Answers: "Organisation 1", household change and credit (18 QuIP interviews)
Basis of the coding, and caveats that apply to all five answers
The earlier answers were not available. The questions build on earlier answers (8, 10 and 13 October 2026). None of them is in the working folder, which holds only index.csv and the 18 transcripts. So I coded all 18 transcripts afresh here, following the rules the questions set out. The five answers below all use this one coding, so they agree with each other. They may differ in detail from the earlier answers. Line references (e.g. MNX-4 L21) point to lines in each .txt file.
Conventions used
- Cases. One case is one household, which is one document. 15 documents name "Organisation 1": MNX-1 to MNX-6, MNY-1/2/3/5, MSX-1/2/4 and MSY-1/2. 3 documents name only "Organisation 2": TWX-1, TWX-2 and TWX-3. Sex and province come from
index.csv:- Women: 12 (province A 7, province B 5).
- Men: 6 (province A 4, province B 2).
- Province A: 11 households. Province B: 7.
- Among the 15 that name "Organisation 1": 9 women and 6 men; 11 in province A and 4 in province B.
- Closed questions. The one-word closed answers ("Improved", "Increased", …) are context only. The open "reason" sentence that follows each closed answer is respondent text, so I code it like any other passage.
- Firm vs weak. For questions 4 and 5, read "explicit" for firm and "implicit" for weak.
- A link is firm where the passage itself states the cause and effect (because / thanks to / learned from / as a result) and, for a source, names it.
- A link is weak where it is only implied. That covers three cases: (a) a change listed next to a source without a causal connective; (b) a source that is not named in the passage, such as "the lectures" or "NGO's"; (c) a "reason" sentence whose direction is ambiguous, e.g. "diet improved because the children are healthy".
- Weak counts are always reported separately from firm counts and never added to them.
- Practices (hygiene, farming methods, storage, savings and money management, infant and maternal feeding) are routes, not sources. A change in what people eat (meals, variety, hungry-season food, infant/maternal diet) counts as a change in food and diet.
- Joined paths link one household's own links across its passages, never across households.
Data quirks that limit how far the results can be pushed
- TWX-1 and TWX-2 each hold two complete interviews. The second begins at L83 in both, and the two respondents' circumstances differ (in TWX-1, a husband working away versus a widow). Following the instruction to treat each document as one case, each is one household here.
- Templated wording. MNX-3, MNX-4, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-2 and MNY-5 use near-identical wording ("with the arrival of Organisation 1 …", "salt and water", "chaff and place into bags"). MNX-5 L65 repeats MNX-4 L69 word for word. This points to interviewer or translator templating and weakens the independence of those six accounts.
- Sex in the index vs voice in the text. MSX-1 is recorded as a woman's interview but speaks as a man ("my woman has given her opinion", "I like the father"). MNX-3 mixes voices. Question 4 uses the index, as instructed.
- Contradiction in MNX-5. MNX-5 reports domestic violence and no change in relationships (L55), yet gives "good relations in the household" as the reason her wellbeing improved (L69).
Question 1: Paths from "Organisation 1" to income, production, food and diet, and whether they pass through better health
The paths households describe
| Path (each step is the household's own link) | Firm, of 15 | Firm, of 18 | Households (firm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Farming practice → production → income. "Organisation 1" training in line planting, spacing, manure/fertiliser and fire protection → more production → more sales and income | 10 | 10 | MNX-3, MNX-4, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-2, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSX-1, MSX-2, MSY-1 |
| A′. Same, continuing to food. … → more production and money → more meals and more variety bought or grown | 10 | 10 | same 10 |
| B. Storage practice → food in the hungry season. Threshing, bags, storage indoors, pesticide → food kept through the hungry season | 10 | 10 | same 10 (whole in one passage in MNY-3 L33, MSY-1 L33 and MSX-2 L33) |
| C. Savings and money management → purchasing. Financial lectures and savings group → spending control → buying more (in MNY-3, buying more diverse food) | 6 | 6 | MNX-3, MNX-4, MNY-2, MNY-3, MSX-2, MSY-1 |
| D. Nutrition and infant-feeding learning → diet. Exclusive breastfeeding, three meals a day, varied food, end of taboos in pregnancy | 8 | 8 | MNX-2, MNX-4, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-3, MSX-1, MSX-2, MSY-1 |
Paths C and D are additional routes. In every household except MNX-2 and MNY-1 they sit beside path A rather than replacing it.
