MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS · 2018-03-08 · The 2013–2018 USAID/Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) aims to improve the quality of life of Malawians through

DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Andrew I. Epstein, Alison Smith, Leslie G. Hodel, and Geetha Nagarajan, of Social Impact, Inc. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States

Government.

2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER

ANALYSIS

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE

SECTOR: A MULTILEVEL CASE STUDY IN MALAWI

PHOTO CREDIT: ALISON SMITH, SOCIAL IMPACT

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ii

2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER

ANALYSIS

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES IN THE AGRICULTURE

SECTOR: A MULTILEVEL CASE STUDY IN MALAWI

USAID/Malawi

AID-612-C-14-00002

February 20, 2018

III 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Social Impact would like to acknowledge the support it received from USAID/Malawi, without which

it would not have been possible to complete this Stakeholder Analysis. We especially appreciate

support from Archanjel Chinkunda, who facilitated all our meetings, in addition to Ryan Walther and

Brian Frantz. We would also like to acknowledge all the USAID implementing partners and sub-

partners, as well as Government of Malawi officials, for their willingness to meet with us and share

their experiences. Finally, this report would not have been possible without the extraordinary efforts

of our local qualitative researcher and local data collection firm, Invest in Knowledge (IKI).

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS iv

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... III

CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. IV

TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ V

ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................................. VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ VII

Design, Methods, and Limitations .......................................................................................................... vii

Key Report Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................................. viii

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... ix

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 1

SHA Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Methods ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Data Analysis................................................................................................................................................. 5

Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................................. 7

Research Question 2 ................................................................................................................................ 17



RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 34

ANNEX A: BACKGROUND ON THE MALAWI CDCS INTEGRATION INITIATIVE ....................... 36

Stakeholder Analysis 2015 ....................................................................................................................... 36

Stakeholder Analysis 2016 ....................................................................................................................... 37

ANNEX B: INTERVIEW DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................... 39

USAID Group Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 39

Implementing Partner Interviews ........................................................................................................... 39

Focus Group Discussion Demographics .............................................................................................. 40

Fieldwork Schedule ................................................................................................................................... 41

ANNEX C: USAID GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................................................... 42

ANNEX D: IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTEGRATION PRACTICES PROTOCOL ......................... 43

ANNEX E: BENEFICIARY FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION PROTOCOL ................................................ 50

V 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Sample size by data collection method .................................................................................................. 2

Table 2: Integration practice dimensions .............................................................................................................. 4

Table 3: Core integration partners examined in survey ................................................................................... 4

Table 4: FGD participants by activity, district, and FGD type ......................................................................... 5

Table 5: Integration types and definition ............................................................................................................. 18

Table 6: Heat map: Main agricultural products produced in communities; Source: FGDs ..................... 22

Table 7: Staple foods consumed in communities; Source: IP surveys .......................................................... 23

Table 8: Reasons for decreased profits; Source: FGDs ................................................................................... 25

Table 9: Requests for programming ..................................................................................................................... 27

Table 10: Heat map: Perceptions on ways that organizations work together ........................................... 28

Table 11: Baseline and midline indicators disaggregated by district ............................................................. 31

Figure 1: Network map of activities based on surveys administered ............................................................. 3

Figure 2: Response frequencies from integration practices survey disaggregated by integration

dimension ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Integration practices by integration dimensions and implementing partner staff type ............. 9

Figure 4: Extent to which changes should be made to the way USAID manages integration initiatives

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Extent to which Government supports the organization’s integration initiatives ................... 10

Figure 6: Extent to which organization relies on formal agreements and/or operating procedures ... 11

Figure 7: Extent to which organization relies on informal personal relationships with partner

organization ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 8: Extent to which organization knows what resources the partner organization brings to

integration activities ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 9: Extent to which organization works with government to develop solutions to integration-

related problems ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 10: Extent to which changes should be made to the way partner organizations manage and

implement integration activities ............................................................................................................................ 14

Figure 11: Extent to which organization shares information and data with the partner organization 15

Figure 12: Extent to which representative of organization feels pulled between meeting organization’s

and integration activity’s goals ............................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 13: Extent to which partner organizations interact with or serve target populations in the same

physical spaces ........................................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 14: Participant constructs community map ........................................................................................... 21

Figure 15: Participant constructs community map ........................................................................................... 25

Figure 16: Heat map: Organizations & services mentioned in relation to changes in production, profits

and farming ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 17: Completed Chingoli community map .............................................................................................. 26

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS vi

ACRONYMS

AG DIV Malawi Agriculture Diversification Activity

CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CIP International Potato

CLA Collaborating, Learning, & Adapting

DG Democracy & Governance

EDU Education

EGRA Early Grade Reading Activity

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FI Full Integration

FISH Fisheries Integration of Society and Habitats

GI Group Interview

GOM Government of Malawi

HPN Health, Population & Nutrition

HSO Health Sector Only

IA Integrated Activity

IE Impact Evaluation

IKI Invest in Knowledge

INVC Integrating Nutrition in to Value Chains

IP Implementing Partner

IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract

KG Kilogram

LGAP Local Government Accountability and Performance

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MISST Malawi Improved Seed Systems and Technologies

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PAD Project Appraisal Document

PCI Project Concern International

PERFORM Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi

PI Partial Integration

SANE Strengthening Agricultural and Nutrition Extension in Malawi

SEG Sustainable Economic Growth

SHA Stakeholder Analysis

SI Social Impact

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USD United States Dollar

VDC Village Development Committee

VSL Village Savings and Loans

VII 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2013–2018 USAID/Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) aims to improve

the quality of life of Malawians through three Development Objectives (DOs): (1) improvement in

social development, (2) increase in sustainable livelihoods, and (3) assurance that citizen rights and

responsibilities are exercised. To better achieve this, USAID/Malawi has applied the following

hypothesis: “If assistance is integrated, then development results will be enhanced, more sustainable,

and lead to achievement of our CDCS goal: Malawians’ quality of life improved” (USAID/Malawi,

Country Development Cooperation Strategy, 2013).

USAID/Malawi awarded Social Impact, Inc. (SI), a five-year (2014–2018) contract to conduct an impact

evaluation (IE) of the CDCS development hypothesis and an annual Stakeholder Analysis (SHA)

beginning in 2015. This is the third SHA completed under the contract.

As a part of the impact evaluation, SI collected data on poverty, health, and agricultural-related

outcomes via a large-scale household survey in 2014 (baseline) and 2016 (midline) in three distinct

treatment groups: implementation in the health sector only (HSO), partial integration (PI), and full

integration (FI). Among the results of several outcomes examined during the impact evaluation at

midline, outcomes in the agriculture sector were particularly strong. Soy yields, consumption, and

gross profit margins were significantly higher at midline in the FI districts than in the HSO districts,

and groundnut yields were significantly greater in the FI districts than in the HSO districts. While

midline results suggested that integration may have contributed to the positive soy and groundnut

outcomes, SI cannot directly attribute these outcomes to integration alone, as there may have been

other factors that influenced these results. Through an in-depth case study, this SHA aims to

investigate these other factors and determine the extent to which integration may have contributed

to the midline agricultural outcomes.

SI examined the USAID agriculture sector portfolio for its inter- and intra-sector integrated activities

in the three FI districts of Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural. During September and October 2017,

SI interviewed USAID staff, implementing partner management and field staff, target beneficiaries, and

community leaders to investigate the extent to which integration may have influenced the agricultural

outcomes reported in the 2016 midline household survey, particularly with respect to crop yields,

gross margins, and household consumption of soy and groundnuts.

DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS

SI used a mixed methods approach to address four research questions (listed in the methods and

limitations section below). Specifically, SI administered a quantitative survey and conducted qualitative

semi-structured group interviews and qualitative focus group discussions.

DATA COLLECTION

The primary sources of data were comprised of three main groups of research participants:

1. USAID technical, activity, and contract staff;

2. Management and field staff from four implementing partners (IPs) managing the following

USAID-supported agriculture activities in the Lilongwe Rural, Machinga, and Balaka districts:

Malawi Improved Seed Systems and Technologies (MISST), Njira, Protecting Ecosystems and

Restoring Forests in Malawi (PERFORM), and Fisheries Integration of Societies and Habitats

(FISH);

3. Beneficiaries of the selected activities.

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS viii

ANALYSIS

Following data collection, SI analyzed interview and focus group notes and transcripts through a

rigorous process of qualitative coding designed to capture the range of ideas and themes respondents

expressed. SI also cleaned and analyzed quantitative survey results to produce descriptive statistics

disaggregated by districts.

KEY REPORT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Research Question 1: What are the perceptions of the relative strength and value of

current integration relationships among selected implementing partners in the

agriculture sector?

• Respondents perceive strong relationships for the administration of integration partnerships

and mutuality. “Administration” refers to implementation and management, and “mutuality”

refers to the extent to which respondents find these partnerships mutually beneficial.

• Management and field staff expressed mixed perceptions about the strength of governance of

integration partnerships. This is primarily a function of the use and subsequent strength and

detail of front-end arrangements that define the scope, objectives, and boundaries of the

integration activities, such as memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Many partnerships are

governed informally and lack such definition.

• Respondents also expressed mixed perceptions on autonomy. This exposes the tension

respondents feel in carrying out job duties and organizational missions while also remaining

accountable to the integration partnership. Many findings in this area concern the time and

complexity of managing multiple integration partnerships, as well as maintaining effective and

consistent communication with partners.

• Respondents perceived that the strength of organizational sharing of cost and/or use of

resources in the administration and implementation of integration activities was low, despite

instances of co-location. IPs perceive that the current structure of USAID contracts and

budgets makes resource-sharing difficult. Further, IPs reported that incentives to share

resources are lacking despite integration initiatives and mandates.

Research Question 2: What are the perceptions of relevant USAID staff and

implementing partner management and field staff on the role of integration in producing

positive agricultural outcomes in the full integration districts?

• In addition to institutional capacities, the success and management needs of integration

partnerships are highly differentiated by two overarching factors: integration partnership type

(value chain, co-equivalent, cross-sector), and time and activity cycles. Ultimately, each

partnership is unique and presents distinct potential benefits and challenges.

• There are potentially four primary benefits of integration to IP organizations in the agriculture

sector: cost savings, organizational efficiencies, diversification of activities and expertise, and

expansion of geographic and population scope.

• Target beneficiaries may experience the benefits of integration in three ways: reduction of

conflicting messages, reduction of the duplication of services, and reduction of their time

burden.

Research Question 3: In what ways do target beneficiaries experience integration

practices, and what are their perceptions about the causes of changes, if any, in

agricultural practices, food consumption, and nutrition as detected in the midline

household survey?

• Target beneficiaries recognize soy and groundnuts as primary agricultural products in their

communities.

IX 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

• Though perceptions on changes in yield were mixed, beneficiaries widely cite trainings in

farming practices and access to resources, including improved seed varieties, as key

contributors to positive changes in yield. Participants received these services largely from

USAID programs and government extension workers, as well as some non-USAID programs.

Most are happy with the resources these programs provide, though many suggest that the

timeliness of the delivery of seeds, other inputs, and technical assistance could be improved.

• Beneficiaries widely reported increases in quantity and variety consumed, but with lower

frequency than reports of increased yields. While many participants received nutrition

education, many also mentioned that different organizations encouraged them to grow and

sell specific crops.

• Beneficiaries generally reported decreased agricultural profits over the last three years as a

result of market access and market dynamics, and many request assistance in being linked to

viable markets.

• Community leaders and beneficiaries credit integration for improving the effectiveness of

services they receive. They are largely aware of integrated programs or organizations when

they provide services in the same physical spaces.

Research Question 4: In what ways did integration practices contribute to positive

agricultural outcomes detected in the 2016 midline household survey, what lessons can

be drawn, and how can they be adapted, improved, and applied to other sectors to

maximize the benefits of integration for Mission activities?

• Given the sample size, nature of descriptive statistics, and the current SHA research, it is not

possible to conclusively state whether integration alone was directly responsible for each of

the positive outcomes SI identified in the midline household survey.

• Integration likely contributed to the cross-sector success of the soy indicators, especially

production in Machinga District. This result may be due in part to the use of value chain type

integration partnerships, such as the partnership between MISST and PERFORM.

• Integration is likely to have had a positive influence on “connecting” the outcomes identified

from production to consumption.

• Beneficiaries perceived integration as producing an overall positive effect on program services.

Target beneficiaries cited such benefits as increased capacity/quality of trainings, decreased

time burden, community unity, consistent messaging, and goal alignment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on evaluation findings, SI offers the following recommendations:

1. While it is not possible to conclude that integration is responsible for positive impacts at the

beneficiary level, evidence suggests that integration has contributed to or can potentially increase

activity efficiencies and population and geographic coverage, as well as reduce duplication of

services and conflicting messaging. To maintain and maximize these effects, integration

partnerships should ideally be planned at the CDCS and Project Appraisal Document (PAD) levels.

USAID/Malawi should continue to provide incentives and opportunities for IPs to explore and

propose potential integration partnerships before or after PAD development. Potential

mechanisms could include the “speed dating” model or formal consultations, social media (such as

closed Facebook groups), or collaboration through Google Groups or other Internet

collaboration platforms. Further, USAID/Malawi could establish multi-sectoral planning teams (or

utilize existing ones) to include Mission staff, IPs, and other donors, in which members focus on

brainstorming the potential for all three integration partnership types, particularly co-equivalent

and cross-sector types, before, during and/or beyond those planned at the PAD/CDCS levels.

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS x

It is recommended that theories of change be developed for each integration partnership. These

should detail the inputs, outputs, and intended outcomes of the partnership.

Alternatively, USAID/Malawi should consider “integration clusters,” which are groups of activities

comprising of the three partnership types and organized around the achievement of a Mission IR

or DO, as a mechanism to increase management efficiencies. Theories of change can be made

more efficient by developing one for each cluster rather than each individual partnership.

2. USAID program, technical, and contract management staff should be provided more space, time,

and resources to coordinate, communicate, and observe integration partnerships with each other.

As suggested above, multi-sectoral teams made up of contract and programs staff from multiple

sectors and expertise can participate in the planning, oversight, and evaluation of integration

partnerships at the PAD and post-PAD levels. Should integration partnerships be effectively

planned at the PAD level, CORs and programs staff can be organized to maximize integration

efficiencies by managing their respective “integration clusters.”

3. USAID/Malawi can structure IP contracts and budgets to allow for more efficient and incentivized

sharing of costs and resources between integration partners. Contracting mechanisms, such as

iterative and phased contracting, cost-sharing and cooperative agreements, grants under contract,

fixed price and performance-based contracts, Mission-based indefinite quantity contracts (IQC),

hybrid contracts (i.e. a combination of standard models like time and materials (T&M) or cost-

plus-fixed-fee (CPFF)) will be more conducive to integration-related cost-savings, especially in the

case of pre-planned integration partnerships.

4. Integration partnerships should be anchored by front-end, detailed, and clearly articulated MOUs

between partners that enumerate the mechanisms through which partners plan to harness the

benefits of integration, such as:

• IP benefits: cost savings; organizational efficiencies; diversification of activities and

expertise; expansion of geographic and population scope.

