Safety Net Program Piloting in Afghanistan
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs & Disabled (MoLSAMD)
Operational Evaluation Report of Afghanistan Social Protection Program (ASPP)
Shahristan and Miramor Districts, Daikundi Province
[pic]
April, 2013
Afghan Management and Marketing Consultants (AMMC)
Takhnik Bus Stop, Near 3rd District Police Station, Karte 4, Kabul Afghanistan
ACRONYMS
AMMC Afghan Management & Marketing Consultants
ANDS Afghanistan National Development strategy
ASPP Afghanistan Social Protection Program
CDC Community Development Council
CSO Central Statistics Organization
DAB Da Afghanistan Bank
DoLSAMD Directorate of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled
DSP Directorate of Social Protection
FGIs/Ds Focus Group Interviews / Discussions
FPs Facilitating Partners
IDA International Development Association
MoEc Ministry of Economy
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoLSAMD Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled
MRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
NGOs Non- Governmental Organizations
NRVA National Risk and Vulnerability Assessment
NSP National Solidarity Program
OM Operation Manual
PM Provincial Manager
SDU Special Disbursement Unit
SO Social Organizer
SNF Safety Net Form
VSC Village Selection Committee
VVC Village Verification Committee
TWG Technical Working Group
WB World Bank
WFP World Food Program
GLOSSARY
|AMMC |Afghan Management & Marketing Consultants; the firm basically made responsible to carry |
| |out the Operational Evaluation of the ASPP. |
|Afghanistan Social Protection Program |A government program implemented by the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Martyrs and |
|(ASPP) |Disabled that aims to support poor families with small children that are prone to hunger |
| |and raise community awareness on nutrition and hygiene. |
|Beneficiary |A vulnerable poor mother and her children who qualify to receive the payment under the |
| |ASPP |
|Child |Someone in the between the ages of 0-5 years. |
|Community Development Council (CDC) |The CDC is the social and development organisation at the community level constituted |
| |under the NSP program of MRRD. The CDC is responsible for implementation and supervision |
| |of development projects and liaison between the communities and government/non-government |
| |organizations. The CDC is governed by the CDC by-laws and has office bearers comprised of |
| |a CDC chairperson, vice chair, treasurer & secretary. |
|Database |The consolidation of Forms and other data being collected for ASPP through VSCs, FPs, CSO |
| |and NSP, MRRD. |
|District (Olusvali) |Second tier of administrative division in Afghanistan following the provinces. |
|Eligibility Criteria |The criteria or characteristics used for selecting beneficiaries in ASPP, mainly poor |
| |families that are experiencing hunger with children under 5 years. |
|Facilitating Partner (FP) |The NGOs who will facilitate the implementation of the ASPP. |
|Family |Family means of a husband, wife, and unmarried children. |
|Female headed family |A family where a female is in-charge and responsible for providing for other family |
| |members. |
|Household Head |In most instances, s/he is the principal supplier of the Household. In some cases, a |
| |Household may recognize a senior member as the head irrespective of his/her contribution |
| |to the Household’s income. |
|Hunger |Poor families with children who cannot afford enough food to feed themselves, or often |
| |skip meals, or will go starving if this assistance is not provided. |
|Malik/Arbab |A village headman. Malik/Arbab serves as de facto arbiters in local conflicts, |
| |interlocutors in state policy-making, tax-collectors and governance issues. |
|Mullah/Imam |A religious cleric/head/ priest of the mosque in the village. |
|Mustofiat |MoF treasury department that maintains funding authority at the provincial level. |
| | |
|National Solidarity Program (NSP) |National Solidarity Program of MRRD is a program of the Government of Afghanistan that |
| |establishes Community Development Councils (CDCs) and allows communities to identify, |
| |plan, manage and monitor their own development projects. |
|Province (Wilayat) |First tier of administrative division in Afghanistan i.e. 34 in total. |
|SNP |Safety Net Program |
|Training of Trainers (ToT) |A method of training whereby information is passed on using a cascade approach from Master|
| |trainers to Social Mobilizers and other field staff. |
|Village Selection Committee (VSC) |A group of representative community members including CDC members and community elders, |
| |leaders (Malik/Arbab, Mullah/Imam etc.) including female representatives who will be |
| |responsible for the selection of the vulnerable poor families living within the |
| |geographical coverage of CDC for the benefit under the ASPP. |
|Village Verification Committee (VVC) |Village Verification Committee is a group of representative community members constituted |
| |in the village which includes the CDC members, respected village elders, including female |
| |representatives who will be responsible for checking and verifying the selected families |
| |list, families’ data and to resolve any dispute which may arise in the implementation of |
| |the ASPP. |
Table of Contents
1. operational Evaluation Team 8
2. Acknowledgement 9
3. Executive Summary 11
3.1 Awareness - General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction 12
3.2 Selection Process 13
3.3 Delivery Mechanism 13
3.4 Expenditure Pattern 14
3.5 Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness Program 14
3.6 Perception about Government 15
3.7 analysis, Lessons learned and discussion 15
4. Introduction to Operational Evaluation of ASPP in Diakundi Province 16
4.1 Objectives of the Operational Evaluation 16
4.2 Methodology of Operational Evaluation of ASpP in Daikundi Province 17
4.2.1 Planning Phase 17
4.2.2 Field Work Plan 19
4.2.3 data collection and Reporting Phase 19
4.3 Problems/Issues faced by Operational Evaluation Team in Field Survey 20
5. Major differences of current cycle of the pilot from the previous cyclE 21
6. Suggestions / Recommendations 24
6.1 Awareness - General Program Knowledge & Satisfaction 24
6.2 Selection process 25
6.3 Delivery 27
6.4 Expenditure Pattern 27
6.5 Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness Program 28
6.6 Perception about Government 28
6.7 Implementation mechanism and mode of payment 29
7. analysis, lessons learned and Discussion 31
8. Comparative Analysis of Important Aspects (with respect to village size) 36
9. Awareness – General Program knowledge and satisfaction 56
9.1 Findings and Analysis of close ended questions 56
9.2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions) 61
10. Selection Process 66
10.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close ended questions) 66
10.2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions) 70
11. Delivery mechanism 74
11.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended) 74
11.2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions) 76
12. FGI / D with village selection committees (VSC) & Village Verification Committees (VVCs) 80
12.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/D with VSCs and VVCs 80
12.1.1 Program awareness generation 80
12.1.2 Formation of committee 81
12.1.3 Beneficiary selection process 84
12.1.4 Performance Measurement 90
12.1.5 Program results 91
13. FGI / D with Facilitating Partner (FP) 94
13.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/d with Ox-fam Gb (FP) 94
13.1.1 assessment of current processes 94
13.1.2 Improvement in Processes 96
13.1.3 Performance Measurement 97
13.1.4 Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program 97
14. Interview / Discussion with provincial/District Governors and dolsamd 99
14.1 The findings and analysis of Interviews / Discussions with provincial/District Governors and Dolsamd 99
14.1.1 Major Bottlenecks and Consequences 99
14.1.2 Recommendations - Improvements in Deliverible process 103
14.1.3 Performance of Government Agency, CDCs & FPs and Recommendations 105
14.1.4 Role / usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaigns and Training program for CDCs and FPs 107
15. Expenditure pattern 111
15.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/FGD (close-ended) 111
16. Perception of Government 113
16.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended) 113
16.2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions) 115
17. nutrition and hygiene awareness 121
17.1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended) 121
17.2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions) 127
1. Works Cited 172
Table of Tables
Table 4.1 - Sample CDCs- District, Miramor 18
Table 4.2 - Sample CDCs –District, Shahristan 18
Table 5.1 - Major Difference between the Two Cycles of ASPP 21
Table 7.1- Analysis of Modes of Payments 32
Table 8.1 - Comparative Analysis – Small CDCs / Villages 36
Table 8.2 - Comparative Analysis – Medium CDCs / Villages 42
Table 8.3 - Comparative Analysis – Large CDCs / Villages 47
Table 8.4 - Comparative Analysis of Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness 52
Table 9.1- Analysis of Close Ended Responses - General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction 56
Table 9.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction 61
Table 10.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Selection Process 66
Table 10.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Selection Process 70
Table 11.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses - Delivery 74
Table 11.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Delivery 76
Table 12.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Program Awareness Generation 80
Table 12.2 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Formation of Committee 81
Table 12.3 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Formation of Committee 83
Table 12.4 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses Beneficiary Selection Process (VSC) 85
Table 12.5 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses Beneficiary Selection Process (VVC) 86
Table 12.6 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Beneficiary Selection Process (VSC) 88
Table 12.7 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Beneficiary Selection Process (VVC) 89
Table 12.8 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Performance Measurement 90
Table 12.9 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Program Results 91
Table 12.10 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance Measurement 92
Table 13.1 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Assessment of Current Process 94
Table 13.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Improvement in Processes 96
Table 13.3 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance Measurement 97
Table 13.4 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program 98
Table 14.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Major Bottlenecks and Consequences 99
Table 14.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Major Bottlenecks and Consequences 101
Table 14.3 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Improvements in Deliverable Process 103
Table 14.4 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Improvement in Deliverable Process 103
Table 14.5 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Performance and Recommendations 105
Table 14.6 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance and Recommendations 106
Table 14.7 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program for CDCs and FP 107
Table 15.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Expenditure 111
Table 16.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Perception of Government 113
Table 16.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Perception of Government 115
Table 17.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness 121
Table 17.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness 127
Table of Annexure
Annexure 1 - Work plan for Daikundi Province, Miramor and Shahristan District’s FGI/D Field Survey 131
Annexure 2 - FGI/D Training Outline for Moderators and Facilitators at AMMC 133
Annexure 3 - Field Work Schedules of Focus Group Discussions 134
Annexure 4 - Participants of FGI/Ds with Male Beneficiaries 137
Annexure 5 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Male Beneficiaries 142
Annexure 6 - Participants of FGI / D with Male Non-Beneficiaries 143
Annexure 7 - Pictures of FGI/D Male Non-Beneficiaries of Daikundi 148
Annexure 8 - Participants of FGI/D with Female Beneficiaries 149
Annexure 9 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Female Beneficiaries 154
Annexure 10 - Participants of FGI/D with Female Non Beneficiaries 155
Annexure 11 - Participants of Focus Group Interviews/Discussions with Village Selection Committees 160
Annexure 12 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Village Selection Committees 165
Annexure 13 - Participants of FGI/Ds with Village Verification Committees 166
Annexure 14 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Village Verification Committees 169
Annexure 15 - The Province and District Governors 170
Annexure 16 - Participants of FGI/D with DoLSAMD and FP (Oxfam-GB) 171
operational Evaluation Team
The operational evaluation of the Second Phase of Afghanistan Social Protection Program (ASPP) for Cash-benefits in districts Shahristan and Miramor of Daikundi province was conducted by the Afghan Management & Marketing Consultants. The consultants’ team was led by Mr. Abdul Qayum, with the help of field operations unit and conducted the field surveys and data compilation.
The report in hand presents the operational evaluation of the second phase of program, which was conducted in 2 districts i.e. Shahristan and Miramor of Daikundi Province. The results of this study would be considered for further improving and scaling-up of Afghanistan Social Protection Program.
Mr. Arbab Daud as Program Expert and Mr. Asif Jehanzeb Khan as Advisor Safety Net and Report Writer for Operational Evaluation modified and finalized the tools that were used for carrying out the operational evaluation of the Pilot Phase of ASPP in Badakhshan, Badghis and Kabul. The AMMC team has already conducted the “Targeting Evaluation” “Farza-Pilot M&E Survey” and “Operation Evaluation of Pilot Phase of ASPP”, thus it had ample experience for carrying out the operational evaluation. The AMMC team trained the field workers, carried out the field survey and conducted the quantitative and qualitative analysis and compiled the final “Operational Evaluation Report”. Mr. Abobaker Yousofi, as Project Officer was assisted by Mr. Muhammad Naeem and Mr. Nasrullah Alam as Field Supervisors, to organize and implement field work for operational evaluation in the two districts. They were assisted by a team of moderators / enumerators hired locally from Daikundi. The field work for operational evaluation was carried out in the months of November and December, 2012.
The AMMC Team was fully supported by World Bank’s Social Protection / Safety Net team and Ministry for Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled, Govt. of Afghanistan i.e. during each phase and activity especially with the database and analysis for the operational evaluation of Afghanistan Social Protection Team.
Acknowledgement
The consultants highly appreciate the initiative of the international and national experts for introducing and implementing a Social Protection Program to address the basic needs of the most vulnerable and poorest who have been badly affected by the protracted bad security situation of their country-Afghanistan.
The AMMC team highly acknowledges the support and facilitation provided by the MoLSAMD and WB colleagues during the conceptualization and implementation of the activities for Operational Evaluation.
The role of Facilitating Partner – Oxfam-GB during implementation of Social Protection intervention is also appreciated as they made great efforts for awareness raising, identification and selection, delivery and complaint resolution among the beneficiaries. Most importantly, role of local communities and especially the non-beneficiaries is acknowledged for cooperating with AMMC consultants and understanding the limitations of the Afghanistan Social Protection Program. We are also thankful to the respondents of our surveys for patiently investing their time and thoughts for improvement of ASPP operations.
We sincerely hope that findings and suggestions compiled in this operational evaluation report will further improve the next phase of the project. We expect to contribute in improving the Social Protection program and make it efficient and effective for both service providers and target households in Afghanistan.
Section One
ASpP Operational Evaluation
Executive Summary
Afghanistan is a country which has endured devastations of war, factional fighting, foreign interventions and unstable governments since early 1970s. The legacy of the war, factional fighting and Taliban continues to limit country’s economic growth and development. Afghanistan lacked a stable government during the intermediate period in the aftermath of Soviet occupation. The Taliban rule further worsened the development scenario of the country, thus, pushing the already impoverished population into extreme misery. It is the state’s primary responsibility to cater for the development and well-being of its citizens; moreover, to provide an environment of security and stability so as to foster a progressive society. The Afghan government, recognizing its responsibility towards its citizens launched a social protection program to support vulnerable and poor families through distribution of unconditional cash grants (consumption support) to provide them protection against hunger in the harsh winter season. The ‘Afghanistan Social Protection Program (ASPP)’ has been launched by the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD), Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with support from the World Bank. The “Social Protection Program” is the first of its kind being piloted in Afghanistan. The first phase i.e. pilot of the pilot was implemented in the district Farza of Kabul province. The second phase of pilot was implemented in the districts of Shahre Buzurg in Badakhshan province, Ab Kamari in Badghis province and Chahare Asyab in Kabul province. The current phase has been implemented in the districts Shahristan and Miramor of Daikundi province with modifications to original design.
The ASPP has been evolved, developed and implemented in phases over a period of three years (2010-2012) in different provinces and districts. The phase wise implementation approach allows for incorporation of lessons learned from previous cycles in the program so as to improve its design. Moreover, the capacity of stakeholders involved in implementation continues to develop over period of time. Thus, the lessons learned and recommendations from the “Operational Evaluation” of the first two pilot phases of ASPP have been incorporated into the program design for current cycle. Similarly, new components have also been included in the program to enhance its effectiveness and impacts.
The Operational Evaluation of the program has been done by AMMC. The salient features of the program are briefly stated in the following lines.
Overall the performance of current phase of Afghanistan Social Protection Program has been satisfactory and commendable; more so given the volatile circumstances prevalent in the country. The objective of the project is to provide one-time cash grant to the poorest of poor for livelihood (food) subsistence to sustain the harsh winters. The program design for the current phase of ASPP has been modified based on the recommendations of operational evaluation for the pilot phases. The major design changes include piloting three methods (options) of implementation and practicing two modes of payments, increased number of beneficiaries i.e. from 10% to 20%, formation of selection and verification committees, addition of Nutrition and Hygiene awareness component and preference for families with women and children under 5 in selection process. The program methodology involves awareness raising through CDCs with support of Facilitating Partner (FP), selection and verification of beneficiaries, enrollment of eligible families on Safety Net Forms, disbursement of cash grant; involving local CDCs and stakeholders all the way in the process to make it transparent and acceptable to the communities. The ‘Afghanistan Social Protection Program (ASPP)” is a commendable initiative of Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD); implemented at the field level through FP with the coordination of district department i.e. DoLSAMD. The Afghanistan Social Protection Program has been well designed to alleviate vulnerability of the poor in the communities. It has been well received in the communities and is providing relief and benefits to the selected vulnerable segments.
The ASPP implementation involved multiple stages including partnering with local organizations i.e. Facilitating Partner, awareness campaign, formation of committees, selection and verification of beneficiaries, enrollment on SN forms, complaint lodging mechanism and distribution of cash-benefits. Monitoring and evaluation were made integral part of the program to improve the process for its wider proliferation. AMMC carried out field survey based on ‘focus group discussion’ in both the target districts i.e. Shahristan and Miramor of Daikundi province. Nine villages/CDCs were sampled in each district for field survey to assess program implementation components, draw lessons and make recommendations for future program improvement. The survey explored all major components of ASPP: program awareness and satisfaction, selection process, delivery mechanism, expenditure pattern, nutrition and hygiene awareness and the need for program continuation and perception about the government departments.
A FGI/D survey was designed and conducted in eighteen (18) randomly selected villages, 9 villages in each selected district. These were categorized into small, medium and large villages. Similarly sampling of villages was carried out scientifically to assess the three options of implementation and two modes of payments. The survey covered all the major stakeholders of the program i.e. the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, village selection and verification committees, Facilitating Partner (FP), the DoLSAMD and the District Governors. All aspects of ASPP were discussed with beneficiaries of the cash-benefit as well as other stakeholders. Its main findings and recommendations are stated below for replication and implementation of the Afghanistan Social Protection Program in other deserving areas of Afghanistan.
1 Awareness - General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction
The first aspect assessed through the FGIs/Ds was awareness - general program knowledge and satisfaction among the communities. The respondents were asked about their knowledge regarding the program and purpose of extending cash-benefits among the poor and vulnerable families, their satisfaction level regarding the initiative and role of program implementers.
All stakeholders, especially beneficiaries, perceived ASPP initiatives as beneficial. Both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries gained knowledge / information about the program through general awareness meetings held in each village. The congregation of Friday prayer in the mosques was suggested the best way to inform communities about such programs.
The respondents were well aware of the objective behind distribution of cash grant i.e. to provide financial support to poor and vulnerable families of the village, protect them against poverty and hunger, particularly relief during winter months. They also expressed that program was important for their village.
Majority of the benefiting families as well as non-beneficiaries and other stakeholders appreciated the outcome of the program as a major relief for the poor people enabling them to cater for their basic necessities of food, groceries, health and paying off the debts.
The role of VSCs, VVCs and FP was highly appreciated. Majority of beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries expressed their satisfaction with the formation of committees and selection process with suggestion of inclusion of respectable elders, literate people and more women into the selection committees. Moreover, they suggested raising the bar for selection of poor as many families could not benefit from the program. Few instances of grievances against CDCs were raised by some respondents as well.
The beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries emphasized the need for continuation of such programs and proposed cash payment against development work i.e. “Cash for Work” programs. Similarly government’s initiative was emphasized for infrastructure development, setting up income generation schemes, small enterprises and vocational trainings to have sustainable and long term benefits.
The FP, VSCs, VVCs, DoLSAMD, district Governors while appreciating the program, emphasized on awareness raising, improved coordination and cooperation among program implementers and active association of local elders for improving the process.
2 Selection Process
The second important aspect assessed was the selection of beneficiaries. The respondents were asked about the mechanism regarding the identification and selection of poor and vulnerable families from village and how the process could be improved to increase the benefits of cash transfers.
Overall, people were happy with the selection process and considered it open and fair. They suggested that selection process should be done through enhancement of role of village elders and CDC members and role of FP and government. However, suggestion for limiting the role of CDCs in selection process was also made to overcome their misconduct. The VSC and VVC members emphasized carrying out identification survey on the criteria of poverty, assets and land/livestock etc. and verification by village elders / CDC members. In FP’s opinion, role of women in the VSC and VVC needs to be increased as they can be very helpful to the program compared to the CDC powerful members. The respondents from DoLSAMD favored development of a national database from which poor can be identified and selected for benefit distribution. The governors stressed on increased role of government officials / departments in program implementation. They opined that identification and selection might be carried out through mutual involvement and coordination of government departments and FP. The respondents emphasized awareness raising, clarity of roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders to improve the process. Furthermore, selection and participation of women in the VSC and VVC can help improve selection of beneficiaries’ particularly vulnerable women, and ensure accrual of benefits to women from the program.
Both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, during FGI/Ds, expressed need for provision of additional funds to benefit the remaining poor and vulnerable ones, left out of the list of beneficiaries for want of funds. Similarly they also stressed on the initiation of development and uplift programs for the villages.
3 Delivery Mechanism
Delivery mechanism for the cash grant was the third aspect investigated during the survey for operational evaluation. Under this, beneficiary’s feedback on accrual of benefits, timing and means of transfer were ascertained in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness i.e. by speeding-up the process and ensuring full transfer of benefit amount to deserving families. In the opinion of OE team, the delivery of cash benefit improved considerably from the previous cycles of the ASPP as the program was implemented incorporating desirable changes to its design.
The beneficiaries although satisfied with the cash transfer, however, emphasized reducing the time duration between selection and actual distribution of the cash grant. An overwhelming majority of male and female beneficiaries favored mosque followed by public place (open space within village, mid of village) as the most suitable place for distribution of cash benefit. Further they desired presence of FP and government representatives during the cash distribution so as to avoid misconduct. All the male beneficiaries and majority of female beneficiaries appreciated the smooth flow of the process with no attempts to defraud them of their benefit; though few women indicated failed attempts. However, male and female beneficiary respondents from Zard Sang Shali informed that CDC members took the money back, immediately after distribution, from them and redistributed among all the village families. Majority of beneficiaries expressed that the benefit might be distributed before winter to enable them to purchase food and basic necessities for the winter season.
The beneficiaries, VSCs, VVCs, DoLSAMD, FP and Governor all were in favor of involvement of women and female workers (staff) in the process for further improvement. The FP also requested for support from DoLSAMD in carrying/delivering cash to the villages for distribution. Thus, it is recommended to have enhanced cooperation among program implementers to reduce delays and practice more vigilance in future during delivery process so as to avoid any fraudulent practices.
4 Expenditure Pattern
The operational evaluation also explored expenditure / consumption patterns of the beneficiaries through FGIs/Ds to assess the changes in pattern of their spending i.e. the utilization of cash-benefits following receipt of cash benefit.
Majority of the beneficiaries – both males and females expressed that their family spending increased as compared to last season; moreover most of the benefit amount was spent on food items, needs of children and clothing. Almost all the beneficiaries both male and female informed that they have spent the entire benefit amount and saved nothing. Most of the beneficiaries expressed that the entire family benefitted from the cash grant, while few specifically mentioned that women and children benefitted the most.
As two modes of payments were experimented, findings reveal that although men and women both collected benefits under Mode 1 (male and female both can collect benefit); however men also collected benefits in few cases where only female were required to collect (Mode 2 only female can collect benefit). Majority of the female expressed that both male and female live in families and the expenses are joint thus, they as women spent the amount mostly on family needs of food, clothes and children etc. however, female respondents from Zard Sang Shali and Kadanak Girow expressed that the money was taken by men and women were not involved in decisions to spend the amount.
Although the benefit amount provided relief to families and social status of women also improved to some extent, however, concerted efforts are needed to enhance its impact on women social status and decision making. The OE team recommends that payment Mode 2 should be adopted i.e. only female member of family can collect the benefit amount. This might enable women to have some control over its spending and contribute to family well-being.
5 Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness Program
The Operational Evaluation also focused on the new aspect, the Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness component, a completely new addition to the program and implemented with both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. This sub-component of the ASPP was carried out on experimental basis in 20 selected CDCs/villages of the two districts with sampling of three CDCs from each district.
All the stakeholders welcomed the inclusion of nutrition and hygiene program. It has been well received in all the villages. Everyone liked it and recommended to continue on a permanent basis and have such meetings held regularly. The campaign was well prepared and organized, well attended by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (including multiple members / females from one family in most cases). Most villagers confirmed that they have never been exposed to similar campaigns in the past. Members from a small number of villages where similar campaigns had been conducted in the past confirmed that this campaign was more useful. Most of the information was new and visual material was easy to understand. Females and children benefited the most from the campaign. The N&H messages have been further disseminated by participants to their family members and relatives as well. Overall, females are more positive about the campaign than the males. The program participants also expressed satisfaction with the contents of distribution of food packs and soap cakes. The results of N&H awareness are very encouraging and people have suggested its further expansion and continuation.
Thus, the OE team recommends that Nutrition & Hygiene component may be added to the program as permanent feature.
6 Perception about Government
The next aspect explored through FGDs comprised people’s perception about Government and program implementers’ role in the ASPP, and whether the cash-grant has effected desirable changes.
Overall the perception of government has improved significantly compared to previous phases of ASPP in the target areas. Almost all the beneficiaries (apart from female respondents of Zard Sang Shali) and significant number of non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with the outcome of government’s initiatives, that their perception of the central as well as provincial governments, and that their perception of various stakeholders i.e. FP, CDC and DoLSAMD has much improved after accrual of program benefit, however, few non-beneficiaries from Kohkoj-e-Waras, Zard Sang Shali, Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal, Kilage Dashte Sufla, Deh Asho Alowdal and Owre Mazar Ozmok from district Shahristan expressed reservations about government and various stakeholders. Similarly non-beneficiaries from Chukrizar Barkar, Daraghila Charkh Bargar and Shinya Bargar from district Miramor were not satisfied with the role of central government in the program.
The beneficiaries of program expressed improvement in their socio-economic status due to ASPP interventions. The respondents also suggested initiation of development projects for the uplift of area and “Cash for Work” programs. Thus, the OE team recommends enhanced participation of government departments and officials in program activities particularly during awareness raising and distribution of cash grant further which will improve peoples’ perception towards government.
7 analysis, Lessons learned and discussion
The operational evaluation also focused on few other aspects of the program. This phase of the ASPP piloted three options for implementation, testing different approaches towards program activities. The findings of the survey, however, revealed no significant difference among the three options, thus, further exploration might be carried out to decipher the effects of each option and arrive at the best method. The OE team suggests formation of a single selection committee involving FP and representative from DoLSAMD / government; awareness campaign carried out by CDC and VSC (using posters, banners etc.), verification of selected beneficiaries is carried by the FP being responsible for filling SNF forms of families and FP carries out distribution of benefits in presence of government representatives with facilitation of DoLSAMD.
Similarly, two modes of payments were piloted in the distribution of cash benefit. Mode 1 Payment involved both male and female presence allowing benefit collection by either; while Mode 2 payment required only female presence and only female must collect benefit. Although the benefit distribution through both modes went smoothly, however, in OE teams’ opinion the payment mode 2 is more beneficial to the objectives of program, as women are primarily responsible for looking after daily household needs and rearing children. Thus, OE team recommends that payment Mode 2 should be adopted i.e. only female member of family to collect the benefit amount. This might enable women to have better control over its spending and contribute more to family well-being.
The OE team further suggests that inter-linkages between institutions responsible for implementation need to be strengthened and coordination mechanism developed for overall improvement of the ASPP.
Introduction to Operational Evaluation of ASPP in Diakundi Province
The ‘Afghanistan Social Protection Program’ has been introduced by Afghanistan’s Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MoLSAMD) after successful implementation of pilot Safety Net Project in 4 districts of three provinces. It is funded by World Bank (WB) and focuses on providing cash assistance to selected target group i.e. poorest of the poor families before or after winter. This assistance is in form of ‘Un-Conditional Cash Grant’.
Under ASPP the poorest and vulnerable families received a one-time unconditional cash-benefit. It was given to individuals identified and selected as poorest of the poor. The ASPP process involved different stages like involvement of local organizations, information dissemination campaigns, identification & selection through VSCs and VVCs, canvassing Safety Net Form, compliance and complaints, and disbursement of cash-benefits.
The AMMC Team has already carried out “Pilot of the pilot Operational Evaluation for SNP” in District Farza of Kabul Province and Operational Evaluation of the SNP Pilot in three districts of Shahre Buzurg, Ab Kamari and Chahare Asyab of Badakhshan, Badghis and Kabul Provinces. Thus the team has acquired the requisite knowledge and experience of carrying out the Operational Evaluation of the scale up phase of SNP ASPP.
1 Objectives of the Operational Evaluation
The overall objective of the present Operational Evaluation is;
“To determine the effectiveness of the beneficiaries selection, the payment delivery process, perceptions of the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, stakeholders and define scope for further operational improvements for scaling up operations of the ASPP”
The specific objectives of the Operational Evaluation of ASPP are to;
a. Inform further design improvements of the unified targeting and delivery platform
Guide scale-up of the new ASPP cash transfer programme
b. The roles of CDCs, VSC and VVCs and females , FP and government stakeholders involvement in every aspect of the programme; and
c. Evaluate feasibility of adding a hygiene & nutrition awareness conditionality to the cash transfer program in project areas
The Operational Evaluation has been carried out by organizing and conducting Focused Group Discussions / interviews with the beneficiaries of “ASPP”, non-beneficiaries, FP and government stake holders of DoLSAMD, District and Provincial Governor to obtain information on the processes involved in the program, their perceptions regarding ASPP and the benefits accrued thereof. These FGDs/interviews will be helpful in assessing the processes, the instruments, the stakeholders and related aspects involved in the Afghanistan Social Protection Program. The aim of operational evaluation was to find positive and negative aspects under various components of program and accordingly propose course correction for the expanded program.
The Operational Evaluation primarily has focused on: General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction, Selection Process, Delivery Mechanism, Expenditure pattern, Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness, Perception about the Government Department and most of all the need for continuation of program.
2 Methodology of Operational Evaluation of ASpP in Daikundi Province
1 Planning Phase
The survey was planned and conducted to evaluate the operations under up-scaled phase of Afghanistan Social Protection Program following distribution of cash-grants during October-November 2012, and completion of all the specified stages of ASPP operations by the local CDCs/VSCs/VVCs and FP.
The survey was mainly based on focus group interviews and discussions held with all stakeholders’ i.e. male beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, female beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, VSCs, VVCs, CDCs, FP, DoLSAMD and the district as well as provincial Governor.
The AMMC team carried out evaluation in a sample of 18 CDCs/villages which were selected randomly in the two districts i.e. Miramor and Shahristan with three different methods of implementation and two modes of payments in nutrition and hygiene covered CDCs to assess the processes of safety net operations of ASPP. In each district 9 villages/CDCs were selected for FGI/Ds. These villages were classified into small, medium and large villages on the basis of number of families in the villages/CDCs.
The focus group interviews and discussion aimed to ascertain the viewpoints of program stakeholders about various processes of the Afghanistan Social Protection Program with special emphasis on the following subject areas;
1. General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction
2. Selection of Beneficiaries
3. Delivery
4. Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
5. Expenditure pattern
6. Perception about Government
The survey tools of Focus Group Interviews and Discussions were modified and updated following pilot operational evaluation. These tools were designed for obtaining both quantitative and qualitative information regarding the above-mentioned main areas and for each type of stakeholders. These are listed below while the complete details are annexed to this document.
i. Male Beneficiaries FGI/D Format
ii. Male Non-Beneficiaries FGI/D Format
iii. Female Beneficiaries FGI/D Format
iv. Female Non-Beneficiaries FGI/D Format
v. Village Selection Committee (VSC) FGI/D Format
vi. Village Verification Committee (VVC) FGI/D Format
vii. Facilitating Partner (FP) FGI/D Format
viii. DoLSAMD, District Governor FGI/D Format
Sampling Structure
The sample for operational evaluation was scientifically drawn based on the data of NSP, MRRD. The CDCs / villages have been selected randomly on the basis of small, medium and large based on number of families. These villages were then stratified into type of implementation and support received by the FP into Options I, II and III and payment of benefit to beneficiaries into types- I and II.The sampling details are as follows:
Table 4.1 - Sample CDCs- District, Miramor
|Payment Mode |Selection |
| |Option 1 |Option 2 |Option 3 |
|Mode 1 |34-3407-0116 |34-3407-0087 (Nak/Watana) |34-3407-0061 |
| |(Chukrizar Barkar) | |(Shinya Bargar) |
|Mode 2 |34-3407-0006 |34-3407-0062 |34-3407-0161 |
| |(Bark Takawi) |(Sangar kish Ulya Barger) |(Argi Nadak) |
|Mode 2 + Nutrition and Hygiene |34-3407-0089 |34-3407-0024 (Daraghila Charkh |34-3407-0151 |
|Awareness |(Pitab Joe Watana) |Bargar) |(Rook Ushto) |
Table 4.2 - Sample CDCs –District, Shahristan
|Payment Mode |Selection |
| |Option 1 |Option 2 |Option 3 |
|Mode 1 |34-3409-0016 |34-3409-0110 |34-3409-008 (Owre-Mazar |
| |(Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla) |(Kohkoj-e-waras) |Ozmak) |
|Mode 2 |34-3409-0032 |34-3409-0109 |34-3409-0002 |
| |(Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla) |(Kadanag Girow) |(Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal) |
|Mode 1 + Nutrition and Hygiene |34-3409-0130 |34-3409-0127 |34-3409-0010 |
|Awareness |(Sare Koyak Amej) |(Zard Sang Shali) |(Deh-e-Osho Alawdal) |
| | | | |
|Option 1 |Default method, where only CDCs have done the awareness generation for the program |
| |Then VSC & VVC were formed without involvement of FP, and |
| |Formation and selection of beneficiary families was done without FP's direct involvement |
|Option 2 |FP directly involved through in-village presence in awareness generation about the program. |
| |Same process and role of VSC and VCC in beneficiary selection |
| |FP is involved in mobilizing community and taking notes etc. in assisting VVC in carrying out open community |
| |meeting |
|Option 3 |Similar to Option 2 but only VSC formed (no VVC) and with help of the FP it is responsible for selection of |
| |beneficiary families in open community meeting (the list compiled and read at the time of the assembly |
Operational Evaluation has taken into consideration two modes of payments as well. In Miramor district, Mode 2 payment, three CDCs comprising 1 small, 1 medium and 1 large were selected. In Sharistan district, Mode 1 payment, three CDCs comprising 1 small, 1 medium and 1 large were selected The Payment modes are: Payment Mode 1: Both female and male required, Payment Mode 2: Only female required and only female must collect benefit. Three CDCs of Mode 1 payment + Nutrition awareness in Sharistan and three CDCs of Mode 2 payment + Nutrition awareness in Miramor have been covered for Operational Evaluation work.
A work-plan was prepared for carrying out the field work of operational evaluation, which is given as annexure-1.
2 Field Work Plan
The field survey was planned with the help of MoLSAMD and WB team and implemented by AMMC in the field. Although the work plan was followed, however, the field team experienced delays and changes in the actual timeline, primarily due to field conditions of delay in payments to beneficiaries, severe weather conditions and road blockages.
