RESEARCH METHODOLOGY essay

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

• Introduction

The primary purpose of this chapter was to give an overview of the research methodology used in this study. Among the areas covered include; the research design used, the target population studied, the sample size and sampling procedure applied, data collection methods, data collection instruments and data collection procedure used. Also, it examines the validity and reliability of the tools used in data collection as well as data analysis and presentation procedures. The ethical considerations and operational definition of variables are also discussed in this chapter.

• • Research Design

This study employed a descriptive survey design. A survey is a means of gathering information about the characteristics, actions or opinions of a group of people. It assists in describing data and features about a population and the phenomenon being studied, Best (2004). This design was appropriate for the study because it enabled data collection from the sample on the factors influencing the sustainability of the Food Assistance for Assets programme. In addition to this, it allowed the study observe and draw conclusions from the manipulation of the independent variables while keeping the resultant effects on the dependent variable; this was the main objective of conducting the research.

• Target Population

Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) defined the target population as the entire group a researcher is interested in or the group about which the researcher wishes to draw a conclusion.

The target population used in this study was drawn from key stakeholders who are directly involved in the FFA Program. This was in Kakuma Ward of Turkana West Constituency, Turkana County. The composition of the respondents was drawn from 2 Managers from the World Food Programme, 2 Managers from Turkana Rehabilitation Program-TRP, 200 Beneficiaries, 2 Chiefs and 50 Community Leaders.

• Sample Size and Sampling Procedure

Under this section, the method used to determine the sample size from the target population and from which data was collected is presented. Further, this section describes the sampling techniques used in selecting individuals that were included as the subjects of the study sample.

• Sample size

A sample in a research study is a group on which information is gathered (Frankel 2000). The whole idea of sampling is that by selecting some of the elements in a population, we can conclude the entire community (Cooper 2006).  The researcher purposively chose 2 WFP Managers, 2 Managers from Turkana Rehabilitation Programme, and 2 Chiefs. The researcher also chose randomly, 20 % of the Total beneficiaries (200) and Community leaders (50); this brought a total of 56 Respondents.

• Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling and specific strata of interest were drawn at 20%.

Table 3.4: Sample size distribution table

• WFP Managers N/A                02                                02
• TRP Managers N/A                 02                                02
• Chiefs N/A                 02                                02
• Beneficiaries 200                  200 x 0.2                     40
• Community Leaders 50                    50 x 0.2                       10

• Data Collection Methods

These are the tools used for the collection of data from the respondents on the topic under study (Creswell, 2003). The researcher used questionnaires to collect the data for analysis. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), a questionnaire is a list of standard questions prepared to fit a specific inquiry. Questionnaires were administered to all the respondents as sampled from the target population. For respondents who were unable to read and write, questionnaires were administered through interview. The questionnaires contained both closed and open-ended questions to enable the respondents to give in-depth information.

• Pilot Testing of Instruments

Pilot testing involves the pre-testing of the instruments to determine their validity and reliability. According to Orodho (2004), pilot testing is a smaller version of a more extensive study that is conducted to prepare for the research or to field test the survey to provide a rationale for the design. The researcher tested the instruments by targeting a small group of the program beneficiaries from an area not under this study, but from within the same county, and then made the necessary adjustments on the instruments as per the pre-test’s experiences. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), a pre-test sample equivalent to 10% of the study sample is enough for piloting the study instruments based on these guidelines, the researcher selected a sample of 10 respondents from Kalobeyei area, for pilot-testing.

• Validity of the Instruments

Validity determines whether the research instrument truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how accurate the research results are, (Joppe, 2000). In this study, the researcher determined the validity of the instruments by conducting a pilot test of the questionnaire by administering it to 10 Food Assistance for Assets programme beneficiaries.

• Reliability of Research Instruments

Reliability is the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population under study. That is, if the results of a study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable (Joppe, 2000). This is confirmed by Leedy (2000) who describes reliability as the consistency with which the measuring instrument performs, such that apart from delivering accurate results, the measuring instrument must deliver similar results consistently after repeated trials. The researcher used the test-retest technique to measure the degree of reliability of the instruments; this was done at two different times during the pilot-testing. The researcher administered 50% of the questionnaires to the target group of randomly selected individuals and the other 50% to individuals chosen from the larger group of beneficiaries one week later. The results obtained were similar, which indicated that the research instruments were reliable. The coefficient of reliability was 0.8.

• Data collection procedure

This researcher made use of both primary and secondary data sources. Questionnaires were distributed to all research respondents through the help of experts from WFP who are Key stakeholders of the Programme. This ensured proper data triangulation with a primary focus on the proposed objective and how the data was to be analyzed.  The researcher engaged a research assistant to give support on the technical areas more importantly, on purpose, objectives and other administration duties more to the research instruments.

• Data Analysis

Data were summarized and presented in cross-tabulation, percentages and frequency tables. This research relied on both quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques, where all the data collected was coded and arranged according to the research themes. Qualitative methods were involved in describing the characteristics of data, classifying them and then making connections to make general statements while quantitative analysis techniques were used in coding data and frequency tables drawn. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to describe the association between the independent and the dependent variables. Chi-square test was used to test hypotheses.

• Ethical Consideration

The researcher put into consideration several ethical issues during the study, among them; seeking and obtaining permission from the relevant authorities in the country and within the county before conducting interviews with the programme beneficiaries in the area of study. Throughout the research, the researcher sought consent from the respondents for the interviews and where they will not be comfortable to be quoted or recorded in the study, an agreement was reached not to record or capture their personal information. Sources of all secondary materials in this study were provided while quotes from individual respondents and their names concealed for confidentiality.

