End Term Review (draft report) of PEFSA IIfrdp.org.pk/assets/publications/project_reports/... · HH, wager workers, farmers, and micro-business owners with treatment of malnutrition

End Term Review (draft report) of PEFSA II 2012




Executive Summary

The floods struck just before the harvesting of key Kharif crops at the onset of the Rabi (winter) wheat-planting season, which acutely damaged the livelihoods of people in terms of income, job opportunities and access to food across the country. This livelihood and food insecurity crises exacerbated an already critical nutrition situation as well. CARE International in Pakistan, in partnership with the VDO (Village Development Organization) and AHD (Action for Humanitarian Development). The PEFSA II project was started in September 2011 and ended in April 2012. After devastation of historic floods and rains PEFSA-II project initiatives generated various opportunities of earnings through Cash for Work and Conditional Cash Grants not only to skilled but unskilled labours to earn a reasonable amount for living. This was even significant where beneficiaries were able to establish their businesses and re-establish their agricultural processes. New scientific mechanism was opted for mapping the devastated target areas by ACTED, which made it easy to identify far flung and hard to reach areas. The most important aspect is that the project has been successful in bringing positive changes in terms of food intake for children and women. The benefits from PEFSA-II helped increase food intake for them and improved overall nutritional status. Men and women were given trainings on enterprise establishment and were also taught different skills so that they may start their own business. As a result, many have established their own businesses; home based enterprises and reduced unemployment not only for men but also for women. As people did not have any money to ensure food and shelter in this dire need of money, people had to take loans with high interest rates which kept rising hence making it almost impossible for them to pay back. Unconditional cash grants as well as other inputs helped people in preserving their valuable assets and paying off their debts. PEFSA-II has ensured the maximum involvement of women in livelihood and skill development, As a result, women have started running their own businesses and are able to handle financial matters and make decisions at home independently. Some of the respondents mostly female, during group discussion identified that due to project, they were able to get their CNIC and hence this helped them in formalizing their right of identity.

The component of nutrition in PEFSA-II has greatly improved the health of extremely malnourished affectees especially children and women. Through a supplementary food program, malnourished children and women have received food and through the Outpatient Therapeutic Program (OTP) proper treatment is provided.


Trainings on skills development, as well as information on nutrition and agricultural techniques have built the capacity of target group and will contribute towards family and local economy beyond project life. PEFSA-II has made sure that vulnerable people get an honourable and dignified mean of earning their livelihood through self help so that they do not feel themselves as a charity case. Under the project, much improvement has been observed in local business and trade. Many people have set up their own businesses thus a cottage industry has flourished. As roads have been built, traders have a direct access to production sites. People buy material from market with the cash received for setting up an enterprise or for agriculture due to which local market has been revived PEFSA-II has greatly contributed to reducing poverty through provision of livelihood opportunities, unconditional cash grants and skill development. In other words, purchasing power of people has increased. Cash grant associated with agriculture motivated people to re-cultivate their abandoned land, which not only helped them to increase their family income but also to initiate local market activities. Trainings on agricultural techniques have further increased the capacity of farmers to improve production. This has helped in employing a labour force to work on agriculture. Local committees such as village committees have been formed under PEFSA-II for carrying out project activities and also for monitoring. Study observed that the identification of beneficiaries has been strictly observed and adhered to the transparency and fairness. Furthermore, help has been sought from the local village committee and activists in selection of beneficiaries and have been later verified by the monitoring staff by meeting them on several occasions. Most of the respondents were thankful to the cash grant provided through PEFSA II in a transparent, effective and timely manner. Majority of respondents 95% showed satisfaction on the overall impact of PEFSA II project; this reflects a positive trend of the target beneficiaries about the project success.


Introduction

Project Background

Overview of the Situation

The Pakistan floods of 2010 have been cited as exceptional and among the most devastating natural calamities of current times. It caused extensive social, economic and structural damage to people lives and livelihoods across the country. Even before floods, Pakistan had low development indicators (for example, 82.6 million of people are food insecure1) and the impact of the 2010 floods further deteriorated conditions for low income and marginalized people. The floods struck just before the harvesting of key Kharif crops at the onset of the

Rabi (winter) wheat-planting season, which acutely damaged the livelihoods of

people in terms of income, job opportunities and access to food across the country.

This livelihood and food insecurity crises exacerbated an already critical nutrition

situation as well.

CARE International in Pakistan, in partnership with the VDO (Village Development

Organization) and AHD (Action for Humanitarian Development). The PEFSA II

project was started in September 2011 and ended in March 2012. Total 4345

beneficiaries form three union councils (UC Dost Ali, UC Jamali and UC Mir Pur)

benefited from this project.

Project Objectives

Specific Objective

Support consumption of sufficient quantity and quality of nutritious food and promote

the rehabilitation and restoration of self reliance of flood affected communities in a

manner that upholds their dignity

Over All Objective

To provide social protection and livelihood support to 4345 HH to most vulnerable

HH, wager workers, farmers, and micro-business owners with treatment of

malnutrition for improved livelihood and health at District Qambar-Shahdadkot in 7.5

months at flood affected areas.

Intermediate Objectives

Intermediate Objective 1


Livelihood restoration of 173 most vulnerable HH by giving them unconditional cash

grants in seven and half months at District Qambar Shahdadkot.

Results for Objective 1

1.1 -173 HH receive unconditional cash grants of 6650 for 5 months.

1.2 -173 HH access to food increased with increased productive assets.


Livelihood restoration of 1500 wage workers, HH with cash grants in 6 months at

district Qambar Shahdadkot.


2.1 -Flood damages infrastructure and community assets repaired/reconstructed at

District Qambar Shahdadkot with 1500 wage workers under CFW activity.