Staff members Mr. Muhammad Naeem and Mr. Nasrullah Alam from AMMC who were trained and had experience of conducting Operational Evaluation field operations in pilot phases went to Daikundi for operational evaluation field work. They interviewed and recruited local facilitators and moderators for the field work. They were: (i) Mr. Sayed Mohammad Ali Kabir, (ii) Mr. Sayed Mohammad Arif, (iii) Ms. Nazia and, (iv) Ms. Khadija
A two-day training session was held for the newly recruited facilitators and a mock exercise was also held by the team. The training outline is given in annexure-2.
The team started the operational evaluation field survey with the interview of District Governor Miramor, and then conducted FGI/Ds with the sampled villages/CDCs of Miramor. The team then moved to Shahristan and carried out field survey. Finally the field work was completed with the interviews of Provincial Governor, DoLSAMD and Oxfam-GB. The survey was conducted during the winter i.e. November and December 2012 after a gap of about month of benefit distribution in the sampled villages. Each of the concerned stakeholders’ group was invited to a pre-decided and arranged place. The survey team conducted each type of the focused group discussion in each sample village/CDC. The field work schedule is given in annexure 3.
In each selected village 6 data gathering sheets were utilized for recording responses of groups of 8-10 participants. These sheets were edited/refined by moderators and facilitators.
3 data collection and Reporting Phase
The data recording sheets were punched to excel formats by the data entry team of AMMC.
A total of 107 focused group interviews/discussions were conducted for the Operational Evaluation with various Program Stakeholders in which a total of 832 persons took part. The break-down of these FGIs/Ds is:
A total of 72 FGIs/Ds held with Beneficiaries and Non-beneficiaries in which a total of 616 people participated – male 307 and female 309
18 FGIs/Ds held with VSCs comprising 124 participants
12 FGIs/Ds held with VVCs comprising 79 participants
FGI/D held with the FP Oxfam-GB with 5 participants
FGI/D held with the DoLSAMD with 5 participants
2 FGIs/Ds held with the District Governors, and
FGI/D held with the Provincial Governor
The data sheets were analyzed, key areas were selected for detailed analysis and quantitative sections were tabulated for comparative analysis. Similarly, qualitative information i.e. open ended discussion was also analyzed and reported.
This report provides an analysis of responses for each group of stakeholders for different types of information generated.
3 Problems/Issues faced by Operational Evaluation Team in Field Survey
The AMMC team was successful in completing the fieldwork in all the sample villages even though field work in Daikundi was very difficult and was carried out over a period of three months during winter season with heavy snowfalls in these districts. The Problems that were faced while conducting the field survey are given below:
• Limited support from FP- Oxfam GB in introducing the field team in the villages and inviting village people for FGDs
• Gathering people for FGDs was time consuming and difficult task.
• Security threat in some villages or on the way toward villages due to proximity of unstable provinces of Uruzgan and Wardak.
• The field survey was carried out in winter. The weather was extremely cold and there was lack of transportation facilities due to difficult terrain. There were villages which were reached after 6 to 8 hours travel from the district headquarters. Similarly there were villages only accessible by foot. Thus, the field survey team faced difficulties in accessing the target villages.
• Majority of the participants of the Focus groups were illiterate, which made it very tough for the facilitators to ascertain information from them. The questions needed to be often repeated to the participants. Thus, prolonging the probing sessions to collect requisite information.
Major differences of current cycle of the pilot from the previous cyclE
The ASPP has evolved, developed and implemented in phases over a period of three years (2010-2012) in different provinces and districts. The phase wise implementation approach allows for incorporation of lessons learned from previous cycle in the program so as to improve its design. Moreover, the capacity of stakeholders involved in implementation also develops over period of time. Thus, the lessons learned and recommendations from the “Operation Evaluation” of the pilot phase of ASPP have been incorporated into the program design for current cycle; similarly, few new components have also been included in the program to enhance its effectiveness and impacts. The major differences between the two cycles are briefly presented in the following lines:
Table 5.1 - Major Difference between the Two Cycles of ASPP
|Parameter |Original Program Design (2010) |New Design (2012) |
| |Safety Net Program, Phase- I and II |Afghanistan Social Protection Program (Phase-III) |
|Objective |Objective of the program was to “Smoothen seasonal |Although the main objective of the program remained the same, there|
| |fluctuations in consumption by providing a one off cash|has been addition to it of Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness. Thus |
| |support to poor families around the winter period” |the additional objectives of current cycle of ASPP are to: |
| |The main objective of the program was provision of cash|support very poor families with small children prone to hunger |
| |grant to the most vulnerable and poor families |ensuring sustained levels of consumption of basic food throughout |
| |particularly widows, female headed families with |winter/after winter, and |
| |children, disabled, elderly so that they can purchase |raise awareness on nutrition and hygiene among beneficiary families|
| |food items and fulfill necessary needs for the harsh |during program implementation |
| |winter seasons. | |
|Targeted Beneficiaries |Primary beneficiaries were poor families with various |The primary beneficiaries are Poor families with children under the|
| |categories of dependents like: poor families with large|age of 5 facing hunger. Poor families are defined as those |
| |number of children, female headed families, disabled |experiencing the severe hunger or families that cannot afford |
| |and elderly. These families do not have proper housing,|enough food to feed their children and themselves, often skip meals|
| |cultivable land, regular income and are IDPs and faced |or will go starving if this assistance is not provided. These |
| |severe draught/calamities. |families typically do not have any arable land in order to |
| | |cultivate their own food. Target beneficiaries were children under |
| | |5 and their mothers/female guardians in families that suffer from |
| | |hunger and dependents like elderly and disabled. |
| | |families with disabled children or those caring for orphans should |
| | |be prioritized |
|Coverage within |The coverage of the program beneficiaries comprised 10%|The coverage of program has been enhanced to 20% of the village |
|Communities |of the village families i.e. only 10% of total families|families i.e. one out of every five families can be a program |
| |were considered for the program benefit. A very small |beneficiary. The percentage of families to be covered under program|
| |percentage considering the widespread poverty prevalent|has increased by 100%. |
| |in Afghanistan. | |
|Selection Process |FP with the help of CDC members conducts awareness |The focus of changes has been on introducing clear checks and |
| |generation program in the village/CDC. CDC produced a |balances in the process. A relatively simple and comprehensive |
| |short list of families and carried out ranking based on|process has been adopted for selection of deserving families. In |
| |multiple NRVA indicators which were used as positive |first stage FP provided training to CDC on the ASPP and explains |
| |and negative indicators of selection (simplified |the criteria of selection. The CDC members organize a larger |
| |proxy-means testing). Selection Committee of CDC is |community meeting in respective villages; disseminate program |
| |in-charge of selection of beneficiaries. A two stage |message and criteria of selection. The formation of Village |
| |selection mechanism was adopted by the forms; SNF-01 |Selection Committee (VSC) is done through consultation and approval|
| |for 20%- 30% poor families and SNF-02 for final |of community with assistance from FPs/CDCs. Similarly, the Village |
| |selection of 10% poor beneficiary families by the |Verification Committee (VVC) is also formed through consensus. |
| |Selection Committee with the help of FP. The role of |These committees have clearly prescribed TOR and are composed of |
| |Complaint Committee was minimal. |prominent village members (including CDC members, village elders, |
| | |respected people, literate members, females, etc.). The VSC |
| | |prepares the initial list of 20% beneficiary families through |
| | |consultation of village elders, CDC and community. They submit this|
| | |list to the VVC which carries out the verification based on the |
| | |economic indicators and criteria for selection. The final list of |
| | |20% beneficiary families is debated and approved in open community |
| | |meeting and displayed at prominent public place. |
|Program / Public |Program/Public Awareness was the responsibility of CDCs|The Program/Public Awareness Generation is primarily the |
|Awareness Generation |and FPs but without clear messages and wider |responsibility of Facilitating Partner facilitated by CDC. The FP |
| |dissemination for the community. The awareness campaign|and DoLSAMD would oversee the work of CDC, VSC and VVC in program |
| |of the pilot phase was not widespread. |awareness generation. The revised Operational Manual prescribes |
| | |specific messages to be delivered as part of the information |
| | |campaign for the villagers and clearly defines roles and |
| | |responsibilities at every stage of the process. |
|Nutrition and Hygiene |Not part of the this Safety Net Pilot phases |Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness Program has been added to this |
|Awareness | |phase of ASPP as a soft conditionality. The Nutrition and Hygiene |
| | |Awareness training program has been implemented by the FP on pilot |
| | |basis in selected villages. The response of Nutrition and Hygiene |
| | |Awareness has been positive and communities have welcomed the |
| | |initiative. |
|Benefit |One-off payment of $40-200 per family depending on |One-off payment of $25 per child under 5 and a mother (roughly |
| |number of dependents |reflective of one month of subsidized food consumption) besides on |
| | |dependent (elderly, disabled and widow), averaging around $100 per |
| | |family. |
|Options of |Single uniform implementation methodology and mode of |Three Options of implementation and two modes of payment have been |
|Implementation and |Payment was undertaken uniformly in all the |undertaken in selected 18 villages/CDCs. These options and Modes of|
|Modes of Payment |villages/CDCs. |Payment are: |
| | |Three Options of Implementation |
| | |Option 1: Default method, where only CDCs will do the awareness |
| | |generation for the program. Then VSC & VVC will be formed without |
| | |involvement of FP, and Formation and selection of beneficiary |
| | |families will be done without FP's direct involvement. |
| | |Option 2: FP directly involved through in-village presence in |
| | |awareness generation about the program. Same process and role of |
| | |VSC and VCC in beneficiary selection. FP is involved in mobilizing |
| | |community and taking notes etc. in assisting VVC in carrying out |
| | |open community meeting |
| | |Option 3: Similar to Option 2 but only VSC formed and with help of |
| | |the FP it is responsible for selection of beneficiary families in |
| | |open community meeting (the list compiled and read at the time of |
| | |the assembly) |
| | |The Payment modes are: Pay Mode 1: Both female and male required, |
| | |Pay Mode 2: Only female required and only female must collect |
| | |benefit |
|Financial Mechanism of |CDCs received the block grants directly from the |Mustoofiat received the funds from MoF and distributed the block |
|benefit distribution |Provincial DAB banks in their accounts which they |grants to CDCs through provincial DoLSAMD office with the help of |
| |distributed to beneficiaries with the help of FP. |FP. |
|Involvement of |The role of District and Provincial Governors was |DoLSAMD office played active role in the scrutiny of documents, SN |
|Government stake |minimal. DoLSAMD role was mostly supervisory. |Forms, Collection, distribution and reconciliation of block grants |
|holders | |to CDCs. District and Provincial Governors active participation. |
The analysis of findings for options of implementation and payments modes are presented in analysis, lessons learned and discussion chapter.
Suggestions / Recommendations
The operational evaluation of current cycle of ASPP in the two districts of Daikundi province proved to be an arduous task, primarily due to severe weather conditions and to some extent due to difficulties in data collection. The evaluation comprised immense data which needed to be properly compiled and analyzed. In some cases the responses of communities were vague and sometimes inconsistent.
The suggestions derived from FGI/D survey and recommendations of OE team on various aspects of ASPP are stated below for consideration;
1 Awareness - General Program Knowledge & Satisfaction
The awareness campaign of current phase of ASPP was much better than the pilot phase and has been appreciated by the communities and other stakeholders. Similarly, satisfaction level of communities also enhanced with program implementation. Regarding further improvement of the program few pertinent suggestions preferred by most respondents are given below;
i. The fund allocation for program and number of beneficiaries might be increased with same benefit amount.
ii. The Program Benefit might be paid against some work preferably development work i.e. Cash for Work program, this would also help in development and uplift of the village. Similarly government might initiate development projects in the villages for providing economic opportunities and poverty alleviation.
iii. Various communication channels suitable to local conditions might be used for program awareness generation e.g. Announcement through Mosque, CDC, radio and district offices etc.
The FP employees suggested that;
iv. Duration of the awareness campaign might be increased so that everyone gets an opportunity to participate in this process.
v. Awareness campaign might be augmented with use of posters, banners etc. as their effect is long lasting
The FP, DoLSAMD and Governors suggested that;
vi. Role of local females in the committees might be enhanced to increase the program spread to females.
vii. Similarly, involvement of female workers (may be staff) in program implementation would prove beneficial for enhancing the program spread to female.
Based on findings from the field survey, the OE team recommends following measures to be adopted
A well designed mass awareness campaign utilizing all the available and appropriate means i.e. electronic media – messages on radio, television, print media – posters and banners at prominent sites and distribution of brochures, pamphlets, leaflets and local venues like mosque, CDCs office etc. to increase awareness and information regarding the program.
Time duration of Awareness Campaign might be increased so that information can reach out to majority.
Membership of elderly, literate and respectable women in CDCs, VSCs and VVCs need to be increased, thus providing enhanced opportunities for women to become aware of the program and benefit from it. Moreover, female CDCs may also be formed / re-vitalized and explored as a potential option in areas allowing favorable/acceptable cultural interventions.
Similarly, recruitment and involvement of female staff in implementation process, particularly, during awareness campaign can play a vital role in spreading the information among females who have restricted movements or no interaction with male members of the community.
ASPP may also pilot a “Cash for Work” program i.e. the program benefit is paid against development work. Development projects under ASPP may be initiated in the target areas and the poor and vulnerable are afforded more opportunities of work against cash payment. This will have two pronged effects – firstly development of the area and secondly employment and income generation. Thus, Cash for Work program may be piloted under ASPP.
ASPP may also consider launching “vocational training program” and “small loans for enterprise development” particularly for female headed households (or which do not have male earning hand) to initiate small enterprises for their economic uplift.
ASPP may also launch an “Internship Program” for poor educated youth (female and male) of rural areas. This program will hire educated youth (12 grade passed) in various projects (private sector, NGOs and other projects) and ASPP will pay the youth a stipend so that they can get experience of working in local organizations and support their families as well.
2 Selection process
Majority of the respondents i.e. Beneficiaries, Non-Beneficiaries, VSCs, VVCs, FP and DoLSAMD expressed satisfaction with the selection process. The suggestions of FGD respondents for improving the selection process are given below:
viii. The fund allocation under the program might be increased to select higher number of beneficiaries so that majority of poorest and vulnerable families can benefit.
ix. Few respondents suggested limiting the role of CDCs in selection process as they indulged in misconduct; moreover, role of FP and government might be enhanced.
VSC and VVCs also suggested that;
x. Few respondents suggested that village elders and CDCs members should be associated in the selection process.
xi. Emphasized identification survey on the criteria of poverty, assets and land/livestock etc. and verification by village elders / CDC members.
FPs suggested;
xii. Role of women in the VSC and VVC needs to be increased as they can be very helpful to the program compared to the CDC members who are powerful people.
xiii. Selection of poor people may be done in the spring season as in other seasons their selection becomes difficult.
DoLSAMD suggested;
xiv. Development of a national database from where poor can be identified and selected for benefit distribution. Moreover, awareness needs to be enhanced so that people become at least fair to themselves.
xv. Selection and participation of women in the VSC and VVC can help improve selection of beneficiaries particularly vulnerable women, and ensure accrual of benefits to women from the program
The Governors suggested;
xvi. Increase the role of government officials / departments in program implementation. The identification and selection might be carried out through mutual involvement and coordination of government departments and FP.
DoLSAMD and Governors highlighted that;
xvii. Increased coordination between DoLSAMD, Governors, FP and ASPP staff will help to avoid delays in distribution of cash in future.
xviii. Hire female staff to enhance awareness regarding program in females; moreover, women “shura” or CDCs need to be encouraged to further strengthen the process.
Based on the survey findings the OE team recommends that;
Increased coordination and cooperation between government departments, DoLSAMD and FP would ensure smooth implementation of program. DOLSAMD staff may be involved at the time of selecting the beneficiaries. Involvement of these stakeholders in selection process would ensure transparency and accountability.
As already mentioned female workers (staff) need to be engaged in program implementation from start till its conclusion i.e. from Awareness generation, beneficiary selection to benefit distribution. Female workers (staff) can get first-hand information from the female members of the community and establish one to one contact.
Similarly increased membership and role of women, particularly elderly, literate and respectable women in CDCs, VSCs and VVCs, would ensure more women to become aware of the program and benefit from it. Moreover, female CDCs need to be formed to look after the interest of female community members.
In case selection process is done by respective VSCs and verified by VVCs, it may be facilitated by the concerned government departments and FP.
The FP in coordination with concerned government department may carry out random “Spot Check” of few potential selected beneficiaries to verify whether they are deserving or not.
3 Delivery
The delivery of cash benefit improved considerably from the previous cycle of the ASPP. As the program was implemented with few changes to its design, the suggestions of respondents to improve the delivery mechanism are given below;
xix. The Cash distribution should be preferably carried out at Mosque or Public Place and time duration between selection and cash distribution be reduced.
xx. The staff of DoLSAMD and FPs be present at the time of distribution to avoid any fraudulent practices.
The FP suggested,
xxi. Improved coordination in transferring money so that delays are reduced, and
xxii. DoLSAMD should help in carrying (transporting) money for distribution to far off villages
The DoLSAMD and Governors highlighted the following;
xxiii. Improved coordination and support between the stakeholders i.e. MoLSAMD, DoLSAMD and FPs to improve the delivery process and reduce bottlenecks.
In the light of suggestions from the respondents, the OE team also recommends the following:
As per suggestions of FGDs respondents, representatives of DoLSAMD, FP and government officials might be ensured / present at the time of cash distribution to avoid misconduct.
Ministry might depute its officials to be present at distribution of cash-benefit to the selected beneficiaries. Moreover, the staff can also meet few beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to ascertain their views,
As per suggestions of FP, DoLSAMD should facilitate FP in carrying/transportation of Cash Amount for distribution purposes,
As per suggestion of DoLSAMD, Governors and FP, coordination between stakeholders should be strengthened to improve program delivery,
District Governors might be invited to distribute Cash Benefit to poor families in few places so as to establish Government ownership towards the ASPP,
The channel of funds transfer for cash benefit may be simplified to reduce delays by omitting unnecessary steps.
A ten percent sample of beneficiaries of ‘Cash-benefit’ may be cross-checked against national poverty surveys through third party in order to verify the legitimacy of selected beneficiaries.
4 Expenditure Pattern
The program beneficiaries highly appreciated distribution of cash grant for fulfilling their basic needs for winter season and expressed that their expenditure on children and women increased compared to last season, thus, benefitting them most from this consumption grant. Similarly majority of the respondents suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries under the program if additional funding is provided. Moreover, funds might also be directed towards development schemes in villages. Few respondents were also of view that benefit might be provided against work i.e. “Cash for Work” program. It will lead to greater sustainability.
The OE team recommends that;
Piloting “Cash for Work” programs involving local communities in development activities thereby generating economic activity alongside social protection.
A “Cut Off” point might be fixed based on specific criteria, families/households lying below this point should be selected for Cash Grant.
List of identified poor and vulnerable families might be shared with other agencies/organizations working in the area so that they can benefit from their interventions as well.
5 Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness Program
The Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness component has been a completely new addition to the ASPP. This component was piloted in few selected villages and has benefitted beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries. The Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness component has been well received in all the villages and most of the FGD respondents suggested its continuation in future.
The OE team recommends that;
The Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness might be made a permanent part of the program. Similarly its duration, contents and coverage may be improved.
As most of the villages are backward and far off, medical camps might also be organized so that poor people can benefit from the services of doctors.
6 Perception about Government
The findings of OE reveal that although perception of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries has significantly improved towards government and program implementers, however, there is enough room for further improvement.
The OE team recommends that;
Effective coordination is required between all the major stakeholders i.e. the ministry, DoLSAMD, Governor and the FP for ensuring success of ASPP in Afghanistan.
The role of government officials (Governors) might be enhanced in ASPP implementation so that ownership towards the program is developed. However, there role should be to facilitate the process rather than executing.
ASPP is a commendable initiative of Afghanistan Government; a focused awareness campaign might be launched through print (posters & brochures) and electronic (FM radio, TV etc.) media to highlight importance and objectives of the ASPP, with emphasis on the efforts of the government in implementing the program.
7 Implementation mechanism and mode of payment
The ASPP tested three options of implementation and two modes of payment in select villages/CDCs in the current cycle of the Pilot program. Although the implementation approach under the three options varied however, the finding of OE reveal no significant difference. Majority of respondents expressed satisfaction with awareness campaign, working of VSCs and VVCs, Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness program. However, few reservations against CDCs were raised by respondents from couple of villages. Similarly, FP as well as significant number of respondents expressed that single selection committee is sufficient. The findings also reveal that VVC did not include or exclude anyone from the list compiled by VSC in the 12 villages where VVCs were formed. Similarly, the two modes of payments were practiced with mixed results.
Thus, the OE Team recommends:
Formation of a Single Selection Committee with the involvement of FP and maybe with representative from DoLSAMD / government. The selection committee should comprise elders/respected members, literate people, Mullah and elderly/literate women from the village.
FP facilitates the verification of selected beneficiaries in the public meeting held in village based on criteria adopted for program benefit.
Awareness Campaign is carried out by CDC and VSC facilitated by the FP and DoLSAMD. Posters, brochures and banners might be used for awareness campaign.
Mode 2 of payment i.e. only female must collect the benefit will give some sort of control to women on spending the benefit amount and lead to women empowerment.
Section two –
analysis, lessons learned and discussion
analysis, lessons learned and Discussion
This chapter briefly discusses the important aspects and themes that are not specifically covered in following sections. These include:
Options of Implementation
Modes of Payment / Financial Mechanism
Redistribution of Benefit Amount
Role and capacity of VSC, VVC and CDC &
Usage, Role and Guidance of Operational Manual
Inter-linkages between institutions
Usage of Nutrition and Hygiene messages
Financial Mechanism through Mastoofiat
Options of Implementation
Three options of implementation adopted for the current phase of ASPP. The details of options are:
Option 1
Option 1 involved CDCs carrying out the awareness activities for the program, formation of VSC and VVC without involvement of FP and selection of beneficiary families without FP's direct involvement. Option 1 was practiced in CDCs- Chukrizar Barkar, Bark Takawi and Pitab Joe Watana in Miramor district and CDCs- Kilage Dashte-Sufla, Ulqan Payan Dashte and Sare Koyak Amei in Shahristan district.
Option 2
Under option 2, FP was directly involved in awareness activities about the program, formation of VSC and VCC for beneficiary selection.FP involvement in mobilizing community and taking notes etc. in assisting VVC in carrying out open community meeting. Option 2 was practiced in CDCs- Sangarkarkesh Ulya, Nak Watana and Darghala Charkh Bargar in Miramor district and CDCs- Zard Sang Shali, Kakock Waras and Kadanak Girow in Shahristan district.
Option 3
Option 3 is almost similar to option 2 and only VSC is formed and with help of the FP it is responsible for selection of beneficiary families in open community meeting (the list compiled and read at the time of the assembly). Option 3 was practiced in Kakrak Wargha Alawdal, Deh Asho Alawdal and Awry Mazar Azmok in district Shahristan and Shinya Barkar, Argi Nadak and Rook Ushto in district Miramor.
The program implementation was done by applying these three methods in different villages. However, no significant differences in terms of findings were witnessed by the operational evaluation team in the process. This might be due to two factors:
Firstly, the methods / options may not have been fully followed in implementation
Secondly, the tools designed for Operational Evaluation could not capture the exact picture
It is entirely possible that this may not be due to either factor. Thus, the operational evaluation team feels that further exploration/research might be carried out to isolate the effects of each option of implementation and arrive at the best among the three.
Detailed analysis of important aspects is presented in following chapters with respect to size of village and modes of payment. Few important findings on implementation mechanism ascertained from FGI/Ds are:
Awareness and Program Implementation
Majority of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with the awareness campaign.
Majority of the respondents were satisfied and appreciated the role of CDCs
Majority of the respondents both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were satisfied with the support of Facilitating Partner
Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness program has been appreciated by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries
VSC and VVC Role
Majority of the respondents expressed satisfaction with selection process of beneficiaries
Similarly majority of the respondents appreciated the role of VSC and VVC
Majority respondents preferred not to change the composition of VSC and VVC, while few would like to add more literate and respectable people into the committees
Majority beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries thought it was helpful to have two committees as it makes the process safe and transparent. Similarly there were view from respondents that only one committee will also suffice
The selection was done by VSC and verification was carried out by VVC. Based on the findings not a single beneficiary was added or removed from the list by VVC.
Facilitating Partner
The FP also generally favored one selection committee for implementation of program
FP expressed that in few cases powerful people in CDCs tried to take unfair advantage of the program
The OE team concludes that the program implementation has overall appreciation by the respondents and stakeholders. However, there is room for improvement. The OE team suggests – firstly formation of a Single Selection Committee comprising elders/respected members, literate people, Mullah (clergy) and elderly/literate women from the village with the involvement of FP and maybe representative from DoLSAMD / government; secondly awareness campaign is carried out by CDC and VSC (using posters, banners etc.) facilitated by the FP and DoLSAMD; verification of selected beneficiaries may be carried out by declaration of beneficiaries in public meeting facilitated by FP as it is responsible for filling SNF forms of families; and lastly Mode 2 of payment i.e. only female must collect the benefit.
Modes of Payment / financial mechanism
Two modes of payments were adopted for the current phase of ASPP. The details of modes of payments have been given in chapter 5 of the report. The analysis of findings is briefly discussed in following passages to assess the effectiveness of each mode:
Mode 1 Payment involved both male and female presence and benefit could be collected by either; while Mode 2 payment required only female presence and only female must collect benefit. Under Mode 1 payment six villages from Shahristan and three villages from Miramor were selected for OE, similarly, under Mode 2 payment three villages from Shahristan and Six villages from Miramor were selected for OE. The findings from survey are briefly discussed in following passages.
Table 7.1- Analysis of Modes of Payments
|Payment Mode |Respondents |District |
| | |Shahristan |Miramor |
|Mode 1 |Male Beneficiaries |All 56 respondents from 6 CDCs informed that they|All 24 male respondents from the 3 CDCs received the |
| | |themselves received the cash benefit |benefit themselves |
| |Female Beneficiaries |41 respondents from 5 CDCs informed that they |All 24 female respondents from the 3 CDCs affirmed |
| | |received the benefit; only female respondents (9)|that they collected the benefit amount |
| | |from Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla informed that their | |
| | |husbands received the benefit. | |
|Mode 2 |Male Beneficiaries |19 respondents informed that their wives received|33 respondents informed that their wives collected |
| | |the benefit amount, however, 6 men from Ulqan |the benefit amount, while 8 men from Sangarkesh Ulya |
| | |Payeen said that they collected the benefit |and 9 from Pitab Joe Watana said they collected the |
| | |amount |benefit amount rather than the wives. |
| |Female Beneficiaries |All the 24 female respondents informed that they |All the 49 females’ respondents from 6 CDCs had |
| | |collected the benefit amount themselves. |collected the benefit themselves. |
Although men and women both collected benefits under Mode 1, it is evident from the findings that men collected benefits in few cases where only female were required to collect. Further exploration is needed to ascertain the exact causes of such events. Similarly majority of the female expressed that both male and female live in families and the expenses are joint thus, they as women spent the amount mostly on family needs of food, clothes and children etc. Female respondents from Zard Sang Shali and Kadanak Girow expressed that the money was taken by men and women were not involved in decisions to spend the amount.
Although the benefit amount provided relief to families and social status of women also improved to some extent, however, concerted efforts are needed to enhance its impact on women social status and decision making.
Thus, in OE teams’ opinion the payment mode 2 is more beneficial to the program objectives, as women are primarily responsible for looking after daily household activities and rearing children. Furthermore, the OE team recommends that payment Mode 2 should be adopted i.e. only female member of family can collect the benefit amount. This might enable women to have some control over its spending and contribute to family well-being and lead to women empowerment.
Redistribution of Benefit Amount
Redistribution or taking the benefit amount back from beneficiaries and then distributing it equally among all families of village happened in this phase of ASPP as well although on a lower level than last phase. The beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries from Zard Sang Shali, district Shahristan informed that in their village money was collected from beneficiaries by CDC members and village elders and then redistributed among all families of village equally. Similarly respondents of Kohkoj-e-Waras also informed of similar decision on part of village elders and CDC members to distribute benefit among all families of village; however, whether redistribution actually happened has not been clearly stated by respondents.
The respondents from village where redistribution took place also informed that they were not fully clear on the roles and responsibilities of the committees. The argument that these things happened due to lack of clarity on the roles and responsibilities of committees would not be entirely right; there seems to be a conscious choice of community either due to social pressures or influence of village elders and CDC members as is the case of Zard Sang Shali and Kohkoj-e-Waras.
Role and capacity of VSC, VVC and CDC
The role and capacity of VSCs and VVCs has been observed to be satisfactory in the program implementation. Working of these committees can be further improved through enhancing role of women and including more literate and respectable members. In general, the role of VSC has been more pronounced as they list the potential beneficiaries and VVC only carries out verification. The findings reveal that VVCs in the 12 villages did not add or remove any family from list which signifies that VSC is carrying out its responsibilities properly. Apart from couple of villages, the role of CDCs has also been effective and satisfactory.
Although majority of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries affirmed that selection of poor families for cash benefit was properly carried out by both VSC and VVC with consultation of village elders. However, there have been instances where respondents informed that non-deserving were selected and provided with benefit. Male beneficiaries from Kohkoj-e-Waras and from Kakrak Wargha Alawdal informed that few non deserving were provided with cash benefit, moreover it was decided in Kohkoj-e-Waras that the cash benefit would be distributed equally to all families of the village.
Moreover, respondents from Zard Sang Shali, Kohkoj-e-Waras and Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal were not fully clear about the roles of committees, which resulted in instances of selection of non-deserving and redistribution. Also it is pertinent to mention here that lack of understanding on the roles of committees may not be the only cause of redistribution, there seems to be a conscious choice of community either due to social pressures or influence of village elders and CDC members as is the case of Zard Sang Shali and Kohkoj-e-Waras. In these cases the role of committees is perceived to be quite weak.
The working of the CDCs and committees can be further improved through capacity building and monitoring and mentoring by the facilitating partner. In opinion of OE Team simplification of process may be done and only one village selection committee entrusted with the identification and selection of beneficiaries.
Usage, Role and Guidance of Operational Manual
MoLSAMD have developed a complete Operational Manual for the implementation of ASPP. However, the usage of operational manual was observed to be limited by the program implementers. The concerned governors had not consulted the operational manual; representatives of DoLSAMD read it once while FP staff consulted it periodically during implementation process. Thus, the overall usage, role and guidance of the Operational Manual need to be enhanced.
Inter-linkages between institutions
Inter-linkages between institutions responsible for implementation need to be strengthened and coordination mechanism developed. The Governors had limited knowledge on the program, they stressed that there has been limited coordination of the program implementation with provincial and district governments. FP also stressed on increased support from DoLSAMD. In the opinion of OE team, overall the inter linkages between institutions can be improved through establishment of an effective coordination mechanism.
Usage of Nutrition and Hygiene messages
The inclusion of nutrition and hygiene program has been welcomed by all the stakeholders. This component has been carried out with both beneficiaries as well as non-beneficiaries. The results of N&H awareness are very encouraging and people have suggested further expansion and continuation of this program. The N&H messages have been further disseminated by participants to their family members and relatives as well. Thus, the Nutrition & Hygiene component may be added as permanent feature to the program. Detailed analysis in presented in following sections.
Financial Mechanism through Mustoofiat
The committee formed by the provincial governor was a good step towards ensuring transparency only during distributing money because it did not had authority to monitor the selection of beneficiaries and post distribution misconducts etc. The role of committee was limited only to distribution, this role might be enhanced to ensure transparency in beneficiary selection and post distribution as well to stop fraudulent practices.
Mastoofiat is an old system of Ministry of finance (MOF) used for provinces. Ministry of Finance releases money for provinces and projects through Mastoofiat. This is an old system involving a lot of difficult paper work which is very time consuming. There is need for evolving an efficient system of financial transfers so that the time duration between selection and cash distribution is reduced.
