rapid response fund: post distribution monitoring (pdm) in

Rapid Response Fund:

Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM)

in

Kercha & Babile Woredas

November 30th, 2019

2

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________________ 3

Background _____________________________________________________________________ 3

Purpose _________________________________________________________________________ 3

METHODOLOGY ____________________________________________________________ 4

Sampling ________________________________________________________________________ 4

Data Quality & Analysis __________________________________________________________ 4

Limitations ______________________________________________________________________ 5

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ______________________________________________ 5

Demographics ___________________________________________________________________ 5

Distribution _____________________________________________________________________ 6

ESNFI ___________________________________________________________________________ 8

Cash distribution _______________________________________________________________ 10

Market Access __________________________________________________________________ 13

Accountability __________________________________________________________________ 14

APPENDIX ________________________________________________________________ 15

TOR ___________________________________________________________________________ 15

PDM Tool ______________________________________________________________________ 18

3

INTRODUCTION

Background Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and its implementing partners, the Ethiopian Catholic Church and Social Development Commission Office of Hawassa (ECC-SDCOHA), and the Office of Harar (ECC-SDCOH) implemented the ESNFI Response to Conflict Affected IDPs in East Hararghe and West Guji Zones with the generous support of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) through the Ethiopian Rapid Response Fund (RRF).

The project targeted populations affected by conflict in Kercha Woreda in Guji Zone and Babile Woreda in East Hararghe Zone. During the implementation process, CRS held discussions with Kercha and Babile Woreda offices on the implementation modality of the RRF project including – the targeting, geographic areas, distribution management, risks and mitigation measures etc. After detailed discussions, target kebeles were selected in coordination with DRMO and cluster for the ESNFI and cash assistance. After the kebeles were selected, CRS and its partners received beneficiary lists both from woreda DRMO and kebele, then validated these lists. CRS and its partners then selected beneficiaries based on the selection criteria, including women headed HHs; child headed HHs; HHs with a high dependency ratio; elderly headed HHs without family support, physically or mentally disabled/serious medical condition; and HHs with pregnant or lactating women.

The project impacted a total of 2600 HHs (approximately 17,420 individuals). CRS distributed cash to 600 HHs in the Chiga-Kibicha, Layo-Kuni and Ela-Ferda Badiya Kebeles and in-kind ES/NFI items for 1400 HHs in the Tendo-Tora, Goreme, Lemi-Boretu and Lemi-Kercha Kebeles of Kercha woreda. Of these 1400 HHs, 280 women between the ages of 15 to 49 received dignity kits. In Iffa and Derera-arba kebeles of the Babile woreda, 360 HHs have received cash and 840 HHs have received ES/NFI kits. Of these 840 HHs, 250 women between the ages of 15 to 49 received dignity kits.

Purpose In October 2019, CRS conducted a Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) exercise to monitor beneficiary experience of the overall program and better understand beneficiary preferences for future programs.

The PDM was conducted from October 8th – 12th in Babile and from October 21st – October 31st in Kercha. The objectives of the PDM included:

• Monitoring beneficiary experiences from the distribution

• Verify receipt of correct amounts of cash and/or ESNFI by household

• Understand how cash and/or ESNFI are being used by beneficiaries

• Evaluate overall satisfaction of the program from the perspective of beneficiaries

• Monitor protection risks related to distribution of cash and/or ESNFI

• Utilize the information to improve future distributions and overall program quality for similar projects

4

METHODOLOGY

Sampling The samples were taken from two sites of the project in West Guji- Kercha Woreda and

East Hararghe-Babile Woreda to ensure representation of both project sites. All kebeles

were selected for the survey and HHs were proportionally interviewed as per allocated

sample size for the Kebeles. Simple random sampling technique was applied to select

beneficiaries from the beneficiary household list. The sample is a representative sample

that enables statistically valid conclusions. The sample size is determined using the

following simplified sampling formula. This formula is recommended by Shelter Cluster

Ethiopia.

𝒏 =𝑵

𝟏 + 𝑵(𝒆)𝟐

We desire a 95% confidence level and ±5% precision. Since the variability in the proportion that will be benefited from the emergency program is not known we assume p=.5 (maximum variability). Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, e is the level of precision and p is the estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population. Computing in the above formula, n is 347.

𝒏 =𝑵

𝟏 + 𝑵(𝒆)𝟐

𝒏 =𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟎

𝟏 + 𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟎(𝟎. 𝟎𝟓)𝟐= 𝟑𝟒𝟕

Data Quality & Analysis CRS and its partners, ECC-SDCOHa and ECC-SDCOH, conducted post-distribution

monitoring through household surveys. Primary data was collected using the household

level questionnaire designed for post distribution monitoring interview using I-form builder

software. Partners were responsible for data collection, recruiting enumerators and site

selection. Experienced enumerators were selected and trained on data collection

protocols, tablets and the data collection tool for one day in ECC-SDCOHa and ECC-

SDCOH Bulehora and Dire Dawa offices. Enumerators were closely supervised by MEAL

officers both from partners and CRS to help ensure data quality. Following data collection,

the data was cleaned by CRS MEAL staff familiar with PDMs and the emergency projects.