2.2- 1500 wager workers social security improved with constant income from cash

for work.

2.3- 1500 wager workers Livelihood Support improved with improved health due to

increased monthly HH income earned by working on CFW.


Livelihood restoration of 500 vulnerable HH with agriculture and micro-business

conditional cash grants support in 6 months at District Qambar Shahdadkot.

Results for Objective3

3.1- 500 HH (250 farmers and 250 micro-business) receive trainings for improved

livelihood methods and value addition to their existing practices.

3.2- 250 farmers receive agricultural support for restoration of their basic agricultural

system.

3.3- 250 HH receive micro-business support to increase their social and Livelihood

Support.


3.4- 500 HH(farmers and micro-business) livelihood restored with increased

Livelihood Support and productive assets.


Nutrition support to 4345 vulnerable HH for increased Livelihood Support in 7.5

months at District Qambar Shahdadkot.


4.1- 4345 HH (children and pregnant lactating women) screened for acutely

malnourished children.

4.2- FS activities with HH with malnourished children and PLW.

4.3-4345 HH sensitized on nutrition and improved health and hygiene conditions.

4.4-CMAM program implemented at intervention villages/UCs with target

beneficiaries.

Activities 1. Area Selection using secondary information from DLA, ACTED’s Digital Maps,

WFP, UNICEF and District Govt. recommendations about target areas.

2. Orientation of new staff and practical demonstration of the whole beneficiaries

selection process in the field.

3. Consultative meetings with stakeholders on the project deliverables.

4. Baseline survey of target intervention area and validation of selected area.

5. Formation and activation of Village Development Committees (VDCs) in targeted

villages.

6. Identification of vulnerable households as per selection criteria in selected

villages.

7. Need assessment of selected beneficiaries against various grants types.

8. Preparing database of selected beneficiaries per grant types.

9. Validation of selected beneficiaries in consultation with VDC, CARE, GLAs and

final validation in broader community forums.

10. Display of selected beneficiaries and selection criteria at public places in the


Village.

11. Account opening through CIF (Consumer Information Form) of selected

beneficiaries of UCG, CfW/CFT and CCG.

12. Disbursement of UCG to 345 HH for 5 months, each getting information on

nutrition.

13. Disbursement of 500 Ag grants as per agriculture calendar among the most

Malnutrition HH.

14. Training of 250 HH for micro-business management

15. Provision of CCG to 250 farmers.

16. Provision of CCG to 250 HH for micro-business activities.

17. Screening of 4345 HH each containing seven members for malnourished children

18. Development of referral system to outpatient’s treatment sites.

19. Sensitization sessions with 4345 HH on nutrition, acceptable food scores, health

and hygiene.

20. Implementation of CMAM program in intervention area

21. Disbursement of cash against work/training grants to 3000 HH. Develop training

plan for agriculture and micro business support.


2. Methodology and processes

General Objective:

Main Objective behind the End line (Evaluation) was to find the impact of the

Livelihoods project on the community and to find that were the nutritional needs met

as per project expectations or not, in three union council’s of District Qambar &

Shahdadkot.

Specific Objectives:

1. Is overall purpose of the project achieved

2. Is nutritional needs met?

3. Were there proper utilization of all modalities (mentioned in proposal)

4. Effects of all grants on local market? (price hike etc)

5. Is purchasing power improved or not?

6. 95% women received grants so has this improved their decision making?

7. Is economic condition of women improved?


Evaluation Period

Activity plan

ID Task Activity

Days (Assignment Period)

13th

June to 26th

June 2012 (13

Days)

1 Management

1.1 Hiring of project team 1 √

1.2 Staff orientation and work planning 1 √

1.3 Mobilization of resources/vehicles/material 1 √

2 Data Collection & Entry

2.1 Data Collection from UC’s 7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

2.2 Data Entry and Data Cleaning √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

3 Reporting

3.1 Data Analysis in SPSS √ √

3.2 Initial Report submitted to Care International √ √

3.3 Final report √

Evaluation Methodology

The End Project Review aimed to collect data from the 3 Union Councils of district

Kamber-Shahdadkot. The targeted UCs of Kamabar Shahdadkot were Dost Ali,

Jamali and Mir Pur. Overall 60 villages were included as target villages in 3 UCs.

The evaluation process was developed based on a methodological participative

evaluation plan geared toward the analysis of the project’s Framework of Indicators

to allow for a quantitative and qualitative valuation of the indicators, and measure the

degree of fulfilment of expected and established objectives (Project Logical

Framework).

The methodology adopted with consultation from CIP to achieve the efficient and

quality results. Because the scale of the project and time constraints and impact

need to be evaluated to understand and brought the lessons learnt to stake holders.

Therefore the study based on following:


Information gathering phase

For this, sources of information verification established within the framework of

indicators and other complements were selected and identified during the

information gathering and analysis phase, as delivered by project team.

Review of the Project documents

Review of Project Reports and documents

In depth interviews of the project beneficiaries.

Focus groups with the project audience

Review of Project Activities Reports

Desk review of data

In addition, the information provided by the Baseline study and Mid Term Review

was also reviewed:

Consultation with stake holders

As part of consultative process meetings were conducted with care project

management and project staff and project team to get in-depth understanding of the

PEFSA II intervention.

Research based on quantitative and qualitative tools

A combination of qualitative and quantitative survey techniques was used, while

snow ball sampling method was applied for the household survey. For the

assessment of expected outcomes of the project and its impact a comprehensive

questionnaire was designed to collect the data. Whereas for the qualitative part of

the study which included In Depth Interviews (IDIs) and Focus Group Discussion

(FGDs), guidelines were developed to gather information from the target groups.

