Endline Assessment for Multi-Sectoral Assistance to

South Sudanese Refugees and Ugandan Host

Communities in Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino Camp
Settlements

March 2019
Consortium Partners
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ v
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................... ix
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... x
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background Context………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
1.2 Endline Scope……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
2. Approach and Methodology........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Approach to the Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
2.2 Sampling and Survey Coverage……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3
2.3 Data collection and analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
2.4 Study Limitations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
3. Review of Project Indicators ......................................................................................................................... 7
4. Relevance of the Action ................................................................................................................................ 9
5. General Protection Findings .........................................................................................................................11
5.1 Demographic Profiles of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………….11
5.2 Protection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
Indicator G1.3: % of persons/target population in a given context reporting an improved feeling of
safety and dignity by the end of the intervention compared to at the beginning…………………………………..12
Indicator R1.4: # of girls, women/HH with increased/ appropriate knowledge of their rights………………..14
Indicator R1.3: Number of survivors who receive an appropriate response…………………………………………….19
Indicator R1.4.1: % of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention and
response………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20
Indicator R1.4.2: % of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical,
sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months…………..21
Indicator R1.4.3: % of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons
other than an intimate partner, in the last 12 months………………………………………………………………………………….21
5.3. Child Protection………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
5.3.1 Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Children……………………………………………………………………..23
5.3.2. Category of vulnerable children and children at risk exist in the community…………………………….23
5.3.3. Knowledge about children’s rights………………………………………………………………………………………………..24
5.3.4. Children Safety and Dignity…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24
R1.1: Number of boys and girls provided with psychosocial support on a daily basis, through attending
recreational activities and structured play facilitated at CFS…………………………………………………………………….25
R.1.2 Number of boys and girls benefitting from case management, including referral to legal, medical,
PSS, FTR or other services as required……………………………………………………………………………………......................26

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
ii
education and child protection
 5.3.5. Protective Education………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
G1.1 Number of conflict-affected children with access to protective education……………………………………..29
R.3.4 Percent of children enrolled in AEP classes successfully complete Level 3…………………………………….29
8. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Findings .................................................................................. 32
8.1. Demographic Profiles………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32
8.2. WASH Indicator Performance…………………………………………………………………………………………………………34
Indicator G1.4: Percent of target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices……..34
Indicator R2.1: Percentage of households having access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use.37
Indicator R2.2: Percent of people with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal
facilities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………39
Indicator R2.3: Percent of the households with access to hand washing facilities…………………………………..40
Indicator R2.4: # of people reached with hygiene promotional messages………………………………………………41
9. Livelihoods Survey Findings........................................................................................................................ 48
Indicator R3.1: # of individuals with improved access to agricultural inputs and use of climate smart
agricultural practices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………54
Indicator R3.2: # of farmers and females at risk who receive cash grants for protection of livelihood
assets or as part of the ALP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..57
Indicator R3.3: # of individuals engaged in Income Generating Activities (IGAs)……………………………………58
Indicator R4.1: # of beneficiaries actively saving (VSLA, SACCO, commercial bank)………………………………64
Indicator R4.2: # of market actors who are able to serve a wider customer base………………………………….67
Indicator R4.3: # of market structures and livelihood community infrastructure completed………………….68
Indicator R4.4: # of agencies benefitting from cash trainings and standardized tools/approaches……...70
10. Project Efficiency and Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 71
10.1. Synergy and collaboration with consortium partners and other stakeholders……………………………71
10.2. Sustainability of project
results………………………………………………………………………………………………………771
11 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................................... 73
12 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendices................................................................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix 1: List of people Interviewed ................................................................................................................... 75
Appendix 2: Key Informants Guide ......................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix 3: Focus Group Discussion Guide .......................................................................................................... 81

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
iii
education and child protection
 List of Tables

Table 1: Key Results Areas of the Project .......................................................................................................................1

Table 2: Evaluation Coverage .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 3: Sampling techniques for the categories of respondents at different levels ....................................... 4
Table 4: Samples size allocation by settlement .......................................................................................................... 5
Table 5: Summary of the Key Indicator Performance ............................................................................................... 7
Table 6: Demographic Information of Protection Respondents ........................................................................... 11
Table 7: Percent of respondents that indicate safety concerns limits accesses to service points .............. 13
Table 8: Specific human rights which respondents are aware of ........................................................................ 14
Table 9: Percent of respondents sensitized on human rights .............................................................................. 15
Table 10: Existence of harmful Behaviours & Violence ........................................................................................... 17
Table 11: Beneficiaries Confidence in seeking help form the GBV service providers ..................................... 19
Table 12: Demographic Characteristics of the Surveyed Children ..................................................................... 23
Table 13: Survey Results on Cash Grants to facilitate Children’s education through ALP ........................... 30
Table 14: Household Demographic profiles ............................................................................................................. 33
Table 15: Water Source used by the respondents .................................................................................................. 35
Table 16: Percentage of households that have heard about Hygiene promotional messages ................. 42
Table 17: Percentage of the households visited by the hygiene promoter/VHT ........................................... 43
Table 18: Respondents' participation in hygiene promotion meetings/events .............................................. 44
Table 19: Percent of the households having soap of washing & solid waste disposal ................................. 45
Table 20: Respondents' Menstrual Hygiene Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices ......................................... 46
Table 21: Demographic Characteristics of Livelihood Respondents .................................................................. 48
Table 22: Severity weights adopted for each coping strategy ............................................................................. 51
Table 23: Reduced Computed Coping Strategy Index (RCSI) – Endline vs Baseline .................................... 53
Table 24: Access to Vouchers to purchase agricultural inputs ........................................................................... 55
Table 25: Change Caused by the Agricultural Practice (n=330)......................................................................... 56
Table 26: Access to Agro-dealers................................................................................................................................ 68

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
iv
education and child protection
 List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of the target population reporting an improved feeling of safety and dignity
................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Percentage of target beneficiaries with increased/appropriate knowledge of their rights
................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents having knowledge of children’s rights ...................................... 16
Figure 4: Percent of the respondents mentioning at least two or more sexual and gender based
violence practices .................................................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5:Percent of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention and
response .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 6: Percent of women and girls subjected to physical, sexual and psychological violence ... 22
Figure 7: Average age women get married & whether it has changed................................................. 22
Figure 8: Respondents indicating the categories of vulnerable children and children at risk exist in
the community ......................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 9: Children's perception about current status of their safety from danger and violence .... 25
Figure 10: Percentage of Children aware of their human rights .............................................................. 25
Figure 11: Percentage of respondents aware of the available Case Management Services ............. 26
Figure 13: Percentage of children benefiting from the various programs ............................................. 26
Figure 14: Knowledge about harmful practices against children.............................................................. 27
Figure 15: Respondents' knowledge of the harmful practices against children ................................... 28
Figure 16: Percentage of respondents enrolled in AEP .............................................................................. 28
Figure 17: Percent of conflict-affected children with access to protective education ......................... 29
Figure 18: Percentage of beneficiaries with access to adequate WASH services and hygiene
practices ..................................................................................................................................................................34
Figure 19: Percentage of households accessing water for domestic use ............................................... 37
Figure 20: Percent of households having sufficient water for domestic use (endline vs baseline) . 38
Figure 21: Respondents' rating of the quality of water sources established ......................................... 39
Figure 22: Percentage of households with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta
disposal facilities ....................................................................................................................................................40
Figure 23: Percent of households with handwashing facilities ................................................................. 41
Figure 24: Percentage of households that have been reached with hygiene promotional messages
and hand washing kit ...........................................................................................................................................42
Figure 25: Support provided by Mercy Corps/DCA according to respondents .................................. 51
Figure 26: Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI): (Baseline Vs Endline) ............................................54
Figure 27: Farmer practicing improved cultivation practices .................................................................... 56
Figure 28: Frequency at which cash grants for livelihood were received and amount received by
targeted beneficiaries .......................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 29: Uses of the cash grants received for protection of livelihood assets .................................. 58
Figure 30: Percentage of Respondents engaged in Income Generating Activities ............................. 59
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
v
education and child protection
 Figure 31: Percentage of respondents that received IGA training ........................................................... 60
Figure 32: Rating of the training received ...................................................................................................... 61
Figure 33: Target Beneficiaries Level of engagement in Agriculture enterprise of Business (Endline
Vs Baseline) ............................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 34: Type of agricultural enterprise or business engaged in by the target beneficiaries ....... 62
Figure 35: Target beneficiaries applying improved agricultural inputs .................................................. 63
Figure 36: Percentage of Respondents trained in various business skills ..............................................64
Figure 37: Average amount saved ...................................................................................................................64
Figure 38: Where Beneficiaries keep their savings ....................................................................................... 65
Figure 39: Percent of respondents with a debt and form of debt ........................................................... 66
Figure 40: Percent of respondents that own a mobile phone .................................................................. 67
Figure 41: Major sources of information on market opportunities of agricultural produce ............. 68
Figure 42: Average Amount Saved from previous harvest (Ushs.) .......................................................... 69
Figure 43: Distance to the Nearest Market .................................................................................................... 70

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
vi
education and child protection
 Acronyms

AEP Accelerated Education Program

ALP Accelerated Learning Program
ASP Assistant Superintendent of Police
CFS Child Friendly Spaces
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
CSI Coping Strategy Index
CTP Cash Transfer Payments
DCA DanChurchAid
DCDO District Community Development Officer
DRC Danish Refugee Council
ECHO European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department
EU European Union
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTR Family Tracing and Reunification
GADC Gulu Agricultural Development Company
GBV Gender Based Violence
GSI Governance Systems International
HH Household
IGA Income Generating Activity
IRC International Rescue Commission
KAP Knowledge Attitudes and Practices
KIIs Key Informants Interviews
KOI Key Outcome Indicators
LC Local Council
MC Mercy Corps
MHM Menstrual Hygiene Management
NFI Non Food Item
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
OC Officer in Charge
ODK Open Data Kit
OPM Office of the Prime Minister
OXFAM Oxford Committee for Famine Relief
PHH Post-Harvest Handling
PLE Primary Leaving Examinations
PSN People with Special Needs
PSS Psychosocial Support
PWD Person with Disability
RCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index
RWC Refugee Welfare Council

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
vii
education and child protection
 SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization
SC Save the Children
SCI Save the Children International
SRH Sexual Reproductive Health
SGBs Super Grain Bags
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
VHT Village Health Team
VSLA Village Savings and Loans Association
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WFP World Food Program
WUC Water User Committee

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
viii
education and child protection
 Acknowledgements
GSI would like to express its appreciation to Mercy Corps Uganda for assigning us the opportunity
to conduct the endline assessment of the “Multi Sectoral Assistance to South Sudanese Refugees
and Host Communities in West Nile (Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino Camp Settlements)”. The
company would also want to appreciate whoever participated in the exercise that provides the key
milestones realized by the project.

Special appreciation goes to Mercy Corps West Nile Team Leader & Consortium Program
Manager, Grace Becton, for her tireless efforts to ensure the final output is produced. Special thanks
also goes to officials from Mercy Corps, CARE, Oxfam, Save the Children and DanChurchAid, who
meticulously worked with us to improve the endline survey tools, provided background documents
for review, assistance during training of enumerators, provision of guidance during data collection
and review of the draft report.

To all the beneficiaries of the project and stakeholders, we are greatly indebted for your efforts in
ensuring the success of the project and easing the work of the evaluators.

Governance Systems International (GSI)

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
ix
education and child protection
 Executive Summary
Background and Methodology
Uganda has been hosting refugees and asylum seekers since achieving its independence in 1962.
The country has some of the most progressive and generous refugee laws and policies for refugee-
hosting in the world.1 According to the Office of the Prime Minister – United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (OPM-UNHCR) verification exercise which concluded in October 2018,
Uganda is estimated to host a total of 1.1 million refugees, of which 73% (801,555) come from South
Sudan.2

Significant host country and international resources are required to provide protection and
provision of services to such a huge refugee population with a number of financing mechanisms
having been utilized to manage the refugee influx. Funding remains insufficient and local
governments are forced to share their existing meager resources with refugee communities in
often remote and geographically marginalized areas of the country already suffering from lack of
infrastructure. The Government of Uganda, through the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM),
allocates funds for refugee settlement and management in the national budget. However, these
resources do not meet the humanitarian needs of refugees.

The Joint MultiSector Needs Assessment conducted by REACH with support from UNHCR,
identified several humanitarian needs among refugee and host community populations in Uganda.
In this report, the West Nile districts were identified to have the highest number of vulnerable
refugee households. Specifically, Arua had the highest vulnerable refugee households (66%),
followed by Yumbe (63%) and Moyo (48%).

Mercy Corps and its consortium partners Save the Children (SCI), CARE, Oxfam, and DanChurchAid
(DCA) implemented the 21-month “Multi Sectoral Assistance to South Sudanese Refugees and Host
Communities in West Nile (Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino Camp Settlements)” from May 2017 to
February 2019, funded by European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). The
project delivered life-saving and protection assistance to vulnerable South Sudanese refugees and
host communities in Bidibidi (Yumbe), Palorinya (Moyo) and Rhino Camp (Arua) settlements
through 1) General and child protection; 2) Water and sanitation infrastructure and hygiene
promotion; 3) Livelihoods and cash-based interventions; and 4) Market development, financial
services and enhanced coordination. Specifically, the project aimed to increase resilience of South
Sudanese refugees and host communities while promoting peaceful coexistence between and
among the target groups.

In 2017, the project conducted a baseline survey to establish initial benchmarks for project
indicators. The project also tracked project results through activities such as Post Distribution
Monitoring surveys, routine monitoring, and reflection sessions with consortium monitoring and
evaluation focal points meeting monthly to update progress. To this end, the external evaluation
at endline was undertaken to review project performance focused on: relevance, effectiveness,

1 Uganda’s Contribution to Refugee Protection and Management, UNDP Program, 2017

2 OPM – Uganda Refugee and Asylum seekers, Feb 2019
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
x
education and child protection
 efficiency, impact, sustainability and documentation of lessons learnt for replication and future
programming.

This evaluation was conducted in a consultative process with all stakeholders and consortium
partners; and a combination of both qualitative and quantitative designs were employed. Both
primary and secondary data was collected. Primary data was collected through surveys amongst
the project beneficiaries, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). The
reduced coping strategy index (RCSI) was determined on the basis of a series of questions that
were asked to the respondents about how frequently they utilized a list of five (5) possible
consumption coping strategies in response to times when the household did not have food or
enough money to buy food in reference to a 7-day recall. It was calculated using the WFP
methodology (frequency x weight)3. The results were compared with the re-calculated RCSI for the
baseline to understand the change. The RCSI was administered to a total of 1,004 respondents,
statistically sampled from all the three project settlements of Bidibidi (549), Palorinya (157), and
Rhino Camp (294).

Key Findings
General Protection Findings
G1.1: Number of conflict-affected children with access to protective education
Project monitoring documents indicate 8,639 conflict-affected children have access to protective
education as a result of the Action, 187% of the target. Study results indicate 63% (75% male, 51%
female) of conflict-affected children were accessing protective education at endline. This is
significantly above the baseline value of 51% (54% male, 48% female). It should be noted that
males (75%) were more likely to benefit than females (51%).

G1.3: 'Percent of persons/target population in a given context reporting an improved feeling of

safety and dignity by the end of the intervention compared to at the beginning
90% of the respondents at endline reported an improved feeling of safety in the community they
live and 55% reported having freedom of movement to access key services. Aggregating these
measurements, the final calculation for this indicator is 73% of people reporting an improved
feeling of safety and dignity compared to 51% at baseline. In both time frames, the respondents
cited the police stations (42% at baseline, 27% at endline), medical services (33% at baseline, 32%
at endline), schools (26% at baseline, 28% at endline), and Child Friendly Spaces (21% at baseline,
26% at endline) as the major services that are challenging to access due to safety concerns.

R1.1: Average number of boys and girls provided with psychosocial support on a daily basis,
through attending recreational activities and structured play facilitated at CFS
According to project monitoring, CFS centers reached an average of 2,448 boys and girls a day
through recreational activities and structured play, 116% of the target. When respondents were
asked at endline if they benefitted from the various project services, 75% (78% males, 72% females)
of the children interviewed indicated they benefitted from the CFS.

3
Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual Second Edition, 2008
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
xi
education and child protection
 R1.2: Number boys and girls benefitting from case management, including referral to legal,
medical, PSS, FTR or other services as required
According to project monitoring documents, 2,212 benefitted from case management services,
achieving 205% of the target.

R1.3: Number of survivors who receive an appropriate response

Project monitoring indicates 458 survivors received an appropriate response, 172% of the target.
The survey results indicate 85% (43% female, 42% male) have confidence in seeking support from
health professionals whenever faced with violence, 86% (45% female, 41% male) have confidence
in seeking help from psychosocial support services, 77% (42% female, 38% male) have confidence
at staying in a survivor protection house, and 83% (42% female, 41% male) have confidence in
seeking help from police. There was a reduction in the percentage of target beneficiaries of ever-
partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older reporting being subjected to physical, sexual
or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months from 55%
at baseline to 45% at the endline. The percent of women and girls aged 15 years and older
subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner, in the last 12 months also
reduced from 54% to 46% at the endline.

R1.4: Number of girls, women with increased/appropriate knowledge of their rights

Project reporting indicates 132,477 (including 40,000 at baseline) women and girls have
increased/appropriate knowledge of their rights. 80% of respondents at endline indicated they
received sensitization on human rights. The survey identified that overall, there has been a slight
increase in respondents’ knowledge on human rights. At the endline, 40% demonstrated increased
or appropriate knowledge of their rights (a 2% change from baseline). Also girls and women
demonstrated an increase in appropriate knowledge of their rights with an increase from 30% at
baseline to 40% at endline.

R3.4: Percent of children enrolled in AEP classes successfully complete Level 3

Project monitoring indicates 515 students, or 95% of the target, successfully completed level 3 by
the end of the project.

Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

G1.4: Percent of target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices
Access to WASH services improved significantly from 43% of respondents at baseline to 74% at
endline (no significant difference in host vs refugee). Achievement is slightly above the 70% target.
61% of endline respondents (30% refugees, 31% host community) were within 500m from the
nearest water point. This is twice the figure at the baseline, hence an overall reduction in the
distance to access water. However, close to 40% are still at a distance of more than a kilometer to
the nearest water point.

R2.1: Number of people having access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use
Project monitoring indicates the Action increased the number of people having access to sufficient
and safe water for domestic use by 35,040 individuals, 103% of the target.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
xii
education and child protection
 The endline survey indicated that the percentage of respondents with access to sufficient and safe
water for domestic use nearly doubled from baseline to endline (33% to 68%). Hosts’ access to
water for domestic use increased more (24% to 68%) than that of refuges (33% to 68%). The
analysis also indicated that 22% (31% refugees, 14% host community) of the households don’t have
sufficient water for domestic use on a daily basis. Coping mechanisms included cleaning less
clothes (43%), washing less (21%), rationing water use (19%), or buying water from elsewhere (14%).

R2.2: Number of people with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal
facilities
Project monitoring documents indicated 5,530 individuals have access to dignified, safe, clean and
functional excreta disposal facilities, 111% of the target. The endline survey indicated the percentage
of households with a functional latrine complete with slab, walls, roof and door was at 53% (68%
refugees, 39% host community) compared to 52% at baseline. The percentage of households with
latrines within 50 meters from dwellings was at 87% (78% refugees, 95% host community)
compared to 51% at baseline, and a proxy indictor ‘the percentage of households satisfied with the
latrine facility they use in terms of safety, cleanliness and functionality’ to measure the percentage
of households with latrines observed to be clean and located in a swept environment (in working
order and properly maintained) was at 59% (66% refugees, 52% host community) compared to
50% at baseline. These measures were used to find the aggregate percentage of households with
access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities at 66% (71% refugees, 62%
host community). This is higher than the 51% (46% refugees, 60% host community) realized at the
baseline with significant improvement seen in refugee settlements.

R2.3: Percent of households with access to hand washing facilities

39% (33% refugees, 35% host community) of households at endline had access to a handwashing
facility with soap compared to 30% at baseline. This is below the target by 11%. Soap was not a
priority for household purchasing given limited income and resources. A higher percentage (46%)
of households have handwashing facility with water only.

R2.4: Number of people reached with hygiene promotional messages

83% of the households (84% refugees, 83% host community) at endline had been reached with
hygiene promotional messages in the last 12 months compared to only 55% at baseline. Project
monitoring indicates 146,842 individuals were reached by the Action overall.

Livelihoods
G1.2 Average Coping Strategy Index
At endline, the full CSI was re-calculated to the reduced CSI (RCSI) to facilitate comparison across
the geographical locations of the settlements. The RSCI changed from 9.9 at baseline to 11.2 at the
endline, demonstrating an increase in food insecurity since the baseline. Households are relying
more on borrowing or seeking for help from friends and relatives than at baseline (3.2 endline, 2.3
baseline). This can be partly explained by the timing of the evaluation, which was conducted in late
January/early February, a predominantly dry period when people have little or no harvest left and
are struggling to meet basic household food needs. In contrast, the baseline was conducted in
November, a predominantly rainy period when harvest season is in progress.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
xiii
education and child protection
 The results also indicate that at both endline and baseline, refugees have proved to be more food
secure than host communities. Consistent food provisions from WFP contribute to food security at
the household level in the refugee settlements. At settlement level, Palorinya was found to have a
lower RCSI (10.3) than at baseline, realizing the best improvement (from 16.2 at baseline to 10.3 at
endline). Both Bidibidi and Rhino had better RCSI at baseline (9.05 and 9.2 respectively) than
Palorinya, however RCSI scores had increased at endline (11.2 and 12.1 respectively).

Indicator R3.1: Number of individuals with improved access to agricultural inputs and use of
climate smart agricultural practices
Project monitoring indicates 99% of the target farmers have improved access to agricultural inputs
via vouchers (11,439 individuals). 93% of these farmers indicated at endline they were practicing at
least one climate smart agricultural practice. The majority (35%) of the farmers indicated practicing
perma-gardening including kitchen gardening and/or sack molds. Others (26%) revealed that they
practice soil health and management including mulching, organic fertilizer usage and soil
water/moisture content management. Other cultivation practices included row planting (21%),
irrigation practices (5%), and tillage practices (6%). At baseline, 89% of livelihood respondents
reported having no access to agricultural inputs and no use of climate smart agricultural practices.

R3.2: Number of farmers who receive cash grants for protection of livelihood assets or as part of
the ALP
The survey data indicates 28% of livelihood respondents received cash grants. 32% of respondents
received cash grants as part of AEP and 60% of the targeted farmers received cash grants for
protection of livelihood assets. This is far above the 5% respondents at the baseline who indicated
having received cash grants. Project monitoring indicate 3,213, or 84% of the target, were reached
with grants for asset protection or as a part of AEP. Project partners also noted a discrepancy in
how the target for this indicator was calculated at proposal stage which is the reason for the
seemingly low achievement: farmers were counted as direct beneficiaries while AEP households
were calculated with indirect beneficiaries (multiplying by 5 for average HH size). Recognizing this
is inconsistent within the same indicator, project reporting at endline counts only direct
beneficiaries for both farmers and AEP. However, if indirect AEP beneficiaries were included as they
were at proposal stage, the project overachieved the target by 129% reaching 4,917.

R3.3: Number of individuals engaged in Income Generating Activities (IGAs)

According to project documents, a total of 820 direct recipients benefited from cash transfers to
rebuilt livelihood assets, 103% of the target. The endline survey showed 42% of the target
households are engaged in IGAs, up from 17% of households at baseline. With 42% of HHs involved
in some kind of IGA, this indicates spillover effects of business trainings and/or increased incomes
in supporting business development outside of those that received cash grants.