Comparative Analysis of Important Aspects (with respect to village size)
This chapter briefly presents comparative analysis of the important aspects and themes with regard to size/category of village/CDC. These include:
Awareness Generation Problems
Formation of VSCs and VVCs and difficulties
Selection of Beneficiaries
Roles and Responsibilities of CDCs and Committees
Complaints
Conducting Meetings
Cash Distribution Problems
Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
Table 8.1 - Comparative Analysis – Small CDCs / Villages
|Village / CDC Size : Small |
|Aspects / Parameters |Option 1 - Mode 1 |Option 2 – Mode 2 |Option 3 – N&H |
| |(Chukrizar Barkar, Kilage Dashte Sufla) |(Sangarkesh Ulya, Kadanak Girow) |(Rook Ushto (Mode 2), Deh-e-Osho Alawdal (Mode 1)) |
|Awareness Generation |Out of 16 male beneficiaries from two villages: |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
| |10 informed they attended the awareness meeting while 6 |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |
| |expressed no knowledge, 8 expressed satisfaction while 8|with details provided, and opined that Friday prayers are|with details provided; they thought the program very |
| |were not satisfied. Only 3 thought the program to be not|the best way to inform people about such programs. |important for village and supported its continuation. 8 |
| |important for village while rest thought it important. |Similarly all thought the program very important for |respondents opined that Friday prayers while 8 informed |
| |Similarly all supported continuation of program and |village and supported its continuation. |that through CDC members is the best way to inform |
| |information through CDC members as best way to inform | |people about such programs in future. |
| |about such programs in future. |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages | |
| | |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |Out of 17 female beneficiaries from two villages: |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| |9 from Kilage Dashte Sufla informed that they did not |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| |attend the meeting, their family member attended it, |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| |while 8 from Chukrizar Barkar attended and were |important for village and supported its continuation. |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| |satisfied with the awareness meeting. All thought the |Out of 20 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |important for village and supported its continuation. |
| |program to be very important for village. Similarly all |6 from Kadanak Girow attended meeting themselves, while 9| |
| |supported continuation of program and Friday Prayers |from Sangarkesh Ulya informed that they along with a |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |
| |(Mosque) as best way to inform about such programs in |family member attended the awareness meeting and were |8 from Rook Ushto attended meeting themselves, while 8 |
| |future |satisfied with the details provided; however, 5 |from Sangarkesh Ulya informed that they along with a |
| | |respondents from Kadanak Girow informed that someone from|family member attended the awareness meeting; all stated|
| |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |their family attended. All opined that Friday prayers are|that they were satisfied with the details provided. 12 |
| |14 informed they attended the awareness meeting and were|the best way to inform people about such programs. 15 |respondents from both villages opined that Friday |
| |satisfied with it. 1 informed that he did not attend |thought the program very important for village while 5 |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| |while 1 expressed no knowledge and were not satisfied |from Kadanak Girow thought it to be little bit important.|programs while 4 from Rook Ushto preferred CDC members. |
| |(Kilage Dashte Sufla). 8 from Kilage Dashte Sufla |All 20 supported its continuation. |All 16 respondents thought the program very important |
| |thought the program to be little bit important while 8 | |for village and supported its continuation. |
| |from Chukrizar Barkar thought it important. All |All the 19 female non-beneficiaries from two villages | |
| |supported continuation of program and Friday Prayers as |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |best way to inform about such programs in future |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| | |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| |Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages: |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| |9 from Kilage Dashte Sufla informed that they did not |important for village and supported its continuation. |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| |attend the meeting, their family member attended it, | |important for village and supported its continuation. |
| |while 8 from Chukrizar Barkar attended and were | | |
| |satisfied with the awareness meeting. | | |
| |All thought the program to be very important for | | |
| |village. Similarly all supported continuation of program| | |
| |and Friday Prayers (Mosque) as best way to inform about | | |
| |such programs in future | | |
|Selection of |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
|Beneficiaries |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |
| |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |
| |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it |happiness with process of VSC (they did not have VVC), |
| |was help full to have to committees. 14 respondents |was help full to have to committees. Moreover all |however, 5 respondents would like to add female members,|
| |thought that selection process was open, clear and fair |respondents thought that selection process was open, |respected elders and people from each locality of |
| |while 2 expressed it could be more clear, open and fair.|clear and fair. |village to the committee. All respondents thought that |
| | | |selection process was open, clear and fair. |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages | |
| |informed that their name was included in the list by |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |VSC. 8 respondents from Chukrizar Barkar informed that |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|
| |the list was publicized and read aloud in an open public|public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |
| |meeting held in village, while 9 respondents from Kilage|happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it |public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |Dashte Sufla expressed that they did not know. Similarly|was help full to have to committees. Moreover all |happiness with process and composition of VSC (they did |
| |all expressed happiness with composition of VSC and VVC |respondents thought that selection process was open, |not have VVC). All female respondents thought that |
| |and thought it was help full to have to committees. 8 |clear and fair. |selection process was open, clear and fair. |
| |respondents from Chukrizar Barkar thought that selection| | |
| |process was open, clear and fair while 9 from Kilage |Out of 20 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |Dashte Sufla expressed it could be more clear, open and |16 informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized|informed that list of beneficiaries was publicized and |
| |fair. |and read aloud in an open public meeting held in village,|read aloud in an open public meeting held in village. |
| | |and 4 from Kadanak Girow stated that it was posted in |Similarly all expressed happiness with process and |
| |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |public place. All expressed happiness with process of VSC|composition of VSC (they did not have VVC). All |
| |8 from Kilage Dashte Sufla informed that the list was |and VVC and thought it was help full to have to |respondents thought that selection process was open, |
| |posted in public place while 8 from Chukrizar Barkar |committees. Moreover all respondents thought that |clear and fair. |
| |informed that the list was publicized and read aloud in |selection process was open, clear and fair. | |
| |an open public meeting held in village. All expressed | |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|All the 19 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized |
| |was help full to have to committees. 15 respondents |informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized |and read aloud in an open public meeting held in |
| |thought that selection process was open, clear and fair |and read aloud in an open public meeting held in village.|village. All expressed happiness with process of VSC |
| |while 1 from Kilage Dashte Sufla stated otherwise. |All expressed happiness with process of VSC and VVC and |(they did not have VVC). Moreover all respondents |
| | |thought it was help full to have to committees. Moreover |thought that selection process was open, clear and fair.|
| |Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages: |all respondents thought that selection process was open, | |
| |8 from Chukrizar Barkar informed that the list was |clear and fair. | |
| |publicized and read aloud in an open public meeting held| | |
| |in village while 9 from Kilage Dashte Sufla had no | | |
| |knowledge on matter. All expressed happiness with | | |
| |composition of VSC and VVC and thought it was help full | | |
| |to have to committees. 11 respondents thought that | | |
| |selection process was open, clear and fair while 3 from | | |
| |Kilage Dashte Sufla expressed it was not clear, open and| | |
| |fair while 3 again from same village thought it could be| | |
| |more clear, open and fair. | | |
|Formation of VSCs and |All the 16 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 16 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with|All the 16 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
|VVCs |with formation of VSCs and VVCs |formation of VSCs and VVCs |with formation of VSCs however, 5 respondents would like|
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 female beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |to add female members, respected elders and people from |
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |with formation of VSCs and VVCs |each locality of village to the committees. |
| |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction|All the 20 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 16 female beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
| |with formation of VSCs and VVCs. Moreover 8 respondents |with formation of VSCs and VVCs. Moreover 18 respondents |with formation of VSCs (the villages did not have VVC) |
| |from Chukrizar Barker would add more literate members in|stated that they would like to add more literate members |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction|
| |committees. |and 2 respondents would like to add more female members. |with formation of VSCs (the villages did not have VVC) |
| |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 19 female non-beneficiaries expressed |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed |
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs. |satisfaction with formation of VSCs (the villages did |
| | | |not have VVC) |
|Roles and |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages were |Out of 16 male beneficiaries 8 respondents from |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages were |
|Responsibilities of |happy with the support provided by CDCs and expressed |Sangarkesh Ulya were very happy while 8 from Kadanak |very happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
|CDCs |that their impression of CDC has improved as a result of|Girow were happy with the support provided by CDCs and |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| |program |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a |result of program. |
| | |result of program | |
| |Out of 17 female beneficiaries from two villages, 9 from| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages were |
| |Kilage Dashte Sufla were happy while 8 from Chukrizar |Out of 16 female beneficiaries, 13 respondents from both |very happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
| |Barkar were very happy with support provided by CDC. All|villages were very happy while only 3 from Sangarkesh |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|Ulya were happy with the support provided by CDCs. All 16|result of program. |
| |result of program |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a | |
| | |result of program. |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries 8 respondents from Rook|
| |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries, 7 from Kilage Dashte | |Ushto were very happy while 8 from Deh-e-Osho Alawadal |
| |Sufla were happy while 8 from Chukrizar Barkar were very|Out of 20 male non-beneficiaries 9 respondents from |were happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
| |happy with support provided by CDC. While 1 respondent |Sangarkesh Ulya were very happy while 11 from Kadanak |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| |from Kilage Dashte Sufla was unhappy with CDC. Apart |Girow were happy with the support provided by CDCs and |result of program |
| |from 1 respondent, rest of 15 expressed that their |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a | |
| |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program |result of program. |Out of 18 female non-beneficiaries, 8 respondents from |
| | | |Deh-e-Osho Alawdal were very happy, and 8 respondents |
| |Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages, 9 |Out of 19 female non-beneficiaries from two villages, 10 |from Rook Ushto and 2 from Deh-e-Osho Alawadal were |
| |from Kilage Dashte Sufla were happy and 6 from Chukrizar|from Kadanak Girow and 5 from Sangarkesh Ulya were happy |happy with the support provided by CDCs and expressed |
| |Barkar were very happy with support provided by CDC; |were very happy with support provided by CDC while 4 from|that their impression of CDC has improved as a result of|
| |only 2 from Chukrizar Barkar expressed indifference. All|Sangarkesh Ulya were happy. All expressed that their |program |
| |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|impression of CDC has improved as a result of program | |
| |result of program | | |
|Complaints |None of the 16 male beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 male beneficiaries expressed any |8 male beneficiaries from Rook Ushto complained to VSC |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |while 8 from Deh-e-Osho did not complain on selection |
| |None of the 17 female beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |process. |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |
| |None of the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 20 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |complaints on selection process. |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process |None of the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| |None of the 17 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 19 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |complaints on selection process. |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |None of the 19 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| | | |complaints on selection process. |
|Conducting Meetings |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
| |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |
| |beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in |beneficiaries. In Rook Ushto the members of VSC took |
| |leading the meeting. |leading the meeting. |active role while in Deh-e-Osho CDC members played most |
| | | |active role in leading the meeting. |
| |Out of 17 female beneficiaries, 8 from Chukrizar Barkar |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages | |
| |informed that public meeting was held to discuss list of|informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |beneficiaries and CDC member played most active role in |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |leading the meeting, while 9 respondents from Kilage |in leading the meeting. |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| |Dashte Sufla stated that they did not attend the | |in leading the meeting. |
| |meeting. |All the 20 male non-beneficiaries from two villages | |
| | |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |of beneficiaries. Respondents from Kadanak Girow informed|informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |that CDC members while respondents from Sangarkesh Ulya |of beneficiaries. Respondents from Deh-e-Osho Alawdal |
| |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|stated that VSC played most active role in leading the |informed that CDC members while respondents from Rook |
| |in leading the meeting |meeting. |Ushto stated that VSC played most active role in leading|
| | | |the meeting. |
| |Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries, 8 from Chukrizar |All the 19 female non-beneficiaries from two villages | |
| |Barkar informed that public meeting was held to discuss |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |list of beneficiaries and CDC member played most active |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |role in leading the meeting, while 9 respondents from |in leading the meeting |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| |Kilage Dashte Sufla stated that they did not attend the | |in leading the meeting. |
| |meeting | | |
|Cash Distribution |All the 16 male beneficiaries from the two villages did |Out of 16 male beneficiaries – 8 from Kadanak Girow did |Out of 16 male beneficiaries – 8 from Deh-e-Osho |
|Problems |not face any problems during cash distribution |not face any problem, while 8 from Sangarkesh Ulya |Alawadal did not face any problem, while 8 from Rook |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from the two villages |complained of misconduct to VVC and CDC members |Ushto complained of misconduct to VSC. |
| |did not face any problems during cash distribution |Out of 16 female beneficiaries – 8 from Kadanak Girow did|All the 16 female beneficiaries from the two villages |
| | |not face any problem, while 8 from Sangarkesh Ulya |did not face any problems during cash distribution |
| | |informed of attempts made to steal benefit prior to | |
| | |receiving it. | |
Table 8.2 - Comparative Analysis – Medium CDCs / Villages
|Village / CDC Size : Medium |
|Aspects / Parameters |Option 1 - Mode 2 |Option 2 – N&H |Option 3 – Mode 1 |
| |(Ulqan Payan, Bark Takawi) |(Zard Sang Shali (Mode 1), Daraghila Charkh Bargar (Mode|(Owri Mazar Ozmak, Shinya Bargar) |
| | |2) | |
|Awareness Generation |All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |
| |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |
| |with the details provided. 14 thought it very important |with details provided, and opined that CDC members are |with details provided. 8 respondents from Shinya Barkar |
| |while only 3 from Bark Takawi thought the program to be |the best way to inform people about such programs. 12 |opined that Friday prayers while 9 from Owri Mazar Ozmak|
| |little bit important for village. All supported |respondents thought the program very important while 5 |informed that through CDC members is the best way to |
| |continuation of program. 11 stated Friday Prayer |respondents from Daraghila Chark Bargar thought it |inform people about such programs in future. 15 |
| |(mosque) and 6 preferred CDC members as best way to |little bit important for village. All respondents |respondents thought the program very important for |
| |inform about such programs in future |supported its continuation. |village while only 2 from Shinya Bargar thought it |
| | | |little bit important. All respondents supported its |
| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |continuation. |
| |attended and were satisfied with the awareness meeting. |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were | |
| |All thought the program to be very important for |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |village. Similarly all supported continuation of program|prayers are the best way to inform people about such |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| |and Friday Prayers (Mosque) as best way to inform about |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| |such programs in future |important for village and supported its continuation. |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| | | |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| |Out of 21 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |Out of 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |important for village and supported its continuation. |
| |16 informed they attended the awareness meeting and 5 |10 from Daraghila Charkh Bargar attended meeting along | |
| |from Ulqan Payan informed someone from their family |with family member and were satisfied with details |Out of 17 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |
| |attended. All were satisfied with the details provided. |provided, while 8 from Zardsang Shali informed that |5 from Owri Mazar Ozmok attended the meeting themselves,|
| |12 from both villages thought the program to be very |someone else from family attended the awareness meeting.|10 from both villages informed that they along with a |
| |important while 9 from Bark Takawi thought it little bit|All opined that Friday prayers are the best way to |family member attended the awareness meeting, 1 from |
| |important. All supported continuation of program and |inform people about such programs. 17 thought the |Shinya Bargar stated that someone from family attended |
| |preferred Friday Prayers as best way to inform about |program very important for village while 1 from Darghila|while 1 did not attend. 15 from both villages stated |
| |such programs in future |Charkh Bargar thought it to be little bit important. All|that they were satisfied with the details provided while|
| | |18 supported its continuation. |2 expressed no opinion. All respondents opined that |
| |Out of 16 female non-beneficiaries from two villages: | |Friday prayers are the best way to inform people about |
| |15 from both villages informed that they attended the |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |such programs. 4 respondents from Owri Mazar Ozmok |
| |awareness meeting, 2 from Ulqan Payan informed someone |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |thought the program very important while 13 thought it |
| |from family attended while 1 did not attend the meeting.|satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |little bit important for the village. All supported its |
| |All were satisfied with the awareness meeting. Similarly|prayers are the best way to inform people about such |continuation. |
| |all thought the program to be very important for |programs. Similarly all thought the program very | |
| |village. Similarly all supported continuation of program|important for village and supported its continuation. |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |and Friday Prayers (Mosque) as best way to inform about | |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| |such programs in future | |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| | | |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| | | |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| | | |important for village and supported its continuation. |
|Selection of |All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
|Beneficiaries |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |
| |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |
| |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|happiness with process of VSC (they did not have VVC). |
| |was help full to have to committees. Similarly all |was help full to have to committees. Moreover all |All respondents thought that selection process was open,|
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |respondents thought that selection process was open, |clear and fair. |
| |clear and fair. |clear and fair. | |
| | | |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|
| |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |
| |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |public meeting held in village. 8 female beneficiaries |happiness with process and composition of VSC (they did |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|from Darghila Charkh Bargar expressed happiness with |not have VVC). All female respondents thought that |
| |was help full to have to committees. Moreover all |composition of VSC and VVC and thought it was help full |selection process was open, clear and fair. |
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |to have to committees. However, 5 respondents from |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |clear and fair. |Zardsang Shali were not happy with composition of VSC |informed that list of beneficiaries was publicized and |
| |All the 21 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |and VVC while 4 expressed no knowledge. All the |read aloud in an open public meeting held in village. |
| |informed that the list was publicized and read aloud in |respondents thought that selection process was open, |Similarly all expressed happiness with process and |
| |an open public meeting held in village. All expressed |clear and fair. |composition of VSC (they did not have VVC). All |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC, however | |respondents thought that selection process was open, |
| |respondents from Ulqan Payan expressed the only VSC is |Out of 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |clear and fair. |
| |needed, rest thought it was help full to have two |10 from Daraghila Charkh Bargar informed that the list | |
| |committees. 15 respondents thought that selection |of beneficiaries was posted at a public place, while |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |process was open, clear and fair while 2 from Ulqan |respondents from Zardsang Shali expressed no knowledge. |informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized |
| |Payan stated that it was not fair; moreover 3 stated |Only 10 respondents of Daraghila Charkh Bargar expressed|and read aloud in an open public meeting held in |
| |that it could be more open, clear and fair. |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|village. All expressed happiness with process of VSC |
| | |was help full to have two committees, while of |(they did not have VVC). Moreover all respondents |
| |All 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |respondents of Zardsang Shali expressed no opinion. 10 |thought that selection process was open, clear and fair.|
| |informed that the list was publicized and read aloud in |respondents of Daraghila Charkh though that selection | |
| |an open public meeting held in village. All expressed |process was open, clear and fair while 8 from Zardsang | |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|Shali stated that it could be more open, clear and fair.| |
| |was help full to have to committees. Similarly all | | |
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages | |
| |clear and fair. |informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized | |
| | |and read aloud in an open public meeting held in | |
| | |village. All expressed happiness with process of VSC and| |
| | |VVC and thought it was help full to have to committees. | |
| | |Moreover all respondents thought that selection process | |
| | |was open, clear and fair. | |
|Formation of VSCs and |All the 17 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 17 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 17 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
|VVCs |with formation of VSCs and VVCs. Moreover 3 respondents |with formation and composition of VSCs and VVCs |with formation of VSCs (they did not have VVCs). |
| |from Bark Takawi would add more female and literate |Out of 17 female beneficiaries 8 expressed satisfaction |All the 16 female beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
| |members in committees. |with formation of VSCs and VVCs, while 9 respondents |with formation of VSCs (the villages did not have VVC) |
| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |from Zardsang Shali were not satisfied and expressed |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction|
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |need for adding more literate person in committees. |with formation of VSCs (the villages did not have VVC). |
| |All the 21 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction|Out of 18 male non-beneficiaries 10 expressed |Moreover, 10 respondents would like to add more female |
| |with formation of VSCs and VVCs. Moreover 17 respondents|satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs. Moreover 9|and literate members in committees. |
| |from both villages would like to add more female, |respondents stated that they would like to add more |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed |
| |literate and respectable members in committees. |literate members. |satisfaction with formation of VSCs (the villages did |
| |All 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries expressed |not have VVC) |
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs. | |
|Roles and |Out of 17 male beneficiaries from two villages, 13 were |All the 17 male beneficiaries from both villages very |Out of 17 male beneficiaries, 13 from two villages were |
|Responsibilities of |very happy and 4 from Bark Takawi were very happy with |happy with the support provided by CDCs. Similarly 16 |happy and 4 from Shinya Bargar were very happy with the |
|CDCs |the support provided by CDCs. All expressed that their |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|support provided by CDCs and expressed that their |
| |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program |result of program, while only 1 male from Zard Sang |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program. |
| | |Shali responded in negative. | |
| |Out of 16 female beneficiaries from two villages, 14 | |Out of 16 female beneficiaries, 13 from both villages |
| |from both villages were happy while 2 from Bark Takawi |Out of 17 female beneficiaries, 8 respondents from |were very happy and 3 from Shinya Bargar were happy with|
| |were very happy with support provided by CDC. All |Darghila Charkh Bargar were very happy with support of |the support provided by CDCs and expressed that their |
| |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|CDC and their impression of CDC has improved; while 9 |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program. |
| |result of program |from Zardsang Shali expressed unhappiness with the role | |
| | |of CDC and informed that their impression of CDC has not|All the 17 male non-beneficiaries from both villages |
| |Out of 21 male non-beneficiaries, 14 from both village |improved. |were happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
| |were happy and 6 from Bark Takawi were very happy with | |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| |support provided by CDC. While 1 respondent from Bark |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries from both villages |result of program |
| |Takawi was unhappy with role of CDC. All expressed that |were happy with the support provided by CDCs. 10 | |
| |their impression of CDC has improved as a result of |respondents from Daraghila Charkh Bargar expressed that |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from both villages |
| |program |their impression of CDC has improved as a result of |were very happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
| | |program, however, 8 respondents of Zardsang Shali |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| |Out of 18 female non-beneficiaries, 10 from Ulqan Payan |responded that their impression of CDC has not improved.|result of program |
| |were happy and 8 from Bark Takawi were very happy with | | |
| |support provided by CDC. All expressed that their | | |
| |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program |Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages, 9 | |
| | |from Zardsang Shali and 2 from Daraghila Charkh Bargar | |
| | |were very happy and 6 from Daraghila Charkh Bargar were | |
| | |happy with support provided by CDC. All expressed that | |
| | |their impression of CDC has improved as a result of | |
| | |program | |
|Complaints |None of the 17 male beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 17 male beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 17 male beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 17 female beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 21 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 18 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 18 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 17 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
|Conducting Meetings |All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
| |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |
| |beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|
| |leading the meeting. |leading the meeting. |leading the meeting. |
| | | | |
| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from both villages |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |informed that public meeting was held to discuss list of|informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |beneficiaries and CDC member played most active role in |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| |leading the meeting. |in leading the meeting. |in leading the meeting. |
| | | | |
| |All the 21 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |of beneficiaries. Respondents from Ulqan Payan stated |of beneficiaries, however, 10 respondents 8 from |of beneficiaries. Respondents from Shinya Bargar |
| |that members of FP palyed most active role in leading |Zardsang Shali and 2 from Daraghila Charkh Bargar did |informed that CDC members while respondents from Owri |
| |the meeting while respondents of Bark Takawi said that |not attend the meeting. The respondents that attended |Mazar Ozmok stated that members of FP played most active|
| |CDC members took the lead in the meeting. |the meeting informed that CDC members played most active|role in leading the meeting. |
| | |role in leading the meeting. | |
| |Out of 18 female non-beneficiaries, 8 from Bark Takawi | |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |attended the public meeting while 10 from Ulqan Payan |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |informed that although public meeting was held to |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| |discuss list of beneficiaries they did not attend it. |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|in leading the meeting. |
| |All stated that CDC member played most active role in |in leading the meeting | |
| |leading the meeting. | | |
|Cash Distribution |Out of 17 male beneficiaries – 8 Ulqan Payan and 1 from |All the 17 male beneficiaries from the two villages did |Out of 17 male beneficiaries – 9 from Owri Mazar Ozmak |
|Problems |Bark Takawi did not face any problem, while 7 from Bark |not face any problems during cash distribution. |did not face any problem, while 8 from Shinya Bargar |
| |Takawi complained of misconduct to VSC and 1 from Ulqan |All the 17 female beneficiaries from the two villages |complained of misconduct to CDC members. |
| |Payan complained to village elders |did not face any problems during cash distribution.. |All the 16 female beneficiaries from the two villages |
| |All the 16 female beneficiaries from the two villages | |did not face any problems during cash distribution |
| |did not face any problems during cash distribution | | |
Table 8.3 - Comparative Analysis – Large CDCs / Villages
|Village / CDC Size : Large |
|Aspects / Parameters |Option 1 – N&H |Option 2 – Mode 1 |Option 3 – Mode 2 |
| |(Sare Koyak Amej (Mode 1), Pitab Joe Watana (Mode 2)) |(Kohkoj-e-Waras, Nak Watana) |(Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal, Argi Nadak) |
|Awareness Generation |All the 18 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |
| |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |they attended the awareness meeting and were satisfied |
| |with the details provided. 9 respondents from Sare Koyak|with details provided, and opined that CDC members are |with details provided. They opined that through CDC |
| |Amej thought it very important and said that CDC members|the best way to inform people about such programs. 8 |members is the best way to inform people about such |
| |are the best way to inform about such programs in |respondents of Kohkoj-e-Waras thought the program very |programs in future. ALL respondents thought the program |
| |future; and 9 from Pitab Joe Watan thought the program |important and 9 respondents from Nak Watana thought it |very important for village and supported its |
| |to be little bit important for village and stated Friday|little bit important for village. All respondents |continuation. |
| |Prayer (mosque) as best way to inform about such |supported its continuation. | |
| |programs in future. All supported continuation of the | |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |program. |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| | |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| |attended and were satisfied with the awareness meeting. |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| |14 thought the program to be very important for village,|programs. Similarly all thought the program very |important for village and supported its continuation. |
| |while 3 from Pitab Joe Watana thought it little bit |important for village and supported its continuation. | |
| |important. All supported continuation of program and | |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |
| |Friday Prayers (Mosque) as best way to inform about such|Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |8 from Argi Nadak attended the meeting themselves and |
| |programs in future |9 from both villages attended meeting while 7 from |were satisfied with details provided, while 8 from |
| | |informed that someone from their family attended. 8 |Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal informed that they along with a |
| |Out of 17 male non-beneficiaries from two villages: |respondents from Nak Watana and 1 from Kohkoj-e-Waras |family member attended the awareness meeting, however 7 |
| |16 informed they attended the awareness meeting, only 1 |were satisfied with details provided, however, 5 from |out 8 were not satisfied with details in awareness |
| |from Sare Koyak Amej informed someone from their family |Kohkoj-e-Waras were not satisfied and 2 did not attend. |meeting. All respondents thought program very important |
| |attended. Apart from 1 all expressed satisfaction with |Respondents from Kohkoj-e-Waras did not think the |for village and opined that Friday prayers are the best |
| |the details provided. 16 from both villages thought the |program important for village and opined that Friday |way to inform people about such programs in future. All |
| |program to be very important while 1 from Sare Koyak |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |supported its continuation. |
| |Amej thought it little bit important. All supported |programs; while respondents from Nak Watana thought | |
| |continuation of program. Respondents from Pitab Joe |program very important for village and preferred |All the 20 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |Watana preferred Friday Prayers while respondents of |information through CDC members. All 16 supported its |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |
| |Sare Koyak Amej preferred CDC members as best way to |continuation. |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |
| |inform about such programs in future | |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |
| | |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |programs. Similarly all thought the program very |
| |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |important for village and supported its continuation. |
| |informed they attended the awareness meeting and were |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday | |
| |satisfied with details provided, and opined that Friday |prayers are the best way to inform people about such | |
| |prayers are the best way to inform people about such |programs. Similarly all thought the program very | |
| |programs in future. Similarly all thought the program |important for village and supported its continuation. | |
| |very important for village and supported its | | |
| |continuation. | | |
|Selection of |All the 18 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
|Beneficiaries |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |that their name was included in the list by VSC and the |
| |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |list was publicized and read aloud in an open public |
| |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|happiness with process of VSC (they did not have VVC). |
| |was help full to have to committees. Similarly all |was help full to have to committees. Moreover 15 |All respondents thought that selection process was open,|
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |respondents thought that selection process was open, |clear and fair. |
| |clear and fair. |clear and fair, while 2 from Nak Watana stated that it | |
| | |could be more open, clear and fair. |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages | |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|
| |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |
| |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |informed that their name was included in the list by VSC|public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |
| |public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |and the list was publicized and read aloud in an open |happiness with process and composition of VSC (they did |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|public meeting held in village. Similarly all expressed |not have VVC). All female respondents thought that |
| |was help full to have to committees. Moreover all |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|selection process was open, clear and fair. |
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |was help full to have to committees. Moreover all | |
| |clear and fair. |respondents thought that selection process was open, |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| | |clear and fair. |informed that list of beneficiaries was publicized and |
| |All the 17 male non-beneficiaries from two villages | |read aloud in an open public meeting held in village. |
| |informed that the list was publicized and read aloud in |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |However, only 3 respondents from Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal|
| |an open public meeting held in village. All expressed |informed that the list of beneficiaries was posted at a |expressed happiness with process and composition of VSC |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC, however, they|public place. Only 8 respondents of Nak Watana expressed|and 5 expressed reservation (they did not have VVC), |
| |would like to add more literate people in committees. |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it|while 8 from Argi Nadak expressed no knowledge. |
| |All thought it was help full to have two committees. 8 |was help full to have two committees, while 8 |Respondents of Argi Nadak thought that selection process|
| |respondents from Pitab Joe Watana thought that selection|respondents of Kohkoj-e-Waras were not happy with |was open, clear and fair, while respondents of |
| |process was open, clear and fair while 9 from Sare Koyak|composition of VSC and VVC and would like to add more |Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal state it could be more open, |
| |Amej thought it was not fai. |respected elders and literate members in committees. |clear and fair. |
| | |Similarly only respondents of Nak Watana thought | |
| |All 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |selection process open, clear and fair while respondents|All the 20 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |informed that the list was publicized and read aloud in |from Kohkoj-e-Waras did not consider selection process |informed that the list of beneficiaries was publicized |
| |an open public meeting held in village. All expressed |as fair. |and read aloud in an open public meeting held in |
| |happiness with composition of VSC and VVC and thought it| |village. All expressed happiness with process of VSC |
| |was help full to have to committees. Similarly all |Out of 18 female non-beneficiaries, 9 from Nak Watana |(they did not have VVC). Moreover all respondents |
| |respondents thought that selection process was open, |stated that list of beneficiaries was posted in public |thought that selection process was open, clear and fair.|
| |clear and fair. |place while 9 from Kohkoj-e-Waras informed that the list| |
| | |of beneficiaries was publicized and read aloud in an | |
| | |open public meeting held in village. All expressed | |
| | |happiness with process of VSC and VVC and thought it was| |
| | |help full to have to committees. Moreover all | |
| | |respondents thought that selection process was open, | |
| | |clear and fair. | |
|Formation of VSCs and |All the 18 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 17 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |All the 16 male beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
|VVCs |with formation of VSCs and VVCs. |with formation and composition of VSCs and VVCs, however|with formation of VSCs (they did not have VVCs). |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages |8 respondents would add more respected elders, literate |All the 16 female beneficiaries expressed satisfaction |
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |persons and people from each locality of village to the |with formation and composition of VSCs (the villages did|
| |All the 17 male non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction|committees. |not have VVC). |
| |with formation of VSCs and VVCs; however, they would |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries, only 3 expressed |
| |like to add more literate members in committees. |expressed satisfaction with formation and composition of|satisfaction with formation of VSCs (the villages did |
| |All 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |VSCs and VVCs. |not have VVC). Moreover, 3 respondents from |
| |expressed satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries 8 expressed |Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal would like to add more |
| | |satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs, while 8 |respectable elders in committees. |
| | |respondents expressed non satisfaction and stated that |All the 20 female non-beneficiaries expressed |
| | |they would like to add more literate members. |satisfaction with formation of VSCs (the villages did |
| | |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed |not have VVC) |
| | |satisfaction with formation of VSCs and VVCs. | |
|Roles and |Out of 18 male beneficiaries, 9 from Sare Koyak Amej |Out of 17 male beneficiaries, 8 respondents from |Out of 16 male beneficiaries, 8 from Kakrak-e-Wargha |
|Responsibilities of |very happy and 9 from Pitab Joe Watana were happy with |Kohkoj-e-Waras were very happy and 9 from Nak Watana |Alawdal were very happy and 8 from Argi Nadak were happy|
|CDCs |the support provided by CDCs. All expressed that their |were happy with the support provided by CDCs. All 17 |with the support provided by CDCs; all expressed that |
| |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|their impression of CDC has improved as a result of |
| | |result of program. |program. |
| |All 17 female beneficiaries from two villages were very | | |
| |happy with support provided by CDC. All expressed that |All 16 female beneficiaries from both villages were very|All 16 female beneficiaries from both villages were very|
| |their impression of CDC has improved as a result of |happy with support of CDC and informed that their |happy with support of CDC and informed that their |
| |program |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program. |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program. |
| | | | |
| |Out of 17 male non-beneficiaries, 10 from both villages |Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries, 8 from Nak Watana were|Out of 16 male non-beneficiaries, 8 from Argi Nadak were|
| |were happy and 7 from Sare Koyak Amej were very happy |very happy with the support provided by CDCs while 8 |very happy with support of CDC and expressed their |
| |with support provided by CDC. All expressed that their |from Kohkoj-e-Waras expressed indifference. 14 |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program; |
| |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program |respondents from both villages expressed that their |while 4 from Kakrak-e-Wargha were happy and 4 expressed |
| | |impression of CDC has improved as a result of program; |unhappiness with the support provided by CDCs, moreover,|
| |All 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages were |however, 2 respondents of Kohkoj-e-Waras responded that |apart from 1 the rest 7 expressed that their impression |
| |very happy with support provided by CDC. All expressed |their impression of CDC has not improved. |of CDC has not improved as a result of program. |
| |that their impression of CDC has improved as a result of| | |
| |program |Out of 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages, 9 |All the 20 female non-beneficiaries from both villages |
| | |from Nak Watana were very happy and 9 from |were very happy with the support provided by CDCs and |
| | |Kohkoj-e-Waras were happy with support provided by CDC. |expressed that their impression of CDC has improved as a|
| | |All expressed that their impression of CDC has improved |result of program |
| | |as a result of program | |
|Complaints |None of the 18 male beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 17 male beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 male beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 17 female beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 female beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 17 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 16 male non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |
| |None of the 17 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 18 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |None of the 20 female non-beneficiaries expressed any |
| |complaints on selection process |complaints on selection process. |complaints on selection process. |
|Conducting Meetings |All the 18 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed|
| |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |that public meetings were held to discuss list of |
| |beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role in|
| |leading the meeting. |leading the meeting. |leading the meeting. |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from both villages |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages |
| |informed that public meeting was held to discuss list of|informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |beneficiaries and CDC member played most active role in |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| |leading the meeting. |in leading the meeting. |in leading the meeting. |
| |All the 17 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| |of beneficiaries and CDC members took the lead in the |of beneficiaries, however, 2 respondents from |of beneficiaries. Respondents from Kakrak-e-Wargha |
| |meeting. |Kohkoj-e-Waras did not attend the meeting. In |Alawdal informed that CDC members while respondents from|
| |All the 17 female non-beneficiaries from both villages |Kohkoj-e-Waras VSC members and in Nak Watana members of |Argi Nadak stated that members of FP played most active |
| |informed that public meeting was held to discuss list of|CDC played most active role in leading the meeting. |role in leading the meeting. |
| |beneficiaries and CDC member played most active role in |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 20 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |
| |leading the meeting. |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |informed that public meetings were held to discuss list |
| | |of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|of beneficiaries and CDC members played most active role|
| | |in leading the meeting |in leading the meeting. |
|Cash Distribution |All the 18 male beneficiaries from the two villages did |14 out of 17 male beneficiaries from the two villages |All the 16 male beneficiaries from the two villages did |
|Problems |not face any problems during cash distribution. |did not face any problems during cash distribution, |not face any problems during cash distribution |
| |All the 17 female beneficiaries from the two villages |while 3 respondents (1 each) from Nak Watana complained |All the 16 female beneficiaries from the two villages |
| |did not face any problems during cash distribution |of misconduct to relatives, VSC and CDC members. |did not face any problems during cash distribution |
| | |All the 16 female beneficiaries from the two villages | |
| | |did not face any problems during cash distribution.. | |
Table 8.4 - Comparative Analysis of Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
|Comparative Analysis – CDC Size |
| |CDC Size : Small (Option - 3) |CDC Size : Medium (Option – )2 |CDC Size : Large (Option – 1) |
| |Deh-e-Osho Alawdal - Mode 1 |Zard Sang Shali - Mode 1 |Sare Koyak Amej - Mode 1 |
| |Rook Ushto - Mode 2 |Daraghila Charkh Bargar - Mode 2 |Pitab Joe Watana - Mode 2 |
|Male Beneficiaries |All the 16 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |All the 17 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |Out of 18 male beneficiaries from two villages informed |
| |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |
| |meeting held at the Mosque. Apart from 1 respondent all |meeting held at the Mosque. Apart from 4 respondents all |meeting held at the Mosque. Apart from few respondents all|
| |respondents stated that more than one member mostly female|stated that more than one member mostly female attended |stated that more than one member mostly female attended |
| |attended the meeting. All had received the distribution |the meeting. All had received the distribution package, |the meeting. All had received the distribution package, |
| |package, considered program important for their family, |considered program important for their family, information|considered program important for their family, information|
| |information necessary and recommended continuation of |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |
| |program. | | |
|Female |All the 16 female beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages informed|All the 17 female beneficiaries from two villages informed|
|Beneficiaries |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |
| |meeting held at the Mosque. All respondents stated that |meeting held at the Mosque. All respondents stated that |meeting held at the Mosque. Majority respondents stated |
| |more than one member mostly female attended the meeting. |more than one member mostly female attended the meeting. |that more than one member mostly female attended the |
| |All had received the distribution package, considered |All had received the distribution package, considered |meeting. All had received the distribution package, |
| |program important for their family, information necessary |program important for their family, information necessary |considered program important for their family, information|
| |and recommended continuation of program. |and recommended continuation of program. |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |
|Male |All the 16 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |All the 18 male non-beneficiaries from two villages |Out of 17 male non-beneficiaries from two villages 16 |
|Non-Beneficiaries |informed that they attended and were happy with the N&H |informed that they attended the N&H awareness meeting. The|informed that they attended the N&H awareness meeting. The|
| |awareness meeting held at the Mosque. All respondents |respondents from Daraghila Charkh Bargar were satisfied |respondents from Pitab Joe Watana were satisfied while |
| |stated that more than one member mostly female attended |while respondents of Zardsang Shali were indifferent with |respondents of Sare Koyak Amej were indifferent with the |
| |the meeting. All had received the distribution package, |the N&H awareness campaign. 10 respondents stated that |N&H awareness campaign. Most of respondents stated that |
| |considered program important for their family, information|more than one member mostly female attended the meeting |more than one member of family mostly female attended the |
| |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |while 8 expressed that one member from family attended. |meeting. All had received the distribution package, |
| | |All had received the distribution package, considered |considered program important for their family, information|
| | |program important for their family, information necessary |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |
| | |and recommended continuation of program. | |
|Female |All the 18 female non-beneficiaries from two villages |All 17 female non-beneficiaries from two villages informed|Out of 17 female non-beneficiaries, 15 from two villages |
|Non-Beneficiaries |informed that they attended and were happy with the N&H |that they attended and were happy with the N&H awareness |informed that they attended and were happy with the N&H |
| |awareness meeting held at the Mosque. All respondents |meeting held at the Mosque. All respondents stated that |awareness meeting held at the Mosque, only 2 from Pitab |
| |stated that more than one member mostly female attended |more than one member mostly female attended the meeting. |Joe Watana expressed indifference. A significant number of|
| |the meeting. All had received the distribution package, |All had received the distribution package, considered |respondents stated that more than one member from family |
| |considered program important for their family, information|program important for their family, information necessary |mostly female attended the meeting. All had received the |
| |necessary and recommended continuation of program. |and recommended continuation of program. |distribution package, considered program important for |
| | | |their family, information necessary and recommended |
| | | |continuation of program. |
Section Three –
aspp operational setup
Section IIi
Afghanistan Social Protection Program - Operational Setup
This section provides findings from the analysis of Focus Group Interview/Discussion held with the Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries (male and female) in the sampled villages for operational evaluation on program sub-components of Awareness Generation, Beneficiary Selection and Delivery. A total of 18 villages and CDCs i.e. 9 from district Shahristan and 9 from district Miramor of Daikundi Province were sampled for this phase of Operational Evaluation of ASPP.