Team conducted the evaluation through verifiable tools such as;

FGDs (Focus Group Discussions)

These FGDs were geared toward gathering information provided by all four types of

grant beneficiaries from both sexes. A list of topics has been developed with the help

of a research team. The selected sample comprised project beneficiaries, village

committee members and other non-beneficiary community members. Women and

elderly were purposely included in the groups. Focused group discussion topics were

built on the questions asked in the questionnaire in order to get detailed information

as well as to get varying elaborated perspectives on project related services, its


benefits, present needs of community and suggestions for improvement in the

program.

IDIs (In-depth Interviews)

These were designed to gathered information provided by the target beneficiaries.

The following basic information was obtained from these interviews:

Household Interviews

Male female beneficiaries of all four types of grants from project area was included

for information gathering though household survey.

Training of the Field Staff

The training of the surveyors was conducted at the start of the study and attended by

all team members. Each member was given specialized supervision to demonstrate

quality work. There were daily follow ups on findings and learning of the field work.

Sample

The End Line Project Review was conducted in 3 Union Councils of district Kamber

shahdadkot. The snow ball sampling method was used for household survey

Besides household survey other stake holders were also assessed for their

perception of project through In-depth Interviews (IDIs) and Focus Group

Discussions (FGDs).

Following targets of the above were achieved during the end term review survey:

Grant name Total Beneficiaries

UC Mirpur 51 % UC Dost Ali 51 %

UC Jamali 51 %

CFW 3,000 225 119 106

Micro Business 500 37 17 21

Agri Grant 500 38 24 14

Un Conditional 345 26 16 9

House Hold Questioner = N 652 M+F

Focus Group Discussion = Total 10 Participants 15 In-depth interviews (IDIs) = Total 10 (Stake Holders, VDC, Beneficiaries)

Review of reports on advances made on project activities

Implemented as a validation procedure and complementary information which was

officially reported, this review ensured the identification of data on the production of

services, a recount of training activities and community work, and all information

related to the general operations of the project.


Information processing and analysis phase:

Processing of data from the Survey carried out as part of the final evaluation.

Processing and consolidation of the results of the In-depth Interviews

Processing of the results obtained from the Focus Groups

Processing of the information contained in the reports on Advances Made on

the project.

Final Evaluation Report Preparation Phase:

Analysis of each of the indicators, both on a quantitative and qualitative level.

Analysis according to project purposes, based on verification indicators, as a

result of the degree of success of the products achieved.


Project Review and Data Analysis


Most of the affected individuals suffered multiple lose. Review shows the

catastrophic devastation caused by the floods and it damaged 87.6 % houses

completely including the furniture, fixture and other goods while 7.7 % was partially

damaged. This indicates that damages to the housing structures deprived the

residents of a respectable shelter. The tables below show the grant wise numbers of

beneficiaries/ households affected in terms of damage to the houses. Table and

graph below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

Did you have House before flood, if yes after flood what happened with it?

Table 1

Graph 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Complete damage Partial damage No damage

87.3

7.7 5

Indicators UCG Cash for work/wage

Micro business grants

Agri grants Total

Status of house after flood

Complete damage

88.6 86.6 87.7 89.5 87.3

Partial damage

5.7 8.1 5.5 9.2 7.7

No damage

5.7 5.3 6.8 1.3 5


To get the information about the level of damage occurred to the houses

during the floods and the recovery made a direct question was asked from the

respondent beneficiaries. Response shows that project provided the most needed

support to construct the shelters after floods as 8% responded that they have built

their house after project while 57. 4 % houses have been partially constructed.

Against this backdrop of losses and damages to household assets, the review

discovered that people were still working on the recovery and have not been able to

complete the recovery of losses to their houses. Table and graph below indicates the

number and view of the respondents.

Did you built your house after project? If yes how much it has been built?

Table 2 Indicators UCG Cash for

work/wage Micro business

grants Agri grants Total

Complete construction

8.6 7.7 6.8 10.5 8

Partial construction

51.4 55.9 58.1 71.1 57.4

No construction 40 34.9 33.8 15.8 33.1

Graph 2

0

20

40

60

Complete construction Partial construction No construction

8

57.4

33.1


Although the level of complete recovery of the houses is not that much

significant and majority is in process of reconstruction. But when responded

beneficiaries were asked that how much project helped them in it 61.2% said the

project support appeared very significant in rebuilding their house/shelters. That

appears a major contribution of short term PEFSA II intervention in the target

communities. Table and


Did project grant help in building your house?


work/wage Micro business

grants Agri grants Total

Yes 50 59.2 60.8 84.2 61.2

No 42.9 36 32.4 14.5 33.9

Don't know 7.1 4.8 6.8 1.3 4.9

Graph 4

0

20

40

60

80

Yes No Don't know

61.2

33.9

4.9


Some base line information has been gathered for the comparison purposes

to get insight about the livestock situation before and after flood and particularly to

gauge the level of damage occurred to them which was directly related to the income

and nutrition needs of the respondents families. Responses shows that 22.2%

responded had up to 2 livestock units, 25.4% were owning up to 4, 19.4% up to 6,

8.9% were having up to 8 while only 5.8 % had more than 8 livestock units. Table

and graph below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

Did you have livestock before the flood; if yes how many were these?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Number of livestock before flood

1-2 15.7 21.3 20.3 35.5 22.2

3-4 27.1 25.7 25.7 22.4 25.4

5-6 25.7 19.3 16.2 17.1 19.4

7-8 11.4 7.9 13.5 7.9 8.9

8+ 10.0 4.6 10.8 3.9 5.8

Not mentioned 10.0 21.3 13.5 13.2 18.3

Graph 5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1 to 2

3 to 4

5 to 6

7 to 8

8+

Not mentioned

22.2

25.4

19.4

8.9

5.8

18.3


The major livelihood component in rural sindh like livestock and agriculture

sector were hit hard by the flood, cotton, rice, sugarcane, fruits, vegetables, fodder,

livestock and poultry were badly damaged. In response to the livestock damages

46.2% respondents said that their livestock was completely damaged and 32.2 said

it was partially damaged. While only 11.2% didn’t get any damage or lose to their

livestock. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

How much damage flood caused to your live stock?

