Woreda and Name NGO/Partner______14 Table 3.1: The Book the Groups Are Currently Studying by Name of the Partners (in %)______20 Table 3.2: Descriptive Statistics on Groups Selected Variables______23 Table 3.3 Types of regular meetings ______23 Table 3.4: Comparison of Membership Stability______24 Table 3.5: Number of groups established and disbanded in respondents kebeles______25 Table 3.6: Village Banks Activities______26 Table 3.7: Percentage of Amount of Saving by Name of NGOs ______27 Table 3.8: Descriptive Statistics of Group Saving______28 Table 3.9: Saving Status Categorized by NGOs______31 Table 3.10: Groups Involvement in Collective Action______34 Table 4.1: Respondents‘ background characteristics______38 Table 4.2 : Reading Skill of Worth Members______40 Table 4.3 Educational Status of Worth Members______41 Table 4.4: Number of Children Sent to School after Worth and Reasons______43 Table 4.5: the worth Member‘s Decision Making Status after Worth______45 Table 4.6: Voluntary saving status of Worth Members______47 Table 4.7: Loan Status from the sample Respondents______49 Table 4.8: Kind of Businesses Worth Members Were Involved______50 Table 4.9: Sales compared to last year______51 Table 4.10: Reasons for Not Involving in Income Generating Activities______52 Table 5.1; Networking and Coordination among Groups and Other Stakeholders______54 Table 5.2: Perception of Members on Strength of their Groups______55 Table 5.3: Perception of Members on Sustainability of their Groups in Percentage______56

ACRONYMS

ACSI Amhara Saving and Credit Institution AGOHELD Abebech Gobena Yehetsanat Keebekabena Limat Dirijit Active Learning Network for Accountability and ALNAP Performance in Humanitarian Action ANFEAE Adult and Non-formal Education Association in Ethiopia APA Appreciative Planning and Action CBOs Community- Based Organizations CSOs Civil Society Organizations DAC Development Assistance Committee EDA Emanuel Development Association EMRDA Ethiopian Muslim‘s Relief and development Association ERSHA Ethiopian Rural Self-help Association EWs Empowerment Workers FGD Focus Group Discussion FP Focal Persons GBV Gender-Based Violence GOs Government Organizations HEWs Health Extension Workers HUNDEE Oromo Grass roots development imitative MCs Management Committees SIDA Sweden International Development Agency SNNPR South Nations, Nationalists and Peoples Region USAID United States Agency for International Development VBs Village Banks WSA Women Support Association Zema Safe Zema Setoch Lefitih Metebaber

Executive Summary

Back ground of the Program

Pact-Ethiopia is an international development non-profit organization that has been legally registered as an NGO with the Ministry of Justice in Ethiopia since 1996. It also holds an operational agreement with the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission of the Country.

Pact - Ethiopia capacitates the local or indigenous organizations as well as the communities they serve in the country. Pact does this across key sectors, i.e. Education, Health and HIV/AIDS, Democracy And Governance, Vulnerable Children, Livelihoods and Women‘s Empowerment, etc. Pact accomplishes this by strengthening the capacity of grassroots organizations, coalitions and networks and by forging linkages among government, business and the citizen sector to achieve social, economic and environmental justice.

Women's empowerment issues are being addressed through two programs: Metebaber implemented through SIDA Cooperation and the WORTH initiative jointly funded by USAID and SIDA.

Worth has become widely known as a program for the economic empowerment of women in several African countries, and there are ample evidences which showed success in empowering women and building the capacity of implementing grassroots organizations and NGOs. As it is mentioned above Worth, as a pilot project has been implemented in Ethiopia since January, 2006, is jointly funded by USAID and SIDA. Worth is found to be a ground-breaking model, rapidly- scalable and low-cost program focusing on literacy and socio-economic empowerment of women in 15 Woredas of Amhara, Oromiya and SNNP Regional States.

Pact in collaboration with 9 Partner local NGOs has implemented self-managed savings and lending groups in the cited 15 selected rural Woredas.

The objectives of the program were:

 Increase the income of 9,000 women in 15 selected rural Woredas of Oromiya, Amhara, and SNNP Regional States;

 Increase the social interaction of and decision making role of targeted women in the selected areas through skill training, economic empowerment and networking.

Methodology of Evaluation The combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis were considered in the study. The evaluation applied scientific sampling design in the sample selection process to reduce the probability of having a biased view of the subject women, using multistage probability sampling procedure that includes stratification, clustering, and unequal probabilities of selection. Furthermore, sample of Key Informants and FGD participants were selected using non- probability sampling designs mainly convenience sampling and judgmental methods. This has made to describe the target population adequately and make valid inferences for the Worth members.

By using multi-stage sampling method around 930 Worth members were interviewed by applying standardized questionnaires. Likewise Key Informants and Focus Group Discussions were conducted with key and primary stakeholders, which substantiated the quantitative data obtained from the individual survey. One of the strengths of this evaluation was that it was highly appreciatory in approach and comprehensive in coverage.

Major Findings of the Evaluation

Worth Program has successfully organized around 9,000 women (100% of its plan), in more than 390 groups with an average of 23 members each during the survey. Pact has also achieved a significant result with regard to Partner‘s capacity-building in terms of hiring and training Focal Persons and Empowerment Workers though there are some variations in commitment and effectiveness of the Partners at the grass root level. Similar success was documented in production and distribution of different financial forms, formats and literacy materials to support Worth groups.

The ease of recruiting groups into Worth program, realization of significant positive socio-economic impacts on Worth members, encouraging initiatives/support by stakeholders to promote the program indicated the relevance of the program and its appropriateness in the target Woredas. About 33.9% sample respondents were able to read and write from Worth program. The literacy program also helped to some women to refresh what they have forgotten. Moreover, women who attended regular school or literacy campaign in the previous government in Amharic has learned to read and write in Afaan Oromo after Worth program.

Worth members were active participants in group saving and credit with an average monthly interest rate of 5.42 percent in the sample groups during the survey. About 72.2% groups have closed at least the first bank cycle. The average saving of sample respondents was Birr 151.92 and a great majority (81.3%) of sample respondents has voluntary savings. The survey result also shows 75% of the Worth members took loan from their groups at least once. Unlike other traditional loan providers in the country there is no evidence of loan default in Worth Village banks.

Women were found to send more children after they joined Worth program because they started to get better income and increased awareness. Worth women started to support students by participating in school meetings, follow-up children school attendance, checking children‘s results, checking home works, freeing children from agricultural activities and giving them time to study, and discussing progress with children.

Sample respondents reported that their participation in decision making has increased after they joined Worth Program in areas of children‘s marriage, buying and selling household properties, sending children to school, attending Worth and other public meetings, and so on.

The evaluation findings indicated that about 70% of Worth members have engaged in one or more businesses. The magnitude of diversification was also significant, in which 22.1% of respondents were engaged in more than one business. As a result, 66.47% of respondents had reported that their income has increased over last year. However, respondents listed the most important bottlenecks which hindered them not to engage in business, namely lack of own initial capital, lack of skill or know-how, and lack of credit or high interest rate in order of their importance.

The evaluation result also showed that Worth has demonstrated positive impacts upon women‘s empowerment and fostering community-based action against the complex challenges facing themselves, their families and their communities including HIV/AIDS, harmful traditional practices, gender-biased violence and promoting social infrastructure in many occasions like weekly meetings, mobile workshops, family days and public meetings. In general as pilot project Worth realized its objectives and proved to be workable in Ethiopia.

Major Recommendation

1. Despite the fact that there are encouraging results of worth Program in helping women to solve their socio-economic problems individually and collectively, from the evaluation

findings, there are no strong indicators that show the sustainability of the program if the program winded-up at the moment. Thus, it is good if Pact could extend the program for another extra time to finalize the remaining tasks including networking, cluster and union formation, and better skill development.

2. It was observed that the amount saved money by each Worth members was too small to establish or expand business. Thus, an effort should be made to link these groups to external credit providers such as MFIs and/or with funding organizations.

3. Pact in collaboration with implementing partners is strongly recommended to make a strong linkage with Local state and non-state actors before exiting from the target areas in order to get their support in the program implementation and in designing feasible exit strategy.

As it is identified from the survey, most of these trainings were not transferred to the target groups. If the training programs are to better upgrade the skills of Worth women it should be readdressed the observed gap in channeling the skill to the target women.

1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM CONTEXT

1.1 Introduction

Pact Inc. is a U.S. based nonprofit international development organization that is currently implementing 61 field projects in 15 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America and additional activities in 32 countries. Pact's global mission is to help build strong communities globally that provide people with the opportunity to earn a dignified living, raise healthy families, and participate in democratic life.

Pact Ethiopia, (Pact Inc. is an independent, private non-profit organization as determined by the US Internal Revenue Service) has been legally registered as an NGO with the Ministry of Justice in Ethiopia since 1996. It also holds an operational agreement with the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency of the country. The following is Pact Ethiopia's Mission Statement.

“Pact's mission in Ethiopia is to strengthen the institutional capacity of Ethiopian NGOs. We accomplish this by building the capacity of individual NGOs to carry out effective programs, by supporting NGO umbrella and networking groups to be proactive in representing and supporting their members, and by facilitating the creation of an enabling environment in which NGOs are able to work collaboratively with government on policy and development projects”.

Pact Ethiopia has been operational in Ethiopia since 1995. As stated in the mission statement, Pact is not an implementing organization. Rather, it helps build the capacities of local and/or indigenous organizations in the country and community based organizations, CBOs, as well as the communities they serve. Pact does this across key sectors, i.e. Education, Health And HIV/AIDS, Democracy And Governance, Vulnerable Children, Livelihoods and Women‘s Empowerment, etc. Pact accomplishes this by strengthening the capacity of grassroots organizations, coalitions and networks by forging linkages among government, business and citizen sectors to achieve social, economic and environmental justice.

Women's empowerment issues are being addressed through two programs: Metebaber implemented through SIDA Cooperation and the WORTH initiative jointly funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and SIDA.

Worth, as a pilot project, has been implemented in Ethiopia since January, 2006. Worth has become widely known as a program for the economic empowerment of women in several African countries, and there are ample evidences which show success in empowering women and building the capacity of implementing grassroots organizations and NGOs. Worth is found to be an innovative, rapidly- scalable and low-cost program focusing on literacy and socio-economic empowerment of women in 15 Woredas in Oromiya, Amhara and SNNP Regional States. The Worth, unlike many other initiatives in the Country, is an integrated project with comprehensive objectives. The objectives of the project have the following features1: Fostering action-oriented literacy and numeracy learning while organizing women in groups of 20-25 members; Enabling women to build transparent savings and credit groups through simple, practical village banking using their literacy skills; Enabling women to borrow from their savings to develop micro-enterprises; Enabling women to generate income from group lending with interest and the accumulated loan fund that will be kept to grow and expand within the group shall be subsequently distributed as dividend; Supporting women to take charge of improving their lives, families and communities through group-oriented learning and community-based action on issues such as HIV/AIDS, family planning, as well as Gender-Based Violence(GBV) and girls‘ education. Unlike other conventional development programs, Worth strategy is based on Women's personal potentials and strength, which will further encourage them to do better than making them pay unnecessary and extraordinary attention to their weaknesses.

Worth program was initially implemented in Nepal from 1999 to 2001 supported by USAID. As a result about 125,000 participants in Nepal tripled their literacy, doubled their savings, increased the number of women with micro enterprises four-fold and saw their business incomes rise eight times above former levels2. Though the program is adopted from Nepalese experience, the rationales that make Worth an innovative, rapidly-scalable and low-cost model in the Ethiopian context are:

1 Pact’s WORTH Model: A Savings-Led Approach to Economic Security and Combating HIV/AIDS, 2004.

2 Jeffrey Ashe And Lisa Parrott, 2001

Pact‘s strong linkage and credibility with local non-state actors in the country; in its implementation cycle, WORTH used partners' knowledge of local communities as an asset that fuels rapid start-up and low overhead cost; Skilled and committed human asset (at the Head Office) in planning and implementing the project; Strong base of NGOs across the target areas related to the project. Worth made local partners to do what they know best. The local Partners have been operating for more than two years in their respective fields of education, savings and credit; Literacy and savings reinforce each other in Worth model. Pact's major role was investing in groups with the skills and materials required to establish a self-sustaining, self-managed village banks built on equity rather than debt.

As to the project document, Pact uses an Appreciative Planning and Action (APA) approach that challenges the traditional problem-led development paradigm, encouraging participants to focus on the resources they have, to be confident, self-reliant, and to work together to achieve their dreams. It facilitates cooperation and learning, while capitalizing upon the energy that comes when women realize and appreciate their own power and energy to change their own socio-economic problems.

1.2 Purpose of the Evaluation

The general objective of this evaluation was to determine the effectiveness and overall impact of the program activities on the target women, and assess the challenges and suggest possible recommendations.

The questions this evaluation tried to address were mainly in the domain of effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of project activities at output, outcome and impact level. It mainly addressed the points including:

The importance/relevance of the interventions in relation to the specific objectives and overall goal of the program. The potential of the interventions to contribute to livelihood systems of the target beneficiaries.

The current status of effectiveness/performance of Worth interventions and activities. The extent to which the key and primary stakeholders have been involved.

1.3 Significance of the Evaluation

The output of the impact evaluation will help Pact Ethiopia to determine whether the program activities have been carried out as detailed in the project document and the extent to which project objectives are met, the appropriateness of adopted approaches/methodologies. The impact evaluation findings will also serve in informing Pact, Partners, Donors and other stakeholders in making decisions if the pilot project is to be scaled-up.

1.4 Assessment Criteria

The consultants have applied criteria adopted from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), including relevance/appropriateness, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact on Worth participants as much as possible.

Project Relevance/appropriateness:

Were the project‘s objectives consistent with the target groups‘ priorities in each of the sectors addressed by the major components? Relevance of the project: consistency between the area situation and the objectives, between the inputs and the outputs within each component, and between the different components of the project. Appropriateness of Worth implementing strategies Was the organizational set-up between Pact and Partners sound to implement the project?

Project Effectiveness: Level of partnership and cooperation between Pact, Partners and the Local Government; Did the activities produce the desired outputs and contributed to the realization of the objectives?

Whether the planned activities have been implemented according to the plan? Which factors did contribute to the effectiveness of the project or have proven to be a constraint?

Efficiency:

Technical efficiency: quality and quantity of the technical support to the Worth women; Organizational efficiency.

Impact:

The evaluation has assessed the project results and outcomes and its contribution towards socio-economic empowerment of Worth members; The evaluation has specifically addressed the perception of the beneficiaries concerning the impact of the project.

Sustainability:

Involvement and collaboration with the local authorities and different stakeholders– continuity of their involvement after phasing out of the project; Persistence of the positive effects of the project after the end of the Pact‘s assistance; Capacity of Worth groups on different components of the program with out external assistance.

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Evaluation

The absence of universally acceptable indicators of empowerment and convolution of the indicators as well as the interdependence of the variables can be seen as one of the limitations of the evaluation. The multi-dimensional nature of women‘s empowerment i.e. economic, socio-cultural, familial/interpersonal, legal, political, and psychological, are very broad in scope, which overlap each other, and within each dimension. There are also a range of sub-domains within which women may be empowered. Moreover, in order to operationalize these dimensions, the indicators need to be considered at various levels of aggregation – at household and community, and regional levels. This makes it difficult to effectively gauge the impact Worth project.

Methodological difficulty to measure counterfactual: The usual limitation of impact evaluation is the inability to measure the changes brought about by the program and the natural changes that could happen without the program or the changes due to other interventions supported by other organizations or programs. The multi-interventions in the area may mask or overstate the project contributions.

