iom south sudan post-distribution monitoring … post... · iom south sudan post-distribution...

For additional information, please contact: Rikka Tupaz, Monitoring and Reporting Officer, [email protected] /15

IOM SOUTH SUDAN POST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING OF NON-FOOD ITEMS (NFI)WAU PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS (POC) 4 - 8 September 2017

ACTIVITY LOCATION

MONITORING TEAM

DURATION

Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) was conductedthree months after distribution of NFIs to 3,507households (13,433 individuals) on 5-6 May 2017 inWau Protection of Civilians (PoC) in Western Bahr-el-Ghazal. These Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) arenew arrivals who fled Wau town due to violence whicherupted on 10 April 2017. Five items, in IOM blue bag,were distributed per household namely:- Blanket (3,507)

- Sleeping Mat (3,507)

- Mosquito Net (3,507)

- Collapsible Jerry Can (3,507)

- Kanga (3,507)

Monday, 4 Sept. to Friday, 8 Sept. 2017

TUPAZ Rikka - M&R Officer(IOM) [email protected] Aluma - NFI assistant(IOM) [email protected]

Locally hired enumerators KOMELIO Pasquina Gabriel (+2110956658734)

LONGAR Achol Deng (+251957766210)

UKELE Yohana Victor (+211954041213)

GANUN James Gabriel (+211956814667)

KALO Al-Hadi Ibrahim (+211956221081)

Wau Protection of Civilians (PoC)Western Bahr-el-Ghazal

JOSEPH Agnes (+211954255278)

MATTAR Emmanuel (+211955289196)

CCCM local translators

PDM OBJECTIVES

The objective of this PDM is to evaluate overall

appropriateness, effectiveness and coverage of

NFI response from assessment to post-

distribution using the metrics below and which

are compliant to PDM indicators stipulated in the

S-NFI cluster guidelines. Although data gathered

covers all metrics enumerated, this report will

only address main points of concern after

analysis of data. For further information on

metrics and data not found in this report, please

refer to IOM M&R officer: Rikka Tupaz

[email protected]

i. Replication of distributed items

ii. Timeliness

iii. Quantity control

iv. Quality control

v. Retention of items

vi. Appropriateness of items

vii. Effectiveness of items in addressing needs

viii. Assessment and registration control

(methods, quality, coverage, fairness,

participation of beneficiaries)

ix. Dissemination of information (methods, quality, timeliness, participation of

beneficiaries)

x. Distribution and distribution site (methods, quality, accessibility)

xi. Protection

xii. Accountability

xiii. Impact

mailto:[email protected]




IOM SOUTH SUDAN POST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING OF SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS (S/NFI)WAU PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS (POC) 4 - 8 September 2017

SAMPLE SIZE REACHEDDate Location Sample

size

target

for the

day

Sample

size

achieve

d for

the day

House

hold

intervi

ewed

per

enum

erator

per

day

Number

of

enumer

ators

per day

Conf

iden

ce

level

Marg

in of

error

5 Sept.

2017

Zone C 35 HH 35 7 5 96% 10%

6 Sept.

2017

Zone B 35HH 35 7 5 96% 10%

7 Sept.

2017

Himalon

g

35HH 37 7 5 96% 10%

TOTAL 105 HH 107HH 96% 10%

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WHAT: Post-Distribution Monitoring of NFI kits

WHEN: 4-8 September 2017

WHERE: Wao PoC, Western Bar-el-Ghazal

WHO: TUPAZ Rikka - M&R Officer(IOM) [email protected]

ADAM Aluma - NFI assistant(IOM) [email protected]

FOR WHOM: 3,507 HH (13,433 Individuals)

WHY: To evaluate overall appropriateness, effectiveness and

coverage of NFI response from assessment to post-distribution.

HOW: Household Data Collection, Key Informant Interview, Focus

Group Discussion, Observations

RECOMMENDATIONS1.) EMPOWERMENT AND OWNERSHIP: Poor or non-involvement of local leadership during assessment of needs and dissemination of information.

Increase involvement of beneficiaries and local leadership in a participatory manner during assessment and verification of needs and dissemination of

information.

2.) EMPOWERMENT AND COVERAGE: Absence of communication with community (CWC)

Messaging one or two days before distribution will enable beneficiaries to be present and prepare for distribution. This will also give vulnerable

groups the opportunity to seek and arrange assistance ahead of time for reception of items. Informing beneficiaries of the distributed NFI items per

household will enable them to control contents of kits and ask for items which are missing - or even give back duplicate items. In both cases, it is their

right to be fully aware of the NFI items to which they are entitled. This increases transparency of response and consolidates accountability of IOM to

beneficiaries.

