2020 and county Multisector Household Survey

Acknowledgement: This report was made possible thanks to the kind contribution of UNICEF, the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, and the Food Agency Organisation

April 2020 © AVSI, 2019 - all rights reserved Outline 1) Survey methodology 2) Education as the main concern of families 3) Need for a response supporting all levels of pre-primary and primary education 4) Education and FSL they sustain one another 5) Protection needs and overall crime/conflict mitigation must be read together 6) Gender and power must be read together too Multi sources presentation: white background signals information based on multisector survey, yellow school surveys, green external sources

2 Background and Rationale of AVSI surveying effort AVSI is a development-oriented and community based NGO. It developed an internal M/E multi-sector framework for a number of reasons: ✓ to asses the conditions of entire communities (sub-county: payams), to improve targeting and tailoring and to orient our response toward entire communities (not just direct beneficiaries) ✓ to gain a holistic, multi-sectoral understanding of recent developments (last 12 months) in the following fields (need to cover them all in one survey to cross answers to get solid findings and identify linkages): • Human development – Livelihood, Resilience, Food Security, Health, Hygiene, Education, Protection and Gender • Economy – Agriculture, Livestock Farming, Markets, Assets • Peace and Governance – Natural Resources, Safety, Migration, Community Participation & Local Governance and Humanitarian Aid ✓ to encourage a more nexus/resilience-oriented mindset: focusing not only on needs but also on opportunities to strengthen (positive copying strategies, community self-reliance, and advanced market participants to use as pulling factors) ✓ to nourish genuine accountability: surveys are validated trough one-day meetings with county and payam representatives as a means to promote an evidence-based dialogue with the community

3 Methodology Questionnaire: • with a core on mainly on WFP/FAO-led Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System (FSNMS) survey • and a mix of questions from renowned regional resilience-oriented surveys: 1) UNICEF MICS (Multi Indicator Cluster Survey) survey; 2) Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in Central Africa (CIALCA) Baseline Survey; 3) the Secure Livelihood Research Consortium (SLRC) Survey; 4) the RGAP Smallholder Household Survey and; 5) a study on natural resource management compiled by the Association on Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA). Two-stage cluster sampling: • 1st stage - selection of villages (based on probability proportional to population size (PPS) and stratification). • 2nd stage - selection of households (based on “improved random-walk” method) Where and When: • In order to provide Payam level reference estimates, in Torit a total of 40 villages (clusters) and 345 households were surveyed, and in Magwi* 36 villages (clusters) and 275 households – well above FSNMS survey standard that is based on 80 to 120 households per county. Interviews took place between the 23th of January and the 13rd of February 2020 4 Torit and Magwi* County

*only 2/3 of Magwi were surveyed

5 NB: Indicative map does not represent administrative boundaries but provides a reference of the villages covered by the different payams. Their size is not proportional or an indication of the inhabiting population. Main Problems: Education by far the most important issue… in Torit ❑ Education is the main requests coming from the families of ❑ Food/hunger and insecurity are less of an issue, while improvement of health and agriculture becomes more requested compared to 2019 ❑ Different payams have very different needs (directly reflecting differences in aid coverage)

Is there ONE specific issue which you would like the administration to address, which ONE? T O O T T I R 2019 vs 2020 35%

30% 2020 Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY 25% Education 33% 40% 32% 19% 28% 33% 50% 33% 40% 32% 20% Water Supply 28% 12% 16% 25% 22% 4% 8% 10% 10% 16% 2019 15% Health 0% 20% 26% 7% 17% 21% 19% 19% 23% 16% 2020 Agriculture 22% 0% 16% 17% 7% 13% 4% 10% 27% 13% 10% Food/ Hunger 0% 16% 0% 2% 9% 22% 15% 19% 0% 8% 5% Security 17% 8% 5% 7% 7% 8% 4% 5% 0% 6% Peace and reconciliation 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% Education Water Health Agriculture Food/ Security Note: In red the second most cited issue Supply Hunger

6 Main Problems: Education by far the most important issue… and in Magwi ❑ Education is the main requests coming from the families of ❑ Food/hunger and insecurity are less of an issue, while improvement of health and agriculture becomes more requested compared to 2019 ❑ Different payams have very different needs (directly reflecting differences in aid coverage)

Is there ONE specific issue which you would like the administration to address, which ONE?