The report is limited to the questions posed in the evaluation TOR and major Program components, as well as to others that the evaluation team felt to be important. Thus, it may ignore important positive or negative impacts of the Program, which are area specific or which appear on few individual Worth members.

1.6 Organization of the Report

For simplicity of understanding, the report is organized in eight sections. It first introduces the program back ground and context in section one followed by methodology in section 2. Sections 3 and 4 present the evaluation findings at group and individual levels respectively. Similarly, section five deals with the sustainability issue followed by the conclusion part in section six. Finally, sections seven and eight present the challenges faced and the recommendations forwarded respectively.

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

An extensive fieldwork took place in 12 Woredas of SNNP, Oromiya and Amhara Regions during a four week period in November and December 2008. The methodology consisted of rapid assessment procedures and included a combination of document review, interviews and focus groups discussions (FGD). Site visits were made to 12 Woredas where 9 partners run the Worth Program in the three Regions. Primary participants and stakeholders in the program were interviewed, including individual and group members, husbands of Worth Women, Partners both in Addis Ababa and the field, local government officials, and elders.

2.1 Selecting a Methodological Approach

In developing an evaluation design, two general methodological approaches— quantitative and qualitative— have been considered repeatedly as alternatives. Apart from the objectively verifiable indicators (i.e., quantitatively measurable impact indicators), the nature of the project consists many important qualitative indicators. The conventional wisdom among evaluators is that quantitative and qualitative methods have different strengths, weaknesses, and requirements that will affect evaluators‘ decisions as to which are best suited for their purposes3.

In our case we used a ―mixed-method‖ design, combining both quantitative and qualitative to develop a full picture of why the project may or may not be having anticipated results and to document the outcomes.

At the evaluation planning period we had intended to use the large sample principle to reduce sampling errors, but after a series of discussions with the client/Pact Ethiopia and learned the multi-dimensional nature of the program, the issue of sampling error could be minor. Rather, we concentrated on other errors which could undermine the program impact as well as the quality of the evaluation output. As a result, the evaluation has taken due emphasis on sample bias (which usually occurs primarily due to loss of sample units) and response bias. Thus, an effort is made in sampling to reduce sample bias and response bias in addition to the selection of samples using standard statistical procedures.

3 The 2002 User-Friendly Handbook for Project Evaluation, National Science Foundation, January 2002.

2.2 Data Sources and Instruments

The data for the study was collected both from primary and secondary sources. As described in section 2.1, the assessment has made use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative data obtained from secondary sources such as Pact‘s quarterly reports and documents, Partners‘ status records. But most estimates (data) used in the report are primary data gathered in the field survey during the extensive field visits whereby formal closed and open ended interviews were carried out both with individual and group sample members.

Two separate questionnaires (individual and group) were developed by the consultants. The individual questionnaire was translated into Amharic and filled by selected and trained enumerators. And the group interviews were conducted by the team of consultants. In addition, checklists were developed to guide interviews held with FGD participants and key informants. Pact staff members had played significant roles in elaborating the context and objectives as well as the expected results of the program during enumerators training in almost all target areas. Moreover, they were involved in monitoring and facilitation of the field work, which had invaluable contribution to the quality of data. The report has also included the feedback given by Pact staff and Partners who participated in the briefing workshop.

The qualitative data were gathered from interviews held with:

Working partners themselves: sample partner officials at their respective head quarters (Addis Ababa) and all Focal Persons and Empowerment Workers at the target area;

Key Informants including (not inclusive) Woreda administrators, Woreda Women affairs, Woreda Small And Micro-Enterprises Development Offices/Cooperatives Offices, Micro- Finance Institutions, Woreda Non-Formal Education Sectors;

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with minimum 10 participants comprising kebele administrators, religious leaders, elders, community association representatives, husbands of Worth women, Worth group representatives, and health extension workers.

2.3 Drawing the Sample for Survey

An important feature of cross-sectional data is that we can often assume that they have been obtained by random sampling from the underlying population (the 9,000 Worth women). Hence a

random sample was critical if the study was to reflect the wide range of the impact and levels of effectiveness of Worth program. About 930 individuals Worth members were selected from 12 Woredas and all 9 partners were included in the study. The formula used to calculate the sample (n) was:

n = [ t2Np(1-p)] / [ t2p(1-p) + 2(N-1)]

Where:

n = required sample size; N= total Worth women (N=9000); t = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96); p = proportion of Worth women assumed to be accessible during the survey; α = margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.05).

Carefully constructed stratified sampling has made it possible to draw valid conclusions about the impact of Worth program in the target areas. The sampling procedure followed the steps outlined below. The respondents were selected using multi-stage sampling method. The total target groups were clustered into relatively accessible and non-accessible in consultation with the respective Focal Persons and EWs4. The inaccessible groups were dropped, unless there are unique socio-economic features (which need special consideration), from the sample frame at this stage. The remaining groups were further stratified into sub-stratus based on the criteria to follow: Rural-urban dichotomy; Time period since the groups were formed; Past performance records of groups Next, proportional sample respondents were selected using systematic random sampling method. For better representation of the population (target Worth Women), the greater the number of women in a Woreda and a group the grater the sample size was drawn. In addition to the population size, the socio–economic heterogeneity was also another point of consideration. The more homogeneous the women in a Woreda the lesser was the sample size and vice versa. Accordingly the sample size of respective Woredas is given Table 2.1.

4 The accessibility of certain target groups was contained by remoteness of the centers from the road corridors(geographic factor), lack of road access(due to summer floods and harvest time), etc.

Table 2.1: Number of Respondents by Woreda and Name NGO/Partner

Woreda of the Name of NGO % OF Respondent TOTAL AGOHELD ANFEAE EDA EMRDA ERSHA HUNDEE RCWD WSA Zema TOTAL

Safe

Adami Tulu 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 87 9.40

Aleltu 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 9.40

Ambo 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1.30

Angolelana Tera 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 86 9.29

Arsi Negele 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 93 10.04

Dandi 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 0 84 9.07

Habru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 77 8.32

Hitosa 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 89 9.61

Jeldu 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 36 3.89

Meskan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 117 12.63

Tarma Ber 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 6.70

Toke Kutaye 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 10.37

Total 108 87 62 89 86 120 180 77 117 926 100.00

2.4 Method of Data Analysis

Quantitative data generated from the household surveys was entered and analyzed using the SPSS software package to generate frequency distribution and percentages. Moreover, cross tabulations were used to show associations of variables. Qualitative data generated from interviews was collated and corroborated with quantitative data thereby producing the evaluation report.

3.0 EVALUATION FINDINGS: THE GROUP STUDY

A Separate group and individual interview questionnaires were developed by the team of evaluators. The primary objective of the group evaluation was to measure the performance, the strengths and limitations, as well as the sustainability of the groups involved in the Worth Program. Both the individual and group questionnaires were extensively revised and simplified by Pact staff to reflect conditions of the Program5.

3.1 Worth Program Capacity Building Evaluated

Pact is not an implementing organization. Rather, it capacitates the local or indigenous organizations in the country to build their capacities as well as the communities they serve. The strategy of Worth Program implementation followed by Pact in forming partnership was successful. The partnerships with local NGOs, which work at the grass root level made Worth to be rapidly scalable at reasonable cost for it helped the implementing NGOs to work what they already are doing. Pact selected local Partners to mobilize communities. As a result, around 9,000 women formed groups with an average of 23 members during the survey.

Pact achieved significant results with regard to Partner‘s capacity-building program alone. Pact hired Focal Persons and EWs as staff of local Partners. Partners‘ staff (Focal Persons and EWs) took basic trainings as Training of Trainers (TOT). The major trainings were:

Management Committee Training I and II, Business Development Service (BDS), Generate Your Business Idea and Start Your Business (GYBI and SYB).

This capacity building to local partners gave greater organizational strength by facilitating the development of financial and technical skill of Focal Persons and EWs. Focal Persons and EWs reported that Worth has implemented needs-based training at the grassroots level. Thus, EWs and Focal Persons were satisfied with content and relevance of the trainings.

5 Each questionnaire is attached in annex II

Producing and distribution of different formats related to administrative and financial management of groups were good inputs. Some group participants of the FGD commented that the formats are too many and time consuming. And this has become a hectic task for the Management Committees (MCs). For instance, in Meskan Woreda Mekicho Kebele6 FGD participants said that processing different formats caused repeated delays after each Worth meetings. They also commented to further reduce the formats if possible. Producing simplified literacy manuals in the local languages were also said to be effective at the output level.

3.2 Relevance and Appropriateness of the Program

Did the Worth program meet the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries? Was the program appropriate for each specific local context, and why?

As the key informants perceived, recently the Ethiopian Government has given more emphasis on education through formal and non-formal/alternative basic education. But all efforts of the Government and NGOs in the education sector have ignored issues of adult literacy. As a result many attempts related to social benefits such as health education and sharing of information on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS, etc are found to be challenging.

Sampling of comments made to Evaluation Team during field visits and interviews

“First of all I would like to thank Pact and AGOHELD for building the school for the 1st time to our community. Really we learned a lot of good things from Worth group members one of which is time management. On the other hand the Worth members including my wife have developed good vision for their future that makes the program relevant”. A husband of Worth woman in Kesso Kebele(Ambo Woreda)

6 Wereda and zone are the second and third lowest administrative hierarchies in Ethiopia. Kebele is the lowest administrative hierarchy; a Woreda is a collection of contiguous kebeles, and zone a collection of contiguous woredas.

The literacy program was appropriate to Worth women in general and particularly to women in the Oromiya region for it helped them to learn the language (Afaan Oromo).

After I joined worth group I learned a lot of things. For example, I used to read and write only in Amharic before, because I got a chance to learn during the past regime. But now by being a member of worth group I got a chance to learn Afaan Oromo and now I can write and read in Kube (Qube7). A Worth women from Dendi Woreda, Ginchi Kebele

The Worth women also pointed out the benefit of the program from the income generating aspects:

Being a member of worth group enabled me to get a lot of things that helped me to improve my life as well as the life of my family. Previously I was a house wife, my husband was the only bread winner of the family, He used to work for individual who construct house as a daily laborer. He used to earn little money which was not enough to cover our household expenses. We didn‟t have a bed to sleep my life was vary miserable. But thanks to the worth program our life has started changing. I took loan from my worth group three times, in each round I obtained 200 birr. With the first loan my husband has started his own business (buying and selling trees for construction). We got some benefits from the business hence, we managed to pay our loan within the set time. With the loan I got from my Worth group for the second time I bought bed and some household staffs, with the third loan I managed to open a small tea and coffee shop. Now our life is much better than before. A Worth women from Jeldu Woreda

The Worth women also indicated the importance of the program in strengthening the social interaction, for example a Worth member from Toke kutaye, Birbirsa Kebele said the following:

Although most of us (Worth members) reside very close to each other for many years, we were not good neighbors that mean we didn‟t have a close relationship. But now after we become a member of same worth group, most of us become best friends, good neighbors who help each other in time of both happiness and problems

7 Qube is a Latin script used in Afan Oromo.

In addition to the major components of the program, Worth has created a big opportunity to Local Development Workers (including health and agricultural extension agents) to use the program as an entry point. These groups were included in the FGD, and they witnessed positive achievements in areas of HIV/AIDS and raising family planning awareness, saving in kind and money (examples of such unintended positive outcomes were especially visible in Aleltu, Jeldu, Hitosa, and Arsi Negele Woredas). The program is welcomed not only by the Worth women but also by the community at large, which indicates its relevance to the target areas.

The implementation strategy through local partners was appropriate. The partnerships with experienced local NGOs made Worth to be a rapidly expandable program at reasonable cost. The target was to organize 9,000 women in the target areas. During the survey, more than 9,000 women were organized in more than 390 groups with an average of 23 members. The ease of recruiting groups into Worth program indicates the relevance of the program and its appropriateness in the target Woredas. The enormous demand for literacy, savings and credit services in the target areas was witnessed by several stakeholders.

Partners and local government officials have been facing a strong demand to expand the program to other kebeles and adjacent Woredas. For instance, in Habru Woreda (South Wello), the Woreda Women‘s Affairs and Woreda Administration Representatives said there are 33 kebeles in their woredas. But the program is only functional in three kebeles. Thus, they recommended to scale-up the program to other kebeles. In explaining their rationale they said the program has resulted in fruitful benefits to women in areas of (1) exercising their rights of property and land sharing equal to men which is not visible in non-members; (2) curbing harmful traditional practices such as early marriage of girls; (3) court participation beyond the tradition of Sheria court. (4) Active participation in public gatherings and public works. The idea was shared by all other woredas’ government administrations, which is a good indicator of Worth relevance to their respective areas.

However, the issue of scaling-up should be harmonized with the financial and physical resources available. The technical and financial assistance by Pact such as distribution of materials, hiring Empowerment Workers and continuous monitoring seems to be prerequisites to the success of the Program.

3.3 Women Participation in Worth Program

3.3.1 Participation in Literacy Program

Soon after the establishment of the groups, they started to participate in the literacy activities. Pact has successfully developed and distributed literacy manuals to all groups including the expansion areas. Literacy and savings are the core components of the Worth model. With regard to the project document, there are three series of literacy and numeral books or manuals prepared in two languages: Amharic and Afaan Oromo.

The first book in the series, ‗Our Group‘ teaches women basic sounds, letters and numbers, and principles of developing strong groups. Women were seen working through this first book together with the help of local literacy volunteers who are already-literate group members. Accordingly, a great majority of sample groups have finished the first book (only 5% were still reading the first book and all of them were from ANFEAE and Zema Safe). (See Table 3.1 for the comparative effectiveness among Partners).

Table 3.1: The Books the Groups Are Currently Studying by Name of the Partners (in %)

What book is the group studying now?

The road to Name of the Selling Our group & wealth & Total NGO Our The road made the road to selling made group to wealth simple wealth simple AGOHLOM 0 100 0 0 0 100 ANFEAE 25 50 0 0 25 100 EDA 0 0 100 0 0 100 EMRDA 0 0 0 0 100 100 ERSHA 0 100 0 0 0 100 HUNDE 0 100 0 0 0 100 RCWDA 0 0 12.5 0 87.5 100 WSA 0 100 0 0 0 100 Zema Safe 20 40 0 20 20 100 Total 5.56 52.78 11.11 2.78 27.78 100.00

The second book, ‗Road to Wealth‘, instructs women on how to set aside mandatory and voluntary savings and use simple calculations to track the growth and management of

savings and borrowing; and study basic principles of bookkeeping that enables the group to function as a self-sufficient village bank. Another key learning point in the second book is the idea of networking and linking with other groups in their area to share success stories, engage in community-oriented actions and encourage new groups. During the survey, 52.78% of the sample groups were learning the second book.

In the book series mentioned above, the third material is ‗Selling Made Simple‘, where women learn about good management of micro-enterprises. As depicted in Table 3.2 only 11.1% of the sample groups were learning the third book during the survey. The Table also shows variation in effectiveness among partners. The benefits of the literacy component realized from individual Worth members are discussed in the individual study (Section 4). Generally, we can conclude that the coverage of these books falls short of the project life, which calls for additional effort to do otherwise.

The information obtained from group discussions and group interview during the survey shows the literacy volunteers are not functional in most areas due to lack of payment incentives and time constraints. The evaluation team believes that there is a chance for many members of the groups who remained still illiterate to be able at least to read and write provided that the literacy volunteers are morally and materially strengthened to make it happen. One of the comments forwarded by FGD discussion participants and empowerment workers was that it would have been good if Pact continued strengthening the literacy volunteers.

