FINAL REPORT

Program 1998 Emergency Winter Assistance Program

Locat~on The Anvil Region, Republika Sprska Central Bosma, The Federation

Mun~cipaht~es Federation Gornjl Vakuf, uskop~e,, , Vinac, and Sipovo and Rlbmk

Grant Number AOT-G-00-98-00 160-00

Grant Dates 0 1 August 1998- 3 1 March 1999

Subm~ttedto Mama Amficio-Rogers Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523-8602

BY Partners For Development (PFD) 16 16 North Fon Myer Drive, 1lth Floor Arlington, VA 22209 Tel (703) 528-8836 Fax (703) 528-7480 E-mail pfd@,l si corn

Besarina Cikma No 5 71000 and Herzegovina TelIFax 387-7 1-446-626 E-mail pfdl @,compuserve corn

May 1999 Partners for Development (PFD) Grant No AOT-G-00-98-00160-00 1998-99 Emergency Wrnter Heatrng Assdance Program Fmal Report

SUMMARY

Th~sreport covers the period 1 August I998 - 3 1 March 1999 for OFDA grant AOT-G-00-98- 00160-00 of $382,865 to Partners for Development (PFD) PFD secured th~sgrant to implement an emergency wmter heating assistance program for vulnerable populat~onsin seven mun~c~palltiesIn the Federation (Gornjl Vakuf, Uskopje, Kupres, Jajce, Vmac, Donjl Vakuf and Bugojno) and two munic~palitiesin Republ~kaSrpska (S~povoand Srpski R~bn~k)of Bosn~a- Herzegovma A twelve week no-cost extens~onextended the project complet~ondate through 3 1 March 1999

The goal of the program was to reduce human suffer~ngby provrdmg fuel ass~stanceto 2,839 vulnerable households (or approx~mately6,562 tnd~viduals) Unfavorable weather condlt~ons delayed deliver~esIn several mun~c~pal~tiesFollowmg mld-project adjustments (d~scussed below), 100% of the el~g~blehouseholds In eight of the nme Munic~pal~tlesdid, however, recewe the proposed quant~tyof fuel asslstance Based on analys~sof Impacts and extenswe d~scussions with program beneficraries and muntctpal counterpart agencles and profess~onals,PFD belleves that the program met ~tsgoal of reducmg human suffermg among vulnerable ~ndrvtduals

In addition to the project's d~rectimpacts, OFDA fund~nghas leveraged other financial support for compl~mentaryprograms to help rebuild Bosn~aand prov~devulnerable populations w~th much needed assistance In both 1998 and 1999, for example, PFD won grants, totalllng approvimately 3 m~lhonU S dollars, from the UnltedStates Department of AgrrcuIture (USDA) to assist small farmers wlth supphes, techn~calsupport and cred~tIn both the Federation and Republtka Srpska

PROGRESS AGAINST OBJECTIVES

Pro~ectOblect~ve and Beneficlanes The project objectwe was to prov~de50% of fuel needs of 2,839 households (6,562 ind~vrduals)In the project area To be ehg~blefor assrstance, each elderly soc~alcase was requ~redto meet the follow~ngcrlter~a

be over 65 years old, not be ltvmg w~thfam~ly or relatives, and, have a household income of less than $60 per month

The crrter~afor returnee famll~esto receive asslstance was have at least one child under seven years, and, be ident~fiedas social cases by the local authorities or relevant minorlty groups

To ensure benefictaries met the criteria, PFD obtained Indexed hsts from Muntctpal Soc~al Welfare Offices, local charities, and mlnority groups These hsts were then cross checked for accuracy and verlfied vla household vmts by PFD's field staff Partners for Development (PFD) Grant No AOT-C-00-98-00160-00 1998-99 Emergency Wtnter Heattng Assstance Program Fmal Report

Program Operations To Implement Phase 1 of the project, reported on In its mid-term report submitted to OFDA In December 1998, PFD

s~gnedcontracts with suppliers and established a delivery schedule w~theach supplier, developed a mon~toringplan to parallel the distribution process that will include spot-checks of 10-30% of dally deliveries, provided suppliers with verified beneficiary lists to ensure timely deliveries, and, pald suppliers on a post-dellvery and post-monitoring basls (that IS,after del~verieswere verified)