• Beneficiary benefits: message consistency; reduction of time burden; improved program

quality; goal alignment; reduction of duplication of services; community unity.

5. The GoM and district governments should be included in integration planning at the Mission level

and at the IP level—perhaps with the participation of Local Government Accountability and

Performance (LGAP)—in the drafting of integration MOUs. Government inclusion can ensure that

agricultural extension workers and other relevant GoM representatives are fully informed of

integration efforts in their geographic and sector areas.

6. USAID/Malawi should assess the productivity and effectiveness of individual integration

partnerships on a regular basis as a component of regular performance evaluations. Assessments

should be structured using the five dimensions of integration practice (governance, administration,

autonomy, mutuality, and proximity) and the benefits of integration, as outlined in

recommendation 4 above. Integration indicators (and accompanying indicator reference sheets)

should be developed and included in IP PMPs, which IPs would use to monitor activities, include

in quarterly and annual reports, inform performance evaluations. If USAID/Malawi employs

“integration clusters,” each cluster’s theory of change can inform the design of independently

administered process and summative evaluations.

7. The Mission should explore the utility in identifying integration opportunities between IPs and

non-USAID partners. USAID/Malawi could realize additional efficiencies among IPs by providing

support for such partnerships through LGAP and donor coordinating committees. IPs should be

consulted to determine the type of support that may be most useful for the non-USAID integration

partnerships.

XI 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

8. The Mission should improve upon the timeliness of existing value chain partnerships, and

encourage new partnerships to reinforce to target beneficiaries the benefits of agriculture

programs through all steps in the crop cycle (production, consumption, profits). To inform future

value chain partnerships, USAID/Malawi should draw from the best practices identified in the

MISST-PERFORM partnership. Programs providing market access and facilitation services should

be key targets for potential new value chain integration activities.

1 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS USAID.GOV

INTRODUCTION

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Malawi’s Country Development

Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2013–2018 aims to improve Malawians’ quality of life through three

Development Objectives (DOs): (1) improvement in social development, (2) increase in sustainable

livelihoods, and (3) assurance that citizen rights and responsibilities are exercised. To better achieve

this, USAID/Malawi’s development hypothesis states: “If assistance is integrated, then development

results will be enhanced, more sustainable, and lead to achievement of our CDCS goal: Malawians’

quality of life improved” (USAID/Malawi, Country Development

Cooperation Strategy, 2013).

USAID/Malawi is applying a collaboration, learning, and

adaptation (CLA) approach to realizing a dynamic CDCS

strategy that evolves and adapts from on-the-ground learning.

One critical element of this strategy is an impact evaluation (IE)

aimed at assessing the validity of USAID/Malawi’s CDCS

development hypothesis and informing further integration

efforts and future planning. In May 2014, USAID/Malawi

awarded Social Impact, Inc. (SI), a U.S.-based international

development management consulting firm, a five-year (2014–

2018) contract to conduct the IE.

In addition to the IE1 and to further increase opportunities for CLA, USAID/Malawi requested that SI

conduct an annual Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) over the same five-year period to continue local

stakeholder consultations that began during the CDCS design process. The SHAs are intended to help

USAID/Malawi understand what is and is not working in its integration strategy and to inform the IE.

Through the SHA, SI examines the current state of integration at various levels and how integration

is implemented to describe integration outcomes, successes, and challenges, and ultimately to develop

recommendations that detail the environment needed to make integration a success. By doing so, the

SHA complements the CDCS IE by providing regular feedback on progress toward integrated

development. Annex A presents a detailed overview of the background on the integration initiative

and major findings from past SHAs.

For the 2017 SHA, USAID/Malawi requested that the study focus on beneficiary perspectives, including

how they experience integration, and, to the extent possible, explore any links between positive

agricultural outcomes identified in the midline household survey and integration practices in the full

integration districts. In consultation with USAID, SI chose the research questions, and then developed

study methods and study participants to address the questions.

The sections below present the methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the 2017

SHA conducted in Malawi during September and October 2017.

METHODS AND LIMITATIONS

The objective of the 2017 SHA is to conduct an in-depth case study of the agriculture sector integrated

activities in the three fully integrated districts of Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural. To meet this

objective, SI interviewed USAID staff, implementing partner management and field staff, target

beneficiaries, and target community leaders to investigate whether and how integration activities

influenced the agricultural outcomes identified in the midline household survey, such as area planted,

yields, gross margins of soy and groundnuts, and household consumption of soy, particularly by

1 For more details on the impact evaluation, see “USAID Malawi CDCS Impact Evaluation Baseline Report,”

Social Impact, Inc., USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse, April 2015; and “Implementing Integrated

Development in Malawi,” Social Impact, Inc., USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse, July 2015.

BOX 1: USAID/MALAWI

CDCS DEVELOPMENT

HYPOTHESIS: IF ASSISTANCE IS

INTEGRATED THEN DEVELOPMENT

RESULTS WILL BE ENHANCED, MORE

SUSTAINABLE, AND LEAD TO

ACHIEVEMENT OF OUR CDCS

GOAL: MALAWIANS’ QUALITY OF

LIFE IMPROVED (USAID/MALAWI,

COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT

COOPERATION STRATEGY, 2013).

USAID.GOV 2017 MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 2

women. SI’s goal using the methodology described below was not to “confirm” the agricultural

outcomes identified in the midline household survey; rather, SI sought to document the range of

perceptions across multiple stakeholders as to whether and how integration practices may have

contributed to these positive outcomes.

SHA QUESTIONS

1. What are the perceptions of the relative strength and value of current integration relationships

among selected implementing partners in the agriculture sector?

2. What are the perceptions of relevant USAID staff and implementing partner management and field

staff on the role of integration in producing positive agricultural outcomes in the full integration

districts?

3. In what ways do target beneficiaries experience integration practices, and what are their

perceptions about the causes of changes, if any, in agricultural practices, food consumption, and

nutrition as detected in the midline household survey?

4. In what ways did integration practices contribute to positive agricultural outcomes detected in the

2016 midline household survey, what lessons can be drawn, and how can they be adapted,

improved, and applied to other sectors to maximize the benefits of integration for USAID/Malawi

activities?

METHODS

SI adopted a mixed methods approach to address the research questions, employing a quantitative

survey, qualitative semi-structured group interviews, and qualitative focus group discussions (FGDs).

The study methodology first sought to establish the strength of integration practices through (1)

interviews with relevant USAID and selected agriculture sector IP administrative and field staff working

in the full integration districts, and (2) administration of an integration practices survey to these IP

staff. SI then held focus group discussions with beneficiaries of the agricultural inputs from the selected

IPs to investigate whether and how the inputs may have influenced the agricultural outcomes identified

in the midline household survey on area planted, yields, gross margins of soy and groundnuts, and

household consumption of soy, particularly by women.

SI set out to try and hypothesize that integration was a factor in producing positive agricultural

outcomes in the full integration districts if (1) it found strong integration practices among IPs and their

integration partners, (2) beneficiaries reported that yields, margins, and consumption of target

commodities improved as a result of the inputs, and (3) beneficiaries reported benefits of integration,

such as a reduction in mixed messages, service duplication, and time burdens for training and other

activities.

SI collected data in September and October of 2017 in the three fully integrated districts of Balaka,

Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural. SI interviewed USAID staff, implementing partner management and field

staff, target beneficiaries, and target community leaders. Details of the data collection activities for

each group are presented below.

Table 1: Sample size by data collection method

DATA COLLECTION

METHOD PARTICIPANTS

SAMPLE SIZE

(NUMBER OF

INTERVIEWS)

SAMPLE SIZE

(NUMBER OF

PARTICIPANTS)

Group Interview USAID 2 8

Group Interview Implementing Partners 9 24

Survey Implementing Partners 8* 28*


Focus Group Discussions

Community Leaders & Beneficiaries

12 116

*Number of IP surveys conducted with distinct groups of participants = 8; number of IP surveys completed by participants for distinct

integration partners = 28USAID Semi-Structured Group Interviews

SI engaged USAID/Malawi staff in small-group, semi-structured interviews about inter- and intra-sector

integration practices and outcomes in the agricultural sector. Questions centered on mapping the

agriculture sector actors and activities and gathering perceptions of the relative strength of integration

practices and relationships and their anticipated influence on agricultural outcomes. Relevant program

staff and Contract Office Representatives (CORs) were interviewed in two separate groups. The

USAID staff interview protocol is shown in Annex C. Annex B outlines the USAID staff who

participated in group interviews.

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTEGRATION PRACTICES SURVEY

SI surveyed management and field staff from

four agriculture sector implementing

partners’ activities in small groups on current

integration practices and their relative

strength, reach and value: Fisheries

Integration of Societies and Habitats (FISH),

Nijra, Malawi Improved Seed Systems and

Technologies (MISST), and Protecting

Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi

(PERFORM). SI chose these four activities

based on their focus in at least one of the

three full integration districts (Balaka,

Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural) and their

multi-year participation in integration

initiatives. Figure 1 displays the network of

activities that were surveyed or mentioned in

the surveys – the light blue nodes represent

the four activities for which surveys were

completed, and arrows represent the

partnerships that were assessed. (See acronym list for activity descriptions.) The integration practices

survey was developed specifically for this study and based on a theoretical framework by Thompson,

Perry, and Miller, T. K. (2009)2, who developed an empirically validated model for conceptualizing and

measuring collaboration. The model developed for this study also expands on the “3Cs”

conceptualization of integration (co-location, coordination, cooperation), and operationalizes it by

defining a concrete set of practices.3 The survey questions are divided into seven categories, reflecting

five dimensions of integration, which are outlined in Table 2 below.

2 Thompson, A. M., Perry, J. L., Miller, T. K., “Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration,” Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, Volume 19, Issue 1 (2009): 1, 23-56. 3 Note that this tool is entirely distinct from the Integration Gauge tool used in previous SHAs and is designed

to measure the current strength of integration practices (as opposed to conditions, which was the purpose of the

Gauge) among IPs and projects.

Figure : Network map of activities based on surveys

Figure 1: Network map of activities based on surveys administered


Table 2: Integration practice dimensions

The survey includes 34 statements covering the five dimensions above. For each statement, two groups

of respondents from each of the four IPs profiled—management staff and field staff—separately

determined on a 5-point Likert scale to what extent it described the current practice for each of two

to three different integration partnerships. The integration practices survey is placed in Annex D.

Table 3 outlines the different integration partnerships examined by the survey.

Table 3: Core integration partners examined in survey

ACTIVITY NAME PRIME IMPLEMENTER

FISH: Fisheries Integration of Societies and Habitats Pact Inc.

MISST: Malawi Improved Seed Systems and Technologies ICRISAT

Njira Project Concern International (PCI)

PERFORM: Protecting Ecosystems and Restoring Forests in Malawi Tetra Tech

It should be noted that the purpose of the survey is to establish the strength of integration practices

generally and across the different partnerships, and is not designed to evaluate the strength or success

of each individual partnership. For this reason, the findings presented in survey scores describe the

strength of integration practices broadly and do not reflect the strength or success of individual

partnerships.

INTEGRATION PRACTICE

DIMENSION DEFINITION

Governance Governance involves creating structures and processes that allow organizations to make choices about how to solve collective action problems by developing sets of working rules and agreements defining the scope, objectives, and boundaries of integration activities.

Administration Administration involves moving from governance to action. Administrative structures focus on the implementation and management of integration.

Autonomy Autonomy involves both the potential dynamism and frustration implicit in integrative endeavors and acknowledges the reality that integration partners share a dual identity: they maintain their own distinct identities and organizational authority separate from an integrative identity. This reality creates an intrinsic tension between organizational self-interest—achieving individual organizational missions and maintaining an identity distinct from the integration partnership—and a collective interest—achieving integration goals and maintaining accountability to integration partners and their stakeholders.

Mutuality Mutuality involves interdependence. Organizations that successfully integrate activities experience mutually beneficial interdependencies based on differing but complementary interests and/or on shared interests, missions, and approaches.

Proximity Proximity involves both the co-location of administrative and implementation activities and the sharing of resources. This is a deeper dive into the notion of co-location in order to articulate more specifically why co-location is a benefit to integration, namely to achieve increased efficiencies and economies of scale. Simply being located in the same building or village does not by itself produce successful integration practices and in fact can under some circumstances have negative effects such as service duplication and mixed messages.


BENEFICIARY FOCUS GROUPS

Three groups of beneficiaries for each of the four focus IPs—a total of twelve groups—participated in

focus group discussions: women, men, and community leaders. The community leaders were

comprised of local chiefs and other traditional and civic leaders, agriculture extension officers, and

community development assistants and volunteers. Table 4 presents a breakdown of participants by

activity, district, and FGD type.

Table 4: FGD participants by activity, district, and FGD type

ACTIVITY NAME DISTRICT

CONDUCTED

MALE

PARTICIPANTS

FEMALE

PARTICIPANTS

COMMUNITY

LEADER

PARTICIPANTS

FISH Machinga 9 10 11

MISST Machinga 8 10 10

Njira Balaka 10 10 11

PERFORM Machinga 7 10 10

Discussions began with a mapping exercise, where participants identified residential and agricultural

areas and other landmarks, along with the variety of service providers in the area and those they

served. The mapping exercise had two purposes: (1) to condition the group members to talk to each

other—rather than to facilitators—to avoid the tendency for group interviews to devolve into group

discussions, and (2) to concretize what can sometimes be abstract questions about the influence of

external actors on agricultural practices. For example, when asked a question about which

organizations influenced certain farming practices, participants can point on a map. Facilitators can also

point to items on the map when asking questions.

Using the map, facilitators asked participants to discuss past and current agricultural practices and

yields, food preparation and consumption practices, and profit margins and market characteristics. The

FGD protocol is in Annex E.

DATA ANALYSIS

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Each question in the integration practices survey was scored on a scale of 0-4, based on a 5-point

Likert scale. For most questions, 0 represented “Not at All,” and 4 represented “To a Large Extent.”

However, for some questions, it was necessary to reverse-code the scores so that 0 represented “To

a Large Extent” and 4 represented “Not at All.” The grey shaded questions in Annex D represent

questions that were reverse-coded. As a result of the reverse-coding, throughout the report, high

scores indicate strong integration practice. Average scores for each partnership were calculated across

each of the categories, and disaggregated by staff level. The analysis was not disaggregated by IP, as

there is insufficient information to accurately evaluate the strength of each individual integration

partnership.