Table 6: Indicators UCG Cash for

work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Flood caused damaged to livestock

Complete damage 44.3 43.6 47.3 61.8 46.2

Partial damage 38.6 34.2 37.8 26.3 34.2

No damage 7.1 6.6 6.8 2.6 6.2

DK 5.7 14.7 5.4 1.3 11.2

Not mentioned 4.3 .9 2.7 7.9 2.2

Graph 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Complete damage

Partial damage

No damage DK Not mentioned

46.2

34.2

6.2 11.2

2.2


Respondent beneficiaries were also asked about the present status of their

livestock to gauge the rehabilitation of livelihood. 65.2 % respondents said that they

have up to 4 livestock at present. This was a significant recovery to improve family

income and livelihood of the target communities. Table and graph below indicates

the number and view of the respondents.

How many Livestock you have at the moment, please give number?


work/wage Micro

business

grants

Agri grants Total

Number of present livestock

1-2 54.3 37.1 44.6 51.3 41.3

3-4 14.3 20.0 25.7 19.7 20.0 5-6 4.3 5.5 2.7 6.6 5.2 7-8 2.9 1.8 1.4 1.6 Don't know 31.8 1.4 3.9 22.0 Not mentioned 24.3 3.9 24.3 18.4 9.9

Graph 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 8 Don't know Not mentioned

41.3

20

5.2 1.6

22

9.9


Study also aimed at the income level before flood and after project to get

insight into the monthly income pattern of the responded beneficiaries. Responses

show that major income groups falls into the first two categories under which 78.3%

were earning less than or up to 5000 per month. 10.5% said they were earning up to

10000 per month and only 5.8% were earning up to 15000. This was due to the fact

that majority of the beneficiaries fell in the into low income groups, where this is also

evident of adherence to the criteria of selection of beneficiaries.Table and graph

below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

What was your monthly Income before flood?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Monthly income before flood

Less than 5000

55.7 45.0 44.6 63.2 48.1

Up to 5000 21.4 32.2 29.7 26.3 30.2

Up to 10000 15.7 10.5 10.8 5.3 10.5

Upto15000 5.7 4.8 13.5 1.3 5.5

Don't' know 1.4 7.5 1.4 3.9 5.8

Graph 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than 5000 Up to 5000 Upto 10000 Upto15000 Don't' know

48.1

30.2

10.5

5.5 5.8


When asked about the present income of the family 79% respondent

beneficiaries replied that their income falls into less than or up to 5000 per month.

11.4% is earning 10000 per month while only 3.1% comes into the 15000 category.

This consistent pattern also indicates that the rehabilitation of the family income

though cash grant worked for the flood victims. Table and graph below indicates the

number and view of the respondents.

What is your current monthly income?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Present monthly income

Less than 5000 61.4 43.9 39.2 60.5 47.0

Up to 5000 22.9 33.3 40.5 23.7 32.0

Up to 10000 10.0 11.2 14.9 10.5 11.4

Upto15000 4.3 2.9 5.4 1.3 3.1

Don't know 1.4 8.8 3.9 6.5

Graph 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than 5000

Up to 5000 Up to 10000 Upto15000 Don't know

47

32

11.4

3.1 6.5


Most of the affected individuals suffered multiple lose. Effect of flood

devastation is more evident on the farmers which fall into the low income group.

Most of the farmers lost their crops in this catastrophic event which ultimately caused

a severe decrease in their family income, food and health security. While asked

about the level of damage to their crops majority of respondent beneficiaries (71.2%)

crops were fully destroyed or damages while 18.3% were partially damages. Only

4.4% said that flood didn’t cause any damage to their crops. Table and graph below

indicates the number and view of the respondents.

Is there any loss of your Crops & business in flood, if yes how much?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Loss of crops & business in flood

Complete damage

61.4 72.1 70.3 75.0 71.2

Partial damage 17.1 18.9 17.6 17.1 18.3

No damage 12.9 2.6 5.4 5.3 4.3

DK 5.7 4.2 6.8 2.6 4.4

Not mentioned 2.9 2.2 1.8

Graph 10

0

20

40

60

80

Complete damage

Partial damage


71.2

18.3

4.3 4.4 1.8


In order to survive in such dreadful conditions, the majority of the flood victims

had to take on loan in order to survive. The review revealed that most of the

respondents already had a level of loan before floods. Around 27.4% the

respondents stated they had loan up to pay at least some level of debt (i.e. minimum

PKR 5000). This debt increase after the flood ho10000, 31.5% had up to 20000,

17.6% had up to 30000 while 8.3% were under up to 50000 loan. Table and graph


Did you have loan after flood, if yes how much?

