post distribution monitoring (pdm) report, tonj...
TRANSCRIPT
1
POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM)
REPORT, TONJ EAST, GREATER BAHR EL
GHAZAL ZONE
NON FOOD ITEMS RESPONSE FOR
VULNERABLE POPULATION AFFECTED BY
CONFLICT IN SOUTH SUDAN
Project Number: 204395
Project Period: August 1, 2015- February 29, 2016
PREPARED BY:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY
ASSURANCE (PDQA)
DEPARTMENT
World Vision South Sudan
March, 2016
2
Table of Contents
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 3
I) Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 4
II) Affirmation .................................................................................................................... 4
III) Acronyms..................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Objectives ......................................................... 6
1.3 Scope of the PDM ............................................................................................................ 7
2. PDM Approach and Methodology ..................................................................................... 7
3. Findings.............................................................................................................................. 9
3.1 Beneficiary Details .................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Displacement Details ................................................................................................. 10
3.3 NFI Details ................................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 14
3.5 Appropriateness ......................................................................................................... 15
3.6 Coverage .................................................................................................................... 16
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 17
5.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 17
6. Appendices ................................................................................................................... 18
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Size per Location/County ........................................................................... 8
Table 2: #/ Percentage of households displaced from home and any other location in South
Sudan this year ..................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3: Households Current Shelter Situation ................................................................... 10
Table 4: Number of respondents, received NFI Items before .............................................. 11
Table 5: Households response whether the NFI Items received are enough or not ............ 12
List of Figures
Figure 1: Household Size at Registration and at PDM .......................................................... 9
Figure 2: Number of Male and Female Headed Households ................................................. 9
Figure 3: Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons ............................................... 10
Figure 4: Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage) ............................................. 11
Figure 5: Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not ........... 12
Figure 6: Households response on the quality of NFI kits received ................................... 13
Figure 7: Households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits received on December 2015. . 13
Figure 8: Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs ........................................................... 14
Figure 9: Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution ...... 16
Figure 10: Households’ responses whether the items received meet their needs or not ...... 17
4
I) Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all that participated and supported for the finalization of this
Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) report for CHF Non Food Items/NFI/ Response
for Vulnerable Population Affected by Conflict in South Sudan NFI project- Round II
We would also like to thank God for giving us life, health, and strength to undertake this
process as well as many other project activities that will contribute to the successful
undertaking of the Post Distribution Monitoring(PDM) in Tonj East County in Greater
Bahr el Ghazal Zone
Our special thanks goes to CHF NFI project staff for their distinctive support and active
participation throughout the PDM study in Tonj East County, Warrap state
II) Affirmation
Except as acknowledged by the references in this paper to other authors and publications,
the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) report described herein consists of our own
work, undertaken to improve the quality of World Vision’s Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation Learning System.
Primary quantitative and qualitative data collected throughout the PDM process remains
the property of the communities and families described in this document. Information and
data must be used only with their consent. Consequently, the information and data
generated by this PDM should only be used with their permission and consent.
Prepared By:
PDQA Department
Juba, South Sudan
29th March 2016
5
III) Acronyms
CHF: Common Humanitarian Fund
ES: Emergency Shelter
FGD: Focus Group Discussion
IDP: Internally Displaced People
KII: Key Informant Interview
NFI: Non-Food Items
ODK: Open Data Kit
OECD-DAC: Organization for Economic Co-Operation Development –
Development Assistance Committee
PDQA: Program Development and Quality Assurance
PDM: Post Distribution Monitoring
QA: Quality Assurance
TOR: Terms of Reference
WVSS: World Vision South Sudan
WV: World Vision
6
1. Introduction
On December 15, 2013, violent clashes erupted in South Sudan. The violence rapidly
deteriorated into a full-out conflict spreading to the eastern states of the county. The
conflict adopted inter-ethnic violence, with forces from different tribes engaged in the violence along traditional conflict lines. The conflict in South Sudan has displaced over 2.3
million South Sudanese, out of which, more than 600,000 took refuge in neighboring
countries1. People from the Greater Upper Nile (GUN) region (Jonglei, Unity and Upper
Nile States) have been most severely affected. As a result, as of September 2015, 3.9
million people (3.1 million in Crisis and 800,000 in Emergency) or 34% of the population
are considered as severely food and nutrition insecure and are unable to meet their food
needs in September2.