Household totals (out of 15; the same figures hold out of 18, since the 3 "Organisation 2" households cannot have a path from "Organisation 1")
| Firm | Weak only | None | |
|---|---|---|---|
| To income or production | 10 | 2 (MNX-1: savings "provided by Organisation 1" sustains income, but "nothing has improved"; MNY-1: community garden and savings credited to "Organisation 1") | 3 |
| To food or diet | 12 (the 10, plus MNX-2 and MNY-1 through path D) | 0 | 3 |
| To either | 12 | 1 (MNX-1) | 2 (MSX-4: "Organisation 1" storage practice only, and its production fell with the rains; MSY-2: "Organisation 1" named only for health) |
Chains told whole in one passage, beside the joined paths
- To income or production: 9 households.
- MNX-3 L15: "good practices in agriculture (learnt from Organisation 1) I now earn more money because my production has increased".
- Also MNX-4 L15, MNX-5 L15, MNX-6 L9, MNY-2 L15, MNY-5 L15, MSX-1 L13/L15, MSX-2 L15 and MSY-1 L13.
- To food or diet: 9 households.
- MNX-4 L21 and MNX-5 L21 (garden variety "learned from Organisation 1").
- MNY-2 L21 and MNY-3 L9/L29/L33.
- MSX-2 L25/L29 and MSY-1 L33.
- MNX-2 L35, MNY-1 L35 and MSX-1 L36 (infant and maternal feeding).
- Joined only. MNX-3, MNX-6 and MNY-5 reach food only by joining an "Organisation 1" production passage to a later food passage. MNY-3 reaches income only by joining.
Does any path pass through better health?
A path passes through better health only where the household has both a link into better health and a link out of health to income, production, food or diet.
- Into better health, from "Organisation 1" (firm): 13 of 15.
- Hygiene learning → less sickness: MNX-3, MNX-4, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-5, MSX-1, MSX-2, MSY-1, MSY-2.
- Infant-feeding learning → healthy babies: MNX-2 and MNY-3.
- Out of better health, into income, production, food or diet: no firm link in any of the 18 households. The only links out of better health are weak, all "reason" sentences that give health as the reason the diet improved:
- MNX-2 L35: "change for the better because they were healthy and we ate well".
- MNX-3 L39: children's diet improved because of "the state in which my children are found, healthy".
- MNX-6 L29: variety rose "with good health and nutrition".
- MSX-2 L29: variety changed because "I have good health (healthy nutrition)".
- MSY-1 L39: children's diet improved because of "good health in the household".
Result: 0 of 15 households (0 of 18) have a firm path from "Organisation 1" through better health to income, production, food or diet. 5 of 15 have such a path on weak links only (MNX-2, MNX-3, MNX-6, MSX-2, MSY-1). No respondent tells such a chain whole in one passage.
In these accounts the causal arrow usually runs the other way: better food leads to better health (MNX-4 L39 "more production and this promotes good health"; MNY-1 L21; MNY-5 L29; MSX-1 L30/L40; MSX-2 L7).
Where health does drive income or food, it is ill health making things worse, and none of these paths starts from "Organisation 1":
- MNX-1 L13/L19/L25: "we were all sick and we were unable to plant".
- MSX-4 L45: "with the health problem … it has not been possible to save".
- TWX-1 L127–131: livestock sold to pay for the hospital.