Table 11

Graph 11

25.4

30.2 17.9

11.1

9 6.4

Up to 10000 k

Up to 20000 k

Up to 30000 k

Up to 50000 k

Don't know

Not mentioned

Indicators UCG Cash for work/wage

Micro business grants

Agri grants Total

Still have loan

Up to 10000 k 32.9 26.3 31.1 25.0 27.4

Up to 20000 k 15.7 34.2 28.4 32.9 31.5

Up to 30000 k 22.9 15.4 23.0 21.1 17.6

Up to 50000 k 7.1 9.2 4.1 7.9 8.3

Don't know 12.1 3.9 8.6

Not mentioned 21.4 2.9 13.5 9.2 6.7


Though, PEFSA-II did not design activities to directly contribute in loan

reduction, however its inputs were used directly or indirectly by the beneficiaries to

reduce their loan burden and the inputs from the project helped to bring it down.

Following table shows that intervention helped in reducing their loan load

significantly. 18.8% respondent beneficiaries agreed that it helped a lot while 60.4%

said it partially helped to reduce. Table and graph below indicates the number and

view of the respondents.

Did the project grant help you to reduce your loan? if yes then how

much?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Project grants help to reduce loan

Completely 7.1 21.7 9.5 21.1 18.8

Partially 67.1 55.7 75.7 67.1 60.4

Didn't help 7.1 15.4 9.5 7.9 13.0

Don't know 2.6 2.6 2.1

None 18.6 4.6 5.4 1.3 5.8

Graph 12

18.8

60.4

13

2.1

5.8 Completely

Partially

Didn't help

Don't know

None


Cash Transfers were made to facilitate quick liquidity in the flood-affected

communities and to increase purchasing power. In addition, cash transfers helped

increase the functional development at local level. Bifurcation of respondents under

the grant category reveals that 79.8% beneficiaries got grant under Cash for work or

cash for training. While 5.5% beneficiary’s falls under agriculture category and only

5% took unconditional cash grant. Table and graph below indicates the number and

view of the respondents.

In which modality you got grant in PEFSA II?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

In which modality you got the grant

Cash for work 25.7 84.9 16.2 25.0 64.5

Cash for training 5.7 9.4 13.5 18.4 10.5

Both cash work/training

2.9 3.5 1.4 2.8

Agri 48.7 5.5

Micro business 51.4 5.6

UCG 48.6 5.0

Don't know 10.0 2.0 16.2 1.3 4.3

None 7.1 .2 1.4 6.6 1.8

Graph 13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cash for work

Cash for training


Agri

Micro business

UCG

Don't know

None

64.5

10.5

2.8

5.5

5.6 5

4.3

1.8


In case of how did beneficiaries got selected for the PEFSA II grants, 76%

respondents said that the project accessed them, 20.9 were selected by village

committees while only 2.1% learnt it from some other source. This shows that the

project team affectively follow the identification process and reached the doorstep of

the affectees for service delivery. The table and graph is as follows:

How did you get selected for this grant?


work/wage Micro

business

grants

Agri grants

Total

Selected for grant by

By project team 82.9 72.1 81.1 88.2 76.0

By village committee 14.3 24.6 14.9 10.5 20.9

On you own 1.4 2.2 2.7 1.3 2.1

By other source 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.0

Graph 14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

By project team

By village committee

On you own

By other source

76

20.9

2.1

1


During the study it has been observed that people were well aware about the

selection criteria and that shows a pattern of better needs assessment with

involvement of communities. It also reflects on the interaction of project team with

the beneficiaries. 64.8% respondents completely aware about the selection criteria

and only 21.7% were partially aware about it. That is very significant for any cash

grant intervention in emergency response. Knowing and understanding the criteria is

an essential part of the relief work specifically when it comes to cash transfers so

that community does not involved in internal conflicts. Without knowledge on

selection criteria, people may have went in to conflict with PEFSA-II staff as well as

with the village committees. The table and graph is as follows:

Do you know what the selection criteria for modality of this grant PEFSA II?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Knows about selection criteria

Yes 78.6 62.9 74.3 53.9 64.8

Partially know 12.9 24.1 14.9 22.4 21.7

No 5.7 9.0 9.5 18.4 9.8

No answer 2.9 3.9 1.4 5.3 3.7

Graph15

0

20

40

60

80

Yes Partially know No No answer

64.8

21.7

9.8 3.7


Data also reflects the level of satisfaction among beneficiaries regarding the

fairness and transparency in the selection process adopted by the PEFSA II project

team and CIP staff. More than 87% respondents were satisfied with the process and

significantly 8.4% respondents showed dissatisfaction and reflected their concerns

about the beneficiary’s selection process. The table and graph is as follows:

Do you think the process of selection of Beneficiary was transparent?


work/wage Micro

business

grants

Agri grants

Total

Process of selection is transparent

Yes 94.3 86.0 86.5 89.5 87.3

No 5.7 9.2 12.2 2.6 8.4

DK 4.8 1.4 7.9 4.3

Graph16

0

50

100

Yes No DK

87.3

8.4 4.3


When respondents were asked are they satisfied with selection criteria

significant number of responses showed complete satisfaction and adherence to the

criteria adopted by the project field teams but 7.1% respondents showed

dissatisfaction. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the

respondents.

Are you satisfied from the beneficiary selection criteria?


work/wage

Micro

business grants

Agri

grants

Total

Satisfied from the beneficiary selection criteria

Yes 95.7 84.4 89.2 89.5 86.7

No 2.9 8.3 6.8 3.9 7.1

Don't know 1.4 7.2 4.1 6.6 6.2

Graph 17

0

50

100

Yes No DK

86.7

7.1 6.2


Respondents were also asked about what benefit respondent got from the

grant. Results indicate that it contributed positively in increasing income, 32.4% of

respondents have mentioned that grant money has contributed to increasing their

income, which may lead to a better livelihood and food security. 48% respondents

used it to reduce their loans, while more than 30% used to get some health facility.

Furthermore 2.68% said that in helped to increase family savings. In other words, an

indirect result has been an improvement in education, health, food security etc.

Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

Did you get any benefit from Cash Grant, if yes what benefit did you get?

Table 18 Indicator UCG Cash for

work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Increase in income 20.0 27.6 45.9 35.5 32.4

Loan reduced 42.9 51.8 47.3 50.0 48

Got access to health 37.1 25.4 31.1 27.6 30.3

Saving increased 4.3 3.7 1.4 1.3 2.68

Better livelihood 40.0 17.3 25.7 23.7 26.68

Graph 18

0 10 20 30 40 50

Increase in income

Loan reduced

Got access to health

Saving increased

Better livelihood

32.4

48

30.3

2.68

26.68


PEFSA-II has ensured the maximum involvement of women in livelihood and

skill development, As a result, women have started running their own businesses

and are able to handle financial matters and make decisions at home independently.

Data shows that project helped to improve women decision making in house hold

matters. Almost 60% respondents were agreed with it, 22.2% were partially agreed

and 12.6% said that there is no change in decision making process at house hold

level. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the respondents.

Did this project support/grant help to improve women decision making in house hold matters?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Project help to improve women decision making in HH matters

Yes 75.7 60.5 55.4 42.1 59.5

No 7.1 14.0 9.5 11.8 12.6

To an extant 14.3 18.9 32.4 39.5 22.2

Don't know 2.9 6.6 2.7 6.6 5.8

Graph19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No To an extant Don't know


59.5

12.6

22.2

5.8


Table’s shows that almost 20% respondents stated that PEFSA II helped in

complete rehabilitation of business activates in the area, 67% agreed with it partially

while 9.3% disagreed. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the

respondents.

Did project help to rehabilitate business activities in the area after flood?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Project helped to rehabilitate business activities in the area after flood

Fully 15.7 20.8 13.5 23.7 19.8

Partially 72.9 63.8 78.4 69.7 67.0

Not 8.6 11.2 5.4 2.6 9.3

Don't know 4.2 2.7 3.9 3.6

Not mentioned 2.9 .3

Table

Graph20

0

20

40

60

80

Fully Partially Not Don't know Not mentioned


19.8

67

9.3 3.6 0.3


Devastation of flood caused food insecurity which leads to malnutrition in the

area. While discussing on who identified the malnourished, the majority were in

consensus that PEFSA-II staff did the identification, this shows a positive trend

showing better coordination and community outreach.18.6% respondents families

have 1 malnutrition person, 7.4% had 2, while 4.7% had 3 such person at home and

1.2% said they had 4 or more malnutrition person. Table and graph below indicates

the number and view of the respondents.

Was there any Malnutrition Patient in your households before the project?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Malnutrition patient in the area

None 68.6 67.3 78.4 61.8 68.0

1 22.9 18.4 13.5 21.1 18.6

2 2.9 7.9 8.1 7.9 7.4

3 5.7 4.6 9.2 4.7

4+ 1.8 1.2

Table

Graph 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

None 1 2 3 4+


68

18.6

7.4 4.7 1.2


Malnutrition patients were treated under the modality of Supplementary

Food Program (SFP) while those with advanced malnutrition were treated under the

Outpatient Therapeutic Program (OTP). 5.5% Respondent beneficiaries shared that

they treated under SFP while 8.1% were treated under OTP, and majority of patients

get treatment by some other means/sources as different national and international

organizations has been providing some services in the same area. Table and graph


Did any malnutrition beneficiary was part of the FSL activity, if yes what you have got?e

Table 22 Indicator UCG Cash for

work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

CMAM 11.4 5.0 5.4 2.6 5.5

SAM 12.9 7.9 8.1 5.3 8.1

Some other 5.7 57.9 8.1 5.3 41.1

Graph 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

SFP OTP Some other

5.5 8.1

41.1


When asked 41.6% respondents said that their nutrition needs were

satisfied through the project intervention, 28.4% was partially satisfied while 15.7%

showed dissatisfaction. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the

respondents.

Did your family / House Hold nutrition needs get satisfied through the project support?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

HH nutrition needs get satisfied through project

Yes 51.4 37.9 54.1 42.1 41.6

Partially 31.4 26.5 27.0 38.2 28.4

No 10.0 19.1 10.8 5.3 15.7

Don't know 1.4 15.1 5.4 5.3 11.5

Not mentioned 5.7 1.3 2.7 9.2 2.8

Graph 23

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Yes

Partially

No

Don't know

Not mentioned

HH

nu

trit

ion

nee

ds

get

sati

sfie

d t

hro

ugh

p

roje

ct

41.6

28.4

15.7

11.5

2.8


An implicit objective of the nutrition programme was to improve and

diversify the dietary pattern of the communities who are generally used to a specific

diet. The perceptions identified during review show that majority of the respondent

thought they have a significant change in the way they take their diet. This may be

attributed to the information/IEC training provided by the PEFSA II staff. While asked

about the this 81.8% respondents said they got knowledge or some information

about nutrition or diet, while only 7,7% didn’t get any kind of training or information

through project. Respondent beneficiaries also showed significant level of

satisfaction about the training level and its contents, while only 4.9% showed some

dissatisfaction. Comparative table and graph below indicates the number and view of

the respondents.


