World Vision South Sudan

POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM) REPORT, TONJ EAST, GREATER BAHR EL GHAZAL ZONE NON FOOD ITEMS RESPONSE FOR VULNERABLE POPULATION AFFECTED BY CONFL...
Author: Lionel Reed
5 downloads 4 Views 892KB Size
POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM) REPORT, TONJ EAST, GREATER BAHR EL GHAZAL ZONE

NON FOOD ITEMS RESPONSE FOR VULNERABLE POPULATION AFFECTED BY CONFLICT IN SOUTH SUDAN Project Number: 204395 Project Period: August 1, 2015- February 29, 2016 PREPARED BY: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (PDQA) DEPARTMENT

World Vision South Sudan March, 2016

1

Table of Contents List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 3 I) Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 4 II) Affirmation .................................................................................................................... 4 III) Acronyms..................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Objectives ......................................................... 6 1.3 Scope of the PDM ............................................................................................................ 7 2. PDM Approach and Methodology ..................................................................................... 7 3. Findings.............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Beneficiary Details .................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Displacement Details ................................................................................................. 10 3.3 NFI Details ................................................................................................................. 11 3.4 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 14 3.5 Appropriateness ......................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Coverage .................................................................................................................... 16 5.

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 17 5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 17 5.2

6.

Recommendations ................................................................................................. 17

Appendices................................................................................................................... 18

2

List of Tables

Table 1: Sample Size per Location/County ........................................................................... 8 Table 2: #/ Percentage of households displaced from home and any other location in South Sudan this year ..................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3: Households Current Shelter Situation ................................................................... 10 Table 4: Number of respondents, received NFI Items before .............................................. 11 Table 5: Households response whether the NFI Items received are enough or not ............ 12

List of Figures

Figure 1: Household Size at Registration and at PDM .......................................................... 9 Figure 2: Number of Male and Female Headed Households ................................................. 9 Figure 3: Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons ............................................... 10 Figure 4: Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage) ............................................. 11 Figure 5: Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not ........... 12 Figure 6: Households response on the quality of NFI kits received ................................... 13 Figure 7: Households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits received on December 2015. . 13 Figure 8: Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs ........................................................... 14 Figure 9: Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution ...... 16 Figure 10: Households’ responses whether the items received meet their needs or not...... 17

3

I)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all that participated and supported for the finalization of this Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) report for CHF Non Food Items/NFI/ Response for Vulnerable Population Affected by Conflict in South Sudan NFI project- Round II We would also like to thank God for giving us life, health, and strength to undertake this process as well as many other project activities that will contribute to the successful undertaking of the Post Distribution Monitoring(PDM) in Tonj East County in Greater Bahr el Ghazal Zone Our special thanks goes to CHF NFI project staff for their distinctive support and active participation throughout the PDM study in Tonj East County, Warrap state II) Affirmation Except as acknowledged by the references in this paper to other authors and publications, the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) report described herein consists of our own work, undertaken to improve the quality of World Vision’s Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Learning System. Primary quantitative and qualitative data collected throughout the PDM process remains the property of the communities and families described in this document. Information and data must be used only with their consent. Consequently, the information and data generated by this PDM should only be used with their permission and consent. Prepared By: PDQA Department Juba, South Sudan 29th March 2016

4

III)

Acronyms

CHF: Common Humanitarian Fund ES: Emergency Shelter FGD: Focus Group Discussion IDP: Internally Displaced People KII: Key Informant Interview NFI: Non-Food Items ODK: Open Data Kit OECD-DAC: Organization for Economic Co-Operation Development – Development Assistance Committee PDQA: Program Development and Quality Assurance PDM: Post Distribution Monitoring QA:

Quality Assurance

TOR: Terms of Reference WVSS: World Vision South Sudan WV:

World Vision

5

1.