The Shelter and Non-Food Items Cluster, which was launched in South Sudan in 2011, acts
as a coordinating mechanism of partner organizations working to provide life-saving
households items and shelter materials to conflict and disaster affected people in South
Sudan. The Cluster is led by IOM at the national level with the support of World Vision as
Co-Lead. There are 16 partners in the 2016 Cluster Response Plan, many of whom have the
capacity to respond rapidly with mobile teams to needs across the country, and others with
static presence in strategic locations that are often inaccessible. Thus far in 2015, Cluster
partners have served 138,629 households with NFI and 34,928 households with shelter
materials. These achievements represent 96% and 115% of the respective targets in the
revised Cluster Response Plan for 20153.
The CHF NFI project/round II/ has provided support for the IDPs and host population in
vulnerable situations as affected by the crisis in South Sudan through the provision of
lifesaving Non Food Items (NFIs). The project targeted 44,035 vulnerable individuals
(8,861 households), comprising of 11,007 men, 15,412 women and 17,616 children
affected by the conflict. The majority of the IDPs (34,054 individuals) and host population
are in the Greater Upper Nile Region and Jonglei, which were severely affected by the
crisis that started in mid-December 2013.
This document highlights the PDM report of Non Food Items Response for vulnerable
population affected by conflict in South Sudan project, conducted in Tonj East County in
Warrap State. World Vision South Sudan, Quality Assurance team has led and coordinated
this internal PDM survey conducted in Tonj East, Warrap State, with the support of CHF
NFI team in the field.
1.2 Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Objectives
Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) is the process of evaluating the non-food items/NFI/
after it has finished, improving interventions in the future. And, the main purpose of
1 OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin November 6, 2015 2 OCHA South Sudan Humanitarian Bulletin November 6, 2015; IPC, Integrated Food Security Phase
Classification, South Sudan, August-September 2015 3 Shelter NFI Cluster Snapshot, 2015
7
carrying out Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) is to determine among other issues, the
level of satisfaction and usage of NFIs distributed. This will be to compliment the Onsite
Distribution Monitoring (OSDM) exercise.
The main objective of this PDM was to review the CHF NFI project/round II/ distributions
according to the three parameters of the OECD-DAC4 criteria, mentioned below:
1. Effectiveness (to what extent did the activity achieve its purpose? Was the
distribution carried out in the timely manner?
2. Appropriateness (was the distribution tailored to local needs?)
3. Coverage (Did the distribution reach major population groups facing life-
threatening suffering wherever they are?)
1.3 Scope of the PDM
The CHF NFI project has been implemented in Upper Nile, Jongeli and Warrap states
since August 1, 2015 and the project was ended on February 29, 2016. However, this
PDM exercise focused only in Tonj East County in Warrap state, based on the NFI
distribution conducted on December 2015.
2. PDM Approach and Methodology
The implementation of PDM review was achieved by using a combination of both
qualitative and quantitative data collection tools including HH questionnaire, Key
Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), observations and review of
secondary information.
2.1 Desk Review
The desk review gathered all key documentation relating to the project intervention. Key NFI
documents (project proposal, ES & NFI distribution reports, ITT, etc.) were reviewed to derive
understanding of the response, as well as to measure the achievements against the project
objectives.