Analysis and interpretation were done through both Excel as well as Tableau BI software

which was used to generate the data visualizations found within the report.

5

Limitations The limitations to the data collection and the PDM report include:

• The survey relied primarily on closed-ended questions and since there were no

qualitative tools used in conjunction, the PDM is limited in its ability to provide

explanations for specific answers around satisfaction, suggestions, and/or to

triangulate that data across various groups.

• Data collection for Babile and Kercha Woredas were collected at different times due

to logistical constraints.

• Since the survey questionnaire was administered after the distribution it relies on

perceptions and memories around spending, which are subject to the recall limitations

of participants.

• The ongoing emergency and multitude of ongoing projects and various MEAL

activities and CRS mean that affected populations have been exposed and are familiar

with MEAL exercises and therefore may be more prone to give specific errors based

on misperceptions about the link between their responses and whether or not aid is

received even when enumerators assure participants of both anonymity and that

responses do not impact eligibility for current or future humanitarian assistance.

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Demographics The survey was administered to 327 participants in Babile (139) and Kercha (188). Of

the 327 participants, 67% were men and 33% were women. Almost all respondents were

also the head of households (92%). The median age of respondents was 45 years old.

The average household size of respondents was 8.0. Figure 1 depicts the number of

respondents by location and sex and Figure 2 depicts the number of respondents by

age group and sex.

6

The survey utilized the short set of Washington Group question sot identify households

with a disability. Of the households surveyed, 11% reported that at least one member

of their household had a disability.1 These were most often reported as difficulty seeing

and hearing.

Distribution The majority of participants report that they received information about distribution

before the program (81%) from CRS staff (73%) and local authorities (42%). Most of the

participants who reported not receiving information came from within two villages in

Kercha.

Almost every participant said that the information they received was useful (99%) and

the majority stated they understood the selection process (84%). Almost every

participant stated that the selection process was fair (98

Most participants reported that the quantity of shelter materials/cash received was equal

to the amount they were told (95%). However, some indicated that they received less

1 Footnote about Washington Group Questions & disability definition

FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2

7

(5%). Almost all participants reported either walking (57%) or using public transportation

(34%) to reach the distribution point.

Wait times reported by participants varied widely. Some respondents reported waiting

under one hour (79%) while others reported waiting up to two hours (19%).

Almost all participants reported feeling safe during the distribution (94%) and traveling

home (97%). Only a few respondents said that they experienced an issue in receiving

their transfer (6%), however the nature of the issue was not reported except wherein

two respondents mentioned an unspecified conflict. No respondents reported being

asked for anything in exchange for receiving their distribution.

In terms of overall distribution, over half of beneficiaries (56%) suggested that the

distribution site should be changed and an additional quarter (25%) suggested that the

time should be changed. Figure 4 demonstrates the suggestions made by respondents

by Woreda.

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

8

ESNFI

The vast majority of respondents said that they received ESNFI assistance when it was

most needed (90%) but some said they did not (10%) receive it during that time. On

average respondents reported

that there was 3-6 months

between displacement to

receiving ESNFI assistance.

This was on average much

higher for respondents in Babile

than in Kercha. Figure 5

demonstrates the time elapsed

between displacement and

receiving NFI assistance by

Woreda.

Almost all of beneficiaries

reported that they used the

shelter materials they received

(99%) and all of those (100%)

reported they felt their safety

increased as a result of using the

shelter materials. Of the four respondents who reported that they had stored the

materials, three cited restrictions from government and community and another

commented that it was not the right season to use them. No respondents reported a lack

of satisfaction with the shelter materials with all participants reporting either being very

satisfied (84%) or satisfied (16%).

In addition to shelter materials, beneficiaries

received NFI items that included plastic

sheeting, rope, blankets, bed mat, a kitchen

set and dignity kits. Almost all beneficiaries

(99%) said that the items they received were

very useful (88%) or useful (11%). For all

items distributed almost practically all

respondents reported that they utilize the

items as illustrated in Figure 6 and reported

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 5

9

very high satisfaction rates for

each item and illustrated in

Figure 7. All respondents who

reported that they received a

dignity kit also report using it.

Individual item for each item

within the dignity kit is illustrated

in Figure 8.

Respondents reported utilizing

the solar lamps provided within

the dignity kits for a variety of

protection and other purposes

as illustrated in Figure 9.

