The results are presented in terms of the five components of the PIP—inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts (see Fig. 1). To understand the structure of the program and actors involved, we first provide an overview of the actors involved (see Fig. 2). Starting at the top of the organizational structure, the PMU is at the state-level and is responsible for day-to-day program management. The MPA-level is responsible for implementation and each of the 17 MPAs includes a Micro Project Agency and a facilitating non-governmental organization. At the village-level, a Village Development Committee composed of villagers decides which interventions to implement through a five-year Village Development Plan that is approved by the Micro Project Agency. Village Development Committees identify potential beneficiaries with the help of MPA-level and village-level staff. Community Resource Persons are responsible for ensuring program implementation in two to three villages each and are from the same communities where they work.
Actors involved in the home garden intervention Source: semi-structured interviews and the design completion report [24]
Inputs
The first step in the PIP focuses on the design of the intervention, which is necessary to examine fidelity. The home garden intervention was designed by IFAD and national-level experts. The Design Completion Report [24] has the goal that 32,000 PVTG households with 40 to 400 square meters of land be provided home garden support by the end of the program. Beneficiaries are supposed to receive a package consisting of a water storage tank, drum-based drip system, hose, trellises, fences, vegetable seeds, planting materials, technical information on land preparation, seed sowing, water management mulching, pest control, and seed selection and preservation [24, 57]. Model or demonstration home gardens located next to Nutrition Resource Centers are supposed to be established by Community Service Providers and maintained by self-help groups to train beneficiaries [52, 58]. There were no further requirements for beneficiaries or recommendations on whom to prioritize. The design encouraged that nutrition education on basic health and nutritional topics be provided through production interventions, but did not specify which of the over three dozen interventions that are part of OPELIP are considered production interventions. Lastly, the Design Completion Report had no information on how frontline workers or beneficiaries were to be trained.
Based on the expertise of the PMU and experiences during the first few years of program implementation, the home garden intervention underwent several changes since implementation began in 2018. Because of budgetary constraints and the lack of guidance in the program’s design on targeting beneficiaries, the PMU decided that the home garden intervention should first focus on the poorest households, households without agricultural land, households with land next to their homestead, and households who already had papaya or drumstick trees. In 2021, the PMU rolled out a new iteration that promotes fruits, such as banana, tuber crops, mango, guava, coconut, lemon, and tamarind. The reason for this change was to make home gardens more sustainable since the original design focused on vegetables that had only one growing season. In 2022, as part of a pilot intervention in OPELIP, some self-help groups established home gardens to supply nutritious meals to young children at daycares. Although not widespread—only two such daycare centers were operational in 2022—this was nonetheless a positive addition to the program as it supplied important micronutrients to vulnerable children and planted the seed early on in terms of the importance of local, sustainable solutions to food insecurity.
Nutrition education is incorporated into the home garden intervention by providing basic information on the importance of home gardens for a diverse diet and micronutrients. The new iteration also incorporates nutrition education through two easy-to-understand models: the 7-din 7-ghar and Tirangi Thali models. These models are from an IFAD project in Madhya Pradesh that led to improved food intake and dietary diversity [14]. In the 7-Din 7-Ghar model, households are encouraged to grow seven types of vegetables in seven different vegetable beds close to their homes. Households are supposed to pick one type of vegetable each day, so that all seven vegetable beds are picked and eaten during a week. The Tiranga Thali model is a simple message that households should prepare meals that include the three colors of the Indian flag (white, green, and saffron).
