FIRST ROUND POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM) REPORT (FINAL)
OXFAM CASH TRANSFER PROGRAM IN AFDER, DOLLO, FAFAN AND JARAR ZONES OF SOMALI REGIONAL STATE
Prepared by: MEAL Team
August 2017
Addis Ababa
Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ...... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ...... 5 ACRONYMS ...... 6 Executive Summary ...... 7 1. Background ...... 9 2. Objectives of the Post Distribution Monitoring(PDM) ...... 9 3. Methodology ...... 10 3.1. Method of Data Collection ...... 10 3.2. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Methodology ...... 10 The sample size was calculated using the formula below (this is for unknown population): ...... 11 3.3. Data Analysis ...... 12 3.4. Data Quality Assurance ...... 12 4. Findings of the Assessment ...... 13 4.1. Household Demographic Characteristics...... 13 4.1.1. Percentage of Respondent Households across zone ...... 13 4.1.3. Marital Status of Respondent HHs ...... 14 4.1.4. Vulnerability and Disability Status of Respondent Households ...... 14 4.1.5. Type of beneficiaries ...... 15 4.1.6. Livelihood Strategies of Respondent Households ...... 15 4.1.7. Knowledge on Availability of Complaint and Feedback mechanisms ...... 16 4.2. Cash Collection Process ...... 17 4.2.1. Information about cash distribution date and % of women collected Cash on Distribution Day ...... 17 4.2.2. Number of Rounds and Amounts of Cash Beneficiaries Received ...... 18 4.2.3. HHs Hours Spent to Reach Cash Distribution Point and at Cash Distribution point ...... 19 4.2.4. Satisfaction of Beneficiaries on Cash Distribution Process ...... 20 4.3. Utilization of Cash and Market behavior ...... 21 4.3.1. Utilization of Cash ...... 21 4.3.2. Cash Distribution and Its Effect on Market ...... 21 4.3.3. Increase in Meals ...... 22 4.4. Cash for Work Activities ...... 23 4.4.1. Provision of Cash for Work Materials ...... 23 4.5. The effects of Cash intervention on HHs Food security ...... 24 4.5.1. Food Consumption Score ...... 24 4.5.2. HHs Dietary Diversity ...... 25 5. Conclusion and Recommendation ...... 27 5.1. Conclusion ...... 27 5.2. Recommendations ...... 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: % of HHs with pregnant and breastfeeding women and adults above 60 years...... 15 Table 2: Respondents knowledge on complaining mechanisms ...... 17 Table 3: Amount of cash received by beneficiaries per round ...... 18 Table 4: Did you receive information and materials for cash for work activities? ...... 23 Table 5: Food Consumption Score ...... 25 Table 6: Dietary Diversity Score ...... 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of respondents per zone ...... 13 Figure 2: Age Category of the Respondent HHs ...... 13 Figure 3: Marital status of Respondent HHs ...... 14 Figure 4: Type of cash transfer beneficiaries ...... 15 Figure 5: Livelihood Strategies of Households ...... 16 Figure 6: Whether the amount of cash HHs received covers HH food needs or not ...... 19 Figure 7: Waiting time Beneficiaries Spent at Cash Distribution Sites ...... 20 Figure 8: Satisfaction of Beneficiaries on Cash Distribution Process ...... 20 Figure 9: Utilization of Cash ...... 21 Figure 10: Is there any change in price of materials ...... 22 Figure 11: Change in Meals per day ...... 22 Figure 12: Food Consumption Score per Zone...... 24 Figure 13: Dietary Diversity Score ...... 26
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First, we would like to offer our heartfelt thanks to our donors, ECHO, OFDA, DEC, GAC & Oxfam Intermon for financing this Cash Transfer Program in Somali region of Ethiopia. We really appreciate the commitment of the donors to help needy communities in the operational woredas of Somali Region in Ethiopia.
Second, we would like to offer our sincere thanks to all drought response team at country office and field offices who actively involved in the whole process of the PDM survey which was conducted in four zones of Somali Region.
We would like also to show our gratitude to relevant government offices in the sample Woredas and Kebeles for facilitating the PDM survey and direct involvement in the data collection process of the PDM. We would like also extend our appreciation to the households and people in the nine woredas for agreeing to participate in the PDM and provide information.
Finally, we offer our best regards to all supervisors and enumerators who played active role in the data collection and supervision process of the PDM survey in the sample kebeles and woredas.
ACRONYMS
CT: Cash Transfer
CFW: Cash for Work
EFSVL: Emergency Food Security and Vulnerable Livelihood
ETB: Ethiopian Birr
FCS: Food Consumption Score
FGD: Focus Group Discussions
HH: Household
KII: Key Informant Interview
MEAL: Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL)
OWDA: Organisation for Welfare and Development in Action
PC: Pastoralist Concern
PDM: Post Distribution Monitoring
PPS: Probability Proportional to Size
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Science
Executive Summary This particular PDM assessment was conducted during 17 – 28 July 2017 with the main objective of determining the efficacy of the cash transfer (to 13,024 HHs during 22 June – 6 July 2017) done by Oxfam and its two partners (OWDA and PC) and its process in relation to addressing the needs of the community and to measure the satisfaction of households on cash distribution process. The assessment was focuses only on first round post distribution monitoring for Dollo, Jarar and Afder zone, while, it is the second round distribution for Fafan zone.
The PDM was conducted on 395 randomly selected HHs in Afder, Jarar, Dollo and Fafan zones. Moreover, FGDs, KII, Observation and Review of distribution of documents were some of the methodology used for collecting data. The findings are summarized below.