Overall, almost all

beneficiaries reported

being either satisfied

(29%) or very satisfied

(69%) with their ESNFI

assistance. For

respondents who

received only ESNFI,

they largely responded

that they preferred the

ESNFI assistance

(90%) while some said

they would have

preferred a mix of

ESNFI and cash

(10%). The

respondents who

preferred a mixed

modality mentioned

that both were needed,

and that cash could be used to purchase their needs such as staple foods.

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

10

Cash distribution

Under the RRF project households received a one-time cash distribution in the amount

of 3000 ETB.

Almost all respondents indicated that cash

met their immediate needs (95%). Of the

remaining respondents, several mentioned

that the cash disbursement was too late to

meet their needs and one mentioned that

the amount was inadequate. Respondents

reported that decision making for using

cash was made by both husband and wife

(43%) or only wife (43%). Only some

respondents said that the decision was made

by only the husband (11%) and a few mentioned consulting with other family members.

Figure 10 demonstrates respondent’s reported decision-making process by Woreda.

Respondents were asked about the utilization of cash transfer to date. Overall the

majority of respondents reported spending money on staple foods and livelihood inputs.

Figure 11 illustrates the percentage of respondents who reported spending at least

some of their cash transfer across the various consumption categories.

FIGURE 10

FIGURE 11

11

Of all the spending categories on average, participants were more likely to spend a

higher amount of money on livelihood transfers than any other category. (This may be

due to the higher cost of livelihood inputs than other items, but the data cannot confirm

this). However, there were important distinctions across the Woredas. For example,

respondents in Kercha were much more likely to have spent money on purchasing food

whereas respondents in Babile were more likely to have purchased livelihood inputs.

Figure 12 illustrates the median amount of total cash transfer spending across all

respondents. The table below (Figure 13) illustrates a breakdown of each category in

terms of median amount spent and number of respondents who reported spending in

the category by Woreda.

FIGURE 12

12

FIGURE 13

All respondents (100%) reported that the cash transfer did not cause any conflicts or

tensions within the household. However about one fifth (20%) of respondents reported

that they did not have a safe space to store their cash.

This was slightly higher in Babile (25%) than in Kercha

(16%). Figure 14 demonstrates this finding by

Woreda.

FIGURE 14

13

Market Access

Distance traveled by respondents to markets to spend the cash transfer varied widely

with the average respondent traveling somewhere between 5-10KM (61%) to reach the

market. On average participants in Babile traveled further distances to reach markets.

Figure 15 demonstrates distance traveled by beneficiaries by Woreda.

Participants in Babile were much more likely to use public transportation to access

markets (88%) than those in Kercha who were more likely to report walking (95%). On

average respondents in Kercha reported spending 21 ETB to reach the market whereas

respondents in Babile reported spending 44 ETB. Respondents in Kercha were more

likely to spend more time in reaching the market than respondents in Babile. Figure 16

illustrates the average time to reach the market by Woreda.

The vast majority of respondents (90%) reported that they did not have trouble

accessing the market. Almost all of the respondents who did report having trouble came

from Kercha (17%) compared with Babile (1%). Most of those reported some issues with

transportation more specific information on difficulties was not available from the PDM

data collected.

Participants largely responded that all items they need were available at the market

(90%). Items reported unavailable were mostly NFI but it was unclear what specific items

were unavailable for the remaining participants.

FIGURE 15 FIGURE 16

14

Almost one third of respondents reported that prices at the market were higher than

usual (30%) which did not vary much by Woreda.

All respondents reported being either satisfied (15%) or very satisfied (85) with the cash

transfer program overall. The majority of respondents (86%) reported that they did prefer

cash transfer whereas very few reported preferring NFI (3%) and some reported

preferring a mix of both (11%).

Accountability

More than half of respondents reported that they

were aware of how to share feedback or

complaints to CRS about the program (60%). This

varied somewhat by Woreda as illustrated in

Figure 18.

For those respondents who reported giving

feedback or a complaint (60%), the vast majority of

them reported receiving feedback (91%) as well as

receiving a satisfactory response (86%).

FIGURE 18

15

APPENDIX

TOR

Emergency ESNFI Response to conflict affected IDPs in East Harerghe and West Guji zone

TOR Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) of ESNFI and Cash Interventions

1. Background

CRS and its partner, the Ethiopian Catholic Church and Social Development Coordinating office

of Hawassa (ECC-SDCOHA) and Social Development Coordinating office of Harerghe (ECC-

SDCOH) is implementing emergency shelter (ES)/non-food items (NFIs) in East Hareghe, Wolega,

Gedeo and West Guji Zones targeting populations affected by internal displacement due to civil

conflict.