2.2 Sampling Methodology for Quantitative data collection method/Household
Questionnaire/
The DME/QA team used the WVSS and South Sudan NFI Cluster guidelines for PDMs
and questionnaires to collect data at the household level. A 2-stage cluster sampling
methodology was used in selecting respondents/households/ in Tonj East County in Warrap
state. The first level determined the locations in which the survey has taken place and the
second identified the households to be interviewed. Raosoft( http://
www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html ) was used to calculate the sample size. The sample
size, which was calculated, considering a margin of error 5%, ( 95% confidence level), a
population size of 503 HH, which represent the total estimate number of households for
Tonj East county in Warrap state and 50% for response distribution, was 219 HHs. An
additional 20% of the households were also included to allow for an increased level of
precision by accounting for false respondents or spoiled questionnaires therefore increasing
the number to 263 households.
4 OECD-DAC: Organization for Economic Co-Operation Development- Development Assistance Committee
8
The following table shows sample size in Tonj East County, Warrap
Table 1: Sample Size per Location/County
Location
Beneficiaries/HHS Sample size of HHs
proportional to share
of distribution
Remark
State County HHS % of HHs total
distribution
Warrap Tonj East 503 100% 263
Total 503 100% 263
The HH questionnaire was programmed to ODK to collect data using smart phones and
tablets. Prior to quantitative data collection, the QA/DME team trained enumerators for one
day on how to conduct the data collection using smart phones and tables, interviewing
skills, data and collection tools. The questionnaires were also pre-tested prior to data
collection. Data collection conducted in three payams, namely Ngapkok, Paweng and
Paliang from February 25-29, 2016. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for
the Social Science (SPSS) software.
2.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
The purpose of the focus group discussions was to collect qualitative data that helped to
answer the particular questions set by the PDM in are areas of appropriateness,
effectiveness and coverage. They were also intended to triangulate data gained from other
sources. Target groups for FGDs were beneficiary men, women and children in Tonj East
County. Each FGD was composed of 6-12 people. The total numbers of FGDs, conducted
in Tonj East County were 6 (3 women groups and 3 men groups). And all FGD groups
were selected purposefully in collaboration with CHF NFI project team in the field
2.4 Key Informant Interview (KII)
Key informant interviews were intended to gather important information about the
intervention throughout the project cycle to address the questions the PDM seeks to
answer. The following key informants were selected and interviewed during the PDM
survey in Tonj East: RRC Head, Executive Director, representing County Commissioner,
Payam Administrator, Deputy Payam Administrator, Head Chief, and Chief Representative
of the elders.
.
9
0
50
100
150
200
# of HH head
71
165
Male
Female
3. Findings
The main findings of the PDM study are presented below in six sections: beneficiary
details, displacement details, NFI details, effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage
3.1 Beneficiary Details
The mean of the household size at the time of registration is the same as at PDM i.e 7.6.
This shows there is no major difference between the number of household size at the time
of registration and at PDM.
Among the total respondents,
70%/165/ were female household
heads while the remaining 30%/71/
were male headed households.
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
%age
HH Size
HH Size at the time ofregistration
HH size at PDM
Figure 2: Number of Male and Female Headed Households
Figure 1: Household Size at Registration and at PDM
10
Figure 3: Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons
As the above graph shows, children under 5 are the highest number in the households
followed by pregnant/lactating women and adults over 60, while persons with disabilities
and persons with chronic illness are the fewest number of vulnerable persons in the
households.
3.2 Displacement Details
Table 2: #/ Percentage of households displaced from home and any other
location in South Sudan this year
Yes/No Households displaced from home Households displaced from other
country in south Sudan
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No 162 61.6 197 74.9
Yes 99 37.6 64 24.3
Table 3: Households Current Shelter Situation
Shelter situation
Frequency
Percent
In a host compound and sleeping in host
shelter
55 20.9
In a host compound, but have my own shelter 20 7.6
In my own compound, in my own shelter 185 70.3
101
7
128
200 206
160
254
133
61 44
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Pregnant/lactatingwomen
Children under 5 Adults over 60 Persons withDisabilities
Peresons withChronic Illness
Beneficiary Households with Vulnerable Persons
Yes
No
11
20.9
7.6
70.3
Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage)
In a host compoundand sleeping in hostshelter
In a host compound,but have my ownshelter
In my owncompound, in myown shelter
70.3% of households
responded that they are living
in their own compound in
their own shelter, while
20.9% of households are
living in a host compound
and sleeping in host shelter.
