Program Final Performance Evaluation Report September 2015 Palestinian Community Assistance Program Final Performance Evaluation This document was prepared by Al Athar Global Consulting, Inc. at the request of Mercy Corps for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). i Palestinian Community Assistance Program FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Program Final Performance Evaluation Report Cooperative Agreement No. 294-A-00-10-00210-00 September 2015 Al Athar Global Consulting, Inc.is a Palestinian private sector management consulting firm incorporated under registration number 563151695 and based in the Gaza Strip. The firm was established by a group of expert professionals with diversified experience in civil society, private and public sectors Al Athar Global Consulting, Inc. development. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................................................i ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................ii CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS 2 1.3 SUMMARY OF MAIN LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 CHAPTER 2: OVERVIEW OF THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION FINDINGS ..........................................................................................................9 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 9 3.2 ACHIEVEMENT OF TARGETS 16 3.3 TARGETING AND SELECTION 20 3.4 EFFECT ON KEY BENEFICIARY SEGMENTS 23 3.5 EFFECT ON KEY TARGETED SECTORS 28 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 37 4.1 CONCLUSIONS 37 4.2 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 ANNEX 01: TERMS OF REFERENCE...........................................................................................................44 ANNEX 02: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY MATRIX............................................................................... 52 ANNEX 03: PCAP TARGETS VERSUS ACHIEVED ACROSS IRS AND SUBSEQUENT SUB-PROGRAMS... 57 ANNEX 04: LIST OF CONSULTED DOCUMENTS .......................................................................................61 ANNEX 05: LIST OF CONSULTED INDIVIDUALS.......................................................................................63 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Palestinian casualties during the three Israeli military operations on the Gaza Strip. Table 2: Illustration of number of PCAP performance indicators across the program duration. Table 3: PCAP Overall indicators by implementation year. Table 4: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the economic recovery component. Table 5: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the social recovery component. Table 6: Observations on indicators with no set targets of the social recovery component. Error! Reference source not found.. Table 8: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 01 performance indicators. Table 9: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 02 performance indicators. Table 10: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 03 performance indicators. LIST OF FIGURES, DRAWINGS AND PHOTOS Figure 1: Quantitative analysis of PCAP targets versus achieved at the component level. Figure 3: PCAP ICT Education and Workforce Development Model. Figure 2: Unemployment in Gaza 2010 - 2015 PCAP ICT Education and Workforce Development Model. Drawing 1: 12-years old female beneficiary of the IMC program in fifth grade from Khan Younis. Drawing 2: 10-years old male beneficiary of the PSS program in third grade from Khan Younis. Drawing 3: 11-years old male beneficiary of the NASP program in fifth grade from Gaza. Drawing 4: 10-years old male beneficiary of the NASP program in fifth grade from Gaza. Photo 1: SC/YLDR Young entrepreneur has established his own maintenance workshop in Gaza. Photo 2: MC CfW graduates provide physiotherapy for a disabled child. Photo 3: Maintenance works on playground at YMCA Preschool in Gaza as part of RS! project. LIST OF BOXES Box 1: PCAP within the continuously changing context and challenging operating environment. Box 2: PCAP contribution in supporting social resilience … approach and impact. Box 3: Employment generation … A vehicle for recovery. Box 4: ICT Sector Development … A platform for employment. i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This evaluation was conducted by Al Athar Global Consulting, Inc. a Palestinian private sector management consulting firm based in the Gaza Strip and founded by a group of expert professionals with diversified experience in civil society, private and public sectors development. The evaluation team would like to thank the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Mercy Corps for the opportunity to work and evaluate a program like the Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP). The experience was most interesting and rewarding. The evaluation team is grateful to all those who provided information and insights as part of this evaluation in person and remotely including a wide range of stakeholders, partners, and community members. We would like to express our appreciation to the interviewees and Focus Group Discussion participants who gave their time to answer questions, participate in discussions, and to be involved in various evaluation activities. The PCAP team, through all partner organizations (local and international), was open and constructive in their approach to this evaluation; always showing support and encouraging the involvement of the partners and various stakeholders. All the people consulted were generous with their time and shared their views and insights openly with the evaluation team. All of these interactions were invaluable to the evaluation team in forming its views and gathering complementary data and information found in documentation. Many thanks to the whole PCAP team who took part in this evaluation for generously giving their time; despite their very busy schedules. They appeared to value the opportunity to reflect and convey their experiences. We do hope this is the case, and this document accurately reflects the views expressed. We are especially grateful to Ms. Marina Antunovic, Mr. Ausama Asdodi and Ms. Wafa Ulliyan for their efforts in providing needed information, relevant activity documentation, and for the facilitation of fieldwork with PCAP partner organizations. ii ii ACRONYMS ALE Accelerated Learning for Excellence ANERA American Near East Refugee Aid ARA Access Restricted Area ACET Advisory Committee for Education and Training CARE Cooperative for Relief and Assistance Everywhere CBO Community Based Organization CfW Cash for Work CHF Global Communities (formerly CHF International) CRS Catholic Relief Services DLMNA Digital Labor Market Needs Assessment ECD Early Childhood Development FGD Focus Group Discussion GPP Gaza Power Plant ICT Information and Communication Technology IMC International Medical Corps INGO International Non-governmental organization ISQI International Software Quality Institute LNGO Local Non-governmental organization IOCC International Orthodox Christian Charities IDPs Internally Displaced People KII key Informant Interviews LMNA Labor Market Needs Assessment MC Mercy Corps NASP Neighborhood After School Program FOA Online Freelancing Academy PCAP Palestinian Community Assistance Program PCBC Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics PITA Information and Communication Technology Association of Companies PNA Palestinian National Authority PMTf Proxy Means Test formula PWD Persons with Disability PSS Psychosocial Support SC Save the Children Federation, Inc. TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training ToT Training of Trainers USAID U.S. Agency for International Development OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 1 1 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1. This report is the outcome of an external final performance evaluation of the Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP), as stipulated in the assignment terms of reference (attached to this report as Annex 01). The USD 100 million program, funded by the United States Agency for International Development(USAID), began on September 30, 2010 and ended on September 30, 2015. PCAP’s goal was “to pave the way to a better future for Palestinians through improved social, economic, and basic services that promote recovery and economic development in the Gaza Strip”. Mercy Corps (prime), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and Global Communities (formerly CHF International), along with five sub-grantees: American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA), Cooperative for Relief and Assistance Everywhere (CARE), International Medical Corps (IMC), International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC), and Save the Children International (SC); worked jointly in the Gaza Strip to implement PCAP. 2. The main purpose of the evaluation was to appraise PCAP’s performance towards achieving recovery objectives as outlined in the Cooperative Agreement and in line with USAID’s definition of end of programs performance evaluations in the USAID Evaluation policy1 . More specifically, the evaluation aimed to: (i) assess the efficiency and effectiveness of specific program components of PCAP (achievement of targets, reaching the desired beneficiaries, contribution to realizing the objectives etc.); (ii) identify the most and least successful programs and the factors that influenced the level of success as lessons learned; (iii) assess and identify the effect (intended/not intended or positive/negative changes) made by the PCAP’s interventions in the lives of direct beneficiaries in comparison with the stated objectives; (iv) address the use of beneficiary input on how to maximize and capitalize on the positive changes for future programming; (v) evaluate the effect of PCAP on some of the sectors that its activities addressed; and (vi) evaluate the extent to which PCAP impacted specific beneficiaries segments such as youth, women, persons with disability (PWD), and children. 3. Al Athar Global Consulting, Inc. (Al Athar) was commissioned to conduct the external evaluation and put together a team of two professionals: Ms. Reham Al Wehaidy: the evaluation team leader and lead evaluator of the infrastructure recovery component and the social resilience component; and Mr. Rami Wihaidi: lead evaluator of the economic recovery component. In addition, each component leader had an assistant team leader and a professional crew of 45 experienced facilitators and researchers helping to implement the fieldwork associated with the process. 4. The evaluation started with an in-depth desk study of existing documentation, evaluation reports and audits identifying issues for further exploration for shaping the evaluation methodology. Working in line with the assignment ToR, Al Athar followed Mercy Corps (MC) proposed phased approach in designing the evaluation methodology. MC grouped the evaluation of PCAP sub-programs into two phases based on the timing of their completion: (i) Phase I: covering sub-programs completed by the end of July 2014; and (ii) Phase II: covering sub-programs completed by September 2015. In the inception report, approved by MC and USAID, Al Athar presented: (i) the evaluation methodological framework; (ii) revised grouping of sub-programs under each evaluation Phase; and (iii) a comprehensive evaluation plan. 5. The methodology used for data collection was mainly qualitative. The field work activities covered sub-programs/projects and activities under three components of PCAP and across the five governorates of the Gaza Strip. The evaluation activities engaged respondents 1,645 (480 female & 1,165 male of whom 192 were children from both sexes: 91 girls & 101 boys). Overall, the evaluation activities included: (i) 86 key Informant Interviews (KII); (ii) 132 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) 1 “focus on descriptive and normative questions: what a particular project or program has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period); how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision making.” - http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf 2 2 meetings; (iii) 42 direct observation site visits; and (iv) two direct beneficiary surveys with Cash-for￾Work (CfW) sub-programs. 6. There are several limitations and challenges to this evaluation, mainly: 6.1 Phases approach limited the reliability of evaluation results especially within the unstable and continually changing operating environment in the Gaza Strip as the field work data collection process was split into two different intervals; 6.2 Collection and analysis of qualitative data is time-consuming: Number and nature of delivered activities resulted in heavy dependence on qualitative data to capture beneficiaries’ views on the various evaluation criteria and questions. This type of data collection is time consuming and requires close monitoring of data collection from field teams; 6.3 Availability of data and ability to reach key informants associated with PCAP and its sub-programs: The length of PCAP implementation period entailed: (i) a relatively high turnover of staff; (ii) difficulty in reaching management teams as some partners have closed their offices in Gaza after the completion of their part within PCAP; and (iii) unavailability of up-to-date contact details of some beneficiaries. 6.4 Lack of control groups: Absence of control groups made it difficult to attribute some of the evaluation findings and reported effects to interventions delivered under PCAP. 7. The report is organized into two main sections; the report consists of PART 1- the body of the report, and PART 2- the report annexes. Part 1 - Contains the Executive summary along with three other chapters. CHAPTER2 presents a general overview of the operating environment; while CHAPTER3 discusses the evaluation findings. CHAPTER 4 presents conclusions and recommendations that emerged from the evaluation. Part 2 - Report Annexes consist of a number of documents that provide supporting information about the entire evaluation process. 1.2 SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCLUSIONS Efficiency and Effectiveness 8. Achievement of Objectives: The evaluation team’s overall assessment of PCAP was positive. The high quality of the program consortium staff and strong leadership allowed PCAP to navigate through distinct and difficult periods. PCAP and its three recovery objectives are linked with multi-sectoral programming and presented a clear alignment with the needs and priorities of the people in Gaza. However, PCAP would have been more effective in achieving its goal if designed differently to tackle only one of those three recovery objectives. Specifically, designing and delivering a standalone program on social recovery would have enabled more tangible results and maximized the effect on the state of vulnerability in the Gaza Strip as this component was structured around one key theme of social recovery: reducing vulnerability among the poorest and most marginalized groups by diminishing exposure to social risks and increasing access to basic services through enhancing the capacity of beneficiaries to manage and cope with the surrounding adverse socio-economic conditions. The portfolio of sub-programs undertaken by PCAP presented a mix of short and longer term activities that overall introduced ideas, intervention logic and approach suitable for addressing visible, growing, pressing and unmet needs of people in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore and in varying degrees, they presented good contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal, the objectives of the three recovery components and their expected results. Through providing access to basic community services for 108,900 beneficiaries and repairing/rehabilitating 1,399 housing units for 10,759 beneficiaries, the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component has been moderately successful in achieving its stated objective (with more noted success in the community infrastructure sub-program). Similarly, the economic recovery component has been successful in achieving its stated objective with employment generation and the business development sub-programs (especially ICT) as the highest contributors to the achievement of objectives while activities of the food security sub-program (establishment of home gardens and distribution of animals’ production kits) as the least successful contributors. The social recovery component has achieved its stated objective and was the most evident positive contributor to realizing PCAP’s overall goal, with a more noted success in sub￾programs delivered in the last three years of PCAP particularly those delivered under “output 3.3: social and family resilience improved” and “output 3.4: humanitarian support improved”. Key 3 3 elements contributing to the achievement of objectives are: (i) number and diversity of directly reached population, (ii) noted focus on marginalized beneficiary groups; (iii) served geographical locations and communities; (iii) building on partnership, coordination and mobilization of local structures for interventions delivery; and (iv) adopted logic/approach to service delivery that showed innovation and diversity in intervention modalities. PCAP’s social recovery component helped in enhancing the resilience of the beneficiaries (especially psychosocial resilience) and eased many of the difficulties caused by the worsening social and economic conditions and the different chronic and acute emergencies. 9. Achievement against Targets: PCAP had an overwhelming number of program performance indicators (In total 71 indicators: 27 outcome indicators and 44 output indicators). Although some improvements were introduced during the course of the program, monitoring, measuring and reporting on results constituted a challenge for PCAP particularly in FY11 and FY 12 due to the following key factors: (i) the late establishment of a comprehensive and streamlined M&E system that enables adequate controls for data verification; (ii) the excessive amount of data from different partners and for different activities against an overwhelming number of indicators; (iii) relying on manual processes to summarize the massive amount of performance data generated by different activities and different partners in different formats and most importantly (iv) the inadequate indicator definitions coupled with inconsistent methodology in computing results. Figure 1 presents a quantitative analysis of PCAP’s achievement against targets at the component level. The qualitative analysis of audited data on targets versus achieved confirmed the evaluation conclusion on the close to satisfactory achievement of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component objective and its contribution to realizing PCAP goal through improving basic infrastructure and increasing physical and social well-being among beneficiaries and targeted communities. Despite the underachievement in four of the indicators and lack of target data for another four under the economic recovery component, this component has positively contributed to alleviating some of the effects of the worsened economic conditions in the Gaza Strip including the high unemployment, high poverty rate and food insecurity which supports the evaluation conclusion on the satisfactory achievement of the component objective and PCAP overall goal. For the social recovery component, this qualitative analysis has also confirmed the fully satisfactory achievement of the component objective and its positive contribution to realizing PCAP overall goal. Targets were achieved for all indicators measuring the program contribution in realizing the intended change through providing assistance that helped improve social wellbeing of beneficiaries, at the level of reached numbers of beneficiaries and more importantly the demonstrated enhancement in social resilience. While noted as a clear area for improvement, under-achieved indicators and indicators missing comparable targets did not affect the actual realization of objectives as they were all sub￾program specific and linked to a detailed activity and not the overall change intended by the program. 10. Targeting and Selection: Beneficiaries' targeting is one of the most difficult tasks, even in the best of circumstances. Although challenging, beneficiaries’ identification, targeting and selection were one of the strength of PCAP. The program effectively utilized diversified sources for data-gathering on potential beneficiaries. The targeting and selection process was not rigid and was based on preset, clear, documented and relevant selection criteria and benefited from a consultation process with partner CBOs and their vast networks in the targeted communities. The participatory and inclusive approach used by PCAP for targeting and selection was highly appreciated by beneficiaries and it ensured that beneficiaries were aware of the selection criteria and thus increased PCAP accountability to beneficiaries and enabled PCAP to reach the most-needy beneficiaries across the different geographic areas of the Gaza Strip. Figure 1: Quantitative analysis of PCAP targets versus achieved at the component level 4 4 Effect of the PCAP 11. Effect on Key Beneficiary Segments: 11.1 Youth: PCAP at large and the economic recovery component in particular, have succeeded in the provision of services that met youth needs in terms of skills development and employment. The effects of PCAP on youth were evident in: (i) Gaining improved and new skill sets, practical tools and experience; (ii) Enhanced readiness for the job market; and (iii) Provision of work opportunities and a source of income. 11.2 Women: PCAP exhibited good practice in focusing on working with women that went beyond the straight forward participation percentages in activities that usually present a superficial representation of equal gender balance. The effects of PCAP on women were evident in: (i) Improved psychosocial, emotional and social wellbeing; (ii) Improved knowledge of parenting skills; (iii) Empowerment through active engagement of men; and (iv) Provision of work opportunities and sources of income. 11.3 Children: PCAP has befitted children through direct interventions and indirectly through interventions focusing on family as a unit; around 32% of all delivered activities focused on children. More than 199,095 children (78,651 were boys and 120,444 were girls) benefited from PCAP. The effects of PCAP on children were most evident in: (i) Improved psychosocial and emotional wellbeing; (ii) Improved academic performance and achievement; and (iii) Positive change in attitude, behavior and interaction with others. 11.4 PWD: Targeting and working with PWD were challenging across all PCAP’s sub-programs, where in future programming more attention needs to be paid to: (i) providing space for proper integration of PWD in different interventions; and (ii) activities sensitivity to the needs, requirements and expectations of PWD. Addressing the root cause of challenges in mainstreaming services to PWD requires a focused support for local communities (including many of the implementing NGOs/CBOs) to understand the reality of living with disabilities in Gaza and how to deal with the problems PWD face in their daily lives. 12. Effect on Key Targeted Sectors: 12.1 Education: PCAP was responsive to education challenges and contributed to the improvement of several aspects the targeted educational structures. PCAP also improved academics exposure to the international market requirements through the implementation of a number of international certification programs that upgraded the skills of participating professionals and academics to move toward higher value products and services as well as provide their students with much needed market trends and information. PCAP provided new graduates with a number of courses to complement and fill skill gaps, according to the market requirements. PCAP social recovery sub-programs succeeded in realizing several tangible improvements in education services for beneficiary children in preschool and basic education stages; including: (i) enhancing the qualifications of tutors, mentors, teachers and community workers and strengthening the use of modern methodologies; (ii) developing learning habits and improving school grades and attendance among students; and (iii) incorporating psychosocial support services to further aid the education process across educational sub-programs. 12.2 Psychosocial: In a context of recurrent exposure to emergency and conflict episodes, people in Gaza experience high levels of chronic stress which affects their lifestyle dynamics and choices. PCAP’s choice to focus on psychosocial sub-programs was an obvious response driven by urgent needs and priorities. Psychosocial interventions were the flagship of PCAP social recovery component as they were well positioned as a cross–cutting intervention that positively contributed to the achieved effects across various sub-programs. PCAP psychosocial and social resilience sub￾programs have helped people especially women, children and adolescences to disclose and address their psychosocial issues more openly and honestly. Through structured outreach activities to community members with information and guidance, PCAP also addressed the overall challenge of a lack of awareness and information on psychosocial issues and available services. 12.3 Employment Generation: PCAP partners implemented a number of CfW programs over the past five years. PCAP CfW programming in the first two years of implementation was provided as a means to disburse quick cash assistance to help economically vulnerable groups to sustain 5 5 themselves and their assets under the various emergencies while the last three years of implementation utilized the CfW programs as platforms to provide skilled and unskilled workers as well as graduates to implement other sub-programs under PCAP. CfW sub-program has helped alleviate some of the effects of the worsened socio-economic conditions. 12.4 ICT: The ICT sector in Gaza has been affected by the difficult operating environment challenging the private sector in general. Furthermore, the tight Israeli closure and the closure of Rafah crossing have limited the ability of Palestinian ICT professionals’ exposure to international markets and new technologies. This has resulted in a skill and information gap in the sector in Gaza. The first two years of PCAP working with the ICT sector were found by the evaluation team to be more of an inception period trying to find a niche area to intervene with the sector. In the last three years of implementation, PCAP model is more focused and is market driven. PCAP shifted the focus of its interventions to help upgrade the skill level of ICT graduates and professionals through a set of interventions including developing the teaching and research skills of academics, more focused ICT training courses with special focus on freelancing. In addition, FOA was established with all the tools and training modules for new entrants to the freelancing market. 