Magwi % of HHs by support most demanded Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Education 35% 29% 28% 23% 54% 33% 30% 40% 38% 36% Agriculture 15% 18% 8% 27% 15% 13% 20% 0% 12% 15% M A G A M W I Health 20% 6% 20% 19% 3% 13% 10% 20% 19% 14% Water supply 5% 35% 8% 19% 10% 0% 10% 30% 15% 13% Security 10% 6% 20% 4% 3% 23% 10% 0% 12% 10% Food/Hunger 5% 6% 12% 4% 5% 3% 0% 0% 4% 5% Roads 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 10% 10% 0% 2% Peace and reconciliation 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 3% 10% 0% 0% 2%

7 Overall context: EES’ s reversal of fortune The state of education in EES used to be remarkably better compared to the rest of the country; in the last years, however, it has worsened very rapidly

Historical background: By number and categories of schools, as well as the quality of physical and human infrastructure, EES had historically (West part), or gained during the early 2010s (East part), a good position in education compared to the rest of the country*-- thanks to the long-standing presence of religious organizations supporting education and the recent inflow of nearby English-speaking teachers from and Recent developments: EES’s advantages turned into liabilities with the crisis of 2015/2016. Cuts to public funding for education, the depreciation of the SSP, and humanitarian assistance focus on emergency has left behind EES, and may continue to do so unless the reopening of non-functioning schools becomes a priority (as important as the refurbishing of functioning schools).

*for instance, in the rural Ikwoto county there are 4 Secondary schools, 2 offering boarding

In 2017 schools reopened in several counties of SSD, but not in EES schools, 8 where they continued to shut down Source: Education Cluster National Assessment 2017 Fast forward to 2020 The time of reckoning is approaching. The HNO 2020 identifies EES as the state with the severity of needs is highest, most likely due to the coming back of returnees.

9 Source: Education Cluster National Assessment 2017 Education: the strongest request coming from the community ❑There is a marked geographical gap in Torit, whereby outside of Torit Town education infrastructure is still very deficient: schools not operating (see Ifwoto and Iyire), not offering more than lower primary (see Imurok, Himodongue, Kudo, Iyire) ❑An important figure to keep in mind when thinking about the impact of COVID-19: in

T O O T T I R Torit: 4% of hhs talk in English when at home; children literacy in English is at risk

Primary Education supply Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY % of HHs with a school at less than 30- 67% 65% 77% 71% 81% 54% 71% 42% 59% 68% Cognitive capacity of children above 10 enrolled in minute walk P4 or above Only P1 to P3 6% 0% 5% 2% 0% 29% 20% 0% 9% 6% Up to P4 13% 6% 25% 0% 0% 7% 10% 10% 27% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Up to P5 0% 35% 10% 0% 9% 7% 10% 0% 9% 8% Up to P6 0% 18% 5% 8% 15% 14% 20% 0% 0% 10% Reading basic sentence 54% Up to P7 0% 6% 20% 2% 11% 7% 20% 0% 0% 7% Up to P8 81% 35% 35% 77% 65% 36% 20% 90% 50% 58% Basic reading comprehension 56% P8 and some secondary 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% Recent improvement works in the 52% 11% 23% 54% 31% 19% 23% 27% 50% 36% school Basic numerical comprehension 78% Functioning PTA in the school 0% 4% 0% 1% 2% 11% 10% 0% 8% 3% Closer school not operating 44% 18% 23% 9% 14% 23% 26% 12% 38% 20% Basic numerical skills (additions) 44% reason not open - no teachers 30% 60% 83% 14% 75% 33% 57% 67% 40% 48% reasons not open - school damaged 50% 20% 17% 71% 25% 33% 29% 33% 40% 37% reason not open - other reasons 20% 20% 0% 14% 0% 33% 14% 0% 20% 15% 10 Education: the strongest request coming from the community ❑ By far, improved education is the greatest request coming from families, it is one of the main reasons why returnees are not coming back, (and the withdrawing of children education is the most common copying strategy) ❑ An important figure to keep in mind when thinking about the impact of COVID-19: in Magwi: 3% of hhs talk in English when at home; children literacy in English is at risk ❑ There is a marked geographical gap in Magwi, whereby outside of Magwi Town education infrastructure is still very deficient: schools not operating (see Pajok, Obbo, Owinkibul), not offering M A G A M W I more than lower primary (see Agoro, Owinkibul)

