M J u l y 2 0 M J u l y 2 0 1 4 T EVALUATION EX-POST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN UGANDA: 2006-2011 August 2014 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc., with Ipsos Limited. COVER PHOTO Uganda, 2014, Photo by Catherine Lunyolo, A New Dawn Photography Campaign EX-POST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF USAID ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN UGANDA: 2006 - 2011 Michael Midling, Ph.D., Team Leader Paul Bukuluki, Ph.D., Deputy Team Leader Eric Awich Ochen, Ph.D. Robert Okeny August 2014 AID-617-TO-14-00001; AID-RAN-I-00-09-00016 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. i ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. iv I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.......................................................................................................... 2 III. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 7 A. EVALUATION METHODS ................................................................................................................. 7 B. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION .............................................................................................10 IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................12 A. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................12 a. 1.0 What were the contributions of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts?..................................................................................................................................................12 i. 1.1 What were the needs and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda?....................12 ii. 1.2 How did USAID respond to the needs and challenges?..............................................................20 iii. 1.3 To what extent did USAID assistance create tangible benefits and other social and economic opportunities for displaced Ugandans?.....................................................................................................47 iv. 1.4 How did USAID’s strategic objectives support the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives?.....................................................................................................51 b. 2.0 How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives?........................................................................54 i. 2.1 What evidence is there that USAID’s programming goals for assistance addressed the root causes of the conflict?.......................................................................................................................................61 ii. 2.2 What evidence is there that having a permanent office in the North has contributed to the long￾term sustainability of activities?...............................................................................................................63 c. 3.0 To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda’s evolving conditions?.....................................................................66 i. 3.1 How well did USAID and its implementing partners respond to evolving conditions in northern Uganda? ................................................................................................................................................66 ii. 3.2 What evidence is there that USAID project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and service delivery have continued after project closure?..............................................................................72 B. CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................77 C. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................81 a. 4.0 From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda’s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? .........................................................................................81 ANNEX I: BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................86 ANNEX II: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK ......................................................................................97 ANNEX III: EVALUATION DESIGN REPORT (INCLUDING EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS) .......................................................................................................119 ANNEX III-A: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ASSISTANTS GUIDE ................................................................153 ANNEX III-B: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ENUMERATORS GUIDE................................................................155 ANNEX III-C: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII) GUIDE......................................................................156 ANNEX III-D: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARIES ..............................................158 ANNEX III-E: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARIES (LUO) ....................................160 ANNEX III-F: PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH TOOLS ................................................................................163 ANNEX III-G: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (ENGLISH)....................................................................................169 ANNEX III-H: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (LUO)...........................................................................................200 ANNEX III-I: VIDEO PARTICIPATION WAIVER .....................................................................................240 ANNEX IV: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA TABLES .....................................................................................241 ANNEX V: CASE STUDIES ..........................................................................................................................305 ANNEX VI: SOURCES OF INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 309 ANNEX VII: DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ..........................................................................314 TABLES Table 1: Highest Level of Education (self-reported) ....................................................................................................................17 Table 2: Literacy Rates (self-reported) ............................................................................................................................................17 Table 3: USAID Funding for Northern Uganda .............................................................................................................................21 Table 4: IRS Indicators .........................................................................................................................................................................24 Table 5: Perception of Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................28 Table 6: Food Aid ..................................................................................................................................................................................29 Table 7: Monetized Commodities, Title II ......................................................................................................................................31 Table 8: LEAD 1 Data ..........................................................................................................................................................................34 Table 9: HPSC Water Points by Location ......................................................................................................................................45 Table 10: Sanitation Practices: ACDI/VOCA ................................................................................................................................. 46 Table 11: Sanitation Indicators: HPSC .............................................................................................................................................47 Table 12: Satisfaction with Agricultural Initiatives ........................................................................................................................49 Table 13: Linkages between PRPD and USAID Objectives ........................................................................................................52 Table 14: Funcationality of Rural Water Sources .........................................................................................................................73 FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Areas of Household Survey and Focus Groups. ...........................................................................................10 Figure 2: Poverty Rates 1992-2009/10 ............................................................................................................................................12 Figure 3: Most Important Needs .......................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 4: Disability Rates among Primary and Secondary Students .........................................................................................20 Figure 5: Trends in USAID Funding to Northern Uganda..........................................................................................................20 Figure 6: USAID Funding for Northern Uganda by Sector ........................................................................................................21 Figure 7: Trends in HIV Prevalence ..................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 8: Fever Reduction among Children....................................................................................................................................25 Figure 9: Large Construction and Rehabilitation Projects in Governance .............................................................................26 Figure 10: Pupil Teacher Ratio in Acholi Districts .......................................................................................................................41 Figure 11: Gross Primary School Enrollment ................................................................................................................................41 Figure 12: Literacy Rates .....................................................................................................................................................................42 Figure 13: Water Indicators ...............................................................................................................................................................43 Figure 14: Percentage of Rural Households with Latrines/Toilets ...........................................................................................45 Figure 15: Number of IDPs in PRDP Regions ................................................................................................................................47 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to extend their appreciation to USAID/Uganda, especially to Rand Robinson and May Mwaka, for their technical and administrative support. We particularly thank them for reviewing drafts of this report and for providing constructive feedback on both the first and second drafts of the evaluation report. We would also like to thank Richard Okello of USAID/Uganda for his contribution to training the research assistants in application of geographic information systems and spending time in the field with the research team. We also extend our gratitude to the IPSOS Limited survey team led by James Kakande for its participation in the organization of the survey, data collection and management, and to Richard Kibombo for his participation during and after the fieldwork. Many thanks to the IBTCI administrative team in Vienna, Virginia, particularly Robert Grossman-Vermaas, Susan Kupperstein, Steven Hansch, and Christopher Coffman for their support. We also greatly appreciate the input of Simon Richards, who was particularly helpful as we began the drafting process, and of Brenda Onyutta for her contribution in the leading a videography team and for sharing her insights on USAID-funded activities in Northern Uganda. Special thanks go to the Office of the Prime Minister, and particularly to David Wamala who participated in the training, fieldwork and contact with key government officials. We would also like to express our gratitude to Joe Odokonyero who was our super research assistant and participated in developing and reviewing some of the sections in the evaluation report. We would like to thank our other qualitative research assistants including Phiona Alanyo, Jimmy Obonyo, Caroline Amony, Oola Simon Peter, Moses Okello and Prossy Achiro for their valuable contribution in the design, development and pre-testing of tools, data collection and transcribing as well as participation in the debrief sessions. We are very grateful to Alex Bagabo and Enid Mutoni who worked tirelessly as our coordinators for administration and logistics. Thanks go to all our evaluation participants for according us the time and generously sharing their views, opinions, and experiences in relation to the key issues in the evaluation. i ACRONYMS A2Z A2Z Micronutrient and Child Blindness Project ACDI/VOCA NGO originally named Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance ADS Automated Directives System AIC AIDS Information Centre - Uganda AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome AFFORD AFFORD Health Marketing Project APEP Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program ARD Associates in Rural Development ART Anti-Retroviral Therapy ASIOF A Stake in Our Future AVSI Association of Volunteers in International Service CAO Chief Administrative Officer CD4 Cluster of Differentiation 4 (common white blood cell index of immune status) CDC (U.S.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDO Community Development Officer CMC Commercial Marketing Center CMM (USAID/DCHA) Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation CO Contracting Officer CRD Community Resilience and Dialogue Project CSM Conflict Sensitivity Mainstreaming CSO Civil Society Organization DCHA USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance DHO District Health Officer DHS Demographic and Health Survey DPP Directorate of Public Prosecutions DWD Directorate of Water Development DOP District Operational Plan FFP (USAID/DCHA) Office of Food for Peace FFS Farmer Field School FGD Focus Group Discussion FTF (U.S.) Feed the Future Initiative GBV Gender-Based Violence GOU Government of Uganda GUC Grants under Contract GWED-G Gulu Women's Economic Development and Globalization HBMF Home-Based Management of Fever HCT Home and Community Based Treatment HIPS Health Initiative for the Private Sector HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HPI Heifer Project International HPDP Harmonized Participatory Development Planning HPSC Healthy Practices, Strong Communities ii HUMC Health Unit Management Committee IBTCI International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. IDP Internally Displaced Person IP Implementing Partner IRC International Rescue Committee IRS Indoor Residual Spraying KII Key Informant Interview ITN Insecticide Treated Net LEAD Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development LINKAGES Strengthening Democratic Linkages in Uganda LRA Lord’s Resistance Army LG Local Government LOP Life of Project LSMS Living Standards Measurement Survey M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOES Ministry of Education and Sports MOH Ministry of Health MOIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MOLG Ministry of Local Government MOWE Ministry of Water and Environment MP Member of Parliament MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises MTE Mid-Term Evaluation MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NGO Non-Governmental Organization NU Northern Uganda NUMAT Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and Tuberculosis Project NUDEIL Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance Infrastructure and Livelihoods NUPI Northern Uganda Peace Initiative NUSAF Northern Uganda Social Action Fund NUTI Northern Uganda Transition Initiative NUWATER Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project RFTOP Request for Task Order Proposals OFDA (USAID/DCHA) Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance OPM Office of the Prime Minister OTI (USAID/DCHA) Office of Transition Initiatives OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children PADCO PADCO, Inc. (later absorbed by AECOM) PAL Pre-Authorization Award Letter PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan PEPFAR The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PIASCY Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth PILPG Public International Law & Policy Group PLWHA People Living with HIV/AIDS iii PMI President’s Malaria Initiative PMP Performance Management Plan PPP Pader Peace Program PPR Program Performance Review PRDP Peace, Recovery and Development Plan PO Producer Organization RDC Resident District Commissioner REPLICA Revitalization of Education Participation and Learning in Conflict Areas SACCO Savings, Credit and Cooperative Organization SAF Strategic Activities Fund SO Strategic Objectives SPEAR Supporting Public Sector Workplaces to Expand Action and Responses against HIV/AIDS SPRING Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda SUNY State University of New York SRS Strategic Review Session TASO The AIDS Support Organization TB Tuberculosis UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UDHS Uganda Demographic and Health Survey UMEMS Uganda Monitoring and Evaluation Management Services UNAIDS Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNITY Ugandan Initiative for Teacher Development and Management System UPDA Uganda People’s Democratic Army UPHOLD Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development URADI Uganda Rural Development Initiative USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VHT Village Health Team WHO World Health Organization WPF World Food Programme iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After more than a decade of conflict-induced displacement, in 2006 the Ugandan Government declared that the internally displaced person (IDP) camps in Northern Uganda should be closed and the approximately 1.8 million IDPs returned to their areas of origin. More than half of former IDPs returned to their home during the early return period from 2006 to 2008, and the return process continued through 2011, by which time an estimated 98% of former IDPs had left the camps. In 2014, USAID contracted with International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) to conduct a Performance Evaluation of Assistance to Northern Uganda, with primary research to be conducted in the Acholi sub-region. In the interests of promoting Ugandan technical and institutional evaluation capacities, apart from having experienced Ugandan evaluators co-team lead this evaluation, IBTCI facilitated several weeks of data collection with participation of the Office of the Prime Minister’s Monitoring and Evaluation Department, graduate students from Makerere University, and graduates of Gulu University and other universities. The beginning of the evaluation period, 2006, coincides approximately with the cessation of hostilities between the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the subsequent start of the return process. The end of the evaluation period, 2011, coincides with the end of the return period and the start of a new, 2011-2015 USAID/Uganda Country Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), which placed less emphasis on responding to reconstruction and development challenges in the Acholi sub-region relative to other parts of the country. EVALUATION PURPOSE The purposes of this ex-post performance evaluation are:  To assess the contribution of USAID/Uganda assistance to the promotion of stability, peace, and recovery in Northern Uganda, and to share findings regarding stabilization efforts in this post-conflict environment with key stakeholders.  To evaluate the scale, scope, relevance, and effectiveness of enhanced services, benefits and collective outcomes of USAID-funded projects in Northern Uganda.  To identify whether or not certain effective sector investments and approaches were used that could be applied to enhance and improve USAID's role in promoting rapid stabilization and in other conflict and post-conflict settings. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to the collection of primary data using an intentional sequence of qualitative and quantitative data collection steps, each designed to be informed by the former and to strengthen and complement each other. Prior to conducting field visits from mid-March to mid-April, 2014 the evaluation team conducted an extensive review of documents, including evaluations, project reports, and other background materials. This document review process continued as we developed and revised drafts through July 2014. v The team also conducted key informant interviews with persons familiar with USAID’s operation in Northern Uganda, which informed our team about the context of USAID’s approach to regional programming. The key data collection methods used for fieldwork included a household surveys of 1,011 household surveys in 84 sampled village and township locations, 58 individual key informant interviews (KIIs), six group key informant interviews, and 59 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 541 participants. The KIIs, FGDs, and the survey were conducted in all seven Acholi districts. KEY FINDINGS The United States Government (USG) was a major funder of the bilateral aid provided to Uganda during this period, having supplied approximately one-quarter of bilateral aid to Uganda overall, and approximately one-third of the bilateral aid provided to Northern Uganda from 2005-2012. According to the data provided by USAID, between fiscal years (FY) 2005 and 2011 USAID allocated approximately $750 million for rehabilitating Northern Uganda. USAID’s contributions of approximately 30% of total food aid to the United Nation’s World Food Program (WFP) during the period through 2006 was instrumental in ensuring the survival of people in IDP camps. During the initial return period, from approximately fiscal years (FY) 2005 through 2007, the levels of emergency food aid declined gradually and from FY 2008 through FY 2011 declined more rapidly. By FY 2011, by which time the vast majority (estimated at 95% to 98%) of former IDPs had left the camps, USAID no longer provided emergency food aid. Throughout the period from 2006-2012, USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (FFP) continued to provide support through Multi-Year Assistance Programs (MYAP) to Northern Uganda. USAID/Uganda also supported two Uganda-wide agricultural projects during this period, each with activities in Northern Uganda, but these latter interventions only partially succeeded with the transition from food aid to self-reliance in food production. USAID also invested heavily in the health sector, which accounted for a steadily rising proportion of USAID investments, from 40% in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 to 60% by FY 2011. USAID also made other investments in the construction of roads, schools, and public buildings, as well as in governance and peace building, education, water, and sanitation. Through its support to the Government of Uganda’s (GoU) four major Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives, the evaluation found that USAID made a significant contribution to promoting stability, peace, and recovery in Northern Uganda’s Acholi sub region. USAID investment created considerable benefits for displaced Ugandans, particularly through its interventions in construction and access to medical care, but also in other sectors. A key finding of this report is that two factors influenced success: First, those projects that adopted a “learning organization approach” allowed them to adapt to rapidly evolving conditions in a post-conflict environment; and second, those projects that were focused on Northern Uganda proved more adept than those with a nationwide focus in dealing with the specific needs of the post-conflict population. USAID, particularly through its Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance/Office of Transition Initiatives, responded and evolved rapidly and effectively through its small grants program under the Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI) for reconstruction and projects funded by USAID’s Office vi of Conflict Management and Mitigation. USAID’s support for the Juba Peace talks, which helped bring about the end of the conflict, also supported important efforts for peace building in the years immediately following a cessation of hostilities. Title II food security programs, supported through USAID’s Office of Food for Peace, generally achieved their objectives in the years immediately following the conflict, but were somewhat less successful after 2009, when the majority of former IDPs had permanently resettled. Other Northern Uganda-focused projects, such as the Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and Tuberculosis (NUMAT) and the Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) projects, made important contributions to support the health needs of Northern Uganda, as did projects in other sectors, such as the Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING) project and the Northern Uganda Peace Initiative (NUPI). With the exception of NUPI, which closed in 2007, this work was aided by the fact that USAID had taken the unusual step of opening a field office in Gulu in 2007 to better enable program monitoring and coordination in Northern Uganda and to better understand and respond to evolving conditions there. With some exceptions (such as the Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER), which only partially succeeded in meetings its objectives, USAID-supported projects designed specifically for Northern Uganda were generally well adapted and achieved their objectives. Conversely, projects implemented on a national basis and managed from USAID/Uganda’s offices in Kampala, typically faced greater barriers to adapting their programming to the particular needs of the post-conflict zone. In general, however, USAID projects did not plan adequately for their long-term sustainability, typically underestimated the recurrent infrastructural maintenance needs, and placed an overly heavily reliance on voluntarism to sustain projects after project closure. The evaluation also found that despite the efforts of its peace-building projects, USAID projects failed to continue addressing some of Northern Uganda’s deeper needs for healing and reconciliation while latent drivers of potential future conflicts, including land conflicts, sexual and gender-based violence, and the psychosocial illnesses that occurred as a result of the conflict, remain as important social problems. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS The following are specific recommendations, prioritized by sector, for future activities in Northern Uganda: Health: USAID contributions were very significant in increasing access to health services and USAID should build on these contributions, as there remains an acute need for health systems strengthening. There is therefore a need to continue support projects that focus on developing sustainable health systems and to provide support in terms of physical and technical infrastructure and human resources development. USAID projects should continue working with not only local governments, but also with the Ministry of Health, to identify those elements of administration, management, staffing structures, and financial needs to ensure that gains in the system remain. Specifically, USAID can make further contributions to bridge the transition from the provision of additional capacity to better assisting the incorporation of trained health professionals into local government structures in a sustainable manner. vii USAID should also consider opportunities for establishing the development of sustainable community fund mechanisms that can be used by community members to address their needs and cover costs that would otherwise prevent access to health services. Programs, in their design and implementation, should address issues of sustainability more explicitly. Agriculture and livelihoods: In recent years, USAID-supported projects that address economic security and livelihoods have declined. Although this evaluation notes some design flaws in previous project livelihood strategies, including the fact that they were not sufficiently adapted to the economic situation of the North in the early post-conflict period, there is now the capacity in agriculture that did not exist previously and a more promising climate for implementing innovative agricultural program models that advance today’s Feed the Future objectives and engage private sector partners in larger commercial farming as well as off-farm, youth-oriented business, training, and employment opportunities. Stronger efforts for cultivating private-public partnership opportunities to better attract private investment in the management of farms, particularly with owners that could take an interest in using some farmers’ profits to address other social needs, could become a bolder, progressive development undertaking which could provide a wider range of sorely needed jobs for northern Uganda’s millions of farmers and disenfranchised youth. USAID can also make a valuable contribution in expanding access to the credit needs for farmers and rural businesses by helping them to establish savings, credit, and cooperative organizations (SACCOs) and village saving and loan associations (VSLA). USAID projects should also continue the support for building rural feeder roads, which allow for easier access to markets for agricultural products. Promoting peace and stability in a post-conflict environment: There is a need for future programs that promote deeper peace and stability in the region to underpin longer-term economic and social development. This can be partially achieved through support for a comprehensive psychosocial support effort with a particular focus on youth, women, and victims of sexual and gender based violence. Future programs should seek to influence behavior change with regard to household violence, alcoholism, and high suicide rates, all of which are, to a large extent, symptoms of the deep-rooted psychological damage, mass displacement, and protracted conflict that occurred in Northern Uganda. The promotion of transitional justice is another important element to include in the design of future support efforts. USAID should consider supporting activities that strengthen partnerships and collaboration between informal local justice mechanisms and the formal justice systems in promoting access to justice and mitigation of conflicts, particularly those related to land and gender violence. Such a process could draw lessons from Rwanda’s post-conflict experiences and from South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Governance in Northern Uganda should be reinforced as part of USAID’s ongoing nationwide efforts. In particular, there is need to continue engaging local elected officials in capacity-building efforts to enable them to better perform their roles and responsibilities and for programs at the local level to bolster the public’s ability to voice their needs and priorities and to demand accountability from their elected officials and service providers. At the district level, particularly in areas in which USAID engages local government through district operational plans (DOP), viii USAID has the opportunity to strengthen its engagement with local government and to better solicit feedback for the continuous improvement of its interventions. Field Office. The evaluation team recommends continuing investment in USAID’s Northern Uganda Field Office (NUFO), at least over the medium-term of three to five years, and that USAID should undertake a cost-benefit analysis if it intends to maintain the office over a longer period. 1 I. INTRODUCTION A. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) contracted International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) to conduct an ex-post Performance Evaluation of 2005/06-2011/12 USAID Assistance to Northern Uganda with primary research conducted in the Acholi sub-region.1 The beginning point of the period under evaluation coincides approximately with the cessation of the long-term hostilities between the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The end point coincides with the implementation of a new USAID/Uganda Country Cooperation Strategy for 2011-2015, which placed somewhat less emphasis on the sub-region. This evaluation also examines USAID's contributions to outcomes through mixed methods, including a household survey and intensive qualitative data collection. The evaluation took place during the period of February 2014 through June 2014. a. EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this performance evaluation is:  To assess the contribution of USAID/Uganda assistance to promoting stability, peace, and recovery in Northern Uganda and to share findings regarding stabilization efforts in this post-conflict environment with key stakeholders.  To evaluate the scale, scope, relevance, and effectiveness of enhanced services, benefits and collective outcomes of USAID-funded projects in Northern Uganda.  To identify whether or not certain effective sector investments and approaches were used that could be applied to promote rapid stabilization and transfer of services and enhance and improve USAID's role, program management, and implementation practices in conflict and post-conflict settings that could inform ongoing and future USAID/Uganda and other donor programs. b. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The principal evaluation questions and sub-questions are: 1. What was the contribution of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? 1.1 What were the needs and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda? 1.2 How did USAID respond to these needs and challenges? e.g., the geographic coverage, reach, number and type of beneficiaries, type/sector of interventions? 1.3 To what extent did USAID assistance create tangible benefits and other social and economic opportunities for displaced Ugandans? 1 The districts comprising the Acholi sub-region are Gulu, Kitgum, Pader, Amuru, Lamwo, Nwoya, and Agago. 2 1.4 What evidence is there that USAID projects’ benefits have contributed to any broader recovery and stabilization outcomes in Northern Uganda? How did USAID strategic objectives support the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives? 2. How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives? 2.1 What evidence is there that USAID’s programming goals for assistance addressed the root causes and effects of the conflict? 2.2 What evidence is there that having a permanent office in the North has contributed to the long-term sustainability of activities? 3. To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda’s evolving conditions? 3.1 How well did USAID and its implementing partners respond to evolving conditions in northern Uganda? 3.2 What evidence is there that USAID project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and service delivery, have continued after project closure? 4. From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda’s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT2 Uganda is in many ways a creation of British colonial authorities who brought various ethnic groups, kingdoms and chiefdoms into the Uganda Protectorate in 1894. These groups had previously co-existed in this area for centuries through trading and intermarriages (Omach, 2010; Kabwegyere, 1995), but under the colonial strategy of ‘divide and rule,’ certain groups, particularly the Baganda, were favored over others (Kabwegyere, 1995; Moncrieffe, 2004; Mamdani, 2004). Northern tribes were generally excluded from participating in political decision-making or government administration while a division of labor among ethnic groups was fomented with many Acholi drafted into the British Army, later achieving positions of high rank after independence. The perception of political under-representation and lack of access to economic opportunities by disadvantaged groups in Uganda produced a large gulf between the rhetoric and reality of democracy and participatory governance. These factors, which had contributed to a succession of military coups, were felt most acutely in the Acholi sub-region after the 1986 overthrow of 2 The overwhelming majority of the 1011 respondents in our household survey answered a question on the root causes of the war in political/military terms (See section on “root causes” below for breakdown by category). Because of the high level of perception that the war was rooted in some form of political, military, or economic conflicts and regional/ethnic divides, we present the historical context in such terms. 3 Tito Okello, an Acholi that had seized power with the support of the Acholi dominated army in a 1985 coup d’état against the Obote government.3 When it assumed power in 1986, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) government, following the pattern of predecessor Uganda governments that had taken power by force of arms, made few attempts to integrate members of the defeated Uganda National Liberation Army (UNLA). Until a few years before that time, the UNLA had been mainly composed of Acholi and Langi officers from the North. After the Okello government was overthrown, however, no senior Acholi military officer occupied a key position in the military hierarchy. After Museveni’s National Resistance Army (NRA), which later became the Uganda People’s Democratic Army (UPDA), signed a peace agreement with the first rebel group in Northern Uganda, the UPDA integrated some Acholi soldiers and their commanders in the National Resistance Army, but Acholi officers never achieved any substantial positions of command or influence. This led to continued resentment even among those integrated senior officers and several later defected and fled into exile while others died in unclear circumstances (Omach, 2010). Various armed groups operated in Northern Uganda during the aftermath of Okello’s overthrow, including the Uganda Patriotic Democratic Army (1986-1988), Alice Auma Lakwena’s group (1986-1988), and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) from 1988-2006. The LRA conflict in Northern Uganda became a brutal long-lasting war, although its intensity has fluctuated over the years. Particularly after 1996, the situation in Northern Uganda was extremely volatile and was characterized by widespread displacement of villagers and townspeople, ambushes and skirmishes between government soldiers and rebels, abduction of children and women, and a virtual lack of any government presence in many parts of the region. Desperate to prevent abduction of their children, parents in northern Uganda began sending their children into nearby towns at night in 2002, where they would often sleep on the pavements. By the final years of the conflict, 40,000 “night commuter” children left their homes each night for the safety of special night shelters established by aid agencies (Vasagar, 2006). With the commencement of peace talks between the government of Uganda and the LRA rebels in Juba (now the capital of South Sudan) in 2006, the security situation started improving. Major drivers of this change in the North include: the Juba peace process between LRA and GoU; the independence of South Sudan; and the departure of the LRA from Northern Uganda to outposts in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. These events influenced programming decisions of the GoU, multilateral donors and bilateral donors, including USAID. Although most of these events occurred during the emergency humanitarian aid phase, they also had implications for the early return and recovery phase in Northern Uganda. 3After the overthrow of Okello, a number of resulting factors, including arbitrary arrests and harassment of ex-servicemen and other young men within Acholi communities of the north, contributed to the outbreak of conflict (Dolan, 2005; Refugee Law Project, 2004). 4 Improved security after the LRA’s withdrawal from Northern Uganda contributed to an improvement in the North’s physical, social, and environmental conditions during the period from 2006-2007. For example, prior to the withdrawal of the LRA, IDP camps were often isolated from one another and from towns. After the cease-fire, people began returning from the camps to their areas of origin to engage in modest agriculture and other livelihood activities. In 2007, USAID produced an internal document outlining an “integrated strategy to support successful transition from humanitarian assistance to sustainable development in north-central Uganda which coincided with support to the National Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) of the Government of Uganda (GoU).”4 Many other actors took up the challenge of coping with the IDP return process, including the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), as well as bilateral agencies such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NORAD), and Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.5 In addition, several humanitarian agencies received public and private support from their home countries, such as GOAL, an Irish NGO, and the Norwegian Refuge Council (NRC), to name just two out of dozens.6 By 2008, about half of the IDPs had left their camps,7 and by the end of 2011, when UNHCR closed its Gulu offices, an estimated 95% of former IDPs had either returned home, settled in areas near the IDP camps or migrated elsewhere. 8 During the initial return period, from approximately 2006-2008, many former IDPs had relocated to satellite camps that had been established in parishes. During this period, they often maintained two residences, one in a camp (either a main camp or a satellite camp), where their children stayed, and another where they began to engage in the cultivation of crops. This increased mobility also enabled them to access services and trade. Exchange increased between people in the towns and those coming 4 USAID Strategy for Reintegration & Recovery in Northern Uganda and USAID Strategy Process: 2007-2010. Although never formalized in a policy document, the major U.S. agencies in Northern Uganda, which also included the State and Defense Departments agreed to redirect between one-third and 40% of all funding to Uganda to the North (KII, USAID Official formerly working on Northern Uganda issues). 5 Branded in the international cooperation context as the Danish International Development Agency-DANIDA). 6 Any analysis of contribution of these partners would be a complex undertaking, partly because there were cooperative linkages among them. Two examples illustrate the complexity of the undertaking: USAID funded 30% of food aid through WFP to IDPs in camps (Fintrac, 2011), and NRC as an implementing partner of WFP for camp management services, oversaw food distribution; 2) An Acholi political leader and Member of Parliament interviewed for this evaluation cited an instance in which three development actors—namely DANIDA, a USAID-funded project (which was not specified), and the government of Uganda—all claimed credit for the rehabilitation of the same school. The first instance provides an example of how aid organizations can collaborate effectively; the second offers an example of misrepresentation of contributions. 7 HH survey data conducted as part of the HPSC mid-term evaluation (2011:14), for example, noted that 47% of sampled households were still living in IDP camps at the time of the baseline in 2008, whereas by the time of the mid-term evaluation in 2011 almost all had returned to their villages. WFP records indicate that 940,000 people remained internally displaced, in camps or transit sites, in 2008 (WFP, 2009:7-8). 8 http://www.unhcr.org/4f06e2a79.html. Estimates on the number of persons having left camps ranged from 95-98%. On the high estimate, a Guardian article of 24 January 2012 quotes UN sources at http://www.theguardian.com/global￾development/poverty-matters/2012/jan/24/northern-uganda-displaced-people-out-in-cold 5 from IDP camps. Youth in particular started to move from IDP camps to towns while older￾aged IDPs moved from the main sub-county level camps to satellite, parish level camps during this early return period. Some other young people who had been born and raised in IDP camps instead opted for resettlement in new locations.9 B. USAID PROGRAMMING To gauge the level of investment of USAID compared to other actors, over the seven-years from fiscal years (FY) 2005-2011, USAID committed approximately $769 million for Northern Uganda.10 The following section describes the key USAID projects included as part of this study. The next section includes project descriptions that had a Uganda-wide focus but also had Northern Uganda. All projects listed below were selected based on their size and scope of activities in Northern Uganda. C. KEY PROJECTS IN NORTHERN UGANDA  Northern Uganda Peace Initiative (NUPI; $1.0 million; $1.2 million allocated; PADCO; 2004-2007) was funded by the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (DCHA/CMM) and was designed to assist the government to develop a peace strategy and to strengthen the government’s peace team in the negotiation process with the LRA.  Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI; $24 million; Casals; 2008-2011) was an Office of Transition Initiatives (DCHA/OTI) initiative implemented after the cessation of hostilities with the LRA, operated in all of the seven Acholi sub region districts, and operated via a grants- under-contract funding mechanism in health, governance, education, and peace building and reconciliation.  Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING; $9.5 million grant; $5.3 million allocated; Cardno; 2007-2010) was designed to mitigate the causes and consequences of the conflict, and facilitate transition from emergency/recovery to development. It was implemented in all Acholi districts and part of Lango. The project worked with 26 implementing partners (IP) that implemented food security projects for vulnerable individuals and farmers groups.  Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and TB Project (NUMAT; $36.2 million; John Snow International; 2006-2012) was intended to improve the delivery of health services and health outcomes with the goal of expanding access to and utilization of health care for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria in Northern Uganda and was designed in consultation with the 9See for example, USAID Strategy for Reintegration & Recovery in Northern Uganda & USAID Strategy Process 2007-2010. 10 Based on budgets provided by USAID for FY 2005-2006 and 2008-11. Caution should be used in citing this figures for several reasons: 1) figures are based on commitments, rather than expenditures; and 2) other than for projects and programs specifically targeting Uganda, estimated proportions were used from Uganda-wide projects to calculate levels of commitment to Northern Uganda. 6 Ministry of Health, Uganda AIDS Commission, and networks of people living with HIV/AIDS.  Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS; $35.0 million; $44.9 million allocated; Abt Associates; 2008-2012) was supported by the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) and implemented in partnership with MOH to reduce the prevalence of malaria through the indoor spraying of homes and other structures. After conducting a pilot in 2008, the project became fully operational during 2009-2012, initially covering six post-conflict districts in Northern Uganda and then later covering four additional districts that were created during redistricting in 2010. Indoor residual spraying continues today.  ACDI/VOCA Title II Multi-year Assistance Program (MYAP; $74 million; $36.7 million allocated; ACDI/VOCA, 2004-2008), also funded through the Office of Food for Peace (DCHA/FFP), operated in Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum Districts to promote behavior change; reduce the spread and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS; improve the nutritional status of targeted vulnerable groups; and increase access to improved agricultural technology and inputs.  Healthy Practices, Strong Communities Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program (HPSC; $39.5 million; $21.8 million allocated; Mercy Corps; 2008-12), funded by FFP, was designed to integrate activities targeting agricultural production, maternal and child health, and water and sanitation to achieve greater food security.  Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER; $3.0 million; $3.7 million allocated; Tetra Tech-ARD; 2009-2011) supported the Ministry of Water and Environment (MOWE) and the local governments of northern Uganda to work with private contractors through an incentive-based system to provide accessibility to safe water for the populations within the region. D. UGANDA-WIDE INTERVENTIONS WITH ACTIVITIES IN THE NORTH Health  Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development (UPHOLD; $105 million; $5.1 million for NU; JSI; 2002-2007) implemented with local partners such as The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) and the AIDS Information Centre of Uganda (AIC) a social services program, designed to increase the capacity of and effective use of HIV and AIDS services.  Health Initiative for the Private Sector (HIPS; $40 million; $2.0 million for NU; Cardno/Emerging Markets; 2007-2013) worked with the Ugandan business community to find cost-effective ways to ensure access to vital health services for company employees, their dependents and the surrounding community members, providing technical assistance to design and implement comprehensive workplace health programs that maximize the population’s ability to access treatment and prevention services related to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria.  Supporting Public Sector Workplace to Expand Action and Responses Against HIV/AIDS (SPEAR; $10 million; $600,000 for NU; World Vision, RTI; 2008 - 2013) was 7 designed to enhance HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment of public sector workers in selected workplaces.  AFFORD Health Marketing Initiative in Uganda (AFFORD; Total n/a; $16.4 million for NU; 2005-2013; Futures Group International) is a social marketing initiative aimed at supporting the Uganda Ministry of Health‘s (MOH) strategic plan to promote positive healthcare-seeking behavior and to reduce the shortage of health products and services related to HIV prevention, care, and treatment; family planning and reproductive health; child health; and malaria prevention and treatment. Agriculture  Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD; $36 million; $12.2 million for NU; Tetra Tech ARD; 2008–2013) focused on integrating smallholder farmers and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME) into agricultural value chains. The objective of LEAD was to improve access to markets and build relationships with suppliers, processors, and traders.  Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP; $22 million; $2.7 million for NU; Chemonics; 2003-2008) interventions included developing and strengthening producer organizations (POs); demonstrating and providing training for farmers in improved low and high-input technologies; expanding access to production inputs and credit; upgrading post￾harvest handling techniques; and linking farmers to markets through arrangements with commercial buyers, processors and exporters. Governance  Strengthening Democratic Linkages Program (LINKAGES; $8.2 million; $2.6 million to NU; RTI/SUNY; 2007-2010) was designed to strengthen linkages with the Ugandan Parliament and selected local government structures; to build the capacity of government and civil society to effectively engage with each other; to increase democratic participation in political processes, to improve institutional transparency and accountability; and to extend essential service delivery to other public constituencies. Education  Uganda Initiative for Teacher Development Management (UNITY; $9 million; Creative Associates) had a component project, Revitalizing Education Provision, Learning in Conflict Areas (REPLICA; funding amount n/a) aimed at improving education in the conflict affected Northern Uganda in peace education, psychosocial care, performing arts, girls’ education, leadership and management, and community integration, with each having corresponding curricular materials. III. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS A. EVALUATION METHODS This retrospective evaluation of USAID’s contribution to promoting peace and recovery in Northern Uganda over the seven-year period from 2006-2011 used a mixed-methods approach, including a sequence of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, each of 8 which was designed to strengthen, cross-check, and complement the other. The evaluation’s final design and methodology is the product of multiple iterations, and was revised and refined over the course of the evaluation in response to our preliminary findings and in discussions with USAID/Uganda. Secondary sources: Prior to developing data collection tools, the evaluators reviewed approximately 60 documents assembled by USAID that described the various projects implemented during the period under evaluation. As this evaluation progressed, the evaluation team eventually organized and reviewed a library of materials containing an additional 200 documents in a total of 64 project- and sector-specific areas including detailed financial data and diplomatic cables provided by USAID as well as a variety of GoU reports. Evaluators also reviewed many source materials on thematic subjects related to Northern Uganda such as food aid, poverty, conflict management and mitigation, and psychosocial aspects of the conflict and post-conflict period. Using these documents allowed the evaluation team to provide a richer background and context for its findings. The document review process, which provided important information required for the development of data collection tools, continued throughout the analysis and formulation of findings. Given the amount of secondary data required for this evaluation, there was a need for strategic choices. For example, although evaluators did access numerous project quarterly, annual and completion reports, it was not possible, or even desirable, to review all of the available reports in their entirety. In most cases, this evaluation used data reported by project implementers selectively, and generally these data were triangulated with previous evaluation reports and materials from key interviews and focus groups discussions. In those cases in which the evaluation relied primarily on project report data and outcomes, with some caveats as noted in this report, evaluators assumed that the reported information met with USAID data quality standards. Also, because this evaluation was focused primarily on USAID activities in Northern Uganda, and although it attempts to contextualize these activities within the broader range of development actors, evaluators drew most of their project-based information from USAID materials. In the interests of promoting Ugandan national technical and institutional evaluation capacities, apart from having experienced Ugandan evaluators co-team lead this evaluation, IBTCI facilitated several weeks of data collection with participation of the Office of the Prime Minister’s Monitoring and Evaluation Department, graduate students from Makerere University, and graduates of Gulu University and other universities. The evaluation team conducted extensive primary data collection using key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD) based on semi-structured interview protocols, and a household survey (See Annex III for data collection instruments). This approach was specifically designed to derive multiple data sets from a large and representative number of sources to support the evaluation’s findings and conclusions relating to: 1) identifying the contribution of USAID’s assistance to peace, stability, and recovery in Northern Uganda; and 2) identifying those sector-specific activities and implementers that made contributions to these goals. The evaluators also sought to use the data to establish how USAID’s efforts evolved over time, beginning with its continuing support through emergency humanitarian aid and peace and reconciliation efforts, through a period of transitional assistance including reinstatement of government services and infrastructure construction, eventually shifting to an emphasis on more traditional development initiatives in the region during later, more stable periods. 9 KIIs provided valuable information about USAID’s activities in the north. Prior to arriving in Uganda, the team leader conducted key informant interviews with USAID officials and project staff familiar with USAID programming in Northern Uganda, including USAID Africa Bureau desk officers, Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) staff, and key implementing partner staff. These interviews continued throughout the fieldwork period, and evaluators eventually conducted 58 individual KIIs, the majority of which were with Ugandan local officials or other key local, national stakeholders. Most of the key interviewees, with the exception of a handful that had recently come to the region, had useful first-hand knowledge USAID’s operations in the North. In addition, evaluators also conducted KIIs in group settings with six organizations with an additional 55 persons, including non-government and international organization staff, donor organizations, and government officials. Focus group discussions (FGDs): A team of 12 qualitative researchers, 10 of whom were fluent in Luo, conducted 59 FGDs with a total of 541 participants, using semi-structured interview protocols. Participants in the groups were from the village or township level in 10 sub-counties within all seven Acholi districts. This qualitative research was conducted with two intentionally￾divided age groups of respondents: first, those who were children or youth during encampment and return periods or individuals between the ages of 18 to 25 at the time of this evaluation; and second, those who were adults during the period of encampment and with individuals aged 35 years old and above at the time of the evaluation. These age groups were divided into male and female respondent groups (see Annex VI for FGD counts for breakdown by district, age group, and sex). Female qualitative researchers conducted the discussions with female groups, and male researchers conducted the discussions with male groups. Data was captured through note taking, direct observation, tape recording, and videography. In consultation with USAID prior to fieldwork, the evaluation team also developed several strategies to emphasize a participatory approach to qualitative data collection, adapting existing tools designed to provide a variety of perspectives and to further inform the study (examples of these tools are included as Annex III). In addition to the qualitative research described above, a survey team of 34 persons headed by the evaluation’s subcontracting survey firm, Ipsos Uganda, conducted 1,012 structured household surveys (with one not completed). The seven Acholi districts were stratified based on the square root of the population size of each to derive a sampled population size. In each of the seven districts, the team purposefully selected two sub-counties based on discussions with USAID and referring to location analysis using geographic information systems (GIS), which allowed researchers to identify areas with varying levels of USAID-funded activities (Figure 1) 11 . Within this sample, surveyors visited two parishes per sub-county (28 parishes) and three villages or townships (n=84) within each parish. All data were disaggregated by age group (18- 24; 25-39; 40-54; and 55 years and above) and sex. Data tables are provided in Annex IV. 11 Red points indicate household survey locations. Ten of the fourteen parish areas indicated on this map were also sites of FGDs. 10 Figure 1: Map of Areas of Household Survey and Focus Groups. B. LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION Ex-post evaluations are typically conducted after a certain period has passed since the completion of individual projects, usually with an emphasis on the effectiveness and sustainability of a project. In this case, however, the evaluation covers a wide range of interventions across USAID’s program portfolio, including some projects that were designed specifically to respond to the post-conflict situation in the north, and others that were countrywide in scope. Evaluating such a complex portfolio posed several challenges. Because there were numerous projects, evaluators had to prioritize them in terms of their importance in this evaluation. The evaluation team first prioritized projects to examine, using data on estimated allocations of project allocations for Northern Uganda during the period of study as a guide to developing a list of key projects. The list included projects specifically focused on the North and those in which had relatively high levels of activities there. Although we reviewed many evaluation sources, and supplemented our reading with project reports submitted to USAID, we found that many data elements that we would have preferred to include were either not available, or not independently verified. The authors of previous evaluations also expressed their concerns about the collection and use of project monitoring data. One previous evaluation stated, for example, that for the project under evaluation that the “M&E system was strong on quantitative results, but weak on the qualitative nuances…This meant that a lot of lessons were missed. And the emphasis on quantitative measures can also account for the fact that the program reported more on what was done, and less on what was 11 achieved” (Ngunyi-Mutahi, et al, 2010). This evaluation experienced similar limitations, and on a much wider scale. Fieldwork and the responses from KIIs and FGDs, as well as comments to an early evaluation draft, also generated ongoing guidance about how to focus remaining time and resources on further research. Even so, there were numerous difficulties in identifying valid sources of performance outcomes and baseline data, much of which had not been carefully verified in previous project-specific evaluation reports, which also often lacked of counterfactual evidence on which they based reported outcomes and achievements. This was further complicated by the fact that many staff persons associated with these projects were no longer available to provide input, confirmation, or clarification of reported data. Moreover, the time lag inherent in this ex-post evaluation means that the evaluation’s findings may be less timely in terms of informing USAID programming activities than other types of evaluations. The evaluation team was particularly concerned that survey respondents or key informants might have had difficulties in remembering a period of time that started some eight years before the research. Yet this proved to be much less of a limitation than had been expected. From the level of detail of responses, the evaluation team found that indeed, with the important exception of being able to recall specific project names or project implementers, the events of the period were still fresh enough in the minds of the respondents to allow them to complete the surveys and respond in KII and FGD interviews. Similarly, the evaluation team had logistical concerns related to visiting a large number of widely dispersed sites during the country’s two rainy seasons when many smaller dirt roads become impassible. Our team prepared for this eventuality by having randomly selected backup alternative sites, and the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) assisted by seconding a researcher and additional vehicle and driver. Because of this additional support, although teams did encounter rain, they were able to visit all of the sampled sites. Another potential limitation was response bias, which is comprised of a range of cognitive biases that influence participants in a way that their responses are not accurate or truthful. These biases are commonly prevalent in studies and research that involve structured interviews or surveys, and can cause threats to validity. For this reason, particular care was given to the phrasing of questions in surveys and training on techniques related to the demeanor of the researcher, so that s/he does not appear to be eliciting any particular response or to be soliciting participants to be “good experimental subjects” by providing socially desirable responses (Furham, 1986). Also, following Nederhof (1985), team leaders placed particular emphasis on selecting and training researchers and survey specialists about response bias and the effects can it could have on their research.12 12 In an article in the European Journal of Social Psychology, Nederhof argues that social desirability is one of the most common sources of bias affecting the validity of experimental and survey research findings, and that social desirability results from two separate factors: “self-deception” and “other-deception.” Methods for coping with social desirability include those aimed at the detection and measurement of social desirability bias and methods to prevent or reduce social desirability bias in the design and administration of the questionnaire and the selection of interviewers. Nederhof found no “magic bullet,” in that no single method works completely and under all conditions in coping with both other-deceptive and self-deceptive social desirability bias; rather, a combination of prevention (in the design, selection of interviewers, and administration phases) and detection 12 Figure 2: Poverty Rates 1992-2009/10 IV. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. FINDINGS a. 1.0 What were the contributions of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? This chapter describes the many needs of IDPs, particularly as they began their return home. The major objective is not to go into depth into their distressing experiences but rather gauge from a higher-level meta-evaluation perspective, the extent to which assistance from USAID met these needs and provided tangible benefits. Furthermore within the context of the PRDP, assess how USAID contributed or not, to any broader recovery and stabilization outcomes in the Acholi districts of Northern Uganda. CONTEXTUALIZING USAID’S CONTRIBUTION i. 1.1 What were the needs and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda? As the conflict intensified, the gap in poverty rates between the North and the rest of the country widened, and although both the North and the country as a whole, experienced overall declines in poverty between 1992 and 2005/06, the rate of decline was slower in the North (74% to 61%) between 1992 and 2005/06 versus the rest of the country (56% vs. 31%). Even though poverty rates in the North declined quickly after the cease-fire (from 61% in 2005/06 to 46% in 2009/10), they still remained nearly double the national average (46% vs. 25%) by 2009/10 (Figure 2).13 (post-collection analysis) offer the best means for controlling for social desirability response biases the best means for controlling for social desirability response bias. 13 Using P0 indicator is “headcount”: the percentage of individuals estimated to be living in households with real private consumption per adult equivalent below the poverty line for their region. Source: UNHS III, 2005/06; UNHS IV (2009/10). Cited from Uganda National Household Survey Report 2009/2010, Poverty Trend Estimates: www.ubos.org/UNHS0910/chapter6_%20Poverty%20trend%20estimates.html. Other estimates, such as panel rounds (e.g., http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/UNPS/wave3/UNPS%20Report%20wave3.pdf for 2011/12) asks questions on 13 Figure 3: Most Important Needs Prior to the conflict, the Acholi sub-region was considered the nation’s “food basket,” with 20% of Uganda’s arable land, but following the conflict, it had lost much of its capacity in agricultural processing and production.14 An assessment conducted by the World Food Program (WFP, 2007) found that 68% of the population was either moderately (55%) or acutely (13%) food insecure. This finding was confirmed data from the more than three-quarters (78%) of our household survey respondents, who indicated food as their most important need during the return period from 2006-2009. Other expressed needs included seeds, cereal meals for impoverished families during periods of drought, and other farm inputs to ensure self-sustaining agriculture (Figure 3). Governance Two decades of violent conflict in Northern Uganda led to breakdown of both formal and informal governance and service delivery structures, and undermined the functioning of state institutions, which experienced challenges in resuming their functions and in responding to the needs of an impoverished population. As noted by Oosterom (2014) in a study on the effects of violent conflict and displacement in Northern Uganda, the visit of Jan Egeland, the UN Secretary General’s Special Representative on Humanitarian Affairs in 2003 sparked an influx of humanitarian agencies across the affected regions of the North. The United Nations rolled out its cluster system in 2006, under which UN agencies and implementing humanitarian actors assumed a major role in the coordination and implementation of service provision for water, sanitation and hygiene, protection, livelihoods, education—and this effectively sidelined the district authorities. Although local government structures continued to exist at different levels, friction emerged between district local governments and humanitarian actors concerning the appropriate roles for each. District authorities resumed full control only after 2006, when the camps started to be dismantled (Oosterom, 2014: 207). Governance structures, particularly at the sub-county and community levels, were dysfunctional by 2006. Moreover, KIIs noted that the experience of conflict had contributed to the welfare correlates which are used as proxy indicators – i.e., ownership of two sets of clothes, blanket and shoes by household members, average number of meals taken per day and action taken when the household last run out of salt – for monitoring poverty in Uganda. The results of the panel survey indicate that for 2011/12, 20.6% of Northern Ugandans were “chronically poor” compared to 9.5% for Uganda as a whole. However, because the welfare indicators measured in the panel studies are not directly comparable to P0 estimates in the National Household Survey Report, these figures are not included above. 14 Food Security Plan of Action, August 2007, author not specified, cited in Castam, 2014. 14 breakdown of traditional Acholi social networks at the same time that instability has affected the formal administrative system at sub-national level. Some respondents noted that rather than focusing on gender issues more broadly, gender programming was often conceived narrowly in terms of providing income generating activities for women, rather than addressing fundamental issues related to men’s control of resources and the continuing problems related to sexual or gender-based violence (GBV). Others indicated that the proliferation of such violence and land conflicts were due, at least in part, to the breakdown of the governance and justice mechanisms like the Local Council 1 (LC 1) court and the traditional alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are crucial for regulating and mediating in GBV. Moreover, as Mabike (2011) and many respondents interviewed for this evaluation noted, some of the underlying drivers of the escalating land conflicts stemmed from weak land governance and land tenure systems. Food and Agriculture During the conflict, many Acholi had lost their personal and real estate assets, including their houses and livestock, and there was a dearth of agricultural tools and inputs. These resulted in a lack of food during the return period that was acutely felt by many individuals. Results from the household survey indicate that 34% often experienced a lack of food and another 35% said they always lacked food. Many focus group respondents recalled the need for agricultural farm inputs and implements like hoes, slashes, rakes, pangas (machetes), seeds and oxen ploughs, as well as for restocking their animal populations that had been lost during the conflict. These were perceived as vital—and lacking—for important agricultural purposes including land clearance and food production. In addition to their expressed need for tools and inputs, many FGD and survey respondents (57%) also noted the need to re-acquire—or for those that had lived most of their lives in camps, to acquire for the first time—knowledge and skills in farming. These deficiencies meant that land was underutilized amid a worsening food insecurity situation, with most households lacking sufficient income or wealth for basic necessities. Indeed, one of the common problems raised among FGD participants was their need for affordable agricultural inputs. According to one FGD respondent: Before the insurgency, the Acholis had animals like cows and goats and there was a kraal in every household. But after the war, people needed the government and its partners to provide and return for them their animals lost during the war. As a rural, agrarian community, the problem of access to land and land conflicts in Northern Uganda has been the subject of several reports (e.g., Civil Society Organizations for Peace in Northern Uganda (CSOPNU, 2004); Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre Refugee Law Project, 2006:32; Rugadya, et al., 2008; World Bank, 2009). During the war, most of the elders who were familiar with land boundaries had died, and younger surviving generations did not know the exact boundaries or historical bases of their own land. From the return period up to the present, conflict over land has remained a persistent problem, with 63% of household survey respondents indicating that land conflicts were still frequently occurring. When asked, “How frequent were land conflicts occurring within your community from 2006-11,” 16% replied “sometimes”; 20% replied “often”; and 43% replied “always.” Only 20% indicated “seldom” or “never.” 15 The KIIs and FGD participants also raised this as a problem. According to the sub county National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) coordinator, “the biggest challenge was on land; there were a lot of land conflicts—some were solved in court and others not.” Men from a focus group discussion in Parumu, Parabongo described the depths of the problem as follows: People started conflicting over land and this is because of the mixed message people got from camp about the land (leaders asked people to protect their land) and this has gone very ugly, to the extent of brothers not talking to each other over land. Some people even lost their lives-- especially in Wol Paimol, Parumu, Pacer and Parabongo Sub-counties in Agago District…Even this past month a woman was killed in Lakweng and we also lost our sister in Pajule last month whom we suspect to have been killed over land. There are a number of challenges with this land conflict, which have become rampant and when you take the issue to elders, some of them are bribed and they will not side with you even if you are in the right, fuelling more conflict. Many respondents noted the need for draft animals (“beasts of burden”) and seeds, expansion of farming activities, and improvement in farming. Others spoke of the need for business creation, micro-loans, engagement in group savings and investments and other means of income generation. Women spoke of the need for activities that might economically empower them and help them support their families. Women FGD participants in the town of Amuru noted that the need for food was so great during the early return period after 2006 that people ate the seeds which were distributed for planting when food distributions were halted. Many KII and FGD respondents also noted that the dependence in the IDP camps on food aid had made the problem of food security an even greater challenge than it might have been otherwise, as many people had lost skills in farming and had become so habituated to “handouts.” As a result, according to many respondents, most returnees no longer could, or wanted to, farm or work, expecting instead free food support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government. Health, Sanitation, and Water The health sector was constrained due to too few facilities and the inadequacy of pharmaceuticals or medical workers. Many facilities were destroyed or damaged during the conflict and skilled health workers migrated out of the region (OPM, PRDP 1).15 Those parish level health centers (HC IIs) that did exist were ill equipped and in a dilapidated state, with few health workers and high rates of absenteeism. Medical supplies were always in short supply. One district health officer (DHO) summed up the situation: “During the war, health facilities in the region closed down. Health workers had run away together with their people.” This evaluation’s household survey respondents cited lack of or limited drugs in health facilities (88%), dilapidated health facilities (86%), lack of medical/health workers (85%) lack of family 15 Precise data on the number of functioning health centers, however are not available in the PRDP documents or in other documentation reviewed (e.g., NUMAT reports and evaluations) for this study. 16 planning services (79%), antenatal care (75%), and vaccinations (68%) as issues during this period. During the encampment period, many water supply access points were constructed in IDP camps, resulting in relatively high rates of water coverage. In 2006, access to safe water was even higher in Gulu (64%) than the national average (59%) but still lower in Kitgum and Pader (49% each). Latrine coverage in 2005 was lower in all districts (Gulu, 42%; Pader, 16%; and Kitgum, 15%) compared with the national average of 58%. By 2007, when the return process was beginning and persons began moving to “deconcentrated” camps, 80% of residents of Acholi districts had still not returned to their home areas where, according to the 2007 national water and sanitation report, “infrastructure ha[d] totally broken down,” and where district water officials reported that they were financially constrained due to the fact that they are required to use a substantial portion of the water and sanitation conditional grants provided by the central government to maintain existing water supplies in and around the IDP camps and construct new facilities in return areas (MoWE, 2007). Health officers and residents cited a high level of water-borne diseases due to the lack of clean water and basic sanitation during the return period. Among our survey respondents, 86% indicated a lack of hygiene; 79%, a lack of adequate number of water facilities; and 72%, a lack of adequate and appropriate sanitation facilities (latrines, bathing areas). Streams and rivers were silted up, boreholes destroyed or spoiled by rebels, and other water points in a poor state providing unsafe water. The high price of spare parts made it difficult for most communities to repair these facilities.16 Most households lacked proper water storage facilities, pit latrines, waste bins, and chlorination tablets for water. Tools for constructing garbage pits and latrines were not available; without external support. There was limited ability for drilling new boreholes or protecting springs. As a result, in addition to other diseases not transmitted by feces, water, or garbage, such as hepatitis B, people suffered from a variety of communicable diseases, and, as noted in the PRDP 1 (OPM, 2007: 68), from continuing cholera epidemics in the region. Education Northern Ugandans had many education needs including basic education, vocational and practical skills development. There were schools in the IDP camps and some educational opportunities were available elsewhere in the sub region but gross enrollment rates were substantially higher in the Acholi districts (Amuru, 128%; Gulu, 143%; Kitgum, 147%; and Pader, 164%) compared to the national average for 2006 (114%).17 16 In vulnerability mapping exercises conducted with female youth in Acoro Village in Pader District and with men in Paibony, Kitgum District (see appendix x Design Report: description of vulnerability mapping, the problem of access to safe drinking water was most acute in 2007 and 2008 as people returned to long-uninhabited rural inhabited where the only source of water was unprotected springs. 17 Gross Enrollment Ratio is determined by dividing the number of individuals who are actually enrolled in schools by the number of children who are of the corresponding school enrollment age. The gross enrollment ratio can be greater than 100% as a result of grade repetition and entry at ages younger or older than the typical age at that grade level. 