• Operational Definition of Variables

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

• Introduction

This chapter provides analyses, presentation and interpretation of the data collected from the study beneficiaries implementing the Food Assistance Program. Information collected was on the demographic characteristics of 40 program beneficiaries that covered gender, age, family size and education levels of the program beneficiaries; income levels; weather conditions; beneficiary participation and capacity building. Other respondents included 2 WFP Program Managers, 2 TRP Managers, 2 Chiefs and ten community leaders.

• Questionnaire Return Rate

The study used a sample size of 40 respondents (beneficiaries) from the target population, and all the 40 questionnaires were completed and returned. This was 100% of all questionnaires administered, which met the requirement as per Frankel and Wallen (2004), who noted that a response rate of above 95% of the respondents can adequately represent the study sample and offer adequate information for the study analysis and thus conclusion and recommendations.

Table 4.1 Questionnaire Return Rate

• Influence of Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents on the Sustainability Food Assistance Program

One of the study objectives was to examine the impact of demographic characteristics of the beneficiaries on the sustainability of the Food Assistance Program. In order to establish the influence of respondents’ demographic characteristics, the study obtained responses on gender, age, family size and education qualification of the beneficiaries.

• Gender of Respondents

In order to determine the composition of the program beneficiaries by gender, the study asked the respondents to indicate their gender groups and the responses were analysed in table 4.1.

Table 4.2: Gender of Respondents

Table 4.2 above shows that out of the 40 respondents interviewed, 36 or 90% were female and only 4 or 10% were male. This indicates that the majority of the program beneficiaries are women.

• Influence of Gender on the Sustainability of the Food Assistance Program

The researcher wanted to determine whether gender had an impact on the program, and the responses from the beneficiaries were as follows:

Table 4.3 Influence of gender on the program

Table 4.3 above indicates the study findings on the influence of gender of the beneficiaries as per the respondents where out of 40; 9 said that gender had a “weak positive” influence; 12 said the influence was “strong positive”; 9 said gender’s influence on the program was “weak negative” and the remaining 10 said the influence was “strong negative”. In other words, 21 (or 52.5%) of the respondents agreed that gender of the beneficiaries had a positive influence on the sustainability of the program while 19 (or 47.5%) disagreed with that opinion.

• Age of Respondents

The study respondents were also asked to give their age details and below are their responses as recorded during the interviews:

Table 4.4 Age of Respondent

As indicated in table 4.4, the study respondents who were the program beneficiaries’ ages were: 21 or 52.5% of the respondents were aged between 19-30 years; 12 or 30% of the respondents were aged between 31 and 40 years while 7, which was equivalent to 17.5% were aged between 41 years and above.

4.3.2.1 Age Influence on the Program Sustainability

The study findings on the influence of age on the sustainability of the program were recorded and tabulated as follows:

Table 4.5 Age Influence of Program Sustainability

According to the table above, most of the respondents at 77.5% indicated that age had a strong positive influence, while 12.5% said the influence was weak positive. Another section of 7.5% of respondents said the influence of age was weak negative, and 2.5% said the influence was strongly negative.

• Family Size of Respondent

The researcher asked the respondents to indicate their family sizes on the questionnaires. This was to help determine the sizes of the households they were representing and to establish further whether this influenced the program’s sustainability.

Table 4.6 Family Size of Respondent

As shown in Table 4.6, the respondents of the study were coming from households with different family sizes where 7 or 17.5% had family sizes of between 1 and 5; 22 respondents or 55% of them had family sizes of between 6 and 10, while 11 of them which was equivalent to 27.5% had family sizes of between 11 and above. This can mean the average family size of most households was between 6 and 10.

4.3.3.1 Influence of Family Size on Sustainability of the Food Assistance Program

Table 4.7: Family size Influence

According to this table, seven respondents indicated that the influence of family size on the sustainability of the program was weak positive; 17 of them indicated that it was strong positive; 11 of them said the influence was weak negative and 5 of them said it was strongly negative. In terms of positive versus negative influence, 60% agreed that the influence was positive, while 40% said family size had a negative influence.

• Education Level of Respondents

The education level of the beneficiaries was another factor which was investigated, and the analysis of the respondents’ responses was summarised in the table below.

Table 4.8 Education Level of Respondent

According to table 4.8, the findings showed that only 6 or 15% of the respondents had acquired primary education, and 34 of them or 85% had not attained any formal education at all. None of the respondents had secondary nor college levels of education.

4.3.4.1 Influence of Education on Sustainability of Food Assistance Program

The findings under this section were summarised in table 4.8.

Table 4.9: Influence of Education on Food Assistance Program

Out of the 40 respondents, 50% agreed that the level of education had a strong positive influence on the sustainability of the program, while 15% said the influence was positive but weak. Other 15% indicated that the influence was strong negative, while 20% said education has a weak negative influence. Note that, earlier, it was shown that only 15% of the beneficiaries had attained a primary level of education with the majority of them at 85% with zero education.

• Influence of Weather Conditions on the sustainability of food assistance programmes

Under this variable, the distribution of rainfall, and the frequency of drought were investigated to determine their influence on the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

4.4.1 Influence of Rainfall Amounts on Sustainability of Food Assistance Program

Rainfall was one of the factors under investigation to determine if it had any effect on the sustainability of the program, given that some of the food for assets projects were agricultural-based. The findings on rainfall related questions were as shown in table 4.9.

Table 4.10: Influence of Rainfall Amounts

The respondents’ responses were as indicated on the table with 9 (or 22.5%) strongly agreeing that rainfall amounts had an influence on the projects, 17 (or 42.55%) agreed that there was an influence of rainfall amounts on the projects, 2 (or 5%) strongly disagreed, 11 (or 27.5%) disagreed while 2.5% neither agreed nor disagreed.