12.5 Business Development: Limited by Gaza operating environment, PCAP was challenged in implementing business development activities in the traditional sense since many of the businesses productive assets have been either partially or totally damaged. As a result, the interventions in the business development sub-program went through periods of trials and errors. PCAP implemented activities were rather small initiatives that did not bring tangible improvement for the business sector. 1.3 SUMMARY OF MAIN LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13. Strategic Recommendations 13.1 Inception Phase: USAID is encouraged to incorporate a separately budgeted inception phase dedicated to analysis of needs and opportunities, and design of evidence-based interventions. 13.2 Niche area programming: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to continue to actively leverage their experience, expertise, credibility, and strategic position for the development and implementation of emergency programs with emphasis on social protection and livelihood frameworks as key pillars. This will entail a focused approach on one key recovery area (preferably social recovery) and two key protection of livelihood areas (food security and employment generation) while using multi-sectoral programming for service delivery as an intervention approach. 13.3 Preparedness and flexible programming: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to invest time and effort on preparedness planning to ensure the efficient and effective performance even in challenging circumstances. This should include: (i) building the capacity of local partners in preparedness planning through active engagement in the process as contributors to development and not recipients of a final product; and (ii) defining and pre-agreeing on an ‘assistance package’ of possible emergency interventions for social and livelihood protection and geographical coverage among the different emergency respondents (especially among INGOs). Implementing partners are also encouraged to continue to maintain an eye on the changing operational environment through: (i) updating the LMNA and the DLMNA studies to include international job market patterns and design new training activities; (ii) conducting evidence￾based assessments of frequently targeted infrastructure in emergencies to provide practical and efficient alternative response. 13.4 Realistic setting of targets: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to set realistic performance targets that aid in addressing root causes of vulnerability in Gaza through promoting quality and sustained effect and minimizing unavoidable trade-offs to meet set targets. 13.5 Beneficiaries sensitization and communication strategy: Develop and monitor the implementation of a strategy for managing perceptions and communicating programs mandate, commitments, potential intervention areas and the difficult choices they face to relevant stakeholders including local partners and beneficiaries. 6 6 13.6 Advocacy: Include an advocacy component in future programming to deal with issues facing program implementation at the level of implementing partners as well as partner NGO’s and CBO’s. Direct more attention to the employment of media and PR in sharing information and raising awareness on programs and provided services. 14. Operational Recommendations 14.1 Monitoring for quality improvement: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to adopt monitoring systems and practices that ensure quality of performance and continuous learning rather than monitoring for audit and compliance. This will entail: (i) better selection and definition of performance indicators; (ii) number of performance indicators to be efficiently managed at level of data, engaged labor and cost; (iii) implementing a streamlined comprehensive monitoring system from the onset of the program; and (iv) establish control groups to enable impact measurement. 14.2 Empowering local partners and community structures: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to continue with a more focused approach to capacity development of partners including adopted partnership models. This will entail: (i) having a standalone yet cross-cutting component that provides on-going capacity development using approaches such as coaching, on￾the-job training and mentoring; (ii) enhancing business associations capacity to actively lead and participate in efforts of regulating industrial business practices; and (iii) building the capacity of local structures such as cooperatives and informal community groups as active mobilizers in community change. 14.3 Expanding social resilience and livelihood protection interventions: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to expand: (i) the integration of education and psychosocial programs and include a component for delivering assistance in schools; (ii) PSS services to work with adolescents (age group 12 – 16) and their caregivers with special focus on girls; (ii) the use of Mind and Body Technique as a direct service to beneficiaries; (iii) establish accessible Child Friendly Spaces across the Gaza Strip; and (iv) the integration of CfW programming in other activities. 7 7 CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 15. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with more than 5,000 people per square kilometre. The population is estimated at 1.71 million, 66% of whom (1.2 million) are refugees. Most families were forcibly displaced following the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948. The 1993 peace agreement provided for a partial transfer of authority from Israeli to Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The expectation of the Palestinian people about what “autonomy” would deliver, politically and economically, has not been met. Despite “autonomy”, Israel still has overall sovereignty of the Gaza Strip as it controls key aspects of Palestinian people’s lives, i.e. controlling borders, movement of goods and people, electricity, communications and security. 16. Political context: In addition to the occupation, Gaza has been subject to other devastating political conditions including: (i) the internal fight and division following the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007; (ii) the blockade policy enforced by the Israeli occupation since June 2007; and (iii) three catastrophic Israeli military operations in 2008/2009, 2012 and finally in 2014. The impact of the blockade and three offensives on the Gaza population cannot be under estimated. Each offensive not only resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries (Table 1) and population displacement, but also caused major disruption to basic services and compromised people’s livelihoods and food security. Table 1: Palestinian casualties during the three Israeli military operations on the Gaza Strip # Palestinian causalities 2008/2009 Offensive2 2012 Offensive3 2014 Offensive4 Total Women Children Total Women Children Total Women Children 1. Number of Palestinians killed 1,414 116 313 171 24 51 2,131 253 501 2. Number of Palestinians injured 5,300 800 1,600 648 93 214 10,224 1,970 3,106 PCAP’s life period (2010 – 2015) marked a number of political changes. Two of the most important changes that had a direct impact on the program were: (i) the November 2012 UN General Assembly resolution 67/19 on upgrading Palestine to “non-member observer state” status causing disruption in mobilizing PCAP funds; and (ii) the July 2013 change of regime in Egypt which lead to an organized operation by the Egyptian army for destroying the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt (key source for consumables and raw material entry into Gaza). 17. Livelihoods and Food Security: Economic hardship and poverty in the Gaza Strip have reached a level that has not been recorded since 1967 and remain among the highest in the region. 5 According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), unemployment over the past five years has been continuously high: 40.5% during the third quarter of 2010 and reaching 41.5% in second quarter of 2015. The years 2011 and 2012 showed an improvement in unemployment (30.3% and 32.2% respectively) mainly due to the “informal tunnel economy” and its effect on the private sector. In relation to tunnels destruction operation, the unemployment rate reached 38.5% by end of 2013 and continued to rise with the progress of this operation. The poverty levels in Gaza Strip have been worsening since 2006 due to the various political and socio-economic changes mentioned above. According to PCBS, the poverty rate in the Gaza Strip has been estimated at 38.3%, 38.0% and 38.8% in 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively. Although no recent statistics have been released on the state of poverty in the Gaza Strip, the political and socio-economic changes mentioned above, especially the tunnels closure and the war of summer 2014; have undoubtedly aggravated the poverty problem even further. Food security has been fluctuating in Palestine due to a combination of weak agricultural production and unstable economic conditions. While a diverse range and satisfactory quantity of food commodities are generally available in local markets, access to food is highly dependent on income that, in the case of the vast majority of Palestinian households, is earned in the labour market. Thus socio-economic conditions in general, and labour market trends in particular, strongly affect levels of food security for the bulk of Palestinian households. 6 In 2010, more than half of the households in Gaza were either 2 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights: www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf 3 Palestinian Center for Human Rights: www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9896:one-year-following-the-israeli￾offensive-on-gaza-justice-for-palestinian-victims-still-denied&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194 4 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) 5 Report on UNCTAD assistance to the Palestinian People: Developments in the economy of the opt, September 2009 6 Socio-Economic and Food Security Survey 2012 - West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestine, Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Relief and Works Agency and World Food Programme. 8 8 food insecure (44%) or vulnerable to food insecurity (16%)7 even when taking into account UN food distributions to almost 1.1 million people. During the years 2012 and 2013, food insecurity levels in Gaza reached 57%.8An assessment study conducted by the Food Security Cluster in October20149 revealed that some food shortages were witnessed during the 2014 offensive however food availability has returned to pre-offensive levels due mainly to the higher level of imports of food from Israel and the West Bank and the partial resumption of local production. The study further revealed that economic access to food has been affected for those households whose homes and productive assets have been destroyed and/or jobs lost as a result of the 2014 offensive. 18. Access to basic services: Access to basic healthcare, education, water and sanitation and social services has become a chronic problem with respect to quality and availability for Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. This is primarily the result of: (i) the blockade and obstacles to movement of people and goods; (ii) restrictions on repair, rehabilitation and development of essential service infrastructure; (iii) destruction or damage to service infrastructure due to recurrent military operations; and (iv) lack of investment due to the dire economic situation. 18.1 Health: Over the past five years there has been a gradual deterioration of Gaza's health system - it suffers from chronic shortages in medicine, medical supplies and equipment. This situation is further aggravated by the energy crisis and the lack of financial support. In early 2014 and compared to 2010, the number of governmental and non-governmental hospitals in the Gaza Strip increased by five hospitals and the number of beds increased by 309 beds. Data clearly shows an inadequate development to respond to population growth which increased by 224,917 individuals. Furthermore, these small gains have been taken away during the conflict with severe damage and complete destruction of a number of health facilities. 18.2 Education: Similarly, the education sector challenges over the past five years manifested in the many deficiencies: (i) high student-teacher ratios and over-crowded classrooms due to Israeli restrictions on the construction of educational infrastructure; (iii) low quality teaching and training due to lack of exposure to new technologies and low salaries; and (iii) interruptions to education process due to recurrent and extended periods of closure. 18.3 Water and sanitation:Access to clean water and effective sanitation systems in the Gaza Strip is critical. Approximately 90% of Gaza’s aquifer is unfit for human consumption due to seawater intrusion, the infiltration of raw or partially treated sewage and agricultural fertilizer. As a result, Gazan’s are exposed to serious and on-going public health risks. 19. Fuel and Electricity: An Israeli airstrike in June 2006 targeting the Gaza Power Plant (GPP) marked the start of the electricity crisis in the Gaza Strip. This crisis is still on-going where it became a chronic situation affecting the Gaza Strip through disrupting all facets of life including delivery of basic services and hence undermining already vulnerable livelihoods and living conditions. To cope with the long blackouts, Gazans have resorted to backup generators, which are unreliable due to their dependence on unaffordable and commonly unavailable fuel and spare parts. Over the past five years and significantly since June 2013, the functioning of the GPP has been impaired by additional factors, namely: (i) the halt in the smuggling of Egyptian-subsidized fuel used to operate GPP via the illegal tunnels; (ii) on-going disputes between Palestinian authorities in Gaza and Ramallah over the funding of fuel for the GPP; (iii) the limited collection of bills from consumers; (iv) the destruction of fuel storage tanks by an Israeli airstrike in July 2014; and (v) the restrictions on the import of spare parts, equipment, and fuel in the context of Israel’s blockade. 20. Natural Emergencies: Gaza experienced a number of natural disasters during the period of PCAP, including: the December 2013 storm “Alexa” and the January 2015 storm “Huda”. The storms have exacerbated the already dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. The heavy flooding across Gaza, during Alexa, resulted in the displacement of approximately 10,000 people to temporary shelters and relatives’ homes and additional thousands were evacuated from their homes in Gaza City and Khan Younis following the overflow of water pumping stations and lagoons. The loss of assets in the agricultural sector pushed even more households over the vulnerability thresholds, adding to the humanitarian caseload. 7 Socio-Economic and Food Security Survey 2012 - West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestine, Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Relief and Works Agency and World Food Programme 8 Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (MAS) – Food Security Bulletin “Issue 10, Autumn2014” 9 Food Security Sector “Report of the Rapid Qualitative Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA), Gaza Strip”, October 2014 9 9 CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION FINDINGS 21. The evaluation yielded a wide range of findings, which are captured here and correspond to the defined areas of focus for this evaluation, namely: PCAP’s efficiency and effectiveness and the program effect at the level of beneficiary segments and targeted sectors. The findings are based on a combination of a thorough literature review, interviews with a wide range of stakeholders, and analysis of data and information. The literature review was done during the inception phase and benefitted from a wealth of materials provided by PCAP’s Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (See Annex 04: List of Consulted Documents). Numerous interviews and focus group discussions were held during the fieldwork with a wide range of stakeholders (members of PCAP consortium, local implementing partners, beneficiaries, and non-beneficiaries) across the five governorates of the Gaza Strip (see Annex 05: List of Consulted Individuals). Finally, qualitative and quantitative analyses were done based on numerous documents and data collected during the fieldwork (see Annex 02: Evaluation Methodology). 22. Before exploring specific evaluation findings, it is important to acknowledge that, on the whole, PCAP responded to a fast-evolving, complex operating environment by designing tailored sub￾programs/projects that helped to improve and enhance the social resilience for 1,268,547 individuals (660,957 female and 607,590 male of whom more than 199,000 were children) in the Gaza Strip. In spite of the adverse socio-economic conditions, political instability and PCAP’s very ambitious objectives, the evaluation shows that, overall, PCAP successfully implemented large-scale and, in several instances, innovative interventions particularly during the last two years of the program. 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 23. Overall Goal, Specific Objective and Intermediate Results: The overall goal of PCAP “to pave the way to a better future for Palestinians through improved social, economic and basic services that promote recovery and economic development in Gaza”, its specific objective “to support the priorities of the Palestinian Authority, to support Gazan families to meet their immediate and longer term needs, and to contribute to medium and long-term recovery of economic and social structures through a multi-sectoral strategy” 10 were supported by its three intermediate results: i) Basic infrastructure and housing needs of Gazans improved; ii) Economic recovery strengthened in Gaza by creation of income generation and business development opportunities; and iii) Social recovery strengthened in Gaza through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services. While all three identified recovery areas are linked with multi-sectoral programming for service delivery and are in line with the needs and priorities of the people in the Gaza Strip and the capacities of the implementing partners, the evaluation team found the program to be very ambitious; each recovery objective could have been a standalone program. The economic recovery component consisted of a number of sub-programs that dealt with various economic recovery issues that each could be a program/project by itself; including food security, employment generation, private sector workforce development, vocational training and support to productive industries. The sub-programs of the social recovery component were structured around one key theme of social recovery: reducing vulnerability among the poorest and most marginalized groups by diminishing exposure to social risks and increasing access to basic services through enhancing the capacity of beneficiaries to manage and cope with the surrounding adverse socio-economic conditions. Given the chronic and acute state of emergency in the Gaza Strip, PCAP would have been more effective in achieving its goal if designed differently to tackle only one of the three identified recovery objectives. Specifically, designing and delivering a standalone program on social recovery would have enabled yet more tangible and maximized effect on the state of vulnerability in the Gaza Strip. 24. PCAP Portfolio: The portfolio of sub-programs undertaken by PCAP presented a mix of short and long term activities intended to support the sustainable achievement of PCAP’s objective. The portfolio of 10 Cooperative Agreement No. 294-A-00-10-00210-00: Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP) – page B-7 10 10 implemented sub-programs introduced ideas, intervention logic and approach that were generally suitable for addressing visible, growing, pressing and unmet needs of people in the Gaza Strip. Across the three components of PCAP, the evaluation team’s overall assessment of the portfolio of implemented sub-programs is positive. This assessment is based on the following observations: 24.1 Context analysis and needs assessment: Documentation review and evaluation interviews revealed solid evidence of PCAP’s clear understanding of the changing dynamics of the operating environment in the Gaza Strip. It also revealed noted efforts in conducting structured and dedicated analysis of context, conflict, needs and priorities of beneficiaries and stakeholders, interventions of other donors as well as the capacity of local partners. These robust forms of analysis and assessments were further complemented by the vast experience of PCAP’s partners and their established track record in implementing humanitarian and development interventions in Gaza. The evaluation team found these efforts have led to an overall appropriate and relevant program design, decision making process and acknowledged ability to effectively operate and deliver under adverse conditions and overwhelming humanitarian needs. For example, MC conducted a Labor Market Needs Assessment (LMNA) that aimed to analyze the relation between labor market trends and three major elements; the economic sectors, higher education institution performance, and the general economic and political conditions in Gaza. The study also looked at how changes in these elements influence employment demand trends. The study helped to guide MC programming efforts under the employment generation program. 24.2 Alignment with priorities: PCAP sub-programs were found to be relevant and appropriately adjusted during the life of the program. They were aligned with overall economic and social needs and priorities in Gaza. For example, in spite of limitation on access to construction materials allowed into Gaza, the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation sub-program came at a time when all actors (international and local) were struggling in addressing reconstruction needs after the 2008 offensive. A total of 1,399 housing units were repaired/ rehabilitated benefiting 10,750 beneficiaries. Around 93% of interviewed beneficiary households of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation sub-program in the evaluation activities confirmed that the sub-program has addressed real, unmet and pressing needs. Furthermore, both CHF and IOCC responded to food shortages especially among the poorest and provided them with assistance to establish home gardens and animal production. CHF provided 1000 families with home gardens, 650 families with poultry kits and 200 families with breeding rabbits. IOCC provided 1,320 families with poultry kits, 180 families with home gardens and 200 families with breeding rabbits. Around 92% of all food security sub-program beneficiaries confirmed that the sub-program has addressed a real and pressing need. A CHF male home garden beneficiary from Khan Younis said “I have 400 m 2 of empty land at my house, the program helped me to use this land to grow vegetables. We used to eat from the garden produce and I also gave two married daughters from the fresh vegetables”. On the other hand, for 2014 and mid 2015 the focus on emergency response and supporting social resilience were the most appropriate interventions given the impact of the political and economic shocks including natural emergencies and the July 2014 offensive. It is also important to note that to the degree that was possible, aligning PCAP portfolio with clusters sectoral strategies was noted especially under the social recovery component. All actions under the social recovery component were fully aligned with the defined social protection programs (permanent and during emergency) in the Social Protection Sector Strategy of the PNA’s Ministry of Social Affairs in terms of type, priority and targeting approach. 25. Program Perception and Expectations Management: Launched in October 2010, the five-year USD 100 million multi-sectoral program, implemented by eight different well-known and strategically positioned international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in Palestine at large and the Gaza Strip in particular, was the first engagement for USAID of this magnitude delivered in the Gaza Strip since 2007 that adopted such a complex operational modality. It is critical to note that within such a highly volatile economic and political environment, managing stakeholders’ perception and expectation of the program was an ongoing challenge especially for sub-programs delivered under the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component and the economic recovery component. For example, around 53% of interviewed beneficiaries of the housing rehabilitation sub-program indicated that they had greater 11 11 expectations in terms of the provided rehabilitation/ reconstruction services as they have suffered damages to their homes and were in need of true assistance beyond repairing doors and windows. “We thought that the project would help my family in reconstructing our home which was damaged during the 2008 war. We are a poor family that cannot afford reconstruction costs on our own. What we ended up with was having windows and doors although we had a pressing need for other repairs that both the contractor and supervisors were familiar with”. A 39-years old beneficiary widow from Beit Lahiya. Another example is that the economic recovery component operated within critical economic conditions caused by several external factors including military conflicts that led to the destruction of productive assets, tightening the Israeli grip on the Gaza Strip through the closure policy, the closure of tunnels with Egypt and the internal Palestinian political division causing duplication of laws and authorities. PCAP implemented several sub-programs and activities at times of high poverty and unemployment. PCAP’s Cash for Work (CfW) sub-program worked with a segment of the population who were the most in need for assistance. The expectations among this segment for obtaining a chance to work and obtain financial assistance were very high. While working within the available resources, PCAP was able to manage CfW beneficiaries’ expectations through making hard decisions regarding the design of fair selection criteria that could reach most needy people. As a result, 92.5% of PCAP CfW sub-program beneficiaries thought that the sub-program managed to reach most needy beneficiaries while 74% of non-beneficiaries participating in FGD confirmed that the sub-program reached most needy beneficiaries but could not reach all those in need. A 42 year old CfW male beneficiary from the Middle said “We knew that the program objective was to help unemployed workers who have been without a job for a long time and it did, however the provided employment time was too short as it was for one month only”. 