17 Thirty-seven percent of our survey’s female respondents reported that they had never attended school, as compared to 9% for males. Men in our household sample achieved higher levels of schooling than women, particularly at the secondary and post-secondary levels (Table 1). One￾fifth of all females surveyed had never been to school and only one out of every three women were functionally literate (Annan et al, 2008). Table 1: Highest Level of Education (self-reported) Highest Level of Education (self-reported) Total Male Female Total 1,013 433 580 Never Attended 25% 9% 37% Nursery pre-primary 2% 1% 3% Primary 47% 51% 45% O Level 16% 25% 10% A level 2% 4% 1% Post-secondary 4% 8% 2% Other 2% 3% 1% Access to education also effects employability. Surveys of war affected youth conducted in Northern Uganda in 2005 and 2008 found that under-employment affects both male and female youth, with females more severely affected. Self-reported illiteracy among all age groups within our evaluation’s household sample, with 45% of respondents (n=1,011; males=433; females=578) reporting that they could neither read nor write. Self-reported illiteracy from our household survey (defined as persons reporting being neither able to read or write) was even higher among women compared to men at 62% vs. 22% respectively (Table 2). Table 2: Literacy Rates (self-reported) Literacy Rates (self-reported) Total Male Female Total 1,011 433 578 1. Neither able to read nor write 45% 22% 62% 2. Able to read only 4% 4% 4% 3. Able to read and write 51% 73% 34% Most classroom blocks, teacher’s houses, latrines, and other school infrastructure were destroyed or were inadequate for the number of children now seeking education. Many classes, during the initial return years, were held under trees or in makeshift grass shelters. Parents were too poor to raise money for materials such as books, pens and uniforms. Schools lacked teachers, exacerbated by the difficulty of recruiting large numbers of qualified staff willing to work in the sub-region. These challenges compromised the quality of education, and many teachers left their duty stations, in part because of the limited housing and because of the 18 distance from their homes. Moreover, of those that did teach, many did so without adequate preparation and training.18 In Okungedi, Amuru District, the evaluation team observed few school structures and those that were there were not yet renovated. One respondent described the dire need for educational services thus: “First of all what we needed was the school. When our children were in camps their education was affected... Schools were dilapidated and we needed them be rehabilitated to allow our children access to education like others. To me since the war ended nothing more was needed for our community apart from education.” (Men’s FGD Okungedi Parish, Amuru District). Roads and Bridges The state of physical infrastructure in Northern Uganda was poor during the early return period from 2006-08 and this also contributed to the problems related to general economic development. The absence of proper roads and bridges affected access to farmland and to ancestral homes, as well as hindering access to social and health services, government offices, schools, banks, to markets for farm goods and business trading centers. This became worse during the rainy season, with bridges washed away and community roads impassable, particularly at culvert points or through swamps. For much of the return period therefore, remote rural areas remained isolated without much-needed services. A community development officer in Gulu noted that the major challenge at that time was “the infrastructure which could enable us get to the people who required services--the infrastructure was so underdeveloped that made it very difficult to reach the people”. Psychosocial Issues Many focus group discussants and cultural leaders described a need for psychological counseling and what they termed traditional “ritual cleansing.” During wartime, many people were abducted and many more witnessed suffering in terms of rape, mutilations, killings, and the torture of their relatives at the hands of rebels. This created deep-rooted psychological problems and emotional trauma leading to what KII respondents describe as post-traumatic stress disorder. The Assistant Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) in Pader District, among many others, described the trauma and mental problems, erratic behavior, and high rates of suicide. Many others spoke of the very high rates of alcoholism among today’s survivors. When our survey respondents were asked who among the people in the community was most affected by the conflict, excluding the 28% that responded “everyone,” they identified children as the most affected (46%) followed by women (22%), youth (20%), persons with disabilities (5%), and men 18 In the household survey, 91% of respondents agreed that an important educational challenge was dilapidated school structures both while at camp and as they returned; 91% indicated a lack of teachers’ housing; and 88% of respondents indicated that it was a challenge for households to buy scholastic materials; and 88% of respondents in the survey agreed that low number of teachers were trained. 19 (5%). Disaggregated by sex, the ratios also change on the effects on men – 7% of men and 3% of women viewed men as most affected. The percentage is also appreciably higher in terms of women’s view of women as the most affected group (26%). Moreover, 36% of men and 41% of women reported that they or their household members had experienced domestic violence during the period 2006-2011. One local council official was one of many KII and FGD respondents that indicated a need for psychosocial support and counseling particularly because “sometimes the returnees themselves testify that they were responsible for the atrocities on particular families” In their own words, some men and women described the psychosocial needs of the people in Acholiland: Many of these thoughts kept disturbing them and they needed to be helped to forget. There was a problem of “cen”- spirits of the dead that were disturbing people as they returned; especially in the places where people were killed a lot as cases of seeing ghost were there. People would see ghosts, hear voices making noise and they would block the roads and stones would be thrown at people in some communities. (FGD, Pabit older men). Disability Many respondents noted high levels of disabilities, as many northern Ugandans had been wounded by bullets, bomb splinters, and land mines.19 We heard from respondents of many instances of atrocities in which the LRA cut off hands, lips, and mouths of people they suspected to be aiding their enemies. One respondent lamented his situation because of a bullet lodged in his body: I have a bullet in my body and always experience periodic pains during the rainy season when it’s very cold. I was told from the Gulu main hospital that I need to be referred to Mulago for the operation which requires one million seven hundred thousand shillings (equivalent at 2014 rates to $680) -- man in FGD in Paidwe parish, Bobi sub county, Gulu District. The Uganda Bureau of Census’s 2002 Population and Housing Census indicated that Northern Uganda had the highest incidence of physical disability (4.4%) in the country, the Western region had the lowest (2.9%), and Eastern region had 3.6% while the Central region had 3.1% (Uganda Bureau of Statistics—UBOS, 2002). The 2004 northern Uganda survey of 2004 estimated 72% of the persons with disabilities in northern Uganda were living under a state of chronic poverty (PopSec, 2013), ten percentage points higher than the average (62%) for the 2002/03 2005/06 periods, as measured by UNHS.20 19 According to the Uganda Demographic Health Survey (DHS), 2011: 27-28, 19 percent of persons age 5 and over have some form of disability in Uganda. The prevalence of disability increases with age, from 12 percent among children age 5-9 to 67 percent among those age 60 and above. The prevalence of disability is about 12 to 13 percent among persons age 5-29, and starts to rise after age 30. The prevalence increases significantly, from 19 percent among persons age 30-39, to 31 percent at age 40-49, and to 49 percent at age 50-59. DHS data are not disaggregated by region, nor does the report specifically capture war-related injuries. Studies specific to disability in Northern Uganda, such as Human Rights Watch, 2010: 6, also indicate a lack of disaggregated data by gender and region on disability, indicating only that “the numbers are difficult to tally [for Northern Uganda] but very likely even higher.” 20 Population Secretariat, Uganda (2013). The state of population report, 2013. 20 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% Disability Rates Among Primary and Secondary Students Primary Secondary Figure 4: Disability Rates among Primary and Secondary Students Figure 5: Trends in USAID Funding to Northern Uganda In 2009, Northern Uganda had a 38% higher physical disability prevalence among primary school pupils (3.3%) compared to the national average of (2.4%). Rates were more similar (18% higher) among secondary school students in northern Uganda (1.3%) and the country as a whole (1.1%; Figure 4). 21 ii. 1.2 How did USAID respond to the needs and challenges? Over the period from FY 2005 through 2011, USAID gradually changed its emphasis from humanitarian assistance (prominent from 2005-2007) to more sector￾based development assistance. FY 2007, the year in which USAID produced its integrated strategy for North-Central Uganda,22 marked a pivot year for assistance in the region, with funding for development assistance roughly equaling humanitarian assistance. Sector-based development assistance accounting for the bulk of assistance from FY 2008 (the largest year in terms of total funding) through FY 2011 (Figure 5; Table 3). 21 Source: Ministry of Education (2010) Education Statistical Abstract 22 USAID Strategy for Reintegration & Recovery in Northern Uganda, op. cit. 21 Table 3: USAID Funding for Northern Uganda USAID Funding for Northern Uganda, FY 2005-2011 (in millions of USD) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Total USAID Funding 77.9 87.4 106.3 144.7 112.3 138.6 102.2 769.4 USAID Funding for Development Activities 13.9 26.8 51.2 96.3 90.0 108.6 102.2 488.9 USAID Funding for Humanitarian Assistance 64.0 60.6 55.1 48.4 22.3 30.0 0 280.5 Health The largest share of USAID support to the recovery efforts in Northern Uganda was in the health sector, growing from 40% of the Mission’s budget in 2008 to 60% in FY 2011 (Figure 6), and continues to represent over 50% of the budget through the present (2014). Interventions primarily targeted HIV/AIDS and malaria, but also supported activities addressing tuberculosis; adolescent, child and maternal health; and health strengthening activities. The Northern Uganda Malaria Aids and Tuberculosis program (NUMAT) drew on funding from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the President’s Malaria Initiative - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 USAID Funding for Northern Uganda by Sector, FY 2008-2011 (in millions of USD) Health Conflict Resolution Food Security Education Agriculture Environment Water Governance Figure 6: USAID Funding for Northern Uganda by Sector 22 (PMI) and child survival resources. NUMAT’s contributions addressed many aspects of health system delivery, training and supporting medical staff. NUMAT also worked in frontline health facilities, training and paying for health center personnel, refurbishing clinical laboratories and providing HIV treatment including anti-retroviral therapy, prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services, and medical supplies. Within the 15 districts of Northern Uganda in which NUMAT operated, it supported the training of 1,500 health staff; assisted District AIDS Committees and District Health Offices to develop and implement comprehensive HIV plans; refurbished 28 laboratories and trained staff to provide comprehensive laboratory services. The project distributed 195,000 bed nets to pregnant women; provided testing for one million people for HIV including more than 400,000 pregnant women, of whom 18,218 were then provided anti-retroviral (ARV) medication purchased with project financial support; HIV clinical care for 55,000 women, men and children, of whom 16,575 had begun anti-retroviral therapy (ART); provided circumcision for 25,000 men. These efforts resulted in an estimated 5,000 new HIV infections averted and a TB treatment success rate of over 85% (JSI, 2012). NUMAT alone, with about 11% of the total USAID health allocations between FYs 2005 and 2011, benefited approximately 1.3 Northern Ugandans.23 According to the midterm evaluation, the program was largely effective in strengthening local coordination structures for HIV/AIDS; in addressing the capacity building and service delivery; and in responding to the changing environment in Northern Uganda by transitioning from emergency care to development assistance (Leinen et al., 2009). Several key informants in this evaluation corroborated these findings. In Agago and Kitgum, local government officials, for example, cited NUMAT as responding to district priorities: NUMAT gave equipment to health centers and did capacity building for health staff…These interventions helped in reducing transmission of malaria, significant reduction in mother to child transmission and the benefits of breastfeeding (KII, district government official, Agago). There was the health system strengthening which focused on leadership, capacity building and equipment. With NUMAT’s support we came up with an HIV strategic plan and improved services by cascading the services in all sub-counties in prevention of mother to child transmission [of HIV] and reduced infection of children. Some people were given Septrin24 and their lives were prolonged. There was a lot of training that has remained with us (KII, district government official, Kitgum). Despite multiple, and what were mostly reported as promising, interventions, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS continued to rise in Uganda as a whole, and particularly for women in Northern Uganda. Our survey respondents generally did not view HIV/AIDS interventions during the 23 These figures are based on numbers of persons receiving interventions listed above, including the one million persons tested for HIV/AIDS and the approximately 200,000 mosquito nets distributed times approximately 1.5 newborns per mother for approximately 300,000 beneficiaries. To avoid double counting, these figures also assume a total overlap between pregnant women tested for HIV and those that received mosquito nets. NUMAT, with approximately $36.2 million in funding received approximately 11% of USAID health sector resources from FY 2005-11. 24 A brand of cotrimoxazole antibiotic, which combines trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole, used to prevent Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP, now called Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia), is particularly recommended for HIV-positive patients, who are at increased risk of getting PCP if their CD4 cell count falls below 200. 23 period of study as effective, with only 39% (10% strongly agree; 29% agree) with the statement that HIV interventions had been effective. Between 2005 and 2011, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS continued to rise overall in Uganda from 7.3% to 8.2% for women and from 5.2% to 6.1% for men, but in Northern Uganda as a region, prevalence rates have declined for men, from 7.1% to 6.3%, while increasing for women from 9.0% to 10.1% during the same period (see Figure 7: Trends in HIV prevalence). However, these figures should be viewed in light of the longer history of AIDS in Uganda, where HIV prevalence among women who were tested while receiving ante-natal care had increased from 11% in 1985 to 31% in 1990 (UNAIDS/WHO, 2004). Other research has documented the relation of increases in HIV prevalence to war and gender￾based violence. Research conducted in Uganda, for example, shows a link between civil war and AIDS (Smallman-Raynor and Cliff, 1991), and certainly, the effects have continued in the post￾conflict period. Longitudinal research has demonstrated that intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with the incidence of HIV infection in women, and importantly, that the fraction of incident HIV attributable to IPV was 22.2% (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2013).25 In our household 25 An earlier survey of 5109 women of reproductive age in the Rakai District of Uganda indicated that 30% of women had experienced physical threats or physical abuse from their current partner – 20% during the year before the survey. Three of five women who reported recent physical threats or abuse reported three or more specific acts of violence during the preceding year, and just under a half reported injuries as a result. Analysis of risk factors highlights the pivotal roles of the male partner’s alcohol consumption and his perceived human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk in increasing the risk of male against female domestic violence. Most respondents – 70% of men and 90% of women – viewed beating of the wife or female partner Figure 7: Trends in HIV Prevalence 24 survey, for example, 41% of women reported that they or their household members had experienced domestic violence during the period 2006 through 2011. Given the high incidence of gender-based violence against women in the Acholi sub-region, IPV may be a contributing factor in increased HIV prevalence among women in Northern Uganda, although clearly such a hypothesis does not explain the decline of HIV prevalence among men, who are also involved in spreading the disease. Malaria. USAID’s response to malaria in Northern Uganda was very effective. NUMAT sponsored training of 71 district trainers from 12 districts in the use of new rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for the diagnosis of malaria, and the training for this cascaded to health workers at peripheral facilities with no availability of laboratory services. The project also distributed 75,000 RDT kits were procured and supplied by NUMAT to 131 health facilities, and during the last two project years, NUMAT received a consignment of 195,000 insecticide treated nets ITNs from the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) for distribution to pregnant women at their first encounter with antenatal clinics. In addition to supporting NUMAT’s efforts in malaria, USAID also supported the Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) project promoting malaria reduction began as a pilot program in 2008, with $1 million in funding and was followed by a three-year, $32 million project in July 2009. Originally covering six post-conflict districts in Northern Uganda it now also covers four other newly created districts.26 Funded by the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) from 2009- 2012, 27 with two rounds of spraying per year, IRS achieved an average coverage of 800,000 households per round) protecting about 2.5 million people per round or approximately 95% of households in the ten districts (Table 4: IRS Indicators), including more than a half a million children under five and over 80,000 pregnant women. The program has continued through the present (2014) with USAID funding. Table 4: IRS Indicators IRS Indicators: Average for six spray rounds (2009-2012)28 Indicator Average per round % Total households 828,075 100.0% Households fully sprayed 785,070 94.8% Households partly sprayed 12,291 1.5% Households not sprayed 30,708 3.7% Average population protected 2,042,520 96.3% as justifiable in some circumstances, posing a central challenge to preventing violence in such settings. However, caution in widely extrapolating from these data however, as although domestic violence is an increasing public health concern in developing countries, evidence from representative, community-based studies such as the Rakai study remains limited (Koenig et al., 2003). 26 The IRS project was designed in 2009 to cover 6 districts in Northern Uganda; Apac, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Oyam and Pader. However from July 1, 2010, the Government of Uganda revised the boundaries of Apac, Amuru, Kitgum, and Pader, creating four new districts Kole, Nwoya, Lamwo and Agago respectively thereby bringing the total number of IRS project districts to 10. 27 A new round of USAID funding continues to support the program. 28 Calculated from data in Abt Associates, 2012 25 These interventions have substantially helped to reduce malaria prevalence in Northern Uganda. During the peak malaria transmission season of 2010 and 2011, CDC epidemiologists conducted a cross-sectional household survey in two high￾transmission districts of Northern Uganda among homes that had been previously sprayed. The study found that children living in a sprayed home had a 46% and 32% lower risk of parasitemia and anemia, respectively, compared to children in a non-sprayed home. The authors concluded that carefully managed IRS can significantly reduce the malaria burden in high-transmission settings (Steinhardt et al., 2013). UBOS data confirm this positive trend, showing marked improvements among on key indicators such as reduction in fever among children of five years of age or less, with a decline in Northern Uganda from 50% to 38%, which now is lower than the national average of 40%, between 2005-06 and 2011-12 (Figure 8: Fever Reduction). Local Governance Revitalization of government authority, particularly at the district and sub-county levels was a major USAID and PRDP goal during return and resettlement. 41% of NUTI grants were targeted to governance in Northern Uganda, of which 20 (11 in Acholi districts) were large projects (Figure 9).29 29 Source: Database constructed and coded by IBTCI evaluation team from a listing of all NUTI projects. Large projects are defined as grant of approximately $100,000 or greater. NUTI also funded grants for 78 smaller projects in support of local governance, ranging in size from $2,500 to $95,000. Note: "Other sectors" includes Agriculture (0.8%), Roads (0.8%), Sanitation (0.4%), Resettlement (0.3%), and Tourism (0.2%) Figure 8: Fever Reduction among Children 26 Large NUTI grant-funded governance projects included the construction of administrative office blocks, staff quarters at the district and sub-county levels. As an example, in Patongo town, in one of the more recently created districts, Agago, NUTI constructed a complete judicial center, comprised of a court hall, directorate of public prosecution, police station, and a judge’s residence helping to consolidate state authority and increase visibility of local government. All district office blocks are now occupied and supporting administrative work of local governments: “This building has solved very many problems, [as the old offices] were congested…the public is properly attended to when we are not congested. There is now confidentiality in handling matters of both the staff and other community members” (KII Pader District Official). NUTI played a key role in the construction/rehabilitation of and furnishing of local government administration at the district and sub-county levels in Gulu, Kitgum, Amuru and Nwoya districts. But as the evaluation of the project notes, it had some important shortcomings. The use of short-term, technical engineering advisors was an important aspect of the project, as none of NUTIs project directors or senior managers had an engineering background, and therefore these engineers played a crucial role in helping to oversee the construction work. However, engineers were not involved in reviewing the original proposals for NUTI tenders, and they were not mandated to decide on when to release payments to the contractors. The evaluators noted that in some cases, this led substandard work. Eventually, NUTI brought in the expertise of a consulting firm for increased on-site management and quality monitoring, which allowed for the improvement on potential design errors and severe failings in quality control, and introduced greater financial rigor to the construction process (Mattson et al., 2011). Figure 9: Large Construction and Rehabilitation Projects in Governance 27 Beyond the initial problems with construction, there are other threats to sustainability of NUTI projects. Districts are highly dependent on conditional grants for approximately 80% of their funding, and most of this is used for development rather than recurrent costs like maintenance. Because most maintenance costs funded from the local government’s own locally generated revenues – and local ability to generate local revenues have been low – even though buildings fall within local government maintenance plans, local governments’ bureaucratic processes required for maintenance badly jeopardizes sustainability. As one example, the evaluation team noted a falling ceiling board in a NUTI-constructed office block in Pader district. When asked about the repair, the district officials said that it was in the plan, but it was not clear when it would take place. In contrast to the situation in 2006, by 2011, local governmental authorities had been substantially reinstated. The Ministry of Local Government’s 2011 assessment report shows that most of the districts include those in the Acholi sub region now met the minimum conditions and performance measures including functional capacity for planning, financial management and internal audit (MoLG, 2012). U.S. projects such as LINKAGES project played an important role through its training of local leaders in Kitgum and Pader on governance skills in three major areas: “harmonized participatory development planning” (HPDP); orientation and mentoring of local government councilors in standard rules of procedure; and enhancement of local revenue mobilization. Although the evaluation did not provide data on the number or duration of training sessions, nor did it provide hard data on specific outcomes measures,30 the LINKAGES final evaluation report noted that the project contributed to considerable ‘hearing’ or listening on the part of local government to local people’s voices. Through the project engagements with both the local governments and the local people, the evaluators noted that the quality of the popular voices and the space for the voice to articulate popular demands was created notably at the local government level, and that HPDP resulted in increased participation in local government planning and budgeting processes. As a result of the training, the report noted that subsequent local government performance assessment exercises showed improved performance for most of the sub-counties that received LINKAGES support. Furthermore, the final evaluation established that although grants to civil society organizations (CSO) were relatively marginal (US$ 300,000 to 38 institutions), these actors were able to leverage funding for their activities with other funding sources. The LINKAGES evaluation report noted, however, that achievements were fewer in terms of engagement with the national parliament (Ngunyi-Mutahi et al, 2010). The key informants interviewed as part of our evaluation concurred with the view that LINKAGES training on governance skills had contributed to positive outcomes, especially at the local government level. Based on several KIIs conducted as part of this evaluation with local officials, LINKAGES appears to have made a significant contribution in building capacity of both elected officials and technical staff understanding and appreciation of their roles. For example, 30 We have previously described the caveats from LINKAGES evaluation report notes in the methodology section on PMP data supplied by the project as “… strong on quantitative results, but weak on the qualitative nuances” Ngunyi-Mutahi et al, 2010). 28 Kitgum district officials noted that Lamwo, which had previously performed poorly in managing government grant budgets improved after the training. Other KIIs noted LINKAGES’ important contributions to the re-establishment of rule of law; restoration of state authority; improvement of government visibility in the community; and improving civil society participation in decision-making. Although the LINKAGES evaluation reported few outcomes at the national level, KIIs credited LINKAGES for greater parliamentary involvement and increased democratic participation in the political processes. These types of efforts NUTI and LINKAGES, and other development partners in support of strengthening governance contributed to a relatively favorable view of governance among the citizenry. When survey respondents were asked in case they were in need of justice, 74% responded that the police would easily be accessible, while 52% said that the judiciary or courts would easily be accessible. Survey respondents saw government as generally effective, with a majority viewing local government as effective, with 81% positive ratings for village government (LC 1), 73% for sub-county government (LC 3), and 70% for district government (LC 5). Table 5: Perception of Effectiveness Perception of Effectiveness Very Effective Somewhat Effective Neither Effective Nor Ineffective Somewhat Not Effective Not Effective at All Don’t Know Local Council 1 36% 39% 6% 11% 7% 0% Local Council 3 22% 51% 7% 11% 6% 2% Local Council 5 29% 41% 8% 11% 6% 6% Additionally, notwithstanding these considerable achievements of both LINKAGES and NUTI, particularly in helping to reinforce governance structures, deficits still exist. Despite steady progress towards consolidation of state authority, there are still gaps with regard to access to state-sponsored systems of justice. As one example, faced with an increase in land disputes, for example, courts have been slow in addressing these issues: 31 “There are several cases of land conflicts pending without being addressed. There are some [pending cases] since 2006! This has forced people to lose trust in the judicial system. And as far as justice is concerned, we always have cases reported to the police. But unfortunately our community members do not know what steps to follow after reporting a case. So sometimes they end up losing their case” (KII former camp commandant, Pagak, Amuru district). Agriculture, Food Security, and Livelihoods USAID was an important provider of food aid during the encampment period, providing an estimated 30% of total emergency food aid (Fintrac, 2011), or over $200 million of food aid 31 Because of high levels of confidence, particularly in lower levels local government, such structures could, if they had the authority, act as “first stop” for villagers seeking to resolve conflicts. The results of our survey are also consistent with research in other countries, including the U.S., where public trust in government declines from local to state to the federal level. See for example, data from Moore (2012) “State and Local Governments Trusted More than Feds” accessed at https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/12/02/state-local-governments-trusted/ 29 through WFP between FY 2005-2010. Including non-emergency Title II food aid, USAID provided $47.1 million in food aid through WFP in FY 2005, the last year of encampment, providing food aid for approximately 500,000 persons,32 decreasing gradually through FY 2010 to about half of the previous levels (Table 6). Table 6: Food Aid Food Aid, FY 2005-2010 (in millions of USD) FY05 FY 06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY05-10 Emergency Food Aid through WFP 47.6 41.2 43.1 30.0 9.9 25.0 196.8 Non-Emergency Title II Food Aid 4.5 4.9 9.4 Total* 52.1 46.1 $43.1 30.0 9.9 25.0 206.2 *Figures Food aid to NU in Million USD. Excludes food aid to Karamoja (FY 08--$12.0 m.; FY09--$7.4 m.). Data provided by USAID/Uganda In both the household survey and focus groups, the WFP was the most recognized aid agency with nearly all displaced persons in the Acholi sub region benefiting from food aid, of which an estimated 30% was provided to WFP by USAID. According to one key informant in Pajule sub county, Pader district, the entire Acholi generation would have been “wiped out” without it. The perception among many FGD respondents and key informants was that USAID interventions were very important in responding to IDPs’ recovery needs both during encampment and the return period: [USAID] helped people with food, since hunger was killing people as the government was unable to provide for its people…displaced in the camps and suffering seriously with hunger…People were not engaged in any form of agriculture—they were restricted to life in the camps with limited or no access to their land till around 2006. [During the return period, USAID] helped because there were certain things that government would not have been able to do alone…training and supporting people on village loan and savings associations (VSLA) and constructing classroom blocks in schools which were needed so badly for the people to settle after the war (Men’s FGD, Paidwe Parish, Bobi Sub-county, Gulu). As we were in the camp, I still do recognize the assistance that we were receiving from NGOs like World Food Programme and NRC. Of course as a leader, I knew very well that the assistance that was being given was funded by USAID. The foodstuff that we were given had marks of USAID. This really helped us a lot at that time when people were not able to get food on their own. (KII, former Camp Commandant, Pagak Camp, Lamogi Sub-county, Amuru district). WFP gave us maize flour, beans and cooking oil in tins marked with USAID logo. These helped us to sustain our livelihoods during the time in camps and as we were exiting the camps (FGD, women in Paibony parish, Kitgum District). 32 Based on USAID’s contribution of 30% total WFP aid for a population of 1.8 million IDPs, assuming 90-95% were registered for, and received WFP food rations. 30 …Among the key actors while in the camp; we had World Food Programme, which provided us food with support from USAID. World Vision, which also provided us with food with the support from USAID… (FGD, male youth, Paiula parish Pajule sub-county Pader district). USAID’s financial contributions in the agricultural sector were relatively modest during the 2006-2011 period, and were complemented by the activities of other donor agencies, which supported the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and the Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF). In the immediate post-conflict period, former IDPs began to resume agricultural activities, and access to land improved.33 However, according to one KII, the issue of women’s access to land remained a problem that had received insufficient attention from USAID and its partners: It is about accessibility and issues surrounding decision making processes and ownership…the cultural system and the customary land tenure system puts women in an undefined position when it comes to decision concerning land utilization and ownership. We have number of women who are landless; and being landless determines economic destiny. This affects the empowerment of women because if they need to gain some collateral or get involved in some economic gain, then they have a narrow window for opportunities; moreover 80% of agriculture is contributed by women in the country! We are advocating for women property rights, especially the right to own land under USAID projects. The women [we work with] utilized land to plant cassava and other varieties. They later sold the produced and got for themselves some money to start up. Later on, they got their own farmlands through our advice. Right now, they have got their own farmland. We realized that in fact, the customary land tenure system principles, [which called for] the traditional leaders to guarantee support of families, was really better. But apparently because of lack of understanding of rights, the situation now is not good (Women’s NGO, Gulu). The household survey data show that USAID’s activities in food security broadly matched the needs during the 2006-2009 return period. For example, 69% mentioned a lack of food supplies during this period, and 61% stated that provision of food supplies was one of the activities implemented by development partners. However, there was a mismatch in percentages between those who mentioned lack of farm inputs (58%) and those who mentioned that one of the activities was provision of farm inputs (46%). The low provision of agricultural inputs vis-à-vis the need for farm inputs may be explained by the fact that during the humanitarian aid phase, less emphasis was put on supporting agricultural related activities because of limited access to land and the risks involved in accessing land for cultivation during this phase. USAID supported food security through its two Title II programs. Table 7 provides an overview of Title II metric tonnages of wheat and vegetable oil sold in Uganda during FY07-FY11. 34 33 As an example, average household agricultural plot sizes increased from 3.29 in 2006 acres to 4.09 acres in 2007. Source: 2007 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Land Access Survey cited in WFP (2007). 34 The Bellmon Estimation (Fintrac, 2011) characterizes the food aid portion of the Title II programs for this period, however, as “quite small.” Figures for 2011 are projections. 31 Table 7: Monetized Commodities, Title II Monetized Commodities (MT), Title II FY 2007-201135 Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Total Wheat 20,310 30,140 21,550 21,710 21,120 114,830 Vegetable Oil 762 0 0 0 0 762 Total 21,072 30,140 21,550 21,710 21,120 115,592 Title II projects, however, showed mixed results. The first food assistance project (ACDI/VOCA 2004-08), provided supplementary food rations to 41,000 persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, as well as technical assistance to improve production and utilization of food for another 139,000 individuals. Overall, the number of households who participated in program activities exceeded their life of project (LOP) target of 69,500 by almost 40%. The final evaluation of the ACDI/VOCA Uganda MYAP found that the program has been able to achieve the broadest output targets, namely the number of households who received training or other assistance, and that it greatly exceeded the number of households who received food assistance under SO2 (this target was). However, a low number of households received training in savings and credit, and outcome indicators of behavioral changes were less than targeted, even when using lower modified targets in the 2009 restructuring plan. The outcome indicators show that there was a general decline in food security conditions from the time of the baseline. However, evaluators noted that this may have been due to the negative effect of floods and drought on agricultural production in the program implementation area. In addition, they noted that at the beginning of the project many households were receiving food aid and subsequently had to rely on other, riskier livelihood strategies to meet their food and nutrition needs. A comparison of members of farmer groups with non‐members suggests that the program interventions have helped by mitigating the negative impacts of these factors on households that received support from the MYAP. Despite low numbers actually receiving training in credit, one of the key findings from ACDI/VOCA final evaluation survey and focus group discussions is that savings and credit activities are fundamental to sustaining farmer groups after the direct program support has ended. There was, however, a low level of achievement of training in savings and credit, with only 38,876 households trained, or 56% of the life of project target. Despite the relatively low levels of coverage, the percentage of households belonging to savings and credit groups increased dramatically over the five years of the program, from less than 20% of all surveyed households in the baseline, to almost 60% in the final survey round, with group members having double the ratio of membership and participation (76% and 67% respectively) compared with non-members (38%; 34%) (Tango, 2012). 35 In FY 2005, USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (USAID/FFP) provided 79,630 MT of P.L. 480 Title II emergency food assistance, valued at more than $47.5 million; and in FY 2006, provided 55,010 metric tons (MT) of P.L. 480 Title II emergency food assistance valued at more than $33 million. USAID/FFP assistance consisted of cereals, corn-soya blend, vegetable oil, and pulses. These figures, however, include both northern and eastern districts, drought-affected families in the Karamoja sub￾region, and refugees countrywide (USAID/DCHA/OFDA, 2006). Source: USAID Office of Food for Peace Uganda Bellmon Estimation. Fintrac (2011) 32 The later launched Mercy Corps’ Title II-funded Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC 2008-12) project focused primarily on improving access to food, health and nutrition, and access to water and sanitation, and improved hygiene practices. The project provided almost 15,000 metric tons (MT) of supplementary rations of corn meal, corn-soy blend, vegetable oil and split green peas to an annual average of more than 17,000 beneficiaries and provided an additional 9,600 MT of food to other beneficiary families across the three Acholi districts served by the program. The project also reported that nearly 60,000 households were trained in agronomy (86% of its target) and more than 45,000 household were trained in farming as a business (65% of targets) from 160 producer groups during its first four years of implementation. This support was the primary means used by the project to transmit training and support adoption of improved agricultural practices on demonstration plots. The final project evaluation found that use of most of the key practices promoted through the program increased between the baseline and final evaluations, especially intercropping, crop rotation, early land preparation and land fallowing. However, the evaluation notes that although some farmers cited these practices as influencing productivity, their contribution to overall farmer productivity in HPSC areas is unclear. For example, although farmers increased the amount of mean acreage under production between the baseline and final evaluations, the evaluators concluded that changes in overall acreage were not influenced by the project. Rather, these increases most likely resulted from increased land access once families resettled to their communities of origin.36 The evaluation also noted that although mean yields are also likely to have increased during the program, this conclusion was not well supported by project data. Moreover, although crop diversification was included as an aim in the HPSC proposal, overall crop diversification, as measured by the adoption of vegetable and legume production and production of multiple crop varieties, did not improve during the course of the HPSC project (Catsam, 2014). USAID/Uganda also supported Uganda-wide agricultural projects with activities in Northern Uganda including the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP) and Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD) project. APEP was a five-year project from late 2003 to mid-2008 that worked on value chains, strengthening producer organizations (PO); training farmers in technologies; expanding access to production inputs and credit; upgrading post-harvest handling techniques; and linking farmers to markets. A third intervention, a dairy-based project designed to enhance smallholder food security and income, was implemented by the Heifer Project, was the only agricultural project solely targeting Northern Uganda, specifically Gulu and Amuru in the Acholi sub-region, and neighboring Lira. In this case, it was not possible to draw on evidence-based findings from a previous evaluation because of a lack of verifiable data. The formative APEP evaluation drew some sweeping conclusions despite no on-the-ground observations of activities in the sub-region and provided little substantive evidence to back conclusions. For example, it considered that APEP was 36 Prior to resettlement, a security perimeter cut off access to large tracts of land, limiting the amount of land upon which families could plant. When farmers returned from IDP camps they accessed their productive land more easily, making it less risky and more feasible to plant increased acreage (Catsam, 2014). 33 “extremely successful…in a period when conflict was so violent much of the time as to preclude program staff travel to conflict-affected districts…[and that] APEP found ways to work around [the conflict] and in the course of doing so, identified private sector businesses in the region that were sufficiently determined to succeed, even in the face of conflict, in becoming active partners in the implementation of the model APEP of farming as a business among small farmers for the commodities they were interested in marketing and processing (Dorsey et al., 2007).37 Another nationwide agriculture project, the LEAD project, was designed to support progressively increased agricultural productivity in Uganda. For the purpose of this 2005-2012 period of study, we describe the first phase (LEAD 1), implemented from 2008-2011. According to the project report, approximately 60% of project resources were directed to Northern Uganda in first phase. Based on the project’s reported outcomes, and using an estimate of 60% for Northern Uganda38 the project provided $4 million dollars’ worth of grants for capacity development training for 6,900 producer organizations (PO), reaching 221,471 rural households. The project also supported the establishment of VSLAs among these organizations in the North, and these met weekly to save their weekly contributions (USD 0.50 per household or member) and then provided mini loans to members wishing to borrow. They also reported that the loans were usually used to solve domestic problems like school fees or scholastic needs like books and others (ITEC, 2011). Although we did not conduct a systematic analysis of the sustainability of these POs, several KIIs and FGD respondents mentioned many of them had since disbanded. We did however visit one beekeeper organization, whose operations continue to date, and describe this intervention in Annex V: Case Studies and summarize it in the text box below. 37 One team member of the APEP evaluation spent part of a day in Gulu, interviewing UNDP, FAO, ACDI/VOCA, and representatives of the USAID Gulu Office, as well as some partial days in neighboring districts to Acholi, including Masindi and Lira. No specific activities in the North were detailed in the evaluation to support these conclusions. 38 Because data provided in the project report was not disaggregated by region, it is not possible to determine specific outcomes for Northern Uganda. Estimates assume a ratio of 60% investment in Northern Uganda and similar outcomes in the north in terms of increase in household incomes and value of commodities produced. In 2010, the USAID-funded LEAD project supported the development of a beekeepers association in Pabbo, a forest zone with many people engaged in bee keeping. During the war, bee farmers usually worked individually to harvest honey and wax, resulting in variable quality and low prices for their products. LEAD provided equipment and training to the Pabbo cooperative and provided new equipment for separating the wax from honey efficiently and more hygienically—honey is no longer spoiled by residual larvae in the and can be stored longer. Beekeepers are now able to produce new products including mead and propolis (recovered wax), which is used in furniture polish, candles, soap, and medicine. As a registered business entity, the association has expanded its production by loaning equipment to non-members and purchasing their excess honey, and now supplies retail consumers and supermarkets in Gulu. Success and commitment have attracted additional support in a ‘virtuous cycle’: locally raised money has enabled the group to buy laboratory coats and the association has been able to access rent-free space from the sub-county for offices and machinery. Although the association continues to face challenges including still-limited markets and variable harvests, by working together, they have achieved a high level of product quality and have built the foundations for a sustainable market for their products. 34 Table 8: LEAD 1 Data LEAD Phase 1: 2008-1139 Nationwide 60% Project grants (in millions of USD) 6.5 4.0 Rural households reached 369,119 221,471 Producer Organizations receiving capacity development training 11,500 6,900 Percent increase in household incomes (over baseline) 56% 56% Value of commodities produced (in millions of USD) 293.0 176.0 Individuals trained 707,808 424,685 The project report (Tetra Tech, 2013) indicated that LEAD’s phase1 had met or exceeded its goals. However, LEAD was substantially downsized in its second phase after a mid-term evaluation, which concluded that the intervention did not achieve its expected results, and that more facilitation was necessary for self-sustenance. In particular, the mid-term evaluation criticized LEAD’s design as “overly ambitious and focused on too many value chains and interventions along the value chains.”40 As a primary recommendation, the evaluation report urged greater involvement of local government as critical to future sustainability (ITEC, 2011). Although these larger agricultural projects conducted a variety of activities, not all of which were well adapted to the Northern Ugandan context, one example of a small, but effective, project was the Heifer Project International’s (HPI) Northern Uganda Dairy Development Project (2008-2011; $500,000), designed to support farmer livelihoods. The overall aim of the three-year project was to improve the livelihoods of group and individual farmers through integrated interventions in dairy production; animal traction technologies; market-access and improvement; and the application of knowledge and skills. Specifically, the project targeted 1,500 households through 2011 for improved food security, increased income and improved nutrition. The final project evaluation suggests that the project was able to increase the capacity of target households to meet their food security needs while inculcating a culture of financial savings, a capacity of farmer organizations to identify efficient farming practices and then analyze critical points in market chains, a capacity to produce dairy products locally, to promote the bulk marketing of milk, to foster access to new production technologies, and increase farmers’ self-employment. It was also able to improve the nutrition and health status, especially of children and women. Although data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size, a household survey of 80 randomly sampled direct beneficiary households served by the project, more than 90% of the respondents said the living conditions in their households had improved and 78% said the project contributed to this “to a great extent” (Opio et al., 2011). Key informants interviewed for this evaluation also commented on livelihood interventions: 39 Source for nationwide figures: Tetra Tech, 2013 40 One reviewer of a previous draft indicated that USAID’s Feed the Future (FTF) strategy may have also influenced the number of value chains selected and that some crops, such as cotton or simsim, which important commodities for northern Uganda, were no longer to be supported under FTF’s broader strategy. 35 Some of [USAID interventions] which were livelihood in nature were also very relevant because most people who were displaced did not have other sources of livelihoods…introducing VSLA, the capacity in livelihoods was boosted, considering that women contribute a lot in the welfare of a family. Later around 2007-2008, when stability started coming in [and people began] having access to their farmland, some projects gave ox-ploughs. Using these oxen, they were able to open up land and begin planting crops (KII, NGO Forum, Gulu). The SPRING project had a $3.6 million small grants component for supporting activities designed to stabilize households and communities, including vocational skills training and start￾up capital (revolving funds) to promote self-reliance, peace building and income generation for residents (Cardno, 2010). The project, with AVSI as a key subcontracting partner, directly supported 1,314 farmers and 180 beekeepers. In addition, the project provided training for the development of commercial farming practices for 276 farmer groups with 8,275 farmer members incorporating production and marketing support with legal assistance, institutional strengthening, early child care and conflict mitigation training. SPRING also supported 35 commercial marketing centers (CMC), which began operations in 2010. Each CMC was equipped with a warehouse (65 - 250 metric tons of storage capacity) and agro-processing facilities (AVSI SPRING Report 2010).41 The mid-term evaluation found that SPRING had contributed to increases in productivity of agricultural enterprises and increases in participation in village savings and loan associations (VSLA; Kenwill, 2010). As part of our evaluation, we visited three of the project-constructed storehouses, which had been equipped with grinding mills, which were all found to be still operational. Although we were able to glean important information about the support for farmers’ groups from SPRING reports, the mid-term project evaluation (Kenwill, 2010), particularly in the area of youth development, had some serious methodological problems that make it difficult to interpret results in other areas. For example, the evaluation noted that SPRING facilitated a number of youth training programs, supporting youth entrepreneurship ventures with organizations such as the Gulu Development Association,42 and vocational training in Lalogi sub￾county. The mid-term evaluation indicates that “All the youth interviewed within the focus group said that they were presently engaged in productive work in relation to their acquisition of the vocational skills,” but provides no information about the type of work or level of income received. Recipients of small loans for micro-enterprise development also reported favorable results, but this intervention did not create new jobs, as participants were already working before it started. Moreover, very small numbers were served by this activity and the selection criteria included already having a running business and being a formerly abducted person. SPRING identified and supported only an estimated 35 vulnerable community members who were already running small-scale business such as restaurants in trading centers, kiosks, and crop produce businesses. Beneficiaries indicated their ability to expand their businesses; to afford three meals per day for family members; increased unity and harmony in the family; ability to afford medical treatment. Although these are laudable outcomes, the SPRING project 41 AVSI SPING Report (2010). Kampala: AVSI 42 The Gulu Youth Development Association (GYDA) is an NGO formed in 1992 by a group of youth with an interest in creating employment opportunities for youth parents, street youth, drop-outs, orphans, disabled and war-affected youth. 36 supported only a small number of entrepreneurs given the overwhelming needs as expressed by KIIs and members of youth focus groups for youth development activities. Roads ACDI/VOCA’s multi-year assistance program (MYAP) completed construction of a total of 102 kilometers of unpaved secondary “feeder” roads by September 2011. As part of a survey conducted for the final evaluation of the ACDI/VOCA program, over 60% of the households surveyed reported that roads within their communities had been rehabilitated over the last five years (although not necessarily by ACDI/VOCA), and over 85% of these households reported that the road improvements had improved their access to agricultural markets by reducing the travel time required. Moreover, 36% of households who reported improved road access also reported that their household food availability increased over the past five years, compared with only 22% of households who did not benefit from road improvements (Tango, 2012). Mercy Corps’ Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC) program constructed 34 feeder roads (22 in Kitgum, 3 in Agago, and 7 in Pader) through Food for Work (FFW), providing a total of 364 kilometers of roads. The HPSC final evaluation report did not provide data on numbers of persons employed in FFW activities, but did note that the project provided almost 15000 metric tons (MT) of supplementary rations of corn meal, corn-soy blend, vegetable oil and split green peas to an annual average of more than 17,000 beneficiaries per year and that FFW activities, HPSC provided an additional 9,600 MT of food to beneficiary families across the three Acholi districts served by the program (Catsam, 2014). The HPSC evaluators also interviewed sub-county authorities in four sub counties who described the roads as one of the most beneficial contributions of the program, because it increased access to health centers, schools and markets. Moreover, according to a household survey conducted as part of the evaluation, there was a statistically significant (p<.05) reduction between the baseline and final evaluations in the time it takes respondents to get to market, and the mean time to market has been reduced by approximately 20 minutes (Catsam, 2014). FGD respondents corroborated the benefits of these connections in improving business activities by reducing both travel time and the expense of each journey: In terms of business, things have become easy because good roads have made carrying goods with bicycles easy…It’s also easier for children to get to school. Before, rivers were impassable but when they put in a bridge and culverts it’s now passable (FGD Male Youth, Palaro, Gulu District) These roads that they opened have enabled some buyers to be able to access us with lorries up to our villages to buy our little harvest. Before, you had to first remove your clothes to cross the river, which was so time consuming, but with the culverts and bridges, all these have been improved (Men’s FGD, Lamola, Gulu District). Now you just make a phone call to a friend that you have 10 sacks of sorghum and they come direct up to your home using these roads and bridges (Male youth, Lamola, Gulu District). 37 The roads constructed by USAID projects continue to function even though some focus group respondents complained of road impassability during rainy seasons, leading to concerns regarding their long-term maintenance. This vulnerability to weather conditions, coupled with the fact that district government have not taken responsibility for maintenance, even though USAID partners constructed them according to the district plans, will almost certainly have an effect their sustainability. The HPSC evaluation found similar problems. First, they found that the quality of roads was variable. Of the four roads they inspected, one of them, the Porogali￾Okinga access road was smooth and in good condition. The other three roads that were inspected all had culverts and bridges with some culvert pipes exposed, and with varying degrees of soil erosion around the expulsion tubes. An extreme case was an access road near Ladotonen (Kitgum) where the culverts expelled water into a large mud pit, suggesting that the drainage system was not designed properly. They concluded that it was likely that many other project-supported road sections were likely to fall into disrepair relatively quickly, especially during the rainy season (Catsam, 2014). Other problems surfaced with the food for work (FFW) component of the project. FGD respondents indicated that the program paid all workers the same amount monthly, regardless of the actual work they did, a system that many found unfair. The HPSC evaluation found other sets of problems with FFW. Sub-county authorities from all locations visited mentioned significant challenges, most notably that communities did not always receive the amount of food they had been promised and that there were significant delays in paying beneficiaries. Moreover, when the HPSC evaluators conducted an impromptu interview with FFW participants, they were unanimous in describing problems with food quality, complaining that previous food had insects and worms (ibid.). Peace Building and Reconciliation Peace building and reconciliation interventions were an important part of USAID programming in Northern Uganda, particularly in the immediate post-conflict phase, and attempted to address the physical, sexual, and psychological trauma that many Northern Ugandans had suffered. Early USAID-financed interventions, such as the Northern Uganda Peace Initiative,43 which was winding down its activities by 2006-07, had, during the emergency period prior to this time, begun with the aim of preparing the GoU Presidential Peace Team for peace talks and confidence building measures with the LRA (Jansen et al 2007). 44 These efforts contributed to 43 The Northern Uganda Peace Initiative (NUPI, 2002-2007) was also designed to help civil society and the GOU work together to support the peace and reconciliation process and in facilitating the return of former LRA combatants. CMM later codified the steps used by NUTI in a “toolkit” document in terms of targeting various “tracks” for dialogue and training. “Track I processes engage top-level decision-makers; Track II processes target influential actors within civil society, including business, institutional, academic, and religious leaders...to provide advice to government officials…[and] provide feedback on proposals, suggest agenda items overlooked by political leaders, or test innovative approaches before they are introduced at the Track I level. Track III processes engage locally influential grassroots actors or the public at large... [who] typically have the greatest direct exposure to the opposing party in a conflict, the largest involvement with the military (as both combatants and civilians), and the least access to policymakers.” The document notes that Track III engagement is “often needed for the long-term success of peace processes, as public acceptance of an agreement is crucial for its on-the-ground implementation” (CMM, 2009). 44 Although an agreement was not eventually signed, its contents are often used as a reference by government and non￾government actors. 38 developing and debating a comprehensive peace agreement by the GOU, LRA and other stakeholders. NUPI also supported interventions through chiefs’ tours and facilitated ex￾combatants reintegration and contributing funds to support conducting local rituals such as “mato oput” (drinking the root of the oput tree) and “nyono-tong gweno” (stepping on an egg), which emphasized local reconciliation and acceptance of ex-combatant reintegration. The project also contributed to the establishment of the regional Acholi Peace Forum (APF), and initiated Reconciliation Steering Groups in neighboring sub-regions, including Teso, Lango, and West Nile, which encouraged peace-building activities within the Acholi sub region as well as between the Acholi and neighboring areas (Boase, 2011). NUTI built on these early efforts by funding peace-building activities supporting arts and sports, awareness campaigns and capacity-building on issues related to voter education, land tenure, reintegration of ex-combatants, and promoting accountability and reconciliation through systems of transitional justice. Particularly important to local respondents, were reconciliation activities such as cleansing of the hills of human and skeletal remains, and burial and other traditional ceremonies to facilitate the return home and revive Acholi culture: I remember NUTI well. I think I am comfortable to speak about NUTI because they were very involved in helping to resettle communities with…psycho-therapy…remember the late [Colonel Walter] Ocora cracking a joke about USAID that they were involved in traditional practices like appeasing the evil spirits through the support to the process. This made the presence of NUTI really felt in the communities. NUTI was very flexible in a manner that was fitting for the particular situation. Another area was their support to revive culture. By the time people were going back home, the element of culture was eroded (Community Development Officer Gulu district). Later projects, such as SPRING and the Pader Peace Program also promoted peace-building activities. Although SPRING’s peace-building component activities were relatively new at the time of the mid-term evaluation of that project, evaluators analyzed some of the new and proposed activities, recommending that conflict sensitivity mainstreaming (CSM)45 become an ongoing component throughout the project cycle, and noting that relatively little attention has been given to peace activities envisioned by the PRDP and that instead other sectors have taken priority, recommended that the project devote more resources to conflict assessment (Kenwill, 2010). According to the final report submitted by the project grantee, by the end of the program, SPRING had organized over a thousand events geared towards reconciliation; supported 200 community-based reconciliation projects; and trained over 3,000 people in conflict mitigation (Cardno, 2012). The Pader Peace Program (PPP), implemented by Mercy Corps between 2007-2009, used district peace and reconciliation teams that were originally developed by a previous project, A Stake in our Future” (ASIOF), to foster social harmony among clans and families as well as 45 CSM is described in the final project report was based on the principle that for development activities in post-conflict environments to yield lasting results, the reconciliation needs of war-affected communities must be addressed. 39 cross-tribal peace building initiatives between the Acholi and neighbouring areas.46 PPP was designed to increase community and institutional capacity to mitigate conflict and advance peace and reconciliation in Pader District through the establishment of peace committees at the parish, sub-county, and district level; to facilitate the return and reintegration rate of former combatants; and to build community confidence in the peace and return process. The final project report of that program indicates that it had conducted training sessions for 750 members of peace committees, who according to the report were often the first to be called upon when a dispute arises or threatens to escalate. The project also reported having sponsored a peace summit for 250 committee members and 1500 members of the public, in which it “gave its participants the opportunity to hear directly from government officials about the Juba peace process and voice their own opinions on government policies.”47 In a review of projects sponsored by USAID’s Office of Conflict Mitigation and Mitigation (CMM), Ossiya et al. (2012) noted however, that some alliances were unstable and short lived due to insufficient financial support, and that for longer-term sustainability, CMM programs such as PPP needed to nurture the existing networks especially those with rich knowledge of the local context and committed to supporting communities. There are problems with a sustainability strategy that is overly dependent on volunteers. Turnover among volunteer corps members is often high; the time that volunteers can devote to activities is limited; volunteers need constant attention, monitoring, and contact with paid staff to remain effective; and there are few mechanisms in place allowing for the transfer of knowledge and skills from one volunteer to another (Midling et al., 2013). Moreover, as the following quote from the CMM review notes, local implementing partners may also perceive an inherent unfairness, when asked to contribute their time and effort, for which others are paid: We were called to Mercy Corp office to sign an MoU but when we realized that partnering with Mercy Corp as IP’s was purely on voluntary basis, we pulled out of this unfair arrangement because on several occasions, we women were exploited (local CMM partner, cited in Ossiya et al., 2012). The view that PPP interventions had little sustainability, in part due to its on creating new structures such as the peace committees, was corroborated by KIIs: Mercy Corps established a peace committee,48 but now the peace committee is dead. The bad thing is that these committees do not last after a project; it means there is a gap. Mercy Corps should have worked with existing government structures [but instead] did not bring on board 46 Specifically with the Langi, Alur, Mahdi, and Karimojong whose territories surround Acholi. Ossiya et al. (2012) note that ASIOF, on which PPP intended to build also suffered from organizational problems: “community monitors/local monitoring teams (LMTs) were trained to monitor the program [but] the delay to launch the program rendered about 50% of the program life redundant. When it eventually took off, it only had 6 months to go and despite persistent requests to consider a commensurate adjustment of the progam life, it, was not extended and hence objectives were only partially met.” 47 It was not possible for this evaluation to independently corroborate these or other reported PPP outcomes. Although the project report indicates that there were “rigorous monitoring and evaluation activities that took place throughout the implementation period,” and that midterm and final evaluations “measure the program’s impact at different stages…” we were unable to locate any PPP evaluations on dec.usaid or through Internet searches. 48 As noted earlier, these were, according to the CMM evaluation (Ossiya et al., 2012) peace committees were not “established” by Mercy Corps, but used those established by a previous project, ASIOF. 40 people who had merit….[including] teachers who did not look teachers, very shabby—teachers are supposed to be smart. They just wanted money and were not committed. One thing good was putting the religious leaders on board. These are much-respected people among the leaders, their flocks respect them (KII, sub county local council chair). We have not achieved justice yet…transitional justice has not operated fully. The truth telling has not happened. [Community members say:] “I need to know the truth of what happened to my relatives who disappeared.” …We also need to take the issue of reparations seriously. A bill was drafted but nothing has happened since then. . . I appeal to USAID to reinvigorate Acholi peace initiative. We need to mediate talk to people but we have no capacity. “Why work actively during the war and after peace you leave us?” There is a lot of unfinished business for reconciliation (group interviews, Ke Kwara Acholi, traditional chiefs, conducted in Gulu). In Atiak where over 300 people were killed; in Lamwo over 400 people; in Omot; in Barlonyo over 200 people were killed as well. All these communities need healing and to bring healing is to bring reconciliation… a military solution will never bring peace, even if you kill all those rebels, there will be no peace in the hearts of those whose children were killed during the war (KII, religious leader, conducted in Gulu). Communications/Media In support of its peace building agenda, USAID also supported radio programs in the region through the NUTI, which provided equipment and technical support to three Northern Uganda radio stations. This included studio, transmission and core equipment, and tailored modular training on journalism, programming and media management. Enhancing the capacity of the Northern Uganda media, particularly in research, to inform and report on peace, recovery and development issues, was viewed as key to providing information and encouragement on return from internally displaced camps. As part of our evaluation, we conducted site visits to two (Kitgum, Gulu) of three radio stations supported by NUTI, and found them to be fully functioning and sustainable, but unfortunately, neither had maintained archives of radio shows that were financed by NUTI, so we were unable to review these. According to one previous survey (Steadman, 2010), however, residents in Northern Uganda indicated that radio messages were more credible than messages via any other medium, and that 80% of the population regularly listened to these radio programs. The final evaluation of NUTI (Mattsson et al., 2007) further reports on a media club that continues to operate through the present (2014): Media may have been one of the most effective tools that NUTI tapped into…For example, the capacity building accorded to Northern Uganda Media Club, the equipment and technical support to three media houses and the innovative use of the media, made the local leaders more visible to the communities they serve…This [support for local radio] improved the capacity of these radio stations to provide information and encouragement on return and development in the region. The Local Voices for Peace Community Radio Project final project report shows that the grantee (Internews; $500,000; 2007-2009), provided support for the creation of a Media 41 Figure 10: Pupil Teacher Ratio in Acholi Districts Figure 11: Gross Primary School Enrollment Resource Center (MRC) which was established in Gulu with about 648 users. Members of our evaluation team visited the MRC, which is still fully functional, offers high-speed Internet access, computer script writing facilities, field audio recording equipment and a fully functioning radio production studio. This gave journalists access a wide range of technical and other resources that were not available at their own stations and enhanced their ability to produce a higher standard of coverage of the peace and reconciliation process (Internews, 2009).49 Education Pupil-teacher ratios (Figure 10) indicate that there was an overall improvement in the sub￾region during 2006-11. Gross primary education enrollment rates were consistently higher in the Acholi districts from 2006- 2011 compared to the national average (Figure 11)50 and peaked in 2009, corresponding with the return of the majority of former IDPs and their families, but began to decline in 2010, corresponding to the beginning of redistricting process in which gross enrollment rates were also high for new districts, particularly for Nwoya, which was formerly part of Amuru District.51 At the national level, there have been improvements in literacy rates for women (from 56% in 2006 to 64% in 2011, but for the same period men’s literacy rates declined from 83% in 2006 49 The grantee estimated that the Local Voices for Peace Community Radio Project reached to about 70% of the population in Northern Uganda, who rely on local / community radio as their primary source of news and information on issues of peace and reconciliation (Internews, 2009), but, likely because of its small size, no independent evaluation of this project was conducted and our evaluation was not able to verify these claims. 50 Source: UBOS statistical abstracts: 2008-2012 (Based on EMIS - Min. of Education and Sports) 51 Drops in gross enrollment for 2010 and 2011 for Pader, Amuru, and Lamwo are likely largely attributable to the creation of new districts—Agago (rates for 2010: 128; 2011: 126); Nwoya (2010: 307; 2011:310); and Lamwo (2010: 150; 2011: 134). Nwoya, with an estimated population of 54,000 in 2012 is by far the smallest district in Acholi, and is primarily rural. 42 to 78% in 2011. In Northern Uganda, notable improvements in literacy rates were achieved by males and females. However, there is still a large gap between males and females who are literate in northern Uganda--in 2011, more than three quarters of men (85%), higher than the national rate, compared to less than a half (49%) of the females are literate. (Figure 12: Literacy Rates) 52. USAID’s investment in education was small compared to health and agriculture. NUTI provided grants for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of 16 primary schools serving approximately 5000 students, and drawing from our observations of four of these schools, each had at least five classrooms and one block of teacher houses accommodating at least ten teachers. Although the evaluation team did not directly observe this, it was informed through KIIs with district education officers, that other schools had libraries, which were constructed under NUTI project. These interventions were widely appreciated: Construction of schools was very relevant in the sense that the school structures which were in the rural areas were abandoned there. The children returning from the camps needed to continue going to school and there was need to have somewhere for learning to take place, whether it was a temporary or permanent structure (KII, NGO Forum, Gulu). The only education initiative with a teaching and curriculum component specifically geared to post-conflict areas was the Ugandan Initiative for Teacher Development and Management System (UNITY). USAID/Uganda also designed Revitalization of Education Participation in Learning in Conflict Areas (REPLICA) to assist efforts to rebuild the education sector providing ten-week programs in 200 model schools supporting leadership, thematic curriculum practice, and guidance and counseling. The UNITY evaluation however, noted that REPLICA’s scale up of 52 Source: Demographic Health Survey (UDHS), 2006, 2011 Figure 12: Literacy Rates 43 Figure 13: Water Indicators the pilot program was poorly managed (UMEMS, 2008). Limited youth vocational training was also provided through SPRING, which provided support for training, construction, simple mechanics, and starting a business (women focus group, Paibony Parish). Water and Sanitation Water. 69% of our household survey respondents indicated that water was a critical need during the period from 2006-2009, and 71% stated that provision of water was among the key areas of development intervention undertaken in Northern Uganda during that period. Water and sanitation indicators indicate a general improvement in Northern Uganda. By 2011, 93% of the residents of Gulu District had access to safe water, compared to 64% in 2006. Moreover, all of the Acholi Districts had exceeded the national average of 65% by 2011 (Figure 13: Water Indicators). Beginning with reforms initiated in the mid-1990s, the GoU began to encourage private sector participation in the water sector.53 The NUWATER Project was a three-year, $3 million project to assist Kitgum and Pader towns to re-establish their water supply systems using incentive￾based management contracts with private service providers. The project began in June 2008 and ended in early June 2011. According to the project implementer’s report,54 it improved access to safe water for as many as 30,000 Kitgum residents, and increased water quality by reducing fecal content in most cases. FGD data and key informant interviews, including with water engineers and health officials, suggest interventions contributed to reducing water borne diseases in the community. However, according to interviews with Kitgum officials, the incentive-based system proved 53 In 1995, the Constitution of Uganda defined access to clean and safe water as a fundamental national objective, and formally called for greater use of private initiative. Subsequent reforms were codified in the Water Statute (1995), Water Act (1997) and Local Government Act (1997) and the National Water Policy (1999). Source: Hirn (2013). 54 Although many respondents, a former Member of Parliament from Chua County indicated the great benefits of the project, we also noted in a meeting with all of the office heads (technical leads) of Kitgum districts, that they indicated several technical problems with the urban water system provided by NUWATER, including residences that had paid for hookups, but had yet to receive water, many residences benefited from this urban water project. 44 complicated, and the project has not been able to provide water to certain neighborhoods due to lack of pumping power (KII, Kitgum district official). The final NUWATER evaluation (Popkin et al., 2011) noted that NUWATER failed to adequately report on, or set appropriate targets for key indicators and that the project “fell significantly short of all of its performance targets.” As one example, evaluators of the project noted that “in terms of in targeted areas with access to improved drinking water as a result of USG assistance…NUWATER reported that 12,740 people were given access to clean water over the life of the project, 66% short of the life-of-project target of 37,739 entered into the database.”55 In terms of the number of water points constructed or rehabilitated the NUWATER evaluation also concluded that the project fell short of its life-of-project target here as well. Only 270 such points were constructed or rehabilitated, representing only 20% of the targeted 1,300.56 In 2011 only 28 new connections were added (USAID database record, May 2011, cited in Popkin et al.). These targets had also been revised downwards from the 2009 performance management plan (PMP) targets, as had the baseline value for Kitgum from 841 to 721. USAID’s contracted partner for monitoring and evaluation, Uganda Monitoring and Evaluation Management Services (UMEMS) found in its data quality assessment for this indicator conducted in August 2010 data (242 in FY 2010) were not valid as NUWATER included as connections items such as water storage tanks, generators and solar systems. Still, the evaluation did note some improvement in access to water in Kitgum, though supply was intermittent and unreliable. In the case of Pader, however, it was only “late in the process” that NUWATER and USAID found that incentive contracts, which proved to be difficult in Kitgum, were not appropriate at all in Pader, which did not previously have “any house connections and no interested operator,” and “relatively minor infrastructure improvements” that the project undertook in Pader occurred late in the project period, in December 2010. These included replacing a pump, purchasing a new generator for the main production well, installing five water kiosks, rehabilitating one pipeline, and putting that pipeline back into service. In addition the evaluation concludes that there were important challenges to sustainability are financial, and that neither Pader nor Kitgum towns could sustain operations and maintenance of their water systems with the current price structure. The evaluation further concluded that the project design was neither realistic nor appropriate and should have been modified early in the project life to achieve more practical and long-lasting results. Specifically, key assumptions about Pader residents’ willingness to pay for operational costs for the Kitgum water system did not prove accurate. As noted in the final NUWATER evaluation, and as corroborated by interviews for this evaluation with Kitgum water officials, agency 55 The evaluation further noted that targets had shifted over time, and that the earlier, 2009 version their PMP, the target was 62,080 persons and had been reduced in the 2010 PMP to 28,539 persons. Varying baseline numbers were also reported by NUWATER – 13,410 in the 2009 PMP versus 6,623 in the 2010 version. 56 In 2011 only 28 new connections were added (USAID database record, May 2011, cf. Popkin et al., 2011). These targets had also been revised downwards from the 2009 PMP targets as had the baseline value for Kitgum from 841 to 721 (the last number being confirmed by the Kitgum baseline survey). The USAID database cited by the authors showed zero. Furthermore, the NUWATER evaluators cited a UMEMS Data Quality Assessment of this indicator conducted in August 2010 concluded that the data were not valid as NUWATER included as connections items such as water storage tanks, generators and solar systems. 