Morobo County - Food Security and Livelihoods Central Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 8 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 8 of 137 settlements (6%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Small impact 13% 51 - 100% No 100% Assessed settlement

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of cereal price on the ability to access impact of livestock disease outbreak on the ability sufficient food3 to access sufficient food3

Large impact 88%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 Large impact 63% Small impact 88% Small impact 25% Large impact 13% No impact 13%

Morobo County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 88% Around half 63% 1 80 Barter 13% Less than half 38% Terekeka 81 100 nsufficient data Assessed settlement

Juba Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most 38% consumption of wild foods that are known to make people consuming on average one meal per day of assessed people sick or less Yei Lainya settlements reported inadequate food

Kajo-Keji access in Ayod county Morobo No 88% Yes 100% Yes 13%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Primary reason assessed settlements reported Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting only hunger severity when inadequate food access is inadequate food access going entire days without eating as a coping children eat as a coping strategy present strategy

Hunger is severe 63% Unsafe to access land 50% Hunger is small 25% Flood destroyed crop 38% No 100% No 100% Hunger is the worst 13% Conflict destroyed crop 13%

2 Morobo County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Livelihoods Health, Nutrition, WASH Most commonly reported sources of livelihoods in Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Primary reported health concern in assessed Primary perceived cause of death in assessed assessed settlements4 receiving food assistance in the three months settlements settlements prior to the assessment

Crops for sustenance 88% Malaria / fever 88% Malaria / fever 100% Hunting 88% Waterborne disease 13% No 100% Fishing 38% Livestock 25% Crops for cash 13%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Reported availability of feeding programmes that Proportion of assessed settlements reporting main movement of entire households to cattle or fishing functioning market physically accessible from provide Plumpy Sup, CSB++ or other nutrition water source as protected6 camps as livelihood coping strategy settlement supplements in assessed settlements5

No 100% Yes 88% No 100% No 75% No 13% Yes 25%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 50% No 100% Yes 50% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Budi County - Food Security and Livelihoods Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 18 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 15 of 213 settlements (7%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Small impact 33% 51 - 100% No consensus 7% No 100% Assessed settlement No impact 7%

Small impact 13% Small impact 7% No consensus 7%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 No impact 33% Small impact 47% Small impact 13% No impact 27% Large impact 7% No consensus 20% No consensus 7% Large impact 7% Budi County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 53% Around half 33% 1 80 Bought 13% None 33% 81 100 Own livestock 13% Less than half 13% Lopa nsufficient data Kapoeta Kapoeta North East Assessed settlement Forage for wild foods 7% More than half 13% Humanitarian aid 7% No consensus 7%

Kapoeta Budi Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most South Torit 38% consumption of wild foods that are known to make people consuming on average one meal per day of assessed people sick or less Ikotos Magwi settlements reported inadequate food access in Ayod county No 60% No 60% Yes 40% Yes 40%

Hunger is severe 7% Distribution stopped 7% Hunger is small 7% Growing season short 7% No 100% No 80% Yes 20%

2 Budi County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 67% Malaria / fever 47% Malaria / fever 40% Crops for cash 53% Infection 27% No consensus 20% No 60% 33% Livestock Yes 40% No consensus 13% Other reason 13% Poultry 20% TB / pneumonia 7% Conflict 7% Remittances 20% Waterborne disease 7% Natural causes 7%

No 87% No 80% Yes 53% Yes 87% Yes 13% Yes 20% No 47% No 13%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 53% No 93% Yes 47% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 7% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Kapoeta East County - Food Security and Livelihoods Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 34 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 34 of 499 settlements (7%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Small impact 24% 51 - 100% Large impact 9% No 91% Assessed settlement Yes 9% No impact 6%

Small impact 18% Large impact 12% Large impact 15% Small impact 6% No impact 3% Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 No impact 26% Small impact 53% Small impact 12% No impact 41% Large impact 6%

Kapoeta East County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 29% None 68% 1 80 Own livestock 15% Less than half 24% 81 100 Barter 12% Around half 6% Lopa nsufficient data Kapoeta Kapoeta North East Assessed settlement Bought 12% Don't know 3% Family and friends 9%

No answer 24% No answer 24% No hunger 12% Growing season short 6% No 100% No 82% Hunger is small 9% Lack of rain for crop 6% Yes 18% Distribution stopped 3% No livestock 3%