Question 2: What changed overall wellbeing, through which paths, and the part played by family relationships
Links into wellbeing (out of 18; the 15 that name "Organisation 1" are shown separately)
| All 18 | The 15 naming "Organisation 1" | |
|---|---|---|
| Firm link into better wellbeing | 15 | 12 |
| Weak only | 1 (MNX-3) | 1 |
| No link into better wellbeing | 2 (MNX-1, MSX-4) | 2 |
| Firm link into worse wellbeing (reported apart) | 3: MNX-1 (L69: "we need enough food which we do not have. Health wise we are not okay"); MSX-4 (L69: "we are not given an ear"); TWX-1 (L69: "I am not very well") | 2 |
| Weak link into worse wellbeing | 1 (MNX-5 L73: "my life has not changed and this brought about a negative impact") | 1 |
Paths into better wellbeing, by the step just before it (firm; a household can have several)
| Immediate cause of better wellbeing | Firm, of 18 | Of the 15 | Households | Weak only |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family relationships (unity, dialogue, getting along) | 7 | 4 | MNX-4, MNX-5*, MNX-6, MNY-3, TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3 | 4: MNX-3, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-5 |
| A programme organisation directly, through its lectures, learning or hygiene changes | 8 | 5 | "Organisation 1": MNX-2, MNY-2, MNY-3 (with government), MSX-1, MSY-1. "Organisation 2" groups: TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3 | MNY-1 ("NGO's"), MSX-2 ("lectures"), MSY-2 ("community promoter") |
| Income or production | 4 | 4 | MNY-1 (L15: "getting more money out of sales has made me happy"); MNY-5 (L69: "my farm is well and is producing more"); MSX-1 (L15: sales → "improve our life"); MNX-4 (L69: agriculture) | MSY-1 |
| Better health | 3 | 2 | MNY-5, MSY-2 (L69: "well off Healthwise … happiness has increased"), TWX-1 (L151) | MNX-2, MSY-1 |
| Food and diet | 2 | 1 | MNX-4 (L69: "fighting malnutrition"), TWX-1 (L69: "good diversity of food") | MNX-3 |
| Community relations | 1 | 1 | MNX-5 | MNX-3, MSX-1 |
* MNX-5 states that good relations caused its better wellbeing, but elsewhere it reports violence and unchanged relations. See the caveats.
Joined paths to wellbeing. Joining each household's own links gives these chains:
- "Organisation 1" → wellbeing: 8 of 15 (firm).
- Through family relationships: MNX-4 (O1 speeches → united couple → wellbeing), and MNY-3, told whole in L55: "Organisation 1 Group taught us to respect our wives … With this our lives have improved".
- Through health: MNY-5 and MSY-2.
- Through production: MNY-5.
- Through hygiene: MNX-2.
- Directly: MNY-2, MSX-1, MSY-1.
- "Organisation 2" → family relationships → wellbeing: 3 of 3. In TWX-3 the chain is told whole (L69: learning from the mothers' group → "my relationship with my husband is much better and we are much happier"). In TWX-1 and TWX-2 it is joined across passages.
Paths into worse wellbeing (firm):
- Poor health and lack of food → not well. MNX-1's ill health is itself credited to the church's ban on hospital visits (L7).
- Co-wife conflict and not being heard → worse (MSX-4).
- Own unexplained illness → not well (TWX-1).
None of these runs from "Organisation 1".
What part do family relationships play?
The rule for "both" applied here: a household counts relationships as both cause and changed only where it has a link into family relationships and a link from them on a path to wellbeing.
| Role of family relationships | Of 18 | Of the 15 | Households |
|---|---|---|---|
| Both (firm links in and on to wellbeing) | 8 | 5 | Better: MNX-4, MNY-3, TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3. Mixed: MNX-6 (husband's death made relationships worse, L55–59, yet "unity at home" lifted wellbeing, L69). Flagged: MNX-5 (the link into relationships is a no-change link: polygamy, no dialogue). Worse: MSX-4 (co-wife conflict → worse relationships → "not given an ear" → worse wellbeing) |
| Both, but the step on to wellbeing is weak | 4 | 4 | MNX-3, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-5 |
| Changed, and a cause only off the wellbeing path | 3 | 3 | MNX-1 (O1 and leader stopped the beating; the husband's bans block group participation and childcare teaching); MSX-2 (separation → she controls the money, L53); MSY-2 (learnt to get along with his wives → coordinates buying and production, weak) |
| Changed only | 2 | 2 | MSX-1 (weak), MSY-1 |
| Cause only | 1 | 1 | MNX-2 (children and son give money → income and purchases, L45/L55) |
Where relationships act as a cause, they work in three ways:
- Directly on wellbeing: unity, dialogue, "we are much happier".
- On money: joint decisions lead to more or better purchasing (MNY-1 L53, MNY-2 L53, MNY-5 L49/53). Lack of dialogue leads to no change (MNX-5 L49/53). A husband's control blocks saving (MNX-5 L45, MSX-4 L53).
- On access to programmes: husbands forbid participation (MNX-1 L65, MSX-4 L65).