SI included secondary analyses on the baseline (2014) and midline (2016) data from the CDCS impact

evaluation household survey to further examine soy and groundnut yields, consumption trends, and

margins. Averages are presented for baseline and midline for the full integration (FI) districts, Machinga,

and Balaka, along with percent differences from baseline to midline.4 Acknowledging that agricultural

4 Though Lilongwe Rural is also an FI district, none of the four focus IPs have soy or groundnut inputs in this

district. Thus, we conducted FGDs in Balaka and Machinga only and used the same two districts for the secondary

analyses of the household survey data.


inputs were applied differently in each district, SI conducted these analyses to more deeply examine

any differences between districts.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

SI’s qualitative analysis team, led by the team’s senior qualitative specialist, developed a codebook for

the qualitative data based on a review of summary notes taken by FGD facilitators using a two-step

coding process. The first step was open coding a subset of the discussion summary notes, which

involved labeling (or coding) words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs as expressions of the wide

variety of specific ideas, opinions, experiences, and examples that arose in the course of the group

discussions. The resulting list of labels was grouped into axial codes—usually broader, Likert-scale

types of labels—and pared down further into focused codes that represent the variety of ways in

which questions were answered. Using these codes, the qualitative team then coded the FGD

transcripts, transcribed and translated from recordings of the discussions, keeping track of the

frequency of each code using a tally sheet. The team then disaggregated by IP and group type (female,

male, community leaders) and used the results to interpret the qualitative data.

The qualitative data described in the Findings sections below detail the variety of specific ideas,

opinions, experiences, and examples mentioned by interviewees. The frequencies for each code or

theme are not statistically representative and should be interpreted as the number of focus groups in

which the theme arose, rather than the number of individuals.

LIMITATIONS

This is a case study and not an evaluation of integration partnerships. The results in this report should

not be considered a determination of whether implementing partners met their obligations to USAID

or other partner IPs as articulated in work plans or other contractual documents or commitments.

This study does not make any statistically validated conclusions, as the sample sizes for each of the

different data collection methods are not representative of all integration partnerships in the

agriculture sector or other sectors. Rather, it is intended to present the range of perceptions,

practices, and experiences of integration.


FINDINGS

RESEARCH QUESTION 1

What are the perceptions of the relative strength and value of current

integration relationships among selected implementing partners in the

agriculture sector?

It should be noted that the purpose of this study is not to formally evaluate the success or effectiveness

of individual integration partnerships. What follows in this section is a description of the range of

perceptions about the current strength of integration partnerships as they relate to initiatives in the

agriculture sector using the five-dimension framework described in the methods section above. This

framework could potentially be used in the future to evaluate individual partnerships, but, at present,

the scope of this study does not include information from enough sources to definitively evaluate the

effectiveness of each partnership.

In the first subsection below, we present some overall summary findings. In subsequent subsections,

we describe in greater detail each of the five integration partnership dimensions.

GENERAL FINDINGS

Figure 2 below presents the frequency distributions of responses to integration survey questions

grouped by integration practice dimensions across all surveys, where zero is lowest and four is highest

strength. These responses are combined total frequencies for both management and field staff.


The data shown in Figure 2 indicate the

following:

Most respondents perceived the administration

and mutuality of integration partnerships among

the partners as very strong. This means that IP

management and field staff generally felt the

implementation and management of these

partnerships are going well, and that these

partnerships were mutually beneficial to both

partners in the specific integration activity

referenced.

Respondents had mixed perceptions on the strength of governance and autonomy. IP management and field

staff had mixed perceptions about the strength of the governance of these partnerships, namely the

front-end arrangements that define the scope, objectives, and boundaries of the integration activities.

Respondents also expressed mixed perceptions on the extent to which they felt that integration

relationships affected the autonomy of their organizations, exposing some lingering tensions about

maintaining organizational missions while remaining accountable to integration partnerships.

Respondents perceived that the benefits of proximity were not fully realized. The extent to which

organizations shared the cost or use of resources in the administration and implementation of

integration activities was perceived as low. While many IPs conducted activities in the same locations,

Figure 2: Response frequencies from integration practices survey disaggregated by integration dimension


this was most commonly where co-location practices ended. There was little sharing of transportation

or materials, nor the costs of resources like internet or meeting spaces.

In some cases, SI noted differences between managers and field staff on their perceptions of the

strength of integration relationships, while in other cases, there was agreement. Figure 3 below

presents the mean scores

for each integration

dimension disaggregated

by staff type, on a scale of

0-4.

Both management and field

staff generally see

administration, autonomy,

and mutuality practices as

stronger than governance

and proximity practices;

however, field staff

consistently gave higher

scores than management

staff for all five dimensions.

Field staff perceive the

strength of governance,

proximity, and mutuality dimensions to be meaningfully higher than management. This may be due to the

fact that field staff generally have less involvement in establishing integration agreements, and observe

the benefits of proximity more directly. Similarly, because field staff work together with integration

partner staff more regularly than management staff, they may observe the mutual benefits of

integration more directly as well.

The bar graphs described in the section below present the frequencies of responses of management

and field staff combined. The associated tables display the total frequencies disaggregated by

management and field staff.

Management and field staff were split on the need for changes in the way USAID manages integration

initiatives. In response to the question, “To what extent do you feel changes should be made to the

way USAID manages integration initiatives,” most field staff responded, “not at all” and a few “to a

very small extent.” The remaining respondents who answered, “to some extent,” “to a moderate

extent,” and “to a large extent” were managers. Figure 4 below describes the distribution of answers

to this question disaggregated by staff type.

2.1

3.4

2.92.7

1.0

2.9

3.83.5 3.5

2.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Governance Administration Autonomy Mutuality Proximity

Integration Practices by Category

Management Field Staff

Figure 3: Integration practices by integration dimensions and implementing partner staff type;

Source: IP surveys


Figure 4: Extent to which changes should be made to the way USAID manages integration initiatives; Source: IP surveys

Field staff overwhelmingly perceive Government of Malawi (GoM) agricultural extension workers to

be an important ingredient in successful integration efforts. While most managers did not know enough

to have an opinion on their role, field staff, who work closely with extension workers, see them as

highly supportive. All 14 individuals who responded that the GoM supports integration efforts in the

agricultural sector “to a large extent” were field staff.

Figure 5: Extent to which Government supports the organization’s integration initiatives; Source: IP surveys

39%

73%

14%

27%

21%

46%

14%

31%

11%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff

Sample size: Field staff = 15, Management staff = 13

Extent to which changes should be made to the way USAID

manages integration initiatives

Not At All To A Very Small Extent To Some Extent

To A Moderate Extent To A Large Extent

10%

40%

20%

60%

7%

70%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which Government supports the organization’s

integration initiatives




The next sections highlight specific issues and practices for each of the five integration partnership

dimensions that are seen either as significant drivers of the mean scores above, or provide important

insight into the strengths and weaknesses of each dimension.

GOVERNANCE

Respondents reported mixed perceptions about the use of formal agreements and well-articulated procedures

to govern the integration relationship. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of perceptions regarding the

practice of formal agreements in integration relationships. These arrangements define the integration

scope, objectives, and activities, as, for example, in memoranda of understanding (MOUs). These kinds

of arrangements are used in some cases, but not in others. Some agreements were described as formal,

while others were more informal.

Figure 6: Extent to which organization relies on formal agreements and/or operating procedures; Source: IP surveys

For example, PERFORM uses detailed MOUs with all of their partners to govern integration

relationships, while others relied solely on what was described in work plans. Further, the integration

plans and activities described in work plans were written in informal coordination with partners.

In fact, both managers and field staff perceived that informal personal relationships are commonly

relied upon to make decisions about integration activities. Figure 7 below shows the distribution of

total responses to a question about the role of personal relationships.

32%

38%

27%

7%

8%

7%

11%

15%

7%

7%

13%

43%

38%

47%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which organization relies on formal agreements

and/or operating procedures




Figure 7: Extent to which organization relies on informal personal relationships with partner organization; Source: IP surveys

Respondents expressed mixed perceptions about the extent to which partners knew about the resources each

brought to the integration activity, such as money, time, and equipment. Figure 8 below shows the

distribution of responses to the question about knowledge of resources brought by each partner to

the integration activity. The mixed perceptions respondents expressed could perhaps be due in part

to the high level of informality. As discussed earlier, field staff expressed a higher opinion of sharing

resources than management staff, likely because of field staff’s direct involvement in integration

activities, and the variance in the use and formality of integration agreements.

Figure 8: Extent to which organization knows what resources the partner organization brings to integration activities; Source: IP surveys

Our governance data also suggest that managers of IPs with more formal agreements like MOUs were

more likely to be aware of partner resources than others. This did not, however, mean that resources

and costs were more likely to be shared.

14%

15%

13%

18%

15%

20%

29%

31%

27%

14%

15%

13%

25%

23%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which organization relies on informal personal

relationships with partner organization



20%

45%

16%

27%

7%

36%

18%

50%

8%

9%

7%

20%

36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which organization knows what resources (money,

time, expertise, equipment) the partner organization brings to

integration activities




Most managers and field staff felt that their organizations worked to a large extent with both USAID and the

GoM to develop solutions to integration problems. Figure 9 below shows the distribution of responses to

questions about the role of USAID and the GoM in integration partnerships. Most managers expressed

good working relationships with their CORs and AORs. Managers discussed the “speed dating”

process with mixed views; some expressed positive views of its efficiency and ability to produce

creative and cross-sector partnerships, while also faulting its informality. Field staff expressed positive

opinions of district governments and agricultural extension workers, and felt that they often served as

the “glue” for integration activities.

Figure 9: Extent to which organization works with government to develop solutions to integration-related problems; Source: IP surveys

14%

31%

4%

8%

4%

7%

4%

8%

75%

54%

93%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which organization works with government to

develop solutions to integration-related problems




ADMINISTRATION

Respondents highly rated the strength of administering integration partnerships and activities, but many

indicated that small changes are still needed. The distribution of responses to survey questions in Figure

10 indicated strong administration practices, with 19 of 25 respondents agreeing to a “very small” or

“some” extent that changes should be made to the way their organization manages integration

initiatives.

Figure 10: Extent to which changes should be made to the way partner organizations manage and implement integration activities;

Source: IP surveys

Some of the changes respondents mentioned included the need to better plan for integration

partnerships between IPs at similar points of their contract cycles, as many IP managers and field staff

at the beginning of their contract cycles were frustrated by the challenges of coordinating with IPs

who were ending their activities. IP staff also expressed the desire for USAID to facilitate more formal

planning opportunities.

Despite this, nearly all IP respondents indicated that their organization had a designated staff person

whose job was in part to manage the integration relationships with other organizations. Respondents

perceived that disagreements over the design or goals of the integration partnership occurred

infrequently, and nearly all respondents indicated that they were clear about their organization’s roles

and responsibilities in carrying out integration activities. Communication between IPs was also

described as strong when contract cycles were aligned, citing communication problems as infrequent.

Most IP respondents also indicated that their organizations relied on formal, in-person meetings to

communicate and coordinate with partner organizations.

AUTONOMY

Nearly all respondents indicated that integration relationships did not at all hinder their organization’s own

mission objectives, and most felt it was worthwhile to a very large extent to remain in the integration

partnerships rather than leave the initiative. Figure 11 displays the distribution of responses to a question

about the sharing of information, with data disaggregated by staff type. While a large majority of

respondents indicated that data and information were shared to a large extent with the partner

organization for the good of the integration effort, 11 of 14 of these respondents were field staff. This

Figure : IP survey: Working with USAID

20%

9%

29%

52%

55%

50%

24%

27%

21%

4%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which changes should be made to the way partner

organizations manage and implement integration activities




is likely due to the moderate informality in integration governance, as field staff may be likely to share

information perhaps despite a formal agreement to share between managers.

When asked to what extent respondents felt pulled between trying to meet both their organization’s

and the integration initiative’s goals, 17 of 28 answered “not at all.” Almost all of those who responded

otherwise were managers (Figure 12).

Figure 11: Extent to which organization shares information and data with the partner organization; Source: IP surveys

Figure 12: Extent to which representative of organization feels pulled between meeting organization’s and integration activity’s goals;

Source: IP surveys

MUTUALITY

The mutuality dimension is among the stronger aspects of current integration practices and attitudes. Based

on the way respondents answered most of the survey questions, most generally felt that the

integration partnerships benefited their own organization’s mission and had a positive effect on both

their organization’s and the partner organization’s target beneficiaries.

7%

15%

7%

15%

14%

15%

13%

21%

31%

13%

50%

23%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which organization shares information and data with

the partner organization



4%

8%

4%

8%

32%

54%

13%

61%

31%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which representative of organization feels pulled

between meeting organization’s and integration activity’s goals

To A Large Extent To A Moderate Extent To Some Extent

To A Very Small Extent Not At All


When asked to what extent the partner organization duplicated the services of their organization, 20

of 25 said “not at all.” When asked to what extent their organization needs the partner organization’s

resources, services, and/or support to accomplish their mission more effectively, 19 of 26 responded

“to a large extent.”

Among the less strong aspects of mutuality are the sharing of resources, addressed in greater detail

under the proximity dimension section. Other weak aspects of mutuality include the alignment of

understanding of the issues, and challenges and solutions in the agricultural sector. In fact, many

respondents did not know enough to answer a question addressing the agricultural sector.

PROXIMITY

The proximity dimension poses one of the biggest challenges, as respondents’ perceptions of the strength of

this dimension were low. This is indicated by the frequency distributions of responses to integration

survey questions in Figure 2. The definition of proximity is fairly rigorous, focusing on the sharing of

specific resources, such as work spaces, digital resources (e.g. internet or software), learning resources

(e.g. training or professional development), and logistics resources (e.g. transportation or security).

Responses to all relevant questions indicate that perceptions of the strength of these practices are

either mixed or low. This is likely due to perceived complexities and restrictions about contracting,

budgeting processes, and rules with USAID, such as contractual restrictions to the reallocation of

funds, the slow timeframe and complexity of budget modifications and internal coordination, unclear

financial reporting requirements for shared costs, and competition for “credit” for positive

development outcomes.

As shown in Figure 13, however, one highly rated aspect of the proximity dimension is the extent to

which partner organizations interact with each other’s target beneficiaries in the same physical spaces.

Figure 13: Extent to which partner organizations interact with or serve target populations in the same physical spaces; Source: IP surveys

CONCLUSIONS

● Respondents perceive strong relationships for the administration of integration partnerships

and mutuality. “Administration” refers to implementation and management, and “mutuality”

refers to the extent to which respondents find these partnerships mutually beneficial.

● Management and field staff expressed mixed perceptions of the strength of governance of

integration partnerships. This is primarily a function of the use and subsequent strength and

17%

10%

21%

8%

14%

25%

40%

14%

50%

50%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Staff

Management Staff

Field Staff


Extent to which partner organizations interact with or serve

target populations in the same physical spaces




detail of front-end arrangements that define the scope, objectives, and boundaries of the

integration activities, such as MOUs. Many partnerships are governed informally.

● Respondents also expressed mixed perceptions on autonomy, exposing some lingering

tensions about maintaining organizational missions while remaining accountable to

integration partnerships. Many findings in this area pertain to the time and complexity of

managing multiple integration partnerships, as well as maintaining effective and consistent

communication with partners.

● Respondents perceived that the strength of organizational sharing of cost and/or use of

resources in the administration and implementation of integration activities was low, despite

instances of co-location. IPs perceive that the way USAID contracts and budgets are

currently structured makes the sharing of resources difficult. Further, despite integration

initiatives and mandates, IPs report a lack of incentives to share resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2

What are the perceptions of relevant USAID staff and implementing partner

management and field staff on the role of integration in producing positive

agricultural outcomes in the full integration districts?

