Shelter Cluster ShelterCluster.org Coordinating Humanitarian Shelter

JALLA PAYAM BOR COUNTY

Post-Distribution Monitoring Report Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) of Emergency Basic NFI distributed to affected and Activity vulnerable host communities in Kolmarek, Payam, BOR County, Jongeli state. Location Kolmarek Duration 29th Jan-5th Feb 2018 Itinerary Juba-Bor-Jalle-Bor-Juba. PAH Monitoring Team Partners and support staff Local Authority Itraru Simon Jacob Mawut (RRC representative Bor) Senior M&E Officer +211955706930 Monitoring Locally hired enumerators team / [email protected] Achiek Wel Kuol

Counterparts Kuol Ghein Manyang Eimani Jackline Rufino Bior Job Adier M&E Officer Amol Kuch Amol +211 956855530 Daniel Deng Anyang [email protected] Ayuen James Buol Abraham Ayuen Akuei Atem Mawech Atem PAH monitoring team travelled from Juba to Bor and back using commercial flight and daily used PAH car to reach the location for data collection from PAH base in Bor. The team was accommodated in PAH compound in Bor. Since there is mobile networks in Logistics Bor and Jalle (MTN), the team used mobile phones for communication. There is constant power and internet in PAH Bor compound, the team used it also for communication and for synchronizing as well as exporting the collected data into excel. When the team was on ground, the security situation in Jalle was calm, although there were some rumours that Murle people raided some cattle around some village that was Security not far from the area of data collection. Bor generally was calm at the time of monitoring.

1. Background: intervention overview

Situation before intervention: An incident of cattle raiding on 15, July 2017 in Jalle Payam (Kolmarek Boma) of Jonglei had resulted into displacement, loss of life, abduction and burning of houses and properties. Following this devastating attack on Kolmarek Boma, An inter-agency assessment team coordinated by State RRC and UNOCHA and led by UNHCR was deployed to the scene on 21, July 2017 to assess Protection, Education, FSL, NFI and WASH specific needs. However, the general situation in the area during the visit of humanitarian partners remained a bit tense. People remain in fear as another attack could occur in unknown time. During the attack, over 7000 herds of cattle were raided and living about 34 persons killed (including those who later died in the Hospitals of Juba and Bor), several other people wounded and children taken away. It was further reported that the attackers burned down about 203 houses (belonging to 78 HHs). During the assessment, it was established that villagers have decided to relocate children and some women to safer areas such as the nearby Islands, Payams and Bor town given the unpredictable situation in the area after the attack. Household items such as Jerri cans, buckets, blankets, sleeping mats, mosquito nets and kitchen set were among other household items and belongings that were burned in the houses. The IDPs whose houses were burnt during the attack were found sleeping in the school building of Kolmarek primary school and others were said to have taken refuge to Alang, Jalle, Wunlier. Most IDPs were found to be sleeping on bare floor without basic NFI items and exposed to risk of malaria that was common in the area. Based on the above, PAH NFI ERT on 11th December 2017 conducted verification of the affected communities and used existing registration lists made by WFP.

The aim of the intervention planned from 17-18 December 2017, was to provide support through distribution of Emergency/basic NFIs. This is specifically to help the affected host communities through provision of basic NFIs.

Distribution activities carried out and results/indicators achieved 776 households with total individual of 4699 were served with the following items: - 1536 pcs blankets distributed - 1536 pcs mosquito nets distributed - 1536 pcs sleeping mats distributed - 776 pcs kanga distributed

2. Methodology

The aim set for the PDM was: to assess the changes/ achievements brought by intervention as regards to appropriateness, coverage and effectiveness of the distributed NFIs.

Special focus of the PDM was on the following areas of intervention: appropriateness and usage of the NFIs as well as the registration and distribution processes.

Indicators assessed included: - Indicator: % of targeted households reporting satisfaction from the availability of basic NFIs. - Indicator: % of beneficiaries who received basic lifesaving Non-Food Items and possess the knowledge on appropriate use of the items. - Indicator: % of targeted households reporting satisfaction with the registration and distribution processes.