Introduction

On December 15, 2013, violent clashes erupted in South Sudan. The violence rapidly deteriorated into a full-out conflict spreading to the eastern states of the county. The conflict adopted inter-ethnic violence, with forces from different tribes engaged in the violence along traditional conflict lines. The conflict in South Sudan has displaced over 2.3 million South Sudanese, out of which, more than 600,000 took refuge in neighboring countries1. People from the Greater Upper Nile (GUN) region (Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile States) have been most severely affected. As a result, as of September 2015, 3.9 million people (3.1 million in Crisis and 800,000 in Emergency) or 34% of the population are considered as severely food and nutrition insecure and are unable to meet their food needs in September2. The Shelter and Non-Food Items Cluster, which was launched in South Sudan in 2011, acts as a coordinating mechanism of partner organizations working to provide life-saving households items and shelter materials to conflict and disaster affected people in South Sudan. The Cluster is led by IOM at the national level with the support of World Vision as Co-Lead. There are 16 partners in the 2016 Cluster Response Plan, many of whom have the capacity to respond rapidly with mobile teams to needs across the country, and others with static presence in strategic locations that are often inaccessible. Thus far in 2015, Cluster partners have served 138,629 households with NFI and 34,928 households with shelter materials. These achievements represent 96% and 115% of the respective targets in the revised Cluster Response Plan for 20153. The CHF NFI project/round II/ has provided support for the IDPs and host population in vulnerable situations as affected by the crisis in South Sudan through the provision of lifesaving Non Food Items (NFIs). The project targeted 44,035 vulnerable individuals (8,861 households), comprising of 11,007 men, 15,412 women and 17,616 children affected by the conflict. The majority of the IDPs (34,054 individuals) and host population are in the Greater Upper Nile Region and Jonglei, which were severely affected by the crisis that started in mid-December 2013. This document highlights the PDM report of Non Food Items Response for vulnerable population affected by conflict in South Sudan project, conducted in Tonj East County in Warrap State. World Vision South Sudan, Quality Assurance team has led and coordinated this internal PDM survey conducted in Tonj East, Warrap State, with the support of CHF NFI team in the field. 1.2 Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Objectives Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) is the process of evaluating the non-food items/NFI/ after it has finished, improving interventions in the future. And, the main purpose of 1

OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin November 6, 2015 OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin November 6, 2015; IPC, Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, South Sudan, August-September 2015 3 Shelter NFI Cluster Snapshot, 2015 2

6

carrying out Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) is to determine among other issues, the level of satisfaction and usage of NFIs distributed. This will be to compliment the Onsite Distribution Monitoring (OSDM) exercise. The main objective of this PDM was to review the CHF NFI project/round II/ distributions according to the three parameters of the OECD-DAC4 criteria, mentioned below: 1. Effectiveness (to what extent did the activity achieve its purpose? Was the distribution carried out in the timely manner? 2. Appropriateness (was the distribution tailored to local needs?) 3. Coverage (Did the distribution reach major population groups facing lifethreatening suffering wherever they are?) 1.3 Scope of the PDM The CHF NFI project has been implemented in Upper Nile, Jongeli and Warrap states since August 1, 2015 and the project was ended on February 29, 2016. However, this PDM exercise focused only in Tonj East County in Warrap state, based on the NFI distribution conducted on December 2015. 2. PDM Approach and Methodology The implementation of PDM review was achieved by using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools including HH questionnaire, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), observations and review of secondary information. 2.1 Desk Review The desk review gathered all key documentation relating to the project intervention. Key NFI documents (project proposal, ES & NFI distribution reports, ITT, etc.) were reviewed to derive understanding of the response, as well as to measure the achievements against the project objectives.