Where relationships change, three causes recur:
- Gender-equality speeches by "Organisation 1" (7 households, firm) or "Organisation 2" mothers' groups (3).
- A community leader (MNX-1).
- Family events: a husband's death (MNX-6), separation (MSX-2), co-wife conflict (MSX-4).
Who the relationship passages concern
Each family-relationship passage was coded as spouses/co-wives (S), generations (G), both (B) or the household without saying (U). Codes are approximate; line numbers are listed so they can be checked.
| Household | S | G | B | U |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNX-1 | L35, L45, L55, L59, L65 | |||
| MNX-2 | L45, L55, L59 | |||
| MNX-3 | L45 | L55 | L59, L65 | |
| MNX-4 | L45, L59, L61 | L55 | L65, L69 | |
| MNX-5 | L45, L49, L53, L55, L59 | L69 | ||
| MNX-6 | L53, L59 | L55 | L69 | |
| MNY-1 | L45, L53, L59 | L35 | L55 | |
| MNY-2 | L55 | L53, L59 | ||
| MNY-3 | L55 | L59 | ||
| MNY-5 | L45, L53, L73 | L55 | L49, L59 | |
| MSX-1 | L46 | L56, L60 | ||
| MSX-2 | L53, L55, L59 | |||
| MSX-4 | L45, L53, L55, L59, L65 | L69 | ||
| MSY-1 | L45 | L55 | L59 | |
| MSY-2 | L45, L59 | L55 | ||
| TWX-1 | L45, L55 | L127 | L59, L69, L137, L141 | |
| TWX-2 | L45, L55, L73 | L127 | L69 | L59, L137, L141, L151 |
| TWX-3 | L45, L59, L69 | L55 | ||
| Passages | 41 | 6 | 11 | 23 |
What the codes show:
- Relationships between spouses or co-wives dominate. They appear in 15 of 18 households and in every case where relationships carry a path to wellbeing. Where the passage says who, the "both" households above are spouse relationships, or spouse and co-wife relationships.
- Generations appear mostly as something that changed: fathers and mothers becoming "more involved in taking care of children" (the B passages). They also appear as a resource that pays for things: children's money in MNX-2, a son's help in MNY-3, joint money decisions with children in TWX-1 and TWX-2 (L127). Generations are never the step into wellbeing.
- The steps into wellbeing are mostly U ("unity at home", "good relationship"), and they are joined to S passages within the same household.
Question 3: Whom households credit for each kind of change, and whether "Organisation 1" stands alone
Households are counted out of 18. "Firm" means the household's own firm links make a path from that source to the change, directly or through a practice. Weak-only credits are in brackets.
Sources are grouped as follows:
- Other orgs/services: "Organisation 2", hospitals, health centres and health technicians, the ministry of health, "Agriculturel Company A" (seeds), banks, other NGOs, the church.
- Government: only where a passage says "government": pensions, war-veteran income, government advice or lectures.
- Own effort: own business, shop, livestock sales, other work.
- Family members: spouse, children, in-laws.
- Community: neighbours, the community leader, the community savings group or association farm.
- Weather/markets: rain, drought, cyclone, soil, prices, the market as where variety is bought.