3.3.2 Participation in Saving Activities

During the survey most groups were actively functioning the savings and credit activities in the target areas. The Worth's development replaced the traditional external financial subsidies; rather women are required to pay mandatory savings set by each groups. Worth saving and credit component is a strikingly simple concept that women save together in groups of 20-25 members. As pilot project Worth has significantly enabled women to build transparent savings and credit groups through simple, practical village banking, using their literacy skills. It also enabled women to borrow from their savings to develop micro- enterprises, which in turn helped them generate income.

In this regard, 100% of the surveyed groups had the mandatory savings. The maximum weekly mandatory saving during the survey was 2 Birr per member. And 100% of them also commented/recommended that the amount of saving is insignificant to achieve economic empowerment through any type of business undertaking or to realize their objectives set at the time of group establishment. Rather, they still anticipate external loan and some times grant in terms of reward for best performers. For instance, women in Habru and Arsi Negele Woredas requested external aid or loan quoting some interventions, which provide seed money as revolving fund given by partners. At least two important implications can be derived from the result; firstly, there is a need of consistency (homogeneity) in implementation approaches of all the women empowerment programs by partners. i.e., all Worth implementing Partners should follow the Worth model (avoid external subsidy) in other programs/projects. Secondly, the expectation of external fund had partly resulted from misleading promise given by EWs. Thus, continuous sensitization orientations should be given to Women groups to reverse the issue.

The maximum loan duration during the survey was 6 months. And the mean loan period was about 3 months. The main reason for the short loan period was due to the high demand of loan by other members coupled by the high liquidity constraint of groups. The groups are active participants in group saving and credit. But, the small amount of loan per period, the long waiting time to get this loan, and the short repayment period of the loan are unlikely to enable the success of the third major component of Worth project: micro-enterprise development, thus indicating the desirability of the long saving period to achieve economic empowerment.

However, there are many success stories of significant economic progress in Worth members. Though small in number relative to the size of the total Worth members, some Women have been involved in businesses such as petty trading (shops, making and retailing local beverages, local breads, injera, etc), animal fattening, handicrafts etc. and have been able to realize substantial economic empowerment.

Table 3.2: Descriptive Statistics on Groups Selected Variables

Std. Variables Min Max Mean Dev* Members in sample group 11 37 23.1 5.28 Months since the group formed 12 30 26.18 4.66 Total saving 653.1 10,465 4,432.7 2,283.13 No. Of women currently borrowed** 0 35 15 9.94 Monthly interest rate in % 2 10 5.42 2.41 Total loan given to members currently 450 9548 2,689.6 2,007.31 Loan duration in months 1 6 3.29 1.44

Note: * The greatest the standard deviation implies the greater the variation in the average values. ** The minimum value 0 does not mean means were not borrowing but they are expecting loan from repaid money during the survey.

The interest rate ranges from 2 percent to 10 percent with average monthly rate of 5.42 percent in the sample groups (Table 3.2). Surprisingly the interest rate is higher than even the profit making institutions. But groups have the sole power setting their own rate based on the consent of VB members. Accordingly, no evidence was documented from the evaluation results that show opposition of members on the high interest rate. It was because the interest earnings flow to the group funds which will be distributed as dividend or channeled to group loans.

Table 3.3 Types of regular meetings

Types of meetings Frequency Percent Saving and credit Every week 100 Literacy Every week 100 Every 2 weeks 21.4 Every month 64.3 Mobile workshop Every two months 3.6 Every three months 10.7

However, the evaluation result indicated that at the beginning, many of the groups and their members seemed to have pulled together quickly in anticipation of funding from Pact/Worth program. Evidences are available from Hitosa Woreda where more than seven groups dissolved mainly because they were discouraged by the unavailability of external fund, though political case was also a reason. The high number drop-out of members in Tarma Ber Woreda could also be attributed to the same reason. Unlike many other areas, in Tarma Ber Woreda some members who had better economic status left their group due to the limited amount of saving by group members.

The rate of groups being formed by existing groups

Although some groups disbanded, existing groups created new ones at a rate that exceeded the rate of failure the other groups. When the initiators of the newly formed groups were asked, their response was (1) the new groups were organized by themselves after they observed the positive changes on the older groups. (2) The continuous motivation from EWs. The contribution of EWs was also significant in initiating and organizing the new groups.

Table 3.4: Comparison of Membership Stability

Std. Indicators Mean Deviation Std. Error Members left the group 5.39 4.42 0.83 New members joined the group 2.39 3.75 0.71 t =2.98; Sig. (2-tailed)= .005

The number of women who left their groups was by far higher than the new members that joined the program. The result was significant at 95% degree of confidence level. Their reasons vary in context and areas. It ranges from political dimension (e.g. in Hitosa), low level of saving which discouraged the better-off (in Debre Sina Town) to lack of anticipated external funding (in most Woredas). This implies that there is a need of continuous orientation to eradicate the external anticipation of funding. Moreover, more attention in strengthening the existing groups required before scaling-up the program to other areas.

The evaluation findings show that there is no strong evidence that indicates new groups will continue to be formed by existing ones. But in the group interviews members said that non-members ask them individually about the program.

Table 3.5: Number of groups established and disbanded in respondents kebeles

Indicators of group stability Percent of ―YES‖ answers

New groups established 11.1

Dissolved/disbanded groups 5.6

In most group interviews and FGD, the trained Management Committees(MCs) and volunteers say they have the skills to create new groups if they are requested for assistance from nearby areas. Thus, the process of the spontaneous creation of new groups by existing groups and the quality of these groups needs additional study since this represents a no or low cost strategy for replication.

This shows that an expansion strategy using trained group leaders as local promoters has considerable potential. Instead of employing empowerment workers, one strategy could be hiring best group leaders rather than having them work voluntarily as they are doing now. There are some merits in hiring local leaders. For instance, the cost would be relatively minimal. About 4 to 5 local promoters could be hired for the cost of one empowerment worker, although these local promoters would not have the same mobility or the skills of the current EWs. The second important point is it reduces the effect of EWs turnover. However, it seems hypothetical, provided that the tight time scheduling with regard to women engaged in economic and social activities, which needs further assessment.

3.4 Group Savings Evaluation

The village bank was intended to help 20 to 25 women, which enables them to establish or expand micro and small businesses (another key component of Worth Program) as ancillary

means of their livelihoods. The survey result showed that all contacted groups conduct weekly meetings for saving and credit and literacy programs. Both saving and literacy meetings are held for a minimum of one hour to a maximum of two hours. Group members are bound to abide by group rules and regulations the breaching of which may result in penalties of 0.5 to 1 Birr for absenteeism per meeting. Groups were responsible for setting their own meeting rules and electing their own Management Committees. In addition, Worth recommends that each woman pay a program entrance fee and periodic book fees that can be used to build up the group‘s savings fund.

Each group elects a management committee (MC) and all MCs receives training in bookkeeping and financial management procedures and coordinate group activities. As indicated in the following Table 3.5, 27.78% VBs have never closed the first bank cycle in which most of them are young (or replicated) groups. And the majority (72.22%) of them has closed at least the first bank cycle, which indicates a remarkable achievement at output level.

Table 3.6: Village Banks Activities

Response Percent None 27.78 Bank cycle closed Once 41.67 Twice 19.44 Trice 11.11 MC 5.6 Who closed the last bank MC and EWs 83.3 cycle? Only EWs 5.6 Other 5.6

Currently we cannot conclude these groups are independently running the financial management procedures. Table 3.5 shows a striking result with regard to MC capacity. Only 5.6% of the sample groups had independently closed their bank cycle (see Table 3.5 for details). The reasons for this ineffectiveness as cited in the group interview were:

Members trust EWs than MCs as the latter have better arithmetic skills;

Lack of the necessary skills for the event is observed normally after six months. The implication is MCs need simulated or prototype exercise to master the bookkeeping and financial management procedures before the program phases-out. Another related observation of the evaluation is that it will be difficult to replace the trained and experienced MC in time of death, mobility or reelection. Because members were not observed making similar exercise and even failed to observe what the MCs usually do and this was a result of the inability of most of the members to read and write. The current high literacy rate may help to mitigate this problem implying another assignment to Pact/Partners to reveal the need to ensure sustainability.

With regard to the saving status of VBs, the great majority of the groups were still saving one Birr per week during the survey. But some groups increased their weekly saving from one to two Birr(e.g. in Adami Tulu Woreda). Though the rate of saving is recommended and expected to progressively increase from time to time, group members generally stick to their saving at the rate where they initially began.

Table 3.7: Percentage of Amount of Saving by Name of NGOs Current weekly saving in Birr Name of Total NGOs 0.5 1 1.25 2 AGOHLOM 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 100.00

ANFEAE 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

EDA 0.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 100.00

EMRDA 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

ERSHA 0.00 75.00 0.00 25.00 100.00

HUNDEE 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

RCWDA 0.00 62.50 0.00 37.50 100.00

WSA 0.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 100.00

Zema Safe 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Total 2.78 77.78 2.78 16.67 100.00

Considering the maximum 30 months reported since members joined Worth Program, an individual member saves 1440 Birr, if she saves 1 Birr per week. Of the 16.67% sample groups, which save the maximum rate, two Birr per week were from RCWDA 37.5%, EDA 33.3%, ERSHA 25.0%, and WSA 20% respectively (Table 3.6). In the course of the survey, the average saving of sample VBs was Birr 4,515.39(the standard deviation indicates the significant variation among groups‘ savings).

Table 3.8: Descriptive Statistics of Group Saving

Std. Min Max Mean Deviation Group saving 653.10 10465.00 4515.39 2301.00

Group savings generally scaled-up substantially, indicating great achievement of the Program. The maximum and minimum amount of savings by VBs was Birr 653.10 and 10,465.0 respectively (Table 3.7). The major causes for the increase of savings were:

The voluntary saving of group members, The interest rate collected from loans and fines ; The large majority of VB members accrue all their dividends to their individual savings. This has helped them get more loans as the amount of saving an individual owns serves as collateral enabling to get more loans for business and other purposes; Voluntary savings by VBs members: An interesting finding of the evaluation was that voluntary saving by members is increasing from time to time mainly due to the development of saving culture by members.

One of the greatest achievements that Pact should be proud of the program is that the majority the members including their husbands and children have developed substantial saving habits which were nonexistent, as witnessed by members and their husbands in the FGD, before the program. This saving habit has helped Worth Women not only to prudently manage the money they save and borrow from their VBs but also to make annual harvests, which was lavishly used in the peak season.

For instance, the key respondents from Hitosa Woreda ( the Woreda Administrator and the head of Women‘s Affairs) highly appreciated the impact of the program comparing it to other similar efforts by the Government and other NGOs.

They said “our Woreda is the highest crop producer in the country. It supplies staple and producer crops to the country. But a significant number of households run out of food and some times out of seed and are exposed to hunger specifically in the fourth quarter of the year (June to September). The reason is that they sell their crops. As a result they rent their land in winter at a cheap price or borrow for example 100 Birr in exchange for 1quintal of grain to be paid during harvest season. Or they go to village money lenders who charge an exorbitant interest rate of up to 100 to 200%. This problem are common phenomena in our area. But the Worth members are successful to get rid of such a problem not only in saving the Birr in the group but their harvests at large”.

They also requested to scale-up the Program to other kebeles more than the currently targeted three kebeles adding that they are ready to provide any help they are asked for. This idea was shared by FGD participants. Of the VB representatives participated in the FGD some of them were challenged by their husbands in saving their crops as well as participating in Worth activities. Thus, they strongly commented that sensitizations workshops and awareness raising orientation should be given to males too. In substantiating this idea, a 36 year-old woman from Hitosa Woreda said ―we need male partnership for better success. One cannot clamp with one hand. So Worth should do some thing on males‖. This is a good lesson to Pact in its future intervention, though it needs further study before implementation.

Some groups, for instance in Habru Woreda, Sirinka Kebele did not retain their dividends, which exerted negative influence on the loan amount each member can take. But, they used it to buy uniform costumes (two in some groups), which gave unique and colorful appearance to the groups besides improving their personal hygiene and ‗beauty‘ as well as their perception. Moreover, the uniform dress has also enabled them to attract other non- members and local community including government bodies. They said ―we felt proud during the millennium celebration when every body identified us easily as Worth Women‖.

Some groups were also found to be innovative in raising group fund. In Adami Tulu Woreda, sample group used to purchase consumable items(such as sugar, edible oil and grains) in bulk taking the opportunity of government initiative to stabilize prices. Their action benefited members in several dimensions. Firstly, it enabled members to get the items at lower prices (for instance they distribute oil at 7 Birr/lt. lower than the market price). This is a significant outcome of the program and we would like to emphasize the advisability of propagating this to other target Woredas and groups for it contributes a lot in alleviating the negative impact of inflation which has become a threat to the livelihood of the majority of households in the country. Secondly, it raised the group fund as the groups add some margin on the items wholesale price and it is a plus to the group savings, which are also to be entered into members‘ savings passbooks. Thirdly, it increased the recognition of Worth groups by other stakeholders including the local government.

Fourthly, it enhanced the Worth groups networking and lobbying capacity, which contributes to future sustainability. In due corse, it is worth mentioning the RCWDA staff strength and commitment in the Woreda to the success of the program, which was not visible in Arsi Negele Woreda by the same partner. One challenge in the process was the groups are not legally certified as a result of which they are not entitled to get the chance of buying items from the distributors, which was solved temporally with the effort of RCWDA staff. The implication is that Pact remains with an assignment to certify the VBs either in groups or strengthening the already started union, which have unequivocal merit of serving as entry point to other state and non-state actors. Moreover, the legal certification will serve Worth groups to get place to work and sell.

Table 3.9: Saving Status Categorized by NGOs

Saving quartiles

First Second Third Fourth quartiles quartiles quartiles quartiles Total Name of the NGO

AGOHELD 11.11 10.00 12.50 0.00 8.57 ANFEAE 11.11 10.00 25.00 0.00 11.43 EDA 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 5.71 EMRDA 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86

ERSHA 11.11 10.00 12.50 12.50 11.43 HUNDE 11.11 10.00 12.50 0.00 8.57 RCWDA 11.11 30.00 25.00 25.00 22.86

WSA 0.00 10.00 12.50 37.50 14.29 Zema Sef 33.33 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

When we compare Partners‘ effectiveness against VBs savings status, the WSA ranks first where 37.0% of its sample group laid down in the fourth quartile, while none of its sample VBs were found the first quartile. Second in the rank are EDA and RCWDA. Zema Sef Lesetoch takes the least rank where 33.3% of its sample groups were found in the first quartile (lowest savers group) (see Table 3.8).

During the survey time, there were no voluntary savings in other institutions except in the VBs. But, some groups in Tarma Ber Woreda and many groups in Meskan Woreda have started saving in microfinance institutions namely the Amhara Saving and Credit Institution (ACSI) and Meklit Saving and Credit institution. The former mainly save for safety reason and the latter for both safety and interest earning.