Timing: PDM field visit for data collection was scheduled one and half month after the intervention. The actual data collection duration was 5 days, including one day for training of locally hired enumerators.

Monitoring team: the team was composed of two (2) PAH M&E staff members and Eight (8) locally hired enumerators. PAH staff members ensured: preparation of field visit, training of enumerators and supervising them during data collection, conducting key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussion (FGDs), data processing and analysis. Locally hired enumerators were responsible for household survey data collection that involves interpretation of questions and also ensured proper care of PAH data collection equipment.

In preparation for the monitoring, following tasks were undertaken by the monitoring team:

1) Desk study, including review of PAH registration/verification report of 11th 12.2017 and PAH distribution report of 19th-20th.12. 2017. 2) Preparation for the field visit: selection of PDM tools that would be most suitable for achieving the aim of the monitoring visit; 3) Technical preparation based on selected tools: transferring questionnaire to iFormBuilder, editing KII and FGD question guides, printing other documents that were required during the monitoring exercise, preparation of necessary equipment; communication with local authorities and the enumerators. 4) Mobilising and training enumerators: one day’s training conducted for enumerators in Kolmarek on the interpretation of survey questions, as well as household survey methodology and standard rules and procedures. Training facilitators (PAH M&E staff members) followed suggestions provided in ES/NFI Cluster Manual “PDM Enumerator Training Outline”. Training for eight (8) potential enumerators was conducted on 30.01.2018. After the training, seven (7) candidates were later tasked to work after successful pretest and one (1) was used as interpreter during FDG and KIIs.

Monitoring activities Methods and tools used for PDM included: Household survey: a tablet-based NFI cluster PDM Household Questionnaire was used to carry out household survey which included verbal questions and visual observation of the usage of distributed items. The questionnaire also contains questions that assess the appropriateness of distributed items as well as beneficiaries’ satisfaction with the quality of the items, registration and distribution processes.

Respondents were selected randomly from among the beneficiary households. The sample size was calculated basing on the statistical figures According to the super simple sample estimation described in the PAH Post-distribution/Post-intervention Monitoring Guidelines, for the number of beneficiaries “between 1000 and 10000, the sample amounts to 100-200 (100 is minimum, 200 is optimal and acceptable quality, if feasible a sample of 300 would give very good statistical accuracy with the margin of error of 6%). For a population between 10000 and 20000 the sample should amount to between 200 and 300.” In this case, aim is to reach sample size 300 and 247 was reached.

No. of beneficiary Location/Village No. of HHs interviewed HHs/Individuals Kolmarek 183 Majok (Kolmarek) 776(4699) 64 Total (all locations) 776 HHs (4699 Indiv) 247

Quality control of enumerator’s performance was carried out by the M&E team at the end of each day as the enumerators report back. Errors were checked by the M&E officers and respective enumerators were briefed accordingly.

Key Informant Interviews (KII): were carried out with people who were involved during the activities done by PAH. This included PAH project team, RRC as well as local authorities/chiefs.

Focus Group Discussions (FGD): were conducted with the intention to have diverse opinion from different individuals in a group that clearly brings out facts from the group as it allows in-depth debating among the participants. Two (2) women focus groups discussions were organized and conducted and one (1) men focus group discussion was organized and conducted with the help of the interpreter through the chiefs who were informed a day earlier by the monitoring team to mobilize the groups.

Observation: The presence and the usage of the distributed items were checked while moving across the areas of intervention and also during household survey by the enumerators.

Limitations/challenges - Low level of skills and experiences among enumerators at the same time high wage demand by the enumerators. - Some beneficiaries relocated to far places that they consider a bit safer from their previous areas making finding them difficult. Furthermore, many household members especially women were engaged in search for building materials like grass and also collection of wild fruits. - Reported case of Murle raiding at nearby village that affected data collection on the last day of data collection as some households went on hiding. - Overwhelming community expectations and demands that resulted into hiding of relevant information by the respondents.