The cash-grants were distributed during month of October /November 2012 with facilitation of Oxfam-GB in the target districts. The FGIs/Ds were held with both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the selected 9 CDCs/villages in each district on different program components. The FGIs/Ds respondents details are as:
• A total of 150 male beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 75 each from Shahristan and Miramor
• Similarly a total of 147 female beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 74 from Shahristan and 73 Miramor
• While, a total of 157 male non-beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 77 from Shahristan and 80 from Miramor
• Similarly, a total of 162 female non-beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 88 from Shahristan and 74 from Miramor
Details illustrated with pictures are attached as annexures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Awareness – General Program knowledge and satisfaction
This chapter presents the key findings from FGIs/Ds held with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (male and female) on Program Awareness and Satisfaction to assess its effectiveness or lack there off. Program Awareness generation is a very important component and has significant bearing on the outcomes of ASPP. The analysis is presented in the following passages:
1 Findings and Analysis of close ended questions
The key findings from FGIs are presented in the table below:
Table 9.1- Analysis of Close Ended Responses - General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|If you or a member of |Out of 150 respondents 95% |Out of 147 respondents 88% |Out of 157 male |Out of 162 female |
|your family attended |stated that they attended the|said that they attended the |non-beneficiaries; |non-beneficiaries; 90% said |
|the awareness |meeting themselves. |meeting themselves. |38% said that they attended |that they attended the |
|generation meeting for |Only 1% stated that he and |6% (9) respondents from a CDC|the meeting themselves. |meeting themselves. |
|this new program, |another family member |of Shahristan informed that |43% informed that he and |Only 7% (11) respondents from|
|please tell us who from|attended the meeting. |someone else from their |another family member |Shahristan informed that |
|your family attended it|However, 4% responded that |family attended, while |attended the meeting |someone else from their |
| |they were not aware of such |6% stated that she and |17% informed that someone |family attended, while |
| |meeting and did not attend. |another family member |else from their family |2% said that they and another|
| | |attended the meeting. |attended the meeting, 1% each|family member attended the |
| | | |were unable to attend and 1% |meeting |
| | | |not aware of the meeting |While 1% respondents was |
| | | |respectively. |unable to attend the meeting |
|If you attended the |95% men responded that they |93% women responded that they|80% men non-beneficiaries |94% women non-beneficiaries |
|meeting, were you |were satisfied with the |were satisfied with the |responded that they were |responded that they were |
|satisfied with the |details. |details. |satisfied with the details. |satisfied with the details. |
|awareness generation |While 5% men all from Miramor|While only 7% women, all from|9% (14), all from Shahristan,|6% (9), all from Shahristan, |
|program in terms of |stated that they were not |a CDC of Shahristan informed |said they were not satisfied.|said that they did not attend|
|details provided and |satisfied. |that they did not attend the | |the meeting. |
|your understanding of | |meeting. |While 11% male | |
|the program? | | |non-beneficiaries informed | |
| | | |that they did not attend the | |
| | | |meeting. | |
|What do you think is |35% thought Friday Prayers |All the 147 female |A majority of 87% thought |All the 162 female |
|the best way to inform |(Mosque) is the best way |respondents said that Friday |Friday Prayers (Mosque) is |respondents said that Friday |
|you and other villagers|while a majority i.e. 65% |Prayers (Mosque) is the best |the best way while 13% |Prayers (Mosque) is the best |
|in the future about |responded that best way to |way to inform villagers in |responded that best way to |way to inform villagers in |
|such programme? |inform villagers about such a|the future about such |inform villagers about such a|the future about such |
| |program is through CDC |program. |program is through CDC |program. |
| |members. | |members. | |
|Do you think this new |75% thought it very much |98% thought it very much |71% thought it very much |All female non-beneficiaries |
|program was important |important, |important, while only 2% |important, |were of opinion that program |
|for your village? |23% thought it of little |thought it of little bit |24% thought it of little |was very much important for |
| |importance, while 2% thought |importance. |importance, while 5% thought |their village. |
| |it not important at all. | |it not important at all. | |
|Do you think the level |83% of men beneficiaries |All women beneficiaries |85% of men non-beneficiaries |All women non-beneficiaries |
|of the benefit amount |thought the benefit amount |thought the benefit amount |thought the benefit amount |thought the benefit amount |
|was? |was just about right |was just about right. |was just about right, |was just about right. |
| |11% thought it was too low, | |while 15% thought it was too | |
| |while | |low. | |
| |6% thought it too high. | | | |
|If more funds were |In case more funds were |In case more funds were |In case more funds were |In case more funds were |
|available to your |available; |available; |available; |available; |
|village under this |39% men would want to |majority i.e. 84% women |72% male non-beneficiaries |majority i.e. 95% women |
|program, how would you |increase the benefit amount |beneficiaries would prefer to|would prefer to increase the |non-beneficiaries would |
|prefer to spend the |to the same number of |increase the number of |number of beneficiaries while|prefer to increase the number|
|funds? |beneficiaries, |beneficiaries while keep the |keep the benefit amount the |of beneficiaries while keep |
| |46% would prefer to increase |benefit amount the same, |same, |the benefit amount the same. |
| |the number of beneficiaries |12% women, all from |27% would prefer to divert |Only a small percentage i.e. |
| |while keeping the benefit |Shahristan would want to |additional funds towards |5% of respondents from |
| |amount the same. Only 15% of |increase the benefit amount |other development needs of |Miramor would prefer to |
| |men would prefer to divert |to the same number of |the village. |divert additional funds |
| |additional funds towards |beneficiaries, |Only 1 respondent from |towards other development |
| |other development needs of |Only 5% of women from Miramor|Shahristan would want to |needs of the village. |
| |the village. |would prefer to divert |increase the benefit amount | |
| | |additional funds towards |to the same number of | |
| | |other development needs of |beneficiaries, and another 1 | |
| | |the village. |respondent from Miramor did | |
| | | |not express any opinion. | |
|If such benefit was |All male beneficiaries |All female beneficiaries |88% of male non-beneficiaries|All female non-beneficiaries |
|paid around the winter |responded that it would be |responded that it would be |responded that it would be |responded that it would be |
|time, would it be |better if the benefit amount |better if the benefit amount |better if the benefit amount |better if the benefit amount |
|better to pay it just |was paid just before winter. |was paid just before winter. |was paid just before winter. |was paid just before winter. |
|before the winter or | | |However, 12% said that it | |
|just after the winter? | | |would be better if the | |
| | | |benefit amount was paid just | |
| | | |after the winter. | |
|Would you say this |27% male beneficiaries |22% female beneficiaries |Not Applicable |Not Applicable |
|program has improved |responded that program has |responded that program has | | |
|food security of your |improved food security of |improved very much food | | |
|family? |their family very much, while|security of their family, | | |
| |a majority 73% stated that |while a majority of 78% | | |
| |program has little bit |stated that program has | | |
| |improved the food security of|little bit improved the food | | |
| |family. |security of family. | | |
|Would you say this |21% male beneficiaries |48% female beneficiaries |22% male non-beneficiaries |23% female non-beneficiaries |
|program generally |responded that program has |responded that program has |responded that program has |responded that program has |
|improved the situation |very much improved the |very much improved the |very much improved the |very much improved the |
|of children in your |situation of children, |situation of children in |situation of children in |situation of children in |
|community? |however, a majority (77%) |their community, while 52% |their community, however, |their community, however, |
| |stated that program has |stated that program has |majority i.e. 68% stated that|majority i.e. 77% stated that|
| |little bit improved the |little bit improved the |program has little bit |program has little bit |
| |situation of children in |situation of children in |improved the situation of |improved the situation of |
| |their community, only 2% |their community. |children in their community, |children in their community. |
| |stated that there has been no| |while 10% said that there has| |
| |change in situation of | |been no change in situation | |
| |children. | |of children. | |
|Would you say this |Out of 150 male |46% female beneficiaries |17% male non-beneficiaries |23% female non-beneficiaries |
|program has improved |beneficiaries, |responded that program has |responded that program has |responded that program has |
|the situation of women |25% responded that program |very much improved situation |very much improved the |very much improved the |
|in your community? |has very much improved the |of women in their community, |situation of women in their |situation of women in their |
| |situation of women in their |while, 54% women expressed |community; however, a |community; however, a |
| |community; however, a |that program has resulted in |majority (81%) stated that |majority (72%) stated that |
| |majority (75%) stated that |little improvement of the |program has improved the |program has improved the |
| |program has improved the |situation of women in their |situation of women in their |situation of women in their |
| |situation of women in their |community. |community a little. |community a little. |
| |community a little. | |Only 1% said that no change |While 5% said that no change |
| | | |has occurred. |has occurred. |
|Would you say that |All male beneficiaries |94% female beneficiaries |98% male non-beneficiaries |94% female non-beneficiaries |
|women have been |affirmed that women have been|affirmed that women have been|respondents affirmed that |affirmed that women have been|
|sufficiently involved |sufficiently involved in the |sufficiently involved in the |women have been sufficiently |sufficiently involved in the |
|in the participation |participation and |participation and |involved in the participation|participation and |
|and administration of |administration of the |administration of the |and administration of the |administration of the program|
|the program? |program. |program, only 6% (9) from a |program, only 1 respondent |While 6% from CDC of |
| | |CDC of Shahristan said that |responded in negative and 1 |Shahristan responded |
| | |women have not been |gave no opinion. |negatively. |
| | |sufficiently involved. | | |
|If your village has |All male beneficiaries |92% female beneficiaries |99% of the male |94% of the female |
|women living alone, did|affirmed that women living |affirmed that women living |non-beneficiaries affirmed |non-beneficiaries affirmed |
|they participate in the|alone in village have |alone in village have |that women living alone in |that women living alone in |
|programme? |participated in the program. |participated in the program, |village have participated in |village have participated in |
| | |while 7% from Shahristan |the program, only 1% (1) from|the program, |
| | |responded in negative, |Shahristan responded in |while 6% from Shahristan |
| | |only 1% did not know. |negative. |responded in negative. |
|What is your |38% male beneficiaries showed|74% female beneficiaries |34% male non-beneficiaries |59% female non-beneficiaries |
|satisfaction level with|high satisfaction i.e. were |expressed high satisfaction |showed high satisfaction i.e.|expressed high satisfaction |
|support provided by |very happy with the CDC’s |i.e. very happy with the |were very happy with the |i.e. were very happy with the|
|Community Development |support, while |CDC’s support, |CDC’s support, |CDC’s support, |
|Councils (CDC) for |62% men responded that they |20% women responded that they|57% responded that they were |40% women responded that they|
|implementation of this |were happy with the support |were happy with the support |happy, |were happy with the support |
|program in your |provided by CDC for |provided by CDC, while 6% (9)|while 5% showed indifference |provided by CDC, while 1% (2)|
|village/CDC? |implementation of the |women from Shahristan |and 4% were unhappy with the |expressed indifference. |
| |programme in their respective|expressed unhappiness. |support provided by CDC for | |
| |villages/CDCs. | |implementation of the | |
| | | |programme in their respective| |
| | | |villages/CDCs. | |
|What is your |About support provided by |About support provided by |About support provided by |About support provided by |
|satisfaction level with|Facilitating Partner for |Facilitating Partner for |Facilitating Partner for |Facilitating Partner for |
|support provided by |implementation of program, a |implementation of program, |implementation of program, |implementation of program, |
|Facilitating Partner |majority (91%) responded that|63% responded that they were |15% expressed that they were |47% responded that they were |
|(FP) for implementation|they were happy, while |very happy, while |very happy, |very happy, while |
|of this program in your|9% men said they were very |37% women said they were |64% responded that they were |53% women said they were |
|village? |happy with support provided |happy with support provided |happy, |happy with support provided |
| |by FP. |by FP. |6% and 10% from CDCs of |by FP. |
| | | |Shahristan expressed | |
| | | |respectively indifference and| |
| | | |unhappiness with FP support, | |
| | | |while 5% men said they don’t | |
| | | |know what is FP. | |
|Would you support the |All male beneficiaries the |All the female beneficiaries |All the male |All the female |
|Continuation of this |program was important for |considered the program |non-beneficiaries considered |non-beneficiaries considered |
|program? |social and economic |important for social and |that the program was |the program important for |
| |development/change of their |economic development/change |important for social and |social and economic |
| |villages and hence would |of their villages and hence |economic development/change |development/change of their |
| |support its continuation. |would support its |of their villages and hence |villages and hence would |
| | |continuation. |would support its |support its continuation. |
| | | |continuation. | |
The awareness meetings were well attended by respondents. They were satisfied with the information supplied. They considered the program important for the village and the benefit amount just right. Friday prayers congregation in the mosque was the best way to inform people and distribute the benefit amount to the beneficiaries, before winter. The benefit amount had improved the food security situation of children and women in the community and participation of women. They were happy and satisfied with the support of CDC and FP for the program.
2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions)
The Analysis of Open Discussions on this aspect across various stakeholders is presented in Table below:
Table 9.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – General Program Knowledge and Satisfaction
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|What do you think the |The male beneficiaries |The female beneficiaries |The male non beneficiaries |The female non beneficiary|
|objective of the program |opined that objective of the|were of the opinion that |were of the opinion that |respondents in all 18 |
|is? |program is to help the poor |objective of the program is |objective of the program is |villages of 2 districts |
| |families to satisfy their |to help poor and vulnerable |to support poor and |knew exactly about the |
| |daily food requirements and |families of the village with|vulnerable families of the |objective of the programme|
| |fight against hunger. |cash benefit so that they |village, protect them from |i.e. to help poor people |
| |Respondents from Kakrak |can fulfill their basic |hunger and enable them to |of the village, solve |
| |Wargha stated that objective|family needs like food, |satisfy their most important|their financial problems, |
| |is to develop poor |clothes, repaying loans and |needs. |protect them against |
| |communities by supporting |other needs etc. | |poverty and hunger, |
| |women, children and families| | |improve living conditions |
| |without bread earners. Only | | |and reduce level of |
| |respondents from Rok Ishto, | | |poverty. |
| |district Miramor further | | | |
| |linked it to women food | | | |
| |requirements and improving | | | |
| |hygiene. | | | |
|How do you generally feel |The male beneficiaries felt |The female beneficiaries |The male non beneficiaries |The female non |
|about supporting families |that that program supported |thought program very |form both districts |beneficiaries’ from both |
|with cash benefits? Does it|poor families with their |important and beneficial to |expressed that the program |districts supported the |
|provide any sort of |basic need items especially |the village as it provided |enabled poor families to |idea of providing needy |
|necessary relief? |purchasing food items as |relief to vulnerable and |cater for some of their |families with cash grant |
| |well as repaying loans. They|deserving families by |basic needs like purchasing |because it provided them |
| |were of opinion that cash |enabling them to cater for |food items, clothes and |relief. The families were |
| |benefit provided relief to |their basic needs of food |shoes etc. thus, preparing |able to meet their basic |
| |poor families especially |purchase, clothes and |them for winter. Thus, the |needs such as buying food,|
| |women and children with food|related winter stocks. The |program provided significant|clothes, shoes and some |
| |items, clothes and shoes |program helped reduced |relief to these poor |also managed to repay |
| |etc. thus, equipping them |hardships of winter and |families. |their loans. |
| |for winter. |provided relief to these | | |
| | |families. | | |
|Do you think the larger |Men beneficiaries favored |All the female beneficiaries|Most of the male non |All the female non |
|one-off payment is |larger one-off payment/cash |were in favor of larger |beneficiaries were in favor |beneficiaries preferred |
|appropriate for the needs |benefit as this would enable|one-off payment of cash as |of larger one-off |the larger one-off payment|
|of the poorest families or |a poor family to satisfy its|this enables them to satisfy|payment/cash benefit as this|rather than in |
|do you think the benefit |basic needs. “All at once” |some of their basic needs |would enable poor families |installments. Their |
|amount should be much |would be better was the |such as purchasing food |to satisfy their basic |opinion was that with one |
|smaller but paid more |response from Kohkoj-e-Waras|stock, clothes and repaying |needs. Secondly, the larger |time cash grant, families |
|often? |and Kadanak Girow FGDs, as |loans etc. Moreover, female |one off payment is suitable |can utilize money in a |
| |people would have a chance |respondents from few |for village far off from |better manner and can meet|
| |to meet all their needs at |villages of district Miramor|markets as poor people can |their basic needs. |
| |once. Respondents from Nak |suggested that in future it |buy all the necessary goods |However, they also |
| |Watana stressed the |would be better if the money|at one time. |suggested increasing the |
| |importance of cash |is paid under cash for work |However respondents |amount because the amount |
| |distribution before winter. |program. This would |belonging to Sarkoyak Ameech|given previously was not |
| |Respondents from Bark |contribute to long term |from Shahristan and |enough. The respondents of|
| |Takhawi and Pitab Joe Watana|development in villages. |Sangarkesh Ulya from Miramor|Darghala Charkh Bargar, |
| |highlighted that larger one | |suggested that benefit might|district Shahristan and |
| |off payment is suitable for | |be paid twice a year. Again |Argi Nardak, district |
| |village far off from markets| |respondents of Zard Sang |Miramor suggested that the|
| |as poor people can buy all | |Shali district Shahristan |cash grant should be paid |
| |the necessary goods at one | |and Argi Nardak from Miramor|against the work. |
| |time. Lastly respondents | |suggested payment of small | |
| |from RoK Ishto opined that | |amount several times a year.| |
| |smaller installment would be| | | |
| |difficult for government to | | | |
| |manage. | | | |
|Is there anything you |Most of the male |The female beneficiaries |Most of the male non |All respondents suggested |
|think/suggest should be |beneficiaries suggested that|informed that program has |beneficiaries expressed that|increasing the cash grant |
|changed about this program?|majority of people living in|been implemented in a good |as majority of people living|and the number of |
| |villages are poor so the |way. Majority of the female |in villages are poor, they |beneficiaries because the |
| |cash amount shall be |respondents suggested |suggested increasing the |number of poor families is|
| |increased thus addressing |increasing the number of |amount of money/funds so as |higher than the number of |
| |the extreme poor condition |beneficiaries as well as the|to cover all the poor |beneficiaries. |
| |and reaching out to more |benefit amount. This would |families of village. Non | |
| |beneficiaries. Beneficiaries|enable poor families to |beneficiaries from Deh Asho | |
| |from Ulqan Payeen, |cater for some of their |Alawdal and Awry Mazar Uzmok| |
| |Kohkoj-e-Waras, Kilage |basic needs like food |from district Shahristan and| |
| |Dasht-e-Sufla and Kadanak |purchases, clothes and |Sangarkesh Ulya, Nak Watana | |
| |Girow praised the program |repaying debts etc. |and Argi Nadak from Miramor | |
| |and suggested its |Moreover, respondents from |suggested that amount might | |
| |continuation with one large |Zard Sang Shali suggested |be paid against work and | |
| |cash installment after |that program should be |funds might also be | |
| |specific interval. Moreover,|implemented in such a way |allocated for development of| |
| |respondents from Nak Watana |that money is distributed to|the village infrastructure. | |
| |and Pitab Joe Watana |real poor and no misconduct | | |
| |suggested cash payments |is done by anyone. | | |
| |against work, this would | | | |
| |provide opportunities of | | | |
| |development in village. | | | |
| |Moreover, infrastructure | | | |
| |development activities also | | | |
| |need to be initiated. | | | |
|As a woman, what has been |Not Applicable |Majority of the female |Not Applicable |Not Applicable |
|your experience with this | |expressed that as people | | |
|program in regards to the | |(both male and female) live | | |
|social status of women and | |in families and expenses are| | |
|women's involvement in | |joint, we as women mostly | | |
|collecting the benefit and | |spent the amount on family | | |
|deciding on the use of the | |needs like food, clothes | | |
|money? | |etc. Only respondents from | | |
| | |Zard Sang Shali and Kadanak | | |
| | |Girow expressed that the | | |
| | |money was taken by men and | | |
| | |women were not involved to a| | |
| | |great extent. | | |
The program provided help to poor and vulnerable families to meet their family daily food needs against hunger and severe winter. One-off payment of cash benefit was preferred to enable poor to procure all needed items once. Increase in the cash benefit was desired to help more poor and for village infrastructure works and also transparency in distribution to avoid fraud / misconduct.
Selection Process
This chapter presents analysis and findings on selection process across various program stakeholders i.e. beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries. This part presents views of the participants on the process of their identification to receive the benefits and on improving the system.
The analysis of the responses is presented in following passages.
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close ended questions)
The key findings from FGIs with the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are presented in the Table below:
Table 10.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Selection Process
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|Was your family selected by |All male beneficiaries said|All female beneficiaries |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|the Village Selection |their families had been |said their families had | | |
|Committee in the first list? |selected by Village |been selected by Village | | |
| |selection committee in the |selection committee in the | | |
| |first list |first list | | |
|If the list was publicized |Regarding publication of |Regarding publication of |Regarding publication of |Regarding publication of |
|how did they do it? |list: |list: |list; |list; |
| |93% male beneficiaries from|94% female beneficiaries |71% male non-beneficiaries |89% female non-beneficiaries|
| |both districts responded |from both districts |from both districts |from both districts |
| |that it was read aloud in |responded that it was read |responded that it was read |responded that it was read |
| |open public meeting, while |aloud in open public |aloud in open public |aloud in open public |
| |7% men (8 from Shahristan |meeting, while |meeting, while |meeting, while |
| |and 2 from Miramor) |6% (9) women from |24% respondents from both |6% respondents, all from |
| |responded that it was |Shahristan expressed lack |districts said that list |Miramor said that list was |
| |posted outside in a public |of knowledge. |was posted outside in a |posted outside in a public |
| |place. | |public place. |place, and |
| | | |Only 5% expressed lack of |6%, all from Shahristan |
| | | |knowledge. |expressed lack of knowledge.|
|Was your family added to the |67% male beneficiaries said|67% female beneficiaries |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|list by the Village |that although their name |said that although their | | |
|Verification Committee? |was added by VSC, it was |name was added by VSC, it | | |
| |approved by VVC. |was approved by VVC. | | |
| |33% said that they did not |33% said that they did not | | |
| |have VVC in their village. |have VVC in their village. | | |
|Are you happy with the |All male beneficiaries |An overwhelming majority |80% male non-beneficiaries |All the female |
|composition of the Village |expressed happiness with |(94%) of the female |expressed happiness with |non-beneficiaries expressed |
|Selection Committee and |composition of Village |beneficiaries expressed |composition of Village |happiness with composition |
|Village Verification |Selection and Village |happiness with composition |Selection and Village |of Village Selection and |
|Committee [(If you had such |Verification committees. |of Village Selection and |Verification committees, |Village Verification |
|committee(s)]? |In villages having no VVC |Village Verification |3% responded in negative, |committees. |
| |satisfaction was expressed |committees, only |while | |
| |with only VSC. |3% responded in negative, |11% expressed lack of | |
| | |while |knowledge. | |
| | |3% had no knowledge. | | |
|How would you change the |89% male beneficiaries |94% female beneficiaries |41% male non-beneficiaries |All female non-beneficiaries|
|Village Selection Committee |responded that they would |responded that they would |responded that they would |responded that they would |
|and Village Verification |not change anything, only |not change anything, |not change anything |not change anything. |
|Committee [If you had such |2% would add more female |Only 6% would like to add |43% would like to add more | |
|committee(s)])? |members, |more literate persons. |literate persons, | |
| |3% would add more respected| |7% would add more female | |
| |elders, | |members, | |
| |3% would like to add more | |8% would add more respected| |
| |literate persons & | |elders & | |
| |2% would like to add people| |1% would like to add people| |
| |from each village locality.| |from each village locality.| |
|Do you think it was helpful |84% male beneficiaries from|67% female beneficiaries |77% male non-beneficiaries |81% female non-beneficiaries|
|to have two different |both districts thought it |from both districts thought|thought it was helpful to |thought it was helpful to |
|committees (if you had two |was helpful to have two |it was helpful to have two |have two committees as it |have two committees as it |
|committees)? |committees as it makes |committees as it makes |makes process safe and |makes process safe and |
| |process safe and |process safe and |transparent, |transparent, |
| |transparent. |transparent. |12% responded that they |while 19% responded that |
| |While 16% from both |27% from both districts |need only one selection |they need only one selection|
| |districts responded that |responded that they need |committee, |committee. |
| |they need only one |only one selection |3% said that “we don’t need| |
| |selection committee. |committee, while |committees at all”, while, | |
| | |6% (9) from CDC of |8% did not express opinion.| |
| | |Shahristan gave no opinion.| | |
|Did your village have public |All male beneficiaries |94% of the female |91% male non-beneficiaries |88% female non-beneficiaries|
|meeting to discuss the list |affirmed that village had a|beneficiaries affirmed that|affirmed that village had a|affirmed that village had a |
|of beneficiaries? If so, did |public meeting to discuss |village had a public |public meeting to discuss |public meeting to discuss |
|you attend such meeting? |the list of beneficiaries |meeting to discuss the list|the list of beneficiaries |the list of beneficiaries |
| |and they or family member |of beneficiaries and they |and they or family member |and they or family member |
| |attended the meeting. |or family member attended |attended the meeting. |attended the meeting. |
| | |the meeting. |Only 9% respondents |Only 12% (19) respondents |
| | |Only 6% (9) from a CDC in |informed that meeting was |from 2 CDCs in Shahristan |
| | |Shahristan informed that |held but they did not |informed that meeting was |
| | |meeting was held but they |attend. |held but they did not |
| | |did not attend. | |attend. |
|Who played the most active |A majority (95%) of male |A majority (94%) of female |63% male non-beneficiaries |94% women non-beneficiaries |
|role in leading the public |beneficiaries responded |beneficiaries responded |responded that members of |responded that members of |
|meeting? |that members of CDC played |that members of CDC played |CDC, 16% said that members |CDC played the most active |
| |the most active role in |the most active role in |of VSC and 16% informed |role in leading the public |
| |leading the public meeting,|leading the public meeting,|that FP (Oxfam-GB) played |meeting, |
| |while 5% responded that |while, 6% expressed lack of|most active role in leading|While, 6% respondents from a|
| |members of VSC played most |knowledge or they did not |the public meeting, while, |CDC of Shahristan expressed |
| |active role in leading the |attend the meeting. |5% expressed no knowledge /|no knowledge or they did not|
| |public meeting. | |did not attend the meeting.|attend the meeting. |
|Did you feel comfortable in |98% male beneficiaries |94% female beneficiaries |85% of the male |99% of the female |
|voicing your opinion at the |expressed that they were |expressed that they were |non-beneficiaries expressed|non-beneficiaries expressed |
|public assembly that was |very much comfortable in |very much comfortable in |that they were very much |that they were very much |
|organized to start the |voicing their opinion at |voicing their opinion at |comfortable, while 15% |comfortable in voicing their|
|selection process? |the public assembly, |the public assembly, |respondents from 3 CDCs of |opinion at the public |
| |Only 2% men responded that |Only 6% women responded |Shahristan informed that |assembly. |
| |they were not so |that they were not so |they did not feel |Only 1% women expressed that|
| |comfortable |comfortable |comfortable at all in |they were not so comfortable|
| | | |voicing their opinion at |in voicing their opinion at |
| | | |the public assembly |the public assembly |
| | | |organized to start the |organized to start the |
| | | |selection process. |selection process. |
|Do you think that the |97% responded that the |94% female beneficiaries |75% responded that the |96% female non-beneficiaries|
|selection process was open, |selection process of the |responded that the |selection process of the |responded that the selection|
|clear and fair? |beneficiaries was open, |selection process of the |beneficiaries was open, |process of the beneficiaries|
| |clear and fair; while 3% |beneficiaries was open, |clear and fair, whereas 13%|was open, clear and fair, |
| |responded that it could be |clear and fair; while 6% |responded that it was not |and 2% stated that it was |
| |more open, clear and fair. |responded that it could be |open, clear and fair. |not open, clear and fair, |
| | |more open, clear and fair. |While 13% responded that it|and |
| | | |could be more open, clear |2% responded that it could |
| | | |and fair. |be more open, clear and |
| | | | |fair. |
|Did you express any concerns |95% male beneficiaries |All female beneficiaries |All the male |All the female |
|or complaints about how the |responded that they did not|responded that they neither|non-beneficiaries responded|non-beneficiaries responded |
|selection process was |complain and express any |complained nor expressed |that they did not complain |that they neither complained|
|organized? |concern. |any concern. |nor expressed any concern. |nor expressed any concern. |
| |Only 5% said they | | | |
| |complained to the Village | | | |
| |Selection Committee. | | | |
2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions)
The Analysis of Open Discussions is presented in Table below:
Table 10.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Selection Process
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|Tell us about other |Most of the male |All the female beneficiaries|Majority of the male |All respondents in 18 |
|beneficiary families who |beneficiaries informed that |informed that there were |non-beneficiaries expressed |villages showed |
|could have been selected |they were selected due to |families in the village who |that there are families in |satisfaction on the |
|and whether you consider |poverty and vulnerability; |deserved help but as the |the village who deserved |eligibility of selected |
|them eligible enough to |similarly other people on |percentage of beneficiaries |help but as the percentage |beneficiary families. They|
|receive the benefit. |the committee’s list were |considered under the program|of beneficiaries considered |confirmed that all the |
| |also poor and deserving. |was limited so only very |under the program was |families were indeed |
| |Respondents from Awry Mazar |poor and vulnerable families|limited so only very poor |deserving and eligible to |
| |Azmok and Nak Watana |were considered, and some |and vulnerable families were|benefit from the |
| |acknowledged that it was not|families could not become |considered, and those |programme. However, they |
| |possible to cover all poor |part of program. They |families could not become |also mentioned that the |
| |families, and suggested that|suggested increase in funds |part of program. While |number of families who |
| |funds allocation to program |so that program can cover |respondents from Zard Sang |needed help was much |
| |might be increased to cover |all those deserving. |Shali, district Shahristan |higher than the number of |
| |all deserving. | |informed that in their |actual beneficiaries. |
| | | |village money was taken back| |
| | | |from beneficiaries and then | |
| | | |redistributed among all | |
| | | |families of village. | |
|Tell us about other |Majority of the respondents |All the female beneficiaries|Majority of the male |The female non |
|families in the village who|affirmed that selection of |affirmed that only eligible |non-beneficiaries confirmed |beneficiaries also |
|should not have been |poor families for cash |families were listed for |that selection of poor |confirmed that all |
|selected but have been |benefit was properly carried|benefit and no ineligible |families for cash benefit |beneficiaries were |
|selected to receive this |out by both VSC and VVC with|family was considered for |was properly carried out by |genuinely in need of help |
|benefit amount |consultation of village |cash benefit. However, |both VSC and VVC with |and only those people were|
| |elders. However, male |respondents from Zard Sang |consultation of village |included who fulfilled the|
| |beneficiaries from |Shali informed that benefit |elders and only the most |eligibility criteria. |
| |Kohkoj-e-Waras informed that|money was collected from |deserving families were | |
| |few non deserving were |beneficiaries by CDC members|added. Only respondents’ | |
| |provided with cash benefit, |and village elders and |form Zard Sang Shali | |
| |moreover it was decided that|redistributed to all |informed that all families | |
| |the cash benefit would be |families of village. |of village were provided | |
| |distributed equally to all | |cash amount. However, male | |
| |families of the village. | |non-beneficiaries from | |
| |Respondents from Kakrak | |Kohkoj-e-Waras and Kakrak | |
| |Wargha Alawdal also informed| |Wargha Alawdal informed of | |
| |of the instance where | |the instances where | |
| |deserving were not selected | |ineligible families received| |
| |by the committees. | |cash benefit. | |
|Were the roles of the |They were clear about the |Most of the female |Most of the male |Although female non |
|Village Selection Committee|roles of both committees |respondents expressed that |non-beneficiaries expressed |beneficiaries were not |
|and Village Verification |i.e. VSC selected the poor |they were clear on the role |that they were clear on the |recipients of the cash |
|Committee clear to you? |families based on criteria |of VSC and VVC (in villages |role of VSC and VVC (in |grant, they were aware of |
| |and VVC (in villages where |where VVC was formed). The |villages where VVC was |the role of VSC and VVC. |
| |VVC was formed) carried out |VSC compiled the list of |formed). The VSC compiled |According to them, the VSC|
| |verification on indicators |beneficiaries and the VVC |the list of beneficiaries |prepared the list of poor |
| |e.g. food, children, land, |verified the list based on |and the VVC verified the |people and which was |
| |assets etc. Both the VSC and|the criteria for deserving. |list based on the criteria |verified by VVC and elders|
| |VVC are composed of members |Respondents from Kilage |for deserving. However, |of the community. In |
| |from respective villages and|Dasht-e-Sufla, Shahristan |respondents of Zard Sang |Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla, |
| |they were aware about the |district, were not fully |Shali and Kakrak Wargha |Shahristan district, the |
| |poor families so the process|aware about the programme |Alawdal from Shahristan |respondents were not fully|
| |was transparent. However, |and they had only heard |district were not fully |aware about the programme |
| |respondents from |about it through men. |clear about the role of the |and they had only heard |
| |Kohkoj-e-Waras were not | |committee(s). |about it through men. |
| |clear about the roles of | | | |
| |committees and the cash | | | |
| |benefit was already decided | | | |
| |to be redistributed among | | | |
| |all poor families equally. | | | |
|Please tell us about your |Most male beneficiaries |The female beneficiaries |Majority of male |The female non |
|experiences of the open |attended the open community |informed that first the FP |non-beneficiaries gave |beneficiaries gave |
|community meeting to |meeting and were part of the|provided information and |detailed information about |detailed information about|
|discuss beneficiary list, |decision to constitute two |awareness about the program |the open community meeting |the selection process i.e.|
|if you attended it. |committees for selection of |then VSCs and VVCs were |and selection process. They |the information about the |
| |the poor families from the |formed. Then the list of |informed that the awareness |programme was initially |
| |village and lists were |beneficiaries was prepared |about the programme was |given by the staff of the |
| |prepared with agreement of |by VSC in consultation with |initially given by the staff|facilitating organization |
| |all. They also affirmed that|CDC and village elders. |of the facilitating |and then VSC and VVC were |
| |poorest people of the |These lists were then |organization and then VSC |established. The next |
| |village were listed in |verified by the VVC. These |and VVC were established. |stage of the programme was|
| |consultation with elders and|lists were announced |The next stage of the |preparation of beneficiary|
| |CDCs and in majority cases |publically in the meeting. |programme was preparation of|list by the committees |
| |approval was obtained |While women respondents from|beneficiary list by the |which was acceptable for |
| |through public announcement.|Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla |committees which was |all villagers. Female non |
| |The process was clear and |informed that they did not |acceptable to all villagers.|beneficiaries of Kilage |
| |transparent. |attend the meeting, only men|However, respondents from |Dasht-e-Sufla did not |
| | |attended it. |Zard Sang Shali stated they |attend any meeting, |
| | | |did not attend the meeting, |according to them only men|
| | | |while respondents from |attended the meetings. |
| | | |Kohkoj-e-Waras and Kakrak | |
| | | |Wargha Alawdal expressed | |
| | | |that they were not clear | |
| | | |about the process of | |
| | | |selection/working. | |
The analysis of selection process reveal that most were happy and satisfied with composition of VSC, no change but improvement was desired. The VSC prepared first list of beneficiaries which was announced aloud in public meeting. Two committees, VSC and VVC were preferred to make the process of beneficiary selection safe and transparent. CDC members played the leading role in the meetings. The beneficiaries felt comfortable in voicing their views in the meetings and considered the process open, clear and fair.