3.4 Evaluation of Group Loans

There is a huge demand for credit in all sample village banks (VBs). Money is lent out as quickly as it is repaid. The sample groups were active lending institutions with more than 90% of the savings out in current loans. Another anticipated problem that did not arise was the fear that the women may fail to repay their loans. The survey result findings have documented no serious problem in loan repayment. Some rescheduling arrangements were made upon agreements with members when they believe the borrower cannot repay the loan at one time due to some serious problem, demonstrating their collective action to cooperate with each other. Of the total sample groups interviewed about 11.1% of the groups reported late payments on current loans. But all previous late loans are eventually repaid, i.e., no default has been observed, signifying remarkable output. The most cited reasons given for this success, among others, include: Members are allowed to borrow on the basis of the evaluation of their repayment potential and the profitability of their business engagement; Borrowers are allowed to borrow less than or equal to the amount of individual savings they have in the group; Group members consider it unethical and results in social out casting when individuals fail to repay their debts; There are some arrangements to help defaulters. In Meskan Woreda some groups have arranged a weekly Iqub8 in addition to their weekly savings with an intention to finance their emergency cash demand and settle their loans. In other Woredas, for instance, in Habru and Adami Tulu Woredas Worth women have started buying household items using Iqub. It has also created strong social capital. Some times repayment rescheduling is done to allow the borrower to have more grace period.

8 The Iqub is a traditional ―savings and loan‖ association in which the sum of each member‘s small regular contribution is made available to each member in rotation, providing each contributor with a one time sum of money which was larger than what they could possibly raise alone. It was this allotment that allowed members to buy household items and pay loans.

During the survey, the average loan term was 3 months, in which 72.22% of the sample groups provide loan less or equal to the average time. Most loans are commonly repaid at the end of the loan term, which helped women work better as opposed to installments. On the other hand it decreases both the availability of funds for new loans and thus some women were forced to search for other options. But this problem may be solved when the group fund is bolstered.

No evidence was found from the evaluation that hints any exercise of extending loans to outsiders. Loans to members outside of the group could come to be a major source of income (in the form of interest rate) to build up the group fund. The reason given for not providing loans to an individual outsider, or external institutions or other VBs was that sample VBs have no surplus money. Similarly Worth members were not observed to get loan from outsiders (including individual money lenders or MFIs).

Sample groups were asked if the current loan is sufficient to finance the micro-enterprises which were supposed to develop. Hundred percent of the respondents replied ―No‖. Accordingly, though it was not possible for the evaluation to determine the absolute number or percentage of additional capital required, the evaluation findings showed that there is a very large unmet demand for loan capital in all groups. Despite this fact, there was no initiative by groups to meet the demand from other sources. When asked how they would raise this money, their response was that they strongly expect the money to come from Pact or other NGOs rather than increasing their savings rate or the membership fees or more fundraising events. The achievement of the program in this respect is the eradication of dependency syndrome-the women have realized that if they receive money from another source they will have to pay interest on it, i.e., they do not expect it to be free. The reason that they do not use loan from MFIs was the high interest rate with out grace period.

3.5 Evaluation of Group Collective Action

Although there is no baseline data and the level of mutual assistance cannot be ascribed strictly to participation in Worth program, there are evidences, which show impressive results in mutual assistance. Two categories of mutual assistance or collective action were examined during this evaluation: collective action in business and social interaction.

Encouraging initiatives were observed where women helped each other with their businesses including loan payment, advice on how to produce, advice on selling and sharing tools and equipments. Generally speaking mutual assistance in business areas is not impressive. This is mainly because the women are operating micro-businesses individually, which require low business competence. However, women were observed to have strong social linkage and interaction. Table 3.9 presents the major findings of collective action on social issues.

Table 3.10: Groups Involvement in Collective Action

Types of collective action Percent

Collective action in fighting HTP 22.2

Fighting Gender biased violence 27.8

Prevention of HIV/AIDS 38.9

Participation in promoting social 8.3 infrastructure

Participation in Worth is not solely a financial or economic empowerment. The second objective of the Worth Program was to increase the social interaction and decision making role of targeted women in the selected areas through skill training, economic empowerment and networking by the end of the project.

The most impressive result of Worth Program was achieved in the social aspect. The evaluation result showed that Worth has demonstrated positive impact upon women‘s empowerment and fostering community-based action against the complex challenges facing women, their families and their communities. Mutual assistance between members was found to be strong. This is also a good indicator of sustainability. As depicted in Table 4.5, through Worth, women discuss about HIV/AIDS and family planning in many occasions like weekly meetings, mobile workshops, and family days. About 39% of the sample groups interviewed reported that they discuss on the issue of HIV/AIDS and it helped them to raise their awareness on the pandemic and thereby take some actions against it. Some important points are worth mentioning on the results. There is great variation in the effectiveness of collective action from place to place;

Most of health related issues were provided by health extension workers not by EWs, which shows EWs are mainly focusing on the savings and credit part of the program. The Worth meetings have served as springboard to development workers at the grass root level to disseminate socio-economic information. Another strategic issue at this point is that the Program can go beyond mere information dissemination. For instance, it is also involved in the collective action of helping Orphaned and vulnerable children (OVCs) and PLWHAs to access essential care and support, including food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. This could be done through group contributions and lobbying concerned bodies (collective voice). A practical evidence was obtained from Meskan Woreda where Worth women contribute grains in harvest time to support HIV/AIDS orphans.

4.0 EVALUATION FINDINGS: THE INDIVIDUAL STUDY

To examine the impact of the program at individual level, a separate questionnaire was conducted. The major focus of this evaluation was to compare the changes Worth members have undergone in the areas of literacy, saving, loan status and utilization as well as engagement in micro-businesses before and after the Program. As per the project document the objectives of the program are:

Increase the income of 9,000 women in 15 selected rural Woredas in Oromiya, Amhara, and SNNP Regional States; Increase the social interaction of and decision making role of targeted women in the selected areas through skill training, economic empowerment and networking by the end of the project. To quantitatively measure some selected variables, a sample of 930 women were interviewed on the major components of Worth Program. Accordingly, the results of the individual study reflect a wide-ranging impact that Worth Program has had on the lives of its members. As far as strengthening its members with respect to savings and credit groups is concerned, Worth Program has achieved significant levels of literacy, saving and empowerment as the women learned to actively manage many of their groups‘ activities themselves instead of depending on outside agencies.

Unlike the traditional microfinance programs working in the target areas where all resources are focused on giving out loans and getting them repaid (including the revolving funds), Worth Program has a much broader objective. In addition to strengthening its groups as savings and credit, Worth Program achieved significant levels of literacy, group solidarity, decision making and in providing information on reproductive health.

As described in the introductory part, impact was measured in six thematic areas, with important changes registered in: 1. Literacy;

2. Savings and borrowing;

3. Micro-enterprise development;

4. Income and well being;

5. Changes in the women‘s decision making in the household and community;

6. Mutual Assistance or collective action.

4.1 Background Characteristics of Households

The average age of the respondents was about 37 years. The age distribution of the big majority of members (almost 89.6%) ranges from 18 to 50 years old. Interesting implications can be drawn from this result. Firstly, the majority of Worth members lie in the child bearing and productive age group. Such women are expected to support more children. Thus it may imply effective targeting of children well-being using the Worth members as entry points. Secondly, Worth members were observed to participate in social and health issues.

From the evaluation result, evidences are documented which show the group members awareness on family planning, HIV/AIDS, child care, etc is raised. The implication is that participation of these women in the Program has resulted in positive impact in social dimension.

The average household size was more or less the same (6 persons rounding to the nearest whole number). And the minimum and maximum HH sizes were 1 and 16 persons respectively. As shown in Table 4.1 below, around 40% of the sample HHs had 6 to 8 persons, which is even larger than the national average (around 5 persons per household). The figure can have dual implications. On the one hand, empowering the Worth members means alleviating the socio-economic problems of the large members of the households. On the other hand, the higher the household size the larger will be the consumption demand, which diverts the household capital which in turn leads to lower savings and investment (i.e., a challenge for economic empowerment).

Table 4.1: Respondents’ background characteristics

Percentage distribution of respondents by background characteristics Background characteristics Frequency Percent Age age less or equal to 20 22 2.4 age 21 to 30 295 31.8 age 31 to 40 352 38 age 41 to 50 162 17.5 age 51 to 60 78 8.4 age 61 years and above 18 1.9 Total 927 100 Mean age 36.97 Std. Deviation 10.4 Minimum 18 Maximum 75 Marital status married 700 75.6 separated/divorced 84 9.1 widowed 111 12 single/never married 31 3.3 Total 926 100 Household size less than 3 127 13.7 from 3 to 5 249 26.9 from 6 to 8 372 40.2 9 and above 178 19.2 Total 926 100

Marital status may influence decision making on Worth members. Of the total sample respondents 75.6% were married. Only 3.3% of them were unmarried. As the survey result reveals there was no major challenge from husbands that constrain participation in Worth activities. Members witnessed that there were some challenges from husbands and the community at the beginning mainly due to the cultural factors. But now these skeptics have realized the benefits of Worth program and instead most husbands have become partners than constraints. To substantiate this result it is worth mentioning a point from the FGD:

I don‟t know about others but personally I really appreciate this Worth Program because I have seen some positive changes in my livelihood. For example since my wife joined Worth group she started to read and write, she managed to buy some house stuffs like blanket, households utensils etc. with the money she had saved in this worth program. Now she is productive not dependent. Hence I support this program in so far as it brings positive changes to my family. (A 40 years husband from Jeldu Woreda).

4.2 The Literacy Component of the Program

„A better educated mother has fewer and better educated children. She is more productive at home and in the workplace. And she raises a healthier family since she can better apply improved hygiene and nutritional practices‟9

Effectiveness of the Literacy Component

Worth programs started with literacy as its core component. Considering the short time the Program has been operating, and that it was running by local volunteers – it has accomplished great achievements. Of the sample respondents only 23.4% had formal schooling (Table 4.3). A significant number (33.9%) managed to read and write from Worth program. Respondents were asked to read a paragraph from their books. The results of the experiment showed that around 76% of respondents can at list write and sign their names and 24.1% of them cannot read at all (see Table 4.2 for details).

9 King and Hill 1993: 12 as quoted in Anna Robinson-Pant

Table 4.2 Reading Skill of Worth Members

Reading status Frequency Percent

Reads easily 315 34.0

Reads with some difficulty 263 28.4

Reads with great difficulty 125 13.5

Cannot read at all 223 24.1

Total 926 100.0

The frequent reasons given by those respondents who cannot read and write were mainly age and health factors (sight problem is specially held responsible to hinder the literacy rate). More than half (62.4%) can now read a paragraph ―easily‖ or with ―some difficulty‖, and some 13.5% read the paragraph with ―great difficulty‖ (these women are usually those who can write and sign their names and who also need further effort to go beyond what they are doing now).

A Worth member from Jeldu Woreda of Oromiya Region age 55 highly appreciated the Worth literacy program by saying the following. “ I have been using this road for the last 45 years, but recently when I pass by this same road I saw a sign post and read it . It says „Jeldu woreda police station‟ (in Oromifa language) I saw this sign post many times before but I didn‟t know what is written on it. Thanks to Worth literacy program I can read and write now”.

It is striking that those who ―cannot read at all‖ or ―can read with great difficulty‖ regularly participate in the literacy program to listen what others read and discuss on the issue, and most of them know the contents and messages in the books. For many, especially adult mothers, having attended regular school or participated in literacy campaign long ago per se had little impact on their being able to read now. Many of them appreciate the literacy program as it helped them to refresh what they have forgotten.

Table 4.3 Educational Status of Worth Member

Education level Frequency Percent Illiterate 227 24.5 Literate before worth program 150 16.2 Literate after worth program 314 33.9 Grade 1-4 54 5.8 Grade 4 and above 163 17.6 Others 19 2 Total 927 100

Another important finding of the evaluation is that women who attended regular schooling or literacy campaigns in the previous government in Amharic have learned to read and write in Afaan Oromo after worth programs. Of the total women who cannot read and write, 70.9% were from Oromiya region, which accounts for 27.1% and 17.1% of the sample from the region and the total sample respectively. (See annex 1.1 for details). The reason was simple. Oromiya regional state switched from Amharic to Afaan Oromo as its official language. This meant that any woman in the region in general and the Worth groups in particular who had ever attended school in the previous government, had learned to write in Geéz script not in Afaan Oromo with its Latin script, the current official language being used in the region. The situation has made the Women in the region totally illiterate of the Latin script.

During the group interview Women reported that it was difficult to get a literacy volunteer from the group. Now, 58.6% of those who can read and write from Worth program are from Oromiya Regional State. This figure accounts for 31.5% and 19.9% of the Oromiya Region sample and the total sample respondents respectively, which shows significant contribution of Worth Literacy Program in the Area. Now most participants can read and write a letter, read a signboard, and also Worth news paper. The absence of similar initiatives in the area also signifies the program's relevance to the Region. In substantiating this findings Worth members gave the following comments:

“Previously we were ignorant of what our children learn at school. Thanks to Worth now we have learned how to read and write in Afaan Oromo language. I check children‟s note book when they come home from school. I can read a letter and signboard on the road or in towns. This is a great event in my life.” (A 41 years old member from Dendi Woreda(Ginchi)).

This program brought us many things. It enabled us to read and write. Before worth program, most of us used to sign with our fingers but now we managed to sign by writing. This is a great change in our life ( Worth member from Ambo-Kesso).

First of all I world like to thank Pact - Ethiopia and AGOHELD for building a school for us for the 1st time in our community. Really we have learned a lot of good things from Worth Program, and worth group members for example have developed a saving culture and became conscious of time management. It became customary to Worth group members to reach on time to a meeting place and finish their program according to their planned schedule. On the other hand the Worth Program developed good vision for their future. (A Husband of Worth member from Ambo-Kesso).

Considering the short time the Program has been in existence, it has made significant contributions in the area of literacy. To conclude, the literacy component of the Worth program was effective at output level.

4.3 Worth Program and Children’s Education When women have more control over resources, household expenditure patterns are geared relatively more towards human development inputs, such as food, health and education (Gustav et al, 2000).

It was expected that Worth participants will bring positive impact on their children‘s well- being including education. Respondents were asked to compare about their children‘s education before and after Worth Program. Moreover, women are sending more children after they joined Worth program. The Women were also asked to mention the major reasons for sending more children to school for which the majority of respondents, across all Woredas, said that the amount they spent on education had increased over the last year mainly due to the prevailing inflation and increased cost of school materials than the increase in the number of children sent to school. Few women also reported they are sending children to private colleges and schools from the money they borrowed from VBs.

Educated mothers have shown to be more likely to send their children to school. The evaluation result showed concrete evidence that increased school attendance after children‘s parents attended the literacy programs. As indicated in Table 4.4 below, around 42.44% of the respondents reported that they are sending more children to school. The reasons given were ‗my children became older‘, ‗my income increased‘, ‗increased awareness after worth‘, and a combination of these reasons.

Table 4.4 Number of Children Sent to School after Worth and Reasons

Reasons Frequency Percent No students 143 15.44 My children became older 143 15.44 My income increased 27 2.92 Increased awareness after worth 183 19.76 No change 388 41.9 Other 10 1.08 My children became older and my income increased 2 0.22 My children became older and increased awareness after worth 16 1.73 My income and awareness increased 10 1.08 All reasons 2 0.22 Total 924 99.78 Not stated 2 0.22 Total 926 100

Though the evaluation did not attempt to compare the Worth members and non-members with regard to educating their children, around 20% of respondents reported that they sent more children to school because they understood the merits of education after they joined Worth program. More interesting findings of the evaluation is that mothers started to support students in practical ways, such as by participating in school meetings, follow-up children school attendance, checking children‘s results, checking home works, freeing children from agricultural activities and giving them enough time to study, and discussing

progress with them. From these results we can conclude the program has achieved significant result at an outcome level.

