International Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
IJAEE
Vol. 1(1), pp. 002-008, June, 2015. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477
Research Article
Impact assessment of nomadic education extension
programme on welfare of nomads in Adamawa State
Nigeria
Yusuf HW1, Love J2 and Peter MB3
1,2
Adamawa State College of Agriculture, P.M.B 2088 Ganye, Nigeria
Department of Agricultural Extension Services University of Maiduguri, Nigeria
[email protected]
3
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.
neglect that the Federal government of Nigeria
established the National Commission for Nomadic
Education (NCNE). According to NCNE (2004), the
commission was charged with the responsibility of
implementing the nomadic education programme whose
main objectives were to provide nomads with normal and
functional basic education and improve the survival skills
that will enable them raise their productivity and level of
income.
The use of baseline data if at all there is base for welfare
of nomads is unobtainable as nomads were mostly
neglected in developing nations. It is in view of this
*Corresponding Author: Yusuf Hayatu, Adamawa State
College of Agriculture, P.M.B 2088 Ganye, Nigeria.
Email:[email protected]
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
002
The NCNE in order to pursue these objectives initiated
the Nomadic Education Extension Programme (NEEP)
with the sole aim of assisting the nomads to increase
their productivity through education and consequently
impact on their welfare. The formation of cooperative
societies and adult literacy classes were the major
channels nomadic extension agents use in gingering the
nomads to change towards better life. According to Omar
(1992), traditional healers and birth attendant, provide
health services for nomads and because of this Sheik
and Velema (1999) revealed that there is higher infant
mortality among nomads than among settled population.
METHODOLOGY
The nomadic Fulani are not informed and educated about
modern medicine practice regarding family planning and
sexual and reproductive health (Sa’ad 2001). The nomad
carries the burden of taking care of their health and that
of their animals and hence they need help in modern
medicine both for human and animals. The realization of
this, prompted the National Commission for Nomadic
Education to send out nomadic extension agents to
nomadic communities to take care of their educational
needs.
Purposive and multi-stage sampling technique was used
for the study. The purposive sampling was used to select
Song, Girei, and Yola South Local Government Areas
being where NEEP started in 1997 before its full
implementation in 1998. The multi-stage sampling
technique was used to select Nomadic Communities and
respondents in the selected Local Government Areas. In
the first stage, three communities were selected from
each of the three Local Government Areas giving a total
of nine (9) communities used for the study. In the second
stage, twenty respondents who were participants of
NEEP from each of the nine communities were selected
using simple random sampling. The comprehensive lists
of the participating nomads were obtained from the
nomadic extension agents in the study area and it was
used as the sampling frame. In the third stage, three
communities were selected from non- participating areas
from the three Local Government Areas used for the
study giving nine (9) communities. Twenty nomads were
randomly selected from each of the nine non-participating
communities. The total number of respondents used for
the study was 360 i.e. 180 participants of nomadic
education extension programme and 180 nonparticipants.
According to Muhammad and Ardo (2010), the nomadic
extension agents were posted to rural communities to
pursue among other activities the following; to educate
and enlighten pastoral nomads on the acquisition of
relevant skills for the improvement of livestock
production, provide practical lessons on human and
animal health, provide training for the nomadic adult in
numeracy on livestock number, ability to read labels and
direction on drugs and assist pastoralist to acquire
appropriate skills, abilities and competence to contribute
to development. To achieve the above objectives, NCNE
(2002) reported that the extension agents posted out to
various nomadic communities in Nigeria visited a total of
875 communities, where 69,278 families benefited from
extension work. Also total of 376,809 and 221,831
animals were vaccinated and treated against various
diseases respectively. The report further revealed that
the extension agents under the Nomadic Education
Extension Programme carried out campaign on
HIV/AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) along
with immunization and vaccination against polio. These
activities of nomadic extension agents which was meant
to improve on the health, productivity, feeding and
general welfare of the nomads were not assessed. While
there are paucity of literatures on impact of extension
programme on sedentary populace, little or no much work
done on the impact of Nomadic Education Extension
Programme on nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria;
hence the need for the study. The study was designed to
assess if the activities of the nomadic extension agents of
the National Commission for Nomadic Education had
impacted on assets of nomads, health, social obligation,
and feeding rate over its period of existence (1997-2011).
A well structured questionnaire which was pre-tested for
validity and reliability using test-retest method were
administered to the respondents. The validity and
reliability test of the items on the questionnaire were
carried out in nomadic community in Digil Mubi North
Local Government Area of Adamawa State.