26. Attainment of Objectives: The evaluation team found the delivered sub-programs presented good contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal, the objectives of the three recovery components and their expected results. Specifically at the level of each recovery component, the findings of the evaluation team are pinpointed in the following: 26.1 The specific objective of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component is: “to address the infrastructure recovery needs of Gazans through tangible improvements in community infrastructure and housing”. According to 71% of the evaluation respondents, this component has achieved its stated objective and presented obvious contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal, with a more noted level of success in the community infrastructure sub-program. PCAP established five small community infrastructure projects estimated to provide access to basic services for 108,900 beneficiaries (once fully functioning). Four out of the five projects are fully operational. The fifth project (Arab Orthodox Council of Churches theatre) was fully completed in terms of construction work yet it is still not operational because of power problems as it needs a generator. Around 81% of the evaluation respondents (beneficiaries of El Amal Rehabilitation Society in Rafah and Al Bureij Services Club in the Middle) confirmed that these projects addressed true needs and contributed to improving received services within these two facilities. This finding was found to be in line with results of MC’s DME unit review of those two community infrastructure projects with confirmation of 83% of respondents. According to a member of CHF Senior management team “The infrastructure and housing rehabilitation programs scored a quick win for PCAP… being highly visible and much needed by targeted communities and households at a time when all players avoided engaging in the challenging construction work in Gaza”. Furthermore, the housing rehabilitation sub￾program presented a noted focus on providing assistance to the most vulnerable families in Gaza who: (i) suffered from deteriorating housing conditions as a result of the Israeli military operation and the continuing political unrest; and (ii) were economically unable to renovate their houses and meet a basic need for dignified living. Around 65% of interviewed beneficiary households confirmed that the sub-program addressed real needs and succeeded in enabling them to live in homes that are safe and dignified. Complaints on issues associated with contractor’s performance management, maintenance, quality of material and work and implementation delays were voiced out by 64% of the beneficiaries as key factors that negatively affected objectives realization. ”to date, 120 out of 1000 installed chairs were dismantled during games. This is mainly due to the poor installation by the contractor and his incompliance with the instructions of CHF supervising engineer to install chairs on concert slab and fixing them with longer bolts … We are still waiting for the contactor 12 12 to perform the needed maintenance service”. Bureij Services Club Representative and Project Supervisor. From a quantitative aspect, PCAP’s Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMP) defined five performance indicators for measuring achievement of objective/results of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component. Review of audited data reporting on indicators achievement revealed that PCAP achieved and even exceeded set targets for all five indicators. Although, no target was set for “Output indicator 1.2.2: Number of housing rehabilitation beneficiaries (major and windows and doors)” in FY11, the evaluation team based its finding on the fact that PCAP has exceeded set target of the correlating indicator “Output indicator 1.2.3: Number houses rehabilitated”. 26.2 The specific objective of the economic recovery component is: “to support economic recovery and development in Gaza through the creation of income generation and business development (BD) opportunities”. The evaluation respondents differed in their response in terms of achievement of objectives with a higher percentage of positive responses for the last three years of implementation and among the CfW and ICT sector development beneficiaries. Overall, 85% of the evaluation respondents confirmed that this component has achieved its stated objective and presented obvious contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal. From a quantitative aspect, PCAP’s PMP defined 26 indicators (10 outcome indicators and 16 output indicators) for measuring achievement of objective/results of the economic recovery component (399 activities delivered under different sub-programs). Review of audited data reporting on indicators achievement revealed that PCAP achieved or exceeded set targets for 18, under achieved in four indicators while no target values were set for the remaining four other indicators to enable presenting a finding on their level of achievement (further discussion is presented in point 29.2 ii below).The evaluation team found that sub-programs and activities implemented under the Food Security sub-program(establishment of home gardens and distribution of animal production kits) were the lowest contributors to achieving the economic recovery objective among all sub-programs (excluding the greenhouse and water catchment activities) while the employment generation and the business development (especially ICT) were the highest contributors. In achieving the Economic Recovery specific objectives, the following are the key contributing factors: i) Tackling four important recovery areas including food security, employment generation, workforce development and business development. Through these areas, the economic recovery component was able to improve the food security of beneficiaries, create employment for the unemployed, and provide professional training and internship opportunities that improve the skills of workers and graduates. Finally, PCAP was able to target the ICT sector using a comprehensive approach that worked with the various players in the ICT sector value chain. ii) Targeting all governorates of the Gaza Strip with special focus on most needy communities suffering from worsening economic conditions. iii) Benefiting many segments of the population, including workers, farmers, fishermen, new graduates ad youth, entrepreneurs and business owners. 26.3 The specific objective of the social recovery component is: “to address the social recovery needs of Gazans through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services”. According to 94.2% of the evaluation respondents, this component has achieved its stated objective and presented obvious contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal, with a more noted success in sub-programs delivered in the last three years of PCAP. From a quantitative aspect, PCAP’s PMP defined 31 indicators (14 outcome indicators and 17 output indicators) for measuring the achievement of objective/results of the social recovery component (600 activities delivered under seven different sub-programs). Review of audited data reporting on indicators achievement further validated the evaluation findings on the fully satisfactory achievement of the set objective for the social recovery component and its noted contribution to realizing PCAP’s overall goal. PCAP achieved and even exceeded set targets for 22 out of 31 indicators, under achieved in three indicators while no target values were set for the remaining six indicators to enable presenting a finding on their level of achievement (further discussion is presented in point 29.2.iii below). The evaluation team found that all sub-programs, especially those delivered under “output 3.3: social and family resilience improved” and “output 3.4: humanitarian support improved” operated with 13 13 the most efficiency/effectiveness in realizing set objectives. It is clear from the evaluation activities that PCAP’s social recovery component helped in enhancing the social resilience of beneficiaries (especially psychosocial resilience) and eased many of the difficulties caused by the worsening conditions and the different chronic and acute emergencies. According to the vast majority of the evaluation respondents the social recovery component responded to true, important needs that are highly relevant and do not receive proper attention. Key elements contributing to the achievement of objectives are: i) Number and diversity of directly reached population which focused on marginalized beneficiary groups (15.7% of beneficiaries were children, 52.1% were females, 1.4% were PWD). ii) Served geographical locations and communities that focused on ARA, socially conservative communities with deteriorating socio-economic conditions and areas that are most hit during emergencies (Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya in the North, Khuzaa and eastern Khan Younis in Khan Younis, Shjaiea and East Gaza in Gaza). iii) Building on partnership, coordination and mobilization of local structures for interventions delivery. All interventions under this component were delivered through partner CBOs across the Gaza Strip which enabled enhanced beneficiary access to services and supported building the capacity of partners. iv) Adopted logic/approach to service delivery that showed innovation and diversity in intervention modalities. Among the noted examples: MC’s YIS program utilized sport-based interventions in supporting psychosocial resilience, teaching life skills and promoting social behavior among youth in critical transition age between childhood and adulthood. IMC’s ECD program adopted a comprehensive approach of working with the family as a unit and employing peer-to-peer approach as entry point to realizing community change. MC’s Humanitarian Relief program empowered beneficiaries’ choice and respected their dignity through voucher distribution compared to in-kind assistance in the school uniform distribution activity. 27. Partnership Model: The multi-sectoral approach proposed for achieving PCAP’s three recovery objectives required having an effective working modality that builds on partnership, coordination and mobilization of local structures (on operational, implementation and strategic levels). One of the biggest challenges identified by the mid-team evaluation was the ability to establish such model among PCAP consortium (partners and sub-grantees) to enable functioning as a synergetic group for achieving set objectives. Most cited forms of coordination and cooperation, during that period, were found at the implementation level and was mostly limited to checking beneficiary lists and geographic targeting. During the last three years more evident examples of cooperation were found by the evaluation. These examples include a more effective use of CfW as a crosscutting mechanism for securing necessary human resources for implementation across different components and different partners such as the provision of workers through the MC/CfW program to i) rehabilitate greenhouses and water catchments implemented by IOCC; ii) deliver training to the parents or relatives of PWD implemented by MC social recovery component; and iii) provide emergency support assistance under MC emergency support response program offering one month long work opportunities to emergency affected people. One of the noted contributing factors to achieving PCAP’s recovery objectives was the adopted community-led approach in delivering activities, where PCAP worked with more than 200 local NGOs/CBOs in different capacities, for example: (i) all social recovery sub-programs were implemented by local NGOs/CBOs which enabled expanded outreach and a better response to community needs; and (ii) cooperating with private sector association for the implementation of economic recovery activities in the ICT, construction and industrial sectors. Another contributing factor in realizing PCAP objectives was the program ability to engage and mobilize local structures/individuals such as community committees, informal groups and community leaders. The inclusive involvement and mobilization of local community structures in sub￾programs such as E2F II, YIS and emergency response was essential to enhancing the credibility of PCAP and a true enabler of objectives achievement. 14 14 Box 5: PCAP within the continuously changing context and challenging operating environment The onset of the December 2008 Israeli military operation exacerbated desperate conditions for large sections of the population in the Gaza Strip. International donors including USAID responded with immediate humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs. However, the ramifications of the continued Israeli economic restrictions and Hamas control in Gaza are still considerable in all parts of daily life (lost agriculture, limited imports, impeded construction, crippled private sector, high unemployment and poverty, increased dependency on aid and emotional trauma). Recognizing the need and the desire of the Palestinian people to reclaim their livelihoods and sense of normalcy and to help them build a better future through social and economic relief and recovery in Gaza, USAID/West Bank and Gaza awarded a 3-year, USD 100 million cooperative agreement to Mercy Corps to implement the Palestinian Community Assistance Program (PCAP) in September 2010. The goal of the program was to promote a multi-sector strategy to help families in Gaza meet their immediate and long￾term needs, as well as to contribute to ongoing economic and social recovery. PCAP operated in a volatile, highly complex, continuously changing and unpredictable political, economic, social and funding setting. Since the start of PCAP, Gaza has gone through: (i) a U.S. congressional hold on funds to the West Bank and Gaza in 2011 which resulted in operating on a demobilization plan; (ii) two wars in 2012 and 2014; (iii) the Arab Spring that spread across the Arab world in 2011 especially in Egypt and Syria, (iv) several natural emergencies in 2013, 2014 and 2015; (v) several internal political changes including the formation of the unity government; and (vi) number of formal agreement modifications and no-cost extensions in April 2013, March 2014 and October 2014. Within the above context, the evaluation revealed that PCAP had two distinct operating periods. The first two years of PCAP were found to be more of an inception, adjustment and re-adjustment phase in terms of selection of intervention areas, testing working modalities and operational approaches. During this phase policy and procedural challenges have affected PCAP’s efficiency, with some bottlenecks that caused significant delays. Experience enabled PCAP in becoming more efficient in addressing some of them while others remained an ongoing challenge. “Throughout the implementation period, the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation projects were constantly challenged by delays in receiving COGAT approvals, vetting approvals, procuring and transferring construction materials to Gaza which were further compounded by the funding hold of 2011/2012. All of these factors placed additional pressure on the team and resulted in delays in the implementation timeline, yet we delivered”. Member of CHF Senior management team. Interviews with implementing partners (international and local) and beneficiaries revealed an overall sense, during that phase, of fragmented projects and activities with no apparent recognition to PCAP as a program but rather as separate projects delivered by implementing INGOs. As a result, the mid-term evaluation identified enhancing coordination and collaboration among implementing partners as one of key areas for improving PCAP effectiveness and efficiency. The last three years witnessed an evident positive change in PCAP positioning in the market which the evaluation team attributes to the following key factors:  Improved coordination and cooperation among implementing partners that goes beyond attending group meetings for consultation on planning and future direction. For example, all partner INGOs participated in a strategic planning exercise advised by the recommendations of PCAP Mid-term evaluation to collectively formulate an outline of PCAP’s future strategic and priority intervention areas including working modalities and implementation mechanisms.  Better inter-program coordination and collaboration in serving the achievement of PCAP’s overall goal and objectives. The evaluation activities reveled noted efforts to ensure complementarity and integration at the internal level (among PCAP partners and across its components) and the external level (with other key actors and donors). This came as a direct response to the recommendations on enhancing internal coordination and leveraging resources that were raised in PCAP mid-term evaluation. For example, on the internal level, MC CfW program provided IOCC food security program with needed workers to implement its greenhouse and water catchment rehabilitation activity during the last year of implementation. On the external level, the close relationship and coordination with the Shelter Cluster lead agency, NRC, enabled MC’s Humanitarian Relief program to respond to the January 2015 winter storm by distributing tarps, hygiene kits and 150 gas heaters to households in Khuza’a.  Sharpened attention to priority theme interventions in addressing recovery needs with a marked focus 15 15 on emergency response. . The evaluation team attributes this to the reduction in addressed recovery components, where only economic and social recovery elements of PCAP proceeded in the last two years. Also, the reduction in the number of implementing organizations and consequently implemented sub-programs and activities. Three partners and MC implemented the economic recovery sub-programs and four partners and MC implemented the social recovery sub-programs, both were later reduced to one partner per component and MC in the last two years. Some small activities were also dropped during the last two years in favor of other larger and more focused activities such as stopping the plastic recycling activities while continuing improved and more focused activities in the ICT sector. Finally, the last two years of PCAP witnessed two military conflicts and several natural disasters making emergency response the most appropriate intervention in the changed context. PCAP provided 478 factories with labor subsidies to help them stay in operation after the 2014 conflict. Furthermore, IOCC rehabilitated 50 previously established greenhouses and 40 water catchments that were damaged during the war. Availability and access to drinking water is a basic human right and a key emergency response element in all crisis; PCAP made available 20 water bladders that provided clean drinking water to more than 35,000 individuals living in Beit Hanoun, eastern Khan Younis, and East Gaza.  PCAP ability to adapt, review and change approaches was a significant factor in achieving the overall goal, recovery objectives and expected results. PCAP demonstrated flexibility in introducing changes/revisions to approaches and working modalities and adjusting assistance levels, based on changes in needs and/or learned lessons, to enable an efficient and effective achievement of goals and objectives. For example, MC was able to re-align its internship program to be market driven and to change the understanding of this opportunity among beneficiary graduates from short term cash assistance to an opportunity to gain experience and find employment. MC took several actions to implement the program within this understanding including making interns’ salaries variable to match the entry level expectations within each industry and requiring each employer to contribute 25% of the graduate salary. This action increased the commitment of both beneficiaries and employers to the internship program. Another noted example, while building on its original program, IMC FY15 program responded to the effects of the 2014 offensive through the delivery of structured child-friendly activities in local facilities aimed at improving the wellbeing of distressed children (under the age of 12).  Developing and streamlining processes coupled with better definition of roles and responsibilities especially in the area of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). PCAP Mid-term evaluation and USAID Regional Inspector General Audit identified performance measurement and reporting on results as key areas for improvement. In FY13, PCAP indicators were reviewed and revised in order to streamline the monitoring and reporting processes and to ensure consistency of program reporting across different activities and implementing partners. The noted efforts on developing a comprehensive M&E and streamlining associated processes has enhanced MC’s ability to manage data collection on indicators and minimized the likelihood of errors on reported results. Conclusion: PCAP is an evolutionary program that succeeded in working under different operating modes despite the added pressures on implementers and was able to deliver many interventions that effectively responded to needs through a holistic, community‐based approach. Planning and revisiting plans was a constant exercise to adapt to changing operating environment, assistance landscape, funding and emerging needs of the people. Changing the mode of operation from responding to emergencies to the original mode of recovery, while maintaining set achievement targets, required change in plans, staffing structure and allocation as well as approaches. This was only possible because of the program’s: (i) flexibility and ability to adapt; (ii) understanding of humanitarian and recovery needs; (iii) awareness of the context from implemented interventions; and (iv) identifying opportunities while leveraging and responding in harmonization with other key actors. 16 16 3.2ACHIEVEMENT OF TARGETS 28. Performance Indicators: To measure and report the results of activities under the three recovery objectives (more than 1,018 activities), PCAP had an overwhelming number of program performance indicators (In total 71 indicators: 27 outcome indicators and 44 output indicators). Furthermore, beginning FY14, a set of internal indicators (In total 72 indicators: 10 outcome indicators and 62 output indicators) were initiated in cooperation with sub-programs for internal management use and to provide more insight about sub-programs for better learning and information sharing. Table 2 below, presents an illustration of number of PCAP performance indicators across the program duration. Managing data for this overwhelming number of program performance indicators, especially during FY12 and FY13 the peak in terms of the number of delivered activities, was labor and time intensive. Table 2: Illustration of number of PCAP performance indicators across the program duration # Number of indicators FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 1. Number of program performance indicators (internal) 0 0 0 49 40 2. Number of program performance indicators used for reporting to USAID 38 55 53 43 41 Review of the PCAP’s Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plans (PMPs) across the years revealed an ongoing revision of the M&E framework and processes in response to program modifications. Still, the evaluation team found managing, tracking program outcome and documenting its results were an ongoing challenge which was also one of the key findings of the mid-term evaluation. The main attributes to this are: (i) the late establishment of a comprehensive and streamlined M&E system that enables adequate controls for data verification; (ii) the excessive amount of data from different partners and for different activities against an overwhelming number of indicators; and most importantly (iii) inadequate indicator definitions coupled with inconsistent methodology in computing results. With that being said, it is important to acknowledge FY14 PMP in particular as it presents a good practice in addressing many of the raised concerns on the M&E through clear, practical and actionable solutions. 29. Targets versus Achieved: Documentation review and interviews with DM&E team revealed the following findings on achievement11 of targets against PMP performance indicators for each recovery component (See Annex 03: PCAP targets versus achieved across IRs and subsequent sub-programs). It is important to highlight that the reported findings in this section cover all implemented activities under PCAP and until September 30th, 2015. 29.1 Overall achievement of targets: To reflect on USAID’s interest in measuring PCAP overall achievements with respect to indicators such as: number of beneficiaries, sex disaggregation and vulnerability, PCAP indicator matrix defined nine indicators at the overall level. Table 3 below presents those nine indicators (targets and achievements) for the program five years of implementation and as reported to USAID (audited figures). The evaluation team has the following observations: i) PCAP’s evolutionary nature, discussed earlier, was also evident at the level of overall indicators. Some indicators were added and others were redefined as the program progressed and a clearer vision and direction evolved. ii) Although some improvements were introduced during the course of the program, monitoring, measuring and reporting on results constituted a challenge for PCAP particularly in FY11. Key contributing factors were: (a) the web-based M&E system proposed by MC was not fully implemented during the first two years of PCAP; (b) relying on manual processes to summarize the massive amount of performance data generated by different activities and different partners in different formats; and (c) lack of a common understanding and consistent methodologies for performance measurement among the different partners. iii) In FY11 only one indicator “Number of people benefitting from social assistance programming” had a defined target and hence enabled comparison for measuring achievement. For this indicator, achievement came at 54% which the evaluation team found to be unsurprising given: 11The evaluation team followed USAID definition for measuring achievement that considers (+10% / -10%) deviation from set target as achieved. 