4.4.2 Rainfall Distribution Unfavourable for Agriculture

Table 4.11: Rainfall distribution unfavourable for agriculture

As per the findings in table 4.11, on whether the respondents agreed that rainfall distribution had an influence on agriculture or not, 20 of them, equivalent to 50% strongly agreed, and 35% of them agreed while 2.5% strongly disagreed and 10% disagreed. There were also 2.5% of them who did not agree nor disagree.

4.4.3 Droughts Responsible for Agricultural Failures

Table 4.12: Droughts Responsible for Agricultural Failures

The findings in table 4.12 revealed that 50% of the respondents strongly agreed while 37.5% agreed that droughts were responsible for the agricultural failures experienced in the area. There were 5% of them who strongly disagreed, and 7.5% disagreed that drought played any role in the crop failures.

4.4.4 Projects Dependent on Rainfall Ought not to be emphasized

The respondents’ opinion on whether they believed that projects which relied on rainfall should not be encouraged during the implementation of the program and the following were their responses.

Table 4.13: Rainfall-dependent projects should not be emphasized?

According to the respondents, 30% agreed that the rainfall-dependent projects should not be encouraged while 62.5% insisted that rainfall-dependent projects still need to be emphasized in the project area. Other 7.5% of them had no idea or could not tell whether it was important to keep on implementing projects that relied on rainfall.

• Influence of Beneficiaries’ Participation on the Sustainability of food assistance programmes.

Beneficiaries’ participation was another factor that was investigated to determine its effect on the sustainability of food assistance programmes. The participation was investigated in terms of resource contribution, consultation, interaction, and information provision.

4.5.1 Beneficiaries’ Resources Contribution

The researcher wanted to know if there was any sort of contribution from the beneficiaries in the project, and these were their responses, in table 4.14.

Table 4.14: Resources contributed by the beneficiaries

From the beneficiaries’ responses as tabulated above, 52.5% of them said that the beneficiaries’ contribution was mostly in the form of labour or manpower while only 2.5% of them indicated that they contributed in ideas. The rest were combinations of resources where 2.5% said they contributed both labour, land and money; 5% of them said that their contribution was in the form of labour, land, working implements and ideas and 2.5% indicating that they contributed labour, land, money and ideas while 20% indicated that their contribution was in the form of labour and ideas.

4.5.2 Beneficiaries’ Participation during Implementation through Consultation

Table 4.15: Beneficiaries Participate by Consultation

According to table 4.15, 5% of the respondents strongly agreed that they were consulted on matters to do with the program; 70% of them agreed to be consulted while 2.5% strongly disagreed and 22.5% disagreed to being consulted. From this analysis, the majority of them agreed to be consulted.

4.5.3 Beneficiaries Participation through Interaction

Table 4.16: Beneficiaries Participation through Interaction

A total of 60% of the respondents agreed that they participate in the program through interactions where 22.5% strongly agreed and 37.5% agreeing. On the other hand, 16 of the beneficiaries disagreed that there was interactive participation – 10% of them strongly disagreeing and 30% of the just disagreeing.

4.5.4 Beneficiary Involvement as Recipients of Information

The study also tried to find out whether beneficiaries were not involved, but only treated as recipients of information on what was happening or expected in the project.

Table 4.17: Beneficiaries are only informed of what is expected?

On this question, as per table 4.17, 47.5% strongly agreed and 37.5% just agreed that they were only or mostly informed of what was expected on the project but were not involved in decision making nor generation of ideas while 5% strongly disagreed and 10% just disagreed that their only involvement was through receiving information.

4.5.5 Influence of Beneficiary Participation on Program Success and Sustainability

Table 4.18: Does Level of Beneficiaries’ Involvement Affect Program Success?

Of the total respondents involved, 47.5% agreed that the level of beneficiaries’ involvement has an effect on the success and sustainability of the program while 37.5% disagreed. There were other 15% of them who did not know what to say about this.

• Influence of Capacity Building of Beneficiaries on the Sustainability of Food assistance programmes.

This variable looked at whether the beneficiaries were trained, how many times they were trained, frequency of the training and relevance of the training.

4.6.1 Training of Beneficiaries on Program Implementation

Training was one of the areas the researcher was looking at; beneficiaries were asked if they had received any training on the program implementation.

Table 4.19: Were you trained on how to implement the Program?

Out of the total respondents, 16 (or 40%) stated that they had been trained while 24 (or 60%) of them said they had not received any training.

4.6.2 How many times beneficiaries were trained

Table 4.20: Number of Training

On the number of times the beneficiaries had been trained, 14 out of the 16 (i.e. 35% out of the 40%) of respondents who had stated that they had been trained on the program implementation (on table 4.18), said they had only been trained once, and the remaining 2 or 5% noting that they had been trained for 2 – 4 times.

4.6.3 Frequency of Beneficiaries’ Training

Table 4.22: How often were you trained?

From the responses, 2.5% said the training was coming on a monthly basis while 15% said it was quarterly. Other 45% stated that the training was conducted once a year while 37.5% suggested that there was no specified plan on how training would be conducted.

4.6.4 Relevance of Beneficiaries’ Training

Table 4.21: Were the training offered relevant?

Out of the 16 beneficiaries who indicated that they had received some training, 14 of them (equivalent to 35% of the total number of respondents) agreed that the training was relevant while two said the training was not relevant.

4.6.5 Relationship between Beneficiaries’ Capacity and the Program’s Success

Table 4.23: Is there any relationship between the capacity of beneficiaries and the success of the program?

A significant 87.5% of the respondents agreed that there was a relationship between beneficiaries’ capacity and the success of the program, while 2.5% disagreed to that. There were also 10% of them who did not know what to say about the two variables.

