Report Based on a Host Family Survey by Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Montenegro
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
"What does it mean to be a host family in the north of Montenegro?" Report based on a Host Family Survey By Danish Refugee Council (DRC) Montenegro Funded by ECHO EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HUMANITARIAN OFFICE (ECHO) Danish Refugee Council Table of Content: Preamble: 1. Background 1.1 General introduction 1.2 Aim of the survey 2. Methodology 2.1 Selection of methodology 2.2 Geographical selection of villages and interviewees 2.3 Implementation procedures 2.4 Data processing 3. Presentation of the Findings 3.1 Problems connected with being a host family: 3.2 Benefits connected with being a host family 3.3 Living standard 3.4 Relations between IDPs and host families 3.5 IDPs in the community 3.6 Hosting Community 4. Discussion of the findings 5. Conclusion 6. Annexes Annex 1: Interview guidelines and questionnaire Annex 2: General statistics Annex 3: Statistical summary of survey findings Annex 4: Village descriptions Annex 5: Village statistics Annex 6: Evaluation by the interviewers Preamble: This report is based on information from a survey that aimed at describing the situation of the IDP’s host families in Montenegro through quantitative figures and qualitative analysis. The results will hopefully be useful as a basis for program design targeting not only the IDP population but as well the hosting community in order to secure sustainability of a successful and relevant implementation. A total number of 417 host families have been interviewed in four different municipalities in the north of Montenegro, namely Andrijevica, Plav, Berane, and Rozaje. This report aims at presenting the view of the host families interviewed. The IDPs, the non-hosting families and the local authorities have not been interviewed. It is not claimed that the survey objectively portrays the situation as it is, but the perception of the interviewed host family members as it has been passed on to the DRC interviewers. It is neither claimed that all villages would present the same picture as each area has its unique circumstances. The current report should be read as inspiration and input for organisations interested in the host families. It should not be read as a thorough assessment that can make up for preparation work prior to new relief programs or development oriented projects in the field. Contradictions have occurred during the interviews as well as between the different answers/feedbacks within one interview illustrating the worlds and perceptions of the persons and thereby the basis for their actions, their everyday, their participation in the household and the community. The survey has not been carried out to statistically verify if the interviewers are wrong or right. The intention and proposal was to cover Montenegro as a whole involving another international NGO to cover the population in the southern part of Montenegro. However, before the survey started it was clear that the intended organisation did not have the time and finances to carry out the survey. The survey therefore only covers four municipalities in the north. 1. Background 1.1 General introduction Four years have past since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement and there are still approximately 23,000 refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in Montenegro. While the more resourceful refugees have succeeded in decreasing their dependency among other things with the support from self-reliance programs, there are still vulnerable groups who continue to require assistance. During the period from the summer of 1998 to the autumn of 1999, the number of vulnerable refugees and IDPs in Montenegro increased as a result of the ethnic problems developing in Kosovo. Presently, there are some 31,000 IDPs in Montenegro. Figures are showing that as many as 80 % of the IDPs from Kosovo are settled in private accommodation. In spite of this figure, very little information has been collected in order to describe the situation in the private accommodations and even more important the situation of the host families. Most relief agencies are today not able to answer the questions "What does it mean to be a host family?" or "How long can the IDPs stay in the current accommodations?" or "What is needed in order to secure a continuous peaceful co-existence between IDPs and host community?" There are a lot of assumptions, but very few facts and statistics that can create the basis for a proper analysis of the future situation and to give input to relevant new initiatives. The majority of the humanitarian aid is currently directed towards the IDPs with only limited benefit and involvement of the host families. An assumption is that still bigger gaps between the IDPs and the hosting community, and between hosting families and non-hosting families are created. The interest has been to collect information in order to be able to describe the following: The changes in the hosting community? Relations within the host family community? Relationship between the IDPs and the host family: shared facilities, common activities incl. holidays, contributions to the household, contributions to the hosting community as a whole. Expectations for the future: timeframe, integration, return etc. Social status of the host families compared with the non-hosting families from the host family point of view. 1.2 Aim of the survey Objectives of the survey are: To provide qualitative and quantitative information about the current situation of the host families in Montenegro in order to define "a host family" and their individual- and community related needs. To create a basis for defining/discussing implementation of self-reliance projects targeting the hosting community including IDPs and host families. 2. Methodology The working group: A working group was initiated by DRC with representation from ECHO Podgorica, UNHCR Podgorica, UNOCHA Podgorica, DRC and HELP with the aim of discussing the objective and the interest of the survey, methodology to be applied to the survey, the practical arrangement and follow up on the development of the operation. Several meetings were conducted in the preparation phase of the survey where DRC got important input for the design and planning. However, it turned out to be a group representing very different interests and the result was that the group was never established as a continuous reference group but rather a group actively involved in the initial phase. Complementary study: While DRC was working on the survey design and planning another survey by Premiere Urgence (PU) was supported by ECHO. The survey aimed at collecting concrete information for planning of projects in order to redirect their direct distribution towards more self-reliance activities. PU created an impressive and very informative questionnaire covering nearly all the needed statistical data in connection with concrete future small-scale project designs. In order to avoid overlap, DRC decided to concentrate the host family survey mainly on qualitative information in order to answer the questions: What does it mean to be a host family?’ and How does the future look for the IDPs living with the host families?’ 2.1 Selection of methodology It was chosen to apply the qualitative interview as a method to get information from the host families since the aim of the survey was a presentation of the situation of the host families seen from their own point of view. The survey had to identify their world of living, which can only be done through a guiding approach stressing the importance of listening to the stories of the interviewee. An interview guide was developed as a frame for the interviews in order to secure consistency in the notes where the topics/issues of special interest had to be covered by all the three teams still giving the interviewees room to express their opinions of the situation. The interview guidelines and the purpose of the guiding questions were thoroughly discussed with the interviewers before the actual work started. The interview guidelines were supplemented by a statistical questionnaire, which was developed in order to be able to support the findings from the interviews. The questionnaire was also thoroughly discussed with the interviewers beforehand and the final edition contained their input and comments. The interviewers filled in the questionnaire as a part of the interview dialogue in order not to take the focus away from the general open discussion. The statistical questionnaire and the qualitative interview guide are both attached in Annex 1. The survey has been a process in itself involving the feedback from the interviewersin the field in order to direct the findings in the notes towards the real situation in the villages. The discussions between national Survey Co-ordinator, the interviewers and the DRC Program Manager took place at weekly supervision meetings where experiences were shared and especially the focus of the interviews as well as note taking was discussed. The observations by the interview team were taken in as a part of the experience sharing, and general discussion about the situation in the visited villages. 2.2 Geographical selection of villages and interviewees DRC has with the implementation of a host family shelter program established a good reputation in the 7 major municipalities in the north: Berane, Bijelo Polje, Andrijevica, Rozaje, Plav, Kolasin, and Mojkovac. Generally, the hosting communities are very satisfied with DRC and the assumption was that they would be willing to contribute with answers to the questionnaire as well as discussion of the issues stated in the interview guidelines. Selection of municipalities: Four municipalities were covered by the survey: Berane, Andrijevica, Rozaje, and Plav. These four municipalities in the north of Montenegro were selected because: 1) they are hosting a large number of IDPs compared with other municipalities, 2) they were well known to DRC because they have been covered by the ECHO funded DRC shelter program in 1999 and the beginning of 2000, 3) DRC is currently implementing a community services program, and 4) limited resources made it important to delimit and prioritise in order to make valid conclusions.