Only 7.6% of households are
living in a host compound,
but have their own shelter.
Asked about, whether they are planning to stay in the current town/village, they are living
in or not, 98.5% of respondents answered yes and they do not want to leave their
town/village.
3.3 NFI Details
Table 4: Number of respondents, received NFI Items before
# of
NFI
Kits
Plastic Sheets Mosquito Nets Blankets Half Kitchen Set Soaps
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Frequen
cy
Perce
nt
0 50 19.0 50 19.0 51 19.4 48 18.3 259 98.5
1 209 79.5 209 79.5 209 79.5 96 36.5
-
-
2 and
more
-
- -
- -
-
115 43.7
-
-
Table 2: Number of respondents received NFI items in December 2015 Distribution
# of
NFI
Kits
Plastic sheets Mosquito Nets Blankets Half Kitchen Set Soaps
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Frequen
cy Percent
0 6 2.3 5 1.9 1 .4 2 .8 259 98.5
1 255 97.0 253 96.2 258 98.1 106 40.3 1 .4
2 and
more
-
- -
-
1
4
151 57.4
-
-
Figure 4: Households Current Shelter Situation (Percentage)
12
It was also found that the numbers of NFI items received on December 2015 are still
available, which indicated that that there were no any NFI items, which were sold,
damaged, lost or stolen
Table 5: Households response whether the NFI Items received are enough or not
Yes/No
Plastic sheets Mosquito Net Blankets Half-kitchen set soaps
Frequen
cy Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
No 257 97.7 256 97.3 253 96.2 250 95.1 24 9.1
Yes 3 1.1 4 1.5 7 2.7 10 3.8 2 .8
Do not
Know
1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 1 .4 138 52.5
As the table and the below graphs show that almost all respondents explained that the NFI kits
received during December 2015 distribution was no not enough
Figure 5: Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not
Table 5: Households response on the quality of the NFIs received
Yes/
No
Plastic sheets Mosquito Net Blankets Half-kitchen set soaps
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Frequen
cy Percent
No 102 38.8 54 20.5 40 15.2 47 17.9 24 9.1
Yes 156 59.3 202 76.8 220 83.7 212 80.6 2 .8
Do
not
Kno
w
3 1.1 4 1.5 1 .4 2 .8 138 52.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
257 256 253 250
24
1 1 1 1
138
Number of respondents whether the NFI kits received are enough or not
Do not Know
Yes
No
13
Figure 6: Households response on the quality of NFI kits received
As table 6 and figure 6 shows, most of the respondents mentioned that the quality of the
NFI kits is good. However, 38.8%, 20.5%, 15.2%, 17.9% and 9.1% of respondents
mentioned that the quality of plastic sheets, mosquito nets, blankets, half kitchen sets and
soaps are not good respectively. Here are some of the reasons for poor quality: the items
are not original, not durable or staying longer, the size is small.
The following graph shows on the households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits
received on December 2015
Figure 7: Households’ response on the purpose of NFI kits received on December 2015.
The majority of the respondents explained that they are using the NFI items for the
intended purpose.
0
50
100
150
200
250
102
54 40 47
24
156
202 220 212
2
3 4
1 2
138
Households response on the quality of NFI kits received
No
Yes
Do not Know
80.6 83.3 83.3 84.0
15.6
4.2 1.5 1.1 1.1
9.9
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Plasticsheets
MosquitoNet
Blankets Half-Kitchenset
Soaps
Intended Purpose
Stored
All are not present
Some are not Present
Others
14
21.3
42.6
28.9
6.5
Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs
Less than 2 hours
2-6 hours
7 hours-1 day
Overnight-came backnext day
3.4 Effectiveness
As most of the respondents witnessed that they received NFI on December 2015 and
distribution was conducted at the end of December 2015. People were also requesting
World Vision to provide more NFIs again. The Key informants also told that beneficiaries
received the items after two months after the crisis.
