DFID Mid-term Report Introduction 1. Organisation and project name: Plan International, World Vision International, and International Organization for Migration and UNOCHA Pamati Kita (Let’s Listen Together) Project: An Accountability to Affected Populations and Communicating with Communities Common Services Project 2. Type and date of review: [Mid-point or Final]: Final Report: 1st July 2014 – 28 February 2015 3. Primary and secondary contact [name/email/phone number]: UK Level: Savita Garg Programme Officer [email protected] and Gloria Donate Programme Manager [email protected] Philippines Level: Angelo Hernan Melencio Programme Manager [email protected] and Richard Sandison Emergency Response Manager [email protected] 4. Length of project and start date [agreed and actual]: 1st July 2014 to 28th of February 2015. 5. Number of beneficiaries [expected and actual]: Please refer to Annex 3, Beneficiary Calculation sheet Expected: Beneficiaries at proposal stage were calculated as 1) Organisations and 2) Individuals. 10 large agencies (with an average reach of 400,000 individuals) 10 small agencies (with an average reach of 20,000 individuals) to benefit from at least one outcome of this project. We expect 50% of the affected population reach of these NGOs to benefit = 2,928,383 individuals Calculating the beneficiaries reached accurately is challenging; the rationale applied to calculate the beneficiaries at the proposal stage was applied at the reporting stage. Actual: 12 large agencies with average of 400,000 beneficiaries 19 small agencies with average of 20,000 beneficiaries 50% of the affected population reach of these NGOs to benefit = 3,468,383 individuals 6. Geographic location(s):Regions VI and VIII in the Philippines – Haiyan-affected areas in Samar, Tacloban, West Leyte, and Capiz Output review (if possible at this stage of the project , you are encouraged to report against outcomes as well) Effectiveness: By this we mean measuring the extent to which the activities achieve their purpose, or are on track to achieve these. 7. What results have been delivered? How is your organisation progressing against the activities, outputs and timeframe outlined in the agreed project documentation provided to DFID? OUTCOME Outcome Indicator 1.1 Key Results 1. Increased coordination of % of agencies using 1) Coordination was primarily through the humanitarian agencies' commonly documented Working Groups where agencies discussed community feedback feedback to report satisfaction and shared AAP/CWC method and tools mechanisms and and intention to be continued including commonly documented feedback. A responsiveness total of 37 agencies (3 UN agencies, 15 INGOs, and 19 local NGOs) participated in 2. Increased access by AAP-CWC Working Group meetings affected communities to Tacloban, Ormoc, and Roxas hubs. The information on the typhoon working group in Borongan was also re- response established to support the Typhoon Hagupit/Ruby Response which Plan and WV led. The Working Groups led by Plan, World Vision, and IOM developed a uniform Community Feedback Form (CFF) template in which key issues were captured from the communities regarding their experience of the humanitarian response, recommendations on how to address the issues, and analysis on frequencies and trends. The consolidated feedbacks from agencies were discussed during WG meetings, and when applicable, comments are referred to concerned agencies. Feedbacks collected by the agencies were also uploaded in the Community Response Map (CRM) website which allowed mapping of these feedbacks and further analysis. 2) The communication platforms used by the project aimed to increase access to information for affected populations on the Haiyan response and on AAP. The mechanisms used for impart information included the use of radio programmes, posters, comics, information boards, TV crawlers and community consultations. aimed to increase awareness of accountability mechanisms and further work on this will be invested in with Plan’s next project. Outcome Indicator 1.2 Key Results % of feedback and complaints 97% of the 234 respondents interviewed in responded in a timely and the three hubs said that their concerns were appropriate manner using the addressed. Feedback was received through a common platform combination of different feedback mechanisms which included suggestion boxes, community meetings, helpdesks, and text messages. During the baseline survey, 42% respondents stated their complaints/feedback in the Tacloban hub had been addressed, which increased to 99% by the end of the project. In Ormoc, there was a slight decrease in the number of respondents who stated their complaints had been addressed from 95% to 91%. In Roxas, 