Sajhedari Bikaas Project Partnership for Local Development
Assessing Local Governance in Earthquake Recovery Districts of Nepal Baseline Assessment September 2016
Page |
Sajhedari Bikaas Project Partnership for Local Development
Assessing Local Governance in Earthquake Recovery Districts of Nepal: Baseline Assessment September 2016
Assessment conducted by, Nepal Development Research Institute for the Sajhedari Bikaas Project (Under Contract DUNS No.557770222)
This study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content provided is the responsibility of Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) and does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Page | 1
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 Tables ...... 4 Figures ...... 5 Abbreviations ...... 7 Acknowledgements...... 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Project Background ...... 9 1.2 Program Interventions ...... 9 1.3 Objectives ...... 10 Chapter 2: Methodology ...... 11 2.1 Area of Study ...... 11 2.2 Sampling Strategy ...... 12 2.1.1 Sample Design ...... 12 2.1.2 Sample Size Distribution:...... 12 2.3 Data Collection Technique ...... 14 2.4 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study ...... 14 2.4.1 Questionnaire Design ...... 14 2.4.2 Pilot-Study ...... 15 2.5 Training of Field Researchers and their Mobilization...... 16 2.6 Data Processing and Analysis ...... 16 2.7 Quality and Validity of Data...... 17 2.8 Limitations ...... 17 2.9 Ethical Issues ...... 17 Chapter 3: Results and Discussion ...... 18 3.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents ...... 18 3.1.1 Age ...... 18 3.1.2 Caste/ethnicity ...... 18 3.1.3 Household Head ...... 19 3.1.4 Marital Status ...... 20 3.1.5 Literacy Status ...... 21 3.1.6 Primary Occupation ...... 22 3.1.7 Current Shelter ...... 23 3.1.8 Physical Disability ...... 23 3.1.9 Awareness about Different Organizations and their Effectiveness ...... 24 3.1.10 Top Five Effective Organizations ...... 27 3.2 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) Members...... 29 3.2.1 Respondents as WCF Members ...... 29 3.2.2 WCF Members’ Involvement in VDC Planning Process ...... 30 3.3 Community Development Projects (CDPs) ...... 31 3.3.1 Awareness of CDPs ...... 31 3.3.2 Participation in CDP Activities ...... 32 3.3.3 Perception of CDP Activities and Services ...... 34 3.3.4 Types of CDPs and Cost ...... 35 3.3.5 Criteria for Selection of CDP ...... 35 3.3.6 Public Hearings ...... 36 3.4 VDC Service Delivery ...... 38 3.4.1 Types of Services Received through VDC ...... 38 3.4.2 Effectiveness of Services Delivered through VDCs ...... 38
Page | 2
3.4.3 Reason for Ineffective Services Provided by VDC ...... 39 3.4.4 Prioritization of Infrastructure or Service Improvements ...... 40 3.4.5 Level of Satisfaction with VDC Service Delivery ...... 40 3.4.6 VDC Staff Presence ...... 41 3.4.7 Perception of the Utilization of Funds in VDCs ...... 42 3.4.8 Sources Utilized for Gathering Information on the Transparency of the use of VDC Funds 43 3.5 Conflict Mediation ...... 44 3.5.1 Disputes Confronted ...... 44 3.5.2 Type of Disputes Experienced ...... 45 3.5.3 Dispute Resolving Mechanisms ...... 46 3.6 Gender Based Violence (GBV) ...... 47 3.6.1 Perception of GBV and HH decision making ...... 47 3.7 Recovery and Reconstruction ...... 49 3.7.1 Knowledge about Mobile Service Camp (MSC) ...... 49 3.7.2 Types of Services received through Mobile Service Camps ...... 49 3.7.3 Infrastructure/Services Damaged and Affected ...... 50 3.7.4 Extent of Damage of Infrastructure/Services and Their Restoration Levels ...... 51 Chapter 4: Summary of key findings...... 53 4.1 Key Findings...... 53 Demographic Features...... 53 WCF Membership and Participation in VDP ...... 53 Community Development Projects ...... 54 VDC Service Delivery ...... 54 Conflict Mediation ...... 54 Gender Based Violence ...... 55 Recovery and Reconstruction ...... 55 Annex ...... 56
Page | 3
Tables Table 1: Project indicators ...... 10 Table 2: Salient features of study districts ...... 11 Table 3: Population and sample size by caste/ethnicity and district ...... 12 Table 4: Total sample in VDC by district ...... 13 Table 5: Data collection type ...... 14 Table 6: Pre-test survey sample in Chhampi VDC ...... 16 Table 7: Age distribution of respondents in percentages ...... 18 Table 8: Percentage of respondents by caste/ethnicity ...... 19 Table 9: Percentage of respondent’s relationship to head of household ...... 19 Table 10: Percentage of educational status by respondent type ...... 21 Table 11: Percentage of educational status of respondents by caste/ethnicity ...... 21 Table 12: Percentage of occupational status by respondent type ...... 22 Table 13: Percentage of respondent’s shelter by caste/ethnicity ...... 23 Table 14: Percentage of disability by age group and respondent type ...... 24 Table 15: Percentage of respondent’s knowledge about different organizations who said yes ...... 26 Table 16: Percentage of respondent’s perception on level of effectiveness about different organizations 26 Table 17: Percentage of age distribution of WCF members ...... 29 Table 18: Percentage of WCF respondents who said yes to participation, made suggestion and voice their opinion ...... 30 Table 19: Percentage of response by caste/ethnicity ...... 30 Table 20: Respondents perception on level of agreement on CDP activities by respondent type ...... 35 Table 21: Type of CDPs stated to cost too much money in percentage ...... 35 Table 22: Percentage of responses for services accessed through VDC ...... 38 Table 23: Explanations provided for ineffective VDC service delivery ...... 39 Table 24: Percentage of level of satisfaction with VDC service delivery ...... 41 Table 25: Presence of VDC secretary and VDC staff in VDC office ...... 41 Table 26: Percentage of responses on sources used for information about VDC level public spending ...... 43 Table 27: Conflict faced by age classification ...... 44 Table 28: Type of conflict experienced by respondents in percentage ...... 45 Table 29: Percentage among conflict experienced by respondent type ...... 45 Table 30: Percentage of conflict resolving mechanism adopted by respondent ...... 46 Table 31: Summary based on Likert scale for GBV and HH decision making ...... 47 Table 32: Percentage of services damaged and respondent affected by the damage ...... 50
Page | 4
Figures Figure 1: Open Data Kit (ODK) framework for data collection ...... 15 Figure 2: Number of field researchers ...... 16 Figure 3: Percentage of respondents as household heads by age group and respondent type ...... 20 Figure 4: Percentage of respondent's marital status ...... 20 Figure 5: Percentage of respondent's primary occupational status ...... 22 Figure 6: Shelter of respondents in percentage ...... 23 Figure 7: Physical disability by respondent type...... 23 Figure 8: Percentage of respondents’ knowledge about different organizations ...... 25 Figure 9: Percentage of response for top five effective organizations ...... 27 Figure 10: Percentage of respondent’s as member of WCF ...... 29 Figure11: Percentage of respondents who have heard about CDP (a) by respondent type (b) ...... 31 Figure 12: Percentage of respondent's awareness on role of CDP and benefits from them (a) by respondent type (b) ...... 31 Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who were beneficiary of CDP (a) by respondent type (b) ...... 32 Figure 14: Percentage of respondent participation in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) ...... 32 Figure 15: Voicing opinion in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage ...... 33 Figure 16: Opinion acknowledged by meeting representative (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage 33 Figure 17: Respondents perception on level of agreement for CDP's in percentage ...... 34 Figure 18: Selection criteria for CDP (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage ...... 36 Figure 19: Public hearing event in VDC (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage ...... 36 Figure 20: Participation of respondents in public hearing (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage ...... 37 Figure 21: Level of effectiveness of the VDC service delivery in percentage ...... 39 Figure 22: Top three priority areas for improvement ...... 40 Figure 23: VDC funds spent according to priority (a) by respondent type (b) in percentages ...... 42 Figure 24: VDC fund transparency (a) by respondent type (b) ...... 43 Figure 25: Conflict faced by respondent types ...... 44 Figure 26: Awareness of mobile service camp ...... 49 Figure 27: Type of MSC received...... 49 Figure 28: Responses in percentage for the types of services received through IMSC and SMSC ...... 50 Figure 29: Type of building damaged in percentage under the others category ...... 51 Figure 30: Percentage of damage extent and levels of infrastructure restoration ...... 52
Page | 5
Annexes Annex 1: List of field researchers ...... 56 Annex 2: Value Calculation Index ...... 58 Annex 3: List of local organizations ...... 61 Annex 4: Household questionnaire ...... 62 Annex 5: Qualitative tools ...... 71 Annex 6: Workshop minutes and training agenda ...... 75 Annex 7: Work plan ...... 79 Annex 8: Data outputs ...... 81
Page | 6
Abbreviations ASC Agriculture Service Center CAC Citizen Awareness Center CBS Central Bureau of Statistics CDP Community Development Project CMC Community Mediation Center DDRC District Disaster Relief Committee DMC Disaster Management Committee FGD Focus Group Discussion GBV Gender Based Violence GPS Global Positioning System HH Household IMSC Integrated Mobile Service Camp IPFC Integrated Plan Formulation Committee KII Key Informant Interview LSC Livestock Service Center MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development MSC Mobile Service Camp ODK Open Data Kit PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment PMC Project Management Committee RAR Recovery and Reconstruction RLG Radio Listeners Group SB Sajhedari Bikaas SMSC Sectoral Mobile Service Camp SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences SSIPs Small-Scale Infrastructure Projects SSPL Syntegrate Services Pvt. Ltd. TLO Tole Lane Organization USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee VDP Village Development Planning VWASHCC Village Water Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Committee WCF Ward Citizen Forum
Page | 7
Acknowledgements This baseline study report on Assessing Local Governance in Earthquake Recovery Districts of Nepal was prepared by the Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Punya P. Regmi, and thematic experts Purushottam Ghimire – Governance; Dr. Raj Man Shrestha-Data Management; Dr. Umesh Bhattarai-Conflict Mediation; Dr. Manjeshwori Singh-Gender and Social Inclusion; Prof. Dr. Tara Nidhi Bhattarai-Disaster Risk Reduction; and Research Associates, Ms. Anita Khadka and Ms. Kriti Shrestha. NDRI is highly indebted for the contributions made by this team. The findings shed light on strengthening governance in affected districts, and assists Sajhedari Bikaas (SB), USAID and the Government of Nepal in providing evidence-based interventions. NDRI is grateful to SB for awarding this project in assessing governance mechanisms in the earthquake- affected areas. NDRI would also like to acknowledge SB for their continuous technical backstopping in designing survey tools, as well as for their coordination and facilitation during workshops, trainings, field data collection and with data analysis. NDRI highly appreciates the remarkable contribution from Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd (SSPL) for designing the Android-based tools utilized for mobile phones; their participation during workshops, training, and creative use in handling data issues; and providing us with clean datasets for further analysis. We also owe a special thanks to experts from SB and USAID for their much-appreciated understanding, advice and assistance while developing tools for the baseline assessment. This research would not have been completed without our outstanding cohort of field supervisors whose guidance during field surveys to field enumerators was highly commendable. Effective coordination from the local agencies during field work in the study districts was also praiseworthy, without whom the work would have been strenuous. The commitment from all field enumerators during data collection despite the challenging monsoon weather was also greatly appreciated. Our gratitude also goes to all the respondents for their voluntary participation, and to key informants, district and VDC officials for their participation in group discussions despite their hectic schedule. NDRI would also like to acknowledge Ms. Rupa Bhandari for her administrative role and support with logistics throughout the project. NDRI also expresses its appreciation to all its staff who directly or indirectly contributed to the project.
Dr. Jaya K. Gurung Executive Director
Page | 8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background Sajhedari Bikaas (SB), a USAID-funded project aims to empower communities to direct their own development through strategic interventions. These include: a) Improving the enabling environment by addressing the causes of conflict, and providing a more effective short-term resolution mechanism; b) Strengthening inclusion and participation of communities and marginalized groups in the local planning process; c) Supporting the economic empowerment of marginalized groups; and, d) Strengthening more accountable and transparent local government. SB intends to reinforce the relationship between local government bodies which include VDCs and Municipalities, and citizens who benefit from their services, while simultaneously working to maintain transparency, accountability and responsiveness at the local level. SB has been operational in six mid-west and far-west districts of Nepal since 2012, and its interventions are carried out through local civil society organizations and government collectively, with technical and financial support provided by SB staff/USAID. After the destructive earthquakes in April and May 2015, the most affected districts (14 in total) received immediate relief in the form of food and nonfood items, but not in the amounts needed to meet local requirements. Moreover, the prolonged delay with recovery and reconstruction activities as managed by the Government of Nepal demonstrates weaknesses with government structures to effectively manage medium and large-scale disasters. Realizing the need to augment the capacities of local government in a number of areas, USAID requested SB to extend its support to six of the highly affected districts which include: Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Lamjung, Makwanpur and Ramecchap. Through this baseline survey, SB is looking to assess local governance and governance-led recovery processes in these districts. The baseline information established in this study will provide a benchmark for designing and implementing evidence-based interventions for future planning, operational and capacity development support. SB’s micro-grant program in particular is expected to be a major incentive for introducing community-led development and reconstruction activities which will be implemented through local bodies. 1.2 Program Interventions The recommendations from the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) and the outputs generated from this baseline survey will support SB’s interventions in 106 VDCs and one municipality in the six earthquake- affected districts. Communities in these districts will be placed at the center of the recovery/reconstruction effort to ensure local ownership and sustainability of their projects, in line with SB’s governance and community-led approach. Planned interventions for these districts/municipality include: Facilitate the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development’s (MoFALD) Post-Disaster Planning Process Enhance the working capacity of District Disaster Relief Committees (DDRC)
Page | 9
Rapidly roll-out locally-managed, small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) and other community initiatives Coordinate Integrated/Sectoral Mobile Service Camps (I/SMSC) Reinforce and institutionalize citizen oversight, social accountability, and public reporting processes Support mitigation of grievances and disputes
1.3 Objectives The overall purpose of this study is to establish baseline information on local governance and recovery status in the study districts based on 13 indicators devised for the project (Table 1). Seven indicators related to local governance have been extracted from SB’s original districts. Six custom indicators specific to recovery and reconstruction were also developed, as shown in Table 1. These indicators were designed to assess the existing governance situation in the six earthquake-affected districts, and to understand the government-led recovery process in the area. The specific objectives of this study are as follows: To understand the responsiveness of government to citizens’ needs To understand the satisfaction level of citizens with the service delivered by the VDCs To enumerate the recovery efforts in the six districts. Table 1: Project indicators
Governance Indicators from SB Proportion of households that have experienced conflicts in the past year that have used A.1.01 peaceful means to solve the conflict Proportion of Ward Citizen Forum members who indicate that they can provide meaningful B.2.03 input to the village development plans Proportion of citizens who feel that the administration of funds in the VDC is transparent C.1.01 Proportion of citizens who indicate that they actively participate in the decisions around C.2.01 VDC community development projects Percentage change in positive citizen views on VDC service delivery D.1.01 Percentage change in positive citizen views on the effective implementation of community D.2.03 development projects New Indicators for the Six Recovery Districts Percentage of target population that views GBV as less acceptable after participation in, E.1.03 or being exposed to USG programming. % of population that has accessed government services outside of the district headquarters F.1.01 in the last six months through integrated mobile service campaign. % of population affected by loss of health center services as result of disasters, or other F.1.02 crises have been restored their services % of population whose access to water and sanitation services was impacted by the F.1.03 earthquake, and has not been restored % HHs whose access to irrigation facilities was impacted by the earthquake, and has not F.1.04 been restored % of HHs whose access (trail/road) was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been F.1.05 restored Official's perspective on effective implementation of community development projects; of F.1.06 relief and recovery activities.
Page | 10
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates on how the baseline survey was organized, designed and conducted. It also presents details on the selection of the study areas and survey approaches such as estimating sample size, its distribution, tools developed, field data collection, data processing approaches, data quality assurance, limitations, and ethical considerations. 2.1 Area of Study The study was carried out in the six earthquake-affected districts of Gorkha, Lamjung, Dhading, Makwanpur, Dolakha and Ramechhap. 106 VDC’s and one municipality were surveyed and 9,189 respondents interviewed. The salient features of the study area are shown in Table 2 and Map 1. Table 2: Salient features of study districts
Districts Gorkha Lamjung Dhading Makwanpur Dolakha Ramechhap Area in km2 3,610 1,692 1,926 2,426 2,191 1,547 Population 271,061 167,724 336,067 420,477 186,557 202,646 Population density 75.08 99.13 174.49 173.32 85.15 130.99 per sq.km. Average HH size 4.07 3.99 4.55 4.88 4.08 4.61 Literacy rate 66.3 71.1 62.9 67.9 62.8 62.2 Sex Ratio 80.68 82.68 88.55 96.68 87.40 85.47 No. of Survey VDCs 21 12 21 18 18 18 * Data archived from CBS, 2011.