Based on this updated design of the home garden intervention that included both fruit and vegetables, a Process Net-Mapping exercise in November 2021 examined the flows of information, funds, technical support, and monitoring and evaluation, as well as the level of influence of actors in the home garden intervention. A digitalized version of the map is shown in Fig. 3. A total of 11 types of actors were discussed. Influence levels vary from zero (no influence) to eight (the highest level of influence). The PMU-level participants assigned themselves the highest level of influence. This may be because the exercise focused on the flow of funds, technical advice, and documentation. At the MPA-level, Micro Project Agencies and facilitating non-governmental organizations were assigned an influence level of four. Self-help groups were assigned a level of no influence and are not connected to any other actor on the map despite the important role they were supposed to play. Given the importance of the Design Completion Report placed on beneficiaries, it was unexpected that beneficiaries were assigned a level of no influence. Beneficiaries were supposed to be actively involved in OPELIP, such as by participating in Village Development Committees. Perhaps their influence was reflected in the high level of influence (six) assigned to Village Development Committees, which are formed from beneficiaries. Also, at the village-level, Village Agricultural Workers and Community Resource Persons were assigned high influence levels. The map visualizes the flow of funds from the PMU, to the MPA-, to the village-level, as well as the flow of monitoring, evaluation, and documentation in the reverse direction. The flow of information and technical features and support go in both directions. Documentation and monitoring and evaluation information flows from the bottom up based on data collected by frontline workers requested by the Project Management Unit.
Actors involved in the home garden intervention and their influence levels Source: Digitalized version of the map created during the process net-mapping exercise
The above results on the first step in the PIP show that the original design of the home garden intervention differed from the version implemented by expanding to include fruits and two easy-to-understand nutrition models, as well as by targeting women and households with larger land plots. The Design Completion Report lacked information on the training strategy for both frontline workers and beneficiaries and details on the expected outcomes and impacts, which will likely affect the following steps in the PIP.
Processes
Following the inputs and design of the home garden intervention, the next step in the PIP is processes, which includes frontline workers training, beneficiary selection and training, the technical assistance and guidance to establish home gardens, and the distribution of agricultural inputs.
Training was designed by PMU-level officials and experts who consulted training manuals. Frontline workers received training about home gardens within their respective MPAs from Junior Agricultural Officers. According to the PMU, training sessions lasted two days, which corresponds to the average number of hours frontline workers reported (13.5 h). However, some frontline workers reported receiving only a few hours of training and that training was in the classroom only with no field visits. Frontline workers were trained on a variety of topics, including seed preparation, soil preparation, plant watering, how to dig a well, how to plant a tree, fence building, seedling planting, fertilizer application, harvesting, field and seed bed preparation, seed and seedling preparation, water storage and management, and planting distances, as well as on health and nutrition topics (see Table 2). Only about half of frontline workers reported receiving training on the easy-to-understand Tiranga Thali or 7-din 7-ghar nutrition models. Most (68.2%) frontline workers reported receiving refresher trainings, which were on topics such as on how to make organic fertilizer, bio pesticide, and/or vermicompost. Frontline workers together with the Village Development Committee were responsible for identifying potential beneficiaries to participate in the home garden intervention, yet the number of targeted beneficiaries is behind schedule. According to the PMU, funding constraints have prevented the expansion of the home garden intervention from reaching more households. A setback for funding and budgeting is that because the program covers such a wide area, costs vary greatly across and within MPAs, making planning difficult. Moreover, the PMU said that they didn’t have sufficient operational funds to implement the program as it was designed.
Frontline workers were responsible for passing information they received training on to beneficiaries through an initial training session and continuing to provide technical assistance and guidance on establishing and maintaining home gardens through repeat contact with beneficiaries. Each frontline worker was responsible for an average of 140 beneficiaries. About 80% of frontline workers had repeat contact with beneficiaries, which were often one-on-one visits to beneficiary home gardens. Frontline workers took pictures of plants, discussed any challenges, and answered questions during these visits. According to frontline workers, repeat contact with beneficiaries helped improve beneficiaries’ understanding of the topics. According to the PMU, demonstrations and brochures were the main methods used to train beneficiaries; however, in reality, training sessions were brief and mainly oral. For example, a beneficiary in a focus group discussion stated, “They (trainers) discussed the topics with us verbally and provided some leaflets.” Some frontline workers reported training beneficiaries in the classroom only with no field visits, despite frontline workers reporting that the best place for beneficiaries to receive and understand training was through field demonstrations. There were a few notable exceptions: Community Resource Persons demonstrated seedlings on beneficiaries’ plots, a few villages had model home gardens established by self-help-groups, and hands-on training was provided on how to make natural fertilizer (Jeevamruta and vermicompost).Footnote 1 Some frontline workers strayed from their training and adapted the home garden intervention to local conditions, such as by teaching beneficiaries how to grow vegetables in containers if the land was too steep or rocky.