3.) PROTECTION: Issues concerning ‘do no harm’ protection principle

Further investigation should be conducted such as time lapse between distribution and theft, average number of theft reported in all of PoC per

month, and other indicators which could establish or disprove link between NFI distribution and theft.

Whether theft was linked to NFI items distributed or is a general phenomenon in the PoC, protection issues remains to be a concern and construction

of doors with padlocks for shelters can serve as obstruction to potential thieves and dissuade them from targeting beneficiaries. This will also increase

security and ensure privacy of beneficiaries. This issue should be raised with CCCM.

4.) ACCOUNTABILITY: Absence of complaint desk mechanism

Presence of complaint and information desks should be systemic during every distribution. The desk should involve both local leadership and

humanitarians and can both serve to address complaints and raise awareness on helpful and relevant concerns inter alia targeting criteria, rationale

behind recommended items, suggested usage and handling of each of the NFI distributed materials to protect quality and life-span.

5.) QUANTITY OF ITEMS: Insufficient number of items per household

Quantity of items distributed should be based on family size. It is also recommended to have two categories of family size e.g. small and big

household. This may address needs of households more accurately.

6.) QUALITY AND ABSENCE OF NEEDED ITEMS: JERRY CANS, SLEEPING MAT, SOLAR LAMP, KITCHEN SET

A session demonstrating how to use and handle items appropriately and carefully before distribution can increase life-span of items and delay wear

and tear.

i.) Improve quality of jerry cans in terms of material i.e. thicker and sturdier, with stronger handle. Several jerry cans lids were replace with ‘faucet

lids’ see photos Annexe A. This could be a helpful addition to the standard jerry can. Findings should be communicated to WASH cluster.

ii.) Quality needs to be improved i.e. stronger material. Length could be revised and increased to properly accommodate at least one average size

adult.

iii.) After assessment team has drafted recommendations, a debriefing with leadership should be conducted to verify if recommendations match

major needs of target group. In this case, the solar lamp and kitchen set were considered major needs and could have been included in the NFI kit.




IOM SOUTH SUDAN POST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING OF SHELTER AND NON-FOOD ITEMS (S/NFI)WAU PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS (POC) 4 – 8 September 2017

CHALLENGESThere were no major challenges.

4. Observations were carried out by M&R officer and NFI

assistant through household beneficiary visits. The team

focused enquiries on usage, life-span, adequacy and the

extent to which the items met the target population’s

needs. Request to observe and photograph items enabled

the team to further assess quality of items.

5. Quality Control of enumerators’ performance was

monitored by NFI assistant and M&R officer. A debriefing

was conducted after household survey at the end of each

day to control and verify whether household target for

the day was achieved and to gain feedback and

obesrvations. Enumerators also informed the team of

challenges they encountered during data collection.

Issues were addressed and solutions were provided

during the debriefing. This also enabled the team to

anticipate the next day’s activities and possible

challenges.

2. METHODOLOGY

PREPARATION1. Desk Review: This included review of IOM

assessment/verification report submitted on 2 May 2017 and IOM

distribution report of 17 May 2017.

2. Revision of PDM tools: Revision of PDM tools according to

indicators and guidelines of donors and South Sudan S/NFI Cluster.

ECHO provided specific protection indicators which, at their behest,

were mainstreamed into household questionnaires, KII and FGD.

3. Preparation of equipment: Household questions were uploaded

to five mobile phones and into Kobo Collect App - an application

used to facilitate data collection, viewing and analysis. These mobile

phones hitherto serve as and replace paperback PDM household

questionnaires.

5. Mobilizing and training enumerators: One day training

conducted for enumerators on overall objective and rationale of

PDM; household survey methodology and standard rules,

procedures and conduct; usage and pre-testing of mobile phone

and Kobo Collection App; understanding and familiarization of

household questions and rationale of indicators.