Total Sample Respondents Ramechhap 1,500 Dolakha 1,477 Dhading 1,529 Makwanpur 1,450 Gorkha 1,853 Lamjung 1,380 TOTAL 9,189
Total Sample households = 3,063
Map 1: Area of Study
Page | 11
2.2 Sampling Strategy This section discusses the sampling strategy which comprises the method of sample size determination and its distribution in sample districts according to caste/ethnicity at the VDC level. 2.1.1 Sample Design To ensure the findings are statistically valid, a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval was employed for the sample size determination in each district. The sample generated for this study was 9,114 individuals, where this sample frame provided by SB included its disaggregation according to caste and ethnicity within each district (Table 3). A sample of 9,114 individuals was designed in such a way that three respondents were to be interviewed from a household i.e. 3,038 households were estimated to meet the target sample of 9,114 individuals. The three respondents to be interviewed from a household were categorized as male, female and youth. Youth for this study could be anyone between 16 and 40 years of age, while other respondents (male and female) could be 16 years and above. Analysis has been carried out based on these three types' individuals, where there is no repetition involved. Considering the risk of getting incomplete questionnaires, an additional 25 HHs (75 individuals) were surveyed, bringing the total figure to 9,189 individuals interviewed. Table 3: Population and sample size by caste/ethnicity and district
S.N Caste/Ethnicity Hill/Mountain Hill/Mountain Newar Hill Religious Total Minority Brahmin/Chhetri Janajatis Dalits 1 Ramechhap N 22,451 38,964 6,626 5,864 - 73,905 n 378 381 364 361 - 1,484 2 Dolakha N 24,134 31,831 3,027 4,699 - 63,691 n 379 80 341 356 - 1,456 3 Dhading N 47,672 56,256 16,004 18,516 202 138,650 n 382 382 376 377 - 1,517 4 Makwanpur N 16,442 101,312 5,048 4,182 - 126,984 n 376 383 357 352 - 1,468 5 Gorkha N 26,289 33,926 9,748 14,614 1258 85,835 n 379 380 370 375 295 1,799 6 Lamjung N 8,582 24,308 1,023 6,361 184 40,458 n 368 379 280 363 - 1,390 7 Total N 14,5570 28,6597 41,476 54,236 1644 529,523 n 2,262 2,285 2,088 2,184 295 9,114 2.1.2 Sample Size Distribution: The data for computing baseline indictors were collected from a sample of 9114 individuals, which was distributed in 106 sample VDCs and one Municipality. Access to road, concentration of disadvantage groups (DAG), highly damaged VDCs by earthquake and no overlapping of work by international and national agencies in the area were set out as criteria for the selection of VDCs by SB. Of this total sample of VDCs, 23 were of remote locations. A sample of 9,114 individuals was distributed using a simple proportionate sampling procedure in the VDCs. The number of VDCs surveyed in Ramechhap, Dolakha, Dhading, Makwanpur, Gorkha and Lamjung were 18, 18, 21, 18, 21 and 11 respectively. A proportion of the population based on caste/ethnicity was estimated for each sample VDC according to total population in a district. A final sample of respondents was then drawn with the known proportion with respect to district, VDC and caste/ethnicity. The final sample population thus resulted in the number of individuals surveyed (Table 4) according to district, VDC and caste/ethnicity. A simple random sampling technique was employed for selecting the households from the surveyed VDCs.
Page | 12
Table 4: Total sample in VDC by district S.N Gorkha Lamjung Dhading Makwanpur Dolkha Ramechhap VDC Sample VDC Sample VDC Sample VDC Sample VDC Sample VDC Sample HH HH HH HH HH HH 1 Bakrang 15 Rainas municipality 297 Aginchok 14 Ambhanjyang 44 Alampu 9 Betali 38 2 Bhumlichok 17 Bansar 18 Chainpur 29 Bhaise 22 Babere 23 Bethan 26 3 Borlang 35 Bichaur 23 Chhatredeurali 22 Bharta Pundyadevi 7 Bigu 13 Dadhuwa 26 4 Bungkot 50 Dhodeni 20 Darkha 13 Budhichaur 4 Chankhu 10 Dhimipokhari 17 5 Chairung 28 Dudhpokhari 14 Dhola 17 Chhatiwan 78 Chilankha 26 Doramba 25 6 Chhoprak 35 Gauda 18 Jiwanpur 30 Chitlang 79 Jhyanku 27 Goswara 24 7 Darbung 22 Ilampokhari 16 Jyamrung 30 Dandakharka 9 Jiri 99 Gunsi 3 8 Dhawa 22 Kolki 13 Kalleri 37 Dhiyal 12 Kalinchau 16 Gupteshwar 43 9 Ghyalchok 44 Nauthar 22 Khalte 27 Fakhel 17 Khare 18 Khandadevi 23 10 Harmi 44 Pachok 14 Khari 15 Faparbari 51 Khopachangu 15 Khimti 35 11 Jaubari 16 Phaleni 8 Kumpur 44 Kankada 15 Lamindanda 33 Lakhanpur 48 12 Makising 13 Maidi 36 Makwanpurgadhi 58 Lapilang 27 Namadi 25 13 Mankamana 33 Mulpani 11 Manthali 8 Marbu 15 Phulasi 40 14 Namjung 17 Nalung 33 Markhu 22 Namdu 56 Priti 35 15 Phujel 31 Naubise 45 Raigaun 31 Sundrabati 14 Rasnalu 20 16 Shrinathkot 16 Phulkharka 13 Raksirang 15 Sunkhani 39 Tharpu 9 17 Taklung 25 Ri 13 Sukaura 7 Suri 29 Tilpung 31 18 Tandrang 22 Salang 20 Thingan 10 Syama 15 Tokarpur 27 19 Tanglichok 15 Salyankot 18 20 Taple 85 Salyantar 29 21 Thalajung 13 Satyadevi 9 TOTAL 21 600 11 463 21 506 18 489 18 485 18 495 Note: Highlighted in blue are Remote VDCs
Page | 13
2.3 Data Collection Technique The team collected quantitative data through the individual survey, and qualitative data through focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). The different types of data were collected to triangulate responses from individuals and government officials about recovery efforts, government responsiveness, citizen needs and their overall satisfaction with the services provided. The mobile-based individual questionnaire consisted of mostly closed-answer questions and a few open- ended questions. Four types of group discussions (24 FGDs in total) and five KIIs with VDC officials (30) were conducted in each district as summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Data collection type Data type Survey type Sample Quantitative Individual Questionnaire Survey 9,189 individuals Focus Group Discussion 4 per districts - District officials - Female group Qualitative - Mixed group - Youth group Key Informant Interview 5 per district - VDC secretary/VDC officials 2.4 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study
2.4.1 Questionnaire Design The survey instruments including the questionnaires for the HH survey and the interview guides for FGD and KIIs were designed collectively by a team of experts from SB and NDRI with experience in: Community Development Projects (CDPs); VDC service delivery; the function of a Ward Citizen Forum (WCF); Conflict Mediation (CM); Gender Based Violence (GBV); and on Recovery and Reconstruction (RR). These tools were further refined after a one-day workshop organized by SB at NDRI on May 25, 2016. The minutes of the workshop are provided in Annex 6. These tools were later approved by USAID after their careful review. The household questionnaire had 51 questions and was categorized into nine sections (A to H, Annex 4). The approved survey instruments were translated into Nepali before field researchers were deployed. After the development of the tools, household questionnaires were designed and uploaded to a mobile interface developed by Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd. (SSPL). Open Data Kit (ODK) was used for mobile data collection which uses the Android platform which supports a wide variety of prompts (text, number, location, multimedia, barcodes) and can be used without network connectivity1. The questionnaires were also integrated with GPS to view the data collected in real-time. The general framework adopted in ODK collect is as follows:
1https://opendatakit.org/use/collect/
Page | 14
Build Collect Aggregate . Creating . Android app . Store Forms . Download . Export Data in
forms/collect excel data . Upload data& send it to server Figure 1: Open Data Kit (ODK) framework for data collection
2.4.2 Pilot-Study A pilot survey was carried out to pre-test the household questionnaire using mobile phones. Since the major focus of this survey is in earthquake-affected areas, an area with similar features was selected for the pilot. Chhampi VDC in Lalitpur (Map 2) district (now Karyabinayak Municipality) was chosen for the pilot study because of its similarities to the survey area, i.e., remoteness, damage, diverse population (caste/ethnicities/marginalized groups). Six field supervisors and an expert from NDRI tested the survey tools on May 30, 2016. A total of 13 respondents were interviewed in the pilot area. The respondents represented a variation in caste/ethnicity and respondent types for the main HH survey (Table 6). The pre-test was used to observe and document the clarity of the questionnaire in Nepali, relevance of questions, ease or reluctance of the respondents in answering the questions, efficiency of data collection using mobile phones, and time taken to complete a questionnaire. Issues encountered during the pre-test were addressed and modified accordingly in the final questionnaire. The data from the pilot survey is not Map 2. Pilot Area – Chhampi VDC included in this baseline survey report.
Page | 15
Table 6: Pre-test Survey Sample in Chhampi VDC Respondent Male Female Youth-Male Youth-Female Brahmin/Chhetri 2 3 - - Marginalized group (Dalit) - 3 3 2 Total respondents =13 2.5 Training of Field Researchers and their Mobilization A total of 55 field researchers were recruited for the survey, of which six were field supervisors and 49 were field enumerators. Field researchers were selected according to different parameters including gender, caste/ethnicity, relevant educational qualifications, ability to speak the local language, whether they were a resident of the survey district, and prior experience with conducting field surveys. A relatively equal gender ratio of field researchers was ensured, 49 % female, and 51% male (Figure 2). Before their training, six field supervisors participated in a one-day workshop to introduce the project and tools to be employed, and to discuss their responsibilities for field planning to maintain data quality. This was followed by a two-day training session on May 27-28 for all field researchers before the pilot study. The two-day training focused on various aspects of field research such as survey ethics, Enumerators Supervisors project description, research methodology, 49 sample selection, questionnaire content and Total 6 survey techniques. SSPL trained the participants on data collection through the 26 mobile platform and its submission protocols. Female Training on ensuring utmost care to maintain 1 data quality while using mobile phones for data collection was given to field researchers. 23 Male Field researchers carried out multiple mock 5 interviews in order to practice and become familiar with the survey and interview guides. 0 20 40 60 The training was facilitated by NDRI thematic Total number of reserachers experts, SB and SSPL. Following the training, Figure 2: Number of field researchers field data collection was carried out from June 4-16 under the leadership of field supervisors. Prior to field deployment, all field researchers were provided with the following documents: 1. A list of district allocation to field researchers (Annex 1) 2. A list of local organizations (Annex 2) 3. Tools in both Nepali and English (Annex 4 & 5) 4. Field maps 5. Flow chart of the14-step planning process 2.6 Data Processing and Analysis Data entry was carried out using Android mobile phones, and SSPL exported the data into MS-Excel and SPSS formats. Before exporting data in the desired formats, the data stored in the central server was reviewed by a team from SSPL to ensure it was complete. Data was checked to ensure it was complete and then data was masked with appropriate coding in SPSS. After the complete coding and cleaning of
Page | 16 datasets, NDRI analyzed the data using SPSS 20 software, which was used to produce frequency tables and cross-tabulation aligning the analysis with respect to project indicators. The outputs generated were used for preparing reports. Qualitative data collected from the field was translated into English from Nepali and was used to validate with quantitative data where relevant. 2.7 Quality and Validity of Data The data collection for each district consisted of one supervisor and eight numerators. These supervisors were well-trained on data collection methods, including planning, enumerator distribution, household selection, respondent selection, and monitoring data collection. The supervisors were responsible for ensuring the completion of the data collection process, solving problems encountered in the field, and with closely monitoring the data collected in a timely manner. Data quality was maintained as the survey was conducted using a mobile interface, and where appropriate, a skip logic system to ensure that all questions were addressed properly. The data collection process was monitored by SSPL through a mobile GPS once the questionnaire was completed. Data was immediately sent to a central server located at the SSPL office whenever internet became available. NDRI kept track of all validations through GPS, regular inspection by using supervisors, and applying on-the-spot monitoring of the study teams.
2.8 Limitations The concept of governance can be complex and at times challenging to define as there are several factors involved with assessing the governance situation within a particular area. This study focuses on seven key indicators pertinent to local governance, and six key indicators for assessing government-led recovery processes as outlined in SB’s project log frame. Thus, the analysis presented is restricted to these project indicators.
2.9 Ethical Issues The voluntary participation of respondents was ensured for the survey, FGD and KIIs. Prior to conducting any of the interviews, consent was obtained from the respondents verbally. Respondents were also made aware of the purpose of the study and of the interview process; that they were not being evaluated based on the responses given and that only cumulative responses would be analyzed; and, assured that any information provided would be kept anonymous. Consent was sought from all three types of respondents (i.e., male, female and youth) during HH surveys, and from FGD and KII participants. The individuals’ right to privacy, anonymity and confidentiality was maintained throughout the survey work, with interviews lasting an average of 30 minutes.
Page | 17
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents This chapter provides an overview of the social and demographic traits of the study population (e.g., caste/ethnicity, age group, marital status, literacy level, occupational status, shelter status after the earthquake, and physical disability). The results are presented in aggregate and disaggregated by male, female and youth. This information is useful in identifying and analyzing the data according to the demographics of the study population. The three types of respondents in this study were male, female and youth (both female and male), which accounted for 35.8%, 34.9% and 29.3% respectively. 3.1.1 Age The age distribution of the respondents of the baseline survey is illustrated in Table 7, which ranged from 16 to 95 years. The age group of respondents under the categorization of male, female and youth ranged from 16 to 95 years, 16 to 91 years and 16 to 40 years respectively. The mean age of male and female respondents was 50 and 46 years, and 23 years for youth respondents. A significant proportion of respondents were in the active age group of 16 to 59 years (85%), including all youth respondents and 83 % female and 74% male respondents. Table 7: Age distribution of respondents in percentages
Age group in years Male Female Youth 16 -29 9.1 8.6 83.2 30-39 12.9 20.7 15.8 40-49 26.6 29.8 1.0 50-59 25.5 23.6 0.0 60 & above 25.9 17.3 0.0 Mean 50 45 23 Mode 45 50 16
3.1.2 Caste/ethnicity Caste/ethnicity in this study was classified into five categories: Hill Brahmin/Chhetri, Hill Mountain Janajati, Newar, Hill Dalits and Others / Religious Minority as shown in Table 8. The respondents were distributed equally across the first categories of caste/ethnicity (approximately 25% each) except for the "others" category which represents a smaller percentage (3.2%). All Muslim respondents were in the "others" category.
Page | 18
Table 8: Percentage of respondents by caste/ethnicity Hill Hill Others/ Respondent Brahmin/ Mountain Newar Hill Dalits Religious Total type Chhetri Janajati Minority Male N 826 857 736 766 109 3,294 % 25.1 26.0 22.3 23.3 3.3 100 Female N 791 822 712 767 113 3,205 % 24.7 25.6 22.2 23.9 3.5 100 Youth N 685 675 629 629 72 2,690 % 25.5 25.1 23.4 23.4 2.7 100 Total N 2302 2,354 2,077 2,162 294 9,189 % 25.1 25.6 22.6 23.5 3.2 100
3.1.3 Household Head Among the total number of respondents (N=9,189), 33% were household heads, 31% were sons or daughters of the household heads, and 29% were husbands or wives of the household head, as shown in Table9. Most household heads were male (90%) while only 1 in 10 households were headed by a female. The percentage of female headed households in the baseline study was comparatively lower than the national average being 25.7%.2 Table 9: Percentage of respondents’ relationship to head of household
Respondent Head of Husband/ Son/ Brother/ Other Parent Total type Household Wife Daughter Sister Relative Male N 2,732 79 439 10 23 11 3,294 Row % 82.9 2.4 13.3 .3 .7 .3 100 Column % 89.6 3.0 15.7 13.0 25.8 2.2 35.8 Female N 301 2,533 144 5 62 160 3,205 Row % 9.4 79.0 4.5 .2 1.9 5.0 100 Column % 9.9 94.8 5.1 6.5 69.7 31.9 34.9 Youth N 16 59 2,219 62 4 330 2,690 Row % .6 2.2 82.5 2.3 .1 12.3 100 Column % .5 2.2% 79.2 80.5 4.5 65.9 29.3 Total N 3,049 2,671 2,802 77 89 501 9,189 Row % 33.2 29.1 30.5 .8 1.0 5.5 100
The relationship of household heads by age group was analyzed according to the respondent type as shown in Figure 3. It indicates that 89% of the male headed households are 40 years of age or above. The female heads of households were older, with 43.9% 60 years of age or above.
2 CBS, 2011. National Population and Housing Census. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramshah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Page | 19
60% 56.3%
50% 43.9%
40%
31.3% 29.2% 29.7% 29.9% 30% Male 24.3% Female 19.6% Youth 20%
11.3% 12.5% 9.7% 10%
1.4% 1.0% 0% 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 & above
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents as household heads by age group and respondent type
3.1.4 Marital Status The distribution of marital status by respondent type is displayed in Figure 4. Approximately 75% of the respondents were married, including more than 90% of male and female respondents. Similarly, only 3% of respondents were divorced or separated among which a higher percentage of female respondents (6%) were either divorced or separated. The minimum age of marriage of male, female and youth respondents was found to be 18, 16 and 16 years respectively.