17 17 (a) encountered delays in the vetting process that resulted in delayed implementation of most of PCAP activities requiring vetting; (b) five months of designated implementation time was lost due to time needed for projects approvals and waivers; and (c) unrealistic setting of targets for some activities such as number of beneficiaries to be reached by CHF’s home gardens. iv) FY12 showed improvement in terms of setting targets which enabled comparison and actual reflection on achievement of objectives. The evaluation team found PCAP was able to achieve and exceed targets despite the impact of the fluctuations in funding, vetting delays and fuel shortages. v) During FY13, PCAP had the lowest achievement in meeting set targets compared to all implementation years. This was particularly the case with workforce development activities. Operations during this year were faced by several challenges including: (a) the 2012 offensive; (b) the rain water flooding in December 2013, (c) pressures and interference from the De Facto Authority including their requests to audit partners financial records; and (d) the collapse of the tunnel economy and the resulting economic downturn. All of these challenges resulted in the late completion of projects where many of the activities in FY13 were not completed until early FY14 and hence their results were reported in FY14. vi) The evaluation team found that targets during FY14 were set lower compared to the previous year (almost 50% lower); one main attributing factor was the close down of several partners’ program (IMC, SC, Care, CHF and CRS). On the other hand, a noticeable achievement in reaching targets was found. Targets for all indicators were exceeded by an average of 175% for all indicators. This is mainly attributed to the launch of the emergency response program under the humanitarian assistance output. Accordingly, in FY15 a new indicator has been introduced to capture the number of emergency affected and served beneficiaries. Table 3: PCAP Overall indicators by implementation year Indicator Name FY11 Target FY11 Actual FY12 Target FY12 Actual FY13 Target FY13 Actual FY14 Target FY14 Actual FY15 Target FY15 Actual 1 Number of people benefitting from social assistance programming 205,224 110,535 134,685 196,131 329,654 293,434 105,967 394,406 251,412 274,041 2 Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming￾number of men n/a 55,862 68,689 98,226 163,056 135,733 56,583 196,760 116,739 121,009 3 Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming￾number of women n/a 54,673 65,996 97,905 166,598 157,701 49,384 197,646 134,673 153,032 4 Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming -food insecure n/a 75,061 108,184 132,605 192,125 174,883 67,495 337,335 212,403 223,264 5 Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming￾other targeted vulnerable people n/a 6,483 n/a n/a 13,105 16,173 6,290 15,912 9,558 11,228 6 Number of people benefiting from USG-supported social assistance programming - female-headed household n/a 140 2,072 1,654 3,067 6,202 2,547 2,580 5,472 4,255 7 Number of service providers trained who serve vulnerable people n/a 148 647 654 926 1034 347 433 176 325 8 Proportion of female participants in USG-assisted programs designed to n/a n/a n/a n/a 39% 34.4% 34% 33.8% 11% 11% 18 18 Table 3: PCAP Overall indicators by implementation year Indicator Name FY11 Target FY11 Actual FY12 Target FY12 Actual FY13 Target FY13 Actual FY14 Target FY14 Actual FY15 Target FY15 Actual increase access to productive economic resources (assets, credit, income or employment) 9 Number of internally displaced and host population beneficiaries provided with basic inputs for survival, recovery or restoration of productive capacity as a result of USG assistance n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12,638 33,930 29.2 Achievement of targets at the component level: Analysis of audited data on targets versus achieved revealed the following findings at the component level and in relation to the realization of objectives: i) Infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component: As stated in point 26.1 above, all set targets for this component have been met for quantitative or qualitative indicators. Results from different sources of the qualitative indicators measuring improvement in basic infrastructure and increased physical and social well-being among beneficiaries and targeted communities have supported the evaluation team finding on the level of achievement of the component objective being mostly satisfactory. ii) Economic recovery component: Analysis of audited data on targets versus achieved of the economic recovery component indicators supported the evaluation team findings that this component has achieved its stated objective and contributed to realizing PCAP’s overall goal in a satisfactory manner. Targets were achieved for 17 of the 25 indicators measuring performance. Despite the underachievement in four of the indicators and lack of target data for another 4, the evaluation team found that the economic recovery component objectives have been met, alleviating some of the effects of the worsened economic conditions in the Gaza Strip including the high unemployment, high poverty rate and food insecurity. Table 4 below presents the evaluation team observations on the four under-achieved indicators. Table 4: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the economic recovery component Indicator Code Name of indicator Across Years Evaluation team observation 2.1.2 Farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 87% This indicator measures the impact of the food security interventions (home garden, animal kits, greenhouses, water catchments) implemented by CHF and IOCC. The evaluation team found under￾achievement in this indicator is primarily due to the previous knowledge among beneficiaries from other programs working in the area. The evaluation team can conclude that underachievement was insignificant to affect the actual realization of the component and PCAP objectives. 2.2.3 Jobs created following the intervention in business development support 24% This indicator was only introduced in FY14, a year that witnessed the 51 days of war resulting in change in approach for the implementation of some activities especially in business development support. Support to businesses through labor subsidies was implemented and reported under the emergency program. 2.3.2 Graduates who were able to earn income used the work experience skills after the completion of work experience 63% The economic conditions and hence employment in Gaza worsened during the PCAP implementation time. The results achieved by the program as measured by this indicator were found by the 19 19 Table 4: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the economic recovery component Indicator Code Name of indicator Across Years Evaluation team observation placement program evaluation to be more than satisfactory given the situation on the ground. The evaluation team did not find that underachievement in this indicator to have affected the quality of the provided assistance and hence did not affect objective realization. 2.3.4 Person hours of training completed in workforce development by young graduates 47% Due to the delays in implementation as a result of the military operations in at the end of FY12 and FY14, the implementation of training activities for the internship programs were affected. However, the number of graduates placed in internship positions was not affected and PCAP was able to reach set targets. The evaluation team found that underachievement in this indicator could have affected the quality of the provided assistance and therefore job retention rates. However, job retention after the assistance could not be only attributed to lack of performance as measured by this indicator but also to the overall economic conditions. iii) Social recovery component: Further analysis of audited data on targets versus achieved of the social recovery component indicators supported the evaluation team findings that this component has achieved its stated objective and presented obvious contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal in a fully satisfactory manner. Targets were achieved for all indicators measuring the program contribution in providing assistance that helped improve social wellbeing of beneficiaries, especially in terms of numbers of beneficiaries reached and more importantly the demonstrated enhancement in social resilience. Table 5 below presents the evaluation team observations on the three under-achieved indicators. Table 5: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the social recovery component Indicator Code Name of indicator Across Years Evaluation team observation 3.1.05 Percentage of mentors reporting improvement in academic tutoring and skills of intentional programming 49% This indicator was only measured for CARE’s E2F II and for 100 mentors as set group of beneficiaries. The evaluation team found that the methodology used for performance measurement for this indicator was inconsistent across the years of E2F II. The evaluation team found under-achievement in this indicator given the number of served beneficiary groups to be insignificant to affect the actual realization of the component and PCAP objectives. 3.1.10 Preschools children participated in ECD program/Right Start program 84% This indicator was only measured for ANERA’s RS! As mentioned above FY 12 was a challenging year for all partners mainly due to vetting delays and shortened implementation period due to the funding hold and the suspension of activities during the demobilization period. A RS! specific challenge was the unrealistic setting of targets for working with children with disabilities (under five years old). The evaluation team found under-achievement in this indicator did not negatively affect the overall attainment of the social recovery and PCAP objectives. Still, it presented an area for improvement to better mainstream working with people with disability especially children, where culture, common norms, reality of disabilities in targeted communities and outreach capacities of local implementing CBOs 20 20 Table 5: Observations on under-achieved indicators of the social recovery component Indicator Code Name of indicator Across Years Evaluation team observation require thorough and focused attention in design and implementation. 3.4.4 Amount of USD of humanitarian assistance/ emergency supplies provided 54% Only one out of the four planned distribution rounds took place in FY11 mainly due to lengthily preparation phase (assessment of needs, setting selection criteria, verifications, etc), vetting, COGAT and and procurement approvals. Therefore only 22.7% of set budget for assistance for that year was spent hence influencing the numerical realization of the indicator. The evaluation team found this to be more of an operational efficiency issue that has not affected the quality of the provided assistance and hence did not affect objective realization. Documentation review revealed that no target values were set for six indicators under the social recovery component. Table 6 below presents the evaluation team observations on those six indicators. The evaluation team was comfortable concluding, in spite of inability to assess the achievement level of those indicators (no correlation with other indicators was possible), that they have not negatively affected the realization of the social recovery component and PCAP objectives. Table 6: Observations on indicators with no set targets of the social recovery component Indicator Code Name of indicator Evaluation team observation 3.1.01.a Percentage of children showing improvements in Math, Arabic and English subjects (NASP) The three indicators are associated with MC’s education sub-program. Given that MC’s education program is a well-established program within MC that has been delivered for several years even before PCAP, unavailability of target data on sex desegregation of beneficiary children for FY11, FY12 and FY13 as well as percentage of children showing improvements in taught subjects under NASP for FY12 was surprising and difficult to understand for such rooted program. 3.1.03.f Female students enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school settings (NASP - ALE) 3.1.03.m Male students enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school settings (NASP - ALE) 3.4.2.H Households benefited from USG supported Humanitarian Assistance distribution The three indicators are associated with MC’s emergency response. The evaluation found MC’s emergency response (especially to 2014 offensive) was prompt and evolved in response to on-going identification of needs. Therefore, the inability to set target data is understandable in such emergency context. 3.4.2.K Humanitarian Assistance kits distributed 3.4.3.I People benefited from USG￾supported humanitarian assistance distribution 3.3 TARGETING AND SELECTION 30. Beneficiaries targeting is one of the most difficult tasks, even in the best of circumstances. Although challenging, overall the evaluation team found beneficiaries’ identification, targeting, selection and verification one of the strengths of PCAP. Across the three components (with varying degrees), PCAP exhibited good practice in area of targeting and selection. The evaluation team attributes this to the following key factors: 30.1 Need-driven targeting and selection: PCAP employing various needs assessment tools to enable beneficiary targeting and selection. Furthermore, the program effectively utilized diversified sources for data-gathering on potential beneficiaries, including: i) information shared by cluster working groups such as Shelter Cluster, Mental Health and Psychosocial Cluster and the Child Protection Working Group; ii) received feedback from partner CBOs active presence in the field; and iii) data obtained through community networks and entities. This diversity in data sources, which 21 21 was further validated by documentation review, enhanced accessibility to information, cross￾checking, and verification which in turn enabled achieving set targets. The evaluation team found that PCAP made an effort and went to some lengths to ensure that beneficiaries were correctly and fairly identified. Some of the noted example are: (i) selection of housing rehabilitation beneficiaries was based on a specially designed scoring tool “Housing Socio-economic Scoring sheet”; (ii) CHF Agricultural Assessment for its food security program; (iii) SC Youth Livelihood Development Index Baseline Analysis for its YLDR program, (iv) MC Labor Market Needs Assessment assessing potential future hiring needs of local businesses identified primary skills required and assessed potential job growth by sector; and (v) CRS selected beneficiaries for humanitarian assistance packages of consumable and non‐consumable commodities via Proxy Means Test formula (PMTf) followed by home verification visits and cross‐checking eligible candidates with UNRWA to avoid duplication. Profile review of communities and beneficiaries targeted by the social recovery sub-programs/ projects revealed a noted success in complying with set selection criteria which enabled reaching beneficiaries: (i) with good geographical coverage across the Gaza Strip with special focus on frequently targeted areas during conflicts such as the North, Eastern Gaza and Khan Younis; (ii) marginalized and socially conservative communities characterized by strict adherence to traditional cultural norms and practices such as communities in and around the ARA; iii) children and youth in critical and underserved age-groups from both sexes; (iv) caregivers with special focus on mothers as they are the primary caregivers in Gaza; (v) active engagement of men in activities to ensure gender balance and facilitate implementation of social and behavioral changes within household; and vi) working with families as an entry point to trigger positive change in the community. 30.2 Documented process for targeting and selection: Documentation review revealed that targeting and selection process for all sub-programs/projects was based on preset, clear, documented and relevant selection criteria. Each PCAP implementation plan dedicated a comprehensive section per sub-program/project that discussed beneficiaries’ selection, adopted eligibility criteria and selection process. Furthermore, targeting and selection benefited from a consultation process with partner CBOs and their vast networks in the targeted communities. This consultation process was more evident in the social recovery component and was a key enabling factor in the emergency response to the July 2014 crisis. The evaluation team found that most of the sub-programs/projects and activities have successfully reached the right beneficiaries which enabled improving the overall status of the reached vulnerable population. This could not have been possible without the careful drafting of socio-economic and component specific criteria that enabled the proper selection of beneficiaries and ensured that the right beneficiaries benefitted from the various sub-programs. For example, the CfW survey conducted for both IOCC and MC CfW program indicated that 92.5% of beneficiaries confirmed that the criteria was suitable to reach the right beneficiaries. Another example is the beneficiary selection for IOCC water catchment beneficiaries followed a similar process where application sessions for the selection of beneficiaries were organized through CBOs in the two governorates targeted by the program. Home and site visits were conducted and selection of beneficiaries was finalized from the households with the highest scores fully matching the socio-economic and technical criteria. Most of the social recovery sub-programs developed additional complementary eligibility criteria for assistance provision to hardship/severe cases to access specialized services within the delivered programs. For example: IMC and MC’s PSS established special criteria for referral cases. 30.3 Ongoing review and adaptation: Throughout the program duration, PCAP exhibited good practice in identifying how the realities on the ground were changing and using evidence to adjust to better serve the interest of the people in Gaza. This was not limited to type of delivered interventions but expanded to an ongoing review and adaptation of beneficiaries’ selection criteria. For example: MC’s PSS program across its different rounds followed a well-defined and clear beneficiary selection criteria, however in responding to the July 2014 crisis where everyone was in need of some type of psychosocial support, the program did not follow any criteria and short term psychosocial support through community open days and family sessions were opened to all. Although this approach enabled an expanded outreach and a noted increase in number of reached beneficiaries, this calculated flexibility in adjusting selection criteria to changing needs was well regarded by all interviewees of the evaluation. 22 22 30.4 Compliance with set process for targeting and selection: The existence of a selection and targeting criteria does not always ensure compliance. Compliance could be measured through beneficiaries’ response to the degree of compliance. Selection criteria for the housing rehabilitation included targeting conflict-affected homes in principle with additional selection parameters aimed at reaching the neediest beneficiaries, including non-refugees, the elderly, families having PWD, and female-headed households. Results of the evaluation survey supported compliance with set selection criteria where: 81.8% of respondents were unemployed; home of 47.7% of the respondents were conflict-damaged; 27.3% included PWD in their family; and 4.5% were female-headed households. The MC and IOCC CfW survey indicated that 96% of beneficiaries found the mechanism used for the selection of beneficiaries to be good. Through the different FGD held during the evaluation process other sub-programs beneficiaries also confirmed compliance with the announced selection and targeting process. Also about 90% of MC interns, 85% of SC MSME Youth beneficiaries confirmed compliance with the selection and targeting process. 30.5 Beneficiaries’ awareness and satisfaction of targeting and selection process: The participatory and inclusive approach used by PCAP for targeting and selection was highly appreciated by beneficiaries. This approach insured that beneficiaries were aware of the selection criteria and thus increased PCAP accountability to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries’ awareness of the process varied by type of sub￾program. The infrastructure and housing rehabilitation sub-programs scored the least where most of the participants in evaluation FGDs said that they were not aware of the selection criteria which was further validated when only 57.1% of surveyed beneficiaries confirmed having that the selection criteria explained to them. On the other hand, 95% of IOCC greenhouse and water catchment beneficiaries were aware of the selection process. The process was communicated to them at the time of registration for assistance. One water catchment beneficiary from East Khan Younis said “The number of family members, economic condition of the household and number of children in school and university were among the most important criteria items in addition to past experience in planting my land”. The CfW survey conducted for MC and IOCC programs indicated that 80% of beneficiaries were aware of the targeting and selection process. One CfW beneficiary from Gaza said “There was written criteria about the condition of the housing unit, number of family members, monthly income, chronic diseases and employment status”. Results of the CfW survey indicated that 91% of beneficiaries were satisfied with the targeting and selection process. While 83% of participants in the ICT short and long courses indicated satisfaction with the process. About 92% of CHF Home Garden beneficiaries were satisfied with the process. On the other hand, only 30% of CHF Home Garden non-beneficiaries were satisfied with the targeting and selection process. The majority of the evaluation respondents of the social recovery sub-programs indicated that the selection criteria and process were openly shared with them through diversified methods such as: public announcement, inclusion of selection criteria in application forms distributed as hard copies or completed electronically, community mobilization through local committees’ members, awareness workshops and field visits. 30.6 Good geographic targeting: PCAP sub-programs and activities were delivered in all five governorates of the Gaza Strip. The area of operation for each partner was determined at the start of the program especially for partners implementing similar activities. The geographic location of the various activities was determined as part of the targeting process initiated by each partner at the start of the program. Some activities were area sensitive such as those dealing with agriculture in Food Security Program implemented by CHF and IOCC. Furthermore, CHF housing rehabilitation was focused on areas that sustained the highest damage as a result of the 2008/2009 war. Other activities were not geographical area sensitive such as the CfW implemented by MC, CRS and IOCC and most of the social recovery sub-programs. However, in order to avoid duplication of activities, implementing partners agreed on the area of operation for each. When similar activities are implemented by more than one partner, coordination among partners included the geographic focus of each program to avoid duplication of activities. The underlining theme for targeting in the social recovery sub-programs was delivering the assistance to highly insecure and vulnerable populations where good geographic targeting enabled an efficient and effective match between where the needs were and where the provided services were delivered. On the other hand, some areas such as Rafah and the Middle were excluded during later rounds of NASP which had a 23 23 negative effect on the program outreach and ability to serve communities in need in these locations. NASP team management related this exclusion to funding constraints in the case of Rafah and negative assessment of the level of cooperation of implementing CBOs and the program management in the case of the Middle. 31. For certain groups, PCAP encountered difficulties in targeting and achieving set targets, namely: i) IMC struggled with activities targeting adolescent girls which entailed the need for intervention and approach revision; ii) targeting PWD was found challenging across all sub-programs especially CARE’s E2FII and ANERA’s RS!; and iii) CfW programs implemented by different partners were male focused while employment opportunities provided by those partners who included women in their CfW programs mostly focused on traditional jobs such as pastry making, embroidery and sewing. 3.4 EFFECT ON KEY BENEFICIARY SEGMENTS 32. Youth: Youth are the greatest asset for any nation. They are considered as the greatest investment for a country development. For Gaza, youth can be the center and focus for re-construction and development. The Palestinian society is particularly young. According to PCBS, youth (age 15-29) represent 30% of the population in Palestine of whom 37.4% are adolescents aged 15-19 years and 62.6% are youth aged 20-29 years. PCAP in general and the economic recovery component, in specific, have succeeded in the provision of services that are catered to the humanitarian needs, skill development and employment for youth. The following represent the most frequently reported effects of PCAP on youth. 