2.2 Sampling Methodology for Quantitative data collection method/Household Questionnaire/ The DME/QA team used the WVSS and South Sudan NFI Cluster guidelines for PDMs and questionnaires to collect data at the household level. A 2-stage cluster sampling methodology was used in selecting respondents/households/ in Tonj East County in Warrap state. The first level determined the locations in which the survey has taken place and the second identified the households to be interviewed. Raosoft( http:// www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html ) was used to calculate the sample size. The sample size, which was calculated, considering a margin of error 5%, ( 95% confidence level), a population size of 503 HH, which represent the total estimate number of households for Tonj East county in Warrap state and 50% for response distribution, was 219 HHs. An additional 20% of the households were also included to allow for an increased level of precision by accounting for false respondents or spoiled questionnaires therefore increasing the number to 263 households. 4

OECD-DAC: Organization for Economic Co-Operation Development- Development Assistance Committee 7

The following table shows sample size in Tonj East County, Warrap Table 1: Sample Size per Location/County Beneficiaries/HHS

Sample size of HHs Remark proportional to share of distribution

Location State

County

HHS

% of HHs distribution

total

Warrap

Tonj East

503

100%

263

Total

503

100%

263

The HH questionnaire was programmed to ODK to collect data using smart phones and tablets. Prior to quantitative data collection, the QA/DME team trained enumerators for one day on how to conduct the data collection using smart phones and tables, interviewing skills, data and collection tools. The questionnaires were also pre-tested prior to data collection. Data collection conducted in three payams, namely Ngapkok, Paweng and Paliang from February 25-29, 2016. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. 2.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) The purpose of the focus group discussions was to collect qualitative data that helped to answer the particular questions set by the PDM in are areas of appropriateness, effectiveness and coverage. They were also intended to triangulate data gained from other sources. Target groups for FGDs were beneficiary men, women and children in Tonj East County. Each FGD was composed of 6-12 people. The total numbers of FGDs, conducted in Tonj East County were 6 (3 women groups and 3 men groups). And all FGD groups were selected purposefully in collaboration with CHF NFI project team in the field 2.4 Key Informant Interview (KII) Key informant interviews were intended to gather important information about the intervention throughout the project cycle to address the questions the PDM seeks to answer. The following key informants were selected and interviewed during the PDM survey in Tonj East: RRC Head, Executive Director, representing County Commissioner, Payam Administrator, Deputy Payam Administrator, Head Chief, and Chief Representative of the elders. .

8

3. Findings The main findings of the PDM study are presented below in six sections: beneficiary details, displacement details, NFI details, effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage 3.1 Beneficiary Details 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0

%age

25.0

HH Size at the time of registration

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 .0

HH size at PDM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

HH Size Figure 1: Household Size at Registration and at PDM

The mean of the household size at the time of registration is the same as at PDM i.e 7.6. This shows there is no major difference between the number of household size at the time of registration and at PDM.

200

165

150 100

71

Male

Among the total respondents, 70%/165/ were female household heads while the remaining 30%/71/ were male headed households.

Female

50 0

# of HH head

Figure 2: Number of Male and Female Headed Households

9

Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons 300 250 61 200

44

133

160 150

Yes

254 200

206

Persons with Disabilities

Peresons with Chronic Illness

100 50

No

128

101

0 Pregnant/lactating women

7 Children under 5

Adults over 60

Figure 3: Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons

As the above graph shows, children under 5 are the highest number in the households followed by pregnant/lactating women and adults over 60, while persons with disabilities and persons with chronic illness are the fewest number of vulnerable persons in the households. 3.2 Displacement Details Table 2: #/ Percentage of households displaced from home and any other location in South Sudan this year Yes/No

Households displaced from home

Households displaced from other country in south Sudan

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No

162

61.6

197

74.9

Yes

99

37.6

64

24.3

Table 3: Households Current Shelter Situation Shelter situation In a host compound and sleeping in host shelter In a host compound, but have my own shelter In my own compound, in my own shelter

Frequency

Percent

55

20.9

20

7.6

185

70.3

10

Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage)

In a host compound and sleeping in host shelter

20.9

In a host compound, but have my own shelter

7.6 70.3

In my own compound, in my own shelter

70.3% of households responded that they are living in their own compound in their own shelter, while 20.9% of households are living in a host compound and sleeping in host shelter. Only 7.6% of households are living in a host compound, but have their own shelter.