Male Female Youth
93.7% Married 91.2% 39.1%
4.6% Unmarried 3.3% 60.7%
1.7% Divorced / Separated 5.5% .1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 4: Percentage of respondent's marital status
Page | 20
3.1.5 Literacy Status As an important determinant of economic security, literacy status in this study was categorized into three types: illiterate, literate but no formal education, and literate with formal education. The baseline result depicted that the major proportion of the sampling population were literate with formal education (42.4%). However, this percentage was 1.5 times lower than the national average (65.9%). Female literacy rates have always been lower than that of males in Nepal, which is also evident in this study (Table 10). The percentage of literate female respondents with formal education was only 16%, which is significantly below the national average of 57.4%. Furthermore, nearly half of the female respondents were illiterate. Among male respondents, only a third of them have formal education. This is approximately half the national average. Youth in this baseline study were significantly more literate (83%). Table 10: Percentage of educational status by respondent type
Respondent Literate but no Literate with Illiterate Total type formal education formal education Male N 773 1,363 1,158 3,294 % 23.5 41.4 35.2 100 Female N 1,491 1,199 515 3,205 % 46.5 37.4 16.1 100 Youth N 50 417 2,223 2,690 % 1.9 15.5 82.6 100 Total N 2,314 2,979 3,896 9,189 % 25.2 32.4 42.4 100
The literacy status of respondents analyzed by caste and ethnicity are shown in Table 11. Hill Brahmin/ Chhetri represented the highest category for formally literate respondents (31%) in contrast to Hill Dalits (20%), followed by Hill Mountain Janajati (27%), Newar (20%) and Hill Brahmain/Chhetri (18.4%) groups. Informal education levels according to caste/ethnicity was similar across all caste/ethnicities, ranging between 22% and 26%. Table 11: Percentage of educational status of respondents by caste/ethnicity Literate but no Literate with formal Caste/Ethnicity Illiterate formal education education Hill Brahmin/Chhetri 18.4 22.3 31.2 Hill Mountain Janajati 27.1 26.4 24.1 Newar 20.0 24.3 22.9 Hill Dalits 31.3 22.8 19.5 Others/Religious Minority 3.2 4.3 2.4 Total 2314 2979 3896
Page | 21
3.1.6 Primary Occupation Figure 5 shows that agriculture is the primary occupation of Agriculture 49.3% nearly half of the respondents. Student 15.8% Roughly 16% were students, Housewife/house-… 10.4% and 10% classify themselves as housewives/house-maker Industry/Business 8.3% A disaggregation of Service 6.4% respondents by occupation Labor 5.5% (Table 12) showed gender disparity in occupational Unemployed 1.7% sectors such as Foreign employment 1.4% industry/business, service and Retired 1.2% labor. A similar percentage of male (61%) and female (62%) Others 0.1% respondents were engaged in 0 10 20 30 40 50 agriculture. In contrast, 48% of Percentage youth were students, and 20% were involved in agriculture Figure 5: Percentage of respondents’ primary occupational status activities. After agriculture, most men were involved in industry/business (11%) while 25% of female respondents lead lives as housewives/homemakers. Nearly 9% of male and youth respondents worked in the service sector but the percentage of female respondents in this sector was very discouraging (1.5%). Table 12: Percentage of occupational status by respondent type Occupation Male Female Youth Agriculture 60.8 61.7 20.3 Industry/Business 10.6 7.4 6.7 Service 8.8 1.5 9.2 Labor 9.1 .9 6.6 Student 2.9 2.3 47.7 Housewife/house-maker .6 25.5 4.3 Retired 3.1 .1 .0 Foreign employment 2.2 .1 2.0 Unemployed 1.8 .4 3.1 Others .1 .0 .0 Total 100 100 100 N 3,294 3,205 2,690
Page | 22
3.1.7 Current Shelter
More than half of the respondents (55.2%) Temporary shelter 55.2% were still living in temporary shelters, while 42.5% were living in their own houses Own house 42.5% (Figure 6). This could be due to delays in the government-led reconstruction process or Rent 1.8% varying degrees of poverty among respondents. Relatives .4% Analysis based on caste/ethnicity in Table 13 indicated no major differences in terms of Other .1% caste/ethnicity for the type of shelter reported by respondents. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 6: Shelter of respondents in percentage Table 13: Percentage of respondent’s shelter by caste/ethnicity Hill Hill Others/ Shelter Brahmin/ Mountain Newar Hill Dalits Religious Total Chhetri Janjati Minority Temporary N 1,177 1,311 1,058 1,335 1,88 5,069 shelter % 23.2 25.9 20.9 26.3 3.7 100 Own house N 1,081 966 988 772 100 3,907 % 27.7 24.7 25.3 19.8 2.6 100 Rent N 33 53 28 43 6 163 % 20.2 32.5 17.2 26.4 3.7 100 Relatives N 7 21 3 9 0 40 % 17.5 52.5 7.5 22.5 0.0 100 Other N 4 3 0 3 0 10 % 40.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 100
3.1.8 Physical Disability According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)3, Female, the overall disability population in Nepal is about 32.5% 2%, with physical disability being the most common at more than one third of total disabilities recorded. In this study, a small percentage of respondents were physically disabled, or 1.3% of the total number of Male, respondents (n=120). Among these disabled 44.2% respondents, the ratio of disability in males was 1.36 Youth, times higher compared to females (Figure 7) which 23.3% corresponds with CBS national data. The prevalence of disability among male (55%) and female (44%) respondents by age group was Figure 7: Physical disability by respondent type greater for those aged 60 and above as shown in
3 CBS, 2014. Population Monograph of Nepal, Volume 2. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramshah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Page | 23
Table 14. Moreover, disabilities among male and female respondents were found to have existed pre- earthquake at 74% and 62% respectively. Disabilities among youth were most prominent, primarily for the age group of 16-29 years (71%) with 50% occurring pre-earthquake, or at birth (50%). Of the total number of disabled respondents (n=120), 16.7% of them became disabled after the earthquake, with females totaling 65%, and males 35%. Table 14: Percentage of disability by age group and respondent type
Age classification Respondent type Total 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥60 Male N 3 4 9 8 29 53 Row % 5.7 7.5 17.0 15.1 54.7 100 Column % 13.0 28.6 40.9 53.3 63.0 44.2 Female N 0 2 13 7 17 39 Row % 0.0 5.1 33.3 17.9 43.6 100 Column % 0.0 14.3 59.1 46.7 37.0 32.5 Youth N 20 8 0 0 0 28 Row % 71.4 28.6 0 0 0 100 Column % 87.0 57.1 0 0 0 23.3 Total N 23 14 22 15 46 120 Row % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Column % 19.2 11.7 18.3 12.5 38.3 100
3.1.9 Awareness about Different Organizations and their Effectiveness Figure 8 reveals the respondents’ knowledge regarding the various local level organizations (i.e. committees, offices, units, groups, etc.) in the community. The majority of the respondents (>90%) were aware of the roles and responsibilities of organizations such as the VDC office, VDC Health Post, and Women’s Group. Nearly half of the respondents were aware of organizations like the Agriculture Service Center (ASC), Village Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Committee (VWASHCC), and Livestock Service Center (LSC). Only 25% of the respondents were aware of Community Mediation Centers (CMCs), with only 33% of them aware of their roles and responsibilities. Group discussions held with female and youth groups also showed a similar pattern of knowledge of roles and responsibilities of organizations such as VDC office, VDC Health Post, Women’s Group and Police Unit. Although these respondents had also heard about other organizations like the Disaster Management Committee (DMC), Project Management Committee (PMC), Integrated Plan Formulation Committee (IPFC) and CMC, they had little understanding of their functions. This could be due to their lack of involvement in community activities or the government’s unsuccessful effort to publicize them in a manner easily understandable.
Page | 24
VDC health post 97.1% VDC Office 96.8% Women or Mothers group 95.0% Police Unit 82.5% Agricultural Service Center 51.4% 47.4% Livestock Service Center 47.2% Youth Groups 43.1% Ward Citizen Forum 34.8% Community Mediation Center 23.7% Users group 20.2% Citizen Awareness Center 17.8% Project Monitoring Committee 14.1% Disaster Management Committee 11.8% Tole Lane Organizations 11.8% 8.4% Radio Listeners Group 2.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 8: Percentage of respondents ‘knowledge about different organizations Table 15 illustrates the knowledge of organizations disaggregated by respondent types (among males =3,294, females=3,205 and youth=2,690). On average, 42% male, 28% female and 30% youth respondents were aware of the listed organizations. Overall, males surveyed were most aware of these organizations followed by youth and female respondents. Table 16 displays information about the effectiveness level of each organization from the respondents' perspective. The bar chart shows that the majority of organizations were rated as effective, with health posts and Women's Groups seen as most effective. The small sample of respondents familiar with radio listeners (n=240) explains the outlier rankings in terms of effectiveness. CMCs, a key service reignited by SB, were rated as effective by 66% of the total respondents (Table 16). However, only 24% were aware of them (Figure 8). Most of the key informants see CMCs functioning at a satisfactory level. It is still too early to measure the effectiveness of CMCs, as many have been recently formed. FGD participants said that most people resolve conflicts without using CMCs, even those who are aware of their existence.
Page | 25
Table 15: Percentage of respondent’s knowledge about different organizations who said yes
No. who said yes % who said yes Organization Male Female Youth Male Female Youth Ward Citizen Forum 1,407 774 1,015 44.0% 24.2% 31.8% Citizen Awareness Center 692 359 584 42.3% 22.0% 35.7% VDC Office 3,230 3,044 2,621 36.3% 34.2% 29.5% Youth Groups 1,477 1,036 1,445 37.3% 26.2% 36.5% Radio Listeners Group 114 48 78 47.5% 20.0% 32.5% Community Mediation Center 890 611 674 40.9% 28.1% 31.0% Women or Mothers group 3,106 3,041 2,583 35.6% 34.8% 29.6% Agricultural Service Center 1,849 1,513 1,358 39.2% 32.1% 28.8% Livestock Service Center 1,725 1,374 1,238 39.8% 31.7% 28.5% Integrated Plan Formulation Committee 406 144 219 52.8% 18.7% 28.5% Disaster Management Committee 491 262 335 45.1% 24.1% 30.8% Project Monitoring Committee 623 301 370 48.1% 23.3% 28.6% Users group 783 521 552 42.2% 28.1% 29.7% VDC health post 3,213 30,93 2,621 36.0% 34.6% 29.4% Tole Lane Organizations 465 314 308 42.8% 28.9% 28.3% Police Unit 2,726 2,605 2,247 36.0% 34.4% 29.7% Village WASH Coordination Committee 1,716 1,432 1,209 39.4% 32.9% 27.7%
Table 16: Percentage of respondent’s perception on level of effectiveness about different organizations Not Don’t Very Organization Effective Ineffective effective Refused know/Can’t Total effective at all say Ward Citizen Forum 52 2,208 485 33 20 398 3,196 (WCF) 1.6% 69.1% 15.2% 1.0% .6% 12.5% 100.0% Citizen Awareness Center 11 915 327 36 16 330 1,635 (CAC) .7% 56.0% 20.0% 2.2% 1.0% 20.2% 100.0% 384 7,018 1,057 82 29 325 8,895 VDC Office 4.3% 78.9% 11.9% .9% .3% 3.7% 100.0% 72 2,443 1,038 127 15 263 3,958 Youth Groups (YG) 1.8% 61.7% 26.2% 3.2% .4% 6.6% 100.0% Radio Listeners Group 6 81 68 32 5 48 240 (RLG) 2.5% 33.8% 28.3% 13.3% 2.1% 20.0% 100.0% Community Mediation 95 1,432 247 38 16 347 2,175 Center (CMC) 4.4% 65.8% 11.4% 1.7% .7% 16.0% 100.0% 655 7,187 538 99 22 229 8,730 Women or Mothers group 7.5% 82.3% 6.2% 1.1% .3% 2.6% 100.0% Agricultural Service 66 3,195 1,007 92 33 327 4,720 Center (ASC) 1.4% 67.7% 21.3% 1.9% .7% 6.9% 100.0% Livestock Service Center 86 2,751 1,064 99 18 319 4,337 (LSC) 2.0% 63.4% 24.5% 2.3% .4% 7.4% 100.0%
Page | 26
Not Don’t Very Organization Effective Ineffective effective Refused know/Can’t Total effective at all say Integrated Plan 16 474 167 16 1 95 769 Formulation Committee 2.1% 61.6% 21.7% 2.1% .1% 12.4% 100.0% (IPFC) Disaster Management 27 653 255 34 6 113 1,088 Committee (DMC) 2.5% 60.0% 23.4% 3.1% .6% 10.4% 100.0% Project Monitoring 23 795 349 49 5 73 1,294 Committee (PMC) 1.8% 61.4% 27.0% 3.8% .4% 5.6% 100.0% 39 1,327 326 43 10 111 1,856 Users group 2.1% 71.5% 17.6% 2.3% .5% 6.0% 100.0% 480 7,296 967 100 11 73 8,927 VDC health post 5.4% 81.7% 10.8% 1.1% .1% .8% 100.0% Tole Lane Organizations 71 810 123 17 6 60 1,087 (TLOs) 6.5% 74.5% 11.3% 1.6% .6% 5.5% 100.0% 265 6,040 900 162 26 185 7,578 Police Unit (PU) 3.5% 79.7% 11.9% 2.1% .3% 2.4% 100.0% Village WASH 141 2,596 1,310 165 8 137 4,357 Coordination Committee 3.2% 59.6% 30.1% 3.8% .2% 3.1% 100.0% (VWASHCC)
3.1.10 Top Five Effective Organizations Respondents were asked to list the top five organizations that were deemed very effective from their perspective from the list provided in the questionnaire. Figure 9 shows the top five organizations. These are: women or mothers’ groups; VDC offices, VDC health posts, Police Units and agriculture service centers (20%, 19%, 18%, 12% and 6% respectively). The organizations that were not ranked in the top five most effective (RLG, IPFC, PMC and DMC) are not known to the respondents. This could be because these organizations were the most recently introduced at the village level.
WOMEN GROUP 20.4 VDC OFFICE 19.0
VDC HEALTH POST 18.0
20% -
5 PU 11.9 ASC 6.1 YG 4.6 WCF 4.3
LSC 4.0
VWASHCC 3.5 5%
- CMC 2.8 1 CAC 1.3 USERS GROUP 1.2 TLO 1.1 DMC 0.8 PMC 0.6
<1% IPFC 0.4 RLG 0.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Percentage of response Figure 9: Percentage of response for top five effective organizations
Page | 27
The top five organizations perceived to be effective are services regularly sought out by the community. The reason for Women's Groups being most effective is that this is the preferred platform for numerous programs or projects introduced by government and non-government organizations, especially for women's empowerment, income generation, capacity development, and similar activities, etc.
Page | 28
3.2 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) Members
3.2.1 Respondents as WCF Members Among the total number of respondents surveyed, only 3.8% of them were Respondent as WCF member Family member as WCF member WCF members (n=351). Of those who 70% 60.5% were members, the majority were Hill 60% Brahmin/Chhetri (37.9%); followed by Hill Mountain Janjati (27.9%); Newar 50% (16.5%); Hill Dalits (16%); and, a minor 40% 37.0% 37.0% percentage belonged to religious 25.9% minority (1.7%). More youth and female 30% 24.8% respondents were members of WCF, 20% 14.7% compared to male respondents (Figure 10% 10). 0% The distribution of WCF membership Male Female Youth based on age group is shown in Table Figure 10: Percentage of respondent as member of WCF 17. Overall, 39% of WCF members belonged to the age group of 16-29 years, followed by 21% belonging to that of 40-49 years. Among the 39% of WCF members between the ages of 16-29, a substantial percentage of respondents were youth (85.4%). Table 17: Percentage of age distribution of WCF members
Respondent Age Classification Total type 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥60 Male Count 7 17 25 26 16 91 Row % 7.7 18.7 27.5 28.6 17.6 100 Colum % 5.1 33.3 33.8 44.8 51.6 25.9 Female Count 13 22 48 32 15 130 Row % 10 16.9 36.9 24.6 11.5 100 Colum % 9.5 43.1 64.9 55.2 48.4 37 Youth Count 117 12 1 0 0 130 Row % 90 9.2 0.8 0 0 100 Colum % 85.4 23.5 1.4 0 0 37.0 Total 137 51 74 58 31 351 39.0 14.5 21.1 16.5 8.8 100 In addition to the respondents who are WCF members, the survey also asked about their family members serving as WCF members. Overall, 3.1% of the respondents have family serving as members of a WCF. The majority of WCF members were males (61%) followed by females (24%) and youth (15%). WCF members were also more often to be household heads (57%), or spouses of household heads (23%), with sons/daughters of household heads at just 16%. Youth involvement in WCFs was said to be low by most of the participants across the study districts. This is likely due to employment opportunities sought abroad or migration to urban areas for higher education.