32.1 Improved or new skill set, practical tools and experience: Various programs under the economic recovery component were designed to provide new skills for youth. These programs used different approaches for the provision of training and information sharing. For example, SC’s YLDR provided business grants to eligible beneficiaries with the condition that they pass a business planning training that includes the preparation of a business plan with a thorough market research to ensure the sustainability of the business. One male beneficiary from the Middle area said “the business grant improved my financial condition; I became self￾employed at my mobile maintenance shop”. MC Freelancing Career Growth activity provided new graduates from different disciplines such as IT, graphic design, and translation with the necessary skills and tools to gain employment as freelancers. In addition to the training courses and the provision of information on online freelancing opportunities, during FY 15 MC provided potential freelancers with experienced mentors to support them through this new experience. MC also developed an online training portal to provide graduates and senior students with basic freelancing and online business skills. The freelancing project is regarded by various stakeholders met in the course of this evaluation as MC flagship under the economic development sub-program. Social recovery sub-programs included an intensive skills development and capacity building component for teams engaged in the delivery of the activities. “Working in E2F II was a great job opportunity … I gained a lot of experience and new skills for working with children using new approached that we learned from international consultants who provided the training. The project also helped me a lot in building relations within this community not only with people but with representatives of many organizations”. A 28-years old male mentor in E2F II from the Middle area. 32.2 Enhanced readiness for the job market: The internship programs implemented under different programs by PCAP partners played an important role in enhancing the readiness of new graduates for the job market. PCAP partners used different approaches in implementing their internship programs. Interns provided with life skills training (MC’s internship &SC’s YLDR) prior to placement had a higher chance of sustainable employment than those who did not (CRS internship). Although the evaluation team could not find solid evidence from the various M&E records or PCAP literature on the percentage of interns who are still working, the feedback received from interns in various Photo 1: SC/YLDR Young entrepreneur has established his own maintenance workshop in Gaza 24 24 programs during the evaluation activities supported this argument. A female freelance intern from Gaza said “the project helped me to build a name in the freelance market; I was able to make USD 1,500 in the first three months of work”. According to many of the interviewed mentors, coordinators and tutors employed under different social recovery activities, PCAP provided them with an opportunity to “stand out” compared to other job seekers in the complex and competitive job market in Gaza. "When it came to the type of skills and knowledge that are most important to being successful in a workplace, I found out that my university education had very minimal contribution. It only allowed me the chance to be selected for the program. The trainings and being able to apply knowledge and skills in real-work settings made all the difference”. A 26-years old female social worker in the PSS program from the North. 32.3 Provided work opportunities and a source of income: PCAP designated a sub-program for employment generation where a number of partners implemented internship programs. A total of 4,692 new graduates received either an internship opportunity (CRS, MC and SC) or a grant to establish a new business (SC). Participants in the internship program stated several effects the program had on their lives including: (i) gained new knowledge; (ii) networked with other graduates; (iii) improved my self-confidence; (iv) improved my financial condition even if for a short period and (v) became more confident to go out and look for a job. In addition to traditional job placement activities, MC implemented an internet freelancing employment activity. In 2015, a total of 2,043 (1,144 males and 899 females) have been trained in freelancing; 106 have been supported with a three month freelance internship of whom 41 were women. The freelancing activity has been well regarded by the community. A staff member of the Information and Communication Technology Association of Companies (PITA) said “the freelancing training and approach used by MC was implemented in a comprehensive manner through the provision of know-how and techniques”. 33. Women: Although women represent around half of the Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip, they remain one of the most marginalized groups. Overall, PCAP benefited 660,957 women across the various activities (more than 52% of the program beneficiaries). The evaluation team found that PCAP exhibited good practice in focusing on working with women. This focus went beyond the straight forward participation percentages in activities that usually present a superficial representation of equal gender balance. The most frequently reported effects across the different evaluation activities are described hereinafter. 33.1 Improved psychosocial, emotional and social wellbeing: “I come from Shjaiea. During the war we lost everything and stayed at one of UNRWA’s collective centers for sometime and then moved to live with one of our relatives in Gaza. I was afraid to talk with people and did not have the will to do anything … The counseling sessions and the community open days freed the way for me to see our situation in a new, less dramatic light and to work and deal with my issues. The support of the project and the counselors truly helped a lot”. A 27-years old female beneficiary of PSS program from Gaza. The majority of the women respondents of the evaluation FGDs with beneficiaries of social recovery sub￾programs reported: (i) improved psychosocial and emotional wellbeing which reflected on the entire family; (ii) provision of an outlet to relief stress at very critical times; (iii) enhanced coping and social resilience in dealing with the new realities on the ground post emergency; (iv) reduced practices of violence and abuse against them and by them; and (v) enhanced self-confidence and creation of open space of dialogue and interaction within the family. Furthermore, some of the interventions under the economic recovery component were found to have indirectly contributed to the improved psychosocial and economic wellbeing of women and their families. The CfW survey indicated that 92% of beneficiary women used the cash assistance to buy food and pay off debt, 54% used it to obtain heath care services, 31% used it to pay tuition fees while 23% used it for house maintenance. This was further confirmed by participants in the FGD’s. One CfW female beneficiary from Khan Younis said “the program helped me in strengthening my personality since the obtained cash assistance helps in self-content resulting from my ability to support the family”. Another female participant from the internet freelancing activity said, “This program was different; it motivates a person to be self-reliant. The program helped me in making a space for myself in the freelancing market”. 33.2 Improved knowledge and parenting skills: Different sub-programs under the social recovery component, especially RS! Project and IMC’s ECD program, were designed to contribute to gaining 25 25 new skills and knowledge to enhance positive parenting practices among beneficiary women in particular with mothers, preschool teachers and community workers. According to results of FGDs with caregivers benefiting from social recovery sub-programs, around 85% of the respondents indicated an enhanced capacity in caring for their children especially those under the age of 5 years. Furthermore, 80% of the evaluation respondents reported improved family relations and mother/child interaction. “The project improved the relation with my children … The sessions helped me better understand their needs and provided me with skills and tools that I can use at home in dealing with them. Shouting and screaming at them is no longer how I handle children problems”. A 32-years old female beneficiary of IMC’s ECD program from Khuzaa. 33.3 Empowerment through active engagement of men: Where possible, PCAP paid attention to actively reach-out and engage men in specially designed activities. This was more evident in the social recovery sub-programs, where many of the interviewed beneficiaries indicated the positive effect of this approach on: (i) deconstructing traditional gender roles and stereotypes; (ii) helping men better understand gender dynamics within the household; and (iii) providing men with the first hand opportunity to see the benefits of creating a supportive environment for women. 33.4 Provision of work opportunities and source of income: Various PCAP interventions were able to provide employment opportunities for women by varying degrees and levels of success. The opportunities provided to women under the economic recovery component differed by type of program: (i) the MC CfW program (the only program with disaggregated data) provided 26.3% of the opportunities to women; (ii) About 24% of SC/YLDR MSME employability training were female while 30% of the business start-up grants were women; (iii) A focused TeamStart session tailored to women was delivered by MC to 24 women under the title “Empowering Women through Technology Entrepreneurship” and (iv) About 44% of MC freelance training was attended by women as well as 39% of the internships. The social recovery component provided several opportunities including (i) Tutors, coordinators and teachers for NASP and ALE programs; (ii) mentors for E2F II and YIS; (iii) psychosocial workers for E2F II, MC’s PSS, IMC’s ECD and RS! Sub-program, etc. According to most of women respondents of the evaluation FGDs with beneficiaries, the social recovery sub-programs provided them with working opportunities that: (i) helped them learn and practice new skill sets; (ii) secured income even for a short time; and (iii) enabled their active engagement with the community. 34. Children: Childhood is an important stage as it defines a person future. It is vital to provide care for children integrated balanced growth in all aspects of physical, mental, psychological and social. Equally important is the environment surrounding children as its key in the formation, evolution and development of the child's ideas and beliefs, perceptions and attitudes towards core issues in life. According to different publications on Child Statistics issued by PSBC, across PCAP’s five years of implementation, children under the age of 18 formed almost half of the Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. One of the strengths and contributing factors to the positive effects of PCAP at large and the social recovery component is particular is the cross cutting noted focus on working with children directly and working with beneficiaries with children. The evaluation team found that PCAP has benefitted children through direct interventions and indirectly through interventions focusing on family as a unit. Overall, PCAP directly benefited 199,095.0 children (78,651 were boys and 120,444 were girls) through 32% of all delivered activities. The most frequently reported effects across the different evaluation activities are described hereinafter. To incorporate children's perceptions of the PCAP effect, the evaluation team employed child-friendly practices, namely a projective drawing activity. Children participating in FGDs were asked to draw two drawings that describe their state before and after their participation; selected examples that showcase the program effect are presented below. 34.1 Improved psychosocial and emotional wellbeing: Around 87% of the respondents of the evaluation FGDs with children benefiting from social recovery sub-programs expressed feelings of being happier and calmer as a result of participating in PCAP activities. Around 84.7% of the caregivers of the interviewed children reported that participation in the activities lead to reduction in stress and to positive memories that helped their children forget their current situation. “The best thing in the program was the happiness and pleasure children felt as they were entertained, enjoyed various activities and were able to forget even if for a short period all the pain and suffering they faced during the war”. A 27-years old male volunteer in CFS of IMC’s ECD program from Rafah. Results of the 26 26 end-line survey of MC’s PSS program issued in July 2014 by the DM&E Unit is a noted example from the desk review which indicated an improvement in beneficiary children social and behavioral skills by 94.84% compared to baseline. The economic recovery component contributed to the psychosocial and emotional wellbeing of the children through the joint work of the CfW sub￾program and the social recovery component through the implementation of a Joint Social Resilience (Psycho-social Support) Sessions for community members targeting children aged 7 - 12 years and their caregivers (mainly their mothers). A total of 3,606 children and caregivers benefitted from these sessions. Drawing 1: 12-years old female beneficiary of the IMC program in fifth grade from Khan Younis. Drawing 2: 10-years old male beneficiary of the PSS program in third grade from Khan Younis. 34.2 Improved academic performance and achievement: PCAP, through sub-programs such as NASP and E2F II offered children with structured child-centered academic tutoring activities in safe settings and under responsible supervision. The activities helped develop learning habits and improve school grades and attendance among students in the third, fourth and fifth grades. Around 82% of the respondents of the evaluation FGDs with children and their caregivers who benefited from NASP and E2F II sub-programs expressed noted improvements in children’s academic performance. “I raise my hand and participate in questions and answers ... all my teachers and other studies say that I became more active in the classroom … My grades have improved especially in Math, subject I used to hate but not anymore”. A 13-years old male beneficiary of E2F II from the Middle. In supporting children’s right to education and relieving some of the financial burdens that might prevent parents from sending their children to school, MC distributed: (i) 3,870 re-chargeable lamps after the 2012 offensive, and (ii) school kits (school bags and needed stationary) to 8,200 students and school uniforms to 5,700 students in the worst affected areas caused by the 2014 offensive. It is also important to highlight that some activities such as ALE focused on working with talented students of the seventh, eighth and ninth grades through advanced training in topics of life skills, leadership and computer literacy. According to results of FGDs with children and their caregivers benefiting from ALE sub-program, around 78% of the respondents indicated that the program has: i) furthered academic performance of children especially in English language; and ii) enhanced children self￾reliance hence reducing daily supervision and follow-up time and effort paid by parents. "My self￾confidence has increased and became of capable of dealing with different situations rationally and without stress” A 16-years old female beneficiary of ALE program from Khan Younis. Drawing 3: 11-years old male beneficiary of the NASP program in fifth grade from Gaza. Drawing 4: 10-years old male beneficiary of the NASP program in fifth grade from Gaza. Before participating After participating After participating Before participating After participating Before participating After participating Before participating 27 27 34.3 Positive change in attitude, behavior and interaction with others: Around 85% of the respondents of the evaluation FGDs with children and their caregivers benefiting from social recovery sub￾programs mentioned increase in skills and confidence among children. “I’m more eager to learn and I even transferred some of the gained skills to my siblings at home”. An 11-years old female beneficiary of NASP from Gaza. Furthermore, around 78% noticed improvements in a range of positive behaviors and attitudes among children. Children were reportedly more respectful, disciplined, organized, punctual, and responsible. They acquired new values and skills such as patience, courage, commitment, listening, cooperation and teamwork. Also, there was reportedly a reduction in behavioral problems such as use of “bad language”. “In the last parents meeting, I was so happy that my son’s Arabic teacher mentioned that my son became calmer and more respectful of others. He noticed that he has replaced some of his old bad behavior inside the school with positive ones”. A 36-years old father of a beneficiary child of NASP from Khan Younis. 34.4 Improved social relations at the family level and among social network: According to results of FGDs with children and their caregivers benefiting from social recovery sub-programs, around 80% of the respondents indicated improvement in children behavior and interaction among each other, at home, with friends and at school. “The program helped me make new friends both during and outside the activities … I no longer fear approaching others”. A 12-years old female beneficiary of E2F II from Gaza. “The project focused on the social aspect. It is not enough to be a talented student; having the ability to communicate with surrounding environment is much more important. As a teenager girl (such a difficult stage), I’ve noticed that my daughter became more comfortable in interacting with others and more open in sharing her thoughts and feelings”. A 42-years old mother of a beneficiary child of ALE from Khan Younis. 35. PWD: As mentioned in point 31, targeting and working with PWD were found challenging across all sub-programs delivered under PCAP. The evaluation team identified providing space for proper integration of PWD in different interventions and the sensitivity of the delivered activities to the needs, requirements and expectations of PWD as key areas for improvement in future programming. This was particularly true for activities targeting children and Youth in sub-programs such as E2F II, RS! and YIS. Local communities, including many NGOs/CBOs in the Gaza Strip, are not used to considering PWD needs in their work or equipped to serve PWD. Addressing the root causes of challenges in mainstreaming services to PWD into programming requires a focused support for implementers to understand the reality of living with disabilities in Gaza and how to deal with the problems PWD face in their daily lives. This finding does not imply the absence of several good examples for focused interventions on identifying obstacles to PWD participation and access to rights and services. The infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component presented a focused approach for targeting PWD and promoting inclusion objectives. All five community infrastructure projects, with one fully dedicated for working with children with impaired hearing (El Amal Rehabilitation Society in Rafah), showed a commitment to an inclusive society through addressing physical barriers and exclusions imposed on PWD in the design and construction of buildings and open areas. Documentation review which was further validated by the evaluation survey revealed that the housing rehabilitation sub-program gave a higher weight for households with PWD in the family (27.2% of the survey respondents had PWD in the family). MC CfW program provided physiotherapy and CBR interventions targeting people with physical disabilities including genetic conditions, physical impairments, and accident related injuries. The sessions were conducted by new graduates who implemented awareness sessions and house visits. The total number of beneficiaries served by this activity reached 3,285. The social recovery sub-programs at large and the humanitarian support and emergency program in particular showed a similar focus on identifying obstacles to PWD participation and access to rights and services. Given that targeting PWD and elderly was one of the identified shortages in the 2014 emergency response delivered by Photo 2: MC CfW graduates provide physiotherapy for a disabled child. 28 28 humanitarian actors in the Gaza Strip, PCAP utilized its vast network of CBOs community to identify PWD and elderly and their needs and design a response that included the distribution of basic medical aid items (crutches, orthopedic shoes, walkers, etc.) and customized NFI/hygiene kits. Upon the completion of the crosschecking and verification home visits, more than 900 assistance packages were distributed across the Gaza Strip (serving 5,974 individuals). 3.5 EFFECT ON KEY TARGETED SECTORS 36. Education: Decades of Israeli occupation, the blockade for many years and ongoing military operations coupled with worsening economic and social conditions in Gaza have led to the steady deterioration of the education system. PCAP interventions focused on two levels of education: (i) Higher education and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET); and (ii) Pre-school and primary education: 36.1 Higher education and Technical and TVET in Palestine in general and Gaza in specific suffer from many deficiencies including: (i) competition on program offering without regard to need or quality; (ii) low quality teaching and training due to lack of exposure to new technologies and low salaries leading to university instructors looking for additional work thus affecting quality and (iii) weak linkages with the market and understanding of the needs of the labor market. Within this prevailing context, PCAP economic recovery sub-programs managed to implement some activities that would contribute to the improvement in the education system or improve some the deficiencies. The following represent some of the most frequently mentioned affects by interviewed beneficiaries: i) Developing qualifications of university instructors: Under the economic recovery component, MC implemented the Capacity Building for Academic Excellence program where a number of ICT academics and trainers from Palestinian universities, colleges and training centers were provided with training to increase their ability to use active learning techniques and integrate soft skills into their lessons. Training materials developed for the training were used to develop a guideline/booklet to be distributed to other academics and trainers not participating in the training. This activity came as a result of the DLMNA findings and the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Education and Training (ACET). One instructor from Gaza said “The training was conducted during the winter vacation which was very suitable for us. As a result of the training, I developed a teaching plan with the learnt new techniques and started to apply it in my teaching. I also started to measure the effects of the new techniques and I achieved great results”. ii) Improving linkages with the community: MC implemented the Academic Research Initiative to support innovation in the ICT academic sector in Gaza through supporting research in ICT diffusion. The goal of the program was to enhance innovation, foster ICT-related research and development, and improve academic-industry links. The chosen topics for funding were found to complement PCAP efforts in encouraging the diffusion of ICT and increase community collaboration. The topics of the research included: (i) Enhancing Learning for Children with Autism using Machine Learning Techniques; (ii) Enhancing Cost Estimation in Tendering Process in Palestinian Construction Sector; (iii) Towards the Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Gaza; (iv) Exploring ICT Adoption and Diffusion in Gaza Food and Beverage Industry Sector and Customer Relationship Management systems Implementation Strategies in Palestinian Tourism. Although the research initiative was not completed due to the war in 2014, the idea remains relevant and may be scaled up to include other disciplines such as banking and finance as a tool for development. iii) Exposing ICT professionals to international requirements: Since exposure to the international job market was found to be one of the deficiencies of ICT professionals in Gaza, PCAP implemented several ICT international certification programs benefitting a total of 149 professionals aimed at establishing an internationally credible presence in ICT and upgrading the skills of existing professionals to allow them to move toward higher value products and services. After completing the first round of certification in “Requirements Engineering”, MC and in partnership with International Software Quality Institute (ISQI) organized a four day 29 29 Training of Trainers (ToT) event. ISQI delivered the ToT in Requirements Engineering. The best two performing participants were later contracted to deliver the course in Gaza. The evaluation found this to be a good example for the transfer of know-how from the international market to the local professionals to improve performance of local firms in the international market. iv) Bridging the gap with academic teaching: As a result of the Digital Labor Market Needs Assessment (DLMNA) conducted by MC/PCAP, a skill gap was found among ICT graduates limiting their chance to obtain a job in their field of study. As a result, MC implemented an ICT training program consisting of a number of short (benefitting 618 professionals) and long (benefitting 662 graduates) courses aimed at improving the skills of graduates and increasing their employability. The improvement in the trainees’ skill level was monitored by MC through a dedicated indicator “Improvement in the average scores of the learning skills test amongst trainees of ICT and vocational training long courses”. The targeted improvement for this indicator was set to 42.5%; however by the end of the program implementation the indicator reached 60.4%. A male participant in the short courses from Gaza said “I took a course in e￾marketing, it was fantastic. I applied what I learned and designed a plan to obtain jobs over the internet. I was able to obtain freelancing jobs in the area of network design and management”. Another male participant in the long courses said “Initially I thought it will be a typical commercial training. As the training progressed, I realized that the training aims at both the theoretical side as well as the practical side”. The evaluation team found that the high motivation and willingness of participants to learn and excel was apparent from improvement in their skill level as they indicated and as indicated in the monitoring indicator. v) Improving vocational skills: PCAP economic recovery component implemented interventions in the construction sector that concentrated on vocational training. Both CHF and MC implemented training programs in the construction sector. The training implemented by CHF was designed to support CHF efforts to implement the housing and infrastructure rehabilitation component. MC implemented two rounds of construction sector vocational training program for 295 beneficiaries using a comprehensive approach combining classroom training followed by subsidized on-the-job training, and two round of training for 73 site engineers. The third round of vocational skills training and the training for foremen in construction sites were cancelled due to changes in the programs priorities post 2014 offensive. Despite the cancellation of the some activities, the program succeeded in providing a new vision for training in the construction sector. A 20 year old plumbing trainer from Gaza said “this project is different than other training where it helped unskilled workers through the provision of new skills to excel and find a job”. 