45 42% 15% 16% 58% 39% 35% 50% 52% 40% 44% 41% 70% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percentage of Rural Households with Latrines/Toilets 2006 2011 Figure 14: Percentage of Rural Households with Latrines/Toilets stakeholders were informed of the program, but there was consistently poor communication and collaboration between local authorities and the project staff. In addition, the Mercy Corps’ Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC) program also constructed or rehabilitated 42 water points including both boreholes (26) and shallow wells (16-) (Table 9: Water points by Location). HPSC evaluators found an increase in the percent of households with year-round safe water access by 20 percentage points. HPSC formed and trained water user committees (WUC) for each water point, and by the end of the program most WUCs collected fees to maintain their water infrastructure. Of the water points that HPSC has helped establish or rehabilitate, 73.5% have a water user committee (n=34) and 80% of the WUCs meet regularly (monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly). HPSC provided at least one training session to every water committee. Although some groups were collecting and using fees to maintain and service the boreholes, spare parts for boreholes are unavailable in most locations, posing a challenge for long-term servicing. While HPSC evaluators claimed water access improved, tracking the number of committees trained or frequency of meetings did not however provide any post-facto evidence of consistent, improved water usage. Table 9: HPSC Water Points by Location These projects were not the only water project that faced challenges. In a case study, we interviewed officials and residents of Pader concerning a non-functional water system constructed in 2006. In this case the handover to local government and a local water council was unsuccessful, and the system was not maintained after the first year when the USAID￾funded NGO constructed and managed the system (See Appendix V: Case Studies). Sanitation. Sanitation indicators also showed an improvement in the Acholi sub region from 2005 to 2011, with latrine coverage increasing in the districts of Gulu (42% to 50%), Kitgum (15% to 52%) and Pader (16% to 41%), and coverage in new districts ranged from 34% to 44%. Even with these increases by 2011, Acholi districts’ latrine coverage still remained lower than the national average for the baseline period of 2005 (58%) and most districts were far below the 2011 average of 70% (Figure 14). HPSC Water Points by Location Location Boreholes Shallow Wells Agago 5 0 Kitgum 15 11 Pader 6 5 Totals 26 16 46 The ACDI/VOCA Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) was not involved in construction or rehabilitation of water or sanitation facilities, but rather provided instruction for beneficiaries about how to construct sanitation and hygiene facilities, and conducted training sessions which offered guidelines for the maintenance of safe food and water, information about hygiene and sanitation practices, and guidance on establishing kitchen gardens. As part of the ACDI/VOCA evaluation, household survey respondents were asked about key basic food hygiene practices. A total sample of 2,458 households were surveyed (802 in Acholi, 804 in Lango, and 853 in Teso). Overall, 1,366 persons (56%) of all surveyed households were members of farmer groups trained by the program. Almost 80 percent of all households participating in MYAP activities report they have received nutritional and hygienic training or support. Survey findings indicate that outreach and coverage of nutrition and hygiene trainings was substantial; and that there were increased numbers of households are demonstrating proper food hygiene practices (Table 10. Table 10: Sanitation Practices: ACDI/VOCA ACDI/VOCA Sanitation Practices Group members Non￾members Total sample % HH using a latrine 74.6 64.7* 70.4 % HH with hand washing facilities near latrine 30.8 11.1* 22.4 % Washing hands w/ clean water & soap after using latrine 46.3 38.8* 43.1 % Washing hands w/ clean water & soap before eating food 48.1 41.1* 45.1 % Washing hands w/ clean water & soap after cleaning baby bottom 17.2 11.7* 14.8 % Washing hands after eating 42.8 33.6* 38.9 n 1,366 1,092 2,458 * Mean value for non-members different from members at 0.10 significance level. The later HPSC project built 85 latrine blocks in 50 schools (each latrine block contains has four latrines), increasing access to school-based sanitation facilities. However, in observations of 18 latrine blocks conducted at 11 randomly selected school sites within the four sub counties the HPSC evaluators visited, in almost all cases, the latrines were in poor shape. Ten blocks had serious maintenance / hygiene problems (91%): and were “appallingly unhygienic” in eight cases (73%), and only reasonably well maintained in a single case. The HPSC evaluators that the design of the toilets acted as a barrier to proper maintenance and hygiene. If instead of slabs with open holes for defecation/urination, a basic raised cement cylindrical seat had been constructed, this would have gone “a long way in improving the hygiene of the latrines.”57 In addition to these problems with construction, in most of the cases they observed, HPSC evaluators also found that overall maintenance of the school latrines, which they concluded was due mostly to a lack of interest and understanding on the part of communities, teachers and school leadership, raising questions about long-term sustainability of these efforts. Moreover, prior to 2012, according to both sub-county authorities and HPSC Behavior Change and Health 57 One reviewer of a previous draft noted however, that open holes for defecation are typical, especially in public schools without regular access to water and that the raised cement cylindrical seat may require more maintenance. 47 Figure 15: Number of IDPs in PRDP Regions staff interviewed by the HPSC evaluators, HPSC did not provide consistent or timely follow-up to review project activities. Not surprisingly, the evaluators also found that the percent of households practicing proper hygiene behaviors continued to be very low, with only approximately 8% of respondent households in compliance with all the requirements of the indicator, with a large decrease in the percentage of people washing hands after defecation, which the evaluators attributed to (although improved from the baseline period) still low levels of water available for hand washing. The evaluators concluded, therefore that there was an “extremely limited HPSC influence over HH hygiene behaviors,” and intimated that survey results may have even been biased toward the high end, as “during the HH survey observations were conducted only where families agreed, suggesting a high degree of self-selection. Families who agree to show their latrines may also be more likely to have hygienic latrines” (Catsam, 2014). Table 11: Sanitation Indicators: HPSC iii. 1.3 To what extent did USAID assistance create tangible benefits and other social and economic opportunities for displaced Ugandans? USAID assistance contributed to providing tangible benefits and social and economic opportunities for the 3.1 million previously displaced Northern Ugandans, of whom about 2.5 million (81%) were in the broader North-Central region that encompasses the Acholi, Lango and part of Bunyoro sub-regions (Figure 15). This assistance was particularly visible for interventions which involved physical infrastructure and construction, such as classroom blocks, teachers’ quarters, health centers, feeder roads, 58All results significant at p= .05. Catsam does not provide year of baseline, but is likely to be on or about project startup, c. 2008. Final data from Survey conducted in 2013. HPSC Survey: Sanitation Indicators58 Personal Hygiene Baseline (n=893) Final (n=979) Wash hands after defecation 81.1% 32.7% Handwashing device available 16.0% 27.5% Device in yard 17.8% 14.5% Water 5.4% 7.6% Soap/ash 3.9% 14.5% 48 boreholes, farmers store houses and water tanks. According to one female youth focus group respondent in Anaka sub county in Pader District: Different programs were providing infrastructural support. For instance, NUTI engaged in construction and rehabilitation of school structures, rehabilitated sub-county headquarters, district infrastructure, and rehabilitated and furnished the Gulu Resident District Commissioner’s Office. It also helped to finalize the Gulu District administration block, although the initial building funding was from government, it had not been finished. SPRING was focusing on livelihoods component though it also had the peace-building component. Community Resolution Dialogue (CRD) had a component of peace building, livelihoods and also an HIV component as a crosscutting issue and ended in 2006-2007. Water and sanitation: Although water projects had many difficulties, FGD respondents credited the new water points drilled by SPRING and HPSC as leading to improved health and reducing the incidence of water-borne diseases. Education. Compared to other interventions, education received a relatively small share of the overall budget.59 In education, USAID left a mark, particularly in terms of construction and rehabilitation of structures. The REPLICA education project provided training for over 8,500 teachers, 1,500 head teachers, and 208 teacher college tutors.60 Agriculture and Livelihoods: SPRING, LEAD, and ACDI/VOCA and Mercy Corps Title II programs included activities intended to improve agricultural productivity and community livelihoods. AVSI, as part of SPRING, initiated and supported farmer groups, providing training on modern farming methods and constructing farmer storehouses. LEAD supported producers’ organizations, value chains and helped link them to markets.61 Title II programs focused mainly on supporting better farming methods and nutrition while AVSI supported vocational skills training and support to small business enterprises: FAO also taught people how to farm…. they gave us training on agriculture and also constructed us a store in 2011. World Vision gave us machinery for shelling groundnuts and a sieve for simsim and a grinding machine for cassava and millet and this has supported the youth a lot because it’s source of their income. Food for the Hungry formed groups and put people into businesses to sell soft drinks so that they can get some income (Women’s FGD, Palabek Gem, Lamwo District). 59 As examples, in FY07, the UNITY/PIASCY programs received $1.7 million earmarked for basic education, and the project’s AIDS education component received $250,000 of a total of $48.2 million targeting Northern Uganda in funding excluding food aid and other emergency humanitarian assistance. Source: FY 07 funding, spreadsheet provided by USAID. 60 The project, which was a component of the Uganda-wide UNITY project, had as its main focus Northern Uganda, and the Acholi sub-region in particular, it also included some activities in parts of Eastern Uganda. (Milton et al., n.d) 61 Although not solely focused on Northern Uganda, according to the mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the project, as IDPs began returning home, LEAD was asked to channel 60% of its technical assistance to Northern Uganda. The MTE notes that during of the 42 grants made to farmers and associations in 2008/9 and 2009/10, twenty-five were in the North (59.5%), while 17 were in the East and Western Regions (40.5%). Source: ITEC, 2010. 49 Household respondents reported relative satisfaction with some agricultural activities such as training and facilitating the formation training of farmer groups, the establishment of VSLAs, and access to seeds and tools, but relatively less with “value-chain” interventions such as those designed to promote credit for farmers, post-harvest support, and linking farmers to markets. Table 12: Satisfaction with Agricultural Initiatives Satisfaction with Agricultural Initiatives Very Satisfied Satisfie d Training and facilitating establishment of VSLAs 5% 52% Facilitating formation and strengthening of community farmer groups 4% 52% Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools 4% 53% Training of farmer groups 5% 58% Provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods 3% 35% Expanding access to production inputs 2% 33% Enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers 2% 26% Post-harvest handling and value addition support to farmers 2% 28% Linking farmers to markets 2% 26% Health: As described in previous sections, there were several large, key interventions in the health sector, including NUMAT and the Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) project designed to combat the transmission of malaria NUMAT worked through a strategy of capacity building of partners and, in some cases, provided direct delivery of services. It provided training in many areas for the health workers, laboratory equipment and supplied health centers with drugs. In support of all the services, NUTI program provided funding for health sector rehabilitation projects including housing for staff and renovation of six health facilities. A focus group discussant cited some tangible benefits of health interventions, but also indicated gaps: Indoor residual spraying of mosquitos by IRS has been there since 2007 since we returned home and up until now. The sprayers put on overcoats labeled USAID. They are also helping with training Village Health Team members—VHTs registered people from the community and distribute mosquito nets. In 2010 and 2012, the VHT were also distributing drugs for de￾worming and bilharzia [schistosomiasis]. It’s helpful and very effective in action, but the distribution schedule takes so long before they can bring in more--if they give it this year, it can take like another 2 years before they can distribute again (FGD Men, Pogo Parish, Amuru District). Peace Building and Reconciliation. NUTI both built on earlier efforts to engage a variety of stakeholders in peace-building and reconciliation processes. Prior to these interventions, development partners had already engaged cultural and religious leaders in the peace and amnesty processes: The role of traditional leaders is also central in the Amnesty process, as the returning rebels need to be cleansed through traditional practices. The Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative (ARLPI) has invoked the compatibility of Acholi traditional beliefs and has lobbied for the empowerment of traditional chiefs as complementary partners in building peace. In Gulu, for 50 instance, the paramount chief, working alongside the ARLPI, played a role in the reconciliation between the Local Council leaders and members of parliament (Khadiagala, 2001). Bridging the final years of the war and the post-war period, the Northern Uganda Peace Initiative (NUPI) and NUTI, also supported important cultural activities, involving ritual cleansing of Acholi villages in sub region and the burial of bones that desecrated many village areas: The traditional cultural leaders say that spirits (“cen”) were so many and they came up with a way of restoring the traditional heritage and culture of the Acholi after the LRA killed so many people here. So NUTI came here with things like goats for performing a ritual cleansing of the place where many people lost their lives, which is something very important I feel was done (FGD Male Youth, Palaro) The SPRING project, through its peace and reconciliation program, contributed to building a “culture of peace” with community level conflict resolution mechanisms. Although the project contractor estimated in its final report to USAID that SPRING had reached 2.5 million people in the Acholi sub region through support to community based reconciliation activities, training persons in conflict mitigation and management, as well as supporting public information activities on peaceful resolution of disputes (Cardno Emerging Markets, 2011), this claim was neither validated in any previous independent evaluation report, nor did we attempt to validate it as part of our research. Other interventions, such as the Building Bridges for Peace and the Pader Peace Program (PPP), also attempted to build a culture for peace through community and institutional strengthening to mitigate conflict and advance peace and reconciliation in Pader District. Under the PPP, the contractor estimated that the program could have reached over 336,000 people, equivalent to the total population of Pader district, reached through radio programs and community dialogues conducted by peace committees through its activities such as media/public information campaigns to support peaceful resolution of conflicts and community dialogues among others (Mercy Corps, 2009). According to KIIs, although this and similar peace-building interventions provided some support to existing institutions, such as those of the clan chiefs, most interventions were focused on creating new structures such as “peace committees” and many of the USAID-sponsored interventions in peace-building did not continue beyond the first few years after the conflict had ended. Assessing the collective contribution of USAID and other interventions in peace-building, however, is very difficult, due to the limitations described above. Although USAID and other development partners certainly made important contributions, the generally peaceful environment that exists today likely has much more to do with the cessation of a conflict rooted in long-term grievances and marginalization among the populations of the north than the finding that USAID and other PRDP partners’ reconstruction assistance has been broadly, inter￾sectorally effective. Nevertheless, perceptions of peace and stability have increased since the war’s cessation even though responses to this evaluation’s household survey still indicate a number of lingering concerns. For example, when our household survey respondents were asked how they would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and their 51 communities now, although 90% perceived that the region was peaceful and stable, the proportion of those rating it as “somewhat peaceful and stable” (55%) was considerably higher than those rating it as “very peaceful and stable” (35%). Moreover, when the respondents were asked how confident they were that their communities and Northern Uganda would remain peaceful and stable in the future, only a quarter indicated they were very confident, with a larger proportion (38%) indicating that they were somewhat confident, and about one-quarter indicating that they were not sure. iv. 1.4 How did USAID’s strategic objectives support the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives? Through support of more than $750 million between FY 2005 and FY 2011, USAID made an important contribution in laying the foundation for overall recovery and stabilization. USAID’s combined contribution of $250.9 million for FY 2009 ($112.3 million) and 2010 ($138.6 million) was almost half the size of the total PRDP funding ($509.3 million) provided by the GoU and other development partners for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Overall Alignment: Although USAID funding was through support for projects rather than through PRDP’s budget support mechanism, USAID strategic objectives were well aligned with those of PRDP. 62 Indeed, USAID/Uganda’s three strategic objectives – increased capacity of local governance, improving human capacity, and expanding sustainable economic opportunities for rural sector growth – in large part mirror the first three PRDP objectives. In terms of alignment with the fourth PRDP objective, during the final years of the conflict and early post￾conflict period, USAID-funded projects had some peace building and reconciliation components. However, although alignment with PRDP was part of a planned strategy,63 support for peace and reconciliation was never codified into a USAID policy document nor did USAID develop a special strategic objective focused on the Northern region during the period under study, as it later did for the Karamoja sub region in its 2011-15 Country Development Cooperation Strategy. 62 PRDP’s first phase was officially launched in late 2007, with implementation activities beginning in 2009 for an initial period of three years. PRDP was originally conceived as the GoU’s primary mechanism to contribute to the reintegration of IDPs after the war and to consolidate peace and lay the foundations for recovery and development in Northern Uganda, but it covers a much larger area than the Acholi sub-region, and covers a much larger region of the country, stretching from Nebbi in West Nile to Karamoja and Teso in eastern Uganda. 63 USAID Strategy for Reintegration and Recovery in Northern Uganda and USAID Strategy Process, 2007-2010. 52 Table 13: Linkages between PRPD and USAID Objectives Linkages between PRPD and USAID Objectives PRDP Objectives USAID Targets Key Projects: Objective 1: Consolidation of State Authority Increased capacity of local administration to govern effectively, deliver essential services and provide security for the population, with due respect to civil rights. NUTI, LINKAGES Objectives 2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities Improved social services and infrastructure. NUTI, SPRING, NUMAT, IRS, AFFORD, UNITY/PIASY, NUWATER, MYAP, AVSI Water and Sanitation Objectives 3: Revitalization of Economy 1) Re-activated agriculture productive sectors; 2) Rehabilitated critical infrastructure; 3) Increased cross￾border trade; 4) Reinforced sound natural resource management and effective urban and land planning APEP, LEAD, DAP, MYAP, HPI Dairy Project Objective 4: Peace Building and Reconciliation 1) Increased access to accurate media information; 2) Increased access to trauma counseling services; 3) Strengthened intra- and inter-community conflict resolution mechanisms; protection monitoring systems in place and promotion of progressive multi￾stakeholder dialogues NUTI, SPRING, Pader Peace Program, Building Bridges for Peace Although the wording of PRDP’s first objective differs from USAID/Uganda’s stated strategic governance objective, as applied to USAID’s Northern Ugandan transitional initiatives, objectives of both programs aligned to enhance the visibility of local government, police, and judiciary, which had been severely weakened during the conflict. NUTI and LINKAGES, in particular, supported PRDP strategic objective one, capacity of local administration to govern effectively, deliver essential services and provide security for the population, with due respect to civil rights. Consolidation of State Authority Although the wording of PRDP’s first objective differs from USAID/Uganda’s stated strategic governance objective, as applied to USAID’s Northern Ugandan transitional initiatives, objectives of both programs aligned to enhance the visibility of local government, police, and judiciary, which had been severely weakened during the conflict. NUTI and LINKAGES, in particular, supported the PRDP’s strategic objective number one, about the capacity of local administration to govern effectively, deliver essential services and provide security for the population, with due respect to civil rights. Rebuilding and Empowering Communities PRDP objective two initially had as its principal goals humanitarian assistance to aid in the return and resettlement of IDPs. As described elsewhere in this report, though USAID provided 30% of total food aid through the World Food Program in IDP camps, as the focus on 53 food and other humanitarian aid gradually decreased following the closure of large IDP camps, there were many challenges for development partners in helping to meet the needs of IDPs as they migrated back to their home areas. In the second phase of PRDP, the focus of rebuilding and empowering communities shifted to activities in three main sectors: health, education, and water. USAID made large contributions in the health sector, contributed to stabilization efforts as well as some contribution to the education and water sectors. NUMAT supported many health centers within the Acholi sub region with laboratory equipment and supported the community with a comprehensive HIV/AIDS program. NUTI rehabilitated schools, health centers; and a variety of organizations with funding from USAID, such as World Vision, constructed boreholes, pit latrines and trained the community on good hygiene practices. Revitalization of the Economy PRDP cited revitalization of the Northern Uganda economy by strengthening production, improving market access, and accessing finance. In general however, USAID did not substantially finance the many foundational efforts necessary for Northern Uganda’s economic revitalization. The construction of more than 400 kilometers of feeder road provides important evidence of an economic contribution to the North’s economic recovery in terms of improved access to agricultural markets, reduced travel time, and improved household food availability.64 However, the few, economically-oriented USAID projects that aligned well with PRDP Strategic Objective Three – for example, SPRING, LEAD, and APEP – made only nominal contributions to revitalizing Northern Uganda’s agricultural sector, and were unable to broadly improve economic conditions for many NU citizens. These efforts should have included economic measures well beyond establishing SACCOs, VSLAs or often fragile farmer producer groups as well as earnestly tackling better governance, land reform, better trade, credit and SME development as well as some appreciation for addressing the North’s numerous social maladies.65 Both phases of PRDP targeted revitalization of the Northern Uganda economy through strengthening production, improving market access, and accessing finance. Before the conflict, the Acholi produced crops, though mainly for their own consumption. This changed as people were forced into camps, and became dependent on free rations. USAID projects in alignment with PRDP Strategic Objective Three attempted to contribute to revitalizing Northern Uganda’s agricultural sector. Peace Building and Reconciliation Within the fourth PRDP objective, USAID programs in the early post-conflict period aimed to increase access to accurate media information, trauma counseling services; strengthen intra￾and inter-community conflict resolution mechanisms; protection monitoring systems; and promote progressive multi-stakeholder dialogues. In many respects, the community in Acholi 64 Cited from Tango (2012). 65Well-researched, policy subscriptions for addressing NU economic ‘revitalization’ options are cited in DfiD’s 2013 Economic Recovery Analysis of NU (Oxford Economics, 2013). 54 has now moved on from the horrors of a brutal war and their past forced encampment to days of unrestricted life in their villages.66 b. 2.0 How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives? USAID together with its contractors and other implementing partners used a number of approaches aimed at supporting programs and projects to achieve their objectives. This section covers a number of project management and implementation approaches employed by USAID￾funded projects, examining their relative strengths and weaknesses in supporting project goals. As we present the various approaches, we provide examples of how the use of local implementing partners and different funding mechanisms influence implementation. We also discuss the results of public-private partnerships, and a variety of other key factors, including the degree to which projects emphasized consultation and continuous learning; whether the project was designed for the entire country or was specific to northern Uganda and where the oversight function was located within USAID; and the effects of project duration. Implementing partners: Effectiveness can be influenced by choice of local partners. Local organizations subcontracting to a prime U.S. contractor or grantee to directly implement the program has many merits: ideally, it enhances local capacity, brings in local knowledge and expertise to help projects adapt to local conditions, and promote visibility among beneficiaries. Almost all programs by USAID were implemented alongside local implementing partners. However, the ultimate success of this approach depends on the ability to find local partners with relevant local expertise and the capacity to scale up in order to implement project activities. Many projects had in built mechanisms for working with local partners in northern Uganda. Projects had clear criteria for selection of partners that were sub-contracted to carry out specific activities with clear timelines and deliverables. What emerged from evaluation of projects was that implementing partners had varying levels of capacity, knowledge and experience in applying USAID standards and procedures. Particularly in the earliest post￾conflict period (2006-2008), there was relatively limited capacity among local implementing partners in Northern Uganda. This meant that even when the prime implementer’s project management team had the best intentions, the available partners in the region often had limited human resource capacity for working with development agencies. For example, the mid-term evaluation of SPRING indicated that it took a while for the partners to adjust to the organizational culture, values and standards and procedures of USAID. Similarly, ACDI/VOCA's Title II Food Security Program, which worked with approximately 20 local partner organizations indicated limited local partner capability their need for technical assistance and 66 There is some evidence of a perception of peace in Acholi sub region. When our survey respondents were asked how they would rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and in their own communities now, 90% responded that there was peace and stability, compared to 25% during the period of encampment and 48% just after leaving camps. However, only 35% rated their environments as very peaceful and stable, and of the 63% that indicated confidence that the situation would remain peaceful and stable in the future, only 25% responded that they were “very confident.” 55 training (ACDI/VOCA, 2009: 2). During later periods, particularly from 2009-2011, capacity levels in terms of organizational development, knowledge and skills of human resources working with local partners continued to improve. NGOs that had worked in other regions started to work in the North, thus adding to the pool of available qualified partners. In addition, when many foreign organizations left or scaled down their activities after the emergency and as humanitarian aid scaled down, there was an existing cadre of staff and community based organizations with relatively good capacity to conceptualize and implement project activities. Integrated programming and implementation of activities. Integrated programming is conceptualized as approach to project design and implementation that brings together a range of elements from traditionally separate sectors, such as health, livelihoods and disaster management. The assumption behind integrated programming is that “community’s risks, needs and capacities should be viewed holistically in the assessment phase of the program” (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent, 2003:3-4). The key premise of integrated programming is that it provides a more holistic response to the needs of communities. Implementing several components of an integrated program simultaneously requires human resources and expertise across sectors (Red Cross, 2003:3-4). Over half of USAID-supported projects, including SPRING, ACDI-VOCA, NUMAT, and UPHOLD employed integrated programming. Although key respondents in our evaluation had varying opinions about the extent to which each project was successful in applying the integrated approach to programming, they all agreed that integration was the ideal model for addressing the many needs that occur at more or less the same time during the early return, transition and resettlement phases. Taking the case of NUMAT, key informants at the district local government and sub-county level noted that NUMAT had a very well-integrated approach. NUMAT adopted a health system strengthening approach to address the gaps in the building blocks of the health care system in responding to malaria, HIV and AIDS and TB. The project contributed to increasing awareness about the causes and prevention of HIV and AIDS, TB and Malaria using both facility￾based and non-facility or community based prevention and management strategies. It was particularly hailed for contributing to capacity building of the human resources in the health sector, where major gaps had emerged during the conflict. NUMAT’s integrated outreaches in the areas of TB screening, HIV testing, treatment helped a lot. It used to work even for activities that were not funded like immunization and antenatal care (ANC) were done due to integration. It did not only target their area of interest but also that of the LG (KII, District official, Nwoya). However, there were concerns over the extent to which NUMAT strategies addressed the major drivers of HIV in the Acholi sub-region. It was noted that although it performed quite well in expanding access to biomedical interventions including home and community based treatment (HCT), anti-retroviral therapy (ART), prevention of mother to child HIV transmission (PMTCT), it did not adequately conceptualize and address the structural drivers of HIV, TB and malaria in the sub-region. For instance, one of the KIIs from an international organization working in the north noted that “to me, NUMAT was more about visibility than addressing the issues that were driving HIV prevalence and incidence in the Acholi sub-region.” Other criticisms of projects in Northern Uganda according to USAID officials that worked in 56 the region and several other key respondents is that “each project attempted to do everything,” attempting to work in a variety of sectors, rather than focusing on one, or perhaps two areas of expertise, in which they could concentrate. SPRING was conceived as an integrated project with several components including peace and reconciliation, economic security, and access to justice. However, because economic security was the major need during the early return and resettlement period, KIIs often expressed the opinion that SPRING’s should have focused more of its efforts on economic security. The SPRING mid-term evaluation also noted similar findings that “although peace and reconciliation are for a community which is emerging from conflict …as communities embark on economic development, it is only logical that economic security takes center stage” (Kenwill, 2010: Viii). The evaluation further noted that one of the other challenges that affected effectiveness of this integration in the context of SPRING was lack of shared understanding on integration within the SPRING team and the implementing partners as well as lack of a strong integration strategy at the very beginning of the project (ibid). Key informants also noted that it was difficult for UPHOLD, which had health as its primary intervention and education as a supplementary intervention, to balance the two. Because UPHOLD project staff and their implementing partners had greater capacity and experience in the program domains of health than education, it had more promising results in health but few achievements in education. Public private partnerships (PPP): In this context, PPP refers to arrangements, typically medium to long term, between the public and private sectors whereby some of the services that fall under the responsibilities of the public sector are provided by the private sector, with clear agreement on shared objectives for delivery of public infrastructure and/ or public services (World Bank, 2014). The Government of Uganda encourages public-private partnerships in delivery of services as part of its decentralization policy. These are arrangements are usually between the government and the private sector for the purpose of providing public infrastructure, community facilities, and services that the public sector cannot provide on its own. Such partnerships operate under contractual agreement between public agencies, local government, and for-profit or non-profit organizations. Given that may USAID projects worked with districts under the context of decentralization, many project implementers contracted with private sector or NGO providers to assist local governments improve service delivery. 67 Many USAID projects had inbuilt management systems for working with both the public sector (local government and line departments at the national level) and the private sector. Projects were, by design, meant to work with local government line departments in sectors such as health (NUMAT, IRS, UPHOLD), education (UNITY, REPLICA, NUTI), Agriculture (LEAD, APEP, SPRING). In the health sector, for example, there was a coordination structure built into NUMAT, AFFORD, and UPHOLD with districts, sub county, and in some cases, parish￾based health centers. In the period immediately following the cessation of hostilities, there was a transition from coordinating efforts with elements of the UN cluster system in the health 67 United Nations Development Program and Ministry of Local Government, Uganda (nd). Public Private partnership guidelines. Kampala: UNDP and MoLG. 57 sector to working with rehabilitated government health structures. In the case NUMAT, for example, the project coordinated its efforts through district focal persons for each of the targeted disease conditions (HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB) within all districts in which the program operated, as well as with HIV/AIDS task forces and committees at the sub county level (Leinen et al., 2009). The main justification for this approach was that it helped to bridge the gaps in existing systems and to get services to the communities quickly during the early return and transition and resettlement phases of northern Uganda. Citing the example of NUMAT, the District Health Officers of Nwoya, Gulu and Amuru, all of whom were interviewed separately, observed that it was a common strategy for NUMAT to work in partnership with frontline health facilities to provide HIV and AIDS services, including antiretroviral therapy (ART) while private, third-party laboratories performed the ongoing diagnostic tests, with joint oversight from the USAID contractor and the district health offices (also see Odaga and Okirya, 2010). KIIs at the district health offices and sub-counties noted that this approach was effective in the short term as capacity and systems were being developed in the health facilities to offer comprehensive HIV and AIDS, TB and malaria management services. For the medium and long term, NUMAT in collaboration with the local governments supported the establishment of a laboratory infrastructure, trained existing laboratory staff and recruited staff into health facilities. Although staffing levels have been reduced with the closure of some projects such as NUMAT, testing services continue to be available with support from government and development partners including USAID/PEPFAR, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID), and other partners. Although many other water projects had problems, including the sustainability of their interventions NUWATER was also limited by several technical design issues: We had a lot of challenges with NUWATER; there was no technical specification document given to us and they call us supervisors, but how can we supervise what we do not have documentation for? Pipes were undersized, there were a lot of bursts, and they were using materials that do not match the size of supply” (Group interview with heads of departments, Kitgum district). The NUWATER end of project evaluation report also confirms that there was inadequate focus on capacity building yet this was critical particularly for the private operator in Kitgum that had no prior utility management experience. Similarly, the water boards had limited understating and competences to provide oversight of contracts of this nature (Popkin et al, 2011). Similarly, other water sector interventions using motorized or solar systems also broke down after CSOs handed over to district local governments. Local consultation and responsiveness: The final evaluation of NUTI noted that project interventions “drew communities closer to their leaders through consultations, the commissioning of work, and handover. These interventions helped the sub counties to identify the needs of their constituents. It clearly wove new relations between the lower levels of administration and the population” (Mattsson et al., 2011). Key informant interviews with local government officials also revealed that NUTI’s procurement processes were swift and its 58 project managers and supervisors were present on the ground, able to follow up on activities. NUTI, like many other USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives projects in post-conflict situations used a grants under contract (GUC) mechanism, which provided a level of flexibility compared to programs more directly managed by USAID/Uganda. OTI programs emphasize the usefulness of the GUC mechanism in support non-traditional USAID partners or non￾traditional but important activities.68 Reflecting on the elicitive and consultative approach of some USAID projects like NUTI and NUMAT, the Nwoya District Health Officer, who has had a long engagement with USAID projects, noted that: Most of these projects do not impose their ideas on the beneficiaries. The use bottom up approaches, which are quite sustainable…I have some resources, can you tell me what you want us to do with these resources? They come to us at the local government and we identify our needs and they respond to them. Others appreciated what they perceived to be NUTI’s “bottom-up” approach of iterative assessment and implementation. For example, the Pabbo sub-county local government (LCII) Chairperson in Amuru District described NUTI as the “people’s program.” NUTI was applauded for identifying needs from the sub county and community level and closely collaborating with district local governments to address those critical priorities that were unfunded, which could contribute to ownership of the facilities and increased the visibility of the local governments. However, not all respondents agreed that NUTI had an efficient approach, and we earlier noted the problems that it faced with construction projects, particularly during its earlier phases. One informant in the Gulu District government remarked that “NUTI was the most extravagant of all projects.” He and others noted that working through contractors and IPs albeit sometimes effective, was very expensive because a significant amount of money is spent on administration and salaries particularly for expatriate staff. Learning and Adaptive Management: Data collected from KIIs suggests that some USAID projects adopted a continuous approach in their programming, which contributed to increasing their effectiveness and reducing costs. Most of this learning happened through an iterative process involving consultations, routine monitoring visits, community dialogues and stakeholder review meetings. In some projects like, ACDI/VOCA (Title II Food security program Uganda) and IRS learning came as a result of intensive stakeholder consultations and review meetings. In other cases, evaluations played an important role in helping projects shift course. After the mid-term evaluation of SPRING (Kenwill, 2010), for example, the project was restructured and adapted to better suit the context of Northern Uganda. The remaining duration of the project focused much more on economic security as an organizing principle upon which other activities like peace and reconciliation and access to justice were revolving as supplementary activities (see 68 Because OTI typically operates 10-12 country programs per year and because most have a large volume of grants of small size (from $500-$100,000) and relatively short duration (2-3 years), its projects often use the GUC mechanism, in which the contractor executes grants with non-governmental organizations. See USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) 302.3.4.12 on GUC. On OTI’s use of the GUC mechanism in particular, see Jeanne Briggs, 2006 USAID Summer Seminar Series: Grants Under Contracts: A Critical and Effective Implementation Tool at http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnady342.pdf. 59 SPRING mid-term evaluation report, 2010). Similarly, ACDI/VOCA as a result of monitoring and field observations as well as recommendations from both volunteers and other stakeholders streamlined and simplified program training manuals and restructured technical training areas to manageable and relevant theme. This reflects an approach to project and program management that lends itself to learning and modifying implementation approaches to take into account the lessons learned. IRS probably provides the most interesting case that demonstrates how combining elements of public-private collaboration, consultation, and learning can inform programming decisions. The IRS implementation approach has changed considerably from its first-year of implementation in 2009- 2010, when most of the activities were centrally organized and controlled from the district local government. Since that time, the project has evolved toward an emphasis on building capacity of the lower local governments at the parish and the community level to execute IRS activities, especially those linked to the transportation, storage and actual spraying at the village and household level. While previously, the distance from a sub-county store to spray sites could be as much as 30 km., the new approach moved key operations closer to the communities served. As a result, the project became more efficient, increased coverage, and met targets, and became more cost effective in the process. Under the new delivery model, user acceptability of spraying increased significantly, with average coverage rates of all rounds of spraying over a three-year period of 95.6%, considerably higher than the USAID target of 85%.69 Moreover, these innovations led to project savings of 2.4 million USD annually and an approximate 50% decrease in the cost per structure sprayed (Anapindi, 2013: 12). Locus of control and the distance from the project offices to actual implementation sites had an influence on the effectiveness of projects’ M&E practices. Projects that had field offices within their Northern Uganda project areas, such as NUTI, NUMAT, LINKAGES, and ACDI/VOCA, and particularly those with resident Chiefs of Party within the region such as NUTI owe part of their effectiveness to the fact that IP staff could closely supervise project activities. But even for some projects with field offices such as LINKAGES, which implemented the program with commendable effectiveness and efficiency, their responsiveness to strategic and operational challenges were inhibited by lengthy and time consuming administrative procedures between Washington DC and Kampala as well as between the implementers and USAID (Ngunyi-Mutahi, et al, 2010). This hampered the timeliness and sometimes caused a rushing of implementation of critical project activities, particularly in a project’s second and third years. The District Education Officer in Nwoya, for example, noted that in general, “projects managed from the center take too long in their inception and procurement processes, which affects their timeliness. Because of time pressure particularly in the second and third years of project implementation, quality of the processes and outcomes is likely to suffer.” This type of observation is confirmed, for example, by the NUWATER evaluation report, which reported that there were delays of about eight months in tendering processes at the beginning of the project that affected the duration of project implementation in Kitgum district. 69 Data on targets from the 2012 Final Project Report, Abt Associates. There was a marginal decline in coverage rates from the initial three biannual spraying periods of 99% to a low of 90% in the sixth period. However, this decline was at least partly attributable to rumors associating the nodding disease to spraying, as cited in the 2012 Final Project Report. 60 Project duration and drawing from past lessons: Project duration had an effect on effectiveness, as well as the ability to adapt to evolving conditions. Key respondents indicated that, with the exception of specific interventions tailored to post-conflict situations (e.g., OTI interventions such as NUTI), the short project cycle of most projects, generally three to five years, but in some cases, such as conflict management and mitigation projects, as short as 18 month, was generally not sufficient to allow for the changing environments in conflict and post-conflict settings. Moreover, as evidenced by interventions dealing with conflict management and mitigation, projects need even more time in post-conflict settings to realize their objectives. Project designers often lacked clear plans for consolidating achievements after closure to ensure sustainability and follow-on programs have not always taken into consideration previous projects’ lessons learned. For example, even though APEP had established a large number (3,461) of Producer Organizations (POs) throughout Uganda, well above its initial target level (Dorsey et al., 2007), and were able to bulk trade over 25 metric tons of products worth about $6.7 million (APEP, 2007),70 many APEP POs, did not fully mature and were often not sustained beyond the life of the project (Dorsey, op cit.). However, although evaluation reports indicate that the design of the LEAD project drew lessons from previous projects especially APEP, LEAD later suffered from some of the same sustainability issues as APEP. Similarly, SPRING and NUPI had life spans of only three years, leaving little time for them to consolidate gains. Ugandan key informants noted weaknesses related to these issues, suggesting that there is some conflict between the concept of results, as interpreted by USAID and its implementation partners which have a narrow focus on meeting quantitative targets, and multi-agency norms of ownership mutual accountability, and harmonization. They note that efforts for consultation with local government officials on priority needs and implementation modalities, in particular, have often been weak or lacking. Moreover, in terms of mutual accountability, when choosing interventions and local government partners, from their perspective, little attention was paid to the heterogeneity of local governments. For example, in more urbanized districts such as Gulu and Kitgum, local governments already have some capacity to monitor projects within their districts, while newer, smaller districts have weaker accountability systems for following up on the work of implementing partners. An Acholi political leader and Member of Parliament summed up some of these problems: The government of Uganda has never been involved in the process of providing oversight and accountability for the funds from USAID…If I find more than one donor claiming to have funded the same school, this would require an audit…The claim by USAID that they are answerable to Congress creates a structural problem for holding them accountable at the country level…Our feeling is that you have given us money…it is now our money. We need to have a say and audit the implementation of USAID projects.” (KII, Member of Parliament). 70 APEP fourth year semiannual progress report: October 2006 to march 2007. 61 i. 2.1 What evidence is there that USAID’s programming goals for assistance addressed the root causes of the conflict? Root Causes Northern Uganda’s main conflict ranged from loss of military and political power, political and socio-economic marginalization of northern Uganda (see, for example, Gersony, 1997; Refugee Law Project, 2004; Omach, 2010; Bainomugisha, 2011). The political divisions existing since colonial times therefore appear to be at the center of the conflict. Many of these causes are located in the historical development challenges of Uganda since independence, although some are also linked to more recent experiences after 1986. When men and women in our survey were asked the question “In your opinion, what was the most important cause of the LRA conflict in Acholi sub-region?” excluding the 9% of those responding “don’t know,” the most important reasons were “loss of political power” (46%); retaliation or avenging mistreatment by NRA (23%); practices related to tribalism or segregation (17%); self-defense (5%); property grabbing (4%); and the North-South divide (1%). Interestingly, only 1% of respondents identified poverty as a root cause, fewer than those citing the influence of spirits (2%). The responses were nearly identical for both sexes. As we discuss below, USAID’s interventions, along with other humanitarian and development actors did not address all of the root causes of the conflict, at least as they are perceived by Acholi respondents. Projects typically did not focus directly, for example, on political divisions between the north and the south. The interventions did however, provide a credible foundation for addressing future conflicts that may be driven by complex intra and inter community conflicts arising from the protracted insurgencies. USAID interventions and contributed in addressing marginalization and underdevelopment, meeting the needs of displaced communities, facilitating IDP return and supporting the current post-conflict rehabilitation and recovery phases: I see [USAID] as having tried to solve the root causes of the conflict…They brought the idea of reconciliation and mediation between the government and the LRA. It actually helped stop the war. (Male youth FGD, Palaro Sub-county, Gulu district). Domestic peace building initiatives after the Juba conference and the ceasefire with the LRA were relatively short-lived. USAID interventions also have not effectively addressed some latent conflict drivers, which continue to be a problem throughout the post-conflict period, such as youth unemployment, gender-based violence and land conflicts. The critical issue of youth unemployment stands out and is a real danger to post-conflict reintegration and development. The key manifestations of violence in the aftermath of conflict and IDPs returning to their original homes are rampant land conflicts, gender based violence, as well as inter-family, clan and individual conflicts. The evidence gathered during the evaluation studies suggests that psychosocial trauma is quite high among communities, with all age groups affected, being manifested for instance in the high rate of suicide among the young adult population. The relative dearth of psychosocial support 62 services continues to limit social reintegration of communities affected by conflict, and achievement of a “positive peace.” 71 Development of human resources to address psychosocial issues has not been given priority support or attention from USAID or other development actors. War has significantly changed the socio-cultural situation and created new conditions not experienced before in Acholi. In some cases, the effects of conflict have now become drivers of unresolved, social unrest. The changes in traditional culture and sexual morality have fundamentally affected social integration and manifest themselves in changing gender relations. Members of both sexes indicated an unwillingness inability to fulfill traditional, socially ascribed roles. For men, these roles included opening up land for cultivation, providing security, and acting as the principle breadwinners and household head. Traditionally, women were confined to the domestic realm but are now increasingly taking on roles such as household heads, breadwinners for the family and engagement in informal sector trade activities, which hitherto were done by men (also see Bukuluki and Mugisha, 2010; International Alert 2010). Addressing the Conflict’s Effects Because of the long duration of the war, when the conflict ended, most of the key actors were primarily focused on the pressing needs for rehabilitation. For this reason, USAID and other humanitarian and development partners made a strategic choice to rather focus on the effects of the conflict and on finding ways to mitigate future conflicts. In this sense, USAID interventions made considerable contributions to addressing the effects of conflict by meeting physical and immediate needs of displaced communities and facilitating the return of IDP populations. Funding through NUPI (2002-2007), for example, provided important support for the reconciliation process in the immediate post-conflict period: We foresaw a problem that there would be conflicts between victims and perpetrators to the development of a proposal to talk to our people to pave way for successful reintegration and reconciliation. NUPI funded this activity, which moved to each district…In Acholi we have a general concept of forgiveness. We did not have in our culture capital punishment…We communicated through the media the message from the people; their willingness to forgive and reconcile. The LRA also heard our message and started returning (group interviews, Ker Kwara Acholi, traditional chiefs, Gulu). Subsequent USAID/CMM funded projects, although suffering from problems of design and short implementation periods, provided contributions to the peace-building process, but partly because the conflict had ended, did not have the level of impact that NUPI had. Many commentators, also indicated that USAID interventions did not appear to appropriately or adequately address this issue of land conflict addressed the emerging drivers of conflict, such as 71 Following Galtung (1996), peace should be more than just the absence of overt violent conflict (negative peace), and should ideally be based on collaborative and supportive relationships (positive peace) based on the development of social systems that serve to promote constructive and sustainable resolution of conflict. 63 land disputes, sexual and gender-based violence, or the reintegration of former female abductees (often referred to as “LRA wives”): The biggest problem was land. The rich started bribing people with money. They start to bribe people from the lowest to the biggest government official especially the judiciary. There was a lot of land grabbing and there was a lot of killing…We are asking the government to go back to “rwot kweri” (traditional chiefs) and LC 1 (village heads) to handle the issue of land. The LC 1 knows everything in a village including the land boundary (KII, LC III chair). It was after the SPRING project that we had the worse cases of land conflict and a lot of other things. I do not want to say that maybe they did not conceptualize the idea well, but to me it zeroed down to the agencies they were working with an a [lack] of a common framework or concept and how to review progress and implement activities in a way that would contribute to the benefit of society (KII, international organization). One of the key post conflict issues is the one of sexual and gender based violence. Women are still facing violence perpetuated on them; and several interventions target them. But within the return site, there seem to be some level of impunity… there seems to be loose administration and monitoring of human rights violation and support services. I remember during the time when women were trying to resettle, they were in the process of rehabilitation, reconstruction of their families; they would go to get firewood, fetch water, but unfortunately some of them were way-laid and abused and raped in all these dark places. Sexual crimes were really on the rise in the return site…sometimes you find that a girl of 11 years has been gang raped (KII, Local Women’s NGO, Gulu). The support received from other NGOs and USAID was for the poor or vulnerable which situation they were in because of the LRA war, which was there, but the causers of [current] conflicts were in the bush…we don’t know if USAID was giving [former abductees] anything to solve their problems. (Youth female focus group, Nwoya District). ii. 2.2 What evidence is there that having a permanent office in the North has contributed to the long-term sustainability of activities? USAID had supported several interventions in northern Uganda prior to 2007, but because of travel restrictions, its officials were not permitted to travel to most areas north of the Nile River. The Northern Uganda Field Office (NUFO) opened in Gulu in June 2007, making it one of a handful of USAID satellite field offices that USAID has operated in recent years.72 U.S. Ambassador to Uganda, Steven Browning noted that, “the opening of the Gulu Office symbolizes our commitment to transition from humanitarian relief to recovery and development activities in northern Uganda” and the new head of the Gulu Office, in 2007, Christine Gottschalk, also noted that, “having a constant presence in northern Uganda will help us better connect with other organizations…and better monitor our services and coordination 72 USAID KII sources mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, Ghana, and Pakistan as other examples 64 between partners…for greater impact.”73 The important role of NUFO, particularly in its early years as stronger local governments emerged in some districts, ensured better coordination of CMM programs as was observed in Gulu district where the former LCV Chairman provided dynamic leadership and often advised the USAID’s NUFO leadership. While I was Chairman of Gulu I refused to engage with very junior USAID officials and asked them to scale up their office here with a higher official capacity to make instant decisions. They responded positively and sent Christine Gottschalk. We then formalized weekly meetings to discuss USAID programs. This gave greater impact to USAID programs due to regular contact. It also enabled us to resolve bigger issues. As Chairman, I was also able to engage directly with people at higher level in the US government and with USAID headquarters in Washington (Former LCV Chairman of Gulu, cited from Ossiya et al., 2012). From these statements, it is clear that the rationale for the Gulu office was to enable USAID to have local presence so as to improve USAID’s program monitoring and coordination in northern Uganda and to enable USAID to better understand and respond to the evolving context and needs. Indeed, between 2006 and 2011, there were many USAID projects with substantial funding that required monitoring and coordination among implementing partners and the local governments. Although unable to reference staff monitoring reports our team interviewed key informants who said that, for the most part, USAID’s local presence was instrumental to building and strengthening relationships with local governments in northern Uganda, for a better understanding of issues, and for making an effort to align USAID projects to local government development plans: What we are doing involves a lot of relationship building with the local government and the sub￾county. You cannot do this from Kampala easily. You have got to sit in the local government meetings and listen (KII, USAID official). Contribution to understanding the context: NUFO appears to have been most relevant during the time that the region was transiting from emergency to the early return and recovery phases, when close monitoring and learning from evolving conditions and for reorienting projects to the specific needs of the north was needed. According to NUFO staff, since 2011, they have identified emerging issues such as sexual and gender based violence, land conflicts, addressing disenfranchised youth, as well as psychosocial problems. Having an office in the north meant that, in the words of one NUFO staffer: Local contextual issues are easily gleaned…we spotted the problem of sexual and gender based violence and identified strategies to deal with it. However, these are common problems in post-conflict societies and do not necessarily require a local office to identify and respond to them. Moreover, an argument for the value addition of a field office should be mainly in terms of its contribution to ensuring that appropriate 73 United States Virtual Presence Post: Northern Uganda press release, c. June, 2007, http://northernuganda.usvpp.gov/usaidstory.html. Accessed 5/16/14. 65 strategies to address these emerging opportunities or barriers. Such localized monitoring of current programming is particularly valuable, in that a field office can serve as a ‘sentinel’ and provide local capacity development. However, NUFO’s capacity to influence USAID Mission decision-making at the USAID Mission to ensure that appropriate interventions are designed to address the emerging issues in northern Uganda is not clear. Our KIIs and FGDs indicate that land conflicts, psychosocial issues and cases of domestic violence have increased in the region over the last five years, but that USAID/Uganda has yet to formulate an adequate response to respond to these issues. This notwithstanding, NUFO office chiefs did not always have the authority to reprogram activities in a way that was consistent with the USAID strategy for the North, particularly because this strategy was never codified into a formal policy, such as a Special Objective similar to the one that USAID/Uganda adopted for Karamoja in its most recent country strategy. NUFO staff attempted, for example, with very limited success, to restructure some countrywide projects such as LEAD, which had been designed to cover many areas, to adapt to the Northern Ugandan post-conflict context. There, LEAD was focusing on building capacity of producer organizations in value chains and marketing at a time that was early for northern Uganda, where needs were far more basic—the region was in transition and had much more need for restoring livelihoods activities rather than promoting value-addition and marketing as promoted by the project: LEAD was supposed to organize a value chain and work with traders and producer organizations (cooperatives). LEAD jumped a step higher; it assumed that northern Uganda produce business is well structured and organized. But our situation was very fluid. We did not have areas of comparative advantage. The quantity of maize produced at the time, for example, was very small; people could market it within [their own communities, who] would consume all of it. LEAD jumped a step to organize a big structure of producer organizations, yet down at the grassroots level, there was nothing. This was done at a time when people needed seeds, farming tools and training in agronomic skills. These did not require investment in producer organizations and value chain activities (USAID official). The USAID Gulu field office did, however, play a valuable role in monitoring activities, not only in the Acholi sub region, which was the primary focus of many interventions, but throughout the larger northern region. Indeed, one former NUFO team leader (office head) indicated that because projects in Northern Uganda had not been monitored in the years preceding 2008, many projects had not been performing well, and there was at least one project that USAID records indicated was still active, but as a result of on-site monitoring, the Gulu office head found that it was no longer functioning. For reasons such as this, NUFO’s monitoring interventions were important to enhance accountability. As one USAID official noted: We had issues of corruption coming in because things were not structurally well defined. Some projects were elusive and difficult, particularly those managed from Kampala. Most of the projects managed from the field office level were easier to fix in case of any issues…Some projects were good at writing reports and making presentations but with little to show on the ground. Having your eyes closer to the ground to ensure value for money cannot be done from 66 Kampala. Gulu office staff are best placed to validate and cross check things with implementing partners. This is done quickly and in less time because of the office presence in the region. Not all respondents, especially those at the grassroots level, were so sanguine. One FGD youth noted that the visibility of NUFO monitoring, especially those that are implemented in direct partnership with the local governments, is limited, and also suggested that USAID should not base its actions on reports provided by either IPs or most particularly, local government. Similarly, the team could not verify the adequacy of past, purported monitoring carried out by NUFO. Although this evaluation did not include a review of NUFO monitoring reports, we conclude that NUFO was relevant during the transition from emergency to recovery, given the relatively high investment of USAID supported projects and that the office contributed to effective coordination and monitoring. Moreover, and although it occurred after the period examined in this evaluation, there is also evidence that relationship-building, particularly with local governments, has been further strengthened since USAID/Uganda 2013 began rolling out 19 district operational plans (DOP), three of which, in Gulu, Pader and Amuru, are in the Acholi sub region. These DOPs are intended to inform local government of USAID activities in their districts; to improve the alignment of USAID activities with the district development plans and priorities; and to provide a platform for troubleshooting and resolving operational issues in the field (USAID/Uganda (2011a: 3). This mechanism brings together, through quarterly, multi￾lateral consultation, planning and coordination meetings, USAID, its implementing partners, and local government staff. According to KIIs in local government, NUFO’s local engagements, even prior to the DOP strategy, contributed to increasing engagement and helped USAID to better align projects with local government development plans and priorities, and have created a better foundation for acceptance, ownership, capacity building—all important building blocks for sustainability. These local government officials contend that the DOP strategy in Northern Uganda has further improved USAID’s coordination, oversight and visibility at district and sub region levels and has increased information sharing and reduced duplication of activities by grouping all partners under the DOP umbrella (Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, Pader district). Others referred to DOPs as a best practice in management, coordination and creation of synergies (KIIs with TASO staff, Gulu office), providing a “strategic platform that ensures that IPs provide mandated updates to USAID and district officials (Group Discussions; KII, Save the Children, Gulu office). c. 3.0 To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda’s evolving conditions? i. 3.1 How well did USAID and its implementing partners respond to evolving conditions in northern Uganda? During the emergency phase, most of the operations were camp-based, and implemented by a variety of agencies, notably WFP, Red Cross, UNICEF, CARE, Samaritan’s Purse, the 67 International Rescue Committee (IRC), TASO, AVSI, ACDI/VOCA, and NRC, all of which had adapted their models to work with and in IDP camps. These agencies soon realized, however, that they had to make changes in their approaches in order to remain relevant and meet the emerging needs of people during the return process. However, humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross and WFP, whose mandates were largely focused on humanitarian aid, responded by scaling down their activities and letting more development-oriented agencies take over. During the resettlement period, USAID encouraged a number of these projects, including NUPI, NUTI, SPRING, ACDI/VOCA’s Title II food security program, NUMAT, IRS, and UNITY, to make efforts, often in response to formative or midterm evaluations, to adapt to the North’s evolving conditions. Changes in the physical environment also led to new opportunities as well as vulnerabilities and challenges that needed to be addressed. In short, the new dynamics of northern Uganda required “flexible and responsive programming to support the often non-linear transition from emergency assistance to recovery and development” (USAID strategy, 2007, op cit.). While certain programming efforts may have fallen short, there was a deliberate effort by USAID/Uganda to ensure that USAID programs in Northern Uganda went beyond emergency assistance and promoted reintegration which complements, and aligns funding to the Government of Uganda’s PRDP I. The extent to which projects were able to respond to emerging needs in Northern Uganda depended in part on historical factors. Some projects, such as NUPI, ACDI/VOCA’s Title II food security program, and AVSI, were already implementing activities prior to the start of the return and during resettlement. NUTI, for example, focused entirely on Northern Uganda and is a prime example of changing to evolving conditions. The project was responsive, but also prescriptive, during its initial phase of operation, but as local governments became more stable and developed capacity for planning and engagement with partners, the project increased consultation and engagement with local governments, allowing it to better align its activities with district and sub-county development plans. Other NU-focused projects such as NUMAT, IRS and LINKAGES, were from their early design phase through the implementation designed to respond to the evolving conditions, consistent with USAID’s strategy, which required them to adopt a flexible approach to management in response to unforeseen changes in post conflict Northern Uganda. To achieve this, these projects adopted a decentralized approach to service delivery and had a relatively stronger emphasis on capacity-building and systems strengthening, working with existing structures at the district, sub-county and community level. Projects that were Uganda-wide in scope, such as APEP and LEAD in the agriculture/livelihoods sector were less well adapted to Northern Ugandan conditions. Health Since its inception in 2006, NUMAT supplied essential medicines and health supplies and constructed or rehabilitated and equipped laboratories and operating theaters. These contributed to enhancing the access to essential services such as laboratory screening for returnees and enabled health workers to conduct tests for a range of health conditions 68 including HIV/AIDS, malaria, and TB screening. NUMAT provided malaria prevention and control through distribution of insecticide treated bed nets (ITNs) and the application of new rapid and inexpensive diagnostic tools for malaria infection, targeting pregnant women and children below five years of age. The project also conducted recruitment and conducted capacity building trainings for about 1,500 health staff at the district, sub-district and the national levels on topics such as clinical practice, training about new MOH guidelines, tools and treatment protocols. An evaluation study by NUMAT on the relevance and effectiveness of the health sector training activities in northern Uganda in 2009 revealed that most of the trainings conducted were useful and most of the health workers who participated in the NUMAT evaluation (78 of 104) reported they were indeed using skills acquired during the training. NUMAT adapted its approaches to the evolving conditions in the health sector, using an integrated programming approach that viewed health risks, needs, and capacities holistically, contributing to addressing multiple health issues at the same time, working with existing community structures and through local governments, which enabled them to better respond to their citizens’ actual needs. One of the single most important interventions that have been heralded for significantly reducing malaria incidence and prevalence during this early return and resettlement is the indoor residual spraying (IRS) project. Through stakeholder consultations, the IRS project took a strategic management decision to decentralize its transportation, storage and spraying of households to the parish and community level, which improved its effectiveness and reduced costs. This was very instrumental in malaria control and prevention which led to a reduction in the outpatient department (OPD) cases seen of severe malaria as well as a general reduction in malaria prevalence from 50% in 2006 to 38% in 2011 in northern Uganda (UDHS, 2006 and 2011): Before IRS there were high numbers of death from malaria, now you find drugs in health facilities because the incidence and prevalence of malaria has reduced…we still continue to notice the impact of the USAID funded Indoor Residual Spray project which has continued to mitigate cases of malarial infections and its related death cases in children and pregnant mothers (KII, Former Commandant, Pagak Camp, Lamogi sub county). Notwithstanding the health sector’s achievements, there continues to be a need to better plan for sustainability. As described in this evaluation’s sustainability section, staff recruitment and training by projects such as NUMAT was not sustained by the local government district health staffing structures and the creation of demand for HIV and AIDS services, with no clear plans for meeting these demands when the projects phased out, posed problems. Similarly, despite IRS’s recognizable impact, even some years later, local governments are unable to cover the program costs without funding from USAID. Response to Evolving Conditions in Agriculture and Livelihoods The earlier agricultural and livelihoods activities, from approximately 2006-2008 revolved primarily around the provision of tools and agricultural inputs as well as capacity building and training in basic agronomic practices. Project reports show that to cope with farmers groups’ membership changes by the resettlement process ACDI/VOCA strengthened monitoring by 69 providing local sub-grantees with motorcycles to effectively monitor farmer groups and increased its focus on working with local CBOs to reach farmer and women’s groups, facilitating seed multiplication and group training in agronomic skills: In 2007, when we were returning, URADI, a local CBO, which was getting support from ACDI/VOCA were giving groundnut seeds and cassava stems, which took six months to mature. These were grown on time which made the multiplication of the seeds to the members to be easy and each group had 30 members. All the members ended up having the seeds and cassava stems and it really helped us fight the imminent hunger that was disturbing people during the return. We also received training on best agronomic practices or methods.” (FGD with men in Okungedi parish, Amuru sub county, Amuru District). During the latter part of the resettlement phase, from approximately 2009-2011, as farming recuperated, there was a greater need for income generating activities and linkages to markets and credit facilities. Several USAID-supported projects, including SPRING and LEAD had interventions aimed at boosting food production, storage and post-harvest handling techniques. SPRING, particularly after its mid-term evaluation, restructured and focused more on economic security as the central piece of its integrated programming, complemented by the other activities such as peace building and access to justice (KII with former NUFO office head; Cardno, 2010). LEAD, as had the predecessor APEP project continued with a focus on value chains, improved technologies, increasing access to markets and strengthening producer organisations. Although APEP and LEAD activities, which focused on increasing productivity were useful elsewhere in Uganda, their activities that focused on marketing and value addition as well as producer organisations (POs) were not well adapted to the context of Northern Uganda, at a time when the communities in Acholi sub region were grappling with survival, rebuilding homes, opening up land for agriculture, and family reunification. Because APEP and LEAD were designed to cover districts that were in stable communities, these projects found it a challenge to adapt their model to focus on needs during the early return (APEP) and later resettlement (LEAD) periods. USAID-financed projects addressing economic development and livelihoods were never especially broad and extensive in Northern Uganda. Moreover, most of those projects that were implemented were not designed in keeping with the region’s socio-economic transition needs and were unable to broadly improve economic conditions for many Northern Ugandans. There is, however, still a strong need for job creation, both on- and off-farm. According to a recent Oxford Economics (2013) report, “to keep unemployment at its current rate and prevent youth, urban and wider unemployment from soaring, the North’s economy needs to create over 4 million net new jobs in the next 25-30 years.” The report also indicates that “the vast majority of businesses in the North rely on their own internal funds to finance working capital, investment and expansion…[with] only 6% of surveyed firms able to access funding from banks, and only a further 4% from non-bank financial institutions (e.g. micro-finance, SACCOs and credit from suppliers or advances from customers).” Clearly, many of the needs identified by returnees still persist, including the needs for income generation, business skills and sustainable agriculture. Many youth are still jobless; many others have not attended school. Several respondents mentioned needs in vocational education and skills enhancement as education was so severely disrupted. Many youth were abducted or displaced while others 70 could not attend educational institution due to financial constraints, and as a result they cannot access the few opportunities for formal employment. FGD respondents consistently indicated that youth needed enhanced vocational skills to earn a decent living and to counter the big problem of unemployment resulting in part from many years of war. While some USAID projects were more responsive to NU conditions, such more thoughtful, socio-economic ‘transitioning’ in NU was also not carefully considered, either by busy USAID/Kampala staff or politically-driven, PRDP decision-makers. Education The education sector was characterised by dilapidated infrastructure, poor or lack of teacher housing, poorly trained or equipped teachers, high rates of educator absenteeism, dropout and learners’ poor performance. NUTI carried out relevant interventions, particularly in respect to construction and rehabilitation and furnishing of classrooms and teachers housing which contributed to reduction in teacher absenteeism, improved schools’ learning environments, and increased interaction between teachers and learners and enrollment. One education official indicated that: I think NUTI’s intervention makes a difference since it created a more lasting effect. The teachers are now within the school premise; apparently there is no late coming of teachers to schools [constructed by NUTI]; the children are now at least in classrooms” (KII, DEO Amuru district). In addition to NUTI and UNITY’s REPLICA “hardware” components, which focused on conflict-affected areas, relevant “software” interventions were also critical. All District Education Officers interviewed agreed that UNITY/REPLICA provided opportunities for continuous professional development for teachers and capacity building for school management structures. Six teams comprising of UNITY and Ministry of Education members conducted training for 978 teachers and head teachers from 202 schools with 13,547 students over a ten week period in March 2009, focusing on such issues as leadership, thematic curriculum, teaching practice, pupils’ involvement, and guidance and counselling. Still, important gaps remained in relation to quality, equity and performance. The UNITY evaluation report noted its effects were not easily visible at the school level. Similarly, the evaluation noted that REPLICA’s scale up of the Basic Education Policy Support pilot program was poorly managed and “moved too far too fast” and that REPLICA found it difficult to adapt to the North’s unique situation and needs (UMEMS, 2008). In any case, USAID’s investment in education was marginal compared to sectors like health and agriculture, even though Uganda’s education needs were extensive. Water “Water is life” and therefore a critical need. Water-related activities involved construction or rehabilitation of piped water systems through establishing water pumps, borehole drilling and rehabilitation, and in the rehabilitation, and protection of natural springs. USAID-funded projects, including SPRING, NUTI, NUWATER, as well as those of other key partners such as 71 World Vision, the Lutheran World Federation, and UNICEF, in an attempt to adapt and improve service delivery, changed their approaches from short to long-term water supplies, management of water facilities, strengthening of community-based systems for operation and maintenance of facilities, and increased partnership with local governments in Pader and Kitgum to construct water pumps through NUWATER. Moreover, low levels of community commitment and contribution affected operation and maintenance issues. Although these projects were premised on a degree of voluntarism through the use of water user committees, many of these committees ceased to function after projects closed: At the end of the day, the water points remained without functional water user committees. And in 2010 when we had to collect data and analyse, we realized the contribution/functionality of the Water Source Committees were only at 23%. Some of these water points are not using appropriate technology. Some implementers just come and impose any technology on the people; hence at the end there is no sustainability. (KII, Acting District Water Officer, Amuru District) In addition to other concerns related to operation and maintenance some respondents viewed the question of equity in the distribution of water sources as a challenge, as some places still lacked the required number of water points. Moreover, beyond these constraints, the appropriateness of technology used, and some respondents believed these problems were due to relatively limited consultation of communities and local governments in design of water projects: Most of the partners in the water sector tend to bypass government systems and this causes a lot of institutional conflicts. They also have a problem of lack of an exit strategy and do not hand over to the institution (KII, water sector chief and engineers, Kitgum district). Peace and Reconciliation When the guns fell silent, direct violence stopped but residual drivers of conflict as well as the atrocities committed by both the LRA and the government forces were still fresh in people’s minds. USAID and implementing partners engaged in a number of projects, including NUPI, NUTI, Pader Peace Program (PPP) and SPRING, to address issues related to peace, reconciliation and access to justice needs in northern Uganda, particularly the Acholi sub￾region. The projects made various contributions to peace and stability in various ways including providing support to initiation and conducting Juba peace talks (NUPI), strengthening institutional frameworks for reconciliation (NUPI, NUTI and SPRING), traditional transitional justice systems (NUPI, NUTI and SPRING), encouraging the participation of women in the peace and reconciliation process, reintegration of an estimated 20,000 former combatants and abductees, restoration of the Acholi cultural institution well as access to justice, mitigation of conflict and through use of local rituals and performing burials ceremonies for cleansing, accountability and reconciliation supported by SPRING and NUTI. During the emergency period, NUPI, which had begun with the aim of supporting the GoU Presidential Peace Team in peace talks with the LRA contributed to developing and debating a comprehensive peace agreement by the GOU, LRA and other stakeholders. Most 72 interventions today have a foundation based in this agreement. NUPI, NUTI and SPRING activities constituted the major building blocks for aligning USAID support to advancing the GoU’s PRDP objectives. SPRING established nearly 200 peace building structures and organised over a thousand separate events to strengthen citizen’s engagement in peace and reconciliation processes to address community land conflicts on land, reconcile communities’ differences and, at the same time, relieve local governments of the burden of resolving these conflicts through collaboration with these committees and using the traditional justice system based on chiefly authority. The USG, through NUPI and NUTI, also supported transitional justice through consultations on the International Crimes Bill with governmental and civil society leaders and also provided technical assistance to war crimes division of the high court (Boase, 2011). However, transitional justice, which promotes access to justice for the victims of atrocities, truth telling, compensation of victims, addressing the war’s psychosocial, and restoring community relationships had not yet been achieved (Jansen et al., 2008: 47; Clark, 2012). KIIs at the local government level also raised concerns about the sustainability of peace-building activities because they were largely carried out by new peace structures whose continuity and functionality beyond the projects’ timelines was uncertain: Mercy Corps even established a peace committee, but now the peace committee is dead, the members were given a bicycle and some small facilitation. The bad thing is that these committees do not last after a project. The best thing is that Mercy Corps should have worked with existing government structure. (KII LC III Chairperson Kalongo Town Council, Agago District). Apart from some SPRING resources, no major USAID or other donor investment was focused on psychosocial support, even though today’s Northern Uganda population suffers from high levels of alcohol abuse among youth, men and women, high rates of sexual and gender based violence, frequent suicides, and war-related trauma among returnees and former abductees. ii. 3.2 What evidence is there that USAID project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and service delivery have continued after project closure? This section focuses on the extent of sustainability achieved in different program sectors. Water and Sanitation Water: Beginning the 1990s, the GoU began reforms to increase water coverage through encouraging private sector participation in the water sector. Prior to the current private sector 73 participation (PSP) framework of small town water supply, the Ugandan national government administered all water supply networks through a highly centralized system. 