Page | 29
3.2.2 WCF Members’ Involvement in VDC Planning Process Table 18 illustrates WCF members’ responses to questions about their participation in the VDC planning process, suggestions made by them, and whether their voices were heard by respondent type. Overall, 22% of WCF respondents (n=78) in the baseline survey participated in VDC planning processes. Of these respondents, more males (53%) were found to have participated in the planning process compared to females (28%) and youth (19%). Furthermore, most of these respondents who participated in the VDC planning process were Brahmin/Chhetri (45%), Mountain Janajati and Newar (19%), and Hill Dalits (17%) as shown in Table 19. None of the religious minority respondents who are WCF members were found to have participated in VDC planning processes. Table 18: Percentage of WCF respondents who said “yes” to participation, made suggestions and felt their suggestions were heard Respondent Type Participated Made suggestion Suggestion heard 41 31 24 Male 52.6% 53.4% 52.2% 22 15 12 Female 28.2% 25.9% 26.1% 15 12 10 Youth 19.2% 20.7% 21.7% 78 58 46 Total 22.2% 74.4% 79.3% Among those respondents who participated in VDC planning processes (n=78), 75% said they raised questions or provided suggestions during VDC planning meetings (Table 18). Similar to the trends noted above, male respondents were more likely to make suggestions (53%), while only 25% of female and 21% of youth respondents reported doing so. Nearly half of the respondents who made suggestions were from a higher caste/ethnicity group (48%) compared to Hill Mountain Janajati (19%), Hill Dalits (17%) and Newars (16%). Hill Dalits who participated in Village Development Planning (VDP) (n=13) were found to have raised their voice (n=10) during these meetings (Table 19). Among the total respondents who had raised their voice at VDP sessions (n=58), 79% (n=46) stated that their voices were heard by meeting representatives. Male respondents were most positive about their issues being heard (52%) compared to female and youth respondents who were half as confident about speaking up (Table 18). Based on caste/ethnicity, 52% of Hill Brahmin/Chhetri respondents felt that their voices were being heard, followed by Hill Mountain Janajati (22%), Hill Dalits (15%) and Newars (11%) (Table19). Table 19: Percentage of response by caste/ethnicity
Caste/ethnicity Participated Made Suggestion Suggestion heard N 35 28 24 Hill Brahmin/Chhetri % 44.9% 48.3% 52.2% N 15 11 10 Hill Mountain Janajati % 19.2% 19.0% 21.7% N 15 9 5 Newar % 19.2% 15.5% 10.9% N 13 10 7 Hill Dalits % 16.7% 17.2% 15.2% Total 78 58 46
Page | 30
3.3 Community Development Projects (CDPs)
3.3.1 Awareness of CDPs Numerous CDPs are implemented at the VDC level, and the current level of awareness of CDPs at the VDC level is relatively good. The survey showed that about 38 % of total respondents (n=3,446) had heard about CDPs. Of these respondents, 43 % were male, 24% female and 33% youth as shown in Figure 11.
a) b) Male Female Youth
Yes 100% 26.6% 24.5% 27.8% 80% 33.2% 19.6% No .5% 60% 37.5% 24.1% 40.5% 40.8% Refused 43.2% 40%
Don't 20% 42.8% 32.9% 34.7% 29.1% 42.4% Know/Ca n't Say 0% Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure11: Percentage of respondents who have heard about CDPs (a) by respondent type (b) Of those who had heard of CDPs, about 77% (n=2,651) understood the roles of CDPs in their community and their potential benefits. The majority were male respondents (46 %) followed by youth (34%) and females (20 %) as illustrated in Figure 12.
Male Female Youth a) b) 5.4% 100% .3% Yes 30.9% 25.0% 80% 33.5% 36.8% 17.4% No 60% 20.3% 36.1% 41.7% Refused 37.8% 40%
Don't 46.2% 20% 33.3% 76.9% Know/Can't 32.9% 25.4% Say 0% Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure12: Percentage of respondent's awareness on purpose of CDPs and benefits from them (a) by respondent type (b)
Page | 31
3.3.2 Participation in CDP Activities Among those who had heard about CDPs, more than half of the respondents (57%, [n=1,965]) reported that they had benefitted from these implemented in their community in the last year, while about 38% reported that the opposite. Those who reported being beneficiaries of CDPs were male (46%) respondents, followed by youth (32 %) and female (23%) respondents as shown in Figure 13.
a) b) Male Female Youth 100% Yes 31.6% 26.1% 80% 35.6% 34.0%
37.6% No 60% 23.0% 23.8% 47.8% 36.4% 40% 57.0% Refused 20% 45.5% 40.6% 26.1% 29.6% Don't .7% Know/Can't 0% 4.7% Say Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who benefitted from CDPs (a) by respondent type (b) Similarly, among CDP-aware respondents, nearly 35% (n=1,188) had participated in meetings related to CDPs in the last year. Following the same gender pattern as above, male respondents were most likely to have attended a CDP meeting, followed by 21% youth and 18% females as shown in Figure 14 .
a) b) Male Female Youth .1% 1.5% Yes 100% 21.1% 30.2% 80% 39.8% No 17.5% 34.5% 60% Refused 27.1% 100.0% 39.6% 40% 61.4% 20% 63.9% Don't 33.1% 30.2% Know/Can't Say 0% Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure 14: Percentage of respondent participation in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) As shown in Figure 15, among the respondents who had participated in CDP meetings (n=1,118), the majority (71%) reported having voiced their opinion or made suggestions (n=840). Male respondents
Page | 32 were more likely to voice their opinion, followed by youth (19%) and females (17%). Most FGD participants mentioned that the participation of women, youth and marginalized groups in CDP meetings had increased due to growing awareness of gender equity and social inclusion. However, it is still rare for women and individuals from marginalized groups to raise their voices, and those who did tended to be more educated (e.g. teachers, local leaders, or other elites from the VDC), but even their voices were reported as less heard. a) b) Male Female Youth .2% .3% Yes 100% 18.8% 26.3% 80% 16.3% 28.8% No 60% 19.9% 75.0% 100.0% 40% Refused 64.9% 53.8% 20% 25.0% 70.7% Don't 0% Know/Can't Yes No Refused Don't Say Know/Can't Say
Figure 15: Voicing opinion in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage Among the respondents who voiced their opinion (n=840), two thirds felt that their voices (suggestions) were heard by meeting respresentatives. Again, male respondents (64 %) were more likely to report being heard than youth (19 %) and female(18%) respondents, as shown in Figure 16.
b) a) Yes Male Female Youth 100% 18.9% 18.9% 16.7% 17.8% No 80% .0% 27.0% 17.8% 12.3% 20.0% 60% .7% Refused 40% 83.3% 63.3% 68.7% 62.2% 5.4% 66.9% Don't 20% Know/Ca n't Say 0% Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure 16: Opinion acknowledged by meeting representatives (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
Page | 33
3.3.3 Perception of CDP Activities and Services The general perception of the respondents on the CDP project was measured based on a four-point scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree (Figure 17). Among respondents who were aware of CDPs (38%), the majority agreed with all statements except for statement of "CDPs cost too much money". More than 50% of these respondents agreed on CDP implementation by local users’ groups/local companies/beneficiaries, support provided by CDP, that its contract be publicly announced and projects are developed based on community need. About 38% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that CDPs are high-cost. Though 43% of the respondents agreed that CDP funds are transparently managed, another 32% also doubted CDP transparency. An FGD with the youth group yielded negative views on this issue. They neither believed in the transparency of the budget nor in the clarity of public or social audits of the CDPs. People with power and position are seen to be controlling all resources, development activities and funds. A youth from Dolakha stated, "We cannot rebuild any development project ourselves so we have to trust others to do it for us. We have no choice".4 Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know about the pubic audit process, announcement of contracts and expenses for CDPs. Respondents did not strongly agree or disagree with the statements.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Refused Don’t Know
1.8% 25.8% 38.0% 5.1% 27.4% Cost too much money 1.8% 3.5% 53.8% 21.8% 1.5% 17.9% Designed based on citzen needs 1.5% 3.8% 51.4% 18.6% 1.5% 23.5% Contract publicly announced and 1.2% procured 8.9% 66.5% 15.9% 6.9% Helped community 1.0%.8% 3.8% 44.1% 20.2% 1.6% 29.0% Have public audit 1.4% 2.8% 43.1% 32.1% 1.2% 18.6% Funds transparently managed 2.2% 7.5% 63.8% 12.0% .9% 15.1% Implemented by local user’s .8% group/local companies/beneficiaries.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 17: Respondents’ perception of level of agreement for CDP's in percentage Perception of CDP activities and services was also analyzed by respondent type as shown in Table 20. It shows that male respondents are generally more aware of CDP activities followed by youth and female respondents, where they all agree with all statements except for CDP being too expensive.
4Youth from Dolakha district during FGD.
Page | 34
Table 20: Respondents perception of level of agreement on CDP activities by respondent type
Statement Male Female Youth Remarks Implemented by local user’s group/local 993 484 721 Agree companies/beneficiaries. 67.4% 58.4% 63.1% 734 316 434 Funds transparently managed Agree 49.8% 38.1% 38.0% 742 299 478 Have public audit Agree 50.3% 36.1% 41.8% 1,007 539 747 Helped our community a lot Agree 68.3% 65.0% 65.4% Generally publicly announced and 817 384 569 Agree procured 55.4% 46.3% 49.8% 870 399 569 Designed based on need of citizens Agree 59.0% 48.1% 51.3% 597 268 446 Cost too much money Disagree 40.5% 32.3% 39.0%
3.3.4 Types of CDPs and Cost Among respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that CDPs are high-cost, they found road construction to be the most expensive (38%), followed by drinking water supply projects (20%) and construction of buildings (15%) as shown in Table 21. Irrigation projects were not viewed as costing too much money. Table 21: Type of CDPs stated to cost too much money in percentage Responses CDPs n Percent Road construction 812 37.6% Culvert, Bridge construction 271 12.6% Constructing buildings 330 15.3% Fixing Electric poles 103 4.8% Drinking water supply 424 19.6% Irrigation 74 3.4% Training / Seminar / Workshop 144 6.7% Total 2,158 100%
3.3.5 Criteria for Selection of CDP More than half of the respondents (52%, n=1,792) stated that the participatory project planning process or the 14-steps planning process was used as the criteria for selection of CDP, while about a quarter (25%) said that CDP was selected randomly or on ad-hoc basis as shown in Figure 18 (a). Around 22% were unsure about the selection criteria. The majority of FGD participants and key informants affirmed that development projects in their community are selected on the basis of need within in the community. They also stated that before launching any CDPs in a community, the projects are first discussed at the community level and then sorted through consensus for selection and implementation. Community members' awareness about the CDP process was reported to have increased after the earthquake, where more people have started to show
Page | 35
their interest in development activities. The participation of women and marginalized groups was also said to have increased as compared to before the earthquake.
a) b) Male Female Youth Don’t know/Can’t say 21.7% Don’t know/Can’t 29.0% 33.6% 37.4% say Refused 1.4% Refused 25.0% 50.0% 25.0%
Other .4% Other 69.2% 15.4%15.4%
Ad-Hoc basis 24.5% Ad-Hoc basis 44.0% 20.3% 35.8%
Participatory Project Participatory 48.3% 21.2% 30.5% Planning Process / 52.0% Project Planning … Followed 14 steps … 0% 30% 60% 90% 0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 18: Selection criteria for CDP (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
3.3.6 Public Hearings Nearly half of the respondents (49%, N=4,490) reported that a public hearing was carried out in their VDC during the planning process (Figure 19, a) while 37% were unsure about any public hearing. Among those who reported that a public hearing was conducted, 44% were male, 28% female and 29% youth (Figure 19, b).
a) b) Male Female Youth 100% Yes 29.0% 29.7% 22.9% 29.6% 80% No 37.3% 60% 27.4% 32.6% 48.9% 52.9% 45.1% Refused 40%
43.6% Don't 20% 37.7% 24.3% 25.3% .8% 13.0% Know/Can 't Say 0% Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure 19: Public hearing event in VDC (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
Page | 36
Among those who reported that a public hearing was carried out (N=4,490), 69% had participated in the event (Figure 20, a), and of those who had participated 46 % of were male, 27% female and 28% youth (Figure 20, b).
a) b) Male Female Youth 100% Yes 25.0% 15.1% 27.8% 29.2% 34.2% .2% 80% No 60% 26.6% 26.4% 37.5% 15.5% 32.2% Refused 40% 45.6% 44.4% 69.2% 20% 37.5% 33.6% Don't Know/Can't 0% Say Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't Say
Figure 20: Participation of respondents in public hearing (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
Page | 37
3.4 VDC Service Delivery
3.4.1 Types of Services Received through VDC After the April 25 earthquake, 42% of the respondents received an earthquake victim identity card (EVIC). Among respondents who had received an EVIC, 55% were male and 28% were female. Based on caste/ethnicity, these cards were found to have been distributed almost equally except for religious minorities (3%). However, most of the other services from the VDC were not used by survey respondents (Table 22). Death certificates, recommendation for divorce, migration certificates, employment-related services and community mediation were the least accessed services over the past year (<1%). Though there were thousands of human causalities as a result of the earthquake, only 0.6% of respondents had requested death certificates from the VDC. Table 22: Percentage of responses for services accessed through VDC
Responses VDC Services n Percent Birth certificate 275 2.5 Marriage certificate 147 1.3 Death certificate 68 .6 Recommendation for citizenship 227 2.1 Recommendation for divorce 14 .1 Migration certificate / recommendation 19 .2 Social security allowances (PLWD) 194 1.8 Development services 138 1.3 Employment related services 52 .5 Earthquake victim Identity card 4,537 41.6 Community mediation 51 .5 Personal house reconstruction grant agreement 958 8.8 None 4,226 38.8 Total 10,905 100
3.4.2 Effectiveness of Services Delivered through VDCs The level of effectiveness of service delivery by VDCs was measured using the following categories: very effective, effective, less effective and not effective at all. The respondents who received services through their VDC last year (post-earthquake) rated all these services as “effective.” More than 85% of the respondents rated VDC services as “effective” for services such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates and citizenship recommendation certificates. Nearly 80% of the respondents rated services like divorce recommendations, migration certificates, social security allowances, EVICs and community mediation as “effective”. Employment related services, development services and personal house reconstruction grants were said to be “effective” by 60% to 68% of the respondents as shown in Figure 21. Among respondents who received support for a personal house reconstruction grant agreement, a third rated the services to be “ineffective”. Similarly, a quarter of respondents rated the development services of VDCs to be “ineffective”.
Page | 38
Very effective Effective Ineffective Not effective at all Refused Don’t know/Can’t say
Personal House reconstruction agreement1.1% 61.0% 30.6% Community mediation 3.9% 78.4% 15.7% Earthquake victim identity card 3.8% 78.0% 15.7% Employment related services 17.3% 61.5% 17.3% Development services 6.5% 68.1% 25.4% Social security allowances 12.4% 76.2% 8.8% Migration certificate 21.1% 78.9% Recommendation for divorce 7.1% 78.6% 14.3% Recommendation for citizenship 6.6% 87.7% 3.5% Death certificate 8.8% 85.3% 4.4% Marriage certificate 6.8% 87.8% 4.8% Birth certificate 5.8% 86.2% 5.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 21: Level of effectiveness of the VDC service delivery in percentage
3.4.3 Reason for Ineffective Services Provided by VDC Respondents were asked for reasons why ineffective services were being provided by their VDCs. These responses are shown in Table 23. The majority noted the delay in providing services (33%) as the main reason in 2015, and the non-responsive attitude of VDC officials (14%). Political influence (13%) and discrimination (12%) were other reasons provided. Other reasons stated by respondents for VDC officials’ non-responsive attitude include inadequate capacity, VDC secretaries assigned to more than one VDC, and lack of staff in VDC offices. Key informants and FGD participants also expressed similar views as reasons for service delays. Table 23: Explanations provided for ineffective VDC service delivery Responses Reasons n Percent Delay in providing services 703 32.4 VDC officials’ non-responsible attitude 302 13.9 Corruption 171 7.9 There is political influence in the services provided 290 13.3 Discrimination (nepotism, favoritism) 260 12.0 Inadequate capacity of VDC officials 122 5.6 Lack of VDC staff 71 3.3 Lack of VDC resources 72 3.3 Lack of a VDC office building 27 1.2 More than one secretary assigned to a VDC 105 4.8 VDC secretaries overburden 20 .9 Frequent transfer of VDC secretaries 30 1.4 Total 2,173 100
Page | 39
3.4.4 Prioritization of Infrastructure or Service Improvements Respondents were asked to list the top three issues that they thought needed improvement in their VDC as shown in Figure 22. The majority of respondents (64%) rated drinking water as a top priority followed by roads (17 %) and health services (8%). Similarly, for the second priority, the highest rating was given for roads (35%) followed by health services (27%) and drinking water (17%). For the third priority, schools (31%) were prioritized followed by health services (23%) and later roads (22 %).
Third Priority Second Priority First Priority 3.3% Others .8% 2.2% Electricity/cell phone 9.2% 4.2% coverage 3.0% 3.7% ECD centers .4% .9% 31.0% Schools 15.0% 5.6% 22.1% Roads 35.2% 16.8% 23.4% Health services 26.7% 8.4% 7.4% Drinking water 17.1% 63.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Figure 22: Top three priority areas for improvement
3.4.5 Level of Satisfaction with VDC Service Delivery Consumer satisfaction was measured for the various public services delivered by VDCs. Their perception of the services was measured using the following categories: extremely satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, and extremely dissatisfied as shown in Table 24. This study showed that dissatisfaction existed with the majority of services delivered. About 60% to 69% of respondents were dissatisfied with services such as drinking water, electricity coverage, roads and ECD centers. Furthermore, half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the services received from health centers as opposed to 40% of the respondents who were satisfied with the services received. About 49% of the respondents were dissatisfied with school services as opposed to 44% of the respondents who seemed satisfied. Despite the majority stating that the development services provided by the VDC were effective, Table 24 shows that respondents were dissatisfied with all of these services. This could be due to the amount of damage caused by the earthquake, leaving many services yet to be restored as indicated in Figure 30, and similarly as stated for improvement in Figure 22. This stresses the need for immediate improvements of such services in affected areas.