It was difficult for frontline workers to reach beneficiaries due to beneficiaries’ lack of time and the area’s poor infrastructure. Many PVTG households travel into the forest and stay there for weeks to collect forest products to sell. Moreover, some beneficiaries, especially women, could not attend training due to their busy schedules. Beneficiaries in a focus group discussion said, “Some women are not attending the training” and “They (women) are always busy with work.” Sparse mobile phone networks and poor road infrastructure made contacting beneficiaries difficult. A frontline worker explained this difficulty by saying, “As we are working mostly in the PVTG area, there is no mobile network. We must walk for 2 to 3 km to reach the destination, and so it becomes difficult to work and implement the program.” Another frontline worker said, “There is no mobile network and poor road infrastructure. So, we have to visit and inform beneficiaries about the program one day before the scheduled program.” Frontline workers are not compensated for travel costs, affecting their motivation to contact beneficiaries in hard-to-reach areas.
In addition to training, frontline workers were also responsible for distributing agricultural inputs to beneficiaries. Inputs were purchased by program staff, distributed to each village, and then distributed to beneficiaries. Interviews suggest that this process worked relatively smoothly for the inputs that were procured. According to the majority (73%) of frontline workers, all inputs that were promised to beneficiaries were provided. Irrigation and fencing issues were recurrent themes throughout the interviews. According to the design, beneficiaries were supposed to receive fencing and irrigation materials as part of the package of inputs; however, beneficiaries reported not receiving these critical inputs. For example, a beneficiary said, “The few plants we have planted, the goats ate.” Another beneficiary elaborated on this by saying, “(There is a) lack of fencing to protect gardens from stray animals because there is no practice of keeping animals like cattle and goats in sheds in our village. Provision of wire fencing is important to protect the garden from cattle and goats … permanent fencing should be there because there is budget for fencing for a year.” In terms of irrigation, a beneficiary said, “Due to lack of an irrigation facility, we are unable to practice the home garden.” Frontline workers and PMU-level officials corroborated the need for irrigation and fencing.
Examining training, beneficiary participation, and the distribution of inputs revealed that frontline workers did not have sufficient training materials to adequately train beneficiaries. Addressing the irrigation and fencing concerns could increase the adoption and continued use of home gardens.
Outputs
Next, we examine outputs, which includes whether beneficiaries understood the training, adopted the recommended agricultural practices, and increased home garden production.
Despite the above setbacks in training, beneficiaries believed that the training was worthwhile. For example, beneficiaries were of the view that the training introduced them to modern methods of cultivation as captured in the statement, “We have learned new methods of cultivation, improved the knowledge on vegetable cultivation, the practice of fertilizer application, and modern technology to grow and consume vegetables from home gardens.” Another beneficiary said, “We learned how to do potato planting and how to plant onion. Earlier, we did not know how to plant in a better way. Now, we are able to do it in a scientific way.” Another said, “We did not know all of these techniques—we were broadcasting the seed. In the earlier practice, we were not getting more output.” Beneficiary understanding could have been enhanced if more audio-visual techniques had been used as well as demonstrations. For example, a beneficiary said, “They showed us video and photos, which made it easy for us to understand.”
There are several factors that inhibit the adoption and continued use of home gardens. Factors that support their adoption include support from household heads and elder family members. Likewise, existing structures in the community were instrumental in facilitating adoption. For instance, a frontline worker emphasized, “Support from self-help groups facilitated the adoption of home gardens and backyard poultry among beneficiaries.” A Community Resource Person added, “It was very easy for us to implement the intervention through self-help groups.” This was surprising given that in the Process Net-Mapping exercise, self-help groups were given an influence level of zero, indicating no influence in program implementation, as well as the fact that very few model home gardens were maintained by self-help groups. Other factors were found to inhibit the adoption and continued use of home gardens, such as lack of available and suitable land, difficult terrain, lack of irrigation, and the inability to protect home gardens from animals. Nevertheless, the above results show that despite not being implemented as planned, beneficiaries and frontline workers reported positive outputs from the intervention, such as increased vegetable production and knowledge about home gardens and nutrition.