74 USAID and other development partners contributed to increases in water coverage Major reform efforts in the 1990s put the current PSP model for small town water supply in place. USAID and other development partners contributed to increases in water coverage and building capacity of operation and maintenance structures for water. Larger water projects such as NUWATER are still serving the community. The NUWATER plant in Kitgum has ensured that a larger proportion of the town population, some 30,000 households, is now connected to tap water and despite serious technical omissions in the system’s design and installation, local officials acknowledged that NUWATER had enhanced access to water and now has stronger sustainability prospects. In addition, Mercy Corps’ Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC) program also constructed or rehabilitated 26 boreholes and 16 shallow wells. Assuming that around 5,000 persons were served by each of these water points, that project would have served an additional estimated 20,000 people. In terms of access to safe water, the final HPSC evaluation noted an increase of approximately 20 percentage points in safe water access compared to the mid-term resettlement period (Catsam, 2014). Between 2006 and 2008, functionality of water sources was generally higher except for Gulu and Amuru districts which both registered declines in the fuctionality of their water sources. The reduction in access to safe water especially in recent years could be attributed to the return of people from IDP camps to their original home lands in rural areas as many of the existing water sources constructed in IDP camps. The evaluation team noted that when people returned from camps, the operation and maintenance structures, especially water user committees, tended to become inactive because members moved to different locations. It took a while to reconstitute and build the capacity of the new operations and maintenance structures for water sources and this therefore affected functionality and sustainability of water sources. On the positive side, higher fuctionality in Kitgum and Pader can be at least partly attributed to HPSC program which contructed boreholes and built capacity of operation and mainatce structres in these districts. Table 14: Funcationality of Rural Water Sources Functionality of Rural Water Sources (Water Sector Performance Reports: 2006-2011) District 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 Amuru 95% 82% 77% 66% 71% Gulu 95% 66% 66% 75% 67% Kitgum 81% 95% 91% 86% 87% Pader 85% 86% 86% 84% 76% 74 Hirn (2013) notes that prior to reforms, decisions were made far from local users, funding flows through the center and back were habitually delaying operations and maintenance, record keeping was poor, and there were few direct financial incentives for systems to perform well. 74 Boreholes and water points in rural areas presented different challenges, as many of the existing water sources constructed in IDP camps, but when people returned home they were arrived in areas without water. Although we were unable to extrapolate a reasonable estimate of numbers based on our small sample of sites, of those boreholes that were drilled in the return areas, we visited five sites—three of which were sponsored by USAID projects—in which they were no longer functioning due to lack of maintenance. In general, the reasons offered by local respondents were that NGOs that constructed them handed over the maintenance to water user committees, many of which ceased to function: A number of boreholes have had sustainability problems as maintenance committees were instituted but without capacity. They trained hand pump mechanics but left them without tools and even if they had tools, they also need to be paid for their services and there is no money. The hand-pump mechanics were not recognized by sub-counties! Voluntarism is not like a free thing but probably this is what was thought by the program implementers (KII, International Organization). Hygine and sanitation: Several USAID projects including HPSC, ACDI/VOCA Uganda MYAP, NUTI engaged in actvities related to hygine and sanitation, with varying success. Some, such as HPSC failed to provide consistent or timely follow-up for their activities, and evaluators of that project found poor outcomes in terms of sanitation indicators. Others, such as ACDI/VOCA’s MYAP, which was not directly involved in construction or rehabilitation of water or sanitation facilities, but rather concentrated on instruction for beneficiaries on how to construct sanitation and hygiene facilities, showed relatively good results in terms of hygiene practices. Education In education, NUTI invested a portion of grant funds in the construction of classroom blocks and teacher quarters. Although key informants indicated that many are still functional, some classroom and teacher houses were in poor condition due to bad workmanship. In one site visit to a school in Pabit Parish, Nwoya district, the evaluation team observed cracks on walls of classrooms constructed less than five years previously, and a FGD respondent pointed out to us the weaknesses in construction quality: The classroom block did not last more than one week. It developed a huge crack. It was repaired but after one month, it again cracked - it was repaired again but as I talk it has cracks all through. Even the teachers’ houses have developed cracks. When it rains, all the houses will get flooded. They were constructed poorly with no raised part at the veranda to stop water flowing in. So water floods inside when it rains, teachers are disorganized. They have to sweep away water. (FGD, Pabit, Nwoya district) The UNITY project developed a new curriculum that promises to improve literacy and math skills of children. Its REPLICA component integrated these learning programs in primary schools in Northern Uganda with the aim of incorporating peace building in the learning process, and according to one district education officer, the curricular materials are still in use. The curriculum that UNITY supported on peace building is still used, as it is embedded in the national primary school curriculum, and therefore has good potential for sustainability. 75 Agriculture Projects such as SPRING supported local producer groups through training, construction of stores and linkages to markets. LEAD and World Vision projects supported producer organizations to develop a value chain, linkages to markets and enhanced financial opportunities. For example, the LEAD project’s first phase provided direct technical assistance to 11,550 Producer Organizations (POs) and supported 12 value chains. Through the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) model, LEAD provided capacity building to POs in access to financial services, value chain, and post-harvest handling, access to and use of agricultural inputs. USAID LEAD 1 also constructed warehouses and supported the functioning of existing warehouses built by other USAID projects (Tetra Tech ARD, 2013). The evaluation report of the Heifer Project’s Dairy Development project in Northern Uganda noted that the project contributed to capacity building of groups through training, sharing resources, setting up networks and corroboration with partners in order to sustain project activities. It also offered business advisory and technical services and networked beneficiaries to other service providers in sectors. Through this support CBOs have improved their organismal management structures, operational systems and leaderships and management skills (Opio et al., 2011). However, the sustainable impact of these activities on agricultural productivity and markets is questionable. Communities continued to draw their livelihoods from agriculture, but majority were still at the subsistence level during the study period, meaning the project objectives were largely not achieved. The implementing partners relied on a strategy of supporting farmers’ groups, assuming they would act as motivational platforms for individual members. However, at group formation, some people were still living in satellite camps and when they returned to their villages, most of these groups disintegrated. This idea was echoed by one of the respondents in a group discussion: Actually programs should avoid use of or formation of many groups but rather use sub villages as a group to help avoid mobilization problems and having support scattered in many places. Most of us were in groups in the camps, but items given to us like oxen’s we slaughtered and distributed the money because we were all going to different places (FGD Pogo parish, Amuru district). Health Notwithstanding the relatively significant, and positive contributions of NUMAT, respondents raised concerns about whether approaches were not sustainable, such as staff recruitment that could not be integrated into local government health staffing structures at project closure. For example, in one group discussion with staff providing AIDS services, a respondent noted the following: 76 NUMAT adopted a wrong approach to human resources recruitment. They were supposed to work with the Ministry of Health and local governments but they chose to recruit their own people who were paid artificial salaries and then left with the project. Sustainability is also an issue in terms of continued stocks of medicine and supplies. KIIs noted that some projects such as NUMAT created increased demand for health care, with positive results but now there are periodic stockouts of anti-retroviral medication and fewer essential HIV prevention commodities such as condoms, 1.8 million of which had been distributed by NUMAT in 15 northern districts through 600 condom outlets (NUMAT Final Program Report, 2012). Similarly, UPHOLD was criticized for working on the assumption that the government would provide essential drugs like Coartem (for malaria) to the thousands of trained medicine distributors. This did not happen as they are still struggling to ensure availability of basic medicines in health facilities. NUMAT also supported training of personnel in health centers across the Acholi sub region as well as equipping laboratories and supplying drugs to all the major health centers. Furthermore, NUMAT and AVSI supported additional staff with salaries to increase health service outreach, approaches that contributed to a significant increases number of the health centers operating within Acholi communities. However services such as drug supply and sponsoring additional personnel, only lasted as long as funding was flowing. For example, a key informant reported a remarkable increase in outreach to patients when they received laboratory equipment and reagents and had four additional NUMAT trained and sponsored staff: Before the training given to staff, there was only one person working on about 800 people in one month. After training 4 people, we were able to work on about 3000 (KII, Pader Health Center III). When the NGOs left, the positive outcomes in health nearly disappeared. For example, AVSI had supported Paidwe health center III to reach more women living with HIV/AIDS but at the project’s closure, the health center found it challenging to continue its work. According to the head of the health center: AVSI kept sensitizing us that they would leave but when they left, the mothers stopped coming. We could not get transport and refreshment when they left; we lost a number of the family support groups. Even the staff themselves became a problem; three left because we were not able to pay them. We could struggle to pay them but not on time (KII Paidwe health center III, Lamwo district). These challenges were shared by many health centers visited by the evaluation team. Other key informants identified different systemic issues that could reduce sustainability, included staff retention, and that despite construction of staff quarters, health workers have continued to leave their posts, undermining health service delivery. Some district health officers (DHO) and local government leaders also observed problems of sustainability with IRS: IRS runs on a very high budget, chemicals are very expensive and we have to spray two to three times a year - we cannot maintain this. Overhead costs are very high with many staff, which is 77 not sustainable. I think they have exaggerated cost because they don’t listen to us, if they did some of these cost would reduce. Currently they use district staff but the district is not in charge. We need these partnerships but they should be mutual, not where one says I will do this for you and you are an observer…if the district was given more say, we would demand for change…our context is also complex, we still live in ramshackle structures, spraying is done in a house which have holes and other inlets, and surrounding areas are not sprayed (KII, DHO, Gulu). Peace building and conflict resolution Reconciliation activities such as Mercy Corps’ peace program in Pader, often took the approach of supporting peace committees comprised of credible community members, but their efforts rarely continued after their activities closed, although some key interviewees noted that many people benefitted from project-supported training. In another example, NUTI provided operational funding for a war memorial center in Kitgum district headquarters, which houses war artifacts and memoirs and which sponsors research related to the conflict. NUTI also facilitated the burial of skeletons remaining in villages after the conflict. The war memorial center in Kitgum district is still in operation under the care of Makerere University’s Refugee Law Project. This particular initiative is expected to continue, as it receives support from the district and overseen by the district’s local council chairman. B. CONCLUSIONS USAID was an important provider of food aid during the IDP encampment period, but then, during the return period from 2008 to 2009, many returnees suffered from critical lack of food at a time when USAID support for food aid was diminishing. USAID also invested in the health sector, as well as in other areas including governance, education, agriculture and livelihoods, water and sanitation and, particularly during the period prior to and during the years immediately following the conflict’s end, in activities related to peace building and reconciliation. USAID created considerable tangible benefits for displaced Ugandans in terms of interventions that involved physical infrastructure and construction, but also in medical services and supplies, and, albeit to a lesser extent, in water and sanitation, agriculture and livelihoods, and education. Effectiveness Clearly, however, working in a post-conflict environment posed particular difficulties for project implementers. Particularly in the earlier period immediately after the conflict, there was relatively limited capacity among many of the local implementing partners in the region. The relatively limited human resource capacity for development work, as opposed to humanitarian work was a major barrier to effectiveness for some projects, although by 2008, this problem had begun to lessen to a large extent. “Integrated programming” is an excellent concept, particularly in a post-conflict situation in which the needs in nearly every sector or activity are overwhelming. However, as this evaluation notes, it comes with its own set of problems—while it is important to have interventions that address a variety of interrelated issues, for example combining health, agricultural production, nutrition, hygiene, and education on those issues, although some projects were able to perform a variety of tasks successfully, 78 this approach often led to a situation in which “each project attempted to do everything,” rather than focusing on specific areas of expertise. Another barrier to effectiveness was coordination, particularly when government structures are severely weakened, as was the case in Northern Uganda during the conflict period, and particularly during the last three years of the conflict, when many essential government functions were assumed by international agencies and their implementing humanitarian partners. Although its assistance with rebuilding local government was a major USAID accomplishment, the process was gradual, and indeed is still continuing, particularly in the newer districts. The geographic focus of projects, particularly in terms of having a major presence in terms of offices and staff in the North also had ramifications for effectiveness. The evaluation also noted a marked difference between projects that were designed for the entire country and those that were specific to northern Uganda, and conclude that projects specific to Northern Uganda were generally more able to implement a learning and adaptive management approach. However, although USAID did develop a strategy for the North by 2007, this strategy was never codified into a policy document that USAID/Uganda, and particularly members of the field office could refer to in their negotiations with countrywide project implementers. Although some of these projects eventually managed some level of adaption, the design and implementation of many Uganda-wide projects were generally not well adapted to the post￾conflict situation in the region. Sustainability Project designers often lacked clear plans for consolidating achievements after closure to ensure sustainability and follow-on programs have not always taken into consideration previous projects’ lessons learned. Some USAID partners took steps to ensure that programs would be sustained after the closure of projects, but this was not often the case. Sustainability was achieved to some extent, especially in the area of education, where ownership was handed over to the Ministry of Education, which adopted several curriculum interventions. Even very successful interventions, such as those in the health sector, suffer from a lack of sustainability. In other cases, project structures handed over to local communities or groups such as peace committees, farmers groups, or water user committees were often based on a misguided concept that people in local communities, or even local government structures with relatively limited budgets, would easily and happily 'take ownership' and care for social and physical infrastructure, when in fact generating such voluntarism takes considerable planning and nurturing. As a result, many of the social and physical infrastructural investments made by projects were not maintained after projects closed. Key intervention Sectors Health: Overall, USAID spent nearly one-half of its total $750 million program funding for Northern Uganda in the health sector. With such a high relative level of investment, health interventions were able to serve a large number of persons in the North—NUMAT for example, supported services for an estimated 1.3 million people and the IRS project supported the protection of some 2 million persons from malaria. Overall, health projects responded to very important needs by improving access to medicine and health supplies, rehabilitating health 79 infrastructure, prevention through indoor residual spraying, and the training of human resources for health and prevention and management of infectious diseases. Health interventions such as NUMAT also reached people relatively quickly, partly due to a relatively decentralized and outreach-driven approach which emphasized facilitating outreach services to frontline health facilities at the sub county level and below. Interventions targeting malaria were also highly effective due to indoor residual spraying and the contributions of other projects including NUMAT, AFFORD and UPHOLD in also providing treated nets and anti-malarial medicines. However, despite these interventions and the large USAID investment in that sector, demand for health services continues to outstrip supply and the GoU still has a weak capacity, even after some years, for taking more tangible steps to ensure better staffing, drug supplies, and malaria prevention activities. Agriculture and livelihoods: Overall, USAID’s interventions in agricultural and livelihoods were relatively modest as a proportion of the budget, and although projects generally made some important contributions to improving livelihoods and food security through the building of roads, which increased access to markets, and the provision of farm inputs as well as training in basic agronomic knowledge, skills and practices for farmer groups, they often did not fully achieve their objectives. This evaluation identified several design flaws identified in agriculture and livelihood projects. First, and most importantly, most interventions were not sufficiently adapted to the economic situation of the post-conflict North; second, although the need for credit is a pressing need and was identified as a key intervention by this and previous evaluations, and although USAID projects established an important foundation for expansion, relatively few households and farmers groups received the training and support needed to foster the widespread adoption of savings, credit and cooperative organizations (SACCOs) or village saving and loan associations (VSLA); and third, there were very few interventions specifically targeting the economic needs of rural youth, and those that did exist served very small numbers of people. Moreover, despite these needs for programs supporting agriculture, access to credit, and income generating activities, and despite the fact that there is now the capacity for rapid expansion of the agricultural sector, overall USAID/Uganda funding, even considering that there are other intervening partners, remains small compared to the need and the probability that well designed and implemented projects could have a large impact on economic growth. Constructing a “positive peace.” USAID contributed in two major ways to peace in Northern Uganda. First, it addressed issues related to the North’s marginalization and underdevelopment through its assistance to displaced communities and local governments. Second, through its work with a variety of Northern Uganda partner organizations, it supported the Juba peace talks, and later efforts contributed to stabilizing Northern Uganda and preventing further widespread armed conflict. However, many interventions were short-lived, and because they were often based on the creation of new structures rather than working with existing local structures these efforts were not sustained. Moreover, USAID inadequately addressed the deeper needs for healing and reconciliation which have contributed to latent or emerging potential conflicts including disputes over land tenure, alcoholism, sexual and gender-based violence, and other symptoms related to the psychosocial trauma experienced by the Acholi as a result of a protracted and brutal war. 80 Governance: In terms of governance support, although USAID invested a relatively small proportion of its overall Northern Uganda funding in governance initiatives, its projects were successful in helping to restore government services quickly and effectively, contributing to the PRDP objective of increasing visibility and efficiency of local government and the judicial system. Support for governance largely achieved its multiple objectives, through its assistance in the rehabilitation of government physical and human capital infrastructure. Particularly important was assistance of training for government officials (elected and technical), which helped to improve governance processes such as opening up local government to public scrutiny and demands for local government accountability and transparency, as well as increasing the willingness of government officials to hear citizens’ concerns. Despite this, important gaps still exist, both in the North and in Uganda as a whole. There is still relatively limited participatory democratic local governance and accountability of local government officials, and a particular need for encouraging women and youth to participate in governance processes. Other Sectors Education. The education sector accounted for a very small proportion of total USAID funding in Northern Uganda. Despite this, USAID made visible contributions to improving the learning environment of pupils through its rehabilitation of schools and also contributed to reducing teacher’s absenteeism, although in a limited number of schools, through construction of teachers’ houses. Education projects also assisted through professional development of teachers and building capacity of school management committees and parents-teacher associations. Moreover, these investments proved largely sustainable. As one important example, the peace-building modules developed by one of the projects on have been adopted by the Ministry of Education for inclusion in the national curriculum. Water and sanitation: The needs for water were adequately, although still incompletely, addressed during the emergency period, even to the extent that in some cases water in the camps exceeded demand. However, the need for water supply during the return phase was high, given that most of the water sources had been concentrated in camps, and those sources of water in most of the return areas had become unusable. Considerable efforts were made to meet Northern Uganda’s safe water needs; however the overall level of USAID’s investment was far from commensurate with the needs in return areas. Although several partners contributed to meeting rural water needs during the early return and resettlement period, the distribution of water points providing access to safe water was not sufficiently planned. Moreover, many of the boreholes that were constructed are no longer operational, as a result of insufficient maintenance by water user committees, which NGOs, including those sponsored by USAID, originally supported, but are no longer active. Large urban-based water systems, although contributing to improved access to safe water did not meet several important engineering criteria, did they serve the number of persons as designed. In terms of sanitation, earlier interventions largely achieved state objectives, with substantial outreach and coverage through nutrition and hygiene training and increases in the numbers of households demonstrating hygienic practices, but later interventions were less successful. 81 Gender as a Crosscutting Issue From the emergency period through the period of early return and resettlement, gender responsive programming was an important factor in project design and implementation, and many interventions in agriculture, health, and peace-building provided particular attention to the needs of women and mothers. However, some programming, particularly in the area of livelihoods, was conceived narrowly in terms of providing income generating activities for women, rather than addressing fundamental issues related to control of resources and the continuing problems related to sexual and gender-based violence. Psychosocial and other support interventions, particularly those addressing the causes of such violence, received relatively little attention during the period. The Role of the Northern Uganda Field Office USAID’s Northern Uganda Field Office (NUFO) enabled USAID to provide monitoring and coordination of USAID programs in Northern Uganda and better understand and respond to evolving conditions there. Particularly during its early phase, the was primarily focused on transition initiatives, most notably a peace-building program that had continued in various forms throughout the late conflict period through the early return period, and the Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI). However, the effectiveness of the office in helping interventions, particularly those that were Uganda-wide and managed from USAID in Kampala was limited, partly due to the fact that USAID’s strategy for the North was never sufficiently codified into a formal policy or Special Objective. C. RECOMMENDATIONS a. 4.0 From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda’s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? The recommendations contained in this section are organized by sector and in terms of priority for future USAID interventions. Health: Based on the findings and conclusions, USAID contributions were extremely significant in increasing access to health services. USAID is currently engaged in working to find models, and can make further contributions to bridge the transition from the provision of additional capacity (for example, as NUMAT had done) to assist the incorporation of these professionals into local government structures in a sustainable manner. However, there is an acute need to continue initiatives that focus on health systems strengthening, and to build on earlier projects to rehabilitate health infrastructure. USAID projects should therefore continue working with not only local governments but also with the Ministry of Health more directly to identify those elements of administration, management, staffing structures, and financial inputs that need to be adjusted to enable the health service to ensure the continued functioning of health structures. Beyond becoming more effective interlocutors to influence GoU’s health commitments, USAID should also consider opportunities for establishing the development of sustainable community fund mechanisms that 82 can be used by community members to address their needs and cover costs that would otherwise prevent access to health services. In all cases, programming should earnestly address issues of sustainability more explicitly from the beginning. Agriculture and livelihoods: To keep unemployment at its current rate and prevent wider unemployment from soaring, the North needs to add millions of new jobs in the coming decades. Moreover, there is not only a very large need, but also a more promising climate for implementing innovative agricultural program models that advance Feed the Future objectives and engage private sector partners in larger, commercial farming and rural energy generation, as well as for off-farm, youth-oriented business and technical training. Stronger efforts for cultivating private-public partnership opportunities to better attract private investment in the management of farms, particular with owners that could take an interest in using some farmers’ profits to address other social needs, could become a bolder, progressive development undertaking which could provide a wider range of sorely needed jobs for northern Uganda’s millions of farmers and broadly disenfranchised youth. The need for credit to achieve advances in the economic development is pressing, and USAID should emphasize projects that foster and nurture a wide and sustainable adoption of savings, credit and cooperative organizations and village saving and loan associations (VSLA). USAID projects should also continue the support for building rural feeder roads, ensuring that such developments are well aligned with district and other local government’s plans and to the expressed needs of the communities that use them. Promoting peace and stability in a post-conflict environment. The evidence suggests that future programs are needed to promote deeper peace and stability in the region, but there is a need for conceptual thinking and practical models for stability programming, to underpin longer-term development programs. A number of recommendations for Northern Uganda include:  Address long-term psychosocial issues: Based on findings in this evaluation, there is need to design a comprehensive psychosocial support program that focuses on meeting the emotional, social, mental and spiritual needs of people affected by conflict, with a particular attention to youth, women, ex-combatants, ex-wives of LRA commanders, and victims of sexual and gender based violence. This should include the exploration models of psychosocial healing and reconciliation that address individual and societal trauma.  Integrate and mainstream behavior change with respect to violence into all program areas. Violence, erratic behavior, alcoholism and high suicide rates are symptoms of deep-rooted psychological damage that are prevalent following the type of mass displacement and conflict that occurred in Northern Uganda. It is therefore necessary to develop and integrate approaches to addressing these issues as a contribution to ‘normalizing’ society. In the same way that gender and environmental considerations are approached as crosscutting issues across all USAID programming, post-conflict environments require a similar crosscutting approach to trauma management.  Address emerging drivers of conflict. Based on the findings and conclusions, USAID should consider focusing on programming that addresses two major emerging drivers of conflict, namely land conflicts and gender-based violence. In the first case, USAID should address issues related to such conflicts, beginning with assessments of the scale of the problem, 83 followed by specific programming that address these issues. Second, USAID should support large-scale gender and peace programs that integrate elements of each. Given the linkages between conflict, post-conflict and sexual and gender-based violence, for example, an integrated program that considers the relationships between the genders is critical in normalizing society, rather than allowing it to return to a malformed “status quo” with little to build on or replace traditional norms, which themselves have been eroded and distorted.  Support efforts designed to promote transitional justice. USAID should consider supporting activities that strengthen partnerships and collaboration between informal local justice mechanisms and formal justice systems in the promotion of access to justice and mitigation of conflicts particularly those related to land disputes and gender based violence. This could entail a focus on transitional justice processes drawing lessons from models Rwanda (the Gacaca ground-up, community-led hybrid justice mechanism) and South Africa’s national Truth and Reconciliation Commission which listened to the voices of thousands of victims to document the truth, while also granting amnesty to most perpetrators.  Reinforce the capacity of both traditional and statutory actors in providing justice. In helping to promote transitional justice, USAID programming should consider addressing the needs of officials at the grassroots level (e.g., LC 1), including traditional chiefs and elders, religious leaders, as well as judges, in order to help them develop effective mechanisms to deal with emerging drivers of conflict. Advocacy for the passage of the national reconciliation bill would also promote accountability for atrocities that occurred during the LRA conflict and would provide a foundation for a comprehensive transitional justice mechanism. USAID should also support training in human rights and gender standards within the justice system, to allow professionals to better understand human rights norms and the rule of law in post￾conflict situations. Reinforce governance for development. Based on the evidence, there is need to continue strengthening the alignment of USAID strategic objectives with those articulated in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and to augment its dialogue at both national and local levels through support for local governance initiatives:  There is need for continuous capacity building of elected officials in local government level to encourage them to effectively perform their roles and responsibilities. There is also need to support programs at the local level that bolster the public’s ability to voice their needs and priorities as well as to demand accountability from their elected officials and service providers. At the district level, particularly in areas in which USAID engages local government through district operational plans (DOP), USAID has the opportunity to solicit feedback for the continuous improvement of its interventions, but this will require considerable attention, given the environment in which the norm is that local officials accept much-needed project aid without questioning in depth whether proposed interventions are either appropriate or sustainable. We therefore recommend programs that directly address the capacity of local government to better engage in co-designing their own future interventions that, among other outcomes, increase local ownership and sustainability. Continue with a strong field presence in the mid-term. The Northern Uganda Field Office continues to play an important role by allowing USAID to adapt its programming to the changing and 84 specific needs of the North, and in providing closer monitoring and guidance of projects for this post-conflict population. Although this evaluation recommends continuing support for the field office over the next three to five years, we also recommend that a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken that weighs the contributions of the office against the costs of maintaining it. 85 ANNEXES 86 ANNEX I: BIBLIOGRAPHY Abola, C., Omach, P., Ochen, E. A., Anena, C and Barongo, A. (2009). Evaluation of Norwegian Development Cooperation through Norwegian Non-governmental Organizations in Northern Uganda (2003-2008). Oslo: Norwegian Agency for International Development. Abt Associates (2012). Uganda Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) Project: End of Project Report. Acana, S., Kyagaba, D., Opman, A., Omala, K., Jumanyol, K and Sserunkuma, L. B. (2010; 2011; 2012). Achievement of Primary School Pupils in Uganda in Numeracy, Literacy in English and Local Languages. Uganda National Examinations Board. ACDI/VOCA (2009; 2011). Annual Results report. Kampala: ACDI/VOCA/Uganda. Amaza, Ondoga (1996). Museveni’s Long March: From FRELIMO to the National Resistance. Anapindi, Ravi (2013). Abt Associates: Scaling Indoor Residual Spraying for Malaria Prevention in Africa. Globalens, William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan. Ankomah, A., Spicehandler, J., Kibuuka, F and Mobley, S (2013). Uganda AFFORD: Health Marketing Initiative Project Evaluation Improving the Lives of Ugandan: Washington DC: USAID Annan, J., Blattman, C and Horton, R. (2006). The State of Youth and Youth Protection in Northern Uganda. Findings from the Survey for War Affected Youth: Uganda UNICEF Uganda. Annan, J., Blattmann, C., Karlson, C and Mazurana, D. (2006). The State of Youth and Youth Protection in Northern Uganda. Findings from the Survey of War Affected Children (SWAY) Annan, J., Blattmann, C., Karlson, C and Mazurana, D. (2008). The state of female youth in Northern Uganda: findings from the survey of war affected youth phase II: Kampala: UNICEF Uganda. Arinaitwe, C. (2007). Audience Research Report. Kampala, Uganda. Radio Audience Research. Atkinson, R.R. (2010). The Roots of Ethnicity: Origins of the Acholis of Uganda before 1800. First published in 1999: Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Azuba, R., Nabembezi, D., Bwetunge, M.D and Wajje, F. (2012). Supporting Public Sector Workplace to Expand Action and Responses Against HIV/AIDS [SPEAR]: Uganda Kampala: Government of Uganda. Bainomugisha, A. (2011). Child Soldiers in Northern Uganda: an analysis of the challenges and opportunities for reintegration and rehabilitation. Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Bradford. Baran, P and Sweezy, P. (1966). Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order, New York, Monthly Review. Baran, P. (1957). The Political Economy of Growth, New York, Monthly Review, 1968. Barron, P., Balyeku, A., Kebba, A., Lalobo, C and Nankinga, J. (2007). Final Evaluation of UPHOLD Program for Human and Holistic Development (UPHOLD): Kampala, Uganda: USAID. 87 Blattman, C., Green E., Annan, J., Jamison, J., Aryemo, F., Carlson, N., Emeriau, M and Segura, A. (2013). Building Women’s Economic and Social Empowerment through Enterprise: An Experimental Assessment of the Women’s Income Generating Support (WINGS) Program in Uganda: Kampala, Uganda: Innovations for Poverty Actions (IPA) and AVIS. Blazer, C and Majorowsk, M. (2011). The HIPS Project: Extending Health Care through the Private Sector in Uganda. Arlington, VA: USAID’s Support & Technical Assistance Resources, AIDSTAR-One. Boase Will et al. (2011). USAID’S Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI): three years of progress supporting peace, recovery & development. Kampala: USAID/OTI/Uganda. Bongiovanni, A and Greenan, M.A. (2009). Hospice Africa Uganda (HAU): End-of-Project Evaluation of Palliative Care Services: New York: Population Council Braithwaite, John. (2004). "Restorative Justice and De-Professionalization". The Good Society 13 (1): 28–31. Bukuluki. P. and Mugisha J. (2010). Baseline survey for ROCO KWO Programme in Northern Uganda. Care International, Kampala. Cardno Emerging Markets USA (2010). Final report of Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda project (SPRING). Kampala: USAID. Cardno Emerging Markets USA (2010a). Unpacking the ‘P’ in PRDP. Technical Conflict and Recovery Briefing Report No. 7. Catsam, Marcus L. (2014) Mercy Corps- Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC) Uganda Final Evaluation. CARE Uganda (2010). A Stake in Our Future: Empowering Communities in Northern Uganda to participate in and Monitor Implementation of the PRDP Uganda, Kampala: CARE Uganda. CARE (2008-2009). A Stake in Our Future: Empowering Communities in Northern Uganda to Participate in and Monitor Implementation of the PRDP. With Growing and Serving Together Chemonics (n.d.). Volume One: Technical Design, Uganda Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP). Chemonics International Inc, Civil Society Organisations for Peace in Northern Uganda (CSOPNU). (2004). Land Matters in Displacement: the Importance of Land Rights in Acholiland and What Threatens Them. Kampala: CSOPNU. Clark, Phil (2012). Debating Post-Atrocity Accountability and Amnesty in Rwanda and Uganda. Francesca Lessa and Leigh A. (eds.). Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability. Comparativeand International Perspectives Pages 210-237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Das, Rekha and Nkutu, A. (2008). Evaluation of General Food Distribution in Demographic Health Survey (DHS, 2006). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2006. Kampala: Uganda Bureau of Statistics and Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc. Dolan, C.G. (2005). Understanding War and Its Continuation: The Case of Northern Uganda. Unpublished PhD thesis London School of Economics & Political Science, University of London. 88 Dorsey, J., Whyte, J., Nyabuntu, P., Kemigisha E., Tumutegyereize, K and Bowman, A. Management Systems International (2007). Formative Evaluation of the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP): Washington, DC: USAID El-Bushra, J., Myrittinen, H and Naujoks, J. (2013). Renegotiating the ‘Ideal’ Society: Gender Relations in the Wake of Conflict and Displacement in Uganda (GENDER): Uganda: UKAID Epelu-Opio, J. (2009). Teso War 1986-1992: Causes and Consequences. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Fintrac, Inc. (2011), USAID Office of Food for Peace Uganda Bellmon Estimation. Furnham, a. (1986). “Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation.” Personality and Individual Differences (7): 385-400. Galtung, Johan (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. PRIO peace research series, Sage Publications. Gersony, R. (1997). The Anguish of Northern Uganda: Results of a Field-Based Assessment of the Civil Conflicts in Northern Uganda – Kampala, Uganda: USAID Mission. Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance Uganda/USAID-STAR Program. (2011). Uganda / Sustainable Tourism in the Albertine Rift (USAID-STAR): Washington DC: USAID. Griffin, Michael G. et al., “Participation in Trauma Research: Is There Evidence of Harm?” Journal of Traumatic Stress 16:3 (2005). 221-227 Gunder Frank, A. (1966). The Development of Underdevelopment. Monthly Review Press. Guroff, A.E and Ose, I. (2011). Office of Food for Peace (FFP): ACD/VOCA/ Uganda: USAID. Gutlove, Paula and Gordon Thompson (eds.) (2003). Psychosocial Healing: A Guide for Practitioners based on programs of the Medical Network for Social Reconstruction in the Former Yugoslavia. Institute for Resource and Security Studies Haward, P. (2009). Looking Back: Tragedies of Ugandan Women and Children 1970-2000. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Hirn, Maximilian (2013). Private Sector Participation in the Ugandan Water Sector: A Review of 10 Years of Private Management of Small Town Water Systems. World Bank, Water and Sanitation Program, Working Paper. Hope, R., Kanyesigye, E., Mugarura, E and Njuneki, G. (2008). Inter-Religious Council of Uganda: HIV/AIDS Program, Participatory Mid-term Evaluation. (IRCU), Washington, DC: USAID. Human Rights Watch (2010). “As if We Weren’t Human”: Discrimination and Violence against Women with Disabilities in Northern Uganda. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC, 2012). Uganda: Need to Focus on Returnees and Remaining IDPs in Transition to Development. Norwegian Refugee Council. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and Refugee Law Project (2006). Only Peace Can Restore the Confidence of The Displaced. 89 International Alert (2010). Changing Fortunes: Women’s Economic Opportunities in Post-War Northern Uganda; Understanding conflict. Building peace. Investing in Peace Issue No. 3. International Alert: Kampala. ITEC (2011). UGANDA Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD) Mid￾Term Evaluation, Final Report. April 18th, 2011. Contract Number: EDH-I-09-05-00006-00. Jansen, S., Brusset, E., Oywa, R., Viliani, F and Otto, R. (2007). Evaluation of CRD and NUPI. Uganda: USAID. JSI Research & Training Institute (JSI, 2013). Strengthening Partnerships, Results and Innovations in Nutrition Globally [SPRING]. Washington DC: USAID. With Helen Keller International, International Food Policy Research Institute, Save the Children, and the Manoff Group. JSI Research and Training Institute (JSI, 2012). Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS & Tuberculosis Program (NUMAT): Washington, DC: USAID. Kabwegyere, T.B. (1995). Politics of State Formation and Destruction in Uganda. Kampala-Uganda: Fountain Publishers. Karugire, S.R. (2003). Roots of Instability in Uganda. First published in 1988: Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Kenwill (2010). Mid-Term Evaluation Report for Stability, Peace And Reconciliation In Northern Uganda Project (SPRING). Kenwill International Limited. Khadiagala, G.M. (2001). Role of the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative (ARLPI) in Peace Building in Northern Uganda – Washington DC: USAID Kizza, A.B., Robbins, K., Namutebi, A. and Lwasa, S. (2008). World Vision Uganda Title II DAP 2004-2008: Final Evaluation of Northern Uganda Livelihood Security Program: Kampala, Uganda: World Vision. Koenig, Michael A., Tom Lutalo, Feng Zhao, Fred Nalugoda, Fred Wabwire-Mangen, Noah Kiwanuka, Jennifer Wagman, David Serwadda, Maria Wawer, and Ron Gray (2003). Domestic violence in rural Uganda: evidence from a community-based study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81 (1). Kouyoumdjiana, Fiona G., Liviana M. Calzavaraa, Susan J. Bondya, Patricia O’Campoa, David Serwaddab, Fred Nalugodac (2013), Intimate partner violence is associated with incident HIV infection in women in Uganda. AIDS, 27:1331–1338. International AIDS Society / Wolters Kluwer Health. Joseph Kagaayic, Godfrey Kigozic, Maria Wawerd and Ron GrayKutesa, P. (2008). Uganda’s Revolution 1979-1986: How I Saw It. First published in 2006. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Kyayise, A.M., Kyeyagalire, R., Livesley, N., Kirunda, I., Tumwesigye, B., Kinati, S and Katungu, D. (2008). Private-for-Profit HIV/AIDS Care in Uganda (PF): An assessment, Bethesda, MD: University Research Co, LLC (URC): USAID. Leinen, G., Kibuuka, D.M., Buganda, F and Mulogo, E. (2009). Mid-term Review of the Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and Tuberculosis (NUMAT) Program: Final Evaluation Report: Washington, DC: USAID. 90 Lindborg, N.E., Mendelson, S., Staal, T and Jenkins, R. (2013). Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA): Washington D.C: USAID. Mabike, Samuel (2011). Escalating Land Grabbing In Post-conflict Regions of Northern Uganda: A Need for Strengthening Good Land Governance in Acholi Region. Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing. 6-8 April 2011, Institute of Development, Studies, University of Sussex. Maina, G.M. (2010). An Analytical Study of the Reintegration Experience of the Formerly Abducted Children in Gulu, Northern Uganda. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bradford Mamdani, M. (2004). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Kampala: Fountain Publishers Mark McGillivray, M. (2005). Is Aid Effective? WIDER, Helsinki, Finland. Draft, accessed at http://www.oecd.org/dev/34353462.pdf Masinde, E.A. (2011). Transformational Leadership in East Africa: Politics, Ideology and Community. First published in 2005. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Mattsson, A. Opio, R., and Brusset, E. (2011). The Tide: Uganda Country Program Final Evaluation: NUTI (Northern Uganda Transition Initiative) Washington DC: USAID. Mazrui, A.A. (2001). Constitutional Change and Cultural Engineering: Africa’s search for new direction Oloka-Onyango, J. (ed). Constitutionalism in Africa: creating opportunities, facing challenges. Kampala: Fountain Publishers pp 18-36 Mercy Corps (2008). Conflict Mitigation and Management Program: First Quarterly Report on Radio Listenership Groups. Radio Report. Mercy Corps (2009). Building Bridges to Peace (BBP): Conflict and Livelihood Assessment. Mercy Corps (2009). Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs in Northern Uganda, Pader Peace Program Final Report. USAID/Uganda. Mercy Corps (2010). Building Bridges to Peace: Midterm Assessment Report: Participatory assessment. Milton, M., Mukasa, I., Avasi, V., Duku, T., Kilibo, C., Kamwesigye,C., Murungi, S. and Okullooyere, B.N. Revitalizing Education in Conflict Settings: Experiences, Impact and Lessons from the USAID/ REPLICA Program in Northern and Eastern Uganda. Kampala: Pincer Group. Ministry of Education and Sports (2004-2005). Education and Sports Sector Annual Performance Report. Ministry of Education and Sports (2006-2013). Uganda Education Statistical Abstract. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Ministry of Education and Sports (2010-2013). Education and Sports Sector Annual Performance Report. Ministry of Education and Sports (2012). Education and Sports Sector Fact Sheet 2000 – 2012. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (2013).Millennium Development Goals Report for Uganda: Drivers of MDG Progress in Uganda and Implications for the Post - 2015 Development Agenda. Kampala, Uganda: Government of Uganda. 91 Minsitry of Local Government (MoLG., 2012 ). Annual Assessment of Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures for Local Governments 2011. Final Synthesis Report. Ministry of Local Government-Uganda, Kampala. Ministry of Health (2012-2013). Annual Health Sector Performance Report. Kampala. Ministry of Health (2012). Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey 2011. Kampala, Uganda: ICF International Calverton Maryland, USA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Entebbe, Uganda, U.S. Agency for International Development, Kampala, Uganda and WHO Uganda, Ministry of Water and Environment (MoWE, 2006; 2007; 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011). Water and Sanitation Sector Performance Reports. Moncrieffe, J. (2004). Uganda’s Political Economy: A synthesis of major thought. Report prepared for DFID Uganda. Available at http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/DOC44.pdf Mudege, N.N and Undie, C.C. (2009). Formative Evaluation: Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth (PIASCY): New York: Population Council; African Population and Health Research Center. Mutibwe, P. (2010). Uganda since Independence: A story of Unfulfilled Hopes. First published in 1992. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Mwesiga, B. (2011). Understanding Obstacles to Peace: Actors, Interests, and Strategies in Africa’s Great Lakes Region. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Namuganyi, F. and Nakigudde, R. (2013). Resilient Africa Network (RAN) A Thematic Literature Review of Resilient Factors in Communities. Devastated by the 20 Year Civil War in Northern Uganda: Uganda: RAN. Nederhof, A.J. (1985). “Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review.” European Journal of Social Psychology (15): 263-280. Ngunyi-Mutahi, T.C.H., Namakula, V., Nyirikindi, L., Kavuma, J.B., Wangeci, K., Gathungu, P., Ahabwe, C., Kabinga, E., Nansubuga, J and Apopo, J. (2010). Strengthening Democratic Linkages Program Evaluation. The Consulting House (Kenya) and Centre for Justice Studies and Innovations (Uganda). Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI, 2011). Customer Satisfaction Survey Report: Assessment of NUTI’s intervention in Amuru Local Government. Northern Uganda: Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum Districts (2005-2008). Kampala: Nordic Consulting Group. O’Donnell, G. (1982). El Estado BurocráticoAutoritario: Triunfos, Derrotas y Crisis, Buenos Aires, Universidad de Belgrano, 1996. OCHA (2008). United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Uganda Humanitarian Situation Report. Odaga, J and Charles, O. (2010). Providing CD4 Cell Count Tests to Hard-to reach Communities in Northern Uganda: Programme Reach and Cost-effectiveness of an Outreach Delivery Model. Final Evaluation Report. NUMATI, USAID 92 Office of the Prime Minister, Uganda (2007). Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda: 2007-2010. Office of the Prime Minister (2011a). Mid Term Review of the Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda. Office of the Prime Minister, Uganda, Republic of (2011). Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP) Phase 2, July 2012 – June 2015.. Oloka-Onyango, J. (2004). Constitutionalism in Africa: Creating Opportunities, Facing Challenges. First published in 2001: Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Omach, P. (2010b). Politics, Conflict and Peace building in Uganda. Dusseldorf: VDMVerlag Academic publishing. Omara-Otunnu, A. (1987). Politics and the Military in Uganda, 1890-1985. Oxford: McMillan Press Omara-Otunnu, A. (1992). ‘The struggle for Democracy in Uganda’. Journal of Modern African Studies, September, 30(3): 443-463 Oosterom, Marjoke Anika (2014). The Effects of Violent Conflict and Displacement on Citizen Engagement: A Case Study from Northern Uganda. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Ph.D. thesis. Opio, D., Wanzira, B and Nanyonjo, L. (2011). Northern Uganda Dairy Development Project (HEIFER) International: Uganda: USAID. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Accra Agenda for Action (2008). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005). Ossiya, D., Azuba, R., Ayoo, S and Mubbala, S. (2012). Conflict Mitigation and Management Programs (CMM): Multiple Management Consultants Kampala, Uganda: USAID. OXFAM. (2008). From Emergency to Recovery: Rescuing Northern Uganda’s Transition. Uganda: OXFAM Briefing Paper 118. Oxford Economics (2013) Northern Uganda Economic Recovery Analysis Phase II Draft Report. Oxford Economics. Oxford Economics (2013). Northern Uganda Economic Recovery Analysis, Phase II. Draft Report, October. Popkin, Barney P., Lucrezia Koestler, and Patrick Jangeyanga (2011). Evaluation Report of the Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER). The Mitchell Group, Inc. Papadopoulos, N.A., Akukwe, G and Oleksy- Ojikutu, S. (2012). Education in Northern Uganda: Lessons Learned in Recovery and Transition. A case study of the UNITY/REPLICA Program: Kampala Uganda: USAID. Pham, P and Vinck, P. (2010). Transition to Peace, A Population – Based Survey on Attitudes about Social Reconstruction and Justice in Northern Uganda: Human Rights Centre, University of California Berkeley: Berkeley Law, University of California. Popkin, Barney P., Lucrezia Koestler, and Patrick Jangeyanga (2011). Evaluation Report of the Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER). The Mitchell Group. 93 Prebisch, R. (1950). The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems. UN document no. E/CN.12/89/Rev.1. Presidents Malaria Initiative (2012). Uganda Indoor Residual Spraying [IRS] Project: End of Project Report. Washington DC: USAID. Radcliffe, D and Oetting, N. (2009). Building Bridges to Peace: Conflict Management & Reconciliation in Kotido, Kaabong, and Pader Districts. Mercy Corps and USAID. Radcliffe, D and Oetting, N. (2009). Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Programs in Northern Uganda Pader Peace Program. Uganda: USAID / Mercy Corps. Radcliffe, D and Oetting, N. (2010). Building Bridges to Peace: Conflict Management & Mitigation. Uganda. Mercy Corps. Radcliffe, D and Steenbergen, B. (2011). Building Bridges to Peace: Conflict Management & Mitigation Final Evaluation Report. Uganda. Mercy Corps. Radcliffe, D and White, J. (2008-2010). Kaabong Partners for Peace (KAPP). Mercy Corps. Red Cross (2003). China and Cambodia: Integrated Programming and Cooperation with Local Authorities Boost Communities’ Disaster Preparedness. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Refugee Law Project (2004). Behind the Violence: Causes, Consequences And The Search For Solutions to the War in Northern Uganda, Kampala, Refugee Law Project Working Paper no. 11. Refugee Law Project (2007). Rapid Assessment of Population Movement in Gulu and Pader. Kampala. Faculty of Law, Makerere University. Refugee Law Project, Advisory Consortium on Conflict Sensitivity (2013). Safer World and International Alert: Northern Uganda Conflict Analysis. Refugee Law Project (2004). Behind The Violence: Causes, Consequences and the Search for Solutions to the War in Northern Uganda, Kampala: Working Paper No. 11. Rekha, D and Nkutu, A. (2008). Evaluation of General Food Distribution in Northern Uganda: Gulu, Amuru and Kitgum Districts 2005-2008. Final Report. Kampala, Uganda: Norwegian Refugee Council. Rodriguez, C.S. (2009). Tall Grass: Stories of Suffering and Peace in Northern Uganda. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Rohozynsky, O., Billingsley, C and Bongiovanni, A. (2009). The AFFORD Health Marketing Initiative in Uganda: Mid-term Evaluation. The QED Group. Rubaraza, S.K. (2010). A Political History of Uganda. First published in 1980: Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Rugadya, M.A., Nsamba-Gayiiya, E and Kamusiime, H. (2007). Northern Uganda Land Study: Analysis of Post Conflict Land Policy and Land Administration: A Survey Of IDP Return and Resettlement Issues and Lesson: Acholi and Lango Regions. Uganda. 94 Rugadya, M.A., Nsamba–Gayiiya and Kamusiime, H. (2008). Analysis of Post Conflict Land Policy and Land Administration: A Survey of IDP Return and Resettlement Issues and Lesson: Acholi &Lango Regions: Uganda World Bank. Singer, H. W. (1949). Economic Progress in Underdeveloped Countries. Social Research: An International Quarterly of Political and Social Science 16.1. Printed in Great Britain Smallman-Raynor, M. R. and A. D. Cliff (1991). Civil war and the spread of AIDS in Central Africa. Journal of Epidemioligal Infection, 107. 69-80 69 Solimar International – USAID-STAR II Program (2012). Uganda/ Sustainable Tourism in the Albertine Rift Program: Kampala Uganda: USAID. Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING). (2008). Baseline Conflict Assessment Summary: Spring: Stability Peace And Reconciliation In Northern Uganda. Kampala. Staub, E., Pearlman, L.A., Gubin, A and Hagengimana, A. (2005). “Healing, Reconciliation, Forgiving and the Prevention of Violence after Genocide or Mass Killing: An Intervention and Its Experimental Evaluation in Rwanda,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24:3, 297-334. Staub, Ervin (2006). Reconciliation after Genocide, Mass Killing, or Intractable Conflict: Understanding the Roots of Violence, Psychological Recovery, and Steps toward a General Theory. Political Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 6. Steadman Group (2009). Baseline & Media Consumption Survey: for the Implementation of Northern Uganda Transition Initiative Activities. Kampala, Uganda: Steadman Group Ltd. Steinhardt, L., Yeka, A., Nasr, S., Wiegand,R.E., Rubahika, D., Sserwanga, A., Wanzira,H., Lavoy, G., Kamya, M., Dorsey,G and Filler, S. (2013). The Effect of Indoor Residual Spraying on Malaria and Anemia in a High-Transmission Area of Northern Uganda. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 88(5), 2013, pp. 855–861. Tetra Tech ARD (2011). Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER) Final Report: Burlington, Vermont USA: USAID. Tetra Tech ARD (2013). Uganda Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural development Final report. Burlington, Vermont: USAID Tetra Tech ARD (2013). Uganda Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD). Final Report. Burlington, Vermont: USAID. The AIDS Support Organization (TASO, 2010).Scaling up HIV Prevention Amongst Adolescents: Kampala, Uganda: TASO Uganda Limited. The Wildlife Conservation Society. (2011). Wildlife, Landscapes and Development for Conservation WILD: Uganda, Kampala: USAID. Thompson, G. (2003). Governing Uganda: British Colonial Rule and its Legacy. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Tumusiime, J. (2011). Peoples and Cultures of Uganda. First published in 1993: Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers. 95 Tumusiime, J. (2011). Uganda: A Picture History 1857-2007. First published in 2009. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2007). Demographic and Health Survey 2006. Kampala, Uganda: Macro International Inc. Calverton, Maryland, USA. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2012). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey: ICF International Calverton, Maryland, USA: Government of Uganda. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) and ICF International Inc. (2012). Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kampala, Uganda: UBOS and Calverton, Maryland: ICF International Inc. UMEMS (2008). Mid-term Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s UNITY Program Report. Kampala: Uganda Monitoring and Evaluation Management Services. UNAIDS/WHO (2004). Uganda Epidemiological Fact Sheet. UNICEF (2007). Uganda: Humanitarian Situation Report. USAID/CMM (2009). Supporting Peace Processes: A Toolkit For Development Intervention. USAID/DCHA/OFDA (2006). Uganda – Complex Emergency Situation Report #2, Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. April 26. USAID/Uganda (2007). Diplomatic Cable. 00157 01-30-07 Northern Uganda Notes (Jan.13- 26 2007). USAID/Uganda (2007). Diplomatic Cable. 00449 03-15-07 Northern Uganda Notes (Feb 27- Mar 9 2007). USAID/Uganda (2007). Diplomatic Cable. 01495 10-02-07 Results for USAID in Northern Uganda. (April 2006- September 2007). USAID/Uganda (2007). USAID Strategy for Reintegration and Recovery in Northern Uganda and USAID Strategy Process, 2007-2010. Internal document. USAID/Uganda (2008). Diplomatic Cable. 00368 03-07-08 USAID-OFDA Northern Uganda Assessment and Recommendations. USAID/Uganda (2008). Diplomatic Cable. 01090 08-06-08 Northern Uganda Notes (July 12-31, 2008). USAID/Uganda (2011). Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS): 2011- 2015. USAID/Uganda (2011a). 2011-2015 Strategy, Attachment J.1; accessed on 5/15/2014 at http://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/Attachments_J.1-J.9.pdf Vasagar, Jeevan (2006). “The nightwalkers.” The Guardian, Thursday 9 February. Vernengo, M. (2004). Technology, Finance and Dependency: Latin American Radical Political Economy in Retrospect. University of Utah, Department of Economics, Salt Lake City: Department of Economics Working Paper Series. Wooten, Jr. J.D. (2010). Meta-Evaluation of USAID / Uganda Evaluation Reports. Washington DC: USAID. 96 World Bank (2009). Case of Northern Uganda Post-Conflict Land Policy and Administration Options. Report No. 46110-UG. World Bank (2009). Post–Conflict Land Policy and Administration Options: Case of Northern Uganda. Uganda. Report No. 46110-UG. World Bank (2014). Public Private Partnerships Infrastructure Resource Center. Available at http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/overview/what-are-public-private￾partnerships. Accessed on July 13, 2014. World Food Program (2009). Country Programme, Uganda 2009-2014: Supporting Government-Led Initiatives to Address Hunger in Uganda. 97 ANNEX II: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK SECTION C- STATEMENT OF WORK C.1 OBJECTIVE The purpose of this Task Order is to conduct a performance evaluation of 2006-2011 USAID Assistance to Northern Uganda as detailed below: • To assess the contribution of USAID/Uganda assistance to promoting stability, peace, and recovery in Northern Uganda, relative to evolving context and other donors' contributions, and share USAID/Uganda's "stabilization story" with key stakeholders. • To evaluate the scale, scope, relevance, and effectiveness of enhanced services, benefits and collective outcomes of USAID-funded projects in Northern Uganda. • To identify whether or not certain, effective sector investments and approaches were used that could be applied to i) promote rapid stabilization and transfer of services to Ugandan actors and ii) enhance and improve USAID's role, program management and implementation practices in conflict and post-conflict settings that could inform ongoing and future USAID/Uganda and other donors' programs. C.2 BACKGROUND A. Brief History of Conflict in Northern Uganda Since gaining independence from Britain in 1962, Ugandan politics have been marked by ethnic and regional divisions, most notably between northern and southern Uganda. The conflict in northern Uganda arose out of the divisive political climate embedded by British colonialism and perpetuated by post-colonial politics. The British employed a "divide-and￾rule" strategy, pitting southerners against northerners to maintain control of the country. Therefore, in the absence of a more transparent political representation, many groups viewed armed rebellion as the sole and legitimate means to express political grievances and attain political power. In 1986, Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Army (NRA) took power in Uganda, ending decades of rule by dictators from northern Uganda. Following Museveni's victory, he discharged many northerners in the civil service and military, which further amplified Uganda's national divisions. In this climate of mistrust, several armed groups emerged to defend the north against the NRA and overthrow the government, including the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). In 1987, Alice Lakwena, an Acholi spiritual leader, emerged as a key figure among northern rebel factions seeking to overthrow the government. Lakwena's Holy Spirit Movement was defeated by the Ugandan military, and Joseph Kony, a reported relative of Lakwena, then in his early 20s, emerged and laid claim to Lakwena's legacy. Kony's LRA began to target civilians in northern Uganda and allegedly sought support and protection from the government of Sudan. For nearly two decades, the LRA terrorized northern Uganda's population through looting, murder, rape, torture, widespread abduction of children, and displacement of entire communities. Under increasing military pressure, the LRA moved their base of operations 98 west into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2005 and 2006. Today, what is left of the LRA operates in remote and rural areas of the Central African Republic, northeastern DRC, and the Republic of South Sudan. At the height of the LRA rebellion, northern Uganda was dubbed "the world's worst forgotten humanitarian crisis" by U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator Jan Egeland. It is estimated the conflict displaced more than 1.8 million northern Ugandans, killed over 66,000, and saw over 40,000 children abducted and forced into child soldiering and sex slavery. Beyond the obvious damage, such violence also resulted in first and second order differential, gender￾sensitive impacts of violent conflict, an important perspective that shall be considered when designing programs responsive to USAID-supported conflict assessments and subsequent stabilization strategies Today, however, northern Uganda has undergone visible transformation since the LRA's departure, certainly in terms of basic infrastructure, social services and general economic progress. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, an estimated 95% of the 1.8 million conflict-displaced Ugandans have returned to their homes; there has been significant poverty reduction from reportedly 60% in 2005 to 46% in 2010 while household consumption expenditures increased by an estimated 34% between 2005 and 2010. Despite progress achieved, the north remains Uganda's poorest region and lags behind the rest of the country in health, education, governance and security conditions. In addition, land issues, inter and intra-tribe tensions, inadequate access to education, widespread psycho-social trauma, generally weak, locally-based development agents and gender-based violence, among other issues, still need to be addressed to ensure the sustainability of peace, recovery and development in northern Uganda. B. Uganda Government and other Donor Responses In 2008, the Government of Uganda (GOU) launched its Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda (PRDP), which sets explicit priorities for northern Uganda recovery. The GOU and donors collectively pledged more than $600 million to reconstruction and development activities in northern Uganda. From 2009 to 2011, Uganda's Government contributed approximately $110 million to the PRDP while other donors provided more than $480 million. The US Government (USG) has been involved in humanitarian and development assistance to Northern Uganda since the 1990's. From 1993-2006, the bulk of the USG programming came from PL 480 Title II program aimed at improving food security and livelihoods in rural Ugandan households. Other support went to rehabilitation and reintegration, psycho-social support, basic education, peace and reconciliation, water and sanitation, income generation, health and HIV/AIDS. The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance provided emergency and non-emergency assistance including food aid, basic sanitation, shelter, immunizations and mobile clinics. In August 2004, the US Congress passed the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, which called upon the United States Government to support efforts to seek a just and lasting peaceful resolution of the conflict and work with the GOU, the international community and civil society to protect civilians, provide for lOPs' relief and development needs and to provide assistance to formerly-abducted and other conflict-affected children, and support the demobilization and reintegration of formal combatants and abductees. Since then, several US Agencies have contributed to Northern Uganda recovery efforts including CDC, DOD, State Department, USDA, and USAID. It is estimated that since 2007, the United 99 States has provided more than $750 million through various program interventions to support northern Uganda recovery Other donors and UN agencies which have been involved in peace, recovery and humanitarian assistance efforts include the World Bank, The European Union, IRISH AID, UKAID (formerly DFID}, UN/OCHA, DANIDA, UNICEF, UNDP, WFP, and JICA. In addition to providing some direct budget support to the PRDP, donors such as the UN and UK have seconded technical advisors to support PRDP implementation. C. USAID's 2002-2012 Strategy for Northern Uganda USAID/Uganda's strategy and nature of response in Northern Uganda has developed as conditions evolved from conflict and humanitarian assistance to recovery and development. The 2002-2006 period was characterized by large population displacements, particularly in the districts of Gulu, Kitgum, and Pader. In alignment with the USG's overall strategy for Northern Uganda, USAID focused on "ensuring that multiple USAID operating units, other USG agencies, and other partners work together with a unified plan to achieve clearly stated objectives that offer post conflict transition, including care and maintenance of affected populations , transition, and long-term development''. Pending this evaluation's exploration and confirmation, it is believed that this strategy became an important characteristic of USAID/Uganda's Integrated Strategic Plan (2002-2007) which had an Intermediate Result (IR) dedicated to "mitigating and reducing conflicts" under Strategic Objective 9. However, it is believed that IR had a national focus and didn't focus specifically on Northern Uganda. In 2007, USAID developed a (second) "Strategy for Reintegration and Recovery in Northern Uganda (2007-2010). The strategy supported the Government of Uganda (GoU)'s PRDP for Northern Uganda but, while it did not include a development theory, hypotheses, or results framework, it did align USAID and PRDP objectives by outlining USAID priorities and targets to achieve these objectives (see attachment). Strategically, it appears that USAID/Uganda expressed priorities/targets in terms of broad, multiple results expected or activity statements, which make it difficult to ascertain the key results needed or causal pathways expected to achieve the USAID/PRDP objectives. In addition, the strategy did not suggest indicators to measure achievement of these objectives and priorities/targets which also poses an important challenge for assessing the collective impact of USAID's assistance in Northern Uganda. In 2011, USAID/Uganda developed its 2011-2015 Country Cooperation and Development Strategy (CDCS). Under the CDCS' Development Objective 2, "Democracy and governance systems strengthened and made more accountable," and particularly through IR 2.3 "Peace building and conflict mitigation strengthened," USAID continues its efforts to support peace and recovery efforts in Uganda in general and Northern Uganda in particular. The Northern sub- region of Karamoja (not part of this evaluation) has also received a particular focus under the 2011-2015 CDCS through a Special Objective "Peace and Security Improved in Karamoja." Importantly, final CDCS deliberations in 2010 determined that the Mission's posture in northern Uganda shall shift away from recovery and shift into longer-term development It appears that USAID/Uganda's 2007-2010 Strategy for Northern Uganda was the only strategy covering a wide area of Northern Uganda over largely this evaluation's five year 100 period, although it is not known why the strategy did not include a clear theory(s) of change and more guidance demonstrating operational intent. This evaluation will explore this and other questions related to the strategy's effectiveness. From that strategy, USAID has attempted to re-construct a Results Framework (Annex 1) showing how USAID interventions linked to the PRDP objectives. Note that the Results Framework mirrors USAID priorities/targets as written in the strategy. Using these source documents, and interviewing key USAID actors involved with the program at the time, the evaluation team will examine the feasibility of reconstructing the strategy's theory of change to better understand the key results pursued and identify the indicators and data sources that demonstrate the extent to which these results have been achieved, estimating the total number of beneficiaries reached over the course of USAID's projects and collectively contributed to PRDP objectives. USAID/Uganda has proposed illustrative indicators in Annex 2, to be revised and refined by the evaluation team as appropriate based on the evaluation's more in-depth desk review and examination of USAID/Strategy for Northern Uganda. D. Key Projects Contributing to the achievement of USAID Targets and PRDP Objectives USAID funded numerous projects in Northern Uganda during these (approximate) five years covering several sectors including conflict mitigation, peace, recovery and governance, health, education, agriculture and food security/livelihoods, and humanitarian assistance. This evaluation will not focus on examining in depth all of USAID's projects implemented in Northern Uganda, but will concentrate on, among the seven, those districts where most of USAID's 2005/6 - 2011/12 interventions in Northern Uganda have been implemented: Gulu, Kitgum, Pader, Amuru, Lamwo (originally part of Kitgum}, Nwoya (originally part of Amuru), and Agago (originally part of Pader). A complete list of these projects is an associated Annex to this evaluation. E. Existing Data Sources There are several sources of data to address the evaluation questions, including: a. Project documents such as annual work plans, progress reports (annual and end of project reports), M&E reports, evaluation reports, USAID/Uganda's Performance Monitoring Plan circa @2007-2009, any baseline study and other special reports, project PMPs and, if available, project M&E datasets. Program portfolio review notes may also be available for that period of time. The team will need to confirm with the Mission whether these projects' M&E databases were kept by USAID/Uganda and how they can be accessed. b. Mission strategy documents, activity designs/proposals and contract/award documents, Performance Management Plans, and Performance Reporting System. USAID/Uganda's conflict and gender assessment documents. The Mission PMPs and PRS contain data on some of the Mission higher level and standard indicators. c. Mission/Project technical and field trip reports (if available in old staff files) d. USAID/Washington's Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) where success stories and other documents from this period may well be stored. e. Government plans such as the Plans for Peace and Recovery for Northern Uganda and their predecessor plans, PRDP I and II M&E frameworks and district development plans. 