MONITORING ACTIVITIES1. Household survey: A mobile phone–based PDM household

questionnaire was used to carry out household data collection and

which included visual observation and recording (photos) of the

usage and state of distributed items (Annexe A, Photo 10). The

complete set of questions are found in Annex B with metrics

covering the whole process of NFI intervention from assessment

to post-distribution. From 3,507 households, initial sample size of

88 households was calculated using the sample size calculator

referred to in the South Sudan S-NFI Cluster Guidelines:

http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. Moreover, as per

recommendation stipulated in the Guideline, 20% of the initial

sample size was added to account for any spoiled surveys or

improper data entry. 17 households (20% of initial sample size)

was therefore added totaling a target sample size of 105

households. Confidence level was 96% with 10% margin of error.

With three days to survey 105 households, each enumerator

collects data from seven households per day during three days

(Tuesday, 5 September 2017 – Thursday, 7 September 2017). One

enumerator interviewed two households more giving a total of

107 households.

2. Key Informant Interview (KII) was carried out with community

leaders of new arrivals (beneficiaries) and who were present

during distribution. Four community leaders actively participated

during discussion voicing out their concerns. Two local interpreters

from CCCM were present to translate discussions from Wau Arabic

to English and vice versa (Annexe A, Photo 9).

3. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted i.e. one for

women one for men (Annexe A, Photo 11). 11 women

beneficiaries and nine men beneficiaries actively participated

during their respective FGDs. Community mobilizers assisted in

gathering participants. One local interpreter from CCCM was

present to facilitate discussions from Wau Arabic to English and

vice versa.



38%

7%

55%

Did you feel you received the items in time to respond to your needs?

Delayed

Too late

Yes, timely

TIMELINESS

3. PDM FINDINGS PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT

17%20%

2%

43%

14%

5%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Did the assessment identify your needs?

23%

77%

Were you visited by the assessment team?

No

Yes

• 58% of respondents considered interventiontimely.

• Distribution took place on 5-6 May 2017which was less than one month after conflictbroke out in Wau town (10 April 2017) andIDPs entered Wau PoC.

• During FGD and KII, participants consideredthat NFI distribution was timely.

• 77% of respondents were visited by assessment team. During FGD and KII,participants expressed most of them were not consulted on their needs.

• During FGD and KII, when asked to rank the five main NFIs that they needed,participants cited the five distributed NFI items. Solar lamps and kitchen setswere also cited on top of the first five items. This shows that althoughparticipants during discussions expressed their poor involvement inassessment of needs, HH data shows 77% of respondents were assessed, thata total of 65% considered their needs were mostly (more than 50%), mostlyand fully (100%) met. In addition, when asked to rank top five items mostly inneed, the NFI items which were distributed corresponded to the ranking.

• During KII, community leaders requested that they be consulted on needs ofthe community or have a debriefing once needs assessment was conducted.

19%

37%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Community Leader HumanitarianOrganization

Rumour

How did you hear that the distribution was taking place?

Total

93%

7%

Were you informed about the contents of the kit you received?

No

Yes

• During FGD and KIIdiscussions, participantssaid they were informedthat those who receivedWFP ration cards should bepresent at 9:00 a.m. in agiven area. This messagewas communicated to themon the same day. It was notspecified that the event wasan NFI distribution.

• During FGD and KII,beneficiaries were notinformed of contents of kitprior to and upondistribution.



QUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION PROCESS

6%1%

35%

56%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Averagelyorganized

Badlyorganized

Excellent Good Poorlyorganized

Was distribution well organized?

Total

82%

18%

Were there any problems during

distribution?

No

Yes

RETENTION OF ITEMSEQUITY

14% 10%

76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

no partially yes

Was targetting of beneficiaries made fairly and reached most vulnerable populations?

no

partially

yes

47%

53%

Were you aware of the criteria for the

assistance (target group)?

No Yes

• 76% of respondentsconsidered targeting to be fair.During FGD and KII,participants also consideredtargeting to be fair.

• Intervention was a blanketdistribution thus targeting allnew arrivals who wereregistered by ACTED and whowere given WFP ration card.

• During FGD and KII,participants said the onlycriteria they knew to qualify asbeneficiary was the possessionof WFP ration card.

22%

78%

Do you still have these items?

No Yes

43 3

6

00

2

4

6

8

Mosquito net Blanket Sleeping mat Kanga Collapsiblejerry can

Number of households reporting theft of items

• 78% of respondents still haveitems.

• 22% no longer have items andwhen asked to explain, themain reason was theft.

• During FGD, women saidthieves came into their homesin the evening while they weresleeping. During FGD for men,four participants said their NFIitems and other belongingswere also stolen.