CRS in collaboration with partners is managing the emergency program through funds secured

from IOM, LDS, DFID and EHF/OCHA to enable the targeted displaced and returned households

live in peaceful and dignified conditions in areas of displacement or return.

This time, CRS/Ethiopia is initiating Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM survey for RRF project

intervention sites.

Table 1:- Targeted areas and HHs in the project

Donor Partner

Zo

ne

Intervention

woreda

Intervention

Kebeles

# of HHs

accessed

ESNFI

# of HHs

accessed

Cash

Total

Beneficiaries Remark

RRF

Harerghe

CS Ea

st

Ha

reg

he

Babile

Iffa 200 60 260

Derera Arba 640 300 940

Sub-total of

Babile 840 360 1200

Hawassa

CS

W/G

uji

Kercha

Lemi kercha 135 135

Lemi Boretu 328 328

Tendo Tora 134 134

Goremee 203 203

Elaferda

badia 134 134

Chiga

Kibicha 166 166

Layo Kuni 300 300

Sub-total of

Kercha 800 600 1400

Total 1640 960 2600

16

2. Objectives of the Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM)

• Monitor beneficiary experience of the overall programme

• Verify receipt of correct amount of cash and/or ESNFI by the right beneficiary

households

• Understand how cash and/or ESNFI has been used by beneficiaries and the

benefits

• Understand beneficiary access to markets, availability of priority needs, and price

trends

• Understand how beneficiaries intended to use ESNFI

• Monitor general satisfaction of beneficiaries with various aspects of the

programme

• Monitor protection and safety concerns of beneficiaries related to the transfer

programme

• Understand beneficiary preferences for future programmes

3. Methodology of the Post Distribution/Construction Monitoring (PDM)

3.1 Data collection Methodology

The primary data will be collected using the household level questionnaire designed for post

distribution monitoring interview using iform builder software. There will be possibility to conduct

FGDs to gather more in-depth info on certain issues depending on results of HH survey.

3.2 Data collection procedures and working groups

The Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) will be done by CRS jointly with partner. The team

composition will be CRS MEAL & Emergency Team responsible for data cleaning, analysis and

draft report preparation and Hawassa AND Harerghe CSs responsible for data collection,

recruiting enumerators and selecting sites.

3.3 Sampling and sample design

The samples will be taken from two sites of the project i.e West Guji- Kercha woreda and East

Harghe-Babile woreda to ensure representation of the two sites. All kebeles will be selected for

the survey and HH will be proportionally allocated for the kebeles. Simple random sampling

technique will be applied to select beneficiary from beneficiary household list.

3.4 Sample size determination

The sample is representative sample that enable statistically valid conclusion and made decision.

The sample size is determined using the following simplified sampling formula. This formula is also

recommended by Shelter Cluster Ethiopia.

𝒏 =𝑵

𝟏 + 𝑵(𝒆)𝟐

We desire a 95% confidence level and ±5% precision. Since the variability in the proportion that

will be benefited from the emergency program not know let assume p=.5 (maximum

variability).

Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, e is the level of precision and p is the

estimated proportion of an attribute that is present in the population.

Computing in the above formula, n is 347.

17

𝒏 =𝑵

𝟏 + 𝑵(𝒆)𝟐

𝒏 =𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟎

𝟏 + 𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟎(𝟎. 𝟎𝟓)𝟐= 𝟑𝟒𝟕

Therefore, from each of selected kebele the below proposed HHs will be randomly sampled.

Table 2:- Selected Sample for the survey

Don

or

Pa

rtn

er

Zo

ne

wo

red

a

Intervention

Kebeles

# of HHs

accessed

ESNFI

# of HHs

accessed

Cash

Total

Beneficiaries

Proportional Sample

Size targeted HHs

ESNFI Cash Total

RRF

Ha

rerg

he

CS

Ea

st

Ha

reg

he

Ba

bile

Iffa 200 60 260 27 8 35

Derera Arba 640 300 940 85 40 125

Sub-total of

Babile 840 360 1200 112 48 160

Ha

wa

ssa

CS

W/G

uji

Ke

rch

a

Lemi kercha 135 135 18 0 18

Lemi Boretu 328 328 44 0 44

Tendo Tora 134 134 18 0 18

Goremee 203 203 27 0 27

Elaferda

badia 134 134 0 18 18

Chiga

Kibicha 166 166 0 22 22

Layo Kuni 300 300 0 40 40

Sub-total of

Kercha 800 600 1400 107 80 187

Total 1640 960 2600 219 128 347

3.5 Recruiting and training enumerators

Eleven (11) enumerators will be needed to conduct PDM in East Harerghe and West Guji Zones

for three days.