Figure 4: Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage)

Asked about, whether they are planning to stay in the current town/village, they are living in or not, 98.5% of respondents answered yes and they do not want to leave their town/village. 3.3 NFI Details Table 4: Number of respondents, received NFI Items before # of NFI Kits 0 1 2 and more

Plastic Sheets Frequency 50 209

-

Percent 19.0 79.5

-

Mosquito Nets Frequency 50 209

Blankets

Percent 19.0 79.5

-

Frequency 51 209

-

-

Percent 19.4 79.5

Half Kitchen Set Frequency 48 96

Percent 18.3 36.5

115

43.7

Soaps Frequen Perce cy nt 259 98.5

-

-

-

-

-

Table 2: Number of respondents received NFI items in December 2015 Distribution # of NFI Kits 0 1 2 and more

Plastic sheets

Mosquito Nets

Blankets

Frequency 6 255

Percent Frequency 2.3 5 97.0 253

Percent Frequency 1.9 1 96.2 258

-

-

-

-

1

Half Kitchen Set

Percent Frequency .4 2 98.1 106 151 4

Percent .8 40.3 57.4

Soaps Frequen cy Percent 259 98.5 1 .4 -

11

-

It was also found that the numbers of NFI items received on December 2015 are still available, which indicated that that there were no any NFI items, which were sold, damaged, lost or stolen Table 5: Households response whether the NFI Items received are enough or not Plastic sheets

Mosquito Net

Blankets

Half-kitchen set

soaps

Yes/No

No Yes Do not Know

Frequen cy 257 3 1

Percent Frequency 97.7 256 1.1 4 .4 1

Percent Frequency 97.3 253 1.5 7 .4 1

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 96.2 250 95.1 24 9.1 2.7 10 3.8 2 .8 .4 1 .4 138 52.5

As the table and the below graphs show that almost all respondents explained that the NFI kits received during December 2015 distribution was no not enough Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not 300 250

1

1

1

257

256

253

1

200 150 100

250

50

Do not Know 138

Yes

0

No

24

Figure 5: Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not

Table 5: Households response on the quality of the NFIs received

Yes/ No No Yes Do not Kno w

Plastic sheets

Frequency 102 156 3

Mosquito Net

Percent Frequency 38.8 54 59.3 202 1.1 4

Blankets

Percent Frequency 20.5 40 76.8 220 1.5 1

Half-kitchen set

soaps

Percent Frequency Percent 15.2 47 17.9 83.7 212 80.6 .4 2 .8

12

Frequen cy 24 2 138

Percent 9.1 .8 52.5

Households response on the quality of NFI kits received 250

220

202

200

212

156

150

102

138

100 50

54 3

0

40 4

No

47 1

2

24

Yes 2

Do not Know

Figure 6: Households response on the quality of NFI kits received As table 6 and figure 6 shows, most of the respondents mentioned that the quality of the NFI kits is good. However, 38.8%, 20.5%, 15.2%, 17.9% and 9.1% of respondents mentioned that the quality of plastic sheets, mosquito nets, blankets, half kitchen sets and soaps are not good respectively. Here are some of the reasons for poor quality: the items are not original, not durable or staying longer, the size is small. The following graph shows on the households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits received on December 2015 90.0

83.3

80.6

83.3

84.0

80.0 70.0 60.0

Intended Purpose 50.0

Stored

40.0

All are not present

30.0

Some are not Present

20.0

Others

15.6 9.9

10.0

4.2

1.1

1.5

1.1

.0

Plastic sheets

Mosquito Net

Blankets

Half-Kitchen set

Soaps

Figure 7: Households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits received on December 2015.