• Second main reason for nothaving items was sale of NFIsto buy food.

• A few mentioned damage ofitems as reason for no longerhaving NFIS.

• 18% percent of respondentsstated they had problemsduring distribution. Whenasked to explain, 77% referredto the long queue, 9% statedwaiting time, 6% distance, 4%not enough items and 4%others.

• During FGD and KII,participants said they did notencounter any majordifficulties and underlined thatdistribution went smoothlyand nobody waited for anunreasonable amount of time.



61%

89% 88%

68%

93%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SleepingMat

Blanket MosquitoNet

Jerry Can Kanga

Quality of items perceived as "Good"

13%

5%6%

13%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

SleepingMat

Blanket MosquitoNet

Jerry Can Kanga

Quality of items perceived as "Not Good"

QUALITY OF ITEMS• 13% of respondents perceived that both

jerry can and sleeping mat were ‘notgood’ in terms of quality.

• During HH, KII and FGD, respondentscomplained jerry cans were fragile andtoo small. The handles easily broken(Annexe A, photo 3).

• They were not easy to wash or drybecause of collapsible form (Annexe A,photos 1-2) and which lead to jerry cansemitting odor.

• It was observed that a number ofbeneficiaries put lids with faucets (AnnexeA, photos 4-5) to facilitate water flow.

• During HH, KII and FGD, respondentscomplained sleeping mat was too smallfor family size and material was easilydamaged (Annexe A, photos 7-8).Participants also mentioned length of matfor one adult was too short.

• Kangas scored highest in terms of ‘Good’quality with (93%) of respondentfeedback. The main issue raised duringFGD was how kangas were only reservedfor women. During FGD, malebeneficiaries expressed how they felt abias towards women in terms of clothingand how their clothing needs wereeclipsed. Photo 6, Annexe A shows malebeneficiary using kanga for his clothing.

QUANTITY OF ITEMS DISTRIBUTED vs.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

84%

6%

10%

Did you receive all of the items?

All 5 items 4 items 3,2, or 1 item/s

• 84% of HH responded they received all five items, 6% responded they receivedfour items, and 10% one to three items. During FGD and KII, all participantsresponded they received all five NFIs and there were no reports of missing items.

• Majority of household size was composed of four or more members. 21% withseven family members, 11% with six family members, 19% with five and 11% withfour. In view of this, distribution of one item per household was inadequate forhousehold size.

• Sleeping mat and mosquito net were main items considered insufficient inquantity.

• During FGD, quantity of items distributed specifically sleeping mat was reported tohave caused conflict within the family. Participants explained that family memberswould be jealous of those who were able to sleep on the mat as opposed to thosewho did not.

4%5%

7%

11%

19%

11%

21%

8%

7%

7%

What is your household size?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

More than 10



EFFECTIVENESS IN ADDRESSING NEEDS

• 54% of respondents stated that theirneeds were met while 36%expressed that their needs were metpartially.

• When the 36% of respondents wereasked to explain why their needswere only met partially, the mainreason (57%) cited was insufficientquantity of items distributed whichdid not address needs of householdsize.

• The second reason (26%) was thesmall size of items specifically jerrycans and sleeping mat. Thiscomplaint was also expressed duringKII and FGD.

• 14% of respondents reasoned theyneeded other items other thanthose received.

• 38% of respondents expressed theirneed for solar lamp. During FGD and KII,the solar lamp was considered a primaryneed. During FGD for women, theyexplained need of light when going tolatrines in the evening.

• Although kitchen set was cited asprimary need together with solar lampduring FGDs and KII, only 10% ofrespondents during HH data collectioncited this as a need.

• 48% of respondents cited ‘Other’. Uponfurther investigation, 69% were in needof hygienic materials (dignity kit) andwhich included solar lamps. Plastic sheetscored 19% which was also cited as aneed during FGD and KII. 7% includefood and clothing.

10%

36%54%

Did materials you received meet your

needs?

no partially yes

1% 3%

1%

48%

5%

2%

38%

1% 0%

What other items was most urgently needed (from IOM NFI list) but not received?

Kanga Kitchen set Nfi bag

Other Plastic sheet Sleeping mat

Solar lamp Wooden poles (blank)

57%

26%14%

3%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Insufficientquantity

Size of items toosmall

Other itemsneeded apart fromwhat was provided

Others

Reasons for partially meeting needs

69%

19%

10%7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Hygienematerialsand solar

lamps

Plasticsheet

Kitchenset

Others

If 'other' is selected, please specify

SATISFACTION AND IMPACT

• When asked to explain changes theyexperienced after receiving items, 42%responded their sleep was morecomfortable because of the blanket,sleeping mat or mosquito net.