Magwi Primary Education supply Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Cognitive capacity of children above 10 enrolled in % of HHs with a school at less than 30- P4 or above 57% 42% 52% 61% 57% 81% 83% 33% 89% 65% minute walk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Only P1 to P3 8% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2% Up to P4 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2% Up to P5 0% 13% 7% 11% 0% 0% 11% 33% 3% 5% Reading basic sentence 63% Up to P6 33% 25% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Up to P7 33% 13% 27% 26% 7% 7% 16% 0% 6% 14% Basic reading comprehension 87% Up to P8 17% 50% 33% 53% 89% 93% 68% 0% 78% 67% P8 and some secondary 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 0% 13% 4% Improvement works made recently in the Basic numerical comprehension 88% 29% 42% 27% 35% 40% 49% 52% 20% 58% 41% school Closer school not operating 35% 11% 33% 10% 15% 62% 43% 44% 14% 28% Basic numerical skills (additions) 100% reasons not operating - school damaged 57% 50% 33% 0% 29% 74% 30% 25% 0% 44% reason not operating - no teachers 43% 50% 44% 100% 43% 22% 50% 75% 40% 41% reason not operating - other reasons 0% 0% 22% 0% 29% 4% 20% 0% 60% 14% 11 EES Schools: the basic 2013-2020 comparison (by Payam) ❑ There are two marked things occurring in the period 2013-2020 period: ❑ A drastic reduction in the number of schools ❑ A marked concentration of schools in urban areas, especially in the counties with urban/administrative centres: Magwi, Torit and South. Ikwotos county is the exception

Concentration of PS schools in urban areas amid the crises Total # of # of schools % of school in the % of school in % of functioning 70% COUNTIES schools functioning COUNTIES urban payams the urban schools (2020) (2013) (2020) 60% (2013) payams (2020) Budi 42 34 81% Budi 0.25 33% Ikwoto 70 38 54% 50% Ikwoto 35% 38% Kapoeta East 24 21 88% Kapoeta East 50% 65% 40% Kapoeta North 9 6 67% Kapoeta North 45% 33% Kapoeta South 13 9 69% 30% Kapoeta South 42% 66% Lopa-Lafon 39 26 67% Lopa-Lafon 26% 37% Magwi* 107 73 68% 20% Magwi* 43% 60% Torit 67 37 55% Torit 27% 60% Total 371 244 66% 10% Total

0% % of school in the urban payams (2013) % of school in the urban payams (2020)

Budi Ikwoto Kapoeta East Kapoeta North Kapoeta South Lopa-Lafon Magwi* Torit 12 EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution ❑ Out of 244 schools open we received 192 assessments, 80%. ❑ The same concentration is visible with regard to primary and nurseries

PRIMARY County Torit County Magwi County Ikwoto County Kapoeta South

County # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools Budi 15 Himodonge 3 Iwire 8 Bira 2 Katiko 2 Ikwoto 34 Hiyala 6 Lobone 6 Chahari 2 Morukuron 1 Kapoeta East 20 Kudo 1 Magwi 11 Ikwoto 13 Town 6 Kapoeta North 6 Nyong 15 24 Imotong 4 Kapoeta South 9 Grand Total 25 Obbo 7 Katire 3 Grand Total 9 Lopa/Lafon 24 Pajok 1 Lomohidang 3 Magwi 59 paluonganyi 1 Lomohidang N 3 Torit 25 Palwar 1 Losite 4 Grand Total 192 Grand Total 59 Grand Total 34

NURSERIES

County # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Budi 6 Himodonge 2 Iwire 2 Bira 1 Katiko 2 Ikwoto 20 Hiyala 3 Lobone 2 Chahari 2 Morukuron 0 Kapoeta East 17 Kudo 1 Magwi 3 Ikwoto 7 Town 5 Kapoeta North 6 Nyong 10 Nimule 15 Imotong 2 Kapoeta South 7 Grand Total 16 Obbo 3 Katire 3 Grand Total 7 Lopa/Lafon 5 Pajok 0 Lomohidang 2 Magwi 27 paluonganyi 1 Lomohidang N. 2 Torit 16 Palwar 1 Losite 1 Grand Total 104 Grand Total 27 Grand Total 20 13 EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution ❑ There is also a county geographical gap in EES, and those paying the price are particular the community of Lopa/Lafon ❑ Incidentally, Lopa/Lafon proves very well that edu support is crucial to promote both students and teacher attendance