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

HH member get any training/knowledge/IEC material on nutrition/ diet

Yes 85.7 80.7 86.5 80.3 81.8

No 2.9 9.0 5.4 6.6 7.7

Don't know 1.4 9.9 8.1 11.8 9.0

Not mentioned 10.0 .4 1.3 1.5


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Satisfied from the knowledge provided by the project

Yes 91.4 84.0 85.1 78.9 84.3

No 1.4 6.4 1.4 2.6 4.9

Don't know 7.1 9.6 13.5 18.4 10.8


Graph 24-25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Yes No Don't know

Yes No Don't know

HH member get any training on nutrition/ diet


81.8

7.7 9

84.3

4.9 10.8


Majority of the respondents (73.8%) said yes when asked did project

helped people in rehabilitation, while only 4% said no, while 19.4% said it helped to

some extent, which reflects positive image of the intervention among beneficiaries in

the project area. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the

respondents.

Do you feel that the project helped people to rehabilitate?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Project helped people in rehabilitation

Yes 78.6 72.4 74.3 77.6 73.8

No 2.9 5.0 2.7 4.0

To some extant 15.7 19.7 18.9 21.1 19.4

Don't know 2.9 2.9 4.1 1.3 2.8

Graph 26

73.8

4

19.4

2.8

Yes

No

To some extant

Don't know


When respondent beneficiaries asked whether this project helped them

in rehabilitation process or not, 56.7% said yes it helped, 38.6% said it partially

helped while only 3.6% said no. Overall impact in terms of livelihood rehabilitation is

being reflected highly significant. Through Cash for Work and Conditional Cash

Grants, various opportunities of earning were provided to not only skilled but

unskilled labour as well to work to earn a reasonable amount for living. Table and


Do you feel this project helped people to improve their livelihood?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Project helped people to improve their livelihood

Yes 64.3 53.9 55.4 67.1 56.7

Partially 27.1 42.1 35.1 31.6 38.6

No 4.3 3.1 8.1 1.3 3.6

Don't know 4.3 .9 1.4 1.2

Graph 27

56.7

38.6

3.6 1.2

Yes

Partially

No

Don't know


Data in the following table shows that 39.1% respondents were

convinced that project helped to reduce food and income related risk, while almost

38% were not fully satisfied. Table and graph below indicates the number and view

of the respondents.

Did t the risks related to Food and income sources have been reduced with the support of this grant?


work/wage

Micro

business grants

Agri

grants

Total

Risks related to food and income have been reduced

Yes 57.1 37.1 33.8 39.5 39.1

No 28.6 34.6 56.8 47.4 37.9

Don't know 10.0 27.6 8.1 13.2 22.0

Not mentioned 4.3 .7 1.4 1.0

Graph 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Yes No Don't know Not mentioned


39.1 37.9

22

1


A significant number of respondents (71.9%) agreed to the statement

that the grant helped to change inability to meet house hold food needs, while only

4.4% said no and 22.2% were of opinion that it helped partially. Table and graph


Is the grant support change in ability of households to meet their food needs?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Grant support change in ability of HHs to meet their food needs

Yes 74.3 70.8 78.4 69.7 71.9

No 5.7 5.5 1.4 4.4

to some extant 17.1 22.8 18.9 26.3 22.2

No answer 2.9 .9 1.4 3.9 1.5

Graph 29

71.9

4.4

22.2

1.5

Yes

No

to some extant

No answer


One of main objective of the any cash grant projects aims to allow

beneficiaries to buy complementary inputs not included in the package, and/or to

purchase food in areas where it was in short supply. This ultimately changes the

expenditure patterns in project area. Similarly results are obtained while asked

same by beneficiaries; a significant majority (73.4%) agreed that grant changed their

expenditure pattern, while 22.2 % said their pattern changed partially while only

3.6% said no to this. Table and graph below indicates the number and view of the

respondents.

Do you think that grant support has brought any change in expenditure patterns of your daily routine?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants

Total

Grant support has brought change in expenditure patterns

Yes 75.7 72.6 78.4 71.1 73.4

No 5.7 4.2 1.4 3.6

To some extant 18.6 22.6 20.3 25.0 22.2

No answer .7 3.9 .9

Graph 30

73.4

3.6

22.2

0.9

Yes

No

To some extant

No answer


While being asked most of the respondents were thankful for the cash grant

provided through PEFSA II in a transparent, effective and timely manner. 95%

respondents showed satisfaction on the overall impact of PEFSA II project; this

reflects a positive trend of the target beneficiaries about the project success.

Are you satisfied with the overall impact of the project in the area?


work/wage Micro

business grants

Agri grants Total

Satisfied with the overall impact of the project

Yes 94.3 96.1 90.5 93.4 95.0

No 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3

Don't know 4.3 2.4 8.1 6.6 3.7

Graph 31

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Don't know


95

1.3 3.7


Conclusion


After devastation of historic floods and rains PEFSA-II project initiatives

generated various opportunities of earnings through Cash for Work and

Conditional Cash Grants not only to skilled but unskilled labours to earn a

reasonable amount for living. This was even significant where beneficiaries

were able to establish their businesses and re-establish their agricultural

processes.

New scientific mechanism was opted for mapping the devastated target areas

by ACTED, which made it easy to identify far flung and hard to reach areas.

The most important aspect is that the project has been successful in bringing

positive changes in terms of food intake for children and women. The benefits

from PEFSA-II helped increase food intake for them and improved overall

nutritional status.

Men and women were given trainings on enterprise establishment and were

also taught different skills so that they may start their own business. As a

result, many have established their own businesses, home based enterprises

and reduced unemployment not only for men but also for women.

As people did not have any money to ensure food and shelter in this dire need

of money, people had to take loans with high interest rates which kept rising

hence making it almost impossible for them to pay back. Unconditional cash

grants as well as other inputs helped people in preserving their valuable

assets and paying off their debts.

PEFSA-II has ensured the maximum involvement of women in livelihood and

skill development, As a result, women have started running their own

businesses and are able to handle financial matters and make decisions at

home independently. Some of the respondents mostly female, during group

discussion identified that due to project, they were able to get their CNIC and

hence this helped them in formalizing their right of identity.