The majority of the respondents explained that they are using the NFI items for the intended purpose.

13

3.4 Effectiveness As most of the respondents witnessed that they received NFI on December 2015 and distribution was conducted at the end of December 2015. People were also requesting World Vision to provide more NFIs again. The Key informants also told that beneficiaries received the items after two months after the crisis. They also responded that education was given to beneficiaries on how to use the items distributed. But, it was not exhaustive and more education is needed for beneficiaries on the use of those non-food items. The beneficiaries also explained that they heard the registration from the government representatives and World Vison South Sudan staff. Asked about whether needs assessment has been done or not, they responded that the government representatives had come to their areas in order to assess the needs of those households, who were affected by the crisis. As most of the households’ responded, humanitarian organization, chiefs, community leaders, church and SSRRC are the main sources of information about the registration/distribution of NFIs. Most of the FGDs also responded that they heard distribution details from the chiefs and the RRC. The information was given 2 days in advance. However, as some of the households told, two days in advance were not enough to inform the beneficiaries about the distribution and beneficiaries should be informed early. The information flow for distribution was as follows: World Vison informed RRC about the distribution, RRC informed Payam administrators and Payam administrators to community leaders. Finally, community leaders informed households. Therefore, the targeting beneficiaries were informed about the distribution through the RRC to community leaders then to the community members. As the pie-chart graph Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs shows, 42.6% of households have to wait on the queue for 2-6 hours to receive Less than 2 hours non-food items, followed by 6.5 28.9% of households wait 21.3 2-6 hours on the queue for 7 hours-1 28.9 day. 21.2% of the 7 hours-1 day households wait in the queue for less than 2 hours. 42.6 Overnight-came back Desperately, 6.5% of the next day households wait in the queue overnight- came back the next day. Figure 8: Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs

14

Some of the FGD respondents also mentioned that they spent 2 hours on queue during distribution, while some others told, they were queuing 2-6 hours to receive NFI items. The distribution took 2 days and beneficiaries received the NFIs after 2-6 hours. There was no any problem during the distribution time and the distribution was done properly, timely and peacefully. There was beneficiaries’ distribution lists used during the distribution and the distribution did not cause any problems. In general, the distribution was organized peacefully and there is no any problem with the community. There is no any angry or upset on the community about the distribution. Plastic sheets, blankets, half kitchen set, mosquito nets, mat and jerricans are some of the non-food items most of the households received. And, all materials are very useful and helped the people in the critical time. Especially, the mosquito nets prevented them from mosquitoes bite. 3.5 Appropriateness Asked about whether the items you received durable, of good quality and useful, they mentioned that some of the items like blankets and kitchen sets are durable, while others like mosquito nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats are not durable. The quality of the materials is good and the beneficiaries are happy with the items. But, they are not enough. The non-food items did not meet their needs because they are not enough since it was given only once per household. It was also mentioned that, the non-food items were ok, but there should be food distribution before the non-food items. Some of the respondent also mentioned that they have not received soaps yet and soaps should have been part of the non-food items. Half kitchen sets, blankets and mosquito nets are not damaged and they are using these items currently. Asked about what you would have done if you did not receive NFI or shelter material in the distribution, most of the respondents mentioned that there is no anywhere to find the nonfood items or materials when they were not distributed.

15

Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution but, that they did not receive ( Percentage)