The result of the pre-test showed that the coefficient of
reliability test was high (r=0.84) meaning that the items
on the questionnaire were valid and reliable to measure
the variables.
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
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.
003
Table 1. Distribution of Respondents Based on Socio-Economic Characteristics. (n=360)
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011
variance are assumed (Analytical software (2008). Also
the unequal variance was used because n>30.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents
In impact assessment that requires the use of
comparison group, the socio-economic characteristics of
the two groups are important in the sense that both
treatment and comparison group must have the same
characteristics. The socio-economic characteristics
considered for this study include age, sex, marital status,
educational qualification, number of wives, household
size and years of farming experience.
Age: the analysis of the age distribution showed that
approximately 58% of the respondents were younger
than the average age (47 years) in the participating
communities. On the other hand, 56% were below the
average age (45 years) in the non participating
communities. By implication, the study area had large
number of young farmers who have the potentials of
accepting new innovations.
Young people according to Bzugu, et al.(2005),have
higher aspiration to accept new innovation compared to
older farmers who are skeptical and critical of
innovations.
Sex: On sex, table 1 revealed that in both participating
and non-participating communities that there were high
(94.4% and 90.6%) of male respondents respectively.
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
004
The probable reason for more male respondents was that
household heads respond on behalf of their wives except
in situation where household were headed by the female
or a widow. The result of the study coincidently showed
that all the female included in the study were widows.
The implication of sex on the study was that male has
more privilege to come in contact with nomadic extension
agents than female. It was also observed that all the
nomadic extension agents of the NCNE that were posted
to Adamawa State nomadic communities were male. This
observation was in line with that of Matata et al. (2008) as
quoted by Idrisa (2009), who noted that the bias against
women was manifested in the delivery of extension
message itself. Extension messages were generally
provided by male extension agents with implicit
assumption that such message will trickle down to the
women.
Marital Status: Classification of the nomads by marital
status as presented in Table 1 showed that overwhelming
majority (85.6% and 82.8%) were married in participating
and non participating communities’ respectively. The
implication of this revelation is that married people have
more family responsibilities as a result they could easily
accept and use any innovation or programme that will
boost their production hence resulting in more income to
carter for their family needs. On the other hand, female
nomads that are married have disadvantage of availing
themselves to new technologies because they only follow
the wishes of their husband.
Number of Wives: The result of the study on number of
wives revealed that nomads are mostly polygamist. Out
of the married respondents, 66.7% and 72.5% in
participating and non participating communities had more
than one wife respectively. The implication of the number
of wives to the study was that economic activities
especially sale of milk by the nomads are mostly done by
women. In addition women help out in taking care of the
livestock especially small ruminants (Goat and sheep).
This means that women or wives may influence
productivity. Therefore, marriage and number of children
resulting from such marriage form the basis of animal
ownership and division of roles in nomadic Fulbe family.
The result of the study is in line with that of Ezeomah,
(1987) who revealed that greater percentage of male
respondents among the nomads had more than one wife.
The number of wives in any given home to some extent
determines the number of children born to that home.
Household Size: Result from the study (Table 1)
indicated high number of household size in both
communities. In the participating communities most of the
respondents, (64.4%) had 5-12 members per family while
in non participating communities 57% fell within this
range. The need for labour to take care of animals and
milk needs more members in a household. This explains
why most nomads are yet to come to terms with issue of
family planning.
Education: Result of the study as shown in Table 1
revealed that 36.7% and 55.6% of the respondents in
participating and non participating communities had
never attended school respectively. The result also
indicated that while 28.3% attended adult education in
participating communities, only 22.2% did so in non
participating communities. With the coming of nomadic
schools into nomadic communities, 30% of the
respondents in participating communities indicated that
they had attended primary, junior or senior secondary
school while in Non participating; only 19.4% attended
such schools. Less than 6% of the respondents went to
tertiary institution in both communities. The analysis of
the educational level of the nomads was important for this
study because several studies indicated that the level of
educational attainment influence adoption level of
production, gathering and processing and interpreting
information relating to agricultural production (Assefa
2004 and Shiyani et al 2002). The educational level
among the nomads was generally very low.
Experiences: The nomads had many years of
experience in livestock production. As revealed in table 1,
65.5% of the respondents from participating communities
had been keeping livestock for a period of 11-40 years
while in non participating 74.4% rear livestock for such a
long period of time. This means that in both communities
we have people of experience in livestock raring. The
result from the socio-economic characteristics revealed
that both the treatment group and comparison had the
same characteristics. Therefore, the control group or
comparison group sampled for the study can represent a
good counterfactual.