The findings of the assessment reveals that, 100% of beneficiaries in Afder, Jarar, Dollo, and Fafan zones were confirmed the receipt of the first and second round cash distribution respectively. The finding shows that, the cash distribution was effected through Somali Microfinance Institution (SMI) across all zones. 86.3% of the respondent households were female and the age category for 35.2% and 30.4% of the respondent HHs were 31 to 40 years and 41 to 60 years respectively, while, the age category for 25.6% and 8.4% of the respondent HHs respectively were 21 to 30 years and above 60 years respectively. 85.3% of the respondent HHs are married, while, 1.3% of the respondent HHs were single or not yet married. As to the vulnerability status of HHs, 74.7% and 15.4% of the respondent beneficiary HHs has children less than five years and disable person within the HHs respectively. Similarly, 60% and 37.2% of the respondent beneficiary HHs have at least one pregnant and one adult above 60 years old respectively. With regards to the type of beneficiary, 78.2% of the respondent households were unconditional cash transfer beneficiaries, while, 21.8% of them were conditional. The livelihood strategies followed by 74.9% of the respondent households are pastoralist, while, 13.2% of the respondent households has been engaged on agro-pastoralist livelihood strategies. As far as the knowledge on complaint mechanisms and information sharing is concerned, only 57% of the respondent HHs knows where to go in case they have complaints about the intervention As to the information on distribution date, 86.8% of the respondent HHs were confirmed as they are being notified of distribution date ahead of the distribution day and of which 66.8% of the respondents were confirmed as they were informed by Oxfam and partner staffs, while, 50.1% of them was informed by the community leaders. The finding revealed that, 94.7% of the beneficiaries received only one round of cash distribution, while, the rest 5.3% of the respondent beneficiary households were received two rounds of cash. The assessment indicated that, apart from Fafan zone beneficiaries who were already received two rounds of cash through OFDA fund, all of the beneficiaries in the rest three zones were received only one round of cash during the assessment. On the other hand, 99.2% of those who collected cash during distribution date were women which increases the likelihood of the money to spent within the household based on experience and proven through varies assessments. The findings of the assessment indicated that, 20% of the respondent beneficiary HHs received 900 ETB per round (Fafan was part of last year’s El-Nino drought response and most of the projects developed mid of last year in which 900 ETB was planned in line with PSNP), while, 64.3% of the respondent HHs confirmed that they have received 1200 ETB per round. On the other hand, 15.7% of the respondent households mentioned that they received 1212 ETB and they are all from Afder zone.
As to the distance travelled by beneficiaries to reach cash distribution sites, 85.3% of the respondent HHs travelled less than 1 KM to reach to the cash distribution point, while, 45.6% and 25.1% of the respondent households spent 0 to 30 minutes and 30 minutes to 1 hour at cash distribution point respectively.. When we see the beneficiary satisfaction on cash distribution process, 80% of the respondent beneficiary HHs confirmed that the cash distribution process was good, while, 96.5% of the respondent HHs were not worried about the cash collection and storage process at cash distribution sites As to how the cash was spent, food accounts for 69% of the total HHs expenditure, while, clothing and debt payment accounts for 10% and 9% of the total HH expenditures respectively. However, the cash distributed for beneficiaries was sufficient to cover HHs food needs for only 21% of the respondent HHs. Moreover, the number of Meal per day increased for 35.2% of the respondent HHs since cash distribution. Only, 33% of the respondent households realized the change and increase in the price of consumptions materials in the market since cash distribution. The findings of the study revealed that, out of the conditional cash transfer beneficiaries, 79.2% of them confirmed receipt of cash for work materials support and on average 51% and 32.3% of CFW respondent beneficiaries travelled less than 1 KM and 1 to 2 KM to reach CFW site respectively. With regards to the impacts of CFW activities to wider community members, 61.5% of the respondent households stated as the CFW they have been undertaking has a positive impact on wider community members. As to the impacts of cash on HHs food security, the findings of the study revealed that, 33% of the respondent households are within acceptable food consumption score, while, 20% of them are with the borderline and this is by far higher when compared with the baseline figure which is only 12.1% and 7.5% of HHs respectively. Similarly, the PDM findings revealed that, only 46.7% of the respondent households were within the category of poor consumption score and the number of households within poor food consumption score category is by far lower when compared with the baseline figure which is 80.4%. On the other hand, the average food consumption score is found to be 28.7 with the lowest score in Jarar zone (9.77) The average dietary diversity is 4.3 and there is a significant improvement when compared with baseline figure which is 3 and respondents in Jarar zone scored very poor (2.5) in dietary diversity when compared with the rest three zones. As far as dietary diversity score is concerned, 47.6% of the respondent households have greater dietary diversity score (consumed greater than 4 food groups) and this is by far higher when compared with baseline figure which is 21.4%. However, there is a difference across the zones and in Jarar district 91.3% of the respondent households have lower dietary diversity score (consumed less than 4 food groups) 1. Background
The 2015 El Niño and the Indian Ocean Dipole caused severe drought, which affected the greatest population and threatened the lives and livelihoods of the millions of people in Somali Region of Ethiopia. The drought has resulted in complete crop failure, which caused price of food commodities to hike, lack of pasture and flare up of livestock diseases caused excessive livestock morbidity and mortality, decline in milk production, and reduced livestock market prices degraded the ToT across most parts of Somali region, which puts the food security of the communities in the region in a very precarious and critical situation.
Oxfam is currently responding to the urgent needs of the drought affected communities through its emergency response and recovery program with specific focus on WASH, Food Security, Livelihood recovery in 7 zones of the Somali region namely Doolo, Afder, Fafaan, Jarar, Erer, Nogob and Korahe with funding support from ECHO, OFDA, DEC, OXFAM Intermon, GAC, OCHA, UNICEF, IRC, OXFAM Hong Kong, OXFAM CAT funds and GFO. Among the proposed action in the response, cash transfer program is implemented through two modalities; 25% cash for work (CFW) and 75% unconditional cash transfer targeting different groups of people with different capacities that are affected by the drought with the main objective of improving the purchasing power of the disaster affected communities and improve the already deteriorated food access and utilization. Oxfam in the month of June and July, 2017 conducted the first round of cash transfer to 13,024 HHs in four zones of Somali region; Jarar reaching 2,629HH, Fafan reaching 3,675HH, Afder reaching 1,590HH and Doolo, 5,130HH.