101 , f. Government statistics compiled by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics including the Uganda National Household Surveys and Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys g. Other surveys including the 2006 and 20011 AIDS , the Malaria Indicator Surveys, and h. Routine data and annual joint sector annual progress reports/reviews produced collected by various Ministries including the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education i. Documents from other donors and NGO/CBO actors active in Northern Uganda such as Oxfam, CARE or War Child which may have conducted effective studies, studies, assessments and other analyses during this period to conflicts, reconciliation, peace, and recovery in Northern Uganda. j. Key Informants including Randy Harris (retired, PRDP and NURD designer, steward and Ugandan reconciliation authority), David Eckerson, Margot Ellis and Elzadia Washington (retired Mission Directors), Raja Kumari Jandhyal, (USAID/Washington, BUR/AFR, DAA; early PRDP author, Nancy Eslick and Liz Kiingi (believed to be in Washington, DC, Supervisory USAID Program Officers), Jeanne Briggs, Christine Gottshalk, and Dana Stingi (former USAID Northern Uganda Team Leaders), John Gathorn, Megan Mamula and Minty Abraham (OTI/NUTI Team Lead and Uganda Desk Officer, now in Washington , D.C.) Others include Elise Ayers and Natasha DeMarken (former Health and Education Team Leads, believed to now be in Nigeria and Washington, D.C. respectively). While some of the documents will be available through the Mission's Program Office, other documents will need to be obtained from other sources, particularly those from other donors and implementing partners. Locating and interviewing key, past USAID informants (Office and Mission Directors) will be vital for understanding context and ascertaining USAID/Uganda's 2005/6-2008 strategic programming intentions and outcomes designed, observed and and actually realized in northern Uganda. C.3 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 1. Evaluation Design Given the evaluation's complexity and absence of counterfactuals, the evaluation will use non-experimental designs to assess USAID contribution to promoting peace and recovery in Northern Uganda. A mix of pre-post and post only designs will be used depending on whether the indicators used to measure project performance have trend data with baseline or only post implementation data. To conduct an in-depth analysis of USAID's unique contributions in Northern Uganda over this each five year 2006/7-2011/12 period and given data and environmental considerations, evaluators are encouraged to use contribution analysis techniques, possibly complimented by other proposed techniques, to surface, document and attribute any innovative implementation approaches USAID's projects used and results achieved that may explain some of today's relatively positive functioning of services, quickly developing economy and subsequent, socio-economic gains in Northern Uganda (decline in poverty levels and positive trends in some key socio-economic indicators). Contribution analysis techniques are based on the elimination of alternative explanations of results and are gaining ground in evaluation studies after having been extensively used for epidemiological studies, journalistic and history inquiry and forensic/trace back analyses. 2. Evaluation Methodology 102 The following are illustrative data collection methods that will be used to answer the key evaluation questions above. Prospective evaluators are encouraged to propose additional, alternative methods that they believe can yield stimulating, robust evidence in answering the evaluation's questions and capturing the collective impact of USAID projects in northern Uganda. 2.1 Data collection Method 1) Desk Review Existing sources and reference documents will be used to obtain and collect relevant evaluation data. The evaluation team will review these sources and extract key information on justification for approaches taken, indicators used to measure project results, project performance and findings from any past projects' evaluation/closing reports, and make informed determination about-to the extent they existed-- these projects' effective practices, the projects' reach, coverage, and magnitude/allocation of funding, USAID's project management and implementation approaches. Project evaluation reports, as well as project budgets/work plans, contain illuminating information on projects' relative cost effectiveness that can be used to formulate fresh lines of investigation and questions instead of simply asking equivalent questions posed during prior evaluations. USAID/Uganda will provide the evaluation team with all the relevant available documents, including a preliminary matrix of the key USAID-funded projects over the past 5-6 years and (if they are available) program portfolio review notes taken during this time period. Evaluators may need to finalize this during the desk review to have a complete understanding of the projects as well as collect any other relevant documents USAID may not have, including those from third party sources (government, civil society, NGOs particularly active in northern Uganda, other donors, etc.). This evaluation's desk review exercise will take place during the first, approximately three weeks of the evaluation, based out of USAID/Uganda's Kampala office, which will allow the evaluation team to consider some final evaluation adjustments with USAID/Uganda staff, develop clearer work plans, the final, necessary evaluation tools, deliverables expected and timelines for completing key evaluation tasks. 2) Qualitative Data Collection Methods a) Key informant interviews The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews with stakeholders representing the range of projects, the PRDP and other authorities on northern Uganda, as well as the key USAID managers associated with the Mission's response efforts during the time. The perspectives and types of information collected from earlier, senior USAID staff involved in developing USAID's strategy in northern Uganda, or the PRDP, will be different from still in￾country and other stakeholders. The team will draft a list of the types of key informants based on the USAID-supplied background documents, many attached to this terms of reference, which will be finalized during the evaluation's desk review of USAID/Uganda program materials/reports and consultations with USAID/Uganda in Kampala. Several members contributing to the evaluation may have his/her key informants from which to collect key information. To provide the evaluation strong contextual understanding and be as representative as possible, the key informants must include individuals who were closely 103 . involved in developing USAID's reconstruction strategy for northern Uganda, have subsequently transferred but still have good knowledge of most of the (more important) projects implemented, during the 2005/6-2012 period. These will include USAID Mission staff (Mission Directors, Program Officers, Gulu Team Leaders, COR/AORs or others) government counterparts, both at the national, district, and sub- country levels, NGO/CBO grantee or sub-grantee staff, and senior project implementing partner staff, such as Chiefs of Parties or Deputy Chiefs of Parties, if they can be found, as well as any other PRDP￾associated individuals who either were active USAID partners or knew well USAID's contributions during this period. The evaluation team will need to ensure that an appropriate number of women and local authorities are included in key informant interviews, interactions which may suggest others to interview, so evaluators will need to remain flexible in accommodating additional interviews. Given the large number of USAID/Uganda stakeholders involved in project activities in northern Uganda, the evaluation team, in consultation with USAID, will need to prioritize the ones that are most critically representative for conducting this evaluation. b) Focus group discussions and community interviews The evaluation team will conduct focus group discussions, both direct and indirect, to assess perceptions about USAID projects' effectiveness, contribution/impact, and their overall satisfaction, or not, with USAID-project's provided services or benefits. However, conducting interviews with this evaluation presents several challenges. Since most projects being evaluated closed during the past several years, when many beneficiaries were housed in lOP camps, it may be difficult for the evaluation team to identify where many of these beneficiaries are currently located. In consultation with USAID/Uganda, the team will need to propose practical, viable methods for tracing and locating some of these beneficiaries. Beneficiaries that received humanitarian assistance and were organized in groups, some once based in lOP camps, would be easier to identify if the groups still exist (e.g. farmer groups, village water/sanitation committees, women savings groups/associations, etc.). Through the key informant interviews above, and in consultation with USAID's project partners, the evaluators will need to confirm these group's current status and location and ask about other important groups to include an interview. Another challenge is having the evaluation discern the benefits of USAID's current (NUOEIL, NUHITES) projects to those that actually ended several years ago. Focus groups that would be easier to establish are patients at USAID-supported health centers, malaria-net beneficiaries, school teachers, administrators and students at USAID-supported schools. Similar to key informant interview participants, focus group participants will be purposefully sampled and ensure women's representation and other relevant groups that projects were expected to assist. In the selection of beneficiaries to interview, therefore, the evaluation must consider how it shall try to locate and interview past, 2005/6-2010/11 rather than recent/current beneficiaries of USAID projects. It may also be appropriate to conduct community and/or local government interviews either sometimes larger or more private than focus groups to develop a stronger appreciation of how much collective knowledge and impressions USAID project beneficiaries and PRDP veterans still have about USAID projects implemented then and how these projects benefited (or not) them. c) On-Site Observations 104 A number of USAID projects constructed or rehabilitated infrastructure and social services facilities such as roads, water points, latrines, clinics, classrooms, district administration buildings, courthouses, etc. Agricultural/livelihoods projects established farm demonstration plots and built storage facilities, bulking and produce collection centers, grinding mills, etc. These were largely provided by USAID's OTIINUTI and Food for Peace partners. Importantly, the evaluation team will purposefully sample and visit a full range of these sites and evaluate how well or not, and why, such facilities are functioning today. It could be appropriate to conduct these site visits in conjunction with the focus groups to save time and use the findings of the observations as discussion points during focus group interviews. d) Other types of qualitative methods There are other types of qualitative, even more participatory methods evaluators might consider including the use of geo-spatial techniques , audio-visuals ("before" and "after" pictures and videos can be powerful tools to demonstrating impact), case studies, and most significant change methodology. USAID requests prospective evaluators to propose such promising, qualitative methods appropriate for such a 'meta', post-facto performance evaluation for USAID/Uganda to consider. 2. Quantitative Data Collection: Sample Survey To strengthen the quantitative data collected through project documents and qualitative data obtained, the evaluation team shall conduct a sample survey of assisted beneficiaries. One of the main challenges evaluators will face in designing such a survey is the lack of currently accessible information about the sub-counties, parishes and villages where projects have been implemented. The other challenge, as mentioned earlier, is the relative lack of information about past project beneficiaries and their location. Therefore, before conducting this survey, the evaluation team will need to collect information on project sites and beneficiaries through the Mission CORs/AORs, USAID/Gulu office staff, former USAID implementing partner staff and senior USAID or implementing partner staff who knew about or managed these projects, project documents (although most these documents don't have such details), local project sub- grantees, as well as sub-county, parish, and district leaders/authorities, project-supported beneficiary groups and associations (to the extent they still exist). The evaluation team shall obtain information on beneficiaries through focus groups participants and other key informants. It is worth noting that some evaluations previously carried out also included surveys on project beneficiaries. Offerors are encouraged to assess these prior surveys' data quality and findings, as appropriate, to augment the evaluation's analyses. Once sites and beneficiaries are located, a multi-stage cluster sampling approach will be used to select the sub-counties, parishes, and villages needed to participate. Presuming most of the projects had different designs, sites and populations, a purposeful sample would be more effective to ensure that the selected sub-counties, parishes, and villages benefitted from one or more of these projects. Once the village clusters have been identified, a random selection of households will be carried out and, ideally, the number of households and household residents selected to be surveyed shall be representative of the district's population where USAID oversaw project(s) implementation. While there are constraints to establishing a statistically valid sample size, the evaluation team shall strive to promote reliability and 105 validity and minimize bias as much as possible by applying various techniques including weights and triangulation procedures. All sampling procedures and limitations will need to be clearly justified and documented in the final evaluation report. 3. Questionnaire/instrument design and pre-testing Semi-structured, key informant interview and focus group discussion tools/guides will be developed to serve as data collection guides. While there may not necessarily be a need to pre- test these tools/interview guides, USAID will review and approve these drafted tools/guides and instruments during the evaluation's desk review in Kampala. Similarly, the evaluation team will design a sample survey instrument covering key aspects of the selected, multi-sectoral projects. As indicated earlier, since some other surveys and evaluations have been conducted in the past, evaluators shall focus their questionnaire on this evaluation's broader, distinct evaluation questions. Survey questionnaires will have to be properly coded to facilitate data analysis and pre-tested to ensure their validity and reliability. 2.2 Data Analysis Given the large amount of data that will be collected , and that substantial evidence is collected to support the findings related to each of the evaluation questions, it is important that a clear plan is established before data collection starts to answer the evaluation questions. The following are illustrative quantitative and qualitative analyses that could be undertaken: a) Quantitative data analysis • Analysis of project results and impact: Aggregate outcome data will be analyzed to assess USAID performance sector-wide. If data can't be aggregated, respective project performance will be assessed using trend data or other means if available. Project/sector wide outcomes will be analyzed in relation with the outcomes/impacts at the regional or possibly district level (e.g. changes in poverty rates, incomes and expenditures, HIV/AIDS prevalence rates, literacy rates, maternal and child mortality rates, total fertility rates, and changes in outcome indicators related to social services in health, education, and water), and in relative comparison with broader, estimated PRDP contributions. Where feasible, inferential data analysis to show significance of results and establish correlations (especially for contribution analysis) will be done. • Analysis of project coverage, reach and budget data in relation with the coverage, reach, and budgets of the government and the other donors to assess USAID contribution relative to other actors' contribution. • Analysis of results projects have achieved against targets and resources invested. • Analysis of disaggregated data to examine the extent of results achieved by gender, district/sub-country, project site, type of intervention, etc. b) Qualitative data analysis Analysis of qualitative data will consist of analyzing and summarizing responses from key informant interviews, focus-group discussions, community interviews, and site observations. After summarizing the data, major themes, findings or groupings of responses for each question will be captured to answer key evaluation questions. Qualitative data will be 106 compared with quantitative data to detect any differences or similarities. Qualitative data will also play a role in conducting a contribution analysis to detect any evidence linking changes in specific indicators to USAID interventions. For example, there are a number of "success" stories that have been and will be reviewed and noted/documented by the evaluation about USAID's "impact" in Northern Uganda. After examining and validating these stories through key informant and focus-group discussions, the evaluation team will examine the key elements demonstrating the significance of the successful interventions and how these may have significantly contributed , or not, to promoting peace and recovery in Northern Uganda. 2.3 Strengths and limitations of the proposed design and methodology a. The scope of the evaluation which covers numerous projects implemented in several districts, sectors, and implementing partners makes this evaluation complex, resource and time intensive. b. Given the absence of clear counterfactuals established through experimental or quasi￾experimental evaluation designs, the many development actors and variables in Northern Uganda and the challenge in collecting data on these actors and their projects, offerors shall use contribution analysis and propose other methods they believe could be effective to examine USAID projects' impact or unique contributions. c. The lack of clear theory(s) of change and results framework embedded in the USAID Strategy for Northern Uganda, including key outcome/impact results and associated indicators, causal pathways and targets makes it problematic to easily evaluate USAID contribution to PRDP I. Similarly, PRDP I M&E framework also did not have higher level outcomes/impacts and targets against which the GOU and donors contributing to PRDP objectives would report. The evaluation team will need to explore using a set of USAID Mission Objective and IR-Level indicators in each of the USAID-supported sectors that best measure USAID contribution to PRDP objectives. There are still challenges with this approach including 1) the lack of results frameworks and theories of change in most of the project documents and generally the lack of clear, coherent project designs, including clear identification of target groups and beneficiaries and project sites; absence of outcome indicators to measure results for peace, reconciliation, and conflict mitigation interventions; 2) difficulty to aggregate data across projects since some operated in the same geographic area with the same target groups (double-counting); 3) data reliability issues due to projects using possibly different methods to collect data on the same indicators; and 4) lack of baseline data on some of the indicators or consistent data collected throughout the projects' life, which makes it difficult to measure change over time. Similarly, an appropriate sampling methodology cannot be proposed until there is more information about the various clusters where samples will be drawn: sub-districts, parishes, and villages or other sampling units at the community level. The illustrative evaluation design and methodology proposed in this scope of work includes suggestions to mitigate some of these methodological constraints. Despite these challenges, this evaluation has the advantage of building on other evaluations which have already been conducted. The evaluation team shall assess the quality of these evaluations and use those with worthy quality data as one of the data sources for answering the evaluation questions, helping the team to focus their attention on these evaluation's questions and reduce data collection time. 107 108 EXHIBIT J.1: NORTHERN UGANDA EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX Evaluation Questions Evaluation Sub-Questions Illustrative indicators Data Source/Collection Method Sampling or Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method 1) What has been the contribution of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? a. What has been the geographic coverage, reach (number and type of beneficiaries, type/sector of interventions), of USAID￾funded projects? What evidence is there that project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and functioning services, have continued after project closure and have contributed to any broader recovery and stabilization outcomes? An estimate of the total number of beneficiaries over the course of USAID’s 2005/6—2011/12 investments in programs in northern Uganda (and as a proportion of existing target population) Review of project documents/budgets during Kampala Desk Review; Key informant interviews, be it with former USAID staff, PRDP authorities, or key northern Ugandans Complete, master inventory of full range of USAID interventions (i.e., services, benefits, assistance) and estimation of current conditions All projects under evaluation Purposeful sample Content analysis Content/ thematic analysis b. What types of operational factors (environmental, social, managerial) facilitated or inhibited the achievement of critical needs, innovative approaches or unique, significant contributions? Others to be proposed by prospective evaluator See list of illustrative indicators of key results in Annex 2 Estimated percentage of infrastructural investments (schools, water, roads, district facilities) functioning Types of beneficiaries and stakeholders ‘satisfied’, or not, by USAID’s assistance, and key reasons cited Other ‘meta’ outcome indicators Review of USAID PMPs and PRS, project PMPs and datasets, project reports, evaluation reports, baseline and follow-on surveys, and other research studies Key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations Sample survey, including satisfaction perspective Comparisons of types of programming assistance provided relative to sources and magnitude of conflict and All projects Purposeful sample Multi-stage/ purposeful sampling with random sampling of households Content Analysis Case studies/ success stories Content/ thematic analysis) Statistical analysis using descriptive and inferential statistics Simple time series and graphical representation of : development challenges vs. types of activities/projects 109 Evaluation Questions Evaluation Sub-Questions Illustrative indicators Data Source/Collection Method Sampling or Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method Others to be proposed by prospective evaluator to be proposed by prospective offerors instability cited starting and ending 2) To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address northern Uganda’s evolving 2005/6 context, PRDP implementation and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda? See list of illustrative indicators of key results in Annex 2 Review of project documents, M&E data, evaluation reports, and success stories Key informant interviews and focus group discussions, most significant change technique and sample survey Sample survey All projects Purposeful sample Multi-stage/ purposeful sampling with random sampling of households Content Analysis Content/ thematic analysis) Statistical analysis using descriptive and inferential statistics 110 EXHIBIT J.2: USAID EVALUATION REPORT STANDARDS  The evaluation report shall represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.  Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.  The evaluation report shall include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the Contracting Officer.  Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.  Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).  Evaluation findings shall be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings shall be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.  Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.  Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.  Recommendations shall be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. 111 EXHIBIT J.3: RESULTS FRAMEWORK: USAID NORTHERN UGANDA STRATEGY AND PRDP OBJECTIVES PRDP I Goal: Peace, Recovery and Development Strategic Objective 4: Peace Building and Reconciliation Strategic Objective 3: Revitalization of Economy Strategic Objective 2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities Strategic Objective 1: Consolidation of State Authority Increased capacity of local administration to govern effectively, deliver essential services, and provide security for the population Key Projects: NUTI, LINKAGES, NUDEIL Key indicators: See below  Improved social services infrastructure  Improved quality of life for the population Key Projects: NUTI, SPRING, NUMAT, IRS, AFFORD, UNITY/PIASY, NUWATER, MYAP, AVSI Water and Sanitation Project, NUDEIL Key indicators: See below  Reactivated agriculture productive sectors  Rehabilitated critical infrastructure  Increased cross border trade  Reinforced sound natural resource management, and effective urban and land planning. Key Projects: APEP, LEAD, DAP, MYAP, HPI Dairy Project, WILD, NUDEIL Key indicators: See below USAID Objectives/Targets for Northern Uganda  Increased access to accurate media information  Increased access to trauma counseling services  Strengthened intra- and inter￾community conflict resolution mechanisms  Protection monitoring systems in place and promotion of progressive multi￾stakeholder dialogues. Key Projects: NUTI, SPRING, Pader Peace Program, Building Bridges for Peace, Local Voices for Peace Key indicators: See below 112 EXHIBIT J.4: ILLUSTRATIVE INDICATORS TO MEASURE USAID PERFORMANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORTHERN UGANDA PEACE AND RECOVERY PRDP Goal: Peace, Recovery, and Development Indicators (the first 4 are PRDP indicators)  Proportion of the population below the poverty line (Uganda National Household Survey-UNHS)  Percentage of the population getting only one meal a day (UNHS)  Literacy rates of persons 10 years and above (UNHS)  Primary School Completion Rate (Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) statistical abstracts/MOES annual sector performance reports)  Percentage of children under 5 years who are stunted (UDHS)  Percentage of children under 5 years who are wasted (UDHS)  Percentage of IDPs who have returned to their homes (Mission PMPs, project reports, other Sources)  Total Fertility Rate (UDHS)  Infant Mortality Rate (UDHS)  Under five mortality Rate (UDHS)  HIV/AIDS Prevalence PRDP Objective 1: Consolidation of State Authority USAID Target: Increased Capacity of local administration to govern effectively, deliver essential services and provide security for the population, with due respect to civil rights Indicators  District performance based on the LGDP 11 annual assessment of local governments (PRDP 1 indicator).  Number of district police posts constructed with USG assistance (PRDP 1 indicator, NUTI project reports)  % of cases processed by local courts as result of USG assistance (reformulation of NUTI indicator)  % of people who are aware of the Land Act (PRDP2 indicator; SPRING project reports)  % of people reporting stronger linkages between community and parish, sub-country and district initiatives (PADER Peace Program-PPP))  % of people reporting a “good” level of confidence in the return of peace process (PPP)  % of surveyed respondents reporting “strong” local and district support for peace and reconciliation and the reintegration of former combatants, abductees and IDPs (PPP)  % of citizens that are satisfied with local government services (available from Afrobarometer surveys 2008, 2011) PRDP Objective 2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities USAID Target: Improved social services and infrastructure Indicators 113 Health Health Outcomes Project level / output indicators  Contraceptive Prevalence Rate  Couple Years of Protection in USG assisted  TB Treatment Success Rate  TB case detection rate Malaria  Malaria morbidity  % of OPD attributed to malaria  Percentage of pregnant women who slept under an ITN the previous night  Percentage of targeted households sprayed with IRS in the last 12 months  Percentage of women who have received 2 or more doses of IPTp during their last pregnancy in the last 2 years Child Immunization  % of children 12-23 months who are fully immunized  Number of children who at 12 months have received three doses of DPT vaccination from a USG supported immunization program Child Nutrition  Prevalence of children 6-23 months receiving a minimum acceptable diet (UDHS / LQAS)  Number of children under 5 years of age who received Vitamin A from USG supported programs Deliveries in health facilities  % of women receiving antenatal care from a skilled birth attendant HIV knowledge, prevention and treatment  Percent of eligible HIV+ individuals accessing ART services  Percentage of women/men between 15-49 years with a comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS  Percent of eligible HIV+ individuals accessing ART services (USG assisted)  Percent of individuals that took HIV test and received their results as a couple (MoH /HMIS reports) Education Outcome level Project level indicators 114  Pupil: class room ratio  Number / type of school infrastructure constructed with USG facilities  Gross/Net enrollment rate (boys/girls)  Number of pupils enrolled in USAID￾supported primary schools or equivalent non￾school based settings for a selected period  Pupil: teacher ratio  Percentage of pupils reaching defined levels of competency in literacy and numeracy Water and Sanitation Outcome level Project level indicators % of households with improved sanitation and access to safe water  % of community water maintenance plans that are operational  Number of water points constructed or rehabilitated as result of USG assistance PRDP Objective 3: Economic Revitalization USAID Targets: 1) Re-activated agriculture productive sectors; 2) Rehabilitated critical infrastructure; 3) Increased cross border trade; 4) Reinforced sound natural resource management, and effective urban and land planning. Indicators:  Percentage change in income of targeted populations  Percentage change in volume of targeted commodities produced by USG-assisted clients  Dollar value of targeted commodities produced by USG-assisted clients  Number of beneficiary farmers who adopted the minimum number of technologies  Number of additional hectares under improved management practices as a result of USG assistance  Number of rural households benefitting directly from USG interventions  Number of people with increased economic benefits from sustainable NRM and Conservation as a result of USG assistance  Number of communities adopting best NRM practices in adjacent to targeted areas for conservation of biological diversity  Number of km of roads improved or constructed  Number of km of farm-to-market roads rehabilitated or constructed with USAID assistance  Volume of installed/storage capacity as a result of USG assistance / storage capacity created (?) PRDP Objective 4: Peace Building and Reconciliation 115 USAID Targets: 1) Increased access to accurate media information; 2) increased access to trauma counseling services; 3) strengthened intra- and inter- community conflict resolution mechanisms; protection monitoring systems in place and promotion of progressive multi-stakeholder dialogues Indicators  Number of peace building structures established or strengthened with USG assistance that engage conflict-affected citizens  Number of people trained in conflict mitigation or resolution skills with USG assistance  Number of land disputes solved through USG-supported structures  Number of Northern Ugandan population internally displaced  Number of USG-supported peace building structures with improved capacity to conduct peace and reconciliation activities Qualitative assessments:  Degree of positive relationships between communities  Perception about personal security (safety and property)  Ability to cope with effects of the war  Perceptions about level of violence and drivers of violence and conflicts 116 EXHIBIT J. 5: USAID/UGANDA 2006-2011 PROJECTS AND THE CORRESPONDING PRDP I OBJECTIVES PRDP Objective 1: Consolidate State Authority  Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI), Cassal and Associates, managed by DCHA/OTI of USAID/Washington  Strengthening Democratic Linkages Program (LINKAGES), PADCO  Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING), Cardno/Emerging Markets  Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance, Infrastructure, and Livelihoods (NUDEIL) (this $30M project is three years under implementation but, due to its especially slow pace, will not be (directly) included in this evaluation) PRDP Objective 2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities Health  Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and TB Project (NUMAT), John Snow, Inc.  Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), ABT Associates  HIV Prevention Through the Faith-Based Sector, IRCU  HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care, and Support Project, TASO  AFFORD, Johns Hopkins University  Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development (UPHOLD)  Health Initiative for the Private Sector (HIPS), Cardno/Emerging Markets (?) Water and Sanitation  Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI), Cassal and Associates  Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER), ARD  Improvement of Water and Sanitation Services for People Living in Displacement in Northern Uganda, AVSI  Title II/Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP I)- Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC), Mercy Corps  Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance, Infrastructure, and Livelihoods (NUDEIL) Education  Uganda Initiative for Teacher Development Management and Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth (UNITY/PIASCY), Creative Associates PRDP Objective 3: Economic Revitalization Agriculture/Food Security/Nutrition  Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD), ARD  Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP), Chemonics  Title II/ Development Assistance Program II (DAP II), World Vision  Title II/Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP I)- Healthy Practices, Strong Communities (HPSC), Mercy Corps  Title II/Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP), ACDI/VOCA  Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING), Emerging Markets  Northern Uganda Dairy Development Project, Heifer Project International Environment and Natural Resources Management 117  Conservation of Corridors in Northern Uganda (Wildlife Conservation Society)  Wildlife Conservation and Property Rights Reconciliation (WILD), Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance PRDP Objective 4: Peace Building and Reconciliation  Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI), Cassal and Associates  Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING), Emerging Markets  Pader Peace Program, Mercy Corps  Northern Uganda Local Voices for Peace, Internews  Building Bridges for Peace, Mercy Corps EXHIBIT J.6: USAID/UGANDA 2006/7 – 2011/12 PROJECTS Project: Project Duration Districts Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI), Cassal and Associates, managed by DCHA/OTI of USAID/Washington 2008-2011 Kitgum, Pader, Gulu, Amuru, Masindi, Lira. Creation of new districts in 2010 brought on Agago, Nwoya, and Lamwo Strengthening Democratic Linkages Program (LINKAGES), PADCO 2007-2010 10 districts Mubende, Amolatar, Katakwi, Pader, Kitgum, Sironko, Hoima, Kisoro, Arua and Mukono, and in 50 sub counties Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING), Cardno/Emerging Markets 2008-2010 Amuru, Gulu, Oyam, Lira, Pader, Kitgum Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance, Infrastructure, and Livelihoods (NUDEIL) (this $30M project is three years under implementation but, due to its especially slow pace, will not be (directly) included in this evaluation) 2009-2014 Gulu, Amuru, Oyam, Kitgum, Nwoya and Lamwo. Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and TB Project (NUMAT), John Snow, Inc. 2006-2012 Lamwo, Kitgum, Amuru, Nwoya, Gulu, Pader, Agago, Otuke, Alebtong,, Lira, Dokolo, Kole, Oyam, Apac, Amolatar Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), ABT Associates 2009-2012 Apac, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Oyam, Pader HIV Prevention Through the Faith-Based Sector, IRCU 2009-2014 Has facilities countrywide HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care, and Support Project, TASO 2008-2012 AFFORD, Johns Hopkins University 2005-2014 Country wide Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development (UPHOLD) 2003-2008 34 districts including Gulu from Northern Uganda Health Initiative for the Private Sector (HIPS), Cardno/Emerging Markets (?) 2007-2013 Gulu, Lira Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER) ARD 2008-2011 Kitgum, Pader Improvement of Water and Sanitation Services for People Living in Displacement in Northern Uganda, AVSI 2007 Title II/Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP I)- Healthy Practices Strong Communities 2008-2013 Kitgum, Pader and parts of Karamoja region 118 Project: Project Duration Districts (HPSC), Mercy Corps Uganda Initiative for Teacher Development Management and Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth (UNITY/PIASCY) Creative Associates 2002 - 2011 Countrywide Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD) ARD 2008-2013 Initially 35 districts including 6 in Northern Uganda and eventually scaled down to 18 districts in total Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP) Chemonics 2003-2008 Countrywide excluding the Karamoja region and extreme South Western districts Title II/ Development Assistance Program II (DAP II) World Vision 2004-2008 Gulu/Amuru, Kitgum Title II/Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP), ACDI/VOCA 2006-2012 Northern Uganda and Teso sub region Northern Uganda Dairy Development Project, Heifer Project International 2007 – 2011 Lira, Gulu, Amuru Wildlife Conservation and Property Rights Reconciliation (WILD), Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance 2007-2011 Northern Uganda and Western districts in the Albertine rift Pader Peace Program, Mercy Corps 2007-2009 Pader Northern Uganda Local Voices for Peace, Internews 2007-2008 Northern Uganda Building Bridges for Peace, Mercy Corps 2009-2011 Kotido , Kaabong districts of Karamoja and the Pader (later Agago, after government redistricting) 119 ANNEX III: EVALUATION DESIGN REPORT (INCLUDING EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF 2006- 2011 USAID ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN UGANDA: EVALUATION DESIGN April 2014 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared under IQC Number AID-RAN-I-OO-09-00016, Task Order Number AID-667-TO-14-00001 by International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI). DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 120 CONTENTS Ex-Post Performance Evaluation of 2006-2011 USAID Assistance to Northern Uganda 1 Assessing Stability, Peace and Recovery in the Acholi Sub-Region 1 Background and context for the evaluation Error! Bookmark not defined. Evaluation methods & limitations Error! Bookmark not defined. Findings, conclusions & recommendtions 12 FINDINGS 12 1.0 What were the contributionS of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? 12 1.1 What were the needs and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda? 12 1.2 How did USAID respond to the needs and challenges? 19 1.3 To what extent did USAID assistance create tangible benefits and other social and economic opportunities for displaced Ugandans? 47 1.4. What evidence is there that USAID project benefits have contributed to broader recovery and stabilization outcomes in northern Uganda? How did USAID’s strategic objectives support the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives? 51 2.0 How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives? 54 2.1 What evidence is there that USAID’s programming goals for assistance addressed the root causes of the conflict? 61 2.2 What evidence is there that having a permanent office in the North has contributed to the long-term sustainability of activities? 63 3.0 To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda’s evolving conditions? 66 3.1 How well did USAID and its implementing partners respond to evolving conditions in northern Uganda? 66 3.2 What evidence is there that USAID project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and service delivery have continued after project closure? 72 CONCLUSIONS 77 RECOMMENDATIONS 81 4.0 From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda’s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? 81 121 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Matrix of Key USAID Intervention Activities in Northern UgandaError! Bookmark not defined. Table 2: Selected Sub-Counties and Parishes............................................................................ 130 Table 3: Number of Villages and Household Interviews per Village............................... 131 Table 4: Qualitative Research Schedule (FGD and KII)........................................................ 135 Table 5: Household Survey Schedule............................................................................................. 137 Table 6: Plan for Video Documentation in Kitgum, Pader, Gulu and Amuru ........... 141 Table 7: Roles and Responsibilities Matrix .................................................................................. 147 Table 8: List of Possible Report Recipients ................................................................................. 149 122 ACRONYMS A2Z Micronutrient and Child Blindness Project AFFORD (Health Marketing Project) APEP Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program AVSI Association of Volunteers in International Service CAO Chief Administrative Officer FGD Focus Group Discussions HIPS Health Initiative for the Private Sector IDP Internally Displaced Persons IRS Indoor Residual Spraying KII Key Informant Interviews LEAD Livelihoods And Enterprises For Agricultural Development LINKAGES Strengthening Democratic Linkages in Uganda LRA Lord’s Resistance Army LSM Living Standard Measures MP Members of Parliament NU Northern Uganda NUMAT Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and Tuberculosis NUDEIL Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance Infrastructure and Livelihoods NUTI Northern Uganda Transition Initiative NUWATER Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project OPM Office of the Prime Minister OTI Office of Transition Initiatives PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PIASCY Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth PILPG Public International Law and Policy Group PRDP Peace, Recovery and Development Plan RDC Resident District Commissioner REPLICA Revitalization of Education Participation in Learning in Conflict Areas SO Strategic Objectives SPRING Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda TASO The AIDS Support Organisation UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNITY Ugandan Initiative for Teacher Development and Management System UPHOLD Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development USAID United States Agency for International Development WILD Wildlife, Landscapes and Development for Conservation 123 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH DESIGN IBTCI, with its survey partner Ipsos Ltd. (Uganda), is pleased to submit this research design for its performance evaluation of USAID assistance to the Acholi sub-region of Northern Uganda (NU) from 2006 through 2011. This period coincides with the cessation of hostilities marked by the signing of a truce between the government and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the development of a new USAID Uganda Country Cooperation Strategy (2011-2015). After more than a decade of confinement to the crowded internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, in 2006 the Ugandan Government declared IDPs free to move out of the camps. The war in Northern Uganda had continued for more than two decades, during which time more than 1.1million people were displaced into more than 150 camps in the Acholi Sub-Region alone, making the number of IDPs among the world’s highest. Over the period from approximately 2006 to 2009, this large displaced population moved outside the camps (many of which were closed) toward their home villages or to intermediary camps near their places of origin. A major challenge for donor agencies and their implementing partners during this period was making the transition from providing services in IDP camps (largely food, water, and sanitation services) to providing services in the return areas, a challenge further complicated by a lack of effective governance structures in many of the parishes, sub-counties, and districts in the sub-region. KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE EVALUATION The Evaluation Team’s focus is on four main categories of key questions from USAID that address the main purposes and objectives of the evaluation, namely: 1) USAID contributions to the region during the period in question; 2) program performance and effectiveness, including a discussion of factors inhibiting or facilitating implementation; 3) responsiveness to an evolving context during the period under study; and 4) lessons learned and best practices. The principal research questions and sub-questions are: 1. What was the contribution of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts?  What were the needs and challenges faced by the population of Northern Uganda?  How did USAID respond to these needs and challenges e.g. (the geographic coverage, reach, number and type of beneficiaries, type/sector of interventions)?  To what extent did USAID assistance create tangible benefits and other social and economic opportunities for displaced Ugandans?  What evidence is there that USAID projects’ benefits have contributed to any broader recovery and stabilization outcomes in Northern Uganda? 2. How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives?  What evidence is there that USAID’s programming goals for assistance addressed the root causes and effects of the conflict?  How did USAID strategic objectives support the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) objectives? 124  What evidence is there that having a permanent office in the North has contributed to the long-term sustainability of activities? 3. To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda’s evolving conditions?  How well did USAID and its implementing partners respond to evolving conditions in northern Uganda?  What evidence is there that USAID project benefits, including strengthened local capacity and service delivery, have continued after project closure? 4. From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda’s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? (E.g., types of aid modalities; adherence to Paris Declaration principles for aid effectiveness, consolidating Uganda’s stabilization gains, and improving programming interventions) KEY ASSUMPTIONS The evaluators have made some key assumptions regarding the feasibility of this evaluation, most importantly that the Evaluation Team will be able to locate sufficient numbers of program beneficiaries given population shifts and the time that has elapsed since the end of many of USAID’s programs; that beneficiaries interviewed or surveyed are able to accurately recall the details of the supporting activities; and if the beneficiaries do recall the activities USAID funded, they are able to respond in a relatively unbiased manner. Also, because USAID was – and remains - one of many actors, it is difficult to show direct causal linkages between USAID’s activities and results. This is due in part to USAID’s multiple interventions and many other actors in the region during the period. Recognizing these issues, the evaluation Team has proposed strategies to overcome or compensate for them, which are detailed in the Evaluation Constraints, Mitigation Methods, and Ethical Considerations section below. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Prior to drafting this document, the Evaluation Team reviewed documents assembled by USAID that described the various projects implemented during the period. As the evaluation progresses, the team of supervisors and videographers will continue to identify, assemble, synthesize, and analyze written and visual documentation. In addition to drawing on existing secondary sources, much of the evaluation focuses on mixed￾methods primary data collection using qualitative and quantitative approaches. The overarching design for this evaluation uses a logical sequence of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, all of which are designed to strengthen and complement each other. The evaluation matrix included in this design shows how document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions based on semi-structured interview protocols, household surveys, and case studies provide complementary data. This approach is specifically designed to derive multiple data sets from a large and representative number of sources to support the evaluation’s findings and conclusions relating to: 1) identify the contribution of USAID’s Northern Ugandan assistance to the region’s peace, stability, and recovery in the region and to the well-being of the region’s residents; and 2) identify those sector-specific activities and implementers that made the greatest contribution to these goals. This approach will be applied to the full range of USAID capacity building, technical assistance, infrastructure and other projects implemented in 125 Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011, and will allow for selecting specific project types and research themes for more in-depth study and case studies. In the interests of advancing host country evaluation capacities, this evaluation has adopted a strong participatory and capacity-building approach. Having interactions with direct beneficiaries during group discussions, the Evaluation Team has adapted various tools designed to provide a variety of perspectives, which will further inform the study. As examples, and as part of the FGDs, the Evaluation Team uses tools such as community and vulnerability mapping, historical time lines, and resource maps. These tools are described in more detail under the section on group discussions and sample instruments and are included as Annex IV. The key informant interview protocol is designed to collect a variety of data from government, NGO, and other key informants, such as cultural and religious leaders. The group protocol targets village or neighborhood residents while the household survey instruments (see Annexes VII and VIII for English and Luo language versions respectively) are designed to provide information on how, if at all, the environments and lives of respondents have changed as a result of USAID assistance. The evaluation will also access data from published reports, which will allow us to compare the situation at the baseline period (approximately 2005/6 and the end period of approximately 2011/12) between Northern Uganda and Uganda as a whole. Although there are issues with the quality of data, the evaluators will draw on the data that is most reliable and presents a representative “snapshot” of baseline indicators, particularly in the areas of health, education, and water and sanitation. Although such data is useful, the evaluation will draw principally on key interviews, focus group discussions in parishes and villages, and household surveys. As part of group discussions, KIIs, and survey research, we will ask respondents to explain their perceptions of projects and programs supported by USAID, probing for details on projects, particularly those within the following sectors or areas of intervention:  Resettlement/humanitarian aid. Key to this will be an understanding of the emergency aid provided during the early resettlement period, including basic food and medical provision. Title II food aid projects were crucial in ensuring the survival of victims of the war.75  Peace and reconciliation efforts / psychosocial support. Several USAID-financed programs were designed to ease the transition from IDP camps back to towns and villages. Many victims of the war experienced deep physical, sexual, and psychological traumas.  Health (including HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria): Health services, many of which were funded through such initiatives as The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), hospice and palliative care programs for victims of HIV/AIDS, and specific malaria reduction programs including Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) were a major component of USAID’s programming response.  Water and sanitation: Soon after the emergency humanitarian aid period, many of the early transition initiatives focused on providing basic water and sanitation needs, particularly in the rural areas that had been abandoned during the 22-year-long war. Projects such as the Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER), for example, were designed to contribute to these efforts. 75 In 2008, for example, the estimated number of IDPs receiving monthly food assistance was over 750,000 (Das and Nkutu: 2008) 126  Income generation and microfinance: Several of the initiatives also targeted income-generating activities and microfinance. The three-year program based in Gulu called Stability, Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING) was awarded through a $3.6 million Stability Fund, a small grants fund with one component supporting economic security activities, particularly for farmers’ groups. These were designed to facilitate the stabilization of households and communities by promoting the removal of key agricultural constraints, skills training, and the provision of start-up capital (revolving funds) to promote self-reliance, peace building and income generation for residents. In addition, the SPRING project and other USAID partners promoted Village Savings and Loan (VSLA) systems designed to increase household savings and income  Education: One of the education initiatives in the north was the Ugandan Initiative for Teacher Development and Management System (UNITY). The UNITY component called Revitalization of Education Participation in Learning in Conflict Areas (REPLICA) had six thematic elements—peace education, psychosocial care, performing arts and learning, girls’ education, leadership and management, and community integration, all of which designed to help in restoring education services in Northern Uganda.  Agriculture: Projects such as the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP) were designed as integrated commodity systems approaches, developing and strengthening producer organizations; demonstrating and providing training for farmers in improved low and high-input technologies; expanding access to production inputs and credit; upgrading post-harvest handling techniques; and linking farmers to markets through arrangements with commercial buyers, processors and exporters. APEP is an example of a USAID/Kampala￾designed project that shifted some of its program activities to better suit the context of Northern Uganda.  Governance: A key initiative of the Ugandan government’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) was to reinstate the organs of government and increase the visibility of, and confidence in government in the war-torn northern areas. USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) funded projects and other USAID initiatives built or restored government offices and helped to increase capacity of local government to provide services.  Access to justice: The OTI supported several programs to improve access to justice services, including courts and police in areas that had been deprived of such services over the years. As one example, during the transition, groups such as The Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG) designed programs to promote accountability and reconciliation through transitional justice initiatives.  Construction including utilities infrastructure, roads, water points: As part of its efforts to improve the visibility of local government, USAID, and OTI in particular worked through local governments to provide tangible, visible products of reconstruction in Northern Uganda, including construction and rehabilitation of sub-county and other local government office blocks, construction of schools and teachers’ houses.  Communications/media: USAID supported radio programming in the region through the Northern Uganda Transition Initiative (NUTI) which provided equipment and technical support to three radio stations in Gulu, Kitgum and Pader. Enhancing the capacity of the Ugandan media, particularly in northern Uganda, to research, inform and report on issues relevant to peace, recovery and development was viewed as key to providing information and encouragement on return from refugee camps. 127  Natural resources: Although later expanded to include other areas in Uganda, Wildlife, Landscapes, and Development for Conservation (WILD) project was originally formulated as part of GOU’s poverty eradication plan and PRDP 1 (2006-09). The principal program objective was to reduce threats to biodiversity and conserve critical ecosystems across diverse landscapes in northern Uganda. Technical components included biodiversity management; environmental education and communication; property rights and resource governance; and improved livelihoods (WILD, 2011:7-9). 128 Table 1: Matrix of Key Intervention Activities in Northern Uganda Project/Agency Year Districts Health Agriculture, food security and nutrition Peace building and reconciliation Governance and infrastructure Education Water and sanitation Environment and natural resource management Facilitating IDP return Income generation and microfinance Northern Uganda Malaria, AIDS and TB Project (UNMET), John Snow, Inc. 2006 - 2012 Lamwo, Kitgum, Amuru, Nwoya, Gulu, Pader, Agago, Otuke, Alebtong,, Lira, Dokolo, Kole, Oyam, Apac, Amolatar X Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS), ABT Associates 2009 - 2012 Apac, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Oyam, Pader X HIV Prevention Through the Faith -Based Sector, IRCU 2009 - 2014 Nationwide X HIV/AIDS Prevention, Care, and Support Project, TASO 2008 - 2012 Nationwide X X X AFFORD, Johns Hopkins University 2005 - 2014 Nationwide X Uganda Program for Human and Holistic Development 2003 - 2008 34 districts including Gulu from Northern Uganda X Health Initiative for the Private Sector (HIPS), Cardno/Emerging Markets 2007 - 2013 Gulu, Lira X Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD) / Tetra Tech / ARD 2008 - 2013 18 districts in Northern Uganda X Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Program (APEP), Chemonics 2003 - 2008 Countrywide excluding Karamoja/ Southwest districts X X X Title II/ Development Assistance Program II (DAP II), World Vision 2004 - 2008 Gulu/Amuru, Kitgum X X Title II/Multi -Year Assistance Program (MYAP I) - Healthy Practices, Strong Communities, Mercy Corps 2007 - 2012 Pader, Kitgum X X X X X 129 Stability peace and Reconciliation in Northern Uganda (SPRING) 2008 - 2010 Amuru, Gulu, Oyam, Lira, Pader, Kitgum X X X X Northern Uganda Dairy Development Project 2007 – 2011 Lira, Gulu, Amuru X X X NUTI; Cassals and Associates; Managed by DCHA/OTI 2008 - 2011 Kitgum, Pader, Gulu, Amuru, Masindi, Lira. Agago, Nwoya, and Lamwo (2010+) X X X X Northern Uganda Local Voices for Peace, Internews 2007 - 2008 Northern Uganda X X Building Bridges for Peace, Mercy Corps 2009 - 2011 Kotido, Kaabong, Pader. Agago (2010+) X X Strengthening Democratic Linkages Program (LINKAGES) PADCO 2007 - 2010 Mubende, Amolatar, Katakwi, Pader, Kitgum, Sironko, Hoima, Kisoro, Arua and Mukono Uganda Initiative for Teacher Development Management and Presidential Initiative on AIDS Strategy for Communication to Youth (UNITY/PIASCY), Creative Associates 2002 – 2011 Nationwide X X Northern Uganda Water Supply Services Project (NUWATER) 2008 - 2011 Kitgum, Pader X X Improvement of Water and Sanitation Services for People Living in Displacement in Northern Uganda, AVSI 2007 X X Northern Uganda Development of Enhanced Governance (NUDEIL) 2009 - 2015 Gulu, Amuru, Oyam, Kitgum, Nwoya and Lamwo. X X Conservation of Corridors in Northern Uganda (Wildlife Conservation Society) X Wildlife Conservation and Property Rights Reconciliation (WILD), Global Sustainable Tourism Alliance 2007 - 2011 Northern Uganda and Western districts in the Albertine rift X 130 SAMPLING METHODS As part of both the qualitative and survey design plans (described in sections C/D and E below, respectively), the Team has used a multi-stage cluster sampling approach to select the sub￾counties, parishes, and villages to be surveyed. Evaluators selected all seven districts in the Acholi sub-region for evaluation sampling. In each of the seven districts, two sub-counties were purposefully sampled based on levels of USAID activities. These were developed in collaboration with USAID/Kampala’s geographic information systems (GIS) specialist and later reviewed and slightly modified (see revised site selection sample below) as a result of discussions with the Mission’s Food for Peace Team. In each district, two sub-counties were purposively selected from each district, with one sub-county having higher levels of intervention based on numbers of USAID-funded projects, and another with lower intensity of USAID interventions. Sub-counties with very few or no interventions were, however, not included in the sample. The total number of sub-counties selected for the survey is 14. Within each sub￾county, two parishes (total = 28) were purposively selected to provide a representative mix of rural and urban areas. From each parish, a random sample of three villages (and four towns, neighborhoods) was conducted, giving a total of 84 villages or neighborhoods. All respondents will be guaranteed confidentiality (see KII and group protocols). Table 2: Selected Sub-Counties and Parishes District Sub county #1 Parishes Sub county #2 Parishes Lamwo Palabek Gem  Gem  Anaka Lamwo Town council  Pobel  Olebe Kitgum Kitgum Matidi  Lumulle  Paibony Amida –Kitgum Town Council  Lamola  Koch Pader Pajule  Paiulla  Palenga Pader Town Council  Lagwai/Paipii  Acoro Gulu Bobi  Paidwe  Palenga Odek  Palaro  Lamolla Amuru Pabbo  Pogo  Kal Amuru Town Council  Okungedi  Amuru Town council Nwoya Purongo  Latoro  Pabit Anaka  Paduny  Pangora Agago Parabongo  Kalongo Town board  Parumu Agago Town Council  Agago Central ward, Ajali  Pampara The number of household surveys was determined using a Penrose square-root method (see Table 3), which is used for allocating weights for population samples proportional to the square root of the population represented at the district level. This method allows for weights based on population size and at the same time controls for high levels of variation of sampled households between the smallest and largest districts. Selection of Households In the case of our sample (shown in Table 3), in the smallest district, Nwoya, there will be six households surveyed per village; in the largest district, Gulu, there will be 16 households surveyed per village or neighborhood. Most of the other districts are close to the mean of 12 131 households surveyed per village. The total number of completed surveys using this method is 1,000. The households will be selected using the random-walk method. This involves the interviewers finding a fixed landmark within the boundaries of the selected village (such as a school, church, or tree) and by following the left hand rule proceeding to the starting household determined by the date of interview (i.e. on 28th of the month the starting household will be house number 10 [2+8] from the fixed starting point). The survey follows the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) definition of a household as a “unit of people who share the same food pot” as opposed to people who share the same roof. This is verified by the interviewers asking questions about the number of people who live under the same roof and eat together. This household forms the first household at which an interview can be conducted. After completing an interview (using the left hand rule), four households are skipped thereby calling on the 5th household. The interviewers at all times must keep a call sheet where they record each household on which they call, whether the interview was successful or not, and reasons for non-successful interviews. Table 3: Number of Villages and Household Interviews per Village Estimated Population76 SQRT of total sample size # of villages interviews per village Distric t Male Femal e Total % Agago 158,510 156,190 314,700 561 17 171 12 14 Amuru 90,490 93,090 183,580 428 13 130 12 11 Gulu 202,180 205,300 407,480 638 19 194 12 16 Kitgum 128,870 128,690 257,560 508 15 154 12 13 Lamwo 91,620 86,490 178,110 422 13 128 12 11 Nwoya 27,410 28,090 55,500 236 7 72 12 6 Pader 123,700 119,510 243,210 493 15 150 12 13 Total 822,78 0 817,36 0 1,640,14 0 3,286 1,000 The above household skip routine applies in well-defined high-density urban and rural areas. However, there are exceptions as follows:  In highly-populated urban areas with blocks of flats: If the sampling point is composed of block of flats or is composed of long stretches of household blocks, only 1 household in any given flat or block of households will be interviewed because the closer people live together the more likely they are to have similar habits.  In sparsely populated rural areas / single-dwelling farms: In rural areas where the households are sparsely distributed, a minimum distance of 200 meters will be kept in between successful interviews.  In sparsely populated rural areas with commercial farms: In points where commercial farms are large and contain populous settlements of farm workers, interviewers will not collect all the interviews for that sampling point on one farm. So that all interviews are obtained from separate farms in each sampling point, the Interviewer will go to the 76 Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2013 132 nearest randomly selected start-point and do a few interviews before going to the next farm.  In high profile residential areas: In the case of high-class residential areas (high-class low￾density), interviewers will sample gate to gate. Considering the spatial distribution of the households and the low interview success rate this yields self-selecting random samples. Household Respondent Selection Only one respondent per household will be interviewed. A manual Kish grid77 will be used to randomize the selection at the household level. Using this method, demographic attributes like age, sex, and living standard measures (LSM) categories fall out naturally within the survey areas. In each household, the interviewer will list all the people in the household aged 18 years and above, starting with the oldest. All questionnaires and selected households will be serialized to facilitate the usage of the Kish grid to select the respondents. All supervisors and interviewers will have been trained on the use of the Kish grid and therefore will be conversant with this random selection methodology. We will make a minimum of three call-backs to ensure that the correctly selected interviewee has a good chance of being able to participate. In the event that this is not possible, a replacement will be identified from a different household, using the Kish grid methodology to produce an age- and gender-balanced sample. If the respondent selected by the Kish grid is absent, the interviewer will make three call-backs at different times of the day and days of the week. All the call-backs will be logged on the contact sheets. The interviews will be spread throughout the day to take into account the times that targeted respondents are most likely to be available. Exclusion of Households from the survey: Several reasons might disqualify a household from participating in the survey. These reasons include:  Lack of a qualified respondent in a household  Abandoned household  Former residences that have been converted into business premises Qualitative Site Selection The qualitative component of the study uses the same selection approach with one exception. Because of the more intensive time requirements of qualitative work, the total number of sub￾counties to be visited will be 10 compared to 14 for the quantitative strand of the research. Otherwise, the qualitative component of the study uses the same selection approach as the household respondent component. Therefore, for Kitgum, Lamwo, Agago, and Nwoya, one sub-county was selected from each of these districts, reflecting the fact that during the period of interventions several new districts were created. Lamwo was split from Kitgum and Agago was split from Pader in late 2009. Similarly, as early as 2006-2007 Nwoya was split from Amuru, which was once part of the greater Gulu district. In each of the 10 sub-counties selected, the qualitative team will visit the same two parishes that will be visited by the household survey 77 The Kish grid or Kish selection table is a method for selecting members within a household to be interviewed. It uses a pre￾assigned table of random numbers to find the person to be interviewed. It was first developed by statistician Leslie Kish, "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection within the Household", Journal of the American Statistical Association 44 (247): 380–387 (September 1949). 133 team and in each parish, the qualitative team will also visit three villages, for a total of 60 villages/neighborhoods. Ipsos will prepare a random selection of villages, for both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study, to be visited in each parish. Prior to these visits, the Evaluation Team will contact district leaders, generally Chief Administrative Officers (CAO), after which it will inform sub-county leaders of the visits and request their assistance with setting up group interviews at the village level. KIIs will be conducted with district and sub￾county CAOs, local council leaders, and district technical staff. The evaluation will particularly target those individuals with in-depth experience in the Acholi sub-region during the 2006-2011 period. Field Work Schedule After the initial review of key documents, the Evaluation Team developed field guides for KIIs and FGDs. The Evaluation Team piloted qualitative (FGD and KII) guides during the first week of April in two districts in Gulu and concluded that the guides required only minor modifications. Because these are intended as semi-structured guides and because the teams de￾briefed on a daily basis, researchers were able to adjust questions so that they better align with the major research question. As one example, villagers and KII respondents might want to address a sub-question on needs, and although this is an important question, it is meant as a prelude question to whether needs were being addressed, specifically by USAID-funded interventions. For this reason, and because the qualitative researchers and assistants are generally highly trained (the former are college graduates and the latter are typically Makerere University graduates or masters-level students—see Management Section below), it is possible for them to make small adjustments on a daily basis to be sure that the focus remains on the quality of interventions. The household survey, on the other hand, required several iterations and substantial input by IBTCI Evaluation Team Leader and off-site technical staff before and after pilot testing to ensure that key questions could be covered in the most time-efficient manner. The Evaluation Team finalized the household survey on April 2 and began household data collection on April 3. Timelines for qualitative and quantitative research are depicted in Figures 4 and 5 below, respectively. Gender and Disability Considerations To ensure gender and age balance in the case of the household survey, a random selection of male and female household members and a random selection among age groups will be made. For the group discussions, in order to provide a wide range of age and sex representativeness, the qualitative team will use a variable rolling schedule of group discussions with one of the following groups in each village: young women from the ages of 18-25; young men through the ages of 18-25; older women from 35 and up; and older men from 35 and up. All of the materials from the qualitative and household surveys will be disaggregated by age group and sex. The Evaluation Team expects the majority of respondents to be women because of the high number of men lost in conflict and because women are typically more likely to be found at home. The evaluation design has given thoughtful consideration of gender, age, and disability issues, including the unintended effects of interventions targeting various groups. Preliminary research indicates that the many interventions that targeted female empowerment and livelihoods may have had the unintended consequence of contributing to a disempowerment of males, a cycle that began during camp internment. This issue exacerbated already shifting power dynamics 134 stemming from conflict-induced loss of land and access to labor, which fueled an increase in male resentment and alcoholism and a spike in sexual and gender-based violence. Gender-based violence was also an extreme problem during the conflict, in which rape and abduction of women and girls by combatants was endemic and resulted in a phenomenon of child-mothers who were formerly given as wives to LRA soldiers or who were raped by Ugandan army soldiers. Similarly, several programs targeted persons with disabilities. Again, preliminary research shows that one unintended consequence is a perception of injustice for those persons with disabilities that received priority treatment, particularly if fellow villagers believe the disabilities are not severe enough to prevent individuals from contributing economically. 135 Table 4: Qualitative Research Schedule (FGD and KII) Activity MARCH APRIL 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M TL, DTL, and subject-matter expert travel to Gulu Preparation meetings with the RAs. Ipsos begins administering survey in 7 N. Ugandan districts to conduct preparation meetings with the RAs. Ipsos begins administering survey in 7 N. Ugandan districts. Training of R/Assistants KII with UNICEF Staff M&E In Gulu Field Pre-Test in Bobi Write Up From Pre-test Field Debrief, Team Divides into two (Team 1: Gulu, Nwoya, Amuru; Team 2: Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader, Agago) Field Work Team 1 Bobi Sub county (Gulu) Paidwe Parish Palenga Parish 0dek Sub county(Gulu) Palaro Parish Lamolla Parish Purongo Sub county (Nwoya) Latoro Parish Pabit Parish Pabbo Sub county (Amuru) Pogo Parish Kal Parish Amuru T/C (Amuru) Okungedi Parish Amuru Town Council Team 1 Field write up (Gulu, Nwoya, Amuru) Field Work Team 2 (Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader, Agago) Pajule Sub county (Pader) Paiulla Parish Palenga Parish Pader T/C (Pader) Lagwai/Paipii Parish Acoro Parish 136 Parabongo Sub county (Agago/Pader) Kalongo Town board Parumu Parish Kitgum Matidi Sub county (Kitgum) Lumulle Parish Paibony Parish Palabek Gem Sub county (Lamwo/Kitgum) Gem Parish Anaka Parish Field work Write-up (Kitgum, Pader, Agago, Lamwo) Field Debrief 2 BI-Weekly Progress Report Field Debrief 3 137 Table 5: Household Survey Schedule March April Item 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W Training of Research Assistants Piloting survey tools Debriefing Revising the Tools Approval of Tools by Lead Consultant Data collection in Gulu Travel to other districts and continuation of data collection Data analysis Submission of final datasets and field report Grey: Working Days; Red: Easter Holiday 138 DATA COLLECTION A. Desk Review – The Evaluation Team has used the period prior to fieldwork to begin a desk review process of evaluation reports, project documents, and maps showing areas and sectors of interventions to get an overview of NU programming between 2006 and 2011.78 As part of this process, the Evaluation Team is developing a brief annotated bibliography of key reports and evaluations to provide a richer background and context for the findings of the current evaluation, and to enhance the validity of its findings and conclusions. In particular, the Evaluation Team is looking for data that documents whether or not there was a changing focus of aid efforts during this period, from a period of emergency humanitarian aid following the 2006 truce through a period of transitional assistance in which government services were reinstated, construction of infrastructure began, and peace and reconciliation efforts were initiated, to a later period of greater stability and an emphasis on more traditional development initiatives in the region. In addition, the desk review has informed the evaluation’s design and methodology and will provide important background information in terms of the development of interview tools, household surveys; in the selection of key interviewees; and in the data analysis and interpretation phases of research. B. Key Informant Interviews – KIIs will enable a more in-depth process of inquiry among select beneficiaries and stakeholders of USAID’s Northern Ugandan program. This process began in Washington DC in February 2014 and continued with interviews of persons working overseas by teleconference. During this period, the Evaluation Team Leader conducted an intensive interview process with a variety of key informants, with an emphasis on those individuals who were closely involved in developing USAID’s reconstruction strategy for NU and a good knowledge of the relevant projects implemented during the 2006-2011 period. These included such respondents as Africa Bureau desk officers, OTI staff that worked in Uganda including former Gulu-based Team Leaders, other Program Officers, and key implementing partner staff. From an initial list of potential interviewees provided by USAID/Uganda, the Evaluation Team Leader identified other individuals in Uganda that will be able to further provide background information on USAID interventions in the North. During the field research period, the Evaluation Team will conduct in-person KIIs with government officials, members of civil and religious society, cultural, community or spiritual leaders, female and male Members of Parliament (MPs) and other political leaders, and project implementers at the district and sub-county levels in the seven districts covered by the study, namely Gulu, Kitgum, Pader, Amuru, Lamwo, Nwoya, and Agago (three of these seven districts were created during the study period, namely: Lamwo in July 2009, Nwoya and Agago in July 2010). In all cases, Evaluation Team members conducting KIIs will emphasize meetings with officials and project implementers that had been working in these areas during the period of study, particularly those with a long history of work during the recovery period. Because many of the officials in these districts are men, it will be important to consciously introduce a gender dimension to these interviews. Also, to reduce response bias (e.g., positive responses in the hope of receiving more projects or resources from USAID) and to further improve triangulation, we will seek out lower-level civil servants who have been serving longer and who 78 Although the materials provided by USAID were focused on USAID interventions, the team may, as feasible, review selected evaluations and project documents from other donors that surface as a result of KIIs. 139 may have less to gain from systems of patronage from donor activities. Therefore, in selecting KIIs, the Evaluation Team will take special steps to ensure that women leaders at various levels are included in the sample and that long-term technical staff are well represented. C. Group Discussions – Group Discussions are based on facilitating an organized discussion based on a semi-structured interview protocol with a group of individuals selected to be representative of a larger group of beneficiaries. These discussions will be led by either the Evaluation Team Leader or Deputy Team Leader, or another member of the core Team’s technical staff. Data will be captured through note taking, observation, tape recording and in selected cases through videography. Of the total of 84 villages/neighborhoods in 7 districts in the sample (there are two sampled sub-counties in each district; two parishes within each sub￾county; and three villages, or neighborhoods in the case of towns), group discussions will be conducted within 60 villages or neighborhoods within 10 sub-counties. Within group discussions, the Team will use a variety of participatory tools, including historical timelines, resource maps, and vulnerability mapping. For example, the Team will use vulnerability mapping to identify community categorizations of different types of vulnerability, ranking main vulnerabilities experienced by different categories of persons (e.g. older women; older men; and youth of both sexes), which can be ranked on a three-point Likert scale from most vulnerable, middle, and least vulnerable to determine the proportions of households in each group and to contribute to the evaluation’s analysis of most vulnerable groups. The Team will also use historical timelines which will be particularly useful in mapping and identifying changes in the community over time; how these changes relate to the perception of the aid received during the period under study; and depending on the data collected, whether or not USAID and other development partners made appropriate adjustments over time. D. Household Survey – In addition to the qualitative research described in C. and D. above, the survey Team headed by the subcontracting partner Ipsos will conduct a face-to-face, attitudinal or behavior change survey of individuals from the beneficiary pool who may have benefitted from USAID assistance in NU between 2006 and 2011. These surveys will be conducted in each of the 84 villages/neighborhoods in the seven districts in the sample. As with the group discussions under this evaluation, survey challenges will include locating past-project beneficiaries and their location, as well as where such projects were implemented. Data collection will take into account the sensitivities related to women freely expressing themselves about delicate topics such as family planning and gender-based violence. Apart from ensuring confidentiality, we will make sure that female enumerators/research assistants conduct interviews with women. Survey questions will be designed to elicit evidentiary responses and to enable ranked Likert responses from respondents (e.g., scaled from 1 to 5) and/or binary coded within the survey to allow for incremental answers (e.g., “1=Yes, 2= No, 0=Not applicable). Data will be collected through the most appropriate means and will rely on face-to-face interview response capture. The Team will collect data using trained female and male enumerators who are fluent in Luo and have experience in conducting interviews in the Acholi sub region. These will be supervised by male and female supervisors with considerable experience in conducting surveys. The Team also will develop specific question types (i.e., in terms of content) to assess respondents’ perceptions regarding peace, stability and recovery in NU and link these views to specific sector activities and actors. Question types will include the following: 140  Perception-Based Questions – These questions will be designed to discern overall changes in perceptions and behavior among those who benefitted from USAID program support in NU. This “macro” approach will enable a cross-cutting line of questions that transcend specific sectors, but at the same time allows for an amalgamated perspective by individual respondents on how the various types of USAID support they may have received translates into an overall perspective of the state of peace and recovery in NU through their eyes. It will then be possible to drill down from these macro-level questions to assess the individual activities (ideally USAID activities) to which they attribute improvements in peace and recovery (see sector-focused questions below).  