ERM Household Assessment Report (Should Be Written and Submitted ASAP After the Completion of Rapid Need Assessment)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ERM Household Assessment Report (Should be written and submitted ASAP after the completion of Rapid Need Assessment) 1. General Information: Assessment Location: Laghman Province, Mihtarlam city Qarghaee district, Multiple villages (Province/District/Village) Type of crises: Conflict and ongoing military clearing operation in their places of origin (Conflict/Nat. Disaster/Other) Crisis Location: Laghman province, Alingar, Alishang and Mihtarlam districts and Multiple (Province/District/Village) villages Assessment Team: DRC, APA and DoRR (Name of I/NGO in the assessment team) Crises date: Feb‐April‐2017 (date of displacement‐Estimated) Date of Notification: 08‐May – 2017 Date of Assessment: 10‐17 May‐ 2017 (starting date/ending date) Affected Population: HHs: Families: Inds: (Total Caseload: IDP/CAT A/CAT B/Other) 13 13 94 Electronic Hardcopy Data collection method Yes 2. Assessment Finding and Recommendation in brief: Be very concise but precise, provide #, of affected people, information about damages, priority needs, and recommended assistance (Who, When, How should be assisted, by which Organization). On May 08, 2017, OCHA shared IDP’s petition with DRC requesting for joint need assessment of IDPs in Laghman province. Reported IDPs have displaced due to ongoing life threatening clashes in their places of origin and ongoing military operations. Following the OCHA alert/request 02 assessment teams composed by DRC, APA and DoRR jointly conducted needs assessment in Mihtarlam and Qarghaee district of Laghman province. Key findings of needs assessment: Overall, 152 families were assessed and visited by 02 assessment teams in Mihtarlam, out of 152 families, only 13 families were found genuine eligible IPDs and in need of humanitarian. The rest (139 families) were found not eligible for ERM support, because they were from host community, returnees, or protracted IDPs who have already received humanitarian assistance. Priority needs of selected IDPs are Food, NFIs, and WASH (Sanitation), illustrated in the following graph. 13 families are in need of Food and NFIs. 06 families are in need of emergency latrine and bathing facilities as their latrine doesn’t provide enough privacy. 3. Recommendations for response Based on the assessment findings explain what response is considered appropriate and justify the response and targeting. Under water supply describe and justify the proposed actions (water trucking, rehabilitation, water point construction, Bio Sand filters etc.). Under Sanitation and Hygiene described and justify the proposed actions (latrine & bathing facilities, Hygiene Promotion, hygiene kit distribution). Under Solid Waste Management describe and justify the support to solid waste management proposed (awareness raising, assistance to disposal etc.). Response Plan: DRC will address identified needs of IDPs through MPCA and will distribute a total of AFN 30,000 per family in two installments (full SMEB, AFN 18, 000 in 1st trench, and AFN 12,000 as 2nd trench) for all 13 families. Proposed MPCA will minimum expenditures of the household for two months period. Needs of hygiene kits and sanitation will be referred to DACAAR 4. Sectorial Issues: A) Food Security, Nutrition and Livelihood: (provide detailed information about the impact of food security and livelihood i.e. lost/damaged food stock, current food stock statues, income sources, damaged/destroyed crops and agricultural land, type of agricultural land, agricultural inputs availability, diet diversity, irrigation system, livestock etc. Also describe immediate food and nutritional need and provide recommendation about the short and long term food and nutrition assistance) Assessment findings indicate that main source of income for 10 families is daily wage or casual labor, 01 family is receiving pension, one is teacher and 01 family income source is tailoring. Lack of job opportunities for daily wage labor can’t fulfill the required daily use needs. Due to said lack of income opportunities these families are vulnerable to food insecurity. Assessed families currently experience variety of negative coping strategies which include: a. 100% (all 13 families) having less preferred food intake 1‐4 days per week, b. 85% (11 families) limiting food 1‐2 days per week, c. 92% (12 families) have reported borrowing food 1‐3 days a week. d. 62% ( 8 families) Reduced eaten time IDPs have also reported selling productive assets In order to be able to feed their families, which further decrease their resilience to future shocks. Level of debt is high among assessed families, 46% are in debt of more than AFN 8000, 31% reported having debt between AFN 2000 and AFN 8000. While, 23% IDPs reported having no debts. 