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

4.7.1 H₁; Demographic characteristics have an influence on the sustainability of Food Assistance for Assets Programmes.

Table 4.24 Influence of demographic characteristics

As deduced from table 4.24 above, the calculated P-Value was .002519. This value is less than the significance level of .05. This inference suggests that indeed there exists a relationship between the parameters of demography and the sustainability of the Food Assistance Programmes. It is thus justifiable to conclude that the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

4.7.2 H₂; Weather conditions have a significant influence on the sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes.

 Table 4.25 Influence of weather conditions

From the table above, table 4.25, the obtained P-value was .03156. .03156 is a value that is less than .05, the significance level. From this inequality, it can be seen that indeed, rainfall and drought are conditions that greatly affect the sustainability of Food Assistance programmes, hence justifying the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis.

4.7.3 H₃; Beneficiary participation has a significant influence on the sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes.

Table 4.26 Influence of beneficiary participation significance level of .05 is greater than the calculated P-value of .039217 as seen from the table. The deduced inequality of p<.05 suggests that stakeholder participation is critical in as far as the sustainability of the Food Assistance programmes is concerned. From this, the researcher was prompted to accept the hypothesis as herein put forward.

4.7.4 H₄; Capacity building of beneficiaries has a significant influence on the sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes.

Table 4.27 Influence of capacity building of beneficiaries

With a value of less than .00001, the researcher was persuaded to accept the alternative hypothesis as suggested. The obtained value is way less than that of the calculated P-Value hence from this, it can be seen that indeed the capacity building for beneficiaries is a factor that significantly affects and influences the sustainability of Food Assistance programmes.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Introduction

This chapter presents the study’s summary of findings, discussions, conclusions and suggests recommendations for improvement and further studies.

• Summary of Findings

The researcher sought to investigate the factors which could influence the sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes. The factors investigated included the demographic characteristics, weather conditions, beneficiary participation and capacity building.

• Influence of Demographic Characteristics of Beneficiaries on the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

Under this category of factors, the researcher looked at gender, age, family size and education level. Concerning gender, the study established that 90% of the program

implementers/beneficiaries were female, with only 10% being representing the male gender. This implies that for every man, there are nine women involved in the program activities. Further questioning indicated that this was not by default but rather the program design as a way of empowering women in the affected communities. It was also established that 52.5% of the respondents agreed that gender influences the sustainability of food assistance programs. In terms of age, the study found out that the majority of the beneficiaries were aged between 19 and 30 years old at 52.5% followed by those aged between 31 and 40 years at 30. The study also showed that 90% of the implementers were of the view that age determines the success and sustainability of programs.

Further, the study found out that 17.5% of the implementers had family members between 1 and 5 while 55% had between 6 and 10, and 27.5% had more than ten members. Again, the findings showed that there was a strong correlation between the size of the family and the sustainability of food assistance programmes. On educational background, 15% of the beneficiaries attained primary level education while 85% never attained any form of education. Out of the 40 respondents, 50% of them said education strongly influences the implementation of programs and their sustainability.

• Influence of Weather Conditions on the sustainability of food assistance programmes

Kakuma is generally dry, and the respondents corroborated this fact when 22.5% of them strongly agreed, and 42.5% agreed that the amount of rainfall the area receives is not sufficient for agricultural production. 50% of respondents again strongly agreed, and 35% agreed that the distribution of rainfall across the area is not favourable to support any productive agricultural activities. These findings, therefore, support the hypothesis that weather conditions influence the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

• Influence of Beneficiaries’ Participation on the Sustainability of food assistance programmes

Under this factor, 85% of the respondents agreed that the implementers are not consulted on matters to do with the implementation of the program but are most of the time informed of what is expected of them. 52.5% of the respondents confirmed that their main contribution towards the program is through the provision of labour or manpower, while 5% said they donate labour, land, working implements and ideas. 47.5% of the respondents agreed that the level of beneficiaries’ involvement influences the success and sustainability of the program, while 37.5% disagreed. There were other 15% of them who did not know what to say about this. Based on these findings, the research accepts the hypothesis that beneficiary participation influences the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

• Influence of Capacity Building of Beneficiaries on the Sustainability of Food assistance programmes.

From the study, it was established that 16 (40%) of the respondents had at least been trained, while 60% of them had not been trained before. Further, 35% of those trained said they had only been trained once in the past 12 months. Additionally, 87.5% of the respondents agreed that there was a positive relationship between beneficiaries’ capacity and the success and sustainability of the projects. These findings accept the hypothesis that the capacity building of beneficiaries influences the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

• Discussions

As per the findings of the study, of the 40 project beneficiaries targeted, 90% were female while the male represented only 10% of the respondents. Further, it revealed that 52.% of the respondents agreed that there was a positive relationship between gender and the success of the projects, this concurs with Ponttier (1998), who stated that it is essential for women and youth to be involved in projects which profoundly affect their lives. The study also indicated that most households in Turkana have large family sizes of above six family members and also showed that the family size had a positive effect on the project by 60%. Age-wise, the respondents involved in the study were mostly aged between 19 and 30 years, with 52.5% and between 30 to 40 years. This implies that most of the project beneficiaries are relatively young and energetic.

However, in terms of education levels, the project seems to target member of the community intentionally with little (15%) or no education as indicated by the study findings, or a majority of the population fails to attain meaningful education at all (85%). The lack of education affects the capacity of community members to participate in development projects thus affecting their sustainability, this agrees with a study carried out in Senegal by Michelle (2006) which reported that education had a key role in promoting community participation in the implementation of community projects. Based on the general findings under this section, the researcher accepts the hypothesis that demographic characteristics of beneficiaries have an influence on the sustainability of food assistance programmes.