Documenting and analysing data: Collected data during household survey were automatically uploaded to the iFormBuilder database and exported to Excel. It was further processed: cleaned, summarised and analysed. Notes taken during FGDs and KIIs were transcribed into FGD and KII template. PDM questionnaires and FGD transcripts containing collected information are available in PAH South Sudan files.

Use of monitoring results: Management and project staff of the PAH Mission in South Sudan are the primary user of the information acquired during the PDM and presented in this Report. Based on conclusions and recommendations described in the last section of this report, the findings can be used by ERT NFI team as it provides details and quantitative information on post-distribution situation that are valuable for further improvements in future interventions in similar setting.

3. Monitoring findings

This section describes profile of the interviewed households and presents findings regarding relevance of provided assistance as compared to the needs identified during the assessment phase, household satisfaction with distributed items as well as registration and distribution process.

3.1.Profile of interviewed households

(1) Gender of the respondents: household survey results showed that majority (76%) of the household respondents were female and 24% were male respondents.

Gender of respondents

Male 24%

Female 76%

(2) Age of the respondents: majority (86%) household respondents were aged between 28 years and above.

Age of respondents

35 40 28 30 23 20 11 10 3 0

% of % respondents Below 18 18-27 years 28-37 years 38-47 years 58 years and years above

(3) Gender of household head: household survey result indicated most (58%) of the households are headed by adult males.

Gender of household head

58 60 50 36 40 30 20 5 10 1 0

% of % households Adult female Adult male Female child ( male child (less (more than 18 (more than 18 less than 18 than 18 years) years) years) years)

(4) Trend of household population: household sizes remained similarly the same during registration and post distribution monitoring period. Household sizes mainly ranged between 5 and 8 during registration with average household size of 6.6; and during PDM, majority of household’s size ranged from 4 to 8 with average size of 6.6.

Household size during registration and PDM

25 20 15 10 5 Registration

% of % households 0 PDM

Six

Ten

Five

One

Two

Four

Nine

Eight

Three

Seven

Eleven

Twelve

Thirteen

Fourteen Abovefourteen

(5) Household vulnerability status: household survey indicated that all the interviewed households have vulnerable groups. Most commonly identified vulnerable groups were children under 5 years, pregnant/lactating women and elderly people (above 65).

Vulnerability status

Have persons with chronic/long-term illnes 36

Have persons with disabilities 31

Have elderly (above 65) in your household? 60

Have children under 5 years 82

Have Pregnant/lactating (breastfeeding) women 61

0 20 40 60 80 100 % of households

3.2. Use of items, appropriateness and satisfaction with the quality of distributed items

(6) Proportion of items distributed and still present: Household survey result showed that all the interviewed households still have and use most of their items received with only few missing items.

During focus group discussion (FGDs) with both women and men groups, the participants described the situation before the intervention to be dire because most houses were burnt down and items were lost leaving them without any basic items but after the distribution of NFI items to the communities by PAH the situation improved.

Proportion of items recieved and still available

200

150 97 99 98 96

100 Items still available Items received

% of % items 50 100 100 100 100

0 Blanket Kanga Mosquito Sleeping net mat

And those 3% HHs whose blanket were missing said they gave it away (2%), blanket were damaged while using it (1%). And then 1% whose Kangas were missing were asked; 0.5% said the Kanga was stolen and the other 0.5% gave it away; those 2% HHs that have reported missing mosquito nets said some of the mosquito nets got damaged while they were using them (1%), (0.5%) HHs said they gave them away and (0.5%) HH said it was stolen. 4% HHs whose sleeping mats were missing said they were damaged while using (2%), 1% HHs gave them away and 1% HHs said they were damaged when received.

(7) Appropriateness of the distributed items: overall (94%) of the interviewed household respondents admitted that they were satisfied with the items distributed.