Average of In 2019, Average of In 2019, Average of In 2019, Average of In 2019, Average of In 2019, Average of Percentage Average of Percentage teacher received County received GESS received IMPACT recieved recreational Received teaching County of children attending of teachers attending training on education support? support material? material? school daily school daily practices? Budi 73% 80% 20% 53% 60% Budi 63% 70% Ikwoto 97% 76% 50% 85% 62% Ikwoto 70% 72% Kapoeta East 45% 60% 40% 85% 55% Kapoeta East 75% 80% Kapoeta North 67% 67% 83% 67% 83% Kapoeta North 58% 60% Kapoeta South 78% 100% 44% 100% 89% Kapoeta South 77% 69% Lopa/Lafon 58% 54% 17% 21% 38% Lopa/Lafon 45% 52% Magwi 73% 78% 36% 59% 56% Magwi 70% 71% Torit 88% 76% 44% 60% 80% Torit 76% 86% Grand Total 74% 73% 38% 64% 60% Grand Total 68% 71%

14 EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution ❑ Tuition fees is another aspect that gets too little attention compared to its important for families

Average of School fee Payam Average of School fee per County per term (SSP) (order from highest average) term (SSP) Budi 481 Nimule 4,264 Ikwoto 515 Town 3,175 Kapoeta East 1,936 Town 2,750 Kapoeta North 1,100 Magwi 2,597 Kapoeta South 2,159 Narus 2,296 Lopa/Lafon 188 Korkamuge 2,000 Magwi 2,682 Obbo 1,539 Torit 738 Pajok 1,500 Grand Total 1,567 Lobone 1,050 Iwire 1,021 Palwar 1,000 Kuron 1,000 Nyong 985

15 Education: need for a comprehensive response ❑ (in spite of much focus on adolescents education) the strongest barriers are faced by young children 4 to 9 years of age, rather than children between 10 and 15 years of age ❑… among the main reasons for why children between 4 and 9 are not school… is that their younger brother and sisters are not in school (as caring for younger children is the main activity conducted at home by 6 to 11 years of age children when not in school -- for 40% of them is reported to be a full day occupation) ❑ Supporting Early Child Education helps to support lower primary education, which ultimately is needed to make sure that the support to completing primary education reaches the general population, including some vulnerable (rather than an elite) Schooling outcomes Main Occupation of Children at home

(6 to 11 years of age) 6%

54% 52% 39% 28% 23%

13%

0% 50%Caring for younger100% children 150% 200% 250% Washing dishes/cleaning the house/washing clothes Getting water for the house Cooking or preparing ingredients (grinding ingredients) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% They do not contribute - of which (adolescents) attending regularly Adolescents (10 to 15years) school enrollment Caring for elderly/sick Control the fields against birds - of which (children) attending regularly Children (4 to 9 years) school enrollment 16 Barriers to school-entry were severe after the conflicts, and are still visible (except for Ikwoto where AVSI operates since early 2000)

• The “inverted pyramid” visible in the enrollment of the 1st school-Term 2017, after the 2016 clashes, was an alarming sign of the worsening conditions for young children/pupils in lower-primary grades. Ikwoto showed good resilience

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 TORIT TOWN P8 MAGWI TOWN P8 IKWOTO COUNTYP8 P7 P7 P7 P6 P6 P6 P5 P5 P5 P4 P4 P4 P3 P3 P3 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 Male Females Male Females Male • Two years later, on April 2019, in most counties fresh intake continues to be “too small” (not enough to counterbalance the high dropout). The relatively privileged position of Ikwoto County in EES is still very visible – se AVSI) TORIT P8 MAGWI CNTY P8 KAPOETAS CNTY P8 IKWOTO CNTY P8 P7 P7 P7 P7 P6 P6 P6 P6 P5 P5 P5 P5 P4 P4 P4 P4 P3 P3 P3 P3 P2 P2 P2 P2 P1 P1 P1 P1

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males Dropout among fresh students is very significant • Dropout rates in 2017 (between 1st and 2nd school-term): is highest among fresh students (P1), even when compared with female students in upper-primary classes DROPOUT RATES IN 2017 DROPOUT RATES IN 2017 ST ND 30% 1 VS. 2 SCHOOL-TERM 20% 1ST VS. 2ND SCHOOL-TERM 5 PEACE TORIT SCHOOLS 17%18% 16% 4 PEACE MAGWI SCHOOLS 15% 13% 11% 13% 20% 6 PEACE IKWOTO SCHOOLS 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 10% 8% 9% 9% 10% 8% 5% Males Females 0% 0% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 • Dropout rates at end of 2018: Unlike Torit, Ikwoto does not show a very high dropout, in spite of the high enrollment. Among male pupils, dropout rates continue to be highest for P1 students; among female students adolescents are at greater risk of dropout compared to young female children DROPOUT RATES in 2018 (start of III school term VS end DROPOUT RATES in 2018 (start of III school term of III school term/seating at final exam) VS end of III school term/seating at final exam) TORIT/HATIRE road 40% KAPOETA