However, there have been instances of redistribution of benefit in village Zardsang Shali where benefit amount was collected and then redistributed among all families of village. Similarly respondents of Kohkoj-e-Waras also informed of similar decision on part of village elders and CDC to distribute benefit among all families of village; however, whether redistribution happened has not been stated by respondents.
Moreover, role of VSC and VVC in few instances was not clear to respondents from Zardsang Shali, Kilage Dashte Sufla, Kohkoj-e-Waras and Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal.
Delivery mechanism
This chapter presents analysis and findings with specific focus on delivery mechanism for beneficiaries and views from non-beneficiaries. This part of focus group is intended to explore the respondent’s views on delivery mechanism for the cash-benefit in terms of timing, amount of funding and related issues. The findings are given in following passages;
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended)
The key findings from FGIs with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are presented in the Table below:
Table 11.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses - Delivery
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|How long did you wait to |Regarding the waiting |Regarding the waiting |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|receive your benefit after |period between notification|period between notification| | |
|you were notified on your |of selection and receipt of|of selection and receipt of| | |
|selection? |benefit delivery: |benefit delivery: | | |
| |55% men responded that they|45% women responded that | | |
| |had to wait for more than 2|they had to wait for more | | |
| |months, |than 2 months, | | |
| |39% said they waited for |39% women said they waited | | |
| |more than one month, only |more than one month, | | |
| |5% said that they waited |while 16% women said they | | |
| |for 3 – 4 weeks. |waited for 3 – 4 weeks. | | |
|Who was the money handed to? |65% male beneficiaries |94% female beneficiaries |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
| |responded that the money |responded that the money | | |
| |was handed over to them |was handed over to them | | |
| |personally, |personally, only 6% (9) | | |
| |35% responded that the |from CDC of Shahristan | | |
| |money was handed over to |responded that the money | | |
| |their wives. |was handed over to their | | |
| | |husbands. | | |
|Where did the Cash |27% male beneficiaries said|66% female beneficiaries |All the male |72% female non-beneficiaries|
|distribution take place? |cash distribution took |responded that cash |non-beneficiaries said that|responded that cash |
| |place at location arranged |distribution took place |cash distribution took |distribution took place |
| |by CDC, |during Friday/Evening |place at a public place. |during Friday/Evening |
| |67% responded that cash |prayer, while | |prayer, while |
| |distribution took place |34% women said cash | |28% women said that cash |
| |during Friday/Evening |distribution took place at | |distribution was done at |
| |prayer and 6% (8) said that|location arranged by CDC. | |personal homes. |
| |cash distribution was done | | | |
| |at public place. | | | |
|Did someone take or steal |All male beneficiaries |95% female beneficiaries |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|some of your benefit prior to|informed that no attempts |said that no attempts were | | |
|your receiving it? |were made to take or steal |made to take or steal some | | |
| |some of their benefit prior|of their benefit. | | |
| |to receiving it. |However, 5% (8) women from | | |
| | |CDC of Miramor informed | | |
| | |that attempt had been made | | |
| | |to take or steal some of | | |
| | |their benefit prior to | | |
| | |receiving it. | | |
|Did you have to pay anyone a |All the male beneficiaries |All the female |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|fee to receive the benefit? |affirmed that they had not |beneficiaries affirmed that| | |
| |paid any fee. |they had not paid any fee. | | |
|If you complained about |A majority (75%) responded |All female beneficiaries |Does Not Apply |Does Not Apply |
|misconduct when the transfer |that no misconduct was |said that no misconduct was| | |
|was being distributed, whom |observed during the benefit|observed during the benefit| | |
|did you complain to? |transfer hence they did not|transfer hence they did not| | |
| |complain, |complain. | | |
| |12% complained to CDC | | | |
| |members, | | | |
| |11% complained to VSC, | | | |
| |while | | | |
| |1% each complained to | | | |
| |relatives, village elders | | | |
| |and VVC. | | | |
|Where do you think that the |88% male beneficiaries |88% female beneficiaries |82% male non-beneficiaries |All female non-beneficiaries|
|cash distribution should take|suggested that cash |suggested that cash |suggested that cash |suggested that cash |
|place? |distribution should take |distribution should take |distribution should take |distribution should take |
| |place at Mosque during |place at Mosque during |place at a public place, |place at Mosque during |
| |Friday/Evening prayer, |Friday/Evening prayer, and |13% suggested Mosque during|Friday/Evening prayer. |
| |11% suggested public place,|12% suggested CDC office. |Friday/Evening prayer for | |
| |and | |cash distribution. | |
| |1% suggested CDC office. | |Only 5% suggested personal | |
| | | |home for cash distribution.| |
2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions)
The Analysis of Open Discussions is presented in Table below:
Table 11.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Delivery
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |
|Please describe your experience with |All the male beneficiaries except those from Zard |The distribution process was mostly carried out |
|the place and the process of receiving|Sang Shali, affirmed that their experience with the |in the mosque or public place near the mosque |
|the benefit. What went well and what |place and process of receiving the benefit was very |according to female beneficiaries. They affirmed |
|went poorly? |well. |that their experience with the place and process |
| |The respondents from Zard Sang Shalije informed that |of receiving the benefit was very well. However, |
| |cash benefit was taken back from beneficiaries and |Zard Sang Shalije respondents informed that cash |
| |CDC redistributed this amount equally to all families|benefit was taken back from beneficiaries and CDC|
| |of village. One other issue highlighted was the long |redistributed this amount equally to all families|
| |time interval between selection process and the |of the village. |
| |actual disbursement of cash benefit. Also there were | |
| |slight apprehensions from Awry Mazar Uzmok and Nak | |
| |Watana villages over the institution responsible and | |
| |long delays in cash payment. | |
|If you paid any fee to receive the |Male beneficiaries confirmed that they were not |All the female beneficiaries confirmed that they |
|benefit amount, please describe what |charged with any fee for or against the cash |were not charged with any fee for or against the |
|took place. |distribution nor did they bribe anyone for listing |cash distribution nor did they bribe anyone for |
| |them into poor families. Only respondents of Zar Sang|listing them into poor families. |
| |Shalije informed that CDC and elders collected the | |
| |benefit from beneficiaries and re-distributed among | |
| |all families. | |
All beneficiaries received their cash benefit, though few somewhat late in the CDC arranged locations, during Friday prayers in mosque and public place etc. Selection of beneficiaries and delivery of cash benefit were transparent and credible. No mis-conduct was observed.
Only in village Zardsang Shali the benefit was recollected from the beneficiaries and re-distributed equally among all families of village.
Section four –
aspp institutional setup
Section Iv
Afghanistan Social protection program - Institutional Setup
This section provides findings from the analysis of Focus Group Interviews/Discussions held with the:
• Village Selection Committees
• Village Verification Committees
• Facilitating Partner – Oxfam GB
• DoLSAMD
• District Governors &
• Governor Daikundi
The main theme of the analysis focuses on the effectiveness or lack thereof of the institutional setup adopted for the implementation of ASPP in the Daikundi province. The role and views of VSCs, VVCs, FP, DoLSAMD and Governors are assessed in detail in this section to assess program effectiveness.
Details illustrated with pictures are attached as annexures- 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
FGI / D with village selection committees (VSC) & Village Verification Committees (VVCs)
These focus group interviews/discussions were conducted with members of Village Selection Committees and Village Verification Committees in the villages/CDCs that were associated with the Afghanistan Social Protection Program. The phase 3 of the program was conducted in two districts of Daikundi province of Afghanistan. An important point to mention here is that Village Selection Committees were formed in all the 18 villages selected for operational evaluation i.e. 9 in district Shahristan and 9 in district Miramor, while Village Verification Committees were formed in 6 villages in each district i.e. total 12 VVCs were surveyed under operational evaluation. The main reason for this is to assess the effectiveness of having these committees and their benefit or lack thereof. The details of respondents of FGI/Ds with VSCs and VVCs are:
• A total of 124 members from 18 VSCs were interviewed from both districts – 58 from Shahristan and 66 from Miramor
• Similarly a total of 79 members from 12 VVCs were interviewed from both districts – 37 from Shahristan and 42 from Miramor
Analysis of FGIs/Ds with VSCs and VVCs is given in the following passages. The distribution and number of the respective members chosen for FGI/D from each district are given with pictures for illustration as annexures 11, 12, 13 and 14.
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/D with VSCs and VVCs
The main issues discussed with VSCs and VVCs were:
I. Program Awareness Generation
II. Formation of Committee
III. Beneficiary Selection Process
IV. Performance Measurement
V. Program Result
The key findings under each are discussed in the following passages. An important point to note is that few questions are relevant for either VSC or VVC.
1 Program awareness generation
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VSC and VVC members are given in Table below:
Table 12.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Program Awareness Generation
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|Did your village have an open |All the respondents i.e. 58 from district |91% respondents i.e. all 42 from district Miramor and|
|general community awareness |Shahristan and 66 from Miramor stated that open |30 from district Shahristan stated that open general |
|meeting about the program before |general community awareness meeting was held before|community awareness meeting was held before the |
|the program started? |the program started. |program started. while only 9% i.e. 7 respondents |
| | |from district Shahristan stated otherwise |
|Did you participate in that |95% respondents had participated in the awareness |All respondents had participated in the awareness |
|awareness meeting before being |meeting while only 5% had not before being part of |meeting before being part of VVC. |
|part of the VSC / VVC? |VSC. | |
|Did you find awareness campaign |89% respondents found awareness campaign helpful |All respondents found awareness campaign helpful. |
|helpful? |while 11% (all from Shahristan) did not find it | |
| |helpful. | |
|Who organized the open community |22% responded that open community meetings were |38% responded that open community meetings were |
|meeting? |organized by CDC members, |organized by CDC members, |
| |73% responded that meetings were organized by both |54% responded that meetings were organized by both |
| |CDCs and FPs, and only 5% responded that members of|CDCs and FPs, while only 8% responded that prominent |
| |FP organized the open community meetings. |villagers organized the open community meetings. |
2 Formation of committee
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VSC and VVC members are given below in the Table:
Table 12.2 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Formation of Committee
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|Who, if anyone, helped you get |49% (61) members of VSCs – 43 from Miramor and 18 |51% (40) members of VVCs – 22 from Miramor and 18 |
|organized as the VSC / VVC? |from Shahristan, mentioned that CDCs helped them |from Shahristan mentioned that CDCs helped them get |
| |get organized as VSCs |organized as VVCs, |
| |and 51% (63) members of VSCs – 40 from district |49% (39) members of VVCs – 20 from district Miramor |
| |Shahristan said that people of village and CDC |said that village people and CDC members, and 19 from|
| |members, while 23 from district Miramor mentioned |district Shahristan mentioned that Oxfam-GB and |
| |Oxfam-GB and people of village helped them get |village elders helped them get organized as VVCs. |
| |organized as VSCs. | |
|Were you informed by anyone on who|A majority, 95% (118) respondents from both |66% (52) respondents from both districts were |
|can be a member of VSC / VVC? |districts were informed by someone on who can be a |informed by someone on who can be a member of VVC, |
| |member of VSC while only 5% respondents, all from |while 34% (27) respondents, from both districts were |
| |district Miramor were not so informed. |not so informed by anyone. |
|Were there enough qualified people|65% (80) VSC members from both districts i.e. 52 |A majority i.e. 84% (66) VVCs members from both |
|in the village to be part of your |from Miramor and 28 from Shahristan responded that |districts - 36 from Miramor and 30 from Shahristan |
|committee? |there were enough qualified to be part of |responded that there were enough qualified to be part|
| |committee; while 35% (44) VSC members from both |of committee; while 16% (13) VVCs members from both |
| |districts i.e. 30 from Shahristan and 14 from |districts i.e. 7 from Shahristan and 6 from Miramor |
| |Miramor stated that there were not enough qualified|stated that there were not enough qualified people in|
| |people in village to be part of the committee. |village to be part of the committee. |
|Did you nominate yourself for the |All the respondents from both districts expressed |All respondents from both districts expressed that |
|VSC / VVC? |that they did not nominate themselves for the VSC. |they did not nominate themselves for the VVC. |
|Who led the first meeting of the |39% (48) responded that CDC members led the first |65% (51) VVC members from both districts responded |
|committee? |meeting of committee, |that CDC members led the first meeting of committee, |
| |31% (38) from both districts responded that no one |35% (28) respondents, from both districts responded |
| |took the lead, |that respected member/elder of the village led the |
| |24% (30) members informed that respected |first meeting. |
| |member/elder of the village led the first meeting | |
| |and | |
| |6% responded that a literate member of the village | |
| |led the first meeting of the committee. | |
|Did a representative of the |Only 22% (27) members of VSCs of Miramor responded |61% (48) respondents from VVCs of both districts i.e.|
|Facilitating Partner participate |that a representative of the FP participated in the|26 from Shahristan and 22 from Miramor replied that a|
|in your first meeting? |first meeting of VSC, while a majority i.e. 78% |representative of the FP participated in the first |
| |(97) respondents from VSCs of both districts – 58 |meeting of VVC; while 39% (31) respondents from VVCs |
| |from Shahristan and 39 from Miramor stated that no |both districts – 20 from Miramor and 11 from |
| |representative from FP participated in their first |Shahristan stated that no representative from FP |
| |meeting. |participated in their first meeting. |
|At which location did the meeting |45% (56) members expressed that the meeting took |89% (70) members of VVCs from both districts – 37 |
|take place? |place at a public place, while 55% (68) members |from Shahristan and 33 from Miramor expressed that |
| |informed that the meeting took place at a Mosque. |the meeting took place at a Mosque, while only 11% |
| | |(9) members from a VVC/CDC of district Miramor |
| | |informed that the meeting took place at a Private |
| | |House. |
Key findings of Open Discussions are presented below:
Table 12.3 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Formation of Committee
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|How do you see role of your |Majority respondents from VSCs of Shahristan and |Similarly apart from the VVC of village |
|committee? |Miramor considered their role as positive and |Kohkoj-e-Waras in Shahristan, all the VVC respondents|
| |satisfactory. According to them the Committee had |expressed that the VVCs performed their role very |
| |been formed transparently and with approval of |well and in transparent manner. The major role of the|
| |village community. The main role of VSC was |VVC was to verify the lists of beneficiaries prepared|
| |identification and selection of poorest and |by VSC i.e. whether the selected beneficiaries are |
| |vulnerable families for the program cash benefit. |according to the criteria of program. The VVC |
| |The VSC performed their job well and in majority |confirmed the economic status, number of household |
| |cases people agreed with the selection. However, |members and assets of the selected beneficiary |
| |two CDCs from Shahristan i.e. CDC Kohkoj-e-Waras |families. According to respondents the village people|
| |and Kakrak Wargha Alawdal were not satisfied with |trusted the VVCs. Only the VVC of Kohkoj-e-Waras |
| |their role. Respondents of VSC Kokoch Waras stated |expressed that the committee was in name only and |
| |that the committee caused division in people while |they had limited practical role in the program. |
| |VSC Kakrak Wargha Alawdal respondents informed that| |
| |they were not clear about their role. Thus overall | |
| |the role of VSCs in program implementation was | |
| |positive and satisfactory. | |
|Please describe the process of |The VSC members were selected by the CDCs with |The VVC members were selected by the CDCs and village|
|identifying members for the VSC / |approval of village people during the general |elders. The members of VVCs were announced to village|
|VVC formation |meeting. The village people were informed during |people and they approved their selection. The VVCs |
| |the public awareness program about the process of |comprised people who were trusted by the community. |
| |committee formation. In few cases the FP i.e. |The FP i.e. Oxfam-GB also facilitated the process. |
| |Oxfam-GB also facilitated the process. | |
|How do you feel about the |Almost all respondents expressed that composition |Almost all respondents expressed that composition of |
|composition of the VSC / VVC? |of the VSC was effective and people are satisfied |the VVC was effective and their number is sufficient.|
|Should there have been more/fewer |with the committee. All the members are honest and |All the members are honest and trustworthy and people|
|members that were more useful than|trustworthy. Similarly the number of VSC members |are satisfied with the committee. |
|others? |was thought to be sufficient. |However, VVC Sarkoyak Ameech from district Shahristan|
| |However, VSC of Awry Mazar Uzmok, district |and VVC Bark Takhawi from district Miramor suggested |
| |Shahristan suggested that the role of women in |increasing the number of members of VVC, preferably |
| |these committees needs to be more effective. |literate members. |
|When did the first meeting of the |The first meeting of VSCs took place in most cases |The first meeting of VVC took place after the |
|VSC / VVC take place? Please |after the general meeting. Few VSCs held meetings |compilation of lists by VSC. These meetings were held|
|describe that meeting |in the morning while few held in the afternoon. |in last spring season and venues vary from mosque, |
| |Similarly, few meetings were held in mosque. The |CDC office to house of committee members. The purpose|
| |duration of meeting vary from 1 hour to 2 or more |of the meeting was to discuss the list of |
| |hours. During the meeting list of vulnerable |beneficiaries and verify whether they meet the |
| |families was compiled after discussion. |criteria for selection. |
|What is your opinion on having two|Respondents from the villages/CDCs where both VSC |All the respondents opined that having two committees|
|different committees for the |and VVC were formed opined that 2 committees are |is better and very important. It ensures transparency|
|selection (VSC and VVC)? Do you |better so that justice is ensured. The selection |and justice and reduces chances of fraud or |
|think it was good and important? |committee prepared the list of poor families, and |misconduct. |
| |the Verification committee verified the process. If| |
| |the selection committee doesn't identify the most | |
| |vulnerable families, the Verification Committee can| |
| |include the names of these vulnerable families in | |
| |the list. | |
| |However, majority respondents from the 6 | |
| |villages/CDCs from both districts where only VSC | |
| |was formed opined that VSC is sufficient. | |
|Do you think there should be |Majority of the respondents of VSCs from both |All of the respondents of VVCs of districts |
|additional training for VSCs / |districts said that there is no need for training. |Shahristan and 2 VVCs of district Miramor said that |
|VVCs? If yes, what would you like |However, respondents from VSCs Kohkoj-e-Waras and |there is no need for training. However, respondents |
|to be trained in specifically? |Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla from district Shahristan and |from 4 VVCs Chakrizar Barkar, Nak Watana, Bark |
| |VSC Pitab Joe Watana from district Miramor |Takhawi and Pitab Joe Watana from district Miramor |
| |suggested that additional training on |suggested that additional training duties and |
| |identification and selection of real vulnerable |responsibilities and enhancing effectiveness would |
| |people would improve their performance. |improve their performance. |
3 Beneficiary selection process
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VSC members are given in table below: matrix:
Table 12.4 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses Beneficiary Selection Process (VSC)
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |
|How quickly did you come up with |81% a majority of respondents belonging to VSCs of both districts replied that they came up with initial |
|the initial list of proposed |list of proposed eligible beneficiaries in a day. |
|eligible beneficiary families? |While 19% respondents, belonging to 3 VSCs of Miramor informed that they came up with list of proposed |
| |eligible beneficiary families in 2 – 3 days. |
|How the first list of |56% (70) respondents from both districts, 47 from Shahristan and 23 from Miramor informed that the first |
|beneficiaries was prepared? |list of beneficiaries was prepared in consultation with CDC members, |
| |20% of the respondents stated that the first list of beneficiaries was prepared with consultation of VVC.|
| |While 6% and 4% respondents, belonging to VSCs of district Miramor informed that list was prepared by |
| |inviting applications/requests from eligible families and visiting/surveying the village families |
| |respectively, |
| |7% (8) people from Rook Ushto CDC, Miramor said they evaluated the village and identified the poor people|
| |from economic indicators and then selected them. |
| |Similarly 7% (8) respondents from Argi Nadak VSC informed that they consulted with the CDC and village |
| |elders and then finally selected the poorest families. |
|Where did you publicize the list? |51% (63) respondents from VSCs of both districts informed that they had an open meeting to announce the |
| |list to the community, |
| |37% (46) respondents informed that the list was posted at Mosque, while 12% (15) informed that list was |
| |posted at a Public Place. |
|What was the community's reaction |A majority of respondents – 89% (110) from both districts stated that community reacted positively to the|
|to the publication of the list? |publication of the list. |
| |While only 11% (14) respondents, from 2 VSCs of district Shahristan informed that no particular reaction |
| |was noted to the publication of the list. |
|At any stage of that process, did |76% (94) members/respondents of VSCs from both districts did not receive any individual complaints from |
|you receive any individual |the villagers. |
|complaints from the villagers? |While 24% (30) respondents stated that they received very few (little) complaints from the villagers |
|What did you do with those |77% (95) respondents informed that they did not receive any complaints, |
|complaints? |While 10% (12) respondents stated that they did not do anything with the complaints received; |
| |8% (10) respondents/members of VSCs listened to each individual complaint |
| |and 5% (7) respondents from VSCs forwarded these cases to FP. |
|Do you think the VSC generally |89% (110) members of VSCs from both districts thought that VSC generally reached the beneficiaries who |
|reached the beneficiaries who met |met the requirements for the benefit. |
|the requirements for the benefit? |Whereas 11% (14) respondents, from 2 CDCs/VSCs of district Shahristan opined that VSCs did not generally |
| |reach the beneficiaries who met the requirements for the benefit. |
|Do you think that the selection |89% (110) members of VSCs from both districts thought that selection process was open, clear and fair. |
|process was open, clear and fair? |While 11% (14) respondents, again from 2 CDCs/VSCs of district Shahristan opined that selection process |
| |was not open, clear and fair. |
|Whom did you pass on the list from|61% (76) respondents from both districts passed the list to Village Verification Committee, |
|your Committee? |19% (24) respondents from VSCs informed that they passed the list to FP, |
| |11% (14) respondents from VSCs informed that they passed the list to CDC, |
| |and 8% (10) respondents, from VSCs of Miramor passed the list to public meeting committee. |
|Did your community have open |Majority of the respondents – 94% (116) stated that the community had open meeting to discuss the list. |
|community meeting to discuss the |While only 6% (8) respondents from VSC of Shahristan informed that the community had no open community |
|list? |meeting to discuss the list |
|Who organized that meeting? |75% (93) respondents mentioned that CDC organized meeting to discuss the list, |
| |13% (16) respondents from VSCs of Miramor informed that VSC organized the meeting to discuss the list, |
| |6% (7) respondents from VSC of Shahristan informed that FP organized the meeting. |
| |While 6% (8) respondents, again from a VSC of Shahristan informed that they had no meeting. |
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VVC members are given in Table below:
Table 12.5 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses Beneficiary Selection Process (VVC)
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Verification Committees |
|Whom did you receive the proposed |All 79 (100%) respondents from VVCs of both districts informed that they received the list of |
|list of beneficiaries from? |beneficiaries from Village Selection Committees. |
|How many proposed beneficiaries on|All (100%) members of VVCs from both districts informed that they did not eliminate any proposed |
|the list did you eliminate? |beneficiary from the list i.e. no proposed beneficiary was removed from the list. |
|How many new beneficiaries did you|All (100%) members of VVCs from both districts informed that they did not add any new beneficiary to the |
|add to the list? |list. |
|Whom did you pass the list from |58% (46) respondents from VVCs of both districts passed the list to CDCs, |
|your committee on to? |And 42% (33) respondents from VVCs of both districts informed that they passed the list to FP |
|Did your community have an open |All i.e. 100% (79) respondents from VVCs of both districts informed that the community had an open |
|community meeting to discuss the |meeting to discuss the list |
|list? | |
|Who organized that meeting? |62% (49) respondents mentioned that CDC organized the meeting |
| |While 38% (30) respondents stated that VVCs organized the meeting |
|How many village families |Majority of the respondents i.e. 95% (75) from both districts informed that more than half of families of|
|participated in the open community|the village participated in the open community meeting |
|meeting? |Only 5% (4) respondent from a VVC of district Shahristan stated that less than half families of the |
| |village participated in the open meeting |
|How long was the open community |100% of the respondents stated that open community meeting was more than an hour long |
|meeting? | |
|Did women participate in the open |92% (73) respondents replied that women participated in the same meeting, |
|meeting? |While only 8% (6) respondents from VVC of Shahristan informed that women participated in a separate |
| |meeting |
|How many proposed beneficiaries on|100% (79) members of VVCs from both districts informed that they did not eliminate any proposed |
|the list were eliminated from the |beneficiary during that open meeting. |
|list in that open meeting? | |
|How many new beneficiaries were |All the 100% (79) members of VVCs from both districts informed that they did not add any new beneficiary |
|added to the list in that open |to the list in that open meeting. |
|meeting? | |
|At any stage of the process of |A majority 92% (73) members/respondents from VVCs of both district did not receive any individual |
|preparation of the list, did you |complaints from the villagers. |
|receive any individual complaints |Only 8% (6) respondents from a VVC of district Shahristan informed that they received a lot of complaints|
|from the villagers? |from the villagers. |
|What did you do with those |92% (73) percent says they did not receive any complaints, |
|complaints? |While, 8% (6) people from Kohkoj-e-Waras said they didn’t do anything with the complaints received. |
|How long did it take from the |63% (50) respondents from VVCs – 29 from Miramor and 21 from Shahristan informed that it took “One Day” |
|point you started the process as |from the point when they started the process as VVC to obtaining the final list of beneficiaries. |
|VVC to obtaining the final list of|Similarly 29% (23) respondents informed that it took “2 – 3 days” from the point when they started the |
|beneficiaries, after all the |process as VVC to obtaining the final list of beneficiaries. |
|meetings, including the public |However, 8% (6) members from a VVC of Shahristan responded that the process of obtaining the final list |
|meeting if any? |of beneficiaries took more than a week. |
|When the selection process was |56% (44) respondents from both districts sent the list to CDC when the selection process was completed, |
|completed, where was the list sent|36% (29) respondents informed that they sent the list to FP after completion of selection process. |
|to? |However, 8% (6) respondents from VVC of district Shahristan had no knowledge on the matter. |
|Were there any complaints after |84% (66) respondents from VVCs of both district stated that they did not receive any complaints after the|
|all the benefits were paid? |benefits were paid, |
| |9% (7) respondents from VVC of district Shahristan stated that they received small number of complaints |
| |after the benefits were paid. |
| |Similarly 7% (6) respondents from VVC of district Shahristan informed that they received significant |
| |number of complaints after the benefits were paid. |
|What did you do with those |84% (66) respondents from both districts informed that they did not receive any complaints, |
|complaints? |16% (13) respondents from two VVCs of district Shahristan stated that they did not do anything with the |
| |complaints received. |
|Do you think the VVC generally |Majority of respondents i.e. 92% (73) from both districts thought that VVC generally reached the |
|reached the beneficiaries who met |beneficiaries who met the requirements for the benefit. |
|the requirements for the benefit? |However, 8% (6) respondents, from a VVC of district Shahristan opined that VVC did not generally reach |
| |the beneficiaries who met the requirements for the benefit |
|Overall, do you think that the |Majority of respondents i.e. 92% (110) members of VVCs from both districts thought that selection process|
|selection process was open, clear |was open, clear and fair. |
|and fair? |While 8% (6) respondents, from a CDC/VVC of district Shahristan opined that selection process could be |
| |more open, clear and fair. |
Key findings of Open Discussions with Village Selection Committee are presented below:
Table 12.6 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Beneficiary Selection Process (VSC)
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |
|What information did you use to |The major indicators used for selection included – number of cattle, land, employed people (lack of), |
|come up with the list of proposed |income, number of children and dependents, assets and poverty situation etc. Only VSC Kohkoj-e-Waras |
|eligible beneficiary families? |informed that it was agreed that money will be distributed equally among all villagers. |
|If you experienced any complaints |All the VSCs of Miramor and six VSCs of Shahristan informed that they did not receive any complaints. |
|in response to the publication of |However, VSCs Kohkoj-e-Waras and Karkrak Wargha Alawdal from district Shahristan said that they received |
|the list, how did you deal with |complaints of misconduct after money was received by people and not properly distributed among |
|those complaints? |beneficiaries. The VSC resolved these issues. Similarly a few individual complaints were also dealt by |
| |VSCs. |
|How do you understand the role of |The VSCs of six villages each from both districts, where VVCs were formed understood the role of VVC. |
|the Village Verification |According to them the VVC checked and verified the list prepared by the VSC ensuring the process is fair |
|Committee? |to deserving and no complaints are made. The rest three villages/CDCs in each district did not have VVCs.|
|Please describe to us how you |The main interaction between VSC and VVC comprised submitting the list of selected beneficiaries i.e. VSC|
|interacted and worked with the VVC|prepared the list and submitted it to VVC for checking and verification. |
|to produce the final list? How was| |
|your committee involved in that | |
|process? | |
|Please describe any ways that you |The opinions of VSCs on the matter were diverse i.e. few respondents laid more emphasis on involvement of|
|think might be helpful to improve |village elders and CDC members, while few emphasized following the criteria of poverty, assets and |
|the beneficiary selection. |land/livestock etc. and verification by village elders / CDC members. |
|If you assisted the FP (OXFAM GB) |Regarding assisting the FP – Oxfam-GB the responses from VSCs varied. VSCs from few villages informed |
|in the process of collecting data |that they supported the FP in the process. Moreover in few cases FP representatives also visited selected|
|and information on selected |beneficiaries. However, four VSCs from Shahristan and two VSCs from Miramor informed that they prepared |
|beneficiaries, please describe |the lists themselves and FP did not interfere in the process. |
|that process and your committee's | |
|involvement? | |
Key findings of Open Discussions with Village Verification Committee are presented below:
Table 12.7 - Analysis of Open Discussions - Beneficiary Selection Process (VVC)
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Verification Committees |
|What information did you use to |The major indicators used for verification included – economic conditions, vulnerability and poverty, |
|verify the list of proposed |large number of dependents, number (or lack) of cattle, land, assets and poverty situation etc. As VVC |
|eligible beneficiary families? |comprised of the village people they were mostly aware of the people’s conditions. In some cases VVC |
| |members visited listed households and verified their status. |
|If you experienced any complaints |All the VVC respondents stated that as the process was carried out with consultation and transparency, |
|in response to the publication of |there were no complaints. |
|the list, how did you deal with | |
|those complaints? | |
|How do you understand the role of |The VVC respondents from both districts were clear about the role of VSC. According to them the VSC |
|the Village Selection Committee? |prepared the list of deserving families based on criteria for the program cash benefit and handed over |
| |the list to VVC for verification of these beneficiaries. |
|Please describe to us how you |The VSC prepared the list of beneficiaries and submitted it to the VVC. The VVC verified the list of |
|interacted and worked with the VSC|beneficiaries and together with VSC came up with final list of beneficiaries. |
|to produce the final list? How was| |
|the VSC involved in that process? | |
|If you assisted the FP (OXFAM GB) |Regarding assisting the FP – Oxfam-GB, the VVCs representatives from few villages informed that they |
|in the process of collecting data |supported the FP in the process. Moreover in few cases FP representatives also went on verification |
|and information on selected |visits along with VVC. In some cases the respondents informed that VVCs did not have direct interaction |
|beneficiaries, please describe |with FP, the interaction was through CDCs. |
|that process and your committee's | |
|involvement? | |
|Please describe any instances of |All the VVC respondents expressed that they did not receive any complaints from selected beneficiaries |
|complaints of selected |about the distribution of money. |
|beneficiaries about the | |
|payment/non-payment/lower payment | |
|Please describe any ways that you |Majority of the VVC respondents opined that the current process/criteria for beneficiary selection are |
|think might be helpful to improve |effective and acceptable. Few respondents emphasized on consultation of village elders and CDCs members |
|the beneficiary selection. |in the selection process. Respondents from VVC Pitab Joe Watana suggested carrying out survey for |
| |identification of deserving families. |
4 Performance Measurement
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VSC and VVC members are given in Table below:
Table 12.8 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Performance Measurement
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|What is your general satisfaction |41% (51) respondents all from district Miramor |23% (18) respondents from both districts i.e. 14 from|
|level with the performance of the |expressed that they were very happy with |Shahristan and only 4 from Miramor expressed that |
|Facilitating Partner in the Afghan|performance of FPs in the ASPP, |they are very happy with performance of FPs in the |
|Social Protection Program (ASPP)? |48% (59) respondents from both districts i.e. 15 |ASPP. |
| |from Miramor and 44 from Shahristan expressed that |While a majority i.e. 77% (61) respondents from both |
| |they were happy with performance of FPs in the |districts i.e. 38 from Miramor and 23 from Shahristan|
| |ASPP, |expressed that they are happy with performance of FPs|
| |while only 5% and 6% responded, all from Shahristan|in the ASPP. |
| |expressed indifference and unhappiness respectively| |
| |with the performance of FP in ASPP | |
|What is your general satisfaction |35% (44) respondents - 38 from district Miramor and|65% (51) respondents - 31 from district Shahristan |
|level with the performance of the |6 from district Shahristan expressed that they were|and 20 from district Miramor expressed that they are |
|MOLSAMD in the Afghan Social |very happy with performance of MOLSAMD in the ASPP.|very happy with performance of MOLSAMD in the ASPP. |
|Protection Program (ASPP)? |58% (72) respondents from both districts i.e. 28 |While 35% (28) respondents from both districts i.e. |
| |from Miramor and 44 from Shahristan expressed that |22 from Miramor and 6 from Shahristan expressed that |
| |they were happy with performance of MOLSAMD in the |they were happy with performance of MOLSAMD in the |
| |ASPP. |ASPP. |
| |While only 6% from Shahristan expressed | |
| |indifference with the performance of MOLSAMD in | |
| |ASPP. | |
|What is your general satisfaction |49% (61) respondents from both districts i.e. 55 |32% (25) respondents from both districts i.e. 14 from|
|level with the performance of the |from Miramor and only 6 from Shahristan expressed |Miramor and 11 from Shahristan expressed that they |
|CDC in the Afghan Social |that they were very happy with performance of CDCs |are very happy with performance of CDCs in the ASPP. |
|Protection Program (ASPP)? |in the ASPP. |While a majority 68% (54) respondents from both |
| |Similarly, 40% (49) respondents from both districts|districts i.e. 26 from Shahristan and 28 from Miramor|
| |i.e. 38 from Shahristan and 11 from Miramor |expressed that they are happy with performance of |
| |expressed that they were happy with performance of |CDCs in the ASPP. |
| |CDCs in the ASPP, | |
| |while only 5% and 6% respondents, all from district| |
| |Shahristan responded with indifference and | |
| |unhappiness respectively with the performance of | |
| |CDCs in ASPP | |
|What is your general satisfaction |51% (63) respondents from both districts i.e. 36 |Almost all i.e. 99% (78) respondents from both |
|level with the performance of the |from Miramor and 27 from Shahristan expressed that |districts – 41 from Miramor and 37 from Shahristan |
|District Governor in the Afghan |they were happy with performance of District |expressed that they were happy with performance of |
|Social Protection Program (ASPP)? |Governor in the ASPP. |District Governor in the ASPP and only 1 respondent |
| |While 49% (61) respondents from both districts i.e.|from Miramor expressed that he was happy with |
| |31 from Shahristan and 30 from Miramor expressed |performance of District Governor in the ASPP. |
| |indifference with the performance of District | |
| |Governor in the ASPP. | |
5 Program results
The key findings and observations based on FGIs from VSC and VVC members are given in Table below:
Table 12.9 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Program Results
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|How happy were you with the |45% (56) respondents i.e. 44 from Miramor and 8 |49% (39) respondents i.e. 19 from Miramor and 20 from|
|results of the program? |from Shahristan expressed that they were very happy|Shahristan expressed that they were very happy with |
| |with the results of the program, |the results of the program, |
| |44% (54) respondents i.e. 18 from Miramor and 36 |while 51% (40) respondents i.e. 23 from Miramor and |
| |from Shahristan expressed that they were very happy|17 from Shahristan expressed that they were happy |
| |with the results of the program, |with the results of the program. |
| |while only 6% and 5% (from district Shahristan) | |
| |expressed respectively that they were unhappy and | |
| |very unhappy with the results of the program. | |
|Do you think the program is |89% (110) respondents from both districts stated |92% (73) respondents from both districts stated that |
|important for your village? |that program is important for their village, |program is important for their village, |
| |while only 11% (14) respondents, all from district |while only 8% (6) respondents, all from district |
| |Shahristan did not think the program important for |Shahristan did not think the program important for |
| |their village. |their village |
|In your opinion, does the program |86% respondents (107) opined that program included |89% respondents (70) from both districts opined that |
|include and cater enough to women?|and catered enough to women, |program included and catered enough to women, |
| |while only 14% (17) respondents, all from district |while only 11% (9) respondents, 7 from district |
| |Shahristan opined that program did not include and |Shahristan and 2 from district Miramor opined that |
| |cater adequately to women. |program did not include and cater enough to women. |
Key findings of Open Discussions are presented below:
Table 12.10 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance Measurement
|Questions |Responses |
| |Village Selection Committees |Village Verification Committees |
|In what ways does the program |Widows, women living alone and women from poor |The program identified widows, women living alone and|
|include and cater to women? Or in |families directly benefitted from the program as |women from poor families who had no men to support |
|what ways does it fail to cater to|they received the cash benefit and had autonomy to |them financially. These were included in the |
|and include women? |spend the money on their as well as children’s |beneficiaries list and directly benefitted from the |
| |needs. Thus the program catered to the women |program as they received the cash benefit and had |
| |significantly. |autonomy to spend the money on their as well as |
| |Only respondents from village Kohkoj-e-Waras |children’s needs. Thus the program catered to the |
| |responded otherwise as no poor families received |women to a significant extent. |
| |the benefit. | |
|What has been the program's |Majority of the respondents from both districts |All the respondents of VVCs from both districts |
|positive impact on the community? |expressed that program had significant positive |expressed that program had significant positive |
| |impacts on the community. The poor and vulnerable |impacts on the community. The poor and vulnerable |
| |families purchased winter food stock and fulfilled |families purchased winter food stock, clothes for |
| |their other basic needs as well. Thus, they were |children and satisfy their daily basic needs as well.|
| |protected to some extent from the hardships of |Thus, they were protected to some extent from the |
| |winter and hunger. |hardships of winter and hunger. |
| |Only respondents from villages Kackoch Waras and |Also few respondents stated that this program has |
| |Kakrak Wargha Alawdal from district Shahristan |raised hopes of people towards government which is a |
| |stated that the program had no positive impacts. |positive impact. |
|What has been the program's |Similarly majority of respondents from VSCs of both|All the respondents expressed that the program was |
|negative impact on the community? |districts expressed that the program had no |very beneficial for the poor people and has been |
| |negative impacts rather it was very important for |highly appreciated. It does not have any negative |
| |their villages as this provided much needed support|impacts. |
| |to the poor and vulnerable families. | |
| |However, respondents from villages Kackoch Waras | |
| |and Kakrak Wargha Alawdal informed that program | |
| |caused conflict among the communities. | |
The VSCs played positive and satisfactory role in identifying and selecting the poor. So was the role of VVCs transparent and well. Both were organized by CDCs/FPs and approved by villagers. Composition of each was effective with honest and trustworthy persons. These followed the laid down criteria for selections and verification. Two committees were found better for ensuring justice, transparency and reduction of fraud/misconduct. Additional training was not desired but may be helpful in further improvement of process.