Page | 40
Table 24: Percentage of level of satisfaction with VDC service delivery Don’t Extremely Extremely Services Satisfied Dissatisfied Refused know/C Total satisfied dissatisfied an’t say Drinking 51 1,585 4,909 1,535 6 10 8,096 water .6% 19.6% 60.6% 19.0% .1% .1% 100.0% Health 56 2,102 2,854 295 7 16 5,330 Services 1.1% 39.4% 53.5% 5.5% .1% .3% 100.0% 13 1,911 4,274 548 7 10 6,763 Roads .2% 28.3% 63.2% 8.1% .1% .1% 100.0% 28 2,051 2,296 284 9 15 4,683 Schools .6% 43.8% 49.0% 6.1% .2% .3% 100.0% ECD 2 37 299 106 0 8 452 Center .4% 8.2% 66.2% 23.5% 0 1.8% 100.0% Electricity 1 208 938 337 0 11 1,495 Coverage .1% 13.9% 62.7% 22.5% 0 .7% 100.0% 2 8 265 298 0 1 574 Others .3% 1.4% 46.2% 51.9% 0 .2% 100.0%
3.4.6 VDC Staff Presence As government civil servants, VDC secretaries and staff play a large role in managing VDC affairs. This includes project planning and implementation, financial management, governance, etc. As such all development projects proposed for a community directly involves the VDC office. Theoretically, these staff must always be present and available as without them, very little moves forward. Four categories have been used to determine the level of VDC staff presence. These are: “always, often, rare and never” as shown in Table 25. VDC secretary: Half of the survey respondents stated that their VDC secretary was rarely present, while nearly a quarter responded “often.” This report was gathered from 55% male, 49% female and 49% youth respondents. VDC staff: Only a quarter of the respondents said VDC staff were always present. One third said they were often present, and 23% said they were rarely present in their office. The irregular presence of the VDC secretary and staff in this survey indicates the main reason for delays in providing services to communities (Table 23), and for their overall ineffectiveness. Table 25: Presence of VDC secretary and VDC staff in VDC office Presence Don’t Always Often Rare Never Refused Total of know/Can’t say VDC N 556 2187 4685 166 24 1571 9189 Secretary % 6.1% 23.8% 51.0% 1.8% .3% 17.1% 100.0% VDC N 2332 3107 2104 90 42 1514 9189 Staff % 25.4% 33.8% 22.9% 1.0% .5% 16.5% 100.0%
The unavailability or lack of staffing of VDC officials and the inconvenience it caused to the public also corresponds with the qualitative data collected from the survey districts. An inadequate number of VDC staff and the responsibilities that VDC secretaries were overburdened with after the earthquake were
Page | 41 stated as prime reasons for delays in service provision and/or inefficient service delivery. VDC staff were reported to be among the busiest civil servants during the relief and recovery periods.
3.4.7 Perception of the Utilization of Funds in VDCs Though respondents reported effective services being provided by VDC offices, a major percentage (38%) were doubtful about the VDC’s utilization of funds for priority projects (Figure 23, a). About 39% were unaware of how VDC funds were being utilized in their community, which could be due to respondents being less aware of development projects and public hearings, as well as low participation in general as explained earlier. A comparison based on respondent type showed that the majority of male respondents (48%) agreed on the utilization of funds as meeting the needs and priorities of VDCs compared to female and youth respondents, as shown in Figure 23, b.
a) b) Male Female Youth
Yes Don't Know/Can't Say 27.9% 44.4% 27.8%
21.1% 39.1% No Refused 24.7% 47.4% 27.9%
38.1% Refused No 38.0% 30.6% 31.4%
1.7% Don't Yes 47.7% 24.1% 28.2% Know/Ca n't Say 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% . Figure 23: VDC funds spent according to priority (a) by respondent type (b) in percentages Figure 24 (a) shows a small percentage of respondents (16%) who believed that VDC funds were being utilized transparently. Half of these respondents who mostly agreed with this statement were male, followed by 26% youth and 23% female respondents. Moreover, a large number of the respondents (41%) believed that VDC funds were not being utilized transparently in their community, while 42% didn’t know, or weren’t sure. There are several government-approved mechanisms in place that work to improve transparency and accountability at the VDC level, and keep the public informed on how public spending is utilized. However, these mechanisms including public hearings, public audits, and social audits are often not followed properly. Despite the presence of a proper legal framework and established mechanisms to monitor development activities in a community, the low level of public awareness and participation in these activities (e.g. public hearing in Figure 19 and 20) by respondents could not be determined in this study, nor if a fully transparent and accountable system is in place. Responses such as political influence within VDCs, nepotism/discrimination and corruption shown in Table 23 may be the causes for the lack of transparency or trust in the way projects are implemented.
Page | 42
a) b) Male Female Youth Yes Don't Know/Can't Say 28.4% 44.2% 27.4%
15.5% No 41.9% Refused 27.8% 42.4% 29.7% Refused 40.9% No 38.1% 29.6% 32.3% Don't Know/Can't 1.7% Say Yes 50.8% 22.8% 26.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 24: Transparency with VDC funding (a) by respondent type (b)
3.4.8 Sources Utilized for Gathering Information on the Transparency of the use of VDC Funds Transparency over the use of funds is a major issue in Nepal. This study shows that public hearings (46%) were the most practical way of learning about how public funds are spent at the VDC level. VDC notice boards (21%), followed by public audits (17%) as shown in Table 26 are also useful ways of getting information out to the public. Citizen charters and social audits were the least referred to sources by respondents. Under the “others” category, information was also spread to the public via the ward coordinator, relatives, other villagers, VDC office or secretary, village representative, during meetings (undefined) or VDC council meetings, or via local radio. Table 26: Percentage of responses on sources used for information about VDC level public spending Responses Sources n Percent Public audit 391 16.9% Social audit 141 6.1% Public hearing 1055 45.6% Citizen Charter 191 8.3% VDC notice board 496 21.4% Others 35 1.5% Total 2315 100.0%
Page | 43
3.5 Conflict Mediation
3.5.1 Disputes Confronted The baseline results indicate very little Male, Female, conflict occurred after the earthquake. Only 43.3%, 34.8%, N=87 N=70 2.2% (n=201) of the total respondents experienced conflict. Based on the Youth, 21.9%, respondent types, the majority of N=44 respondents who experienced conflict were male (43%) respondents (Figure 25). Conflicts based on caste/ethnicity ranged from 20% to 29% for all groups except for other/religious minorities which was only 2%. Hill Dalit respondents (29%) faced conflict over the year, followed by 26% Hill Figure 25: Conflict faced by respondent types Brahmin/Chhetri, 22% Hill Mountain Janajati and 21% Newar. Among Hill Dalits, male respondents faced more conflict (47%) compared to a quarter of female and youth respondents respectively (Annex 8: E1). Conflict faced by age group revealed that most respondents belonged to an age group of 40-49 years (29%) followed by 27% for the 16-29 age group (Table 27). Male respondents in the age group of 40- 49, 50-59 and 60 years faced the highest number of disputes compared to the other respondents. About 56% of female respondents in the age group of 30-39 years faced more conflict than male (26%) and youth (18%) respondents. Furthermore, youth faced the highest percentage (67%) of conflict, especially those in the age group of 16-29 years. Overall, senior respondents (60 years) faced the least conflict over the past year. Table 27: Conflict faced by age classification Respondent type Age classification Total 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60 Male N 6 9 33 21 18 87 Row % 6.9 10.3 37.9 24.1 20.7 100 Column % 11.1 26.5 56.9 67.7 75.0 43.3 Female N 12 19 23 10 6 70 Row % 17.1 27.1 32.9 14.3 8.6 100 Column % 22.2 55.9 39.7 32.3 25.0 34.8 Youth N 36 6 2 0 0 44 Row % 81.8 13.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 100 Column % 66.7 17.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 21.9 Total N 54 34 58 31 24 201 Total % 26.9 16.9 28.9 15.4 11.9 100
Page | 44
3.5.2 Type of Disputes Experienced Among the 2.2% (n=201) of respondents who experienced disputes after the earthquake, a significant percentage of respondents experienced interpersonal disputes (36%), while 23% experienced resource- based conflict, and 16% caste/ethnicity based conflict. Analysis of resource-based disputes (n=46) shows that the majority of respondents (54%, n=25) experienced water-use conflict as pertaining to drinking water. This could be due to the number of damaged water sources after the earthquake, as 49% of the respondents have stated this to be the case (Figure 30). Along with this, conflict regarding the distribution of earthquake relief items (i.e. unfair distribution, ID cards, relief materials) were also reported (30%). Identity-based conflict and gender-based violence (GBV) were found to be the least experienced by the respondents as shown in Table 28. Table 28: Type of conflict experienced by respondents in percentage Don't Type of conflict Yes No Refused Know/Can't Total Say Gender Based Violence N 9 168 2 22 201 % 4.5 83.6 1.0 10.9 100 Identity Based Conflict N 6 173 2 20 201 % 3.0 86.1 1.0 10.0 100 Caste/Ethnicity Based Conflict N 33 158 1 9 201 % 16.4 78.6 .5 4.5 100 Political Conflict N 8 173 1 19 201 % 4.0 86.1 .5 9.5 100 Interpersonal Conflict N 73 117 2 9 201 % 36.3 58.2 1.0 4.5 100 Resource Based Conflict N 46 141 0 14 201 % 22.9 70.1 0 7.0 100 Other N 0 152 0 48 200 % 0 76 0 24 100
Table 29: Percentage among conflict experienced by respondent type
Conflict type Male Female Youth
Gender Based Violence N 2 4 3 % 22.2 44.4 33.3 Identity Based Conflict N 4 0 2 % 66.7 0.0 33.3 Caste/Ethnicity Based Conflict N 16 10 7 % 48.5 30.3 21.2 Political Conflict N 3 1 4 % 37.5 12.5 50.0 Interpersonal Conflict N 24 27 22 % 32.9 37.0 30.1 Resource Based Conflict N 24 12 10 % 52.2 26.1 21.7
Table 29 depicts conflict experienced by respondent type. Among the largest proportion of respondents who experienced interpersonal disputes, females ranked first with 37%, followed by males with 33%, and youth at 30%. Female respondents were also found to have experienced more GBV (44%) than youth
Page | 45
(33%) and male (22%) respondents. None of the female respondents were found to have experienced identity-based disputes (Table 29). Half of the male respondents experienced resource-based conflict, followed by a quarter of female and youth (22%) respondents. Male respondents generally experienced the following kinds of conflict: identity-based (67%), resource-based (52%) and caste/ethnicity-based (49%). Youth being quite active politically were found to have experienced more political-based conflict compared to male (38%) and female (13%) respondents. Overall, despite several grievances and dissatisfaction with the government’s inability to expedite recovery work, conflicts in the study area have not surfaced at the level of resentment.
3.5.3 Dispute Resolving Mechanisms Respondents who have faced disputes over the past year (n=175) were found to have used at least one dispute resolving mechanism (180 responses). Table 30 shows that the most common strategy used by respondents to overcome their conflict was to do nothing, as stated by 59% of the respondents. Besides, doing nothing to resolve their problem, there were other respondents (12%) who mostly sought community leader/ religious leaders/ locally important person to serve as a mediator. These leaders were found to have strong control over mostly political (38%) and caste/ethnicity based disputes (30%) as shown in Annex 8:E2. Seeking the support of police/army/armed police force was another popular mechanism used for resolving disputes, especially with regard to gender based violence cases (33%), resource-based cases (17%) and interpersonal cases (6%) as shown in Annex 8:E2. District Development Committee (DDC) / District Administration Office (DAO/VDC was also used to resolve disputes for almost all types of conflicts, except GBV cases. Though many other mechanisms were utilized, the baseline data reflects the respondents' faith in government institutions and their preferences for peaceful means for resolving their disputes. Table 30: Percentage of conflict resolving mechanisms adopted by respondent Response of cases Conflict type N % (n=175) Did nothing 103 57.2 58.9 Court/Lawyer 5 2.8 2.9 Police/army/armed police force 16 8.9 9.1 Community leader/religious leaders/ locally important 21 11.7 12.0 person Community Mediation Center (CMC) 5 2.8 2.9 Community Based Organizations (CBOs): WCFs/CACs) 5 2.8 2.9 DDC/VDC/DAO 14 7.8 8.0 Local Peace Committee (LPC) 1 0.6 0.6 Informal community process (informal mechanism/social 1 0.6 0.6 practice) I/NGOs/Human rights organizations 1 0.6 0.6 Others 5 2.8 2.9 Refused 2 1.1 1.1 Don't know/Can't say 1 0.6 0.6 Total 180
Page | 46
3.6 Gender Based Violence (GBV)
3.6.1 Perception of GBV and HH decision making To understand the gender disparity in terms of GBV and HH decision making, twelve statements were formulated and evaluated based on respondents' extent of agreement or disagreements (i.e. strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree). A Likert scale was used for this analysis. For this, responses were calculated as a composite score or sum from four scale items. An interval of 0.75 was created by using a ratio of maximum-minimum (4-1) value of rank assigned for four scales by the total number of classes (4). This interval value was used according to the four classes outlined below: Rank Scale for Negative Statement Class interval 1 Strongly agree 1.00-1.75 2 Agree 1.76-2.50 3 Disagree 2.51-3.25 4 Strongly disagree 3.26-4.00
The class interval created was used as a base for further analysis of all the statements in this section. The following conclusions are summarized for each statement with the estimated Likert value as shown in Table 31. Outputs for each statement are included in Annex 8: Section F. Table 31: Summary based on Likert scale for GBV and HH decision making S.N Statement Likert Overall Value result 1. A woman should always give all her income to her husband. 2.80 Disagree 2. A man should always give all his income to his wife. 2.68 Disagree 3. A woman does not need her husband's permission to do paid work 2.66 Disagree 4. If a wife does not obey her husband, he has the right to punish her. 2.85 Disagree 5. Under no circumstances, should a man beat his wife. 1.97 Agree 6. Rape is a social crime punishable by law. But when a woman is raped 2.78 Disagree she is to blame 7. Both females and males should decide together about important 1.59 Strongly decisions that affect their family. agree 8. A man should decide how many children his wife should bear. 2.94 Disagree 9. It is okay for a wife to seek community mediation if she has problems 2.23 Agree in the house. 10. A woman should ask the permission of her family member/husband to 2.03 Agree travel. 11. A woman does not need to take permission of her family or her 2.67 Disagree husband to take part in social events/activities 12. A woman should obey/follow all the traditional practices even if it is 2.85 Disagree harmful.
Table 31 indicates the extent of agreement / disagreement among respondents with the 12 statements defined in the survey. Overall, responses for 9 out of 12 statements were found to be positive with respondents strongly agreeing on the statement where Both females and males should decide together about
Page | 47 important decisions that affect their family (Statement 7). Male respondents more strongly agreed with this statement than females and youth. Among the 9 positive responses, respondents were found to strongly agree with statement no. 7; 2 with statement nos. 5 and 9, while disagreeing with statement nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 as shown in Table 31.
Youth overall responded positively to statements nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12, followed by male respondents to statements nos. 5, 6, 7, 9. This implies that respondents, especially youth, are aware of gender sensitive issues though the degree of agreement or disagreement was not very strong. This is likely due to the high rate of literacy among youth; many of whom are students (Table 10 and Table 12) compared to lower level of literacy among male and female respondents. It also could be due to youth exposure to various community groups and activities in their communities. Youth who participated in an FGD also expressed that though many people disagree with statement 12, in practice, women were said to follow traditional practices. Negative responses were observed for statement nos. 3, 10 and 11. Male respondents disagreed with statement 3, A woman does not need her husband's permission to do paid work. This is likely due to Nepal’s patriarchal society (83 % of male respondents are HH heads as shown in Table 9) where men still like to hold authority over women. Furthermore, the majority of respondents also agree with statement 10, A woman should ask the permission of her family member/husband to travel, where youth in particular were found to support the idea. Respondents agreed that women should seek permission to travel, but disagreed with statement 11, A woman does not need to take permission from her family or her husband to take part in social events/activities. Surprisingly female respondents agreed with the need to seek approval. Group discussions among youth and women groups revealed that youth, and women in "I have to work for my children, for our living even particular, do not think it is necessary to ask though my husband does not allow me to do it. It is their husband’s permission to hold a paid because he does not work at all and most of the time he job; rather one should just inform them. Also, is drunk. Please suggest me how can I get him to abstain despite unemployed husband not allowing from his habitual drinking of alcohol. He abuses me and their wives to work, poor females were my children verbally and physically, when he is drunk." reported to be working anyway. A woman from Dhading district Almost all participants in group discussions believed that local citizens and police should take more responsibility for addressing GBV issues. These participants are very aware of which agencies are able to provide support and how to report GBV cases. However, the families of the victims themselves were hesitant to report these cases out of fear of being socially stigmatized, despite not having any barriers to reporting such cases. Frequent rallies, meetings and programs related to GBV organized in the VDC were reported to have raised awareness levels as shared by FGD participants in Bungkot VDC of Gorkha district. They discussed a rape case involving a 17-year old girl who was reported to authorities. The offender was arrested and the victim was given shelter by the support group Maiti Nepal. This illustrates that awareness programs developed for communities can make a difference in protecting people.
Page | 48
3.7 Recovery and Reconstruction
3.7.1 Knowledge about Mobile Service Camp (MSC) Male 34.0% Mobile service camps (MSC) are very popular in Nepal, especially in remote areas where people cannot afford or access certain facilities provided Youth 32.0% by the government. The baseline study showed that only 29% of the respondents know about MSCs. Of the total respondents who know about MSCs Female 20.5% (n=2,636), a third are male (Figure 26).
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Figure 26: Awareness of mobile service camps
IMSC Mobile service camps are categorized into integrated (IMSC), Both 12% sectoral (SMSC) or both. Of these three groups, more than half of IMSC & the respondents were found to have received services through SMSC 34% sectoral mobile camps. Secondly most benefitted from services by attending IMSCs and SMSCs. Only 12% of respondents received services through IMSCs as shown in Figure 27. Analysis based on SMSC respondent type indicates that SMSCs were most popular. A large 54% percentage of female respondents (65%) benefitted from SMSCs. Many youth also received services through both mobile camps (42%) compared to 35% male and 16% female respondents. Figure 27: Type of MSC received
3.7.2 Types of Services received through Mobile Service Camps Of the total respondents (N=9,189), only 4% and 9% of respondents responded to the service received through IMSCs (n=342) and SMSCs (n=864) respectively. Among these percentages, at least two different services were received per respondent from IMSCs compared to two-thirds of responses for SMSCs. Figure 28 shows that a considerable percentage of respondents (80%) benefitted from health services through both camps (i.e., 39% and 53% of all responses for IMSCs and SMSCs respectively). Secondly, more than half of the respondents received agriculture extension services through IMSCs, which is half of those who received services through SMSCs. Thirdly, 43% of the respondents received livestock services through IMSCs compared to 19% services received through SMSCs. Overall, the most beneficial services were health, agriculture extension, and livestock services. Services for all other amenities accounted for <10% of services received, except for citizen certificates where 11% of the respondents received this service through IMSCs. Land registration (2%) and payment of revenue (0.6%) were the least useful for both camps.