36.2 Preschool and basic education: The most detrimental issues affecting the quality of education (students’ attendance and academic performance) in Gaza for preschool and basic education are: (i) high student-teacher ratios; (ii) overcrowded classrooms; (iii) inadequate infrastructure and school resources; (iv) teachers qualifications and teaching methodologies; (v) interruptions to education process due to recurrent and extended periods of school closures; and (vi) lacking necessary coping skills to deal with children who have gone through several traumatic psychosocial periods among teachers and parents. For all those involved in the educational sub￾programs of the social recovery component, PCAP succeeded in realizing several tangible improvements in education services in preschool and basic education stages. The following are the most frequently reported positive effects on preschool and basic education that were voiced by interviewed beneficiaries: i) Developing qualifications and strengthening the use of modern methodologies: All sub￾programs, RS!, E2F II, NASP and ALE, included structured interventions aimed at building the capacity of personnel employed or engaged in education sub-programs. Tutors, mentors, teachers and community workers received training in modern pedagogical approaches, active learning techniques, child-centered approaches and implementation of child friendly activities. “The project was a good opportunity as it provided me with a source of income and helped me gain experience and new skills. I feel more confident and qualified to work anywhere and under 30 30 pressure”. A 28-years old female tutor in NASP from the Gaza. "I’m considered one of the distinguished teachers in the kindergarten. Participation in the project has added a lot to my character and empowered me with the skills to deal and work with each child regardless of their background”. A 26-years old female pre-school teacher in RS! from the North. In different sub￾programs, PCAP made available specialized technical support and advisory services aimed at raising teachers/tutors’ qualifications, for example: (i) RS! worked with the Gaza based Canaan Institute for New Pedagogy to build ECD capacity among beneficiary preschool teachers and community workers. ; (ii) E2F II program, team and mentors benefited from technical assistance, consultation and training from “Edgework Consulting” which added an international experience to the program; and (iii) NASP and ALE provided specialized education consultants to oversee and supervise the tutoring sessions. In most cases, this support provided constructive feedback that helped further develop the tutors’ skills, practice and knowledge. “Teachers working in the program gained new skills and practical experience in modern teaching methodologies for key subjects in basic education. This has complemented and added value to their university education. Furthermore, it has enhanced their employment opportunities after the program. I know for a fact that many of the trained program teachers were formally requested to train some teachers in UNRWA schools”. Member of NASP/ALE technical advisors. Around 67% of RS! beneficiary preschool teachers and community workers participating in evaluation FGDs reported that the program has enhanced their skills and capacity to work with children, caregivers and community members at large and 75% of them indicated that capacity building activities enhanced innovation and creativity in activities design and tools used for working with children. ii) Enhancing academic performance: As previously discussed in point 34.2 above, PCAP’s education sub-programs helped develop learning habits and improve school grades and attendance among students with low academic achievements in the third, fourth and fifth grades. For example, PCAP’s results matrix indicates that 85.5% of NASP beneficiary children showed improvements in Math, Arabic and English subjects. The average improvement in the scores measured before and after the activity was 38.1%. iii) Improving management and administration skills of pre-school managers and partner CBOs: PCAP delivered capacity building activities based on capacity assessment focusing on enhancing management and administration practices of implementing partners. “The training and coaching received through the project has positively contributed to building the capacity of our team. It helped position preschools as active contributors to community development through the holistic services provided to the entire family”. A 45 year old female headmaster of a pre-school in RS! from the North. For many partners, this has positively affected their ability to continue working on education support programs in their communities even outside PCAP funding. Around 53% of the representatives of preschools/CBOs implementing RS! and IMC’s ECD sub-programs participating in evaluation FGDs reported an increase in children enrollment in pre-schools. A 42 year old female representative of a pre-school in IMC’s EDC from Khan Younis said “Since we started working, securing funds has been our number one operational challenge … working with IMC for the past two years enhanced our capacity and exposure to other international organizations. We have built relations UNICEF, Handicap International and others”. iv) Support the creation of child friendly education environment: Given that pre-school education is provided by private sector, NGOs/CBOs and charities, where possible, PCAP’s education sub￾programs renovated and rehabilitated the facilities of implementing partners to create a more child friendly environment. For example, through RS! project 87 pre-schools and CBOs received comprehensive upgrading and renovation works including painting, decorating, Photo 3: Maintenance works on playground at YMCA Preschool in Gaza as part of RS! project 31 31 ventilation, lighting and sanitation, upgrading of play areas (where necessary) and most importantly establishing special reading corners. v) Aiding the education process through incorporating psychosocial support: MC revisited its educational program to better respond to emerging needs including the chronic and acute state of emergency in Gaza after the first two years of the program. One of the key revisions was the noted focus on increasing and systemizing psychosocial activities in education program delivery, where a dedicated counselor offered daily psychosocial support sessions in the centers. Inclusion of activities with children, their caregivers and teams of implementing CBOs that address group-building, ability to listen, expression of feelings and coping with fear, sadness and stress have aided the education process. These sessions helped teachers and parents gain necessary coping skills to deal with the children. PSS support program’s work had a positive effect on academic performance, although it did not specifically focus on education. “Improving school attendance and academic performance of beneficiary children were among the indirect effects of the resilience sessions with children and caregivers under the PSS program”. MC team member of PSS program. Box 6: PCAP contribution in supporting social resilience … approach and impact The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has described the situation in the Gaza Strip as chronic emergency and a protracted human dignity crisis. In less than five years, from 1.8 million unprotected civilians living in Gaza (no safe space, no bomb shelters, no alarm/warning system, no place to flee with all borders sealed), there were over 4,000 Palestinian fatalities, tens of thousands of injured people including children and women, massive destruction of houses, buildings and livelihood resources and enormous displacement of a considerable proportion of the population. Due to the densely populated and urbanized nature of the Gaza Strip, virtually the whole population is exposed to and affected by recurrent military conflicts, occupation and economic deprivation. “During the war we lived in real fear ... we kept moving around but no person or place was safe”. A 36-years old mother of five children. Resilience has always been a key characteristic of the Palestinian identity but has especially gained momentum in response programming in the last decade or so given the recurrent conflict and natural emergencies. For people, levels of resilience depend on a series of factors both within and outside of the control of those affected by emergencies and crisis. Review of the life period of PCAP supported the grouping of these factors into: (i) the magnitude and duration of the effects of crisis and violence; (ii) the type and effectiveness of coping strategies they are able or, in many cases, allowed to access; and (iii) the type and effectiveness of the strategies adopted by Governments, aid agencies and donors to respond to the effects of the emergencies. PCAP did not have a set definition for resilience and hence the provided resilience building interventions did not conform to particular programmatic approaches that promote resilience. Review of these interventions revealed a very relaxed definition where PCAP worked mainly on building social resilience through delivery of activities that focused on social entities (mainly individuals, households, implementing partner organizations and to a lesser extent communities). More evidently in the last three years of the program, PCAP integrated efforts for strengthening social resilience across its entire portfolio and intervention approach through focusing on:  Ensuring the availability of resources: A key change in PCAP’s setup was the development of a contingency plan and allocation of funds for emergencies (under the direction of USAID) for rapid mobilization of resources in response to arising humanitarian needs. The availability of this mechanism enabled the much appraised prompt response of the program to several acute and chronic emergencies from 2013 to the end of the program.  Strengthening social capital: In crisis situations that present common threat, members of a community turn to each other for help in order to have a better chance of mitigating the negative impact of the threat. Building on this fact, community-based and peer-to-peer approaches were used in delivering activities which, directly and indirectly, focused on strengthening the social capital, interaction, bonds and linkages. “We care about the future; as individuals (young people) we gained access to the tools and techniques to support ourselves, our families and others in the community in coping with what we have experienced”. A 27-years old male volunteer in CFS of 32 32 IMC’s ECD program from Rafah. The majority of the evaluation respondents confirmed that activities such as open days, peer-to-peer activities for women and adolescent girls, and social resilience sessions delivered in collective centers enhanced their ability to respond to and cope with emergencies in Gaza as they engaged them in structured reflections, stress relief exercises and psychosocial support activities. “In the midst of the worst circumstances, my youngest daughter along with the other children started to use colors and draw while smiling again … finally we found a positive thing even at the hardest time”. Father of a beneficiary girl of a social resilience session in a collective center in Khan Younis.  Diversity of assistance: While acknowledging that people’s needs greatly exceed the available assistance, PCAP responded to emergencies through a diversified assistance, including: (i) short term employment that supported households who lost their income; (ii) distribution of food and NFI items, hygiene kits, medical kits, plastic reinforced tarps, etc. that helped beneficiaries (individuals & families) overcome some of the difficult living conditions and enhanced social resilience while respecting dignity and human rights; (iii) short term employment opportunities that helped family’s access the needed cash to provide for their basic needs; (iv) access to clean potable water on daily basis in the most damaged areas through water bladders; and (v) improving living conditions in collective centers (public and UNRWA) through addressing hygiene and cleaning issues.  Active consultation and mobilization of local structures: When possible, PCAP built on its vast network of local community organizations and relations to better understand vulnerability needs and define suitable response. Among the key enablers of PCAP emergency response were: (i) active consultation with partners to identify needs and beneficiaries; and (ii) utilizing partners’ insight, access and acceptance in served communities to deliver assistance. It is also important to acknowledge that PCAP supported partner CBOs during energy crisis through distributing fuel vouchers which enabled maintaining their functionality. All of these activities supported building the resilience of implementing partner organizations.  Helping the Helpers: PCAP ensured that the program teams and their families, management and field, as well as local partners’ staff receive tailored activities utilizing techniques such as Mind and Body medicine to release stress and recover some of their psychosocial resilience. Both IMC and Mercy Corps implemented extensive “helping the helpers” and staff support programs after the 2014 conflict. Conclusion: Over the years Palestinians living in Gaza displayed various degrees of resilience. Despite significant challenges and the magnitude of crisis, PCAP was able to operate and deliver through incorporating social resilience strengthening efforts across the program. Various evaluation sources presented indicative results that PCAP has contributed to strengthen the social resilience of beneficiaries through responsive efforts that helped: (i) increase adaptive capacity of targeted beneficiaries especially among women and children; (ii) improve beneficiaries’ ability to acknowledge and address encountered risk; and (iii) enhance access to better social and economic conditions through learning techniques and making available opportunities and resources aiding basic life restoration in its simplest forms. 37. Psychosocial: The prevailing combination of chronic economic, political, cultural and social vulnerabilities facing people in the Gaza Strip has aggravated the already alarming mental and psychosocial health status of the entire population. In a context of recurrent exposure to emergency and conflict episodes, people in Gaza experience high levels of chronic stress which affects their lifestyle dynamics and choices. PCAP choice to focus on psychosocial sub-programs was an obvious response driven by urgent needs and priorities. The evaluation team found that without a doubt, psychosocial interventions were the flagship of PCAP social recovery component. They were well positioned as a cross–cutting intervention that positively contributed to the achieved effects across various sub-programs. Across the years, PCAP psychosocial and supporting social resilience sub￾programs directly benefited 74,843 individuals and the evaluation team would be comfortable in generalizing this effect to the entire population served under PCAP (as a contributing indirect effect). The following are the most frequently reported positive effects that were cited by interviewed beneficiaries and stakeholders: 33 33 37.1 Improved psychosocial and emotional wellbeing: The psychosocial and supporting social resilience sub-programs reached impressive numbers of beneficiaries over the years with noted scale-up in response to emergencies. This expanded outreach positively contributed to improving the psychosocial and emotional wellbeing of beneficiaries and lightening perception of traumatic experiences. As discussed in points 33.1 and 34.1 above, the majority of the respondents of the evaluation FGDs indicated positive effects on psychosocial and emotional status. The greatest changes reported were: (i) reduction in fear and restlessness; (ii) increase in feeling calmer and happier; (iii) increased obedience among children and self-control among adults; and (iv) enhanced ability to tolerate and deal with distressing events. ”The program improved the overall psychosocial health of the targeted beneficiaries (children, mothers, fathers and community members) and enhanced constructive social relations between family members. It contributed positively to changing some of the behavior patterns of children". A 29-years old female Coordinator in PSS program from Rafah. 37.2 Building capacity of partners and enhancing coordination: PCAP delivered psychosocial and supporting social resilience sub-programs using a community-based approach. This was only possible, and successful, because of the implementing partner organizations. PCAP invested heavily in building the capacity of partners especially at the level of human capital. Staff of partner organizations received several capacity building opportunities (theoretical and practical, basic and advanced) in areas such as: psychological first aid, mind and body medicine, expressive art therapy and play therapy, pre-hospital emergency medical services, supervision sessions, etc. ”Counselors and coordinators were trained on skills of the mind and body medicine which enabled them to deal with their own trauma before moving to serve others in the community”. Director of the Mind and Body Medicine Center. The complexity of psychosocial services makes coordination and cooperation essential to realize results. PCAP, presented a number of good examples in promoting coordination and cooperation , including: i) CBO exchange meetings as forum for sharing ideas, experience, and standardizing approaches; and ii) access to a pool of professionals to tap into their expertise and guidance. 37.3 Contributing to changing stigma attached to accessing psychosocial services: Stigma attached to psychosocial and mental health issues is evident in the Palestinian society among the broader community, the general health service providers and media. For emergency and conflict related trauma, the psychosocial and supporting social resilience sub-programs have helped people, especially women and adolescences, to disclose and address their psychosocial issues more openly and honestly. Around 56% of the adult respondents of the evaluation FGDs with beneficiaries of the social recovery sub-programs indicated that the different activities helped them speak out about their emotional and psychosocial issues and reduced the feeling of being shamed for participating or seeking assistance for themselves or other in the their family and surrounding network. Although there is still stigma attached to psychosocial and mental health issues, the evaluation team found that PCAP has positively contributed in its reduction among beneficiaries and their surroundings. “In our conservative community (Jehir-El Dike), the prevailing culture, fear of losing my children, have my husband remarry or even get divorced, prohibits speaking out about regular illness … so imagine seeking help for emotional and psychosocial issues. The sessions in addition to providing information on how to take care of my children helped me deal with stress and emotional problems. My husband also participated in some sessions for men that made me able to speak about the issues I face”. A 26-years old female beneficiary of IMC’s ECD from the Middle Area. 37.4 Provision of opportunities for specialized assistance: Different studies indicate that there are more than 160 organizations (mostly NGOs) providing psychosocial and related activities in Gaza but only the Ministry of Health (MoH) and Gaza Community Mental health program (GCMHP) provide specialized services. Overall, the provided services are generally concerned with psychosocial awareness and support through counselors and social workers using stress management techniques and recreational activities. PCAP in all delivered psychosocial sub￾programs made available referral services to beneficiaries with significant psychosocial/mental health problems who were in need of specialized services beyond the capacity of the program. Accessing these specialized services from professional service provides including the Palestinian 34 34 Trauma Centre (PTC), GCMHP and Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Cluster enabled the provision of comprehensive and integrated psychosocial services as well as the continuity of care for service users. “The project had a referral mechanism through a special arrangement with Gaza Community Mental Health Program. This enabled accessing specialized services for beneficiaries identified during implementation that were in need of special intervention beyond the project capacity”. Member of PSS management team. 37.5 Enhancing community awareness of psychosocial health and access to information on available services: PCAP recognized that lack of awareness and information on psychosocial health and available services is an overall community challenge. Across the Gaza Strip, MC’s PSS program delivered structured open activities that reached out to community members with information and guidance regarding: i) stress and how to deal with it; ii) available MHPSS services; and iii) positive coping strategies. The evaluation found these activities to be a positive contributor in addressing awareness and information challenges through community-based approach. Box 3: Employment generation … A vehicle for recovery Gaza Strip has been suffering from very high unemployment rates that reached 41.5% as reported by PCBS (Females 59.5%, Males 36.3%). Unemployment over the past 5 years, PCAP implementation timeframe, has been continuously high reaching 42.5% in 2014. The unemployment problem is much worse among youth where it reached 63.1% for people between 20-24 years and 53.6% for people between 25-29 years. As a result, many donors have been implementing employment generation programs, either in the form of CfW or internship programs for university graduates. CfW is commonly used as short-term intervention for providing temporary employment to the most vulnerable segments of a population. The CfW programming varies in response to local needs, type of emergency, and security risks. On the other hand large scale internship programs are usually used to provide fresh graduates with necessary skills to enhance their employability. PCAP implemented CFW and internship programs aimed at developing the skills of beneficiaries as well as a means for employment generation. The Gaza Strip had more than one type of emergency over the course of PCAP implementation including military conflict and the resulting displacement, natural disasters, the ongoing Israeli closure and the internal Palestinian political division. This made CfW programming in Gaza to be a challenge to all implementing agencies. PCAP partners were able to implement a number of flexible CfW and internship programs that responded to the growing needs for employment. PCAP CfW programming was provided as a means to disburse quick cash assistance to help economically vulnerable groups to sustain themselves and their assets under the various emergencies that affected the Gaza Strip while delivering valuable services to secondary beneficiaries. Over the last two years of PCAP implementation, both CfW and internship programs were used as platforms to provide skilled and unskilled workers as well as graduates to implement other programs under PCAP. For example, MC provided workers under the CfW mechanism to IOCC for the rehabilitation of greenhouses and water catchments, MC utilized its CfW programming to perform Physiotherapy and CBR intervention for its social recovery component, provided worker for the mending of fishing nets for fishermen and weeding agricultural land to farmers. The evaluation team found the CfW programs implemented under PCAP to have the following immediate effects:  Provision of Short-Term Employment: The survey conducted for CfW programs implemented by MC and IOCC revealed that 85.1% of surveyed beneficiaries were not working prior to the assistance. Furthermore, 73% of beneficiaries reported living on assistance from local and international NGO’s. PCAP was able to provide short term employment through CfW to 22,645 individuals in addition to another 3,895 graduates who benefitted from PCAP internship programs.  Paying off accumulated debt: Due to the long periods of unemployment, beneficiaries reported that they had accumulated debts to local stores, relatives and friends, service providers and others. About 73% of surveyed beneficiaries reported that they had used the earned income through the Figure 2: Unemployment in Gaza 2010 - 2015 Unemployment in Gaza 2010-2015 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 35 35 CfW program for paying-off accumulated debt. In addition, 27.8% of surveyed beneficiaries reported using the money to pay off accumulated unpaid tuition fees for their children studying at local universities. The evaluation team found that being able to pay some of the debts had helped in relieving beneficiaries from the resulting psychosocial stress resulting from their financial condition.  Obtaining health care services: The survey revealed that obtaining health care services was the third priority item for which beneficiaries’ used the earned income. 27.8% of beneficiaries used the earned income to pay for health care services.  