Mid-Term Evaluations (MTE) was carried out approximately halfway through the life of a Title II Development Food Aid Project award. The MTE of a Title II Development Food Aid Project was a formative evaluation instead of a summative. As a formative evaluation, the MTE represented an opportunity to make mid-course corrections in program strategy as well as to address implementation issues that are constraining effective implementation. The primary focus of the MTE was to review implementation processes for producing planned outputs and the program logic reflected in the results framework to determine whether the program was likely to achieve the intended results, objectives and impact. The MTE sought to identify successful strategies, bottlenecks, ways for improvements and lessons learned rather than focusing on measuring progress compared to IPTT targets. The purpose of a Mid-Term evaluation was to improve program or project effectiveness or to inform specific future decisions. MTE was a formative evaluation to make mid-course corrections in program strategy and to make recommendations for improving the effectiveness or efficiency of implementation. Evaluation objectives included those listed above in the introduction as well as any unique topics that need to be investigated for a particular program, such as a major issue affecting implementation, a major constraint or problem that the program is facing or an important cross-cutting issue. Key informant interviews with key project personnel and stakeholders USAID, local government organizations, relevant government ministries, local community committees and selected community participants. Review of project records to establish outputs and financial accountability. Direct observations of service delivery sessions through site visits- assess technical practices, quality of activities, confirm recorded outputs, and assess likelihood of achieving outcomes. Focus group and group interviews with the project participants (household and institutional) to determine benefits of the project, who receives the benefits, quality of service delivery, perception of the communities, unanticipated consequences and possible areas of modification and design. Interview project staff to determine the quality of service delivery and level of knowledge on the subject matter Review of program and organizational documents to assess institutional strengthening activities of various partners and organizations.