Page | 49
IMSC_n=342 SMSC_n=864
Health services Health services 53.3% Agriculture extension 38.87% 26.38% services Agriculture extension services 18.1% Livestock services 20.85% Livestock services 15.5% Citizen certificate 5.39% Citizen certificate 5% Birth registration 2.98% Social security Social security allowances 3.3% allowances 1.42% Banking and Finance Banking and Finance services 1.5% services 1.13% Land registration 0.99% Other services from IMS 1.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 28: Responses in percentage for the types of services received through IMSCs and SMSCs
3.7.3 Infrastructure/Services Damaged and Affected When the baseline study was carried out in the earthquake-affected districts, damage to infrastructure in these areas was still evident. The projects SB was likely to focus on was categorized into six types: health, water and sanitation, irrigation, road/trail repair, education, and community development. The results of the baseline study in terms of services damaged showed education facilities to be the most affected as reported by 85% of respondents. About 78% of the respondents said water and sanitation facilities had been damaged, followed by 68 % who said health centers were damaged. About 38% mentioned that roads had also been affected. Irrigation facilities (20%) and CDPs (12%) were reported to be the least affected (Table 32). Despite this categorization, respondents were found to be substantially affected by all damaged infrastructure. Almost all (96%) of the respondents stated that they were affected by damaged water and sanitation facilities, followed by irrigation, road/trail destruction as illustrated in Table 32. Table 32: Percentage of services damaged and respondent affected by the damage
Services damaged Services damaged Affected N 6206 5176 Health % 67.6% 84.6% N 6954 6596 Water and Sanitation % 75.7% 95.6% N 1837 1660 Irrigation % 20.0% 93.2% N 3504 3177 Road/trail % 38.2% 91.9% N 7783 5064 Education % 84.7% 89.4% N 1085 899 Community Development Project % 11.8% 87.9%
Page | 50
Besides destruction to major infrastructure, 1.8% (n=161) of the respondents stated damage to buildings within the "others" category. Nearly 60% of the respondents reported monasteries/mosques/temples to have suffered the most damage, followed by damage to VDC offices (17%) and houses (4%) as shown in Figure 29. Cottage industries, electricity authority offices, female Dalit associations, police stations were also reported to be destroyed by 0.6% of respondents for each category.
Monastry/Mosque/Temple 58.4%
VDC Office 16.8%
House 10.6%
Club 3.7%
Community 3.7%
Cooperative 1.9%
Post Office 1.2%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of damage
Figure 29: Type of building damaged in percentage under the others category
3.7.4 Extent of Damage of Infrastructure/Services and Their Restoration Levels Education centers, water and sanitation services, and health facilities, as reported above, were said to have been completely damaged by 55%, 49% and 43% of the respondents respectively. Irrigation facilities were said to be fully damaged by a third of the respondents, whereas 88% reported partial damage to road/trails as shown in Figure 30. Almost all infrastructures were said to be partially damaged, with the extent of damage ranging from 45% to 67%, and roads/trails 88%. A year after the earthquake, little progress has been made with the recovery effort, with much infrastructure still damaged. As shown in Figure 30, very few respondents answered that infrastructure projects in their communities were completely restored (<10%). Respondents nevertheless reported that partial restoration of community infrastructure had taken place. Education centers and roads/trails were said to be partially restored by 74% of the respondents. Other infrastructure such as health, CDPs, irrigation and water and sanitation were found to be moderately restored (Figure 30). Moreover, a third of the respondents stated no effort had been made with restoration despite complete damage to water and sanitation facilities. According to VDC officials and key informants, the delay in the reconstruction process was due to government’s inability to rebuild. They also believed it was due to weak coordination between donor agencies/NGO/INGO and government. Furthermore, they stated that these entities should work in together to focus on projects which would yield long term benefits to the community. The delays with construction work were said to be caused by the fact that the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) was slow moving in getting established, and that no other organization had been given the mandate for reconstruction. As it stands, the NRA only exists to support other government agencies, which has caused
Page | 51 confusion among the various stakeholders. In addition, considerable time was also required to complete administrative work and make bank arrangements to distribute government grants to earthquake victims.
CDP 28.6% 65.6% 5.6% 63.7% 23.9%
Education 54.6% 44.8% 6.4% 74.1% 18.4%
Road/trail 10.7% 88.0% 10.1% 74.3% 14.2%
Irrigation 32.1% 64.8% 4.3% 59.0% 32.7%
Water & 48.9% 50.4% 5.5% 57.9% 35.5% Sanitation
Health 43.4% 55.2% 4.4% 68.8% 24.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Completely damaged Partially damaged Completely restored / reconstructed Partially restored restored / reconstructed Not restored or left as it is
Figure 30: Percentage of the extent of damage and levels of infrastructure restoration
Page | 52
CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 4.1 Key Findings
Demographic Features
. The baseline survey sample had an equal distribution of respondents based on caste/ethnicity, i.e., 25% Hill Brahmin/Chhetri; 26% Hill Mountain Janajati; 23% Newar; 24% Hill Dalit and 3% Religious Minority. The age of respondents ranged from 6 to 95 years, with most between the ages of 16 and 59. . The majority of household heads were men (90%) and almost 75% of the respondents were married. . Formal education among all respondents was 42%, with female literacy at 16%. . Most respondents reported agriculture as their occupation. Students and housewife/home-makers were next on the list. Very few people reported as being retired and working in a foreign country. . A year after the earthquake, slightly more than half of the respondents were still living in temporary shelters. . Only a few respondents had a physical disability (1.3%), with more male respondents reporting a disability than female respondents. Most cases of disability were found to have occurred before the earthquake. . Most respondents were aware of the functions of VDC health posts, VDC offices, Women’s/Mother’s groups, and Police Units (80-90%) and said these were effective. The function of organizations/committees such as RLG, IPFC, TLO, DMC, PMC and CAC were least known by respondents (3-18%).
WCF Membership and Participation in VDP
. Only a third of the respondents knew about the roles and responsibilities of a WCF. More than half the respondents perceive WCFs to be effective. . A small percentage of respondents were members of a WCF (3.1%), with membership slightly higher among family members by 0.8%. . Membership among respondents was greater for male (61%) respondents, followed by female (25%) and youth (15%) respondents. . Among the small percentage of respondents serving as WCF members, their participation in VDPs was found to be low (20%). Only half of the WCF male members were active in their role. Respondents who participated in VDPs were found to be more curious or offer suggestions during these meetings (74%), with male respondent being the most vocal. Those who made suggestions strongly felt that their voices were heard (79%) by meeting representatives.
Page | 53
Community Development Projects . Only one third (N=3,446) of the respondents had heard of CDP, and among them a quarter did not understand CDP roles and responsibilities. Respondent participation in CDP meetings (35%, N=1,188) was generally low. Yet, those who participated in them had expressed their concerns and suggestions (71%). Only half of these respondents felt their suggestions were acknowledged by representatives running the meetings. . Male respondents tended to have more knowledge of CDPs, participate in then, voiced their opinion more often than females and youth. . Among respondents who had heard of CDPs (N=3,446), 64% agreed with the views on project implementation by local users’ groups/companies/beneficiaries. 43% agreed with the transparency of managing funds. 44% agreed on the public audit process carried out for CDPs. 54% agreed on project design based on local needs. 52% were aware of the 14-step planning process in selection of development projects. 38% of the respondents disagreed with the idea that CDPs being implemented were too expensive.
VDC Service Delivery
. A year after the earthquake, a large number of respondents were able to access government- issued earthquake victim identity cards, followed by a grant agreement to rebuild their homes. . Respondents rated all basic services provided through the VDC as effective. A majority however were dissatisfied with the services provided by VDCs such as drinking water, health, roads, schools, ECD centers, electricity/cell phone coverage. These services were mostly damaged by the earthquake and their restoration is a key priority for respondents. Respondents also felt that the reasons for ineffective service delivery had to do with slow government processes, unresponsive VDC officials, and political influence in the services provided. . The two most common responses to the question of whether the VDC secretary and staff are present in their offices were rare and often available respectively. . Most respondents agreed that CDP funds were being managed transparently, and projects designed were based on local needs. Only a small proportion of the respondents were confident about VDC funds being utilized as per the needs and priorities of the VDC. . Public hearings were reportedly the best mechanism where people could learn about the use of public funds transparently.
Conflict Mediation
. A substantial percentage of respondents (95%) have not experienced any conflict a year following the earthquake in the study areas. Only 2.2% experienced conflict. Male respondents experienced more conflict compared to females and youth. . Interpersonal conflict, resource based conflict and caste/ethnicity based conflict were among the major types of conflict experienced by the respondents. Several mechanisms used to resolve these included working with government institutions such as the DDC/VDC/DAO, police/army/armed police force, however most respondents did nothing to resolve their grievances.
Page | 54
Gender Based Violence . The baseline results showed that most respondents were somewhat aware of gender inequality in terms of decision making within a household, and gender based violence. Respondents were found to have taken a conservative stance on topics such as allowing females to travel independently, or their participation in social activities, events and employment without first obtaining the consent of their family (or husband if married).
Recovery and Reconstruction
. Widespread damage to infrastructure and services was observed, with health (68%), water and sanitation (76%), and education facilities (85%) being among the most affected. . All infrastructure was found to be partially damaged (>50% responses) except for education facilities which were stated to be completely damaged by 55% of the respondents. . Most of the reported damaged infrastructure is undergoing repairs. . People were found to be greatly affected by the damaged infrastructure and lack of services (ranging from 85% to 96%). Damage to water and sanitation services was found to have major impact on respondents (96%).
Page | 55
Annex Annex 1: List of field researchers
District Supervisor Supervisor_Ph. No. Enumerator Type Enumerator_Ph.No. Ramechhap Baksur 9849037840 Appechha Neupane F 9860929017 Roka Tara Devi Khatiwada F 9841980709 Magar Shanti Thapa F 9841118095 Shrijana Tamang F 9842711617 Sailesh Koirala M 9849914355 Pramod Acharya M 9845278183 Tulasi Neupane M 9864031190 Bishnu Gosain M 9843176770 Dolakha Anuj 9803878280 Anuj Pokharel M 9841429243 Baniya Ganesh P. Regmi M 9818755080 Roshan Lawati M 9841886232 Buddhi Naryan M 9841607426 Shrestha Lokendra Gywali M 9841132348 Kalpana Dangol F 9841125095 Kiran Rupa Magar F 9860429574 Nisha Sharma F 9841761080 Dhading Khem Raj 9849613984 Shobha Bhattarai F 9849122927 Khanal Jhalak Gyawali M 9848186800 Meera Tamang F 9849595542 Goma Pradhan F 9843334026 Mangkel Rai M 9849195561 Santosh Kharel M 9841308461 Anuj Gurung M 9841606238 Sanjib Adhikari M 9843148300 Makwanpur Kalpana 9841725792 Assita Gole F 9860447934 Kaspal Nanu Babu Khanal F 9849465628 Rama Karki F 9841488458 Seema Gurung F 9803685810 Nabin Shrestha M 9841118398 Suresh Khanal M 9849614860 Jagat P. Sharma M 9846583729 Rabindra Kishore M 9841519572 Sharma Gorkha Ram P. 9841820832 Tara Devi Rawal F 9841448891 Devkota Tek Maya Gurung F 9846261096 Apsara Khadka F 9840096526 Sumitra Rimal F 9841951869 Pramila Khadka F 9846111786 Sunuwar
Page | 56
District Supervisor Supervisor_Ph. No. Enumerator Type Enumerator_Ph.No. Ashok Rai M 9842285264 Krishna Tiwari M 9841977521 Raju Giri M 9849009887 Sailendra Dawadi M 9849065794 Lamjung Sunmaya 9841488986 Krishan P. Upadhya M 9847639777 Gurung Sunil Khanal M 9816911644 Arpan Chauhan M 9844606226 Krishna Gurung M 9841649145 Lil Bdr. Gurung M 9841261058 Muna K.C F 9849672374 Roji K.C. F 9843647280 Sanju Satyal F 9860754069
Page | 57
Annex 2: Value Calculation Index Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks Governance Indicators Indicator A1.01: Proportion of Total no. of respondents who used The values are calculated by households that have experienced peaceful means/ Total number of including only those who mentioned 9 conflict in the past year that have used Baseline: 31.3 % respondents who have experienced types of peaceful means i. e. peaceful means to solve the conflict conflict in the past year (N=201) *100 Court/lawyer, police/army/armed police force, Community (Values for this indicator are based on leader/religious leader/locally multiple responses keeping the sum of important person, CMC, CBO's: percentages at 100 %.) WCF/CAC, DDC/VDC/DAO, LPC, Informal comm. Process, I/NGO's/Human Rights. Indicator B.2.03: Proportion of Ward No. of WCF members who think their Citizen Forum members who indicate Baseline: 13.1% suggestions have been heard in the VDC that they can provide meaningful input planning process meetings / Total number to the village development plans of WCF members in the sample *100 Indicator C.1.01: Proportion of citizens No. of respondents who feel that use of who feel that the administration of Baseline: 15.5% VDC funds in their community is funds in the VDC is transparent transparent/ Total number of respondents *100 Indicator C.2.01: Proportion of citizens No. of respondents who make suggestions Filtered based on only those who who indicate that they actively Baseline: 70. 7% or voice their opinions regarding the CDPs had participated in the CDPs participate in the decisions around in meetings/ Total number of respondents meeting (Yes=1,188). VDC community development projects. who had participated in the CDPs meetings *100 Indicator D.1.01: Percentage Baseline: 80.4% No. of respondents who think that VDC Percentage is calculated by improvement in positive citizen views offices have provided services very combining ‘Very effective’ and on VDC service delivery effectively or somewhat effectively in the ‘Somewhat effective’ responses to past one year/ Total number of this question respondents *100 Indicator D.2.03: Percentage Percentage calculated for each statement. Percentage of respondents who have
Page | 58
Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks improvement in positive citizen views Baseline: 58.9% i.e. calculated by (adding' very effective positive views in 4 or more on the effective implementation of & effective) in each statement/ total no. of statements out of 7regarding the community development projects respondents who had heard about effective implementation of CDPs. CDPs*100 Filtered based on only those who Final percentage is calculated as average said that they had heard about CDP % of all 7 statements (Yes=3,446) Indicator 34: Percentage of target Baseline: 64% Percentage calculated for each statement Percentage of respondents who population that views GBV as less separately as total number of respondents have positive views in any 5 or more acceptable after participating in or who have positive views (either sum of than 5 statements out of 12 being exposed to USG programming strongly agree and agree or sum of regarding the GBV. disagree or strongly disagree) to the statement/Total number of respondents*100 Taking average % for positive views on all 12 statements. Recovery Indicators F1: % of population who has accessed Total no. of responses who has accessed Values for this indicator are based government services outside of district government services through IMSC (sum of on multiple responses keeping the Baseline: 28.7% head quarter in the last six months both Integrated and Sectorial)/ Total sum of percentages at 100%. through Integrated Mobile Service number of respondents *100 Camp Total no. of respondent affected by lost F2: % of population affected by lost health centers - respondents who said that health centers as a result of disaster or Baseline: 4.4% their infrastructures have been completely other crises have been restored their restored/Total number of respondent who services said yes to damage of health centers*100
Total no. of respondent affected by F3: % of population whose access to damage to water and sanitation services water and sanitation services was Baseline: 36% who said that their infrastructures has not impacted by the earthquake, and has been completely restored/Total number of not been restored? respondent who said yes to damage of water and sanitation services *100 F4: % of HHs whose access to Total no. of respondent affected by Percentage is not calculated at Baseline: 32.7% irrigation facilities was impacted by damage to irrigation facilities, who said household level. the earthquake, and has not been that their infrastructures has not been
Page | 59
Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks restored completely restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of irrigation facilities*100 Total no. of respondent affected by F5: % of HH whose access (trail/road) damage to road/trails who said that their Percentage is not calculated at was impacted by the earthquake, and Baseline: 14.2% infrastructures has not been completely household level. has not been restored restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of road/trails *100 F6: Official perspective on effective Baseline: 33.3% Total no. of KII (n=30) who perceived as Value for this indicator calculated on implementation of community implementation of CDPs on relief and the basis of responses of KII development projects, of relief and recovery activities is effective/Total conducted with officials. the response recovery activities number of KII (N=30) *100 as effective are considered in the calculation
Page | 60
Annex 3: List of local organizations Organization District Supervisors Name of Staff Designation Ph. No. Email Janachetana Lamjung Sunmaya Office Besisahar , Lamgunj 066-520769 [email protected]
Avibriddhi Bikas Gurung, Dikendra R Kandel Executive Chairman 9851041576 [email protected] Adhyayan Samiti 9849037840 Bijaya Gurung Project Coordinator 9856029822 [email protected] (COPPADES) Rachana Khanal Finance Officer 9849545792 [email protected] System Gorkha Ram P. Office Bahara, Gorkha 064-420894 [email protected]
Development Devkota, Kamala Lamichane Executive Director 9856040726 [email protected] Service Center- 9841820832 Sandeep Thapa Project Coordinator 9860811006 [email protected] (SDSC) Suchana Thapa Finanace Officer 9841078447 [email protected] Action Nepal Dhading Khem Raj Office Nilkantha, Dhading 010-521012 [email protected] Khanal, Bhim Prasad President 010-521012 [email protected] 9849613984 Dhungana Dinesh Duwadi Project Coordinator 9841717733 [email protected]
Bindu Deuja Finance Officer 9841916591 [email protected]
Janabhawana Ramechhap Baksur Roka Office Manthali-2, Ramechhap 048-540467 [email protected]
Youth Club (JYC) Magar, Kumar Kandel President 9741044764 [email protected] 98490377840 Tula Prasad Kandel Project Coordinator 9844073905 [email protected]
Kailash Subedi Admin and Finance Officer 9844208930 [email protected]
Deepjyoti Samaj Dolakha Anuj Baniya, Office Sundrawati-2, Dolakha 049-690086 [email protected]
Sudhar Sangh 9803878280 Dambar Prasad President 9841715206 [email protected] (DJSSS) Sedai
Ishwori Prasad Sedai Project Coordinator 9844465408 [email protected] Gauri Basnet Finance Officer 9844067030 [email protected]
m
Womenn, Makwanpur Kalpana Pramila Mahat Chairperson, Hetauda-11, 057- [email protected] Children and Kaspal, Makwanpur 691405,9845 Environment 9841725792 598822, 057- Development 520127
Center Udav Baniya Executive Director [email protected] (WOCHEND)
Page | 61
Annex 4: Household questionnaire Baseline Survey in Recovery Districts Household Questionnaire Form Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas This survey is conducted by the Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) on behalf of Sajhedari Bikas (SB). The main purpose of this project is to assess the recovery status, government response to citizen needs and the satisfaction level of citizen with service delivery of local government bodies in six highly affected districts by April 25 and May 12 earthquake of 2015. This survey will measure the perception from a youth, man and a woman in a household. Therefore, this one-on-one interview is carried out with you to support us in understanding and identifying your issues related to local governance. There is no correct answer to the questions we are asking and we do not intend to disclose your name without your permission. The responses provided by you will be kept confidential and will only be used in analyzing the context in your area. The outputs gained from this research will further support SB for the evidence based interventions in the affected districts through its strategic governance approaches. NDRI and SB are very thankful to you for supporting us in filling out this form. A. Introduction 2. Surveyors ID 1. Surveyors Name |______| No. |____|____| 3. District 36=Gorkha 37=Lamjung 30=Dhading 31=Makwanpur 22=Dolakha 21=Ramechhap |____| 4. VDC /Municipality 5. Ward Name |______| No. |____| 6. Questionnaire No. |____|___| 7. Household No. |____|____|____| 8. Date of interview dd/mm/2016 |______|______|______| 9. Time of interview hr : minutes |___|___|: |___|___| 10. GPS coordinates Latitude |_____|_____|_____| Longitude |_____|_____|_____| B. Respondents Information 11. Name of Target 12. Type of target 1=Male Respondent |______| respondent 2=Female 3= Youth 13. Relationship of 1=HH head 3=Son/daughter 5=Parent respondent to 2= Wife/Husband 4=Brother/Sister 6=Other relative |____| household head 1=Male |___| 1=Married 16. Marital 14. Age |___|___| 15. Gender 2=Female|___| 2=Unmarried Status |____| 3=Others|___| 3=Divorced Current stay of respondent after earthquake? Temporary shelter (tent, camp etc.) 1 Own house 2 17. Rent 3 Relatives 4 If Others specify I______|
18. What is your caste/ethnicity? Hill Brahmin/Chhetri 1 Hill Mountain Janjati 2 Newar 3 Hill Dalits 4 Religious Minority (Muslim) 5
Page | 62
Others 6 If Others specify I______|
19. Do you have any physical disability? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.20. No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.21. Refused 98 ► If 2, go to Q.21. Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 2, go to Q.21.