Credit for changes for the better
| Change | "Organisation 1" | Other orgs/services | Government | Own effort | Family members | Community | Weather/markets |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 13 | 7 (TWX ×3 via "Organisation 2" and health services; MNX-2 hospital; MNX-5 ministry of health; MSX-1 health centre; MSX-2 health centre) [+2: MSX-4 hospital, MNY-1 hospital] | 2 (MSY-1, MNY-3) [+2: MNX-3, MSX-1] | 1 (MNX-2) [+1: MNY-3] | 0 | 0 [+1: MSY-2 "community promoter"] | 0 |
| Food & diet | 12 | 10 (TWX ×3; hospital/health unit: MNX-2, MNX-5, MSX-1, MNY-5; seeds from Agric. Co. A: MNX-3, MNX-6, MNY-2) | 7 (MNX-3, MNY-1, MNY-3, MSY-1, MSY-2, TWX-2, TWX-3) | 5 (MNX-2, MNY-1, MNY-3, MSY-2, TWX-1) | 1 (MNX-2) | 1 (MNX-1: neighbours' food offsets a fall) | 5 (rain: TWX-1; market variety: MNX-3, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-5) |
| Income & production | 10 [+2: MNX-1, MNY-1] | 6 (Agric. Co. A seeds: MNX-3, MNX-6, MNY-2; bank loan: MNY-1; "Organisation 2": TWX-1, TWX-2) | 2 (MNY-1 war-veteran income, MSY-2 pension) | 12 (MNX-2, MNX-4, MNX-5, MNY-1, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSX-2, MSY-1, MSY-2, TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3) | 2 (MNX-2 children, TWX-1 husband's remittance) | 2 (MSY-2 savings group, TWX-1 association farm) | 1 (TWX-1 rain) |
| Family relationships | 7 (MNX-1, MNX-4, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSY-1) [+3: MNX-3, MSX-1, MSY-2] | 3 ("Organisation 2": TWX ×3) | 0 | 1 (MSY-2) [+1: MSX-1] | 1 (MNY-3: wife's advice) | 1 (MNX-1: community leader) | 0 |
| Wellbeing | 8 (MNX-2, MNX-4, MNY-2, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSX-1, MSY-1, MSY-2) [+4: MNX-3, MNX-6, MNY-1, MSX-2] | 4 (MNY-1 "NGO's"; TWX ×3) | 2 (MNY-3, and MNY-1 via war-veteran income → farms → money → happy) | 1 (MNY-1) [+1: MSY-2] | 1 (MNY-3, via the wife's advice → relations → "our lives have improved") | 1 (MNX-5) [+2: MNX-3, MSX-1] | 0 |
Practices (hygiene, farming, storage, savings) are counted only as routes. "Thank God" phrases are not counted as a source.
Credit for changes for the worse (firm)
No household credits "Organisation 1", or any programme organisation, with a change for the worse.
| Change | Credited to |
|---|---|
| Health | Church/religion: MNX-1 (barred from hospital; "five of my children are dead"). Weather/climate: TWX-2 (L3: flu and malaria). Hospital medication: TWX-1 (L7). Unexplained: MSX-4 |
| Food | Weather: MSX-4, TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3. Illness and lack of money: MNX-1. Distance to market: TWX-3 |
| Income & production | Weather/land: MNY-1 (cyclone), MSX-4, MSY-2 (farm no longer produces), TWX-1, TWX-2, TWX-3. Illness: MNX-1, MSX-4, TWX-1. Family: MNX-6 (husband's death). Own circumstances: MNX-2 (pregnancy). Markets (low prices): TWX-1, TWX-2 |
| Family relationships | Family members and events: MNX-6 (death), MSX-2 (separation after poor communication), MSX-4 (co-wife conflict). MNX-5 reports no change, put down to polygamy and lack of dialogue |
| Wellbeing | Family members: MSX-4. Illness and lack of food: MNX-1. Own illness: TWX-1 |
Where "Organisation 1" is credited, is anything else credited for the same change?
These counts cover households whose own firm links run from "Organisation 1" to that change.
| Change | Households crediting "Organisation 1" | Another source also credited (firm) | Weak only | "Organisation 1" alone | What the other sources are |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health | 13 | 5 (MNX-2, MNX-5, MNY-3, MSX-2, MSY-1) | 2 (MSX-1, MNY-1) | 6 | Joint deliverers of the same messages: hospital and health centre, ministry of health, government lectures; also own effort in MNX-2 |
| Food & diet | 12 | 9 (MNX-2, MNX-3, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-1, MNY-2, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSY-1) | 2 (MSX-1, MSX-2) | 1 (MNX-4) | Purchased seeds; the market as where variety is bought; health services; government; own shop or business; children's money (MNX-2) |
| Income & production | 10 | 9 (all except MSX-1) | 0 | 1 (MSX-1) | Agric. Co. A seeds; own shop, trading, small jobs or other employment alongside farming |
| Family relationships | 7 | 2 (MNX-1 community leader; MNY-3 wife's advice) | 0 | 5 | |
| Wellbeing | 8 | 1 (MNY-3 government) | 2 (MSX-1, MSY-2) | 5 |
For health, family relationships and wellbeing, "Organisation 1" mostly stands alone or shares credit with bodies that delivered the same lessons. For food, income and production, it nearly always shares credit, mainly with purchased inputs and the household's own side businesses.