The quantitative data was substantiated by qualitative information. During the FGD in Meskan, Woreda Worth members‘ commented that their previous ways of controlling their children were more traditional and harmful including physical punishment, rather than giving advice on how to study their lessons. As per the information we got from the field, this all is a positive result of the program. However, we found the contribution of increased income to children education to be insignificant, mainly because it is premature for the business to sufficiently meet the full household financial needs.

4.4 Worth Program and Gender Equality

In Ethiopia, there are ample evidences that show ‗male‘ dominance in the overall family affairs and household programs. The program was expected to enhance women‘s empowerment (participation and interaction), in bringing women to explicit platform by helping them ‗learning to talk‘, in building up self-esteem and confidence, in the context of women taking a greater part in decision making.

Though there are minor differences in context and the kind of decisions involved, the evaluation results suggested Worth women have now been able to decide about whether to send their children to school and regarding family planning. Sample respondents were asked a question: ―Has your decision making increased after you joined worth?‖ in areas of children‘s marriage, buying and selling household properties, sending children to school, attending worth and other public meetings, and others. Accordingly, 83.4, 68.6, 78.5, 80.9, 88.3, and 81.0 percents of respondents replied ―YES‖ respectively for the above questions. See the following Table 4.5 for the details.

Table 4.5: the worth Member’s Decision Making Status after Worth

Areas of decision making Frequency Percent Decision in family planning yes 772 83.4 no 154 16.6 Decision on children's marriage yes 635 68.6 no 291 31.4 Decision making in buying and selling yes properties 727 78.5 no 199 21.5 Sending children to school yes 749 80.9 no 176 19 Attending in worth meetings yes 818 88.3 no 108 11.7 Joint decision making in the above yes 750 81 areas and other areas (Idir, school no committee, local administration, etc.). 176 19

In this case FGD participants such as community leaders in the target areas have witnessed positive changes on the above indicators which resulted from worth program. These changes included: seeking medical help for themselves and a sick child, adopting preventive health measures through improved hygiene and sanitation, and greater knowledge of family planning methods, gender equality and building confidence. But, Worth women have commented that it could have been good if there was some arrangement to orient males in the program. The idea was also supported by health extension Workers (HEWs). For instance, a HEW in Meskan and Adami Tulu Woreda said that the women have increased their demand to use contraceptives but they encounter resistance from their husbands. They pointed out that many women use contraceptives without the knowledge of their husbands. Furthermore, the HEWs indicated that this practice will create problems in the family once the husbands discover the fact. The important implication to Pact is that the social benefits could have been maximized had the program been designed in a way that incorporates male and community participation. Hence, it is our suggestion to reconsider the issue if the program is to be continued, with further assessment in bottom-up planning approach.

The survey result shows remarkable achievement in women‘s decision making. Worth participants have gained more voice in household decisions and discussions through acquiring experience of speaking and persuading at home and in the ‗public‘ space: respondents reported that the majority of participants felt that they had indeed learned how to persuade their husbands to listen to them more and had gained confidence in steering family affairs. However, the figure should be interpreted carefully. The results cannot be fully attributed to worth intervention for there are similar interventions by GOs and NGOs via mass-medias, women‘s and youth associations, women‘s affairs, and so on.

It was assumed that attending in literacy and participating in Worth programs by itself could be a threat to some groups such as husbands, individual money lenders and the like. But the survey result has documented no major evidence observed in this regard. Concerning this the evaluation team conducted FGD and key informant interview with husbands of Worth Women, Woreda and Kebele leaders, religious leaders, health extension workers, youth association and women associations representatives at different levels. Asked to reflect their opinion whether Worth Program has any negative effect upon individuals and/ or institutions from culture, religious or political perspective, all contacted informants and discussants replied ―NO‖. Examples are mentioned as follows:

We all have seen a great improvement in members of worth groups and also we are encouraging them to do more. However, we still can‟t say that they are improving their livelihood conditions to a desirable extent as they are very far from reaching their objectives, therefore it is very important if this worth groups get some external support whether financial, logistics or trainings which can enhance or enable them to improve their life situation. (Elder from Jeldu Woreda).

According to Ato Fantahun from Habiru Woreda Women‘s Affair Office (gender expert) who reported that his office has strong linkage with the Worth groups in the Wereda, this link is formed due to the coordinated effort exerted by WSA in Worth and other intervention in his area. The office appreciated the program because it is benefiting a lot of the women in the community and managed to organize a lot of women within a short period of time and at a low cost.

Ato Fantahun also said:

People in our community do not like gathering or meetings but when we see in this program women are happy and willing to participate in the Worth meeting every week. Previously most of the Women were not allowed to gather in public place due to religious and cultural influence in the community. However, members of worth groups have shown remarkable changes regarding this and they have started to gather in public, they have also learned how to save money, how to get loan from their group etc. using this worth program.

The idea is unanimously shared by all members in all study Woredas. There are also examples which show political and social participation in some areas after they joined Worth Program.

A member was elected as Kebele women‘s association representative in Sirinka Kebele, Habru Woreda because she learned how to read and write from Worth program. Similarly, many were elected as group management committee, Idir 10management (e.g., in Adami Tulu), school committee and the like.

4.5 Worth Program and Village Bank: Saving and Credit

During the evaluation period, it was learned that virtually all the women in Worth Program save weekly their mandatory savings and a great majority (81.3%) of sample respondents have voluntary savings and the figure (voluntary saving) includes those members who only saved once (the minimum voluntary saving reported was Birr one).

Table 4.6: Voluntary saving status of Worth Members

Do you have voluntary savings Frequency Percent

yes 753 81.3

no 173 18.7

Total 926 100.0

10 Idir is a traditional community based organization where individuals make regular contributions and usually engaged in social ceremonies such as mourning, marriage and the like collectively. Nowadays, these institutions have started to support OVCs and people with disabilities.

The average saving of sample respondents was Birr 151.92 with a standard deviation of Birr 154.32, which ranges from minimum Birr 16 to a maximum Birr 2,200. The newer the members to join the group the lower the total saving they have or the more they stay as members in the groups the higher their voluntary saving and also the higher their total saving is than others. Individual members usually borrow proportional to the amount of total saving they have. Hence, most of the sample respondents reported that the amount of saving they accumulated is unlikely to change their lives. But the greatest and striking impact of the saving component is that the saving cultures of the members as well as some of their husbands have greatly changed.

We were extravagant and unplanned spenders before we joined worth groups but since we became members most of us learned the benefit of saving and realized that we can bring changes from cents. (A Worth member from Dendi Woreda)

For almost all worth program women, the Worth groups were the only place they were saving and the only place they were taking loan from. There are a few exceptions that only some worth members saved with other groups, and NGOs (Hunger Ethiopia-in Meskan Woreda) or micro finance -institutions.

The survey result shows 75% of the Worth members took loan from their groups at least once. But groups lend proportional to individual savings (1) for collateral purposes and (2) for credit rationing. The group members‘ demand for loan is extremely greater than the amount of money groups accumulated, that is why sequential borrowing became mandatory. A member should wait not less than three months to take loan repaid from other members in the group. Moreover, the amount of loan is usually less than 100 Birr in the majority of woredas. Thus, it is unlikely to expect members to establish sustainable businesses under such circumstances. Almost 100% of individual and group respondents as well as husbands and community leaders unanimously requested and or recommended Pact to solicit external funds to acquiesce to the increasing loan demands of women.

Unlike other traditional loans there is no evidence of loan default. Groups have also devised a mechanism to avoid problems of repayment in terms of weekly iqub and rescheduling of repayment period if they got it rationale to do so.

Table 4.7: Loan Status from the sample Respondents

Have you taken loan from the group Frequency Percent

Yes 695 75.1 No 231 24.9 Total 926 100.0

Two contrasting results can be observed. In Meskan Woreda almost all members reported that they have chronic shortage of money to engage in income generating activities. On the other hand, they save their group money at micro-finance rather than channeling the limited money to business activities. Unlike previous periods, no evidence is found during the survey in which Worth members currently have taken a loan from individual money lenders an encouraging fact that implies the presence of better alternatives. This finding was supported by information generated from FGD participants. They articulated ―Now we are saved from exploitation of traditional money lenders‖. They remembered events in which they were requested to pay interest more than hundred percent. Such instances were severe in Hitosa Woreda, where households sell/rent their land during winter to finance their temporary but crucial problems such as family /child medication. Generally, one can conclude group members have become active savers and borrowers.

4.6 Worth Program and Micro-enterprise Development

Building small businesses is a key component of Worth, and women are encouraged to start businesses based on their local business skill, gearing their businesses to the local markets. Many women are familiar with subsistence farming to grow marketable vegetables, raise goats or keep chickens, while others near towns get engaged in petty trading. Worth recommends multiple and diverse enterprises to spread risks and provide regular income that will enable loan repayment. While it takes time for women to develop this diversity, it increases the sustainability of income generation. Pact - Ethiopia has invested a lot in EWs capacity building. More than 36 EWs have taken intensive training on group formation, basic business skill and book keeping training programs.

The evaluation result indicated that about 70% of worth members had engaged in one or more businesses (Table 4.8). Among these most of them were engaged in agriculture followed by manufacturing local materials and service. About 15% of them are engaged in merchandize trade (retailing and wholesaling) for these groups are agrarian living in rural areas. The magnitude of diversification was also significant, in which 22.1% of respondents were engaged in more than one business. The implication is that Pact/partners have achieved remarkable output within short time.

Table 4.8: Kind of Businesses Worth Members Were Involved

Type of business Frequency Percent Commerce/trade 137 14.8 Manufacturing 57 6.2 Service 53 5.7 Agriculture 187 20.2 Not involved in any business 287 31 Two ore more businesses 205 22.1 Total 926 100

When we look at the outcome of these businesses, 66.47 %(Table 4.9) of respondents had reported that their income has increased last year, of which 19.79% increased a lot and for 46.68% increased a little bit. The business owners are at least empowered morally by engaging in their own businesses. However, most women are engaged in traditional businesses or business types, which they were running from previous experiences, such as processing local liquor (Areki) (especially in Tarma Ber and Meskan Woredas), handicrafts, and retail of agricultural products. Though these micro-enterprises need limited skill, are less risky, and less capital demanding, they were also observed to be less profitable.

Moreover, duplication of similar businesses in one area were observed rather than finding a niche market by involving in business types which could have higher profit margins. The positive aspect of the approach was that external support was not a prerequisite to run these businesses. A critical examination of the situation leads to the following implications:

It may impair women‘s potential to be innovative and develop new businesses, which could be more profitable(though some times risky); It underminces the extensive business training given to EWs and focal persons that could have brought more transformation from traditional to modern business. It leads to imitating other even nonprofitable businesses and/or create market congestion.

Thus, the message is simple. Pact/Partners should try to harmonize the trade-off. Had it not been limited by financial constraints and shortage of facilities such as storage, and the lack of some initiatives such as experienced in Arsi Negele where women buy cereals in harvesting season at lower prices and sell it when supply ebbs at attractive prices are found to be encouraging.

Asked to compare the current income they got from their business against last year, more than half (66.47%) of the 662 valid respondents perceive their income have increased a lot or little bit.(Table 4.9), mainly because they diversified their businesses, able to buy more merchandise and inputs, and to some extent purchased new equipments. On the other hand the minority of the respondents‘ income was observed to have decreased. The major reasons for the decrease on income were crop failure, death of animals and health related issues. Though the magnitude of change is low, the net increase is by far larger than that of the decrease, which showed the encouraging result of the Program.

Table 4.9 Sales compared to last year

Level of sales/ income Frequency Percent Increased a lot 131 19.79 Increased a little bit 309 46.68 The same 102 15.41 Decreased a little 95 14.35 Decreased a lot 25 3.78 Total 662 100

Respondents were asked to list the most important bottlenecks which hindered them not to engage in business (es). Accordingly, their responses as tabulate below are lack of own initial capital, lack of skill or know-how, and lack of credit or high interest rate, in order of their importance. The most striking result of the individual survey is that there is no market problem in the entire target Woredas. The implication is that what is produced can be sold profitably. Though it is premature to conclude, the two problems (lack of own initial capital and lack of credit or high interest rate) also show the extent to which Worth saving and credit intervention solved members' problems, i.e. the significant role played by Worth program with regard to micro-enterprise development. The message of the evaluation is straight forward. The Worth program needs to work more for extra time to realize economic empowerment of the women.

Table 4.10 Reasons for Not Involving in Income Generating Activities

Reasons Frequency Percent Lack of own initial capital 63 21.95 Lack of skill or know-how 44 15.33 Lack of market or profitability 6 2.09 Lack of credit or high interest rate 42 14.63 Others 3 1.05 A composite of the above reasons 129 44.95 Total 287 100

Another important implication of the survey was lack of the necessary business skill as a constraint to start or establish business. The reason belittles Pact‘s effectiveness of skill training given to empowerment workers. Though empowerment workers (EWs) visit groups regularly during saving meetings they also try to advise members individually. The efficiency and effectiveness of EWs were constrained by among others:

Significant turnover of trained EWs in search of financial benefits. EWs appreciate Pact‘s skill development program. But they express their dissatisfaction in the ‗low‘ salary they are paid, absence of provident fund, medical allowance, fear of job security and so on.

Replacement of untrained and incapacitated EWs. This was visible in Arsi Negele Woreda where a student was employed as EW. But, the two EWs even do not know the place where most Worth members reside. Poor motivation and neglect of EWs by respective partners. Some EWs express their dissatisfaction in the way partner organizations treat them .i.e., some EWs reported that partner NGOs do not consider them as their employees. And it has negatively influenced their jobs. But there are also exemplary organizations like HUNDE in Dendi and Jeldu Woredas, which highly appreciate and encourage EWs and their Works. Thus, it will be incumbent upon Pact to it that the aforementioned problems are rectified if the program is to be successfully continued. Role of Focus Persons (FPs) in providing technical assistance to EWs and groups was low and variable from place to place. The reason was usually time constraints due to the additional tasks shouldered by them. There were also instances that show the trainings given by Pact were not transferred to the newly hired EWs. But the effort by Pact Staff to fill the gap is greatly appreciable.

5.0 NETWORKING AND SUSTAINABILITY

5.1 Connectedness

Normally, the linkages and cooperation among Worth groups and other stakeholders begins at the planning period almost immediately before groups begin to join the program. One indicator of project strengths is its success in networking with relevant staff. The issue of networking was analyzed using the Worth groups as a unit of analysis and between key and primary stakeholders. Worth has built good relationships between groups through mobile workshops and Family Days. Worth groups send two members to nearby groups to have an opportunity to exchange experiences. The emerging initiative of forming unions between clusters is also expected to strengthen the existing connectedness among groups.

Table 5.1 Networking and Coordination among Groups and Other Stakeholders

Indicators of networking and coordination Percent Has group ever sent members to participate in a yes 97.2 Mobile Workshop? No 2.8 Has delegation from another group ever attended yes 94.4 one of your meetings? no 5.6 Has the group received any help (e.g. trainings, yes 11.1 advise, etc) or funding from the MFI? no 88.9 Have group ever visited any other government yes 11.1 office? no 88.9 Do you think Worth project can sustain without the yes 69.4 help of EWs and Focal persons? no 30.6 Has group participated in any other NGO projects or yes 8.3 training besides WORTH? no 91.7

As presented in Table 5.1 of the sample group respondents, almost all (97.2%) have sent their members to a mobile workshop at least once. The study participants appreciate the event for it helped them to discuss about saving status, exchange information about

businesses skill, their rights, groups strengths, group conflict resolution, about merits of Worth, how to create network and union among groups. This experience sharing is also gained from delegates of other groups. A unique feature of Worth program is the Family Day where women meet with their families to present both group and personal accomplishments. Group respondents reported that it helped them to get recognition from local Authorities. For instance, appreciating the program, Local governments of Habru(WSA) and Adami Tulu (RCWDA) Woredas have promised to provide the necessary assistance. A more interesting result was also the Family Day which was an event contributed to the establishment of new groups and new members joining the existing groups. Many women said that the event was a turning point in their family‘s understanding and acceptance of their participation in the group, which shows success in connectedness.