Therefore following the first round cash distribution for Dollo, Jarar and Afder zone beneficiaries and second cash round distribution for Fafan zone beneficiaries from 22nd June to 6th July, 2017, this particular Post distribution monitoring (PDM) was conducted starting from 17th to 28th July, 2017, to generally assess the quality of the cash distribution process, utilization and its immediate impact in saving the lives, protecting the erosion of the livelihood assets of the target cash beneficiaries and improving the food security status of the communities. The PDM was conducted in all the operational woredas of the 4 zones in Somali region, namely Doolo, Afder, Jarar and Fafan zones, where OXFAM implements Cash Transfer Program directly (Jarar and Fafan) and through its partners (OWDA in Doolo and PC in Afder).
2. Objectives of the Post Distribution Monitoring(PDM)
Overall objective
The overall objective of the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) is to assess the quality of the cash distribution process, utilization and its immediate impact in saving lives and protecting the livelihoods of the drought affected communities.
Specific Objectives:
To determine the efficacy of the cash transfer and its process in relation to addressing the needs of the community. To assess if the beneficiaries received the intended amount of the cash and their perception on the cash payment/delivery mechanism. To determine how the cash has been utilized by the beneficiaries and assess the immediate impact of the cash transfer on the households’ food access. To assess the overall accountability of the cash distribution process to the beneficiaries and other key stakeholders. Identify shortcomings in the cash distribution process and provide recommendations for future cash distribution with improvements. To measure the satisfaction of beneficiaries on the overall cash intervention and improve the future quality of related intervention.
3. Methodology 3.1. Method of Data Collection
Both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques were used for this particular PDM assessment. Household Interview, FGDs, KII, Observation and Review of distribution of documents were some of the methodology used for collecting data for this PDM assessment.
A household level survey was conducted using structured questionnaire which was developed for this purpose. The data was collected using digital personal assistance called Mobenzi, a mobile based data collection and analysis application.
In addition to this, KII checklist and FGD guide was developed to collect qualitative data which helped in substantiating information’s generated through HH interview. One male and female group FGDs was conducted per district, while, one KII was also be done per district. On the other hand, cash distribution document/payment sheet and master beneficiary lists was triangulated and reviewed.
3.2. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Methodology
A multi-stage probability sampling technique was used to identify the sample size per donor, zone, district and kebele level and the households to be interviewed. A sampling formula/for systematic random sampling was used to estimate a total sample size for this particular assessment and then the sample was distributed to donors as per the proportion of the beneficiaries they are supporting. Similarly, sample districts and kebeles were selected and allocated to each donor proportionally based on proportions of target beneficiaries they are addressing by using Probability Proportional to Size/PPS/ technique. Finally, the interviewed households in each kebeles were identified using systematic random sampling technique.
To calculate the sample size, the total beneficiaries supported through cash interventions (13,024) was used as a target population to calculate the total sample size required for this particular assessment. The following formulas are used to calculate the total sample.
The sample size was calculated using the formula below (this is for unknown population):
Z 2 pxq 2 no = d = 384
Where n0 = initial sample size for the region Z = parameter related to the risk of error = 1.96 for a risk of error of 5 percent p = expected prevalence in the population. This value was estimated at 50 percent (P= 0.5, extreme value) q = 0.5 = 1-p d = 5% = 0.05, absolute accuracy desired 95% confidence level is considered
Correction for finite population
The above sample size for finite population will be refined and final sample size will be calculated using the following formula
n0 nf = n 1 0 N
Where nf = Final sample size for the region n0 = Initial sample size
N = Number of target households in the region
Therefore, the final sample size was 374 HHs, which is the minimum recommended size of our survey. If we consider 5% non-response rate, the final sample size would be 393. Therefore, based on the above formula and considering 5% non-response rate, the survey was conducted on a sample of 393 cash beneficiary households.
The total number of beneficiaries supported by each donor was calculated to determine the number of sample size for each donor. Accordingly, 121 (30.6%), 122 (30.9%) and 41(10.4%) sample HHs are allocated for OFDA, DEC and GAC respectively as per the proportion of beneficiaries they are addressing, while, 44 (11.1%) and 67 (17%) of samples are allocated for Oxfam intermon and ECHO beneficiaries respectively.
Once, the proportion of sample size was allocated for each donor, the second stage was selection of districts and kebeles. A total of 9 districts were randomly selected for this particular assessment, i.e., 3 districts from OFDA, 2 District from DEC and 1 district from each donor proportionally. Then, a total of 12 kebeles ,i.e., 4 kebeles from OFDA, 3 kebeles from DEC and 2 Kebeles from each GAC and ECHO intervention areas and 1 kebele from Oxfam intermoon areas were selected by using simple random sampling techniques.
Finally, the number samples per kebeles were identified by using the sampling proportional to the size of beneficiaries in each kebeles. The selection of HHs from each kebeles was conducted from sampling frame/list of beneficiaries later by using systematic random sampling techniques. For details about the sampling, see below table.