The study also established that rainfall amounts received in the region, its distribution, as well as the recurrent drought spells, had a negative influence on the successful implementation of the projects. This concurs with FAO (2008), stating that  evidence indicates that more frequent and more intense extreme weather events, rising sea levels and increasing irregularities in seasonal rainfall patterns have immediate impacts on not only food production, but also food distribution infrastructure, incidence of food emergencies, livelihood assets and human health in both rural and urban areas.  However, despite this finding, the respondents did not like the idea of dropping agricultural projects which relied on the weather.

In terms of beneficiaries contribution and participation throughout the project cycle, 52.5% of the beneficiaries confirmed that their contribution was in the form of labour and tools at 15%, although a big percentage of them (70%) agreed that they were consulted and 60% of them agreeing that they interact with project implementing agency staff. But, there was a whole 85% of them who indicated that they mainly receive instructions on what to do, which seems to contradict with those saying there were consultations. This could, therefore, mean that in as much as there are consultations very little or none of their contributions are put into consideration. However, most of them agreed that the involvement of the beneficiaries had a positive correlation with the success of their projects, which was in line with World Vision, (2009) which states that participation in relief and development projects facilitates fostering of a sense of organization with the view of increasing control of the public utilities by the community.

The investigation on the capacity building of the beneficiaries revealed that only 40% of them had been trained at least once, while the rest 60% had not received any form of training. Again, the majority of them at 87.5% of the trained beneficiaries had only been trained once, and only 12.5% had been trained for more than once. Out of those trained, 87.5% agreed that training had a positive influence on the projects’ success, hence very important. Again, the study confirmed that the capacity of any project beneficiaries determined its success. This concurs with Hope (2009) who states that capacity building is regarded as the enhancement of the competency of individuals and local communities to engage in activities in a sustainable manner for positive development, poverty reduction and also meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

• Conclusions

The Food Assistance programme made deliberate steps towards empowering women since it focuses on the female gender more than the male. However, it will not be wise to think that this is all that is needed for community development to be realized. Gender inequality is still deeply rooted in African society to the point that women have no access to nor control over the key resources needed for that development work. As such, the affirmative action in such programs is nothing more than just a requirement for the program, and for as long as men remain to dominate their households, the real objective of enrolling more women in the program will never be achieved.

The greater number of the households represented in the study have relatively large families of between 6 and 10 members or more indicating that it may put pressure on the provision of basic needs of the beneficiaries; thus little time left to focus on the implementation of the projects. On the other hand, however, a large family could mean more manpower to work on the projects as well as supporting parents to complete their work norms in the program – but this is not the scenario in most cases.

Education-wise, a bigger number of the beneficiaries are illiterate since they never went to school and replication of the concepts learnt in the program at household level may be close to impossible.

Community development programs should be designed from the beneficiaries’ perspective instead of the donors’ if they are to bring any significant change in the community. The results of this study showed that in most cases, the beneficiaries are not adequately involved especially in the initial stages of the program. This results in the implementation of foreign ideas which are never owned by the communities. Besides ownership, the commitment of the beneficiaries is also unsatisfactory, and their only source of motivation being the food they expect at the end of the month – which is short-term and unsustainable. This has in one way or another contributed to the perennial food insecurity in the region and the increased dependency on food assistance among the vulnerable members of the community as indicated by the study findings.

Finally, appropriate training relevant to the projects implemented is required to ensure that beneficiaries have the basic knowledge and skills necessary for the implementation and replication of project’s activities at household level as well as their expansion. The study findings showed that the project’s success is pegged on the capacity of the beneficiaries to implement the project’s activities, and this should, therefore, be emphasized.

• Recommendations

The Food Assistance programmes and especially the Food Assistance for Assets program in Kakuma has been in progress for several years, and there is no sign that it will end any time soon. This is because it has failed to create the desired results and outcomes.

Findings have shown that there are many areas that need to be addressed if Kakuma’s narrative on the sustainability of the food assistance programmes is to change, and that is why the researcher recommends the following:

1. For any community development project to be successful, gender inequality and discrimination should be addressed so as to ensure that both men and women are involved at every stage of the programs. Following the study findings, men have been deliberately left out in the development activities, and there is a need to involve them adequately. This is because, in the African culture, women do not have access to or control over the key resources needed for development and therefore, bringing more men who into the picture would be a big contribution towards the success of any development initiatives such as the Food Assistance for Assets program.

1. Regarding the weather aspect, the researcher proposes the introduction and/or expansion of climate-smart agriculture, which has proved to be the cure to most agricultural and environmental problems faced by most farmers in the arid and semi-arid regions. Climate change and climate variability have an effect on the sustainability of the programmes and failure to mainstream climate change adaptation into programming in future will likely affect sustainability even more.

1. Designing and implementation of development projects require full involvement of the beneficiaries for ownership and sustainability. The researcher, therefore, recommends that the food assistance programmes should be designed from the beneficiaries’ point of view, and the beneficiaries should also be fully involved in the implementation process.
2. Since most beneficiaries have very low levels of education, their capacities to implement the program activities need to build and strengthened regularly. Besides lacking the requisite knowledge and skills to implement programme-related work, illiterate people lack the knowledge and skills to replicate these activities at the household level.

• Suggestions for Further Studies

The focus of this study was to determine the factors which influence the sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes. The researcher is suggesting further studies on the following areas:

1. The role of stakeholders in the sustainability of food assistance programmes.
2. Effects of poverty on sustainable development projects

REFERENCES

Abasiekong, E. M. (1982). “Mass Participation: An Essentials Element for Rural    Development   Programme in Developing Countries”. Calabar: Scholar Press.         Africa, Agriculture      Economics.p105-111

Anyanwu, C.N. (1992). “Community Development: The Nigerian Perspective”. Ibadan:

Educational Publishers.