The 2016 SHA focused primarily on examining 1) the institutional conditions at USAID, 2) selected

pairs of implementing partners engaged in integration activities, and 3) district government bodies that

together influence the conditions for integration partnerships. The findings, conclusions, and

recommendations therein sought to help improve those conditions to better manage integration

within and across sectors, and remain pertinent to realizing the full potential of integration. Institutional

structures and procedures beyond those covered in the previous section will thus not be reviewed in

this report. Rather, the findings below focus on the range of perceptions about how integration

relationships in the agricultural sector function, and how they may improve outcomes for USAID

activities and target beneficiaries.

USAID & IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

USAID does not formally evaluate the effectiveness of individual integration partnerships. As a result,

the USAID staff interviewed for the study, including activity and technical staff, CORs, and Contracting

Officers (COs), relied primarily on existing project management and communication structures to

obtain informal information about the state of integration. Many challenges remain at the institutional

level, as most USAID/Malawi staff, already overburdened with managing existing activities and duties,

have little bandwidth to manage the day-to-day collaboration and coordination with each other on

integration initiatives. Mission staff departments and sector responsibilities remain siloed despite

integration mandates. Overall, staff reported mixed perceptions of the strength of integration

partnerships, but also indicated strength may be improving.

In addition to the integration practices survey administered to the IP management and field staff, SI

also facilitated short discussions following many of the survey questions, during which staff provided

explanations for their survey responses. This additional context provided greater insight into IP staff

perceptions about the benefits and challenges of integration partnerships. It was clear from staff

comments that, ultimately, each integration partnership was unique, and presented different potential

benefits and challenges.

The following sub-sections summarize the findings from SI’s discussions with both USAID and IP staff,

and outline the most important factors influencing the strength and success of integration initiatives.

PARTNERSHIP TYPES. Although each integration partnership is unique, SI found important trends in

the way in which USAID and IP staff reflect on their experiences to date. Partnerships appeared to fall

into one of three types: value-chain (partnerships among actors with different but complementary


mission and activities), co-equivalent (partnerships among actors with similar objectives and methods,

targeting similar populations and geographic areas), and cross-sectoral (partnerships among actors

working in different sectors).

Table 5: Integration types and definition

INTEGRATION TYPE DEFINITION EXAMPLE

Value Chain Partnerships between actors with different but

complementary missions, activities, and populations.

MISST-PERFORM

MISST-FISH

MISST-Njira

Co-Equivalent Partnerships between actors with similar or crosscutting missions, activities, and populations.

FISH-PERFORM

PERFORM-Njira

Njira-FISH

Cross-Sector Partnerships between actors working in different sectors. FISH-EGRA

Value-chain type partnerships were the strongest partnerships in the agricultural sector among the IPs, as

described by USAID and IP staff. The activity MISST, for example, which manages multiple sub-activities

aimed at improved seed and farming technology research, development, and distribution, was

perceived to partner well with Njira and PERFORM, activities that train farmers to use these seeds

and technologies to introduce new varieties and crops and improve crop yields, quality, and resistance

to pests, diseases, and drought. With complementary missions and activities, these organizations were

a natural fit for forming a partnership. In fact, many USAID and IP staff admitted that these vertical-

type partnerships may have developed in the absence of an explicit integration mandate, as they often

mutually rely on each other to fulfill their activity missions. Respondents’ high ratings of the mutuality

dimension of integration partnerships are largely attributed to value-chain type relationships.

Co-equivalent types of integration partnerships are characterized by USAID and IPs as more complicated, but

also more consequential. In these partnerships, organizations have very similar objectives and methods

targeting similar populations and geographic areas. To varying extents, activities like Njira, FISH, and

PERFORM have overlapping missions and objectives, presenting important integration opportunities

and benefits to both the organizations themselves and their target beneficiaries. However, such

integration also presents significant risks. The mixed perceptions of governance practices found in the

integration practices survey are partly a result of the complexities that co-equivalent partnerships

require. For USAID staff, high-level coordination and longer-term planning at the Project Appraisal

Document (PAD) and CDCS level are considered necessary to maximize the strength and

effectiveness of these partnership types. For IP staff, clearly articulated MOUs or other highly formal

and detailed agreements, as well as the intimate involvement of district government agricultural

extension workers, are the necessary “glue” for this type of partnership to succeed.

Respondents characterize cross-sector or perpendicular-type integrations as requiring a high degree of cross-

sector knowledge and creativity in order to reveal potential areas for collaboration. Finally, some integration

partnerships could be characterized as cross-sector, or perpendicular-type, where organizations

working in different sectors form integration partnerships. Cross-sector integration partnerships can

vary considerably in scope. The partnership between FISH and Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA)

is an example of integrating across the agricultural and education sectors; FISH provided some written

content to EGRA for children’s readers, which aligned with both organizations’ missions

(environmental conservation and literacy, respectively). An example of a complex integration across

the economic development and agriculture sectors may be a micro-loan and entrepreneurship

initiative that integrates with a farmer training initiative to bolster farmer profit margins. Opportunities

for perpendicular-type integrations are not always readily apparent, and require a high degree of cross-


sector knowledge and creativity to identify. These initiatives were often hatched at “speed-dating”

meetings, where the staff of multiple activities within and across sectors met together in a room and

were strongly encouraged to consider their many integration possibilities.

TIME & ACTIVITY CYCLES. One issue that both USAID and IP staff agreed was extremely critical to the

success of integration partnerships was time and activity cycles. Because integration partnerships are not

planned at the PAD or CDCS level, there are a number of partnerships between organizations at

different stages in their activity cycles. This has had a disruptive effect on partnerships, as some

organizations were hesitant to invest time and resources towards a partnership with an organization

entering its final year of a activity cycle. Managers shared their frustration with activities affected by IP

personnel turnover; for example, field staff complained that in some cases, important segments of

integrated activities – such as shared farmer training and demonstrations – were either postponed or

ended due to management staff turnover, as new staff did not immediately re-engage the partnership.

Other respondents relayed instances after the completion of an activity in which follow-on activities

took several months to begin implementation, throwing the partnership into uncertainty.

INTEGRATION BENEFITS FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS. Both USAID and IP staff agreed that there were

potentially four primary benefits of integration to IP organizations: cost savings, organizational efficiencies,

diversification of activities and expertise, and expansion of geographic and population scope.

Staff from PERFORM and Njira described perhaps the clearest realization of cost savings through

integration; access to MISST seeds and technologies saved their respective organizations a significant

amount of money, as they would have otherwise needed to purchase these materials in the open

market. They perceived that materials in the open market were more expensive and less reliable in

terms of quality and effectiveness. The savings, in turn, allowed both organizations to distribute MISST

seeds and technologies to more farmers and communities than they had otherwise planned. Other

respondents reported not yet taking advantage of potentially significant cost savings. As described in

the previous section, most IPs had yet to fully harness integration proximities, namely sharing the cost

of resources such as technology, transportation and security, work spaces, or staff capacity

development.

IP staff also perceived a potential to gain organizational efficiencies through integration. Much of this

can be achieved through staffing, as organizations in horizontal-type integration partnerships can

distribute labor and services with a view to maximizing expertise and service quality in individual areas,

rather than expecting staff to possess broad skills for use across different roles. Because cooperation

and coordination can cause increased management awareness across broader sector activities,

organizations could potentially gain communication and management decision-making efficiencies by

integrating. Some IP staff claimed to have achieved organizational efficiencies in this way, while others

had yet to do so. Managers, however, cautioned that integration relationships can often take additional

time to manage, and can even be counter-effective if integration activities and scope, communication

methods and frequencies, and decision-making processes are not clearly articulated.

Similarly, USAID and IP staff perceived integration as having caused IPs to diversify their services and

activities, as well as expand their geographic and population scope through a combination of

complementary expertise, service mandates, geographic focus, and target populations of partner

organizations. All IP management and field staff described reaping benefits in this way, such as

combining training topics for farmers (e.g. different commodity types like soy and orange-flesh sweet

potato in a single training session or demonstration), and combining trainings on improved farming

technologies (e.g. one organization training on seeds while another trains on fertilizer in the same

session). This type of integration also allows partner organizations to cover larger geographic areas

and leverage pooled resources.

INTEGRATION BENEFITS FOR TARGET BENEFICIARIES. Both USAID and IP staff agreed that there were

potentially three primary benefits of integration to the target beneficiaries: reduction of conflicting messages,

reduction of the duplication of services, and reduction of time burden.


When asked how target beneficiaries might experience the benefits of integration, nearly all USAID

and IP staff cited a reduction of conflicting messages. The complexities and inherent tensions between

increased agricultural productivity and environmental conservation made the sector ripe for conflicting

messages. For example, beneficiaries were told that clearing fields after a harvest increases soil health,

while leaving after-harvest remains in the ground reduces erosion and fertilizer runoff into waterways.

Such conflicts were reduced when IPs were forced to align messaging through integration. When

effective planning mechanisms are built into the integration process, it reduces the duplication of

services.

These two outcomes, along with the IP organizational efficiencies realized through integration,

combine to reduce the amount of time target beneficiaries were asked to spend in trainings and

demonstrations, according to USAID and IP staff. The trainings that IPs conduct with farmers are more

likely to be combined under integration partnerships than when IPs operate independently.

CONCLUSIONS

● In addition to institutional capacities, the success and management needs of integration

partnerships are highly differentiated by two overarching factors: integration partnership

type (value chain, co-equivalent, cross-sector), and time and activity cycles. Ultimately, each

partnership is unique and presents distinct potential benefits and challenges.

● There are potentially four primary benefits of integration to IP organizations in the

agriculture sector: cost savings, organizational efficiencies, diversification of activities and

expertise, and expansion of geographic and population scope.

● Target beneficiaries may experience the benefits of integration in three ways: reduction of

conflicting messages, reduction of the duplication of services, and reduction of time burden.

In order to investigate whether and how target beneficiaries and community leaders might experience

the perceived benefits discussed above, FGDs were held with 12 target beneficiary groups in the full

integration districts, Balaka and Machinga. Findings from these FGDs are discussed in the following

section.


RESEARCH QUESTION 3

In what ways do target beneficiaries experience integration practices, and what

are their perceptions about the causes of changes, if any, in agricultural practices,

food consumption, and nutrition as detected in the midline household survey?

The purpose of the following section is to present the range

of perceptions and opinions of beneficiaries about their

experience of integration partnerships and changes over

time with regard to agricultural practices and outcomes.

Because the sample is small and purposively selected, the

findings below do not in any way confirm or refute findings

from the 2016 midline household survey, and are not

representative of all communities in each district. The box

below explains the interpretation of all numbers used in this

section.

TARGET BENEFICIARIES & COMMUNITY LEADERS

After a community mapping exercise, interviewers first

asked respondents of the beneficiary and community leader

FGDs about the services they use and the people who use

them. Respondents in all of the 12 FGDs mentioned

programs in the agriculture sector, followed by health (10),

and food and nutrition (10). Participants also mentioned

finance/business programs (5) and other sector programs

(9). Participants in 10 of the 12 FGDs said that everyone in

their community uses these services; however, some respondents also explained that age, gender,

wealth, and occupation influence participation.

Respondents in all 12 FGDs cited local leaders as their

means of learning about the services discussed, followed by

direct outreach from programs (10) and attending a

meeting or training by either IPs or community groups (6).

Direct outreach was mentioned slightly more in female

groups than male; all four female groups and three of four

male groups cited this source. However, attending a

meeting or training was mentioned in three of four male

groups, compared to one of four female groups.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. Participants identified a

variety of crops as the main agricultural products being

produced in the community today, including maize, orange-

fleshed sweet potato, groundnuts, soy, and other

vegetables and legumes. These products were mentioned consistently across gender. Some

participants in the male and community leader groups also mentioned fish and other animals.

Respondents in 11 of 12 FGDs identified groundnuts as a main agricultural product, and respondents

in 7 of 12 FGDs noted soy. Table 6 below displays the number of FGDs that mentioned each product,

disaggregated by district and implementing partner.

Responses regarding whether and how these products have changed over the last three years were

mixed. Respondents in ten FGDs stated that yields have increased in the last three years. All nine

FGDs in Machinga saw an increase in yields, while only one of three FGDs in Balaka saw an increase.

Similarly, five of nine FGDs in Machinga mentioned an increase in crop variety, while none of the FGDs

BOX 2: INTERPRETATION OF FGD

DATA

NUMBERS WHEN REFERENCING THE

FGDS, NUMBERS REFER TO THE NUMBER

OF FGDS DURING WHICH A TOPIC WAS

MENTIONED. THESE NUMBERS DO NOT

IMPLY A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS.

HEAT MAPS COLORS CORRESPOND TO

THE NUMBER OF FGDS IN WHICH A

TOPIC WAS MENTIONED. THE DARKER

THE SHADE, THE HIGHER THE NUMBER.

Figure 14: Participant constructs community map


in Balaka mentioned this. One participant in Machinga said, “before we never used to harvest much from

our farms, but now after we follow their skills [farming practices], we are able to harvest a lot,” and cited

PERFORM as the number one organization bringing this change. Another respondent in Machinga

described the relationship between yield and crop variety: “I think the rains was good and that many of

us grew these crops in abundance. When we knew that we will have problems with Maize . . . we put much

effort in sweet potatoes and we harvested more of them.”

Table 6: Heat map: Main agricultural products produced in communities; Source: FGDs

MAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FISH Machinga

MISST Machinga

PERFORM Machinga Njira Balaka

Groundnuts 3 2 3 3

Soy 3 1 2 1

Orange-fleshed sweet potato 2 3 3 3

Maize 3 3 3 3

Tobacco 2 0 0 0

Other vegetable 2 3 3 3

Other grain/legume 3 3 3 1

Other fruit 2 0 1 3

Animals 2 1 0 1

Fish 2 0 1 0

Forest 0 0 0 0

Other 0 1 3 2

In contrast to the increased yields mentioned above, respondents in eight FGDs stated that yields have

decreased in the last three years. Five of nine FGDs in Machinga mentioned decreased yields, while all

three in Balaka mentioned this. None of the FGDs in the PERFORM village (Nyama, Machinga) had

this view. Participants mentioned a decrease in crop variety in only two FGDs: one in Machinga and

one in Balaka. One participant in Machinga explained, however, that yields for one crop decreased but

another increased, saying “we have harvested little maize this year, but cow peas is in abundance.”

When participants discussed efficiency in relation to production, all responses were positive across

groups, implementing partners, and districts. One female participant in Machinga explained that she

used to plant on large plots, but her harvests were small, leading to food insecurity in her home.

However, when she started implementing the lessons she learned from an IP, her harvests grew. Other

participants pointed out, however, that this woman’s land is part of a demonstration block, noting that

“people from various organization[s] were coming and spraying her crops, and they were free from any attack.

That is why now she is having food.” Four other FGDs discussed positive changes in efficiency, and

participants did not identify themselves as demonstration blocks.

When participants discussed positive changes in agricultural production, common themes included:

• FARMING PRACTICES. This topic was consistently mentioned across male, female, and

community leader groups. It was consistent in the Machinga FGDs, but not mentioned in


Balaka. Respondents most often explained that they had adopted new spacing guidelines when

discussing changes in farming practices.