• 23% stated they felt protected frommalaria and 14% underlined the jerrycans enabled them to fetch water.

• 9% expressed they were happy aboutthe items received.

• Only 5% responded they experienced nosignificant change.

42%

23%

14%

9%

5%7%

What changes have you experienced since reception of

items?Comfortable sleep

Protection frommalaria

enabled them tofetch water

happy

no significantchange

others



PROTECTION ACCOUNTABILITY

• Five individual respondents reported theyencountered danger while receiving assistance.One felt disrespected and four were eitherphysically or verbally assaulted.

• During FGD discussions both men and womenraised the issue of theft. They stated how theybecame targets of thieves in the evening whilesleeping, or in the morning when they were not athome. NFI items were the main target. However,other items were also stolen.

• During FGD, participants expressed tensions whicharouse due to insufficient quantity and size ofitems. Sleeping mat and mosquito net were cited asinadequate to the household size and needs offamily.

• 85% of respondents stated they did not have any complaints and 15%reported they had complaints.

• 13 individual respondents reported they had complaints. Seven respondentsaddressed their complaints to IOM staff members, four addressed this tocommunity leaders and the rest specified others.

• 63% of those who submitted complaints said they were satisfied with theresponse, 6% were partially satisfied and 31% did not receive any response.

• 38% of respondents think it is not safe to submit complaint. When asked toexplain, one of the responses was fear that their items may be taken back orthat staff can be rude to them.

• 69% of respondents think that a complaint desk would be useful explaining itwill enable them to voice their concerns and seek assistance if problems arise.

88%

12%

Were you aware of any complaint

mechanism/desk?

No Yes

94%

6%

0%

Have you encountered any danger while receiveing/accessing the assistance?

No

Yes

(blank)

2%

91%

7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

How did this intervention change your relation with the family?

Deteriorated

Improved

No Change

14%

54%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

How did this intervention change your relationship with the community?

Deteriorated

Improved

No Change

38%

62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Yes

Do you think it is safe to submit a complaint if not

satisfied?



4. MAJOR CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCERNS AND COMMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS

1.) EMPOWERMENT AND OWNERSHIP: Poor or non-involvement of local leadership duringassessment of needs and dissemination of information.- Participation of local leadership during assessment of needs was not considered.

1.) Increase involvement of beneficiaries and local leadership in a participatory manner duringassessment and verification of needs and dissemination of information.

2.) EMPOWERMENT AND COVERAGE: Absence of communication with community (CWC)- Beneficiaries and local leadership were neither informed of NFI distribution ahead of time nor

of the five NFI items to which they were entitled. Beneficiaries who were registered by WFPand who received a yellow token were asked to gather at a certain area on the same morningand no other information was given. During distribution, prior to handing out of NFI kits,beneficiaries were not informed of contents of NFI bag.

- Absence of messaging may have affected the reach of target coverage. Beneficiariesexpressed that although they perceive that majority or 90% of new arrivals received NFIs, anestimated 10% were out of the PoC during distribution. They were left out and did nor receiveitems.

2.) Messaging one or two days before distribution will enable beneficiaries to be present andprepare for distribution. This will also give vulnerable groups the opportunity to seek and arrangeassistance ahead of time for reception of items. Informing beneficiaries of the distributed NFIitems per household will enable them to control contents of kits and ask for items which aremissing - or even give back duplicate items. In both cases, it is their right to be fully aware of theNFI items to which they are entitled. This increases transparency of response and consolidatesaccountability of IOM to beneficiaries.

3.) PROTECTION: Issues concerning ‘do no harm’ protection principle- Beneficiaries were reported to have been targets of non-violent theft. Thieves were reported toenter households during night time when beneficiaries were sleeping or day time when thehousehold was empty. NFI items were the main target. However, personal items were also stolenif found within vicinity of targeted NFI items.

3.) Further investigation should be conducted such as time lapse between distribution and theft,average number of theft reported in all of PoC per month, and other indicators which couldestablish or disprove link between NFI distribution and theft.Whether theft was linked to NFI items distributed or is a general phenomenon in the PoC,protection issues remains to be a concern and construction of doors with padlocks for shelterscan serve as obstruction to potential thieves and dissuade them from targeting beneficiaries. Thiswill also increase security and ensure privacy of beneficiaries. This issue should be raised withCCCM.