During the implementation of Phase 2 of the project, PFD continued del~veringfuel supplies, monitored dellvery activ~ties,and made supplier payments, researched and implemented required program adjustments (discussed below), and, completed post-project impact mon~toring

Fuel Supdies Delivered PFD delivered fuel supplies to 2,614 households (approximately 6,038) individuals), or, approx~mately92% of the total number of households proposed for assistance In the nlne munic~pal~tiesThe adjustment in households/benefic~ariesserved IS explamed below in Sections 4 1 and 4 2 Table 1 summarizes proposed and actual household fuel deliver~esby Mun~ctpality

Table 1 Proposed and Actual Household Fuel Deliver~esby Munlclpallty

Proposed No Actual No % of Del~ver~es Mun~c~pal~ty of Households of Households Completed

1 Gomjl Vakuf

2 Uskopje

3 Kupres

4 Jajce

5 Vlnac

6 Donjl Vakuf

7 Bugojno

8 S~povo

9 R~bn~k

TOTAL 2,839 2,614 Source PFD F~eldRecords 100% of ver~fied/el~g~blehouseholds were served Partners for Development (PFD) Grant No AOT-G-00-98-00160-00 1998-99 Emergency Wrnter Heatrng Assntance Program Ftnal Report

Coordination and Local Support As rn past winter assistance programs, PFD worked closely wlth various municipal ofices and private agencies in each of the nine munrcrpal~tiesto ~dentify beneficiaries and to ensure that lndrvlduals belonging to all groups (Bosnlacs, Croats and Serbs) were served Specifically, PFD consulted wlth minorlty groups, Socral Welfare Departments, Pensioners and War Invalid Associations In addltlon, mun~cipalitiesand nelghbourhoods arranged volunteer labor to cut logs Into firewood for the program beneficiaries This mechanism ensured that the community share in program cost and implementation

PROCUREMENT AND LOGISTICS

PFD contracted SIX local forestry companies to supply and deliver he1 supplies to targeted households PFD selected the companies based on thew ability to meet tlght dellvery schedules, provlmlty to target areas and past performance To ensure contract compliance and timely del~very,PFD wlthheld 15% of the amount contracted until full delivery was completed All suppliers, with the exception of one, fulfilled thelr obligations In a tlmely and responsible manner (see Issues Encountered)

ISSUES ENCOUNTERED AND ADJUSTMENTS MADE

Weather Conditions Bad weather delayed delrver~esto households In the Mun~cipal~tiesof Bugojno and Slpovo The Bugojno based supplier was able to complete dellverles in a tlmely fashlon by assigning addit~onaltrucks and labor to the project In the Munlclpahty of Sipovo, snow and Ice comb~nedwrth the closure of the maln tlmber supply route forced the supplier to cancel the supply contract Because other suppliers were not ava~lable,all Sipovo beneficlarles were not served

Beneficlaw and Schedule Ad~ustmentThe Slpovo road closure resulted in 285 S~povo households (or approximately 10% of the total households) not receiving assistance After add~tlonalfield work PFD was, however, able to identify 59 substitute households whlch met the project criter~a By so domg, PFD was able to Increase the percentage of proposed households served from 90% to 92% Also as a result of the weather related delays and the tlme requlred to ldentlfy and verify substitute households, final impact monitoring actlv~tieswere re-scheduled for late February and March Through a no-cost extension, the project completion date was extended to 3 1 March 1998 to allow for additronal deliveries of fuel and to ensure adequate tlme for impact monitoring