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE 30%

GREATER IKWOTO 20%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 10% P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 females male Males Females 18 Over-aged students → young children out of school → reduced chances to increase overall schooling In P4 the bulk of pupils are 13-14 years of age; presumably, children enter school at an age between 10-11. In Ikwoto children enter school approximately 2 years earlier Data gathered on April 2017 KAPOETA EAST 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+) P4 16% 5% 28% 9% 30% 7% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% TORIT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ P5 2% 4% 18% 16% 20% 24% 4% 11% 0% 0% 0% P4 4.4% 9.7% 13.3% 23.9% 23.9% 17.7% 1.8% 2.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.9% P6 0% 2% 7% 9% 16% 18% 27% 9% 5% 5% 2% P5 0.0% 2.8% 10.2% 22.2% 30.6% 17.6% 8.3% 6.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% P7 4% 2% 0% 0% 9% 13% 22% 18% 13% 4% 13% P6 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 10.4% 21.7% 21.7% 14.8% 13.0% 7.0% 1.7% 1.7% P8 0% 0% 0% 7% 2% 12% 24% 17% 26% 7% 5% P7 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 5.3% 14.9% 18.4% 25.4% 20.2% 13.2% 0.9% 0.9% MAGWI 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P8 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 6.6% 9.9% 24.8% 30.6% 14.0% 6.6% 5.8% P4 2% 7% 10% 26% 21% 20% 10% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2018 MAGWI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ P5 1% 2% 2% 13% 20% 33% 14% 10% 5% 2% 0% P4 0.0% 4.9% 18.0% 24.6% 36.1% 13.1% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% P6 3% 4% 4% 4% 16% 15% 24% 11% 14% 5% 1% P5 0.0% 3.2% 23.8% 19.0% 36.5% 6.3% 7.9% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% P7 0% 0% 0% 6% 10% 13% 32% 21% 13% 2% 4%

P6 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 17.2% 10.9% 34.4% 31.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% P8 0% 0% 1% 2% 4% 10% 29% 20% 25% 10% 0% October

P7 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 1.6% 14.3% 34.9% 27.0% 7.9% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0% TORIT 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+) on P8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 18.3% 41.7% 21.7% 0.0% 3.3% P4 2% 6% 35% 27% 17% 4% 6% 0% 4% 0% 0% IKWOTO 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+ P5 0% 2% 8% 19% 27% 27% 13% 2% 2% 0% 0% P4 19.8% 9.4% 30.2% 24.0% 11.5% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% P6 3% 3% 5% 5% 20% 18% 18% 10% 10% 8% 3% P5 2.0% 7.1% 19.2% 13.1% 27.3% 13.1% 11.1% 6.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% P7 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 15% 34% 28% 13% 2% 0%

P6 1.1% 2.2% 13.3% 13.3% 25.6% 21.1% 15.6% 3.3% 1.1% 1.1% 2.2% P8 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 29% 17% 21% 10% 10% gathered P7 1.0% 2.0% 6.1% 14.3% 21.4% 17.3% 17.3% 10.2% 2.0% 1.0% 6.1% IIKWOTO 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P8 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 6.6% 10.5% 19.7% 25.0% 22.4% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0% P4 9% 16% 24% 17% 15% 8% 6% 2% 2% 1% 0% Data P5 4% 7% 12% 24% 18% 21% 7% 4% 2% 1% 0% P6 3% 1% 8% 16% 19% 18% 16% 9% 4% 3% 2% P7 1% 0% 4% 8% 18% 18% 14% 21% 8% 6% 1% P8 0% 1% 1% 4% 11% 16% 23% 17% 15% 8% 3% Academic results of P8 students in 2018 • Even when it comes to academic results, Ikwoto county’s results are outstanding, (although similar, Kapoetas’ results are obtained in mostly urban schools, witch have significantly more resources per child and possibly host pupils from more well off families) Academic results of P8 students - III school-term 2018 (34 schools with functioning P8; 1,148 students)

TORIT/HATIRE road Females

TORIT/HATIRE road - Males

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE - Females

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE - Males

KAPOETA Females

KAPOETA - Males

GREATER IKWOTO - Females

GREATER IKWOTO - Males

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Did not complete III school term Failed final exam Promoted 20 Education: affordability is the first issue, the second is distance (lack of functioning