The chiefs in Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) confirmed that distributed items are appropriate to the needs of the beneficiaries but were few in number to those with large families besides other items were missing in the kit. Women and men passed the same information during FGDs and they further expressed that medium family size were made to receive the same number of items with the large family size that was not appropriate.

Appropriatenss of the distributed items

6%

Not satisfied Satisfied 94%

When those (6%) who expressed dissatisfaction were asked about the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the items received, they gave various reasons for the different items as shown in the table below.

Reasons for dissatisfaction with items Blanket Kanga Mosquito net Sleeping mat I already had it 1 (8%) 2 (25%) 0 1 (9%) It was damaged when received 1 (8%) 0 0 1 (9%) The items were not of my priority 12 (92%) 5 (63%) 0 9 (82%) I don't know how to use it 0 0 1 (100%) 1 (9%) Total 14 (108%) 7 (88%) 1 (100%) 12 (109%)

(8) Quality of the items distributed: generally, the respondents regarded most of the items to be of good quality except sleeping mat.

Women and men in FGDs said that mosquito nets are generally of good quality except sleeping mats that are small in size, difficult to accommodate two people while sleeping and blankets becomes rough after being used for a while and the kangas fades easily.

Quality of distributed items

98 100 78 74 80 68 60 32 Good 40 22 26 Bad 20 2 % of % respondents 0 Blanket Kanga Mosquito Sleeping net mat

Respondents who regarded blankets of bad quality said it is rough, tear easily, small in size and has bad colour. Kanga fades easily, small in size and not durable, mosquito nets are not durable and has bad colour and sleeping mats are small in size and not durable as shown in the table below.

Reasons for quality of items being bad Blanket Kanga Mosquito net Sleeping mat It is small in size 12 (22%) 42 (65%) 0 62 (78%) It has bad colour 10 (19%) 5 (8%) 2 (33%) 3 (4%) It is light 3 (6%) 0 0 0 It is rough 27 (50%) 4 (6%) 0 0 It tears easily/not durable 20 (37%) 10 (15%) 4 (67%) 26 (33%) It fades easily 0 19 (29%) 0 0 It's transparent 0 8 (12%) 0 0 Total 72 (133%) 88 (135%) 6 (100%) 91 (114%)

(9) Usage of items received: observations showed that high proportion of the households used their items for the intended purposes; few households were using mosquito nets, blankets and sleeping mats for unintended purposes. Use of distributed items 97 97 97 100 89

80 Intended purposes 60 Unintended purposes 40

% of % items Item not present 20 10 1 2 1 Stored 0 Blanket Kanga Mosquito Sleeping net mat

It was observed that few households use sleeping mat for erecting shelter and fencing compound, blankets are used for erecting shelter, mosquito nets are used for thatching houses and rearing chicken and kangas are used as curtains and for carrying other household items. Few of those items were not present and some sleeping mats were stored.

(10) Other items needed that were not included in the kit: when respondents were asked about the need for other NFIs, overwhelmingly majority 244 (99%) of 247 respondents admitted they desired other NFIs items which were not included in the kit that was distributed. The three most mentioned items included cooking set, plastic sheet and jerry cans as shown in the chart below.

Both Women and men in FGDs and the chiefs in KII also expressed the need for plastic sheets, cooking sets, jerry cans and soaps for washing. They further added that since most of the houses were burnt down and people fear going in the bushes to fetch local material for building houses so plastic sheets would have helped them to make temporary houses.

The three most urgently needed items missing in the kit distributed

Jerri cans cooking 27% sets 40% Plastic sheet 33%

(11) Accessing the desired items after the distribution: When asked whether households’ accessed items that were urgently needed and were not included in the kit, majority proportion of the interviewed households admitted that they did not access the items as shown blow.