Sector-Focused Questions – These questions will seek to determine the contributions of USAID’s NU programs’ work in particular sectors to overall peace and recovery efforts during the designated time period. Key to these questions will be “drilling down” from respondents’ overall perceptions on peace and recovery in NU to factors to which they attribute any of these positive changes, then, if possible, down to specific sector support activities and the implementing organizations behind these activities. Respondents’ answers will be broken down by the four PRDP Strategic Objectives and by sectors within these SOs (e.g., under SO2: Rebuilding and Empowering Communities— the Evaluation Team will group responses citing improved provision of health, education, and/or water and sanitation services). Again where possible, the Evaluation Team will use the illustrative indicators listed under each SO within Annex J.4 of the RFTOP to ensure consistency in the classification of responses, and provide greater detail on the support respondents felt they were receiving from USAID programs.  Location-Based Questions – Given the degree of population displacement in NU caused by the LRA, a major aim of many USAID programs (NUTI, SPRING, NUDEIL) was to promote and facilitate the return of refugees from the camps to their homes. While the UNHCR has stated that 95 percent of the 1.8 million displaced Ugandans have returned home, the Team will craft specific questions to determine what factors drove their return and whether specific, external support (including USAID) contributed to this. We are aware that the disbandment of camps was an important factor in the return process of people and will therefore investigate the extent to which USAID support contributed to assisting the process of return and resettlement through the various social and infrastructure interventions. Similarly, questions will also be developed to assess the degree to which they have been able to normalize their day-to-day lives since their return, and what external support, if any, contributed to this process. Questions will be framed to enable respondents to name the type of support received and provide other details that could potentially differentiate USAID from other donor and/or GoU assistance. E. Case Studies – From its desk review and analysis of the collected KII and FGD information, the Team will develop two 2-page case studies highlighting the lessons learned of USAID’s programs in NU between 2006 and 2011. The case studies will be selected not only to show key contributions of USAID in specific cases, but will also attempt to identify interesting or innovative programming that might deserve greater attention or research for designing and implementing future stabilization programming efforts. The Evaluation Team will also take interest in any negative aspects and effects that may have arisen from the interventions so that these can also support future learning. Ideally, the case studies will be able to demonstrate the cumulative, beneficial legacy of multiple programs that are still contributing to positive recovery 141 and stability trends in the North well after the conclusion of these interventions, including the relative utility of having a USAID field office in Gulu. The study will be added to the “Knowledge Repository” created by IBTCI for storing and accessing all documents, studies and data generated by the evaluation. F. Audio-Visual Documentary – As an innovative and compellingly powerful emotive data capture method in selected communities, the Evaluation Team will use videography as a data collection method to visually capture the effects of USAID programming in the North. The rich tradition of oral cultures deserves to be captured as well. By recording participants’ responses and reflections based on the same KII and FGD questions, the resulting visual evidence will allow unique narratives and experiences to emerge. The videographers will make use of the substantial audio-visual materials already available at the USAID field office in Gulu, as well as at other places including the collections on the war and recovery archived in the Kitgum library and museum. The impact of Northern Ugandan residents’ ongoing access to new or improved health, education, or justice facilities built through USAID support, for example, could be conveyed in a particularly powerful way through video. Such documentaries can also be tied to highlighted success stories within the case studies where applicable. Table 6: Plan for Video Documentation in Kitgum, Pader, Gulu and Amuru Activity Location Parish Duration/date Time Logistics Travel Day Kampala to Gulu to Kitgum Kitgum Town Council All Day, 06/4/2014 10am Transport to Kitgum 1 Night in Kitgum Filming Kitgum Matidi Lumulle/Paibony All Day, 07/4/2014 6:00am 1 Night in Kitgum Travel with Researchers Filming Travel Day Kitgum Town Council Kitgum to Pader Lamola/Koch Pader All Day, 08/4/2014 08/4/2014 7:00am 5:00pm Transport in Kitgum and to Pader 1 Night in Pader Filming Pajule, Pader Paiulla/Palenga All Day, 09/4/2014 7:00am 1 Night in Pader Transport in Pader Filming Travel Day Pajule, Pader Pader to Gulu Paiulla/Palenga Gulu All Day, 10/4/2014 10/4/2014 7:00am 5:00pm 1 Night in Gulu Transport in/from Pader to Gulu Filming Odek, Gulu Palaro/Lamulla All Day, 11/4/2014 7:00am 1 Night in Gulu Transport in Gulu Filming Amuru Town Council/Pabbo/Amuru Okungedi,/Amuru TC/Pogo/Kal All Day, 12/4/2014 6:00am 1 Night in Gulu Transport to Amuru Travel Day Gulu to Kampala All Day, 14/4/2014 6:00am Transport to Kampala DATA ANALYSIS PLAN 142 Analytical triangulation approaches will be employed as part of IBTCI developing evaluative data findings and conclusions of the relevant USAID programs in NU. The triangulation cross-verifies and cross-validates the findings that emerge from using the above methods, data sources and/or Evaluation Team members, and identifies correlations between findings to determine overall USAID assistance effectiveness. In particular, the Evaluation Team will utilize methodological triangulation to develop parallel questionnaires with the same or similar questions across its KIIs, FGDs, and survey. This will enable greater triangulation of the data because each method addresses sub-sets of the same evaluation questions. The findings will be validated or refuted by the other techniques. This, together with the documentary evidence, including project reports and evaluations provided by USAID and collected by the Evaluation Team, will prove especially helpful because of the potential challenges the Evaluation Team may encounter in establishing causal links between its collected results (from its KIIs, FGDs, and survey data) and USAID’s programming, as well as in obtaining accurate information from beneficiaries on programs that may have ended several years ago. The Team will use methodological triangulation as needed among its range of data collection instruments to strengthen the potential linkages and accuracy of its data if, for example, the results obtained through, its FGDs are inconclusive but those gleaned through its KIIs are stronger. We will also be using video interviews with representatives of beneficiary communities to provide powerful visual “stories” of USAID’s program impacts, and to verify and corroborate the KII, FGD and survey findings. The Team will employ a number of data analysis methods to identify key findings from the collected data and draw conclusions and make recommendations on maintaining the positive results of USAID’s programming, potentially leveraging these positive results within future programming. The type of analyses will depend on the specific data being assessed (e.g., content analysis for qualitative KII and FGD data and statistical analysis for quantitative survey data), although several methods can be used for both quantitative and qualitative data. These methods may include the following: A. Content Analysis – Content analysis is a method in the social sciences for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of the content of empirical documentation, particularly those of written texts and interviews. Content analysis methods enable researchers to digest textual information and systematically identify its properties, and can be categorized as either “conceptual” or “relational” content analysis. “Conceptual” content analysis begins with identifying research questions and choosing a sample or samples to determine if particular concepts occur in the text and how often these concepts occur. “Relational” content analysis examines the relationships among concepts in a text, and is intended to discern patterns among interrelated concepts that reflect (conscious or subconscious) perceptions of reality. Textual data must be placed into manageable content categories using either method. In the context of the evaluation, content analysis will entail a blend of these approaches based on the Evaluation Team’s intensive review of collected project reports, as well as KII and FGD data to identify and highlight notable examples of program successes (or failures) that contributed to (or inhibited) USAID’s peace and recovery efforts in the north. This method will be closely tied to the Evaluation Team’s use of other techniques, such as those described in ‘Case Studies’ above, to identify examples of the most significant changes to which these programs contributed. As with the other qualitative methods cited below, the Evaluation Team will organize data from KIIs and FGD by key evaluation questions and sub-questions. Research Teams will analyze this data for emerging themes and transfer 143 relevant sections from internal site visit reports to a master Excel spreadsheet file for further analysis. The results of these interviews will be triangulated with project reports, previous evaluations and household survey data. B. Contribution Analysis – Contribution Analysis is an approach for assessing and inferring causality in program evaluations. It provides evidence and a line of reasoning for drawing conclusions as to whether the NU programs have contributed to positive, documented results as expressed by performance indicators or broader social indicators. Such analysis will be most useful in confirming programs’ theories of change (TOCs). As the SOW notes that many of the key strategic documents for Northern Uganda during the designated timeframe did not include such TOCs, the Evaluation Team will only employ contribution analysis where these exist or in consultation with the COR, to retroactively create such TOCs in order to strengthen its ability to assess the degree to which program results have been achieved. C. Trend Analysis – Trend analysis will enable the Evaluation Team to examine different NU interventions’ indicators over time to identify patterns of convergence or divergence of activity outcomes toward the project’s objectives. A unique aspect of the design for the qualitative research Team is that four senior researchers and eight qualitative research assistants have blocked out one day a week for whole-group meetings (these will be coupled with time for paired writing sessions for research assistants) in which all researchers will discuss emerging trends in the research that will serve to further develop key themes and further refine the organization of the report findings. The evaluation plan allocates further time, after the field work has been completed, for ‘gap-filling’, including for further systematization of data and for follow-up and interviews, and other data collection efforts including identification of longitudinal and comparative social indicator data. D. Gap Analysis – Gap analyses by the Team will examine which aspects of USAID’s programs in the North, if any, fell short during the time period between anticipated and actual performance and the likely factors behind these gaps. E. Statistical Analysis – Data collected as part of the household survey using smartphone “real-time transmission” will be analyzed utilizing SPSS software. The statistical study will document core demographic data, including information on age and gender of household respondents, allowing for further analysis by respondent type. Several statistical methods may be used to analyze the Team’s survey data depending on the scope and understanding sought. Likely descriptive statistical methods to be used in studying our sample population (i.e., a representative sample of all beneficiaries of USAID Northern Ugandan assistance) will at least include frequency distributions and measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, median, and mode), as well as graphical representations of this data. Inferential statistics, such as linear regression analysis, may also be used to extrapolate our sample data findings to the broader population (i.e., all beneficiaries of USAID Northern Ugandan assistance), and to make inferences about how the various needs of beneficiaries were met by interventions. As described below, there are two potential obstacles that will be taken into consideration: respondent ability to recall information (e.g. due to memory lapses, inexact recollection of time periods, etc.), and positive response bias.  Strategic and Performance Information – As USAID/Uganda notes in its SOW for this evaluation, many of the key strategic documents for USAID during the designated timeframe lacked theories of change (e.g., 2007-2010 Strategy) and/or results frameworks, indicators 144 and baseline data, although some data on social indicators—although varied in quality and reliability—does exist and will be used as appropriate. The Evaluation Team will use available documentation and other information obtained during the course of interviews with USAID and IP staff to analyze program activities and look for common aims and trends across programs.  Causality – Establishing attribution of impact to USAID’s Northern Ugandan program activities and the activities themselves is likely to be very challenging, as peace and stability interventions are multi-faceted and it is likely that there were multiple causes contributing to any improvements in the conflict environment. As a key example, beneficiaries, particularly if they are located in areas in which non-USAID activities were implemented, may attribute any positive changes to a blend of activities or infrastructure projects and may credit positive changes in perception to other events or conditions that were outside of the focus of these USAID-supported programs. The Evaluation Team will seek to understand and address this challenge by utilizing pragmatic techniques for assessing the degree of correlation and contribution rather than causality between USAID Northern Uganda activities and improved perceptions of peace and stability.  Recollection and/or Bias – When the Team is able to locate and interview and/or survey beneficiaries, they will be asked questions about projects that may have been implemented beginning as far back as seven years ago and which may have ended a number of years ago as well. Perceptions of events can change over time and the ability to recollect specific details can fade. Because of – or in addition to – recollection issues, interviewees may not be truly representative of the broader beneficiary population and could be subject to bias (as could the interviewers themselves). IBTCI will interview as many relevant key informants and conduct as many FGDs as necessary within the allotted evaluation period to triangulate responses and increase confidence in the validity of the evaluation findings. The Evaluation Team’s use of purposive sampling will help ensure that selected key informants or FGD participants are representative of the broader beneficiary population. The Evaluation Team will provide an objective, rigorous set of interview guides and findings to prevent interviewer bias. Evaluation Constraints, Mitigation Methods, and Ethical Considerations Evaluation Constraints and Mitigation This evaluation faces numerous constraints. The first and largest constraint is the sheer volume of materials, both primary and secondary, due to the large scope of the evaluation. To deal with the extremely complex issues required of this evaluation, we have put together a management plan that involves not only IBTCI consultant staff and IPSOS staff, but is very inclusive of other important partners. These include the secondment of a statistician from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) Management and Evaluation Commission; the participation of USAID technicians such as the GIS specialists and others; and the support of backstop IBTCI technical staff. Additionally USAID, as part of its interest in building broader country evaluation capacity and to help with quality assurance, will have recruited a supplemental, evaluation-experienced Ugandan specialist (a member of the Ugandan Evaluation Association that USAID supports), who will provide additional guidance in the training of both the qualitative and or quantitative enumerators and research assistants to ensure that effective interviewing and documentation skills are transferred; will participate in the review and update of data collection tools; will assist 145 in monitoring of field data collection and social indicators, and will provide comments on draft and final reports. Two other constraints that may be expected are issues related to participant recall and to positive response bias. In terms of recall, because several of the interventions occurred as long as eight years in the past, it is likely that respondents may focus on recent interventions such as NUDEIL or NU-HITES, which are currently being implemented, rather than on the previous interventions. Moreover, because projects were implemented by a variety of IPs, both local and international, it is likely that many respondents may not realize that these projects were funded by USAID, despite more recent efforts to ensure “branding” through the use of USAID logos and other means. For these reasons, the Evaluation Team has developed a number of strategies that allow it to trace interventions to specific projects whenever possible. Response bias is a general term for a range of cognitive biases that influence participants in a way that their responses are not an accurate or truthful response. These biases are prevalent in studies and research that involve structured interviews or surveys, and can cause threats to validity. For this reason, particular care will be given to the phrasing of questions in surveys and training on techniques related to the demeanor of the researcher, so that s/he does not appear to be eliciting a particular response or to be soliciting participants to be “good experimental subjects” by providing socially desirable responses.79 Particular emphasis is therefore placed on training researchers to be aware of response bias and the effect can have on their research.80 A further constraint is largely logistical. Because the Teams will be working during the rainy season, some delays can be expected, particularly with the household survey. The household survey and qualitative Teams have developed alternate sites to be interviewed should roads at the primary sites become impassible. Ethical Considerations: Permission to conduct study activities will be sought from the relevant district and sub-county authorities. The Evaluation Team will deliver letters that have been written by USAID to these authorities informing them of the exercise. Questions of consent and confidentiality: The purpose of the performance evaluation will be explained to all participants when they are being invited to participate. Verbal informed consent will be obtained from all participants using their preferred local language. In addition, all interview data will be recorded on forms with identification numbers only. All interview data will be treated as confidential and participants will be made to appreciate that they may refuse to answer any question that they do not wish to answer; stop the interview at any time; and withdraw from the study/evaluation at any time. 79 See for example, Furnham, A (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual differences 7. 385-400 80 See for example, Nederhof, A (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. European Journal of Social Psychology 15. 263-280. Nederhof argues that social desirability is one of the most common sources of bias affecting the validity of experimental and survey research findings, and that social desirability results from two separate factors: “self￾deception” and “other-deception.” Methods for coping with social desirability include those aimed at the detection and measurement of social desirability bias and methods to prevent or reduce social desirability bias in the design and administration of the questionnaire and the selection of interviewers. Nederhof found no “magic bullet,” in that no single method works completely and under all conditions in coping with both other-deceptive and self-deceptive social desirability bias; rather, a combination of prevention (in the design, selection of interviewers, and administration phases) and detection methods (post-collection analysis) offer the best means for controlling for social desirability response bias. 146 During analysis, these data will be coded using identification numbers to protect participant identifiers. The entire research Team will take extra precautions to ensure the protection of respondents’ rights. Further all video respondents will be advised of their right to refrain from participating in filming and will sign waivers to ensure that they authorize the use of their images in any final video production. Management and Personnel The Evaluation Team is led by Dr. Michael Midling, who is the primary point of contact with USAID/Uganda, and is supported by a deputy Evaluation Team Leader (Dr. Paul Bukuluki), a senior associate from Makerere University (Dr. Eric Awich Ochen) and one from Gulu University (Mr. Robert Okeny). Dr. Ochen and Mr. Okeny are native Luo speakers. All members of the Evaluation Team conduct KII interviews and supervise the work of the research assistants and enumerators. Additionally, we have assembled a small group of local, short-term researchers. Specifically we have recruited eight (8) Luo-speaking research assistants, many of whom are Makerere University post-graduate students, for the focus group discussions. We have drawn from the Evaluation Team’s extensive and complimentary sector and research experience in such fields as public health, governance, education, protection of women and children, and conflict mitigation to inform our design and implementation of the Evaluation Team’s research methodology. IBTCI Home Office technical and management support includes an Evaluation Director, Robert Grossman, who provides guidance and feedback to the field team remotely, an Evaluation Coordinator, Susan Kupperstein, who supports team mobilization, coordination of activities, and quality control, and a Peace and Conflict Advisor, Mr. Simon Richards who will be based outside of Uganda. Ipsos Uganda, a survey company, has recruited approximately 25 experienced enumerators/interviewers and five supervisors to conduct the household survey. The Evaluation Team has recruited eight native Luo speaking graduate students and university lecturers as research assistants for the qualitative portion of the study, and experienced native Luo-speaking enumerators. This serves both to leverage their unique understanding of the region – as residents of Gulu and the six other Northern Uganda districts that will be the focus of this evaluation – and to help strengthen their research/evaluation capacity, which will in turn bolster that capacity within one of the major universities in Gulu, the district with the largest concentration of USAID and PRDP projects. Professional videographers from the highly acclaimed CELSO company (whose director, Ms. Brenda Onyutta, was cited by USAID Frontline as one of the 10 best in visual documentation in 2010) will take still photographs and videos to collect visual evidence to verify project activity and, more importantly, to corroborate impacts on the community. Videos and photographs may also be used to demonstrate the positive legacy of USAID activities that are still yielding benefits today. Tangible examples of these programs – e.g., utilization of improved infrastructure and/or roads, contributions of new agricultural tools – will be photographed wherever possible. USAID & OPM Participation –During the training and pilot phase, the Evaluation Team will be accompanied by Richard Okello, the Mission’s GIS specialist, who will guide the site selection process and will conduct field mapping. A Government of Uganda (GOU) representative from 147 the Office of the Prime Minister’s Evaluation Unit, Mr. David Wamala is also participating in all aspects of field work, including conducting KIIs and participating in FGDs and the monitoring of the survey Team. Additionally USAID, as part of its learning initiative, has begun recruitment of a technical specialist, Mr. Richard Kibombo, who will assist the Evaluation Team by providing additional guidance in the training of both the qualitative and/or quantitative enumerators and research assistants to ensure that effective interviewing and documentation skills are transferred. Mr. Kibomobo will also participate in the review and update of data collection tools, assist in monitoring of field data collection, and provide comments on draft and final reports. Table 7: Roles and Responsibilities Matrix Evaluation Team Member Role Evaluation Team Member Responsibilities Team Leader: Dr. Michael Midling Dr. Midling is primary point of contact with USAID/Uganda in the field; serves as the lead author of the draft and final evaluation reports; assigns and coordinates all Team member roles and responsibilities, as well as workflow and tasks to ensure that Team members are working on schedule; leads development of the evaluation’s work plan, time line, methodology, data collection and analysis tools; supervises and conducts KIIs and other data collection processes; helps analyze and synthesize field data; and leads preparation and presentation of all briefings to USAID. Deputy Team Leader: Dr. Paul Bukuluki Dr. Bukuluki will assist the Team Leader in coordinating and supervising the Team members’ work and ensuring that the deliverables are produced on time, within the agreed budget, and of high quality; will interview certain key informants, produce and finalize evaluation tools, train and supervise data collection requirements, help analyze and synthesize field data, and co-author the draft and final reports; will present key parts of all briefings to USAID; helps analyze and synthesize field data as needed; provides expertise to Team on key technical sectors; will supervise and is the primary interface with Team’s sub-contractor (Ipsos) on survey data collection. Senior Research Associate and Content Specialist: Dr. Eric Ochen (Acholi) Dr. Ochen will work closely with IPSOS to help direct the design and implementation of the evaluation’s quantitative methodology and survey tools, including the survey questionnaires, data collection protocols, sampling frame, respondent and site selections, and analysis plan. He will also provide country- and sector-based expertise to Team; conduct data collection, analysis and synthesis of field data, and will write and/or provide input on key pieces of the draft evaluation report as needed in addition to note-taking & translation. Local Qualitative Research Associate: Robert Okeny (Acholi) Provides country- and sector-based expertise to Team; conducts data collection, analyzes and synthesizes field data, and writes and/or provides input on key pieces of the draft evaluation report as needed; note-taking & translation. Evaluation Director: Robert Grossman (U.S.-based Position) Provides overall technical and management oversight, to include methodological guidance; and quality control. Provides guidance on data-collection instruments; analysis plans; presentations; draft reports; and, quality control on all deliverables to USAID/Uganda. Technical Backstop: Mr. Simon Richards (Australia-based) As a highly qualified peace and conflict expert on the Team, provides technical and management support, include methodological guidance, and quality control. Provides guidance on data-collection instruments; analysis plans; presentations; and draft and final reports. Evaluation Coordinator: Susan Kupperstein (U.S.-based Position) Provides evaluation technical and administrative support to include data collection instrument development; logistics support (e.g., hotel/transportation), tracking of LOE, processing of invoices/reimbursements, layout/formatting for reports as needed. Logistic Coordinator: Alex Bagabo (Uganda-based) Provides all Uganda-based logistic and administrative support to include tracking of calendar and monitoring of timelines; logistics support (e.g., hotel/transportation), acquisitions, tracking and preparation of expenses and reimbursements, layout/formatting for reports as needed. 148 DISSEMINATION PLAN Knowledge Repository: After providing USAID/Kampala with a copy of the final report, USAID, or at the discretion of USAID, IBTCI will upload the final report and all appendices to the Development Experience Clearinghouse. IBTCI will share data from household surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions on the type of storage disk (i.e., CD/DVD/BD-ROM) requested by the Mission. Report sharing: IBTCI will also provide either links to the site or electronic versions of the final report as attachments to the key stakeholders, as well any others identified by USAID and for whom USAID provides valid email addresses (see table 8 for possible recipients of the final report). Presentations in Uganda: Building on the collaboration between the Evaluation Team and the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) in Kampala, the Evaluation Team Leader has requested that the OPM person seconded to the Evaluation Team arrange meetings with OPM’s Office for Northern Uganda (where technical work on the PRDP is located) and with key members of OPM’s Monitoring and Evaluation Commission. The Evaluation Team Leader, one of the Evaluation Team supervisors, and a qualitative research assistant will also provide de-briefs and reporting to a class of 40 graduate students in public policy and social work at Makerere University, offering students a chance to understand first-hand issues related to data collection and evaluation. The full Evaluation Team will also attend a final debrief session at USAID on Monday, March 12. AEA presentation (pending supplemental funding): Depending on the availability of supplemental resources (above and beyond the current contract), Evaluation Team member(s), including as appropriate the videographer will make presentations at the 2014 American Evaluation Association (AEA) meeting in the U.S. The purpose of the presentation will be two￾fold: Evaluation Team members will present background to USAID’s interventions in NU and key findings (10-15 minutes). The second purpose is to discuss important methodological considerations in conducting large-scale retrospective evaluations. In the AEA presentation, we propose to provide a brief review of the challenges and methodological considerations associated with evaluating complex interventions, present the results of evaluability assessments that were conducted prior to implementing the above evaluations in order to examine and mitigate some of the challenges that could affect these evaluations, discuss the key findings of these two evaluations in light of the challenges described above, and discuss lessons learned and recommendations for designing, managing, and implementing complex interventions. Our proposal is relevant and important to the field of evaluation for three main reasons: First, evaluating complex interventions is a difficult task. Second, there are still limited evaluation designs and methodologies in the field of evaluation that can be applied to complex interventions. Third, the evaluation differs from more “traditional” USAID evaluations which focus on performance mid-term and end-of project evaluations or impact evaluations that focus on narrow components of projects results frameworks. By sharing lessons learned designing and implementing these two evaluations, we hope to contribute to the best practices and lessons learned of evaluating complexity as well as ignite demand for more of these evaluations associated rigorous designs and methodologies. The findings and lessons generated by these two evaluations are also relevant to donors and 149 development practitioners who are interested in learning from successes and failures of their interventions in order to improve their programs and long-term impact and sustainability of their work. Table 8: List of Possible Report Recipients (IBTCI will send via email) Last Name First Name Position/Location Isaacs Coy DCOP for NUDEIL, 2009-2013. Kirigwajjo Moses Uganda Red Cross Society Lakidi Pamela UNDP M&E Officer Abalo Opoka Fionah Human Rights Officer - Education Achan Susan Implementing Partner (Casals & Associates) Akello Josephine Uganda Investigations Officer Alimo Florence USAID/Uganda Amihere Patrick UN Resident Coordinator Northern Region Anyanzo Lenin Simon Peter Coordinator, Uganda Red Cross Society Ayers Elise Former Health and Education Team Lead Bayer Tom AECOM NUPI project Bigirimana Alphonse Africa Bureau Eval Chief Blumhagen Dan Former Uganda Team Leader, PSC in Nigeria now (Retired) Bot James Head of CARE Uganda Bridges Kathleen Previous USAID/UGANDA point of contact; worked alongside Randy Harris Briggs Jeanne Gulu/NUFO Team Leader from 2010-2012 Del Ministro Teresa UNDP Peace Building Coordinator DeMarcken Natasha Former Health and Education Team Lead—2010-2012, Dr Aceng Jane Ruth Director General, Ministry of Health Eckerson David 2009-2012/13 Mission Director for USAID/Uganda. Became Agency Counselor in 2013, recently retired Ellis Margot Retired Mission Director Eslick Nancy Washington, DC, Supervisory USAID Program Officer Gakumba Johnson Bishop for Northern Uganda Diocese and Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative (ARLPI) Chairman Gattorn John Deputy and Country Representative 2010-2011 Gottschalk Christine Former USAID Uganda Team Leader Harris Randy Retired, PRDP and NURD designer, steward and Ugandan reconciliation authority. Hirst Joel Country Representative 2008-2010 Horton Roger Mercy Corps- worked on USAID-funded peace-building project Kamadi Byonabye Regional Human Rights Officer Lelek Julia Mamula Megan (OTI/NUTI Team Lead and Uganda Desk Officer, now in Washington, D.C.) Minty Abraham (OTI/NUTI Team Lead and Uganda Desk Officer, now in Washington, D.C.) Montpellier Rick DC Based Uganda Mission Contact Ocaya Kica Richard UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluation Oguti Moses Program Development officer, USAID/OTI Northern Uganda Transition Iniative Ogwang Nicholas Human Rights Officer - Legal Okello Richard GIS and Database Managment Specialist 150 Olaa Ambrose USAID/Uganda Pryor Tony Senior Programming Officer, PPL Reagan Okumu Ronald Member of Parliament representing Gulu District; Member of Human Rights Committee Reiff Danielle Project Manager for the NUPI Project Stinson Dana USAID/Uganda Todwong Richard President's Advisor on Northern Uganda, Minister and Member of Parliament representing Amuru District Willett Amanda From Implementing Partner (Casals & Associates) Bruno Mwayita Chief Administrative Officer- served in both Gulu and Amuru Abdallah Kiganda Chief Administrative Officer- served in Gulu Mao Norbert Gulu District Chairman Onek Paul Gulu District Health Officer Cingtho Patricia Worked on NUTI project with Cassals, Prosecutor at Directorate for Prosecution Acana II David Onen Rwot, Paramount Chief of Acholi Oketta Kenneth Prime Minister, Acholi Kingdom Mapenduzi Martin Ojara LC 5 Gulu District Chairman (Acholi Sub region) Newton Ojok Honorable Isaac Vice Chairperson LCV Bernard Ogwal Deputy CAO, Gulu Oloya Stephen Principal Assistant Secretary, Gulu Opwonya David Senior Asst. Secretary i/c Omoro Odwar Santa Senior Asst. Secretary i/c Aswa Uma Charles Clerk to Council (Chair DDMC) Tebere Michael Technical Advisor to The District Chairman Luwa John Charles Population Officer Ocen Peter Enock IT Officer Oloya Stephen Ag. Town Clerk Jackson Lakor District Agricultural Officer Ocen Willy Vincent District Educ. Officer Okech Goretti Senior Community Development Officer Ojera Alex District Land Officer Obong Olal District Engineer Nyeko Sam District Water Officer Lamony Akello Jane Chief Finance Officer Africanus Odur Willis Senior Records Officer Oboni Alfonse Principal Personnel Officer Yoweri Idiba Biostatistician Avola Mark Programme Coordinator Gulu NGO Forum /Former Manager with USAID NUTI, Gulu Oruut Jimmy Community Development Officer, Gulu District Manjang Lamin NRC, Country Director Ojera Alex District Land Officer Abdallah Kiganda Chief Administrative Officer- served in Gulu Obong Olal District Engineer Avola Mark Programme Coordinator Gulu NGO Forum /Former Manager with USAID NUTI, Gulu Uma Charles Clerk to Council (Chair DDMC) Okech Goretti Senior Community Development Officer 151 Oloya Stephen Principal Assistant Secretary, Gulu Oloya Stephen Ag. Town Clerk Yoweri Idiba Biostatistician Newton Ojok Honorable Isaac Vice Chairperson LCV Lamony Akello Jane Chief Finance Officer Oketta Kenneth Prime Minister, Acholi Kingdom Jackson Lakor District Agricultural Officer Manjang Lamin NRC, Country Director Luwa John Charles Population Officer Mao Norbert Gulu District Chairman Bruno Mwayita Chief Administrative Officer- served in both Gulu and Amuru Tebere Michael Technical Advisor to The District Chairman Oboni Alfonse Principal Personnel Officer Ocen Willy Vincent District Educ. Officer Odwar Santa Senior Asst. Secretary i/c Aswa Bernard Ogwal Deputy CAO, Gulu Mapenduzi Martin Ojara LC 5 Gulu District Chairman (Acholi Sub region) Onek Paul Gulu District Health Officer Acana II David Onen Rwot, Paramount Chief of Acholi Opwonya David Senior Asst. Secretary i/c Omoro Oruut Jimmy Community Development Officer, Gulu District Cingtho Patricia Worked on NUTI project with Cassals, Prosecutor at Directorate for Prosecution Ocen Peter Enock IT Officer Nyeko Sam District Water Officer Africanus Odur Willis Senior Records Officer Omach Hon. Anthony Atube Chairperson LC.V Bigombe Betty Amuru District Representative and Member of Parliament Oola Olam Donato ACAO Nkabala Robert Centre Manager, TASO Gulu, Gulu Regional Hospital Okello JB Olum Senior Community Development Officer/DDMC Chair P'Abur Luis District Engineer, served in both Gulu and Amuru (infrastructure) Luwita Raymond District Engineer Aboye Akena Stephen Biostatistician Adiyo Nestor Lilly District Health Educator Akena Geoffrey Senior Community Development Officer Ogaba Auna Michael District Health Inspector Axuma Geoffrey District Information Officer Apiyo Gladys Clerk to Council Ocitti Odoki Godfrey Chief Finance Officer Ukwir James District Production Officer Olango Joseph Odongpiny District Health Officer Nyeko Geoffrey District Engineer Omara Emmanuel District Natural Resources Officer Opoka Michael James District Community Development Officer Oryema Hon. Okello Patrick District Chairperson Amony Catherine Population Officer /Ag. Planner Lubang Benedict District Engineer 152 Obali Charles Obote Water Officer Obol Okidi Charles Ag/ Education Officer Evaristo Oryema Clerk to Council Omonda Oryono Grandfield CAO Humphrey Otim Benson Secretary District Service Commission/SAS Okeny Dr. Robert Production Officer Okaka Amone Charles DEO Bongomin Samuel District Engineer Balu Dominic Assistant Community Development Officer Okello James P'Okidi OIC CAO`s Office Okello James Population Officer Okello-Okello Honorable J. L. Former Member of Parliament for Chua County, Kitgum District Opu Stella Senior Personnel Officer Oballim Christopher District Education Officer Nyero Laban Ochola District NAADS Coordinator Ocan Jakeo District Community Development Officer Komakech Olwedo Asst. Water Officer Okot Joe District Production Officer Auma Mary Gender Officer 153 ANNEX III-A: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ASSISTANTS GUIDE Name Qualification Research Experience Organizational Experience Jimmy Francis Obonyo MA Public Administration & Management, MA in Democratic Governance and Civil Society, MA Social Sector Planning and Management, BA Social Work and Social Administration He has over 5 years of experience in conducting operational research, monitoring and evaluation of projects in Health related aspects especially sexual and gender based violence, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, TB and other sexual and reproductive health issues. He has experience in participatory, ethnographic, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies Ministry of Gender Labour and social development, Expanding Social Protection Programme (ESP). Institute of Reproductive (IRH) George Town University and Applied Research Bureau. Odokonyero Joel MA Development Studies, BA Social Science, Certificate in Research Ethics Makerere College of Health Science He has over 7 years of experience in project management, conducting operational research, monitoring and evaluation of projects in Health related aspects especially sexual and gender based violence, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, TB and other sexual and reproductive health issues. He has experience in participatory, ethnographic, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies Ministry of Gender Labour and social development, Expanding Social Protection Programme (ESP); Institute of Reproductive (IRH) George Town University; Applied Research Bureau; Save the Children International; Makerere University College of Health Science, School of Medicine￾Amolatar. Oola Simon Peter BA. Social Science; Currently Persuing masters in medical anthropology Gulu University He has over 7 years of experience in project management and conducting qualitative and Quantitative research Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development, Expanding Social Protection Programme (ESP). Institute of Reproductive (IRH) George Town University; Applied Research Bureau; Oversee Development Institute/SAGE-ESP programme Amony Caroline BA Social Science She over 5 years of experience in conducting operational research, monitoring and evaluation of projects in Health related aspects especially sexual and gender based violence, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS and sexual and reproductive health issues. He has experience in participatory, ethnographic, qualitative and quantitative Institute of Reproductive (IRH) George Town University Applied Research bureau LTD, USAID Uganda Community Connector; Makerere University and University of Oslow Norway 154 research methodologies Achiro Prossy MA Social Sector Planning and Management, BA Social work and Social Administration She has 3 years of experience in conducting operational research, monitoring and evaluation of projects in Health related aspects especially sexual and gender based violence, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS and sexual and reproductive health issues. He has experience in participatory, ethnographic, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies Institute of Reproductive (IRH) George Town University, Applied Research Bureau. Uganda Red Cross Society Save the Children Uganda Human Rights Focus (HURIFO)and Human Rights Network Uganda, Infectious Disease Institute (IDI) Phiona Alanyo Bachelor’s degree in social development (Makerere University) Currently pursuing a master’s degree in Social sector planning and management from Makerere University She has 3 years of exprince in extensive research activities for the both qualitative and quantitative. Makerere Univeristy Department of Social Work, Infectous Disease Institute (IDI), Uganda Red Cross, SocietySave the Children Uganda, Human Rights Focus (HURIFO) and Human Rights Network Uganda Okello Robert Hosea BA Social Science He has about 2 years of experience in conducting Qualitave and Quantitative research Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development; Department of SWSA Makerere University; Reev Consult International; Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development 155 ANNEX III-B: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ENUMERATORS GUIDE Angela Opai Bachelor of Art in Mass Communication UCU ACODE, Vision Group Onek Patrick Bachelor in Public administration GULU UNDP Nyeko Geofrey Bachelor of in Education GULU Vision Group Akello Resty Bachelor in Public administration GULU World Vision Emagu Apollo Jacob Bachelor in Public administration GULU Feed Children, Muk, World Vision and NUMAT Omony Micheal Bachelor in Public administration GULU NUMAT, MUK, UNDP Onen Martine Bachelor Of Information Technology GULU HIDO, HEIFER,World Vision Laker Jackline Bachelor Business Administration GULU UNDP, Save The Chidren, A.O Consultants LTD, HIDO, Heifer International and VISO Atim Monica Bachelor in Development Studies GULU New Vision and Excit Consultancy Firm Akello Immaculte Bachelor of Management Science Kyambog o World Vision Akello Scovia Bachelor of Management Science Kyambog o World Vision, Gulu District Local Government, Pepsi Komakech Emmy Bachelor of Procurement and Logistic Management Kyambog o Ipsos and Gulu Hospital Apio Marion Bachelor of Development Studies MUK PHRC, Lira District Local Gov't and Marriestope Akello Jacline Bachelor in social work and Social Administration MUK Ipsos and Makerere University Otim Erick Bachelor Science in Construction Management MUK Ipsos, Agira Constraction Co. LTD Robert Akena Bachelor in social work and Social Administration Mbarara Jica, War Child Holland, Feed The Children and Mbarara University Abank Lilian Bachelor in Development Studies Mbarara Makerere University Adokorach Brenda Bachelor in Development Studies KIU Ipsos and Makerere University Akene Denis Bachelore Science in Agriculture KIU Ipsos Opiyo Amos Bachelor of Science in Accounting and Finance St. Lawrance Uni Ipsos Otukene Patrick Diploma in purchasing and supplies Mgt UCC Soroti Ipsos, Makerere University and Uganda Clays LTD Lukwiya Caroline Bachelor in Public administration GULU Gulu University Adokorach Joyce Diploma In Secretarial and Information Mgt GULU Gulu University Ochaya Tonny Diploma In Business Administration NUIBS Vision Group Wanyai paul Diploma In statistics Nkumba Ipsos and ACCORD 156 ANNEX III-C: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW (KII) GUIDE FOR DISTRICT [SUB-COUNTY] OFFICIALS AND TECHNICIANS (ENGLISH ONLY) (This guide will be used by senior members of the Evaluation Team) Date: ___________________________ District: __________________ Name of respondent: _________________________________________ Designation: ________________________________________________ Background USAID has commissioned this performance evaluation of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda (NU) from 2006 to 2011. The aim of this evaluation is to assess USAID contributions to the peace, stability and recovery of Northern Uganda. It will be conducted in the 7 districts of Acholi sub-region. We will not identify you by your name in the transcript nor in the main report that will be written. You will only be identified by your position and the level of government at which you work. We take this opportunity to request you to participate in the discussion which should last no more than one and half hours. We thank you very much for your kindness to participate in the study. 01. Background information on respondent (gauge degree of involvement in the period / region under study):  ........................................................ Length of time working in district  ........................................................ Previous position  ........................................................ Other relevant information (i.e., was working in area when USAID activities were being implemented) 02. What were the major events that defined the northern Uganda conflict? Probe: major timelines, events and phases of the conflict? 03. How were people in northern Uganda affected after the conflict? Probes:  How were internally displaced people affected by the return process? Were there differences for women, men, girls, and boys?  ........................................................ What were the major needs of the population (For young women? For young men? For older women? For older men)? Did these needs vary over time? 04. What types of projects contributed to most to peace and stability in the region after the end of the conflict? Probes:  Which of these would you describe as most helpful in addressing the humanitarian assistance needs, resettlement/transition and development needs of northern Uganda and why?  What types of interventions were least helpful? 157  How effective were these interventions in meeting needs of returning populations? In contributing to peace and recovery efforts?  ........................................................ Do you feel that these activities were cost effective? Were they timely?  Have there been any sustainable benefits from these projects? (e.g., strengthened implementing partner capacity; direct benefits to residents).  ........................................................ What do you think the situation might be like today if no projects had taken place? (If respondent mentioned USAID interventions, probe further as necessary for USAID contributions. As appropriate, ask respondents for comparisons between USAID and other donor efforts.) 05. How did projects, and those funded by USAID in particular, contribute to helping people resettle and cope over the long term? Did USAID projects help keep the peace? Probe for mitigation of impacts of the violent conflict; assisting in the establishment or consolidation of democratic institutions; strengthening civil society and respect for human rights; facilitating reconciliation; fostering resumption of basic economic activity. 06. Do you think projects have kept pace with the needs people have in the North? Probe for whether programs have adapted to the evolving context in northern Uganda? (If yes, how? If not, why not?) 07. What kinds of issues have made it easier or harder for projects to meet the most important needs of people in the North? 08. What donor effort best contributed to the stabilization of northern Uganda in the post￾conflict setting? What else could have been done? 09. What are most important lessons learned in respect to donor (in particular, USAID) support to Northern Uganda for the period 2006-2011 in the humanitarian, transition and development phase? 10. What, if any, would you describe as innovative features or best practices of donor activity? 11. Recommendations. What actionable programming suggestions do you have for donors so as to inform decision making about future conflict mitigations programs in northern Uganda or elsewhere? 158 ANNEX III-D: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARIES USAID has commissioned a performance evaluation of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda (NU) from 2006 through 2011. It will be conducted in the 7 districts of Acholi sub region. We will not identify you by your name in the transcript nor in the main report that will be written. We take this opportunity to request you to participate in the discussion which should last no more than one and half hours. We thank you very much for your kindness to participate in the study. Before beginning the interviews, research assistants will conduct a brief individual background interview, recording information on a form that will have space for name of all participants and village, parish and sub-county, if individual had been interned in an internally displaced camps or other forced to live in another location; approximate time returned. This will provide background and help to gauge how long villagers have been resettled from the displacement (mainly relevant for the rural communities). 1. How were people here negatively affected by the conflict?  When was the conflict most severe?  Who were most affected (e.g., women, children, youth, elderly).  How were these groups affected? 2. Did you live in (IDP) camps? If so, can you describe your movements from the camps to your current village or neighbourhood?  What kind of help, if any, did you receive in the camp? On your way back home? After settling home?  Was your return a one-off or there were several phases of the journey back home?  What are your feelings about the return process?  Was there a difference in how women, children and men were affected by the return process? What about persons with disabilities (PWD)? 3. What were the main needs of people in this village in the period after the conflict ended? 4. What types of projects helped meet your needs?  Which of these would you describe as most helpful in addressing your needs? Why?  Were there any projects or other assistance that were not helpful to you during the five or so years after the conflict ended? 5. What activities have been carried out in your community as a result of foreign aid? (Probe for any knowledge of U.S. assistance) 6. Did you receive any help with the following:  Gaining your livelihood? Was help different in any way for men or women? What about PWD?  Health problems? (Interviewers: Probe for project names to determine if any answers were related to USAID interventions. Make use of the matrix showing USAID interventions by project and sectors).  Water or sanitation? (same as probe above).  Access to justice, reconciliation? (same as above) 159 7. How if at all did this help you to reintegrate into your current community?  What could have been done better? 8. During the 5 or 6 years after the war ended, what other benefits did you receive as a result of foreign aid (Probe for USAID supported interventions)? 9. What activities that helped after you returned and are still on-going? (Probe for foreign aid from some of the USAID projects already mentioned in the discussions above) 10. Did foreign aid (external assistance), including that from the US contribute to northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? If so how?  Did this aid contribute to addressing the perceived root causes of the conflict in NU? If yes, how? If no, why not 11. What do you think are the key challenges to helping you live normal lives after the conflict? In which ways could donor support have been better? 160 ANNEX III-E: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARIES (LUO) USAID has commissioned a performance evaluation of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda (NU) from 2006/07 to 2011/12. It will be conducted in the 7 districts of Acholi sub region. We will not identify you by your name in the transcript nor in the main report that will be written. We take this opportunity to request you to participate in the discussion which should last no more than one and half hours. We thank you very much for your kindness to participate in the study. An nyinga…….. Wa bino bot wu kany me nywako tam kwed wu ma lube ki lok me kony ma lobe ma woko gi obedo ka miyo ne I kumalo me Uganda ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2012. Wa tamo ni ka wa nywako tam kacel kwed wu, ci wa bi neno kama jami owoto maber onyo marac. Medo ikom meno bene, wa bi neno kit ma gwok ki twero yubo kit ma umii kony twero miyo kwede kony man iyoo ma opore. Kit meno dong, wa Waco bot wu ni obed agonya. Tam ducu wa bi tero ne calo gin ma pii gi tek. Me agiki, wa cike bot wu ni nying ngat moo keken pe bi nen I coc ma megawa. Before beginning the interviews, research assistants will conduct a brief individual background interview, recording information on a form that will have space for names of all participants and village, parish and sub-county, if individual had been interned in an internally displaced camps or other forced to live in another location; approximate time returned. This will provide background and help to gauge how long villagers have been resettled from the displacement (mainly relevant for the rural communities). Also remember to do an ice breaker before you start the discussion. Talk about whether or any other thing 1. How were people here negatively affected by the conflict? Kit yoo ango ma kwo pa dano oloke iye ma calo adwogi me lweny eni.  When was the conflict most severe? Lwenyi obedo ma tek loyo ikara mene?  Who were most affected (e.g., women, children, youth, elderly). Anga gi; onyo wit joo mene ma lwenyi odiyo gi me ni kato? (Mon, lutino, jo mu tegi)  How were these groups affected? Dong kwayi joo ma owaco ni, lweny okelo aloka loka iyoo mene i kom gi? 2. Did you live in (IDP) camps? If so, can you describe your movements from the camps to your current village or neighbourhood? In ibedo i camp/kema? Ka ibedo iromo tito it wa kit ma i woto i dwogo kwede kany  What kind of help, if any, did you receive during encampment? On your way back home? After settling home? Kit kwayi kony ango ma inongo, ikara ma itye i camp, ikare me dok paco ki ikare ma dong itye paco?  Was your return a one-off or there were several phases of the journey back home? 161 Dwogo ni gang obedo lawange acel onyo idwogo nucu nucu?  How were you affected by the return process? Aloka loka ango ma obedo tye ikwo ni ma lube ki lok me dok gang?  Was there a difference in how women, children and men were affected by the return process? I kit macalo dok cen gang okelo aloka loka i kwo pa dano, gwok aloka loka magi obedo pat pat ikin mon, coo ki lutino? 3. What were the main needs of people in this village in the period after the conflict ended? Jami ango ma pigi tego ma onongo mite pi kwo pa dano ikara ma dong ping okwee? 4. Can you identify activities that have been carried out in your community as a result of foreign aid? (Probe for any knowledge of U.S. assistance) Iromo waca tic, yub mapat pat ma obedo ka time bot wu kany macalo adwogi me kony ma aa ki woko. (Pyen pi ngec ikom kony pa USAID) 5. Did you receive any help with the following: Inongo kony mo ma lube ki; Gaining your livelihood? Was help different in any way for men or women? Yoo ma mon/coo nongo kwede yoo me kwo gi nino ki nino?  Health problems? (Interviewers: Probe for project names to determine if any answers were related to USAID interventions. Make use of the matrix showing USAID interventions by project and sectors). Peko me yot kom (Peny pi nying project)  Water or sanitation? (same as probe above). Lok me pii ki lengo.  Access to justice, reconciliation? (same as above) Yoo me gwoko twero, ngol matir ki lok me ribo wat onyo mato oput?  How if at all did this help you to reintegrate into your current community? Jami magi okonyo wu nining i kit me bedo wu gang kany kombedi?  What could have been done better? Kit yoo ango ma onongo ki twero tiyo yub magi maber loyo? 6. In what ways did foreign assistance address the needs of other specific groups like the ex militia, ex combatants, former abductees and wives of former rebel commanders? Kit yoo ango ma kony ma aa ki woko okonyo me cobo peko pa kwayi joo ma calo joo ma gu bedo a tic me mony, lulweny alibu macon, joo ma ki mako gi ilum wa ki mon onyo anyira ma gu bedo mon pa lumony pa LRA? 7. During the 5 or 6 years after the war ended, what other benefits did you receive as a result of foreign aid (Probe for USAID supported interventions)? 162 Inge mwaka abic onyo abicel inge lweny, kony mene mukene ma wun onongo ma aa ki woko (peny pi kony ma aa ki bot America) 8. Have there been any sustainable benefits from the foreign aid you received? (Probe for foreign aid from some of the USAID projects already mentioned in the discussions above) Ikin jami ma wu nongo ni mene ma rii/konyo wu pi kare malac. (Peny pi kony ma aa ki USAID) 9. Did foreign aid (external assistance), including that from the US contribute to northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? If so how? Jami/kony ma aa ki woko eni otimo ngo i kelo kuc, ki ber bedo wa ki roco kwo itung ku malo me Uganda.  Did this aid contribute to addressing the perceived root causes of the conflict in NU? If yes, how? If no, why not Kony man aa ki woko eni okonyo cobo gin ma wun otamo ni okelo kuku itung ku malo me Uganda? Ka okony, okony nining? Ka pe pingo? 10. What do you think are the key challenges to helping you live normal lives after the conflict? Peki ango ma utamo ni gengo dano me kwo i yoo maber inge lwenyi? 11. In which ways could donor support have been better? Iyoo ango ma ono ki romo miyo kony ma aa ki woko eni iyoo mapat dok maber? 12. Do you think the government continue the process of development in Northern Uganda? Utamo ni gamente twero kubu anyim yub me dongo lob i kumalo me Uganda? 163 ANNEX III-F: PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH TOOLS Community Vulnerability Mapping Tool Date______________ Time__________________ District_____________ Profile of participants_____________ Designation____________________ Interviewer____________________ Note Taker______________________ The vulnerability mapping focuses on the four evaluation questions 1. What was the contribution of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda peace and recovery efforts? 2. How effective have the USAID program and project management and implementation approaches been in supporting the achievement of project objectives? 3. To what extent were USAID/Uganda strategies and interventions designed, implemented and adapted to address Northern Uganda´s evolving conditions? 4. From the findings, what recommendations can the evaluation make regarding USAID/Uganda´s programming intentions in Northern Uganda? QUESTIONS i) Community understanding of vulnerability ii) Introduce the focus group to the conflict, major events/phases of the conflict and start the vulnerability mapping Phases of conflict 2002-2006 Active live in the camps 2006-2008 Return process 2008-2011 Transition to old Acholi way of life 2012-2014 Stabilization and development Causes of vulnerability at each stage Who was most vulnerable (choose from women, children, men, elders, disable persons, youth category) and why? Who was middle vulnerable (women, children, men, elders, disable persons, youth) and why? Who was least vulnerable (women, children, men, 164 elders, disable persons, youth) and why? Who were the key actors at various phases of conflict and their contributions in reducing vulnerabilities probe for USAID Gaps in the interventions/what should have been done better? Recommendations for addressing future similar conflict situations At the end of the vulnerability mapping, thank the participant for their time and the information. Wish a safe journey back home. SOCIAL MAPPING TOOL A locally made map indicating where people live, as well as selected household characteristics.  A social map focuses on our most precious resource, people.  Such a map can help us discuss with partners important community features, such as where people live, as well as individual household characteristics (how many children are immunised, how many go to school, etc.)  A social map allows partners to participate in a common exercise which will highlight the number and location of households in their community.  They will also gather information from other community members on particular characteristics of households in the community (depending on the purpose of the exercise: this may be number of children-at school in each household, number of widows in the community, etc).  A social map can be used to start a discussion on how to address various issues in the community (low immunisation coverage for children, tax exemptions for the disadvantaged, etc.)  The location and number of households can be important for a number of planning and monitoring issues, such as location and type of infrastructure, effects of an immunisation programme, etc.  A social map is useful to quickly gather information on household location, composition and selected characteristics (e.g. who goes to school, who has been vaccinated, people with a disability, single-mother households, better-off households, etc.) amongst a partner community.  Such a map can also be useful to create rapport: as partners get involved in locating their own households, closer rapport is created with "outsiders". 165 a. We first need to clarify what is the information sought. Is it children who are orphaned by HIV/AIDS, female-headed households, etc? b. After gathering our partners, we can explain the purpose the exercise and how we would like them to proceed. c. It may be necessary at the outset for partners to define what is meant by a "household" in the locality. d. It is best to use the ground: we start by indicating with a stone.or leaf where we are located (meeting place), adding any salient community feature, such as a school, trading centre, etc. e. We can then discuss how each household will be represented on the map, if using the ground (a seed? a leaf? a stone?), and how selected characteristics will be represented (a little cross for households without a latrine, for instance?) f. We hand over "the stick" to the partners asking them to represent each household and their relevant characteristics. When people have started, let them get on with it, it is their map. g. We can take notes as the discussion progresses. There is plenty to learn, and a list of household names might be needed. h. We can then have copies of the map(s) made on paper for future use. Let the partners make a copy for themselves.  A social map can be used for a variety of planning purposes—for example, to locate a small bridge, measuring distances to households.  A social map can also generate quantified information which can be  Used for monitoring and evaluation purposes (e.g. the number of households with access to safe water before and after a water source protection exercise.)  If there are many households in the community, do have the map made by several groups. It might also be advisable to draw directly onto paper.  Whenever possible, however, use the ground as an initial step: this will be easier than paper (which often turns out to be too small!), and will foster participation.  Social maps are very useful throughout a community planning and implementation process: do encourage partners to utilise the social map on many occasions to monitor progress.  Depending on the topic at hand, having separate groups of men and women will enhance their participation and give an opportunity to compare different gender perspectives for certain topics.  Do help less confident community members to get involved in the development of the map by indicating where they live themselves.  Do ask your partners questions as the map is being developed and do make sure that there is a good recording system: the information collected might be very detailed. 166 Who are the groups in which we are most interested? For, example, are they children, extended households, etc.?  The purpose the exercise is to discover what salient community is represented  Note all information on paper for future reference in the site visit reports  A social map is usually a sensitive tool for partners: it should therefore be developed only after building good rapport with the community. To understand the current circumstances faced by our partners, it is often very important to analyse past events. A past conflict, the arrival of migrants into a community, cutting down of trees, are examples of past events that may still affect present circumstances. A time line is a very easy way to chart such past events and it can also be used to discuss what our partners' future may look like...  For the same reason, do not therefore be imprecise about the use of the information to be collected through the map: otherwise, partners will suspect other motives (land grabbing or tax collection, for instance).  Do not interview the partners directly, instead "interview the map": ask your questions referring to the map. Resource maps can provide a basis for building a social map. Both can be merged. The route of a Transect walk can be drawn using a social map, to reflect the spatial distribution of certain households, for instance. A Wealth ranking exercise may also use the list of households appearing on a social map. Community indicators might include features appearing on a social map for monitoring purposes. TIME LINE / HISTORICAL PROFILE A useful tool to explore the past with partners, and to project future trends. Constructing a time line will give our partners an opportunity to identify past events and to analyse how these events have shaped the current situation in their community. A time line can also lead to a useful discussion about likely problems and opportunities in the future: this might be relevant to any community action plan. A timeline drawn on the ground will foster participation from many people in the community.  To understand the current circumstances faced by our partners, it is often very important to analyse past events. A past conflict, the arrival of migrants into a community, cutting down of trees, are examples of past events which may still affect present circumstances.  A time line is a very easy way to chart such past events - and it can also be used to discuss what our partners' future may look like... 167  A time line can however give an opportunity for older people to hold "centre stage" during the exercise. Their contribution to the local community will be enhanced and their knowledge better recognised.  A timeline will help "outsiders" discover past events that partners consider important in shaping the life of their community.  Such a discussion can help outsiders facilitate planning sessions that take into account lessons to be drawn from past events. This could include likely future trends and whether these need to be addressed in any action planning.  A timeline is a quick and straightforward tool to foster participation from a large number of people, and to encourage older people to take part in community discussions.  A timeline can also be used specifically to create rapport with older people in the community. The latter, if allowed to take a prominent part in this exercise, will have their knowledge valued.  We first explain the purpose and the use of the tool, in particular why an understanding of the past is important to analyse the present, using simple examples.  We also need to identify people who are knowledgeable about the past, most likely older people (making sure older women are also included...)  We may wish to discuss a particular event or series of events (political events, health epidemics, education-related events, etc.), rather than the general history of the community: the focus of the discussion has to be clear.  We can then draw a long line on the ground with one end representing the distant past and the other the future, with one arbitrary point on the line representing "now".  We then ask partners to place on the line (preferably using a symbol) events that everybody knows and can place chronologically (e.g. independence, the arrival of Amin in power, etc.). These will be used as markers.  The discussion can then be guided towards the topic at hand. Partners can be asked to place on the line, in the right chronological order, various events that are relevant (e.g., the dates of the construction of the first primary school and the storm that destroyed its roof if the topic is education).  We can ask partners to record the discussion themselves, if possible, and help them investigate what are the implications of this discussion for the present. This could lead to the identification of action points. By drawing a long line on the ground, many people will be encouraged to take part.  Do encourage partners to discuss the future.  Do probe for further information after the time line or historical profile has been drawn.  Do encourage participants to discuss lessons learnt as their history is being recounted and to identify implications for the present and any future plans, by focusing on the "now" and "future" sections of the line. 168  Do not insist on all the dates along the line, which respondents might not know: the chronology of events might often be sufficient to reconstruct a community's history. It is then better to questions such as: "Did this event happen soon after these floods you were telling us about?"  Don't exclude older people who might mix-up the chronology or be a little slow, but possibly have unique experiences to recount.  Don't forget to record (or have recorded) the information for later use. Time trends can be used to cross check information generated by a historical profile, by focusing on trends rather than events. Historical transects and maps also help to analyze the past. A number of planning tools - see, for instance, Desired Future Map can be used to follow up a discussion of implications of past events on the present. 169 ANNEX III-G: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (ENGLISH) (Note: the version used in the field is scripted in Luo—see Annex VIII, below and data is collected via smartphone and immediately uploaded to a central database) Serial Number: _ _ _ _ IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS DISTRICT NAME AND CODE: Agago..1, Amuru..2, Gulu..3, Kitgum..4, Nwoya..5, Lamwo..6, Pader..7 SUB COUNTY/DIVISION/TOWN COUNCIL PARISH/WARD VILLAGE URBAN/RURAL (URBAN=1 PERI-URBAN=2 RURAL=3) HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE NUMBER NAME OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD: SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD: (MALE…1 FEMALE…2) NAME OF RESPONDENT: SEX OF RESPONDENT: (MALE…1 FEMALE…2) INTERVIEWER VISITS Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Date: Interviewer Name Result Next visit date: Result codes: 1. Completed 2. No household member or respondent not at home 3. Entire household or respondent absent from home for extended period 4. Postponed 5. Refused 6. Others (specify) Quality Control Accompanied by supervisor Edited by Interviewer Edited by Supervisor Counter-checked by Supervisor Time Start: : Time End: : 170 Time Start: : Time End: : INTRODUCTION Good day, my name is _____________. I’m from Ipsos Uganda and we are conducting an evaluation of the assistance programs to Northern Uganda from 2006 to 2011. The aim of the evaluation is to assess the contributions of the different organizations to the peace, stability and recovery of Northern Uganda. Specifically, the evaluation will seek to establish the contribution; program performance and effectiveness; factors inhibiting or facilitating implementation; program response to the dynamic Ugandan context; and lessons learned and best practices. The study is being conducted in the districts of Agago, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Lamwo, Nwoya and Pader. Therefore, we kindly ask for some of your valuable to time to answer and discuss issues related to this study. Your views will enable the different development partner organizations to understand the impact created as well as develop new strategies for further assistance. We promise that your name and answers will remain confidential. Consent Would you mind helping us by answering a few questions? Yes No INTERVIEWER VISITS Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Date: Interviewer Name Result Next visit date: Result codes: 7. Completed 8. No household member or respondent not at home 9. Entire household or respondent absent from home for extended period 10. Postponed 11.Refused 12. Others (specify) Quality Control Accompanied by supervisor Edited by Interviewer Edited by Supervisor Counter-checked by Supervisor 171 Time Start: : Time Start: : Time End: : Time End: : INTRODUCTION Good day, my name is _____________. I’m from Ipsos Uganda and we are conducting an evaluation of the assistance programs to Northern Uganda from 2006 to 2012. The aim of the evaluation is to assess the contributions of the different organizations to the peace, stability and recovery of Northern Uganda. Specifically, the evaluation will seek to establish the contribution; program performance and effectiveness; factors inhibiting or facilitating implementation; program response to the dynamic Ugandan context; and lessons learned and best practices. The study is being conducted in the districts of Agago, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Lamwo, Nwoya and Pader. Therefore, we kindly ask for some of your valuable to time to answer and discuss issues related to this study. Your views will enable the different development partner organizations to understand the impact created as well as develop new strategies for further assistance. We promise that your name and answers will remain confidential. Consent Would you mind helping us by answering a few questions? Yes Continue to interview No Thank respondent and terminate interview DEMOGRAPHICS A.1: Age 1. 18-24 2. 25-39 3. 40-54 4. 55 years and above A.2: Current Marital Status: (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Married (monogamous) 2. Married (polygamous) 3. Cohabiting 4. Divorced/separated 5. Widowed 6. Single 172 A.3: What is your relationship to the household head? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Head of household 2. Spouse 3. Daughter/son 4. Grand child 5. Parent to head of household 6. Sister/brother 7. Other relative 8. Non-relative 9. Others (specify) A.4: Have you ever attended school? 1. Yes 2. No A.5: If ever attended school, what is your current schooling status? 1. Left school 2. Currently attending school A.6: What is the highest level of education attained? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Nursery/pre-primary 2. Primary 3. O Level 4. A level 5. Diploma course 6. University 7. Apprenticeship 8. Others (specify) A.7: Can you read and write in any language? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Neither able to read nor write 2. Able to read only 3. Able to read and write A.8: What is your current employment status? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Unemployed 2. Self-employed 3. Full-time public employee 4. Part-time public employee 5. Full-time private employee 6. Part-time private employee 173 7. Casual laborer 8. Others specify A.9: What is your current occupation? _____________________________________ CONFLICT IN THE NORTHERN UGANDA Now I would like us to talk about the conflict and instability in the northern Uganda and how it affected the communities. B.1: How were you, your family and this community affected by the conflict in the Northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) 1. Displacement from homes 2. Inability to move safely 3. Sexual violence e.g. rape defilement 4. Abduction 5. Insecurity 6. Increased domestic violence 7. Increased incidence of disease infection 8. Inability to use land 9. Fear of the military and the rebels 10. Breakdown of the customary institutions 11. Breakdown of trust among the communities 12. Breakdown in community cohesion 13. Limited or no communication among families 14. Increased poverty 15. Poor hygiene and sanitation 16. Reduced agricultural productivity 17. Reduced trade activities 18. Death 19. Attacks, Injuries and violence 20. Destruction of infrastructure like roads, health facilities, schools etc 21. Segregation (based on ethnicity) 22. Lack of trust in government 23. Others specify B.2: During the conflict in Northern Uganda, which category of people was most affected? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) a) Women b) Elderly c) Children d) Persons with disabilities e) Youth f) Other specify 174 B.3: Between 2006 and 2012 what were the major challenges affecting the communities as a result of the conflict in northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) 1. Displacement from homes 2. Inability to move safely 3. Sexual violence e.g. rape defilement 4. Abduction 5. Insecurity 6. Increased domestic violence 7. Increased incidence of disease infection 8. Inability to use land 9. Fear of the military and the rebels 10. Breakdown of the customary institutions 11. Breakdown of trust among the communities 12. Breakdown in community cohesion 13. Limited or no communication among families 14. Increased poverty 15. Poor hygiene and sanitation 16. Reduced agricultural productivity 17. Reduced trade activities 18. Death 19. Attacks, Injuries and violence 20. Destruction of infrastructure like roads, health facilities, schools etc 21. Segregation (based on ethnicity) 22. Lack of trust in government 23. Increase in Land conflicts 24. Environmental degradation 25. Others specify INFORMATION ON IDPs B.4a: Have you or any member of this household ever lived/stayed in an IDP camp? 1. Yes 2. No B.4b: If yes to B.4a; Please tell me the name of the camp(s) where you or any of your household members used to live. B.5: If yes to B.4a; in which year did you or any member of this household start living the IDP camp? Which year did you or any member of the household leave the camp? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ 175 B.6: If yes to B.4a; What were the reasons that led you or any member of this household to start living in the camp? (MULTIPLE MENTION)  To avoid abductions  Fear of attack and violence  Government’s request to join camp  To have access to facilities and help (e.g. food, health services, education etc)  Others specify B.7a: What factors contributed to people resettling from IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) a) Promises by the government b) Displacement of the rebels from northern Uganda by the UPDF c) Stability in northern Uganda d) Poor services or environment in the camp e) Interventions by development organizations f) Others specify B.7b: If yes to B.4a: Specifically, what factors contributed to you or your household members resettling from IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) a) Promises by the government b) Stability in the region c) Poor services or environment in the camp d) Interventions by development organizations e) Others specify B.8a: If yes to B.4a: Before moving to the camps(s), were you and your household members originally living at the current place of residence? 1. Yes 2. No B.8b: If yes to B.8a; From the IDP camps did you or your household members return directly to the current place you are residing at? 1. Yes 2. No B.8c: If no in B.8b, how do you describe the return process? a) First settled directly in another area before moving here b) Settled here but returning to the IDP camp whenever required c) Others specify 176 B.9: ASK ALL: In your opinion, who was MOST IMPORTANT stakeholder that facilitated the return to villages by the people from the IDP camps? (SINGLE MENTION) 1. Government of Uganda 2. Development organizations (specify these) 3. Local council chiefs 4. The Army 5. Other specify B.10: If yes to B.4a: Specifically, what assistance did you receive when returning from IDP camps? (Spontaneous mentions MULTIPLE MENTION)  Received food items  Received household items like clothes, utensils, iron sheets etc  Received agricultural tools  Trainings on agricultural production e.g. food security, agronomy, agricultural marketing  Counselling  Free education  Free medical services e.g. drugs etc  Others specify ASSISTANCE IN NORTHERN UGANDA As mentioned earlier, we would like to know your experience of development interventions by different organizations that happened between 2006 and 2011. B.11: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) PROGRAM/ ORGANISATION WITHIN SUB COUNTY WITHIN Northern Uganda NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) LINKAGES/PADCO SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA) HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LIVELIHOODS) NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) AFFORD UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC 177 DEVELOPMENT) HIPS (HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR) NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) AVSI MERCY CORPS UNITY/PIASCY USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMONICS WORLD VISION ACDI/VOCA HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATION) TASO NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS CARE LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE PADER PEACE PROGRAM TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION A2Z CORE JCRC IRIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE SMD USAID OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 B.12: INTERVIEWER: If USAID has not been mentioned above, please ask: Are you aware of any assistance or activities supported by USAID in the Northern region? 1. Yes 2. No B.13: What KEY activities were carried out by the above-mentioned organizations/ programs in your community/sub county? Which organizations implemented the mentioned activities? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 178 Activities/programs Organization or program Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school and health facilities Establishment of health facilities Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc. Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution Others specify B.14: Now I would like to know the key community needs from 2006 through 2011. What were the most important needs within your community during the period 2006 through 2011? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Security 2. Facilitating resettlement from IDP camps 3. Reducing domestic violence 4. Reducing Sexual violence 5. Facilitate return of the abductees 6. Accessing medical services 7. Improving agricultural practices and yields 8. Access agricultural markets 9. Trainings on better agricultural practices 10. Improving Community cohesion and trust 11. Justice to victims of the conflict 12. Establishment and renovations of health and education facilities 13. Access to affordable agricultural tools and other household items 14. Provision and access to safe water 15. Rehabilitating and construction of roads 16. Improving Food security 17. Environmental conservation 18. Reducing and mitigation in land conflicts 19. Identifying lost relatives 179 20. Revitalizing and strengthening of customary institutions 21. Others specify B.15a: Were these interventions extremely relevant, somewhat relevant, neither relevant nor irrelevant, somewhat not relevant or not relevant at all to the following: Extremely relevant Somewhat relevant Neither relevant nor irrelevant Somewhat not relevant Not relevant at all Target group Area of coverage Immediate needs of the communities Long term needs of the communities B15b: How appropriate was the speed or the rate at which the activities of the interventions were implemented based on the needs of the communities? 1 – Absolutely inappropriate 2 – Inappropriate 3 – Slightly inappropriate 4 – Neutral 5 – Slightly appropriate 6 – Appropriate 7 – Absolutely appropriate B.16: ASK WHERE THE RESPONDENT HAS INDICATED SOMEWHAT NOT RELEVANT OR NOT RELEVANT AT ALL? You have said that the interventions or activities implemented were somewhat not relevant or not at all relevant for …….. Why do you say so? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________ B.17: Please mention the interventions or activities that were somewhat not relevant or not relevant at all at the required time. (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Activities/programs Implementing organization Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school and health facilities Establishment of health facilities 180 Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc. Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution Others specify B.18: To what extent were interventions suitable or appropriate to the following? Were they extremely suitable, somewhat suitable, neither nor suitable, somewhat not suitable or not suitable at all to Extremely suitable Somewhat suitable Neither nor suitable Somewhat not suitable Not suitable at all Women in general Youth Elderly Young children (school going age) Persons with disabilities Abductees Farmers B.19: Please mention the interventions or activities that were somewhat not SUITABLE or not SUITABLE at all to the different categories at the required time. (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Activities/programs Category of target group Women Youth Elderly Young children PWDs Abductees Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school and health facilities 181 Establishment of health facilities Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc. Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS Conflict resolution Others specify B.20a: In your opinion which activities do you think were poorly implemented? B.20b: If Yes to B.20a, why do you think they were poorly implemented? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Activities/programs B.20a Yes 1 No 2 B.20b: Why Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school and health facilities Establishment of health facilities Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc. Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products 182 Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution Others specify Codes for Why 1. Wrong target group 2. Wrong timing 3. Did not address the required need 4. Wrong area of coverage/location 5. Poor timing 6. Poor quality of services provided 7. Did not involve the communities 8. Bureaucracy 9. Corruption within the implementing organizations 10. Corruption among the key community contact persons 11. Inadequate or less amounts provided 12. Others specify B.21: ASK THE RESPONDENT ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN INDICATED AS POORLY IMPLEMENTED? For the activities that you have indicated as being poorly implemented, in your view how could they have been improved? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ BENEFITS AND IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THE INTERVENTIONS BY USAID ASK ONLY THOSE WHO ARE AWARE OF USAID’S INTERVENTIONS B.22: You earlier indicated that you are aware of any assistance or activities that were supported by USAID directly or through different programmes and its partners. Can you please INDICATE WHICH PROGRAMS OR PARTNERS/ORGANISATIONS that were supported by USAID? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) PROGRAM/ ORGANISATION NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) LINKAGES/PADCO SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA) 183 HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LIVELIHOODS) NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) AFFORD UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) HIPS (HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR) NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) AVSI MERCY CORPS UNITY/PIASCY USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMONICS WORLD VISION ACDI/VOCA HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATION) TASO NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS CARE LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE PADER PEACE PROGRAM TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION A2Z CORE JCRC IRIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE SMD USAID OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 We are going to further talk about the needs and the interventions that were carried out in your community from 2006 through 2011. 184 B.23a: In your opinion, how would you describe the situation in this community from 2006 through 2011 in relation to resettlement and humanitarian aid? How often were the following issues being experienced by this community? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Lack or limited food supply Lack or limited supply of household items e.g. clothes, utensils Lack or limited access to medical supplies and services Lack or limited supply of agricultural inputs e.g. seeds, tools etc. B.23b: Which activities were carried out to remedy or find solutions to the mentioned challenges? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Provision of food items 2. Provision of household items e.g. clothes, utensils etc. 3. Counselling 4. Provision of Medical supplies and services 5. None 6. Others specify B.23c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these interventions related humanitarian aid and resettlement not taken place? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________ B.23d: Comparing before and after the mentioned activities (related to resettlement and Humanitarian aid) were carried out, to what extent did the situation change for the challenges mentioned earlier? Did the situation become worse, remained the same or better? 1. Worse 2. Remained the same 3. Better B.23e: How satisfied were you with the outcome as a result of the activities that were carried out to resettle and provide humanitarian aid? 1 – Very dissatisfied 2 – dissatisfied 3 – unsure 4 – satisfied 5 – Very satisfied B.23f: Besides the activities that were carried out, what could have been done better to address the challenges related to resettling of people from IDP camps? 185 B.24a: Now I would like to know if any of the following conflicts where happening within your community from 2006 through 2011. How frequent were the following conflicts occurring within your community? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Land conflicts Clan or family conflicts Military Tribal conflicts Other - specify B.24b: Which activities were carried out to address the cause of such conflicts? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Media programs 2. Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery 3. Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee abducted children and young people. 4. Promotion of community healing 5. Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts among families 6. Resolution of longstanding inter-clan conflicts 7. Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing proactive resolution strategies 8. Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution methods which promotes win-win situation 9. Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in conflict management 10. Resolution of land conflicts 11. Promotion of legal and paralegal Land programs 12. None 13. Others specify B.24c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these activities not taken place to address the causes of conflicts? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ B.24d: Comparing before and after the mentioned activities were carried out, to what extent did the mentioned conflicts reduce in occurrence? Extremely/no longer exists Somewhat reduced Remained the same Somewhat increased Extremely increased Not Applicable Land conflicts Clan or family 186 Military Tribal conflicts Other B.24e: If mentioned no longer exists or somewhat reduced ASK: Mention the top 3 most influential activities that led to the reduction in conflicts and which organization or program was responsible. Organization or program responsible Media programs Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee abducted children and young people. Promotion of community healing Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts among families Resolution of longstanding inter-clan conflicts Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing proactive resolution strategies Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution methods which promotes win-win situation Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in conflict management Resolution of land conflicts None Others specify B.24f: In your opinion, did the activities or interventions carried out appropriately address the causes of conflicts within your community? 1 – Absolutely inappropriate 2 – Inappropriate 3 – Not sure 4– Appropriate 5 – Absolutely appropriate B.24g: If absolutely inappropriate or inappropriate ASK: Why do you say the causes where not appropriately addressed? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ 187 B.25a: In regards to health, to what existent do you agree or disagree with the occurrence of the listed issues in the years 2006 through 2011 within your community? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Dilapidated health facilities High incidence/ prevalence of Malaria High incidence/ prevalence of HIV/AIDS High incidence/ prevalence of Tuberculosis Lack or limited medical workers Lack of or limited drugs in health facilities Lack of free testing services B.25b: Which activities were carried out to address the health challenges mentioned above? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES)  Provision of free medical or subsidized services  Training of health workers and support  Supporting maternal health  Immunization assistance  Establishment of health facilities  Renovation of health facilities  Counselling  Free HIV/AIDS testing services  Hospice and palliative care services  Indoor residual spraying  Provision and availing mosquito nets  None  Others specify B.25c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these activities not taken place? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.25d: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following were realized now? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 188 Renovation and establishment of health facilities Reduced incidence/ prevalence of Malaria in communities Reduced incidence/ prevalence of HIV/AIDS Reduced incidence/ prevalence of Tuberculosis Increase in number of medical workers More drugs and other services in health facilities Free testing services available and easily accessible B.25e: In your opinion, did the activities or interventions carried out appropriately address the challenges faced in accessing better health services within your community? 1 – Absolutely inappropriate 2 – Inappropriate 3 – Not sure 4– Appropriate 5 – Absolutely appropriate B.25f: If absolutely inappropriate or inappropriate ASK: Why do you think these challenges were not appropriately addressed? (i.e. was it the way the program was implemented or another reason) ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ B.26a: In regards to Education, to what extent did your community face the following challenges in the years 2006 through 2011? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Dilapidated school structures Difficulties accessing schools Lack or limited access and unavailability of scholastic materials Household inability to buy scholastic materials Low numbers of trained teachers Lack or limited teacher housing 189 High rates of school drop-outs Low student enrollment rates B.26b: Which (if any) of these activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing education and other learning services mentioned above? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Construction and rehabilitation of schools 2. Training of teachers 3. Construction of teachers’ houses 4. Provision of scholastic materials to pupils 5. Others specify B.26c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these activities not taken place? ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________ B.26d: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following challenges were addressed? Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Renovated and functioning school structures Increase in number of schools Availability and improved access to scholastic materials Increase in ability of households to buy scholastic materials Increase in number of trained teachers Improved teacher housing reduced rates of school drop￾outs Increase in student enrollment rates B.26e: In your opinion, did the activities or interventions carried out appropriately address the challenges faced in accessing better education services within your community? 1 – Absolutely inappropriate 2 – Inappropriate 3 – Not sure 4– Appropriate 5 – Absolutely appropriate 190 B.27a: From 2006 through 2011, to what extent were the following a challenge to accessing safe water and good sanitation within your community? Absolutely to a larger extent Somewhat a large extent Not sure Somewhat a less extent Not a challenge at all Having an appropriate number of safe water facilities Practicing good hygiene and sanitation practices B.27b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing safe water and practicing good sanitation? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Construction of water facilities 2. Training on hygiene and proper sanitation 3. Others specify B.27c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these activities not taken place? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ B.27d: In your opinion were the following challenges related to access of safe water and good sanitation practices appropriately addressed? Absolutely inappropriate Appropriate Not sure Inappropriate Absolutely inappropriate Not applicable Limited number safe water facilities Poor hygiene and sanitation practices B.27e: Besides the activities that were carried out, what would have been done better to address the challenges related to accessing safe water and practicing good sanitation and hygiene? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ 191 B.28a: In your opinion, how do you describe the situation in this community between 2006 and 2011 in relation to agricultural production, nutrition, income generation and microfinance? How often was your community facing the following challenges? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Lack or limited availability of tools and inputs for agricultural production Lack of or limited credit or microfinance services Lack or limited access to medical services Unreliable markets for agricultural products High rates of post-harvest losses Households having less than 3 meals a day B.28b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in agricultural production, nutrition, income generation and microfinance? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES)  Training and facilitation to establish VSLAs  Facilitating formation of community groups  Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools  strengthening framer organizations  training of farmer groups  provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods  expanding access to production inputs  enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers  post-harvest handling support to farmers  Marketing of farmer products B.28c: If at least one activity is mentioned ASK: What would have happened had these activities not taken place? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ B.28d: In your opinion to what extent were the mentioned activities appropriately implemented to address the challenges faced in accessing agricultural production, nutrition, income generation and microfinance services? Absolutely inappropriate Appropriate Not sure Inappropriate Absolutely inappropriate Training and facilitation 192 to establish VSLAs Facilitating formation of community groups Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools strengthening framer organizations training of farmer groups provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods expanding access to production inputs enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers post-harvest handling support to farmers Marketing of farmer products B.28e: Besides the activities that were carried out, what other activities or interventions would have been done better to address the challenges related to accessing agricultural production, nutrition, income generation and microfinance services? ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________ B.28a: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, what key outcomes or benefits have had a long-lasting influence or impact among the members in your community? And why? B.28b: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have continued functioning since their implementation/establishment? B.28ci: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have are not functioning since their implementation/establishment? B.28cii: In your opinion why are these not functioning? INVOLVEMENT IN PROGRAMME ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT 193 We are now going to talk about the communities’ involvement in programme development and activity implementation B.29: In your opinion to what extent did the community participate in generating and identifying key areas of intervention in the communities during 2006 and 2012? (Single response) 1. Fully involved 2. Somewhat involved 3. Minimal involvement 4. Never involved/consulted B.30: If fully or somewhat involved ASK: How were the communities involved in identifying key development interventions and activities? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS￾MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Community meetings with local councils chiefs 2. Consultative meetings with NGOs/development partners 3. Through advocacy groups 4. Consultative meetings with area Members of Parliament 5. Others specify B.31: In your opinion who initiated these consultative meetings? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. The community 2. NGOs and other developing partners 3. The government 4. Religious leaders 5. Others specify B.32a: Which members of your community were consulted during these meetings? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Women 2. Youth 3. Persons with disabilities 4. Elderly 5. Mainly men 6. Others specify B.32b: Between 2006 and 2012, did you or any member of your household ever participate in generating and identifying key areas of intervention in the communities? 1. Yes 2. No B.32c: If yes to B.32b, how did you participate or any member of your household participates? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Community meetings with local councils chiefs 2. Consultative meetings with NGOs/development partners 3. Through advocacy groups 194 4. Consultative meetings with area Members of Parliament 5. Others specify B.34a: Besides the consultative meetings to generate areas of intervention, how did the communities participate in implementing the key activities? B.34b: In your community who actually participated in carrying out the key activities? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) 1. Women 2. Youth 3. Persons with disabilities 4. Elderly 5. Mainly men 6. Others specify B.35: Did you or any member of your household participate in implementing activities of by different development organizations? 1. Yes 2. No If Yes how? B.36a: Has the capacity of the local communities been improved to maintain and sustain the interventions that were implemented? 1. Yes 2. No B.36b: In which ways has the capacity of the local communities been improved to maintain and sustain these interventions the different organizations? PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION B.37: In your opinion what were the main challenges faced by the different organizations during implementation of the key interventions in the region from 2006 through 2011? INTERVIEWERS ASK PER KEY INTERVENTION AREA: B.39a: In your opinion, what were the good practices that enabled successful implementation of activities/interventions? B.39b: In your opinion, what were the bad practices that might have led to poor implementation of activities/interventions from 2006 through 2011? OVERALL EVALUATION B.40ai: Now I would like us to talk about the peace and stability situation in Northern Uganda, while in the camp, immediately after and now. In your opinion how would you rate the peace 195 and stability in Northern Uganda and your community while you or your household members were still in the camp? Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable Not peaceful and stable at all B.40aii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda was very or somewhat peaceful and stable while you or your household members were still in camps? B.40aiii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK : Which organizations or institutions contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general while you were still in camps? B.40b:. In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community immediately after you or your household members had just left the camp(s)? Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable Not peaceful and stable at all B.40bii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda was very or somewhat peaceful and stable immediately you had just left the camp(s)? B.40biii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Which organizations or institutions contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general immediately after you had left the camps? B.40ci:.In your opinion how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community now? Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable 196 Not peaceful and stable at all B.40cii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda is very or somewhat peaceful and NOW? B.40ciii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Which organizations or institutions have contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general NOW? B.41: How confident are you that your community and Northern Uganda will remain peaceful and stable in the future? Community Northern Uganda Very confident Somewhat confident Not sure Somewhat not confident Not confident at all B.43: In your opinion what are the likely reasons that might lead to instability in Northern Uganda and your community? B.44: What do recommend to be done to improve peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community? WELFARE INDICATORS C.1: How many members does the household have? (Single response) 1. 6 or more 2. 4-5 3. 3 4. 2 5. 1 C.2: Age distribution of members of household  Below 18 years  18-24 years  25-39 years  40 -54 years  55 years and above C.3: Do all children ages 6 to 18 currently attend school (government, private, NGO/religious, or boarding)? (Single response) 1. Not at all 2. All attend government schools 3. No children ages 6 to 18 197 4. All attend, and one or more attend a private, NGO/religious, or boarding school C.4: What is the highest grade that the male head of household /spouse completed? (Single response)  No female head/spouse  Primary 5 or less, or none  Primary 6  Primary 7 to Secondary 6  Higher than Secondary 6 C.5: What is the highest grade that the female head of household /spouse completed? (Single response)  No female head/spouse  Primary 5 or less, or none  Primary 6  Primary 7 to Secondary 6  Higher than Secondary 6 C.6: Dwelling unit characteristics (Single responses) Type of housing unit Occupancy tenure of dwelling unit Type of dwelling unit No. of rooms for sleeping 1. Detached house 2. Semi￾detached 3. Flat 4. Tenement 5. Others 1. Free public/private 2. Private ownership 3. Subsidized public/private 4. Rented public/private 5. Others 1. Main house 2. Room or rooms 3. Servant quarters 4. Others 1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. Over 5 rooms C.7: What are the Construction materials of the dwelling you are staying in? (Single responses) Roofing material Wall material Floor material 1. Iron sheets 2. Tiles/asbestos 3. Concrete 4. Tins 5. Grass/papyrus 6. Others (specify) 1. Bricks with cement 2. Bricks with mud 3. Cement blocks 4. Concrete 5. Wood 6. Mud and poles 7. Others 1. Concrete stone 2. Cement 3. Rammed earth 4. Wood 5. Tiles 6. Others C.8: What is the main source of lighting in your dwelling?  Firewood  Tadooba, or other 198  Paraffin lantern, or electricity (grid, generator, solar) C.9: What type of toilet facility does your household have or use? (Single and spontaneous response) 1. Covered pit latrine 2. VIP latrine 3. Uncovered pit latrine 4. Flush toilet 5. Bush 6. Others specify C.10: Is the toilet facility used by this household shared by other household (s)? Yes..1 No..2. If yes, how many households share the toilet facility used? C.11: Does your household have any of the following? READ OUT AND MULTIPLE RESPONSES Item Tick appropriately A radio Cassette player Television Mobile phone Fixed phone Refrigerator Clock C.12: Does every member of the household have at least two sets of clothes? Yes/No C.13: Does every member of the household have at least one pair of shoes? Yes/No C.14a: Please tell me what are the different sources from which you receive/earn income? (DO NOT READ OUT; Multiple response) C.14b: What is your main source of income? (Single response) C.14c: What are the different sources of income for the household in general? (DO NOT READ OUT; Multiple response) C.14d: What is the main source of income for the household? (SINGLE RESPONSE) Source C.14a C.14b C.14c C.14d Pension Wages/salary of household head Depend on family/friends Sell crop produce from own farm Sell products from own livestock 199 Sell own livestock or poultry Fishing Trading in agricultural produce (crop) Trading in livestock or livestock products Employed in a formal sector - public or private Running own business e.g. retail or wholesale shop Rent from properties Others C.15: I am now going to ask you about the items you spend your household income on. Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the item with the least expenditure and 10 the item with the highest expenditure, and arranging the items in terms of how much money you spend on each, please indicate how you spread your household expenditure among the following items. Item Expense rating (1 - 10) Food Clothing Entertainment (drama, sports etc) Utilities (e.g. water & Electricity) Telephone bills Rent Medical Bills School Fees Transport/ Fuel Others (specify) ________________________________ Interviewer: Please End the Interview and thank the respondent. However, if there are any clarifications required, ask the respondent before leaving the Household. 200 ANNEX III-H: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY (LUO) Serial Number: _ _ _ _ IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS DISTRICT NAME AND CODE: Agago..1, Amuru..2, Gulu..3, Kitgum..4, Nwoya..5, Lamwo..6, Pader..7 SUB COUNTY/DIVISION/TOWN COUNCIL PARISH/WARD VILLAGE URBAN/RURAL (URBAN=1 PERI-URBAN=2 RURAL=3) HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE NUMBER NAME OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD: SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD: (MALE…1 FEMALE…2) NAME OF RESPONDENT: SEX OF RESPONDENT: (MALE…1 FEMALE…2) INTERVIEWER VISITS Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Date: Interviewer Name Result Next visit date: Result codes: 13. Completed 14.No household member or respondent not at home 15. Entire household or respondent absent from home for extended period 16. Postponed 17.Refused 18. Others (specify) Quality Control Accompanied by supervisor Edited by Interviewer Edited by Supervisor Counter-checked by Supervisor 201 INTRODUCTION Good day, my name is _____________. I’m from Ipsos Uganda and we are conducting an evaluation of the assistance programs to Northern Uganda from 2006 to 2011. The aim of the evaluation is to assess the contributions of the different organizations to the peace, stability and recovery of Northern Uganda. Specifically, the evaluation will seek to establish the contribution; program performance and effectiveness; factors inhibiting or facilitating implementation; program response to the dynamic Ugandan context; and lessons learned and best practices. The study is being conducted in the districts of Agago, Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum, Lamwo, Nwoya and Pader. Therefore, we kindly ask for some of your valuable to time to answer and discuss issues related to this study. Your views will enable the different development partner organizations to understand the impact created as well as develop new strategies for further assistance. We promise that your name and answers will remain confidential. Consent Would you mind helping us by answering a few questions? Itwero konyo wa ki gamo lapeny mogo manok? Yes Continue to interview No Thank respondent and terminate interview DEMOGRAPHICS A.1: Age Mwaka ni adi? 1. 18-24 2. 25-39 3. 40-54 4. 55 years and above A.2: Current Marital Status: (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) Bedo ma megi i lok me ot/nyome/laco ki dako tye nining? 1. Married (monogamous) 2. Married (polygamous) 3. Cohabiting 4. Divorced/separated 5. Widowed 6. 7. Single A.3: What is your relationship to the household head? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) 202 Wat ango ma tye ikin in ki ladit me ot man? 1. Head of household 2. Spouse 3. Daughter/son 4. Grand child 5. Parent to head of household 6. Sister/brother 7. Other relative 8. Non-relative 9. Others (specify) A.4: Have you ever attended school? Yes…1 No..2 If No go to A.7 I kwo ma meri, gwok onyo iceto I gang kwan? A.5: If ever attended school, what is your current schooling status? Ka onyo I ceto I gang kwan, kit me kwani ikare ni tye nining? 1. Left school 2. Currently attending school A.6: What is the highest level of education attained? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) Rwom me kwani madite loyo ogik kwene? 1. Nursery/pre-primary 2. Primary 3. O Level 4. A level 5. Diploma course 6. University 7. Apprenticeship 8. Others (specify) A.7: Can you read and write in any language? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) Iromo kwan ki coc i leb mo? 1. Neither able to read nor write 2. Able to read only 3. Able to read and write A.8: What is your current employment status? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) Kit me tic ma lube ki nongo yoo kwo ma megi kono tye nining? 203 1. Unemployed 2. Self-employed 3. Full-time public employee 4. Part-time public employee 5. Full-time private employee 6. Part-time private employee 7. Casual laborer 8. Others specify A.9: What is your current occupation? Tic ango ma itimu I kare man? ______________________________________________________________________ ______ CONFLICT IN THE NORTHERN UGANDA Now I would like us to talk about the conflict and instability in the northern Uganda and how it affected the communities. Kom bedi dong amito ni kong walok I lok kom ayela/kuku kuku ma obedo in kumalo me Uganda, ki kit ma okelo alokaloka I kom danu. B.1a: In your opinion, what was the MOST IMPORTANT cause of the LRA conflict in Acholi sub-region? (SINGLE RESPONSE) In tam ma megi, gin ango tutwale ma okelo lweny ma I lobo Acholi ni? 1. Retaliation/Avenging mistreatment by NRA 2. Self defense 3. Loss of political power 4. Nepotism (practicing tribalism, segregation etc) 5. Property grabbing 6. North-South divide 7. Others specify B.1b: How were you, your family and this community affected by the LRA conflict in this district? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) In ,dano ma gang, ki dong dano ikin paci kwo gu loke iyo ango ma calo adwogi me lweny? 1. Displacement from homes 2. Inability to move safely 3. Unemployment 4. Increase in attacks, injuries and violence (e.g. domestic, violence, rape, defilement etc) Abduction 5. Insecurity 6. Increased incidence of disease infection and disease outbreak 204 7. Inability to use land 8. Fear of the military and the rebels 9. Breakdown of the customary institutions 10. Ethnic Segregation and Breakdown of trust and cohesion among the communities 11. Limited or no communication among families 12. Increased poverty 13. Poor hygiene and sanitation 14. Reduced trade activities and agricultural productivity 15. Death 16. Destruction of property and infrastructure like roads, health facilities, schools etc 17. Lack of trust in government 18. Environmental degradation 19. Traumatized population 20. Increase in Land conflicts 21. Environmental degradation 22. No or limited access to basic necessities like education, health, clean water 23. famine 24. Others specify B.2: During the LRA conflict, which category of people was most affected in this district? (DON’T READ OUT, SINGLE RESPONSE) Jo mene ma kwo odiyo gi tutwal I distrik ma meg wu ikare me lweny pa LRA/Lakwena? a) Women b) Elderly c) Children d) Persons with disabilities e) Youth f) Men g) Everyone h) Other specify B.3: Around the time people were in camp or starting to leave the camp (2006 – 2008) what were the major challenges affecting you and your family? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) I kare ma dano pud onongo gi tye I camp/kema, ki dong ma onongo gi tye ka dok paco/gang, peki ango ma odiyo in ki danu ma i dog ot wu tutwal ? 1. Dependency 2. Displacement from homes 3. Inability to move safely 4. Attacks, injuries , 5. Domestic violence 205 6. Sexual violence (e.g. rape, defilement etc) 7. Disability 8. Male disempowerment 9. Insecurity 10. Increased incidence of disease infection and disease outbreak 11. Inability to use land 12. Breakdown of the customary institutions 13. Ethnic Segregation and Breakdown of trust and cohesion among the communities 14. Limited or no communication among families 15. Poverty 16. Poor hygiene and sanitation 17. Food insecurity 18. Low agricultural productivity 19. Unemployment or lack of engagement in productivity 20. Environmental degradation 21. Trauma 22. Land conflicts 23. No or limited access to basic necessities like education, health, clean water 24. Others specify INFORMATION ON IDPs B.4ai: Have you or any member of this household ever lived/stayed in an IDP camp? Ngat mo ki I dog ot eni gwok onyo obedo I camp/kema? 1. Yes 2. No B.4aii: If yes to B.4a ASK: Were you originally leaving in the area where the camp was established? Onongo ibedo kany con ma peya camp ocake? 1. Yes 2. No B.4b: If yes to B.4ai ASK; Please tell me the name of the camp(s) where you or any of your household members used to live. I romo tita nying camp/kema menu? B.5a: If no to B.4aii ASK; in which year(s) did you or any member of this household start living in the IDP camp? (Capture all the years) Mwaka mene ma in onyo danu me dog ot ma meg wu gu bedo I camp/kema? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 206 ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.5b: If no to B.4aii ASK: In which year(s) did you or any member of the household leave the camp? (Capture all the years) Mwaka mene ma in onyo danu me dog ot ma meg wu gu weko camp/kema? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.6: If no to B.4aii ASK; What were the reasons that led you or any member of this household to start living in the camp? (MULTIPLE MENTION) Gin ango ma oweko in onyo jo me dog ot ma megwu gu ceto ka bedo I cam/kema?  To avoid abductions  Fear of attack and violence  Government’s request to join camp  To have access to facilities and help (e.g. food, health services, education etc)  Because others were moving  Fear to be killed by rebels  Others specify B.7a ASK ALL: What factors contributed to people leaving the IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) Kwayi jami ango ma oweko dano gu aa ki I camp/kema? a) Promises by the government b) Displacement of the rebels from northern Uganda by the UPDF c) Stability in northern Uganda d) Poor services or environment in the camp e) Interventions by development organizations f) Forced by the government g) Others specify B.7b: If no to B.4aii ASK: Specifically, what factors contributed to you or your household members leaving the IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) Dong I kin jami ma oweko dano gu weko camp/kema me dok paco, mene ma oweko in ki dano me ot ma megwu gu tenyo camp/kema? a) Promises by the government b) Displacement of the rebels from northern Uganda by the UPDF 207 c) Stability in the region d) Poor services or environment in the camp e) Interventions by development organizations f) Forced by the government g) Others specify B.8a: If no to B.4aii ASK: Before moving to the camps(s), were you and your household members originally living in this village? Ma pe ya in ki dano me dog ot ma meg we gu ceto I camp/kema, onongo ubedo I kabedo eni? 1. Yes 2. No B.8b: If yes to B.8a ASK; From the IDP camps did you or your household members return directly to this village? Ki i camp/kema ma ubedo iye, udwogo atir I kabedo ma utye iye ni? 1. Yes 2. No B.8c: If no in B.8b ASK, how do you describe the return process? (SINGLE MENTION) Ka pe udwogo atir gang, iromo tita kit ma dwogo ne obedo kede? a) First settled in another area before moving here b) Settled here but returning to the IDP camp whenever required c) Others specify B.9: ASK ALL: In your opinion, which was the MOST IMPORTANT institution that facilitated the return to villages by the people from the IDP camps? (SINGLE MENTION) I tam ma megi; Dul/jang gamente/group mene ma utiyo matek I lok me dwoko dano I gangi mamegi ni aa ki I camp/kema? 1. Government of Uganda 2. Development organizations (specify these) 3. Local council chiefs 4. The Army 5. Religious leaders/institutions 6. Traditional institutions 7. Other specify B.10: If yes to B.4ai: Specifically, what assistance did you or your household members receive when returning from IDP camps? (Spontaneous mentions MULTIPLE MENTION) Kit kony ango kikome ma inongo I kare ma I dok gang/paco? 208  Received food items  Received household items like clothes, utensils, iron sheets etc  Received agricultural tools  Trainings on agricultural production e.g. food security, agronomy, agricultural marketing  Counselling  Free education  Free medical services e.g. drugs etc  Nothing received  Others specify ASSISTANCE IN NORTHERN UGANDA As mentioned earlier, we would like to know your experience of development interventions by different organizations that happened between 2006 and 2011. B.11: Now I would like to know the key community needs from 2006 through 2011. What were the most important needs for you, your household and family during the period when people were still and starting to leave camps (2006 – 2009)? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Jami mene ma in, joo me ot ma meg wu obedo ka mito ne tutwal ma dano pud gi tye I camp/kema, ki dong ma onongo pud gi tye ka cako weko camp/kema aweka? 1. Security 2. Need for Food 3. Access to health services 4. Access to schools 5. Provision and access to safe water 6. Access to housing/shelter 7. Re-uniting with family 8. Resettlement from IDP camps 9. Accessing education services 10. Justice to victims of the conflict and violence 11. Access to affordable agricultural inputs and other household items 12. Reducing and mitigation in land conflicts 13. Revitalizing and strengthening of customary institutions 14. Others specify B.12a: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in this district from 2006 through 2011? (SPONTANOUES MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Dul mene onyo yub mene ma I tye iye ki ngec ma okelo dongo lobo i sub county ma meg wu ni cake i mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2012? 209 PROGRAM/ ORGANISATION WITHIN SUB COUNT Y WITHIN District NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) LINKAGES/PADCO SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA) HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LIVELIHOODS) NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) AFFORD UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) HIPS (HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR) NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) AVSI MERCY CORPS UNITY/PIASCY USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMONICS WORLD VISION ACDI/VOCA HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATION) TASO NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS CARE INTERNATIONAL LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE PADER PEACE PROGRAM TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION A2Z CORE JCRC IRIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE 210 SMD WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) USAID WAR CHILD CARITAS RED CROSS SEND A COW DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL PRDP DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 B.12b: INTERVIEWER: If USAID has not been mentioned in B.12a, please ask: Are you aware of any assistance or activities supported by USAID in this sub county between 2006 and 2011? Itye ki ngec mo I kom kony onyo yub ma dul ma kilwongo ni USAID gu kelo I ka bedo man ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011? 1. Yes 2. No B.13: What KEY activities were carried out by the development organizations/ programs in your community to address your community’s needs from 2006 through 2011? Which organizations implemented the mentioned activities? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kwayi wit tic mene ma dule ma padi padi, onyo yub mene ma obedo tye I kin paci ma meg wu kany ma ki tiyo me cobo miti pa dano ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011. Dul mene ma gu kelo yub magi Activities/programs Organization or program Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school facilities Establishment of health facilities Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings 211 Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution NONE Others specify Note: If the respondent does not remember or doesn’t know please indicate DON’T KNOW or DON’T REMEMBER B.14a: Were there activities implemented from 2006 through 2011 that were not appropriately addressing the needs of the following categories of people [READ OUT THE LIST]? Yub mene ma pe okonyo I kit me cobo miti pa kwayi dul dano magi I kine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011? Yes 1 No 2 Women in general Youth Elderly Young children (school going age) Persons with disabilities Abductees Farmers B.14b: Ask for only those categories where the respondent as indicated yes: Please mention the interventions or activities that were not appropriately addressing the needs of the mentioned category of people at the required time. (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kong dong I waco yub onyo tic ma pe gu rwate me cobo miti pa jo ma wa neno gi ni. Activities/programs Category of target group Women Youth Elderly Young children PWDs Abductees Farmers Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school and health facilities Establishment of health 212 facilities Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution Others specify B.15a: In your opinion which activities do you think were NOT WELL implemented? B.15b: If Yes to B.15a, why do you think they were not well implemented? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) I tam ma megi, kit yub onyo tic ango ma pe gu time maber? Itamo ni pi ngo pe gu time maber? Activities/programs B.15a Tick the appropariate response B.15b: Why (multiple responses) Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs Water and sanitation Media Establishment of school facilities Establishment of health facilities 213 Road construction Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, etc Income generating activities’ support Micro-financing Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees Agricultural trainings Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products Environmental protection and conservation Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical services, sensitization on disease control like HIV/AIDS, Conflict resolution Others specify Codes for Why 1. Wrong target group 2. Wrong timing 3. Did not address the required need 4. Wrong area of coverage/location 5. Relaying or broadcasting unimportant or irrelevant information 6. Poor quality of services provided 7. Did not involve the communities 8. Bureaucracy 9. Corruption within the implementing organizations 10. Corruption among the key community contact persons 11. Inadequate or less amounts provided 12. Segregation 13. Others specify B.15c: ASK THE RESPONDENT ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN INDICATED AS NOT WELL IMPLEMENTED? For the activities that you have indicated as not well implemented, in your view how could they have been improved? Pi yub onyo tic ma pe gu time maber, onongo ki twero yubo gi nining? 1. Increased sensitization of the public 2. Monitoring and evaluating programs and activities being implemented 3. Involving the community 4. Others specify BENEFITS AND IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THE INTERVENTIONS BY USAID 214 B.16: ASK ONLY THOSE WHO ARE AWARE OF USAID’S INTERVENTIONS(REFER TO B.12a OR B.12b) You earlier indicated that you are aware of any assistance or activities that were supported by USAID directly or through different programmes and its partners. Can you please MENTION WHICH PROGRAMS OR PARTNERS/ORGANISATIONS that were supported by USAID? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) I acaki i waco ni itye ki ngec I kom kony ma obedo ka bino ki bot USAID, onyo ma owoto ki bot dul mukene ento nongo bene pud aa ki bot dul acel (USAID). Itwero waco yub mogo, onyo dul ma gu bedo ka nongo kony ki bot USAID? PROGRAM/ ORGANISATION NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) LINKAGES/PADCO SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA) HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND LIVELIHOODS) NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) AFFORD UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) HIPS (HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR) NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) AVSI MERCY CORPS UNITY/PIASCY USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT) APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMONICS WORLD VISION ACDI/VOCA HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATION) TASO NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS CARE 215 LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE PADER PEACE PROGRAM TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION A2Z CORE JCRC IRIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE SMD WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) USAID WAR CHILD CARITAS RED CROSS SEND A COW DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL PRDP DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 We are going to further talk about the needs and the interventions that were carried out in your community from 2006 through 2011. Wa bi mede ki lok I kom yub onyo tic ma ki tiyo kany i kin gangi ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2012? B.17a: In your opinion, I would like you to describe the situation in this community from 2006 through 2011 in relation to resettlement and provision of humanitarian aid? How often did you, your household or family members experience [READ OUT THE CHALLENGE BELOW FROM THE LIST; REMIND THE RESPONDENT THE TIME WHEN IN CAMP AND STARTING TO RETURN FROM CAMP]? I tam ma megi, amito ni i wac kit ma pinye obedo kwede I kabedo ma meg wu kany ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo i mwaka 2011. Piny obedo nining i kit me? Never matwal Rarely Kicel kicel Sometimes Cawa mukene Often Tere tere Always Jwii Lack or limited food supply Peke onyo nok pa jami me acama Lack or limited supply of household 216 items e.g. clothes, utensils Peke onyo nok pa jami me ot calo bongi , cuburiya Lack or limited access to medical supplies and services Peke onyo nok pa yat me cango two Lack or limited supply of agricultural inputs e.g. seeds, tools etc Lack of water Peke pa pii B.17b: Which activities were carried out between 2006 and 2011 to prevent or reduce the occurrence of these challenges? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kit yub onyo tic ango ma obedo tye I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011 me jwiko peki magi? 1. Provision of food items 2. Provision of household items e.g. clothes, utensils etc 3. Provision and distribution of Agricultural inputs 4. Provision of Medical supplies and services 5. Provision of water (boreholes, water tanks, etc) 6. None 7. Others specify B.17c: If at least one activity is mentioned inB.17b ASK: How satisfied were you with the outcome as a result of the activities that were carried out to address the challenges earlier mentioned? Adwogi me wit yub onyo tic omiyo ki in yengo I rwom mene? 1 – Very dissatisfied 2 – dissatisfied 3 – unsure 4 – satisfied 5 – Very satisfied B.17d: If at least one activity is mentioned inB.17b ASK: Besides the activities that were carried out, what could have been done better to address the challenges related to resettling of people from IDP camps? I kom yub onyo tic mapadi padi ma otime, kit yub ango onyo jami ango mukene ma onongo ki romo timo ne maber? 1. Resettlement packages given in time 2. Government should have worked with NGOs 3. Others specify 217 B.18ai: Now I would like to know if any of the following conflicts were happening within your community from 2006 through 2011. How frequent were the following conflicts [READ OUT FROM THE LIST BELOW: remind the respondent the period when they were still in camps and after they resettled from camps] occurring within your community? Kombedi dong amito niang kit tele/kuku kuku ango ma obedo ka time ikin lwak me kabedo ni ni cake i mwaka 2006 ni oo 2011. Kit tyen ma nining ma tele onyo kuku kuku ma calo magi otime? Never matwal Rarely Kicel Kicel Sometimes Cawa mukene Often Tere tere Always jwii Land conflicts Kuku kuku onyo lara me ngom Clan or family conflicts Kuku kuku me dog gang Tribal conflicts Kuku kuku me kaka Leadership conflicts Lara me tela Electoral violence Geru ikare me yer onyo kwir Conflict of resource utilization Lara me lonyo me kabedo Other - specify Mukene - waci B.18aii: Did you or any of your household members experience domestic violence during the period 2006 through 2011? Gwok in onyo joo ot wu mo obedo ki peko me kuku kuku me ot? 1. Yes 2. No B.18aiii: If yes in B.18aiii: What forms of domestic violence did you any member of this household experience during 2006 to 2011? (James please don’t forget to get to compile list of forms of violence) Kit kuku kuku me ot ango ma in onyo joo me me ot wu gu neno ikine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011? 218 1. Husband beating wife 2. Husband and wife fighting 3. Wife beating husband 4. Man raping a female household member 5. Female raping a male household member 6. Emotional torture (use of abusive language) 7. Emotional torture (denial of sex) 8. Parents beating their children/corporal punishment 9. Denial of child education 10. Refusal to provide welfare (Food, Medical treatment, Cloths) to family members 11. Forced labour 12. Others specify B.18b: Which activities were carried out to address the causes of such conflicts? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kit tic onyo yub ango ma otime me jwayo tim me tele anyo kuku kuku me ot? 14. Media programs 15. Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery 16. Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee abducted children and young people. 17. Promotion of community healing 18. Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts among families 19. Resolution of longstanding inter-clan conflicts 20. Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing proactive resolution strategies 21. Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution methods which promotes win-win situation 22. Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in conflict management 23. Resolution of land conflicts 24. Promotion of legal and paralegal Land programs 25. None 26. Others specify B.18c: If at least one activity is mentioned in B.18b ASK Comparing before and after the mentioned activities were carried out, to what extent did the mentioned activities affect the occurrence of the conflicts? Ka ineno i acaki ma pe ya ki timo kwayi tic moo, ki dong ma ki timo tic ma waneno gi ni, tic magi okonyo iyoo ango ma lube ki kuku kuku ma wa neno gi ni? Extremely reduced /no longer exists Adok piny Somewhat reduced Odok lakite moni Remained the same Tye marom aroma Somewhat increased Omede lakite moni Extremely increased Omede tutwal Not Applicable 219 tutwal, dong peke Land conflicts Clan or family Tribal conflicts Leadership conflicts Electoral violence Conflict of resource utilization Other B.18d: If mentioned no longer exists or somewhat reduced ASK: Mention the influential activities that led to the reduction in conflicts and which organization or programs were responsible. Wac tic ma dong pii gu bedo tek loyo i kit me jwiko kuku kuku ma wa neno gi ni, ki dong dul ma gu timo, onyo yub ma otime maber Organization or program responsible Media programs Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee abducted children and young people. Promotion of community healing Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts among families Resolution of longstanding inter-clan conflicts Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing proactive resolution strategies Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution methods which promotes win-win situation Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in conflict management Resolution of land conflicts None Others specify 220 B.19a: In regards to health, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the occurrence of the following [READ OUT LIST FROM TABLE] as you were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) within your community? Ma lube ki yot kom, tam tye nining I kom jami ma abi kwano gi piny kany, I kine me mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2009? Strongly agree Yeyo na tye matek Agree Ayee Neither agree or disagree Pe atwero yee onyo kwero ne Disagree Akwere Strongly disagree Akwero matek Dilapidated health facilities Bale pa odi yadi/ daktari High / prevalence of Malaria Two lyeto i rwom me lamal High / prevalence of HIV/AIDS Two Jony I rwom me lamal High prevalence of Tuberculosis Two aona opio I rwom me lamal High prevalence of diarrhea Two cado I rwom me lamal Unmet need for family planning Rwom ma lapiny pa lok me lago nywal kede yot kom pa mon Lack or limited medical workers e.g. VHTs, doctors/nurses/midwives Peke onyo nok pa lutic me yot kom Lack of or limited drugs in health facilities Peke onyo nok pa yadi me cango two I odo yadi ma pat pat Lack of free testing services Nok pa jami me pimu two ma padi padi Lack or limited ante-natal services Peke onyo nok pa jame me konyo mon ma gu yac Lack or limited immunization and vaccination services Peke onyo nok pa jami me 221 gwere lutino Outbreak of diseases e.g. ebola, nodding diseases, Poto pa two atura ma calo ebola, two luc luc B.19b: If agree or strongly agree for any of the attributes in B.19b ASK: Which activities were carried out to address the health challenges mentioned above? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kwayi tic ango ma ki tiyo gi me jwayo peki ma lube ki you kom?  Provision of free medical or subsidized services  Training of health workers and support  Supporting maternal health  Immunization assistance  Establishment of health facilities  Renovation of health facilities  Counselling  Free HIV/AIDS testing services  Hospice and palliative care services  Indoor residual spraying  Provision and availing mosquito nets  None  Others specify B.19c: To what extent do you agree or disagree that was realized? [READ FROM THE LIST IN TABLE BELOW] Rwom me yee ma megi tye lakwene i kom lok ma abi kwano gi piny kany? Strongly agree Aye matek tutwal Agree Ayee Neither agree or disagree Pe atwero yee onyo kwere Disagree Akwero Strongly disagree Akwero matek Renovation and establishment/construction of health facilities Roco kabedo me yot kom Reduced / prevalence of Malaria in communities Dok piny I rwom me two lyero Reduced prevalence of diarrhea Dok piny I rwom me two cado Increased availability of family planning services 222 ile malo I rwom pa tic ma lube ki lago nywal wa ki yot kom mon Reduced / prevalence of HIV/AIDS Dok piny I rwom me two jonyo/silim Reduced prevalence of Tuberculosis Dok piny I rwom me two aona opio Increase in number of medical workers Mede I wel pa lutic me yot kom More drugs and other services in health facilities Yadi mapol wa ki jami mukene ma mite me yot kom Free testing services available and easily accessible Pime me nono ma nonge oyot Increased access ante-natal services Yube pa jami me tic I kom mon ma gu yac Increased access to immunization and vaccination services Mede pa rwom I kit me nongo yat me gwero lutino Reduced outbreak of diseases Dok cen I rwom me two ma bino atura B.20a: In regards to Education, to what extent do you agree or disagree that your community faced the following [READ FROM LIST BELOW IN THE TABLE] as you were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? Ma lube ki lok me pwonye, itwero yee I rwom ma lakwene ki lok magi; tutwale i kare ma pud utye I camp/kema, ki dong i kare ma dano tye ka dok gang? Strongly agree Aye matek tutwal Agree Ayee Neither agree or disagree Pe atwere yee nyo kwere Disagree Akwero Strongly disagree Akwere matek tutwal Dilapidated school structures 223 Bale pa jami me pwonye Difficulties accessing schools Peki I kit me oo I gangi me pwonye Lack or limited access and unavailability of scholastic materials Tek pa kit me nongo jami me kwan calo buk ki kalam Household inability to buy scholastic materials Kero ma nok pa jo me dog ot I kit me wilo jame me kwan calo buk ki kalam Low numbers of trained teachers Nok pa lupwonye ma beco Lack or limited teacher housing Peke onyo nok pa odi pa lupwonye High rates of school drop-outs Weko kwan I rwom ma lamal Low student/pupil enrollment rates Nok me coone pa lutino I gang pwonye B.20b: ASK if strongly agree or disagree in B.20a: Which of these activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing education and other learning services mentioned above? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) I kin jami ma abikwano piny kany, mene ma ki timo me jwiko peki ma lube ki lok me pwonye onyo kwan? 1. Construction and rehabilitation of schools 2. Training of teachers 3. Construction of teachers’ houses 4. Provision of scholastic materials to pupils 5. Sensitization of the general public 6. Others specify B.20c: ASK ALL: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following were realized to address the challenges related to accessing better education services? Ma lube ki lok me yubu kit me nongo pwonye; I yee I rwom mene I kom lok magi? Strongly agree Agree Ayee Neither agree or disagree Disagree Akwero Strongly disagree 224 Aye matek tutwal Pe atwere yee nyo kwere Akwere matek tutwal Renovated and functioning school structures Increase in number of schools Availability and improved access to scholastic materials Increase in ability of households to buy scholastic materials Increase in number of trained teachers Improved teacher housing reduced rates of school drop-outs Increase in student enrollment rates B.21a: To what extent were the following [READ FROM LIST BELOW] a challenge to accessing safe water and good hygiene within your community as you were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? Jami magi gu bedo lageng I rwom ma lakwene; I kit me nongo pii ki dok bene bedo ki lengo I kine me mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011 Extremely to a larger extent Dwong tutwal onyo dwong Somewhat a large extent Dwong dwong Not sure Pe angeyo Somewhat a less extent Nok nok Not a challenge at all Onongo pe peko wa ki acel Having an adequate number of safe water facilities Bedo ki kanongo pii muromo Practicing good hygiene practices Bedo ki lengo Having adequate and appropriate sanitation facilities e.g. toilets/latrines, bathrooms, racks Bedo ki jami me gwoko 225 lengo calo coron wa ki ot lwok muromo ki dok bene ma rwate B.21b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing safe water and practicing good sanitation? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Tic ango ma ki timo me jwayo peko ma lube ki kit me nongo pii wa ki bedo ki lengo? 1. Construction of water facilities 2. Training on hygiene and proper sanitation 3. Others specify B.21c: In your opinion were the following [READ FROM THE LIST BELOW IN TABLE] related to access of safe water and good sanitation practices realized? I tamo ni jami magi onongo tye maber i kit me nongo pii wa ki bedo ki lengo? Yee ma meri tye I rwom mene? Strongly agree Aye matek tutwal Agree Ayee Neither agree or disagree Pe atwere yee nyo kwere Disagree Akwero Strongly disagree Akwere matek tutwal Increased number of safe water facilities Mede pa jami me pii Increased number of households Practicing good hygiene practices Mede i odi ma onong gi tye ki yub mabeco me lengo Increased sanitation facilities at household e.g. toilets/latrines, bathrooms, racks Mede I jami me lengo ma calo coron, cagati. B.22a: In your opinion, to what degree or extent were the following challenges related to agricultural production occurring in your community as you were starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? Peki magi ma piny kanyi bene onongo odiyo lok me pur ikine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2009? Yee ma megi tye irom mene? Never Matwal Rarely Kicel Sometimes Cawa Often Tere Always Jwii 226 kicel mukene tere Lack or limited availability of tools and inputs for agricultural production Peke onyo nok pa jami me pur Limited access to land Nok pa ngom Limited access to agricultural extension services Tek I kit me nongo tic ma lube ki pur I kin paci Lack or limited access to labor (e.g. hired, communal or family) Peke onyo nok pa lutic Unreliable markets for agricultural products Aloka loka I kit me cuk pi jami apura High rates of post-harvest losses Acara ma lube ki kwanyo jami ki I poto Lack or limited storage facilities for agricultural products e.g. cribs, granaries Peke onyo nok pa jami me gwoko jami me apura, lunyete, dero Lack or limited farmers associations Peke onyo nok pa dule pa lupur Others specify Mukene B.22b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in increasing agricultural productivity?? (SPONTANEOUS MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Kwayi tic ango ma ki timo me jwayo peki ma gengo medo rwom lube me pur  Training and facilitating establishment of VSLAs  Facilitating formation and strengthening of community farmer groups  Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools  Training of farmer groups  Provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods  Expanding access to production inputs  Enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers  Post-harvest handling and value addition support to farmers  Linking farmers to Markets  Others specify 227 B.22c: In your opinion how satisfied were you with the following activities [READ FROM LIST BELOW IN TABLE] implemented to address the challenges in increasing agricultural productivity? I kin tic ma ki timo me jwiko peki ma lube ki lok me pur, yee ni tye i rwom mene? Very Satisfied Ayeng tutwal Satisfied Ayeng Not sure Pe angeyo Unsatisfied Pe ayeng Not Satisfied at All pe ayeng matwal Not applicable Training and facilitating establishment of VSLAs Miyo pwonye ki yubu jami me group me bol li cup Facilitating formation and strengthening of community farmer groups Tyelo kor dano I ki me cako dule me pur Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools Tyelo kor dano I kit me nong kwayi jami ma pat pat me pur ma calo kodi Training of farmer groups Pwonyo dule ma pat pat me pur Provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods Miyo jami ma konyo I kit me nyutu yub onyo yoo mabeco me pur Expanding access to production inputs Yabo malac yoo me nongo jami pe pur Enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers Yubu kit me nongo 228 lim den pi lupur Post-harvest handling and value addition support to farmers Yubu ngec pa lupur I kit me kwanyo kodi ki ipoto wa kiyubu jami ma medo wel pa jami apita Linking farmers to Markets Kubu lupur ki cuk B.22d: Besides the activities that were carried out, what other activities or interventions would have been done better to address the challenges related to increasing agricultural production and market linkages? Ma pat ki tic ma ki timo, tic ango mukene ma onongo ki room timo ne me jwayo peki ma lube ki pur wa ki cato jami apura? B.23a: How often were you experiencing the following challenges related to proper feeding/nutrition in your households you were returning from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? Tyen tyen ma lakwene ma peki magi i bedo ka nongo ne ma lube ki lok me pit maber? Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Lack or limited access to food Having Less number of meals per day (less than 3) Limited access to a variety of foods (e.g. lacking proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins etc) B.23b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges related to accessing proper feeding/nutrition? Kwayi tic ango ma ki timo me jwayo peki ma lube ki kit yoo me nongo pit maber? 1. Training households in proper feeding practices 2. Provision of free food items 3. School/health feeding programs 4. Others specify B.23c: In your opinion how satisfied were you with the following activities implemented to address the challenges related to accessing proper feeding? Kit ma itamo kwede, yengo ni tye i rwom mene ki kwayi tic magi ma ki bedo ka timo gi me jwayo peki ma lube ki lok me nongo pit maber? 229 Very Satisfied Satisfied Not sure Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Training households in proper feeding practices Provision of free food items School/health feeding programs B.24a: In your opinion, what role did the government play in restoring peace and stability in your Sub County and northern Uganda from while people were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES) I tam ma megi, tic ango ma gamente otimo me kelo kuc ki ber bedo i sub county ma meg wu onyo I kumalo me Uganda I kare ma danu pud tye ka cako dok paco I kine me mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2009? 1. Community sensitization 2. Hunting for illegal arms 3. Re-building and renovating government office 4. Revitalizing functionality of the sub counties and other administrative organs 5. Supporting, directing and authorization of NGO and other development organizations’ programs 6. Supporting peace and reconciliation programs in the communities 7. Providing security to the communities 8. Others specify B.24b: In your opinion, to what extent do you feel did the government play its role in restoring peace and stability in your Sub County and northern Uganda from while people were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? I tam ma megi, gamente otiyo I rwom ma lakwene I kit me kelo kuc ki ber bedo I sub county onyo kumalo me Uganda, I kare ma danu pud pud tye ka cako dok paco adoka I kine me mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2009?  Very well  Fairly well  Neither nor well  Not well  Not well at all B.24c: In your opinion, how effective were the following administrative units [READ FROM THE LIST BELOW] in your village, Sub County and the district in carrying out their duties and providing services as people were starting to leave the camps (2006 to 2009) through 2011? (SINGLE RESPONSE) I tam ma megi, jang gamente ki lutela me te dero magi, tic gi obedo I rwom ma lakwene I dog tic me yubu ber bedo pa dano I kare ma dano pud cako dok gang adoka? 230 Very effective Tiyo matek tutwal Somewhat effective Tiyo ma tek olo Neither effective nor ineffective Pe tek dok pe goro Somewhat not effective Pe tek Not effective at all Pe tiyo matek matwal Don’t know Pe angeyo Local Council 1 Council me acel Local Council 3 Council me medek Sub county chiefs Jago Local Council 5 Council me abic Resident District Commissioners Lawang President onyo RDC B.24d: In your opinion, currently how effective are the following administrative units [READ FROM THE LIST BELOW] in your village, Sub County and the district? I tam ma megi, rwom me kero pa lutela me te dero magi, me sub county onyo distrik ma megu tye lakwene I kom kare ni? Very effective Tiyo matek tutwal Somewhat effective Tiyo ma tek olo Neither effective nor ineffective Pe tek dok pe goro Somewhat not effective Pe tiyo matek tutwal Not effective at all Pe tiyo matek matwal Don’t know Pe angeyo Local Council 1 Council me acel Local Council 3 Council me adek Sub county chiefs Jago Local Council 5 Council me abic Resident District Commissioners Lawang President onyo RDC 231 B.25a: To what extent were the following institutions [READ FROM THE LIST BELOW] accessible to provide justice services to the victims of the conflict while people were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? I kine jang gamente ma abi kwano gi piny kanyi, kero me tic gi I lok me gwoko twero pa dano wa ki ngol matir onongo tye nining nicake ikine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011? Easily accessible Nonge oyot Somewhat accessible Twero nonge Neither accessible nor inaccessible Pe twero nong onyo twero nonge Somewhat not accessible Nongo ne tek Not accessible at all Pe nonge Don’t know Pe angeyo Judiciary/courts kot The Police police Traditional leaders Ludito me te kwaro Para-legal services Omii kony kot B.25b: What activities were carried out to facilitate access to justice for the victims of the conflicts during the period 2006 through 2011? [DON’T READ; MULTIPLE RESPONSES] Kit kwayi tic ango ma ki timo ma lube ki gwoko twero pa dano wa ki ngool ma tir I kine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011?  Training of police  Providing police with equipment  Training of para-legals  Training and support to cultural leaders (to mediate)  Establishment of amnesty commission  Sensitization about human rights and justice through various for a e.g. media and community meetings  Supporting restoring of relationships through indigenous rituals (mata-oput, cleansing ceremonies, reburial etc)  Others specify B.25c: In case you are in need of justice, to what extent do you agree that the following institutions [READ FROM THE LIST BELOW] will be easily accessible to you or members of your household? 232 Ka I tye ka mito ngol matir, I rwom mene ma iyee ni jang gamente magi onongo kit me nongo kony ki bot gi onongo twero nonge bot in onyo dano me ot ma meg wu? Strongly agree Aye matek Somewhat agree Atwero yee Neither agree nor disagree Akwero Somewhat not agree Atwero kwero Strongly disagree Pe ayee matwal Don’t know Pe angeyo Judiciary/courts kot The Police Police Traditional leaders Lutela me te kwaro Para-legal services Omii kony me kot B.26a: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, what key outcomes or benefits have had a long-lasting influence or impact among the members in your community? And why? Kit ma itamo kwede, ka ineno tic onyo yub ma obedo tye ni cake I mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011, adwogi ango ma konye tye ma be bedo pi kare malac? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ B.26b: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have continued functioning after their implementation/establishment? I tam ma megi, ka ineno kwayi tic ma ki timo I kine me mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011, kit kwayi tic ango ma pud tye ka wot maber I nge kare ma ki keto gi? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ B.26ci: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have are not functioning after their implementation/establishment? 233 I tam ma megi, ka ineno tic ma ki timo I kine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011, kit kwayi tic me ma kore pet ye ka mede I nge keto gi? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.26cii: In your opinion why are these not functioning? I tam ma megi, pingo kwayi tic magi pe ka tic maber? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ INVOLVEMENT IN PROGRAMME ACTIVITY DEVELOPMENT We are now going to talk about the communities’ involvement in programme development and activity implementation B.27a: Between 2006 and 2011, were you or any member of your household consulted in generating and identifying key areas of intervention in the communities? I kine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011, gwok in onyo dano me dog ot ma megi ki winyo dwon gi I kit me neno jami me atima I kabedo ma megi? 1. Yes 2. No B.27b: If yes to B.27a, how did you or any member of your household participate in these consultations? (SPONTENOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Winyo dwon man ka obedo tye, otime iyoo mene? 1. Community meetings with local councils chiefs 2. Consultative meetings with NGOs/development partners 3. Through advocacy groups 4. Consultative meetings with area Members of Parliament 5. Others specify PROGRAMME IMPLENTATION B.28a: In your opinion what were the main challenges faced by the different organizations during implementation of the key interventions in the region from 2006 through 2011? INTERVIEWERS ASK PER KEY INTERVENTION AREA: Kwayi ppeki ango ma dule ma padi padi gu nongo I kare me timo tic onyo kelo yub ikine mwaka 2006 ni oo I mwaka 2011? 234 ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.28b: In your opinion, what were the good practices that enabled successful implementation of activities/interventions? Ka itami, kit jami ango ma lube ki diro onyo kwiri me tic ma okonyo yub ma obedo tye? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.28c: In your opinion, what were the bad practices that might have led to poor implementation of activities/interventions from 2006 through 2011? Ka I tami, kit tim maraco ango ma oweko yub peg u tine maber? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ OVERALL EVALUATION B.29ai: Now I would like us to talk about the peace and stability situation in Northern Uganda, while in the camp, immediately after and now. In your opinion how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your communities while you or your household members were still in the camp? Kombedi dong amito ni kong wa lok I kom lok me kuc ki ber bedo I kumalo me Uganda, ikare ma I tye I camp/kema, I yoo ngeye cut cut, ki dong kombedi. Ka I tami, I twero keto rwom me kuc ki ber bedo I kumalo me Ugand ka kwene, I kare ma pud in ki joo me ot ma meg wu pud tye I camp/kema? Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable Not peaceful and stable at all B.29aii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda was very or somewhat peaceful and stable while you or your household members were still in camps? 235 Pingo iwaco ni dono me I kabedo wu onyo i kumalo me Uganda onongo gi tye ki kuc ma oromo, onyo olo onongo kuc tye maber ber ma onongo pud dano tye I camp/kema? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ B.29aiii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK : Which organizations or institutions contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general while you were still in camps? Dule onyo NGO mene ma gu tiyo tic kacel ki joo mukene pi kuc ki ber bedo I kare ma dano pud onongo gi tye I camp/kema? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.29bi:. In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community immediately after you or your household members had just left the camp(s)? I tami, I keto rwom me kuc I kumalo me Uganda kwene I kare ma dano pud gu weko camp/kema aweka Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable Not peaceful and stable at all B.29bii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda was very or somewhat peaceful and stable immediately you had just left the camp(s)? Pingo iwaco ni kabedo ni onyo kumalo me Uganda onongo kuc tye iye maber onyo olo olo ikare ma pud dano oweko camp/kema aweka? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.29biii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Which organizations or institutions contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general immediately after you had left the camps? Dule onyo NGO mene ma gu tiyo tic kacel ki dul mukene pi kuc ki ber bedo I kare ma dano gu weko camp/kema aweka? 236 ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ B.29ci:. In your opinion how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community now? I tami, rwom me kuc ki ber bedo I kumalo me Uganda onongo tye lakwene? Community Northern Uganda Very peaceful and stable Somewhat peaceful and stable Not sure Somewhat not peaceful and stable Not peaceful and stable at all B.29cii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Why do you say that your community or Northern Uganda is very or somewhat peaceful and NOW? Pingo iwaco ni kabedo ni onyo kumalo me Uganda onongo kuc tye iye maber tutwal, onyo olo maber ber? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ B.29ciii: If mentioned peaceful and stable ASK: Which organizations or institutions have contributed to the peace and stability in your community and northern Uganda in general NOW? Dule mene ma gu tiyo me kelo kuc I kumalo me Uganda? B.30: How confident are you that your community and Northern Uganda will remain peaceful and stable in the future? Yee ni tye lakwene ni kumalo me Uganda bi bedo ki kuc wa ki ber bedo? Community Northern Uganda Very confident Somewhat confident Not sure Somewhat not confident Not confident at all B.31: In your opinion what are the likely reasons that might lead to instability in Northern Uganda and your community? 237 I tam ma megi, kit gin ango ma gwok room weko kumalo me Uganda poto i peko me kuku kuku? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ B.32: What do you recommend to be done to improve peace and stability in Northern Uganda and your community? Tam ango ma imiyo pi medo rwom me kuc wa ki ber bedo I kumalo me Uganda? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ WELFARE INDICATORS C.1: How many members does the household have? (Single response) Dano adi ma gi tye i dog ot ma meg wu? 1. 6 or more 2. 4-5 3. 3 4. 2 5. 1 C.2: Age distribution of members of household Mwaka gi kono tye ikine group mene?  Below 18 years  18-24 years  25-39 years  40 -54 years  55 years and above C.3: Do all children ages 6 to 18 currently attend school (government, private, NGO/religious, or boarding)? (Single response) Lutino weng gi tye ka ceto I gang kwan? 1. Not at all 2. All attend government schools 3. No children ages 6 to 18 4. All attend, and one or more attend a private, NGO/religious, or boarding school C.4: What is the highest grade that the male head of household /spouse completed? (Single response) Rwom me kwan pa won ot ma tye lakwene?  No male head/spouse 238  Primary 5 or less, or none  Primary 6  Primary 7 to Secondary 6  Higher than Secondary 6 C.5: What is the highest grade that the female head of household /spouse completed? (Single response) Rwom me kwan pa min ot man tye lakwene?  No female head/spouse  Primary 5 or less, or none  Primary 6  Primary 7 to Secondary 6  Higher than Secondary 6 C.6: Dwelling unit characteristics (Single responses) Kabedo ma megwu tye nining I kit ma ki yubu kwede? Type of housing unit Occupancy tenure of dwelling unit Type of dwelling unit No. of rooms for sleeping 6. Detached house 7. Semi￾detached 8. Flat 9. Tenement 10. Others 6. Free public/private 7. Private ownership 8. Subsidized public/private 9. Rented public/private 10. Others 5. Main house 6. Room or rooms 7. Servant quarters 8. Others 6. 1 7. 2 8. 3 9. 4 10. Over 5 rooms C.7: What are the Construction materials of the dwelling you are staying in? (Single responses) Ki tiyo ki jami ango me yubo odi ma obedo iye? Roofing material Wall material Floor material 7. Iron sheets 8. Tiles/asbestos 9. Concrete 10. Tins 11. Grass/papyrus 12. Others (specify) 8. Bricks with cement 9. Bricks with mud 10. Cement blocks 11. Concrete 12. Wood 13. Mud and poles 14. Others 7. Concrete stone 8. Cement 9. Rammed earth 10. Wood 11. Tiles 12. Others C.8: What is the main source of lighting in your dwelling? Ki tiyo ki mac ango me alyela I dog ot man?  Firewood  Tadooba, or other  Paraffin lantern, or electricity (grid, generator, solar) 239 C.9: What type of toilet facility does your household have or use? (Single and spontaneous response) Ot yoke ango ma dano tiyo kwede? 1. Covered pit latrine 2. VIP latrine 3. Uncovered pit latrine 4. Flush toilet 5. Bush 6. Others specify C.10a: Is the toilet facility used by this household shared by other household (s)? Yes..1 No..2. Gwok onyo jirani bene tiyo ki ot yoke ma wun otiyo kwede ni? C.10b: If yes in C10a: How many households share the toilet facility used? Odi adi ma tiyo ki ot yoke meno? C.11: Does your household have any of the following in working order? READ OUT AND MULTIPLE RESPONSES Dog ot man tye ki jami ma abi kwano gi piny kanyi? Item Tick appropriately A radio Cassette player Television Mobile phone Fixed phone Refrigerator Clock C.12: Does every member of the household have at least two sets of clothes? Yes/No Dano duc me ot kany tye ki bongi aryo olo? C.13: Does every member of the household have at least one pair of shoes? Yes/No Dano duc me ot man tye ki war? Interviewer: Please End the Interview and thank the respondent. However, if there are any clarifications required, ask the respondent before leaving the Household. 240 ANNEX III-I: VIDEO PARTICIPATION WAIVER I, __________________________________________ agree to the terms herein and give IBTCI (a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development in a performance evaluation of USAID assistance to Northern Uganda from 2006 to 2011) its representatives and agents, absolute right and permission, as described below, to use Information and other materials without limitation, including my name, age, statements and image hereafter referred to as 'My Materials' (likeness whether filmed or photographed). 1. My Materials may be used and shown for any production or programme other than the one cited in this agreement. 2. My Materials may be reproduced, and edited for any reason other than what is described herein. 3. My Materials may be used anywhere in the world for any period of time. 4. My Consent cannot be cancelled or changed. 5. I understand that I cannot raise any financial claims related to the use of My Materials. 6. I understand that I will not review or approve the draft or final product resulting from the use of My Materials. 7. I have read, or have been read this Consent before signing it, and I fully understand this Consent. Signed______________________________ Date____________________________Name _____________________________________________________________________ Title or description of production _____________________________________________________________________ Project title or description 241 ANNEX IV: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA TABLES (Instructions to Surveyors in BOLD CAPS) DEMOGRAPHICS A.1: Age TOTAL SEX M F TOTAL 1,011 433 578 18-24 20% 18% 20% 25-39 41% 38% 42% 40-54 25% 25% 24% 55 years and above 15% 18% 13% A.2: Current Marital Status: (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Married (monogamous) 49% 55% 45% 28% 53% 60% 46% 2. Married (polygamous) 11% 12% 10% 4% 13% 13% 12% 3. Cohabiting 14% 10% 17% 26% 19% 5% 1% 4. Divorced/separated 4% 2% 5% 3% 3% 6% 4% 5. Widowed 11% 3% 17% 1% 4% 15% 37% 6. Single 11% 18% 6% 38% 8% 1% 1% A.3: What is your relationship to the household head? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Head of household 43% 71% 22% 12% 35% 61% 77% 2. Spouse 38% 8% 60% 40% 46% 33% 21% 3. Daughter/son 13% 19% 9% 40% 11% 2% 1% 4. Grand child 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 242 5. Parent to head of household 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 6. Sister/brother 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 7. Other relative 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 8. Non-relative 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 9. Others (specify) 3% 0% 6% 2% 5% 3% 0% A.4: Have you ever attended school? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Yes 74% 91% 62% 94% 78% 64% 57% 2. No 26% 9% 38% 6% 22% 36% 43% A.5: If ever attended school, what is your current schooling status? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 768 396 372 188 326 164 90 1. Left school 93% 91% 95% 78% 98% 96% 99% 2. Currently attending school 7% 9% 5% 22% 2% 4% 1% A.6: What is the highest level of education attained? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,013 433 580 198 410 248 155 Never Attended 25% 9% 37% 6% 21% 35% 42% Nursery pre￾primary 2% 1% 3% 0% 3% 4% 2% Primary 47% 51% 45% 51% 49% 50% 35% O Level 16% 25% 10% 30% 17% 8% 12% A level 2% 4% 1% 4% 3% 2% 0% Post-secondary 4% 8% 2% 6% 5% 2% 6% Others specify 2% 3% 1% 4% 1% 0% 3% 243 A.7: Can you read and write in any language? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Neither able to read nor write 45% 22% 62% 27% 47% 53% 51% 2. Able to read only 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 2% 3. Able to read and write 51% 73% 34% 67% 49% 43% 47% A.8: What is your current employment status? (SINGLE RESPONSE; DO NOT READ OUT) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Unemployed 54% 50% 56% 50% 53% 49% 66% 2. Self-employed 32% 32% 32% 29% 32% 38% 25% 3. Full-time public employee 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4. Part-time public employee 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 5. Full-time private employee 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 6. Part-time private employee 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 7. Casual laborer 5% 6% 5% 9% 5% 4% 1% 8. Others specify 5% 5% 6% 8% 5% 4% 4% 244 CONFLICT IN THE NORTHERN UGANDA B.1a: What was the most important cause of the LRA conflict in Acholi sub-region? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,011 433 578 198 410 248 155 1. Retaliation/Avengi ng mistreatment by NRA 21% 21% 21% 17% 21% 20% 28% 2. Self defense 5% 5% 4% 4% 6% 4% 5% 3. Loss of political power 42% 42% 41% 54% 37% 41% 39% 4. Nepotism, tribalism, segregation 15% 17% 14% 12% 16% 17% 15% 5. Property grabbing 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 6% 5% 6. North-South divide 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% Forced by spirits 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% Poverty 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% Don't Know 9% 6% 11% 8% 12% 6% 6% Others 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 245 B.1b: How were you, your family and this community affected by the LRA conflict in the Northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Displacement from homes 69% 70% 68% 72% 67% 68% 71% 2. Inability to move safely 23% 24% 22% 22% 25% 19% 23% 3. Unemployment 11% 14% 9% 11% 12% 10% 11% 4. Increase in attacks, injuries and violence (e.g. domestic 38% 35% 41% 38% 37% 40% 40% 5. Insecurity 35% 36% 35% 33% 35% 35% 38% 6. Increased incidence of disease infection and disease outbreak 15% 16% 15% 12% 19% 13% 14% 7. Inability to use land 15% 16% 14% 13% 16% 16% 13% 8. Fear of the military and the rebels 13% 15% 11% 9% 15% 12% 14% 9. Breakdown of the customary institutions 3% 3% 3% 2% 4% 3% 5% 10. Ethnic Segregation and Breakdown of trust and cohesion a 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% 2% 5% 11. Limited or no communication among families 3% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 4% 12. Increased poverty 39% 42% 37% 35% 39% 45% 38% 13. Poor hygiene and sanitation 8% 10% 6% 8% 9% 7% 6% 14. Reduced trade activities and agricultural productivity 8% 8% 7% 5% 9% 8% 8% 15. Death 82% 81% 84% 83% 81% 85% 81% 16. Destruction of property and infrastructure like roads, h 31% 36% 27% 33% 31% 31% 28% 246 17. Lack of trust in government 3% 4% 3% 2% 4% 2% 6% 18. Environmental degradation 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% B.1b: How were you, your family and this community affected by the LRA conflict in the Northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) 19. Traumatized population 8% 10% 7% 6% 9% 11% 6% 20. Increase in Land conflicts 8% 9% 7% 6% 8% 10% 7% 21. Environmental degradation 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 22. No or limited access to basic necessities like education 16% 17% 15% 17% 18% 13% 12% 23. famine 43% 42% 44% 45% 43% 45% 36% 24. Others specify 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 2% B.2: During the conflict in Northern Uganda, which category of people was most affected? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 a) Women 16% 12% 19% 14% 16% 19% 13% b) Elderly 2% 3% 2% 4% 1% 3% 3% c) Children 33% 33% 32% 35% 34% 32% 29% d) Persons with disabilities 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% e) Youth 14% 17% 12% 15% 13% 14% 14% f) Men 3% 5% 2% 3% 3% 6% 1% g) Everyone 28% 26% 30% 26% 30% 22% 36% h) Other specify 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 247 B.3: Between 2006 and 2012 what were the major challenges affecting the communities as a result of the conflict in northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Dependency 21% 21% 20% 18% 21% 21% 23% 2. Displacement from homes 39% 35% 42% 39% 41% 37% 38% 3. Inability to move safely 22% 21% 22% 21% 20% 22% 26% 4. Attacks, injuries 26% 23% 28% 23% 24% 28% 30% 5. Domestic violence 6% 5% 6% 3% 8% 6% 5% 6. Sexual violence (e.g. rape, defilement etc.) 8% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 6% 7. Disability 7% 6% 7% 4% 6% 7% 12% 8. Male disempowerment 2% 3% 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 9. Insecurity 29% 29% 30% 29% 29% 33% 23% 10. Increased incidence of disease infection and disease out 24% 26% 22% 23% 26% 23% 20% 11. Inability to use land 19% 18% 20% 23% 18% 21% 14% 12. Breakdown of the customary institutions 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 13. Ethnic Segregation and Breakdown of trust and cohesion a 4% 5% 3% 2% 4% 4% 5% 14. Limited or no communication among families 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 6% 3% 15. Poverty 56% 59% 54% 55% 54% 61% 55% 16. Poor hygiene and sanitation 16% 19% 14% 18% 16% 13% 16% 17. Food insecurity 59% 55% 61% 61% 61% 56% 53% 18. Low agricultural productivity 18% 21% 16% 17% 17% 20% 20% 19. Unemployment or lack of engagement in 8% 10% 7% 6% 8% 10% 10% 248 productivity 20. Environmental degradation 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 21. Trauma 10% 10% 10% 11% 9% 9% 11% B.3: Between 2006 and 2012 what were the major challenges affecting the communities as a result of the conflict in northern Uganda? (DON’T READ OUT, multiple responses) 22. Land conflicts 17% 19% 16% 19% 17% 19% 14% 23. No or limited access to basic necessities like education 30% 33% 28% 31% 30% 31% 27% 25. Destroyed Property 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 26. Others specify 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% INFORMATION ON IDPs B.4ai: Have you or any member of this household ever lived/stayed in an IDP camp? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 95% 96% 95% 94% 95% 97% 95% 2. No 5% 4% 5% 6% 5% 3% 5% B.4aii: Were you originally living in the area where the camp was established? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 965 416 549 187 391 241 146 1. Yes 34% 34% 33% 30% 35% 35% 33% 2. No 66% 66% 67% 70% 65% 65% 67% 249 B.6: If yes to B.4ai; what were the reasons that led you or any member of this household to start living in the camp? (MULTIPLE MENTION) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 640 274 366 130 255 157 98 To avoid abductions 89% 88% 90% 95% 88% 87% 86% Fear of attack and violence 69% 70% 68% 69% 69% 63% 77% Government’s request to join camp 29% 32% 27% 18% 31% 30% 36% To have access to facilities and help (e.g. food, health services 13% 12% 14% 13% 10% 17% 15% Because others were moving 9% 7% 10% 8% 11% 9% 4% Fear to be killed by rebels 90% 88% 91% 89% 91% 89% 90% Others specify 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 3% B.7a: What factors contributed to people resettling from IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 a) Promises by the government 34% 34% 34% 23% 36% 36% 40% b) Displacement of the rebels from northern Uganda by the UP 53% 54% 52% 55% 52% 56% 47% c) Stability in northern Uganda 73% 73% 73% 81% 73% 71% 69% d) Poor services or environment in the camp 21% 20% 21% 24% 21% 19% 18% e) Interventions by development organizations 7% 5% 8% 9% 5% 7% 5% f) Forced by the government 23% 21% 24% 23% 20% 23% 27% g) Others specify 10% 11% 9% 11% 9% 11% 7% 250 B.7b: If yes to B.4ai: Specifically, what factors contributed to you or your household members resettling from IDP camps? (MULTIPLE MENTION) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 640 274 366 130 255 157 98 a) Promises by the government 24% 26% 23% 18% 24% 27% 28% b) Displacement of the rebels from northern Uganda by the UP 46% 49% 45% 47% 48% 46% 41% c) Stability in the region 72% 67% 75% 75% 70% 69% 74% d) Poor services or environment in the camp 25% 25% 24% 29% 24% 21% 26% e) Interventions by development organizations 3% 3% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% f) Forced by the government 16% 13% 19% 18% 16% 17% 15% g) Others specify 10% 12% 9% 15% 9% 12% 4% B.8a: If yes to B.4ai: Before moving to the camps(s), were you and your household members originally living at the current place of residence? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 640 274 366 130 255 157 98 1. Yes 75% 79% 71% 68% 74% 78% 79% 2. No 25% 21% 29% 32% 26% 22% 21% B.8b: If yes to B.8ai; From the IDP camps did you or your household members return directly to the current place you are residing at? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 477 216 261 89 188 123 77 1. Yes 65% 62% 68% 67% 67% 57% 73% 2. No 35% 38% 32% 33% 33% 43% 27% 251 B.8c: If no in B.8b, how do you describe the return process? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 168 83 85 29 65 53 21 a) First settled in another area before moving here 81% 80% 82% 79% 83% 79% 81% b) Settled here but returning to the IDP camp whenever required 17% 17% 16% 17% 15% 17% 19% c) Others specify 2% 4% 1% 3% 2% 4% 0% B.9: ASK ALL: In your opinion, who was MOST IMPORTANT stakeholder that facilitated the return to villages by the people from the IDP camps? (SINGLE MENTION) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Government of Uganda 43% 40% 45% 34% 39% 50% 53% 2. Development organizations (specify these) 42% 46% 39% 53% 45% 34% 33% 3. Local council chiefs 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4. The Army 6% 5% 6% 8% 5% 6% 4% 5. Religious leaders/institutions 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 6. Traditional institutions 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 7. Other specify 6% 6% 6% 4% 7% 6% 6% 252 B.10: If yes to B.4a: Specifically, what assistance did you receive when returning from IDP camps? (Spontaneous mentions MULTIPLE MENTION) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 964 416 548 187 390 241 146 Received food items 31% 31% 31% 33% 29% 29% 34% Received household items like clothes, utensils, iron sheets 35% 34% 36% 48% 30% 32% 37% Received agricultural tools 27% 31% 24% 34% 24% 29% 24% Trainings on agricultural production 13% 16% 12% 16% 15% 10% 10% Counselling 3% 2% 3% 4% 2% 4% 1% Free education 4% 4% 3% 5% 4% 3% 3% Free medical services 5% 6% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% Nothing received 44% 41% 47% 34% 46% 47% 47% Financial Assistance 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% Establishment of Water Facilities, Sanitation and Hygiene 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Re-stocking 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 0% 1% Agricultural items and inputs 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Infrastructural development 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 253 ASSISTANCE IN NORTHERN UGANDA As mentioned earlier, we would like to know your experience of development interventions by different organizations that happened between 2006 and 2011. B.11: Now I would like to know the key community needs from 2006 through 2011. What were the most important needs for you, your household and family during the period when people were still, and starting to leave camps (2006-2009)? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Security 28% 28% 28% 28% 26% 29% 33% 2. Need for Food 78% 73% 81% 85% 77% 74% 77% 3. Access to health services 28% 29% 27% 30% 29% 25% 25% 4. Access to schools 26% 27% 24% 29% 24% 30% 18% 5. Provision and access to safe water 34% 37% 32% 35% 33% 36% 32% 6. Access to housing/shelter 34% 36% 32% 30% 31% 37% 40% 7. Re-uniting with family 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 6% 3% 8. Resettlement from IDP camps 18% 17% 19% 16% 20% 20% 14% 9. Accessing education services 12% 13% 11% 15% 12% 13% 6% 10. Justice to victims of the conflict and violence 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 5% 11. Access to affordable agricultural inputs and other house 30% 33% 29% 28% 32% 31% 29% 12. Reducing and mitigation in land conflicts 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 13. Revitalizing and strengthening of customary institutions 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 14. Others specify 18% 22% 15% 13% 17% 23% 19% 254 B.12: INTERVIEWER: If USAID has not been mentioned above, please ask: Are you aware of any assistance or activities supported by USAID in the Northern region? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 966 409 557 190 391 237 148 1.Yes 30% 39% 24% 35% 34% 23% 24% 2.No 70% 61% 76% 65% 66% 77% 76% B.12a.i: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? Within Sub-county? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) In Northern Uganda TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% 2% 1% LINKAGES/PADCO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGAN 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 1% NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% AFFORD 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 255 DEVELOPMENT) 256 B.12a.i: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? Within Sub-county? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) In Northern Uganda NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% AVSI 16% 17% 14% 19% 16% 15% 12% MERCY CORPS 6% 6% 5% 4% 7% 6% 5% UNITY/PIASCY 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICUL 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMON 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WORLD VISION 29% 34% 24% 27% 31% 29% 22% ACDI/VOCA 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATION ) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TASO 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% CARE INTERNATIONAL 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% PADER PEACE PROGRAM 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% A2Z 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% JCRC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% IRIS 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 4% ACCESS TO JUSTICE 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 257 SMD 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) 43% 40% 45% 43% 44% 39% 44% B.12a.i: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? Within Sub-county? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) In Northern Uganda USAID 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 2% WAR CHILD 5% 5% 5% 8% 5% 4% 1% CARITAS 14% 16% 13% 13% 16% 16% 10% RED CROSS 33% 29% 36% 35% 34% 31% 31% SEND A COW 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% PRDP 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER 15% 10% 19% 12% 12% 18% 22% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 43% 51% 37% 46% 44% 42% 34% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 18% 25% 13% 18% 20% 18% 11% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 8% 11% 5% 10% 9% 8% 5% 258 In Sub-county TOTAL DISTRICT NAME AGAGO AMURU GULU KITGUM LAMWO NWOYA PADER TOTAL 1,010 165 132 191 161 131 72 158 NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 0% 0% 1% LINKAGES/PADCO 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGANDA 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, 3% 0% 5% 3% 7% 1% 1% 1% NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% AFFORD 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% AVSI 16% 10% 7% 17% 25% 21% 3% 18% MERCY CORPS 6% 4% 1% 0% 19% 0% 0% 11% UNITY/PIASCY 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICUL 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMON 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% WORLD VISION 29% 38% 24% 34% 40% 6% 11% 30% ACDI/VOCA 1% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 259 In Sub -county HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% TASO 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% CARE INTERNATIONAL 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% PADER PEACE PROGRAM 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% A2Z 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% JCRC 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% IRIS 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 0% 1% ACCESS TO JUSTICE 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SMD 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) 43% 50% 46% 30% 53% 51% 47% 28% USAID 3% 4% 5% 2% 1% 4% 7% 1% WAR CHILD 5% 7% 5% 4% 4% 8% 4% 3% CARITAS 14% 29% 11% 10% 9% 15% 4% 17% RED CROSS 33% 31% 43% 25% 40% 38% 50% 17% SEND A COW 1% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% PRDP 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER 15% 2% 17% 21% 10% 10% 8% 30% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 43% 81% 31% 18% 20% 66% 69% 32% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 18% 57% 9% 3% 1% 24% 31% 10% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 8% 26% 2% 1% 1% 13% 17% 2% 260 B.12a.ii: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? Within District? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 2% 3% LINKAGES/PADCO 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGAN 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% AFFORD 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% AVSI 13% 16% 11% 16% 15% 11% 10% MERCY CORPS 6% 7% 5% 5% 7% 6% 4% UNITY/PIASCY 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICUL 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 261 B.12a.ii: Which organizations and/or programs are you aware of that have ever implemented assistance and development activities in your sub county and in Northern Uganda from 2006 through 2011? Within District? (SPONTANEOUS MENTIONS-MULTIPLE RESPONSES) APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMON 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% WORLD VISION 28% 33% 24% 27% 30% 29% 23% ACDI/VOCA 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TASO 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% CARE INTERNATIONAL 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% PADER PEACE PROGRAM 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% A2Z 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% JCRC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% IRIS 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) 39% 38% 40% 38% 39% 37% 43% USAID 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 2% 2% WAR CHILD 3% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% CARITAS 13% 16% 12% 12% 16% 12% 11% RED CROSS 30% 30% 30% 29% 32% 29% 27% SEND A COW 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% PRDP 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER 20% 16% 24% 18% 18% 23% 27% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 28% 35% 22% 27% 29% 28% 24% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 12% 17% 9% 10% 14% 13% 8% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 4% 6% 2% 5% 4% 4% 3% 262 In Sub-country TOTAL DISTRICT NAME AGAGO AMURU GULU KITGUM LAMWO NWOYA PADER TOTAL 1,010 165 132 191 161 131 72 158 NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) 3% 1% 3% 7% 5% 2% 1% 1% LINKAGES/PADCO 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGAN 1% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% HOSPICE AFRICA UGANDA 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, 4% 1% 9% 6% 8% 2% 0% 0% NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% AFFORD 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% AVSI 13% 10% 6% 12% 20% 17% 4% 19% MERCY CORPS 6% 3% 0% 1% 23% 0% 0% 11% UNITY/PIASCY 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICUL 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% 1% 0% 0% APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMON 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% WORLD VISION 28% 32% 27% 34% 42% 8% 14% 28% ACDI/VOCA 1% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 263 In Sub -country HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% WILD (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RECONCILIATI 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 % 0% 1% TASO 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 3% 1% 0% NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% CARE INTERNATIONAL 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 3% 1% PADER PEACE PROGRAM 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% A2Z 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% JCRC 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% IRIS 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 1% WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) 39% 40% 38% 29% 49% 45% 50% 31% USAID 3% 4% 5% 3% 1% 5% 6% 1% WAR CHILD 3% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3% 6% 1% CARITAS 13% 29% 12% 9% 5% 11% 6% 18% RED CROSS 30% 32% 37% 23% 28% 34% 49% 23% SEND A COW 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% PRDP 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER 20% 7% 20% 30% 15% 24% 17% 29% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 1 28% 67% 16% 11% 9% 24% 44 % 31% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 2 12% 40% 6% 3% 1% 11% 19% 9% OTHERS (SPECIFY) 3 4% 13% 4% 1% 0% 2% 6% 2% 264 B.12b: INTERVIEWER: If USAID has not been mentioned above, please ask: Are you aware of any assistance or activities supported by USAID in the Northern region? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 966 409 557 190 391 237 148 1. Yes 30% 39% 24% 35% 34% 23% 24% 2. No 70% 61% 76% 65% 66% 77% 76% In Sub-country TOTAL DISTRICT NAME AGAG O AMUR U GULU KITGUM LAMWO NWOYA PADER TOTAL 966 156 121 183 159 123 67 157 1. Yes 30% 28% 30% 30% 44% 29% 33% 17% 2. No 70% 72% 70% 70% 56% 71% 67% 83% 265 B.13: What KEY activities were carried out by the above-mentioned organizations/ programs in your community/sub county? Which organizations implemented the mentioned activities? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs 13% 12% 15% 15% 14% 13% 10% Water and sanitation 56% 60% 54% 54% 55% 62% 53% Media 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 5% Establishment of school and facilities 26% 32% 22% 29% 22% 29% 31% Establishment of health facilities 19% 21% 18% 20% 20% 19% 16% Road construction 26% 28% 25% 26% 25% 31% 22% Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, 64% 63% 64% 63% 65% 58% 69% Income generating activities’ support 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 6% Micro-financing 3% 3% 3% 1% 3% 4% 4% Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees 8% 7% 9% 9% 9% 8% 6% Agricultural trainings 21% 24% 19% 24% 20% 23% 18% Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products 10% 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 12% Environmental protection and conservation 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical 13% 13% 12% 13% 13% 13% 14% Conflict resolution 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% Others specify 15% 17% 14% 14% 16% 17% 13% NONE 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2% 3% 266 In Sub-country TOTAL DISTRICT NAME AGAGO AMURU GULU KITGUM LAMW O NWOYA PADER TOTAL 1,010 165 132 191 161 131 72 158 Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs 13% 10% 20% 20% 15% 9% 11% 6% Water and sanitation 56% 71% 58% 48% 54% 54% 51% 55% Media 3% 3% 2% 5% 4% 0% 10% 2% Establishment of school and facilities 26% 43% 24% 24% 28% 15% 33% 18% Establishment of health facilities 19% 25% 15% 16% 29% 14% 26% 11% Road construction 26% 30% 24% 16% 34% 23% 25% 32% Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, 64% 78% 64% 47% 73% 60% 79% 56% Income generating activities’ support 9% 10% 8% 6% 6% 17% 11% 8% Micro-financing 3% 4% 2% 5% 0% 4% 4% 3% Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees 8% 14% 8% 6% 2% 16% 11% 4% Agricultural trainings 21% 30% 20% 16% 13% 35% 42% 9% Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products 10% 16% 6% 9% 1% 14% 25% 6% Environmental protection and conservation 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical 13% 25% 12% 8% 5% 14% 25% 8% Conflict resolution 2% 5% 0% 2% 0% 3% 6% 1% Others specify 15% 25% 14% 8% 4% 24% 29% 13% NONE 3% 1% 2% 7% 4% 2% 1% 4% 267 B.14a: Now I would like to know the key community needs from 2006 through 2011. What were the most important needs within your community during the period 2006 through 2011? (DON’T READ OUT – MULTIPLE RESPONSES) Women in General TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 52% 53% 51% 52% 49% 56% 54% 2. No 48% 47% 49% 48% 51% 44% 46% Youth TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 47% 49% 45% 43% 47% 49% 45% 2. No 53% 51% 55% 57% 53% 51% 55% Elderly TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 45% 46% 44% 40% 44% 49% 47% 2. No 55% 54% 56% 60% 56% 51% 53% Young Children TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 46% 47% 45% 42% 46% 50% 45% 2. No 54% 53% 55% 58% 54% 50% 55% 268 Persons with Disabilities TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 50% 51% 49% 50% 50% 54% 46% 2. No 50% 49% 51% 50% 50% 46% 54% Abductees TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 48% 48% 47% 46% 46% 50% 49% 2. No 52% 52% 53% 54% 54% 50% 51% Farmers TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Yes 48% 53% 43% 46% 47% 50% 46% 2. No 52% 47% 57% 54% 53% 50% 54% 269 B.14b: Please mention the interventions or activities that were not appropriately addressing the needs of the mentioned category of people at the required time. TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 748 331 417 146 294 194 114 Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs 9% 8% 10% 9% 9% 10% 7% Water and sanitation 39% 39% 38% 38% 36% 42% 39% Media 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 1% Establishment of school facilities 18% 20% 17% 26% 16% 15% 19% Establishment of health facilities 13% 13% 13% 16% 14% 11% 9% Road construction 16% 17% 16% 16% 16% 20% 11% Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, 49% 46% 51% 45% 52% 42% 55% Income generating activities’ support 9% 9% 9% 9% 10% 11% 5% Micro-financing 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 4% Agricultural trainings 15% 16% 13% 16% 14% 15% 13% Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products 6% 5% 6% 8% 5% 5% 6% Environmental protection and conservation 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical 8% 7% 8% 7% 9% 8% 5% Conflict resolution 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% {0} 13% 15% 11% 10% 13% 14% 11% 270 B.15a: In your opinion which activities do you think were NOT WELL implemented? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Peace, reconciliation and recovery programs 11% 10% 11% 10% 10% 13% 12% Water and sanitation 34% 33% 34% 36% 32% 35% 31% Media 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% Establishment of school facilities 15% 16% 15% 18% 15% 14% 12% Establishment of health facilities 15% 16% 14% 15% 13% 15% 18% Road construction 17% 20% 15% 20% 16% 21% 10% Humanitarian Relief i.e. provision of household items, food, 39% 38% 40% 39% 40% 40% 38% Income generating activities’ support 12% 12% 12% 11% 14% 10% 11% Micro-financing 7% 6% 7% 5% 8% 6% 7% Facilitating return and resettlement of refugees 10% 9% 11% 10% 10% 13% 8% Agricultural trainings 12% 13% 11% 13% 11% 13% 11% Facilitating access to markets for agricultural products 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% Environmental protection and conservation 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Disease control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical 10% 9% 11% 10% 10% 13% 7% Conflict resolution 5% 3% 5% 4% 5% 5% 3% Environmental protection and conservation 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% Disease Control e.g. accessibility and provision of medical 10% 9% 11% 10% 10% 13% 7% Conflict resolution 5% 3% 5% 4% 5% 5% 3% Livestock 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 3% 271 distribution Nothing was implemented/don’t know/can’t remember 11% 10% 12% 12% 14% 8% 9% 272 B.15a: In your opinion which activities do you think were NOT WELL implemented? Training of Abductees 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Provision of agricultural inputs and items 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% B.15c: For the activities that you have indicated as not well implemented, in your view how could they have been improved? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Increased sensitization of the public 40% 39% 41% 37% 38% 43% 45% 2. Monitoring and evaluating programs and activities being i 64% 66% 62% 69% 61% 67% 58% 3. Involving the community 47% 45% 48% 46% 42% 53% 51% 4. Others specify 23% 25% 21% 22% 25% 20% 23% 273 B.16: ASK WHERE THE RESPONDENT HAS INDICATED SOMEWHAT NOT RELEVANT OR NOT RELEVANT AT ALL? You have said that the interventions or activities implemented were somewhat not relevant or not at all relevant for …….. Why do you say so? ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________ B.16: You earlier indicated that you are aware of any assistance or activities that were supported by USAID directly, or through different programs and its partners. Can you please MENTION WHICH PROGRAMS OR PARTNERS/ORGANIZATIONS that were supported by USAID? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 333 182 151 75 151 66 41 NUTI/OTI (NORTHERN UGANDA TRANSITION INITIATIVE) 17% 17% 17% 15% 19% 15% 17% LINKAGES/PADCO 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% SPRING (STABILITY, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION IN NORTHERN UGAN 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 5% 7% NUDEIL (NORTHERN UGANDA DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED GOVERNANCE, 20% 18% 22% 15% 18% 26% 24% NUMAT (NORTHERN UGANDA MALARIA, AIDS AND TB PROJECT) 10% 10% 9% 5% 10% 14% 10% AFFORD 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% UPHOLD (UGANDA PROGRAM FOR HUMAN AND HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT) 6% 3% 9% 3% 4% 11% 12% HIPS (HEALTH INITIATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR) 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% NUWATER (NORTHERN UGANDA WATER SUPPLY SERVICES PROJECT) 3% 3% 3% 0% 2% 6% 5% 274 AVSI 12% 11% 13% 8% 9% 20% 15% MERCY CORPS 5% 5% 5% 1% 5% 9% 7% 275 B.16: You earlier indicated that you are aware of any assistance or activities that were supported by USAID directly, or through different programs and its partners. Can you please MENTION WHICH PROGRAMS OR PARTNERS/ORGANIZATIONS that were supported by USAID? USAID LEAD PROJECT (LIVELIHOODS AND ENTERPRISES FOR AGRICUL 8% 10% 7% 7% 8% 9% 12% APEP (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM) CHEMON 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% WORLD VISION 15% 14% 16% 16% 12% 15% 24% ACDI/VOCA 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% TASO 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% NORTHERN UGANDA LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE, INTERNEWS 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% CARE INTERNATIONAL 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% LOCAL VOICES FOR PEACE 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% PADER PEACE PROGRAM 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% TA TO AMNESTY COMMISSION 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% IRIS 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME (WFP) 19% 21% 16% 20% 19% 20% 12% USAID 8% 7% 9% 9% 7% 8% 7% WAR CHILD 3% 3% 3% 7% 3% 2% 0% CARITAS 7% 9% 5% 3% 8% 6% 12% RED CROSS 10% 9% 11% 4% 11% 12% 10% PRDP 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% DON’T KNOW OR DON’T REMEMBER 35% 32% 38% 41% 38% 24% 32% {0} 11% 14% 7% 16% 10% 11% 7% {0} 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% {0} 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 5% {0} 4% 7% 1% 5% 3% 5% 5% {0} 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% {0} 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 276 B.17a How often did you, your household, or your family members experience the following from 2006 through 2011 in relation to settlement and provision of humanitarian aid? TOTAL NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS Lack or limited food supply 100% 1% 9% 22% 34% 35% Lack or limited supply of household items e.g. clothes, utensils 100% 2% 13% 27% 33% 25% Lack or limited access to medical supplies and services 100% 2% 12% 26% 30% 30% Lack or limited supply of agricultural inputs e.g. seeds, tools, etc. 100% 2% 12% 27% 31% 27% Lack of water 100% 6% 12% 14% 24% 45% B.17b: Which activities were carried out between 2006 and 2011 to prevent or reduce the occurrence of these challenges? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Provision of food items 61% 62% 61% 61% 64% 57% 61% 2. Provision of household items e.g. clothes, utensils etc. 53% 52% 53% 56% 53% 50% 51% 3. Provision and distribution of Agricultural inputs 46% 49% 44% 52% 46% 44% 42% 4. Provision of Medical supplies and services 45% 47% 43% 49% 44% 44% 42% 5. Provision of water (boreholes, water tanks, etc.) 71% 76% 67% 71% 72% 71% 69% 6. None 9% 9% 9% 5% 8% 13% 9% 7. Others specify 3% 2% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 277 B.17c: How satisfied were your with the outcome as a result of the activities that were carried out to address the challenges earlier mentioned? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Very dissatisfied 11% 11% 11% 10% 10% 15% 8% 2. dissatisfied 40% 42% 38% 31% 39% 44% 46% 3. unsure 6% 4% 7% 7% 6% 4% 6% 4. satisfied 40% 40% 40% 48% 41% 34% 36% 5. Very satisfied 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 3% 3% B.17d: Besides the activities that were carried out, what could have been done better to address the challenges related to the resettling of people from the IDP camps? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Resettlement packages given in time 71% 68% 74% 70% 69% 75% 74% 2. Government should have worked with NGOs 36% 39% 33% 37% 32% 40% 36% 3. Others specify 26% 29% 24% 28% 27% 23% 26% B.18ai: How frequent were the following conflicts occurring within your community from 2006 through 2011 (when you were still in camps and after people had resettled from camps? TOTAL NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS Land conflicts 100% 7% 13% 16% 20% 43% Clan or family conflicts 100% 15% 21% 28% 21% 14% Tribal conflicts 100% 33% 26% 21% 12% 8% Leadership conflicts 100% 28% 28% 29% 10% 6% Electoral violence 100% 34% 33% 22% 6% 6% Conflict of resource utilization 100% 32% 24% 23% 9% 11% 278 B.18aii: Did you or any of your household members experience domestic violence during the period 2006 through 2011 TOTA L SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Yes 39% 36% 41% 32% 44% 38% 32% No 61% 64% 59% 68% 56% 62% 68% B.18aiii: What forms of domestic Violence did you or any member of this house hold experience during 2006 to 2011? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 391 155 236 63 181 97 50 Husband beating wife 46% 38% 52% 44% 48% 47% 42% Husband and wife fighting 38% 35% 40% 41% 38% 35% 38% Wife beating husband 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 5% 2% Man raping a female household member 9% 8% 10% 11% 8% 11% 10% Female raping a male household member 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% Emotional torture (use of abusive language) 35% 34% 35% 35% 34% 37% 32% Emotional torture (denial of sex) 7% 6% 7% 8% 4% 9% 10% Parents beating their children/corporal punishment 14% 17% 12% 14% 17% 10% 10% Denial of child education 15% 12% 17% 14% 15% 13% 16% Refusal to provide welfare (Food, Medical treatment, Cloths 26% 20% 30% 27% 28% 23% 24% Forced labor 7% 6% 8% 8% 6% 8% 6% co-wives fighting 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% Mistreatment of widows 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% Alcoholism 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 279 Mistreatment by the forces/security 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Land conflict 2% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 2% Indiscipline of children 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% B.18b: Which activities were carried out to address the cause of such conflicts? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Media programs 26% 25% 28% 25% 29% 25% 23% 2. Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery 11% 12% 11% 8% 12% 12% 13% 3. Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee a 12% 12% 12% 8% 12% 13% 14% 4. Promotion of community healing 23% 24% 22% 23% 20% 25% 27% 5. Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts 26% 24% 28% 25% 27% 27% 26% 6. Resolution of longstanding inter￾clan conflicts 18% 18% 18% 17% 17% 22% 14% 7. Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 13% 7% 8. Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution method 16% 16% 17% 13% 16% 18% 18% 9. Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in co 7% 5% 9% 6% 9% 6% 8% 10. Resolution of land conflicts 29% 28% 29% 30% 30% 26% 29% 11. Promotion of legal and paralegal Land programs 10% 9% 12% 9% 12% 11% 6% 12. None 15% 13% 17% 15% 16% 15% 15% 280 B.18c: Comparing before and after the mentioned activities were carried out, to what extent did the mentioned activities affect the occurrence of the conflicts? TOTAL Extremely reduced/ no longer exists Somewhat reduced Remained the same Somewhat increased Extremely increased Not applicable Land conflicts 100% 5% 48% 14% 14% 19% 1% Clan or family conflicts 100% 8% 64% 14% 8% 4% 1% Tribal conflicts 100% 14% 59% 13% 9% 3% 3% Leadership conflicts 100% 12% 62% 17% 6% 2% 2% Electoral violence 100% 18% 50% 17% 6% 1% 8% Conflict of resource utilization 100% 17% 59% 10% 6% 5% 3% {0} 100% 10% 52% 5% 13% 18% 2% B.18d: Mention the influential activities that led to the reduction in conflicts TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 898 392 506 182 365 219 132 1. Media programs 23% 22% 24% 20% 25% 22% 23% 2. Enhancement of individual psychosocial recovery 8% 8% 8% 5% 8% 8% 11% 3. Facilitation of the process of resettlement of returnee a 8% 8% 8% 5% 7% 11% 9% 4. Promotion of community healing 14% 14% 15% 15% 14% 16% 12% 5. Resolution of deep-seated and long standing conflicts 23% 19% 25% 21% 22% 26% 19% 6. Resolution of longstanding inter￾clan conflicts 14% 14% 14% 13% 14% 18% 8% 7. Stalling the process of future conflicts by establishing 6% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 4% 281 8. Promoted the adoption of local conflict resolution method 13% 13% 13% 11% 13% 15% 12% 282 B.18d: Mention the influential activities that led to the reduction in conflicts 9. Greater appreciation of the importance of dialogues in co 5% 5% 6% 3% 6% 5% 7% 10. Resolution of land conflicts 24% 25% 24% 25% 25% 23% 26% 11. Promotion of legal and paralegal Land programs 6% 4% 7% 5% 8% 6% 2% 12. None 12% 11% 13% 10% 13% 12% 15% 13. {0} 10% 10% 10% 9% 10% 13% 8% B.19a: In regards to health, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the occurrence of the following as you were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) within your community? TOTAL STRONGL Y AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGRE E DISAGRE E STRONGL Y DISAGREE Dilapidated health facilities 100% 35% 51% 6% 8% 0% High / prevalence of Malaria 100% 40% 52% 4% 4% 0% High / prevalence of HIV/AIDS 100% 49% 43% 4% 3% 1% High prevalence of Tuberculosis 100% 25% 60% 10% 5% 0% High prevalence of diarrhea 100% 31% 56% 7% 5% 1% Unmet need for family planning 100% 21% 58% 13% 7% 1% Lack or limited medical workers e.g. VHTs, doctors/nurses/mid wives 100% 31% 54% 7% 8% 0% Lack of or limited drugs in health facilities 100% 35% 53% 4% 7% 1% Lack of free testing services 100% 15% 60% 9% 16% 1% Lack or limited ante-natal services 100% 14% 61% 13% 11% 1% Lack or limited immunization and vaccination services 100% 17% 51% 5% 24% 2% 283 Outbreak of diseases e.g. Ebola, nodding diseases, 100% 27% 47% 8% 12% 5% B.19b: Which activities were carried out to address the health challenges mentioned above? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,009 433 576 198 410 248 153 Provision of free medical or subsidized services 62% 59% 64% 67% 61% 60% 61% Training of health workers and support 50% 49% 50% 51% 50% 49% 50% Supporting maternal health 36% 36% 35% 35% 36% 37% 34% Immunization assistance 61% 61% 62% 63% 64% 62% 52% Establishment of health facilities 33% 33% 33% 30% 33% 32% 37% Renovation of health facilities 32% 32% 33% 30% 34% 33% 31% Counselling 37% 38% 36% 43% 35% 37% 33% Free HIV/AIDS testing services 56% 56% 56% 59% 56% 56% 52% Hospice and palliative care services 11% 13% 11% 13% 11% 11% 11% Indoor residual spraying 48% 48% 48% 43% 50% 49% 46% Provision and availing mosquito nets 59% 58% 59% 56% 61% 57% 57% None 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% Others specify 4% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 5% 284 B.19c: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following was realized? TOTAL STRONGL Y AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGRE E DISAGRE E STRONGL Y DISAGREE Renovation and establishment/cons truction of health facilities 100% 28% 56% 7% 8% 1% Reduced / prevalence of Malaria in communities 100% 16% 71% 5% 7% 1% Reduced prevalence of diarrhea 100% 14% 69% 8% 8% 1% Increased availability of family planning services 100% 20% 64% 12% 3% 0% Reduced / prevalence of HIV/AIDS 100% 10% 29% 14% 26% 22% Reduced prevalence of Tuberculosis 100% 13% 58% 13% 13% 3% Increase in number of medical workers 100% 11% 59% 9% 16% 4% More drugs and other services in health facilities 100% 10% 52% 10% 21% 7% Free testing services available and easily accessible 100% 13% 70% 9% 7% 1% Increased access ante-natal services 100% 12% 70% 11% 5% 0% Increased access to immunization and vaccination services 100% 30% 61% 4% 3% 1% Reduced outbreak of diseases 100% 18% 59% 14% 7% 2% 285 B.20a: In regards to Education, to what extent do you agree or disagree that your community faced the following as you were still and starting to return from the camps (2006-2009) through 2011? TOTAL EXTREMELY TO A LARGER EXTENT SOMEWHA T TO A LARGER EXTENT NOT SURE SOMEWHA T TO A LESSER EXTENT NOT A CHALLENGE AT ALL Having an adequate number of safe water facilities 100% 33% 46% 4% 14% 4% Practicing good hygiene practices 100% 19% 57% 6% 15% 3% Having adequate and appropriate sanitation facilities e.g. toilets/ latrines, bathrooms, racks 100% 22% 50% 8% 15% 5% B.20b: Which of these activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing education and other learning services mentioned above? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,002 429 573 197 408 245 152 1. Construction and rehabilitation of schools 83% 83% 82% 82% 82% 85% 82% 2. Training of teachers 56% 55% 57% 59% 55% 56% 57% 3. Construction of teachers’ houses 63% 66% 61% 68% 64% 63% 56% 4. Provision of scholastic materials to pupils 51% 52% 51% 60% 52% 47% 43% 5. Sensitization of the general public 46% 46% 46% 48% 46% 44% 45% 6. Others specify 8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 6% 9% 286 B.20c: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following were realized to address the challenges related to accessing better education services? TOTAL STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGRE E DISAGRE E STRONGL Y DISAGREE Renovated and functioning school structures 100% 31% 56% 5% 6% 2% Increase in number of schools 100% 23% 60% 5% 9% 4% Availability and improved access to scholastic materials 100% 11% 64% 11% 13% 1% Increase in ability of households to buy scholastic materials 100% 11% 58% 13% 15% 3% Increase in number of trained teachers 100% 13% 66% 8% 11% 1% Improved teacher housing 100% 13% 62% 10% 12% 3% reduced rates of school drop-outs 100% 15% 60% 13% 11% 2% Increase in student enrollment rates 100% 19% 56% 13% 9% 3% ____________________________ BENEFITS AND IMPACT AS A RESULT OF THE INTERVENTIONS BY USAID ASK ONLY THOSE WHO ARE AWARE OF USAID’S INTERVENTIONS B.21a: To what extent were the following a challenge to accessing safe water and good hygiene within your community as you were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) TOTAL EXTREMELY TO A LARGER EXTENT SOMEWHA T TO A LARGER EXTENT NOT SURE SOMEWHA T TO A LESSER EXTENT NOT A CHALLENGE Having an adequate number of safe water facilities 100% 33% 46% 4% 14% 4% Practicing good hygiene practices 100% 19% 57% 6% 15% 3% Having 100% 22% 50% 8% 15% 5% 287 adequate and appropriate sanitation facilities e.g. toilets/ latrines 288 B.21b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in accessing safe water and practicing good sanitation? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Construction of water facilities 86% 88% 85% 87% 88% 86% 80% 2. Training on hygiene and proper sanitation 78% 79% 77% 79% 81% 75% 72% 3. Others specify 9% 8% 9% 11% 6% 10% 11% B.21c: In your opinion were the following goals related to access of safe water and good sanitation practices realized? TOTAL STRONGL Y AGREE AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGRE E DISAGRE E STRONGL Y DISAGREE Increased number of safe water facilities 100% 20% 55% 6% 14% 5% Increased number of households Practicing good hygiene practices 100% 16% 72% 5% 5% 1% Increased sanitation facilities at household e.g. toilets/latrines, bathrooms, racks 100% 17% 65% 9% 7% 2% 289 B.22a: In your opinion, to what degree or extent were the following challenges related to agricultural production occurring in your community as you were starting to return for the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS Lack or limited availability of tools and inputs for agricultural production 100% 2% 15% 24% 31% 28% Limited access to land 100% 3% 19% 24% 25% 29% Limited access to agricultural extension services 100% 3% 16% 33% 26% 23% Lack or limited access to labor (e.g. hired, communal or family) 100% 6% 22% 32% 21% 19% Unreliable markets for agricultural products 100% 3% 15% 29% 25% 28% High rates of post￾harvest losses 100% 2% 20% 37% 24% 18% Lack or limited storage facilities for agricultural products e.g. cribs, granaries 100% 2% 13% 30% 29% 26% Lack or limited farmers associations 100% 3% 14% 37% 22% 23% Others specify 100% 94% 0% 0% 0% 5% 290 B.22b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges faced in increasing agricultural productivity? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Training and facilitating establishment of VSLAs 43% 41% 44% 45% 44% 42% 38% Facilitating formation and strengthening of community farmer 37% 36% 38% 37% 37% 38% 39% Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production 62% 65% 59% 67% 60% 58% 65% Training of farmer groups 61% 63% 60% 69% 63% 55% 55% Provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming 19% 21% 18% 16% 17% 24% 20% Expanding access to production inputs 13% 15% 12% 15% 11% 15% 14% Enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers 10% 9% 11% 9% 9% 13% 11% Post-harvest handling and value addition support to farmers 8% 6% 9% 8% 9% 6% 6% Linking farmers to Markets 14% 15% 13% 17% 13% 14% 13% Others specify 11% 11% 11% 8% 9% 14% 14% 291 B.22c: In your opinion how satisfied were you with the following activities implemented to address the challenges in increasing agricultural productivity? TOTAL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED NOT SURE UNSATISFIE D NOT SATISFIED AT ALL NOT APPLICABLE Training and facilitating establishment of VSLAs 100% 5% 52% 16% 15% 2% 8% Facilitating formation and strengthening of community farmer groups 100% 4% 52% 19% 18% 2% 6% Facilitating access to subsidized resources or factors of production e.g. seeds, tools 100% 4% 53% 12% 24% 3% 3% Training of farmer groups 100% 5% 58% 13% 16% 3% 5% Provision of demonstration facilities for improving farming methods 100% 3% 35% 25% 25% 3% 10% Expanding access to production inputs 100% 2% 33% 25% 29% 3% 8% Enhancing accessibility to credit for farmers 100% 2% 26% 27% 33% 4% 8% Post-harvest handling and 100% 2% 28% 28% 31% 4% 7% 292 value addition support to farmers Linking farmers to Markets 100% 2% 26% 22% 31% 10% 10% 293 We are going to further talk about the needs and the interventions that were carried out in your community from 2006 through 2011. B.23a: How often were you experiencing the following challenges related to proper feeding/nutrition in your household as you were returning from the camps (around 2006-2009) through 2011? TOTAL NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAY S Lack or limited access to food 100% 1% 12% 21% 31% 35% Having Less number of meals per day (less than 3) 100% 1% 13% 19% 26% 41% Limited access to a variety of foods (e.g. lacking proteins, carbohydrat es vitamins etc.) 100% 1% 8% 17% 30% 44% B.23b: Which activities were carried out to address the challenges related to accessing proper feeding/nutrition? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,009 433 577 198 409 248 154 1. Training households in proper feeding practices 57% 56% 57% 57% 57% 54% 62% 2. Provision of free food items 57% 56% 59% 56% 59% 56% 58% 3. School/health feeding programs 31% 33% 29% 32% 31% 31% 31% 5. Nothing/none 15% 16% 15% 10% 15% 19% 16% 6. I don’t know/can’t remember 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 7. Increasing food production and supply 8% 7% 8% 11% 7% 6% 6% 8. 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 294 Provision of agricultural inputs and tools 9. Livelihood support 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10, Financial assistance 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% B.23c: In your opinion, how satisfied were you with the following activities implemented to address the challenges related to accessing proper feeding? TOTAL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED NOT SURE DISSATISFIE D VERY DISSATISFIE D Training households in proper feeding practices 100% 6% 54% 21% 17% 3% Provision of free food items 100% 4% 47% 21% 24% 5% School/healt h feeding programs 100% 4% 36% 33% 21% 5% B.24a: In your opinion, what role did the government play in restoring peace and stability in your Sub-County and northern Uganda from while people were still starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 1. Community sensitization 38% 35% 41% 39% 37% 40% 37% 2. Hunting for illegal arms 27% 29% 25% 28% 25% 30% 26% 3. Re-building and renovating government office 14% 12% 15% 12% 12% 16% 16% 4. Revitalizing functionality of the sub counties and other 10% 9% 10% 7% 11% 10% 8% 5. Supporting, directing and authorization of NGO and other 22% 22% 22% 22% 20% 21% 30% 6. Supporting peace and reconciliation programs in the 45% 47% 44% 49% 48% 42% 37% 295 community 7. Providing security to the communities 66% 66% 66% 67% 66% 67% 64% 8. Supporting peace and reconciliation programs in the community 45% 47% 44% 49% 48% 42% 37% 9. Providing security to the communities 66% 66% 66% 67% 66% 67% 64% 10. Agricultural support with tools and inputs 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% B.24a: In your opinion, what role did the government play in restoring peace and stability in your Sub-County and northern Uganda from while people were still starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? 11. Free education in terms of UPE and USE 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 12. Resettlement of People 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 13. Infrastructural development 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 14. Provision of household items 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14. Nothing/don’t know/can’t remember 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4% B.24b: In your opinion, to what extent, do you feel, did the government play its role in restoring peace and stability in your sub-county and northern Uganda from while people were still starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very well 39% 38% 39% 37% 38% 38% 44% Fairly well 54% 55% 54% 57% 54% 55% 51% Neither nor well 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 1% Not well 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% Not well at all 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% B.24c: In your opinion, how effective were the following administrative units in your village, Sub￾county, and the district in carrying out their duties and providing services as people were starting to leave the camps (2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL VERY EFFECTIVE SOMEWHA T EFFECTIVE NEITHER EFFECTIVE NOR SOMEWHA T NOT EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL DON’T KNOW 296 Local Council 1 100% 36% 39% 6% 11% 7% 0% Local Council 3 100% 22% 51% 7% 11% 6% 2% Sub county chiefs 100% 18% 47% 8% 13% 7% 6% Local Council 5 100% 29% 41% 8% 11% 6% 6% Residen t District Commi ssioners 100% 30% 37% 6% 9% 7% 10% B.24d: In your opinion, how effective were the following administrative units in your village, Sub￾County, and the district in carrying out their duties and providing services as people were starting to leave the camps (2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL VERY EFFECTIVE SOMEWHA T EFFECTIVE NEITHER EFFECTIVE NOR INEFFECTIVE SOMEWHA T NOT EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL DON’T KNOW Local Council 1 100% 39% 40% 5% 10% 5% 1% Local Council 3 100% 22% 52% 8% 11% 5% 2% Sub county chiefs 100% 20% 49% 9% 11% 6% 5% Local Council 5 100% 26% 44% 7% 11% 6% 5% Residen t District Commi ssioners 100% 28% 40% 6% 9% 7% 10% B.25a: To what extent were the following institutions accessible to provide justice services to the victims of the conflict while people were still and starting to return from the camps (around 2006 to 2009) through 2011? TOTAL VERY EFFECTIVE SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE NEITHER EFFECTIVE NOR INEFFECTIVE SOMEWHAT NOT EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL DON’T KNOW Judiciary/ courts 100% 7% 21% 6% 39% 24% 4% The Police 100% 18% 39% 10% 26% 7% 1% Prisons 100% 6% 24% 14% 34% 13% 8% Local 100% 54% 33% 3% 7% 3% 1% 297 council I (LC I) Tradition al/Cultura l leaders 100% 48% 39% 3% 7% 2% 1% Religious leaders 100% 50% 39% 4% 5% 1% 1% Para-legal services 100% 13% 21% 10% 19% 16% 20% 298 B.25b: What activities were carried out to facilitate access to justice for the victims of the conflicts during the period 2006 through 2011? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Training of police 42% 41% 43% 46% 43% 41% 38% Providing police with equipment 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 34% 29% Training of paralegals 22% 23% 21% 20% 22% 19% 27% Training and support to cultural leaders (to mediate) 49% 50% 48% 50% 49% 49% 47% Establishment of amnesty commission 26% 28% 24% 27% 27% 25% 22% Sensitization about human rights and justice through various 43% 43% 42% 44% 44% 40% 42% Supporting restoring of relationships through indigenous rit 20% 19% 20% 23% 20% 18% 16% Others specify 9% 9% 10% 5% 10% 10% 11% B.25c: In case you are in need of justice, to what extent do you agree that the following institutions will be easily accessible to you or members of your household? TOTAL STRONGL Y AGREE SOMEWHA T AGREE NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE SOMEWHA T DISAGREE STRONGL Y DISAGREE DON’T KNOW Judiciary/ courts 100% 10% 42% 9% 24% 12% 2% The Police 100% 23% 51% 6% 13% 5% 0% Prisons 100% 10% 38% 19% 19% 10% 5% Cultural leaders 100% 44% 46% 3% 4% 1% 0% Religious leaders 100% 48% 44% 3% 4% 1% 0% Para-legal services 100% 13% 27% 14% 15% 13% 19% B.27a: Between 2006 and 2011, were you or any member of your household consulted in generating and identifying key areas of intervention in the communities? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age 299 M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Yes 31% 33% 30% 31% 31% 34% 29% No 69% 67% 70% 69% 69% 66% 71% 300 B.27b: How did you or any member of your household participate in these consultations? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 321 146 175 62 127 86 46 1. Community meetings with local councils chiefs 83% 82% 83% 92% 79% 78% 89% 2. Consultative meetings with NGOs/development partners 29% 32% 26% 16% 29% 35% 33% 3. Through advocacy groups 20% 17% 22% 26% 15% 19% 26% 4. Consultative meetings with area Members of Parliament 11% 8% 14% 8% 11% 13% 13% 5. Others specify 9% 10% 9% 6% 9% 12% 11% B.28a: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, what key outcomes or benefits have had a long-lasting influence or impact among the members in your community? And why? B.28b: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have continued functioning since their implementation/establishment? B.28ci: In your opinion, looking at the interventions carried out from 2006 through 2011, which activities or interventions have are not functioning since their implementation/establishment? B.28cii: In your opinion why are these not functioning? B.29ai: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in your communities while you or your household members were still in the camp? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 7% 4% 8% 6% 8% 7% 5% Somewhat peaceful and stable 18% 18% 18% 13% 17% 22% 19% Not sure 6% 6% 6% 10% 6% 6% 1% Somewhat not peaceful and stable 22% 21% 23% 23% 20% 21% 27% Not peaceful and stable at all 48% 52% 45% 48% 49% 45% 48% 301 B.29aii: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda while you or your household members were still in the camp? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 6% 4% 7% 4% 7% 6% 8% Somewhat peaceful and stable 18% 17% 18% 15% 17% 23% 16% Not sure 9% 7% 10% 12% 8% 8% 7% Somewhat not peaceful and stable 23% 22% 23% 23% 23% 21% 27% Not peaceful and stable at all 45% 49% 42% 46% 46% 42% 43% B.29bi: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in your community immediately after you or your household members left the camp(s)? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% Somewhat peaceful and stable 41% 44% 38% 36% 40% 44% 43% Not sure 8% 7% 8% 12% 8% 7% 5% Somewhat not peaceful and stable 31% 29% 32% 35% 30% 27% 32% Not peaceful and stable at all 14% 14% 14% 11% 15% 14% 14% B.29bii: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda immediately after you or your household members left the camp(s)? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 7% 6% 7% 8% 7% 6% 8% Somewhat peaceful and stable 40% 43% 37% 34% 39% 46% 39% Not sure 11% 9% 12% 12% 10% 12% 12% 302 Somewhat not peaceful and stable 29% 28% 31% 35% 30% 25% 27% Not peaceful and stable at all 13% 14% 13% 11% 15% 12% 14% B.29ci: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in your community now? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 35% 36% 34% 36% 34% 34% 36% Somewhat peaceful and stable 55% 56% 54% 55% 56% 55% 53% Not sure 7% 5% 8% 9% 7% 5% 4% Somewhat not peaceful and stable 3% 2% 4% 1% 2% 5% 6% Not peaceful and stable at all 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% B.29cii: In your opinion, how would you rate the peace and stability in Northern Uganda now? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very peaceful and stable 33% 34% 33% 35% 32% 35% 32% Somewhat peaceful and stable 54% 56% 53% 54% 56% 52% 53% Not sure 9% 7% 11% 11% 9% 10% 8% Somewhat not peaceful and stable 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 3% 6% Not peaceful and stable at all 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% B.30a: How Confident are you that your community will remain peaceful and stable in the future? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very confident 27% 32% 24% 31% 25% 27% 28% Somewhat confident 39% 38% 40% 40% 41% 38% 35% 303 Not sure 25% 22% 27% 24% 26% 24% 24% Somewhat not confident 7% 5% 7% 4% 7% 6% 10% Not confident at all 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 4% 3% B.30b: How confident are you that Northern Uganda will remain peaceful and stable in the future? TOTAL SEX A.1: Age M F 18-24 25-39 40-54 55 years and above TOTAL 1,010 433 577 198 410 248 154 Very confident 25% 30% 22% 31% 24% 23% 25% Somewhat confident 38% 38% 39% 39% 38% 39% 37% Not sure 27% 24% 30% 25% 29% 28% 25% Somewhat not confident 6% 5% 7% 4% 7% 5% 11% Not confident at all 2% 3% 2% 1% 2% 5% 3% 304 305 ANNEX V: CASE STUDIES Case Study 1: Honey-Making in Amuru District: The Pabbo Gwok Kwo Bee Keepers Association In 2010 the USAID-funded LEAD Project assessed, trained and supported community groups in developing viable livelihood projects. One such initiative involved the Pabbo Gwok Kwo Bee Keepers Association. Pabbo is a forest zone with many people engaged in bee keeping/farming so the surrounding area has numerous beehives. During the war, bee farmers worked on an individual basis harvesting their own products resulting in low business efficiency, variable product quality and farmers with little bargaining power in the market. The consequence was low prices and even sometimes farmers selling their honey at a loss. The LEAD initiative provided equipment and training to the group and facilitated the apiarists coming together to work cooperatively. Previously honey was squeezed out of the wax by hand. With the new equipment however, honey is now squeezed from the wax efficiently and dried with the aid of a solar dryer. This enhances hygiene, prevents the honey from being spoiled by residual larvae in the honey and wax and so improves its storage. The increased efficiency also means that farmers can maximize the range of products from their harvest. For instance new products include mead (honey wine) and the recovered wax (and propolis) is used for formulating furniture polish, candles, soap and medicine for ulcers and skin diseases. The association loans equipment to members and non-members (who actively sell their honey to them) to ensure that they harvest quality, clean honey from their hives. Thirty farmers from around the district now bring their honey to be processed and sold now that the Machine for Squeezing and Filtering Honey from Wax “…Life has now changed because we have money to put our children through school…our members can better meet the health needs of their households...” Association Chair Machine for Squeezing and Filtering Honey from Wax “…Life has now changed because we have money to put our children through school…our members can better meet the health needs of their households...” Association Chair 306 association can add value and take advantage of better prices indirectly benefitting over 200 people.81 As a newly registered business entity the association is also able to conduct business officially across the district with improved bargaining power. Success and commitment also attract other support in a ‘virtuous cycle’. Locally raised money has enabled the group to buy laboratory coats and the association has been able to access rent-free space from the Sub-county for offices and for their processing machines. The Uganda national bureau of statistics (UNBS) also supports them with their branding and packaging. Challenges remain such as limited markets and variable harvests but working together, higher product quality has meant increased income and improved product distribution supplying new retail consumers and even supermarkets in Gulu. 81 This is a conservative estimate based on consideration of only family members benefitting rather than those down the value chain, and assuming an average of 7 members per household. 307 Case Study 2: Pader Town Council Water System The USAID-funded Pader town water system was built by Food for the Hungry in 2006, when many people were still living in IDP camps. The Pader town water system, which originally had a tank, generator, and water pump, is now no longer functional. Three people, including a local resident, a civil servant with the Pader local government and a local councilor told the story and explained how this situation came about. The focus of discussions was on exploring whether the local community was consulted before work started on the water system and whether planning took their views into account; whether the community benefitted from the project; whether there was a sustainability plan; and how long the system continued functioning after the end of the project. One of the respondents noted that: “Food for the Hungry had carried out a needs study before commencing construction finding a water shortage, and on that basis, they presented a proposal to USAID to construct a water system targeting the people living in the neighborhood of Lagwai B”. Community members were indeed consulted in 2005, with consensus reached on the importance of providing safe water and improving sanitation. On this basis, and in conjunction with a request for support from the Pader local government, USAID funded the water system, which was built in 2006. Food for the Hungry managed it during its first year of operation. Despite the fact that the water system was no longer functional at the time of evaluation, respondents recounted positive outcomes as a result of its construction. They noted that people displaced in Pader town, had access to free, clean water, which improved hygiene and contributed to reducing outbreaks of diarrhea. For women and girls, it also reduced the distance required to fetch water, which was critical given the high incidence of sexual violence against them, particularly when traveling on foot alone. For some community members, the water system became a livelihood—even though they had to queue at water points for hours to fetch the additional water for sale to others. Some able to sell water and earn money used it for school fees and materials and others used their profits for food or to pay rent. In terms of sustainability planning, there was a nine-member water user committee, whose role included collection of user fees from water users, ensuring discipline at water collection points and above all, ensuring maintenance of the water system. An empty pump house 308 At the time of project closure in 2007, Food for the Hungry handed over the water system to the Pader town council with the intention that water operations would continue. One respondent, however, expressed the opinion that the handover was not given adequate time to allow for meaningful planning, as the establishment of the water system had been undertaken as an emergency response measure: “They did not plan together with the town council and when they handed over, the town council did not know how to continue running the project.” Despite the fact that a water user committee in place, and had set a reasonable rate of 50 shillings (US$ 0.02) per 20 liters of water as a source of income for maintenance, this maintenance was never done, the generator and pumps were stolen. Sadly, all that remains today is just the water tank. 309 ANNEX VI: SOURCES OF INFORMATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS USAID KIIs 1. Former health and education officer, USAID/Uganda 2. Former USAID/ OTI personnel in N. Uganda 3. Evaluation, PPL, USAID/Washington 4. USAID BUR/AFR Uganda Desk Officer 5. USAID BUR/AFR CAR Desk Officer 6. Former deputy and country representative, OTI 7. Education in post-conflict situations specialist at USAID/W 8. Gulu/NU Team Leader from 2010-2012 9. Former USAID Senior Education Officer, Africa Bureau 10. OTI Country Representative 2008-2010 11. Former USAID Uganda Team Leader 12. Former Office Head, Gulu District 13. USAID/GIS specialist 14. Formerly in NU office 15. PPL advisor 16. USAID/PPL Learning Officer Uganda KIIs 1. Laboratory Assistant, Agago District 2. Vice Chairperson LC 1 Orute West, Agago District 3. LC III Chairman, Agago District 4. Chairperson, Parish Development Committee (PDC), Agago District 5. Program Manager, Christian HIV/AIDS Prevention and Support Organization, Agago District 6. DEO, Amuru District 7. Program Director, Human Right Volunteers, Amuru District 8. DCDO, Amuru District 9. DHO, Amuru District 10. Secretary Community Services, Children Affairs, Councilor Kal-Parish, Amuru District 11. LCIII, Pabbo Sub-county, Amuru District 12. Former Camp Commandant of Pagak IDP Camp, Gulu District 13. Senior CBO, Gulu District 14. LCV, Gulu District 15. Acting Program Coordinator, Gulu District NGO Forum, Gulu District 16. Regional Program Officer, Northern Uganda Youth Entrepreneurship Program, NUYET, Gulu District 17. Senior Education Officer in charge of administration, Gulu District 18. Secretary General and Chairperson, Acholi Religious Leaders’ Peace Initiative, Gulu District 19. Aswa County, Gulu MP, Gulu District 20. Former MP, Chua County and elder Acholi statesman, Kitgum District. 310 21. Labongo community representative, Kitgum District 22. Palabek, Kitgum District Representative 23. Acholibur (Paibona) Representative, Kitgum District 24. Lukung Representative, Kitgum District 25. Pakor-Parabongo Sub-county Representative, Kitgum District 26. LCI, Kal Center, Lamwo District 27. CAO, Lamwo District 28. DIS, Lamwo District 29. DCO, Lamwo District 30. Lamwo District Representative 31. NUDEIL Focal Person, Nwoya District 32. Sub-county Chief, Purongo, Nwoya District 33. LCIII, Purongo Sub-county, Nwoya District 34. LCIII, Purongo Sub-county, Nwoya District 35. Chairman, LC III, Pader District 36. CDO, Pader District 37. Sub-county CAO, Pader District 38. CAO, Amuru District 39. District NAADS Coordinator, Amuru District 40. Bishop, Gulu District 41. DHO, Nwoya District 42. LCIII Chairperson, Purongo, Nwoya District Group KIIs 1. Staff members, District local government, Agago District (n=15) 2. Staff members, UNICEF, Gulu District (n=3 persons) 3. Staff members, CARE International, Gulu District (n=6) 4. Staff members, Gulu Women’s Economic Development and Globalization, Gulu District (n=3) 5. Staff members, Save the Children, Gulu District 6. Acholi chiefs, Gulu, including paramount chief and secretaries (n=12) 7. Acholi chiefs, Kitgum (n=8) 8. Heads of Department, Kitgum District (n=8) 311 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS District Focus Group Discussions No. of Older Males No. of Older Male Groups No. of Young Males No. of Young Male Gorups No. of Older Females No. of Older Female Groups No. of Young Females No. of Young Female Groups Pader 30 3 18 2 27 3 27 2 Agago 21 2 11 1 24 2 9 1 Kitgum 20 2 11 1 20 2 8 1 Lamwo 22 2 11 1 18 2 0 0 Gulu 31 4 27 3 46 4 21 3 Nwoya 17 2 17 2 16 2 8 1 Amuru 23 3 27 3 10 2 21 2 Total 164 18 122 13 161 17 94 11 No. of Older Males No. of Young Males No. of Older Females No. of Young Females Total Number of FGDs 59 164 122 161 94 541 312 SITES VISITED Household Survey: Selected Sub-Counties and Parishes (also found in Annex II as Table 2) District Sub county #1 Parishes Sub county #2 Parishes Lamwo Palabek Gem  Gem  Anaka Lamwo Town council  Pobel  Olebe Kitgum Kitgum Matidi  Lumulle  Paibony Amida –Kitgum Town Council  Lamola  Koch Pader Pajule  Paiulla  Palenga Pader Town Council  Lagwai/Paipii  Acoro Gulu Bobi  Paidwe  Palenga Odek  Palaro  Lamolla Amuru Pabbo  Pogo  Kal Amuru Town Council  Okungedi  Amuru Town council Nwoya Purongo  Latoro  Pabit Anaka  Paduny  Pangora Agago Parabongo  Kalongo Town board  Parumu Agago Town Council  Agago Central ward, Ajali  Pampara Qualitative Research: Sites and Schedule (FGD and KII) (also found in Annex II as Table 4) Activity MARCH APRIL 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M TL, DTL, and subject-matter expert travel to Gulu Preparation meetings with the RAs. Ipsos begins administering survey in 7 N. Ugandan districts to conduct preparation meetings with the RAs. Ipsos begins administering survey in 7 N. Ugandan districts. Training of R/Assistants KII with UNICEF Staff M&E In Gulu Field Pre-Test in Bobi Write Up From Pre-test Field Debrief, Team Divides into two (Team 1: Gulu, Nwoya, Amuru; Team 2: Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader, Agago) Field Work Team 1 Bobi Sub county (Gulu) Paidwe Parish 313 Palenga Parish 0dek Sub county(Gulu) Palaro Parish Lamolla Parish Purongo Sub county (Nwoya) Latoro Parish Pabit Parish Pabbo Sub county (Amuru) Pogo Parish Kal Parish Amuru T/C (Amuru) Okungedi Parish Amuru Town Council Team 1 Field write up (Gulu, Nwoya, Amuru) Field Work Team 2 (Kitgum, Lamwo, Pader, Agago) Pajule Sub county (Pader) Paiulla Parish Palenga Parish Pader T/C (Pader) Lagwai/Paipii Parish Acoro Parish Parabongo Sub county (Agago/Pader) Kalongo Town board Parumu Parish Kitgum Matidi Sub county (Kitgum) Lumulle Parish Paibony Parish Palabek Gem Sub county (Lamwo/Kitgum) Gem Parish Anaka Parish Field work Write-up (Kitgum, Pader, Agago, Lamwo) Field Debrief 2 BI-Weekly Progress Report Field Debrief 3 314 ANNEX VII: DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 315 316 USAID/Uganda U.S. Mission Compound-South Wing, Plot 1577 Ggaba Road PO Box 7856 Kampala, Uganda U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 J