• 5 enumerators for east Harghe (5 enumerators* 10 HH/day* 3 days +10 HHs=160 HHs). i.e

each enumerator will handle 11 HHs for two days and 10 HHs for a day.

• 6 enumerators for West Guji (6 enumerators* 10 HH/day* 3 days +7 HHs=187 HHs). i.e each

enumerator will handle 10 HHs for two days and 11 HHs for a day. Besides one

enumerator will handle additional one HHs for a day.

4. Budget for Enumerators three days data collection and one-day training

The budget for enumerators for data collection and training will be covered by partners based

on their payment rate (Hawassa CS in case of West Guji Zone and Harerghe CS in case of East

Harghe Zone)

18

5. Action Plan of the survey

S.N Activity Date Responsible Remark

1 TOR development October

4/2019

CRS MEAL team

2 Share TOR to partners October

7/2019

CRS MEAL Team

3 Recruit Enumerators (5 in

East Harghe and 6 in West

Guji Zones = 11 in both

zones)

October

4/2019

Partner

4 Site Selection October 4-

8/2019

Partners jointly CRS

Team

5 CRS team Travel to

Bulehora and Dire Dawa

finalize preparatory tasks

Oct

8/2019/2019

CRS Team

6 Train enumerators on data

collection for a day both at

Bule hora and Dire Dawa

Oct 8/2019 Partners jointly CRS

Team

7 Field data collection using

tablet in two sites/woredas

October 9-

11/2019

Partners jointly with

CRS Team

8 Data cleaning and data

summary for analysis

October 14-

18/2019

CRS MEAL and

Emergency Team

9 Data Analysis and draft

report writing

October 21-

25/2019

CRS MEAL and

Emergency Team

PDM Tool

Purpose: This tool should be used to collect information after two weeks to a month of ESNFI distribution and after

10 to 15 days of cash distribution. A random representative sample of households should be generated with which

to conduct the survey, covering each site where Returnees/IDPs are residing, including those living with the host

community.

A General Information

1 Name of Enumerators Text

2 Date Date

3 ‘Hello, my name is [insert name of enumerator] working for [insert organization name] and I’d like to ask you some questions about your experience of the ESNF/Cash programme. This information is very important and will be used to improve our work in future. It will take about 30 minutes to complete the

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, end the interview. If yes, continue to next question

19

questions. Do you agree to participate in the interview?

B Beneficiary Profile

4 Respondent Name Text

5 Respondent Sex Pick one • Male

• Female

6 Respondent Age Number

7 Are you head of Household Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, skip to 11. If no continue to next question

8 HH Name Text •

9 HH Sex Pick one • Male

• Female

10 HH Age Number

11 HH ethnicity Pick one • Guji/Oromo

• Harghe/Oromo

• Gedeo

• Other

12 Current Region the Household is residing in

[Dropdown]

• Oromia

13 Current Zone the Household is residing in

[Dropdown]

• East Harerghe

• West Guji

14 Current Woreda the Household is residing in

[Dropdown]

• Babile

• Kercha

15

Location (Kebele) Pick one

• Iffa

• Derera Arba

• Elaferda badia

• Chiga Kibicha

• Layo Kuni

• Lemi Boretu

• Lemi Kercha

• Goreme

• Tendo Tora

• Egu Abayi

16 Location (Village) Text

17 How many people are in your household?

Number

18 Did you receive any of the following support from CRS/HaCS/HCS?

Select all that apply

• ESNFI

• Multipurpose Cash

• Nothing

• Other (Specify)

If other, specify

18.1 If other, specify Text

C Understanding of Programme

19 Did you receive information about the programme (e.g. at the orientation) before the distribution?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, skip to 22

20

20 If yes, who did you receive information from?

Pick all that apply

• Harerghe/Awassa Catholic Secretariat staff

• CRS staff

• Local authorities (e.g. DRM office)

• Community members

• Neighbor or relative

• Other (specify)

If other, specify

20.1 If other, specify Text

21 How would you describe the information you received about the programme before the distribution?

Pick one • Useful

• Neither useful nor not useful

• Not useful

21.1 If not useful, what would you have preferred to get information about?

Pick all that apply

• Purpose of the transfer

• Quantity/amount and type of the transfer

• Distribution & construction process

• Distribution area

• Selection criteria for beneficiaries

• How to share feedback or complaints

• Other (explain)

If other, explain

21.1.1 If other, explain Text

22 Do you know why you were selected to receive the support?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain

22.1 If yes, explain Text

23 In your opinion, was beneficiary selection process fair?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, explain

23.1 If no, explain Text

24 Do you know what the transfer/Construction was intended to be used for?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain

24.1 If yes, explain Text

D Distribution Process

25 Was the quantity of shelter materials/ESNFI, amount of cash that you were received equal to the amount you were told you would receive?