2 Kapoeta East County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 38% Infection 35% Malaria / fever 35% Hunting 26% Malaria / fever 24% No answer 35% No 65% 21% 18% Remittances Yes 35% TB / pneumonia Conflict 18% Poultry 18% Waterborne disease 12% Kalazar 9% Fishing 15% Malnutrition 3% Don't know 3%

No 74% No 68% Yes 62% Yes 76% Yes 26% Yes 32% No 38% No 24%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH Yes 71% No 79% No 29% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 21% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Kapoeta North County - Food Security and Livelihoods Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 26 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 23 of 152 settlements (15%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% No impact 13% 51 - 100% Small impact 9% No 96% Assessed settlement Yes 4% Large impact 4%

Large impact 22% Large impact 17% Small impact 9% No impact 13% No impact 4% Small impact 4% Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 No impact 26% Small impact 48% Large impact 9% No impact 39% Small impact 9% No consensus 9% No consensus 4% Don't know 4% Kapoeta North County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Bought 35% None 57% 1 80 Own livestock 30% Around half 17% 81 100 Own cultivation 22% More than half 17% Lopa nsufficient data Kapoeta Kapoeta North East Assessed settlement No consensus 13% Less than half 4% No consensus 4%

Hunger is small 13% Growing season short 9% Hunger is severe 9% High prices 9% No 83% No 87% No answer 4% No answer 4% Yes 17% Yes 13% Unsafe to access land 4%

2 Kapoeta North County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Livestock 96% Infection 22% Malaria / fever 52% Crops for sustenance 87% Malaria / fever 17% Typhoid 17% Yes 78% 35% Casual labour No 22% TB / pneumonia 17% Natural causes 13% Hunting 22% No consensus 13% No consensus 9% Remittances 22% None 9% Conflict 4%

No 91% No 65% No 57% Yes 57% Yes 9% Yes 35% Yes 43% No 43%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH Yes 91% No 65% No 9% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 35% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Kapoeta South County - Food Security and Livelihoods Eastern Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 16 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 16 of 68 settlements (24%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Large impact 13% 51 - 100% No 88% Assessed settlement Yes 13%

Large impact 63% Large impact 19% Small impact 25% Small impact 6%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 Small impact 19% No impact 44% Large impact 13% Small impact 38% No impact 13% Large impact 19%

Kapoeta South County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Bought 63% None 81% 1 80 Own livestock 19% Around half 13% 81 100 Family and friends 6% Less than half 6% Lopa nsufficient data Kapoeta Kapoeta North East Assessed settlement Humanitarian aid 6% Own cultivation 6%

Hunger is severe 19% High prices 19% Hunger is small 19% Lack of rain for crop 13% No 100% No 81% No hunger 13% Growing season short 6% Yes 19% Pests destroyed crop 6% Unsafe to access land 6%

2 Kapoeta South County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Remittances 63% Malaria / fever 50% Malaria / fever 44% Livestock 56% Waterborne disease 25% Other reason 31% Yes 100% Crops for sustenance 50% Infection 19% Kalazar 6% Casual labour 38% Other reason 6% Natural causes 6% Market activities 31% No answer 6%

No 69% Yes 88% Yes 69% Yes 94% Yes 31% No 13% No 31% No 6%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH Yes 69% No 75% No 31% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 25% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Ezo County - Food Security and Livelihoods Western Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 12 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 10 of 134 settlements (7%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Large impact 10% 51 - 100% No 90% Assessed settlement Yes 10%

Small impact 20% Small impact 30%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 Small impact 60% Small impact 80% Large impact 10% Large impact 20% No impact 10%

Ezo County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 100% None 60% 1 80 Less than half 20% Nagero 81 100 Around half 10% nsufficient data Tambura Assessed settlement No consensus 10% Mvolo

Mundri Ibba West Mundri Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Ezo East Maridi 38% consumption of wild foods that are known to make people consuming on average one meal per day Yambio of assessed people sick or less Nzara settlements reported inadequate food access in Ayod county No 100% No 80% Yes 20%

Hunger is small 30% Conflict destroyed crop 20% Hunger is severe 20% Distribution stopped 20% No 100% No 100% No consensus 10%