Table 1: Sampled Kebeles, Districts, Zones and Sample Size per Donor Respondents per Zone, District, Kebele and Donor Zone District kebele Donor of the project Total % of Total OFDA DEC ECHO GAC Oxfam Intermon Afder Dolobay Afarro 33 33 8% Darso 41 41 10% Fafan kebribeyah Risle 19 19 5% Harshin Kamhashi 22 22 6% Babile Dawarato 19 19 5% Awbare Herogel 22 22 6% Dollo Galadi Dhugub 34 34 9% Qaloan 33 33 8% Galhamur Dugub 32 32 8% Galhamur 01 48 48 12% Jarar Gashamo Gashamo Town 48 48 12% Gunagado Farmadow 44 44 11% Total No 121 122 67 41 44 395 100% % 30.6% 30.9% 17.0% 10.4% 11.1% 100.0% 100%
3.3. Data Analysis
Quantitative data that was collected by using Mobenzi application was uploaded to SPPS software, recoded and analyzed by using the SPSS version 23. Results are described using tables, pie charts and graphs for comparison. On the other hand, qualitative data analysis was done on spot immediately after data collection.
3.4. Data Quality Assurance
Data quality assurance is one of the major issues for generating quality data and results. Selection of experienced enumerators, understanding level of enumerators on questionnaire and supervision and coordination of data collection process are some of the critical issues for ensuring the quality of data. Based on these realities, experienced enumerators were selected and trained on data collection protocols, mobile based data collection system and data collection tools for two consecutive days at Jijiga town, Oxfam office. On the other hand, the enumerators were closely supervised by supervisors assigned in each districts
4. Findings of the Assessment 4.1. Household Demographic Characteristics 4.1.1. Percentage of Respondent Households across zone
The PDM assessment was conducted in four zones, namely Afder, Jarar, Dollo and Fafan. Dollo accounts for 37.22% of the total respondents, while, Jarar accounts for 23.29% of the total respondent households. On the other hand, Fafan and Afder zone accounts for 20.76% and 18.73% of the total respondent households respectively. On the other hand, OFDA and DEC accounts for 30.6% and 30.9% of the total respondent households respectively, while, ECHO, Oxfam Intermoon and GAC accounts for 17%, 11.1% and 10.4% of the respondent households respectively.
Figure 1: Percentage of respondents per zone
% of respondents per zone % of Beneficiaries across Donors
OFDA
18.73% 23.29% 11.10% 10.40% DEC Jerar 30.60% 20.76% Fafan ECHO 37.22% Dollo 30.90% Afder GAC 17.00%
Oxfam Intermoon
4.1.2. Sex and Age Category of the Respondent
As it is clearly shown on below table, 86.3% of the respondent HHs were females, while, 13.7% of the respondents are male. However, there is a difference across the zones and 100% of the respondent households in Jarar zone were female. This is due to the fact we are intervening in IDP sites in Jarar where almost 90% of the populations leaving in IDPs are female headed HHs.
As to the age category of the respondent beneficiary HHs, the findings of the study asserted that, the age category for 35.2% and 30.4% of the respondent HHs were 31 to 40 years and 41 to 60 years respectively, while, the age category for 25.6% and 8.4% of the respondent HHs respectively were 21 to 30 years and above 60 years respectively.
Figure 2: Age Category of the Respondent HHs Age Category of the Respondent HHs
above 60 years 8.4% 41 to 60 years 30.4% 31 to 40 years 35.2% 21 to 30 years 25.6% Below 20 years .5% .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
4.1.3. Marital Status of Respondent HHs
85.3% of the respondent HHs were married, 1.3% of the respondent HHs were single or not yet married. On the other hand, 13% and 4.1% of the respondent HHs were widowed and divorced respectively.
Figure 3: Marital status of Respondent HHs
Marital Status of Respondent HHs
9.4% 4.1% 1.3% Maried Single 85.3% Widowed Divorced
4.1.4. Vulnerability and Disability Status of Respondent Households
The findings of the study revealed that, 74.7% of the respondent beneficiary HHs has children under five years, while, 25.3% of the beneficiary households do not have children under 5 years in their HHs. Similarly, there is disable person within the households of 15.4% of the respondent HHs, while, 60% and 37.2% of the respondent beneficiary HHs have at least one pregnant and breast feeding women and adults above 60 years with in households respectively.
The findings of the FGDs indicated that, vulnerability status of HHs were given due attention during the beneficiary targeting process. Pregnant and breast feeding women, disability status, availability of children under 5 years and adults above 60 years were some of the criteria used during the beneficiary selection process.
Table 1: % of HHs with pregnant and breastfeeding women and adults above 60 years.
Zone of the respondent * Pregnant and lactating Women and Adults above 60 years Pregnant and Total Adults over 60 Total lactating Women years old Yes No Yes No Jarar % within Zone 56.5% 43.5% 100.0% 42.4% 57.6% 100.0% % of Total 13.2% 10.1% 23.3% 9.9% 13.4% 23.3% Fafan % within Zone 26.8% 73.2% 100.0% 35.4% 64.6% 100.0% % of Total 5.6% 15.2% 20.8% 7.3% 13.4% 20.8% Dollo % within Zone 77.6% 22.4% 100.0% 32.7% 67.3% 100.0% % of Total 28.9% 8.4% 37.2% 12.2% 25.1% 37.2% Afder % within Zone 66.2% 33.8% 100.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0% % of Total 12.4% 6.3% 18.7% 7.8% 10.9% 18.7% Total Count 237 158 395 147 248 395 % of Total 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 37.2% 62.8% 100.0%
4.1.5. Type of beneficiaries
The cash interventions that has been implemented by Oxfam and its partners (OWDA and PC) has two type of beneficiaries, i.e., conditional cash transfer beneficiaries who are expected to engage on some light public works and un-conditional cash transfer beneficiaries who are expected to benefit unconditionally. The findings of the assessment indicated that, 78.2% of the respondents HHs were unconditional cash transfer beneficiaries, while, 21.5% of them are conditional cash transfer beneficiaries.