The component of nutrition in PEFSA-II has greatly improved the health of

extremely malnourished affectees especially children and women. Through a

supplementary food program, malnourished children and women have

received food as it was not directly implemented by CIP so the patients were

referred to NDS for Outpatient Therapeutic Program (OTP) for proper

treatment.

Trainings on skills development, as well as information on nutrition and

agricultural techniques have built the capacity of target group and will

contribute towards family and local economy beyond project life.

PEFSA-II has made sure that vulnerable people get an honourable and

dignified mean of earning their livelihood through self help so that they do not

feel themselves as a charity case.

Under the project, much improvement has been observed in local business

and trade. Many people have set up their own businesses thus a cottage

industry has flourished. As roads have been built, traders have a direct

access to production sites. People buy material from market with the cash

received for setting up an enterprise or for agriculture due to which local

market has been revived

PEFSA-II has greatly contributed to reducing poverty through provision of

livelihood opportunities, unconditional cash grants and skill development. In

other words, purchasing power of people has increased.

Cash grant associated with agriculture motivated people to re-cultivate their

abandoned land, which not only helped them to increase their family income

but also to initiate local market activities. Trainings on agricultural techniques

have further increased the capacity of farmers to improve production. This has

helped in employing a labour force to work on agriculture.


Local committees such as village committees have been formed under

PEFSA-II for carrying out project activities and also for monitoring.

Study observed that the identification of beneficiaries has been strictly

observed and adhered to the transparency and fairness. Furthermore, help

has been sought from the local village committee and activists in selection of

beneficiaries and have been later verified by the monitoring staff by meeting

them on several occasions.


Recommendations


The PEFSA II had very positive impact on addressing the immediate needs of

the disaster-hit communities. The main reason for its success can be

attributed to the fact that the intervention was short term and immediately

launched after disaster and at a time when there was dire need of cash.

Another main reason

Probably the best feature of the project was the complaint redressal

mechanism (CRM), through which locals have been given the freedom to

lodge any complaint or comment regarding any issue pertaining to project

activities or its staff.

But still there is room to improve on the monitoring and accountability

mechanism for cash transfers through a more intense community mobilization

and empowerment intervention.

Gender mainstreaming needs to be focused more in future intervention to

empower most vulnerable part of the society especially in such a devastating

situation.

Project documentation should have been more focused to facilitate process

monitoring and formative evacuation or reviews.


Annexure A


0

20

40

60

80

100

Complete damage Partial damage No damage

87.3

7.7 5

0

20

40

60

Complete construction Partial construction No construction

8

57.4

33.1

0

20

40

60

80

Yes No Don't know

61.2

33.9

4.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1 to 2

3 to 4

5 to 6

7 to 8

8+

Not mentioned

22.2

25.4

19.4

8.9

5.8

18.3


0

10

20

30

40

50

Complete damage

Partial damage


46.2

34.2

6.2 11.2

2.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 to 8 Don't know Not mentioned

41.3

20

5.2 1.6

22

9.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than 5000 Up to 5000 Upto 10000 Upto15000 Don't' know

48.1

30.2

10.5

5.5 5.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Less than 5000

Up to 5000 Up to 10000 Upto15000 Don't know

47

32

11.4

3.1 6.5


0

20

40

60

80

Complete damage

Partial damage


71.2

18.3

4.3 4.4 1.8

25.4

30.2 17.9

11.1

9 6.4

Up to 10000 k

Up to 20000 k

Up to 30000 k

Up to 50000 k

Don't know

Not mentioned

18.8

60.4

13

2.1

5.8 Completely

Partially

Didn't help

Don't know

None

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Cash for work

Cash for training


Agri

Micro business

UCG

Don't know

None

64.5

10.5

2.8

5.5

5.6 5

4.3

1.8


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

By project team

By village committee

On you own

By other source

76

20.9

2.1

1

0

20

40

60

80

Yes Partially know No No answer

64.8

21.7

9.8 3.7

0

50

100

Yes No DK

87.3

8.4 4.3

0

50

100

Yes No DK

86.7

7.1 6.2


0 10 20 30 40 50

Increase in income

Loan reduced

Got access to health

Saving increased

Better livelihood

32.4

48

30.3

2.68

26.68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yes No To an extant Don't know


59.5

12.6

22.2

5.8

0

20

40

60

80

Fully Partially Not Don't know Not mentioned


19.8

67

9.3 3.6 0.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

None 1 2 3 4+


68

18.6

7.4 4.7 1.2


0

10

20

30

40

50

SFP OTP Some other

5.5 8.1

41.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Yes

Partially

No

Don't know

Not mentioned

HH

nu

trit

ion

nee

ds

get

sati

sfie

d t

hro

ugh

p

roje

ct

41.6

28.4

15.7

11.5

2.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Don't know

Yes No Don't know

HH member get any training on nutrition/ diet


81.8

7.7 9

84.3

4.9 10.8

73.8

4

19.4

2.8

Yes

No

To some extant

Don't know


56.7

38.6

3.6 1.2

Yes

Partially

No

Don't know

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Yes No Don't know Not mentioned


39.1 37.9

22

1

71.9

4.4

22.2

1.5

Yes

No

to some extant

No answer

73.4

3.6

22.2

0.9

Yes

No

To some extant

No answer


0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No Don't know


95

1.3 3.7


Annexure B (Pictures)




Annexure C (Tools)

Documents

End Term Review (draft report) of PEFSA IIfrdp.org.pk/assets/publications/project_reports/... · HH, wager workers, farmers, and micro-business owners with treatment of malnutrition