List of beneficiaries was generally prepared by VSC in one day; villagers and CDC were also consulted in the process. The VVCs received the lists of beneficiaries from VSCs which made no addition or deletion in these. The selection process was open, clear and fair and the lists were announced in public meetings held in village. Community reacted positively and no complaints were made on selection process. More than half of families in the village attended meetings which lasted for more than one hour. Women also participated in these meetings. The VVCs received no individual complaints.
Generally the performance level of VSCs, VVCs, CDCs, FP was satisfactory. Majority was very happy or happy. Similarly members of VSC and VVC were either very happy or happy with program results, program importance for their villages and inclusion of women and catering for women – widow, lone women and poor. The program impact on community was positive and significant and highly appreciative.
FGI / D with Facilitating Partner (FP)
A focus group discussion/interview was conducted with FP to examine its role in supporting the programme. Oxfam-GB was operating in the districts of Shahristan and Miramor of Daikundi province. The interviews/discussions had special emphasis on the following subject areas:
I. Assessment of Current Processes
II. Improvement in Processes
III. Performance Measurement
IV. Role/Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/d with Ox-fam Gb (FP)
Five members/employees participated in FGI/D from Oxfam-GB – the Facilitating Partner in Daikundi province. The details are given as annexure-16. The main findings deduced from the respondents statements and analysis is given below:
1 assessment of current processes
The Key findings from open discussion are presented in Table below:
Table 13.1 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Assessment of Current Process
|Questions |Oxfam GB |
|Did you witness or experience serious delays |The FP witnessed delays and faced many problems in this program. the main reasons for the |
|or other problems in the program? What do you |delays were: |
|think was the most significant factor in |The target areas were very far and access to these areas was difficult. |
|causing those problems for this program? |The program was implemented in the busy working season during which collecting people was |
| |difficult. |
| |Limited support from government official. |
| |FP faced problems with government institutions in terms of delivery of benefit amount to the |
| |poor people. Delays were mainly due to providing money and distributing it to poor families. |
| |The block grants were expected to be delivered to the bank accounts of the CDC through Da |
| |Afghanistan Bank; however, FP faced problems with government institutions in terms of |
| |delivery of benefit amount to the poor people. Delays were mainly due to providing money and |
| |distributing it to poor families. The block grants were getting delays in its process with |
| |the Mostofiat as there was a lot of paper work as it is an old system. |
|At what stage in the process did you witness |Main problems were in gathering the beneficiaries because it was the busy working season, and|
|or experience the greatest difficulties? |the target areas were also difficult to reach. The FP representatives stated that based on |
| |our information more problems were attributed to DoLSAMD as they could not fulfill their |
| |responsibilities as expected. The FP held many meetings, even with the district governors, to|
| |solve the problems, but they did not help. The district governors put the responsibility of |
| |problems on FP. Despite all problems, we (FP) successfully implemented the program. |
|What was the shortest and the longest period |The total time used to collect the data was 5 months. In some villages it took one day and in|
|it took you to collect data from beneficiaries|some more days. In some villages people had problems with collecting the data and listing the|
|in the villages? What were the greatest |people. FP had to implement the project in 295 villages. We could have collected the lists of|
|challenges in the data collection? |beneficiaries from all villages in 3 months. However, at that time people were busy with |
| |their work and were not ready to work with us. Staff had to stay nights in the villages |
| |because during the day the farmers were busy in harvesting. |
|If you could not complete the process of data |If the data was not collected in one day, then it was done in 2 or 3 days. Being harvest time|
|collection in one village in one day, how did |people were busy and could not give us time. |
|you proceed? | |
|Which administrative form did you have the |At first, FP had problems with the SNF-1 form and then with the database. However, these |
|most difficulty with? |problems were solved quickly. |
|For administrative forms that you had the most|Oxfam-GB had problem with the SNF-1, particularly with filling the blanks and writing the |
|difficulty with, please tell us what the form |names of the widows. The problem was solved with support of representative of ministry who |
|was again and what exactly your problems with |came on visit. FP did not have any problem with other forms. FP had problems with the |
|them were |identification of the real poor people. There was no other problem. |
|Do you think it was helpful to have two |In FP’s opinion in most places having one committee was useful because with 2 committees |
|different committees in the selection process |first there was issue of listing, which was difficult and time consuming; secondly it caused |
|(VSC and VCC)? |problems and conflicts among people. Although having 2 committees have difficulties such as |
| |listing but it is also useful for transparent identification of real poor. However, in |
| |general FP was in favor of having one committee as it is easy to them to work with one |
| |committee instead of two. |
|Were the roles of the Village Selection |The role of both committees was clear to FP. They established the VSC for selection of |
|Committee and Village Verification Committee |vulnerable people, and VVC to check and verify the list. |
|clear to you? | |
|Do you think that the selection process was |FP carried out work through support of CDCs and village people. In the opinion of FP |
|open, clear and -fair? |representatives, this process was open, clear and fair. However, selection of poor people was|
| |difficult to some extent as there were difficulties identifying and understanding the real |
| |poor and the process was also time consuming. |
|Do you think the program generally reached |FP respondents opined that in most villages’ money reached to the poor families. However, |
|beneficiaries who met the requirements for the|there were some villages where money did not reach to the right people; the reason was that |
|benefit? |the CDC members were powerful people, hence deserving people could not be selected. FP |
| |representatives opined that they were 90% successful. |
|Do you know of any beneficiaries who did not |Nothing like this happened. There might be only 10% possibility. The main responsibility lies|
|really need the benefit (they were already |with the people to select good and trustworthy people for the 2 committees. |
|wealthy), but who may have misled leaders of | |
|the eligibility - norms in order to receive | |
|the benefit? Please describe what happened. | |
|Please provide us with details on whether you |Yes, around 90% people who were identified on the criteria of the program were poor people. |
|think those who met the qualifications of the |FP checked some of the homes after selection of families to verify their vulnerability. |
|program actually received it. |Oxfam-GB has been working in this province for 7 years; they have experience and good |
| |understanding of the village. FP claims that it was 90% successful in implementation of |
| |program. |
2 Improvement in Processes
The Key findings from open discussion are:
Table 13.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Improvement in Processes
|Questions |Oxfam GB |
|How do you think we can reduce various delays |Regarding reducing delays FP opined: |
|in the program? |One committee is sufficient/enough |
| |Decrease the role of district administration |
| |DoLSAMD should help in carrying/delivering money |
| |There won't be any delays and/or problems if there is coordination among different |
| |organizations. |
|How do you think the speed of beneficiary |Oxfam-GB opined that role of women in the VSC and VVC needs to be increased because they can |
|selection and delivery of funds could be |be very helpful to the programs compared to the CDC members who are powerful people. Secondly|
|improved? |Money should not be transferred by the government department (finance department- Mustofiat).|
| |Thirdly selection of poor people may be done in the spring season as in other seasons, |
| |assembling the people is difficult. Lastly improved coordination in transferring money so |
| |that delays are reduced and money is quickly transferred. . |
3 Performance Measurement
The Key findings from open discussion are:
Table 13.3 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance Measurement
|Questions |Oxfam GB |
|What is your general satisfaction level with |FP respondents expressed that they were generally satisfied from their work as they were able|
|your performance in the Afghanistan Social |to identify the real poor people. Moreover, the money was also properly delivered to the |
|Protection Program (ASPP)? |people. There were some problems with our staff as well which we noted and resolved from time|
| |to time. We are ready to implement this project in the future as well. |
|What is your general satisfaction level with |Generally we are satisfied. However, in some villages there are powerful people who try to |
|the performance of CDCs in the Afghanistan |benefit from the program. Based on the working conditions, FP was satisfied with its work. |
|Social Protection Program (ASPP)? | |
|What is your general satisfaction level with |The FP respondents expressed satisfaction with support of MoLSAMD. However, the DoLSAMD was |
|the performance of MOLSAMD in the Afghanistan |not very supportive. |
|Social Protection Program (ASPP)? | |
|In your opinion, does the program include and |The role of the women and their participation in program was good; however, their role in the|
|cater enough to women, including their |VSC and VVC can be enhanced / improved. Participation of women at village level was good and |
|participation in the administrative process? |should be appreciated. |
|If not, how can it be improved? | |
4 Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program
The Operational Manual was consulted to ensure effective implementation of the programme and emphasized that both the training programs and Awareness Campaigns were also effective in launching and successful implementation of this programme.
The key findings from FGI are:
2 FP employees had consulted operational manual often, 1 employee consulted it twice while 2 responded that they had consulted the "Operational Manual" only once during the implementation of this program.
Majority i.e. 4 respondents think that "Awareness Campaign" is necessary and effective for launching the program in the field, while only 1 respondent thought it to be not necessary.
Similarly 4 respondents opined that training program for FPs and CDCs was effective in understanding and implementing the process of this program, while only 1 responded in negative.
The Key findings from open discussion are:
Table 13.4 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program
|Questions |Oxfam GB |
|Which parts of the ‘Operational Manual’ may need|Improvement of: |
|improvement and further explanation about the |Process and criteria for selection of people |
|processes of this program? |More information and clarity about the committees |
| |Role of the district government in the area |
|What could be added to ‘Awareness Campaign’ in |Time of the campaign might be increased so that everyone has the opportunity to participate |
|order to improve the process of this program? |in this process. Awareness campaign is better and lasting through posters than through |
| |people which is usually forgotten. |
|What else could be included into training |Inclusion of sessions on Cleanliness in nutrition and hygiene awareness. Moreover a proper |
|programs for FP (OXFAM GB) and CDCs in order to |training program will improve working processes. |
|improve their working for the completion of | |
|processes of this program? | |
|During auditing of the SN program what are the |No audit has been done and no issues reported. |
|major issues that emerged and what are your |Furthermore, since the beginning of the program until distribution of money no one |
|suggestions for the improvement of the proper |complained to us. The village people are happy with the program. |
|implementation of the program | |
The FGI/D with FP reveal important findings – the main reason for delays included distance, inaccessibility of areas, people busyness in working season, limited support of government officers, delivery problems. The greatest difficulty was gathering of beneficiaries being busy in seasonal activities. According to FP most problems were attributed to DOLSAMD which could not fulfill its responsibilities.
According to FP delay may be reduced by having one committee, decreasing role of district administration and support from DOLSAMD in carrying money. The process of beneficiary selection and delivery of fund be speeded by increased involvement of women, transfer of money by government, beneficiary selection in right season and improving coordination.
Overall Oxfam-GB was generally satisfied with its performance, work, resolution of staff members etc.
Interview / Discussion with provincial/District Governors and dolsamd
Governor Daikundi and District Governors of the selected districts were also interviewed. These included District Governor of Shahristan and Miramor. Similarly a group interview was conducted with staff members of Department of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (DOLSAMD), a provincial level wing of MOLSAMD. 5 members/employees from the department were interviewed.
1 The findings and analysis of Interviews / Discussions with provincial/District Governors and Dolsamd
The main purpose of these interviews was to get their opinion about the ASPP regarding the major constraints and bottlenecks experienced during the implementation process as well as suggestions to improve the programme. Main areas discussed were:
I. Major bottlenecks and consequences
II. Recommendations-improvement in deliverable process
III. Performance of government agencies, CDCs and FPs and Recommendations
IV. Role/ Usage of Operational Manuals, Awareness Campaigns and Training Programmes for CDCs and FPs
The main findings deduced from these discussions are given below:
1 Major Bottlenecks and Consequences
The key findings from FGIs/FGDs are presented in table below:
Table 14.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Major Bottlenecks and Consequences
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD, Daikundi |Provincial Governor |District Governor |District Governor Miramor |
| | |Daikundi |Shahristan | |
|Did you witness or experience |All respondents from |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan also |Governor Miramor did not |
|serious Bottlenecks or other |DoLSAMD informed that |responded in affirmative |mentioned experiencing |experience serious |
|problems in the program? |they did not experience |to experiencing serious |serious bottlenecks or |bottleneck or problem in |
| |serious bottlenecks or |bottlenecks or problem in |problem in the program |the program |
| |problems in the program |the program | | |
|What Do you think was the most |4 respondents mentioned |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan also |Governor Miramor cited weak|
|significant factor in causing |transportation while 1 |mentioned that the |cited lack of cooperation |awareness campaign as the |
|those bottlenecks/problems for |respondent mentioned |provincial government was |with the provincial and |most significant factor in |
|this program? |awareness campaign as the|given no role in |district government and |causing those |
| |most significant factor |implementation; moreover, |weak management of FP as |bottlenecks/problems. |
| |in causing those |FP and DoLSAMD also did |most significant factor in| |
| |bottlenecks /problems. |not carry out coordination|causing those bottlenecks | |
| | |and cooperation of the |/ problems. | |
| | |program with it. This was | | |
| | |the significant factor in | | |
| | |causing bottlenecks. | | |
|At what stage in the process did |All respondents stated |Governor Daikundi stated |Similarly the Governor |Governor Miramor observed |
|you observe these |that they observed |that bottlenecks / |Shahristan also observed |bottlenecks / problems |
|bottlenecks/problems? |bottlenecks / problems |problems were observed |bottlenecks / problems |during the awareness |
| |during awareness |while selecting eligible |during selection of |campaign |
| |campaign. |households and enrolling |eligible households/ | |
| | |selected households (form |enrolling selected | |
| | |SNF-01). |households (form SNF-01). | |
|What are the consequences of these|The awareness program in |Governor Daikundi also |Governor Shahristan stated|Governor Miramor also |
|bottlenecks? |the village was not as |mentioned lack of |that beneficiaries could |mentioned that |
| |good as needed. |coordination between |not be selected/reached |beneficiaries could not be |
| | |implementing partner (FP) |properly/fully as a |selected/reached |
| | |and provincial government |consequence of these |properly/fully as a |
| | |as consequences of these |bottlenecks. |consequence of these |
| | |bottlenecks. | |bottlenecks. |
|Do you think the program generally|All respondents were |Governor Daikundi did not |Governor Shahristan also |Governor Miramor thought |
|reached beneficiaries who met the |affirmative that program |think that program |did not think that program|that program generally |
|requirements for the transfer? |generally reached |generally reached the |generally reached the |reached some beneficiaries |
| |beneficiaries who met the|beneficiaries who met the |beneficiaries who met the |but not all |
| |requirements. |requirements. |requirements. | |
|If more funds were available under|1 respondent from DoLSAMD|Governor Daikundi stated |Governor Shahristan |Similarly Governor Miromor |
|this program, how would you prefer|preferred to increase |that he would prefer to |responded that he would |would also prefer to |
|to spend the funds? |benefit under this |direct money to other |prefer to increase benefit|increase benefit under this|
| |program to the same |activities and needs of |under this program to the |program to the same |
| |beneficiaries, |the village. |same beneficiaries. |beneficiaries. |
| |2 respondents preferred | | | |
| |to increase number of | | | |
| |beneficiaries, with the | | | |
| |same current benefit | | | |
| |amount, | | | |
| |while 2 respondents would| | | |
| |direct money to other | | | |
| |activities and needs of | | | |
| |the village | | | |
The Key findings from Open Discussion are:
Table 14.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Major Bottlenecks and Consequences
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|How do you think you can best |Transportation facility to|It would be better to |The distribution of money |It would be better to list |
|improve the whole process and |distant work places and |entrust the identification|is related to the |and help all poor families,|
|program in general? |awareness is needed. |of poor families in |government administration,|widows, and disabled |
| | |villages to the government|the government departments|people. Furthermore, the |
| | |institutions. |should coordinate with one|program activities should |
| | | |another and identify the |be coordinated with the |
| | | |poor families; moreover, |district government at all |
| | | |they should provide help |phases so that the |
| | | |to the people regularly on|government is aware of the |
| | | |monthly basis. |program and its progress. |
|What kind of |DoLSAMD representatives |Due to lack of |Lack of coordination |No Response |
|bottlenecks/problems were you |had not faced any serious |coordination from the |between the facilitating | |
|normally faced with? |challenges but they face |facilitating organization,|partner, district | |
| |problem with |the government |government, and the CDCs. | |
| |transportation, hence they|institutions had limited | | |
| |were not able to visit the|or no awareness of the | | |
| |villages. |program. | | |
|What are the consequences of |The awareness program in |Real deserving people have|Real poor people have not |As Oxfam-GB, the FP did not|
|these major bottlenecks/problems|the village was not as |not been identified and |been identified in this |coordinate the project |
|of the program? |good as needed. |the money has not reached |program and the benefit |activities with the |
| | |to the poor people. |has not been properly |district administration, |
| | |Moreover, awareness |distributed. Instead of |and even did not inform the|
| | |campaign was also weak and|giving money to the poor |administration about it. |
| | |people were not properly |people, they have spent |The selection has not been |
| | |informed. |money on the mosque. |done properly. There is |
| | | | |information that that close|
| | | | |relations in identification|
| | | | |and selection of families |
| | | | |have been considered, and |
| | | | |few poor people have not |
| | | | |benefited from the program.|
2 Recommendations - Improvements in Deliverible process
The key findings from FGIs/FGDs are presented in Table below:
Table 14.3 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Improvements in Deliverable Process
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|How do you feel we can |All respondents felt that |Governor Daikundi felt that|Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor stated that|
|improve various steps of the |increased role to |increased role to |emphasized increased role |awareness campaign and |
|program (can choose more than|Provincial / District |Provincial / District |district authorities to |increased role to |
|one)? |authorities can improve |authorities can improve |improve the various steps |provincial/district |
| |various steps of program. |various steps of program. |of program. |authorities can improve |
| | | | |various steps of program. |
|Do you think that the |4 respondents thought that |Governor Daikundi did not |Governor Shahristan also |Governor Miramor opined that|
|selection process was open, |selection process was open,|think that selection |did not think that |selection process could be |
|clear and fair? |clear and fair while 1 |process was open, clear and|selection process was open,|more open, more clear and |
| |respondent thought that it |fair. |clear and fair. |fair. |
| |could be more open, more | | | |
| |clear and fair. | | | |
The Key findings from Open Discussion are:
Table 14.4 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Improvement in Deliverable Process
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|Please provide us with |There is need to develop a|Involvement and |Coordination with the |Selection of beneficiaries|
|additional details on how to |national database from |participation of district |government official in the|through CDCs properly and |
|improve further; |where poor can be |government representative |area regarding |transparently. |
|a. More clear administrative |identified and selected |in the program from |implementation of the | |
|forms to ensure the appropriate |for benefit distribution |beginning till end. |program, and involvement | |
|beneficiaries are targeted |(cash payment). The | |of government | |
|b. the selection of |DoLSMAD response matches | |representative during all | |
|beneficiaries by CDCs |option D of the question. | |phases of the program. | |
|objectively/clearly | | | | |
|c. the delivery of cash through | | | | |
|any other mechanism | | | | |
|d. the regularization of | | | | |
|beneficiaries through some | | | | |
|national database for | | | | |
|poverty/identification of most | | | | |
|poor families. etc. | | | | |
|e. Involvement of other | | | | |
|agencies. | | | | |
|Please provide us with |Adopting a new mechanism |Associate/involve the |Opportunities might |The Governor Miramor |
|additional details on how you |thereby ensuring that all |district government |be/need to be provided to |expressed that he has no |
|would change the selection |the people of the village |representative in the |the women so that they can|better option to offer, |
|process to ensure that the |are present in |identification and |participate both as |however, the capacity of |
|appropriate beneficiaries are |identification and can |implementation of the |implementers as well as |CDCs should be increased. |
|selected |object or comment on the |program along with |beneficiaries. In addition| |
| |selection and |Oxfam-GB. |associate/ involve the | |
| |implementation. | |district government | |
| | | |representative in the | |
| | | |identification. | |
|How do you think the program can|Selection and |Awareness programs for |The involvement of |As the CDCs are composed |
|be changed so that more women |participation of women in |women in villages through |government in program |of both men and women, |
|hear about the benefit? |the VSC and VVC can ensure|women workers, and they are|might be enhanced. The |building the capacity of |
| |accrual of benefits to |informed of their rights. |government officials will |the CDCs can benefit both |
| |women from the program. | |help ensure women |men and women. In this way|
| | | |participation in program |women will be able to help|
| | | |implementation so that |women and men will help |
| | | |more women can hear about |men. |
| | | |the benefits. | |
3 Performance of Government Agency, CDCs & FPs and Recommendations
The key findings from FGIs are given in Table below:
Table 14.5 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Performance and Recommendations
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|What is your general |All respondents expressed |Governor Daikundi expressed|Governor Shahristan stated |Governor Miramor stated that|
|satisfaction level with |that they are happy with |that he was happy with the |that he was very unhappy |he was unhappy with the |
|performance of Govt. |performance of Government |performance of Govt. Dept/ |with the performance of |performance of Govt. Dept/ |
|Dept/DoLSAMD in the Afghan |Department as well as their|DoLSAMD in the ASPP. |Govt. Dept/ DoLSAMD in the |DoLSAMD in the ASPP. |
|Social Protection Program |own department’s | |ASPP. | |
|(ASPP)? |performance. | | | |
|What is your general |All respondents expressed |Governor Daikundi expressed|Governor Shahristan stated |Governor Miramor also stated|
|satisfaction level with the |that they are happy with |that he was unhappy with |that he was very unhappy |that he was unhappy with the|
|Performance of CDCs in the |performance of CDCs in the |the performance of CDCs in |with the performance of |performance of CDCs in the |
|Afghan Social Protection |ASPP. |the ASPP. |CDCs in the ASPP. |ASPP. |
|Program (ASPP)? | | | | |
|What is your general |All respondents expressed |Governor Daikundi expressed|Governor Shahristan stated |Governor Miramor also stated|
|satisfaction level with the |that they are happy with |that he was very unhappy |that he was very unhappy |that he was unhappy with the|
|Performance of FP in the |performance of FP in the |with the performance of FP |with the performance of FP |performance of FP in the |
|Afghan Social Protection |ASPP. |in the ASPP. |in the ASPP. |ASPP. |
|Program (ASPP)? | | | | |
|What is your general |All respondents expressed |Governor Daikundi expressed|Governor Shahristan stated |Governor Miramor also stated|
|satisfaction level with the |that they are happy with |that he was happy with the |that he was very unhappy |that he was happy with the |
|Performance of MOLSAMD in the|performance of MoLSAMD in |performance of MoLSAMD in |with the performance of |performance of MoLSAMD in |
|Afghan Social Protection |the ASPP. |the ASPP. |MoLSAMD in the ASPP. |the ASPP. |
|Program (ASPP)? | | | | |
|What resources do you think |The respondents from |Governor Daikundi expressed|Similarly, Governor |Governor Miramor expressed |
|would have supported you the |DoLSAMD thought that |that increase in role for |Shahristan also thought |that increase in support |
|most in terms of increasing |increase in role for |selection of beneficiaries |that increase in role for |from MOLSAMD would support |
|efficiency of the program for|selection of beneficiaries |would support him most in |selection of beneficiaries |him most in terms of |
|your organization? Can choose|would support them most in |terms of increasing |would support him most in |increasing efficiency of |
|more than one |terms of increasing |efficiency of program. |terms of increasing |program. |
| |efficiency of program. | |efficiency of program. | |
The Key findings from Open Discussion are:
Table 14.6 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Performance and Recommendations
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|Please rate your |We assess / grade our role |The work of DOLSAMD lacked |Governor Shahristan |Lack of awareness to the |
|performance as Govt. |in this program as very |proper execution and |expressed that the |people, lack of selection of|
|depts./DoLSAMD and |good and rate it as number |responsibilities and duties|facilitating partner has |real poor people in the |
|elaborate on your rating of|One because we have not |related to them were not |not coordinated the program|villages, lack of |
|your performance |received any complain |properly performed. |very well so we rate our |coordination with the |
| |against this program yet. |Oxfam-GB’s performance also|role as number 2. |government representatives |
| | |needs improvement, thus, we| |are the reasons due to which|
| | |cannot rate our role. | |DoLSAMD and Oxfam have not |
| | | | |implemented the program as |
| | | | |expected and hence rate our |
| | | | |work as number 2. |
|Please rate CDC performance|We rate the performance of |The role of the CDC has |The work of the CDCs in |The work of the CDC is |
|and elaborate on your |CDCs as quite better and |been good for the |distribution of the money |satisfactory and can be |
|rating of CDC performance |satisfactory as they worked|distribution of money. |is satisfactory hence it is|rated as number one. |
| |hard in the implementation | |rated as number 1. | |
| |of program. | | | |
|Please rate FP performance |We rate the performance of |The Governor of Daikundi |The Governor Shahristan was|It is not satisfactory hence|
|and elaborate on your |FPs as satisfactory as they|was critical of Oxfam-GB’s |critical of facilitating |no rating can be given to |
|rating of FP performance |worked hard in the |role in program |partners role in program, |FP’s performance |
| |implementation of program. |implementation and hence |hence did not rate its | |
| | |did not rate its |performance. | |
| | |performance. | | |
|Please rate MoLSAMD |We rate the role and work |The Governor Daikundi |The work of MoLSAMD is |The work of MoLSAMD is |
|performance and elaborate |of MoLSAMD as number one, |thanked MoLSAMD for its |worth appreciation; |appreciated; however, |
|on your rating of MoLSAMD |as it is the first ministry|work and advised inclusion |however, they should focus |governor has not been |
|performance |that has provided help to |of other districts and |on the problems and avoid |consulted for this program, |
| |the poor families. |Shuras (CDCs) which are |these in the future. For |hence its performance can be|
| | |vulnerable and deserve to |example, implementation of |rated as number 2. |
| | |be part of the ASPP. |the program through Oxfam. | |
4 Role / usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaigns and Training program for CDCs and FPs
The key findings from FGIs/FGDs are:
Table 14.7 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Role / Usage of Operational Manual, Awareness Campaign and Training Program for CDCs and FP
|Questions |Responses |
| |DoLSAMD |Governor Daikundi |Governor Shahristan |Governor Miramor |
|Did you or your department |All the 5 respondents had |Governor Daikundi had never|Governor Shahristan had |Governor Miramor had never |
|read or consult the |read or consulted the |read or consulted the |never read or consulted the|read or consulted the |
|"Operational Manual" during |Operational Manual “Just |Operational Manual during |Operational Manual during |Operational Manual during |
|the implementation of this |Once” during the |the implementation of this |the implementation of this |the implementation of this |
|program? |implementation of this |program. |program. |program |
| |program. | | | |
|Do you think the "Awareness |All respondents thought |Governor Daikundi did not |Governor Shahristan also |Governor Miramor opined that|
|Campaign" is necessary and |that “Awareness Campaign” |consider “Awareness |did not consider “Awareness|“Awareness Campaign” is |
|effective for launching the |is necessary and effective |Campaign” as necessary and |Campaign” as necessary and |necessary and effective for |
|program? |for launching the program. |effective for launching the|effective for launching the|launching the program. |
| | |program. |program. | |
|Was the Training Program for |Only 1 respondent stated |Governor Daikundi did not |Governor Shahristan did not|Governor Miramor expressed |
|FPs and CDCs effective in |that training program for |express knowledge / |consider training program |no knowledge / opinion. |
|understanding and |FPs and CDCs was effective |opinion. |for FPs and CDCs effective | |
|implementing the process of |in understanding and | |in understanding and | |
|this program? |implementing the process of| |implementing the process of| |
| |this program while majority| |this program. | |
| |i.e. 4 respondents did not | | | |
| |consider it so. | | | |
Section five –
aspp outcomes
Section v
Afghanistan Social Protection Program - Outcomes
This section provides findings from the analysis of Focus Group Interview/Discussion held with the Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries (male and female) in the sampled villages for operational evaluation on sub-components of Expenditure pattern and Perception about Government. A total of 18 villages and CDCs i.e. 9 from district Shahristan and 9 from district Miramor of Daikundi Province were randomly sampled for this phase of Operational Evaluation of ASPP.