Figure 4: Type of cash transfer beneficiaries
.3% Type of beneficiaries
21.5%
Un_conditional 78.2% Conditional Both
4.1.6. Livelihood Strategies of Respondent Households
The livelihood strategies followed by 74.9% of the respondent households are pastoralist, while, 13.2% of the respondent HHs has been following agro-pastoralist livelihood strategies. On the other hand, the livelihood strategies followed by 9.1% and 1.8% of the respondent HHs are labourers and other livelihood strategies respectively. However, currently 57% of the respondent households were not practicing the livelihood strategies they had previously engaged on, while, only 43% of the respondent households are practicing same livelihood strategies as before.
Figure 5: Livelihood Strategies of Households
1.8% 1.0% Livelihood Strategies of Households
13.2% Pastoralist 9.1% Laborer Agro pastoralist Shope Owner 74.9% Others
4.1.7. Knowledge on Availability of Complaint and Feedback mechanisms
The beneficiaries were asked whether they know where to go in case they have any complaints or feedback on Oxfam interventions, Oxfam staffs and partners. The findings of the study revealed that, only 57% of the respondent households confirmed that they know where to go in case they have complaints, while, 31.1% of the respondent households were mentioned that they do not know the existing complaining mechanisms. On the other hand, 11.6% of the respondent households were not sure whether they know or not.
The findings from FGD also indicated that, most of the time the beneficiaries raised complaints to Oxfam and partner staffs and kebele administration. Furthermore, there were established Appeal/compliant committees for cash interventions in 50% of the interventions kebeles. However, most of the communities were not aware of the appeal committee members and the appeal committee members were not clearly oriented on their roles and responsibilities. The findings of the FGDs and KIIs clearly shows the necessity of establishing as many complaint and feedback mechanisms as possible as per the findings of the accountability assessment report and aware the communities on their rights and on available complaint and feedback mechanisms.
Table 2: Respondents knowledge on complaining mechanisms
Do you know where to go in case you have complaints Do you know where to go in case you have Total complaints Yes No Do not know % within Zone 21.7% 55.4% 22.8% 100.0% Jarar % of Total 5.1% 12.9% 5.3% 23.3% Fafan % within Zone 80.5% 11.0% 8.5% 100.0% % of Total 16.7% 2.3% 1.8% 20.8% Dollo % within Zone 56.5% 31.3% 12.2% 100.0% % of Total 21.0% 11.6% 4.6% 37.2% Afder % within Zone 77.0% 23.0% 0.0% 100.0% % of Total 14.4% 4.3% 0.0% 18.7% Total Count 226 123 46 395 % of Total 57.2% 31.1% 11.6% 100.0%
4.2. Cash Collection Process 4.2.1. Information about cash distribution date and % of women collected Cash on Distribution Day
The findings of the PDM indicated that, 99.2% of those who collected cash during distribution date were women which increase the likelihood of the money to be spent within households as per the previous experience and various studies.
With regards to the information about cash distribution date, 86.8% of the beneficiaries confirmed that they are being informed about CASH distribution date ahead of distribution date, while, the rest 13.2% of the respondent HHs mentioned that they were not being informed about the cash distribution date ahead of cash distribution date. The findings show that, 13.4% of the respondent households were informed about the cash distribution date on the cash distribution day from beneficiary households.
.3% Who Collected.3% Cash Information about Cash Distribution Date .3% 13.2% HH head Child Yes Relative 86.8% No 99.2% Others
Regarding information about distribution date, 66.8% of the respondents were informed by Oxfam and partner staffs, while, 50.1% of them were informed by the community leaders. On the other hand, 11.1% and 7.6% of the respondents mentioned that they were informed by government and others respectively. 4.2.2. Number of Rounds and Amounts of Cash Beneficiaries Received
As it is clearly indicated on the introduction section of this report, the PDM was conducted on the first round cash distribution for Jarar, Dollo and Afder zones, while, it was second round for beneficiaries of Fafan zone. Accordingly, the findings of the assessment indicates that, 94.7% of the beneficiaries were confirmed that they were received only one round cash distribution, while, the rest 5.3% of the respondent beneficiary HHs were received two rounds of cash. Further analysis was conducted to identify the beneficiaries who were received second round cash distribution and it was found that, all of (5.3%) of the respondent households who were confirmed receipt of second rounds of cash distribution were from Fafan zone where by the cash intervention has been implemented through OFDA fund.
The findings of the assessment indicated that, 20% of the respondent beneficiary households received 900 ETB per round (Fafan was part of last year’s El-Nino drought response and most of the projects developed mid of last year in which 900 ETB was planned in line with PSNP), while, 64.3% of the respondent households confirmed that they have received 1200 ETB per round. On the other hand, 15.7% of the respondent households mentioned that they received 1212 ETB.
Table 3: Amount of cash received by beneficiaries per round
Amount of cash received by beneficiaries per round Amount of cash received by Total beneficiaries per round 900 1200 Others Jarar % within Zone of the respondent 0.0% 97.8% 2.2% 100.0% % of Total 0.0% 22.8% .5% 23.3% Fafan % within Zone of the respondent 96.3% 3.7% 0.0% 100.0% % of Total 20.0% .8% 0.0% 20.8% Dollo % within Zone of the respondent 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% % of Total 0.0% 37.2% 0.0% 37.2% Afder % within Zone of the respondent 0.0% 18.9% 81.1% 100.0% % of Total 0.0% 3.5% 15.2% 18.7% Total Count 79 254 62 395 % of Total 20.0% 64.3% 15.7% 100.0%
Further assessment was conducted to see whether the money the beneficiaries are being provided are same with the amount they are and told to receive. The findings of the assessment revealed that, 70.9% of the respondent beneficiary households confirmed that the cash they received was the same with the amount they are told to receive. On the other hand, 24.8% of the respondent households confirmed that the cash they received not the same with their expectation or the amount they are told to receive, while, 4.3% of the respondent households are do not know whether the amount they received matches with the amount they are told to receive. On the other hand, 84.3% of the respondent HHs received the cash on the appointment. Albeit, 100% of the respondent households were confirmed the receipt of the money regardless of the change on the distribution schedule, 14.9% of the respondent HHs confirmed they did not receive the cash on the date they were informed to receive, However, further assessment was not conducted to see how long did they stay after the appointment date to receive their entitlement.