• ACCESS TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES. This topic was mentioned in all four female groups, only one

male group, and one community leader group. It was consistent between districts. Participants

described access to improved and/or drought resistant seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, and

equipment.

• DROUGHT & OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. Participants mentioned that yields have

improved since the recent drought year. This topic was consistent across all groups.

• ACCESS TO INFORMATION/TRAINING. Seven FGDs in Machinga attributed increased yields to

information/training, while none of the Balaka FGDs raised this point. This sentiment was

consistent across males, females, and community leaders.

CONSUMPTION. The most commonly consumed current staple food named by participants was

maize/nsima, followed by orange-fleshed sweet potato, other vegetables, other grains/legumes,

groundnuts, other fruit, and soy. Table 7 below displays the number of FGDs that mentioned each

staple food by district and implementing partner.

Table 7: Staple foods consumed in communities; Source: IP surveys

STAPLE FOODS FISH Machinga MISST Machinga

PERFORM Machinga Njira Balaka

Groundnuts 1 0 2 2

Soy 0 1 0 0

Orange-fleshed sweet potato 2 2 3 2

Maize, nsima 3 2 3 3

Other vegetable 2 2 2 3

Other grain/legume 3 2 2 2

Other fruit 1 0 0 2

Animals 0 0 0 0

Fish 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 1

While respondents in ten FGDs mentioned increased yields over the past three years, an increase in

quantities consumed was only mentioned in seven FGDs. Participants in eight FGDs identified increases

in the variety of foods consumed, and participants in four FGDs discussed positive changes in food

preparation methods.

One community leader in Machinga brought up sweet potatoes when the group discussed increases

in variety and preparation: “The change is that when we harvest[ed] the sweet potato, we [had] no

knowledge that it can help us in different ways. . . . But when we started coordinating with the counsellors, and

they started teaching us that the same sweet potato can help us in our homes not to eat nsima, and we can

use it to cook African sweet bear juice it is possible. . . . We didn’t know that we can utilize the sweet potato

in many ways. We were just growing and selling.”


In four discussions, participants explained that the quantity of food

consumed over the past three years has decreased. This topic was

consistent across males, females, and community leaders, but

differed slightly among villages. Decreases in quantity were

discussed in FGDs conducted in Mtungwi (FISH beneficiaries),

Chingoli (MISST beneficiaries), and Ngonga (Njira beneficiaries),

but not in Nyama (PERFORM beneficiaries). However, two FGDs

in Mtungwi explained a substitution effect of eating less of one

food because they consume more of another.

None of the FGDs mentioned negative changes in food variety or

preparation methods over the last three years.

All 12 FGDs identified at least one way that nutrition in their

communities has improved in recent years. The most commonly

discussed areas of improvement were food security (10) and

dietary diversity (10), followed by food preparation (7), and water,

sanitation, and hygiene (5). Perceptions of improvement in

nutrition were largely consistent across males, females and

community leaders; however, water, sanitation, and hygiene as

well as food preparation were mentioned more frequently among

females and community leaders than males. All four community

leader groups said that nutrition and health in general has

improved in recent years; three of the four groups said that it has

improved especially among women, and two of the four groups

said that it has improved especially among children.

Participants raised a few common themes surrounding changes in

consumption:

• SUPPLY AVAILABILITY. This topic was most commonly

discussed as a contributing factor to positive changes in

consumption (10 FGDs?) and was consistent across all

groups. Participants discussed supply availability in a broad

sense, but most referred to increased availability of crops

from their own production.

• NUTRITION EDUCATION/TRAINING. This factor was

consistently mentioned across males, females, and

community leaders. It was mentioned at least once in

Chingoli, Nyama, and Ngonga, but not at all in Mtungwi

(FISH beneficiaries). Most participants who referenced

education/training as a driver of changes in consumption

cited either extension workers or specific IP programs as

the source of the training.

• FOOD AID. Some participants in Machinga explained that direct food aid was a major

contributing factor to their increased consumption. Food aid was brought up most frequently

among female groups, followed by community leaders. It was not discussed as a contributing

factor in male groups and was not mentioned in Balaka.

AGRICULTURAL PROFITS. In most FGDs, participants felt that profits from agricultural products have

decreased over the last three years. Ten FGDs explained that the decrease is due to market dynamics,

and seven cited a lack of market access. Market access was a major topic of discussion among focus

group participants; participants discussed it at length and typically brought it up repeatedly during the

conversations. While discussions of decreased profits were largely consistent among males, females,

BOX 3: MARKET ACCESS

“WE WANT TO SELL [OUR

HARVESTS] SO THAT WE HAVE

SCHOOL FEES, BUY SOME BASIC

NECESSITIES AT HOME BUT YOU

WILL NOT GO ANYWHERE

BECAUSE OF LACK OF THE

MARKETS.”

“WHEN A COMMODITY IS

SCARCE, THAT’S WHEN THE

PRICES COME UP. SOME OF THE

PEOPLE HAVE JUST KEPT THEIR

PRODUCE BECAUSE THE PRICES

ARE VERY LOW.”

“WE HAVE HARVESTS MORE, AND

THIS HAS MADE US TAKE MORE

PRODUCTS TO THE MARKET. WE

HAVE [TO] FIND MORE MONEY BY

SELLING SOME OF THE HARVESTS

TO THE MARKET. THE ONLY

CHALLENGE THAT WE

ENCOUNTERED IS THAT THERE

ARE LOW PRICES ON THE MARKET

COMPARING TO THE PREVIOUS

YEAR’S ONES.”

“I SEE SOME LOSSES JUST BECAUSE

WE ARE SELLING OUR PRODUCTS

TO VENDORS WHERE WE ARE

NOT WINNING ANYTHING.”

“LAST YEAR WE HAD THE

COUNSELORS FROM

AGRICULTURE THAT WAS

TEACHING US ABOUT FARMING

AS BUSINESS. THEY WERE TELLING

US THAT WE HAVE TO GROW

PIGEON PEAS AND THAT THEY

PROMISED TO BUY THEM ALL BUT

AT THE END THEY DID NOT BUY

THEM.”


and community leaders, this opinion differed among villages. Table 8 below displays the reasons named

for decreased agricultural profits, and Box 3 shows a range of quotes on this theme.

Table 8: Reasons for decreased profits; Source: FGDs

REASONS FOR DECREASED PROFITS FISH

Machinga

MISST

Machinga

PERFORM

Machinga Njira Balaka

Market dynamics 3 3 1 3

Market access 3 2 0 2

Business practices 1 0 0 0

Yield 2 1 0 2

Quality 0 0 0 3

Demand 0 0 0 0

Production costs 1 0 0 0

Storage 1 0 0 0

Value added processing costs 0 0 0 0

Of the participants who voiced an increase in agricultural profits over the last three years, six FGDs

explained this was due to increased yields. Others cited better quality, better storage practices,

business practices, market dynamics, and decreased production costs as reasons for the increased

profits. One participant in Machinga said, “it is increasing because of the reduced number of seeds we plant

per hole. Even if the land is small, you can still harvest more.” Another in Machinga (see market access box

above) explained that while harvests were larger and community members have taken more products

to the market, they are still challenged by the low prices.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO OBSERVED CHANGES. In all 12

FGDs, participants said that community members

generally use or interact with more than one NGO, IP, or

other service provider. Nine FGDs cited agriculture-

agriculture pairings, and nine cited agriculture-other. Only

one FGD brought up an other-other pairing. These

relationships were mentioned more frequently in

Machinga than in Balaka.

Figure 17 below displays the mentions of organizations

that participants thought contributed to changes in

agricultural production, practices, and profits combined.

USAID primary partners (FISH, MISST, PERFORM, Njira)

were brought up most frequently in the FISH and Njira

villages, while USAID secondary partners were brought up

most frequently in the MISST village, followed by the

PERFORM village. Secondary partners were mentioned

much less in the FISH and Njira villages. USAID primary partners were mentioned more in male FGDs

than in female or community leader groups. Participants frequently attributed changes in production

to the government agriculture extension workers as well, though these were mentioned most in the

Nyama (PERFORM) and Ngonga (Njira) villages.

Figure 15: Participant constructs community map


Figure 16: Heat map: Organizations & services mentioned in relation to changes in production, profits and farming

When discussing changes in nutrition, the pattern of organizations mentioned was similar to the

pattern displayed in Figure 17. Patterns for access to resources were similar, though there were

generally lesser than those in the figure for Mtungwi (FISH) and Chingoli (MISST), though a few

participants also mentioned receiving cooking equipment and food aid. Access to resource patterns

differed slightly for Nyama (PERFORM) and Ngonga (Njira). In Nyama, the only resource mentioned

was seeds (1). In Ngonga, loans/credit was mentioned the most (3), followed by food aid (2), livestock

(1), cooking equipment (1), and medication (1). Under access to information, participants still

frequently brought up farming practices, but also frequently discussed information or trainings on food

preparation, nutrition, family planning, and water, sanitation, and hygiene. Regarding family planning,

one female participant in Machinga said, “I

should also add they [Total Land Care]

helped me to start following family planning.

. . . When we give birth frequently we will not

have strength; we can’t even work properly at

home. But when we take time to give birth,

our bodies look healthy.”

The most commonly requested

improvements by FGD participants to

current programming across production,

consumption, and profits were: market

access (11), more resources (10), more

training (7), timeliness of services (7), and

relevance of training and resources (4).

Table 9 below displays illustrative quotes

for each of these areas of improvement.

Figure 17: Completed Chingoli community map


Table 9: Requests for programming

Market Access

“They also do well by giving us various seeds to grow and multiply, but in the end you will find out that there is no market to sell our production, that is the great challenge to us farmers. They have to be finding markets for us.”

“The other thing is that we can be very happy if they bring to us a contract farming. In this business they tell you how much you have to produce and the price that they will buy from you when you have harvested. With this kind of engagement, we can see changes.”

“We have soya beans in our homes, we do not see where we can sell to! We have . . . lots of them in here, we do not see where we can be taking them to.”

“What I think is that, before [PCI] comes to us they have to find the person that will be buying us our produce, since they are telling us to grow certain crops that we have nothing to do with them when we have harvested.”

More Resources “. . . they are giving us these seeds to be growing, [but] they have also to be giving us some starter up fertilizers.”

“They should be giving us loans . . . that you can use . . . to buy fertilizer and manure that means things can do well for you. . . . If you just plant maize without fertilizer that means you will not harvest; even if the knowledge is in your head, it can’t work. They should not just be giving you the skills. . . . But they should also be giving you materials.”

“We need pesticides that have the cure to some diseases.”

“We need more soya beans seeds here [Nyama, Machinga].”

More Training “They have also to teach us more about composite making.”

Timeliness of Services

“The other problem is . . . that they [CIMMYT] tell us that the seeds will come . . . but the time they bring us the seeds it’s already late. . . They sometimes come at the end of December when we have already planted. . . . Some just plant anyhow.”

“When they are coming with their advice, they bring it late. Like the Agriculture just announced last month that when we harvest we should we should not cover the maize stalks but to clear and burn, but us we already did that after harvesting, when the message was coming we had already covered the land.”

“PERFORM does things well but the only problem is that their things comes in very late in the season.”

“In many cases they [Total Land Care] are distributing their seeds late, in many cases they distribute them in January when the planting time is over. A good farmer gets ready this time to plan with the first rains.”

“When we grow that very late that is why they are attacked by the worms we are talking of.”

Relevance of Training and Resources

“The other problem . . . is that they are giving their seeds at the demonstration farm only. They have to be giving us farmers to be growing them in our fields.”

BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVES ON INTEGRATION. In most FGDs, participants said that they were aware

of one or more organizations working together. Agriculture-other partnerships were cited the most,

followed by other-other, and agriculture-agriculture. In terms of funder, USAID-other partnerships

were cited the most, followed by other-other, funder unspecified, and USAID-USAID. Relationships

with government extension workers were discussed heavily among the “other” category. The USAID-

USAID partnerships were discussed in Mtungwi (FISH) and Chingoli (MISST) villages only. Table 10

below displays the ways in which beneficiaries described these organizations as working together.


Table 10: Heat map: Perceptions on ways that organizations work together

COLLABORATION FISH

Machinga

MISST

Machinga

PERFORM

Machinga Njira Balaka

Trainings: field days/demos 2 3 2 1

Educational materials 0 0 0 0

Community visits 0 3 3 3

Information/data 2 1 2 0

Resource delivery/value chains 2 1 2 0

Coordination

Transport 0 2 1 0

Messaging 2 1 2 2

Geographic distribution/location 0 0 2 0

Co-location 3 3 3 2

Communication 1 1 2 1

Participants were most often aware of integration when they received trainings or other services in

the same physical space. One male participant in Balaka referenced intra-sector integration between

USAID and the local government: “They are working together sometimes. You will find out that when the

Project Concern International people are coming to us the agricultural extension workers from the government

are together.” A community leader in Machinga said, “I can say that Feed the Future, CIMMYT, they come

together, they agree amongst themselves and call the counselors, and he notifies us here that they are coming

to work on the plot. So it’s like those groups they do come together.”

Beneficiaries also acknowledged this with inter-sector partnerships. One community leader in

Machinga said, “Save [the Children] and health workers . . . Save distributes food, the health workers weighs

them first so when they find that the baby is suffering from malnutrition

they register that child for soya and same applies with pregnant women

if their weight is dropping . . . [it happens] on the same day.” A female

participant in Balaka said, “[Project] Concern International and health

workers: They were distributing those mosquito nets. They were doing

that together.”

Eleven of the 12 FGDs named at least one way that integration

has improved the effectiveness of the services they receive. Only

in two FGDs did participants say there was no effect, and none of

the FGDs described decreased effectiveness due to integration.

The greatest benefits were: increased capacity or quality of the

program (5); efficiency (5); community sharing or unity (5); goal

alignment (4); quantity of trainings, materials, or resources (4);

and messaging (4). Increased coverage was also mentioned in one

FGD in Mtungwi (FISH). In relation to efficiency, one participant explained, “Yes, because [they are

working together] we get three groups in one day, that means the next day we can do our own things, but if

they keep coming on different days then it’s like we are wasting time.” And in relation to integration with

the government, one participant said, “The other goodness is that the government is realizing our problems

that we are having in our villages very fast. When those people are taken with people into the field, they are

get information that is on the ground faster than when they are working together. The only problem that is

with the government is that they are very slow in response, but they are helped by the organizations to be

doing that.” One participant further explained the benefit of co-equivalent partnerships: “These people

“IN THE PAST WE WERE ABLE TO

GROW CROPS, BUT WE HAD TO

FAIL TO HARVEST MORE BECAUSE

OF THE RIDGES THAT WE WERE

USING. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT

WE WERE MAKING THE RIDGES

VERY FAR FROM EACH OTHER.

WE THANK MUCH THE

AGRICULTURAL COUNCILORS BY

TEACHING US BETTER WAYS OF

FARMING.”


here were lacking good sweet potatoes and the like but through their union they are able to bring these things

to us. . . . This is showing that they are working together.”