Purchase of food: The purchase of food was found to be the first priority for beneficiaries as 92% reported using the earned income to obtain food from the market. The above represent the major channels were the obtained money through CfW was used by beneficiaries. Other spending channels were also reported at smaller magnitude such as house maintenance and payment of overdue bills. Conclusion: CfW and internship programs implemented under PCAP helped alleviate some of the effects of the worsened socio-economic conditions in the Gaza Strip. Through the provision of cash assistance, beneficiaries were able to protect their assets and purchase necessary food, health and services. CfW programming coupled with the implementation of other socio-economic recovery programs would improve beneficiaries’ feeling of belonging to their community and at the same time gain much needed skills that could help them obtain long term jobs in the future. 38. Business Development: Within the context of the Gaza operating environment, it was difficult for PCAP to implement business development activities in the traditional sense. PCAP started its operation after the first war on Gaza in 2008/2009 when many of the businesses productive assets had been either partially or totally damaged. As a result, the interventions in the business development sub-program went through periods of trials and errors. One of the sectors that the business development sub-programs targeted was the ICT sector as discussed above. Other activities under this sub-program where found to be small initiatives that did not bring tangible improvement for the business sector including labor subsidies and technical support to private businesses through the placement of graduates. These activities can be characterized as small in terms of financial magnitude, geographic spread and income effect. Box 4: ICT Sector Development … A platform for employment The ICT sector in Gaza has been affected by the difficult operating environment affecting the private sector operations in general such as the military conflicts, the Israeli closure policy, the political division between the West Bank and Gaza, an outdated telecommunication network that still uses the 2G technology due to the refusal of Israel to grant the Palestinians the 3G frequencies and the prevailing general poverty conditions. The ICT sector is highly dependent on trained and educated professionals mainly graduating from local universities. The tight Israeli closure and the closure of Rafah crossing on the border with Egypt has limited the ability of Palestinian ICT professionals to travel and attend exhibitions and conferences and be informed of new technologies. As a result, there is a skill and information gap in the sector in Gaza compared to local and international market requirements. Many donor projects have attempted to work with the ICT sector to help the sector grow, however many of these efforts remained small and scattered. Since its start, PCAP provided services and implemented activities for the ICT sector. The following is a brief description of the evolution of PCAP interventions in the ICT sector. The first two years of PCAP working with the ICT sector, were found by the evaluation team to be more of a learning period during which PCAP worked to find a niche area to intervene with the sector. PCAP, in partnership with PITA, formed a sector advisory committee for education and training. The committee served in an advisory role in the design of intervention areas and training topics. PCAP also implemented several activities for the ICT sector including: training in E-Learning and E-Content, Career Counseling for high school students, the launching of the Career Portal utilizing information obtained from the LMNA, as well as long and short ICT courses in various topics. Despite their significance to the sector, these activities remained scattered with no apparent focus. In the last three years of PCAP lifetime, MC leveraged its experience and knowledge in the sector to design more relevant and market driven interventions. 36 36 Figure 3: PCAP ICT Education and Workforce Development Model Figure 3 above provides an overview of PCAP intervention model in the ICT sector by at the end of the program. The current model is more focused and is market driven. PCAP shifted the focus of its interventions to help upgrade the skill level of ICT graduates and professionals through a set of interventions including developing the teaching and research skills of academics, more focused, market driven ICT training courses with special focus on freelancing. PCAP provided trainees of each of the ICT training courses with necessary skills and tools to enter the freelancing market. In addition, an Online Freelancing Academy (FOA) was established with all the tools and training modules for new entrants to the freelancing market to learn. Since its launch, the FOA did not only serve graduates from Gaza but it was also found that graduates from the West Bank and well as the region have been benefitting from its online presence. As of the end of March 2015, there were over 7,200 registered FOA users and 1,849 students in Gaza have passed at least the basic level certification test. Additionally, over 500 users from around the Arab world have been certified through the FOA. The effects of the various interventions in the ICT sector have been discussed above in the education section. Growing freelance job opportunities and income: Mercy Corps implemented a series of activities supporting online freelance career growth for unemployed graduates. The package of support included targeted technical trainings, subsidized work experience, mentorship and freelance skill building through the FOA. PCAP contracted nine top ranked Gazan freelancers with matching specializations to mentor the new freelancers. Each mentor worked with his/her mentees to develop an individual implementation plan with specific milestones. While winning jobs was not a target for the first month, over 35 of the mentees completed at least one job. Some successfully got more than five jobs, including multiple jobs from the same client. Income from individual jobs ranged from $5 to $300. A survey was conducted by MC for the first group of freelancers two months after the start of the freelancing internship. The following represent the response of 39 freelancers: i) all had gotten at least one job and all indicated they planned to continue freelancing after the end of the project; ii) 316 jobs were completed; iii) total earned income was USD 17,542; and iv) 11 freelancers won a total of 13 long-term or open ended contracts (defined as longer than one month). Conclusion: The evaluation team found that structured freelancing training as well as the structured follow up and support provided by mentors after the training was essential to encourage trained freelancers to engage in the freelancing experience. Furthermore and despite the limitations imposed by the outdated telecommunication infrastructure, freelancers were still able to obtain freelancing job assignment and deliver. However, the state of the telecommunication infrastructure limits the engagement of freelancers in large projects that require large amounts of data transfer. 37 37 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 CONCLUSIONS Achievement of Objectives: 39. Across the three recovery objectives, PCAP sub-programs introduced ideas, intervention logic and approach that were generally suitable for addressing visible, growing, pressing and unmet needs of people in Gaza. The infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component provided access to basic services through establishing five small community infrastructure projects for 108,900 beneficiaries and repaired/ rehabilitated 1,399 housing units that enabled 10,759 beneficiaries live in homes that are safe and dignified. According to 71% of the evaluation respondents, the achievement of the stated objective of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component was close to satisfactory, with a more noted success in the community infrastructure sub-program. Contractor’s performance management, maintenance, quality of material and work and implementation delays negatively affected realization of objectives and have been identified as key areas for improvement. According to 85% of the evaluation respondents, the economic recovery component satisfactorily achieved its stated objective . Activities of the food security sub-program (establishment of home gardens and distribution of animals’ production kits) were the lowest contributors to achieving economic recovery objectives while the employment generation and the business development (especially ICT) were the highest contributors. According to 94.2% of the evaluation respondents, the social recovery component achieved its stated objective and presented obvious contribution logic to realize PCAP’s overall goal in a fully satisfactory manner, with a more noted success in sub-programs delivered under “output 3.3: social and family resilience improved” and “output 3.4: humanitarian support improved”. 40. Key elements contributing to the achievement of objectives were: (i) number and diversity of directly reached population, (ii) noted focused on marginalized beneficiary groups; (iii) served geographical locations and communities; (iv) building on partnership, coordination and mobilization of local structure for interventions delivery; and (v) adopted logic/approach to service delivery that showed innovation and diversity of intervention modalities. PCAP’s social recovery component helped enhance the resilience of the beneficiaries (especially psychosocial resilience) and eased many of the difficulties caused by the worsening social and economic conditions and the different chronic and acute emergencies. 41. PCAP portfolio presented a mix of short-term activities and long term activities that were relevant and appropriately adjusted during the program. The overall assessment of the portfolio of implemented sub￾programs/projects across the three recovery objectives is positive. This assessment is based on the following: (i) PCAP’s clear understanding of the changing dynamics in the Gaza Strip coupled with robust forms of analysis and assessments that were further complemented by the vast experience of PCAP’s partners and sub-grantees in implementing humanitarian and development interventions in Gaza; and (ii) relevancy and alignment with overall economic and social needs and priorities in Gaza and where possible with sectoral priorities, especially under the social recovery component. 42. Within a highly volatile economic and political environment, managing stakeholders’ perception and expectation of what PCAP could achieve was an ongoing challenge especially for sub-programs/projects delivered under the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component and the economic recovery component. The three identified recovery areas of PCAP are linked with multi-sectoral programming for service delivery and are in line with the needs and priorities of the people in the Gaza Strip and the capacities of the implementing partners, however, having one program tackling them all was very .ambitious and presented an unrealistic design logic. 43. PCAP had two distinct operating periods: (i) The first two years of PCAP which were more of an inception phase in terms of defining intervention areas, testing working modalities, formalizing coordination and collaboration channels among implementing partners. During this period, PCAP was perceived more as a set of fragmented projects and activities with no apparent recognition of PCAP as a program but rather as implementing INGO’s project. (ii) The last two years that witnessed an evident change in PCAP positioning in the market which the evaluation team attributes to the following key factors: (a) improved 38 38 coordination and cooperation among implementing partners that goes beyond attending group meetings to active consultation on planning and future direction; (b) better inter-program coordination, complementarity and collaboration in serving the achievement of PCAP’s overall goal and objectives; (c) sharpened attention to priority theme interventions in addressing recovery needs with a marked focus on emergency response; (d) flexibility in introducing changes/revisions to approaches and working modalities and adjusting assistance levels, based on change in needs and/or learned lessons; and (e) developing and streamlining processes coupled with better definition of roles and responsibilities especially in the area of M&E. 44. PCAP is an evolutionary program that succeeded in working under different operating modes despite the added pressures on implementers and was able to deliver many interventions that effectively responded to needs is through a holistic, community‐based approach. Planning and revisiting plans was a constant exercise to adapt to changing operating environment, assistance landscape, funding and emerging needs of the people. Changing the mode of operation from responding to emergencies to the original mode of recovery, while maintaining set achievement targets, required change in plans, staffing structure and allocation as well as approaches. This was only possible because of the program’s: (i) flexibility and ability to adapt; (ii) general understanding of humanitarian and recovery needs; (iii) awareness of the context from implemented interventions; and (iv) identifying opportunities while leveraging and responding in harmonization with other key actors. Achievement of Targets 45. PCAP had an overwhelming number of program performance indicators (In total 71 indicators: 27 outcome indicators and 44 output indicators). Furthermore, beginning FY14, a set of internal indicators (In total 72 indicators: 10 outcome indicators and 62 output indicators) were initiated in cooperation with sub-programs for internal management use and to provide more insight about sub-programs for better learning and information sharing. Although some improvements were introduced during the course of the program, monitoring, measuring and reporting on results constituted a challenge for PCAP particularly in FY11 and FY 12 due to the following key factors: (i) the late establishment of a comprehensive and streamlined M&E system that enabled adequate controls for data verification; (ii) the excessive amount of data from different partners and for different activities tracked against an overwhelming number of indicators; (iii) relying on manual processes to summarize the massive amount of performance data generated by different activities and different partners in different formats and most importantly (iv) the inadequate indicator definitions coupled with inconsistent methodology in computing results. Table 7 presents a quantitative illustration of PCAP targets versus achievement at the component level. Table 7: Illustration of overall achievement against PCAP performance indicators across IRs # Criteria IR#01 IR#02 IR#03 1. Total number of indicators 5 26 31 2. Number of indicators that achieved &/or exceeded set targets 5 18 22 3. Number of indicators the evaluation was not able to assess (missing comparable targets) 0 4 6 4. Number of indicators that did not achieve set targets 0 4 3 The qualitative analysis of audited data on targets versus achievement confirmed the evaluation conclusion on the close to satisfactory achievement of the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component objective and its contribution to realizing PCAP goal through improving basic infrastructure and increasing physical and social well-being among beneficiaries and targeted communities. Despite the underachievement in four of the indicators and lack of target data for another four under the economic recovery component, this component has positively contributed to alleviating some of the effects of the worsened economic conditions in the Gaza Strip including the high unemployment, high poverty rate and food insecurity which supports the evaluation conclusion on the satisfactory achievement of the component’s objective and its contribution to the PCAP’s overall goal. For the social recovery component, this qualitative analysis has also confirmed the fully satisfactory achievement of the component objective and its positive contribution to realizing PCAP’s overall goal. Targets were achieved for all indicators measuring the program contribution in realizing the intended change through providing assistance that helped improve social wellbeing of beneficiaries, at the level of reached numbers of beneficiaries and more importantly the demonstrated improvement in social resilience. While noted as a clear area for 39 39 improvement, under-achieved indicators and indicators missing comparable targets did not affect the actual realization of objectives as they were all sub-program specific, linked to a detailed activity and not the overall change intended by the program. Targeting and Selection 46. Beneficiaries targeting is one of the most difficult tasks, even in the best of circumstances. Although challenging, beneficiaries’ identification, targeting and selection were one of the strength of PCAP. PCAP employed various needs assessment tools to enable beneficiary targeting and selection. The program effectively utilized diversified sources for data-gathering on potential beneficiaries. The targeting and selection process was based on preset, clear, documented and relevant selection criteria and benefited from a consultation process with partner CBOs and their vast networks in the targeted communities. The targeting and selection process was flexible and it was adjusted to reflect the changing realities and to better serve the interest of the people in Gaza. Compliance as well as awareness of the targeting and selection criteria was confirmed through the evaluation outreach to beneficiaries. The participatory and inclusive approach used by PCAP for targeting and selection was highly appreciated by beneficiaries and it insured that they were aware of the selection criteria and thus increased PCAP accountability to beneficiaries and enabled the program to reach most needy beneficiaries across the different geographic areas of the Gaza Strip. Effect on key Beneficiary Segments 47. Youth: PCAP in general and the economic recovery component, in particular, have succeeded in the provision of services that met youth needs in terms of skills development and employment. The effects of PCAP on youth were evident in: (i) Gaining improved and new skill set, practical tools and experience: For example, SC’s YLDR provided business planning training that included the preparation of a business plan as a grant application. Beneficiaries with successful business plans were awarded USD 700 grant; (ii) Enhanced readiness for the job market: For example PCAP has provided mentors, coordinators and tutors employed under different social recovery activities with an opportunity to “stand out” compared to other job seekers in the complex and competitive job market in Gaza; and (iii) Provision of work opportunities and a source of income: A total of 4,692 new graduates received either an internship opportunity (CRS, MC and SC) or a grant to establish a new business (SC). Provided opportunities had positive effects on their lives in teams of: (a) gaining new knowledge; (b) networking with other graduates; (c) improving self-confidence; (d) improving financial conditions even if for a short period and (e) becoming more confident to go out and look for a job. 48. Women: PCAP exhibited good practices in focusing on working with women that went beyond the straight forward participation percentages in activities that usually present a superficial representation of equal gender balance. The effects of PCAP on women were evident in: (i) Improved psychosocial, emotional and social wellbeing: Working on women psychosocial and emotional wellbeing positively reflected on the entire family and most importantly helped enhance coping mechanisms and social resilience in dealing with the new realities on the ground post emergencies; (ii) Improved knowledge of parenting skills: Sub-programs such RS! and IMC’s ECD contributed to enhancing positive parenting practices among beneficiary women in particular whether mothers, preschool teachers and community workers. Around 80% of the evaluation respondents reported improved family relations and mother/child interaction; (iii) Empowerment through active engagement of men: This approach presented several positive effect such as: (a) deconstructing traditional gender roles and stereotypes; (b) helping men better understand gender dynamics within the household; and (c) providing men with the first hand opportunity to see the benefits of creating a supportive environment for women; and (iv) Provision of work opportunities and source of income: For example, (a) 26.3% of MC CfW program beneficiaries were women; (b) 30% of the beneficiaries of SC/YLDR program business start-up grants were women; (c) Tutors, coordinators and teachers for NASP and ALE programs; (d) mentors for E2F II and YIS; and (e) psychosocial workers for E2F II, MC’s PSS, IMC’s ECD and RS! Sub-program. 49. Children: PCAP befitted children through direct interventions and indirectly through interventions focusing on family as a unit, where around 32% of all delivered activities focused on children. More than 199,095 children (78,651 were boys and 120,444 were girls) benefited from PCAP. The effects of PCAP on children were most evident in: (i) Improved psychosocial and emotional wellbeing: Around 84.7% of interviewed caregivers of beneficiary children reported that participation in PCAP activities lead to 40 40 reduction in stress and to positive memories that helped their children forget difficult situations. (ii) Improved academic performance and achievement: Sub-programs such as NASP and E2F II helped develop learning habits and improve school grades and attendance among students. Distribution of school kits supported children’s right to education and elevated some of the financial burdens that might prevent parents from sending their children to school; and (iii) Positive change in attitude, behavior and interaction with others: Around 78% of evaluation respondents of beneficiary children and their caregivers from social recovery sub-programs expressed several improvements in a range of positive behaviors and attitudes among children and 85% mentioned increase in skills and confidence among children. 50. PWD: Targeting and working with PWD were challenging across all PCAP’s sub-programs, where in future programming more attention is needed to: (i) providing appropriate space for proper integration of PWD in different interventions; and (ii) sensitivity to the needs, requirements and expectations of PWD. Addressing the root cause of challenges in mainstreaming services to PWD into programming requires a focused support for local communities (including many of the implementing NGOs/CBOs) to understand the reality of living with disabilities in Gaza and how to deal with the problems PWD face in their daily lives. Still PCAP presented a number of good examples of activities that paid attention to identifying obstacles to PWD participation and access to rights and services, for example a focused approach for targeting PWD and promoting inclusion objectives in the infrastructure and housing rehabilitation component. Effect on Key Targeted Sectors 51. Education: The economic recovery component identified the higher education system as an area of intervention for PCAP. The higher education and TVET in Palestine in general and Gaza in specific suffer from many deficiencies including competition on program offering, low quality teaching and training, and weak linkages with the market. Within this context, PCAP was very responsive through the design and implementation of activities that supported the development of the education system. Some of the activities aimed at developing university instructors’ qualifications to increase their ability to use active learning techniques and integrate soft skills into their lessons. To improve academics exposure to the international market requirements and upgrade their skills to improve delivery of information to students. PCAP was able to identify and successfully implement a number of international certification programs that upgraded the skills of these professionals to move toward higher value products and services as well as provide their students with much needed market trends and information. PCAP also identified and targeted new graduates with a number of ICT courses to complement and fill the skill gap they have according to the market requirements. PCAP delivered a comprehensive and integrated professional vocational training to the construction sector professionals to upgrade their skills in anticipation of a growing demand in the sector for the reconstruction of Gaza. PCAP social recovery sub-programs succeeded in realizing several tangible improvements in education services for beneficiary children in preschool and basic education stages. Through these programs, PCAP was able to develop the qualifications of tutors, mentors, teachers and community workers and strengthen the use of modern methodologies. Furthermore, PCAP education sub-programs helped develop learning habits and improve school grades and attendance among students with low academic achievements in the second, third, fourth and fifth grades. To raise the quality of ECD, PCAP delivered capacity building activities in technical, management and administrative skills for pre-school managers and partner CBOs. In addition to the above interventions directly involved with the education process, PCAP implemented a number of programs aimed at aiding the education process through incorporating psychosocial support services. MC revisited its educational program to better respond to emerging needs including the chronic and acute state of emergency in Gaza. One of the key revisions was the noted focus on increasing and systemizing psychosocial activities in program delivery in addition to the provision of support in the creation of child friendly education environment. 