Beneficiary households were asked whether the cash they are being provided with was enough to cover their household’s food needs. The findings of the assessment revealed that, only 21% of the respondent HHs were confirmed that the money they are being provided was enough to cover their HHs food needs, while, 76.2% of the respondent beneficiary HHs mentioned that the cash they received was not enough to meet their HHs food needs.
Figure 6: Whether the amount of cash HHs received covers HH food needs or not
Whether the amount of cash Covers HH Food Needs
0.80% Total 21.00% 78.20% 0.00%
Afder 17.60% 82.40%
0.00%
Dollo 8.20% 91.80% I don’t know Zone 2.40% No Fafan 46.30%51.20% 1.10% Yes Jerar 21.70% 77.20% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Percentage
4.2.3. HHs Hours Spent to Reach Cash Distribution Point and at Cash Distribution point
With regards to distance to cash distribution sites, 85.3% of the respondent HHs travelled less than 1 KM to reach to the cash distribution point, while, 11.6% of travelled 1 to 2 Km. Only 3% of the respondent beneficiary HHs travelled more than 2 KM to reach cash distribution points.
As to the amount of waiting time the beneficiaries spent at cash distribution points, 45.6% of the respondent households spent 0 to 39 minutes at cash distribution points, while, 25.1% of the respondent HHs were spent 30 minutes to 1 hour at the cash distribution points. On the other hand, 13.7% and 15.7% of the respondent households respectively were spent 1 to 2 hours and more than 2 hours at cash distribution point.
The amount of waiting time spent at cash distribution sites is very small when compared with the conventional cash distribution approach. The cash distribution was conducted through LMMS software and the beneficiaries ID cards were scanned before the actual cash payment to check whether he/she is the right beneficiaries.
Figure 7: Waiting time Beneficiaries Spent at Cash Distribution Sites
Hours beneficiaries Spent at Cash Distribution Sites
15.70% Total 13.70% 25.10% 45.60% 5.40% Afder 18.90% 43.20% 32.40% More than 2 hours 5.40% Dollo 17.00%23.10% 1 to 2 hours
Zone 54.40% 3.70% 30 minutes to 1 Fafan 8.50% 28.00% 59.80% hours 51.10% Jerar 8.70% 10.90% 29.30%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
4.2.4. Satisfaction of Beneficiaries on Cash Distribution Process
With regards to the satisfaction of beneficiaries on the cash distribution process, the findings of the PDM asserted that, 80% of the respondent beneficiary households confirmed that the cash distribution process was good, while, 13.9% of the respondent households stated that the cash distribution process was fair. On the other hand, 6.1% of the respondent households mentioned that the cash distribution process was poor. The large numbers of crowd during the cash distribution date and crowd management are mentioned as the major factors listed by households who were mentioned that the distribution process was poor.
Figure 8: Satisfaction of Beneficiaries on Cash Distribution Process
Satisfaction of Beneficiaries on Cash Distribution Process
6.10%
13.90% Good Fair Poor
80.00%
On the other hand, 96.5% of the respondent households were not worried about the cash collection and storage process before they came to distribution place, while; only 2.5% of the respondent households were worried about the cash collection and storage. However, it was found that the large number of crowd and crowd management was found to be the reason why some beneficiaries were worried about the cash collection and storage only in Jarar and Afder zone.
During the assessment it was found that, in 72.4% of the respondent households, wife are the one who holds money they are being provided with in the households, while, in 23.3% of the respondent households, husband are the one who holds money they were received through cash interventions. On the other hand, 2.3% and 3% of the respondent households confirmed that, the money is hold by both husband and wife and others respectively.
4.3. Utilization of Cash and Market behavior 4.3.1. Utilization of Cash
Assessment was conducted to see the proportion of money spent on food and other HH needs. The findings of the assessment revealed that, majority of the cash provided to HHs was spent on purchase of food and followed by clothing and debt payment. Food accounts for 69% of the total HHs expenditure, while, clothing and debt payment accounts for 10% and 9% of the total HH expenditures. This shows that, although there was food needs within beneficiary households, the respondent HHs are still decided to spend 31% of the cash they are being provided on other needs rather than purchasing food and remain partially hungry.
Figure 9: Utilization of Cash
0% 0% 2% 1% Utilization of cash 0% 0%3% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% food 9% 0% clothing animal care 10% transportation dept payment 69% livelihood input shelter medicine and health education saving
4.3.2. Cash Distribution and Its Effect on Market
It is known that, despite its importance in stimulating market and in strengthening local business, most of the time cash distribution affects the market prices of the products. The findings of the assessment reveals that following the cash distribution, 33% of the respondent households realized the increase in the price of materials particularly consumption goods in the market.
Table 4 : Is there any change in price of materials
Zone of the respondent * Is there any change in price of materials Is there any change in price of Total materials Yes No Jarar % within Zone 37.0% 63.0% 100.0% % of Total 8.6% 14.7% 23.3% Fafan % within Zone 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% % of Total 9.9% 10.9% 20.8% Dollo % within Zone 19.0% 81.0% 100.0% % of Total 7.1% 30.1% 37.2% Afder % within Zone 43.2% 56.8% 100.0% % of Total 8.1% 10.6% 18.7% Total Count 133 262 395 % of Total 33.7% 66.3% 100.0%
Similarly the respondent households were asked whether they faced shortage of supply in the market since cash disbursement. 72.4% of the respondent households confirmed that they didn’t realize any shortage of supply since cash distribution, while, 27.6% of the respondent confirmed that they faced a situation in which they went to market to but couldn’t find some of the items due to supply problem in the market.
