Iteración 1

The project use d a detaile d an d systemati c monitorin g plan, review , discussion and meetings. Fiel d visi t an d simple survey was th e mai n monitoring techniques applied at different time s depending on the nature and type of activities involved.

5.1.1.1 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Focus group discussions were based on key questions tha t was determine d by the researcher, bu t also based on prior information gaps identified when going throug h th e existin g document s an d usin g secondar y data . Th e method was used fo r data collection , monitoring data collectio n system as well a s monitorin g the collecte d information a s par t o f th e informatio n management system .

5.1.1.2. In person Interview

Personal Interview s wer e don e usin g structure d questionnaire s an d ke y questions. I n thi s exercise , mal e an d femal e househol d head s wer e eligible for interview, and the focu s was to investigate th e contributio n of IGA i n relation to the study' s specifi c objectives. Th e interviews allowed the interviewe r t o prob e usin g th e standar d probe s only ; i t enable d th e interviewer t o g o int o mor e dept h an d helpe d t o clea r u p an y misunderstandings, an d enable d t o tes t th e limit s o f a respondent' s knowledge. Thi s encouraged cooperatio n an d hence mad e th e assessmen t

66

easier t o ge t a truer pictur e and results o f the study . Intervie w Guiding Questions that were used by the interviewer are found in the last part of Appendix vii.

Informal discussion s in groups an d for persons wer e als o held e.g. with relevant partie s lik e district , regiona l an d cit y officer s an d t o th e grassroots' stakeholder s like divisional, ward, leaderships and heads of the households on the whole management o f the study exercise. The focus of the discussions was to get the picture of how the governmen t authoritie s and individual s do perceive the issue s o f Income Generatin g activities done by the infected people. The discussions were guided by the specific objectives o f th e stud y an d al l th e method s prove d t o giv e reliable responses as late r tested fo r reliability a s show n in the figure 4 shown below.

5.1.1.3. Observation

The researcher observed activities and projects, people engaged in IGAs and assets purchased with household income. This method helped to collect data that measures the determinants' behavior and environment conditions of interest (Bauman & Adair 1992), however, it had limitations in probing for clarification on specific issues, therefore it was important to use other method in order to complement, check and compare the

information for reliability.

67

5.1.1.4. Record Review

Review of Secondary Data was also done; relevant secondary records such as Mwanza region profile, M O G records and statistical data were obtained from district , regional and city council offices as well a s in M OG offices . Reviews o f secondar y dat a suc h a s trainin g report s wer e use d t o compliment collected data using other methods.

5.1.1.5. Questionnaire

Self administere d questionnaire s wer e use d fo r questionin g respondents using both closed and open questions. Questionnaires were complete d by the head of households, community leaders an d CB O staf f (management , volunteers an d members). The questionnaires wer e formulate d in English and then translated into Kiswahili to facilitate easy communication during data collection. The questionnaires are found in Appendix viii .

In summary, all Self -administered questionnaires and. observing behavior was clearl y usefu l enquir y techniques, bu t askin g people directl y about what is going on was an obvious shortcut i n getting answers t o question s in mind. Therefor e interviewing technique and focused group discussions provides opportunit y fo r peopl e (stud y population ) t o tel l thing s abou t their own experiences, feelings and perceptions (Kreuger, J. 1998, Minkler M . H , 1997). The results obtained from al l methods were easily compared as shown in the graph below:

68

Figure 4. Compariso n o f data collected usin g the Differen t Methodologies in bar chart (% )

5.1.2. Monitoring Questions

During the stud y the followin g ar e the key questions asked during monitoring of the study activities:

• Ho w many field visi t have been conducted?

• Ho w many community mobilization meetings have been conducted?

• Ho w many PLHA s hav e bee n involve d i n FG D and participate d fo r own capacity building?

• Ho w many group members managed to attend th e training on their particular projects for income generating activities?

• Ho w much capital bas e has been accumulate d for the grou p members t o be assisted t o establis h ow n incom e generatin g activitie s especially the pett y business groups?

• Wha t new income generating activities have been established?

69

• Wha t has been the socio-economic impact of the IG A o f PLHAs a t household level? A t Community level? E.g. in education, i n increasing the incom e and solving other immediate family problems.

Example of monitoring questions used and results obtained : How did PLHAs spend their income and what is its implication?

The respondents reported that the Household Expenditure was as follows : Food: Highest (49%); Treatment: Higher (10%) Housing: medium, (9%) school materials and fees: Lowes t (1%), Others like beddings an d clothes (0.6% ) Status o f household well being:

-14% - of the respondents said that household's incom e was going up - 37%o - said the income was stead y

- 49% - said income dropping

Other important questions that gave a lot of insights on the projects includ e the following : Are the projects providin g significant contribution to their family income? In what way?

How did they feel before the y started working on the activity? How do they feel now? Do they think the time spent on the income-generating activit y is worth it? Do they think the projects chose n are the right activities? The responses to these questions gav e the genera l results tha t income-generating activitie s are ver y important an d useful i n improving the living standard s of PLHAs therefor e ma y be wel l designe d t o hel p overcom e th e crisis and reduce long-ter m poverty. The response fro m a household in economic distress i s to diversify source s o f income. The support aim s to provide the househol d with alternativ e sources of income.

70

5.1.3.. Monitoring Indicators:

Some important indicators included:

- Activitie s implemented according to the Action Plan - Numbe r of field visi t conducted and reports written.

- Numbe r of households supported and has projects for IGAs.

- Numbe r of training conducted for capacity building

- Repor t system established and used effectively an d efficiently . - Increase d Income of the households .

Access to health and education services improved (decrease of number of children who do not atten d school , decrease of unattended orphan s i n the community or in streets etc.)