Accessing of those items after distribution No Yes How it was accessed Did you access item number one 88% 12% Given it 6% Bought it 3% Borrowed 3% No Yes How it was accessed Did you access item number two 89% 11% Given it 7% Bought it 1% Borrowed 3% No Yes How it was accessed 91% 9% Given it 4% Did you access item number three Bought it 3% Borrowed 2%

The information in the table above helps to understand whether the three other desired items that were not included in the kit during the distribution are locally accessible and if the community are able to acquire it/them by their own means.

(12) Whether items met the needs at the time of distribution: When asked whether the distributed items met the needs of beneficiaries at the time of distribution, 77% of 247 respondents admitted the items they received fully met their needs.

Whether items recieved met their needs at the time of distribution

No 6% Somehow 17%

Yes 77%

(13) Helpfulness of the items month/s after the distribution: when asked whether items were helping them month/s after distribution, over ¾ (86%) of the interviewed households confirmed that items are really helping them, 4% said it helps them somehow and 10% said the items are not helpful at all.

The RRC field monitor for Jalle said that the distributed items are helping the community but the challenge remains access to safe water, explaining that many boreholes in Kolmarek have broken down leaving the communities to fetch their drinking water from ponds that have even dried up now. Chiefs as well as FGD participants expressed the same issued.

Whether items helped them a month after distribution

Somehow 4% No 10%

Yes 86%

(14) Changes experienced as a result of the items received: only 3% of the households said they have not experienced any changes but the rest (97%) experienced great changes such as family now having sleeping materials, family is sleeping under mosquito nets, women have wrapping clothes and feeling of dignity.

Participants in FGDs and the chiefs in key KIIs all confirmed that there are changes in the community as most beneficiaries no longer share sleeping mats, blankets and are prevented from mosquito bites. Above all the community members now feels protected from coldness as a result of use of the blankets and kanga.

Changes experienced as a result of the items recieved 90 83 77 80 70 65 60 50 41 40 30 20

10 3 % of % respondents 0 Nothing has Family members Family now have People feel Women have changed sleep under sleeping dignified wrapping clothes mosquito net atires/matrials

3.3. Registration and distribution process

(15) Source of information about registration and distribution: household survey indicated that Chiefs were the main source of information about both registration and distribution.

Both women and men during FGDs also confirmed that the registration and distribution information were passed by the respective chiefs.

Source of information about registration and distribution

83 90 80 66 70 60 50 40 Registration process 30 17 16 17 Distribution process 20

10 1 1 0 % of % respondents 0 Chiefs Community NGO RRC leader (not chief)

(16) Waiting time at the distribution centre: good percentage (60%) waited for less than 2 hours to receive their items, 26% waited between 2-6 hours to receive their items, the rest (14%) waited for 7 hours-1 full day or had to come back the following day.

In confirmation, participants during FGDs also confirmed that the time spent in the queue to receive items was short since the line were organized and was moving very fast, everybody was in the line waiting for their turn.

Waiting time at the distribution centre

Less than 2 hours 10% 4%

2-6 hours 26% 60% 7 hours-1 day (not over night) overnight-come back next day

(17) Registration process: majority (80%) of the household respondents regarded the registration process as good while 20% rated it as poor. In addition, those respondents who regarded the registration process to be good gave reasons such as local leaders were involved, registration information was circulated earlier on and it was well organized.

Reasons for rating registration process good

59 55 60 50 35 40 23 30 20 9 10 0 % of % respondents Door to door Local leaders Registration Registration Registration registration were information was well was well involved was passed organized organized early

However, the few respondents who rated the registration process to be poor linked it to other deserving people were not registered, no registration information was passed and registration days were limited.

Much as the household respondents rated the registration process good, participants during FGDs said the registration process was poor. Because people who went into hiding to far places after the incident were not registered and besides there was no formal registration carried out, the team used existing lists prepared by WFP for the distribution that did not cover everyone’s name. The same information was passed by chiefs during KIIs.

(18) Distribution process: generally, the distribution process was good as majority (90%) rated it highly. People were treated equally, Distribution was well organized, short waiting time at distribution centre, items were free, were some of the commonly stated reasons for rating distribution process good.