The cash-grants were distributed during month of October /November 2012 with facilitation of Oxfam-GB in the target districts. As already mentioned the FGI/Ds were conducted with 9 CDCs/villages in each district. The interview and discussion were held with both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries on different program components. The FGI/Ds respondent details are as:
• A total of 150 male beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 75 each from Shahristan and Miramor
• Similarly a total of 147 female beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 74 from Shahristan and 73 Miramor
• While, a total of 157 male non-beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 77 from Shahristan and 80 from Miramor
• Similarly, a total of 162 female non-beneficiaries of ASPP were interviewed from both districts – 88 from Shahristan and 74 from Miramor
Details illustrated with pictures are attached as annexures- 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Expenditure pattern
This chapter presents the key findings from FGIs/Ds held with Male and Female beneficiaries on utilization of cash benefits and changes in expenditure to assess whether it fulfilled their basic necessities and improved their living standards or not. Spending of the program benefit by beneficiaries is a very important component and has significant bearing on the outcomes of ASPP. The analysis is presented in the following passages:
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI/FGD (close-ended)
The key findings from FGIs with male and female beneficiaries are given in Table below:
Table 15.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Expenditure
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |
|Compared with this season |78% men beneficiaries responded that family spending |93% women beneficiaries responded that family spending |
|last year, how did your |has increased as compared to this season last year, |has increased as compared to this season last year, |
|family spending change? |while 22% men beneficiaries responded that family |while only 7% women beneficiaries responded that family |
| |spending has decreased as compared to this season last |spending has decreased as compared to this season last |
| |year. |year |
|If you have saved any portion|94% men said they have saved nothing or will save |All 147 (100%) women said they have saved nothing or |
|of your benefit amount, how |nothing, |will save nothing |
|much of it have you saved or |Only 6% said they have saved or will save a little. | |
|will save? | | |
|Do you think that as a result|Out of 150 respondents; |Out of 147 female respondents; |
|of this program, the money |95% men said that amount spent on the needs of children|88% women said that amount spent on the needs of |
|spent on the needs of your |(food items, clothing, education etc.) increased as a |children (food items, clothing, education etc.) |
|children changed (including |result of this program. |increased as a result of this program, however |
|food items, clothing, |Only 5% men said that amount spend on the needs of |12% women said that amount spend on the needs of |
|education, etc.)? |children (food items, clothing, education etc.) did not|children (food items, clothing, education etc.) |
| |change as a result of this program |decreased as a result of this program |
|What are you spending most of|A majority i.e. 98% men beneficiaries responded that |Of 147 women interviewed: |
|the benefit on? |most of benefit is spent on children’s food and |a majority i.e. 84% women beneficiaries responded that |
| |clothing. |most of benefit is spent on children’s food and |
| |Only 2% respondents said that most of benefit is spent |clothing, |
| |on health. |9% respondents said that most of the benefit is spent on|
| | |health, & |
| | |7% respondents said that most of benefit is spent on |
| | |housing and crops. |
|Who in your family benefited |All the 150 respondents (100%) expressed that all |Out of 147 women beneficiaries; |
|the most do you think? |members of family benefitted equally from the program |90% of respondents expressed that all members of family |
| |benefit amount. |benefitted equally from the program benefit amount. |
| | |Only 10% said that our children benefitted most. |
|If there are more than two |Out of 150 respondents; |Out of 147 respondents; |
|families living in the same |98% men beneficiaries informed that they do not have |98% women beneficiaries informed that they did not have |
|household (more than two |any other family living with them. |any other family living with them. |
|mothers with their children) |Only 2% informed that they shared small part of the |Only 2% women informed that they shared small part of |
|did your family share any |benefit from the program with the other family living |the benefit from the program with the other family |
|benefits in cash or in |with them in the household. |living in their household. |
|purchased goods or in any | | |
|other way with the other | | |
|family that lives with you in| | |
|the same household? | | |
The above analysis reveal that majority of the beneficiaries (male and female) expressed that their family spending increased as compared to last season; moreover most of the benefit amount was spent on food items, needs of children and clothing. Almost all the beneficiaries both male and female informed that they have spent the entire benefit amount and saved nothing. Most of the beneficiaries expressed that the entire family benefitted from the cash grant, while few specifically mentioned that women and children benefitted the most.
Perception of Government
This chapter presents the key findings from FGIs/Ds held with both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries on their perception towards government and the program implementers i.e. whether their perception of government, FP, CDCs etc. improved or not as result of this program. This is of immense importance for the future design of the ASPP.
The analysis is presented in the following passages:
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended)
The key findings from FGIs/Ds with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are presented in Table below:
Table 16.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Perception of Government
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|Has your impression of the |All the male beneficiaries |All the female |93% male non-beneficiaries |All the female |
|central government improved |said that their impression |beneficiaries expressed |responded that their |non-beneficiaries responded |
|as a result of this program? |of the Central Government |that their impression of |impression of the Central |that their impression of the|
| |improved as a result of |the Central Government |Government improved as a |Central Government improved |
| |this program. |improved as a result of |result of this program, |as a result of this program.|
| | |this program. |while only 7% (11) from 2 | |
| | | |CDCs of Shahristan | |
| | | |responded negatively. | |
|Has your impression of the |95% male beneficiaries said|All the female |57% male non-beneficiaries |All the female |
|provincial/district |that their impression of |beneficiaries said that |said that their impression |non-beneficiaries responded |
|governments improved as a |the Provincial / district |their impression of the |of the Provincial / |that their impression of the|
|result of this program? |Governments improved as a |Provincial / district |district Governments has |Provincial / district |
| |result of this program. |Governments improved as a |improved, while |Governments has improved as |
| |Only 5% responded |result of this program. |43% said that their |a result of this program. |
| |negatively. | |impression of provincial / | |
| | | |district government has not| |
| | | |improved as a result of | |
| | | |this program | |
|Has your impression of the |A majority (99%) said that |A majority (94%) of female |A majority of male |All the female |
|CDC improved as a result of |their impression of CDCs |beneficiaries said that |non-beneficiaries (89%) |non-beneficiaries responded |
|this program? |has improved as a result of|their impression of CDCs |responded that their |that their impression of the|
| |this program, only 1 person|has improved as a result of|impression of CDCs has |CDCs improved as a result of|
| |responded negatively. |this program, and only 6% |improved as a result of |this programme. |
| | |(9) from a CDC of |this program, | |
| | |Shahristan responded |while 11% (18) from 4 CDCs | |
| | |negatively. |of Shahristan responded | |
| | | |negatively. | |
|Has your impression of the FP|All the male beneficiaries |All the female |Similarly, a majority (87%)|All the female |
|(OXFAM GB) improved as a |said that their impression |beneficiaries said that |of male non-beneficiaries |non-beneficiaries responded |
|result of the program? |of the Facilitating Partner|their impression of the |responded that their |that their impression of the|
| |(Oxfam-GB) has improved as |Facilitating Partner |impression of Facilitating |Facilitating Partner |
| |a result of this program. |(Oxfam-GB) has improved as |Partner (Oxfam-GB) improved|(Oxfam-GB) has improved as a|
| | |a result of this program. |as a result of this |result of this program. |
| | | |program, | |
| | | |while 13% (21) respondents | |
| | | |from 3 CDCs of Shahristan | |
| | | |responded negatively. | |
|Has the District Governor and|83% male beneficiaries said|All the female |76% male non-beneficiaries |All the female beneficiaries|
|Provincial Governors |that district/provincial |beneficiaries said that |said that |said that |
|officials came to the village|governors and official did |district/provincial |district/provincial |district/provincial |
|and participated in the |not come to village and |governors and officials did|governors and official did |governors and official did |
|program in any way? |participate in program in |not come to village and |not come to village and |not come to village to |
| |anyway, |participated in program in |participate in program in |participate in program in |
| |only, 11% men responded |anyway. |anyway, |anyway. |
| |that governors and official| |while 24% responded that | |
| |participated in the | |Governors and official | |
| |program, | |participated in the | |
| |while 6% expressed no | |program. | |
| |knowledge on the matter. | | | |
2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions)
The findings and Analysis from Open discussions are presented in Table below:
Table 16.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Perception of Government
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|If your perception of the |Majority of male |Majority of female |Majority of the male |The female non beneficiary |
|village/tribal elders, head |beneficiaries informed that|beneficiaries expressed |non-beneficiaries expressed|respondents were happy about|
|of district, local commander,|their perception of village|that their perception of |that their perception of |the programme and the role |
|provincial authorities, |elders, government |village elders, government |village elders, government |different government |
|central government, CDC, NGOs|officials, NGOs and |officials, NGOs and |officials, NGOs and |departments, officials and |
|or other agencies has changed|organizations has changed. |organizations has changed. |organizations has changed. |organizations played in its |
|as a result of this program, |Government officials and |They expressed their |They expressed their |implementation. |
|why is that? |NGOs are focusing on |satisfaction with the |satisfaction with the | |
| |welfare activities to help |government for |government for | |
| |the poor families of the |implementation of this |implementation of this | |
| |village and they |program. Respondents from |program. However, | |
| |implemented the project in |Zar Sang Shalije expressed |respondents from | |
| |amicable way. However, |satisfaction with |Kohkoj-e-Waras and Kakrak | |
| |respondents from Zard Sang |government and FP, however,|Wargha Alawdal informed | |
| |Shali from Shahristan |they said that CDC and |that their perception has | |
| |stated that our perception |village elders role in the |not changed. Moreover, | |
| |about the village elders |program has not been |respondents from Awry Mazar| |
| |and CDC members has not |satisfactory. |Azmok, district Shahristan | |
| |changed as these people | |and Darghala Charkh Bargar | |
| |collected the money from | |and Shinya Barkar from | |
| |poor families and | |district Miramor informed | |
| |distributed the money on | |that although their | |
| |all families of the | |perception of central | |
| |village. Similarly, | |government, FP and CDCs has| |
| |respondents from | |changed, but perception of | |
| |Sangkarkesh Ulya, Pitab Joe| |local government official | |
| |Watana and Nak Watana from | |etc has not changed. | |
| |district Miramor expressed | | | |
| |that their perception of | | | |
| |government official had not| | | |
| |changed. | | | |
|Can you tell us whether the |Male beneficiaries from the|Female beneficiaries from |Majority of male |According to female non |
|nutrition and hygiene program|villages where the |villages where Nutrition |non-beneficiaries from |beneficiaries from the |
|awareness and food packets, |Nutrition and hygiene |and hygiene awareness and |villages where Nutrition |villages where Nutrition and|
|as well as soaps distribution|awareness was carried out |distribution of food packet|and hygiene awareness and |Hygiene awareness program |
|was a good initiative by the |appreciated implementation |and soap cakes was carried |distribution of food packet|and distribution of food |
|government? How do you think |of this program. People |out opined that program has|and soap cakes was carried |packets and soap cakes was |
|the nutrition and hygiene |gained knowledge on issues |been effective and |out opined that program has|carried out informed that |
|awareness to the mothers, |related to hygiene. They |beneficial particularly for|been effective and |the program was very useful |
|children and family members |informed that women |women and children. |beneficial particularly for|especially for females and |
|will be useful in your |benefited more from this | |women and children. Only |children. |
|household? |program. Similarly | |respondents from Zard Sang | |
| |distribution of food | |Shali informed that they | |
| |packets and soap cakes is | |did not participate. | |
| |good for health of the | | | |
| |people. | | | |
|What has been the program's |Majority of Male |Apart from respondents of |Apart from respondents of |The female non beneficiaries|
|positive impact on the |beneficiaries from both |village Zard Sang Shali all|village Kohkoj-e-Waras and |from both the districts |
|community? |districts opined that |the female beneficiaries |Kakrak Wargha Alawdal the |appreciated the positive |
| |program had significant |opined that program had |male non-beneficiaries |impact of the program on |
| |positive impacts on the |significant positive |opined that program had |beneficiaries who spent the |
| |community. The poor and |impacts on the community. |significant positive |money on buying essential |
| |vulnerable families |The poor and vulnerable |impacts on the community. |items such as food and |
| |purchased winter food |families purchased winter |The poor and vulnerable |clothes for their families |
| |stock, clothes, and shoes |food stock, clothes, and |families purchased winter |or used the money to return |
| |and fulfilled their other |shoes and fulfilled their |food stock, clothes, and |loans. Thus, the program had|
| |basic needs as well. Thus, |other basic needs as well. |shoes and fulfilled their |significant positive impact.|
| |they were protected to a |Thus, they were protected |other basic needs as well. | |
| |considerable extent from |to a considerable extent |Thus, they were protected | |
| |the hardships of winter and|from the hardships of |to a considerable extent | |
| |hunger. |winter and hunger. |from the hardships of | |
| | | |winter and hunger. | |
|What has been the program's |All the male beneficiaries |All the female beneficiary |Apart from the respondents |All the female non |
|negative impact on the |from both districts except |respondents expressed that |of Kakrak Wargha Alawdal, |beneficiary respondents |
|community? |Zard Sang Shali expressed |there were no negative |all the male |expressed that there were no|
| |that the program had no |impacts of the program. |non-beneficiaries expressed|negative impacts of the |
| |negative impacts rather it | |that there were no negative|program. |
| |was very important for | |impacts of the program. | |
| |their villages as this | |Respondents of Kakrak | |
| |provided much needed | |Wargha Alawdal informed | |
| |support to the poor and | |that program caused | |
| |vulnerable families. | |conflict among the village | |
| | | |people. | |
From above analysis it can be deciphered that the perception of government has improved significantly compared to previous phases of ASPP in the target areas. Almost all the beneficiaries (apart from respondents of Zard Sang Shali) and significant number of non-beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with the outcome of government’s initiatives, that their perception of the central as well as provincial governments, and that their perception of various stakeholders i.e. FP, CDC and DoLSAMD has much improved after accrual of program benefit. Also program had significant positive impacts on community in terms of food security and protection from harsh winters.
However, non-beneficiaries from few villages - Kohkoj-e-Waras, Zard Sang Shali, Kakrak-e-Wargha Alawdal, Kilage Dashte Sufla, Deh Asho Alowdal and Owre Mazar Ozmok from district Shahristan expressed reservations about government and various stakeholders. Similarly non-beneficiaries from Chukrizar Barkar, Daraghila Charkh Bargar and Shinya Bargar from district Miramor were not satisfied with the role of central government in the program.
Section six –
nutrition and hygiene awareness
Section vi
Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
This section provides findings from the analysis of Focus Group Interview/Discussion held with the Beneficiaries and Non-Beneficiaries (male and female) in the sampled villages where “Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness” component had been implemented. The Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness component has been added to the program and piloted in 3 sampled villages in each district with the two modes of payments and three options of implementation mechanism as explained earlier. The analysis focuses on whether the addition of Nutrition and Hygiene component has been beneficial to overall program and what has been its effect/impact on the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.
nutrition and hygiene awareness
Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness is a completely new addition to the program and this chapter presents results of interviews of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries focusing specifically on this sub-program. This sub-component of the ASPP was implemented on pilot basis in select three CDCs/villages of each district. The nutrition and hygiene awareness was piloted with all the three options and 2 modes of payment in the two districts i.e. 3 Options and Mode 1 in district Shahristan (one small, one medium and one large CDC) and 3 Options with Mode 2 in district Miramor (one small, one medium and one large CDC).
As already mentioned in district Shahristan three options – one each in three CDCs has been piloted with Mode 1 payment, while in district Miramor three options – one each in three CDCs has been piloted with Mode 2 payment. The number of respondents interviewed for each category i.e. beneficiary and non-beneficiaries under Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness component is:
• A total of 51 male beneficiaries were interviewed from both districts – 25 from Shahristan and 26 from Miramor
• Similarly a total of 50 female beneficiaries were interviewed from both districts – 25 each from Shahristan and Miramor
• While, a total of 51 male non-beneficiaries were interviewed from both districts – 25 from Shahristan and 26 from Miramor
• Similarly, a total of 52 female non-beneficiaries were interviewed from both districts – 28 from Shahristan and 24 from Miramor
In this chapter key findings from the FGIs/Ds held with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (male and female) on Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness are presented to assess its effectiveness or lack there off. The analysis is presented in the following passages:
1 The Findings and Analysis of FGI (close-ended)
The key findings from FGIs/FGDs held with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding Nutrition and hygiene awareness program are presented in Table below:
Table 17.1 - Analysis of Close Ended Responses – Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|Did you attend the first |All the 51 (100%) |All the 50 (100%) female |Out of 51 male |All the 52 (100%) female |
|meeting for the Hygiene |respondents from both the |beneficiaries from both the |non-beneficiaries; |non-beneficiaries from both |
|and Child Nutrition |districts had attended the |districts had attended the |82% respondents had attended|the districts had attended |
|Awareness Program to |first meeting for the |first meeting for the |the first meeting for the |the first meeting for the |
|which the entire |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |
|community was invited to |Awareness Program. |Awareness Program. |Awareness Program |Awareness Program. |
|attend? | | |While 18% responded they had| |
| | | |not attended the meeting. | |
|If YES, what is your |All the 51 (100%) |All the 50 (100%) women |81% expressed that they were|96% expressed that they were|
|general level of |respondents from both the |respondents from both the |satisfied and happy with the|satisfied and happy with the|
|satisfaction with the |districts expressed |districts expressed |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |Hygiene and Child Nutrition |
|Hygiene and Child |satisfaction and said they |satisfaction and said they |Awareness Program, while 19%|Awareness Program, while 4% |
|Nutrition Awareness |were happy with the Hygiene |were happy with the Hygiene |respondents expressed |respondents expressed |
|Program? |and Child Nutrition |and Child Nutrition |indifference. |indifference. |
| |Awareness Program. |Awareness Program. | | |
|Do you think the program |The program was thought to |All of the respondents from |All the respondents thought |All the female |
|is important for your |be important for community |both districts thought that |that the program was |non-beneficiaries thought |
|community and for your |and their family by all the |the program was important |important for community and |that the program was |
|family? |51 (100%) respondents from |for community and their |their family. |important for community and |
| |both the districts. |family. | |their family. |
|How many members of your |43% said that 5 or more |24% said that 5 or more |23% said that 5 or more |29% said that 5 or more |
|family, including you, |persons from their family |persons from their family |persons from their family |persons from their family |
|attended the program? |attended, |attended, |attended, |attended. |
|(Please simply mark the |16% informed that one person|16% informed that four |10% said 4 persons from |23% said 4 persons from |
|number that applies) |attended, |persons from family |family attended, |family attended, |
| |10% said 4 members of family|attended, |23% said 3 members of family|13% said 3 members of family|
| |attended, |27% said 3 members of family|attended, |attended, |
| |6% said 3 members of family |attended, |23% informed that 2 members |19% informed that 2 members |
| |attended, |20% said 2 members of family|attended, and |attended, and |
| |4% informed that 2 members |attended, while |19% informed that one person|14% informed that one person|
| |attended, |12% informed that 1 person |attended. |attended. |
| |While 21% men beneficiaries,|from family attended. | | |
| |all from Miramor said one | | | |
| |person from their family | | | |
| |attended. | | | |
|From your house, how many|8% informed that one female |36% said that 1 female |39% male non-beneficiaries |33% said that 1 person from |
|females attended the |member of family attended, |member from their family |said that 1 person from |their family attended, |
|program? (Please simply |14% said that 2 female |attended, |their family attended, |33% responded that 2 persons|
|mark the number that |members of family attended, |30% women said 2 females |33% responded that 2 persons|from family attended, |
|applies) |27% said that 3 female |from family attended, |from family attended, |19% said that 3 members of |
| |members from their family |22% women said that 3 female|16% said that 3 members of |family attended, and |
| |attended, |members of family attended, |family attended, and |15% informed that four |
| |22% informed that four |and |10% informed that four |members of the family |
| |females from family |12% informed that four |members of the family |attended. |
| |attended, While 29% (15 |female members of the family|attended, | |
| |respondents) all from 2 CDCs|attended. |while only 2% (1) respondent| |
| |of Miramor said no female | |said that more than 5 | |
| |member from their family | |persons from family attended| |
| |attended | | | |
|At which place did you |All the male beneficiaries |All the female beneficiaries|80% male non-beneficiaries |All the female |
|attend the Nutrition and |from both the districts |informed that they attended |said that they attended |non-beneficiaries informed |
|Hygiene Awareness |informed that they attended |Nutrition and Hygiene |Nutrition and Hygiene |that they attended Nutrition|
|Program? |Nutrition and Hygiene |Awareness Program at the |Awareness Program at the |and Hygiene Awareness |
| |Awareness Program at the |Mosque. |Mosque, |Program at the Mosque. |
| |Mosque. | |20% respondents said that | |
| | | |they attended Nutrition and | |
| | | |Hygiene Awareness Program at| |
| | | |a house. | |
|At what time of the day |49% said that presentation |34% said that presentation |53% said that presentation |33% said that presentation |
|was the presentation |was conducted early morning,|was conducted early morning,|was conducted early morning,|was conducted early morning,|
|conducted? |45% said that presentation |18% said that presentation |16% said that presentation |67% responded that the |
| |was conducted early in the |was conducted early in the |was conducted early in the |presentation was conducted |
| |day, |day, |day, |at afternoon/evening. |
| |while 6%, all from a CDC of |while 48% informed that the |while 31% informed that the | |
| |Shahristan informed that the|presentation was conducted |presentation was conducted | |
| |presentation was conducted |at afternoon/evening. |at afternoon/evening. | |
| |at afternoon/evening. | | | |
|Are you aware of a |Majority of respondents |Majority of female |All male non-beneficiaries |Majority of female |
|similar campaign in your |(71%) from both districts |respondents (66%) from both |responded that they were not|non-beneficiaries 85% (44) |
|village before? |informed that they were not |districts informed that they|aware of a similar campaign |from both districts informed|
| |aware of a similar campaign |were not aware of a similar |in the village before. |that they were not aware of |
| |in the village before, |campaign in village before, | |a similar campaign in |
| |while 29% (15) respondents, |while 34% (17) respondents, | |village before, |
| |all from Miramor said they |all from district Miramor, | |only 15% (8) respondents, |
| |were aware of similar |said they were aware of | |all from district Miramor |
| |campaign in their village |similar campaign in their | |said they were aware of |
| |before. |village before. | |similar campaign in their |
| | | | |village before |
|If YES to 8 (if no SKIP),|The 15 respondents from |The (17) respondents aware |Not Applicable |The (8) respondents aware of|
|how did this campaign |district Miramor stated that|of a similar campaign, | |a similar campaign informed |
|relate to the previous |this campaign was more |informed that this campaign | |that this campaign was more |
|campaign? |useful than the previous |was more useful. | |useful. |
| |campaign. | | | |
|Why did you attend the |75% respondents expressed |All (100%) female |45% respondents expressed |88% respondents expressed |
|Hygiene and Child |they attended the Nutrition |respondents expressed they |they attended the Awareness |they attended the Awareness |
|Nutrition Awareness |and Hygiene Awareness |attended the Nutrition and |program as they were |program as they were |
|Program? |program as they were |Hygiene Awareness program as|interested in learning about|interested in learning about|
| |interested in learning about|they were interested to |hygiene and nutrition, |hygiene and nutrition, |
| |hand washing and general |learn about hygiene and |8% said that they attended |10% female non-beneficiaries|
| |hygiene. |nutrition. |the program to get the food |expressed that they attended|
| |Similarly, 25% respondents | |package and soap cake, |the program in hopes of |
| |said they were interested in| |while 47% male |receiving the cash benefit, |
| |learning about child | |non-beneficiaries expressed |and |
| |nutrition. | |that they attended the |2% said that they attended |
| | | |program hoping to receive |the program to get the food |
| | | |the cash benefit. |package and soap cake |
|Was the information in |Majority (84%) of the |All the female beneficiaries|43% expressed that |31% expressed that |
|the presentation new? |respondents expressed that |said that some information |information in the |information in the |
| |information in the |in presentation was new |presentation was new, while |presentation was new, |
| |presentation was new, while |while some was not |57% respondents said some |65% respondents said some |
| |only 16% (8) respondents | |information was new and some|information was new and some|
| |from a CDC of Miramor said | |was not new |was not new, |
| |some information was new and| | |Only 4% said that |
| |some was not new. | | |information was not new. |
|Was the amount of |59% respondents said that |All female beneficiaries |51% male non-beneficiaries |60% female non-beneficiaries|
|information in the |information in the |stated that information in |responded that it was too |responded that it was too |
|presentation appropriate?|presentation was just right,|presentation was too much |much, while 49% respondents |much, |
| | |appropriate. |said that information in the|37% respondents said that |
| |25% responded that it was | |presentation was just right.|information in the |
| |too much, while only 16% (8)| | |presentation was just right,|
| |from a CDC of Shahristan | | |while |
| |said it was too little to be| | |4% said that information was|
| |appropriate. | | |too little. |
|Did you have enough time |All the male beneficiaries |All the female beneficiaries|84% responded that they had |85% responded that they had |
|to ask questions? |from both the districts |from both the districts |enough time to ask |enough time to ask |
| |expressed that they had |expressed that they had |questions, while only 16% |questions, while only 15% |
| |enough time to ask |enough time to ask |(8) respondents from CDC of |(8) respondents from CDC of |
| |questions. |questions. |Shahristan said that they |Miramor said that they did |
| | | |did not have enough time to |not have enough time to ask |
| | | |ask questions. |questions. |
|Was the presenter well |All the male beneficiaries |All the female beneficiaries|84% respondents affirmed |96% respondents affirmed |
|organized and clearly |from both the districts |from both the districts |that the presenter was well |that the presenter was well |
|spoken in his/her |affirmed that the presenter |affirmed that the presenter |organized and spoke clearly |organized and spoke clearly |
|presentation? |was well organized and spoke|was well organized and spoke|in presentation, while only |in presentation, while only |
| |clearly in presentation. |clearly in presentation |16% (8) respondents from CDC|4% (2) respondents from CDC |
| | | |of Shahristan said that |of Miramor said that |
| | | |presenter was mostly clear |presenter was mostly clear |
| | | |in presentation |in presentation |
|Were the visual pictures |92% of the male |All female beneficiaries |All male non-beneficiaries |98% of the respondents |
|easy to understand? |beneficiaries expressed that|expressed that visual |expressed that visual |expressed that visual |
| |visual pictures were easy to|pictures were easy to |pictures were easy to |pictures were easy to |
| |understand, only 8% from a |understand. |understand. |understand, only 2% (1) |
| |CDC of Miramor stated | | |respondent said the visual |
| |otherwise. | | |pictures were not easy to |
| | | | |understand. |
|Did you receive food |All male beneficiaries |All the female beneficiaries|All male non-beneficiaries |All the female |
|packets of iodized salt |affirmed that they received |from both the districts |from both the districts |non-beneficiaries from both |
|and biscuits? |food packets of Iodized salt|affirmed that they received |affirmed that they received |the districts affirmed that |
| |and biscuits. |food packets of Iodized salt|food packets of Iodized salt|they received food packets |
| | |and biscuits. |and biscuits. |of Iodized salt and |
| | | | |biscuits. |
|Did you receive the soap |Similarly all male |Similarly all female |Similarly all male |Similarly all female |
|cakes? |beneficiaries from both the |beneficiaries from both the |non-beneficiaries from both |non-beneficiaries from both |
| |districts informed that they|districts informed that they|the districts informed that |the districts informed that |
| |received the soap cakes as |received the soap cakes as |they received the soap cakes|they received the soap cakes|
| |well. |well. |as well. |as well. |
|Would you recommend this |All the male beneficiaries |A majority (95%) of female |A majority (94%) of male |A majority (96%) of female |
|Nutrition and Hygiene |would recommend this |beneficiaries would |non-beneficiaries would |non-beneficiaries would |
|Awareness Program to |Nutrition and Hygiene |recommend this Nutrition and|recommend this Nutrition and|recommend this Nutrition and|
|other friends and |Awareness program to friends|Hygiene Awareness program to|Hygiene Awareness program to|Hygiene Awareness program to|
|villages? |and other villages. |friends and other villages; |friends and other villages; |friends and other villages; |
| | |however, 5% female |only 6% responded that may |however, 4% female |
| | |beneficiaries responded |be they would recommend the |non-beneficiaries responded |
| | |negatively. |program. |negatively. |
|Would you attend another |92% of the male |78% of the female |All the male |94% of the female |
|session of the Nutrition |beneficiaries said they |beneficiaries said they |non-beneficiaries said they |non-beneficiaries said they |
|and Hygiene Awareness |would attend another |would attend another |would attend another session|would attend another |
|Program? |session, only 8% (4) |session, while 22% responded|of Nutrition and Hygiene |session, while only 4% |
| |respondents from a CDC of |that maybe they would attend|Awareness Program. |responded that maybe they |
| |Miramor stated otherwise. |another session. | |would attend another |
| | | | |session. |
2 The Findings and Analysis of FGD (Open discussions)
The Key findings from Open Discussion are presented in Table below:
Table 17.2 - Analysis of Open Discussions – Nutrition and Hygiene Awareness
|Questions |Analysis |
| |Male Beneficiaries |Female Beneficiaries |Male Non-Beneficiaries |Female Non-Beneficiaries |
|Who do you think has |Male beneficiaries from |All female beneficiaries |Majority of the male |The female non beneficiary |
|benefited the most from this |Sarkoyak Ameech and |expressed that all those |non-beneficiaries from |respondents of Zar Sang |
|program? Why do you think |Darghala Charkh Bazar |who participated in the |villages where Nutrition |Shaliji, Sarkoyak Ameech, |
|so? |opined that mothers and |program benefitted the |and Hygiene Awareness |Deh Asho Alawdal in |
| |Children benefited the most|most. The respondents from |program was carried out |Shahristan district and |
| |from this program and was |Pitab Joe Watana opined |opined that the program was|Darghala Charkh Bargar and |
| |effective in reaching them.|that women and children |beneficial to all and |Rok villages in Miramor |
| |Moreover they emphasized |benefited more from this |mothers and children in |district said that the |
| |that health is better than |program and now they can |particular benefited the |direct beneficiaries of the |
| |anything, therefore, those |better take care of their |most from this program. |programme benefitted a lot |
| |who benefitted shall also |health. |Only respondents from Zard |but they also shared the |
| |inform others. | |Sang Shali expressed that |information with other |
| | | |as female from their |villagers as well which was |
| | | |families participated, the |very useful. |
| | | |men have limited knowledge | |
| | | |about it. | |
|What suggestions do you have |All male beneficiaries were|All the female |All the male |The respondents suggested |
|to make the presentation more|satisfied about the current|beneficiaries expressed |non-beneficiaries expressed|the program to be extended |
|effective? |process and suggested that |satisfaction with the |satisfaction with the |because this way the people |
| |the government shall |program and suggested that |program and suggested that |will benefit more. And that |
| |continue it. Respondents |such program be continued |such program be continued |the program was quite |
| |from Pitab Joe Watan |and regularly held so that |in future so that people |detailed and all important |
| |stressed that discussion |people can learn more about|can learn more about |information was covered. |
| |need to be further |nutrition, health and |nutrition, health and | |
| |simplified making it easy |hygiene. |hygiene. | |
| |to understand for village | | | |
| |people. Moreover, | | | |
| |respondents from Rook Ushto| | | |
| |suggested inclusion of | | | |
| |female doctors in team so | | | |
| |as to provide information | | | |
| |regarding maternal health | | | |
| |and hygiene. | | | |
|If there was one important |Male beneficiaries informed|Female beneficiaries |Majority of male |Similarly female non |
|issue that was missed in the |that as such there were no |expressed that as such |non-beneficiaries expressed|beneficiaries expressed that|
|campaign about which you |specific issues, and any |there were no specific |that there was no specific |as such there was no |
|would have liked to have |welfare program of |issue about which they |issue about which they |specific issue about which |
|learned, what is that issue? |government is welcome. |would like more |would like more |they would like to have more|
| |Respondents from Sarkoyak |information. They suggested|information. They suggested|information. They suggested |
| |Ameech suggested that if |that such programs be |that such programs be |that such programs might be |
| |there is a nurse or birth |continued in future as |continued in future as |continued in future as well.|
| |attendant in our village |well. |well. Only respondents from| |
| |who can help pregnant women| |Rook Ushto district Miramor| |
| |as the village is very far | |suggested that program | |
| |from the city. | |might include information | |
| | | |on how to deal with waste | |
| | | |materials? How diseases can| |
| | | |be prevented etc., and | |
| | | |provision of female doctor | |
| | | |in village as it is very | |
| | | |far from cities and health | |
| | | |facilities. | |
The above analysis reveals that Nutrition and Hygiene awareness has been well received in all the villages. Everyone liked it and recommended to continue on a permanent basis and have such meetings held regularly. The campaign was well prepared and organized, well attended by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries (including multiple members / females from one family in most cases). Most villagers confirmed that they have never been exposed to similar campaigns in the past. Members from a small number of villages where similar campaigns had been conducted in the past confirmed that this campaign was more useful. Most of the information was new and visual material was easy to understand. Females and children benefited the most from the campaign. The N&H messages have been further disseminated by participants to their family members and relatives as well. Overall, females are more positive about the campaign than the males. The program participants also expressed satisfaction with the contents of distribution of food packs and soap cakes. The results of N&H awareness are very encouraging and people have suggested its further expansion and continuation.