They also responded that education was given to beneficiaries on how to use the items
distributed. But, it was not exhaustive and more education is needed for beneficiaries on
the use of those non-food items. The beneficiaries also explained that they heard the
registration from the government representatives and World Vison South Sudan staff.
Asked about whether needs assessment has been done or not, they responded that the
government representatives had come to their areas in order to assess the needs of those
households, who were affected by the crisis.
As most of the households’ responded, humanitarian organization, chiefs, community
leaders, church and SSRRC are the main sources of information about the
registration/distribution of NFIs.
Most of the FGDs also responded that they heard distribution details from the chiefs and
the RRC. The information was given 2 days in advance. However, as some of the
households told, two days in advance were not enough to inform the beneficiaries about
the distribution and beneficiaries should be informed early. The information flow for
distribution was as follows: World Vison informed RRC about the distribution, RRC
informed Payam administrators and Payam administrators to community leaders. Finally,
community leaders informed households. Therefore, the targeting beneficiaries were
informed about the distribution through the RRC to community leaders then to the
community members.
As the pie-chart graph
shows, 42.6% of households
have to wait on the queue
for 2-6 hours to receive
non-food items, followed by
28.9% of households wait
on the queue for 7 hours-1
day. 21.2% of the
households wait in the
queue for less than 2 hours.
Desperately, 6.5% of the
households wait in the
queue overnight- came back
the next day.
Figure 8: Waiting time in the queue to receive NFIs
15
Some of the FGD respondents also mentioned that they spent 2 hours on queue during
distribution, while some others told, they were queuing 2-6 hours to receive NFI items. The
distribution took 2 days and beneficiaries received the NFIs after 2-6 hours.
There was no any problem during the distribution time and the distribution was done
properly, timely and peacefully. There was beneficiaries’ distribution lists used during the
distribution and the distribution did not cause any problems. In general, the distribution was
organized peacefully and there is no any problem with the community. There is no any
angry or upset on the community about the distribution.
Plastic sheets, blankets, half kitchen set, mosquito nets, mat and jerricans are some of the
non-food items most of the households received. And, all materials are very useful and
helped the people in the critical time. Especially, the mosquito nets prevented them from
mosquitoes bite.
3.5 Appropriateness
Asked about whether the items you received durable, of good quality and useful, they
mentioned that some of the items like blankets and kitchen sets are durable, while others
like mosquito nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats are not durable. The quality of
the materials is good and the beneficiaries are happy with the items. But, they are not
enough.
The non-food items did not meet their needs because they are not enough since it was given
only once per household. It was also mentioned that, the non-food items were ok, but there
should be food distribution before the non-food items. Some of the respondent also
mentioned that they have not received soaps yet and soaps should have been part of the
non-food items. Half kitchen sets, blankets and mosquito nets are not damaged and they are
using these items currently.
Asked about what you would have done if you did not receive NFI or shelter material in the
distribution, most of the respondents mentioned that there is no anywhere to find the non-
food items or materials when they were not distributed.
16
Figure 9: Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution
As the above graph shows, 47.9% of households responded that there are non-food items
that they urgently needed at the time of distribution, but that they did not receive, while
51% said they are not any non-food items urgently needed at the time of distribution, but
that they did not receive. Soaps, cloths, big sleeping mats and tents are some of the most
urgently needed, but not received non-food items by the households
3.6 Coverage
Asked about the targeting criterion to determine the beneficiaries, most of the key
informants responded that those households, whose houses were burnt during the crisis,
were the first priorities for the non-food items distribution. Burnt families considered first
before other considerations. And, all were informed about these criteria. There was also
evidence of the burnt down houses and SRRC has seen the families, whose houses were
burnt. So, items were given to those people whose houses were burnt. Selection was strictly
for those households whose houses are burnt down. Therefore, families, with burnt houses
were targeted for the non-food items. This is because they cannot do anything without
those items.