4.3.3. Increase in Meals
The findings of the assessment indicated that, the number of Meals per day increased for 35.2% of the respondent HHs since cash distribution, while, there has been no change on the number of meals per day for 57.2% of the respondent households. On the other hand, 7.6% of the respondent households do not know whether there has been an increase in the number of meals since cash distribution.
Figure 10: Change in Meals per day
Change in the Meals per day
Do not know, 7.60%
Yes, 35.20%
No, 57.20%
However, there is a difference across districts as far as changes in meals are concerned. Only 5.4% and 13.4% of the respondents in Jarar and fafan zones confirmed that there has been a change in meals since cash distribution respectively, while, 72.8% of the respondents in Dollo zone confirmed that there has been a change in meals. 40.3% of the respondent households confirmed that there is a sharing culture among the communities.
Although the Oxfam cash interventions did not bring significant change on the number of meals per day for majority of the households, it contributes a lot for improving the dietary diversity and food consumption score of the respondent beneficiary households.
4.4. Cash for Work Activities 4.4.1. Provision of Cash for Work Materials
The findings of the study revealed that, 79.2% of the respondent households confirmed receipt of cash for work materials support, while, 15.6% of them did not receive the materials support for CFW activities. On the other hand, 5.2% of them were not sure whether they received material support or not. It was found that, there was no confirmation of the receipt of materials for CFW activities in Dollo zone in general. With regards to the supervision of the CFW activities, 74% of the respondent households confirmed that the cash for work activities has been closely supervised.
Latrine pit, garbage pit, pond desilting, soil bands and check dams for gully control, and natural rehabilitation are some of the CFW activities, while wheel burrows, shovels, pick ax, and shoes are some the materials distributed to households for CFW activities.
Table 5: Did you receive information and materials for cash for work activities?
Zone of the respondent * Did you receive information and materials for work activities Did you received materials support for Total CFW activities Yes No Do not know Jarar % within Zone 11.1% 55.6% 33.3% 100.0% Fafan % within Zone 85.5% 11.8% 2.6% 100.0% Dollo % within Zone 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Afder % within Zone 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Total Count 76 15 5 96 % of Total 79.2% 15.6% 5.2% 100.0%
On average 51% of CFW respondent beneficiaries travelled less than 1 KM to each at CFW sites, while, 32.3% of the CFW beneficiaries travelled 1 to 2 KM to reach the CFW sites. Only 16.7% of the respondent households were travelling more than 2 KM to reach CFW sites. As to the impacts of CFW activities to wider community members, 61.5% of the respondent households stated as the CFW they have been undertaking has a positive impact on wider community members.
4.5. The effects of Cash intervention on HHs Food security 4.5.1. Food Consumption Score
Food Consumption Score is used as a proxy indicator for measuring the current food security situation of target households. FCS is a composite score based on dietary frequency, food frequency and relative nutrition importance of different food groups. Dietary diversity is the number of individual foods or food groups consumed over the past seven days. Food frequency is the number of days (in the past 7 days) that a specific food item has been consumed by a household. Household food consumption is the consumption pattern (frequency * diversity) of households over the past seven days. The score for each food group is calculated by multiplying the number of days the commodity was consumed and its relative weight and is calculated based on the past 7-day food consumption recall period for the household. Then based on the FCS, the households were classified in to three categories: poor consumption (FCS = 1.0 to 21.5); borderline (FCS = 21.5 to 35); and acceptable consumption (FCS = >35.0).
The findings of the study revealed that, 33% of the respondent households are within acceptable food consumption score, while, 20% of them are with the borderline and this is by far higher when compared with the baseline figure as only 12.1% and 7.5% of households respectively were within acceptable and boarder line categories. This clearly indicates that how the cash transfer intervention being implemented by Oxfam and its partner has been achieving a remarkable positive change on the food security situation of the target households within a very short period of time.
Similarly, the PDM finding revealed that, only 46.7% of the respondent households were within the category of poor consumption score and the numbers of households within poor food consumption score category are by far lower when compared with the baseline figure which is 80.4%.
Figure 11: Food Consumption Score per Zone
Food Consumption Score per zone
33.0% Total 20.3% 46.7% 40.5% Afder 14.9% 44.6% Acceptaple (>35) 49.3% Dollo 27.4% 23.3% Boarder LIne (21 to 35) 34.1% Fafan 28.0% Poor (<21) 37.8% 0.0% Jerar 6.5% 93.5%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
On the other hand, the average food consumption score is found to be 28.7, but there is a difference across the districts. The respondents in Jarar zone scored very low (9.77) food consumption score when compared with the rest of the districts and this is due to the fact that the beneficiaries supported in Jarar districts are all IDPs and have no any other food sources apart from the cash distributed through Oxfam.
Table 6: Food Consumption Score
Zone of the respondent Mean Sum % of Total N Jarar 9.7717 899.00 23.3% Fafan 34.5488 2833.00 20.8% Dollo 36.6599 5389.00 37.2% Afder 30.0405 2223.00 18.7% Total 28.7190 11344.00 100.0%
4.5.2. HHs Dietary Diversity
It is generally acknowledged that, even if households meets their daily calorie requirements, still they may be considered as food insecure households provided that the households consume a non-diversified, unbalanced and unhealthy diet. Hungry people spend a larger share, if not all, of their food budget on macronutrient dense staples, such as wheat and rice, which provide cheap and accessible sources of calories. In doing so, they compromise more nutritious items and their diet lacks adequate proteins and micro-nutrients.
Based on the above reality, the household Diet Diversity Score was used for this particular assessment as one of the food security measurement just to see how the Oxfam cash interventions has been utilized and impacted dietary diversity, food utilization and nutrition among the target respondents. The number of food groups (out of 8) consumed by households in the last 7 days was collected and calculated and households that over a seven day period consumed foods from four or fewer food groups out of eight are classified as having low dietary diversity.