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Impact Monitoring Process To assess the impact of the program, PFD lntewlewed beneficiar~es, municipal officials and health care providers In each municipality To obta~nan accurate understanding of how beneficlarles assessed the program, PFD constructed and interviewed a stratified sample of 230 beneficiarles The sample was constructed to ensure proportional Partners for Development (PFD) Grant No AOT-G-00-98-00160-00 1998-99 Emergency Wrnter Heatrng Assixtance Program Frnal Report

representation for the number of beneficlanes served In each municipality To help Interpret beneficiary responses and ensure the val~dityof findmgs, PFD ~nterviewedsocial service and health care prov~dersworking wlth the target population In each community As in past programs, PFD also interv~ewedsupplier representatwes to assess program logistics, especially with regards to weather-related delays

5 2 Malor Findmgs

5 2 1 Winter assistance reduced illness in low income households Project benefic~ar~esreported that winter assistance reduced Illness withln their households by enabling them to better manage total winter related costs Health care providers reported that low income households w~thmadequate household heat~ngdo evperlence h~gherrates of w~nterrelated Illnesses, thus they believe that the program did reduce winter related illness in the target populat~on Social service providers and case workers also report that low Income households which recelve wlnter ass~stanceexperience a lower level of illness and related health care costs

5 2 2 Starting the prolect earlier could result In greater program ~mpact As In past programs, soclal service prov~dersand supphers agreed that the program could be Implemented In a shorter per~od of time ~fthe program were to begin in mtd-summer A shorter implementation period would allow a greater percentage of total resources to be invested In project suppl~es,which would l~kely result In greater Impact

5 2 3 Conflicting views on meetln the need for future assistance As in past programs, benefic~aries, health care prov~dersand municipal ofic~alsbelleve the need for wlnter fuel assistance wlll be present In the future As PFD found at the end of its 1997-98 Winter Fuel Ass~stanceproject, there are confl~ctlngviews on how these needs will be met Based on h~ghunemployment, l~m~tedgovernment resources, and heav~lydamaged publ~cinfrastructure, social service and health care prowders belleve the government w~llbe unable to prov~dethe asslstance In contrast, benefic~ariesbelieve the government wdl soon be able to respond to social serwce needs, such as winter assistance

5 2 4 Wlnter fuel asslstance comoliments investments and prolects promoting return Health care prov~ders,beneficlaries, and mun~c~paloffic~als believe w~nterfuel asslstance reduce Internal populat~onmovements Without wmter fuel assistance, many low-~ncomehouseholds would be forced to move to warmer areas or to destmations where there is heat, such as w~thfamdy and fr~endsIn other communities

Because newly returned mmoritles often are both elderly and of low income, wmter fuel programs make it possible for them to remaln in their pre-war communities during the winter months Th~sd~rectly supports the Dayton Peace Accords overarchmg objectwe of indiv~duals returning to their pre-war commun~ties It further compliments the current international investments in shelter and job creation for displaced m~norlt~es

5 3 Analys~sof Findtngs and Recommendations

5 3 1 Cost Reduction and Future Need To reduce costs and maxlmize health related impacts, winter a Partners for Development (PFD) Grant No AOT-G-00-98-00160-00 1998-99 Emergency Wrnter Heatzng Assatance Program ha1Report

assistance should be prov~dedonly to low income households, following assessment and verificat~onof need Based on Bosn~a'shlgh unemployment, estimated to be between 50-60%, the need for future winter fuel assistance programs, as well as other socral service programs, IS ltkely to perslst

Cit~zenPerceptions The general c~tlzenperception that the government will be able to prov~de needed assistance as it did In the past IS cause for concern glven the current unemployment level and the slow rate of economlc recovery In light of the above, available resources should be mvested m (1) actwities wh~chwill mlnlmlze future needs and (2) which can leverage community or beneficiary resources

Future Investments and Maxlm~zlngROI To maxlmlze return on investment (ROT) for any future social servlce type program activitles, PFD suggests

social servlce projects target and serve only low income ~ndividuals, implementation of project actlv~t~esshould be guided by strict needs tests and ver~ficat~on procedures, records used m the targetlng and verlficat~onprocess should be kept in such a way that Municipal offices can ut~lizethem, prior~tyshould be glven to sectors and activ~tleswhich reduce future costsfneeds, and, when poss~ble,activitles should include an element of self-help