5.) QUANTITY OF ITEMS: Insufficient number of items per household- Number of items distributed were not enough to meet the needs of households. In some cases,it was reported to cause conflict between family members particularly the sleeping mat whichcould only be used by one person at a time.

5.) Quantity of items distributed should be based on family size. It is also recommended to havetwo categories of family size e.g. small and big household. This may address needs of householdsmore accurately.

6.) QUALITY AND ABSENCE OF NEEDED ITEMS:i.) JERRY CANS- Material is fragile and prone to tearing and perforation. Water collection was considered too

small for household needs and beneficiaries complained of doing several trips to water point.Due to its collapsible aspect, drying after wash was a challenge as air could not fully circulateto dry inner part of jerry can. This caused jerry cans to smell and beneficiaries to abandontheir use. Handle was easily broken.

ii.) SLEEPING MAT- Size can only accommodate one person. Length is considered short for average adult. Quality

of material is poor and easily torn.iii.) SOLAR LAMP- This was reported to be a major need and was not captured during needs assessment andrecommendation.iv.) KITCHEN SET- This was reported to be a major need and was not captured during needs assessment andrecommendation.

A session demonstrating how to use and handle items appropriately and carefully beforedistribution can increase life-span of items and delay wear and tear.

i.) Improve quality of jerry cans in terms of material i.e. thicker and sturdier, with strongerhandle. Several jerry cans lids were replace with ‘faucet lids’ see photos Annexe A. This could bea helpful addition to the standard jerry can. Findings should be communicated to WASH cluster.ii.) Quality needs to be improved i.e. stronger material. Length could be revised and increased toproperly accommodate at least one average size adult.iii.) After assessment team has drafted recommendations, a debriefing with leadership should beconducted to verify if recommendations match major needs of target group. In this case, thesolar lamp and kitchen set were considered major needs and could have been included in the NFIkit.

4.) ACCOUNTABILITY: Absence of complaint desk mechanism- Absence of complaint desk mechanism prevented beneficiaries from addressing their

concerns such as lost tokens, absence of information concerning distribution and NFI items,lack of beneficiary involvement and other issues.

- This also decreases accountability of the organization to affected populations.

4.) Presence of complaint and information desks should be systemic during every distribution.The desk should involve both local leadership and humanitarians and can both serve to addresscomplaints and raise awareness on helpful and relevant concerns inter alia targeting criteria,rationale behind recommended items, suggested usage and handling of each of the NFIdistributed materials to protect quality and life-span.



ANNEXE A: PHOTOS

Photo 1: Folded jerry can

Photo 2: Folded jerry can Photo 3: Broken handle of jerry can

Photo 4: Jerry can lid with faucet

Photo 5: Jerry can lid with faucet Photo 6: Kanga converted to men’s clothes



ANNEXE A: PHOTOS

Photo 7: Worn out edge of sleeping mat Photo 8: Hole on sleeping mat

Photo 9: Key Informant Interview (Community leaders)

Photo 11: Focus Group Discussion (Men)

Photo 10: Household data collection using mobile phone (Kobo Collect App)

Photo 10: Zone B in Wau PoC



3.1 Profile of interviewed household

i. State

ii. County

iii. Sex of respondent

iv. Household size

v. How are you affected by the conflict that happened in Wau in April

year?

vi. If other is selected, please specify

3.2 Replication of distributed items

i. Did you receive NFI from IOM distribution during May 2017?

ii. Did you receive shelter materials and/or NFI in any other distribution

within the last month after IOM distribution?

iii. If yes, what were the items received?

3.3 Timeliness

i. Did you feel you received the items in time to respond to your needs?

4. Quantity control

i. Did you receive all of the following items during distribution?

ii. How many blankets did you receive?

iii. How many mosquito nets did you receive?

iv. How many collapsible jerry can did you receive?

v. How many kanga(s) did you receive?

3.5 Quality control

i. What was the quality of the blanket?

ii. If the blanket was not in good quality or average, please explain.

iii. What was the quality of the mosquito net?

iv. If the mosquito net was not in good quality or average, please explain.

v. What was the quality of the collapsible jerry can?

vi. If the collapsible was not in good quality or average, please explain.

vii. What was the quality of the kanga?

viii. If the kanga was not in good quality or average, please explain.