Outcomes
Outcomes examine whether household income and consumption improved. According to interviews, vegetables consumption improved among beneficiaries. For example, a frontline worker said, “Due to home garden program, they are getting sufficient vegetables for home consumption, which was difficult (before the intervention) because they are poor. Even they (beneficiaries) were not able to buy vegetables whenever they wanted. Now they are able to eat vegetables whenever they want.” Another frontline worker said, “Earlier, they had no choice because they cultivated very few items. They were restricted to a single food item, but nowadays they have so many options and they have developed their purchase capacity to procure different food items or vegetables.” We thus found evidence of impacts on consumption through the production–consumption pathway, as well as through the income-consumption pathway, which is discussed in more detail below.
Although vegetables produced from home garden intervention were generally used for home consumption, some households sold surplus vegetables to earn income. An Agricultural Officer said, “Earlier they had no income source other than forest and small-scale land cultivation, but after initiation of the (home garden) program, we provided them various facilities in the kharif, rabi, and summer season. Paddy rice, Mandia (finger millet), cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, brinjal, onion, and turmeric training was organized for them…. Somehow, there are some improvements.” Another effect on income from home gardens is that households spent less money on purchasing vegetables since they were able to grow vegetables themselves. For example, a frontline worker said, “Before the home garden program, beneficiaries used to purchase green vegetables from the market. They used to spend 300 Rupees per week for green vegetables. But nowadays, they are harvesting green vegetables from their backyard.” A beneficiary echoed this, saying “Now we are not going much to the market to buy vegetables as we are growing vegetables in our backyard. We are getting different kinds of vegetables at our home.”
Nutrition education was incorporated into the home garden intervention by teaching beneficiaries the Tiranga Thali and 7-din 7-ghar models, which led to positive outcomes. For example, a frontline worker said, “Before the training, they sold their vegetables without giving priority to consumption, but after the training, they are used to consuming different vegetables on different days. Nowadays, they are waiting for fruits to mature fully and then harvest fruit without selling them at an earlier stage, and they are feeding their children per their requirement.” The Tiranga Thali and 7-din 7-ghar model also had positive outcomes on consumption. For example, a frontline worker said that after learning the Tiranga Thali model, “They (beneficiaries) were shocked and regretted what they had done because they have all the food items, but they never practiced as the model. They were always focused on selling vegetables rather than consumption.” Another frontline worker also indicated, “They are implementing this model in their day-to-day life. It has been two years since we started practicing this model in our village and they are adopting it well. They are eating the vegetables and if they produce some more vegetables, they sell them in the market, which improves their economic condition.”
Examining the outcomes that stemmed from the intervention’s outputs, shows that there were positive outcomes from home gardens on beneficiaries in terms of increased vegetable consumption and surplus income.
Impacts
The last step in the PIP examines impacts. Interviews with frontline workers and beneficiaries revealed improvements in households’ maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes, as well as women’s empowerment because of the home garden intervention. For example, in a focus group discussion, a beneficiary stated, “Before this program, pregnant women were eating only rice and salt. Due to this intervention, children and pregnant women are now getting leafy vegetables and other vegetables, which are very good for their health.” Frontline workers also spoke of positive impacts. For example, a frontline worker said, “The intervention has improved the nutrition of mothers and children, improved health, abilities to cook more diverse foods, consumption of different vegetables and fruits, and improved nutritional growth.” The intervention reduced food expenditures and allowed women to earn income by selling surplus vegetables, which was reported to increase their empowerment. For example, a frontline worker said, “Due to this program, income has increased and the decisions by women in the house has increased. Women are becoming self-sufficient.” Another frontline worker said, “Women are able to spend money for children’s education and own expenditure on health from the income earned from home garden.” There was also an increase in the decision-making authority for women in the household due to the intervention. A frontline worker explained: “They are actively engaged in different decision-making processes and male members of the family also give respect to their decisions, especially in relation to food consumption.” Therefore, we found examples of positive impacts on women’s empowerment from the home garden intervention. This could have positive effects on other parts of their lives and on other women in the community, beyond home gardens.
Add Comment