T O R I T schools) M A G W I

Reasons for not attending schools Reasons for not attending schools Because there is no food in the schools Because there is no food in the schools Child is disabled or other impairments that prevent him or her Child is disabled or other impairments that prevent him or her He/she is in the age when has to help the family at home He/she is in the age when has to help the family at home He/she is in the age when she/he needs to work He/she is in the age when she/he needs to work Insecurity Insecurity Not money to pay materials, fees, uniforms Not money to pay materials, fees, uniforms Pregnancy/Marriage Pregnancy/Marriage School is too distant School is too distant The kid refuse to go to class The kid refuse to go to class The school conditions are too bad The school conditions are too bad There are not enough teachers There are not enough teachers To help the family in the filed/cattle/agriculture To help the family in the filed/cattle/agriculture 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Adolescents between 10 and 15 Children between 4 and 9 Adolescents between 10 and 15 Children between 4 and 9 Coping strategies

STRESS Spent savings or sold more animals CRISIS Reduced essential non-food items CRISIS Sold productive assets CRISIS Consumed seeds held for cultivation STRESS Went to friends to eat STRESS Sold Household assets STRESS Borrowed money for food CRISIS Withdrew children from school

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 21

TORIT MAGWI Returnees: a crucial issue ❑ EES, and in particular Magwi, is witnessing the most important influx of returns in the whole country ❑Going forward, UNHCR planned for a reduction in South Sudanese refugee presence in Uganda of 70,000 in 2020, and 100,000 in 2021… Covid19 may make increase these figures.

Cumulative spontaneous refugee returnees

Source: UNHCR –22Jan 2020

IOM DATA: https://displacement.iom.int/reports/south-- %E2%80%94-mobility-tracking-report-7-november-2019?close=true Those who have not returned yet tell us even more: FSL and Education are key ❑ Newly arrived/returnee people do not settle if they do not find the right conditions. Only 50% of newly arrived in the last 12 months is sure that will stay Intention to relocate further in the next months (Returnees/IDPs)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No, I have the intention to stay here For the time being I do not know Yes I want to leave this place Yes, I think / hope to go back from where I came

❑ Since 2018 there is a population of floating returnees that is trying to resettle but, evidently, does not find the support to be successful Reasons why people who come back (retournees) in their endeavour. Torit households estimate that 40% of people do not mange/prefer not to stay left after the clashes of 2016. Most people (81%) think that half or less of these families have returned permanently. Interestingly, a large share of the population (45%) believes that half or more came % back in some moment but later left again. In brief we can estimate that up to a third of households in refugee camps have sent back some family member over the course of the last 4 years, members 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% who later were forced/preferred to go back to the refugee camps. Insecurity Insufficient edcuation services Main reasons are→ hunger both hunger and insecurity “The vast majority of civilian movements continue to be linked primarily – not to changes in the political situation – but to careful considerations of where they and their families have the safest access to services and the best chances of survival. They often involve the splitting up of households or moving back and forth between displacement and locations of return or relocation”. No Simple Solution (2019) 23 https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620857/bp-no-simple-solutions-women-displacement-south-sudan-030919-en.pdf Social and children vulnerability ❑ By far the most important source of social vulnerability is children far from or without their parents ❑ 1/3 of pupils are reported by their caregivers as withdrawn or consistently sad (not shown) Magwi % of HHs by social vulnerability condition Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo Owinykibul COUNTY Centre Child(ren) from other families, without 62% 42% 53% 32% 52% 59% 78% 60% 67% 56% mother or father Elderly who need assistance and/or cannot 10% 5% 7% 6% 8% 19% 4% 20% 25% 12% work Disable* person(s) who need assistance 10% 5% 10% 10% 2% 11% 22% 30% 19% 11% Widow or woman without the financial 10% 0% 7% 13% 8% 8% 13% 10% 8% 9% support of any male Types of child vulnerability

COUN Reasons for child vulnerability Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire TY Death of parents 40% 33% 29% 50% 42% 58% 48% 19% 57% 44% COUNTY Conflicts 35% 13% 12% 22% 26% 13% 36% 29% 40% 25%

Divorce 30% 21% 6% 15% 18% 25% 16% 19% 17% 18%

Need to move of location 10% 13% 0% 19% 12% 0% 4% 10% 3% 9%

Kidnapping 5% 8% 0% 2% 8% 8% 20% 24% 10% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Orphans Children far from their parents Children forcibly separated from their family members Children head of household Children victims of sexual or other severe abuses Children formerly involved in criminal/war activities Special children Working Children …it is linked to general crimes – the case of abduction in Torit: it seems to be spreading

Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year (2019) COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Theft Verbal threat House breaking Theft of livestock Burned house Abduction or disappearance of family member Physical attack/assault Murder Land grabbing/dispossession Sexual assault or rape

Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year (2020) COUNTY Iyire Lowoi Kudo Imurok Hiyalla Nyong Himodonge Bur 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% Theft Murder Verbal threat Physical attack/assault House breaking Serious physical harm to child Violation of the right to freedom of movement or expression Abduction or disappearance of family member Sexual assault or rape Theft of livestock …and women protection too reflects the overall security/protection/abuse conditions

% of HHs reporting threats to COUN Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire women (and types) TY Presence of specific threats to 64% 57% 31% 57% 68% 81% 53% 64% 72% 61% women and girls Domestic violence 36% 50% 27% 22% 50% 67% 40% 62% 55% 42% Physical assault / beating 8% 21% 0% 25% 38% 52% 47% 42% 50% 32% Forced marriage 16% 21% 19% 22% 31% 22% 10% 31% 15% 22% Rape 28% 0% 4% 34% 10% 7% 7% 8% 15% 16% Denied resources /opportunities 20% 25% 15% 15% 12% 15% 10% 15% 10% 15% / services Sexual exploitation 8% 11% 8% 16% 14% 11% 13% 19% 8% 13% Sexual assault 8% 4% 0% 18% 16% 7% 17% 8% 18% 12% Psychological / emotional abuse 0% 11% 0% 6% 5% 19% 7% 12% 15% 8% Male Female Paid registration fees 60% 52% Gender among Absent two or more days previous week 29% 27% Sick last month 44% 51% pupils Plan to attend next school-term 75% 75% Convienced a friend to attend school 76% 82% Think school has improved 78% 82% • Many variables do no show a Proud to attend school 94% 92% Feel happy at school 96% 95% significant divide Feel safe at school 80% 79% • A more precarious school attendance Learned new activities this term 88% 88% Made new friends this term 92% 94% of girls is suggested by the smaller Had a fight at school this term 15% 20% percentage of girls having payed fees Think play enough at school 46% 34% Has enough toys to play at school 20% 24% and the higher incidence of sickness Has at least one pen/pencil and one notebook 73% 71% Happy with latrines conditions 36% 35% for girls Think that latrines are used mostly by student 74% 74% • More often than boys, girls report Think that classrooms condition improved in the last term 62% 61% Facilities Equipment & Facilities Share problems with friends 85% 85% not playing enough while at school Think more should be done to redce violence at school 79% 76% • More often than boys, girls report Know that HIV is a sexually transmittable disease 69% 66% Think that girls swhould attend school as much as boys 67% 72% having a fight at school Know that washing hands helps prevent disease 96% 94%

Gender, WASH Gender, Washed hands at school yestaday 47% 45% • Less often than boys, girls report There is drinking water near classroms 46% 48% having any book at home Receive suport from teachers to face problems 82% 85%