20. When did this happen? After earthquake (April 25, 2015) 1 Before earthquake 2 By birth 3 Refused 98 Don't Know/Can't Say 99
21. What is your level of education? Illiterate 1 Literate but no formal education 2 Formal education 3
22. What is your main occupation? Agriculture 1 Industry/Business 2 Service 3 Labor 4 Student 5 Housewife/house-maker 6 Retired 7 Unemployed 8 Others ► If 9 specify 9 Others specify |______|
23. Do you know the roles and responsibilities of the following organizations and how effective are these organizations? If yes, write the effectiveness criteria defined as follows: 1 = Very effective, 2 = Effective, 3= Less Effective, 4 = Not effective at all 5= Refused 6 = Don't Know) S.N. Organization Yes=1 No=2 Refused=98 Effectiveness 1 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) |____| |____| |____| |____| 2 Citizen Awareness Center (CAC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 3 VDC Office |____| |____| |____| |____| 4 Youth Groups (YG) |____| |____| |____| |____| 5 Radio Listeners Group (RLG) |____| |____| |____| |____| 6 Community Mediation Center (CMC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 7 Female or Mothers group |____| |____| |____| |____| 8 Agricultural Service Center (ASC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 9 Livestock Service Center (LSC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 10 Integrated Plan Formulation Committee (IPFC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 11 Disaster Management Committee (DMC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 12 Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) |____| |____| |____| |____| 13 Users group |____| |____| |____| |____| 14 VDC health post |____| |____| |____| |____| 15 Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs) or Tole |____| |____| |____| |____| Development Organization
Page | 63
16 Police Unit (PU) |____| |____| |____| |____| 17 Village WASH Coordination Committee |____| |____| |____| |____| (VWASHCC)
24. Please mention the top five very effective organizations from the list above? |______| 1 | |______| 2 | |______| 3 | |______| 4 | |______| 5 | 25. Are you currently a member of Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to section C No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.26 Refused 98 ► If 98, go to Q.26 Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 99, go to Q.26
26. Is anyone in your household a member of WCF? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to section C No 2 ►If 2, go to section D Refused 98 ►If 98, go to section D
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ►If 99, go to section D
C. B.2.03_Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)(for WCF members only) 27. Statements 99=Don't 1=Yes 2=No 98=Refused know a. Have you participated in the VDC |____| |____| |____| |____| planning process? ► If 1, go ► If 2 , go ► If 2 , go ► If 2 , go to Q.27.b to section D to section D to section D b. Do you ask any questions or made any suggestions during meetings for VDP? |____| |____| |____| |____| ► If 1, go ► If 2 , go ► If 2 , go ► If 2 , go to Q.27.c to section D to section D to section D c. Do you feel the meeting representative listened to your suggestions for VDP? |____| |____| |____| |____|
D. C.2.01 & C.2.02_Community Development Projects (for WCF members and HH members) 28. Please give your opinion on following statements. Statements _CDPs 1=Yes 2=No 98= 99=Don't Refused know a. Have you heard about the Community Development Projects (CDPs) in your community? |____| |____| |____| |____| ► If 1, ► If 2, ► If , 98 ► If , 99 go to go to go to go to Q.28.b section E section E section E b. Have you understood the roles of CDPs at your community and benefits you can reap from them? |____| |____| |____| |____| c. Have you been a beneficiary of any CDPs implemented at your community in the last one year? |____| |____| |____| |____| d. Have you participated in any of the meetings related |____| |____| |____| |____|
Page | 64
to CDP in the last one year? ► If 1, ► If 2, ► If , 98 ► If , 99 go to go to go to go to Q.28.e. Q.29 Q.29 Q.29 e. Did you make any suggestions or voiced your opinion regarding the CDP during the meetings you attended? |____| |____| |____| |____| ► If 1, ► If 2, ► If , 98 ► If , 99 go to go to go to go to Q.28. f. Q.29 Q.29 Q.29 f. Do you feel the meeting representative listened to your suggestions? |____| |____| |____| |____| g. Are the CDPs project selected based on the needs and priority of the community/WCF/VDCs? |____| |____| |____| |____|
29. Please give your opinion on following statements. 1= 2= 3= 4= 98= 99= Statements Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Refused Don’t Agree Disagree Know a. The CDPs are generally implemented by local user’s group/local companies/beneficiaries. |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| b. The funds for CDPs are transparently managed |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| c. In general, CDPs have public audit |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| d. CDPs have helped our community a lot |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| e. The contract for CDPs are generally publicly announced and procured |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| f. CDPs are designed based on the needs of citizens. |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| g. In general, the CDPs cost too much |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| money ►If 4 ►If 98 ►If ►If 1 ►If 2 ►If 3 go to go to 99 go go to go to go to Q.31 Q.31 to Q.30 Q.30 Q.31 Q.31
30. If you strongly agree (1 in Q.29) or agree (2 in Q.29) that the CDPs in general cost too much money, could you mention what kinds of CDPs have high costs than needed? (Multiple Choice) Road construction 1 Culvert, bridge construction 2 Constructing buildings 3 Fixing electricity poles 4 Drinking water supply 5 Irrigation 6 Training and workshop 7 Refused 98 Don’t know/Can’t say 99 Others ► If 8 specify 8 Others specify |______|
31. What are the criteria of selection of CDP project? Followed 14 steps planning process 1 Randomly/Ad-hoc basis 2 Refused 98
Page | 65
Don't Know 99 Others ► If 3 specify 3 Others Specify |______|
32. Is public hearing carried out in your VDC during the planning process? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.33 No 2 ► If 2, go to Section E Refused 98 ► If 98, go to Section E Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 99, go to Section E
33. If yes in Q.32, was public hearing carried out in your VDC last year? If yes, did you participate in this hearing program? Type 1=Yes, 2=No, 98=Refused, 99=Don't know a. Public hearing ► If 1, go to Q.33.b b. Participation in public hearing
E. D.1.01 & D. 2.03_VDC Service Delivery (for WCF members and HH members) 34. During the last year (after April, 2015), what services have you received through the VDC office? How effective do you think your VDC office has been in providing services in the last one year (after April 25, 2015)? Please write the effectiveness criteria defined as follows: (Multiple Choice) 1 = Very effective, 2 = Effective, 3= Less Effective, 4 = Not effective at all 5= Refused 6 = Don't Know) Services Code Effectiveness Skip section of code level of effectiveness Birth certificate 1 ► If less Marriage certificate 2 effective (3) Death certificate 3 and not at all Recommendation for citizenship 4 effective (4), go Recommendation for divorce 5 to Q.35. Migration certificate 6 Social security allowances [Single female, senior citizen, Person 7 living with disabilities (PLWD) Development services (recommendation for water supply, 8 electricity etc.) Employment related services (Knowledge, information, skills etc.) 9 Earthquake victim identity card 10 Community mediation 11 Recommendation for buying and selling of land 12 None 13 Others ► If 14 specify 14 Others specify|______|
35. If you think your VDC office has not been that effective (3) or not at all effective (4), why do you think so? Delay in providing services 1 VDC officials non responsible attitude 2 Corruption 3 There is political influence in the services provided 4 Discrimination (Nepotism, favoritism) 5 Inadequate capacity of VDC officials 6 Lack of staff in VDC 7 Lack of resources in VDC 8
Page | 66
No office building in VDC 9 VDC secretaries assigned to more than one VDC 10 One VDC secretaries overburden with responsibilities 11 Frequent transfer of VDC secretaries 12 Refused 98 Don’t know/Can’t say 99 Others ► If 13, specify 13 Others specify |______|
36. In the last year (After April, 2015), what would you say are the main infrastructure or service issues needing improvement in your VDC and list at least top three issues? Issues Code Rank Drinking water 1 |____| Health services 2 |____| Roads 3 |____| Schools 4 |____| ECD centers 5 |____| Electricity/cell phone coverage 6 |____| Others ► If 7 specify 7 |____| Others specify |______|
37. In particular, how would you rate your level of satisfaction with the VDC’s delivery of the following services in your area? Issues 1=Extremely 2= 3=Dissatisfied 4=Extremely 98=Refused 99=Don’t satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied know/Can’t say Drinking water |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| Health services |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| Roads |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| Schools |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| ECD centers |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| Electricity/cell phone coverage |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____| Others► specify |______|
99=Don't 38. Availability of staff in VDC office 1=Always 2=Often 3=Rare 4=Never 98=Refused know a. Over the past year, how often is VDC secretary available at the VDC office? |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| b. Over the past year, how often is VDC officials available at the VDC office? |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
39. Do you feel that VDC funds are spent or used as per needs and priority of the VDC? Yes 1 No 2 Refused 98 Don’t know/Can’t say 99
40. Do you feel that the use of VDC funds in your community is transparent? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.41 No 2 ► If 2, go to section F
Page | 67
Refused 98 ► If 98, go to section F Don’t know/Can’t say 99 ► If 99, go to section F
41. What sources do you refer to in order to gather information on transparency of VDC funds? Public audit 1 Social audit 2 Public hearing 3 Annual Review Meeting -aflif{s ;ldIff uf]i7L _ 4 VDC notice board 5 Refused 98 Don’t know/Can’t say 99 Others ►If 6, specify 6 Others Specify |______|
F. A.1.01_Conflict and Mediation (for WCF members and HH members) 42. In the last (after April, 2015) year, have you or your household members experienced any conflict/disputes? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.43. No 2 ► If 2, go to section G Refused 98 ► If 98, go to section G Don’t know/Can’t say 99 ► If 99, go to section G
43. If yes, what type of conflict did you and your family faced in the last one year (after April 2015)? Type Code Remarks Gender-Based Violence 1 |______| Identity Based Conflict 2 |______| Caste Based Violence 3 |______| Political Conflict 4 |______| Interpersonal Conflict 5 |______| Resource-Based Conflict 6 |______| Refused 98 |______| Don't know/Can't say 99 |______| Others 7 |______| If others (7) specify|______|
44. How did you manage or resolve the conflict (Multiple Choice) Resolving mechanism Code Remarks Did nothing 1 |______| Court/Lawyer 2 |______| Police/army/armed police force 3 |______| Political party/political youth group 4 |______| I/NGO's/Human rights organizations 5 |______| DDC/VDC/DAO 6 |______| Community leader/religious leaders/ locally important person 7 |______| Community Based Organizations (CBOs: WCF/CAC) 8 |______| Community Mediation Center (CMC)►If 9, go to Q.45. 9 |______| Local rowdy or villain (gundas) 10 |______| Badhar/Bhalmansa (informal mechanism/social practice) 11 |______| Locally armed groups 12 |______| Local Peace Committee (LPC) 13 |______| Refused 98 |______| Don't know/Can't say 99 |______|
Page | 68
Others 14 If others (14) specify |______|
45. If CMC (10) in Q.44, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the CMC? Extremely satisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Dissatisfied 3 Extremely dissatisfied 4 Refused 98 Don't know/Can't say 99
46. If dissatisfied (3) and extremely dissatisfied (4) in Q.45, please specify the reason? |______| G. E.1.03 F:_Gender Based Violence (GBV)(for WCF members and HH members) 47. 1= 2= 3= 4= 98= 99= Statements Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Refused Don’t Agree Disagree Know a. A woman should give all her income to her husband. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| b. A man should give all her income to her wife. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| c. A woman does not need her husband's permission to do paid work |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| d. If a wife does not obey her husband, he has the right to punish her. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| e. Under no circumstances, should a man beat his wife. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| f. Rape is a crime punishable by law. But when a woman is raped she is to blame |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| g. Both female and male should decide together about important decisions that affect their family. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| h. A man should decide how many children his wife should bear. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| i. It is okay for a wife to seek community mediation if she has problems in the house. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| j. A woman should ask the permission of her family member/husband to travel. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| k. A woman does not need to take the permission of her family or her husband to take part in social events/activities |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___| l. A woman should obey/follow all the traditional practices even if it is harmful. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
H. F1.01_Recovery: Service Delivery after disaster or Earthquake in outside district headquarters (for WCF members and HH member) 48. Do you know about Mobile Service Camps? Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.49 No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.50 Refused 98 ► If 2, go to Q.50
Page | 69
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 2, go to Q.50
49. If yes (1) in Q.45, what type of following services did you received? Type of service Code Integrated Mobile Service Camp 1 Sectoral Mobile Service Camp 2
50. Have you received any of the following services before six months (till Dec 2015) (Multiple Response) Type Code Code Citizen certificate 1 1 Land registration 2 2 Payment of revenue 3 3 Birth registration 4 4 Death registration 5 5 Agriculture extension services 6 6 Livestock services 7 7 Banking services 8 8 Health services 9 9 Conflict mediation services 10 10 Social security allowances (Single female, senior citizen) 11 11 Others 12 12 If others, specify |______|
51. Were the following services in your area/VDC damaged during the Earthquake? If yes, are the services restored and were you affected by the damage of the following services? Damaged Restored Effect 1= 1=Yes 3= 3= Type of services Yes, 99= 1= 99= 2= No Fully 98= Fully 98= 2=No Don't Yes, Don't 4= Refused 4= Refused ► If 2, Know 2=No Know go to Partly Partly 50b a. Basic health center services |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| b. Water and sanitation services |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| c. Irrigation facility |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| d. Road/trail |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| e. Education facility |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| f. Community Development Project |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___| g. Others (specify) |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
*****END*****
Page | 70
Annex 5: Qualitative tools Focus Group Discussion Guide Female/Youth/Mixed Group Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas Date: |__|__|_____| District: |______| VDC: |______| Ward No.: |___||___| C.2.01 & C.2.02_Community Development Project (CDP) 1. Do people in your community participate in any meetings of CDPs? (Ask for different phase of CDPs meeting in VDC, identification of CDPs, planning, implementation,) ~ If yes, how are CDPs selected? ~ Do participants in these meeting raise their voice? (type of people who raise their voice) ~ Do females raise their voice in these meeting? (How often, type of female who raise their voice, ease to ask or share their ideas or queries, Level of participation of female) How inclusive are these participation? ~ How often are these meetings called? ~ Are your suggestions incorporated? ~ What initiatives are taken by VDC to ensure active participation of females or a public as a whole? 2. How effectively are CDPs implemented? ~ If not effectively implemented, what can be done by government and non-government bodies for effective implementation of CDPs? 3. What are the processes adopted by VDCs to perform public hearing recently? How are they conducted and when? ~ Are the public satisfied with the level of transparency? ~ If no, how can it be improved? 4. What do you think about the fund transparency for CDPs? ~ If not, why? ~ Is there any hearing program (public hearing/auditing etc.) for this? How are they conducted and when? ~ Do female/youth/citizens in your community participate in this? 5. What is the position/status of youth, female and marginalized groups in the WCF? 6. What do you understand by GESI? 7. Why should GESI be addressed? (ask for their perception on female participation in any planning and decision making process) 8. What are the current practices for GESI responsiveness in WCF? 9. What positive changes brought by considering GESI? (Improved the participation of female, youth, and the marginalized groups in the overall VDC-level decision-making process) D.1.01 & D. 2.03_VDC Service Delivery 10. Are you familiar with the VDC service delivery mechanism? (Ask for their awareness in documents required before seeking services from a VDC) ~ How difficult or easy do you (as female/youth/other citizen) find to receive benefits provided by VDC? and Why? (e.g. ask for social security allowances, PLWD, senior citizen, single female, marriage certificate, birth certificate, citizenship certificate etc.) ~ What should be done to improve service delivery? ~ What do you expect from your VDC office? A.1.01_Conflict Mediation 1. What sorts of disputes have you experienced in the last year in your community? ~ Conflicts related to GBV/Caste based conflict/Political conflict/Resource based conflict/Identity based conflict/Interpersonal conflict? ~ What is the level of those conflicts in your community? ~ Overall are you concerned about the level of conflict in your community? What worries you
Page | 71
most? 2. How do you manage/resolve your conflicts in your community? ~ Ask for institutions used to resolve those conflicts? 3. What are the most reliable/peaceful means for resolving your conflict? Why? 4. Using those peaceful means of settling conflict, whether they have increased or decreased last year, and why? (Reasons for preferring or not preferring peaceful means) 5. In your opinion, how to make CMCs sustainable in the long run? E.1.03 F _Gender Based Violence 1. What type of GBV exists in your community? Has there been increase/decrease in GBV cases after Earthquake? ~ Are these cases referral/reported? How effective are these organizations in resolving GBV issues? If not, specify the reason? ~ Who do you feel is responsible for addressing GBV? ~ Do you know where to report such cases or the essential phone numbers (1111, 100, and 1098) where you could call? ~ If no, what are challenges that prevent people from reporting GBV? ~ What are the measures that need to be adopted to address GBV? ~ What are the significant changes brought about in people’s perspective towards GBV after being exposed to USG program? (Zero tolerance towards GBV, aware about GBV) F1.01_Recovery and Reconstruction 1. What major services (health center, road/trail, water, irrigation etc.) are damaged in your community and to what extent? ~ What is the scale of damaged services now? ~ What are the efforts of restoration/reconstruction in your community? ~ What are the major institutions supporting in these activities? ~ Do you trust that you will receive the benefits you deserve? ~ To what extent do you trust the government will provide the resources to make the necessary repairs? ~ What are the reasons for delay in restoring efforts? ~ How effective or ineffective do you think are these restoration or reconstruction projects implemented in your community? Specify the reason for effectiveness and ineffectiveness.