The survey results also revealed that 74% (57% refuges, 90% host community) of the target
households are engaged in an agricultural enterprises or business activity. This is a significant rise
from only 21% of the target population (12% refugees, 58% host community) that engaged in
agricultural activities or business in the 12 months prior to the baseline survey. The main agricultural
enterprise or business activity engaged in by the project beneficiaries is crop farming by 83% (43%
refugees, 40% host community), followed closely by vegetable growing at 80% (36% refugees,

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
xiv
education and child protection
 44% host community), among others. The analysis also showed 61% of the target beneficiaries
applied improved agricultural inputs in their agricultural enterprises (73% host communities, 43%
refugees).

R4.1: Number of beneficiaries (host/community) actively saving (VSLA, SACCO, commercial bank)
The project was able to realize 85% of the project target according to savings data from the
partners. The project targeted 3,450 beneficiaries to be saving and by the end of the project, 2,931
were actively saving in VSLAs. Actively saving was considered to be saving for at least three months.
The percentage of respondents saving with VSLA’s rose from 10% at baseline to 39% at the endline
again indicating spillover impacts of trainings and sensitizations on the importance of savings. The
endline also saw a significant reduction in the number of people keeping their savings at home
from 71% at baseline to 39% at endline. When asked about the source of savings during the last
saving session, majority noted that savings came from harvest of the previous season (39%
refugees, 40% host communities); and money from business sources (21% refugees, 26% host
communities).

While savings trends were generally positive, do no harm that concerns persist with 30% of
respondents (33% refugees, 19% hosts) at endline indicating they had ever sold any of their
belongings to raise money for a saving scheme.

R4.2: Number of market actors (agro-dealers, suppliers) who are able to serve a wider customer
base due to this Action
Both MC and DCA were able to achieve 116% of the set target helping 22 agro-dealers/suppliers
to expand their customer base as a result of engagement in seed and tool fairs as well as exchange
visits with national level seed companies. The endline survey also revealed that 62% of the
households have access to agro-dealers (61% refugees, 64% host communities); and out of these
47% (42% refugees, 52% host communities) revealed the number of agro-dealers or suppliers has
increased since the project was launched.

R4.3: Number of market structures and livelihood community infrastructures completed

100% (5) of the market structures and livelihood community infrastructures were established by the
end of the project. 59% (69% refugees, 49% host communities) of respondents at endline indicated
the distance to markets has reduced in the last 21 months.

R4.4: Number of agencies benefitting from cash trainings and standardized tools / approaches
Information from DCA indicates 12 agencies benefitted from cash trainings and standardized
tools/approaches, 100% achievement.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
xv
education and child protection
 1. Introduction
1.1 Background Context
Mercy Corps and its consortium partners Save the Children (SCI), Care International (CARE),
Oxfam International (OXFAM) and DanChurchAid (DCA) implemented the 21-month
European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (ECHO)-funded action from May
2017 to February 2019. Titled “Multi Sectoral Assistance to South Sudanese Refugees and
Host Communities in West Nile (Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino Camp Settlements)”, the
project delivered life-saving and protection assistance to vulnerable South Sudanese
refugees and host communities in Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino Camp settlements through
1) General and child protection; 2) Water and sanitation infrastructure and hygiene
promotion; 3) Livelihoods and cash-based interventions; and 4) Market development,
financial services and enhanced coordination. Specifically, the project aimed to increase the
resilience of South Sudanese refugees and host communities while promoting peaceful
coexistence between and among the target groups.

The project included four key result areas with each consortium partner taking lead or co-
implementing a specific key result:

Table 1: Key Results Areas of the Project

Key Result Area Set Targets Responsible Consortium
Partners
Result 1: Reduced risk of abuse, Provide 8,500 individuals with Protection CARE International
exploitation and violence (GBV), and (including GBV services);
improved social cohesion through
improved access to child and community- Provide 100,000 beneficiaries with
based protection services and community- educational information and promotion
based peace building dialogues through community events.
Provide 4,330 individuals (3,270 children SCI
and 1,060 adults) with Child Protection
activities.
Result 2: Refugee and host communities Provide 37,710 beneficiaries with safe Oxfam International
have improved, sustained & adequate water access, latrines and hygiene kits;
access to and use of safe water, sanitation Provide 146,300 beneficiaries with
facilities and adopted practice of safe educational sensitizations.
hygiene principles
Result 3: Refugees and host communities Provide 13,376 farmers and Mercy Corps & DCA
have increased income through entrepreneurs the knowledge and tools
agriculture and income generating necessary for improving self-reliance.
activities
Result 4: Improved market functions and
coordination for improved access to
financial services, linkages to the market
and coordination of cash actors

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
1
education and child protection
 In November 2017, a baseline was conducted to establish the initial benchmarks for
program indicators. The program tracked project results through activities such as Post
Distribution Monitoring surveys, routine monitoring, and reflection sessions with consortium
monitoring and evaluation focal points meeting monthly to update progress. This endline
external evaluation undertakes a comprehensive review of program performance focused
on: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability and documentation of lessons
learnt/best practices for replication and future programming.

1.2 Endline Scope

The objectives of this evaluation were to:
(a) Assess the achievements and impact of the various components of the program;
(b) Identify and document best practices and lessons learnt over the period of the program;
(c) Provide recommendations for future programming;
(d) Assess the relevance of interventions to the needs of beneficiaries, priorities of the
stakeholders and general refugee response strategy;
(e) Assess the sustainability of interventions.

2. Approach and Methodology

2.1 Approach to the Assessment

In order to best integrate the perspectives of consortium partners, the evaluator utilized a
consultative process and a combination of qualitative and quantitative designs. This evaluation
report is based on primary beneficiary and stakeholder data as well as secondary data from
consortium partners. The secondary data was triangulated to complement the primary data.
Secondary data was collected mainly through document review and data sets generated by
the consortium partners during implementation.

The primary data was collected through using both qualitative and quantitative data collection
techniques in order to provide complementary findings and triangulate results. Techniques
included surveys, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) (Appendix 1: List of key informants) and Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs). A total of 20 KIIs and 16 FGDs were conducted and 1,004 surveys
responses were gathered, which is statistically significant at 95% confidence level and 5%
confidence interval.

The reduced coping strategy index (RCSI) was determined on the basis of a series of questions
that were asked to the respondents. They were asked about how frequently they utilized a list
of five (5) possible consumption coping strategies in response to times when the household
did not have food or enough money to buy food in reference to a 7-day recall. It was calculated
using the WFP methodology (frequency x weight)4. The results were compared with the re-
calculated RCSI for the baseline to understand the change across geographic locations.

4
Coping Strategies Index: Field Methods Manual Second Edition, 2008
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
2
education and child protection
 The quantitative part of the study focused on changes in knowledge and practices in the three
settlements as compared to baseline. To the extent possible, questions asked in the baseline
survey were repeated at endline in order to compare baseline and endline values and measure
the performance of the project. Data collection was coordinated by the consultant with support
from MC and consortium partner M&E Officers. The survey questionnaires were administered
by teams of Community Mobilizers that had worked with Mercy Corps during the project and
who had multi-linguistic skills that reflect the varying languages spoken by nationals and
refugees in the settlements.5 Electronic data collection using Kobo and android-based tablets
was employed to ensure quality data collection.

2.2 Sampling and Survey Coverage

The evaluation was conducted in the refugee settlements in which program activities were
implemented, particularly Bidibidi (Yumbe), Palorinya (Moyo) and Rhino Camp (Arua)
settlements in the West Nile of North Western Uganda.

Table 2: Evaluation Coverage

Component Settlement Zones Sub county Villages
Livelihood Bidibidi Zone I, II, III, IV Ariwa Villages 19, 20, 21 & 24
&V Kochi Villages 3 & 4
Kalulu Villages 8, 9 & 10
Ondravu Villages 7 & 8
Ramogi Village 13
Palorinya Base Camp Itula Ibakwe, Itaya & Omwijo
Rhino Camp Ofua 1, II & III Uriama Akino, Cinya
WASH Bidibidi Zone IV & V Ariwa, Villages 19, 20, 22, 23, Gbiria,
Drimbeni, Okubani, Ariwa, Kagunde,
Odravu Kiranga, Karunga, Ocinga,
Osuma, Tokoro, Bolomuni,
Kado, Kiranga, Village
9,10,19,20,21
Rhino Camp Ofua 1, II & III Uriama Akino, Cinya, Katiku 1, Ofua 3,
and Katiku 3 & 1 and Luruja
Protection Bidibidi Zone III Kululu Villages 12, 13, & 14
Zone IV Ondravu Kado, Villages 6, 7, 8
Rhino Camp Ofua 5 & 6 Uriama Akino, Cinya, Wanguru, Amuru
Child Palorinya Zone III Itula Bele, Bongilo, Dongo East,
Protection Dongo West, Congo East,
Congo West, Idiwa II
Rhino Camp Ocea Katiku Ocea C

5 Due to challenges in the settlements of tracking refugee household locations and the multiple languages spoken across
communities, the evaluation employed Community Mobilizers familiar with project areas. Whereas, these enumerators worked as
Community Mobilisers during the implementation of the project, the importance of their objectivity in data collection was highly
emphasized.
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
3
education and child protection
 (a) Sampling Techniques
In order to have a clear comparison and understanding of the successes realized since the
inception of the project, during the evaluation process both qualitative and quantitative data
collection approaches were employed. This provided an opportunity to carry out triangulation of
the data collected through the various approaches. Table 3 below shows the various sampling
techniques used at every level of data collection;

Table 3: Sampling techniques for the categories of respondents at different levels

Data Collection Sampling frame Selection Remarks
Approaches technique
Qualitative Key Informants Purposively Focus was on the officials responsible for
data collection selected the administration of Bidibidi, Palorinya
approach and Rhino Camp settlements such as
Settlement Commandants, field officers,
local government officials, local leaders,
consortium partners, project beneficiary
leaders such as leaders of VSLAs, Water
User Committees, etc.
Focus Group Randomly A simple random sampling technique was
Discussions Selected applied when selecting women, men and
children from the targeted project
beneficiaries to participate in the FGDs.
They were mobilized by the project
mobilisers and volunteers. FGDs were
organized separately depending on sex of
the participants.
Quantitative Cluster Pre- Project focused refugee settlements
Data collection determined (Bidibidi, Palorinya and Rhino camp
approach settlements).
Zones Purposive Focus was mainly in zones that were
sampling considered during the baseline study.
Selection of Purposively Two stage sampling was conducted with
villages sampled the first to clustering the villages in which
the project was implemented; and
secondly randomly sample the
representative village in which the
evaluation was to be conducted.
Selection of Simple Beneficiaries were identified and randomly
survey random sampled from database or register for the
participants sampling beneficiaries and thereafter traced them
from their homesteads

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
4
education and child protection
 (b) Sample Size Calculation & Allocation
During the sample calculation and allocation, the samples were calculated proportionate to the
size of the beneficiaries per settlement. The number of project beneficiaries determined the sample
size allocation each result area and the settlement. The table below shows sample allocations to
settlement against the result areas. The samples were calculated using the following statistical
formula developed by Fisher et al (1991):

Where:
n = the desired sample size;
Z = the standard normal deviation set at 1.96;
l = the acceptance range of error (3.22%);
p = participating rate (50%);
q = Non-participating rate (50%);

In total, 1,004 target beneficiaries were sampled with a confidence level of 95% and confidence
interval of 5% which is statistically significant.

Table 4: Samples size allocation by settlement

Bidibidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Total Sample
Protection - GVB 90 - 104 194
Child Protection - 112 33 145
WASH 214 - 61 275
Livelihoods 245 45 100 390
Total Sample 549 157 298 1,004

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Analysis of Quantitative data: Data was collected electronically using Kobo and android-based
tablets. These helped to minimize time that would otherwise be used for data entry and also
minimize data collection errors. Before analysis, data was cleaned and validated through
conducting of mock-analysis like checking of range, structure and internal consistency of the data.
Data was then analyzed using Excel depending on the complexity of the analysis to generate
frequencies and regressions, were required.

Analysis of Qualitative data: Findings from the FGDs, KIIs and other consultation were processed
and analysed thematically. The consultant used thematic analysis to classify, sort and arrange
information and examine relationships within the data.

Results of the findings from quantitative and qualitative data were then synthesized to provide in-
depth understanding of key achievements of the project.

Data Quality Control: to ensure integrity of electronic data collection, the survey tool was
programmed in Kobo built with a logical flow and electronic prompts. The data collectors were
trained in electronic data collection and assigned unique identifiers. These helped to trace the
data source and who collected it. The electronic tool was tested before final deployment. The data

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
5
education and child protection
 collectors had no rights to make any changes in the questionnaire.

During data collection, all data collectors were encouraged to use the correct user names, enter
correct zone/village details and abide by the protocol. At the end of each day of data collection,
the field supervisors reviewed the data to check for completeness before uploading it to the server.

Data quality checks were completed on a daily basis to ensure that data was corrected from the
field. All supervisors and the technical team received regular feedback on the uploaded data to
help track the progress of data collection and follow up on any issues with teams or individuals.

2.4 Study Limitations

Data collection was limited or slowed by challenging conditions in the different settlements. These
included incidents of insecurity which made the team cautious. In one of the zones, a fracas
happened at night and one of the data collectors, who happened to stay in the same zone, was
severely affected, and was admitted to a local health centre. Hence in the process, the team lost
his services.

Other challenges included abseentism of both the data collectors and the targeted respondents
on the days of food distribution, and respondents absent from their homes because they had gone
in search of water. At times of food distribution, it was not possible to visit the settlements which
caused loss of time and resources in trying to trace the respondents.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
6
education and child protection
 3. Review of Project Indicators
The table 5 below provides a summarized performance of the program along the key indicators.
The performance is measured against LoP targets.

Table 5: Summary of the Key Indicator Performance

Percent
Indicator Baseline Target Endline Variance Color marker
Achieved
G1.1: Number of conflict-
affected children with access 0 4,624 8,639 4,015 187%
to protective education
G1.2: Average Reduced
9.9 N/A 11.26 1.3 N/A
Coping Strategy Index
G1.3: 'Percent of
persons/target population
reporting an improved
feeling of safety and dignity 51% 90% 83% -7% 92%
by the end of the
intervention compared to at
the beginning
G1.4: Percent of target
population with adequate
43% 70% 74% 4% 106%
WASH services and hygiene
practices (ECHO KOI)
R1.1: Number of boys and
girls provided with
psychosocial support on a
daily basis, through 0 2,112 2,448 336 116%
attending recreational
activities and structured play
facilitated at CFS
R1.2: Number boys and girls
benefitting from case
management, including
0 1,080 2,212 1,132 205%
referral to legal, medical,
PSS, FTR or other services as
required
R1.3: Number of survivors
who receive an appropriate 0 267 458 191 172%
response
R1.4: Number of girls,
women/HH with increased/
40,000 100,000 132,477 32,477 132%
appropriate knowledge of
their rights

6RCSI calculated to compare across geographies. The increase in RCSI may be partly explained by the timing of the baseline and
endline surveys. Baseline was done in the midst of harvest season (November 2017) when HH food security tends to be more stable,
whereas endline was conducted in late January/early February 2019 towards the end of the dry season when HHs struggle to meet
basic food needs before the next planting season.
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
7
education and child protection
 R1.5: % of persons/target
population in Bidibidi and
Rhino Camp reporting an 56% 90% 73% -17% 81%7
improved feeling of safety
and dignity
R2.1: Number of people
having access to sufficient
62,700 94,700 97,740 3,040 103%
and safe water for domestic
use
R2.2: Number of people
with access to dignified,
0 5,000 5,530 530 111%
safe, clean and functional
excreta disposal facilities
R2.3: Percent of the
households with access to 20% 50% 39% -11% 78%8
hand washing facilities
R2.4: Number of people
reached with hygiene
0 146,300 146,842 542 100%
promotional messages and
hand washing kit
R3.1: Number of individuals
with improved access to
agricultural inputs and use 0 11,651 11,439 -212 98%
of climate smart agricultural
practices
R3.2: Number of farmers
and females at risk who
receive cash grants for 0 3,824 3,213 -611 84%9
protection of livelihood
assets or as part of the ALP
R3.3: Number of individuals
engaged in Income 0 800 820 20 103%
Generating Activities (IGAs)
R3.4: Percent of children
enrolled in ALP classes
0 540 515 -25 95%
successfully complete Level
3
R4.1: Number of
beneficiaries (host/
community) actively saving 0 3,450 2,931 519 85%
(VSLA, SACCO, commercial
bank)
R4.2: Number of market
actors (agro-dealers,
suppliers) who are able to 0 19 22 3 116%
serve a wider customer base
due to this Action

7
90% of individuals at endline reported a feeling of improved safety. When aggregated with those that reported improved access
to services (55%) the final indicator calculation is 73%.
8 This includes those HHs at endline with handwashing stations including soap. A slightly higher percentage, 46% of HHs (or 92%

of target), had handwashing facilities with water only.

9 Target included inconsistent calculation at baseline which was corrected at endline, resulting in the seemingly low achievement.

However, if indicator was calculated the same as at baseline, partners would have over-achieved target by 117%.
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
8
education and child protection
 R4.3: Number of market
structures and livelihood
0 5 5 0 100%
community infrastructures
completed
R4.4: Number of agencies
benefitting from cash
0 12 12 0 100%
trainings and standardized
tools / approaches.

4. Relevance of the Action

The program design was appropriate to the needs of the refugees and the host communities based
on the gaps identified in a review of secondary literature. For example, the REACH Multi-Sector
Needs Assessment identified key challenges related to protection, WASH, and livelihoods that were
addressed by the Action.

Related to child protection, the assessment identified households with unaccompanied or

separated children (62% in Bidibidi, 44% Palorinya, 61% in Rhino camp) in addition to households
with at least one member suffering from psychological distress and unable to access care (34% in
Rhino, 19% in Palorinya, and 50% in Rhino Camp). Child protection activities supporting case
management services for unaccompanied or separated children in addition to recreational and
structured play opportunities for children to engage in and access psychosocial support, were thus
needed and appropriate.

According to the baseline report, the aggregate percentage of respondents who know what GBV
was and its punitive actions was determined to be 37%. This indicated that the level of knowledge,
attitudes and practices on GBV among target beneficiaries showed a number of gaps that required
targeted interventions in order to improve the wellbeing of the girls and women across all the
settlements. The implementation of general protection, GBV and child protection programs was
timely to curb these challenges. These included management of cases, support to referral of cases,
capacity building of the referral structures, awareness sessions, support to community structures
such as GBV Preventers, Community Safety Action Groups, Peace Facilitators; Coordination
mechanisms, PEP kits to Health Facilities, advocacy on ending GBV, conflict mitigation among
others.

The REACH assessment report showed that in all settlements there was still a need for water to
meet the household needs. In Bidibidi alone, 44% of the households reported not having enough
water to cover the basic household needs, whereas in Palorinya it was 46% and 30% in Rhino
Camp. In an FGD in Rhino Camp, Ofua 1, the host communities reported that they used to walk for
over 12 kilometers for water for domestic use before this intervention. Latrine access was also
identified as an issue in the multi-sectoral needs assessment with 31% of households in Rhino Camp
lacking a functional latrine, 15% in Palorinya and 9% in Bidibidi. Thus, the Action’s efforts to increase
access to safe water, promote appropriate hygiene practices, and increase the number of
households with adequate latrines were well-placed.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
9
education and child protection
 Livelihoods is frequently cited in secondary literature as a key gap in response efforts and the
REACH assessment report noted households were dependent on mainly agriculture as their source
of income (35% in Bidibidi, and 37% in Rhino Camp) with a high percentage of households
reporting that their land does not provide sufficient food for the entire household (86% in Palorinya,
77% in Rhino Camp, and 73% in Bidibidi). Interventions to support increased agricultural outputs
are needed in addition to supporting diversification of income sources beyond agriculture and
casual labor. These identified needs are in line with project design

The introduction of the savings group was also timely to encourage people to save together as a
group. The REACH assessment report cited only 10% households in Bidibidi, 31% in Palorinya and
24% in Rhino Camp had at least one member participating in community-based
savings/loan/insurance schemes. These figures indicate a significant gap in working towards
financial inclusion in West Nile thus supporting group savings scheme was an appropriate
intervention for partners to pursue.

The missing link

After considering the different components of the Action and the secondary literature, the authors of
this report feel a key gap was the lack of a health component in the project. According to the REACH
assessment conducted in the West Nile, Malaria is a key health issue in Rhino Camp (62%), Bidibidi
(46%) and Palorinya (22%) yet few households are accessing insecticide-treated mosquito nets.
The distribution of mosquito nets would have complemented the activities of the Action and met
one of the most pertinent needs of both refugees and host communities.

The timeframe of the program was also a challenge: The length of humanitarian funding cycles
makes it extremely difficult to support self-reliance and sustainability of interventions. Especially
related to longer-term livelihood strategies and behavior change, 21-months is not long enough
to see substantial and sustainable changes in income and market access.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
10
education and child protection
 5. General Protection Findings
5.1 Demographic Profiles of Respondents
The protection survey was conducted in Bidibidi, Zones 3 and 4 and Rhino Camp, Ofua 5 and 6.
Respondents comprised 53% females and 47% males with an average age of 37 years. 53% of
respondents indicated they reside in a household headed by a male and 45% by a female. Only
2% of respondents said a child headed their household.

With regard to education, 46% of respondents had at least graduated from primary school, 29%
from secondary, 7% had a certificate and 17% never went to school and only 1% received a diploma.
The majority (68%) of households engaged in the survey had been in Uganda for a period of 1 –
2 years, and 28% had been in Uganda for between 3 – 5 years.

The analysis also indicated 29% of households surveyed had members with difficulties in either
walking/climbing steps, seeing, hearing or using the local languages. Within these households, only
20% are registered as PSNs.

Table 6: Demographic Information of Protection Respondents

Demographic Information Bidibidi Rhino Camp Overall Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
No. of Respondents 38 51 53 51 91 102 193
%age of Respondents 43% 57% 51% 49% 47% 53% 100%
Age of Respondents
15 - 24 years 11% 7% 13% 13% 12% 10% 22%
25 - 34 years 19% 21% 17% 23% 18% 22% 40%
35 - 44 years 13% 8% 11% 6% 12% 7% 19%
45 - 54 years 8% 3% 7% 5% 7% 4% 11%
55 and above years 6% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 7%
Average Age of the Respondent 39 35 35 39 37 37 37
Household Headship
Child HHH 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% 2%
Female HHH 45% 6% 35% 5% 40% 5% 45%
Male HHH 12% 37% 14% 41% 13% 39% 53%
Education Level of Respondent
Never been to school 17% 6% 10% 3% 13% 4% 17%
Primary Education 24% 17% 28% 23% 26% 20% 46%
Secondary Education 17% 16% 8% 17% 12% 17% 29%
Certificate 0% 2% 4% 8% 2% 5% 7%
Diploma 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Length of Stay in Uganda
3 – 6 months 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
6 – 12 months 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
1 – 2 years 36% 40% 30% 31% 33% 36% 68%
3 – 5 years 6% 17% 16% 17% 11% 17% 28%
5 years and above 0% 0% 4% 1% 2% 0% 2%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
11
education and child protection
 Household Size
Under 0 – 59 months 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.8
5 – 17 years 1.5 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.3 2.8
18 – 49 years 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.7
50+ years 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4
Households with Disability
Seeing, even if wearing glasses 4% 4% 4% 6% 4% 4% 8%
Hearing, even if using hearing aids 4% 4% 2% 0% 3% 3% 6%
Walking or climbing steps 6% 6% 3% 0% 4% 4% 9%
Remembering or concentrating 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Self-care such as dressing & washing all over 0% 4% 3% 0% 2% 1% 4%
Using local language 4% 6% 0% 2% 4% 2% 6%
HH members with Disability
BELOW 18 years 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 3.0
ABOVE 18 years 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.5 3.3
Registered PSN Household 12% 12% 8% 8% 10% 10% 20%

5.2 Protection
Indicator G1.3: % of persons/target population in a given context reporting an improved feeling of
safety and dignity by the end of the intervention compared to at the beginning
At baseline, safety and dignity were calculated as the aggregate of: the percentage of target
beneficiaries who feel safe in the community where they live, and the percentage of target
beneficiaries confirming improved access to services and freedom of movement in the past 6
months. At endline, a likert scale from 1-5 scored respondents’ feeling of safety from very unsafe
to very safe with those reporting feeling somewhat safe, safe enough and very safe being
considered in the final calculation. 90% of respondents indicated they feel at least somewhat safe
while 83% of respondents indicated feeling safe enough or very safe. At baseline, only 48% of
people indicated feeling safe in their communities.

Dignity was measured as respondents’ ability to access services such as police stations, markets,
CFS, schools, medical services, communal kitchens, latrines and showers, water points, food and
NFI distributions. 55% of respondents at endline reported they are able to access and have
freedom of movement to access services, which is just 1% higher than baseline.

As at baseline, these two measures are aggregated to calculate final progress against the indicator
at 73% (compared to 56% at baseline).

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
12
education and child protection
 Figure 1: Percentage of the target population reporting an improved feeling of safety and dignity
120%

97%
100% 90%
84%
80% 73% 72% 73%
61% 58%
60%
56% 55% 54%56%
49%
41% 40% 41% 42%
38% 40%
40% 32% 32%
26% 24% 22%
20%

0%
Female Male Female Male Bidibidi Rhino Camp Endline Baseline

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Average Overall

% of target beneficiaries who currently feel somewhat safe in the community where they live
% of target beneficieries having free movement and access to social services
% of target beneficieries reporting an improved feeling of safety and dignity

Despite the significant progress in improving people’s sense of safety throughout the duration of
the project, 45% of respondents at endline indicated there are still safety concerns within Bidibidi
and Rhino Camp settlements. However, the number of people citing safety as a key constraint to
accessing services at endline compared to baseline was considerably lower for key services: police
station (27% at endline vs 52% baseline), water points, (14% vs 26%), markets (10% vs 22%), latrines
and showers (5% vs 14%), communal kitchens (3% vs 10%), food and NFI distributions (4% vs 11%),
schools (28% vs 26%), and medical services (32% vs 33%). The reduction in citations of security as
a barrier to accessing most services supports the finding that people’s safety and dignity improved
over the course of the project. However, safety remains primarily a concern for accessing schools,
medical services and CFS in both Bidibidi and Rhino Camp.

There was an increase in those citing safety as a concern for accessing child friendly spaces (26%
at endline vs 21% at baseline). Respondents indicated long distances between their communities
and the centers as a factor which may indicate safety on the roads deteriorated over the course of
the project, making the journey to CFS centres riskier. It should also be noted CFS centers were not
supported in Bidibidi under this project and were only in Palorinya and Rhino Camp. SCI works
with UNHCR in Bidibidi on a project to end violence against children which was not covered in this
evaluation.

Table 7: Percent of respondents that indicate safety concerns limits accesses to service points
Service Points Bidibidi Rhino Camp Total
Overall
Female Male Female Male Bidibidi Rhino Camp
Police Station 8% 66% 6% 42% 8% 45% 27%
Markets 14% 8% 6% 13% 11% 10% 10%
Child-Friendly Spaces 24% 37% 24% 23% 27% 25% 26%
Schools 16% 47% 29% 26% 26% 31% 28%
Medical services 22% 53% 29% 32% 29% 36% 32%
Communal kitchens 0% 0% 4% 6% 2% 3% 3%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
13
education and child protection
 Latrines and showers 0% 13% 4% 8% 2% 9% 5%
Water points 8% 13% 18% 17% 15% 13% 14%
Food and NFI distributions 4% 0% 4% 6% 4% 3% 4%

Indicator R1.4: # of girls, women/HH with increased/ appropriate knowledge of their rights
In conjunction with the baseline methodology, the evaluation considered “appropriate knowledge”
to include an understanding of respondents right to: health, information, food, life, ownership of
property, protection and work. Project monitoring indicates 132,477 women and girls have
increased/appropriate knowledge of their rights (132% of the target). According to the evaluation
survey conducted, 80% of respondents indicated that they received sensitization on human rights
while 40% demonstrated
Figure 2: Percentage of target beneficiaries with increased/appropriate
increased or appropriate knowledge of their rights
knowledge of their rights (a 2% 60% 55%
change from baseline). 50% 47%
45%
Women demonstrated an 38%
41%
39% 40% 39% 40%
38%
40% 36%
increase in understanding of 30% 29% 30%
their rights (30% at baseline to 30%
40% at endline) but the 20%
number of males with an 10%
appropriate knowledge of
0%
their rights reduced over the
Female Male Female Male Female Male
course of the project (47% at
Bidibidi Rhino Camp Overall Total
baseline to 39% at endline).
Endline Baseline
Respondents were most aware
of their rights related to health (48%; 45% male, 51% female), food (44%; 41% male, 48% female),
protection (37%; 35% male, 39% female), life (36%; 35% male, 37% female), information (36%; 35%
male, 36% female), work (35%; 34% male, 37% female) and property ownership (34%; 35% male,
39% female).

Table 8: Specific human rights which respondents are aware of

Human Rights Bidibidi Rhino Camp Overall Total
Rhino
Female Male Female Male Female Male Bidibidi
Camp
Right to health 53% 39% 49% 50% 51% 45% 92% 99%
Right to information 33% 25% 40% 45% 36% 35% 57% 86%
Right to food 47% 33% 49% 49% 48% 41% 80% 98%
Right to life 36% 27% 38% 43% 37% 35% 63% 82%
Right to ownership of
34% 31% 34% 38% 34% 34% 65% 71%
property
Right to protection 36% 30% 41% 39% 39% 35% 66% 81%
Right to work 34% 28% 39% 40% 37% 34% 62% 80%
Average 39% 30% 42% 44% 40% 37% 69% 85%

When asked about the various rights on which they were sensitized respondents cited children’s
rights (91%), women’s rights (80%), right to services (79%), refugee rights and the GBV survivors’

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
14
education and child protection
 rights (76%). Respondents indicated that these sensitizations were conducted mainly by
Community Safety Action Groups (groups created and trained by CARE) (76%), Role Model
Men/Boys trained by CARE (83%) and Peace Facilitators trained by CARE (85%).

When asked if sensitisations were useful, 53% (50% female, 57% male) of respondents indicated
that they were very useful while 40% (44% female, 36% male) indicated that they were was useful.

According to qualitative information, refugees continue to struggle to access health services given
there are few facilities and limited money to pay for services. Enjoying the right to food is also still
challenging. While refugees receive a food ration from WFP, respondents cited the food allocation
is not enough to sustain their food requirements. Respondents reported struggling to meet basic
domestic needs due to low incomes forcing them to sell food rations to make money. Refugee
respondents also cited challenges in accessing employment, indicating most formal employers
prefer nationals since they have the more preferred Ugandan academic qualifications.

Table 9: Percent of respondents sensitized on human rights

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Overall
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Percentage of respondents that have received 73% 79% 80% 89% 76% 84% 80%
sensitisation on their rights
Percentage of respondents that have never 27% 21% 20% 11% 24% 16% 20%
received any sensitisation
Rights sensitized about (n) 37 30 41 47 67 88 155
Rights to services 84% 70% 83% 81% 83% 75% 79%
Women's rights 73% 73% 90% 85% 82% 79% 80%
Children's rights 92% 87% 98% 87% 95% 87% 91%
Refugee rights 57% 83% 88% 77% 73% 80% 76%
GBV survivor's rights 65% 80% 80% 79% 73% 79% 76%
Conducted by:
Community Safety Action Group 70% 73% 78% 83% 74% 78% 76%
Role Model Men/Boy 43% 43% 63% 70% 53% 57% 55%
Peace Facilitator 51% 57% 61% 57% 56% 57% 57%
From another NGO/Agency 27% 23% 27% 21% 27% 45% 36%
Religious leaders 3% 0% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6%
Cultural leaders 5% 10% 12% 9% 9% 19% 14%
Refugee Welfare Committee 24% 27% 22% 17% 23% 44% 33%
Friends /family member 5% 7% 10% 6% 8% 13% 10%
Usefulness of the Sensitisation
Somehow useful 11% 13% 2% 2% 7% 8% 7%
Useful 24% 20% 63% 51% 44% 36% 40%
Very useful 65% 67% 34% 47% 50% 57% 53%

Children’s Rights
The evaluation also assessed the respondents’ knowledge about children’s rights and were asked
whether they are aware of the right to basic needs (clothing & shelter), right to education, right to
food, right to health care, right to safe play, right to participate, right to be fairly treated, right to
be registered at birth. The results were compared with the baseline and indicate an increase in the

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
15
education and child protection
 general knowledge about children’s rights from 63% at baseline to 73% at endline. Sizeable
increases were realized in respondents’ knowledge on the fair treatment of children (from 50% at
baseline to 91% at the endline), and the right to basic needs (shelter and clothing) from 72% at
baseline to 91% at the endline. There was however a reduction in the knowledge about the right
to education from 87% at baseline to 80% at the endline.

The evaluation revealed low awareness levels of the children’s right to be registered at birth (16%)
with significant reduction from baseline (46%). Information from in-depth interviews indicates that
most organisations have not been emphasizing sensitization about this right, however, this does
not explain the precipitous drop at endline.

According to respondents in one FGD, the introduction of CFS has provided an opportunity for
children to enjoy the right to play and participate in activities. They however still have a challenge
in accessing quality education and healthcare services. Even though there are some schools that
have been established and provided with instructional materials, these are not enough to meet the
demands of all learners.

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents having knowledge of children’s rights

100%
91% 90% 89% 91%
90% 87%
80% 79%
80% 77%
72% 73%
70% 66% 67%
63%
59% 59%
60%
50%
50% 46%

40%
30%
20% 16%

10%
0%
Right to Basic Right to Right to food Right to Right to safe Right to Right to be Right to be %age of
needs education Health Care play participate fairly treated registered at respondents
(clothing & birth aware of the
shelter) children's
rights

Endline Baseline

Gender Based Violence (GBV)10

The evaluation assessed the respondents’ knowledge of sexual and gender violence by getting
their responses on whether they consider any of the ten (10) activities as sexual and gender

10
GBV refers to any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person's will and is based on attitudes about women and men, girls
and boys. It is related to power relationships. It can be physical, emotional, psychological or sexual in nature, and take the form of
a denial of resources or access to services. It encompasses threats of violence and coercion. It inflicts harm on women, girls, men
and boys.
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
16
education and child protection
 violence. These included; using bad language beating/slapping, forced/unwanted kissing,
forced/unwanted touching of buttocks or breasts, asking for sex in exchange for money, food,
work, etc., forcing to have sex, sexual harassment i.e. someone making unwanted sexual advances
(i.e. touching you) or making obscene remarks to you, kidnapping i.e. someone forcefully taking
you away against your will in order to have sex, showing pornographic photos or videos when not
wanted, talking about porn when not wanted, and showing genitals.

The analysis revealed that 84% of the targeted beneficiaries were able to identify at least two or
more sexual and gender Figure 4: Percent of the respondents mentioning at least two or more
violence practices which is sexual and gender based violence practices
84%
a significant improvement 90% 84%
from 38% at baseline. In 80%
the same analysis 18% 70%
females and 10% males 60%
50%
were able to identify one 50% 47%
sexual and gender violence 40% 37%
34%
practice. These results 30%
indicate an improved 20% 16% 18%
awareness of sexual and 9% 10%
10% 2%
gender violence practices. 1%
0%
Female Male Female Male Female Male
The study further
Bidibidi Rhino Camp Total
investigated the current
existence of certain types Mention one Mentions two or more

of harmful behaviour and

violence in the community against girls, boys, women, and men. The respondents indicated which
behaviours have reduced, increased, and or stayed the same in the past 12 months. Results of this
analysis are indicated in the table below with physical violence identified as the most common
harmful act (57%), followed by threats of physical violence and coercion (35%), emotional/physical
abuse (31%), and denial of resources or access to services (23%), among others. When asked how
these harmful acts have changed in the last 12 months, 43% indicated that physical violence has
reduced, 30% indicated that threats of violence and coercion have reduced and 25% indicated that
emotional/physical abuse has reduced, 17% indicated denial of resources or access to services had
reduced, 20% indicated instances of early marriage had reduced, 17.9% indicated instances of rape
had reduced and 27.4% indicated that economic violence had reduced. Overall this shows
respondents are noticing an improvement in safety and a reduction in forms of violence.

Table 10: Existence of harmful Behaviours & Violence

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Rhino
Harmful Behaviours & Violence Bidibidi Overall
Female Male Female Male Camp
Threats of violence and coercion 16% 11% 59% 55% 13% 57% 35%
Physical violence 45% 55% 69% 60% 50% 65% 57%
Emotional/Psychological abuse 20% 11% 51% 42% 15% 46% 31%
Denial of resources or access to services 2% 11% 35% 43% 6% 39% 23%
Economic violence 8% 16% 29% 17% 12% 23% 18%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
17
education and child protection
 Transactional sex (Prostitution/survival sex) 4% 5% 10% 0% 5% 5% 5%
Sexual violence 16% 34% 8% 8% 25% 8% 16%
Sexual abuse by someone known 14% 18% 8% 2% 16% 5% 10%
Rape 20% 26% 20% 15% 23% 17% 20%
Domestic violence 16% 16% 18% 17% 16% 17% 17%
Early marriage 25% 32% 10% 13% 29% 12% 20%
Harmful cultural practices 0% 3% 10% 6% 1% 8% 5%
Alcohol and drugs abuse 6% 8% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6%
Ranking of selected sexual behaviour
a) Threats of violence and coercion
Reduced 4.5% 4.5% 25% 25% 9% 50% 29.5%
Increased 2.2% 0.0% 2.9% 1.9% 2.2% 4.8% 3.5%
Stayed Same 2.2% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2.2% 1.0% 1.6%
b) Physical violence
Reduced 18.0% 18% 26.9% 23% 36.0% 50% 43.0%
Increased 4.5% 3.4% 6.7% 4.8% 7.9% 11% 9.7%
Stayed Same 3.4% 1.1% 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% 1.9% 3.2%
Don’t Know 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.6%
c) Emotional/Psychological abuse
Reduced 9.0% 3.4% 22.1% 16% 12.4% 38% 25.4%
Increased 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 2.9% 0.0% 4.8% 2.4%
Stayed Same 2.2% 1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 1.0% 2.2%
Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.0%
d) Denial of resources or access to services
Reduced 1.1% 4.5% 15.4% 14% 5.6% 30% 17.7%
Increased 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.8% 0.0% 4.8% 2.4%
Stayed Same 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% 0.0% 2.9% 1.4%
Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 3.0% 0.0% 4.8% 2.4%
e) Early Marriage
Reduced 15.7% 11% 4.8% 7.7% 27.0% 12.5% 19.7%
Increased 1.1% 1.1% 4.8% 1.0% 2.2% 5.8% 4.0%
Stayed Same 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.1%
Don’t Know 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.1%
f) Rape
Reduced 10.1% 11% 6.7% 7.7% 21.3% 14% 17.9%
Increased 2.2% 3.4% 2.9% 1.0% 5.6% 3.8% 4.7%
Stayed Same 0.0% 2.2% 3.8% 0.0% 2.2% 3.8% 3.0%
Don’t Know 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 1.1%
g) Economic Violence
Reduced 4.5% 5.6% 9.6% 7.7% 10.1% 17% 27.4%
Increased 1.1% 1.1% 5.8% 1.9% 2.2% 7.7% 9.9%
Stayed Same 1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% 1.9% 3.0%
Don’t Know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%

To understand community perspectives on the use of violence as an acceptable way of dealing

with disagreements at the end of the project, the evaluation asked whether respondents agreed

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
18
education and child protection
 that violence is an acceptable way of dealing with disagreements. Overall, 31% (30% females, 31%
males) strongly disagreed and 18% (20% male, 18% female) disagreed. 26% (31% females, 21%
males) strongly agreed, and 21% (16% males, 26% females) agreed violence is an acceptable way
of resolving disagreements. 3% were not sure and 1% did not know. At the settlement level, 40%
of the respondents in Bidibidi strongly agreed as compared to 22% respondents from Rhino Camp
indicating efforts to sensitise women and men were more successful in Rhino Camp. Comparisons
between gender shows that more females (31%) justify acts of violence for solving
misunderstandings between husbands and wives than males (21%).
Indicator R1.3: Number of survivors who receive an appropriate response
Information from intake forms, survivor reports, statistics from the GBV IMS, survivors who have
accessed PEP, counselling sessions, women and community attending and visiting awareness
sessions and support centers indicate the project managed to surpass the target by 181
beneficiaries ensuring 458 beneficiaries received an appropriate response, achieving a 172% of the
target.

This evaluation sought to assess whether women or girls/men or boys’ survivors of violence feel
safe and are able to access services from health professionals, psychosocial support services,
survivor protection houses, and police and, if not, why. The results indicate 85% (43% female, 42%
male) have confidence in seeking support from health professionals whenever faced with violence
challenges, 86% (45% female, 41% male) have confidence in seeking help from psychosocial
support services, 77% (42% female, 38% male) have confidence to stay in a survivor protection
house, and 83% (42% female, 41% male) have confidence in seeking help from police. Those
beneficiaries that have less confidence in seeking help raised various reasons for not doing such
as not having money to pay for transport, preferring use of traditional medicine or healer, not
understanding the services and the fact that police are sometimes perpetrators as shown in the
below table.

Table 11: Beneficiaries Confidence in seeking help form the GBV service providers
Bidibidi Rhino Camp Total
Freedom & Safety of women or girls/men or
Rhino Overall
boys survivors of violence to seek help Female Male Female Male Bidibidi
Camp
Access services from health professionals
Don't know 11% 7% 0% 1% 18% 1% 9%
Yes 43% 35% 44% 48% 78% 92% 85%
No 3% 1% 5% 2% 4% 7% 6%
Reasons for not access services from health professionals
No money to pay for transport 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
People do not trust them 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Prefer to use traditional medicine 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Prefer to visit traditional healer 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 3% 1%
Scared of health professionals 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Seek help from psychosocial support services
Don't know 12% 8% 0% 1% 20% 1% 11%
Yes 42% 33% 48% 49% 74% 97% 86%
No 3% 2% 1% 1% 6% 2% 4%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
19
education and child protection
 Reasons for not seeking help from psychosocial support services
People do not understand what it means 2% 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2%
People prefer to visit traditional healer 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%
They can be perpetrators 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0%
Staying in a survivor protection house
Don't know 17% 13% 1% 0% 30% 1% 16%
Yes 38% 25% 45% 50% 63% 95% 79%
No 2% 4% 3% 1% 7% 4% 5%
Reasons for not staying in a survivor protection house
No money to pay for transport 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1%
People do not trust them 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
People do not understand what it means 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
People prefer to visit traditional healer 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Worried people in the community will find out 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Seeking help from police
Don't know 17% 10% 1% 0% 27% 1% 14%
Yes 37% 33% 46% 50% 70% 96% 83%
No 3% 0% 2% 1% 3% 3% 3%
Reasons for not seeking help from Police
Perpetrators are rarely caught 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Police can be perpetrators 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%
Worried people in the community will find out 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Indicator R1.4.1: % of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention
and response
The percentage of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention and
response was determined as the aggregate of; the percentage of target beneficiaries who know
what GBV is and could mention at least two or more sexual and gender based violence acts, and
the percentage of target beneficiaries who know where to report a case or incident of GBV and
could name at least two (2) institutions they could report to. The results from the analysis reveals
that 84% (84% female, 84% male) of the target beneficiaries knew what GBV is and could mention
at least 2 sexual and gender-based violence acts while 72% (77% female, 67% males) of the target
beneficiaries knew where to report a case or incident of GBV and could name at least two (2)
institutions. When asked further, respondents mentioned various places where GBV incidents could
be reported including family members, CARE GBV information & complaints desk/tent, health
professional, police, legal professional, community leader, religious leader, refugee welfare
committee, and GBV preventer trained by CARE.

When asked whether they knew these places before they came to the settlement, 28% revealed
they never knew and 72% indicated they knew the places. In comparison with the baseline, there
has been a significant improvement in the percentage of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate
information on GBV prevention and response, from 45% to 78% at the endline. There has been
also a tremendous improvement in the percentage of target beneficiaries who know what GBV is
and could mention at least two or more sexual and gender-based violence acts, from 37% at
baseline to 84% at the endline. Similarly, the percentage of target beneficiaries who know where

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
20
education and child protection
 to report a case or incident of GBV and could name at least two (2) institutions they could report
to has also increased from 53% at baseline to 72% at the endline.

Figure 5: Percent of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention and response
90% 84% 84% 84%
81%
77% 78%
80% 76%
72%
70% 67%

60% 53%
50%
50% 47% 45%
43%
40% 41% 41%
37% 37%
40% 34%36%35% 34%
31%
30%

20%

10%

0%
Female Male Female Male Female Male Endline Baseline

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Total Overall

% of target beneficiaries who know what GBV and could mention at least two or more sexual and gender based violence
acts
% of target beneficiaries who know where to report a case or incident of GBV and could name at least two (2)
instructions where to report
% of girls, women, men, boys with appropriate information on GBV prevention and response

Indicator R1.4.2: % of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to
physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12
months
Indicator R1.4.3: % of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by
persons other than an intimate partner, in the last 12 months
The evaluation also assessed changes from baseline to endline on the percentage of ever-
partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological
violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months and the percentage of
women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an
intimate partner, in the last 12 months.

There has been a reduction in the percentage of target beneficiaries of ever-partnered women
and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a
current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months from 55% at baseline to 45% at the endline.
The percent of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons
other than an intimate partner, in the last 12 months has also reduced from 54% to 46% at the
endline. This reduction in both indicators is however only exhibited in Bidibidi, from 28% at baseline
to 16% at endline. In Rhino Camp, there was an increase in both indicators from 27% at baseline
to 29% at endline. According to the FGD respondents in Zone III of Bidibidi, the significant change
in sexual violence was attributed to rigorous community sensitisation, which helped to reduce
trauma and encouraged people to settle, encouraged girls to stay in school rather than marry
early, directions to close discos and all entertainment places early by the camp authorities, and
supporting night patrols by community action groups and neighborhood watch initiatives.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
21
education and child protection
 Figure 6: Percent of women and girls subjected to physical, sexual and psychological violence
60%
55% 54%

50% 46%
45%

40%

28% 29% 29%

30% 27% 27% 27%

20% 16% 17%

10%

0%
Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Total

% of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or
psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner, in the last 12 months
% of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an
intimate partner, in the last 12 months

Average age girls and women get married

The evaluation also assessed the practice of marrying girls at a young age. In doing so, it required
the respondents to indicate the average age at which girls and women in the community get
married. It also assessed whether there has been a change in this age since the arrival of the
respondent in the country. Results indicated over 38% of the respondents cited early marriages (18
years and below) are still ongoing in the communities. However, 63% of the respondents indicated
that early marriages have reduced since they came to the settlement, with the majority in Rhino
Camp (74%) compared to Bidibidi (53%). In one FGD, this reduction in early marriages was
attributed to the various education opportunities that are available in the settlement free of charge.

Figure 7: Average age women get married & whether it has changed

Stayed the same 2.9% 7.1% 11.2%

Reduced 63.4% 74.0%
52.8%
Increased 22.8%
22.5% 23.1%
Don't know 6.7%
13.5%

Above 18 62.5% 61.6%

21.4% 60.7%
17-18 Years
23.6% 19.2%
16.0%
14-16 Years 16.3%
15.7%
10-13 Years 1.0%
1.9%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Overall Rhino Camp Bidibidi

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
22
education and child protection
 5.3 Child Protection

5.3.1 Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Children

Data collection on child protection was conducted in Rhino Camp and Palorinya settlement. A
total of 145 surveys and 4 FGDs of children aged between 9 – 17 years were completed. 56% of
these respondents were male whereas 44% were female. Among these children, 35% (29%
Palorinya, 39% Rhino Camp) were living with both their parents, whereas 33% were living with one
parent and 27% living with other relatives. 64% had both their parents alive while 22% had the
father dead or believed he was dead and 5% had no living parents. 76% were attending AEP
classes, 24% had enrolled for formal education. By the time of the endline evaluation, the majority
(52%) had been in Uganda for 3 -5 years while 47% had stayed in Uganda for 1 – 2 years, and 1%
had been in Uganda between 6 – 12 months.

Table 12: Demographic Characteristics of the Surveyed Children

Demographic Rhino Rhino Over
Palorinya Overall Demographic Information Palorinya
Information Camp Camp all
# of Respondents 112 33 145 Both parents dead 10% 0% 5%
Female 43% 45% 44% Father dead/think dead 26% 18% 22%
Male 57% 55% 56% Mother dead/think dead 8% 3% 6%
Type of Household Head Don’t know 8% 0% 4%
Child Headed 11% 0% 5%
Female Headed 51% 48% 50% Length of Stay in Uganda
Male Headed 38% 52% 45% 6 – 12 months 1% 0% 1%
Person the child is living with 1– 2 years 92% 3% 47%
Both parents 29% 39% 34% 3 – 5 years 8% 97% 52%
Non-relative 4% 0% 2% Type of Disability
One parent Seeing, even if wearing
39% 27% 33% 9% 15% 12%
glasses
Orphanage home 1% 0% 0% Hearing, even if using aids 6% 6% 6%
Other relative 21% 33% 27% Walking or climbing steps 6% 3% 5%
Sister/Brother 5% 0% 3% Self-care 6% 3% 5%
Existence of biological parents Using local language 9% 3% 6%
Both parents alive 48% 79% 64% % of HHs registered as PSN 9% 6% 7%

5.3.2 Category of vulnerable children and children at risk exist in the community
The respondents identified the categories of vulnerable children that exist in the communities. The
majority 40% (46% Rhino Camp, 34% Palorinya) identified separated children as the most
vulnerable, unaccompanied children 24% (32% Rhino Camp, 17% Palorinya settlement) and
children with special needs, 17%, (5% Rhino Camp, 29% in Palorinya).

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
23
education and child protection
 Figure 8: Respondents indicating the categories of vulnerable children and children at risk exist in the
community

4%
Children associated with armed groups 5%
2%

Children with vulnerable parents (Chronically ill, disabled, 8%

8%
very old) 8%

6%
Children with abusive guardians 3%
10%

17%
Children with special needs 5%
29%

40%
Separated children 46%
34%

24%
Unaccompanied children 32%
17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Overall Rhino Camp Palorinya

5.3.3 Knowledge about children’s rights

The evaluation assessed children’s knowledge about their fundamental rights. The most common
right known was the right to education (18% in Palorinya, and 22% in Rhino Camp), followed by
the right to food (16% in Palorinya and 18% in Rhino). There’s no sizeable difference between the
rights known between settlements.

5.3.4 Children Safety and Dignity

Children’s safety from violence is paramount for their growth and education. The implementation
of AEP includes learnings on Sexual Reproductive Health (SRH) and menstrual hygiene
management and the provision of Child Friendly Spaces supports recreation and other peer
activities under supervision of a trained adult. These components are not only geared towards fast
tracking children’s education but also to improving their sense safety and dignity. In this evaluation,
children indicated whether they feel safe and free from violence, and if there has been a change
in this feeling since the inception of the project.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
24
education and child protection
 Figure 9: Children's perception about current status of their safety from danger and violence

3%
% of children feeling deteriorated safety of children 0%
6%

% of children feeling children's safety has remained 13%

23%
same 4%
84%
% of children feeling Improved safety of children 77%
90%

% of who feel that children are safe from danger and 73%
82%
violence 64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Overall Rhino Palorinya

Overall, 73% of the children (82%, Rhino Camp, 64% in Palorinya) indicated that they feel safe from
danger and violence. Among these, 77% indicated that they feel that there has been a change in
children’s safety since the project inception, out of which 84% (77%, Rhino Camp, 90% in Palorinya)
feel improved safety. 3% revealed feeling a deteriorated sense of safety for children in the
settlements. When Figure 10: Percentage of Children aware of their human rights
asked whether there
has been a change in Right to be registered at birth 3%2%
the children’s feeling Right to be fairly treated 8% 8%
of safety and dignity Right to participate 9% 10%
in the last one year or
Right to food 16% 20%
since they arrived in
the settlement, 77% Right to safe play 12% 12%

(75% Palorinya, 79% Right to health care 16% 12%

Rhino Camp) Right to basic needs (food and shelter) 17% 14%
indicated there has
Right to education 18% 22%
been an
improvement in the 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
safety and dignity of Palorinya Rhino Camp
children.

R1.1: Number of boys and girls provided with psychosocial support on a daily basis, through
attending recreational activities and structured play facilitated at CFS
This indicator considered children benefiting from Child Friendly Spaces (CFS) and case
management. CFS included provision of psychosocial support to children. According to project
monitoring documents based on daily CFS attendance, centers supported an average of 2,448
boys and girls on a daily basis, a 116% achievement against the target. When respondents were

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
25
education and child protection
 asked at endline if they Figure 11: Percentage of respondents aware of the available Case
benefitted from the various Management Services
project services, 96% (47% 2%
female, 49% male) Others (specify)
6%
indicated they were
benefiting from at least one.
78%
The analysis also indicates Child Friendly Spaces (CFS)
72%
that over 75% (78% males,
72% females) of the
children interviewed were 20%
Case Management
benefiting from the Child 22%

Friendly Spaces (CFS). 21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
(20% males, 22% females)
also benefited form Case Male Female
Management services.

Child Friendly Spaces are gazetted areas for children under 18 years for play, recreation and other
peer activities under supervision of a trained adult. These are facilitated by SCI in various areas in
Palorinya and Rhino Camp settlement. Under the CFS, both boys and girls were provided with
psychosocial support on a daily basis, through attending recreational activities and structured play
facilitated at CFS.
The respondents were
Figure 12: Percentage of children benefiting from the various programs
also asked to identify
the available case
2%
Other services management services
3%
they are aware of.
Family Tracing and Unification (FTR) 9%
6%
Services mentioned
services 11% included referrals of
62% children to other
Referral to Medical Service Providers 77%
47% partners that offer
10% medical services 62%,
Legal Services 6% (47% Palorinya, 77%
15%
Rhino Camp),
17%
Psychosocial support (PSS) services 11% psychosocial support
23%
services (17%), legal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% services (10%), Family
Overall Rhino Palorinya Tracing and
Unification (FTR)
services (9%) and others.

R.1.2 Number of boys and girls benefitting from case management, including referral to legal,
medical, PSS, FTR or other services as required
In order to understand and generate the percentage of children that have benefited from case
management services, including referral to legal services, medical, PSS, FTR or other services, a
proxy question ‘Do you know anyone in your community that has ever accessed these services in

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
26
education and child protection
 the last 12 months?’ was asked. Because of the sensitivity of the answer, this proxy question elicited
a response from a third person singular, even if one was talking about him/herself or the person
he/she knows that has accessed the services. The results generated with this question provided an
equivalent of the percentage of of children that have benefited from case management services.
According to the monitoring data available that was generated from CPIMS Records/Database,
Case Management (follow up forms) and Referral Pathway (Referral forms), the project registered
a total of 2,212 beneficiaries of the services, more than doubling the target of 1,080 by 1,132; hence
achieving 205%.

Results from the quantitative analysis indicated in figure 13, reveal that 46% (46% Palorinya, 45%
Rhino Camp) of the respondents knew or had benefited from the case management services. They
rated the quality of services, and majority indicated that the services were good (46%), very good
(30%) and fair (10%). There were also some few that indicated that the services were poor (6%) and
very poor (7%), Figure 13: Knowledge about harmful practices against children
and these were
30%
from Palorinya Very good 33%
29%
settlement. 46%
Good 53%
44%
Because of the Fair
10%
13%
quality and trust 10%
6%
in services, when Poor
8%
asked whether 7%
Very poor
they would 10%
report cases of
physical or
%age of girls & boys benefiting from Case 46%
sexual violence Management Services
45%
46%
inflicted on any
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
child by anyone,
83% of the Overall Rhino Palorinya

respondents
(78% Palorinya, 88% Rhino Camp) revealed that they would report. The most common place of
reporting was cited as the RWCs or local council (26%), teachers (9%), child protection committee
(13%) and police (12%). Further analysis indicates that 74% (85% Rhino, 63% Palorinya) believe that
if they report any incident of violence against children to the authorities, appropriate corrective
and or punitive action would be taken against perpetrators of child abuse. Thus, the case
management services have been at the forefront of building trust and confidence of children in
the services provided, which has promoted the feeling of safety among children in the refugee
settlements.

The respondents were able to identify several harmful practices that children face in the
communities including early marriage (23%, Rhino 26% and Palorinya 23%), child torture or severe
beating (22%, Rhino 22% and Palorinya 26%), sexual abuse (19%, Rhino 22% and Palorinya 15%),
child neglect (13%, Rhino 11% and 15% Palorinya), among others.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
27
education and child protection
 Overall, 59% of the respondents indicated that cases of such harmful practices have been reducing
while 33% indicated that Figure 14: Respondents' knowledge of the harmful practices against children
they are on the increase, 1%
Others (specify) 4%
and 8% were not sure. The 0%
24%
respondents also indicated Child torture or severe beating 19%
26%
that girls are more affected Sexual abuse
17%
22%
15%
by these harmful practices
6%
than boys (63%) and this is Gender discrimination 7%
6%
more in Rhino Camp (70%) Child neglect 11%
14%
15%
than in Palorinya (56%); 13%
Child Labour 11%
though 23% (36% 14%
Palorinya, 12% Rhino) of the 2%
Ritual killings 1%
3%
respondents indicated that 22%
Early marriage 26%
both boys and girls are 20%
affected in the same way. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Overall Rhino Palorinya

5.3.5 Protective Education

Under this program, protective education comprised of two components (a) Accelerated Education
Programs (AEP) for children aged 9-17 years in which they are given knowledge in literacy and
numeracy in preparation
to join the formal school Figure 15: Percentage of respondents enrolled in AEP
system, undertake PLE, in 100%
90%
addition to other life skills
80%
such as Sexual
70%
Reproductive Health
60%
(SRH) and menstrual
50%
hygiene; and, (b) Child 93% 94%
40%
Friendly Spaces (CFS) that 72%
30% 56%
act as gazetted areas for 44%
20%
children under 18 years for
10%
play, recreation and other
0%
peer activities under Female Male Female Male
supervision of a trained
Palorinya Rhino Overall
adult.

72% of respondents had enrolled in the AEP. Among these, 94% (93% females, 94% males) had
enrolled from Rhino Camp and 50% (56% females 44% males) from Palorinya. In Rhino Camp, the
evaluation was conducted at Hope Primary, Ocea C village. Prior to the coming of refugees in the
area, the primary learners were studying from a nearby school. Hence, according to the school
head teacher, 90% of the pupils in the school are refugees.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
28
education and child protection
 G1.1 Number of conflict-affected children with access to protective education
As at baseline, the percentage of conflict-affected children with access to protective education was
determined as the aggregate of; the percentage of children attending AEP classes, and the
percentage of children who participate in activities at the Child Friendly Spaces. Study results
indicate 63% (75% male, 51% female) of conflict-affected children were accessing protective
education. This is significantly above the baseline value of 51% (54% male, 48% female). It should
be noted that males (75%) are more likely to benefit than females (51%). Project monitoring
documents indicate 8,639 children, 187% of the target, accessed protective education.

Figure 16: Percent of conflict-affected children with access to protective education

90%
76%
80%
70% 73% 75%
70% 64% 64% 63%
62%
58%
60% 52% 55%
51%
47%
50%
40%
40%
27%
30%
18% 20%
20%
10% 11%
10% 2% 2%
0%
Male Female Male Female Male Female Total

Palorinya Rhino Overall

%age of children benefiting from Child Friendly Spaces (CFS)

%age of children benefiting from Associated Education Program (AEP)
%age of conflict-affected children with access to protective education

R.3.4 Percent of children enrolled in AEP classes successfully complete Level 3

The evaluation results indicate 42% of the children interviewed had successfully completed Level
3. This shows a considerable improvement from the baseline where only 10% of the children
interviewed (12% male, 8% female) had completed Level 3. It should be noted that this project
supported only Level 3 while other SCI-run projects under the same donor targeted Levels 1 and
2.

Project monitoring, AEP Graduation Records and enrollment lists indicate that of the 540
beneficiaries targeted, 515 were able to successfully complete Level 3. Generally, fewer girls than
boys complete AEP across all levels. According to the qualitative interviews conducted, girls are
often compelled to drop out of school as a result of being married and having to attend to
household and marital chores. Parents’ negligence was also mentioned as a barrier in girls getting
an education. Qualitative interviews also noted that hosts perception of AEP tends to be negative,
with hosts viewing it as a program for “failures”, which limited their participation.

When asked about the reasons why children do not join the AEP, FGD participants noted various
challenges including early marriages, embarrassment (for studying in lower classes at an older age),

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
29
education and child protection
 and lack of interest from the parents or guardians to take their children back to school. The AEP
learners indicated that there are a lot of absentees in class and these are attributed to various
reasons including lack of sanitary towels for girls to use during their menstrual periods (though it
was provided under Cash Transfer Payments (CTP)), collection of food rations, supporting on
household chores, lack of interest in learning and lack of scholastic materials (especially for children
from Rhino Camp, who didn’t receive cash grants for education). The ECHO INCLUDE project also
provided sanitary towels to the girls and trained teachers and girls in making reusable sanitary
towels.

Cash grants to facilitate children’s education through AEP

AEPs are flexible, age-appropriate programs, run in an accelerated timeframe, which aim to
provide access to education for disadvantaged, over-age, out-of-school children and youth –
particularly those who missed out on, or had their education interrupted due to poverty,
marginalisation, conflict and crisis. In order to ensure that parents or guardians stay committed to
sending their children to AEP, a cash grant was provided to each household in Palorinya that sends
a child to school. This money was provided by Mobile Money and was meant to cater for the
learners’ scholastic materials, such that parents have no excuse for not sending and supporting
their child’s education. 48% of children in Palorinya reported that their households received cash
transfers; and the majority (25%) received between UShs. 50,000 and UShs. 150,000. The table
below also provides details on how cash was utilized, adequacy of the cash provided, the reason
for the continued absenteeism by the beneficiaries, among others. It should be noted that there
were higher percentages of children that claimed to have been absent from school in Rhino Camp
(88%) that in Palorinya (32%). The major reasons for absenteeism in Rhino Camp was stationery
(64%) and school dues (42%).

The household heads were also asked if they had any child in the household that transitioned to
formal education or vocational training. Table 13 also shows the percentage of respondents with
households that had children that transited to formal education or vocational training from AEP. It
reveals that 22% of households have had children that progressed to either secondary education
or to vocational studies (29% Palorinya, 15% Rhino Camp).

Table 13: Survey Results on Cash Grants to facilitate Children’s education through ALP
Palorinya Rhino Overall
% of the households that received grants to facilitate commitment to
46% 0% 46%
children’s education through AEP
Frequency of receipt cash for education
Don't know 50% N/A 50%
Monthly 47% N/A 47%
Quarterly 0% N/A 0%
Received it Once 2% N/A 2%
Twice a year 1% N/A 1%
% of respondents reporting how much cash received
150,001 – 300,000 Ushs 1% N/A 1%
50,000 Ushs and below 3% N/A 3%
50,001 – 150,000 Ushs 47% N/A 47%
% of beneficiaries indicating how the used cash grants for child education

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
30
education and child protection
 Scholastic materials 48% N/A 48%
Clothing 34% N/A 34%
School uniform 30% N/A 30%
Income generating activities 13% N/A 13%
Buying household Food 28% N/A 28%
Providing health services to household members 25% N/A 25%
Buying of livestock 5% N/A 5%
Others(specify) 43% N/A 43%
% of beneficiaries reporting on adequacy of the cash grant for education
No 64% N/A 64%
Yes 36% N/A 36%
% of beneficiaries that have been absent for more than 3 days due
32% 88% 60%
to failure to obtain scholastic materials
Stationery 3% 64% 33%
School uniform 82% 6% 44%
Examination fees 82% 24% 53%
School dues 0% 42% 21%
Transport 82% 6% 44%
Others (specify) 3% 0% 2%
% of respondents reporting a change in the amount they are spending on child education
No, it has remained the same 53% 24% 38%
Yes, it has increased 31% 58% 44%
Yes, it has reduced 16% 18% 17%
Causes of the Change
Increased earnings 17% 6% 12%
Increased prices 17% 55% 36%
Others (specify) 1% 0% 0%
Reduced earnings 9% 12% 11%
Reduced prices 4% 3% 3%
% of households with children that have transited to formal
29% 15% 22%
education or vocational training

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
31
education and child protection
 8. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Findings
8.1 Demographic Profiles

Survey Coverage and Sample Size

The endline evaluation was conducted in WASH intervention areas in Bidibidi and Rhino Camp. In
Bidibidi, the survey was conducted in Zone V, Ariwa sub county in the villages of Villages 19, 20,
22, 23, Gbiria, Okubani, Ariwa, Kagunde, Kiranga, Karunga, Ocinga, Osuma, Tokoro; while in Rhino
Camp the survey was conducted in Ofua V and Katiku I & III, Uriama sub county in the villages of
Akino, Cinya. A total of 275 households (225 refugees, 50 host community) were interviewed. In
Bidibidi, 214 households (167 refugees, 47 host community) were sampled; whereas in Rhino Camp,
61 households (58 refugees, 3 host community) were sampled. The samples are statistically
significant at 95% confidence level and 5% level of interval. The sampling was based on the
proportion to the size of beneficiaries per settlement.

Gender and Age Distribution

During the survey, 52% of the respondents were female compared to 48% males. The average age
for the respondents was 37 years, an indication that the survey respondents were in youthful age
categories. In terms of household headship, 66% of the households were headed by males, while
33% headed by females and only 1% were child headed.

Level of Education
As regards the educational attainment, 44% of respondents had at least primary education (49%
refugees and 39% from host communities); 34% had attained secondary education. There were
more respondents who had attained secondary level education in host communities (45%) than in
refugee settlements (24%). There were also more respondents who indicated that they have never
been to school from the refugee settlements (24%) than in the host communities (13%), an
indication of low levels of educational attainment within the refugee settlements. In all, only 3%
had a certificate and 1% with a diploma level.

Length of Stay in Uganda and Household Size

In Bidibidi, majority (86%) of the respondents had been in Uganda for between 1 – 2 years while in
Rhino Camp 60% of the respondents had been in Uganda for 3 – 5 years. In terms of household
size, households in refugee settlements had more males and females between 5 – 17 years, 1.6 and
1.5 respectively; while in the host communities, households had more males and females 18 – 49
years (1.6 and 1.3 respectively).

Disability Status
The analysis indicates 16% of households had members with difficulties walking or climbing steps
and using the local languages. It was also noted that 11% of the households had members with
difficulties in seeing, even if wearing glasses. This is similar in both the refugee and host
communities. Within these households, only 18% are registered as PSN.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
32
education and child protection
 Table 14: Household Demographic profiles
BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall
Demographic Information Refuge Total
Refugee Host Host Refugee Host
e
No. of Respondents 167 47 58 3 225 50 275
Male (%) 38% 45% 41% 67% 40% 56% 48%
Female (%) 62% 55% 59% 33% 60% 44% 52%
Age of Respondents
15 - 24 years 21% 30% 26% 33% 23% 32% 27%
25 - 34 years 34% 26% 26% 0% 30% 13% 21%
35 - 44 years 17% 21% 21% 33% 19% 27% 23%
45 - 54 years 17% 13% 17% 33% 17% 23% 20%
55 and above years 10% 11% 10% 0% 10% 5% 8%
Average age of the Respondent 39 35 35 39 37 37 37
Household Headship
Male HHH 51% 62% 52% 100% 51% 81% 66%
Female HHH 49% 38% 45% 0% 47% 19% 33%
Child HHH 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1%
Education Level of Respondent
Never been to School 26% 26% 22% 0% 24% 13% 18%
Primary education 44% 45% 53% 33% 49% 39% 44%
Secondary education 29% 23% 19% 67% 24% 45% 34%
Certificate 0.6% 6% 3% 0% 2% 3% 3%
Diploma 0.6% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Length of Stay in Uganda
Less than 3 months 0% - 2% 1% 1%
3 - 6 months 2% - 2% 2% 2%
6 - 12 months 2% 0% 1% 1%
1 - 2 years 86% 36% 61% 61%
3 - 5 years 10% 60% 35% 35%
Over 5 years 1% 0% 0% 0%
Household Size
Under 0 – 59 months (MALE) 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9
Under 0 – 59 months (FEMALE) 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8
5 – 17 years (MALE) 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.4
5 – 17 years (FEMALE) 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.3
18 – 49 years (MALE) 1.1 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.4
18 – 49 years (FEMALE) 1.2 1.8 1.4 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.3
50+ years (MALE) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2
50+ years (FEMALE) 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Households with Disability
Seeing, even if wearing glasses 13% 21% 9% 0% 11% 11% 11%
Hearing, even if using hearing aids 6% 17% 12% 0% 9% 9% 9%
Walking or climbing steps 5% 17% 10% 33% 8% 25% 16%
Remembering or concentrating 5% 2% 5% 0% 5% 1% 3%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
33
education and child protection
 Self-care such as dressing & washing
2% 2% 3% 0% 3% 1% 2%
all over
Using local language 27% 34% 2% 0% 14% 17% 16%
HH members with Disability
BELOW 18 years 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
ABOVE 18 years 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.6
Registered PSN Household 19% 17% 18%

8.2 WASH Indicator Performance

Indicator G1.4: Percent of target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices
To calculate the percent of the target population with adequate to WASH services and hygiene
practices, the evaluation adopted the approach used at the baseline and considered the “% of
target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices” as a composite of;
percentage of households with a latrine for safe human excreta disposal, percentage of households
with access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use, and percentage of households having
access to appropriate hand washing facility, a tippy tap with water and soap.

The analysis indicated a significant improvement from the baseline as far accessing WASH services.
From a baseline of 43% to and endline of 74%, with specific improvement from 41% to 73% in
refugee settlement and 44% to 75% in host communities. This achievement is slightly above the
70% set target.

Figure 17: Percentage of beneficiaries with access to adequate WASH services and hygiene practices
120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

%age of HH with access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use
%age of HH with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities
%age of HH with access to hand washing facilities
%age of HH with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices (Endline)
%age of HH with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices (Baseline)

Sources of Water for Domestic Use

The assessment established that taps/stand pumps are the most used sources of water for domestic
use (43%; 57% refugees, 29% host community) followed closely by boreholes/hand pumps (37%;

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
34
education and child protection
 14% refugees, 60% host community). Unlike at the baseline where people were using mainly the
tanker trucks (60%), only 4% at the endline indicted drawing water from the tanker trucks.
Boreholes/Hand pumps are the most common sources of water in the host communities (60%)
while public taps/stand pipes are commonly used in refugee settlements (57%). Areas like Katiku
III and Ofua V depend purely on stand pipes.

Table 15: Water Source used by the respondents

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall
Water Source for domestic
Total
use Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host

Borehole/Hand pumps 15% 19% 12% 100% 14% 60% 37%

Piped Water 30% 13% 10% 0% 20% 6% 13%
Public Taps/Stand pipes 54% 59% 59% 0% 57% 29% 43%
Rivers/Lakes/streams 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Protected springs/wells 0% 2% 7% 0% 3% 1% 2%
Tanker Trucks 0% 7% 12% 0% 5% 4% 4%
Water Source for drinking
Borehole/Hand pumps 23% 21% 10% 65% 16% 43% 29%
Piped Water 40% 11% 22% 0% 31% 5% 18%
Public Taps/Stand pipes 36% 49% 55% 35% 45% 42% 43%
Rivers/Lakes/streams 1% 17% 0% 0% 0% 8% 4%
Protected springs/wells 0% 2% 5% 0% 3% 1% 2%
Tanker Trucks 0% 0% 8% 0% 8% 0% 4%
Distance to improved water source
0.0 – 0.25 km 33% 17% 21% 33% 27% 25% 26%
0.251 – 0.5 km 32% 40% 34% 33% 33% 37% 35%
0.51 – 1 km 18% 19% 12% 33% 15% 26% 21%
1.01 – 1.5 km 11% 11% 12% 0% 11% 5% 8%
1.51 – 3.0 km 5% 11% 17% 0% 11% 5% 8%
Above 3 km 1% 2% 3% 0% 2% 1% 2%
Change in distance in last 21 months
Reduced 40% 40% 60% 0% 50% 20% 35%
Increased 23% 9% 17% 33% 20% 21% 20%
The Same 34% 49% 22% 67% 28% 58% 43%
Don’t Know 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Queuing time at the water points
0 – 5 min 15% 11% 3% 33% 9% 22% 16%
5 – 10 min 32% 26% 10% 33% 21% 29% 25%
10 – 15 min 9% 19% 16% 0% 12% 10% 11%
15 – 20 min 5% 17% 17% 0% 11% 9% 10%
20 – 25 min 5% 11% 7% 0% 6% 5% 6%
25 – 30 min 7% 6% 14% 0% 10% 3% 7%
Above 30 min 26% 11% 33% 33% 29% 22% 26%
Change in queuing time
Reduced 46% 45% 55% 33% 51% 39% 45%
Increased 20% 13% 24% 67% 22% 40% 31%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
35
education and child protection
 The Same 31% 40% 21% 0% 26% 20% 23%
Don’t Know 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% 1% 2%

Sources of Water for Drinking

There is no significant difference between sources of water for domestic use and drinking according
to statistical analysis in both refugee and host communities. Public taps/stand pipes are the most
common water sources for drinking (43%; 45% refugees, 42% host community) followed by
boreholes/hand pumps (29%; 16% refugees, 43% host community). The analysis also indicated that
piped water is another emerging source, especially in Bidibidi settlement, where it was cited by
40% of the respondents. Oxfam constructed one piped water system in Bidibidi and two in Rhino
Camp. During the baseline, it was cited by only 1% of the respondents. Engagement with OXFAM’s
Team Leader for Public Health Engineering, revealed that the organization installed water pipes to
the host communities in Zone 5, which had not previously been planned. Communities that had
no water sources nearby are now the benefiting from the extensions that made into the host
communities, hence increasing access to safe water coverage in the area.

Access to Water

As at baseline, the assessment considered the percentage of respondents within a maximum

distance of 500m from the nearest water point, and a queuing time of less than 15min. The
aggregated percentage of both provided the percentage of people having access to sufficient and
safe water for domestic use.

Overall there has been a significant increase in the percentage of households having access to safe
water for domestic use from 23% at baseline to 56% at endline. The increase has generally been
reflected in the host communities in Bidibidi. In Rhino Camp, Ofua 5 and Katiku III, water systems
are entirely supplying water to refugees with little support to hosts given the geography of the
area.

The results show 61% of the respondents (30% refugees, 31% host community) were within 500m
from the nearest water point. This is twice the figure at the baseline, hence a reduction in the
distance covered to access. Close to 40% are a distance of more than a kilometer to the nearest
water point. When asked further, 35% (50% refugees, 20% host community) acknowledged a
reduction in the distance. The respondents indicated that this reduction in distance has been due
to a number of factors including the construction of more stand taps in the area (45%), and the
establishment of more hand pumps/boreholes (27%).

The analysis also indicated 52% (43% refugees, 61% host community) of households reported a
queuing time of 15 minutes at water points, which is much higher that the baseline figure of 21%.
When asked about a change in the queuing time in the last 21 months, 45% indicated that the
queuing time has reduced (51% refugees, 39% host community), 31% (22% refugees, 40% host
community) indicated that it has increased whereas 23% (26% refugees, 20% host community)
indicated that it has remained the same. According to those who indicated that there has been a
reduction in the queuing time, they revealed that this has been caused by the establishment of
more stand taps in the area (53%), hand pumps/boreholes (20%), and the provision of trucked
water especially in Rhino Camp (19%).
Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
36
education and child protection
 Figure 18: Percentage of households accessing water for domestic use
70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

Percentage of HHs whose maximum distance to water point is not more than 500m
Percentage of HHs whose queuing time at water point is not more than 15 min
Percentage of HHs having access to safe waterfor domestic use (Endline)
Percentage of HHs having access to safe waterfor domestic use (Baseline)

Indicator R2.1: Number of people having access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use
According to project monitoring reports, the program was able to achieve 103% of the target by
reaching 97,740 with water. The figure below compares the survey results on the percentage of
households having access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use at baseline and at the
endline. The comparison shows a more than double increase in access to sufficient water for
domestic use from 33% to 68% during the endline. Comparing the refugee and the host
community, even though more tap stands were established in the refugee settlements than in the
host community, the percentage change in access to sufficient water has been higher in host
community (61%) than in refugee settlement (51%). This is because the population in host
community is lower than in the refugee settlement, and therefore a single tap stand serves fewer
households in host community than in refugee settlements. From baseline, hosts’ access to
sufficient water was at 24% and it has moved to 68% at endline, while for refugees, access to
sufficient water was at 33% and it has moved up to 68%. However, access to sufficient water has
been realized in both Bidibidi and Rhino Camp operational areas for both hosts and refugees.
However, water trucking still exists within Rhino Camp settlement.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
37
education and child protection
 Figure 19: Percent of households having sufficient water for domestic use (endline vs baseline)
80% 75%
70% 68% 68%
67% 68%
70%
60%
60%

50%
39% 38% 37%
40% 33% 33%
31% 31%
28% 26%
30% 23% 24% 22%
16% 18%
20% 14%
10%
10%
2% 2% 2% 2%
0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

Yes No Don’t Know Baseline

The analysis also indicated 22% (31% refugees, 14% host community) of households don’t have
sufficient water for domestic use on a daily basis. Their coping mechanisms include clean less
clothes (43%), wash less (21%), ration water use (19%), or buy water from elsewhere (14%).

However, access to sufficient water for domestic use may be affected by the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) of the water sources. According to the Water Use Committee (WUC)
members, Oxfam established Water User Committees, consisting of a Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, and Caretaker. They were trained and instructed on how to
manage the water sources and their roles and responsibilities. However, the challenge remains
with generating resources to meet the O&M demands. In the refugee settlements, unlike in the
host committees, the WUC aren’t allowed to levy charges for every households so as to raise
money for O&M, since the refugees are deemed to be vulnerable and unable to raise any money.
With UNHCR and OPM focusing now on self-sustenance and resilience of the refugees,
contribution of minimal fees to the O&M of the water sources would be a way to ensure they have
access to sufficient water in their households on a daily basis.

Through the qualitative analysis, it was also noted that water loss is very high in the refugee
settlements. Water is lost either at the water collection point or used in non-basic domestic needs.
According to Oxfam, it only generates enough water for domestic use in both the host and refugee
settlements. It was however noted that water was used for other livelihood purposes such as brick
making and small-scale irrigation. This is reflected in the average amount of water consumed per
day. According to the KAP survey conducted in August 2018 by Oxfam, 46% of the households
interviewed indicated an individual household member consumes more than 20 litres per day, 32%
represented household members who consume between 15 to 20 liters per day, whereas 22%
represented those who consume less than 15 liters per day.

This issue raises a critical point for consideration going forward in regard to water use for livelihood
purposes and design of a multi-sectoral assistance project. Agriculture requires a water source yet

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
38
education and child protection
 water for production is not currently provided for. There is a likelihood that at one-point water
won’t be enough to meet all the water needs of the communities. Further soil degradation and
deforestation exacerbate this challenge which will need to be addressed on a larger scale going
forward.

Quality of Water Sources

The figure below shows respondents’ rating of the water sources within the settlements. Over 30%
of the respondents (32 refugees, 29 host community) indicated that the water sources are good
while 20% (23 refugees, 17 host community) indicated that the water sources are very good and
26% (17 refugees, 35 host community) indicated that water sources are fair.

Figure 20: Respondents' rating of the quality of water sources established

50% 45%
43%
45%
40% 36% 33% 35%
34% 33% 33%
35% 32% 31%
29%
30% 26% 26%
24% 23%
25% 20% 21% 20%
17% 19% 18%
20% 16% 17%
17%
15% 11% 12% 10%
10% 5% 5%
4% 3%
5% 0% 0 0 0%
0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poor

Indicator R2.2: Number of people with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta
disposal facilities

According to project monitoring data, Oxfam was able to reach 5,530 individuals, 111% of the
target. In order to determine the percent of people with access to dignified, safe, clean and
functional excreta disposal facilities, the evaluation followed a similar approach used at the baseline
and established; the percentage of households with a functional latrine complete with slab, walls,
roof and door at 53% (68% refugees, 39% host community), the percentage of households with
latrines within 50 meters from dwellings at 87% (78% refugees, 95% host community), and a proxy
indictor ‘the percentage of households satisfied with the latrine facility they use in terms of safety,
cleanliness and functionality’ to measure the percentage of households with latrines observed to
be clean and located in a swept environment (in working order and properly maintained) at 59%
(66% refugees, 52% host community). This was used in order to determine the aggregate
percentage of households with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal
facilities at 66% (71% refugees, 62% host community). This is higher than the 51% (46% refugees,
60% host community) realized at the baseline.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
39
education and child protection
 Figure 21: Percentage of households with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities
100% 95% 95%
88% 87%
90%
78%
80% 74% 73% 73%
65% 69% 68% 67% 67% 68% 71%
70% 60% 66%
62%
62%
60% 58% 56% 53%
50% 66% 46% 59% 51%
50% 49% 46%
39%
40% 33%
45% 52%
30% 27%
20%
11%
10%
0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

% of HHs with a functional pit latrine with slab, walls, roof, and door
% of HHs with latrines within 50 metres from dwelling
% of HHs satisfied with the latrine facility that you use in terms of safety, cleanliness and functionality
% of target population with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities (Endline)
% of target population with access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities (Baseline)

Further analysis indicated that over 90% (90% refugees, 91% host community) of the households
have latrines. It was also noted that 58% (48% refugees, 69% host community) share their latrines
with less than 10 people. This is still within global standards: 1 stance of a latrine is used by not
more than 20 people at household level a day. Over 19% (26% refugees, 13% host community) use
the latrines with between 10 - 20 people and only 17% use it with just their families each day. It was
also noted that the majority (32%) of the households constructed their latrines 12 – 18 months prior
to the evaluation (31% refugees, 32% host community). Other households indicated that their
latrines were constructed 6 – 12 months ago (35% refugees, 24% host community). This indicates
that the majority of the latrines are relatively new and constructed within the period of program
implementation. There are however 21% of the households (3% refugees, 39% host community)
indicating that the latrines were constructed 24 months or more prior to the survey, indicating
these were not supported by Oxfam under this project. It was noted that OXFAM provided tools
to the refugee households to construct latrines. These were shared among various households.
However, with the existence of many female-headed households, most of which are vulnerable,
the FGD members noted that such households are sometimes unable to dig a pit latrine and end
up sharing with neighboring households.

Indicator R2.3: Percent of the households with access to hand washing facilities
At endline evaluation, at least 85% of the targeted beneficiaries had access to hand washing facility,
with 39% (33% refugees, 35% host community) of households accessing a handwashing facility
with soap and 46% (39% refugee, 53% host community) have access to hand washing facility with
water only. At baseline, only 30% of the target population (23% refugees, 43% host community)
had a proper hand washing facility, a designated place for hand washing or tippy tap with water

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
40
education and child protection
 and soap/ash available. Hence a sizeable increase in accessibility to handwashing facilities; and
above the program target of 50% of the households.

Figure 22: Percent of households with handwashing facilities

70% 67%

60%
53%

50% 46% 46%

44% 42% 43%
39% 39% 39%
40% 37%
35%
33%
32%
30%
25% 24%
18%
20% 15%
12% 12%
10%

0%
0%
Refugee Host Community Refugee Host Community Refugee Host Community
Settlement Settlment Settlment

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

No Yes, with water and soap Yes, with water only

Discussion with the women in FGDs indicated that given the high poverty levels, it’s very difficult to
come across a household that can have spare soap for purposes of handwashing. It was also
difficult to come across hand washing station or tippy tap, with households having handwashing
facilities using small jerry-cans. Information from the key informants and FGDs indicated that
households were provided with tippy taps by Oxfam. The tippy taps were accompanied by 450gm
of soap to initiate hand washing practice after latrine use and this was a one off except were tippy
taps were broken and needed replacement.

Indicator R2.4: # of people reached with hygiene promotional messages

Under this indicator, the program targeted to reach out to 146,300 people with promotional
messages and at endline project monitoring documents indicated 146,842 individuals, 100% of the
target had been reached.

To generate the percentage of households that have been reached with hygiene promotional
messages and hand washing kit, a regression analysis on two indicators was conducted;
‘percentage of households that have handwashing kit (water container and soap) and the
percentage of households that have heard about hygiene promotional messages in the last 12
months, prior to the evaluation. The results provided the measure for this indicator and they were
compared with the baseline study results, to understand the change that has been created by the
interventions.

64% (65% refugees, 64% host community) of the households have been reached with promotional
messages and have hand washing facilities (water container and soap). This is an improvement
from the baseline, which stood at 53%. There has been a significant improvement in those reached

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
41
education and child protection
 with promotional messages and having handwashing facilities in the refugee settlements compared
to the host communities, from 46% at baseline to 65% at the endline. In the host communities, the
analysis indicates that there’s a slight reduction in the percentage from 67% at baseline to 63% at
endline. This indicates that considerable efforts under this intervention were placed in the refugee
settlements with not so much emphasis placed on messaging for host communities.

Figure 23: Percentage of households that have been reached with hygiene promotional messages and hand
washing kit
120%

100%
100%
88%
84% 83% 83%
80%
80% 73%
66% 64% 66% 67% 65% 67%
64% 64%
60% 56% 63% 53%
47% 47% 45% 47% 46%
43% 43% 45%
39%
40% 33%

20%

0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlment Community Settlment Community

BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total

%age of households that have hand washing kit (water container and soap)

%age of households reporting to have heard about hygiene promotional messages in the last 12
months
%tage of households reached with hygiene promotional messages and have a hand washing kit
(endline)

The evaluation survey considered a number of promotional messages that are indicated in the
table below. Based on survey results, 83% of the households (84% refugees, 83% host community)
had been reached with hygiene promotional messages in the last 12 months. Out of those that
had reached with hygiene promotional messages, 54% (77% refugees, 31% host community)
indicated to having heard messages on hand washing with soap messages, 28% (4% refugees,
52% host community) on Jerrycan cleaning, among others (see table below).

Table 16: Percentage of households that have heard about Hygiene promotional messages
BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall
Heard about hygiene promotional
Total
messages Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host

Heard about any hygiene promotional messages

No 20% 34% 12% 0% 16% 17% 17%
Yes 80% 66% 88% 100% 84% 83% 83%
Hygiene promotional messages heard

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
42
education and child protection
 Hand washing at critical times 11% 0% 2% 0% 6% 0% 3%
Cleaning compound 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Hand washing with soap messages 68% 61% 86% 0% 77% 31% 54%
Jerrycan cleaning 2% 3% 6% 100% 4% 52% 28%
Safe disposal of faeces 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%
Safe storage of water 5% 6% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3%
Safe water chain (collection,
transportation, storage, & 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
consumption)
Solid waste management-rubbish pits 8% 10% 0% 0% 4% 5% 4%
Using a toilet 2% 6% 4% 0% 3% 3% 3%
Washing/drying of kitchen utensils 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Usefulness of the Messages
Not useful at all 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Somehow useful 7% 6% 10% 67% 8% 37% 22%
Useful 26% 26% 63% 0% 44% 13% 29%
Very useful 67% 68% 27% 33% 47% 51% 49%

When asked to rate the messages received, 49% (47% refugees, 51% host community) indicated
that messages were very useful, 29% (44% refugees, 13% host community) indicated that the
messages were useful and 22% (8% refugees, 37% host community) indicated that the messages
were somehow useful. None of the respondents indicated that the messages were not useful at all.
Hygiene Promotion by Hygiene Promoters/VHT

In order to promote hygiene in the settlements, Oxfam created community structures to support
mobilization and sensitization. These were meant to ensure that all households in the communities
had the basic requirements for proper hygiene at the household level and the community in
general. Hygiene promoters visited every household to inspect the level of hygiene and provide
advice to the household. In the refugee settlements, they are known as hygiene promoters whereas
in the host communities they are known as Village Health Teams (VHT). Respondents were required
to reveal whether they were ever visited by the hygiene promoters/VHT and if yes, how useful was
the visit. The responses are indicated in the table below.

Table 17: Percentage of the households visited by the hygiene promoter/VHT

Visited by Hygiene BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall
Promoter/VHT Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host Total
Settlement Community Settlement Community Settlement Community
Visited by Hygiene Promoter/VHT
No 16% 43% 9% 0% 12% 21% 17%
Yes, Within last 3 months 31% 11% 34% 67% 33% 39% 36%
Yes, Within last month 23% 40% 52% 0% 37% 20% 29%
Yes, Within last one year 31% 6% 5% 33% 18% 20% 19%
Usefulness of the visit
Not useful at all 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Not very useful 1% 4% 2% 33% 2% 19% 10%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
43
education and child protection
 Somehow useful 10% 7% 21% 33% 15% 20% 18%
Useful 28% 11% 21% 33% 24% 22% 23%
Very useful 59% 78% 19% 0% 39% 39% 39%

The results indicate that 36% (33% refugees, 39% host community) were visited within the last 3
months prior to the evaluation, 29% (37% refugees, 20% host community) were visited within the
last one month and 19% (18% refugees, 20% host community) visited within the last one year. There
was however 10% of the respondents that indicated that they were not visited at all. Amongst those
that were visited by hygiene promoters/VHTs, 39% (39% refugees, 39% host community) revealed
that the visits were very useful; 23% (24% refugees, 22% host community) indicated that the visit
was useful and only 1% indicated that the visit wasn’t useful at all.
Participation in Meetings or Events Promoting Hygiene

In order to promote hygiene at the village level, Oxfam through its village promoters organized
meetings or events on various themes about hygiene. The respondents were required to reveal
whether they ever participated in such events and the results indicated that 77% (77% refugees,
78% host community) participated in meetings or events to discuss hygiene or sanitation. Among
all that participated in these events, 97% indicated that the events were at least useful; while only
3% indicated that the promotional messages were somewhat useful. From the qualitative
interviews, it was noted that it is from these events that the households got the basic information
on hygiene. By the time hygiene promoters came for inspection at one’s household, the
beneficiaries were already implementing what they learnt from the events.

Table 18: Respondents' participation in hygiene promotion meetings/events

Participation in meetings /Events BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall Total
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Settlement Community Settlement Community Settlement Community
No 20% 45% 26% 0% 23% 22% 23%
Yes 80% 55% 74% 100% 77% 78% 77%
Useful of the meeting/event
Not useful at all 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Not very useful 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Somehow useful 5% 0% 7% 0% 6% 0% 3%
Useful 26% 19% 77% 100% 52% 60% 56%
Very useful 66% 81% 16% 0% 41% 40% 41%

Availability of Soap at Household Level for Washing

When respondents were asked whether they ever received soap from the project, 39% agreed to
have received soap while 45% indicated that they didn’t receive and 16% don’t know. 60% (53%
refugees, 66% host community) currently indicated that they don’t have soap in their households.
In an FGD in Ofua Zone, Rhino Camp, the members revealed challenges associated with accessing
soap in the area. On top of high levels of poverty that they can hardly have money to buy soap,
organizations are no longer providing them with soap as they used to do. It was reported that
AMREF and OXFAM once provided soap and chlorine for water treatment and this was used up.
Some people have now resorted to selling food rations to access to basics like soap and others.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
44
education and child protection
 According to the quantitative analysis, some other households have resorted to coping mechanism
which includes using water and ash (40%), using water only (33%) or not washing and bathing
(17%).

Table 19: Percent of the households having soap of washing & solid waste disposal
BidiBidi Rhino Camp Overall
Refuge Total
Refugee Host Refugee Host Host
e
Receive soap from Oxfam or Ceford
Yes 16% 11% 64% 67% 40% 39% 39%
No 78% 66% 36% 0% 57% 33% 45%
Don’t Know 5% 23% 0% 33% 3% 28% 16%
Currently have soap in your household for washing
Yes 43% 68% 50% 0% 47% 34% 40%
No 57% 32% 50% 100% 53% 66% 60%
Coping Mechanisms for households with no soap
I don't wash 1% 33% 1% 33% 17%
Use water and ash 45% 22% 81% 33% 63% 17% 40%
Use water only 41% 44% 19% 33% 30% 17% 23%
Wash less frequently 8% 0% 0% 33% 4% 17% 10%
Dispose solid waste
Bury 4% 4% 17% 0% 10% 2% 6%
Collect and burnt 11% 9% 34% 67% 23% 38% 30%
Throw it away 6% 17% 2% 0% 4% 9% 6%
Waste rubbish pit 78% 68% 41% 33% 60% 51% 55%

Solid Waste Disposal

One of the roles of the hygiene promoters was to sensitize people on how to dispose of waste at
home. The analysis revealed that the majority (55%) dispose rubbish on a waste rubbish pit (60%
refugees, 51% host community). Others collect and burn the waste (30%); and a few revealed that
they either bury or throw away the waste (6%).
Menstrual Hygiene

The respondents were engaged to understand the change in their menstrual knowledge, attitude
and practices since the baseline. There has been a slight increase in the knowledge, attitudes and
practices. However, these changes are relatively insignificant and it is difficult to attribute them to
the program intervention.

The average number of women in reproductive age per household have remained relatively the
same at 1.8 per household. There was however an increase in the percent of women that used
disposable pads during their previous monthly period from 60% at baseline to 70% at the endline.
The most common type of disposable pads used are the re-usable pads by 64% of the respondents
(73% refugees, 56% host community). It was also noted that most females dispose their Menstrual
Hygiene Management (MHM) products in the latrines (68%). It was a similar trend during the

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
45
education and child protection
 baseline where 65% were disposing in latrines. Similarly, a slightly higher percentage of
respondents (76%) indicated that they still dispose MHM products in latrines.

Table 20: Respondents' Menstrual Hygiene Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices

Bidibidi Rhino Camp Overall Total
MHM Management Practice Refugee
Refugees Host Host Refugees Host Endline Baseline
s
Average No of Women in
1.6 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.8
reproductive age per households
Materials used during the previous monthly periods
Cotton 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 4%
Disposable pads 74% 62% 52% 100% 63% 81% 72% 60%
Layers of underwear 4% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2%
Nothing/bleeding into clothes 1% 15% 3% 0% 2% 7% 5% 10%
Piece of cloth 10% 17% 38% 0% 24% 9% 16% 16%
Others (specify) 12% 0% 7% 0% 9% 0% 5%
Type of disposable pads women use (n = 185)
Cotton 1% 3% 17% 0% 9% 2% 5% 9%
Layers of underwear 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 6%
Menstrual cap 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% -
Reusable cloth 7% 17% 10% 67% 8% 42% 25% 3%
Reusable pads 78% 79% 67% 33% 72% 56% 64% 42%
Tampon 7% 0% 7% 0% 7% 0% 3% -
Place of change of MHM products
Bathroom 11% 49% 26% 0% 18% 24% 21% 7%
House 4% 4% 12% 0% 8% 2% 5% 28%
Latrine 76% 43% 55% 100% 66% 71% 68% 65%
Others (specify) 9% 4% 7% 0% 8% 2% 5% -
Availability of toilet paper or
cleansing water in places where 70% 60% 55% 100% 63% 80% 71% 31%
MHM products are changed
MHM disposal methods
Burn them 5% 19% 0% 0% 2% 10% 6% 5%
In the open 1% 9% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 2%
Latrine 85% 66% 88% 67% 86% 66% 76% 86%
Trash 2% 2% 10% 33% 6% 18% 12% 8%
Others (specify) 8% 4% 2% 0% 5% 2% 3%
Received Training on MHM 100
59% 81% 67% 70% 83% 77%
%
Usefulness of Training
Not useful at all 23% 15% 3% 0% 13% 7% 10%
Not very useful 10% 15% 3% 0% 7% 7% 7%
Useful 17% 19% 53% 33% 35% 26% 31%
Very useful 49% 51% 40% 67% 44% 59% 52%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
46
education and child protection
 In an FGD with women in Ofua 3, Rhino Camp, women resorted using blankets to make pads,
which they then wash and re-use. They noted that the training on making re-usable pads has been
laid down from generations and learning from each other in community groups. However, as a
result of women and girls not having access to MHM products or materials to make local re-usable
pads, girls have been left with no option but to absent themselves from school during their
menstrual periods in order to avoid embarrassment. School girls also noted the lack of materials
and safe places for changing pads at school. In Bidibidi Zone 4, Oxfam intervened with 500 kits &
250 kits of MHM products at schools and community level respectively.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
47
education and child protection
 9. Livelihoods Survey Findings
9.1 Demographic Profiles
Sample Size
A total of 390 respondents were sampled and interviewed under result areas 3 and 4, with 245
respondents sampled in Bidibidi, 45 respondents in Palorinya and 100 respondents in Rhino
Camp. The sample was statistically significant at 95% confidence and 5% level of interval. The
samples are proportionally representing the target beneficiaries in the project. The study was
conducted in Bidibidi, Zone 1 – 5, Palorinya Base Camp Zone and Rhino Camp in Ofua I, II and
III (see Table below for details).

Gender and Age Distribution

Primary data was collected amongst both refugee and host communities of Bidibidi (Yumbe),
Palorinya (Moyo) and Rhino Camp (Arua). Over 84% of the respondents were from the refugee
settlements as compared to 16% from the host communities. Amongst the respondents, the
majority were female (43% female vs 53% male). In terms of age, the majority of the
respondents were between 25 – 34 years 31% (24% from refugee settlements and 7% from
host communities). This indicates that the majority of the respondents were youths.

Household Headship by Gender

In this evaluation, the majority of household heads were males (56% male vs. 43% female)
while 1% were child headed families. No child headed families were sampled from the host
communities.

Level of Education
The majority of the respondents had attended primary education 51% (38% refugees, 12%
host communities.

Length of Stay in Uganda

The majority (76%) of the refugee respondents had stayed in Uganda for 1 – 2 years and 24%
had spent between 3 – 5 years.

Table 21: Demographic Characteristics of Livelihood Respondents

Demographic BidiBidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Overall
Information Total
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
245 45 100 390
No. of 390
212 33 23 22 94 6 329 61
Respondents
Male (%) 53% 5% 20% 27% 51% 4% 41% 12% 53%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
48
education and child protection
 Female (%) 33% 8% 31% 22% 43% 2% 36% 11% 47%
Age of Respondents
15 - 24 years 16% 1% 9% 9% 19% 1% 15% 4% 18%
25 - 34 years 22% 5% 20% 13% 30% 1% 24% 7% 31%
35 - 44 years 20% 2% 11% 9% 16% 1% 16% 4% 20%
45 - 54 years 13% 1% 9% 7% 23% 3% 15% 4% 18%
55 and above
15% 4% 2% 11% 6% 0% 8% 5% 13%
years
Household Headship
Male HHH 38% 12% 27% 31% 53% 6% 39% 16% 56%
Female HHH 48% 1% 24% 18% 38% 0% 37% 6% 43%
Child HHH 0.4% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Education Level of Respondent
Never been to
24% 6% 16% 7% 7% 0% 15% 4% 20%
School
Primary education 42% 4% 27% 29% 47% 4% 38% 12% 51%
Secondary
20% 2% 7% 11% 31% 2% 19% 5% 25%
education
Certificate 0.4% 0% 0% 2% 6% 0% 2% 1% 3%
Diploma 0.5% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 2%
Length of Stay in Uganda
1 - 2 years 85% 0% 100% 0% 44% 0% 76% 0% 76%
3 - 5 years 15% 0% 0% 0% 56% 0% 24% 0% 24%
Household Category
Elderly above 65
years and heading 8% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%
household
Foster parents or
13% 0% 4% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 17%
care taker
Single parents
36% 0% 30% 0% 30% 0% 32% 0% 32%
HHH
Persons with
3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 3%
disability (PWD)
Pregnant/Lactatin
g mothers who
12% 0% 4% 0% 6% 0% 8% 0% 8%
are heading
household.
Women at risk
10% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%
household
None of the above 18% 0% 48% 0% 26% 0% 30% 0% 30%
Household Size
Under 0 – 59
0.8 1.6 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.7
months (MALE)
Under 0 – 59
0.6 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.6
months (FEMALE)

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
49
education and child protection
 5 – 17 years
1.6 2.4 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.9
(MALE)
5 – 17 years
1.5 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.8 1.5 1.4 2.9
(FEMALE)
18 – 49 years
1.1 1.9 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.6 2.7
(MALE)
18 – 49 years
1.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.2 2.4
(FEMALE)
50+ years (MALE) 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.5
50+ years
0.3 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.00 0.2 0.3 0.5
(FEMALE)
Households with Disability
a. Seeing, even if
15% 21% 13% 36% 20% 17% 16% 25% 41%
wearing glasses
b. Hearing, even if
10% 21% 9% 18% 6% 0% 8% 13% 22%
using hearing aids
c. Walking or
9% 27% 13% 14% 7% 0% 10% 14% 24%
climbing steps
d. Remembering
21% 3% 0% 9% 6% 0% 9% 4% 13%
or concentrating
e. Self-care such
as dressing & 4% 6% 9% 0% 3% 0% 5% 2% 7%
washing all over
f. Using local
47% 36% 35% 5% 6% 0% 29% 14% 43%
language
HH members with Disability
BELOW 18 years 1.9 1.1 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.6 2.03
ABOVE 18 years 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.0 2.40
Registered PSN
25% 9% 20% 18% 18%
Household

Type of Support Received

The most common type of support identified was the distribution of vouchers to purchase
agricultural inputs (44%), followed by cash grant for protection of livelihood assets (28%).
Others mentioned included the cash grants to start-up businesses (IGA) (8%), cash for work
employment (2%) training on VSLA (3%), training on modern agricultural practices (2%),
among others. 11% of the respondents indicated not having received any form of support from
MC/DCA.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
50
education and child protection
 Figure 24: Support provided by Mercy Corps/DCA according to respondents
Vouchers to
purchase
agricultural inputs Did not receive
Training on VSLA any support
44%
3% 11%

Other
17%

Cash grant to start Other (specify)… Training on

up business (IGA) 2% agricultural
Cash for work
8% practices
Cash grant for employment
protection of 2% 2%
livelihood asset
28%

9.2 Coping Strategy Index (CSI)

Indicator G1.2: Average Coping Strategy Index
This indicator was measured using the household food security Reduced Coping Strategy Index
(RCSI), which is often used as a proxy indicator of household food insecurity. The RCSI is based
on a list of behaviors (coping strategies) that a household engages in during times of food
scarcity. RCSI combines: (i) the frequency of each strategy; and (ii) their severity for households
reporting food consumption problems.

For comparison purposes, the baseline CSI was re-calculated using the RCSI. In the RCSI, five
standardized behaviours that are recommended by WFP were applied, within a standardized
set of severity weightings for each strategy. Respondents were asked how many times during
the past seven days prior to the evaluation they had employed specific types of coping
strategies, in order to cope with a lack of food or insufficient money to purchase food.

Table 22: Severity weights adopted for each coping strategy

Strategy Severity Weight
1.Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods 1
2. Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative 2
3. Limit portion size at mealtimes 1
4. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat 3
5. Reduce number of meals per day 1

During the in the endline evaluation, the coded frequency response for each strategy was
weighted by the severity of each strategy. Using the following formula: RCSI =
∑ 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑖 ∗ 𝑠𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 where i =1 to 5. The RCSI was administered to a
total of 1,004 respondents, statistically sampled from all the three project settlements of Bidibidi
(549), Palorinya (157), and Rhino Camp (294).

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
51
education and child protection
 The analysis below indicates there has been an increase in the RCSI from 9.9 at baseline to 11.2
at the endline. This implies that there has been an increase food scarcity in the settlement since
the endline was conducted. Households are relying more on borrowing or seeking for help
from friends and relatives than at baseline (3.2 endline, 2.3 baseline); and are restricting
consumption by adults in order for small children to eat (3.2 endline, 1.9 baseline).

According to the respondents in an FGD in Ofua 1, Rhino Camp, even though several livelihood
programs have been supportive, they have been affected by the adverse weather conditions
(long droughts) and failure to find space to grow crops.

At both endline (10.8 refugees, 11.6 host communities) and baseline (8.7 refugees, 11.1 baseline)
refugees have proved to be more food secure than the host communities. This is attributed
to food provisions provided by WFP.

At the settlement level, Palorinya was found to have a better RCSI (10.3) than at baseline (from
16.2 at baseline to 10.3 at endline whereas Bidibidi and Rhino Camp’s RCSI increased (baseline
9.05 and 9.2 respectively to 11.2 and 12.1 at endline).

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
52
education and child protection
Table 23: Reduced Computed Coping Strategy Index (RCSI) – Endline vs Baseline
Coping Behaviour Wei Bidibidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Total Average Overall
ght Refugees Host Refugees Host Refugees Host Refugees Host

F W F W F W F W F W F W F W F W F W
1. Rely on less preferred and 1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
less expensive foods
2. Borrow food, or rely on 2 1.5 3.1 1.7 3.3 1.8 3.5 1.7 3.4 1.2 2.4 1.8 3.5 1.5 3.0 1.7 3.4 1.6 3.2
help from a friend or
relative
3. Limit portion size at 1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
mealtimes
4. Restrict consumption by 3 1.0 2.9 1.2 3.6 0.8 2.3 1.0 3.0 1.1 3.2 1.3 4.0 0.9 2.8 1.2 3.5 1.1 3.2
adults in order for small
children to eat
5. Reduce number of meals 1 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6
per day
Household RCSI (Endline) 10.9 11.4 10.8 9.8 10.6 13.6 10.8 11.6 11.2
Baseline
1. Rely on less preferred and 1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2
less expensive foods
2. Borrow food, or rely on 2 1.2 2.4 1.7 3.4 0.6 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.3 2.6 0.9 1.8 1.0 2.1 1.3 2.5 1.2 2.3
help from a friend or
relative
3. Limit portion size at 1 1.3 1.3 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8
mealtimes
4. Restrict consumption by 3 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 1.8 1.2 3.6 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.6 0.7 2.2 0.6 1.9
adults in order for small
children to eat
5. Reduce number of meals 1 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.8
per day
Household RCSI (Baseline) 7.6 10.5 8.3 14.1 10.2 8.8 8.7 11.1 9.9
F = Frequency in days W** = Weighted CS
*
 This disparity in the endline and baseline CSI could partly be explained by the difference in the
periods (seasons) when the two assessments were conducted. The baseline was conducted in
October and November, which are mainly rainy seasons and crops are blossoming, while the
endline was conducted in January/February, which are typically characterized with dry spells and
nothing to harvest.

Figure 25: Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI): (Baseline Vs Endline)

16.0
14.1
13.6
14.0

11.4 11.6
12.0 10.9 10.8 11.1 11.2
10.5 10.6 10.8
10.2 9.9
9.8
10.0 8.8 8.7
8.3
7.6
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Refugees Host Refugees Host Refugees Host Refugees Host
Community Community Community Community

Bidibidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Total Average Overall

Endline Baseline

9.3 Livelihood Indicator Performance

Indicator R3.1: # of individuals with improved access to agricultural inputs and use of climate
smart agricultural practices
Project monitoring reports indicate 11,518 farmers were provided with increased access to
agricultural inputs through vouchers and seed fairs, 99% of the target. A modification of the project
included a shift in this indicator from 8,020 to 11,651. Endline survey results indicate that 93% of the
target beneficiaries use at least one of the climate smart agriculture practices. These practices
include perma-gardening practices, soil health and management, row planting, irrigation, and
tillage practices.

The results also indicate that majority (44%) of the respondents received vouchers to purchase
agricultural inputs (84% refugees and 16% host communities). Out of these (60%) indicated that
they got these vouchers twice a year (57% refugees and 63% host communities) and 33% indicated
that they received the vouchers once (37% refugees and 30% host communities). When asked
about the amount received, the majority (78%) indicated to having received vouchers worth
between Ushs. 50,000 – 150,000 (60 refugees and 96 hosts). Mercy Corps farmers received
individual vouchers and then had the option of grouping their vouchers with other members of
their group to purchase larger quantities of inputs. For the DCA farmers, each individual farmer
received a voucher for improved seeds and tools such as Cow-peas, ground nuts, Okra, Egg-pants,

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
54
education and child protection
 Onions, Tomatoes and Cabbages, sacks and forked hoe while for each farmer group received
vouchers for seeds and group vouchers (which included wheel barrows, spray pumps, watering
cans and pangs).

Table 24: Access to Vouchers to purchase agricultural inputs

Vouchers to purchase agricultural inputs Refugee Host Community
Total 145 84% 27 16%
Period of receipt
Received it Once 54 37% 8 30%
Monthly 3 2% 0 0%
Quarterly 5 3% 2 7%
Twice a year 83 57% 17 63%
Amount Received
50,000 Ushs and below; 19 13% 0 0%
50,001 – 150,000 Ushs 87 60% 26 96%
150,001 – 300,000 Ushs 12 8% 1 4%
300,001 – 500,000 Ushs 0 0% 0 0%
500,001 – 700,000 Ushs 1 1% 0 0%
700,001 – 1000,000 Ushs 22 15% 0 0%
Don’t Know 4 3% 0 0%
Used Grant for buying
Improved seeds 133 31% 25 30%
Vegetable seeds 116 27% 24 29%
Fertilizers 5 1% 1 1%
Oxen/ Ox ploughs Hoes Water cans 109 25% 16 20%
Super grain bags (SGBs) 57 13% 16 20%
Tarpaulins 3 1% 0 0%
Non-agricultural items 7 2% 0 0%

According to the survey results, the beneficiaries used the vouchers to access a variety of the
agricultural inputs. At least 31% of the respondents used the voucher to buy improved seeds, 28%
used the voucher to buy vegetable seeds, 22% used them to buy Oxen/ Ox ploughs, Hoes,
watering cans and 16% used them to buy super grain bags (SGBs). In some FGDs, farmers cited
that particular seeds were of poor quality, especially Okra. Some FGD participants also raised that
Mercy Corps’ seed fairs occurred late. When cross-referenced with Mercy Corps team members, it
was confirmed that the first season of the project seed fairs occurred in August as the project team
rushed to hire team members and get organized after the award signing.

In 75% of the FGDs conducted on livelihoods, farmers indicated that the price at which seeds were
redeemed was comparably higher than the usual market price of the seeds, yet vouchers were
only redeemable for inputs and not cash. MC/DCA brought agro dealers into the settlements to
provide inputs on multiple days in each location. Vouchers could only be redeemed on those days
given agro dealers do not have a consistent presence in the settlements. MC/DCA did do market
price assessments which informed how prices were negotiated with agro dealers. However, the

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
55
education and child protection
 inputs were slightly more expensive than the market prices due to transportation costs into the
settlements.

Practicing of Improved Cultivation Practices (Climate Smart Agriculture)

Respondents indicated whether they applied improved agricultural practices and which exact
practices they Figure 26: Farmer practicing improved cultivation practices
applied.
Respondents could Perma-gardening practices

choose multiple 7% Soil health and

6%
methods. Majority management
Row Planting
(35%) of the 5%
35%
farmers indicated Irrigation
practicing perma- Tillage Practices
gardening including 21%
Havent Used any
kitchen gardening
and/or sack molds.
Others (26%) 26%
revealed that they
practice soil health
and management
including mulching, organic fertilizer usage and soil water/moisture content management. Other
cultivation practices included row planting (21%), Irrigation practices (5%), Tillage practices (6%).

The study also looked at changes (positive or negative) caused by the varying identified farming
practices. 72% of those applying perma-gardening indicated positive change related to an increase
in farm yields. This was attributed to use of agricultural inputs (31%), improved inputs (21%) and
weather/climate (40%). 24% of the respondents indicated that they have noticed a decrease in
yields and this they attributed mainly to weather changes (93%). On the adoption and use of soil
health and management including mulching, organic fertilizer usage and soil water/moisture
content management, 86% indicated that it has positively impacted their yields and only 9%
indicated that they have noticed a decrease. The positive results are attributed to weather (42%)
and use of improved agricultural inputs including seeds and equipment (74%). The decrease in
yields is attributed mainly to changes in weather patterns.

Table 25: Change Caused by the Agricultural Practice (n=330)

Practice Changes Attribution
Negative (noticed yields Weather 93%
24%
decreased) Use of Agriculture inputs 7%
Perma-gardening practices
Use of Agriculture inputs 31%
including kitchen Positive (noticed yields
gardening and/or sack 72% Use of Improved Inputs 29%
increased)
molds Weather/Climate 40%
Neutral (yields stayed the
4%
same)
Soil health and 9% Weather 63%
Negative (noticed yields
management including Use of improved
decreased) 38%
mulching, organic fertilizer Agriculture inputs

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
56
education and child protection
 usage and soil 86% Weather 42%
water/moisture content Positive (noticed yields Use of improved
management 34%
increased) Agriculture inputs
Use of Improved Inputs 40%
Neutral (yields stayed the 4%
same)
Don’t Know 1%

Indicator R3.2: # of farmers and females at risk who receive cash grants for protection of livelihood
assets or as part of the ALP
According to the analysis from the survey data, 28% of the livelihood respondents revealed to have
received cash grants. This includes 32% AEP participants and 60% of the targeted farmers. This is
far above the 5% respondents at the baseline who indicated to have received cash grants for
protection of livelihood assets. Project monitoring indicates the project has been able to realize
84% of its targets reaching 3,213 beneficiaries. Partners noted a discrepancy in how the target for
this indicator was calculated at proposal stage, with direct farmers and indirect households being
counted to reach 3,824. At endline, partners have reported only direct beneficiaries (individual
farmers, females at risk and ALP guardians that received cash grants). If the same calculation was
used at endline that was used at proposal stage, indirect HH beneficiaries for ALP transfers would
be counted in addition to females at risk and farmers to equal a total reach of 4,491 or 117% of
target.

280 ALP students were included in the representative sample of livelihood activities as they received
business skills training and cash grants to support livelihood activities. In terms of assessing the
viability of transitioning AEP graduates to livelihood activities, AEP graduation occurred late in the
program due to the curriculum cycle therefore it is difficult to ascertain the success of such
transitions. The 280 AEP students received cash grants to support livelihood activities as well as
business skills training and the opportunity to participate in an internship with a local business.
Mercy Corps indicated it had also secured funding to provide follow-on mentorship to cash grant
recipients for the coming ten months.

A one-off cash grants of Ushs. 400,000 was given to the 280 AEP learners to support the process
of establishing IGA’s in December 2018. Many learners had already started a business using the
monthly cash grants thus the one-off cash grant provided an opportunity for scaling and
expansion. They invested in various IGA’s including agricultural enterprises, bakery, tailoring, retail
sale etc. For those that opted for vocational skill training, further training is required and supporting
them with necessary resources and capital to engage into IGAs once they graduate.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
57
education and child protection
 Figure 27: Frequency at which cash grants for livelihood were received and amount received by targeted beneficiaries
140%
Don’t know 120%
100%
Twice a year
80% 72%
Quarterly
60%

Monthly 40% 22%

20% 46% 12%
Received it Once 27% 6% 4% 2% 1% 2%
0% 6%
50,000 50,001 – 150,001 – 300,001 – 500,001 – 700,001 – Above Don’t
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Ushs and 150,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 1000,000 1,000,000 Know
below; Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs

Host Community Refugee Refugee Host Community

The survey results revealed that 59% of the refugees and 67% of the respondents form the host
communities received cash grants for protection of livelihood assets once. In both the host (94%)
and refugee (68%) communities, cash grants have been mainly used to purchase food items to
compliment those received in food distribution. 18% of refugees and 6% hosts used these cash
grants to purchase goods needed by the family. Only 7% indicated to have saved money with a
VSLA. Results indicate grants were used by recipients in line with their purpose, which was to
supplement family food and basic needs as crops matured so as to prevent the selling off of assets.

Figure 28: Uses of the cash grants received for protection of livelihood assets

Other (specify) 4%

Invested in business opportunity 1%

Saved money via VSLA 7%

Saved the money at home 1%

Purchase agricultural inputs 1%

Purchase goods needed by the family 18% 6%

Purchase food items outside of those received in… 68% 94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

Refugee Host Community

Indicator R3.3: # of individuals engaged in Income Generating Activities (IGAs)

MC and DCA provided targeted beneficiaries with resources to protect and start rebuilding
livelihood assets through establishing IGA’s. DCA supported 305 and MC supported 515, hence a
total of 820 recipients of cash transfer, 103% of the target. Before cash was distributed,
entrepreneurs were first trained on 8 modules of basic business skills and savings including a
module on gender & household decision making. They were also trained in making business
proposals.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
58
education and child protection
 The endline assessment indicated 42% of respondents were engaged in income generating
activities. This reveals a significant rise from 17% of the households engaged in IGA’s at the baseline.
This indicates that overall livelihood interventions have contributed to individuals’ ability to engage
in IGAs beyond just the issuance of capital grants for business start-up and expansion. Spillover
effects supporting engagement in IGAs were likely a result of increased income through improved
yields, and ability to save in a VSLAs. At the residence level, 34% of refugees and 51% of the hosts
were engaged in IGA’s. This also shows a significant movement from 10% of the refugee
households and 46% of host households engaging in IGAs at the baseline. There has also been
significant shift in the percent of households engaged in IGA’s at the settlement level: at baseline
9% refugees in Bidibidi engaged and at endline this rose to 22%, Rhino Camp 6% at baseline to
58% at endline, and Palorinya 10% at baseline to 22% at endline.

Further analysis indicated that 54% (40% refugees, 14% host communities) of those engaged in the
IGA were already operating even before the project support came in and out of which 76% have
received project support for the expansion and growth of their businesses. Out of those that have
received project support, 87% indicated an increase in profit levels, 7% indicated that profits have
remained the same while 4% indicated a decrease in profit levels. Comparing the average amount
of profits that the household gets per month from the IGA or income source, it was revealed that
households in the host communities earn much more (UShs. 175,758) than the refugees (UShs.
55,088), with host communities having more income sources. However, these average profits
among the households engaged in IGA’s in host communities follow a non-normal profit
distribution and thus they are more scattered than in refugee settlements, an indication that there
are some households at the extremes, some earning either too much or too little. In the refugee
settlements, there’s a normal distribution of profits among the households engaged in IGA’s and
the standard deviation is very low. This implies that most of these households earn averagely the
same profits.

Figure 29: Percentage of Respondents engaged in Income Generating Activities

100%
90%
27%
80% 42%
55% 49%
70% 58%
67% 66%
60% 78% 78%
50%
40%
73%
30% 58%
45% 51%
20% 42%
33% 34%
10% 22% 22%
0%
Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host Refugee Host
Community Community Community Community

Bidibidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Total Overall

Yes No

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
59
education and child protection
 Further analysis revealed the types of business or income generating activity (IGA) that households
are involved in includes market vending (clothes, household goods, etc.) (26% refugees, 21% host
community), casual labor (19% refugees, 25% host communities), crop farming (8% refugees, 46%
host community), agricultural produce selling (food items, fish, etc.) (19% refugees), and building
and construction (6% refugees, 4% host communities).

Analysis of the evaluation data also indicated that 49% of the respondents (34% refugees, 63%
host communities) have ever received training in IGA’s in the past 21 months, prior to the survey.
They received training in various areas including business record keeping (27% refugees, 21% host
communities), making business plans (20% refugees, 20% host communities), savings (32%
refugees, 20% host communities), among others. Majority (85%) of the respondents that received
training indicated that training was facilitated by Mercy Corps/DCA (78% refugees, 92% host
communities) and other NGO’s in the area (15% refugees, 3% host communities). The analysis also
revealed another private company, Gulu Agricultural Development Company (GADC) that was
providing training to both the refugees and communities through a sub-award with Mercy Corps
to further support farmers ability to engage in farming as a business. Over 50% of the FGD and
Key Informants mentioned that this company would provide training, follow on the application of
the trained skills, encourage people to grow crops and thereafter provides the market for the
harvest.

Figure 30: Percentage of respondents that received IGA training

Gulu Agricultural Development Company (GADC) 4% 3%

Other NGOs 15% 3%
Community leadership 4%
Local governments 3%

Mercy Corps/DCA 78% 92%

Business selection 10% 9%

Business group formation 7% 14%

Savings 32% 20%

Financial literacy 5% 17%
Making business plans 20% 20%
Business record keeping 27% 21%

Households Trained in IGA' 34% 63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%

Refugee Host Community

32% of refugees and 15% of the hosts that received IGA training indicated that they have been
able to apply the skills in their IGAs. Those who have received the trained and applied it revealed
that the skills have enabled them to increase profits (65% refugees, 56% host communities) and
better book keeping (16% refugees, 44% host communities). However, the few that haven’t applied

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
60
education and child protection
 the skills they received had several reasons such as lack of follow up guidance by the trainers, while
another noted the training wasn’t enough and was conducted hurriedly.

The respondents were required to rate the quality of training they received and 92% from both
the refugees and the host communities rated the training having been good and only 1% rated it
as being poor (figure 31).

Figure 31: Rating of the training received

200%
180%
160%
140% 92%
120%
100%
56%
80%
60%
40% 92%
44%
8% 62%
20%
16% 22%
0% 7% 1%
Good Fair Poor Increased Better book More
Profits keeping organised

Refugees Host Communities

Engagement in Agricultural Enterprise or Business

The evaluation assessed the respondents’ engagement in agricultural enterprises or businesses in
the past 12 months comparing the results against the baseline. The results revealed that 74% (57%
refuges, 90% host community) of the target population are engaged in agricultural enterprise or
business activity. This is a significant rise from the only 21% of the target population (12% refugees,
58% host community) that engaged in agricultural activities or business in the 12 months prior to
the baseline survey. This is exhibited in all the three settlements with host community more likely
(90%) to engage than refugees (57%). This likely at least partially a result of hosts access to land
compared to refugees.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
61
education and child protection
 Figure 32: Target Beneficiaries Level of engagement in Agriculture enterprise of Business (Endline Vs Baseline)
100% 0%
6% 10% 10%
90% 23% 26%
80% 37% 40% 43% 42%
52%
70% 60%
71%
60% 78% 79%
91% 90% 88%
50% 100%
94% 90% 90%
40% 77% 74%
30% 63% 60% 57% 58%
48%
20% 40%
29%
10% 22% 21%
9% 10% 12%
0%

Endline
Host -B

Baseline
Host -E

Host -E
Refugee - B

Refugee - E

Refugee - B

Host - B

Refugee - E

Refugee - B

Host - B

Refugee - E

Refugee - B

Host - B
Host - E

Host - E
Refugee -E

BidiBidi Palorinya Rhino Camp Total Overall

Yes No

E = Endline
B = Baseline

The main agricultural enterprise or business activity engaged in was crop farming by 83% (43%
refugees, 40% host community), followed closely by vegetable growing at 80% (36% refugees,
44% host community), among others. Respondents were also engaged in other enterprises such
as agricultural produce selling, buying and selling of livestock, and livestock farming. It should be
noted that households engaged in more than one enterprise and were largely carried out on a
subsistence scale, mainly for home consumption and selling a small portion that may have
remained after one season’s harvest.

Figure 33: Type of agricultural enterprise or business engaged in by the target beneficiaries

Maize milling 1%

Livestock farming 3% 1%

Fruit Farming 2%

Buying and selling of livestock 2%

Selling agricultural produce 14% 13%

Vegetable growing 36% 44%

Crop Farming 43% 40%

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

Refugee Host Community

Applying improved inputs on agricultural enterprises

The evaluation analysis shows 61% of the target beneficiaries applied improved agricultural inputs
in their agricultural enterprises (73% host communities, 43% refugees). In Rhino Camp alone, 83%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
62
education and child protection
 of the host community and 51% of the refugees use improved agricultural inputs, while in Bidibidi
settlement 54% refugees and 64% of the host community used improved inputs. In Palorinya, 39%
refugees and 73% of host communities also used improved agricultural inputs. In both the
refugees and the host communities, the most common improved agricultural inputs used were
improved seeds, (52% refugees, 52% host communities) and farm tools/ equipment (gum boots,
water cans, hoes, grain bags, etc.) (43% refugees, 39% host communities). In Rhino Camp, more
target beneficiaries are using improved agricultural inputs compared to other settlements. This
could be partially attributed to the time they have spent in Uganda as compared to those residing
in other settlements.

Figure 34: Target beneficiaries applying improved agricultural inputs

All the above 3% 6%

Agro-chemicals 2%
Fertlisers 3% 1%
Farm tools/Equipments 43% 39%
Improved seeds 52% 52%

Rhino Camp 51% 83%

Palorinya 39% 73%
Bidibidi 54% 64%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Refugee Host Community

Respondents were also asked how their access to agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizers, etc.) changed
over the last three (3) growing seasons. The analysis revealed that 64% of the respondents
indicated increased access and 22% indicated that there has been no change in the accessibility to
improved agricultural inputs. Only 12% indicated that accessibility to agricultural inputs has
decreased over the past three seasons.

Training in Agribusiness Skills

Both MC and DCA provided agribusiness training to targeted farmers. Respondents were asked
whether they were exposed to any form of training in the last 21 months; and at least 50% of the
respondents had been exposed to some form of agribusiness training. They were trained in various
agribusiness skills such as record keeping (27% refugees, 23% host community), savings (21%
refugees, 24% host community), basic business skills (21% refugees, 23% host community), among
others.

It was however revealed in two FGDs in Palorinya and Rhino Camp, that even though the target
beneficiaries were trained in agribusiness skills, the application of the knowledge is very low. This
was attributed to lack of follow up and proper guidance to the beneficiaries. The participants also
revealed that the trainings were hurriedly conducted and the target beneficiaries couldn’t grasp
and perfectly implement what was trained.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
63
education and child protection
 Figure 35: Percentage of Respondents trained in various business skills
60%

50%

40%
23%
23% 24%
30%

20% 17%
12%
27%
10% 21% 21% 1%
13% 13%
5%
0%
Record Basic business Financial Savings Marketing Others
keeping skills Literacy and buying

Refugee Host Community

Indicator R4.1: # of beneficiaries actively saving (VSLA, SACCO, commercial bank)

Under this indicator, the project has been able to realize 85% of the project target according to
the savings data provided by Mercy Corps and DCA. The project targeted 3,450 beneficiaries with
VSLA activities, and by the end of the project, 2,931 were actively saving. Actively saving was
considered saving for at least three months. Partners indicated VSLA groups self-selected
membership which was often lower than the 30 members assumed at proposal stage.

The survey results indicate that by the end of the project, the majority (46%) of the respondents
indicated that they are saving below UShs. 50,000; followed by 33% which save between UShs.
50,000 – 150,000. Data from MC/DCA indicates that average savings have increased from UShs.
46,906 at baseline to Ushs. 70,447 at endline. Comparison amongst the settlements, Rhino Camp
VSLA’s have had the highest average savings (Ushs. 124,238), followed by VSLA’a in Bidibidi (Ushs.
60,195) and Palorinya VSLA’s (Ushs. 26,906).

It was noted that the Figure 36: Average amount saved

percentage of 50%
respondents keeping 45% 5%
their savings at home has 40%
35%
dropped from 71% at 30%
7%
baseline to 39% of 25%
respondents at endline; 20% 41%
while the percentage of 15% 26%
10% 3%
respondents saving with 2%
5% 10% 0% 0% 0%
VSLA’s has risen from 0% 3% 1% 1% 0%
10% at baseline to 39% at 50,000 50,001 – 150,001 – 300,001 – 500,001 – 700,001 – Above
the endline. However, Ushs and 150,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 1000,000 1,000,000
below Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs Ushs
less people are using
SACCO’s (5% baseline, Refugee Host Community

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
64
education and child protection
 3% endline), Banks/MFIs (4% baseline, 1% endline).

Comparison of refugee with host community further reveals that overall, there has been a
reduction in percentage of refugees (from 78% to 35%) keeping their savings at home, while 32%
rely on VSLAs, 2% on SACCOs and no use of Banks/MFIs. In the host community, there has also
been a reduction in the percentage of respondents keeping their savings at home from 48% at
baseline to only 4% at endline. However, there is still low usage of other financial services with only
7% using VSLAs, and 2% using mobile wallet in host communities.

Respondents in the refugee settlements indicated that the major reasons for saving include;
emergencies (20%), education (20%), facing seasonal hunger (18%), and purchasing productive
assets or for business inventory (13%). In the host communities, the major reasons for saving are;
preparation for emergencies (21%), education (15%) and healthcare/medicine (12%). These are
more or less the same reasons for saving in both the refugee and host communities during the
baseline.

Figure 37: Where Beneficiaries keep their savings

45%
40%
4% 7%
35%
30%
25%
20%
35% 32%
15%
10%
2%
5% 1% 1% 2% 8%
0% 2% 3%
0%
Home VSLA Bank/MFI SACCO Mobile Money Others (friends,
Wallet etc)

Refugees Host Community

The analysis also indicated 55% of the respondents are members of VSLA’s (48% refugees, 8%
host communities. Bidibidi has the highest (31%) percentage of respondents indicating that they
belong to VSLA, followed by Rhino Camp (17%) and then Palorinya with 8%. These percentages
are higher than the percentage of livelihood beneficiaries supported with VSLA. This implies that
more people have embraced the idea of VSLA activities and hence potential spillover impacts of
this support.

When asked about the source of savings during the last saving session, majority noted that savings
came from harvest of the previous season (39% refugees, 40% host communities); and money
from business sources (21% refugees, 26% host communities). Other sources of savings included;
selling food aid (18% refugees), cash transfers (5% refugees, 8% host communities), and others
(14% refugees, 19% host communities). When asked whether they have ever sold any of their
belongings (assets/food items/NFIs) to raise money for a saving scheme, 30% (33% refugees, 26%

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
65
education and child protection
 host communities) assented to having done so. This shows some households continue to struggle
to meet basic needs.

Engagement with the VSLA leaders and the key informants revealed that majority of the VSLA
members are women. Respondents also indicate that savings groups are not only used for savings
and borrowing to fix quick financial needs, but they are also used as a tool to mobilize community
members to undertake communal activities such as supporting the grief-stricken families, social
gatherings, among others.

Borrowing
Quantitative analysis revealed that 29% (33% refugees, 26% host communities) of the respondents
had incurred a debt in the last 30 days prior to the survey. This is slightly higher than the 24% (9%
refugees, 39% host community) that confirmed to have incurred debt in the last one month prior
to the baseline assessment. This increase in the borrowing rate may be attributed to the timing of
the survey, which was done in the dry season, compared to the baseline that was conducted during
the rainy season. During the rainy season, households have various sources of livelihoods and may
be more likely to be able to meet basic household needs. During the evaluation, the debt incurred
mainly in the form of cash (33% refugees, 26% host communities) or food (50% refugees, 19% host
communities). The majority (70% refugees and 50% host communities) of the borrowers have a
debt below Ushs 50,000 and Ushs. 50,000 – 150,000 (20% refugees, and 19% host communities).
There are however some few individuals especially from the host communities that have debts with
higher amounts compared to the refugees. This partly because people in host communities have
more collateral and access to financial institutions than the refugees.

Figure 38: Percent of respondents with a debt and form of debt

90% 81%
80%
70%
70% 65%
60%
50% 50%
50%
40% 33%
30% 26%
19%
20%
10% 2% 3% 1%
0%
Yes No Don’t Know Cash Food Others

Refugee Host Community

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
66
education and child protection
 Ownership of a Mobile
Figure 39: Percent of respondents that own a mobile phone
Phone 100% 91%
87%
Owning a phone is an 90% 83%
essential good for 80%

communication and 70%

60%
facilitates income generation 45%
50%
amongst the refugees and
40%
the host communities. There 30%
was an increase in the 20%
17%
13%
percentage of targeted 10%
respondents owning a 0%
mobile since the baseline was Yes No Registered for Mobile
Money
conducted. Over 85% (83%
refugees, 87% host Refugees Host Community
communities) of the
respondents indicated owning a mobile phone during the endline survey, a rise from 41% at
baseline (37% refugees, 63% host community). This is likely partially a result of subsidised basic
mobile phone sales conducted by Mercy Corps and DCA under a separate funding source during
the same timeframe. Of those that owned a mobile phone at endline, the majority (68%) had their
numbers registered for mobile money services (91% refugees, 45% hosts). This is a significant rise
from baseline when only 29% of refugees were registered for mobile money.

Despite the relatively high registration rate for mobile money services, the use of mobile money
for payment is still minimal. According to the quantitative analysis, only 1% of the respondents in
the refugee settlements indicated that they use mobile money for payment. Majority of the
respondents still use cash to make payments for daily transactions. In the host communities, 100%
of the respondents indicated that they use cash and 74% in refugees. Apart from cash transaction,
there are also a small percentage of respondents that indicated that they with the exchange of
household items (11%) and sell of food aid (8%).

Indicator R4.2: # of market actors (agro-dealers, suppliers) who are able to serve a wider
customer base
The project supported 22 agro-dealers/suppliers to serve a wider customer base through engaging
these businesses in supplying refugees and hosts with improved inputs through the seed fairs as
well as linking them with national level seed companies. This achievement represents 116% of the
target.

When asked about access to agro-dealers, 62% of the respondents (61% refugees, 64% hosts)
acknowledged they have access to market actors; and out of these 47% (42% refugees, 52% host
communities) revealed the number of agro-dealers or suppliers has increased since the project
was launched. This is a significant improvement from baseline when 13% of refugees, and 20% of
hosts confirmed to have access to agro-dealers or suppliers of agricultural inputs. 47% (42
refugees, 52 host communities) of these revealed to have gained connections with these market
actors. 72% (70% refugees, 74% host communities) indicated that they are now aware of where to
access the agricultural inputs such as improved seeds, farm tools and equipment, PHH materials.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
67
education and child protection
 This indicates that the MC/DCA alliance has been effective in mobilizing and linking the farmers to
agro-dealers to enable them have access to improved agricultural inputs.

Table 26: Access to Agro-dealers

Accessibility to Agro-Dealers Refugees Host Community
Percentage of farmer accessing agro-dealers 61% 64%
Has the number of agro-dealers or suppliers changed
Yes, it has reduced 47% 4%
No, it has not changed 4% 41%
Yes, it has increased 42% 52%
Not sure 7% 4%
Percentage of farmers that have gained connections to agro
74% 56%
dealers or input suppliers
Percentage of farmers that are aware of where to access the
70% 74%
agricultural inputs

Indicator R4.3: # of market structures and livelihood community infrastructure completed

Monitoring information available indicates that 5 market structures /livelihood community
infrastructures were established by the end of the project, meeting 100% of the target. When asked
about sources of Figure 40: Major sources of information on market opportunities of agricultural
information on produce
80%
available markets, 69%
70%
69% and 49% of
respondents from 60% 49%
both refugee and 50%
host communities 40%
27%
respectively 30%

indicated that they 20% 10% 12% 11%

7%
get information 10% 4% 5% 5%
about the available 0%
markets of their Mercy Agrodealer Community Radio Family/Friend
Corps/DCA Group
produce from
MC/DCA. Agro- Refugee Host Community
dealers were also
identified within the host community, with 27% indicating these individuals as the source of market
information on harvests.

Community groups, family and radios were also identified as sources of information. The evaluation
analysis indicated that 52% of the beneficiaries have sold their agricultural harvests during the last
21 months. 34% (28% refugees, 40% host community) sold their produce in local markets; while
32% (31 refugees, 33 host communities) sold to community buying agents. It was also revealed
that a private company, Gulu Agricultural Development Company (GADC) is also prominent in
buying agricultural produce and was contracted by Mercy Corps to provide a market for farmers
supported by the Action. The company was also identified in the FGDs for its efforts in encouraging
the farmers to grow crops, and later buy it from them. In this evaluation, 13% and 12% of the host
community and refugees respectively indicated having sold their agricultural harvests to GADC.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
68
education and child protection
 The project beneficiaries were asked whether they managed to save money from the sale of last
seasons’ harvest and 63% (41% refugees, 86% host community) indicated they were able to save
with the majority (35%) able to save between Ushs. 50,000 and Ushs. 150,000 (33% refugees, 37%
host community). It should be noted that the majority (40%) from the refugee settlements were
able to save less than Ushs. 50,000 while the majority (37%) in the host communities saved between
Ushs. 50,000 – 150,000. Over 60% of the respondents indicated that there has been an increase in
amount saved (74% refugees, 100% host communities). Only 17% of refugees revealed a decrease
in the amount saved and 9% indicated that they saved from the agricultural harvests since the
beginning of the project with over 87% indicating savings haven’t changed.

Figure 41: Average Amount Saved from previous harvest (Ushs.)

> 1m 1%

700k - 1m 2% 8%

300k - 500k 8% 8%

150k - 300k 17% 18%

50k - 150k 33% 37%

<50k 40% 29%

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

Refugees Host Communit

Distance to the Nearest Market Centers

Information from the key informants and FGDs indicated most of the goods supplied to the camps
and the host communities are sourced as far as Yumbe, Adjumani, Koboko, Mbale, Kampala, and
Arua. Some few commodities were acquired from the host communities such as vegetables,
charcoal, among others. The traders and IGA owners are faced with long distances coupled with a
poor road network and resulting in high costs of transport. This has resulted in scarcity of some of
the basic commodities such as soap, salt, sugar, etc., making it difficult for most refugee households
to have easy access to basic domestic goods.

When asked about the average distance (in kilometers) to the nearest market for food, clothes and
household goods, 35% (34% refugees, 36 host communities) of the respondents indicated that the
market is within 1 kilometer radius from their households, and 24% revealed that its within 1 – 3km,
while 22% indicated that its within 6 – 10km. When asked if the distance has changed, 75% (59%
refugees, 59% host communities) indicated that the distance has reduced while 14% (25% refugees,
3% host communities) revealed that there has been no change in the distance in the last 21 months.
There are a number of markets that are growing up in different centres, and these have helped
reduce the distances to market centres along with the construction of structures by the project.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
69
education and child protection
 Figure 42: Distance to the Nearest Market

Hasn’t changed 25% 3%

Has increased 16% 7%
Has reduced 59% 90%

Don’t know 2% 0%
More than 10 kilometers 7% 2%
6-10 kilometers 7% 38%
4-5 kilometers 13% 13%
1-3 kilometers 37% 11%
Less than 1 kilometers 34% 36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Refugee Host Community

Indicator R4.4: # of agencies benefitting from cash trainings and standardized tools/approaches
Information from DCA indicates that 12 agencies benefited from cash trainings and standardized
tools/approaches. This represents 100% of the target.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
70
education and child protection
 10. Project Efficiency and Sustainability
10.1 Synergy and collaboration with consortium partners and other
stakeholders
Delivering a multisectoral program requires the collaboration and synergy of partners with various
expertise in different sectors. The choice of Mercy Corps (MC), Save the Children (SC),
DanChurchAid (DCA), Oxfam and CARE provided a framework for management and
implementation of the program that could leverage the organizations expertise across sectors.
An efficient working framework was established to enable each consortium partner to deliver
efficiently on its roles and responsibilities. Each of the consortium partners was responsible for
specific activities and thus reporting on specific indicators. A reporting framework managed by
the consortium leader (MC) was established and supported the consolidation of information from
partners and reporting on the performance of the project. In addition to the monthly meetings
where partner M&E focal points convened, consortium partners were responsible for submitting
quarterly reports to the lead, and quarterly meetings were held to discuss the progress made so
far, the challenges along the way and collective measures taken.

Efficiency in delivering on each partners’ mandate is manifested in the way the indicator targets
were realized. The evaluation revealed that there has been an average indicator achievement of
over 112%, with the use of same resources that were otherwise meant to achieve 100% of the
targets. This shows efficiency in the use of the provided resources.

Engagement and collaboration with OPM, UNHCR and local governments was also critical to the
success of the Action. OPM and UNHCR supported in identifying vulnerable groups and ensuring
feedback and quality control as well as coordination via interagency meetings and working
groups. The project also worked closely with the Production Office, Education Office, and
Probation Office in the Arua, Yumbe and Moyo districts. The good working relationship that
existed ensured that these offices were involved from project inception. For instance, in
livelihoods, the production officer was involved in identification and selection of agro-dealers,
preparation of the seed fairs, among other activities. OPM was involved in the identification and
securing of land for the farmer groups from the host communities, among others. UNHCR was
also involved in identification and allocation of zones for the consortium partners to operate from.
The project would also regularly report to these stakeholders on the progress made and engage
them in quarterly monitoring visits.

10.2 Sustainability of project results

The short timeframe of the project presented challenges to ensuring sustainability especially given
the broad spectrum of response efforts from meeting basic needs to supporting a foundation for
self-reliance. However, key groundwork and activities in each sector should support refugees and
hosts going forward.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
71
education and child protection
 Under general protection, interventions that informed communities about their rights as well as
the appropriate pathway for reporting will encourage reporting of GBV cases in the future as well
as appropriate handling by service providers. While it is unclear the degree to which community
structures supported by the project will persist without additional support and training, this has
created a strong basis for new partner interventions and an increased understanding of GBV
issues within the settlements.
Young people supported under AEP that successfully completed level 3 will transition to formal
schools and Save the Children secured follow-up funding from ECHO to continue supporting
AEP. In addition, the AEP students provided with business skills training and cash grants will be
mentored by Mercy Corps under separate follow-on funding to support their livelihood
opportunities. The physical infrastructure built for educational purposes have been transitioned
to the ECHO INCLUDE project, and Education Cannot Wait project run by Save the Children. The
project intends to handover other infrastructures for schools in host communities to the local
governments. The teachers trained in AEP have also been integrated into the ECHO INCLUDE
project. The case management centers will continue to operate under different funding.

Related to WASH, the project put in place Water User Committees (WUCs) to ensure the
sustainability of the water sources. The WUCs are mandated to maintain the cleanliness the water
sources and rehabilitation of the broken parts. The WUCs are also meant to mobilize the
beneficiaries to contribute financially towards the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the water
sources. However, by the time of the evaluation, with the exception of the WUCs in the host
communities, those in the refugee settlements had not started mobilizing the beneficiaries to
contribute towards O&M.

Based on the number of people receiving hygiene promotional messages in the past year in
addition to the increase in households with adequate hand washing and functional excreta
disposal facilities, it is likely improved hygiene practices will continue.

Livelihoods is perhaps the most difficult sector to observe changes in over such a limited period
of time, and agricultural seasons. Evaluation findings revealed 93% of target beneficiaries use at
least one of the climate smart agriculture practices they were trained in which implies a high
percentage of uptake. It was also noted that 61% of the target beneficiaries applied improved
agricultural inputs in their agricultural enterprises. This shows that at least some target
beneficiaries have embraced the use of the practices and improved agricultural inputs albeit it is
difficult to understand how this will persist after the intervention is complete. An encouraging sign,
however, is that 62% of respondents at endline indicated they have access to and know where to
find agro-dealers indicating access to inputs should theoretically be easier going forward. 42% of
respondents at endline were engaged in IGAs, a significant rise from baseline indicating spillover
effects of business skills training and potentially from increased incomes from harvests supporting
investment in businesses.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
72
education and child protection
 11 Lessons Learned
Documenting lessons learnt is crucial in informing the future design and implementation of similar
projects in such conditions. Some of the lessons learnt include, but are not limited to;

(a) The designing of programs of this nature should be participatory and informed by the
conditions of the targeted community presented in various reports and the baseline survey
report. This helps to meet the needs and requirements of the targeted population such
that the project is relevant and appropriate to the beneficiaries. It also helps to create
ownership of the program amongst the various stakeholders and hence eases
sustainability. It was noted that available literature from the various sources greatly
informed the design of the project, and that indicates to how relevant it has been to the
beneficiaries.
(b) The evaluation also noted that the choice of the implementing or consortium partners is
very key in designing of such multisectoral programs. No single organization is competent
in implementing such a multisectoral project. Thus creating the synergy amongst different
partners that have diverse expertise in their areas operation helps to add value and
expertise to the project, which facilitates the realization of projects targets. This program
managed to achieve immense results in a short time because every results area was
handled by a partner with expertise in that particular area.
(c) From various key informants’ interviews, it was acknowledged that short term (less than
two years) projects can hardly cause a major impact or influence the resilience and self-
reliance of the refugees. As soon as the beneficiaries are starting to appreciate and
understand the project, it is phased out. In such circumstances, all the efforts, if not well
managed can easily be lost. In such a situation, it’s also very difficult to measure the impact
caused by the project, only a few outcomes can be traced. Its thus important that donors
encourage the implementation of long-term projects, from which the impact can easily be
traced.
(d) It’s important that components of the program are implemented with sufficient time to
monitor and mentor beneficiaries within the period of the project. This is particularly
relevant for IGA activities which require sufficient training and mentoring after the
distribution of business grants. While the majority of IGA cash transfer recipients received
cash early enough to ensure proper mentoring, about 200 of those support by Mercy
Corps received cash late in the project making follow up difficult. While Mercy Corps
indicated it secured funding to ensure proper mentorship of these individuals going
forward, this should have occurred within the original project timeline.
(e) It’s worth noting that the model used in identifying the IGAs to support is something which
could be copied and replicated. Making the beneficiaries compete for the funds through
writing proposals encourages innovation and competitiveness. Selection of the best using
local leaders also helped to ensure that unqualified business ideas were eliminated.
(f) Use of community mobilisers in mobilization is very important for success of such
programs. The community mobilisers are members of the community and know the ins-
and-outs of that particular area. However, caution must be taken when identifying them

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
73
education and child protection
 such that ‘wrong’ characters aren’t entrusted with the project. Once identified, these
mobilisers should be equipped with all the information about the project. Failure to
articulate the program objective may lead to misinformation and misrepresentation. Each
partner in this consortium identified several representatives in the communities to work as
project volunteers/mobilisers. These have been very crucial in realization of the success of
the project.

12 Recommendations
The program should make all the necessary arrangements to ensure proper handover from
project close out and transition to appropriate partners and authorities. This will help to ensure
that the infrastructure and structures established are not lost but built on. For instance, under the
VSLA and livelihood component, farmer groups and VSLAs have been formed are functioning.
Partners should ensure such information is provided to incoming partners, OPM and UNHCR to
support the continued functioning of these groups, rather than the starting of new groups.

Before phasing out, the community mobilisers that have been supporting the program should be
recognized with certificates of performance. This document can be used in future job searching
and support refugees and hosts to use the knowledge gained and help influence their livelihoods.
Where needed, those that have performed well can be recruited for future programs by the
consortium partners.

Engagement of all the stakeholders and beneficiaries on the way forward. It was noted that when
the program ended not all stakeholders were aware of the exit strategy. Engagement with UNHCR
and OPM in Moyo district for example revealed that they were not aware about the exit strategy
of the project (although it should be noted they were informed by partners during the last joint
monitoring visit). It would be prudent to increase efforts to bring such stakeholders on board for
what will happen next.

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
74
education and child protection
 Appendices

Appendix 1: List of people Interviewed

S/N NAME LOCATION DESIGNATION
1 Swalleh Ondoma Yumbe District, Bidibidi Zone 4 LC 1 Chairperson
Drimbeni Village (Host
Community)
2 Jackson Amule Yumbe District, Bidibidi Zone 4 Refugee Welfare
Village24, (Refugee Settlement) Chairperson
3 Juma Nickson Jack Moyo District, Palorinya Zone 5 Water User Committee
(Refugee Settlement) Chairperson
4 Moga Jackson Moyo District, Palorinya Zone 5 Refugee Welfare
Village 23, (Refugee Settlement) Chairperson
5 Nyago Ernest Moyo District Local Government Community
Development Officer
6 Mr Lemeriga Moyo District Local Government District Planner

7 Ms Badaru Gertrude Arua District Local Government District Agricultural

Officer
8 Frank Akampa Office of the Prime Minister Settlement
(Palorinya camp) Commandant, Palorinya
9 Jimmy Okello UNHCR (Moyo, Palorinya) Livelihood Assistant
10 Antonias Kamerika UNHCR (Moyo, Palorinya) Programme Officer
11 Godfrey Torit UNHCR (Moyo, Palorinya) Program Assistant
12 Innocent Mercy Corps Monitoring and
Rubangakene Evaluation and Learning
Assistant
13 Patrick Eriga DCA Yumbe District Zone 2 Data Management and
M&E Assistant
14 Jimmy Omoro SCI Program data
Management officer
15 Carolyne Judith OXFAM Team Leader, Public
Amollo Zone 5 Bidibidi Health Engineering,
[email protected] OXFAM
16 Thomas Lumuli Village 19 Zone 5, Aringa I, Secretary, JUJUBETA
Bidibidi VSLA
17 Ladu Joseph Village 22, Zone 5, Bidibidi Chairperson
18 Laku Felix Village 22, Zone 5, Bidibidi Chairman, Water User
Committee
19 Lwala Emmanuel Village 22, Zone 5, Bidibidi Local Leader
20 Beda Ladu Village 22, Zone 5, Bidibidi Care Taker, Water User
Committee

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
75
education and child protection
 Appendix 2: Key Informants Guide
# Organisation Designation Key Questions
#01 OPM Settlement (i) Do you feel that the design of the project
Commandants, addressed the challenges faced by refugees and
Field Officers, host communities?
(ii) In your engagements with the communities, do
#02 UNHCR Focal Point
you feel the challenges faced by the refugees
Persons, Child
were adequately addressed by the project?
Protection
(iii) What are some of the issues that aren’t addressed
Officers, by the project?
livelihood focal (iv) What are the strengths and weaknesses have you
points, Field came across in your engagement with the
officers consortium partners? How were the weaknesses
handled?
(v) How would you recommend this project to be
improved?
(vi) What general achievements do you think have
been realized by the project since its inception?
(vii) Has the project been able to contribute to self-
reliance of the refugees?
(viii) Do you see anyway the government agencies can
continue providing some services that have
provided by the different consortium partners in
the project?
(ix) Are there other NGO’s in the settlements to carry
forward the project activities, when it ceases
operating?
#03 Mercy Programs (i) In planning process, was a situation analysis
Corps Manager, conducted first, and did it address all the possible
Consortium issues faced by the refugees and the host
Manager, Field communities? What are some of the issues that
weren’t addressed?
Managers/officer
(ii) What are the implementation arrangements of the
s
project, and what strengths and weaknesses have
#04 DCA Programs you came across in implementing the project? For
Manager, Field the weaknesses, how have you handled them?
Managers/officer What issues have emerged during the
s/Coordinators implementation process and were not envisioned
#05 SCI Programs in the programing? How have you managed to
Manager, Field handle them?
Managers/officer (iii) What was the basis for choosing the consortium
s/Coordinators and implementing partners? Have they had a
varied influence and capacity in implementing the
#06 OXFAM Programs
project?
Manager, Field
Managers/officer
s/Coordinators

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
76
education and child protection
 #07 CARE Programs (iv) How did the project handle the issues of equality,
Manager, Field human rights, gender, democracy and
Managers/officer environment at planning and implementation?
s/Coordinators (v) How effective is the monitoring and evaluation
system in tracking and reporting on these
achievements? Is the M&E system able to track
the performance of all the consortium partners in
their respective project component areas?
(vi) How have the project strategies helped to ensure
that the project objectives are realized? What
have been their challenges and how have
managed to overcome them?
(vii) What are some of the unintended results that
have been realized by the project?
(viii) How sure are you that the achievements realized
by the project are a direct result of the program
activities? Could there be other influencing factors,
and if yes, what are those? How have they
influence?
(ix) What were the challenges met in implementing
this project (logistical, financial and human
resource, etc.) how have you managed to
overcome these challenges? Did the project have
adequate and qualified staff to implement the
activities?
(x) What strategies are in place to ensure that the
beneficiaries continue receiving the services
provided by the project even when the project
comes to an end? Is there commitment form the
government agencies (relevant MDA’s & local
governments) to take up and provide these
services? Are there other NGO’s in the settlements
to carry forward the project activities?
(xi) Are the program achievements and challenges
being documented and disseminated so that
lessons can be drawn for replication and future
programing? What challenges would impede the
sustainability of the project achievements?
(xii) Were the beneficiaries and local governments
involved all stages; from planning, trainings,
implementation to phasing out of program
activities?
(xiii) What national policies and programs influenced
the project activities
(xiv) What is the level of influence of development
partners include UNHCR, on who/what is funded,
etc.?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
77
education and child protection
 (xv) What Lessons learnt from implementing the
project and recommendations for replication and
re-designing of the project
#08 Local District (i) Did the program involve the local governments in
Governmen Community all stages; from planning, trainings, implementation
ts Development to phasing out of program activities? And if yes,
Officers (DCDO), how did the project support the host communities?
(ii) What are some of the issues that aren’t addressed
District Health
by the project?
Officers (DHO),
(iii) How would you rate the working arrangement
District between the local governments and the project?
Agricultural (iv) What general achievements have been realized by
Officers (DAO), the project since its inception? (in livelihoods, water
District & sanitation, health, agriculture, children education,
Production SGBV, etc)
Officer (DPO), (v) Is there commitment form the local government to
District Water ensure that the host communities will continue
Office benefiting from the services provided by the
project, even when it comes to an end? Are these
activities included into the local governments’ plans
and budgets?
(vi) What challenges would impede the continued
provision of these services? What ways do you
suggest would be done to curtail these challenges?
(vii) Provide recommendations for replication & re-
design this project in the future.
#09 Police OC stations, (i) How have you been involved in activities by the
Family & Child project to curb GBV in the refugee settlements by
Protection Unit the project?
(stations within (ii) What has been done by the project to curb GBV in
the refugee communities? What achievements
the settlements),
have been realized so far?
Medical Officers,
(iii) What efforts have been established by the project
Legal Officers, to protect children from violence? What impact
Community have they had on children’s wellbeing?
Safety Group (iv) What challenges have you met in implementing in
Members trying to curb SGBV and violence against children;
and how has the project helped? What lessons
have you learnt in the process?
(v) Please provide recommendations for replication of
the project in future?
(vi) What efforts are in place to ensure that the
achievements realized are maintained, even after
the project funding ceases?
#10 Agro – Agro dealers (i) How have been involved by MC/DCA to ensure
dealers availability of quality seeds/or buying produce at
fair prices?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
78
education and child protection
 (ii) What achievements have you realized in ensuring
that quality seeds are available or fair prices are
provided? Will you be able to maintain these
achievements even when the project comes to an
end?
(iii) What challenges have you met and how have you
managed to overcome them?
(iv) What recommendations would you provide to
improve on the project in future?
#11 VSLA VSLA Leaders (i) What is the name of the VSLA and how was it
established?
(ii) What support have you received from MC/DCA in
establishing and strengthening of the VSLA?
(iii) What services do you provide to group members?
Are members of the refugee community saving
with the VSLA, how have you encouraged them to
save?
(iv) What achievements have been realized by the
VSLA since its inception? Are these achievements
attributed to the activities of Mercy Corps/DCA?
(v) What challenges have you met in this VSLA and
how have you managed to overcome them?
(vi) What shows that this VSLA will continue operating
even after the closure of the project?
#12 Zones/Villag Zones/Village (i) How have you been involved in activities by the
es Council Leaders project to curb GBV in the refugee settlements by
the project?
(ii) What has been done by the project to curb GBV in
the refugee communities? What achievements
have been realized so far?
(iii) What efforts have been established by the project
to protect children from violence? What impact
have they had on children’s wellbeing?
(iv) What challenges have you met in implementing in
trying to curb SGBV and violence against children;
and how has the project helped? What lessons
have you learnt in the process?
(v) Please provide recommendations for replication of
the project in future?
(vi) What efforts are in place to ensure that the
achievements realized are maintained, even after
the project funding ceases?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
79
education and child protection
 #13 Water Water User (i) What was the process of establishing the water
Committee user committee?
members (ii) Are the user committee members well aware of
their roles and responsibilities?
(iii) What have been the achievements of the
committee since its inception?
(iv) What challenges has the committee met and how
have you managed to overcome them?
(v) What shows that the water user committee and
source will remain operational after the project
comes to an end?
#14 Education Head teachers, (i) How has this school benefited from the Save
(AEP) SMC the Children AEP Program?
(ii) What challenges have you, as the school met
with the program? How have you managed to
overcome these challenges?
(iii) What is are the best ways you can suggest to
improve increased enrollment and regular
attendance in AEP?
(iv) Do you think Save the Children’s AEP is a good
education opportunity for children with
disabilities? If yes, please explain. If no, please
explain.
(v) What arrangements are in place to ensure that
the learners continue benefiting from AEP
services when the project comes to and end?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
80
education and child protection
 Appendix 3: Focus Group Discussion Guide
1) Men/Women
a) Livelihoods
(i) What are the major sources of income for refugees in this settlement?
(ii) How do households in this settlement cope with the issues of food scarcity?
(iii) For households engaged in agricultural production, how do they get access to
agricultural inputs? Have they been introduced to climate smart agriculture and
agribusiness; and has it had an effect on their outputs and sales? Who introduced them
to climate smart agriculture? Do you use these practices after being introduced to
them and how?
(iv) Apart from agriculture, what are other sources of livelihoods for households in this
community? (Probe for cash transfers).
(v) If cash transfers or IGA are brought up, probe for impact. How did recipients use their
transfers? How did IGA recipients of cash invest the money and what changes have
they seen?
(vi) Are community members able to save from their earnings and where do they save
from mainly? For members of the VSLA, how have the VSLA helped to improve on
their livelihoods? Any challenges they face with VSLA’s? Where do VSLA members get
the money to save? Probe to see if people are saving based on livelihood activities,
cash grants or if they are selling food aid to save.
(vii) What other income generating activities (IGAs) are practiced in the settlements apart
from agriculture? Have they received any skills training on managing these IGA’s and
who provided the trainings? What challenges do those practicing IGA’s facing? And
how has Mercy Corps/DCA helped you to overcome them? What successes have they
experienced as a result of receiving IGA cash grants and how does this impact them
now and in the future?
(viii) What are recommendations for MC/DCA going forward? What feedback would you
give these organizations?

b) WASH
(i) What are the main sources of water for domestic use in the community?
(ii) How has OXFAM helped in improving access to water by the households in this
community? What challenges do households still face with water access?
(iii) What are the main types of toilets used by households in the community? How has
OXFAM helped to improve access and use of clean and safe toilets in the community?
(iv) How do households dispose of waste materials?
(v) Do women in this community have access to menstrual materials during their monthly
periods? What types and how do they dispose them off? (specifically for women)

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
81
education and child protection
 (vi) Have the hygienic promotional messages helped to improve hygienic practices at the
household level and in the community?
(vii) What hygienic challenges do still exist in the community?

c) Protection
1. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR
COMMUNITY:
a. How did men spend time on arrival to this settlement? How do they spend their time now?
b. How did women spend time on arrival to this settlement? How do they spend their time
now? What are their daily chores?
c. What are their social activities? Do you think women are busier now or before? Why?
d. Who is responsible for making decisions for this community? Who is responsible for
making decisions in the family? Who controls the resources in the community? In the
family?
e. What people or groups in this community are involved in helping those most in need?
f. How do men get information about what is happening in the community?
g. Who do men go to for help when they have problems?
h. How do women get information about what is happening in the community?
i. Who do women go to for help when they have problems?

2. NOW I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF
WOMEN/MEN AND GIRLS/BOYS:
3. Are you aware of problems with the safety and security of women/men and girls/boys in
this community? (Ask for examples. If no one speaks specifically about GBV, evaluate the
group to decide whether you want to bring up the issue now or wait until the group has
developed more comfort talking about these issues.)
4. What are the circumstances that cause problems of safety and security for women/men
and girls/boys in this community? (Ask for examples.) Have there been changes in safety
and security? Explain reasons for the changes?
5. What has been done by CARE, MC, OXFAM, SCI and DCA Partners here to improve the
safety of women/men and girls/boys?
6. Without mentioning names or indicating anyone specific, who are the perpetrators of
GBV? What happens to the perpetrators of GBV? (Different consequences if the
perpetrator is known/unknown)? Have there been changes? Explain reasons for the
changes?
7. Without mentioning names or indicating anyone specific, which groups of women/men
do you think feel the least safe, or feel at most risk for violence? Which groups of
women/men do you think feel the safest? Have there been changes? Explain reasons for
the changes?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
82
education and child protection
 8. Has the problem of GBV gotten worse, better, or stayed the same in the last year? What
particular types of GBV? If there has been a change, what has caused it?
9. Do women/men look for help when they experience GBV? Do they tell anyone (family
members, other women/men, health? worker, community leader, police/security
people/authorities, someone else)? Have there been changes? Explain reasons for the
changes?
10. How do women/men cope with violence against their family members or friends?
11. How have women/men not been able to cope?
12. What are community responses when violence occurs? What is done to prevent violence?
What is done to help survivors? Have there been changes? Explain reasons for the
changes? How could these efforts be improved?
13. What social and legal services exist to help address problems associated with violence
(e.g., health, police, legal counseling, and social counseling)? Who provides these services?
Have there been changes? Explain reasons for the changes? How could these efforts be
improved?

2) Children
(i) What vulnerable children and children at risk exist in this settlement?
(ii) What major challenges are faced by children in this settlement?
(iii) What measures are in place to ensure that the safety of children in the community?
And which organization is responsible for these measures?
(iv) If there’s a case of violating a child’s life in this community, where do you seek redress?
And how do you rate the quality of services provided by the police, health services,
local leaders, and organisations that work on the issues of children?
(v) What activities have been done by SCI and how have you benefited from them as
children from this community? What challenges have you found with these services?
(vi) What would you recommend to ensure the rights of children are upheld in the
settlements?

This tool is to administered through a focus group discussion of the community where the AEP

programme is being implemented.

SAVE THE CHILDREN – MOYO AND ARUA

I. Are there children aged 9 to 17 years within this community that are not enrolled in school?
If so, what are the reasons they are not enrolled in school?
II. Are there children aged 9 to 17 within this community that are enrolled in school but not
regularly attending? If so, what are the reasons they are not regularly attending school?
III. What are the barriers to enrollment and attendance that girls in this community face?
IV. What are the barriers to enrollment and attendance that boys in this community face?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
83
education and child protection
 V. Tell me what you know about AEPs? What has been the impact of AEP in this community?
Has it supported older, out of school children to enroll back into school? If yes, in what
ways has it supported them? If no, in what ways could it support them better?
VI. Are there children between 9-17 years who choose not to enroll in AEP even though they
are eligible? What are the reasons for them not enrolling?
VII. How do you think Save the Children could enroll more children into AEPs?
VIII. Are there children who have enrolled in AEP but do not regularly attend AEP classes?
What are the reasons for them not attending?
IX. How do you think Save the Children could ensure regular attendance in AEPs?
X. How has the AEP addressed the reasons why children ages 9 – 17 were not regularly
attending school despite being enrolled (frequent absenteeism, etc.)?
XI. Are there children ages 9-17 years with disabilities in this community? How are they
treated within the community? Are these children enrolled in and regularly attending
formal primary school?
XII. Are there children ages 9-17 years with disabilities who are enrolled in and regularly
attending AEP?
XIII. Do you think AEP is a good option for children with disabilities? If yes, please explain. If
no, please explain.
XIV. How will the achievements attained by AEP be sustained even after the program comes
to an end?

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
84
education and child protection
 Consortium
Partners

Funding
Agency

05 August 2014

Endline assessment for multi-sectoral programs covering livelihoods; market development; WASH; GBV/protection;
85
education and child protection