ANNEXE B: TOOLS

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE

3.7 Effectiveness in addressing needs

i. Did materials you receive meet your needs?

ii. If no, why not? Please explain

iii. Is there any other Shelter or NFI items that you urgently needed

at the time of this distribution that you did not receive?

iv. If yes, what other item (s) was/were most urgently needed but

not received?

v. If other is selected, please specify

vi. How did you access this item (item not received) after the

distribution?

vii. If other is selected, please specify

3.8 Assessment and registration control (methods, quality, coverage,

fairness)

i. Were you visited by the assessment team?

ii. Did the assessment identify your needs?

iii. Was targeting/selection of beneficiaries made fairly and

reached most vulnerable population?

iv. Did you receive a token before distribution?

v. Were you or any other member of your family registered by the

team?

vi. If the answer is ‘No’, how did you receive the items?

vii. How was the registration done?

viii. If other is selected, please specify

3.9 Dissemination of information (methods, quality, timeliness,

participation of beneficiaries)

i. How did you hear that the registration was taking place?

ii. If other is selected, please specify

iii. How did you hear that the distribution was taking place?

iv. If other is selected, please specify

v. Were you aware of the criteria for the assistance (target

group?)

vi. Were you informed about the contents of the kit that you

received?

3.5 Retention of itemsi. Do you still have these items?

ii. If no, which items do you not have?

iii. Why do you not have the blankets?

iv. If it was sold, what did you buy?

v. If it was exchanged with another good, what did you get instead?

vi. If it was damaged, how?

vii. Pictures of damaged items

viii. If other was selected please specify

ix. Why do you not have the mosquito nets?

x. If it was sold, what did you buy?

xi. If it was exchanged with another good, what did you get instead?

xii. If it was damaged, how?

xiii. Photos of damaged items

xiv. If other was selected, please specify

xv. Why do you not have the collapsible jerry can?

xvi. If it was sold, what did you buy?

xvii. If it was exchanged with another good, what did you get instead?

xviii. If it was damaged, how?

xix. Photos of damaged items

xx. If other was selected, please specify

xxi. Why do you not have the kanga

xxii. If it was sold, what did you buy?

xxiii. If it was exchanged with another good, what did you get instead?

xxiv. If it was damaged, how?

xxv. Photos of damaged items

xxvi. If other was selected, please specify

3.6 Appropriateness of items

i. Was the quality of distributed items appropriate for intended use?

ii. Please may I observe the items and see what it is being used for?

iii. If other selected, please specify

iv. Photos of how items are being used

3.7 Effectiveness in addressing needs

i. Did materials you receive meet your needs?

ii. If no, why not? Please explain

iii. Is there any other Shelter or NFI items that you urgently needed at the time of

this distribution that you did not receive?



3.10 Control of distribution and distribution site (methods, quality)

i. Was the distribution site comfortable for you?

ii. If yes, please explain

iii. If no, please explain

iv. Did you need any support to carry items from the distribution site to your

place after the distribution?

v. If yes, was there anybody helping you?

vi. Were vulnerable populations (disabled persons, pregnant women,

unaccompanied minors) given priority during the distribution?

vii. What were the biggest challenges during the distribution?

viii. If other is selected, please specify

ix. Was distribution well organized?

x. Were there any problems during distribution?

xi. If yes, which ones?

xii. If other, please specify

xiii. How long did you have to wait in the queue to receive the items?

3.11 Protection

i. Have you encountered any danger while receiving/accessing the

assistance?

ii. If yes, what danger have you encountered?

iii. Did you feel safe while receiving the assistance?

iv. How did this intervention change your relation with the community?

v. How did this intervention change your relation with the family?

3.12 Accountability

i. Were you aware of any complaint mechanism/desk?

ii. If yes, to whom did you submit your complaint?

iii. Have you ever had a complaint on the assistance you received?

iv. If yes, are you satisfied with the response you received?

v. Do you think it is safe to submit a complaint if you are not satisfied/

vi. Do you think a complaint desk would be useful?

vii. Please explain

viii. Would you like to ask us any questions?

3.13 Impact

i. What changes have you experienced since the items were distributed to

you? (Protection form malaria, preparing food for family, shelter

constructed).

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWAppropriateness

1. How many days/months after the emergency event and relocation did

beneficiaries receive their items?