Arnstein, S.R (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, JAIP, Vol.35, No. 4, July         1969

Asnarukhadi, A.S. and Fariborz, A. (2009). “People’s Participation in Community Development: A Case Study in a Planned Village Settlement in Malaysia”. World        Rural Observation, 1(2): 45 –54. Association of Social Workers/NASW Press,           Washington, DC, pp. 77–89.

Abdulai, A., Barrett, C. B., & Hazell, P. (2004). Food Aid for Market Development in      Sub      Saharan Africa. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.601266

ActionAid, (2011); The handbook on ActionAid’s (HRBA) and Campaigning Capacity      Building           page 31

Allen, J., & Ervin, D. (2007). Center for Sustainable Processes and Practices. PSU            Academic            Sustainability Programs

Barrett, C.B. (2002). Food Security and Food Assistance Program

Barret, C.B. (2005). Food Aid after Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role. London: Routledge,  2005. 314 pp. Illustrations. Glossary. Notes. Bibliography. Index. No price         reported. Paper. African Studies Review, 49(3), 62-63.            doi:10.1353/arw.2007.0028

Barrett, C. B. (1998). Food Aid: Is It Development Assistance, Trade Promotion, Both, or            Neither?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 566-571.        doi:10.2307/1244559

Bhatanngar, B., & Williams, A. (1992). Participatory development and the World  Bank. World Bank Discussion Papers. doi:10.1596/0-8213-2249-4

Black, M. (2006). Gender and economic adjustment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Human           resources and Poverty. Washington D.C.AFTHR Technical note

Borros & Adami. (2006).Capacity building: Shifting the paradigms of        practice. Development in Practice, 10(3-4), 517-526.     doi:10.1080/09614520050116677

Bureekul, T. (2000). Public participation in environmental management in Thailand           (Working paper / Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy) (1st Ed.).       King Prajadhipok’s Institute.

Burkey, S. (1993). People first: a guide to self-reliant participatory rural development.       London, England: Zed books.

Cahn, E. S., & Camper C. J. (1968). Citizen participation in H. B. C. Spiegel, ed,

Cleland, D. I. (2004). Field Guide to Project Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Chaskin, M., & Robert, J. (2001); Building community capacity: A definitional        framework       and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative.   Urban Affairs Review,           New York.

Charvat, J. (2003). Project management methodologies: Selecting, implementing, and supporting methodologies and processes for the project. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley           &         Sons Inc.

Christen, M. (2010). A theory of the good for a conception of sustainability. Paper   presented at 16th Annual International Sustainable Development Research      Conference, Hong Kong.

Cooke, (2001); Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny?    London: Zed Books

Devereux, F., & Braun, V. (1999). Food-For-Work For Poverty Reduction And The           Promotion Of Sustainable Land Use: Can It Work? Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management Working Papers.

Flint, M., Cameron, C., Henderson, S., Jones, S., & Ticehurs, D. (2003). How effective is   dfid?    An independent review of dfid’s organisational and development        effectiveness. (2003).   Retrieved from            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta    hment            data/file/67942/ev640s.pdf

Wallace, E. & Candida, M. (1991). Changing perception, writing on gender development. Oxford. Press

FAO. (2005). The Millennium Development Goals.

FAO. (2008). The State Of Food And Agriculture. Rome, Italy.

Gan, S.L. (2001). IT and Education in Malaysia: problem, issues and challenges:   Malaysia

PCI, (2014). A Resource Guide for Enhancing Potential for Sustainable Impact Food and Nutrition Security. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.pciglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PCI_Sustainability_Resource_Guide.pdf

Gozie, I. (2007). Imperative of a Mutually Beneficial Relationship between the        Community      and Donor Agency in Community Project Development in Nigeria.         Lagos: Unwin Publishers Ltd.

Hardina, D. (2003). Linking citizen participation to empowerment practice: a historical      overview, Journal of Community Practice, 11(4), 11–38.

Heck, B., (2003). Participatory Development: Guidelines on Beneficiary Participation in   Agricultural and Rural Development. Retrieved from            http://www.fao.org/3/ad817e/ad817e00.htm

Humphrey, L. (1998). Food for work in Ethiopia: Challenging the scope of the evaluation. IDS working paper 81.

Hope, S.W. (2009). Capacity building: A practice perspective. Journal of family     consumer         Retrieved from            http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/pdf/mdg%

Kenya Food Security Steering Group. (2011). The 2011 Long Rains Mid-Season    Assessment Report Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG). Retrieved            from https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Full_Report_1607.pdf

Kothari, C. (2003). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age      International (P) Ltd, New Delhi.

Kumar, S. (2002). Methods for Community Participation: A complete guide for       practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing.

Leedy, P. N. & Ormorod, J. E. (2000). Planning and design Practical research. 7^th            Edition. London. Edward Anold Publishers London: Oxford University Press.

Machooka, S. M. (1984). “People’s Participation in Integrated Rural Development in         People’s Participation in Development in Black Africa”. Cameroon: Institute Pan       African Pour le development.

Madlavu, M. & Davies, W. I. (1993). ”Community-Based Development Organization in    the Eastern Cape: Towards Survival and Sustainability”. Grahams Town: Rhodes        University.

Michelle, K. (2006). Non-formal education and community development in Senegal.         Community

Masanyiwa, Z. (2014). Decision Making Under the Tree: Gender Perspectives on   Decentralization Reforms in Service Delivery in Rural Tanzania (Unpublished      doctoral dissertation). Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Mbithi, L.M. (2000), International Journal of Development and Sustainability Online         ISSN: 2168-8662 www.isdsnet.com/ijds Volume 2 Number 2 (2013): In Press  ISDS Article ID: IJDS13010901

‌Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research methods: Qualitative and    Quantitative approaches. Africa Center for Technology Studies (ACTS) Press.           Nairobi Kenya.

