Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IJAEE
Research Article
The ultimate benefit of any intervention is the improvement on welfare of beneficiaries. The
ownership of assets, improved health meeting social obligations and change in nutrition are
indicators of improved welfare. A total of 360 respondents were randomly selected through
purposive and multi-stage sampling procedures. Statistical analysis using percentages and two
sample t-test were employed. The result of the study indicated that 58% and 56% of the
treatment and control group were below the average age respectively. The overwhelming
majority of the respondents were married with large family size and mostly polygamist. On
education, 36.7% and 55.6% of the respondents in the two communities had never been to any
school respectively. The two sample t-test indicated that there were positive and significant
statistical mean differences in the ownership of assets between the two groups. All the p-value
for assets were less than the critical p-value of 0.05 and all the t-cal were greater than the tcritical value of 1.96 signifying the impact of the intervention on beneficiaries. The treatment
group were better in meeting social obligation, feeding and health than the control group. The
study recommended that government of Nigeria should pay attention to the welfare of the
nomads.
Key words: Nomads, participating, non-participating, welfare, intervention, communities, beneficiaries
INTRODUCTION
The generic model of social impact assessment as
proposed by Asad (2009) made use of a control group in
which the treatment group received intervention and were
used as baseline measure. The model employs two sets
of groups both from the same rural dwelling and living in
identical economic and social conditions. The only
difference is that one set received intervention and the
other did not. The difference in quality of lives between
the two groups gives the impact that has taken place as a
result of the intervention.
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
002
METHODOLOGY
Analytical Technique
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to
analyze data for the study. Frequency and percentage
were used to summarize the data collected on socioeconomic characteristics. Prior to analysis however,
copies of the questionnaires were coded using standard
coding sheet developed by the researcher. The coded
data were then transcribed using MS Excel software. The
transcribed data were exported from MS Excel to the
statistical package for analysis (SPSS 1994). Two
sample t-test was used to test for difference between the
mean of two independent sample (participating and nonparticipating). The sample test was carried out using
statistix 9 analytical software. Two sample t-tests were
computed in two ways; one assumes equal group
variance and the other unequal group variance. For this
study, unequal group variance was used because
difference between two mean are weaker when equal
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
003
Characteristics
Age
<20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61 and above
Sex
Male
Female
Marital Status
Married
Single
Divorced
Widow
Number of Wives
1
2
3
4 and above
Household Size
1-4
5-8
9-12
13-16
17 and above
Qualification
Tertiary
Senior Secondary School
Junior secondary School
Primary school
Adult Education
Non formal Education
Farming Experience
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41 and above
Participating
F
3
44
41
26
26
40
%
1.7
24.4
22.8
14.4
14.8
22.2
Non-Participating
F
%
6
3.3
41
22.8
47
26.1
37
20.6
16
8.9
33
18.3
170
10
94.4
5.6
163
17
90.6
9.4
154
17
2
5
85.6
9.4
2.2
2.8
149
22
6
3
82.8
12.2
3.3
1.7
50
79
21
0
33.3
52.7
14
0
41
62
36
10
27.5
41.6
24.2
6.7
45
81
35
16
3
25
45
19.4
8.9
1.7
33
58
46
31
12
18.3
32.2
25.6
17.2
6.7
9
17
10
27
51
66
5
9.4
5.6
15
28.3
36.7
5
16
8
11
40
100
2.8
8.9
4.4
6.1
22.2
55.6
29
58
33
27
39
16.1
32.2
18.3
15
18.3
16
67
44
23
8.9
37.2
24.4
12.8
30
16.7
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
004
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
005
Asset Owned
Means
Means
Difference
Ownership by
Ownership by Non
Participating
Participating
________________________________________________________________________
Radio
1.2267
1.0000
0.2267
Motorcycle
0.7944
0.6278
0.1667
Mattresses