The criteria were decided by WVI, UNOCHA, SSRRC, IOM, NRC and UNICEF.
However, community leaders and RRC should be the ones doing the decision making.
NGOs, Commissioner, RRC and Payam administrators are decision makers for setting
criteria. All beneficiaries were informed about the targeting criteria and nothing was paid
for registration. The criterion was explained to the communities. The non-beneficiaries
were told about the criteria, but they are still complaining. Looted houses were told that
they cannot receive the NFI. The one whose houses were burnt got but the stolen /looted
houses/families missed out. Some people missed out because the non-food items were not
enough. So, due to less non-food items, some of the registered people did not receive it.
As the KII confirmed, the distribution reached to the right people since the distribution
targeted those families, whose houses were burnt. And, they were verified and registered.
The communities also witnessed the distribution reached to the right people. Host
communities did not receive NFIs. There was no assessment for them. .
51.0 47.9
.4
Non-food items that households urgently needed at the time of distribution but, that they did not receive ( Percentage)
No
Yes
Do not know
17
Figure 10: Households’ responses whether the items received meet their needs or not
More than half of the respondents (61.6%) told that the non-food items received at the time
of distribution meet their needs, while 37.3% of households responded that the non-food
items received at the time of distribution do not meet their needs
Agricultural tools, seeds, schools, health facilities and water points are some of the needs of
the displaced people in addition to non-food items. Many people did not receive the items
because the NFI were not enough. Some of the people did not get items during the
distribution. The one whose houses were burnt got NFIs but the stolen /looted
houses/families missed out.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
The main objective of this PDM was to review the CHF NFI project/round II/ distributions
in Tonj East, Warrap, according to the three parameters of the OECD-DAC criteria,
namely, effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage.
Household questionnaire and qualitative data collections tools (Key Informant Interviews,
Focus Group Discussions, observation) and review of secondary data were used for this
PDM. Data collection in the field was carried out through household interview, key
Informant interviews, focus group discussions and observations of NFIs at household level.
The findings provide useful information on the effectiveness, appropriateness and coverage
of the CHF NFI project and cluster partners can consider the findings of the PDM and take
the best practices and lessons learned in to account for future programming.
5.2 Recommendations
The following points are recommended based on the major findings of the PDM conducted
in Tonj East County:
37.3
61.6
1
Households response whether the items received meet thier needs or not/Percentage/
No
Yes
Do not Know
18
Effectiveness:
The current NFIs are not enough and more items are needed to address the need of
those crisis affected/displaced community groups.
Education should be given for beneficiaries on how to use the non-food items
effectively and efficiently.
Distribution date should be communicated properly to all beneficiaries as earliest as
possible. Beneficiaries should be informed early as two days are not enough
Appropriateness:
Provide durable items to the crisis affected/displaced population for the next
distribution. Mosquito-nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats are durable and
the beneficiaries need long lasting non-food items.
Consider provision of food assistance for those crisis affected people as food
assistance is the first priority and non- food items comes later.
Improve on the size of the sleeping mats
Consider the family sizes of the household for distribution of NFIs
Community leaders should be participated in the assessment and NGOs should not
do the assessment alone without guidance from the community leaders. Involve
community leaders in the assessment.
Non- durables are mosquito nets, collapsible jerricans and sleeping mats and are not
in good quality.
Recommendations on Coverage
Provide more non-food items to crisis affected communities. Bring more NFI so
that looted families can also get the items.
Youths should not do registration and verification.
Bring the non-food items for the people who missed in the distribution.
Community leaders and RRC should be the ones doing the decision making.
Devise an integrated project in the area to fulfill the demand of communities on
food, agricultural tools, seeds and water
6. Appendices
Here are attached the data collection tools (HH questionnaire, FGDs and KIIs) for PDM
Focus Group Discussion Questions_CHF NFI_24Jan16.docx
Key Informant Interview Questions_CHF NFI_24Jan16.docx