38% (05 families) have indicated that they could not cook due to lack of access to means and food stuff for cooking within their households. Recommendation: Two month food is recommended for all 13 families who have not received food assistance yet. DRC will address food needs of IDPs through CBI for all 13 families. DRC proposed MPCA include cost of food expenditures two months period (estimated cost of AFN 6,000 per family per month for a family of 7 members) B) NFI: (provide detailed information about NFI items lost due to disasters/crises as well as what type of NFI is needed for how many families and when? NFI can include Cooking items, kitchen items, hygiene items, bedding, clothing, fuel etc.) During the interviews IDPs reported that they had left their places of origin in extreme urgency and couldn’t take their household items including kitchen and bedding items and have just managed to save their lives. Often IDPs arrived just with one extra pair of cloths. HEAT database indicate that all 13 families have lost kitchen kit, hygiene kit, bedding items or blankets, and water containers. Currently IDPs suffer from lack/shortage of utensils and other NFIs such as water container and kitchen items. During HEAT interviews, it was found that currently IDPs borrow necessary items from their hosts or relatives temporarily which is an extra burden on host community or relatives. Recommendation: Provision of NFIs, DRC proposed MPCA include cost of NFIs expenditures two months period (estimated cost of AFN 4,000 per family for a family of 7 members) C) Shelter: (please provide detailed information about the status of shelter condition i.e. type of normal shelters, # of shelters moderately damaged, severely damaged and completed destroyed by crises. How many people live in open space, sheltered with host families, etc. What kind of shelter support/assistance is needed and for How many families). Are there land ownership issues?) The assessment showed that out of 13 families, 11 Families are accommodated in rented houses while 02 Families are hosted. Currently no one is without shelter. Therefore, need for emergency shelter is not identified. Recommendation: Though, need for emergency shelter is not recommended. However, DRC will provide MPCA which include cost for shelter support i.e. AFN 5000 for small repairs and improvements which can be used for repair and improvement of the current shelters. D) WASH: (provide detailed information about Water sources, affected water source, sanitation (latrines, used water and solid waste management) and hygiene issues. What is recommended in WASH sector and when?) During HEAT interviews it was found that all 13 HHs reported have access to enough water for all purposes (drinking, cooking and bathing). HEAT database indicate that main water sources for all 13 HHs is hand pump/boring well and for 01 HH dug well for sometimes which are reported not clear water. 07 out of 13 IDPs families have access to latrines, however 01 them doesn’t have enough privacy, while, 06 families reported are practicing open defection. Recommendation: Hygiene kit distribution and support for emergency sanitation facilities is recommended. DRC will refer WASH needs to DACAAR, the ERM WASH partner. E) Protection: (provide detailed information about protection issues, protection needs, PSN and EVIs (Female H, elderly HHs, child HH, chronically ill members, disable members) and provide precise recommendation regarding IPAs) Additional vulnerabilities, among 13 households are: o 01 are breastfeeding women o 02 Pregnant women o 01 Elderly household . In addition to above additional vulnerabilities, there are 06 HHs who have incurred debts more than 8,000 AFN. All 13 families currently not willing to back to their places of origin as the clashes between government and AoG are still reported in those areas and there is high risk to their life. Recommendation: No specific assistance is recommended. F) Health: (provide information about health issues, damaged/destroyed health facilities, current/available health facilities, access to health services and recommended assistance in this regards) Basic and major health services are available in Mehterlam clinics and hospital. Rather than seasonal diseases, assessment team didn’t find/observe any serious health issue among the assessed population. Consumption of unsafe water by 01 HHs could increase the risk of waterborne diseases. Recommendation: No specific Health needs assessment is recommended. G) MARKET ASSESSMENT: (provide summary information regarding the local market, accessibility, security constrains and fill the table if an market assessment has been conducted) Markets were found functioning in Mehterlam; markets are 1‐2 Km far away from locations where the assessment was conducted. Overall, 100% of