Question 4: Differences by respondent sex and by province, and how far credit to "Organisation 1" reaches
Every count is shown with its group size. Group sizes are: women 12, men 6, province A 11, province B 7. Among the households naming "Organisation 1": women 9, men 6, province A 11, province B 4. Explicit (firm) links only; implicit-only cases are noted separately.
Kinds of change reported (explicit link into the change)
| Change | All (18) | Women (12) | Men (6) | Province A (11) | Province B (7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health, better | 16 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 |
| Health, worse | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Food, better | 16 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 |
| Food, worse | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Income/production, better | 16 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 |
| Income/production, worse | 9 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Family relationships, better | 12 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 |
| Family relationships, worse | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Wellbeing, better | 15 | 9 | 6 | 9 | 6 |
| Wellbeing, worse | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Notes on the table
- Implicit-only cases, counted separately and not included above:
- MSX-4 (woman, B) gets sicker "I do not know why" and says "we now buy better food", both without a stated cause.
- MSX-1 (woman, A) has implicit better relationships.
- MNX-3 (woman, A) has implicit better wellbeing.
- MNX-1 (woman, A) has implicit better income through savings.
- MNX-5 (woman, A) reports a no-change link for relationships (polygamy, no dialogue), counted under neither better nor worse.
What the table shows
- Women and men. All 6 men report an explicit better change in all five kinds, and none reports a change for the worse except 2 of 6 for income and production (MNY-1 cyclone, MSY-2 poor farm). Women report better health, food and income in 10 of 12, but better family relationships in only 6 of 12 and better wellbeing in 9 of 12. All changes for the worse in health, food, relationships and wellbeing come from women: 3, 5, 3 and 3 of the 12.
- Province. Province B reports changes for the worse more often than province A:
- Food: 4 of 7 against 1 of 11.
- Income and production: 5 of 7 against 4 of 11.
- Almost all of B's falls are put down to rain or drought.
- Sex and province overlap. Most B households are women's interviews (5 of 7), and all 3 "Organisation 2" households are women in B. The 2 women's interviews in B that name "Organisation 1" (MSX-2, MSX-4) include the household with the worst account (MSX-4).
Credit to "Organisation 1" (explicit link from "Organisation 1" to a practice or a change)
| Women | Men | Province A | Province B | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any credit (practice or change), of all households | 9 of 12 | 6 of 6 | 11 of 11 | 4 of 7 |
| Same, among those naming "Organisation 1" | 9 of 9 | 6 of 6 | 11 of 11 | 4 of 4 |
| Credit for better health | 7 of 12 (7 of 9) | 6 of 6 | 10 of 11 | 3 of 7 (3 of 4) |
| Credit for better food & diet | 7 of 12 (7 of 9) | 5 of 6 | 10 of 11 | 2 of 7 (2 of 4) |
| Credit for better income & production | 6 of 12 (6 of 9) | 4 of 6 | 8 of 11 | 2 of 7 (2 of 4) |
| Credit for better family relationships | 2 of 12 (2 of 9) | 5 of 6 | 6 of 11 | 1 of 7 (1 of 4) |
| Credit for better wellbeing | 3 of 12 (3 of 9) | 5 of 6 | 6 of 11 | 2 of 7 (2 of 4) |
Even among the 15 households that name "Organisation 1", where the 3 TWX households drop out, the gap remains:
- By sex: men credit "Organisation 1" for family relationships (5 of 6 against 2 of 9 women) and for wellbeing (5 of 6 against 3 of 9).
- For health, food and income: the gaps are small (7/7/6 of 9 women against 6/5/4 of 6 men).
- By province: the province difference largely disappears among those naming "Organisation 1" (B: 3, 2, 2, 1 and 2 of 4), but 4 households is too few to compare.
How far the credit to "Organisation 1" reaches (highest rung its explicit links reach)
| Reach | All (18) | Women (12) | Men (6) | Province A (11) | Province B (7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Not at all | 3 (all TWX) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Practice only | 2 (MNX-1, MSX-4) | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Health | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Income or food | 5 (MNX-3, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-1, MSX-2) | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Wellbeing | 8 (MNX-2, MNX-4, MNY-2, MNY-3, MNY-5, MSX-1, MSY-1, MSY-2) | 3 | 5 | 6 | 2 |
Notes on reach
- Among the 15 households naming "Organisation 1", 13 reach income, food or wellbeing. The figures are 7 of 9 women, 6 of 6 men, 10 of 11 in province A and 3 of 4 in province B.