Impact of Nomadic Education Extension Programme
on Welfare of Nomads
It is expected that the ultimate benefits of any innovation
or intervention is the improvement on welfare of
beneficiaries. The obvious way of knowing the impact of
an intervention is through ownership of assets, change in
nutrition, social participation in community activities and
help to friends and relatives during festivals.
Apart from livestock which serves as the major assets of
the nomads, they also owned items such as radio,
motorcycle, bicycles, mattresses and chairs. From the
study as shown in Table 2, it was observed that there
was positive impact of the intervention on purchase of
household items. The difference in mean ownership of
items in the two communities were positive. This means
that nomads in participating communities had more
household assets than in non participating communities.
The obvious reason for such difference could be
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.
005
Table 2. Mean Ownership of number of Items owned by respondents
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
Table 3. Test of Mean of Ownership of Assets
95% CI for Difference
ASSETS
OWNED
MEAN
PARTICIPATING
MEAN
NON
PARTICIPATING
DIFFERENCE
DF
T
P
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 4. Distribution of Respondents Based on Main Source of Health Facilities
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011
attributed to the vigorous activities of the agents in the
communities that benefited from the programme.
Test of Mean of Ownership of Assets
The result of the two samples t-test as shown in Table 3
indicated that, there was statistical significant difference
in the means of the assets of those that participated in
nomadic extension programme and those that did not. All
the p values as indicated in the table were all less than P
critical value of 0.05, also all T cal were greater than the
T critical of 1.96.
By implication, the null hypotheses that there was no
significant difference in assets of nomads in the two
communities were rejected. Therefore, the activities of
the extension agent of NCNE have brought about
increase in assets of nomadic communities. Nomads that
received the intervention had more motorcycle,
mattresses, chairs, radio and bicycles.
Household Main Source of Health Facilities
The type of health facility that a household can access is
determined by availability of funds by the
individual
.Richer households tends to take their sick ones to
expensive private hospitals or clinics for treatment. The
result of the study shown in Table 4 indicated that
nomads who availed themselves to NEEP afforded taking
their wards to expensive private hospitals or clinics for
treatment. While 22.22% afforded such hospitals in
participating communities, only 9.44% did so in
communities without the programme. The result revealed
that less number (11.11%) still patronize traditional
healers/native doctors in participating communities as
against 12.78% in non-participating. The attitudinal
change of beneficiaries to better health facilities may be
as a result of nomadic extension activities. The
educational campaign on health and reproductive health
in nomadic communities by nomadic extension agents
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Yusuf et al.
006
Table 5. Distribution of Respondents Based on Expenditure on Social Obligations in Naira
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
Difference Percentage (%)
Difference
17,790
46,500
8,300
610,100
484,400
1,167,090
0.49%
2.1%
17.4%
15.38%
14.95%
8.93%
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 6. Mean Expenditure on Social obligations in Naira
Social Obligation
Participating
Non-Participating
Mean Expenditure
Mean Expenditure
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
Source: Field Survey, 2011
has direct bearing with the change in attitude of the
nomads.
Meeting Social Obligations
The study considered the extent to which household were
able to meet social obligations such as health, marriages,
burial, dressing and religious festivals, such as Sallah
(Muslim Celebration). The result on Table 5 revealed that
there exists differences in the two communities. Those
that participated in nomadic education extension
programme spent more (8.97%) than those that did not.
Since it is a known fact that income determines
expenditure, this means that there was higher income in
household that participated in nomadic education
extension programme. Nomads in communities that
benefited from the intervention were able to meet social
obligations more than in communities that did not
participate. The result infers therefore that the objectives
of lifting the welfare of the nomads by the agents were
vigorously pursued.
Impact of Nomadic Education Extension Programme
on Social Obligations
The difference in mean expenditure of participant and
non-participants in nomadic extension programme gives
the impact of the programme. The analyses of the
intervention on social obligation are presented in table 6.
The result indicated that mean expenditure on social
obligation was N39, 536.1 in participating communities as
against N 33,052.28 in non participating communities.
The difference in mean of N 6,483.83 gives the impact of
the programme on social obligations. This means that
participating nomads spent more money on marriages,
health, burial, dressing and festivals than in communities
otherwise. The activities of the nomadic extension agents
improved income of the nomads which in turn improved
welfare.