Table 5.2: Perception of Members on the Strength of their Groups

Percent of ―Yes‖ Perception of group respondents answers Getting stronger 77.8 Remained the same 11.1 Getting weaker and weaker 11.1 Total 100

Of the sample group respondents, 77.8% believe that their group is getting stronger and stronger (Table 5.2). All sample groups from AGOHELD, ERSHA, HUNDEE and WSA lie in this group. Half of the ZEMA SAFE and quarter of ANFEAE and EMRDA responded that they are getting weaker and weaker (Table 5.3). Most of them said that they increased support and understanding between members followed by increased saving and lending activities as evidence of increasing group strength. It is our suggestion to consider the issue of the remaining groups.

Table 5.3: Perception of Members on Sustainability of their Groups in Percentage

Getting Remained Getting weaker Total stronger the same and weaker

AGOHELD 10.71 0.00 0.00 8.33

ANFEAE 10.71 0.00 25.00 11.11

EDA 7.14 25.00 0.00 8.33

EMRDA 0.00 0.00 25.00 2.78

ERSHA 14.29 0.00 0.00 11.11

HUNDE 10.71 0.00 0.00 8.33

RCWDA 17.86 25.00 50.00 22.22

WSA 17.86 0.00 0.00 13.89

Zema Safe 10.71 50.00 0.00 13.89

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

According to the evaluation result, Worth program was least effective in creating network with local stakeholders, which influence the effectiveness and sustainability of the program. Of the total groups interviewed, only 11.1% were visited by government officials and microfinance institutions (MFIs). During the FGD, Worth group representatives were asked a question: ―Do you have any working relationships with other institutions like for example Women's Affair, Kebele, NGOs or with any institution in the Woreda except the NGO you belong to?‖ The answers from two women are quoted as follows. ―We have never got any assistance or support from other institutions in our Woreda except HUNDEE. Neither the institutions come to help us nor we as a Worth group have gone to them for help‖; ―I don‘t think that the other institution in our Woreda knows even our existence except HUNDEE‖. The implication is that Worth members have felt less recognized, indicating that further effort should be exerted to reverse the feeling.

An exemplary good relationship with MFI was observed in Meskan Woreda, where groups started saving in Meklit MFI anticipating more loan in exchange. Moreover, experts of the

MFI give orientation on group saving and credit, on the possibility of getting more loan from MFIs. Similar initiative was also observed in Tarma Ber Woreda by Amhara Credit and Saving Institution (ACSI). During the key informant interview, Meklit‘s officer from Meskan branch) forwarded his comment as follow:

” We appreciate the program at least for the following reasons. Firstly, it helps the target groups to develop a saving and credit culture and this is an opportunity for us. Because they will become sustainable sources of financial supply. Secondly, they will become active borrowers to expand or establish a micro-business. We have arranged a credit facility which allows them to borrow four times the money they have in their account. For instance, if they have 20,000 Birr in their account they can borrow 80,000 Birr. As a result they can invest on larger ventures than they are doing now”.

These promising co-operations were the results of good relationship and initiative between Zema Safe and EDA staff with the MFIs.

The reasons for this less effective performance in areas of networking according to the views of the key informants were:

Lack of joint planning, implementing and monitoring of the project. It would have been good if vision, mission and goals were shared with Woreda administrations, line offices and other stakeholders working in the target areas when the project started. Poor awareness of the program by stakeholders. Most stakeholders do not formally know the program, which implies the need of familiarization workshop, identification of responsibilities and forming a common forum or network for implementation.

The example of RCWD of Adami Tulu, unlike a similar partner in Arsi Negele, established a network with different line offices to prepare an exit strategy if Worth program ends and should be replicated. The Woreda administration and Women‘s Affair‘s Office in Hitosa Woreda have also taken a good step in helping the women in collaboration with EMRDA by giving a plot of land which has the potential of producing 50- 60 quintals of cereals per annum. They were also preparing to give land to the women for constructing grain stores as

well as cooperative shops in groups. This good initiative was fueled by previous experience of the Woreda Administrator when he was a Pact-TEACH facilitator/ teacher, indicating a latent potential of linking the TEACH Program with Worth Program.

There are also similar initiatives in other areas, which indicate the relevance and appropriateness of the program to the society. The evaluation team observed that there were no homogeneity in the efforts made and the effectiveness of networking from partner to partner. The level of effectiveness also varies with the personal commitment and effort of Focal Persons and EWs at the grass root level. It will be left to Pact and its Partners to bring homogeneous modalities of networking.

5.2 Program Sustainability

The basic question in this regard was that ‗How sustainable are the positive impacts of the Worth once Pact intervention ends? To this end the views and opinions of Worth members and key stakeholders were assessed. The main findings of the evaluation with respect to sustainability were the following:

1. Of the total sample group respondents the majority (69.4%) of them were confident that they can continue with out external assistance. Though this is a good success the remaining percentage is also significant and needs further consideration.

2. Sustainability of the program mainly depends on the strength of partnership and networking with key and primary stakeholders. All the partners are encouraged about positive results in their respective operating areas. The Focal Persons are also well equipped with the program context and basic skills provided by Pact extensive trainings. This is a good achievement to Pact as well as good indicator of sustainability. A close scrutiny of on issue of Pact‘s partnership with the implementing NGOs showed mixed feelings and opinions both at Head Office and grass root levels.

i. Appreciations: Worth has well organized training materials, the program staffs at the head office level closely supervise and make follow-up on the program at the grass roots level and the literacy materials are good and practical. The evaluation team has observed the continuous follow-up and supervision from Pact staff had

invaluable contribution to the program achievements. The idea was shared by groups in the study areas.

To make program sustainable, Partners‘ suggestions were also forwarded:

 There is a need for clear future direction from Pact on how to proceed and sustain the program;  Formal guidelines and bylaws are very important in order to promote and replicate the literacy and saving and credit programs;  There is a need to involve husbands in the program;  Invite other staffs (other than Focal Persons and EWs) of Partners to participate in the training organized by Worth Program. Other program staff should be capacitated to be able to facilitate the program in the absence of the focal persons;  Financial Formats to be filled by Worth members are many (in terms of number) and difficult to understand. So they should be prepared in such a way that MCs fill them easily.  Overhead costs, such as salaries of Worth Focal Persons or EWs are too small to find skilled/ appropriate personnel and sustain them for a long time. The incentive package of Worth Program should be competitive to reduce the flight of skilled workers from the projects;  The Program staffs at the head office level are highly involved, even in matters of details that can be handled by the Partner Organizations. This will lead to deflated sense of ownership of the program implementers.

ii. Another partner Representative (from EDA Head Office) said that Worth enabled most of the target groups to be self dependent/self reliant. Our organization has a lot of experiences in providing financial support to women and youths, but in most cases these projects failed to be sustainable and some of them totally failed when the project support stopped. In the case of Worth the target Women need only advisory and counseling support till they acquire ample experiences in running the Program independently. This indicated the appropriateness of the Worth Empowerment model.

Likewise, things to be considered in making worth program sustainable were also suggested. The groups saving is too small to bring change in their life; especially in today‘s economic situation it is very hard for worth group members to start business by taking loans from their respective groups. Thus, The project should think about credit guarantee fund or revolving fund (EDA Head Office).

iii. The program is rigid and doesn't lend itself to treating cross cutting issues such as protecting gender based violence, HIV/AIDS, Family planning etc. We believe these should be included as one component in the program. When the Worth program was launched stakeholders (GOs and NGOs) were not invited and their consents were not taken into consideration. To make the program sustainable as the project is at its piloting stage, now it is not time to think about Program phase-out. (The evaluation team also shares this idea). When the time reaches its exit stage, as far as ―my knowledge‖ is concerned, says EDA representative, the exit strategy should take the following into account:

 The worth program needs to be linked to the nearest micro finance or the nearest formal banks;  There should be a core team/steering committee that will be responsible for coordinating the program. Once the core team is identified, it has to get recognition and helped to work freely with out unnecessary interference.  In the long run, the worth groups should jointly establish micro or formal banks with head office and branches in every region.  Worth women had their own dreams when they joined the program; to make these dreams practical other NGOs (Donors) should be involved in a cost sharing manner. The issue of saving and loan formats, salary of staff, and involvement of stakeholders and need of external finance to realize the dream of groups were also observed in similar manner by evaluation team.

3. Another issue of sustainability factor is that Worth groups are morally and attitudinally capacitated. The group solidarity and cooperation within group members in social issues including marriage ceremony, mourning, during child birth, when a member gets sick

and the likes have created a strong bond which have invaluable contribution to the sustainability of the program.

4. FGD participants including husbands of Worth Women, community leaders and elders, unanimously responded that the program is contributing to the group members and the community. They also recommended to scale-up the program to other kebeles. Moreover, they promised to contribute whatever they are asked for to promote the program. And this is another vital indicator of sustainability to the activities and results of the program.

5. Another impressive result was obtained from key informants (they have also strong appreciation to the program and they are ready to contribute their part upon request in terms of certifying VBs, arranging places to work and sell products, providing advisory service if the Pact support is terminated, which fuels the continuation of the program. But, they commented it is premature to think about exiting the support at the moment. An example of Partner view with regard to sustainability is given in the following case.

Representative from EDA, appreciating the Worth program for it gives only technical support and avoiding financial provision to Worth members, stated that the program has enabled most of the women/ target groups to be self dependent/ self reliant. When he compares it with other programs implemented by his organization, externally financed projects have failed to be sustainable. And he indicated target beneficiaries need only continuous advisory and counseling support till they acquire ample experience in running the program independently.

6. CONCLUSIONS A 100 % success was achieved in organizing around 9,000 women, in more than 390 groups with an average of 23 members during the survey. Pact achieved significant result with regard to Partner‘s capacity-building in terms of hiring and training Focal Persons and EWs. Similar success was documented in producing and distribution of different financial formats and literacy materials to support Worth groups. The ease of recruiting groups into Worth program, realization of significant positive impacts of the program on Worth members, encouraging initiatives/support by stakeholders to promote the program indicates the relevance of the program and its appropriateness in the target Woredas.

About 33.9% sample respondents learned how to read and write from Worth program. The literacy program also helped women to refresh what they have forgotten. Moreover, women who attended regular school or literacy campaign in the previous government in Amharic have learned to read and write in Afaan Oromo after Worth program.

Women are sending more children to school after they joined Worth program because they started to get better income and increased awareness. Worth women started to support students in practical ways, such as by participating in school meetings, follow-up on children school attendance, checking children‘s results, checking home works, freeing children from agricultural activities and giving them time to study, and discussing progress with children.

Mutual assistance or collective action was examined during the evaluation using collective action in business and social interaction as proxy variables. Encouraging initiatives were observed where women helped each other with their businesses including loan payment, advice on how to produce, advice on selling and sharing tools and equipments. The evaluation result showed that Worth has demonstrated positive impact upon women‘s empowerment and fostering community-based action against the complex challenges facing women, their families and their communities. Through Worth, women discuss about HIV/AIDS and family planning in many occasions like weekly meetings, mobile workshops, and family days.

From the overall findings of the evaluation, Worth, as a pilot project, has achieved commendable results to the attainment of its objectives. Women were observed more actively participating on the saving and literacy components of the program than the development of micro-businesses.

Taking all things into consideration, Worth program can be concluded as an innovative, rapidly-scalable and low-cost program, which made possible the achievement of significant results on building social capital. There are also encouraging income generating initiatives, which show relevance of the program in bringing economic empowerment. But it is not time to measure the economic achievement of Worth Women in this limited time period. The major strengths of the program were the literacy led innovation, introducing savings-based financial services with no external borrowing or donations to the loan portfolio, self- managed VBs accompanied by simplicity and transparency of operations, flexibility of bylaws upon the consent of VB members, very low overhead costs imposed on group earnings, active social participation in the group and local community. To sum-up the Worth model works in Ethiopia.

7. CHALLENGES

The impact evaluation has identified the following major challenges. They are listed below not inclusive and in any logical order. 1. Variations in commitment and capacity of local Partners: In creating network, designing and preparation of smooth exit strategy as well as effectiveness of implementation; Managing growth and replication of groups and reducing member drop outs as well as training and monitoring the groups; Turnover of Partners staff at the grassroots level; Motivating literacy volunteers.

2. Need for longer funding commitment: the limited saving and loan were found unlikely to bring the desired economic empowerment to Worth Women which is one of the objectives of the program. Thus, there is strong anticipation of external financing from group members and even Partners and key informants.

3. Strengthening networking: the initiative of organizing Worth clusters and unions as well as emergence of some encouraging linkages are promising. But it needs clear guidelines and homogeneity in all target areas. The networking was challenged due to non participatory planning and implementation. There is also strategic challenge. For instance, Government line offices have no mandate to support the groups if they are not legally licensed and certified.

4. Uniqueness of the Worth Model: Unlike many other development programs that provide participants with initial capital in terms of loan or grant, WORTH offers no seed money, no matching grants, no subsidized interest rates and no classroom teachers. The assumption is that it encourages participants to focus on the resources they have, develop confidence and self-reliance, and to work together to realize their dreams of maximizing their own potentials. However, the evaluation result has documented some evidences that Worth model faces challenges from similar initiatives in the areas. For instance, Women have strongly recommended to Pact to engage in providing revolving fund like other development initiatives, which provide seed money, indicating further study and effort on how to integrate Worth program with other development approaches in the context of the realities on the ground.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Worth is a powerful tool in mobilizing and building the women to solve their socio- economic problems by themselves collectively. But, from the evaluation findings, there are no strong indicators that show the sustainability of the program if the program wound up at the moment. Thus, it will be recommendable if Pact could extend the program for another extra time the length of which should be determined by consulting with stakeholders/partners.

2. As observed from the field survey a good number of Worth group members are focusing too much on the saving part of the program. However, the amount saved by each individual is too small to establish or expand business. Here the Worth Program should think about linking these groups to external credit providers such as MFIs or when the Worth groups reached at cluster level, search for funding organizations and try to get some amount of revolving fund to be administered by cluster level groups. This will solve the frequently raised issues of shortage of money to run sustainable businesses.

3. Unlike many development initiatives today, neither at the initial stage of launching the Worth Program nor during the implementation of projects, key stakeholders were not involved in order to get their support in the program implementation and in designing feasible exit strategy. Thus, Pact in collaboration with implementing partners is strongly advised to devise a strong linkage with Local state and non-state actors before exiting from the target areas. To this end, conducting sensitization workshops, establishment of steering committees at Woreda levels and identification of roles and assigning responsibilities can be a good strategy

4. Participation and partnership of husbands, religious leaders, elders and community leaders is also a prerequisite for the success of the program. Thus, a forum should be created to incorporate these groups especially in the expansion areas.

5. The various training programs that were organized and conducted to partner NGOs staff (Focal persons and EWs) and group leaders were among the major activities of projects. But as it is identified from the survey, most of these trainings were not transferred to the target groups. If the training programs are to better upgrade the skills

of Worth women it should readdress the observed gap in channeling the skills to the target women.