2 Ezo County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 100% Waterborne disease 30% Malaria / fever 30% Crops for cash 60% Infection 20% Natural causes 30% No 100% Hunting 50% No consensus 20% Don't know 20% Fishing 40% Malaria / fever 10% No consensus 20% Market activities 30% STD / STI 10%

No 100% Yes 90% No 100% No 90% No 10% Yes 10%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 100% No 70% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 30% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Maridi County - Food Security and Livelihoods Western Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 25 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 20 of 211 settlements (9%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Large impact 10% 51 - 100% No 90% Assessed settlement Yes 10%

Large impact 20% Small impact 35% Small impact 20% Large impact 10% No consensus 5% No consensus 5% Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 No impact 55% Small impact 40% No consensus 10% Large impact 35% Small impact 10% No consensus 20% Large impact 5% No impact 5% Maridi County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 90% None 60% 1 80 Bought 10% Around half 15% Nagero 81 100 Less than half 15% nsufficient data Tambura Assessed settlement More than half 5% Mvolo No consensus 5%

Hunger is small 35% Unsafe to access land 20% Hunger is severe 10% Conflict destroyed crop 10% No 95% No 65% High prices 5% Yes 5% Yes 35% Lack of rain for crop 5% Pests destroyed crop 5%

2 Maridi County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 100% Waterborne disease 30% Malaria / fever 30% Casual labour 90% Malaria / fever 20% No consensus 20% No 95% 90% Crops for cash Yes 5% No consensus 20% Cholera / diarrhoea 15% Livestock 65% Other reason 10% No answer 15% Poultry 60% TB / pneumonia 10% Natural causes 10%

No 100% Yes 85% No 55% No 75% No 15% Yes 45% Yes 25%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 90% No 50% Yes 10% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 50% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Nzara County - Food Security and Livelihoods Western Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 16 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 10 of 136 settlements (7%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% 51 - 100% No 100% Assessed settlement

Small impact 20% Large impact 10% No consensus 10% Small impact 10% Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 No impact 30% Small impact 50% Small impact 30% Large impact 20% No consensus 20% No impact 10% Nzara County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 70% None 40% 1 80 Bought 20% Around half 30% Nagero 81 100 No consensus 10% No consensus 20% nsufficient data Tambura Assessed settlement Less than half 10% Mvolo

Hunger is small 30% Not enough land 30%

No 100% No 80% Yes 20%

2 Nzara County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 100% No consensus 40% No consensus 40% Casual labour 70% Skin disease 20% Don't know 30% No 100% Market activities 70% STD / STI 20% Cholera / diarrhoea 10% Crops for cash 60% TB / pneumonia 10% Natural causes 10% Livestock 30% Waterborne disease 10% No answer 10%

No 100% Yes 100% No 90% No 90% Yes 10% Yes 10%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 90% No 70% Yes 10% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 30% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Tambura County - Food Security and Livelihoods Western Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 18 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 9 of 163 settlements (6%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Small impact 11% 51 - 100% No 100% Assessed settlement

Small impact 22% Large impact 11% Large impact 11% No consensus 11% Small impact 11% Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 Large impact 33% Small impact 44% No consensus 22% Large impact 22% Small impact 22% No consensus 22% No impact 11% No impact 11% Tambura County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 100% Around half 33% 1 80 None 33% Nagero 81 100 No consensus 22% nsufficient data Tambura Assessed settlement More than half 11% Mvolo

Hunger is severe 33% Not enough land 33%

No 100% No 100%

2 Tambura County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 100% Malaria / fever 33% Don't know 44% Casual labour 67% No consensus 33% No answer 22% No 89% 56% Crops for cash Yes 11% Waterborne disease 22% Cholera / diarrhoea 11% Market activities 56% Skin disease 11% No consensus 11% Hunting 33% Typhoid 11%

No 100% Yes 100% No 100% No 56% Yes 44%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 89% No 67% Yes 11% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 33% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.