- Nobody stops at health. Every household whose credit reaches health also carries it further.
- MSY-2 reaches wellbeing by a joined path: "Organisation 1" nutrition promoter → health (L7), then health → happiness (L69). It skips the income/food rung.
- MNY-1's income/food rung rests on "Organisation 1" learning about eating habits and pregnancy diet (L35, L55). Its farm gains are not credited to "Organisation 1".
- Implicit credit would reach higher in 5 households, counted separately: MNX-1 (income), and MNX-3, MNX-6, MNY-1 and MSX-2 (wellbeing).
Question 5: How strongly the accounts support "Organisation 1"'s contribution to better household wellbeing
| Criterion | Count / reading | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Breadth. Households naming "Organisation 1" that credit it by name, through an explicit link to a practice or a change | 15 of 15 (14 of 15 for a change rather than only a practice; MSX-4 credits it for storage practice only). Threshold for strong: ≥10 | Strong |
| Reach. Households whose explicit links run from "Organisation 1" to better income, food or wellbeing | 13 (8 to wellbeing, 5 to income or food). Implicit-only: 1 more (MNX-1, income). Threshold for strong: ≥5 | Strong |
| Attribution not crowded out. Read from passages naming another cause for the same change in households that credit "Organisation 1" | Mostly complementary. See below | Strong (a judgement; borderline with moderate for food) |
| Harms. Households whose explicit links run from "Organisation 1" to a change for the worse | 0. Implicit: at most 1 (MNX-6 L45: after joining nothing yet, "agriculture … spends money"; "Organisation 1" is not named as the cause) | Strong |
Overall: strong. All four criteria rate strong and none rates weak.
Reading on attribution
Health (5 of 13 co-credit). The other sources are joint deliverers of the same hygiene messages. They are named in the same breath, not as rivals:
- "lectures by the ministry of health and Organisation 1" (MNX-5 L3)
- "Organisation 1 and the local health centre" (MSX-2 L3)
- "the government and Organisation 1" (MSY-1 L3)
- "learnt (from hospital but this was reinforced … when Organisation 1 came" (MNX-2 L35)
Income and production (9 of 10 co-credit). The other causes are complementary:
- Seeds bought from "Agriculturel Company A", used with the new planting methods (MNX-3 L13, MNX-6 L9, MNY-2 L13).
- Side businesses that the households themselves present as extra to farming: "I was obliged to open an informal shop so as I am not only dependent on my farm" (MNX-4 L15). Also MNY-3 L15 and MSX-2 L15.
None of these households names another cause as the main one.
Food (9 of 12 co-credit). Mostly complementary: the market is where the extra money buys variety, and seeds and government advice are named alongside. The exceptions are the two households whose credit to "Organisation 1" for food runs only through nutrition learning:
- MNX-2 puts its food mainly down to its own business and its children's money.
- MNY-1 puts it down to his own farming with tractors, fertiliser and pumps, financed by government war-veteran income.
In those two, the other causes are the main ones. These are the reason for the "borderline" note.
Family relationships and wellbeing (2 of 7 and 1 of 8 co-credit). The other sources are the community leader acting with "Organisation 1" (MNX-1 L59), a wife's advice (MNY-3 L59) and the government alongside "Organisation 1" (MNY-3 L69). All are complementary.
Limits that bear on the strength of the verdict
- The rubric credits households, not the size of the effect. Several crediting households are templated accounts with near-identical wording (MNX-3, MNX-4, MNX-5, MNX-6, MNY-2, MNY-5), so 13 of 15 may overstate how many independent voices are speaking.
- The households facing hardship credit "Organisation 1" only for practices. MNX-1 and MSX-4, which have the worst accounts, attribute their outcomes to illness, religion, polygamy and rain. MNX-1 and MSX-4 also report that husbands bar women from the programme's groups (MNX-1 L65, MSX-4 L65). That is not a harm credited to "Organisation 1", but it is a limit on its reach.
- The link from health to income and food is weak. No household firmly links better health onward to income or food (Question 1). The wellbeing claim rests mainly on two routes: production → income → food, and gender-equality learning → spousal relationships → wellbeing.