100% respondents said their concerns had been addressed, compared to 0% at the baseline survey.1 The waiting times vary. In Tacloban respondents who stated their concerns had been addressed within 1 day rose from 11.36% to 48.57% by the end of the project. For Ormoc, this increased from 19.05% to 70% by the end of the project. For Roxas, 100% of the responses were addressed within 1-3 weeks from the time the concerns were raised. Improvements in the response times, and level of satisfaction with the responses 1 Page 55, Comparative Baseline and Endline Study of the Pamati Kita Project received could benefit from more investigation or researched further with on-going work on AAP at country level2 Outcome Indicator 2.1 Key Results % of community members The CRM website is accessible to all and who used the Community shares feedback trends and mapping to the Response Map as their general public (see here: primary feedback mechanism http://communityresponsemap.org/philippines- natural-disasters-response). The CRM has been used by Plan, World Vision and IOM for consolidating, mapping, and analyzing feedbacks gathered by the working group members using the CFFs. A dashboard was accessible to these organizations which presents analytics of the messages. The project, however, was not able to capture how many community members used the CRM due to time constraints. The community members, nevertheless, used various mechanisms (e.g. feedback boxes, feedback SMS numbers, radio programs, community consultations, etc.) established by the different humanitarian agencies in their communities to voice out their concerns and questions. This is further reported in the key results for Outcome Indicator 2.3. Outcome Indicator 2.2 Key Results % of people who were During the baseline and endline surveys, satisfied with the response to respondents were asked to rate their degree their feedback of satisfaction on the feedback mechanisms in their areas. They were asked to a rating of 1 to 5, 1 being dissatisfied (negative) and 5 being satisfied (positive). During the baseline survey, the majority 63% of the responses scored 1-2 (1: 53%, 2: 10%) However, during the endline survey, this shifted with the majority 74% giving ratings of 4-5 (4: 38%, 5: 36%).3 Aside from this, respondents also mentioned their interest in attending future community consultations which shows the communities’ view of the usefulness and relevance of the community consultations. Outcome Indicator 2.3 Key Results % of families who are aware of 68% of the 651 persons interviewed across accountability mechanisms in the three hubs were aware of the place. accountability mechanisms in place in their communities 4. This is a 22% increase from the baseline which shows only 46% of the 610 interviewed knew about them. 2 Pages 55-56 of the Comparative Baseline and Endline Study of the Pamati Kita Project. 3 Pages 61-62 of the Comparative Baseline and Endline Study of the Pamati Kita Project. 4 Page 38 of the Comparative Baseline and Endline Study of the Pamati Kita Project. A comparison as well of the baseline and endline data regarding “the types of feedback systems known” notes that more people now recognize community meetings as feedback mechanisms (from 37.33% to 83.41% in Tacloban, 46.08% to 46.95% in Ormoc, and 22.67% to 72.89% in Roxas).5 The communication platforms used by the project to inform communities about these mechanisms such as radio programmes, posters, stickers, comics, information boards, TV crawlers, and community consultations aimed to increase awareness of accountability mechanisms and further work on this will be invested in with Plan’s next project. OUTPUT 1 Output Indicator 1.1 Key Results Consolidation of a common A basket of available tools for A total of 33 tools from 12 organizations are basket of best practice the provision of information is now in a “basket of tools” integrated in the practical tools for provision of provided to humanitarian CRM (see here: information and CRM agencies group http://communityresponsemap.org/tools). These tools include documents and videos that present strategies, tools, case studies, and modules for information dissemination and feedback mechanisms which may be downloaded by humanitarian and government agencies. Output Indicator 1.2 Key Results A basket of available tools for As above, the basket contains tools both for feedback mechanisms is information provision and feedback provided to humanitarian mechanisms and exists even after the agencies group implementation period of the project, available to humanitarian agencies. The website also allows agencies to submit their own tools even beyond project period. Output Indicator 1.3 Key Results Available (living) Tracking Tool The CRM became