Share problems with teacher 81% 84% PSS • More often than boys, girls think Witnessed teachers sending pupils back home 34% 38% that females should attend school as Eat two or more meals yesterday 22% 24% Walk more than 30 minutes per day to go to school 62% 61% much as males. Live with parents 82% 78% Mother or father completed more than 3 years of education 51% 50% Has any book at home 37% 31% Has a mosquito net at home 49% 46% Non Female- female- Food security, association and voice of female-headed families headed headed families families Gender and power acceptable 46% 56% Food consumption borderline 34% 26% poor 20% 18% No particular role 55% 39% Teacher 6% 16% Nyampara or Mukungu 11% 26% In Torit, female-headed families (17%) Member of a decision making / public bodies Sector leader 2% 7% Landlord 9% 5% suffer: Administrative authority 4% 9% Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 4% 9% Nyampara or Mukungu 32% 49% Slightly worse food security conditions than Sector leader 0% 8% Administrative authority 9% 13% non-female headed HHs Direct contact with leaders Landlord 6% 5% Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 2% 3% Chairman of informal farmer groups 2% 14% Opinion leader 17% 15% They are rather less involved in decision Participation Attended public meeting 88% 96% making bodies and participate less in Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools 38% 38% Health /medicines 11% 16% community meetings Food in the Schools 2% 17% Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 9% 15% Food distribution or food in exchange for work 2% 13% Humanitarian support Veterinary service 6% 10% They are also visibly less involved in the Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 9% 5% support provided by the humanitarian Advise from extension service 2% 4% Cash and or cash in exchange for work 2% 3% system, with the significant exception of Fishing gear 2% 3% School fees /uniforms 0% 2% support to Farming and Saving Informal group of farmers 13% 55% Farmer group supported by NGO 21% 16% Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving 11% 4% Group Cooperative/SME 4% 6% Member of an income generation association Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community- 4% 8% based organization, Youth group Health Others 4% 3% Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 4% 8% Income Generation Association group (IGA) 2% 3% Non Female- female- Food security and associationism and voice of female headed families headed headed families families Gender and power acceptable 36% 63% Food consumption borderline 50% 26% poor 14% 11% No particular role 40% 45% Teacher 13% 20% Nyampara or Mukungu 13% 19% In Magwi is, female-headed families (7%) Member of a decision making / public bodies Sector leader 7% 2% Landlord 0% 2% suffer less from political and support Administrative authority 13% 6% exclusion. Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 13% 12% Nyampara or Mukungu 40% 33% Sector leader 33% 9% Administrative authority 0% 11% Direct contact with leaders Landlord 0% 3% Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 0% 3% Chairman of informal farmer groups 0% 14% Opinion leader 7% 14% Participation Attended public meeting 100% 95% Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools 40% 31% Health /medicines 13% 18% Food in the Schools 20% 21% Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 0% 13% Food distribution or food in exchange for work 0% 9% Humanitarian support Veterinary service 13% 7% Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 0% 3% Advise from extension service 0% 2% Cash and or cash in exchange for work 0% 1% Fishing gear 0% 0% School fees /uniforms 0% 6% Informal group of farmers 27% 72% Farmer group supported by NGO 20% 13% Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving Group 7% 13% Cooperative/SME 7% 10% Member of an income generation association Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-based 20% 20% organization, Youth group Health Others 0% 1% Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 7% 4% Income Generation Association group (IGA) 0% 1% Recommendations for Response Recommendations (1/2): multisectoral FSL centered response

As the main partner of FAO in EES and the State FSL cluster lead, AVSI calls for a flexible, resilience-oriented (nexus) response, mixing : 1) quick actions for asset rebuilding eliciting co- financing (one-off, well-targeted cash to complete sheltering, training and ploughs for oxen owners, etc.) and the shoring up of school feeding schemes through local purchasing; 2) with longer-term initiatives aimed at spreading efficient and productive farming and processing/conservation of nutrient and vitamin-rich food, and the establishment of local services and input providers to be linked to state/national actors. In brief, such response should deal with the most significant pulling factors (Livelihood, Assets and Education), while increasing the resilience of food systems vin the face of price and environmental shocks (Food variety, Environmental and Productive farming practices), with self-reinforcing initiatives (ex. supporting farming of nutrient-rich food and strengthening of school feeding programs trough local purchases – NUT/EDU/FSL). Moving from integrated to synergic approaches.

31 Recommendations (2/2): Extending Education response

❑ As one of the main partner of UNICEF in EES, and the state Education Cluster lead, AVSI calls for extending education response to underserved communities (i.e. Lopa, non-urban areas in Magwi, and Torit – in Nord and East Kapoeta AVSI is already doing it with ECW and SSHF), favoring areas where potential for come back for returnees is higher (i.e. & Magwi), with an explicit focus on attending needs of early child /lower primary education as much as primary competition, and an attention to containing the cost of education for families through MoU with schools bound to development plan and ceiling of school fees ❑ AVSI has showed will and capacity to balance costs and approaches to serve urban as well as semi- urban and rural areas, showing significant impact. Moreover, AVSI is capable to provide a consistent and continuous response (“parachuted” partners and/or short term programs cannot have; in 2017 AVSI was the only partner in education in Magwi) ❑ Through the integration with other interventions AVSI aims to provide also a robust response to cross cutting issues such as protection and female education

32 Main reason for not attending schools

Preg Inclusive education, CWD increase female teachers to support Insecurity female education

Child refuses

Helps parents Continue link with at home livelihood programs Need to work and proper target of Help in farm schools No food in school Target less reachable school, find way to reduce school fees, Bad school conditions target schools in order to link them to other program (or to Few teachers qualify to) School is far

No money to pay materials, fees, uniform 33 Thank You

Bruno Baroni Head of M&E [email protected]