CONCLUSIONS

• Target beneficiaries recognize soy and groundnuts as primary agricultural products in their

communities.

• Though perceptions on changes in yield were mixed, beneficiaries widely cite trainings in

farming practices and access to resources, including improved seed varieties, as key

contributors to positive changes in yield. Participants received these services largely from

USAID programs and government extension workers, as well as some non-USAID programs.

Most are happy with the resources these programs provide, though many suggest that the

timeliness of services could be improved.

• Increases in quantity and variety consumed were widely mentioned among beneficiaries but

were not as prevalent as increased yields. Though many participants received nutrition

education, many also mentioned that they were encouraged to grow specific crops by different

organizations to sell.

• Beneficiaries generally reported decreased agricultural profits over the last three years due to

market access and market dynamics, and many request assistance in being linked to viable

markets.

• Community leaders and beneficiaries credit integration with improving the effectiveness of

services they receive. They are largely aware of integrated programs or organizations when

they provide services in the same physical spaces.


RESEARCH QUESTION 4

In what ways did integration practices contribute to positive agricultural

outcomes detected in the 2016 midline household survey, what lessons can be

drawn, and how can they be adapted, improved, and applied to other sectors to

maximize the benefits of integration for Mission activities?

AGRICULTURAL OUTCOMES

Table 11 below displays key agricultural outcomes at baseline and midline for Machinga and Balaka.

The table shows that soy production and consumption increased from baseline to midline in Machinga.

In Balaka, soy production decreased from baseline to midline; however, consumption increased to

over three times the amount at baseline. The yield results from the FGDs coincide with the numbers

below: all nine FGDs in Machinga said that yields have increased over the past three years, while only

one of three FGDs in Balaka said the same. However, most participants discussed yields in general,

not yields specifically in reference to soy. The soy consumption FGD data differ slightly from the

descriptive statistics below. Participants in Balaka focused on changes in yields but did not often discuss

consumption, either in a positive or negative sense. Participants in Machinga generally discussed

positive changes in soy consumption much more than negative changes, coinciding with the numbers

below.

Groundnut production, consumption, and profits all decreased

from baseline to midline in Machinga. In Balaka, groundnut

production increased from baseline to midline, but both

consumption and profits decreased. While FGD participants

consistently discussed increased yields in general over the past

three years, some in both Machinga and Balaka mentioned

decreased yields as well, though none of these were in Nyama.

The most common reason cited for decreased yields in general

was pest/disease control. One participant in Machinga said, “In

many cases those who come to us and teach us concerning agricultural

based things, they are teaching us good things. Had it been that we did

not face those pests we could have been having more maize his year

than in the past.” Though this quote is specific to maize, it highlights

the common theme of pest/disease control issues negatively

affecting harvests. FGD results on consumption were mixed,

though many participants who discussed decreases in consumption

attributed it to lower yields. Regarding profits, the descriptive

statistics below are generally consistent with FGD findings. Many

FGDs repeatedly brought up low prices, lack of access to markets,

and other market dynamic issues. Some mentioned being advised

by IPs to grow a certain crop that they were not able to sell at a

reasonable price.

BOX 4: INTERPRETATION OF

HOUSEHOLD DATA

THE NUMBERS IN TABLE 11

BELOW ARE DESCRIPTIVE

STATISTICS FROM THE BASELINE

AND MIDLINE HOUSEHOLD

SURVEYS. WHILE IT IS THE

REGRESSION RESULTS IN THE

MIDLINE REPORT THAT SHOULD

BE USED TO DERIVE IMPACT, THE

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS BELOW

CAN BE USED TO UNDERSTAND

VARIATION WITHIN THE

HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE. IT SHOULD

BE NOTED THAT THE FIGURES IN

THE TABLE BELOW DO NOT

CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE

SAMPLE OF THE POPULATION

AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE

USED TO GENERALIZE THE

EFFECTS.


Table 11: Baseline and midline indicators disaggregated by district

Baseline

(2014)

Midline

(2016)

Change

from

baseline5

Baseline

(2014)

Midline

(2016)

Change

from

baseline

Machinga Machinga Machinga Balaka Balaka Balaka

PRODUCTION

Soy: Average yield (KG/ha) in

past cropping season among

sampled households that

cultivate soy

310 (n=20) 466 (n=21) 50% 861

(n=21)

295

(n=43) -66%

Groundnuts: Average yield

(KG/ha) in past cropping

season among sampled

households that cultivate

groundnuts

456

(n=190)

344

(n=181) -24%

528

(n=169)

845

(n=197) 60%

CONSUMPTION

Soy: Percent of sampled

households in which the main

woman ate soy in prior 24

hours

2.0%

(n=564)

9.9%

(n=546) 395%

3.0%

(571)

14.4%

(n=564) 379%

Groundnuts: Percent of

sampled households in which

the main woman ate

groundnuts in prior 24 hours

18.0%

(n=564)

16.7%

(n=546) -7%

15.0%

(570)

13.5%

(n=565) -10%

PROFITS

Soy: Average gross margin

(revenue minus inputs [USD]

per hectare) for households

in the sample, divided by

households that cultivate soy6

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Groundnuts: Average gross

margin (revenue minus inputs

[USD] per hectare) for

households in the sample,

divided by households that

cultivate groundnuts

264.1

(n=85) 171 (n=66) -35%

345

(n=52)

335

(n=46) -3%

While the table above presents a mixed story on the production, consumption, and profits continuum

for groundnuts and soy within and between districts, it is important to note that these numbers are

descriptive and not representative of the population. Regression results from the midline survey found

that soy production, consumption, and profits were significantly greater in the fully integrated districts

than the health sector-only districts. Groundnut production was significantly greater, but not

consumption or profits.

5 Most household data are panel data. The attrition rate was low from baseline to midline – a very small number

of households were replaced at midline. 6 Number of observations too small to determine district-level indicators.


CONCLUSIONS: CONTRIBUTION AND LESSONS

1. It is not possible to conclusively state whether integration

was directly responsible for each of the positive outcomes

detected in the midline household survey, given the sample

size and nature of the descriptive statistics above and the

current SHA research.

2. Integration likely contributed to the cross-outcome success

of the soy indicators, especially production in Machinga, as a

result of value chain type integration partnerships, such as that

between MISST and PERFORM. Figure 21 in the section above

shows that while the patterns of resources and information

received were similar between districts, improved seeds

stands out as a difference between Balaka and Machinga,

specifically in the PERFORM village (Nyama). One female

participant in Nyama said, “The seeds can withstand drought

when there is no rain or the rain falls once, it can germinate and

produce- it’s unlike the seeds we were planting in the past when

there is no rain the seeds will dry out… sweet potato, maize and

ground nuts they can all withstand drought.” Another female

participant in Nyama discussed nutrition: “We were used to

eating nsima [but] they [Total Land Care] came to teach us that

we should not only depend on nsima alone but we can cook

sorghum and put ground nuts flour and eat.” Box 5 displays a

range of quotes from FGD participants in all districts on the

other services they received in relation to soy and groundnuts.

Based on the IP survey discussed above, MISST and PERFORM

showed consistently strong scores, in addition to rating each

other similarly. Scores were especially strong and similar in

the mutuality dimension. This dimension included questions

on shared positive influence between organizations, serving

the same target beneficiaries, not duplicating services, shared

understanding of sector challenges, combining and using

resources, and mutual appreciation between partner

organizations. The positive midline outcomes and SHA results

related to this partnership in combination with the IP survey

data serve to emphasize the importance of mutuality in

creating effective integration relationships.

3. Integration is likely to have had a positive influence on

“connecting” the outcomes detected across production and

consumption. Many FGD participants discussed either one

program that provides both agricultural inputs and nutrition

information, or receiving inputs from one source and nutrition

information from another. This coordination of services is

apparent in both the midline results and in FGD data particularly with soy, where we see positive

changes from baseline to midline in both production and consumption of soy. While participants

discussed receiving similar services in relation to groundnuts, midline descriptive statistics and

regression results imply a deeper problem with production – possibly related to pests. None of the

FGDs mentioned receiving services related to market access or facilitation, and the effects are

apparent in both midline and FGD data.

BOX 5: SOY AND GROUNDNUTS

“THEY [CADECOM] COME WITH

DIFFERENT TEACHINGS. SOME COME

WITH THE SOYA INFORMATION, WHILE

OTHERS WITH SWEET POTATOES AND

OTHER THINGS—THERE ARE DIFFERENT

ORGANIZATIONS THAT COME WITH

DIFFERENT INFORMATION.”

“SAVE [THE CHILDREN] DISTRIBUTES

FOOD, THE HEALTH WORKER WEIGHS

THEM FIRST SO WHEN THEY FIND THAT

THE BABY IS SUFFERING FROM

MALNUTRITION THEY REGISTER THAT

CHILD FOR SOYA AND SAME APPLIES

WITH PREGNANT WOMEN IF THEIR

WEIGHT IS DROPPING . . . [IT HAPPENS]

ON THE SAME DAY.”

“PCI . . . IS GIVING SOYA, BEANS AND

COOKING OIL . . . TO EXPECTANT

MOTHERS AND TO CHILDREN BELOW

THE AGE OF 2, WHEN THE CHILD HAS

REACHED THE AGE TWO, HE IS RULED

OUT OF THE PROGRAM. WHEN THAT

PARTICULAR CHILD IS TAKEN OUT FROM

THE PROGRAM YOU WILL FIND OUT

THAT THE CHILD BECOMES

MALNOURISHED AGAIN.”

“THEY [HSA] GIVE [COMMUNITY

MEMBERS] PEANUT BUTTER, SOYA AND

SOMETIMES COOKING OIL IN

COORDINATION WITH WORLD

VISION.”

“THEY [TOTAL LAND CARE] HAVE

TAUGHT US TO PLANT A VARIETY OF

GROUNDNUTS.”

“MAIZE MH26, THEY [TOTAL LAND

CARE] BROUGHT IT FOR

DEMONSTRATION. WE DID NOT BUY

FROM FAR, IT CAME FROM SUBSIDY, THEY

GAVE US THE SAME ONE WE TRIED

BECAUSE IT DID VERY WELL AND THE

PEOPLE RUSHED FOR IT. AND CG 7

GROUNDNUTS, THE RED INSIDE TYPE.”


4. Integration was perceived by both beneficiaries and IPs to have a positive overall improvement to

the effectiveness of programs’ services. Target beneficiaries brought up some benefits of integration

as predicted by USAID and IP staff, namely increased capacity/quality of trainings and decreased time

burden. In addition, beneficiaries also mentioned community unity, consistent messaging, and goal

alignment as positive effects of integration.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the case study findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are intended to

improve the planning and effectiveness of integration initiatives.

1. While it is not possible to conclude that integration is responsible for positive impacts at the

beneficiary level, evidence suggests that integration has either contributed to or can potentially

increase activity efficiencies and population and geographic coverage, as well as reduce duplication

of services and conflicting messaging. To maintain and maximize these effects, integration

partnerships should ideally be planned at the CDCS and PAD levels.

PADs can be sector, intermediate result (IR), or development objective (DO) specific, or even

some other unifying theme; the USAID ADS Chapter 201 Program Cycle Operational Policy does

not specify which is required or preferred. Multiple integration partnership types (value chain, co-

equivalent, cross-sector) appear most likely to be developed for a DO-specific PAD. SI suggests

that PADs be developed by multi-sectoral or interdisciplinary teams of USAID staff, and that

planning include different types of integration partnerships, consider their inherent benefits,

challenges, and management needs, and maximize alignment of activity cycles between planned

integrated activities.

USAID/Malawi should continue to provide incentives and opportunities for IPs to explore and

propose potential integration partnerships before or after PAD development. Potential

mechanisms could include the “speed dating” model or formal consultations, social media (such as

closed Facebook groups), or collaboration through Google Groups or other Internet

collaboration platforms. Further, USAID/Malawi could establish multi-sectoral planning teams (or

utilize existing ones) to include Mission staff, IPs, and other donors, in which members focus on

brainstorming the potential for all three integration partnership types, particularly co-equivalent

and cross-sector types, before, during and/or beyond those planned at the PAD/CDCS levels.

It is recommended that theories of change be developed for each integration partnership. These

should detail the inputs, outputs, and intended outcomes of the partnership.

Alternatively, USAID/Malawi should consider “integration clusters,” which are groups of activities

comprising of the three partnership types and organized around the achievement of a Mission IR

or DO, as a mechanism to increase management efficiencies. These clusters would more clearly

define the purpose and target outcomes of integration partnerships, maximize cost-savings, and

more effectively monitor and assess their performance. Clearly articulated theories of change

should be developed for each cluster, such that the pathway between integration and improved

development outcomes is clearly articulated and agreed upon among partners. Theories of change

can be made more efficient by developing one for each cluster rather than each individual

partnership.

2. USAID program, technical, and contract management staff should be provided more space, time,

and resources to coordinate, communicate, and observe integration partnerships with each other.

As suggested above, multi-sectoral teams made up of contract and programs staff from multiple

sectors and expertise can participate in the planning, oversight, and evaluation of integration

partnerships at the PAD and post-PAD levels. Should integration partnerships be effectively

planned at the PAD level, CORs and programs staff can be organized to maximize integration

efficiencies by managing their respective “integration clusters.”

3. USAID/Malawi can structure IP contracts and budgets to allow for more efficient and incentivized

sharing of costs and resources between integration partners. Contracting mechanisms, such as

iterative and phased contracting, cost-sharing and cooperative agreements, grants under contract,

fixed price and performance-based contracts, Mission-based indefinite quantity contracts (IQC),

performance-based contracts, or hybrid contracts (i.e. a combination of standard models like T&M

or CPFF) will be more conducive to integration-related cost-savings, especially in the case of pre-


planned integration partnerships. Flexible budgeting mechanisms such as phased budgeting or

flexible cost-structures, as well as budget modification efficiencies such as streamlined, pre-

planned, and semi-annual budget modifications, may allow for more efficient and incentivized cost

sharing between IPs who establish integration partnerships post-PAD.

4. Integration partnerships should be anchored by front-end, detailed, and clearly articulated MOUs

between partners that enumerate the mechanisms through which partners plan to harness the

benefits of integration, such as:

• IP BENEFITS: cost savings; organizational efficiencies; diversification of activities and

expertise; expansion of geographic and population scope.

• BENEFICIARY BENEFITS: message consistency; reduction of time burden; improved

program quality; goal alignment; reduction of duplication of services; community unity.

5. The GoM and district governments should be included in integration planning at the Mission level

and at the IP level—perhaps with the participation of Local Government Accountability and

Performance (LGAP)—in the drafting of integration MOUs. Government inclusion can ensure that

agricultural extension workers and other relevant GoM representatives are fully informed of

integration efforts in their geographic and sector areas.