Section seven –
Annexures of ASpp Operational Evaluation
Annexure 1 - Work plan for Daikundi Province, Miramor and Shahristan District’s FGI/D Field Survey
|S# |Tasks |Week 1 |
|1st Day |Introduction |Arbab Daud |
|1 |Purpose of FGDs in Operational Evaluation |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|2 |Using FGDs in Program Development & Evaluation |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|3 |What is FGD? FGDs defined |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|4 |Uses of FGD |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|5 |What happens at FGDs |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|6 |Developing Questions for FGDs |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|7 |Features of Questions in FGDs. Five (05) general types; Opening, Introduction, |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
| |Transition, Key Questions & Ending | |
|8 |Moderating FGDs. Techniques; Pause & Probe |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
|9 |Data Analysis after FGDs. Three (03) steps; Indexing, Management and |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
| |Interpretation | |
|10 |FGD Reporting; Purpose of study, Description of proceedings, Summary of |Daud, Abobaker, Najeeb |
| |findings, and Recommendations | |
|Second Day |
|11 |Checklist for FGDs; Advance notice, Questionnaires, Logistics |Abobaker, Nasrullah |
|12 |Moderator Skills | |
|13 |Principles of Note Taking |Abobaker, Nasrullah |
|14 |Materials to be prepared for FGD |Abobaker, Nasrullah |
|15 |Arrangements for FGDs |Abobaker, Nasrullah |
|16 |Remember to do in FGDs |Abobaker, Nasrullah |
|17 |Revision of each Question of FGI/D for SNP Operational Evaluation |FGI/D team and trainer |
|18 |Mock exercise of each section by both pairs; male & female, moderator and |FGI/D team and trainer |
| |note-taker | |
Annexure 3 - Field Work Schedules of Focus Group Discussions
|Miramor District |
|S.No |Name of the FGD |Date FGD Conducted |
|(Chukrizar Barkar)– CDC- 01 (34-3407-0116) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |23-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |23-112012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |23-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |23-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |23-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |23-11-2012 |
|Sangar kish Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |29-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |29-11-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |29-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |29-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |29-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |29-11-2012 |
|Nak/Watana - CDC- 03 (34-3407-0087) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |22-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |22-11-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|Daraghila Charkh Bargar - CDC- 04 (34-3407-0024) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |28-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |28-11-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |28-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |28-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |28-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |28-11-2012 |
|Bark Takawi - CDC- 05 (34-3407-0006) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |27-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |27-11-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |27-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |27-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |27-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |27-11-2012 |
|Pitab Joe Watana - CDC- 06 (34-3407-0089) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |22-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |22-11-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |22-11-2012 |
|Shinya Bargar - CDC- 07 (34-3407-0061) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |20-11-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |20-11-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |20-11-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |20-11-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |20-11-2012 |
|Argi Nadak - CDC- 08 (34-3407-0161) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |15-12-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |15-12-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |15-12-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |15-12-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |15-12-2012 |
|Rook Ushto - CDC- 09 (34-3407-0151) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |14-12-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |14-12-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |14-12-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |14-12-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |14-12-2012 |
|Shahristan District |
|S.No |Name of the FGD |Date FGD Conducted |
|Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla CDC-01 (34-3409-0032) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |11-30-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |11-30-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|Zard Sang Shali CDC-02 (34-3409-0127) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-01-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |12-01-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-01-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-01-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-01-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-01-2012 |
|Kohkoj-e-Waras CDC-03 (34-3409-0110) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-03-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |12-03-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-03-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-03-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-03-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-03-2012 |
|Kadanag Girow CDC-04 (34-3409-0109) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-04-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |12-04-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-04-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-04-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-04-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-04-2012 |
|Sare Koyak Amej CDC-05 (34-3409-0130) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-02-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |12-02-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-02-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-02-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-02-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-02-2012 |
| Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla CDC-06 (34-3409-0016) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-05-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |12-05-2012 |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-05-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-05-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-05-2012 |
|4 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-05-2012 |
|Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal CDC-07 (34-3409-0002) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |11-19-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |11-19-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |11-19-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |11-19-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |11-19-2012 |
|Deh-e-Osho Alawdal CDC-08 (34-3409-0010) |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |11-30-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |11-30-2012 |
|Awri Mazr-e- Uzmuk CDC-09 |
|1 |Village Selection Committee |12-06-2012 |
|2 |Village Verification Committee |Not Applicable |
|3 |Male Beneficiary |12-06-2012 |
|4 |Female Beneficiary |12-06-2012 |
|5 |Male Non-Beneficiary |12-06-2012 |
|6 |Female Non-Beneficiary |12-06-2012 |
Annexure 4 - Participants of FGI/Ds with Male Beneficiaries
Miramor District
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01(34-3407-0116) –Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |001 |Nasir |Himself |45 |
|3 |P3 |006 |Mohammad Ali |Himself |40 |
|5 |P5 |016 |Aziz |Himself |28 |
|7 |P7 |008 |Daud |Himself |30 |
Sangar kish Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062 )Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01|Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |014 |Ghulam Ali |Himself |23 |
|3 |P3 |009 |Sakhi Dad |Himself |40 |
|5 |P5 |008 |Ali Karam |Himself |46 |
|7 |P7 |002 |Zamin |Himself |45 |
Nak Watana- CDC- 03 (34-3407-0087) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |008 |Mohammad Ali |Himself |55 |
|3 |P3 |036 |Zamin Ali |Himself |45 |
|5 |P5 |016 |Mohammad Ali |Himself |65 |
|7 |P7 |006 |Mohammad Amin |Himself |31 |
|9 |P9 |035 |Mohammad Dawlat |Himself |55 |
|1 |P1 |019 |Eshaq Ali | Himself |57 |
|3 |P3 |002 |Sher Husain | Himself |39 |
|5 |P5 |017 |Mohamamd Jan | Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 |016 |Sakhi Dad | Himself |48 |
|9 |P9 |015 |Ewaz | Himself |41 |
|1 |P1 |002 |Said Hosain |Himself |72 |
|3 |P3 |013 |Juma Khan |Himself |25 |
|5 |P5 |001 |Ibrahim |Himself |40 |
|7 |P7 |015 |Juma |Son |21 |
Pitab Joe Watana - CDC- 06 (34-3407-0089) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |021 |Hosain Ali |Himself |55 |
|3 |P3 |046 |Sultan |Himself |46 |
|5 |P5 |052 |Khadem Husain |Himself |65 |
|7 |P7 |037 |Khanali |Himself |45 |
|9 |P9 |001 |Sarwar |Himself |70 |
|1 |P1 |008 |Esaa |Himself |60 |
|3 |P3 |007 |Jan Mohammad |Himself |45 |
|5 |P5 |020 |Mosa |Himself |70 |
|7 |P7 |001 |Sarwar |Son |30 |
Argi Nadak - CDC- 08 (34-3407-0161) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |026 |Mohammad Ali |Himself |65 |
|3 |P3 |020 |Mohammad Ameen |Himself |42 |
|5 |P5 |033 |Hosain |Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 |021 |Shirin Jan |Himself |41 |
Rook Ushto - CDC- 09 (34-3407-0151) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 Form)|Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |015 |Ghulam Mohammad |Son |18 |
|3 |P3 |013 |Ghulam Nabi |Son |22 |
|5 |P5 |010 |Sadiq Ali |Himself |50 |
|7 |P7 |003 |Ramazan |Himself |65 |
District Shahristan
Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla – CDC- 01 (34-3409-0032) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |002 |Eshaq |Himself |45 |
|3 |P3 |005 |Sayeed Abbas |Himself |38 |
|5 |P5 |014 |Ezatullah |Himself |30 |
|7 |P7 |026 |Mohammad |Himself |35 |
|9 |P9 |022 |Reza |Himself |29 |
|1 |P1 |028 |Dost Ali |Himself |62 |
|3 |P3 |012 |Amir Jan |Himself |45 |
|5 |P5 |021 |Faiz Ali |Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 |025 |Ghulam |Himself |75 |
Kohkoj-e-waras – CDC- 03 (34-3409-0110) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |003 |Ali Jan |Himself |50 |
|3 |P3 |030 |Eid Mohammad |Himself |40 |
|5 |P5 |043 |Khoda Dad |Himself |30 |
|7 |P7 |035 |Mohammad Esa |Himself |67 |
Kadanag Girow – CDC- 04 (34-3409-0109) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |007 |Hosain Ali |Himself |60 |
|3 |P3 |005 |Ali Mohammad |SON |21 |
|5 |P5 |012 |Hasan |Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 |001 |Ghulam sarwar |Himself |30 |
Sare Koyak Amej – CDC- 05 (34-3409-0130) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |024 |Ali Mohammad |Himself |55 |
|3 |P3 |028 |Khoda Dad |Himself |60 |
|5 |P5 |023 |Qurban Ali |Himself |46 |
|7 |P7 |008 |Najaf Ali |Himself |65 |
|9 |P9 |041 |Mohammad |Himself |35 |
|1 |P1 |016 |Yousuf |Son |21 |
|3 |P3 |009 |Eshaq |Son |20 |
|5 |P5 |003 |Khoda Bakhsh |Son |21 |
|7 |P7 |002 |Mohammad Hosain |Son |25 |
Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal – CDC- 07 (34-3409-0002) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |010 |Jan Ali |Himself |40 |
|3 |P3 |035 |Shaikh Sabir |Himself |50 |
|5 |P5 |039 |Mohammad |Himself |35 |
|7 |P7 |014 |Eshaq |Himself |35 |
Deh-e-Osho Alawdal – CDC- 08 (34-3409-0010) Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family |Age |
| | | | |Head | |
|1 |P1 |002 |Sarwar |Himself |38 |
|3 |P3 |004 |Abbas |Himself |38 |
|5 |P5 |007 |Mohammad Reza |Himself |30 |
|7 |P7 |015 |Sardar |Himself |21 |
Awri Mazar e Uzmuk – CDC- 09 –Male Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |002 |Mohammad Ali |Himself |70 |
|3 |P3 |012 |Baqir |Himself |35 |
|5 |P5 |006 |Zakir Hosain |Himself |25 |
|7 |P7 |010 |Ghulam Sarwar |Himself |14 |
|9 |P9 |
|[pic] |Miramor District |
| |Nak Watana |
| |CDC- 03 (34-3407-0087) |
| |Male Beneficiaries |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal |
| |CDC- 07 (34-3409-0002) |
| |Male Beneficiaries |
Annexure 6 - Participants of FGI / D with Male Non-Beneficiaries
District Miramor
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01(34-3407-0116)–Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family |Age |
| | |Form) | |Head | |
|1 |P1 | |Nadir |Himself |35 |
|3 |P3 | |Mohammad |Himself |26 |
|5 |P5 | |Aman Sadiq |Himself |20 |
|7 |P7 | |Alam |Himself |20 |
Sangarkesh Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Amir Mohammad |Himself |50 |
|3 |P3 | |Hosain Ali |Himself |67 |
|5 |P5 | |Hosain Dad |Himself |55 |
|7 |P7 | |Sakhi |Himself |48 |
|9 |P9 | |Mohammad Jan |Himself |31 |
|1 |P1 | |Ali Nega |Son |22 |
|3 |P3 | |Zamin |Himself |28 |
|5 |P5 | |Alidad |Son |21 |
|7 |P7 | |Hosaindad |Son |20 |
Daraghila Charkh Bargar - CDC- 04 (34-3407-0024) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01|Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Khan Ali Nali |Himself |40 |
|3 |P3 | |Mohammad |Himself |42 |
|5 |P5 | |Mohammad Ali |Himself | 47 |
|7 |P7 | |Mohammad |Himself | 25 |
|9 |P9 | |Hosain |Himself | 40 |
Bark Takawi - CDC- 05 (34-3407-0006) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Ibrahim |Himself |20 |
|3 |P3 | |Said Hasan |Himself |45 |
|5 |P5 | |Ibrahim |Himself |41 |
|7 |P7 | |Khoda dad |Himself |60 |
|9 |P9 | |Alidaad |Himself |37 |
|11 |P11 | |Ghulam Ali |Himself |65 |
Pitab Joe Watana - 06 (34-3407-0089) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Askar |Himself |65 |
|3 |P3 | |Anwar |Himself |45 |
|5 |P5 | |Mohammad Ali |Himself |22 |
|7 |P7 | |Arif |Himself |20 |
Shinya Bargar - CDC- 07 (34-3407-0061) Male Non-Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Asadullah Mohammad Ali |Himself |32 |
|3 |P3 | |Mohammad Hosain |Himself | 70 |
|5 |P5 | |Bashir |Son | 18 |
|7 |P7 | |Mohammad Yar |Himself | 27 |
|9 |P9 | |Ghulam Sakhi |Himself |37 |
|1 |P1 | |Ghulam Ali |Himself |61 |
|3 |P3 | |Ahmad Hosain |Himself |25 |
|5 |P5 | |Qurban |Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 | |Gharib Hosain |Himself |50 |
Rook Ushto - CDC- 09 (34-3407-0151)Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Mohammad Nadir |Himself |37 |
|3 |P3 | |Amanullah |Himself |35 |
|5 |P5 | |Jawad |Himself |29 |
|7 |P7 | |Sultana |Himself |29 |
District Shahristan
Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla – CDC- 01 (34-3409-0032) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Khoda Dad |Himself |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Ghulam Haidar |Himself |30 |
|5 |P5 | |Chaman Ali |Son |31 |
|7 |P7 | |Mohammad Ewaz |Himself |28 |
|9 |P9 | |Sher Hosain |Himself |32 |
|1 |P1 | |Rajab |Himself |32 |
|3 |P3 | |Qurban |Himself |21 |
|5 |P5 | |Hosaindad |Himself |20 |
|7 |P7 | |Abdul Rahim |Himself |30 |
Kohkoj-e-waras – CDC- 03 (34-3409-0110) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Ali Yawar |Himself |70 |
|3 |P3 | |Boman |Himself |40 |
|5 |P5 | |Boman Mohammad Ali |Himself |46 |
|7 |P7 | |Ewaz Hosain |Himself |78 |
Kadanag Girow – CDC- 04 (34-3409-0109) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Kazim |Son |18 |
|3 |P3 | |Ghulam Rasool |Himself |28 |
|5 |P5 | |Eid Mohammad |Himself |18 |
|7 |P7 | |Qurban |Son |23 |
|9 |P9 | |Ibrahim |Himself |30 |
|11 |P11 | |Sayed Hashim |Himself |65 |
|1 |P1 | |Dost Mohammad |Himself |32 |
|3 |P3 | |Abdullah |Himself |25 |
|5 |P5 | |Khadem |Himself |23 |
|7 |P7 | |Khan Ali |Himself |32 |
|9 |P9 | |Hasan |Himself |40 |
|1 |P1 | |Khoda Bakhsh |Himself |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Khoda Bakhsh sultan |Himself |28 |
|5 |P5 | |Chaman |Himself |55 |
|7 |P7 | |Abbas |Himself |50 |
Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal – CDC- 07 (34-3409-0002) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Surab |Himself |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Sher Hossain |Himself |20 |
|5 |P5 | |Anwar Hosain |Himself |45 |
|7 |P7 | |Aslam |Himself |40 |
Deh-e-Osho Alawdal – CDC- 08 (34-3409-0010) Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Rasool |Himself |22 |
|3 |P3 | |Nazir |Himself |42 |
|5 |P5 | |Kalbi Hosain |Himself |34 |
|7 |P7 | |Abbas |Himself |30 |
Awri Mazar-e- Uzmuk– CDC- 09 –Male Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Gul Hosain |Himself |55 |
|3 |P3 | |Gurban Ali |Himself |47 |
|5 |P5 | |Safdar Ali |Himself |50 |
|7 |P7 | |Yousuf |Himself |50 |
Annexure 7 - Pictures of FGI/D Male Non-Beneficiaries of Daikundi
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Zard Sang Shali |
| |CDC- 02 (34-3409-0127) |
| |Male Non-Beneficiaries |
|[pic] |Miramor District |
| |Nak Watana |
| |CDC- 03 (34-3407-0087) |
| |Male Non-Beneficiaries |
| |Shahristan District |
| |Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal |
| |CDC- 07 (34-3409-0002) |
| |Male Non-Beneficiaries |
Annexure 8 - Participants of FGI/D with Female Beneficiaries
District- Miramor
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01 (34-3407-0116)–Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |013 |Gulsom |Herself |80 |
|3 |P3 |007 |Najiba |Herself |29 |
|5 |P5 |004 |Mohammad Nadir |Wife |28 |
|7 |P7 |017 |Mohammad Tahir |Wife |40 |
Sangar kish Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |010 |Malika |Herself |23 |
|3 |P3 |007 |Suhrab |Daughter |20 |
|5 |P5 |014 |Ghulam Ali |Wife |60 |
|7 |P7 |013 |Anwar |Wife |36 |
Nak/Watana - CDC- 03 (34-3407-0087) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |027 |Khadeja |Herself |65 |
|3 |P3 |031 |Ali Nega |Wife |50 |
|5 |P5 |007 |Sultan |Wife |55 |
|7 |P7 |041 |Mohammad Ali |Wife |40 |
Daraghila Charkh Bargar - CDC- 04 (34-3407-0024) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |014 |Haji Hosain |Wife |35 |
|3 |P3 |001 |Juma Khan |Wife |38 |
|5 |P5 |020 |Hosain Dad |Wife |32 |
|7 |P7 |012 |Younus |Wife |40 |
Bark Takawi - CDC- 05 (34-3407-0006) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |019 |Fatima |Herself |65 |
|3 |P3 |018 |Gulbahar |Herself |70 |
|5 |P5 |023 |Said Ali |Wife |35 |
|7 |P7 |021 |Said Roman |Wife |28 |
Pitab Joe Watana - CDC- 06 (34-3407-0089) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |017 |Jan Begum |Herself |55 |
|3 |P3 |018 |ZarAfshan |Herself |38 |
|5 |P5 |005 |Amena |Herself |40 |
|7 |P7 |016 |Amena |Herself |35 |
|9 |P9 |041 |Hawa |Herself |32 |
|1 |P1 |030 |Bakhtawar |Herself |45 |
|3 |P3 |026 |Hawa |Herself |55 |
|5 |P5 |017 |Masoma |Herself |43 |
|7 |P7 |014 |Sediqa |Herself |28 |
Argi Nadak - CDC- 08 (34-3407-0161) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01|Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |002 |Marzia |Herself |57 |
|3 |P3 |007 |Khyal Jan |Herself |60 |
|5 |P5 |008 |Kheyal |Herself |30 |
|7 |P7 |017 |Zargul |Herself |25 |
Rook Ushto - CDC- 09 (34-3407-0151) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01|Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 |016 |Shafiqa |Herself |30 |
|3 |P3 |006 |Sardar |Wife |30 |
|5 |P5 |009 |Sharif |Wife |40 |
|7 |P7 |017 |Mohammad |Wife |35 |
District Shahristan
Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla – CDC- 01 (34-3409-0032) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |003 |Fatima |Herself |32 |
|3 |P3 |015 |Sara Bibi |Herself |27 |
|5 |P5 |023 |Agha mah |Herself |46 |
|7 |P7 |031 |Qurban |Wife |45 |
Zard Sang Shali – CDC- 02 (34-3409-0127) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |014 |Saragul |Herself |50 |
|3 |P3 |030 |Ghulnasha |Herself |65 |
|5 |P5 |017 |Gulkhosh |Herself |62 |
|7 |P7 |032 |Mazi Mah |Herself |56 |
|9 |P9 |016 |Gulandam |Herself |70 |
|1 |P1 |022 |Zarin |Herself |37 |
|3 |P3 |010 |Karima |Herself |35 |
|5 |P5 |031 |Sardaro |Herself |65 |
|7 |P7 |039 |Neekbakht |Herself |40 |
Kadanag Girow – CDC- 04 (34-3409-0109) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |004 |Chaman |Herself |45 |
|3 |P3 |001 |Ghulam Sarwar |Wife |32 |
|5 |P5 |002 |Rajab |Wife |50 |
|7 |P7 |009 |Khoda dad |Wife |42 |
Sare Koyak Amej – CDC- 05 (34-3409-0130) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |026 |Ghulam Ali |Wife |45 |
|3 |P3 |047 |Lalili |Herself |35 |
|5 |P5 |004 |Zahra |Herself |45 |
|7 |P7 |007 |Ali Mohammad |Wife |60 |
Kilage Dasht-e-Sufla – CDC- 06 (34-3409-0016) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |005 |Doori |Herself |73 |
|3 |P3 |012 |Ghulam Ali |Wife |40 |
|5 |P5 |015 |Boman |Wife |41 |
|7 |P7 |010 |Mohammad Ali |Wife |27 |
|9 |P9 |007 |Sardar |Wife |26 |
|1 |P1 |013 |Jahan Mahtab |Herself |34 |
|3 |P3 |001 |Ibrahim |Wife |30 |
|5 |P5 |010 |Jan Ali |Wife |40 |
|7 |P7 |017 |Abdullah |Wife |30 |
Deh-e-Osho Alawdal – CDC- 08 (34-3409-0010) Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |014 |Shahrbanu |Herself |40 |
|3 |P3 |001 |Nazir |Wife |38 |
|5 |P5 |011 |Safdar |Wife |45 |
|7 |P7 |009 |Kabir |Wife |40 |
Awri Mazar-e- Uzmuk– CDC- 09 – Female Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 |017 |Khairi |Himself |40 |
|3 |P3 |022 |Ibrahim |Wife |45 |
|5 |P5 |007 |Rajab |Wife |22 |
|7 |P7 |020 |Mohammad |Wife |43 |
Annexure 9 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Female Beneficiaries
|[pic] | Shahristan District |
| |Zard Sang Shali |
| |CDC- 02 (34-3409-0127) |
| |Female Beneficiaries |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Sare Koyak Amej |
| |CDC- 05 (34-3409-0130) |
| |Female Beneficiaries |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Kakrak -e-Wargha Alawdal |
| |CDC- 07 (34-3409-0002) |
| |Female Beneficiaries |
Annexure 10 - Participants of FGI/D with Female Non Beneficiaries
District Miramor
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01(34-3407-0116)–Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Nadir |His daughter |22 |
|3 |P3 | |Najiba |Her self |45 |
|5 |P5 | |Musa |His wife |55 |
|7 |P7 | |Ghulam Abbas |His wife |26 |
Sangar kish Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062) Female Non-Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name of family head |Relation to family|Age |
| | |Form) | |Head | |
|1 |P1 | |Nargis |Herself |26 |
|3 |P3 | |Kimia |Herself |42 |
|5 |P5 | |Sabr Gul |Herself |25 |
|7 |P7 | |Fatima |Daughter |22 |
|9 |P9 | |GawharTaj |Herself |40 |
|1 |P1 | |Anwar |Wife |40 |
|3 |P3 | |Nekbakht |Herself |45 |
|5 |P5 | |Ameena |Herself |45 |
|7 |P7 | |Ali Nega |Wife |40 |
|9 |P9 | |Hayat Begum |Herself |30 |
|1 |P1 | |Ali Khan |Wife |22 |
|3 |P3 | |Hosaindad |Wife |35 |
|5 |P5 | |Begum |Herself |40 |
|7 |P7 | |Bilqis |Herself |60 |
Bark Takawi - CDC- 05 (34-3407-0006) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Hosain Ali |Wife |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Fatima |Daughter |20 |
|5 |P5 | |Fatima |Herself |23 |
|7 |P7 | |Hawa |Herself |30 |
Pitab Joe Watana - CDC- 06 (34-3407-0089) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Sarwar |Daughter |22 |
|3 |P3 | |Ali Jan |Daughter |26 |
|5 |P5 | |Khurshed |Herself |70 |
|7 |P7 | |Mohammad |Wife |30 |
Shinya Bargar - CDC- 07 (34-3407-0061) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
| | |Form) | | | |
|1 |P1 | |Laila |Herself |75 |
|3 |P3 | |Ghulam |Herself |30 |
|5 |P5 | |Reza Gul |Herself |50 |
|7 |P7 | |Chaman |Herself |50 |
Argi Nadak - CDC- 08 (34-3407-0161) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 Form)|Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Gharib Hosain |Wife |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Zamin |Wife |50 |
|5 |P5 | |Khoda dad |Wife |40 |
|7 |P7 | |Abdul |Wife |25 |
Rook Ushto - CDC- 09 (34-3407-0151) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey ID |Family ID (from SNF-01 Form) |Name |Relation to Family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Mohammad Jawad |Wife |30 |
|3 |P3 | |Amanullah |Wife |25 |
|5 |P5 | |Jawad |Wife |22 |
|7 |P7 | |Nadir |Wife |25 |
District Shahristan
Ulqan Payan Dashte Sufla – CDC- 01 (34-3409-0032) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Jahan Mahtab |Herself |35 |
|3 |P3 | |Zamarod |Herself |37 |
|5 |P5 | |Zarafshan |Herself |32 |
|7 |P7 | |Sughra |Herself |30 |
|9 |P9 | |Agha gul |Herself |80 |
Zard Sang Shali – CDC- 02 (34-3409-0127) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Gawhar |Herself |30 |
|3 |P3 | |Amir begum |Herself |30 |
|5 |P5 | |Rozamah |Herself |25 |
|7 |P7 | |Mariam |Herself |70 |
|9 |P9 | |Agha gul |Herself |70 |
|1 |P1 | |Zarafshan |Daughter |21 |
|3 |P3 | |Tahira |Herself |23 |
|5 |P5 | |Samayel |Herself |40 |
|7 |P7 | |Fatima |Herself |50 |
|9 |P9 | |Bakhtawar |Herself |50 |
|1 |P1 | |Chaman |Herself |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Tajwar |Herself |80 |
|5 |P5 | |Zahra |Herself |60 |
|7 |P7 | |Sayed Tahir |Wife |40 |
|9 |P9 | |Momina |Herself |55 |
Sare Koyak Amej – CDC- 05 (34-3409-0130) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Fatima |Herself |30 |
|3 |P3 | |Beshgul |Herself |50 |
|5 |P5 | |Khanak |Herself |30 |
|7 |P7 | |Chaman |Herself |55 |
|9 |P9 | |Kubra |Herself |45 |
|1 |P1 | |Bomana |Herself |45 |
|3 |P3 | |Roqia |Herself |26 |
|5 |P5 | |Noqra |Herself |32 |
|7 |P7 | |Tahira |Herself |30 |
|9 |P9 | |Fahima |Herself |21 |
|1 |P1 | |Mosa |Wife |60 |
|3 |P3 | |Hamida |Herself |35 |
|5 |P5 | |Gulbadra |Herself |55 |
|7 |P7 | |Delo |Herself |50 |
|9 |P9 | |Gulchehra |Herself |54 |
|11 |P11 | |Mariam |Herself |75 |
Deh-e-Osho Alawdal – CDC- 08 (34-3409-0010) Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Gulchaman |Herself |30 |
|3 |P3 | |Gulmah |Herself |75 |
|5 |P5 | |Fatima |Herself |40 |
|7 |P7 | |Besama |Herself |35 |
|9 |P9 | |Fatima |Herself |80 |
Awri Mazar-e- Uzmuk– CDC- 09 – Female Non Beneficiaries
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC Code |Name |Relation to family Head |Age |
|1 |P1 | |Wazir |Herself |50 |
|3 |P3 | |Tahira |Herself |40 |
|5 |P5 | |Beshgul |Herself |51 |
|7 |P7 | |Mahdarmah |Herself |60 |
|9 |P9 | |Madina |Herself |20 |
Annexure 11 - Participants of Focus Group Interviews/Discussions with Village Selection Committees
District Miramor
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01(34-3407-0116)Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0116 |Mohammad |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0116 |Aziz |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0116 |Mariam |Daikundi |Miramor |
Sangar kish Ulya Barger - CDC- 02 (34-3407-0062) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0062 |Hamida |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0062 |Sakhi |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0062 |Mohd.Jan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0087 |Nasir |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0087 |Mohd.Esaa |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0087 |Sarwar |Daikundi |Miramor |
Daraghila Charkh Bargar - CDC- 04 – (34-3407-0024) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0024 |Farzana Younus |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0024 |Ayoub Ali Bakhsh |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0024 |Khan Ali |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0024 |Dedar |Daikundi |Miramor |
Bark Takawi- CDC- 05 (34-3407-0006) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0006 |Ali dad Hosain Ali |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0006 |Ibrahim Mohammad Bakhsh |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0006 |Roqia Esaa Khan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0006 |Roqia Yousuf |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0089 |Haji Hosain |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0089 |Aryan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0089 |Boman |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0089 |Abdullah |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0061 |Nazia |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0061 |Mosa |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0061 |Mohammad Kazim |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0061 |Hosain Dad |Daikundi |Miramor |
Argi Nadak - CDC- 08 (34-3407-0161) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0161 |Ghulam Ali |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0161 |Sher Jan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0161 |Amina |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0161 |Mirza |Daikundi |Miramor |
Rook Ushto - CDC- 09(34-3407-0151) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0151 |Madina |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0151 |Raihan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0151 |Nadir |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0151 |Chaman Ali |Daikundi |Miramor |
District Shahristan
Ulqan Payen Dasht e Sufla-CDC-01 (34-3409-0032) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 | |Najibullah |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Dost Ali Babashah |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Noor Jan |Daikundi | |
|7 |P7 | |Nazifa |Daikundi | |
|1 |P1 | |Said Ibrahim |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Majabeen |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Said Amir |Daikundi | |
|7 |P7 | |Khudaidad |Daikundi | |
|1 |P1 | |Arzo Hosain |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Sardar |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Marzia |Daikundi | |
Kadanag Girow -CDC-04 (34-3409-0109 ) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 | |Qurban Ali |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Mohammad Juma |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Momena |Daikundi | |
Sare Koyak Amej -CDC-05 (34-3409-0130) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 | |Khadim |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Hosain |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Bas Gul |Daikundi | |
|1 |P1 | |Haji Qurban Ali |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Mah Gul |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Boman |Daikundi | |
|1 |P1 | |Mohammad |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Habiba |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Musa |Daikundi | |
|7 |P7 | |Naazer |Daikundi | |
Deh-e-Osho Alawdal –CDC-08 (34-3409-0010) Village Selection Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 | |Boman Ewaz Ali |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Kalbi Hosain |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 | |Agha Gul |Daikundi | |
|7 |P7 | |Sarwar |Daikundi | |
|1 |P1 | |Ghulam Sakhi |Daikundi | |
|3 |P3 | |Khan Ali |Daikundi | |
|5 |P5 |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Kohkoj-e-Waras -CDC-03 (34-3409-0110) |
| |Village Selection Committee |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Deh-e-Osho Alawdal –CDC-08 (34-3409-0010) |
| |Village Selection Committee |
Annexure 13 - Participants of FGI/Ds with Village Verification Committees
District Miramor
Chukrizar Barkar – CDC- 01(34-3407-0116) Village Verification Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0116 |Ghulam Haidar |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0116 |Mohammad Aman |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0116 |Dawood |Daikundi |Miramor |
S
angar kish Ulya Barger - CDC-02 (34-3407-0062) Village Verification Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0062 |Abdullah |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0062 |Nik Bakht |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0062 |Sidiqa |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0087 |Mohammad Amin |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0087 |Tahir |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0087 |Salima |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0087 |Gul Afroz |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0024 |Gul Bahar |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0024 |Ewaz |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0024 |Mohd.Hosain |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0024 |Gul Ahmad |Daikundi |Miramor |
|9 |P9 |0024 |Ewaz |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0006 |Eshaq |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0006 |Naeem |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0006 |Fatima |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0006 |Mah Jan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0089 |Haji Anwar |Daikundi |Miramor |
|3 |P3 |0089 |Roqia |Daikundi |Miramor |
|5 |P5 |0089 |Ali Jan |Daikundi |Miramor |
|7 |P7 |0089 |Habibullah |Daikundi |Miramor |
|1 |P1 |0032 |Mohammad Taher |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0032 |Mohammad |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|5 |P5 |0032 |Mahtab |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|7 |P7 |0032 |Mohammad Ali |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|1 |P1 |0127 |Jan AlI |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0127 |Hosain |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|5 |P5 |0127 |Zamen |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|7 |P7 |0127 |Rahima |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|1 |P1 |0110 |Ali Yawer |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0110 |Hassan | | |
|6 |P6 |0110 |Bakhtawer |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|1 |P1 |0109 |Said Hashim |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0109 |Mohammad Haidar |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|5 |P5 |0109 |Dawlat |Daikundi |Shahristan |
Sare Koyak Amej -CDC-05 (34-3409-0130) Village Verification Committee
|S.No |Survey Code |CDC-Code |Name |Province |District |
|1 |P1 |0130 |Anwar |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0130 |Sediqa |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|5 |P5 |0130 |Samad |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|7 |P7 |0130 |Eshaq |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|1 |P1 |0016 |Ali Bakhsh |Daikundi |Shahristan |
|3 |P3 |0016 |Jahantab |Daikundi |Shahristan |
Annexure 14 - Pictures of FGI/Ds with Village Verification Committees
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Kadanag Girow -CDC-04 (34-3409-0109) |
| |Village Verification Committee |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Kohkoj-e-Waras -CDC-03(34-3409-0110) |
| |Village Verification Committee |
|[pic] |Shahristan District |
| |Sare Koyak Amej -CDC-05 (34-3409-0130) |
| |Village Verification Committee |
Annexure 15 - The Province and District Governors
|S.No |Name |Designation |
|1 |Alhaj Qurban Ali Urozgani |Governor of Daikundi |
|2 |Rostam Ali Panahee |District Governor of Shahristan District |
|3 |Talib Hosain Farzam |District Governor of Miramor District |
| |Governor |
| |Daikundi Province |
| |Alhaj Qurban Ali Urozgani |
| |Governor |
| |Shahristan District |
| |Rustam Ali Panahee |
| |Governor |
| |Miramor District |
| |Talib Hosain Farzam |
Annexure 16 - Participants of FGI/D with DoLSAMD and FP (Oxfam-GB)
DoLSAMD
|S.No |Name |Duty |
|1 |Qurban Ali Dadfar |Manager of Monitoring and Evaluation of the Project |
|2 |Ghulam Hosain Hosain Zada |Social Protection Manager |
|3 |Ghulam Hasan |Research Manager |
|4 |Said Akbar Puya |Capacity Building Manager |
|5 |Fatema |Labour Affairs Manager |
FP - Focus Group Discussions in Daikundi Province
|S.No |Name |Duty |
|1 |Aziza |Social Employee of OXFAM |
|2 |Engineer Hosain |Responsible of performing of this project in Miramor |
| | |District |
|3 |Sharifa |Social Employee of OXFAM |
|4 |Danish |Social Employee of OXFAM |
|5 |Engineer Juma |Responsible of OXFAM in Daikundi Province |
Works Cited
Afghanistan, S. (2010). Operational Manual for Safety Net Project. Kabul: MoLSAMD.
Cooperation, G. T. (September 2007). Final Evaluation - Kalomo Social Cash Transfer Scheme. Lusaka: Ministry of Community Development & Social Services.
Report By:
Asif Jehanzeb Khan, Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist/Advisor Safety Net
Afghan Management and Marketing Consultants (AMMC)
Takhnik Bus Stop, Near 3rd District Police Station Karte 4, Kabul, Afghanistan
Tel: 0093 075-2021262
Email: aqr.slow@.af, daud@.af, alokozay@.af
Website: .af
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.