Figure 12: Dietary Diversity Score
Dietery Diversity Score
47.6% 52.4% 58.1% Afder 41.9% 64.6% Dollo 35.4% Better Diversity (>4) 51.2% Lower Diversity (<=4) Fafan 48.8% 8.7% Jerar 91.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
The findings of the survey indicated that, the average dietary diversity is 4.3 and this showed that on average households are consuming greater than 4 food groups and there is a significant improvement when compared with baseline figure where the average score was 3. The assessment revealed that, still the dietary diversity score for respondents in Jarar zone is very poor (2.5) when compared with the rest three zones. Table 7: Dietary Diversity Score
Zone of the respondent Mean Sum % of Total N Jarar 2.5435 234.00 23.3% Fafan 4.7927 393.00 20.8% Dollo 5.1293 754.00 37.2% Afder 4.7297 350.00 18.7% Total 4.3823 1731.00 100.0%
As far as dietary diversity score is concerned, 47.6% of the respondent households have greater dietary diversity score (consumed greater than 4 food groups) and this is by far higher when compared with baseline figure which is 21.4. However, there is a difference across the zones as far as the dietary diversity score is concerned. The problem is still worse in Jarar district as 91.3% of the respondent households have lower dietary diversity score (consumed less than 4 food groups).
5. Conclusion and Recommendation 5.1. Conclusion
This particular PDM assessment was conducted with the main objective of determining the efficacy of the cash transfer and its process in relation to addressing the needs of the community and to measure the satisfaction of households on cash distribution process. The assessment was conducted in Afder, Jarar, Dolo and Fafan zone on 395 randomly selected HHs. Moreover, FGDs, KII, Observation and Review of distribution of documents were some of the methodology used for collecting data. The findings are summarized below.
As to the vulnerability status of HHs, 74.7% of the respondent beneficiary HHs has children less than five years and there is disable person within the households of 15.4% of the respondent households. 60% of the respondent beneficiary households have at least one pregnant and breast feeding women with in households, while, there is at least one above 60 years old adults within the households of 37.2% of the respondents.
As far as the type of beneficiary is concerned, 78.2% of the respondent households were unconditional cash transfer beneficiaries, while, 21.8% of them were Conditional. The livelihood strategies followed by 74.9% of the respondent households are pastoralist, while, 13.2% of the respondent households has been engaged on agro-pastoralist livelihood strategies.
The findings of the study revealed that, there is a gap on complaint and feedback mechanisms as only 57% of the respondent households know where to go in case they have complaints about the intervention.
When we see the cash collection process, 99.2% of those who collected cash during distribution date were women and 86.8% of the beneficiaries were informed about food distribution date ahead of food distribution date and 66.8% of the respondents were informed by Oxfam and partner staffs. On the other hand, 94.7% of the beneficiaries were confirmed that they have received only one round of cash distribution.
All of the respondents were confirmed the receipt of the cash and the amount they are told to receive except in Afder zone where the beneficiaries were received extra 12 birr. Moreover, except in Fafan where the beneficiaries received two rounds of cash, all beneficiaries in the rest of three zones were received only one rounds of cash distribution.
The cash distribution sites are appropriate for all of the beneficiaries and 85.3% of the respondent households travelled less than 1 KM to reach to the cash distribution point, while, 45.6% and 25.1% of the respondent households spent 0 to 30 minutes and 30 minutes to 1 hour at cash distribution point respectively..
As to the satisfaction of beneficiaries on cash distribution process, 80% of the respondent beneficiary households were confirmed that the cash distribution process was good, while, 96.5% of the respondent households were not worried about the cash collection and storage process before they came to distribution place, while. It was found that, food accounts for 69% of the total HHs expenditure, while, clothing and debt payment accounts for 10% and 9% of the total HH expenditures, while, the number of Meal per day increased for 35.2% of the respondent HHs since cash distribution
The findings of the study revealed that, there is a significant improvement in terms of food security since cash distribution and the percentage of HHs with acceptable food consumption score increased from 12.1% (baseline) to 33% and the average food consumption score is increased to 28.7. Similarly, the average dietary diversity increased from 3 to 4.3, while, % of HHs with better dietary diversity score increased from 21.4% (baseline) to 47.6% of the respondent households. 5.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings from quantitative and qualitative assessment, the following recommendations are forwarded as issues which help for future improvement of the program.
HHs knowledge on complaint and feedback mechanisms is very low and the communities need to be informed on their rights to raise complaints and available complaint and feedback mechanism. The findings from FGDs revealed that, the amount of cash the beneficiaries supported with is not enough to cover the HHs food needs particularly in Jarar zone where the cash interventions are being implemented on IDPs who don’t have any option apart from Oxfam cash intervention. Therefore, increasing the cash transfer value to meet the food basket value and others alternative food assistance and/or livelihood support should be sought to address the need of the communities. Although there is significant improvement on food security situation of target HHs, the food security situations in Jarar zone still remain the same. Therefore, Oxfam should work with other concerned bodies to address the deteriorated food security situation of IDPs in Jarar zone. As per the findings of the HH survey and FGDs, the beneficiaries are complaining about the amount of money they are being provided and demanding increment on the amount of cash. Therefore, this needs further exploration on whether operationally feasible to increase the payment. Rigorous sensitization of beneficiaries is necessary about the utilization of cash so that they invest it to pressing food needs of the households in diversified manner. Provide the monthly cash entitlement of the household to women of the family that will maximize the use of the cash to the most pressing and essential needs of the households, in our case, food commodities
6. Annex
PDM ToR
PDM TOR_Final_12July17.docx PDM data collection tools
Cash_Transfer_PDM FGD_PDM Guide _Survey(DooloJararAfdheerand_Fafan)_20170806-140008CTP.doc (1).pdf