Test of Mean on Social Obligations of Participating
and Non-Participating Nomads
The result from the two sample t-test of social obligations
revealed that there were statistical significant difference
in the mean of festivities and dressing (Table 7) T cal> T
critical and P-value of festivities and dressing were less
than the P critical which means that the null hypothesis
was rejected and alternate accepted that there were
mean difference on amount spent on festivities and
dressing in the two communities (participating and nonparticipating). Nomads in Participating communities spent
more on festivities such as Sallah (Muslim celebration)
and other nomadic celebrations than in communities that
did not participate in nomadic education extension
programme. Also the nomads that received the
intervention spent more on their dressing and that of their
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria
Int. J. Agric. Educ. Ext.
007
Table 7. Test of Mean of Social Obligations of Participating and non-Participating Nomads
SOCIAL
MEAN
MEAN
OBLIGATION PARTICIPATING NON PARTI
Health
10,039
9915.5
Marriage
6275
6019.4
Burials
155, 56
109.44
Dressing
12717
9327.2
Festivities
10,292
7736.7
DIFFERENCE
123.39
255
46.111
3389.4
2555
DF
T
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
95% CI for Difference
LOWER
UPPER
-3220.1
-1680.3
-11.118
1413.0
29.299
3466.9
2191.4
103.34
5365.9
5050.7
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 8. Livestock Slaughtered during Festivities
Animals
Slaughtered
Participating
Non-Participating
Difference
Difference %
256
186
80
17.70
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Table 9. Feeding Rate
Feeding Rate
Once
Twice
Thrice
Participation
25 (13.89%)
155 (86.11%)
Non-Participation
20 (11.11%)
57 (31.67%)
103 (57.11%)
Source: Filed Survey, 2011
families than in communities without the intervention.
This result therefore means there was impact of the
programme on festivities and dressing of the nomads. On
the other hand, though there were positive mean
difference on health, marriage, and burials, they were not
statistically significant hence the null hypothesis was
accepted that there was no impact of NEEP on health,
marriage and burials
Animals Slaughtered during Festivities
The result in table 8 indicated the number of animals
slaughtered during festivities in the two types of
communities (participating and non participating). The
result showed that more animals were slaughtered by the
nomads that enjoyed the intervention than in those
without. There was a difference of 17.70% between the
two communities on animals slaughtered during festivals.
The more animals slaughtered the more indication that
there is improvement on the welfare. The activities of
nomadic extension agents which increase livestock
production and income may be the driving force in the
improved community’s welfare.
Feeding Rate of Nomads
Another indicator of improved welfare is the feeding rate
of an individual. Improvement on the number of meals
taken per day signifies improvement on welfare. The
result of the study revealed marked difference in number
of meals taken by participating and non participating
nomads per day. While 86.4% of those in the
participating communities indicated that they fed thrice a
day only 57.22% in non participating could afford three
square meals. 11.11% in non participating were still
feeding once while none in participating communities.
The increase in feeding rate was a clear sign of
improvement on welfare. This improvement could be
attributed to the activities of the nomadic change agents,
over the 14 years the programme has been in existence
in the nomadic communities.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded
that nomadic education extension programme
coordinated by the National Commission for Nomadic
Education (NCNE) had positive and significant impact on
the welfare of the nomads. By participating in the
programme, the nomads became more aware of their
social responsibilities and therefore acquired several
assets and were able to meet social obligations in their
communities. The programme had impact on the
beneficiaries by improving their feeding and nutrition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings of the study, recommendations were
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.
and health. Center for Research and Documentation,
Kano. Gender, population and development in Africa.
Statistical Package for social Sciences (1994). SPSS
base 6.1 for Windows Users Guide. SPSS Inc.
Chicago, IL.
Shiyani RL, Joshi PK, Asokan M, Bantilan MCS. (2002).
Adoption of improved Chikpea Varieties: KRIBHCO
Experience in Tribal region of Gujarat. India Agricultural
Economics 27(1):33-39
Accepted 20 March, 2015
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
User’smanualanalytical
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.
SA’AD MA (2001). marriage, sexuality and reproduction
amongst Fulbe nomads in Southern Borno, North
Eastern Nigeria: Implications for Fulbe women’s right
Citation: Yusuf HW, Love J, Peter MB (2015). Impact
Assessment
of
Nomadic
Education
Extension
Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State
Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 1(1): 002-008.
Copyright: © 2015 Yusuf et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.
Impact Assessment of Nomadic Education Extension Programme on Welfare of Nomads in Adamawa State Nigeria