Pick one • Yes

• No - it was more

• No - it was less

• I was not told the quantity/amount

26 How did you travel to distribution site?

Pick all that apply

• Walking

• Bicycle/motor bicycle

• Public transport

• Animal

• Private vehicle

• Other means

If 'Other' text box should appear to enter explanation

26.1 If other, explain Text

27 How long did it take you to reach the distribution site?

Pick one • Less than 15 minutes

• 15 minutes to 30 minutes

• 30 minutes to one hour

• One hour to two hours

• Two to three hours

21

• Three to four hours

• More than four hours

28 Did you pay for transport to get distribution site and back to home?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, write amount in birr for return trip

28.1 If yes, how much did you have to pay to get to and from the distribution site (e.g. return trip) in ETB?

Number

29 How long did you have to wait after the distribution started to receive your transfer?







30 Did you feel safe during the following times?

a) Distribution b) Travelling home

after receiving your transfer

Pick one (for each)

• Yes

• No

If no for any answer, explain what made you feel unsafe

30.1 If no, explain

31 Did you experience any problems in receiving your transfer?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain what the problems were

31.1 If yes, explain

32 Were you asked for any goods, payment or services in return for the transfer you received?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, go to 32, If yes, continue to next question

32.1 If yes, By who? Text

32.2 What did they ask for? Text

33 Do you have any suggestions for how the distribution could be improved in future?


• Change distribution site

• Change distribution time

• Inform earlier

• Improve site

• Make distribution safer

• Small group for distribution

• Do not wish to say

• Other (specify)

If other, specify

33.1 If other, specify

E ESNFI Utilization (use this section if ESNFI materials were received)

34 Did you receive any ESNFI materials/items?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, skip to “H” If yes continues to next question

34.1 If yes, what did you receive?


Type Quantity

Plastic sheet (#)

Rope _ m (#)

Bathing Soap (#)

Laundry Soap (#)

Kitchen Set (#)

If other, specify

22

Blankets (#)

Dignity kit (#)

Sleeping Mat (#)

Solar Lamp (#)

Other (specify)

34.1.1 If other, specify

35 Were you able to carry items received back to your home?

• Yes

• No

If yes, skip to 36

35.1 If no, what have you done? • Got free support from family, relatives or friends

• Got support from NGO

• Paid for carrying of items

• Sold the items

• Other (specify)


36 How useful were the items received?

Pick one • Very useful

• Useful

• Neither useful nor not useful

• Not useful

• Extremely not useful

E1 Shelter materials (plastic sheet and rope)

37 What have you done with shelter materials received? (Verify by observation of item)

Pick one • I used them

• I stored them

• I sold them

• I gave them (or part of them) to my relatives

• Other (Specify)

• If other, go to 37.1 and then skip to 37.5

• I sold them, go to 37.2 and then skip to 37.5

• If I used them, go to 37.3 and then skip to 37.5

• I stored them, go to 37.4 and then skip to 37.5


37.2 If you sold them - why? Pick one • I did not need items provided

• I needed items provided but had more urgent needs

• Other (specify)


37.3 If you used them, Do you think your safety improved after using the item for

Pick one • Yes No

23

shelter maintenance/construction?

37.4 If you stored them, why? Text • Restriction from the government,

• Restriction from the host community,

• Restriction from other people/groups/organizations,

• Fear of being evicted,

• Insecurity,

• Not the right season,

• No one in the household is physically able to install the materials.

• Not enough wood or other materials needed to install;

• Surplus/ Extra;

• Others, please explain

37.5 How satisfied were you with the quality of shelter materials?

Pick one • Very satisfied

• Satisfied

• Not satisfied

• Extremely unsatisfied

37.5.1 If not satisfied or extremely unsatisfied? Why


• Too thin;

• Color;

• Not long enough;

• Not strong enough

• Material easily damaged;

• Others, please specify/explain

37.5.1.1 If other, specify Text

E2 KITCHEN SET (Cooking Pot)

38 What have you done with kitchen set received? (Verify by observation of item)


• I stored them

• I sold them


• Other (Specify)





38.1 If other, specify •



• Other (specify)

38.2.1 If other, specify •

38.3 If ‘Stored’, do you use it? Pick one • Yes

• No

24

• Occasional use (for example: used only for visitors)

38.4 If, you used them, for what purpose?

Text • Only cooking;

• Only serving;

• Both for cooking and serving;

• Others, please specify


38.5 How satisfied were you with the Kitchen set?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied




• Too small;

• Too big;

• Material easily broken or damaged;

• Easily burnt;


38.5.1.1 If other, specify •

E3 Blankets

39 What have you done with blanket received? (Verify by observation of item)


• I stored them

• I sold them


• Other (Specify)