3 Yambio County - Food Security and Livelihoods Western Equatoria State, South Sudan - South Sudan Food Security Crisis July 2018

Overview As of January 2018, an estimated 5.3 million South to-reach areas to inform humanitarian planning and month (traders, migrants, family members, etc.) All percentages presented in this factsheet, unless Sudanese were facing Crisis and Emergency (IPC interventions outside formal settlement sites. Using • KIs who are remaining in hard-to-reach otherwise specified, represent the proportion of Phases 3 and 4) acute food insecurity, according to the AoK methodology, REACH remotely monitors needs settlements, contacted through phone settlements assessed with that specific response. The 1 and access to services in the Greater Upper Nile, findings presented in this factsheet are indicative of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). Selected KIs are purposively sampled and have Greater Equatoria and Greater Bahr el Ghazal regions. broad food security and livelihood trends in assessed With the aim of facilitating a better understanding of knowledge from within the last month about a specific AoK data is collected monthly and through multi-sector settlements in July 2018, and are not statistically the food security and livelihoods situation in South settlement in South Sudan, with data collected at the interviews with the following typology of Key Informants generalisable. Sudan and to inform the IPC September 2018 Update, settlement level. About half of settlements assessed (KIs): REACH has developed food security and livelihood have more than one KI reporting on the settlement. In Assessment Coverage (FSL) factsheets of counties where settlements have • KIs who are newly arrived internally displaced these cases, data presented at the settlement level is been assessed using the Area of Knowledge (AoK) persons (IDPs) who have left a hard-to-reach the modal (most frequent) response for KIs reporting 21 key Informants interviewed methodology. settlement in the last month on that settlement. If there is an even number of ‘yes/ 12 of 208 settlements (6%) assessed2 REACH employs its Area of Knowledge (AoK) • KIs who have had contact with someone living or no’ responses, data is aggregated as ‘no consensus’. methodology to collect relevant information in hard- have been in a hard-to-reach settlement in the last Assessment coverage Shocks Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of assessed settlements reporting Proportion of settlements assessed 0 - 4.9% the impact of conflict or looting on the ability to incident of conflict that resulted in at least one 5 - 10% access sufficient food3 civilian death in the last month 11 - 20% 21 - 50% Large impact 33% 51 - 100% No 67% Assessed settlement Yes 33%

Small impact 67% Large impact 17% Large impact 17% Small impact 17%

Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the Proportion of assessed settlements reporting the impact of newly arrived IDPs on the ability to impact of health problems on the ability to access access sufficient food3 sufficient food3 Small impact 50% Large impact 75% Large impact 8% Small impact 25%

Yambio County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Food access Proportion of assessed settlements reporting inadequate access to food Primary reported food sources in assessed Proportion of main meals including wild foods for 0 settlements most people in assessed settlements in the last 1 20 month 21 0 1 0 Own cultivation 92% Less than half 42% 1 80 Bought 8% None 33% Nagero 81 100 Around half 17% nsufficient data Tambura Assessed settlement More than half 8% Mvolo

Hunger is severe 33% Unsafe to access land 42% Hunger is small 25% High prices 17% No 92% No 83% No consensus 17% Conflict destroyed crop 8% Yes 8% Yes 17% Pests destroyed crop 8%

2 Yambio County - Food Security and Livelihoods

Crops for sustenance 92% Waterborne disease 42% No answer 58% Casual labour 83% Malaria / fever 33% HIV / AIDS 17% No 83% 33% Crops for cash Yes 17% Don't know 8% Malaria / fever 17% Livestock 17% No consensus 8% Natural causes 8% Market activities 17% Skin disease 8%

No 100% Yes 83% No 83% Yes 58% No 17% Yes 17% No 42%

1. IPC South Sudan, Key IPC Findings, January 2018 - July 2018. 2. Data is only represented for counties in which at least 5% of settlements have been assessed. The most recent OCHA Common Proportion of assessed settlements reporting most Proportion of assessed settlements reporting a Operational Dataset (COD) released in February 2016 has been used as the reference for settlement names and locations. people possessing cattle livestock disease outbreak in the last month 3. Top 3 results presented, percentages may not add up to 100% as shocks may not be present in all settlements. 4. Top 5 results presented, percentages may exceed 100% as all options that apply can be selected. 5. Specialized nutritious foods used for the treatment of acute malnutrition and to fortify diets. 6. Protected water sources: borehole, tap stand, water yard. About REACH No 58% No 67% Yes 42% REACH facilitates development of information tools and products that enhance capacity of aid actors to make Yes 33% evidence-based decisions in emergency, recovery and development contexts. All REACH activities are conducted through inter-agency aid coordination mechanisms. For more information, you can write to our in-country office: [email protected] or to our global office: [email protected]. Visit www.reach-initiative.org and follow us @REACH_info.