2. What specific items were distributed?

3. Was there any change in the package to be distributed based on location

or household size, or did everyone receive the exact same package of

items?

4. Did the items distributed address the needs of people at the time they

received them?

5. Please give detailed quality of each of the five items (e.g. easily torn, itchy

material, too thick)

6. Was the number of each item given to each household enough or too

much?

7. Were the specific items distributed tailored to the specific need? (for

example, were the items distributed actually the items that were most

needed?)

8. In your opinion, what improvements (if any) could be made to ensure

future distributions are more appropriate?

Effectiveness

1. Were the beneficiaries well informed of beneficiary criteria?

2. Were the beneficiaries well informed about what items they were going

to receive?

3. How were targeted beneficiaries told that the distribution was taking

place?

4. How many days in advance of the distribution were they told to come to

the distribution point?

5. How long did beneficiaries have to wait to receive their items after the

relocation.

6. Do you feel the distribution went well – timely, peaceful, in the shade ,

short queues, without confusion over who was entitled to what?

7. How did the beneficiaries judge the distribution (was it well organized or

not)?

8. Did the distribution cause any problems within the community?

9. If yes, what problems were caused?

Coverage

3.1What was the targeting criteria used to determine the

beneficiaries? (was it everyone affected by the emergency, or only

those in need as a result of the emergency?)

2. Who decided what the targeting criteria would be

and when did they make this decision?

3. Was the targeting criteria clearly communicated to

everyone involved, including beneficiaries, non-

beneficiaries and community leaders?

4. Did community leaders comment or complain why

they were not informed in advance about the

distribution?

5. Were both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries told

why they were or were not receiving assistance?

6. If yes, what was the explanation given to each group

including the criteria used?

7. Was there a significant number of people missed

out? Can you give an estimated percentage? (did

people who needed assistance fail to get it?)

8. Was there a significant number of people who

received but should not have? (did anyone receive

who could have managed without the items?)

9. Did the host community also receive?

10. Was an assessment done to determine if the hosts

met vulnerability criteria?

11. Do you think the distribution reached the right

people?

12. Why or why not?

Protection

Was your security threatened because of the NFI at any point of the

intervention?



FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Effectiveness

What items did you receive?

How did you hear that the registration was taking place?

How did you hear about the distribution details (where to pick your items and on what day)?

Did the distribution cause any problems within the community?

Protection

Have you seen changes after receiving the shelter/NFIs..?(specify changes in their relationship with the

community, family, did jealousy arise? Were there thiefs?) – this is a protection question

Did the items you received help you?

o If yes, how did they help you?

Did they feel safe

Appropriateness (items)

Do you still have the NFIs you received?

o If you do not have them, what happened to them?

Were the items you received durable, of good quality and useful?

o If no, what items were not good quality and why?

Did the items you received meet your needs? (Can you rank the items that you needed the most at time

of distribution?)

o If no, what items did you urgently need but you did not receive, and what have you done

about the missing items.

Are there any items that you received that you did not use?

o If yes, what item and why did you not use it?

What items that you received during the distribution are you currently using more?

If you didn’t receive these items how would you have accessed them?

Coverage

Were those who were displaced registered all?

Did you pay something to get registered or did someone ask for a favor in return for being registered?

Do you think that all people who needed NFI or Shelter material after the emergency received it?

o If people were missed out, why were they missed?

Do you think some of the registered people should not have received in the distribution?

o If yes, why did they receive if they did not need it?

Would it be helpful to inform them that a distribution is going to take place

Qulaity of Intervention (services provided by organization)

Has the community been visited by assessment team?

Would it be helpful for them if the assessment team came and asked about their needs?

How many times?

Was the community, local authorities and beneficiaries involved in the criteria and needs identification

for NFI Materials

Was the community, local authorities, beneficiaries and NON-beneficiaries aware about the targeting

criteria?

How was the registration done?

Was the community informed about the content of the kits received?

Was the distribution site comfortable for you? If NO, why not? (Was there shade? Was there water

available? Was there place to sit?)

Were vulnerable populations (disabled persons, pregnant women, unaccompanied minors) given

priority during the distribution?

What time did distribution start and end and is it suitable time?

How long did they wait in the queue to receive your items?

What were the biggest challenges during distribution process?

Accountability

Was there a complaint desk?

Did you address your complaints to somebody?

iom south sudan post-distribution monitoring … post... · iom south sudan post-distribution...

Documents