39.2.2 If you sold them - why? Pick one • I did not need items provided


• Other (specify)



• No




• As cover for sleeping;

• Sleeping mat;

• Partition within the house;

• Curtain/Door;

• Clothing


25


39.5 How satisfied were you with the blanket?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied


39.5.1 If not satisfied or extremely unsatisfied? Why?

Pick all that apply

• Too thin,

• Too thick;

• Rough/itchy;

• Smell;

• Color;

• Too short;



E4 Bed mat •

40 What have you done with bed mat received? (Verify by observation of item)


• I stored them

• I sold them


• Other (Specify)








• Other (specify)



• No




• Sleeping;

• Sitting;

• Partition within the house;

• Curtain/Door;



40.5 How satisfied were you with the bed mat?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied


26


Pick all that apply

• Too small;

• Color;

• Smell;

• Material easily damaged;

• Rough/itchy;

• Too thin;

• Other, please specify/explain


E5 Hygiene items/dignity kit •

41 What have you done with hygiene items received? (Verify by observation of item)


• I stored them

• I sold them


• Other (Specify)







• Other (specify)



• No


41.4 How satisfied were you with the laundry/bathing soap?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied



Pick all that apply

• Doesn’t clean well,

• Too small;

• Smell;

• Color;

• Texture;



41.5 How satisfied were you with the head scarf/sheet cloth?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied



Pick all that apply

• Not attractive

• Too small;

• Color;


41.5.1.1 If other, specify

27

41.6 How satisfied were you with the sanitary pad/underwear?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied Extremely unsatisfied


Pick all that apply

• Not attractive

• Expired;

• Color;


41.6.1.1 If other, specify

E6 Solar lamp

42 What have you done with solar lamp received? (Verify by observation of item)


• I stored them

• I sold them


• Other (Specify)

• If other, go to

42.1 and then

skip to 43

• I sold them,

go to 42.2

and then skip

to 43

• If I used

them, go to

42.4 and then

skip to 43

• I stored

them, go to

42.3 and then

skip to 43




• Other (specify)



• No



Pick all that apply

• To walk to latrines at night;

• Walking/moving at night;

• At home at night (studying);

• At home at night (cooking/other household chores);

• At home at night (lighting);

• At home at night (child care);



43 How satisfied were you with the solar lamp?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied


28

43.1 If not satisfied or extremely unsatisfied? Why

Pick all that apply

• Not bright enough;

• Life span of battery too short;

• It takes a long time to charge;

• Too small;

• Too big;


43.1.1 If other specify •

F ESNIFI support Timing, Housing & property and Environment

44 Do you think the ESNFI assistance you have received when you needed it most?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no explain

44.1 If no, explain •

45 How long it takes to receive your ESNFI since displacement/disaster?

Pick one • Less than 15 days

• 15 days to 30 days

• 1 month to 2 months

• 2 months to 3 months

• 3 months to 6 months

• More than 6 months

46 How do you dispose of the packaging from ESNFIs?

Pick one • Burn;

• Throw in the environment (land);

• Throw in the river;

• Bury;

• Do not dispose of items (reuse);

• Others, please specify/explain;

47 Have you faced any land/property dispute/disagreement or evictions (being chased away from the shelter or area where you stay) since ESNFI was received?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain

47.1 If yes, by whom and why? Text •

G ESNFI Intervention Preferences

48 How satisfied were you with the ESNFI programme overall?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied


49 Instead of receiving the ESNFI transfer, would you have preferred a different type of assistance?

Pick one • No, the ESNFI transfer was the best way to meet my needs;

• Yes, I would have preferred to receive some ESNFI items in kind and a smaller amount of cash;

• Yes, I would have preferred to receive cash for ESNFI;

• Other (specify)

Enable text entry to explain answers (e.g. why they would have preferred something else)

49.1 Provide explanation for above answers

Text

H Cash Utilization and Expenditures (use this section if cash were received)

29

50 Did you receive cash support for HH items?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no skip to “K”, if yes continue to next

51 How much money did you receive during the cash transfer distribution? In ETB

Number

52 Would you say that the assistance provided helped you to meet your household’s short-term / immediate needs?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, explain

52.1 If no, explain

53 How did the cash you received benefit your household?

Pick all that apply

• Eating bigger portions of food

• Eating better quality food • Paid off or reduced debts • Prevention of debt • Living in better accommodation • Bought items for the house • Ability to pay medical costs • Ability to pay education costs • Ability to pay rent • Ability to pay for essential items for the

household (e.g. hygiene, cooking items) • Ability to engage in livelihood or income

generation activities • Other (explain)