*****END*****
Page | 72
Key Informant Interview Guide VDC Officials Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas
This interview is conducted by Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) on behalf of Sajhedari Bikas (SB). The main purpose of this project is to assess the recovery status, government response to citizen needs and the satisfaction level of citizen with service delivery of local government bodies in six highly affected districts by April 25 and May 12 earthquake of 2015. Therefore, this one-on-one interview is carried out with you to support us in understanding and identifying issues related to local governance, efforts or initiatives taken by government so far in your area after earthquake and its associated challenges. Your responses in our analysis will remain anonymous and will not be attributed to you personally or in any way that it could identify you. The outputs gained from this research will further support SB for the evidence based interventions in the affected districts through its strategic governance approaches. NDRI and SB are very thankful to you for supporting us in filling this form.
Name of VDC Officer: |______| District: |______|
VDC: |______| Ward No.: |______| 1. D.1.01_D.2.03_ F1.01_Please describe the Community Development Projects (CDPs) and Relief and Reconstruction Projects (RRPs) in your VDC over the last year (after earthquake of April 25, 2015)? ~ Who supported that project? (Ask for financial support, involvement of multiple partners in the project, targeted beneficiaries etc.) ~ What is the state of those projects now? (Ongoing or completed, opportunities and challenges in those project from the local governance perspective) ~ Please give your perception on how effective/ineffective implementation of those community development projects especially related to relief and recovery activity? What was effective, not effective and why? ~ Also, specify reason for satisfaction and dissatisfaction for above projects. CDPs project on following sectors Effectiveness Satisfaction (1=Strongly, (1=Strongly, 2=Effective, 2=Satisfied, 3=Less, 3=Less, 4=Not 4=Not at all) at all) Gender Based Violence (GBV)...... |______| |______| Conflict Mediation...... |______| |______| Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)...... |______| |______| Conflict Awareness Center (CAC)...... |______| |______| Relief and Reconstruction...... |______| |______|
2. C.2.01_How are citizens including female /marginalized/differently able) invited to participate in meetings about CDPs? ~ How active are citizens in development prioritization and implementation? Are their interests/demands listened to? Why/why not? ~ To what extent are citizens engaged? If engaged, during what phases are citizens engaged (such as identifying needed projects, designing projects, informing about already planned projects, feedback on ongoing projects)? 3. F1.01_Please describe your role in recovery and reconstruction projects after earthquake in your VDC/area? ~ Is it different than your role in development activities before the earthquake? ~ Are you able to manage yourself with given responsibility? 4. F1.01_How do you perceive these reconstruction efforts in your VDC to date? ~ Are they fulfilling the most pressing needs that were requested by community members or not? Please explain. If yes, how do you know/whether citizens were consulted or not? ~ Is the reconstruction occurring at an appropriate pace? [Moderator probe length of time— moving too slows, moving quickly, etc. Reasons for those speeds?]
Page | 73
~ Are you satisfied with the support and coordination of development agencies with the support that are delivered after earthquake? ~ Are you satisfied with the current service delivery mechanism in your VDC? What are the areas of improvement? 5. F1.01_What have been the strengths and weakness of the recovery planning and execution after earthquake? [Moderator asks about decision-making processes, actual construction, etc.] Strengths: |______| |______| Weakness: |______| |______| ~ What challenges have you faced personally in the process? 6. E.1.03 F: _What are the significant changes brought about in people’s perspective towards GBV after being exposed to USG program? (Zero tolerance towards GBV, aware about GBV)
*****END*****
Page | 74
Annex 6: Workshop minutes and training agenda Workshop Minutes
Meeting Date and Venue Project Name: Baseline and Endline surveys in Recovery district Meeting Date: 25/05/2016 Meeting Location: Meeting Hall, Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI), Pulchowk, Lalitpur Meeting Start time: 09:00 A.M. Meeting End time: 05:00 P.M.
Meeting Agenda
. To acquaint field supervisors and all team members of NDRI, SB and Syntegrate Pte. Ltd. about the project Description A mini-workshop on the project 'Baseline and Endline surveys in Recovery District' was organized by Sajhedari Bikaas (SB) on 25th May, 2016 at NDRI. This one-day workshop was aimed at bringing together the eminent personnel from SB, Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd. (SSPL), USAID and NDRI to discuss about the ongoing project more specifically focusing on tools for data collection. This workshop was also intended to connect experts from all participated organizations with field supervisors recruited for the project. The key outcomes of the workshop are documented at the end of this document. The workshop was basically structured into two sessions as follows: a. Inaugural /Introduction Session: At the first part, the meeting was commenced\d by an introductory session, facilitated by Dr. Jaya K. Gurung, an Executive Director of NDRI. Dr. Gurung explained about NDRI, its core working areas and its interest to all participants and how NDRI has been providing consulting or research services to its client. In this endeavor, he also highlighted about first ever partnership of NDRI with Sajhedari Bikaas (SB) and how NDRI research activities blends with SB's expectations of the project. He further stated out the agenda of the event and thanked all the participants for their presence at the end.
At the second part, Mr. Basanta Pokharel (DCOP) congratulated NDRI for their first partnership with SB. He explained about SB's project, which is basically an inclusively local governance project. He also stated that SB does not work in isolation rather it desires to establish linkages between the local bodies and for whom the activities are being implemented. He further explained about ongoing project, which is a USAID-funded project. He also highlighted the differences between past SB projects with the current project carried out by NDRI, where this project not only seeks to assess local governance as in previous studies but also to evaluate the government lead recovery process in the project district. This thereby, will form as a base for strengthening local governance lead recovery project which in turn might be used as a model to replicate its activities in similar geographical and local areas. He also discussed about the indicators developed to establish the baseline figures and the role of supervisors for their instant ability to assess indicators based result during their field activities. The crucial role and responsibilities of sectoral experts in the project for their ability to provide insightful recommendations was also expressed by Mr. Pokharel at the end.
Page | 75
b. Technical Session The technical session kicked off with a detailed description about the project objective, methodology, data collection strategy and orientation on quantitative and qualitative tools of the project. This session was facilitated by Mr. Sudan Shivakoti, an M & E manager of the project. He highlighted on engagement of all members in tool development in the workshop to ensure that everything is incorporated and explained to field supervisors. At the first part of the session, Dr. Manjeshwori Singh explained about the project funded by SB, followed by a detail description on the project objective, its indicators for assessing local governance and recovery and what the project intends to gain at the end. Mr. Shivakoti further explained about how the indicators developed for the project has been aligned with SB framework to the field supervisors. The second part of the session was presented with sampling strategies and techniques adopted in the research by Dr. Raj Man Shrestha. He also illustrated all the techniques with an example laid out for Gorkha district. Furthermore, he discussed about the analytical methods such as, measuring household level satisfaction index, descriptive statistics, Likert scale etc. that will be used in analyzing data from the field. After the methodology section, the techniques for data collection were presented by Mr. Sudeep Shrestha, a Chief System Integrator of SSPL. System working modality, data quality, power back up system, monitoring of field activities through mobile based application was elaborated by Mr. Shrestha. A practical mobile based primary data collection system was jointly demonstrated by Mr. Shrestha and Dipesh Raj Sharma, a System Analyst of SSPL to all the participants. After the presentation, the major spotlight of the workshop was laid on orientation on tools developed for household, focus group discussion and key informant interview. The orientation activities were facilitated by experts of NDRI which was divided into respective sections of their expertise in questionnaire form. An intensive discussion was carried out among all participants, where each and every questions were perused in both English and Nepali languages. Few utmost questions and options were revised, edited and added through a rigorous discussion. All the suggestions and feedback provided was noted and necessary amendment was carried out at once. This workshop was led by an active participation by not only team members but also by field supervisors. The workshop ended by closing remarks from Dr. Gurung, where he thanked all participants once again for their extensive dedication in the event. Meeting Key Outcomes . Household questionnaire and checklist for FGD and KII were thoroughly revised in both English and Nepali language. . Field supervisors were acquainted through a comprehensive and rigorous discussion on tools and also from the analytical perspective. . NDRI will provide a copy of14 step planning process document to supervisors for their in-depth understanding of the process. . NDRI will provide final tools incorporating suggestions from all team members to SB and Syntegrate Pte. Limited. . Training for field researchers was postponed through consensus on 27th May due to strike called by Transport Association of Nepal
Page | 76
Attendees
S.N. Name Designation Affiliation Telephone No. E-mail
1. Basanta Pokharel DCOP PACT 9808087796 [email protected] 2. Mahesh Nepal Senior Field Director PACT [email protected]
3. Naryan Silwal Program Manager PACT 9851109845 [email protected]
4. Nirak Sunar Program Manager PACT 9841489658 [email protected] 5. Sudan Shivakoti M & E Manager PACT 9851102082 [email protected]
6. Suresh Thapa Senior Regional Program Manager PACT 9851085404 [email protected] 7. Dipesh Raj Sharma System Analyst Syntegrate Services Pte Ltd 9851033153 [email protected] 8. Sudeep Shrestha Chief System Integrator Syntegrate Services Pte Ltd 9851026799 [email protected] 9. Dr. Jaya K. Gurung Executive Director NDRI 9851101675 [email protected] 10. Dr. Manjeshwori Singh GESI Expert NDRI 9841558702 [email protected]
11. Dr. Purushottam Ghimire Governance Expert NDRI 9841278600 [email protected] 12. Dr. Raj Man Shrestha Statistician NDRI 9851150659 [email protected]
13. Dr. Umesh K. Bhattari Conflict Expert NDRI 9851156254 [email protected] 14. Anita Khadka Research Associate NDRI 9841158797 [email protected]
15. Anuj Baniya Supervisor NDRI 9803878280 [email protected]
16. Baksur Roka Magar Supervisor NDRI 9849037840 [email protected]
17. Kalpana Kaspal Supervisor NDRI 9841725792 [email protected]
18. Khem Raj Khanal Supervisor NDRI 9849613984 [email protected] 19. Ram P. Devkota Supervisor NDRI 9841820832 [email protected]
20. Sun Maya Gurung Supervisor NDRI 9841488986 [email protected]
Page | 77
Workshop Agenda Project: Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery District Date: 25 May, 2016 Venue: NDRI Hall Facilitator: Dr. Manjeshwori Singh
Time Activities Responsible person Introduction 09:00-9:30 A.M Registration All participants
09:30-9:40 A.M. Introduction All participants 09:40-9:50 A.M. Welcome remarks Dr. Jaya K. Gurung (NDRI)
09:50-10:20 A.M Project description and SB expectations Basanta Pokherel (DCOP) Session A Session Technical Session 10:20-10:35 A.M. Baseline survey description Dr. Manjeshwori Singh (NDRI) 10:35-10:50 A.M. Project methodology/sampling strategy/survey districts/ VDCs Dr. Rajman Shrestha (NDRI) 10:50-11:10 A.M. Data collection approach using Android Mobile Phones Sudeep (Syntegrate Inc.) 11:05-01:00 P.M Orientation on household questionnaire Section C,D,F Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI) Lunch Break (1:00-2:00 P.M.) 02:00-02:20 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section E Dr. Umesh Bhattarai (NDRI) 02:20-02:40 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section G Dr. Manjeshwori Singh (NDRI) 02:40-03:00 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section H Anita Khadka (NDRI) 03:00-03:20 P.M Orientation on Key Informants Interview tool Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI) 03:20-03:40 P.M. Orientation on Focus Group Discussion tool Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI)
03:40-04:40 P.M. Data analysis plan Dr. Rajman Shrestha 04:40-04:55 P.M. Feedback collection NDRI
04:55-05:00 P.M. Closing Remarks Dr. Jaya K. Gurung (NDRI) Session B Session
Page | 78
Annex 7: Work plan
RFP # 14 - Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery Districts Baseline Survey, 2016 April, 2016 May, 2016 June, 2016 July, 2016 S.N WORK PLAN FOR BASELINE SURVEY 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 Signing of Contract 11 Preliminary Meeting and orientation on SB recovery districts by 2 SB to NDRI 21 Desk review of all the documents related to project such as 3 indicator matrix, survey tools, list of SB intervention VDCs, list of local NGO's in the VDCs. Designing the detailed work plan, sampling strategy and tools in 4 English and Nepali, data collection methodology after reviewing all the documents Meeting with Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd and discussion on 4.1 mobile based survey (21 April) Finalize survey tools (HH questionnaire, FGD & KII) after 4.2 consulting with SB, PACT and USAID experts 4.3 Translate tools in Nepali language Submission of final survey tools in electronic format i.e. for HH D1: questionnaires, FGD & KII guides in both English and Nepali language 5 Recruitment of field researchers 5.1 Vacancy announcement (15 to 19 May) 5.2 Screening and short listing of field researchers (20 May) 5.3 Interview of field researchers (22 to 23 May) 5.4 Finalization of field researchers (24 May) 6 Meeting with SB to discuss on workshop, training agenda, pre- testing of tools and also on data analysis plan (23 May)
Page | 79
RFP # 14 - Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery Districts Baseline Survey, 2016 April, 2016 May, 2016 June, 2016 July, 2016 S.N WORK PLAN FOR BASELINE SURVEY 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 D2: Submission of data analysis plan to SB (23 May) One-day workshop for finalizing survey tools in consultation with 7 SB M&E team, USAID, PACT and Recovery Program Team (25 May) Conduction of 2-day training program for field researchers 8 about project and tools developed (27 to 28 May) Design and finalize survey tools in an Android Mobile Phone by 9 Syntegrate Inc. and submission of the instruments to NDRI One-day pre-testing of tools in Chhampi VDC by field 10 supervisor under the leadership of NDRI expert (30 May) Pre-test feedback collection and incorporate changes in 11 questionnaire (31 May) Field planning and logistics management for baseline survey (1 12 to 3 June) 13 Field survey (4 to 16 June) Undertake data processing (data masking, coding, cleaning) by 14 SSPL and submit to NDRI (June 19) D 3: Prepare preliminary outputs (findings) and submit files in both SPSS and MS Excel format to SB (8th July) 15 Submission of first draft report of baseline survey to SB
Page | 80
Annex 8: Data outputs
A. Socio-demographic characteristics B. Ward Citizen Forum C. Community Development Project D. VDC service delivery E. Conflict Mediation F. Gender Based Violence
Data outputs for section A,B,C,D,E and F is attached in second report as Annex 8: Data Outputs
Page | 81