6. With regard to the ever increasing flight of the staff in the partner NGOs, the main reason given to the research team was the low salaries and benefits paid to the key Staff, which does not consider the existing economic situation of the country and the labour market. So when these staff get better opportunities and benefits elsewhere, they leave the organization. This indicates that to sustain the program and the trained staff, the issue of financial packages should be kept at a competitive level.

7. The data collected in this evaluation indicates that most of the groups will likely keep up following the literacy program. But most of the literacy volunteers have withdrawn from assisting the learners because of lack incentives that was used as a motivating factor. It is our recommendation for future programs to assign some amount of budget to be paid as incentive for literacy volunteers in order to sustain the literacy component. Furthermore, the specific implications and suggestions given at the body of the report should be seriously considered.

Annex I: Tables

Annex 1.1: Educational status of worth member by region of the respondent

Educational status of worth member region of the respondent Total Amhara Oromiya SNNPR Number 39 163 24 226 % within Educational status Can not read and write of worth member 17.26 72.12 10.62 100 % within region of the respondent 17.33 27.91 20.51 24.40605 % of Total 4.21 17.60 2.59 24.40605 Number 27 112 11 150 literate before worth % within Educational status program of worth member 18.00 74.67 7.33 100 % within region of the respondent 12.00 19.18 9.40 16.1987 % of Total 2.92 12.10 1.19 16.1987 Number 67 184 63 314 literate after worth % within Educational status program of worth member 21.34 58.60 20.06 100.00 % within region of the respondent 29.78 31.51 53.85 33.91 % of Total 7.24 19.87 6.80 33.91 Number 13 28 13 54 % within Educational status grade 1-4 of worth member 24.07 51.85 24.07 100.00 % within region of the respondent 5.78 4.79 11.11 5.83 % of Total 1.40 3.02 1.40 5.83 Number 64 93 6 163 % within Educational status grade 4 and above of worth member 39.26 57.06 3.68 100.00 % within region of the respondent 28.44 15.92 5.13 17.60 % of Total 6.91 10.04 0.65 17.60 Number 15 4 0 19 % within Educational status othres of worth member 78.95 21.05 0.00 100.00 % within region of the respondent 6.67 0.68 0.00 2.05 % of Total 1.62 0.43 0.00 2.05 Number 225 584 117 926 % within Educational status Total of worth member 24.30 63.07 12.63 100 % within region of the respondent 100 100 100 100 % of Total 24.30 63.07 12.63 100

Annex 1.2: Educational status of worth member by marital status

Educational status of Worth member

Cannot Read & write Read & write Total Marital status of worth read & before worth after worth grade 4 and member write program program grade 1-4 above others

Married frequency 171 113 244 43 117 12 700

% 24.42857 16.14286 34.85714 6.142857 16.71429 1.714286 100

Separated/divorced frequency 24 13 28 4 13 2 84

% 28.57143 15.47619 33.33333 4.761905 15.47619 2.380952 100

Widowed frequency 30 18 41 5 15 2 111

% 27.02703 16.21622 36.93694 4.504505 13.51351 1.801802 100

Single/never married frequency 1 6 1 2 18 3 31

% 3.225806 19.35484 3.225806 6.451613 58.06452 9.677419 100

Total frequency 226 150 314 54 163 19 926

% 24.40605 16.1987 33.90929 5.831533 17.60259 2.051836 100

Annex 1:3: Household decision maker by marital status of worth member

Marital status of worth Household decision maker member Total

my self my husband Husband and wife Others

Number of respondents 55 190 430 24 699 Married

% of respondents 7.87 27.18 61.52 3.43 100.00

Number of respondents 82 0 0 2 84 Separated/divorced

% of respondents 97.62 0.00 0.00 2.38 100

Number of respondents 108 0 0 3 111 Widowed

% of respondents 97.30 0.00 0.00 2.70 100

Number of respondents 25 0 0 6 31 Single/never married

% of respondents 80.65 0.00 0.00 19.35 100.00

Number of respondents 270 190 430 35 925 Total

% of total respondents 29.19 20.54 46.49 3.78 100.00

Annex 1:4: Members engagement in IGA before Worth by source of capital

source of money

relatives/ Were you usurers microfinance friends others Total engaged in any business Number of ” YES” worth responses 93 43 283 30 449

% of source of money 20.71 9.58 63.03 6.68 100.00

Annex 15: Reason for increase in member‘s income

Percent of Percent of total business Business activity Frequency respondents operators

Expanding existing enterprise 164 17.71 34.75

Undertook new enterprise 75 8.10 15.89

Purchase inputs at cheaper price 41 4.43 8.69

Sold in new markets 70 7.56 14.83

Got a job 36 3.89 7.63

Other 12 1.30 2.54

Don’t know 36 3.89 7.63

Either of the above 38 4.10 8.05

Total 472 50.97 100.00

Annex 1.6: Members‘ category by mean income and Type of businesses they involved

kind of businesses they are involved

not involved more Total members category by mean in any than one income commerce/trade manufacturing service agriculture business business

number of average monthly income less respondents 58 14 23 46 97 73 311 than 150 % of business operators 42.34 24.56 43.40 24.60 33.80 35.61 33.59

number of monthly income 151 to respondents 40 21 22 63 87 65 298 324(mean) % of business operators 29.20 36.84 41.51 33.69 30.31 31.71 32.18

number of monthly income greater than respondents 39 22 8 78 103 67 317 the mean % of business 28.47 38.60 15.09 41.71 35.89 32.68 34.23 operators

Total number of 137 57 53 187 287 205 926 respondents

% of business operators 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Annex 1.7: members‘ mean income by kind of businesses they involved

Members category by what kind of businesses are you involved mean income more Total not involved in than one commerce/trade manufacturing service agriculture any business business average monthly Number of income less than 150 members 58 14 23 46 97 73 311

% within members 18.649518 4.50161 7.3955 14.791 31.18971 23.47267 100 monthly income 151 to Number of 324(mean) members 40 21 22 63 87 65 298

% within members 13.422819 7.04698 7.3826 21.1409 29.19463 21.81208 100 monthly income greater Number of than the mean members 39 22 8 78 103 67 317

% within members 12.302839 6.94006 2.5237 24.6057 32.49211 21.13565 100

Number of Total members 137 57 53 187 287 205 926

% within members 14.794816 6.15551 5.7235 20.1944 30.99352 22.13823 100

Annex 1. 8: Literacy status * Age category of respondents Cross tabulation

Annex .. Literacy status by age category of respondents

Age category of respondents Total

Age Age 61 Literacy status less or Age Age Age years equal to Age 21 31 to 41 to 50 to and 20 to 30 40 50 60 above

Reads easily Count 12 122 127 31 19 4 315

% within literacy status 3.81 38.73 40.32 9.84 6.03 1.27 100

Reads with some difficulty Count 3 89 110 43 14 4 263

% within literacy status 1.14 33.84 41.83 16.35 5.32 1.52 100

Reads with great difficulty Count 4 33 42 29 15 2 125

% within literacy status 3.2 26.4 33.6 23.2 12 1.6 100

Cannot read at all Count 3 50 73 59 30 8 223

% within literacy status 1.35 22.42 32.74 26.46 13.45 3.59 100

Count 22 294 352 162 78 18 926

% within literacy Total status 2.38 31.75 38.01 17.49 8.42 1.94 100

ANNEX II: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES 2.1 WORTH Literacy-Led Saving and Credit Program

Final External Evaluation Household Impact Questionnaire, October, 2008 Questionnaire No.: ______

Name of interviewer: ______Date of interview: ______

Name of supervisor: ______Village bank's Name: ______

Name of Empowerment Worker ______

Name of NGO this group belong to ______

Interviewer: introduce yourself; explain the purpose of the survey and confidentiality and consent of the interview

Name of the WORTH member : ADDRESS: ______Region: 1= Amhara 2= Oromiya 3= SNNPR Sex of member : 1= male 2= female Woreda: ______Kebele______Age of member ______(in full years) Village(Gott): ______

Beneficiary level: Basic Information

1a. How long have you been a member of this group? Months: ______1b. Are you a member of management 1= Yes 2= No committee? 1c. if 1b is yes, can you tell me your position? 1= treasurer 2= a chair person 3= secretary 4= controller 1d. Are you literacy volunteer 1= Yes 2= No 2. Marital status …? 1 = Married 3 = Widowed 2 = Separated/divorced 4 = Single/never married 3. Educational level (in any language).

1= Illiterate 3= Literate after Worth 5= grade 4 and above program 2= Literate before Worth 6= other, program 4= 1- 4 grade specify______

Household Level: Basic Information 4. How many persons live in your household (those who live together for more than six months)? HH size ______Adult male ______(including father)

Adult female ______(including Children—18 years of age or younger______mother) Sixty(60+)years and above ______Household income: 5a. How many persons in your household are working—engaged in work that earns income (this includes working on your farm, running a business, working as a day laborer, salaried employment, or other)? ______5b. Average monthly income of the household: ______6. Who is the head of your household— the person who is the principal decision-maker? 1 = Self 2 = husband 4 = Decision making Other, specify ______shared between husband and wife Education of Children(Ask if the member has children) 7a. How many children were you sending to school before you joined Worth? Girls ____ Boys ____ 7b. How many children are you sending to school now? ______Girls ____ Boys ____ 7c. If the number has changed after you joined Worth program, why? (multiple answer is possible) 1= My children became 2= I have more money to 3= Since joining Worth I have older send children to school realized it is important to educate more children 4= No change Other, specify ______7d. if the answer to 7c is no change(option 4), why ______

8a. Compared to last year, did the amount you spent for school expenses… (Read answers and circle response.) 1 = Decreased 3 = Increased 4 = Not applicable 2 = Stay the same 4 = Don‘t know 8a. If your answer to 8a is increased, explain why?______Enterprise Activities 9a. What kinds of businesses are you involved in? (Explain that this is any activity where you earned money for yourself by selling something you made, or grew, or goods that you purchased and resold)

Type of business (multiple answer is possible) Number of businesses of this type:

1 = Commerce/ trade/retail (includes petty trade)

2 = Manufacturing (includes food processing, textile production, crafts, leather work)

3 = Service (includes hairdressing, restaurants, food stalls, cleaning services)

4 = Agriculture or Livestock (includes food or other crop production, animal raising) 5 = not involved in any income-generating enterprise 9b. in not involved in in any income-generating enterprise, why? 1= lack of initial capital(own saving) 5= other, specify______2= lack necessary skill or know-how 3= lack of market or profitable 4= lack of credit or high interest rate Skip to #10a

9c. Which of these businesses earned you the most money? ______9d. Is this business …? (Read answers and enter only one.) 1 = Primarily your own 2 = Primarily a 3 = Joint business with Worth members enterprise household 4= other, enterprise specify______Loan Use and Individual Income 10a. Have you ever received a loan from the group to invest in one of your business activities? 1= Yes 2= No

10b. If yes, did you also use any portion of your last loan to? (Read each statement. Circle the appropriate number) 1. Buy food for your household? 1 = Yes 2= No 2. Buy clothes or other household items? 1 = Yes 2= No 3. Give or loan the money to your husband or someone else? 1 = Yes 2= No 4. Keep money on hand in case of an emergency or to repay the loan? 1 = Yes 2= No 5. Spend money on medicines or health care for your family? 1 = Yes 2= No 6. Hold social ceremony(wedding, mourning, etc) ? 1 = Yes 2= No 7. Other: Specify: ______

(If the client has a business, determine whether it is agriculture and animal raising or trade/service/manufacturing. Complete the questions for the appropriate category. If client has both types of business fill in both columns).

11. What investments have you made since you join Worth program? (Check all that apply)

AGRICULTURE AND ANIMAL  TRADE/SERVICE/MANUFACTURING RAISING 11a.Purchased a cow or ox 12a. Added new productsNumber ______Yes___ No____ 11b. Purchased goats/sheep 12b. Hired more workersNumber ______Yes___ No ___

11c. Purchased chickens 12c. Reduced your costNumber by buying ______wholesale or in greater volume Yes ___No ___ 11d. Purchased hay/fodder for animals 12d. Sold in new marketsYes___ No____ Yes___ No___ 11e. Grew more vegetables to sell 12e. Purchased smallYes___ tools/equipment No____ Yes___ No ___

11f. Increased the types of 12f. Purchased major equipment Yes___ No ___ vegetables/fruits you sell Yes___ No____

11g. Purchased small tools such as hoes, 12g. Invested in a structure for your kiosk shovels or shop Yes___ No____ Yes ___ No ___

11h. Purchased an ox 12h. Purchased a bicycle/cartYes___ No____ for your business Yes ___ No ___

11i. Improved shelter for animals/ built a 12j. Rented space for your business Yes ___ No ___ storage facility Yes___ No____

11j. Hired more workers 12k. Other: Yes___ No______

11k. Purchased a bicycle/cart to transport my goods to market Yes___ No____

11l. Leased/purchased more land to farm Yes___ No____

11m. Purchased fertilizer, seed and pesticides 11n. Other: ______Yes___ No____

Financial management 12a. Compared to last year has your sales (circle one) 1=increased a lot 2= increased a little bit 3= are about the same

4= have decreased a little 5= have decreased a lot 12b. If you feel your sales is increased /decreased (underline one), average monthly sales of the business: ______Birr. 13a. Do you record your expenses and your sales in a ledger book monthly? 1= Yes 2= No 13b. IF YES: Did you start recording your sales and expenses since you joined WORTH? 1= Yes 2= No 14. What is the most difficult of your record keeping? ______

15a. Over the last 12 months, has your household’s total income...? (Read answers and circle response.)

1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = Decreased a lot Decreased No change Increased Increased a lot Don‘t know 15b. Over the last 12 months, has the income you have been able to earn...? (Make sure she is referring to what she earned, not what the family earns overall. Read answers and enter response.)

1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6= Decreased a lot Decreased Stayed the same Increased Increased a lot Don‘t know (Go to #15c.) (Go to #15c.) (Go to (Go to #15d.) #15d.) 15c. (If decreased at all) Why did your income decrease? (Make sure she is referring to what she earned, not what the family earns overall. Do not read. Multiple answers possible. Then go to #17.)

1 = house-hold member 3 = Unable to get inputs 5 = Lost job 7 = Don‘t has been sick know 4 = Agricultural 6 = Other (specify) 2 = Poor sales production was poor ______15d. (If increased at all) Why did your income increase? (Do not read but probe. Make sure she is referring to what she earned not overall family income Multiple answers possible.)