54 Who made the decisions on how to spend the cash received within your household?

Pick one • Husband

• Wife

• Both husband and wife

• Other (explain)


55 Approximately how much of the cash transfer have you spent/used so far in ETB?

Number

56 How much of the money you received under this project did you spend on the following things?

Enter amount and % for each item (ensure the % add to 100%)

Item Amount in ETB Spent

% (amount spent in each item/total spent*100)

Staple foods (e.g. rice, wheat, bread, lentils, “Kocho”)

Fresh foods (e.g. fruit, veg, milk, meat)

Household items (e.g. blankets, cooking utensils, mattress, jerry cans)

30

Hygiene items (e.g. laundry soap, dish soap, sanitary items)

Clothing or shoes

Water (for consumption or washing/hygiene)

Medicines / Health

Debt repayment

Livelihood inputs (eg. Seed, fattening animals, trade)

Education costs

Transportation

Communication (e.g. mobile credit)

Rent or land rental

Other (specify)


57 Did you share any of the cash you received with other households?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain who and how much, and why

57.1 If yes, please explain who you shared it with, how much you gave away, and why

58 Did the cash transfer cause any conflict or tensions within your household?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain

58.1 If yes, explain •

59 Did the cash transfer cause any conflict or tensions with other community members?

Pick one • Yes

• No

59.1 If yes, explain

60 Do you have a safe place to store your cash?

Pick one • Yes

• No

I Market Access

61 How far did you have to travel to get to the market to spend your cash transfer?

Pick one • Less than 5km

• 5-10 km

• 11-15 km

• 16-20 km

• More than 20 km

62 How do you normally travel to the market?

Pick all that apply

• Walking

• Bicycle

• Public transport

• Animal

• Private vehicle

• Other means

31

63 How much do you pay for a return trip to the market? (in ETB)

Number

64 How long does it normally take you to reach the market?


• 15 minutes to 30 minutes






65 Did you have any difficulties accessing the market to spend the cash you received?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, explain what difficulties

65.1 If yes, explain what difficulties

66 Were all the items you needed to buy available in the local market?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, skip 67. If no, go to next

66.1 If no, which items were not available?

Text

67 Were the items available in the market of acceptable quality?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If no, explain which items

67.1 If no, which items were not of acceptable quality?

Text

68 Can you describe the prices for the items you need to buy in the local market?

Pick one • Same as usual

• Higher than usual

• Lower than usual

If higher, explain (e.g. was this related to the cash distribution)

68.1 If higher than usual, explain why

J Cash Intervention Preferences

69 How satisfied were you with the cash transfer programme overall?


• Satisfied

• Not satisfied


70 Instead of receiving the cash transfer, would you have preferred a different type of assistance?

Pick one • No, the cash transfer was the best way to meet my needs;

• Yes, I would have preferred to receive items in kind rather than cash;

• Yes, I would have preferred to receive some items in kind and a smaller amount of cash;

• Yes, I would have preferred to receive vouchers instead of cash;

Enable text entry to explain answers (e.g. why they would have preferred something else)

70.1 Provide explanation for above answers

Text

K Accountability Mechanism

71 Please state your overall satisfaction with the

Pick one for each item

• Very satisfied

• Satisfied

• Not satisfied

32

following aspects of the programme:

• Information received from the organization or local authorities;

• Project orientation;

• ID card distribution process;

• Cash distribution process;

• Amount of cash received;

• ESNFI distribution process;

• ESNFI quantity and quality;

• Conduct by project staff;

• Conduct by financial service provider;

• Type of assistance received (ESNFI rather than other things)

• Type of assistance received (cash rather than other things)


72 Are you aware of how you could share feedback or complaints to the organization about the programme?

Pick one • Yes

• No

73 Did you make a complaint to the organization or local authorities about the programme?

Pick one • Yes

• No

If yes, go to 74 and 75

74 Did you receive feedback on the complaint you made?

Pick one • Yes

• No

75 Was the complaint satisfactorily resolved?

Pick one • Yes

• No

L Washington Group Questions [Disability]

76 Do you [or any household member] have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses?

Pick one • No, no difficulty,

• Yes, some difficulty,

• Yes, a lot of difficulty, or

• Cannot do it at all”

77 Do you [or any household member] have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid?





33

78 Do you [or any household member] have difficulty walking or climbing steps?





79 Do you [or any household member] have difficulty remembering or concentrating?





80 Do you [or any household member] have difficulty (with self-care such as) washing all over or dressing?





81 Using your usual language, do you [or any household member] have difficulty communicating, (for example understanding or being understood by others)?





M Other

82 Do you have any other feedback or suggestions on how to improve similar projects in future?

Text

rapid response fund: post distribution monitoring (pdm) in

Documents