.4 No 47.9

51.0

Yes Do not know

Figure 9: Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution

As the above graph shows, 47.9% of households responded that there are non-food items that they urgently needed at the time of distribution, but that they did not receive, while 51% said they are not any non-food items urgently needed at the time of distribution, but that they did not receive. Soaps, cloths, big sleeping mats and tents are some of the most urgently needed, but not received non-food items by the households 3.6 Coverage Asked about the targeting criterion to determine the beneficiaries, most of the key informants responded that those households, whose houses were burnt during the crisis, were the first priorities for the non-food items distribution. Burnt families considered first before other considerations. And, all were informed about these criteria. There was also evidence of the burnt down houses and SRRC has seen the families, whose houses were burnt. So, items were given to those people whose houses were burnt. Selection was strictly for those households whose houses are burnt down. Therefore, families, with burnt houses were targeted for the non-food items. This is because they cannot do anything without those items. The criteria were decided by WVI, UNOCHA, SSRRC, IOM, NRC and UNICEF. However, community leaders and RRC should be the ones doing the decision making. NGOs, Commissioner, RRC and Payam administrators are decision makers for setting criteria. All beneficiaries were informed about the targeting criteria and nothing was paid for registration. The criterion was explained to the communities. The non-beneficiaries were told about the criteria, but they are still complaining. Looted houses were told that they cannot receive the NFI. The one whose houses were burnt got but the stolen /looted houses/families missed out. Some people missed out because the non-food items were not enough. So, due to less non-food items, some of the registered people did not receive it. As the KII confirmed, the distribution reached to the right people since the distribution targeted those families, whose houses were burnt. And, they were verified and registered. The communities also witnessed the distribution reached to the right people. Host communities did not receive NFIs. There was no assessment for them. . 16

Households response whether the items received meet thier needs or not/Percentage/

1 37.3

No Yes

61.6

Do not Know

Figure 10: Households’ responses whether the items received meet their needs or not

More than half of the respondents (61.6%) told that the non-food items received at the time of distribution meet their needs, while 37.3% of households responded that the non-food items received at the time of distribution do not meet their needs Agricultural tools, seeds, schools, health facilities and water points are some of the needs of the displaced people in addition to non-food items. Many people did not receive the items because the NFI were not enough. Some of the people did not get items during the distribution. The one whose houses were burnt got NFIs but the stolen /looted houses/families missed out. 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions The main objective of this PDM was to review the CHF NFI project/round II/ distributions in Tonj East, Warrap, according to the three parameters of the OECD-DAC criteria, namely, effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage. Household questionnaire and qualitative data collections tools (Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions, observation) and review of secondary data were used for this PDM. Data collection in the field was carried out through household interview, key Informant interviews, focus group discussions and observations of NFIs at household level. The findings provide useful information on the effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage of the CHF NFI project and cluster partners can consider the findings of the PDM and take the best practices and lessons learned in to account for future programming. 5.2

Recommendations

The following points are recommended based on the major findings of the PDM conducted in Tonj East County:

17

Effectiveness:  The current NFIs are not enough and more items are needed to address the need of those crisis affected/displaced community groups.  Education should be given for beneficiaries on how to use the non-food items effectively and efficiently.  Distribution date should be communicated properly to all beneficiaries as earliest as possible. Beneficiaries should be informed early as two days are not enough Appropriateness:  Provide durable items to the crisis affected/displaced population for the next distribution. Mosquito-nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats are durable and the beneficiaries need long lasting non-food items.  Consider provision of food assistance for those crisis affected people as food assistance is the first priority and non- food items comes later.  Improve on the size of the sleeping mats  Consider the family sizes of the household for distribution of NFIs  Community leaders should be participated in the assessment and NGOs should not do the assessment alone without guidance from the community leaders. Involve community leaders in the assessment. Non- durables are mosquito nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats and are not in good quality. Recommendations on Coverage  Provide more non-food items to crisis affected communities. Bring more NFI so that looted families can also get the items.  Youths should not do registration and verification.  Bring the non-food items for the people who missed in the distribution.  Community leaders and RRC should be the ones doing the decision making.  Devise an integrated project in the area to fulfill the demand of communities on food, agricultural tools, seeds and water 6. Appendices Here are attached the data collection tools (HH questionnaire, FGDs and KIIs) for PDM

Focus Group Key Informant Discussion Questions_CHF Interview NFI_24Jan16.docx Questions_CHF NFI_24Jan16.docx

18