Muoghalu, L. N. (1986). Structure and Pattern of Community Self-Help Development      Projects in Nigeria: An Appraisal. Community Development Journal, 21(1), 33         41. doi:10.1093/cdj/21.1.33

Mulwa F. W. (2007). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of community projects.

Nyaguthii & Oyugi, (2013); Influence Of Community Participation On Successful   Implementation Of Constituency Development Fund Projects In Kenya: Case  Study of Mwea constituency. International Journal of Education and Research         Vol. 1

Orotho, A.J., (2004).Techniques of writing proposal and reports in education and   science: (1^st edition). Reater Printers Nairobi Pearson Education

Piccioto, R. (1992). “Participation Development: Myths and Dilemmas”. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Rothman, J. (2001) Approaches to community intervention, in J. Rothman, J.L. Erlich       and J.E. Tropman, eds, Strategies of Community Intervention, 6th edition, F.E.       Peacock, Itasca, IL, pp. 27–64.

Morrissey, J. (2000). Indicators of citizen participation: a lesson from learning teams in      rural EZ/EC Community. Community Development Journal Vol 35 No. 1 pp 59          74.

Saraa, L. (2005). Gender Awareness, the missing element in the 3rd world projects in         Tina

Sharma, S.K. (1997). “Peoples Participation in Integrated Rural Development”. In Arora, R. K. (Ed.). Peoples Participation in the Development Process. Jaipur: HCM SIPA.

Silverman, R. M. (2005) Caught in the middle: community development corporations

Tango international. (2008). IFAD- Design framework and supporting programs on           implementation. Desk Review-Tucson.AR

Udensi, L.O. (2012). “Traditional Governance and the Challenges of Community  Development: A Case Study of Boki Local Government Area of Cross River            State”. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,      University of Uyo, Nigeria.

Udoh, E.A. (2012). “Participation and Sustainable Community Development: The Case    of Eastern Obolo Community Development Foundation”. Unpublished M.Sc.            Thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Uyo, Nigeria.

Udoye, E.E. (1992). “Grassroots Involvement in Rural Development”. In. Olisa, M.S.O.   and Obiukwu, J.I. (Ed.). Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies.     Akwa: Mekslink.

Bassey,, A. B., Udensi, O. L., Daansi, G. L., & Igbara, F. N. (2013). Engaging MOU and People’s Participation in ProjectImplementation: Imperative for Sustainable   CommunityDevelopment in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social       Sciences, 3(2).

UNDP, (2006);  Partnering for development—making it happen. Copenhagen: UNDP       Nordic Office. http://www.undp.org/partners/business/UNDP-booklet-web.pdf.       Accessed 10 March 2008.

United Nations (1998); The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and   Defining Principles

World Bank (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook

WCED (1997); Economic and social development that meets the need of the current and    future generation.

Wilcox, D. (1994). Community Participation and Empowerment: Putting theory into          practice. RRA Notes No. 21, pp. 78-82. London: IIED.

WFP (2010) Revolution: From Food Aid to Food Assistance. Rome: WFP

Otoo, Samuel K. E.; Agapitova, Natalia; Behrens, Joy. (2009). The capacity development results framework: a strategic and results-oriented approach to learning for capacity development (English). World Bank Institute. Washington, D.C.: World       Bank Group.   http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/482971468188374127/The-capacity           development-results-framework-a-strategic-and-results-oriented-approach-to          learning-for-capacity-development

World Vision, (2009); Sustainability of ffw/ffaprogrammes. (Sustaining community-based   program’s. World Vision press: New York.

World Bank. (2013). Global monitoring report 2013: rural-urban dynamics and the            millennium development goals (English). Washington D.C.: The Worldbank.            http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/720451468171242999/Global  monitoring-report-2013-rural-urban-dynamics-and-the-millennium-development    goals

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE  FOR ASSETS PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES

SECTION (A) DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Please put a tick where appropriate.

1. Gender: (i) Male [ ] (ii) Female [ ]

2. Age (in years): (i) 18 years and below [ ] (ii) 19 -30 [ ] (iii) 31 -40 [ ]  (iv) 41 and above [ ]

3. Size of the family (i) 1- 5 [ ] (ii) 6- 10 [ ] (iii) 11 and above [ ]

4. What is the level of your education?

(i) Primary level [ ]   (ii) Secondary level [ ]   (iii) College level [ ]    (iv) University level [ ]   (v) Have never attended any school [ ]

5. How would you rate the influence of the following factors on the sustainability of FFA projects? (Tick)

SECTION (B): WEATHER CONDITIONS

6. The average amount of rainfall received in our area is NOT sufficient for the sustainability of the Food Assistance for Assets projects.

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

7. The distribution of rainfall in our area is NOT favorable for agricultural productivity.

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

8. Recurrent droughts in this region are responsible for the constant failure of

agricultural production and food insecurity among the local community members.

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

9. In your own opinion, do you think Food Assistance for Assets projects which rely on

rainfall for their success and sustainability SHOULD NOT be emphasized in this region?

(i) Yes [ ] (ii) No [ ] (iii) No idea [ ]

SECTION (C): LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION AMONG PROGRAMME

BENEFICIARIES

10. What are the resources that you contribute towards the implementation of the Food Assistance for Assets projects (participation by resource contribution)? ( TICK all relevant options):

(i) Labour [ ]

(ii) Land [ ]

(iii) Money [ ]

(iv) Working implements [ ]

(v) Ideas [ ]

(vi) Othersspecify………………………………………………………………………

11. As a key beneficiary of the programme, I am involved in the implementation of the

programme through constant consultation and engagements (participation by consultation).