Chiefs confirmed that the distribution went on well, they were informed early about the distribution dates, cooperation of the team was good, everybody who were registered received their items, and everything went on well. This was also confirmed with women in FGDs in Kolmarek.

Reasons for rating the distribution process good

75 80 70 60 44 43 50 39 40 27 30 18

% of % respondents 20 10 0 Distribution It was well Items were Local People Short information organized for free leaders were waiting was passed were treated time early involved equally

on the other hand, the few respondents (10%) who said the distribution process was poor mostly attributed it to some desired items were not included in the kit and items given per household was not sufficient as well as the distribution point was far for some beneficiaries.

In confirmation to the above, women and men from Majok area during FGDs said that they were not comfortable with the distribution centre. Because the distance was too far and they were not feeling safe to leave their children alone at home for fear of regular attack from the Murle. In addition, the long distance led to getting lost of an elderly woman that missed her way after the distribution.

4. Conclusions and recommendations

Based on findings described before, this section summarises conclusions with regards to appropriateness/relevance, effectiveness/impact and coverage of NFI distribution, pointing out the main issues that need to be considered in future interventions.

Conclusions Lessons learned / recommendations

4.1. Appropriateness The beneficiaries massively registered their satisfaction with the items 1. Assessments should be done with much attention to the needs of the distributed and the participants during FGDs described the NFI situation community and it is very critical to consider the priorities of the before intervention to be dire; this therefore concludes that the items beneficiaries. distributed were appropriate to the needs of the affected communities although their NFI needs were not covered all as they expressed other NFI needs which majority did not access even after PAH ES/NFI distribution (see finding 6, 7, 10, 11). It has been concluded that the items were appropriate to the needs of 2. This illustrates that proper demonstration was done to the beneficiaries on the target population since they are using them for their intended proper use of the items which is important aspect in the distribution process purpose and also reported some important changes as a result of using and it is a good practice that should always be prioritized during distribution. those items (see Findings 9, 14). Basing on the fact that bigger proportion of beneficiaries confirmed 3. it is very critical to consider the priority needs of the beneficiaries in that the items met their needs at the time of distribution and helped recommending items after assessments. them month/s after distribution, these concludes that items were appropriately recommended to the needs of the affected communities (see findings 12, 13). 4.2. Coverage Coverage was maximum as the affected communities were targeted 3. and all the targeted households having vulnerable groups of people such as the children under 5 years, pregnant and breastfeeding women and elderly people who are the rightful groups of beneficiaries (see finding 5, 17). 4.3. Effectiveness Household survey data indicates that the NFI team effectively Proper awareness meetings with local authorities and the community 4. conducted the verification process as majority of the beneficiaries members in FGDs as well as at household levels during registration and credited it although during both KIIs and FGDs, participants expressed verification processes in order to aware the community on the scope and the that the verification process was not well handled since the team left criteria of targeting. out some beneficiaries who might have gone hiding due to fear of attacks and PAH used already existing WFP lists to verify and for the distribution; it is concluded that the registration/verification process and targeting criteria was well conducted however some of the community members did not understand the verification process well (see finding 17).

It is concluded that the distribution was effectively managed because 5. If logistically viable, it is important to minimize long walking distance to the of the fact that the beneficiaries rated the distribution highly although distribution points as a protection measure. few beneficiaries complained about the number of items per household and far distribution point (see finding 18).

Report prepared by: Itraru Simon, Senior M&E Officer With contribution from: Eimani Jackline Rufino, M&E Officer (FGD and KII summaries) Reviewed by: Martin Mawadri, M&E Coordinator. Date of submission: draft, 12. 02. 2018, final 19.02.2018 Appendices

Photo: Women during FGDs in Kolmarek

Photo: Mosquito net hanged up ready for use Photo: items displayed to be observed by Enumerators

Photo: Woman displayed her kanga and sleeping mat Photo: Elderly man using the blanket for covering during coldness