6. USAID/Malawi should assess the productivity and effectiveness of individual integration

partnerships on a regular basis as a component of regular performance evaluations. Assessments

should be structured using the five dimensions of integration practice (governance, administration,

autonomy, mutuality, and proximity) and the benefits of integration, as outlined in

recommendation 4 above. Integration indicators (and accompanying indicator reference sheets)

should be developed and included in IP PMPs, which IPs would use to monitor activities, include

in quarterly and annual reports, inform performance evaluations. If USAID/Malawi employs

“integration clusters,” each cluster’s theory of change can inform the design of independently

administered process and summative evaluations.

7. The Mission should explore the utility in identifying integration opportunities between IPs and

non-USAID partners. USAID/Malawi could realize additional efficiencies among IPs by providing

support for such partnerships through LGAP and donor coordinating committees. IPs should be

consulted to determine the type of support that may be most useful for the non-USAID integration

partnerships.

8. The Mission should improve upon the timeliness of existing value chain partnerships, and

encourage new partnerships to reinforce to target beneficiaries the benefits of agriculture

programs through all steps in the crop cycle (production, consumption, profits). To inform future

value chain partnerships, USAID/Malawi should draw from the best practices identified in the

MISST-PERFORM partnership. Programs providing market access and facilitation services should

be key targets for potential new value chain integration activities.


ANNEX A: BACKGROUND ON THE MALAWI CDCS

INTEGRATION INITIATIVE

The 2013–2018 USAID/Malawi CDCS aims to improve the Malawians’ quality of life. To achieve this,

USAID/Malawi has adopted an integrated development approach that includes joint planning,

leveraging resources, evaluating outcomes together, and a holistic coordinated response that meets

district development objectives (USAID/Malawi, Country Development Cooperation Strategy, 2013).

USAID/Malawi’s “3C approach” is the platform for operationalizing integration. The 3Cs are:

● Co-location of USAID interventions/activities

● Coordination within USAID and with other development partners (DPs)

● Collaboration between USAID and the Government of Malawi (GOM), district authorities,

other development partners, civil society organizations (CSOs), and community-based

organizations (CBOs)

USAID/Malawi has targeted USAID-funded activities in three districts—Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe

Rural—for implementation of integrated development. This is based on the expectation that there

would be a saturation of complementary programming focused on decentralization and capacity

building in these districts across all sectors: Education (EDU); Health, Population, and Nutrition (HPN);

Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG)—including Agriculture (AG); and Democracy and Governance

(DG). USAID/Malawi envisioned that fully integrated activities in these three districts would involve

more than one implementer working in multiple sectors co-locating, coordinating, and collaborating

to achieve USAID’s development objectives. Co-location (i.e., geographic proximity of IP activities or

targeting beneficiary groups) is a necessary but insufficient condition to effect integration because IPs

may not voluntarily work together. Therefore, IPs that hold USAID awards in these districts that pre-

date the new CDCS are requested and facilitated to coordinate and collaborate in their work plans

across sectors and to intentionally work together. New awards are required to do so since 2015 by

including integration as part of their proposals. More on USAID/Malawi’s approach to integration as

well as experiences with integration outside of Malawi is available in the SI report “Implementing

Integrated Development in Malawi.”7

The annual SHA provides USAID/Malawi with a mechanism for

gauging CDCS integration strategy effectiveness in the targeted

districts of Balaka, Machinga, and Lilongwe Rural, and facilitates

interpreting findings from the overarching IE. Through

consultations with local stakeholders, including GOM officials

and USAID implementing partners (IPs), the SHA examines how

the integrated development implementation process is unfolding.

More specifically, it identifies what is working well and where

there is room for improvement. By drawing on this local

knowledge and comparing various stakeholder perceptions,

USAID/Malawi seeks to strengthen strategic integration. The

annual SHAs are conducted to inform USAID/Malawi portfolio

reviews scheduled early in each calendar year.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 2015

The first SHA (2015) focused on an initial examination of the integration process: how IPs are “doing”

integration, the guidance provided by USAID/Malawi, and identification of successes and challenges

7 “Implementing Integrated Development in Malawi,” Social Impact, Inc., USAID Development

Experience Clearinghouse, July 2015.

USAID/MALAWI DEFINES

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT

AS WORKING JOINTLY WITH

OTHERS ON A COMMON GOAL

THAT IS BEYOND WHAT ANY ONE

PERSON/GROUP CAN ACCOMPLISH

ALONE. INTEGRATION INCLUDES

JOINT PLANNING, LEVERAGING

RESOURCES, EVALUATING

OUTCOMES TOGETHER, AND A

HOLISTIC COORDINATED

RESPONSE THAT MEETS DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES.


involved in implementing activities in an integrated way. Data collection focused on IPs, with a few

interviews with USAID staff and other stakeholders. The key findings from the 2015 SHA included the

following:

● Overall, most IPs defer to the USAID definition of integration and recognize the integral role

of the 3Cs of Co-location, Coordination, and Collaboration. In general terms, IPs see

integration as a process for working together to reach common goals. IPs clarified that while

they may be working toward a common integration goal, they may simultaneously be

working toward distinct activity-level outcomes. While together the IPs may be working to

increase their outreach, they may be doing so to accomplish various objectives, such as

improving literacy rates or raising awareness about Malaria prevention.

● IPs and USAID representatives also saw that taking a cross-sectoral approach was a central

feature of the USAID definition but raised doubts about whether all integration activities had

to be cross-sectoral to “count” as integrated. To further operationalize USAID/Malawi’s

integration definition, a more nuanced look could be taken at how the various stakeholders

define the 3Cs and where their own individual definitions may diverge from USAID/Malawi’s.

● District representatives shared that they still were not being fully integrated into the process.

The cases that most actively engaged districts happened through Democracy and

Governance (DG) activities that capitalized on IPs’ sectoral expertise. In those cases, the

DG IPs worked to train district officials on good governance practices while working with

other IPs to develop district government technical skills in the areas of education, health,

and agriculture.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS 2016

The 2016 SHA built on findings from SHA 2015 and took a deeper dive into how integration is being

implemented on the ground as well as the implications of that for USAID/Malawi, IPs, and local district

governments. To that end, data collection focused on six specific integration activities (IAs) involving

11 different IPs and their sub-partners as well as relevant GOM line staff. In addition, to obtain a more

macro perspective on the state of integrated development, interviews also included USAID staff and

Malawi District Government representatives. The 2016 SHA key findings were:

● There appears to be a clear division of labor within USAID/Malawi among the various offices. The

Front Office and USAID/Malawi has set integration as a priority, as evidenced by its prominent

role within the CDCS. Since the 2015 SHA, this has become more concrete within the

Contracts Office, which is working with Technical Offices to create integrated funding. This is

critical, as one of the identified obstacles to integration is the difficulty of integrating funding

streams, a critical first step in starting integration from an activity’s inception. However,

effectively doing so requires that USAID/Malawi fully embrace its leadership role in identifying

opportunities for integrated development, rather than relying on IPs to do it.

● USAID/Malawi has made several critical organizational changes in the past year that have facilitated

integrated development. There appear to be increased efforts to design integration into new

activities, starting with integrating funding streams, designing activities with integration in mind,

and asking bidders on new activities to propose specific IAs. While these efforts may work

well for advancing CDCS objectives, it remains to be seen to what extent integration will

succeed. That said, some existing similarly planned activities, such as the Supporting the Efforts

of Partners activity (STEPs), suggest that there is reason to be hopeful.

● The GOM role varies considerably depending on the activity. Roles range from acting only as a

“gatekeeper,” approving USAID activities generally and IAs specifically, to being a key

“partner” implementing activities with USAID/Malawi IP support. While the GOM’s “partner”

role is relatively clear, since it is a main implementer, the “gatekeeper” function is less clear.

To some extent, variation in the GOM’s effectiveness in this role relates to USAID’s

communication with both the central and district governments. Some stakeholders felt that

USAID should only communicate with the central government and leave district-level

communication to IPs. However, others note that this indirect communication is not


particularly effective. One of the main concerns expressed by GOM stakeholders is that they

are only asked for input after USAID/Malawi has made key decisions. Overall, it seems that

USAID/Malawi could make greater efforts to communicate both more directly and frequently

with district-level officials to ensure that development plans are, in fact, in line with district

priorities.

● IPs play the most critical role in the planning, delivery, and sustainability of USAID-supported

activities generally and IAs specifically. Regarding IAs, successfully fulfilling this role requires

coordinating and collaborating with both IA partners and local counterparts. To this end, face-

to-face meetings play a central role in planning efforts to come to agreement about who is

doing what, when, and where. Indeed, other forms of communication are also used, but they

are not as effective as meetings in reaching critical decisions, especially for IAs, to both ensure

maximum coverage and avoid duplicating efforts.

● Current practices to manage the 3Cs has improved since the last SHA to an extent. The

improvements appear to have occurred in large part owing to increased clarity in their

definitions. This is most evident in partners’ successful efforts at collaboration and

coordination to implement their IAs. Virtually all six IAs that were the focus of the 2016 SHA

provided concrete evidence of their implementation of the 3Cs. That said, a notable issue

emerged from the interviews that indicated an apparent disconnect between USAID and IPs

in their perspectives on the 3Cs. While USAID had concerns about oversaturation both within

the mission and for IPs, at least some IPs indicated that this is not the case. IPs look to USAID

for greater leadership and direction setting, while simultaneously actively working to

coordinate and collaborate.


ANNEX B: INTERVIEW DEMOGRAPHICS

USAID GROUP INTERVIEWS

NAME TITLE

Martin Banda Agriculture Program Development Specialist

Brian Frantz Program Officer

Cullen Hughes Director of Economic Growth

Ryan Walther Deputy Program Officer

Chrispin Mongombo Agriculture Productivity Specialist

Madalitso Kaferawanthu Natural Resources Management Specialist

Manale Jimu Acquisition and Assistants Specialist

Emmanuel Ngube Food for Peace Officer

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTERVIEWS

ORGANIZATION NAME TITLE

FISH

Alan Brooks

William Dothi

Clement Chinguwo

Daniel Jamu

Dick Kachilonga

Chief of Party

M&E Specialist

Grants and Finance Officer

Deputy Chief of Party for Programs

Governance & Capacity Development

Specialist

Njira

Venansio Chome

Symon Maseko

John Chimpukuso

Michael Ghebrab

District Project Manager

District Program Manager

Deputy Chief of Party

Chief of Party

PERFORM

Madalo Itimu

Posilo Bwalo

Abel Manda

Blessings Mwale

Ramzy Kanaan

Field Coordinator

Field Coordinator

Field Coordinator

Deputy Chief of Party

Chief of Party

MISST

Nepear Mkhware

Peter Lungu

Dennis Katabwalika

Khalaniphe Kamuonjola

Naomi Kamanga

Joseph Atehnkeng

Daniel van Vugt

Abanga Akinwale

Field Technician

CID Systems Specialist

CID Systems Agronomist

Field Research Technician

Chief of Party

Program Manager

Program Manager

Program Manager


FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION DEMOGRAPHICS

DISTRICT VILLAGE GROUP AGE

RANGE

TOTAL

MALE

TOTAL

FEMALE TOTAL PROFESSIONS

Machinga Mtungwi Community

Leaders 24-68 9 2 11

Lead farmer,

Advisor volunteer

on VSL, Business

man, Farmer, VDC

chairperson, Village

Headman

Machinga Mtungwi Males 23-54 9 0 9 Farmer, Tin smith,

Builder

Machinga Mtungwi Females 21-70 0 10 10 Farmer

Machinga Chingoli Community

Leaders 28-50 2 8 10

Farmer, Volunteer,

VDC member,

Business woman

Machinga Chingoli Males 46-68 8 0 8 Farmer

Machinga Chingoli Females 32-59 0 10 10 Farmer

Balaka Ng’onga Community

Leaders 20-67 5 6 11

Teacher, Health

Surveillance

Assistant, Health

Promoter, VDC

Chair, Farmer,

Village Headman,

Sheik, Lead farmer

Balaka Ng’onga Males 23-65 10 0 10 Farmer

Balaka Ng’onga Females 26-62 0 10 10 Farmer

Machinga Nyama Community

Leaders 33-59 9 1 10

Farmer, Village

head, Forest patrol,

Chief counselor,

Chief, Lead farmer

Machinga Nyama Males 18-54 7 0 7 Farmer, Business

man, Herdman

Machinga Nyama Females 28-50 0 10 10 Farmer


FIELDWORK SCHEDULE

DATE INTERVIEW TYPE ORGANIZATION STAFF LEVEL

9/11/17 In-Brief USAID Program Staff

9/12/17 GI USAID Program Staff

9/13/17 GI USAID CORs

9/14/17 GI Njira Management

9/15/17 GI MISST Management

9/15/17 GI PERFORM Management

9/19/17 GI MISST Field Staff

9/21/17 Out-Brief USAID Program Staff

9/21/17 GI PERFORM Field Staff

9/22/17 FGD Machinga (MISST) Male, Female, Community Leader

9/22/17 GI FISH Field Staff

9/28/17 GI FISH Management

9/28/17 FGD Machinga (PERFORM) Male, Female, Community Leader

10/3/17 GI LGAP Management

10/3/17 FGD FISH Male, Female, Community Leader

10/4/17 GI Njira Field Staff

10/7/17 FGD Balaka (Njira) Male, Female, Community Leader


ANNEX C: USAID GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. On a flip chart or white board, map out the integrated activities network (the current integration

partners) for each of the four focus activities (the networks for each may also be connected to

each other) in the three focus districts. When drawing lines between them, draw thick lines for

those with strong connections, and thin ones for those with weaker connections:

a. FISH,

b. Njira,

c. PERFORM,

d. MISST

2. While doing the activity above, how much did you know about the state of integrated activities?

a. How do you get information about integration activities?

b. How much do you know what resources (like money, time, expertise, equipment) the

partner organizations bring to the integration activities?

c. How do you know if integration activities are going well or not?

3. Given the information you have, how would you assess the state of integrated development in the

Agriculture sector?

a. What would you say are its current strengths and weaknesses? Which activities provide

particularly good examples of integrated development? Why?

b. Which ones would you say are not so good? Why?

c. Are there lines that you originally planned to be there, but aren’t?

d. Are there lines or activities there now that were originally unplanned or were unintended?

e. Are there integration activities that you would characterized as forced or contrived; in

other words, integration just for integration’s sake.

4. How has the process of managing integrated development changed over the past year?

a. What changes have you had to make to the typical roles and responsibilities of USAID

staff in order to manage integration in the agriculture sector?

b. Have any past challenges been effectively addressed? How?

c. Have any gone unaddressed? Why?

d. Have any new challenges emerged?

5. To what extent are the agriculture program/technical offices here at USAID collaborating with

other offices/officers?

a. With other sectors? With Contract officers?

b. What role have the integration efforts played in these collaborations?

c. Would they have happened without the integration initiatives?

7. In what ways did you plan for integration efforts in the agriculture sector to impact target

beneficiaries in the three focus districts?

a. How did you envision the effects of integration being realized at the beneficiary level?

b. How does your initial plan compare to what is happening now? How do you know?

8. Have there been any unanticipated or unintended effects of integration initiatives on target

beneficiaries in the three focus districts?