3.2778
1.3889
1.8889
Chair
0.6222
0.2222
0.40000
Bicycle
0.7222
0.4833
0.2389
Source: Field Survey, 2011
MEAN
PARTICIPATING
MEAN
NON
PARTICIPATING
DIFFERENCE
DF
LOWER
UPPER
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Radio
Motorcycle
Mattresses
Chair
Bicycle
1.2267
0.7944
3.2778
0.6222
0.7222
1.0000
0.6278
1.3889
0.2222
0.4833
0.2267
0.1667
1.8889
0.40000
0.2389
299.5
353.9
279.4
318.0
1355.3
2.59
2.35
8.44
6.38
4.27
0.0100
0.0191
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0642
0.0274
1.4485
0.2763
0.1287
0.4692
0.3059
2.3293
0.5237
0.3400
Health Facilities
Government Hospital/Clinic
Private Hospital/Clinic
Traditional/Native Healers
Participating
Frequency
120
40
20
Non-Participating
Percentage (%) Frequency
Percentage (%)
66.67
140
77.78
22.22
17
9.44
11.11
23
12.78
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
006
Social Obligation
Participating
Expenditure
Non-Participating
Expenditure
Health
Marriage
Burials
Dressing
Festivities
Total Expenditure
1,807.000
1,130.000
28,000
2,289,000
1,862,500
7,116,500
1,789,210
1,083,500
19,700
1,678,900
1,378,100
5,949,410
0.49%
2.1%
17.4%
15.38%
14.95%
8.93%
Difference
Health
10,038.89
Marriage
6,275
Burials
155.56
Dressing
12,716.67
Festivities
10,347.22
Total Expenditure 39,536.11
123.39
258.34
46.12
3,389.45
2,691.11
6,483.83
9,915.05
6,019.44
109.44
9,327.22
7,656.11
33,052.28
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
007
DIFFERENCE
123.39
255
46.111
3389.4
2555
DF
358
356.7
346.3
348.9
355.7
0.07
0.26
1.58
3.37
1.99
P
0.9422
0.7953
0.1139
0.008
0.0474
3466.9
2191.4
103.34
5365.9
5050.7
Animals
Slaughtered
Participating
Non-Participating
Difference
Difference %
256
186
80
17.70
Feeding Rate
Once
Twice
Thrice
Participation
25 (13.89%)
155 (86.11%)
Non-Participation
20 (11.11%)
57 (31.67%)
103 (57.11%)
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
008
proffered as follows:
It was observed from the study that nomads still
patronize traditional healers and witch doctors for their
health problems and that of their animals. Effort should
be made to open up nomadic health centers, mobile
veterinary service and also incorporate nomads into
national building.
Educational campaigns on reproductive and sexually
transmitted diseases should be pursued by government
through nomadic extension agents.
REFERENCES
Asad KG (2009). Measuring the impact of micro finance
intervention: A concenptual framework on social impact
assessment. Impact assessment research center
(IARC). IARC working paper series N0. 24/2009,
University of Manchester.www.sed.manchester
Analytical Software, (2008). Two sample test. Statistical
Usersmanualanalytical
software.web:www.statistics.com.
Bzugu PM, Gwary MM, Idrisa YL (2005). Impact of
extension services on rural poverty alleviation among
farmers in Askira Local Government Area, Borno State.
Sahel analyst 7 (1&2): 94-102.
Ezeomah C. (1987). The settlement patterns of nomadic
fulbe in Nigeria: Implication for educational
development. The Bemrose Press Ltd, Chester
England in Association with Dean House Ltd, 142-143.
Yusuf IL. (2009). Analysis of determinants of soya beans
production Technology adopted by farmers in Southern
Borno, Nigeria. A Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the school
of post graduate studies, University of Maiduguri,
Nigeria.
Matata PZ, Ajayi OC, Oduoi PA, Agumya A (2008).
Social Economics factors influencing adoption of
improved fallow practices among small holder farmers
in Western Tanzania. International NGO Journal
3(4):68-73.
National Commission for Nomadic Education, (2002).
Annual report. N0. 9 Kashim Ibrahim road, P.M.B 2343,
Kaduna Nigeria.
National Commission for Nomadic Education, (2004).
Annual report. N0. 9 Kashim Ibrahim road, P.M.B 2343,
Kaduna Nigeria.
Omar MA (1992). Health care for Nomads too please.
WHO Collaboration Center for Training and Research
in District health system. Instituto Superiore di Sanita,
Rome, Italy. World Health Forum 13 (4):307-10.
Sheik-Muhammad A, Velema JP (1999). Where health
care has no access. The nomadic population of subSahara Africa. Tropical medicine and international
health 4:695-707.
SAAD MA (2001). marriage, sexuality and reproduction
amongst Fulbe nomads in Southern Borno, North
Eastern Nigeria: Implications for Fulbe womens right
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria