Emergency Shelter and NFI (Version 21 July 2018) - LCED's Post Distribution Monitoring Report, April 2019 - Provision of Emergency Shelter Assistance to 800 Returnees in Nagero County, Tambura State – Western Equatoria (SS) Donor; Rapid Response Fund

This PDM was conducted by LCE staff from 10 to 14th of April, 2019 with four main objectives that includes; assessing how the previous distribution of emergency shelter assistance addressed the presented priority needs of the targeted people; understand how the community was engaged, any gaps identified during implementation as well as suggest any possible recommendations for future interventions.

Different methodologies were employed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. With the help of enumerators selected from the community, household interviews for example were conducted with key respondents (beneficiaries) using a non-random sampling technique called snow ball while key informants were purposively selected. Gender sensitive focus group discussions were also employed to collect views from different groups of people that included beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and people with disabilities. The above were supplemented with observations during the interview process.

The major key findings are ;

  • All respondents reported that the provision of emergency shelter assistance was not only timely but appropriate in responding to their main urgent shelter need.
  • On duplication, all respondents interviewed reported to have ONLY received emergency shelter assistance from LCED in March this year.
  • On protection, 82% reported not to have experienced any form of security threat going to, coming from and at the distribution centers. 96% also reported to have felt safe with the items received and these can be attributed to the location of the distribution centres in consultation with the target population as well as proper timing for the distribution. 98% of the respondents reported to have been treated fairly and with respect by project staff and community leaders not only during distribution but throughout the whole response process. 86% also reported to have seen special categories of people given priority during distribution including transportation of distributed items as well as construction of the temporary shelters.
  • All respondents reported to be satisfied with the quality of the shelter materials received.
  • On access to information, 85% reported to have received information through their community leaders, 73% through attending community meetings, 72% through a hired mega phone while 37% through either a family member or neighbour.
  • 88% of the key respondents reported to have been informed of the selection criteria.
  • 82% of the key respondents reported to have participated in one way or the other during the whole response cycle (attending community meetings, cutting and loading of poles, verifying the registered households and some employed as casual labourers).
  • On complaint, feedback and response mechanism, 78% of the key respondents reported to have been informed of the various CFRM in place (NGO complaint desk, community leaders, RRC office) and this is very important to ensure CFRM is not only in place but rather relevant and appropriate to use by those it targets.
  • On immediate impacts, all the respondents reported to currently sleeping in their new shelters constructed using the distributed materials.
  • Lastly, not all is lost with this conflict affected population. It was encouraging to note that the community are also trying to improve on their situation. For example, they reported to be making bricks for more shelters for the big family size, tilling their land in preparation for the expected rains, bee keeping, fishing and hunting wild animals for survival.

Key recommendation include but not limited to;

  • The urgent need for kitchen sets, sleeping mats, solar torches blankets and jerry cans should not be underestimated rather be given a priority by humanitarian partners.
  • Strengthening of coordination mechanisms among humanitarian partners should be immediate to avoid overlapping and duplication.
  • Many people are still returning and the number is expected to increase. However, there is no registration procedure in place and therefore this PDM recommends a registration system established at RRC office in Nagero to ensure the actual numbers of returnees are captured for factual reporting, future targeting and humanitarian interventions.
  • Community participation should be emphasized and encouraged as one of the best practices for project sustainability and ownership.
  • On complaint, feedback and response mechanism, it is very important for humanitarian partners to consult with the community on what is available, relevant and appropriate to ensure the community is able to use the mechanisms in place to provide feedback.