9. What recommendations do you have for improving integration efforts in the future?

1. Project design?

2. Contracting and budgeting?

3. Organizational structure/staff roles and responsibilities?

4. M&E?


ANNEX D: IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTEGRATION PRACTICES PROTOCOL

IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTEGRATION PRACTICES PROTOCOL8

Part I: Integration Practices Survey9 (Items shaded blue constitute items for phone interviews of IP integration partners.)

Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA

Category Survey Question: To what extent does/do… 1 2 3 4 5 -999 -998 -997

GOVERNANCE

1. Your organization rely on a formal agreements and/or

operating procedures (rules, policies, schedules)

outside of the integration work plan that spells out

the relationship with the partner organization?

2. The partner organizations (including your

organization) formally evaluate the success of the

partnership?

3. Your organization know what resources (like money,

time, expertise, equipment) the partner organization

brings to the integration activities?

8 Note that this tool is entirely distinct from the Integration Gauge tool used in previous SHAs and is designed to measure the current strength of integration practices (as

opposed to conditions) among IPs and projects. It is necessary in order to establish the extent to which integration may be correlated with positive outcomes detected in the

midline household survey. 9 Adapted from: Thompson, A. M., Perry, J. L., Miller, T. K., “Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume

19: Issue 1 (2009): 1, 23-56.


4. Your organization work with the partner organization

to develop solutions to integration-related problems?

5. Your organization work with USAID to develop

solutions to integration-related problems?

6. Your organization work with the GoM/District

Governments to develop solutions to integration-

related problems?

7. Your organization rely on informal personal

relationships with the partner organization when

making decisions about the integration activities?

Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA

Category Survey Question: How much does/do… 1 2 3 4 5 -999 -998 -997

ADMINISTRATION

8. Your organization rely on a manager or other

designated staff to coordinate the integration

activities?

9. Your organization have disagreements with the

partner organization over the design or goals of

the integration effort?

10. Your organization effectively solve disagreements

with the partner organization over the integration

activities?

11. Your organization rely on formal in-person

meetings to communicate and coordinate with

the partner organization?

12. Your organization have problems communicating

effectively with the partner organization?


13. You understand your organization’s roles and

responsibilities in carrying out the integration

activities?

Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA


AUTONOMY

14. The integration activities hinder your organization from

meeting its own Mission objectives?

15. You, as a representative of your organization, feel pulled

between trying to meet both your organization’s and

the integration initiative’s goals?

16. Your organization share information and data with the

partner organization for the good of the integration

effort?

17. Your organization know about the programs and

operations of the partner organization outside of the

integrated activity?

18. You feel it is worthwhile to stay and work with the

partner organization rather than leave the integration

initiative?


Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA


MUTUALITY

19. The partner organization positively influence your

organization’s overall mission?

20. Your organization serve target beneficiaries from the

partner organization?

21. The partner organization serve target beneficiaries from

your organization?

22. The partner organization duplicate the services your

organization provides to your target beneficiaries?

23. Your organization’s understanding of the issues and

challenges in the sector—and their potential

solutions—differ from those of the partner

organization?

24. Your organization need the resources, services, and/or

support of the partner organization to accomplish your

mission more effectively?

25. The partner organizations (including your organization)

combine and use each other’s resources in carrying out

the integration activities?

26. You feel what your organization brings to the

integration effort is appreciated and respected by the

partner organization?


Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA


PROXIMITY


share the cost and/or use of digital resources such as

Internet, IT support, software licenses, or computer

equipment/servers?


share the cost and/or use of work spaces such as offices,

meeting rooms, reception areas, or kitchens?


share the cost and/or use of learning resources such as

staff training, capacity building, or professional

development resources/events?


share the cost and/or use of management and logistics

resources such as transportation, security, purchasing,

finance, or human resource services?


interact with or serve your organization’s target

population in the same physical spaces?


Not at

all

To a

very

small

extent

To

some

extent

To a

mode

rate

extent

To a

large

extent

Do

not

know

Declin

e NA


32. You feel changes should be made to the way your

organization manages and implements the integration

activities with the partner organization?

33. You feel changes should be made to the way USAID

manages integration initiatives?

34. The GoM/District governments support your

organizations integration initiatives in your sector?

Part II: Semi-Structured Interview

In this part, the interviewer should ask the following open-ended questions, and record answers in your notes.

1. In what ways, if any, do you think your target beneficiaries experience the effects of integration?

2. Would you still be partnering with any of your integration partners without USAID’s integration mandate? Which ones? Why or why not?

3. Our midterm evaluation data suggests that soybean production, profit margin, and consumption was significantly larger in fully integrated districts

than in other districts in 2016. To what would you attribute this difference? Would any of your integration activities be partly responsible for this

outcome?

4. Our midterm evaluation data suggests that groundnut production was significantly larger in fully integrated districts than in other districts in 2016,

but ground nut margins and consumption was not larger in the FI districts. To what would you attribute this difference? Would any of your integration

activities be partly responsible for this outcome?

5. Is there anything else we haven’t talked about yet that you think it is important for us to know about your organization’s experience with integration?


Part III: Contact Information for Focus Groups

Before we conclude our interview, I would like your assistance in convening three focus groups made

up of community members and leaders from among your target beneficiary groups in one of the three

integration districts: one with male beneficiaries, one with female beneficiaries, and once with

community leaders such as local civic and religious leaders, project volunteers, and agriculture

extension officers, health and nutrition surveillance assistants, or community development assistants.

Each group should be made up of no more than 6-10 members. We plan to begin scheduling these

focus groups beginning the week of September 25th.

In which district and village(s) would it be best to hold these focus groups?

District: Village: ______

Primary activities and commodity focus of your organization in this location:

___________________________________________________________

Who in your organization would be best in helping us convene these groups?

Name: Position: ______

Email: Cell: ____________


ANNEX E: BENEFICIARY FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

PROTOCOL

FGD Group □ Male; □ Female; □ Community Leaders

Location (village) Date

Moderator Note-taker

Audio Recorder Start time

Facilitation:

Research team: 1 moderator, 1 note-taker.

1. Introductions and informed consent

Moderator:

Hello everyone, thank you for coming here today. We are grateful that you are giving us your time.

First, let me introduce the team: [The moderator, note-taker, and audio recorder should introduce

themselves]

We work for an organization called IKI and we are here on behalf of USAID to conduct research on

the effects of agricultural projects funded by the United States government on your community. We

are interested in your thoughts about how effective they are, and what influence they may have on

agricultural practices, food consumption, and nutrition.

Before we begin, you should know that neither this research nor your answers to our questions will

in any way determine if a project will be implemented here, continue to be here, or effect your ability

to access or receive any services. The benefit of this research is to ensure that projects are designed

well and work well together based on local people’s input.

This focus group discussion will take about 2 hours. We have {these items} for you in order to make

your participation more comfortable.

We would like to audio record these discussions and take notes. The recordings and the notes will

not be shared with anyone outside the research team and your names will be kept confidential. We

hope this makes you feel comfortable to express your ideas freely.

Your participation in this discussion is voluntary and so if you do not feel comfortable, then you are

welcome to excuse yourself at any time during the research without any consequences to you or your

families.

Do you have any questions?

Do you agree to participate?

Will you allow us to record the conversations?

Will you allow us to take photos?

Thank you.


2. Record participant information

The moderator will ask each member of the group to provide the following information:

First name (only) or

Assigned ID#

Age

(range)

Profession/Livelihood Gender

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

3. Introduction of the activities

In this step, the facilitators will describe exactly what activities will be done over the course of the

next two hours.

We are going to ask you to do three things with us today. The first is to draw a map of your

community, and some of the different people, places, and organizations that are in it. We will guide

you through the process of drawing the map by asking some specific questions about where certain

things are. So don’t worry, you do not need to be an artist!

Second, we will ask you to use the map to tell us about all the agricultural activities in your community,

the agricultural services in your community, and if and how these services work together.

Then last, we will ask you to tell us about the strengths and weaknesses of the services, and for ideas

about how to make them better.

PART A: CONSTRUCTING THE MAP: PEOPLE

In this step, group members will begin constructing their map.

Materials: Flip chart-size paper, colored markers.

The map should be drawn using three different colors: one for drawing/identifying places (Part 1), one

for drawing/identifying people (Part 2), and one for drawing/identifying services (Part 3).


Now, we would like two volunteers to help draw the map. You don’t need to be an artist, but you

should feel comfortable drawing with markers.

Ok, we are going to use three colors to draw this map. We’re going to start with Blue (or any other

color) to draw the places.


PART A: CONSTRUCTING THE MAP: PLACES

Questions Prompts & Probes

1. Draw the approximate boundaries of the

community and the primary landmarks and

roads. Mark them on the map.

● Roads, lakes and waterways, and other major

physical landmarks.

2. Where are the public places found in the

community? For example, where the

…(probes) Mark them on the map.

● Schools, libraries, health clinics, recreation

centers, transportation hubs, government

offices.

3. Where are the places where people gather,

such as…(probes)? Mark them on the map.

● Mosques, community centers, markets,

parks/squares, laundry areas, mills, and other

social spaces where people typically gather

together.

4. Where are the areas where people work, such

as... (probes)? Mark them on the map.

● Areas used for the cultivation, production, and/or

processing of crops, dairy products, poultry,

livestock, trees, or fish for commercial sale or

personal subsistence

● Indicate what crops are being grown, asking

specifically about maize, soy beans, and ground

nuts.

● Also identify where people buy or acquire

agricultural supplies like seeds, fertilizer, feed,

bait, nets, and other equipment used for crops,

animals, fishing, or forestry.

● Include also mines, shops, restaurants, other

retail, offices, etc.

5. a) Where are the places where people get

services, training, or assistance from the

government, NGOs, or local community-based

organizations? Mark them on the map.

b) Also ask about services they receive that may

come from outside the community.

● Be sure to ask about any projects that provide

services to farmers and fishermen, food

assistance, and nutritional support to woman

and children.

● Also ask about any services like model- or

demonstration-farms, master farmers and

extension services, training centers, seed and

fertilizer services, etc.

● Finally, ask what the names of these services

are if they know.

PART B: CONTRUCTING THE MAP: PEOPLE

MODERATOR: Now we’re going to identify where people live and gather. Let’s use the color Green

(or any other color different from the previous).

PART B: CONSTRUCTING THE MAP: PEOPLE


6. a) Identify the places where people live? Mark

them on the map.

b) Identify the different social groups found in the

community, and they typically live.

● Ask about different social groups based on the

following (and let the group define them):

o different ethnic/religious groups

o amount of education,

o rich and poor

o refugees or migrants

7. a) (While pointing one at a time to different NGO

and government services on the map) For this

service, tell us more specifically about the

people who use this service?

b) How people know about this service?

c) Why do they use this service?

● Ask about characteristics such as:

a. gender

b. age

c. religion/ethnicity

d. education levels

e. rich and poor

f. refugees or migrants


d) Do the people who use this service also use any

of the other services identified on the map? If so,

which ones and why?

● When asking d), be sure to ask specifically

about other agriculture, food and nutrition, and

health services.

9. a) Who are the most influential members of the

community? Identify them on the map (indicate

if they do not live IN the community, such as

the President).

b) Who are the most influential when it comes to

agricultural practices?

c) Who are the most influential when comes to

health and nutrition practices?

● Explain that influence in this case means those

who have the power to change people’s minds

or behavior in the community.

● Suggest teachers, government officials,

extension workers, health workers, NGO staff,

politicians, chiefs, religious leaders, others?

PART C: AGRICULTURAL & NUTRITIONAL PRACTICES

For this step, it is important to look at the professions and livelihoods of the group members in order

to ask relevant probing questions.

PART C: PRACTICE


10. a) What are the main agricultural products

being produced in this community today?

b) Has this changed over the last 5 years? If yes,

what has changed and why?

a) Refer to different places and people on the map.

Ask about crops, animals, fish, and forest products.

Also ask about value-added and processed products

like canned or dried goods, oils, soap, furniture, etc.

(Identify these businesses on the map if not already).

Ask which ones are gown for food and which one

are more for making money.

b) Probe reasons such as market forces (such as

prices or demand), resource availability (such as

seeds), environmental causes (such as drought or

crop/animal disease), or population/ demographic

shifts (such as age, wealth, health, or education).

11. a) Have agricultural production practices (such

as planting in rows, raised bed, or the use of

tractors) among members of this community

changed over the last 5 years?

b) If yes, what was/were the old practice(s), and

what is/are the new practice(s)?

c) If no, why not? Is there a need or a desire to

improve practices?

● If needed, explain that this refers to the

METHODS or WAYS people farm, fish, or care

for animals. Refer to different places and people

on the map.

● Go through the different livelihoods

represented in the group, asking about

practices for:

o Crop production

o Animal husbandry

o Fishing

o Forestry

● If necessary, probe for specific examples of

practices such as:

o Rainfall and growing seasons

o Seed types and sources

o Planting and tilling methods

o Harvesting and storage

o Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides

o Feed types and sources

o Grazing and housing


o Angling, netting, diving, trapping, or fish

farming

12. a) What are the primary staple foods that

people in this community currently consume?

b) Have the types of foods consumed changed over

the last 5 years? If yes, what has changed and why?

c) Has nutrition in the community—the health of

people as a result of what and how much they eat—

changed in the last 5 years? If yes, what has changed

and why?

● Ask if food consumption habits differ between

different sub-groups in the community by

referring to them on the map. If so, why is this

so? (Wealth, gender, age)

● Probe reasons such as market forces (such as

prices), availability (local versus shipped),

environmental causes (such as changes in rain

fall, changes in growing seasons, or disease), or

population/ demographic shifts (such as gender,

wealth, or age).

● Also probe about participation in farmers

groups, women’s groups, credit groups: who

participates and why they have contributed to

changes in food consumption.

● For c), probe specifically about women and

children.

● For c), also probe reasons for change such as

food consumption habits, food availability, food

quality, food preparation, hygiene practices

(like washing hands), or parenting and child

rearing practices.

PART D: ACCESS & USE OF SERVICES

In this step, members will be asked to identify the role of any government, non-governmental, or

community-based organizations in any of the changes (or non-changes) in questions 10-12.

For each of the questions 10 through 12 above, ask the following follow-up questions:

1. Lets look at all the services you identified on the map that are provided by the government, NGOs,

or community organizations. Please identify which of them played a role in the changes you

identified.

2. (Skip if no change or negative change was identified) For each one identified above, explain what role

the organization played and how you believe the services it provided contributed to the change.

3. Do you believe any of them could have done a better job to improve conditions in the community?

4. Do you get conflicting messages from them about how best to do things? Has this increased,

decreased, or stayed the same over the last 3 years? If so (increased or decreased), how?

5. Are you asked to participate in training or activities that take up a lot of your time? Has this

increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the last 3 years? If so (increased or decreased),

how?

6. Of all the organizations we just identified working to effect agriculture in this community, are any

of them working very well together as far as you can tell? If yes, how do you know? In what ways

are they working together?

7. Of those you identified as working together, do you think working together improved, decreased,

or not effected the quality and accessibility of their services? Why or why not?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!


U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20523

Documents

MALAWI STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS · 2018-03-08 · The 2013–2018 USAID/Malawi Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) aims to improve the quality of life of Malawians through