1 = Expanded existing 3 = Able to buy inputs at 5 = Got a job 7 = Don‘t know enterprise cheaper price 6 = Other (specify) 2 = Undertook new 4 = Sold in new markets enterprise

Proportion of the Business for Family Income: 16a. Did you have any kind of income generating activity before you joined WORTH? 1= Yes 1=No 16b. If 16a is yes, who gave you the seed money? 1= traditional money lender(usurer) 2= MFI 3= relatives or friends 4= other, specify______16b. If 16a yes, do you earn more from your business now than before you joined WORTH? 1= Earn more 2= Earn less 3= Earn about the same 17. How did you use the earnings from your business? Then rank responses according their order of importance? 1 = Buy food 5 = Buy items for 9 = Agriculture: 12 = Other (specify) 2 = Buy clothing the house seed, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. 3 = Pay school 6 = Reinvest in my expenses enterprise 10 = Festivals, 13 = Don‘t know weddings, etc. 4 = Pay health- 7 = Save 14 = Not applicable; related costs 8 = Animal raising 11 = Gold, has no enterprise ornaments, jewelry activity

Most used for: ___ Second most: ___

Third most: ___ Savings and Loans:

18a. What is your total amount of savings with the Worth group? [ ]Birr

18b. Have you ever made voluntary savings? 1=Yes 2= No

18c. Have you taken a loan from the group? 1=Yes 2= No

18d. How many times have you taken loan from the group? [ ______] 19a. Have you had any problems repaying your last loan? 1 = Yes 2 = No

19b. If yes, What caused your repayment problems? (Multiple answers possible.) Then rank causes in order of severity if more than one answer are given? 1 = Loan activity was 3 = Used some of 5 = Floods/drought Most sever: ___ not profitable the loan money for or natural calamity Second most: ___ food or other items 2 = I or others in my 6 = Animals died Third most: ___ family had been sick for the household 7 = Other (specify) 4 = Sold on credit and did not get paid back in time

Sources of Savings and Credit: 20a. Do you currently save with another savings group?(if monthly take average per week) 1= yes 2= no if 20a is yes, amount per week:_____ 20b. if 20a is yes With another NGO project 1= yes 2= no if yes, amount per week: ______At a bank/MFI: 1= yes 2= no if yes, amount per week ______20c. Do currently have a loan from (multiple answers is possible): Your Worth group 1= Yes 2= No

A bank 1= Yes 2= No Another savings group 1= Yes 2= No Another NGO 1= Yes 2= No A money lender 1= Yes 2= No Some other source 1= Yes 2= No Impact on Household food security 21. Food sufficiency from land: 1= adequate for whole year 2= adequate for 8 to 10 months

3= adequate for 6-7 months of the year 4= adequate for 3-5 months of the year 5= adequate for less than 3 months of the year

22a. During the past year was there a time when your household ate less than two meals a day because you could not grow enough on your own land or did not have enough money to buy food? 1 = Yes (Go to #22b) 2 = No 3 = Don‘t know 22b. How many months did this period last?

Specify number of months ___ 22c. What did your household do to get through this difficult situation? (Read answers. Multiple answers possible.) 1 = Borrowed 3 = Sold personal 5 = Self or someone else in family got local money or food from property employment family/friend at no 4 = engage in off-farm 6 = Other (specify) cost income 2 = Borrowed money or food at cost Literacy component 23a. Show client a paragraph from WORTH book and ask her to read a paragraph and note if: 1= Reads easily 2= Reads with some 3= Reads with 4= Cannot read at (Go to #27b) difficulty great difficulty all (Go to #27b) 23b. Could you read and write at all before joining WORTH literacy program? 1= Yes 2= No If 23b is YES: What were you able to do? Just sign your name ------1= Yes 2= No Write a letter ------1= Yes 2= No Read a signboard(Number and text)------1= Yes 2= No Read a paragraph such as the one you just read ------1= Yes 2= No Read a book or newspaper ------1= Yes 2= No

23c. If 23b is NO, can you read and write now after joining WORTH literacy program? 1= Yes 2= No IF 23c is YES: What are you able to do? Just sign your name ------1= Yes 2= No Write a letter ------1= Yes 2= No Read a signboard(Number and text)------1= Yes 2= No Read a paragraph such as the one you just read ------1= Yes 2= No Read a book or worth or newspaper ------1= Yes 2= No

23d. what other social or economic benefit have achieved since you joined Worth literacy program?(list all responses) ______Collective action /Mutual Assistance: 24a. Are women in the group helping each other with their affairs more since they joined WORTH? 1= Yes 2= No 24b. How do members of the group help each other? Probe, ―Anything else?‖ (do not read this list check those mentioned) Protect our rights 1=Yes 2 = No Made a payment for my loan: 1=Yes 2 = No Give me advice about how to produce: 1=Yes 2 = No Give me advice about where to sell: 1=Yes 2 = No Market our goods 1=Yes 2 = No We produce together (share labor): 1=Yes 2 = No We share ox, tools and equipment: 1=Yes 2 = No Help each other on weddings, mourning, etc. 1=Yes 2 = No Other: ______Other: ______

Participation/Decision-Making

25. Since you joined WORTH, has your involvement in decision making in your family increased in these areas: a. Family planning? 1= Yes 2= No b. Children‘s marriage? 1= Yes 2= No c. Buying and selling properties? 1= Yes 2= No d. Sending children to school? 1= Yes 2= No e. attend Worth meeting, mobile workshop 1= Yes 2= No 26a. Has your involvement in decision making increased in any other areas? 1= Yes 2= No 26b. IF YES: In what areas? Probe: ―Any others?‖ ______27a. Since joining WORTH how has your participation in the group changed? 1= Yes 2= No If yes how______27b. Since joining WORTH how has your participation in the community changed? 1= Yes 2= No If yes how______27c. IF YES: In what areas? Probe: ―Any others?‖ ______

27d. Do you participate in all or most of Worth meetings? 1= yes 2= No If no, why ______28a. Are you required to get permission from your husband to participate in worth programs? 1= yes 2= not 28b. if your husband does not allow you to participate, how do you solve the problem? ______

29. Name three things you like most about the WORTH program? (Do not read answers.) 1 = Literacy 5 = Business 10 = Workshop/Training 2 = Legal literacy training 11 = Working towards becoming a village 3 = Savings 6 = Determining my bank own learning 4 = Loans situation 12 = Other (specify) 5 = Collective 7 = Family days 13 = Don‘t know actions 8 = Collective Rank: --/--/-- 4 = Group actions solidarity/socializing 9 = Leadership opportunity RECOMMENDATION 30. If you could change something about the WORTH program to make it even better, what would you change about WORTH? ______

*****THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME – DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY?*****

2.2 WORTH Literacy-Led Saving and Credit Program

Final External Evaluation

Group Questionnaire, October, 2008 Interviewer: introduce yourself; explain the purpose of the survey and confidentiality and consent of the interview

Questionnaire No.: ______Name of interviewer: ______Date of interview: ______Name of supervisor: ______Name of the Village:______Name of EW11 :______Name of NGO this group belong to ______Village bank's/group name: ______Total members in the group: ______Number of participants in this group discussion: ______Address: Region: 1= Amhara 2= Oromiya 3= SNNPR Woreda: ______Village(Gott): ______1. Majority Group members' Access to Institutions and Infrastructure

Se. Type of service Are services available in your How much time does it take No. and type of road PA( write 1 or 2 on each raw) to reach these services(single 1= yes trip) 2= no (Use code I) 1 Town market

2 Health center 3 All season road 4 Public school

5 Water points

11 EW stands for Empowerment Worker

Code I - Time to access 1= less than 30 minutes 2= less than one hour 3= 1-2 hours 4= 2-3 hours 5= more than three hours 2. How often is there transportation to this market? 1=Never 2= A few times a week 3= Once a day 4= Two to three times a day

Group profile 3a. Was this group organized before WORTH? 1=Yes 3= No 3b. Number of months since this group was organized? ______3c. who initiated to the formation of the group? 1= worth orientation (EW) 2= Replicated (Worth members) 3= husbands 4= other, specify______

Membership profile

4a. How many members did the group have when it first joined WORTH? ______4b. How many members does the group have now? ______4c. Did two or more groups merge to form this group? 1= Yes 2= No 4d. How many have left the group in since it established? ______4e. How many joined the group in since it established? ______4f. If new members have joined the group, who initiated them to join the group? 1= EW 2= worth members 3= husband 4= other, specify______4g. are there new groups established in the last year in your kebele? 1= Yes 2= No

4h. if Q4g is yes, 1. can you tell me the group name______2. who initiated to its establishment 1= EW 2= worth members 3= don't know 4= other, specify______4i. Are there worth groups dissolved in the last year in your kebele? 1= Yes 2= No 4j. if Q4i is yes, 1. can you tell me the group name______2. Can you tell me their reasons: ______4g. what has your group done to community activities and elsewhere? 1. Engaged in social activities Female Genital Mutilation: 1= Yes 2= No Protecting HTP, 1= Yes 2= No Gender based violence 1= Yes 2= No HIV/AIDS protection 1= Yes 2= No 2. Infrastructure (construction, school, health post construction) 1= Yes 2= No 3. other, specify ______Meetings

5a. How many members attended the last month meeting? ______

5b. If not all attended, were they fined for coming late or not attending?

1= Yes 2= No 5c. How often are savings and credit meetings held?

1= Weekly 2= Biweekly 3= Monthly 4= Less frequently 5d. How often are literacy programs/meetings held?

1= Weekly 2= Biweekly 3= Monthly 4= Less frequently

5e. How often are mobile workshop meetings held?

1= bimonthly 2= monthly 3= once in two Months 4= every two months 5= once in three months 6= other, specify______5f. How long does a savings meeting usually take? Hours _____ Minutes ______5g. How long does a literacy meeting usually take? Hours _____ Minutes ______

Savings status

6.1. Was the group organized before it joined WORTH? 1= Yes 2= No 6.2 How much did each member save when the group first joined WORTH? ______Weekly 6.3 How much does each member save now? ______Weekly 6.4 As of now, how many Birr are in the group fund(including savings plus fees, fines, income from collective activities and outstanding loans) ______6.5 Have non-members deposited savings with the group? 1= Yes 2= No 6.6 Does the group pay dividends (share profits to members) on savings? 1= Yes 2= No 6.7 What did the group do with the dividends? 1= shared among the group women to take it home 2= added to group member mandatory saving 3= added to group member voluntary saving 4= utilized for collective community works 5= other specify______6.8 Does the group have a commercial bank/MFI account? 1= Yes 2= No 6.9 if the answerer for 6.8 above is no, why______

7. Loans Evaluation

7.1 How many women in the group currently have a loan from the group fund? ______7.2 What is the monthly interest rate charged on these loans? ______7.3 . Of the total group fund, how much is currently lent out? (amount) ______7.4 What is the longest loan term? (number of months): ______7.5 Of the current loans, how many are being repaid: ______7.6 Of the current loans, how many women are behind schedule in repaying loans? ______Whey did they failed to repay on time ______7.7 How many loans that the group ever made have never been repaid? ______Can you tell us the reason ______7.8 Has the group ever made a loan to someone outside the group? 1= Yes 2= No If no, why ______7.9 IF YES: What was the monthly interest rate? ______7.10 As the group made a loan to another savings group or village bank? ( Not to an individual outside the group) 1= Yes 2= No If yes: describe: ______Does the demand for loans in the group exceed the amount of the group fund? 1= Yes 2= No 7.11 If YES, How much would you need to increase the group fund to meet the demand for loans from the members now? ______7.12 What measures you take to meet the demand for loans? 1= increase the amount saved each meeting 2= more collective enterprises 3= increase the number of members 4= collect savings weekly 5= get a loan from an mfi or other source

6= other:______

7.13 If the group is part of an mfi; how many group members currently have a loan from the MFI? ______

Record-keeping

8.1 Can the management committee complete the record keeping at a saving meeting without outside assistance? 1= Yes 2= No 8.2 IF NO: Who provides this help? 1= EWs 2= Someone the group hires 3= some from another group helps 4= focal person 5= other specify:______8.3 Did the management committee always close group financial records(e.g. cash book) at every meeting over the last year? 1= Yes 2= No 8.4 If no why?______8.5 How many bank cycles has your group closed so far?______8.6 When did you close the last bank cycle? Date ______month ______year. 8.7 Who closed the last bank cycle? 1= management committee (MC) 2= MC with association of EW 3= EW alone 5= others, specify______

Literacy Training

9.1 How many members could not read and write before joining WORTH? ______9.2 How many learned to read and write through participation in WORTH? ______9.3 How many of you have read a book, worth newspapers or a pamphlet in the last month? ______9.4 Is the group studying any WORTH book now? 1= Yes 2= No 9.5 IF YES: What book is the group studying? 1= Literary skill 2= Our Group 3= road to wealth 4= Selling Made Simple

9.6 IF YES, Is the group reading this book together? 1= Yes 2= No 9.7 IF YES: How often did the group meet to study this book? ______1= Weekly 2= Biweekly 3= Monthly 4= Less frequently 9.8 IF NO: Does the group discuss what the members read on their own at the meeting? 1= Yes 2= No 9.9 Do you have suggestions of topics for books that WORTH could provide? 1= Yes 2= No 9.10If yes, specify the area(multiple answer is possible): 1= Health issues 2= women rights 3= child rights 4= mathematics 5= harmful traditional practices issues 6= others specify ______9.11 Is there any thing else that you want to be improved in the Worth literacy program? 1= Yes 2= No 9.12 if yes. Can you tell me some of them 1= the teaching material content 2= the methodology 3= facilitation skill 4= the time it consumes 5= relevance to your life 6= other specify______

Links to Other Groups:

10.1 Has your group ever sent members to participate in a Mobile Workshop? 1= Yes 2= No 10.2 has a delegation from another group ever attended one of your meetings (exchange visit)? 1= yes 2= No 10.3 can you list the major issues raised in the last work mobile shop? ______10.4 Has your group ever joined with another group for a campaign or infrastructure project? 1=Yes 2= No

10.5 if yes, can you list them ______10.11 Have you discussed the possibility of forming Worth cluster with another WORTH group? 1= Yes 3=No 10.12 IF YES: Are you a member of WORTH cluster? 1= Yes 2= No 10.13 has someone from another village asked for your help(as group or individual) to start a group for them? 1= Yes 1= No 10.14 if yes, type assistance requested and provided ______

Links to Government/NGOs and Others:

11.1 Has your group ever visited a Micro-finance institution (MFI)? 1= Yes 2= No 11.2 IF YES: Has the group received any help(e.g trainings, advise, etc) or funding from the MFI? 1= Yes 2= No 11.3 IF YES: What kind of help? ______11.4 Has your group ever visited any other government office? 1= Yes 2= No 11.5 If yes, reason for your visit and response provided? ______11.6 Has your group participated in any other NGO projects or training besides WORTH? 1= Yes 2= No 11.7 IF YES: a. What projects?______b. What trainings? ______11.8 Can you tell any help or coordination you need from government offices, MFIs or NOGs for betterment Worth project? ______Perception Sustainability after WORTH: 12.1 Has the group received literacy training? 1= Yes 2= No

12.2 Has the group received the management committee training? 1= Yes 2= No 11.3 IF YES: types of the training have you received? 1= MCT-I 2= MCT-II 3= Both 4= other, specify______12.4 How many times has your group received a visit from the staff of NGO in the last month? ______12.5 If none: When was the last visit? ______12.6 How many visits has your group received from the WORTH staff/trainer in the last three months ? ______12.7 If NONE: When was the last visit? ______12.8 Do you think Worth project can sustain without the help of EWs and Focal persons 1= Yes 2 = No

12.9 Considering everything, do you think your group is: 1= Getting stronger 2= Staying the same 3= getting weaker 12.10 If getting weaker, could you tell me specific reasons? (probe, “Anything else?”) ______12.11 what makes you say the group is getting stronger? (probe, ―Anything else?‖) ______12.12 How has being in the WORTH group changed your life?(Probe, ―Anything else?‖) ______12.13 What has been the most valuable part of participating in the WORTH group? (Read the list and then ask them to choose the most important one and put a 1, 2. 3. ….. in the box). Indicate Order

The literacy books WORTH provides and the chance to learn how to read or strengthen reading skills

Building a stronger savings and loan group Socializing and the chance to help each other

The collective actions we have taken to improve the community Developing business skills and strengthening our businesses Other: (specify)

12.14 Describe your dream for your group in the coming year: ______

12.15 That steps are you taking to make this happen?

13a. What success storey do you have from your group or group members since the joined Worth? ______`13b. What failure storey do you have from your group or group members since the joined Worth? ______

RECOMMENDATION 14. If you could change something about the WORTH program to make it even better, what would you change about WORTH? ______

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.