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

12. As a key beneficiary of the programme, I participate in joint programme activities including project design, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation as well as other major decision-making processes (interactive participation).

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

13. As a beneficiary of the programme, I am only told of what has been planned and what I am expected to do on the projects.

(i) Strongly Agree [ ]    (ii) Agree [ ]    (iii) Strongly Disagree [ ]    (iii) Disagree [ ]

(v) Neither Agree nor Disagree [ ]

14. In your opinion, do you think that the level at which project beneficiaries are involved in the programme is harmful to its successful implementation and sustainability of the projects?

(i) Yes [ ]        (ii) No [ ]       (iii) I don’t know [ ]

SECTION (D): CAPACITY BUILDING OF THE PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES

15. Have you ever been trained on the implementation of the Food Assistance for Assets

programme activities you are undertaking?    (i) Yes [ ]                (ii) No [ ]

16. If yes, how many times have you been trained?

(i) Once               (ii) 2-4 [ ]                (iii) More than 4 [ ]             (iv) N/A [ ]

17. In your own opinion, do you think the training offered is relevant to

the implementation and sustainability of the Food Assistance for Assets programme?

(i) Yes [ ]                 (ii) No [ ]

18. How often are you trained on the implementation of the Food Assistance for Assets programme?

• Monthly [ ] (ii) Quarterly [ ]          (iii) Annually [ ]     (iv) There’s no specific plan [ ]

19. In your opinion, do you think there is a positive relationship between the capacity of the beneficiaries and the successful implementation and sustainability of the Food Assistance for Assets projects?

(i) Yes [ ]              (ii) No [ ]                (iii) I do not know [ ]

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR ASSETS WFP & TRP PROGRAMME MANAGERS

SECTION (A): DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

A1: How would you say the following factors influence food assistance programme implementation and the sustainability of its outcomes?

1. Age of beneficiaries
2. Gender of beneficiaries

• Education of beneficiaries

1. Family size of beneficiaries

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A2: What measures has the programme management put in place in order to ensure that the above factors DO NOT have negative effects on the programme outcomes?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION (B): WEATHER CONDITIONS

B3: What can you say about the weather condition, especially the rainfall patterns and trends of this area (Turkana County) and its effect on;

1. the food assistance programme and

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. Agricultural production and general household food security of the community?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

B4: What considerations have the programme taken into account to ensure that its goal and outcomes are not adversely affected by the unfavourable prevailing weather conditions in the programme area?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION (C): LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION AMONG PROGRAMME

BENEFICIARIES

C5: In your opinion, do you think humanitarian assistance beneficiaries have a role to play in food assistance programmes?

(i) Yes [  ]        (ii) No [  ]       (iii) I don’t know [  ]

C6: Explain your answer (in C5 above): ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

C7: In what ways do the food assistance beneficiaries participate and contribute towards the programme? (List the responses)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION (D): CAPACITY BUILDING OF THE PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES

D8: Food is rapid assistance to disaster-affected populations which carters for their immediate dietary needs in order to save lives. How does the programme prepare the beneficiaries receiving food assistance beyond the food support phase, for their long-term sustainability?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

D9: In your opinion, as a Manager, how do training and other capacity-building activities affect the implementation and the success of the food assistance programme?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

E10: What else do you think needs to be done by the interested parties, including the community, in order to improve the programme and enrich the programme outcomes and impact?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR ASSETS CHIEFS & COMMUNITY LEADERS

SECTION (A): DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

A1: According to your knowledge, experiences and understanding of the WFP food assistance programme in your community, how would you say the following factors influence food assistance programme implementation and the sustainability of its outcomes?

1. Age of beneficiaries
2. Gender of beneficiaries

• Education of beneficiaries
• Family size of beneficiaries

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A2: What measures do you think the programme implementers put in place in order to ensure that the above factors DO NOT have negative effects on the programme outcomes?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

SECTION (B): WEATHER CONDITIONS

B3: What can you say about the weather condition, especially the rainfall patterns and trends of this area (Turkana County) and its effect on;

• the food assistance programme and

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. Agricultural production and general household food security of the community?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

B4: According to your knowledge, what considerations have the programme implementers taken into account to ensure that the programme goal and outcomes are not adversely affected by the unfavourable prevailing weather conditions in the programme area?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION (C): LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION AMONG PROGRAMME

BENEFICIARIES

C5: In your opinion, do you think humanitarian assistance beneficiaries and the host communities have a role to play in food aid programmes?

(i) Yes [  ]        (ii) No [  ]       (iii) I don’t know [  ]

C6: Explain your answer (in C5 above): ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

C7: In what ways do the food aid beneficiaries and the community participate and contribute towards the programme within your community? (List the responses)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

SECTION (D): CAPACITY BUILDING OF THE PROGRAMME BENEFICIARIES

D8: Food is rapid assistance to disaster-affected populations which carters for their immediate dietary needs. In your opinion, how do you think the programme prepare the beneficiaries receiving food assistance as an exit strategy and for their long-term sustainability?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

D9: In your opinion, how do training and other capacity-building activities affect the implementation and the success of the food assistance programme?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

E10: What else do you think needs to be done by the interested parties, including the community, in order to improve the programme and enrich the programme outcomes and impact?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX IV: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

I am a student at the University of Nairobi, pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Project Planning and Management. I am undertaking a study that seeks to determine the Factors Influencing the Sustainability of Food Assistance Programmes: A Case of FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR ASSETS Programme in Kakuma, Turkana County, as partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree.

You have been selected to give information on the implementation of the FOOD ASSISTANCE FOR ASSETS programme. This is a request for your participation in responding to the attached questionnaire.

Be assured that any information given will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and will be solely used for this study.

Yours Sincerely,