52. Psychosocial: In the context of recurrent exposure to emergency and conflict episodes, people in Gaza experience high levels of chronic stress which affects their lifestyle dynamics and choices. PCAP choice to focus on psychosocial sub-programs was an obvious response driven by urgent needs and priorities and was the flagship of PCAP social recovery component. They were well positioned as cross–cutting interventions that positively contributed to the achieved effects across various sub-programs. The psychosocial and social resilience sub-programs reached impressive numbers of beneficiaries over the years with noted scale-up in 41 41 response to emergencies. This expanded outreach positively contributed to improving the psychosocial and emotional wellbeing of beneficiaries and lightening perception of traumatic experiences. PCAP delivered psychosocial and social resilience sub-programs using a community-based approach. PCAP invested heavily in building the capacity of partners especially at the level of human capital. One of the challenges faced by PCAP is the stigma attached to psychosocial and mental health issues. PCAP psychosocial and supporting social resilience sub-programs helped people especially women and adolescents to disclose and address their psychosocial health issues more openly and honestly. Although there is still stigma attached to psychosocial and mental health issues, PCAP positively contributed in its reduction among beneficiaries and their surroundings. PCAP provided the psychosocial sub-programs beneficiaries with significant psychosocial/mental health problems who are in need of specialized services beyond the capacity of the program with referral services to more specialized service providers. PCAP also recognized that lack of awareness and information on psychosocial health and available services is an overall community challenge. Across the Gaza Strip, MC’s PSS delivered structured open activities that reached out to community members with information and guidance. 53. Employment Generation: PCAP partners implemented a number of CfW programs over the past five years. PCAP CfW programming in the first two years of implementation was perceived as a means to disburse quick cash assistance to help economically vulnerable groups to sustain themselves and their assets under the various emergencies while the last three years of implementation focused on utilizing the CfW programs as platforms to provide skilled and unskilled workers as well as graduates to implement other sub-programs under PCAP. Through the CfW sub-programs, PCAP was able to help beneficiaries earn temporary income for a short period of time that was used to buy food, pay accumulated debt as well as paying for health and education services. The CfW sub-program helped alleviate some of the effects of the worsened socio￾economic conditions. Coupling employment generation programs with other delivered socio-economic recovery sub-programs would improve beneficiaries’ feeling of belonging to their community while gaining the skills needed to secure long term jobs. 54. Business Development: Limited by Gaza operating environment, PCAP was challenged in implementing business development activities in the traditional sense of business development because many of the businesses productive assets have been either partially or totally damaged. As a result, the interventions in the business development sub-program went through periods of trials and errors. Outside of the ICT sector PCAP’s other activities that were rather small initiatives and did not bring tangible improvement for the business sector. 55. ICT: The ICT sector in Gaza has been affected by the difficult operating environment affecting the private sector operations in general such as the military conflicts, the Israeli closure policy, the political division between the West Bank and Gaza, an outdated telecommunication network. In addition, the ICT sector is highly dependent on trained and educated professionals. The tight Israeli closure and the closure of Rafah crossing on the border with Egypt have limited the ability of Palestinian ICT professionals to gain exposure to international markets and new technologies. This has resulted in a skill and information gap in the sector in Gaza compared to local and international market requirements. The first two years of PCAP working with the ICT sector where not well focused as the program was trying to find a niche area to intervene with the sector. In the last three years of implementation, PCAP model was more focused and market driven. PCAP shifted the focus of its interventions to help upgrade the skill level of ICT graduates and professionals through a set of interventions including developing the teaching and research skills of academics, more focused ICT training courses with special focus on freelancing. PCAP provided trainees of each of the ICT training courses with necessary skills and tools to enter the freelancing market. In addition, FOA was established with all the tools and training modules for new entrants to the freelancing market to learn. 4.2 LESSONS LEARNEDAND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Recommendations 56. Inception Phase: USAID is encouraged to incorporate a separately budgeted inception phase dedicated to analysis and design of evidence-based interventions. 57. Niche area programming: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to continue to actively leverage their experience, expertise, credibility, and strategic position for the development and 42 42 implementation of emergency programs with emphasis on social protection and livelihood frameworks as key pillars. This will entail a focused approach on one key recovery area (preferably social recovery) and two key protection of livelihood areas (food security and employment generation) while using multi￾sectoral programming for service delivery as an intervention approach. 58. Flexible yet planned transition: In Palestine at large and Gaza in particular, USAID is encouraged to incorporate a transition plan that is consistent with the movement from development and/or recovery programming to emergency and humanitarian assistance that provides for the capacity to scale up if the situation significantly deteriorates. Specifically, having a system for using contingency funding established and available in advance that respond to triggers early enough in crisis situations thus enabling a quick and more effective response when conditions deteriorate. 59. Preparedness and flexible programming: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to invest time and effort on preparedness planning to ensure the efficient and effective performance even in challenging circumstances. This should include: (i) building the capacity of local partners in preparedness planning through active engagement in the process as contributors to development and not recipients of a final product; and (ii) defining and pre-agreeing on an ‘assistance package’ of possible emergency interventions for social and livelihood protection and geographical coverage among the different emergency respondents (especially among INGOs). Implementing partners are also encouraged to continue to keep an eye on the changing operational environment through: (i) updating the LMNA and the DLMNA studies to include international job market patterns and design new training activities; (ii) conducting evidence-based assessments of frequently targeted infrastructure in emergencies to provide practical and efficient alternative response. 60. Realistic setting of targets: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to set realistic performance targets that aid addressing root causes of vulnerability in Gaza through promoting quality and sustained effect and minimizing unavoidable trade-offs to meet set targets. 61. Beneficiaries sensitization and communication strategy: More attention on developing and monitoring the implementation of a strategy for managing perceptions and communicating programs’ mandate, commitments, potential intervention areas and the difficult choices they face to relevant stakeholders including local partners and beneficiaries. 62. Advocacy: Include an advocacy component in future programming to deal with issues facing program implementation at the level of implementing partners as well as partner NGO’s and CBO’s. Also, to direct more attention to the employment of media and PR in sharing information and raising awareness on programs and provided services. 63. Documentation of successful experiences: Encourage USAID partners to document successful implementation experiences in a form of success stories, case studies or operational manuals to benefit from past experiences. Operational Recommendations 64. Monitoring for quality improvement: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to adopt monitoring systems and practices that ensures quality performance and continuous learning rather than monitoring for audit and compliance check. This will entail: (i) better selection and definition of performance indicators; (ii) number of performance indicators to be efficiently managed at level of data, engaged labor and cost; (iii) implementing a streamlined comprehensive monitoring system from the onset of the program; and (iv) establish control groups to enable impact measurement. 65. Replication and/or expanding of successful experiences and activity ideas: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to replicate and/or expand successful experiences and ideas of PCAP in the area of: (i) academic excellence and research in sectors such as ICT, construction and business management; (ii) the use of voucher modality compared to in-kind assistance provision as it promoted dignity and freedom of choice based on actual need. 66. Capacity development for professionals: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to have cross￾cutting capacity development interventions for the advancement of professionals using innovative 43 43 approaches such as: (i) the model used for ToT training in Requirements Engineering; and (ii) YIS and E2F II curriculum development and mentions training. 67. Proactive support to the construction industry: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to provide training and skill building services to the construction labor force in anticipation of the reconstruction of Gaza. 68. Establish a freelancing service center: USAID is encouraged to support the establishment of a freelancing center that will provide prospective freelancers with support in the area of: (i) mentorship, coaching and training that is not limited to ICT but rather include other specialties such as architecture, geography, accounting, etc; (ii) promotion of Palestinian freelancers through dedicated international exhibitions and forums; and (iii) provision of fiber optic high speed internet connection services. 69. Empowering local partners and community structures: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to continue with a more focused approach to capacity development of partners including adopted partnership models. This will entail: (i) having a standalone yet cross-cutting component that provides on￾going capacity development using approaches such as coaching, on-the-job training and mentoring; (ii) enhancing business associations’ capacity to actively lead and participate in efforts of regulating industrial business practices; and (iii) building the capacity of local structures such as cooperatives and informal community groups as active mobilizes in community change. 70. Expanding social resilience and livelihood protection interventions: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to expand: (i) the integration of education and psychosocial programs and include a component for delivering assistance in schools; (ii) PSS services to work with adolescents (age group 12 – 16) and their caregivers with special focus on girls; (ii) the use of Mind and Body Technique as a direct service to beneficiaries; (iii) establish accessible Child Friendly Spaces across the Gaza Strip equipped (hard & soft) and ready for service delivery; and (iv) when possible the integration of CfW programming in other activities. 71. Activities duration: USAID and implementing partners are encouraged to increase the duration of activities associated with socio-economic change to ensure quality intervention in terms of magnitude and sustainability of the effect on beneficiaries. 44 44 ANNEX 01 TERMS OF REFERENCE 1. Background Mercy Corps is a non-profit international relief and development organization serving more than 40 countries in the world. It has had a presence in Gaza and West bank since 1985 and has been helping Palestinian communities in humanitarian assistance, economic and social recovery. The socio-economic condition of much of the population of Gaza was difficult prior to the onset of the Israeli military operations in December 2008 and November 2012 that created even more desperate conditions for large sections of the Gazan populations. Many families took refuge in UN shelters and sought assistance from various international donors to provide the most basic needs for their existence - food, water, and health care. Combined with the continuing economic restrictions of Gaza, Gazan population is facing critical impediments for their speedy economic recovery and adverse effects on local agriculture income, market prices, housing, businesses and infrastructure rehabilitation. The operational environment presents significant challenges. Education, health and infrastructure facilities have suffered from years of neglect, lack of sufficient maintenance and inability to import the required replacement construction and rehabilitation materials. To address these problems, the U.S. Government, through USAID, provided an integrated package of assistance to address the needs of Palestinian people. To implement the assistance program, Mercy Corps, as the principal recipient, worked together with USAID and its implementing partners in Gaza. In addition to Mercy Corps, seven organizations have participated in implementing the PCAP activities: CHF, CRS, SC, CARE, ANERA, IOCC and IMC. The program promotes a multi-sector strategy that helps families in Gaza to meet their immediate and long-term needs, and contributes to ongoing recovery of economic and social systems. The program's overall approach has been to target beneficiaries according to demonstrated need and vulnerability. The table below presents the goal and intermediate results of the PCAP: Goal: Pave the way to a better future for Palestinians through improved social, economic and basic services that promote recovery and economic development in Gaza. Intermediate Result1:– Basic infrastructure and housing needs of Gazans improved. Intermediate Result 2:– Economic recovery strengthened in Gaza by creation of income generation and business development opportunities. Intermediate Result 3:– Social recovery strengthened in Gaza through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services. In order to achieve the recovery objectives of the PCAP as mentioned above, PCAP has implemented the following types of sub-programs in the 5 governorates of the Gaza Strip: Intermediate Result 1: The Infrastructure Recovery program, led by CHF, consists of:  Renovating/rehabilitating houses in the Gaza strip previously destroyed during Operation Cast Lead. The housing program has focused on the most vulnerable families who are economically unable to renovate their houses and infrastructure.  Building/renovating community infrastructure facilities for local CBOs/university. Intermediate Result 2: The Economic Recovery programincludesprogram components such as agriculture, ICT development, youth skill development, cash for work and business development. The program components are led by Mercy Corps, CHF, CRS and Sub Grant Partners such as IOCC and SC. They include the following:  The agriculture activities assist the Gazan food insecure population to establish greenhouses, water catchments, and home gardens, and provide animal production kits with appropriate training and supplies so that the households are capable to grow fresh foods to meet their daily needs.  The economic development activities assist the ICT sector of Gaza by providing ICT related training and skill development opportunities to youths, ICT sector market development, and linkage building with 45 45 international markets with other innovative activities to further strengthen the ICT professional associations working in Gaza.  The youth internship opportunity helps fresh graduates from Gaza to become part of a productive workforce. The youths are placed in several private sector companies and banks where they are learning skills, which is expected to build their future careers.  The business development activities, job/income creation and the enhancement of graduates’ employability include training and supporting private business enterprises to increase their ability to adapt to the difficult business environment in the Gaza Strip. Intermediate Result 3: The Social Recovery component consists of:  Social resilience includes psychosocial activities targeting children and caregivers in order for beneficiaries to recover from traumatic stress related to the tense situation and the hostilities in the Gaza Strip.  Education: Through non-formal education, children get lessons in Math, Arabic and English and youth tutoring gain leadership, management and computer skills in order to enhance their studies.  The non-food item (NFI) distributions included providing packages of basic supplies to vulnerable and poor families to support their basic needs. 2. Purpose and scope of the Evaluation USAID and Mercy Corps are committed to a rigorous evaluation of PCAP that is independent, transparent, unbiased in measurement and reporting and follows best practice methods of evaluation. Mercy Corps seeks to conduct a Final Evaluation of the PCAP. The main purpose of the PCAP Final Performance Evaluation is to appraise the performancetowards achieving recovery objectives as outlined in the Cooperative Agreement, namely: Objective 1: Address the infrastructure recovery needs of Gazans through tangible improvements in community infrastructure and housing; Objective 2: Support economic recovery and development in Gaza through the creation of income generation and business development opportunities; and Objective 3: Address the social recovery needs of Gazans through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services. Performance Evaluations are defined within the USAID Evaluation policy as those that “focus on descriptive and normative questions: what a particular project or program has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period); how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occurring; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision making.”(USAIDEvaluation Policy). A secondary purpose of this evaluation is to provide recommendations and information for future programming in the Gaza Strip particularly for the main audience of the evaluation such as Mercy Corps, USAID and the partner organizations. The evaluation will focus on: 1. Evaluate the sub-programs of PCAP in terms of: a) Assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of specific program components of PCAP (against targets, reaching the desired beneficiaries, contribution to realizing the objectives etc.). b) Finding out the most and least successful programs - addressing the questions of why or reasons of success or not as learning lessons. 2. Evaluate PCAP’s effect/s on its beneficiaries (individuals or households depending on the nature of the intervention) in terms of: a) Assessing the effect (intended or not intended) made by the PCAP’s interventions in the lives of direct beneficiaries in comparison with the stated objectives. Identify the intended and not intended positive/negative changes. b) Addressing the use of beneficiary input on how to maximize and capitalize on the positive changes for future programming. 3. Through efforts to achieve its main intermediate results, evaluate the effect of PCAP on some of the sectors that its activities addressed i.e. to assess the contribution and added value of the interventions to some of the sectors that benefited from PCAP activities such as Education, IT/Business development, Psychosocial and Employment generation. 46 46 4. Through efforts to achieve its main intermediate results, evaluate to what extent PCAP contributed to add value to specific beneficiaries segments such as youth, women, PWD, and children. 3. Evaluation Phases: Cross 5 years of implementation starting October 2011, many partners played a part in implementing sub￾programs/activities under PCAP. Organizations such as CHF, CRS, SC already finished their parts in September 2013 and other organizations such as IOCC and IMC are expected to finish their sub-programs by July 2014. Some organizations are likely to close their offices in the Gaza Strip after finishing the PCAP’s sub-programs. Therefore the sub-programs that are completed or close to be completed are to be considered under phase I of the evaluation which include completing the document review and gathering the required information by the evaluation team. The sub-programs that are still on-going are to be included in phase II of the evaluation. However, the gathered information from phase I and II will be analyzed and synthesized as one comprehensive evaluation and results will be reported comprehensively for PCAP as a program. The evaluation activities for the two phases are to be conducted in different periods of time, yet following the same evaluation methodology to enable a consistent and coherent data collection and analysis processes. The phases include: Phase I: It covers the sub-programs completed in July 2014 [Table (A) below]. Phase II: It covers the sub-programs completed by September 2015 [Table (B) below]. Table A: List of sub-programs that are to be covered by Phase I of the evaluation including sub-programs that were completed by July 2014. PCAP Objectives Sub-Objectives Interventions/Projects Implementing Partners/ Programs 1. Basic infrastructure and housing needs of Gazans improved Output 1.1: Community Infrastructure Strengthened Community infrastructure projects CHF Output 1.2 : Housing Availability Improved Houses renovation CHF 2. Economy recovery strengthened in Gaza by creation of income generation and business development opportunities Output 2.1 : Improved food security through increased agricultural production Home Gardens CHF Animal production kits distribution CHF Output 2.2: Employment Generated Cash for Work (CFW) CRS Output 2.3: Prepare youth or under-employed adults to become productive members of the workforce through skills training and professional development Cash for Internship (CFI) CRS Cash for Internship (CFI) SC CBO Capacity Building SC Training - employability (MSME) SC 3. Social recovery strengthened in Gaza through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services Output 3.1: Formal and Non￾formal Education Enhanced Kindergartens/CBOs renovation Anera Right Start program for children Anera Capacity Building of CBOs Care Output 3.2: Recovery and Resilience improved Youth in Sport-YIS (moving forward) MC-YIS CBO Capacity Building MC-YIS Output 3.3: Psychosocial support improved Education/PSS (Eye to Future) Care Output 3.4 : Humanitarian support improved Non-food Items distribution (NFI) CRS Table B: List of sub-programs that are to be covered by phase II of the evaluation, including programs to be completed by September 2015). 47 47 PCAP Objectives Sub-Objectives Interventions/Projects Implementing Partners/ Programs 2. Economy recovery strengthened in Gaza by creation of income generation and business development opportunities Output 2.1 : Improved food security through increased agricultural production Green Houses Establishment IOCC Water Catchments Establishment IOCC Home Gardens IOCC Animal production kits distribution IOCC Output 2.2: Employment Generated Cash for Work (CFW) IOCC Cash for Work (CFW) MC-CFW Labor subsidies MC-ED Distribution of briquettes machines MC-ED Output 2.3 : Prepare youth or under-employed adults to become productive members of the workforce through skills training and professional development Economic Development￾Internship MC-ED Individual/Firms Training (ICT) MC-ED Individual/Firms Training (Business Development -BD) MC-ED Output 2.4: Business Development Economic Development￾Recycling MC-ED 3. Social recovery strengthened in Gaza through tangible improvements in food security, education, health and psychosocial services Output 3.1: Formal and Non￾formal Education Enhanced Education-ALE - Accelerated Learning for Excellence MC-Edu Education-NASP - Neighborhood After-School Program MC-Edu American School Scholarship MC-Edu Output 3.3: Psychosocial support improved Early Childhood Development (ECD) IMC Psychosocial Program (PSS) – Children MC-PSS Psychosocial Program (PSS) – Parents MC-PSS 4. Approach and Methodology (submission of an evaluation plan): 4.1 Evaluation Methodology: Using mixed methods of design appropriate for end of program evaluations, the evaluation will make use of a variety of methods that enable quantitative and qualitative data collection, including but not limited to: a review of program documents, key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) with direct beneficiaries, interviews and discussions with non-beneficiary groups, surveys as appropriate, field observations and case studies, and utilizing the output of the monitoring system on PCAP’s performance. Given the proposed phases approach for the evaluation and the diversity of PCAP’s sub-programs, the case study approach will be utilized to learn about the effect/impact of the sub-programs and reasons for success or failure to achieve the desired impact. In designing the case studies for the evaluation, the consultant company is expected to use a purposive sampling technique defining specific criteria to ensure that identified units of the sample have the potential to reveal and address the defined questions for program effect evaluation. 4.2 Evaluation Plan: The consultant company is to provide an evaluation plan (Inception Report) detailing their proposed methodology, data collection plan, time table and the composition of the team for the evaluation. The evaluation plan will describe the conceptual framework the evaluator will use in undertaking the evaluation. It sets out in some detail the evaluation methodology, i.e. how each evaluation question will be answered by way 48 48 of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, data sources, sampling and indicators. The plan must also contain a work plan, which indicates the phases in the evaluation with their key deliverables and milestones. The evaluation plan will be reviewed and approved by USAID and Mercy Corps before the evaluation process begins. The list of deliveries and anticipated dates are listed below. 5. Deliverables: # Item Estimated date of delivery % of achievement of the evaluation task Phase I 1 A full evaluation plan is to be submitted to Mercy Corps for approval (using the guidelines, where applicable, as per Annex 1: Guidelines for Evaluation Plan) which will constitute the evaluation Inception Report. 30-Apr-14 10% 2 Finishing the field work for phase one and providing the report on the work done 15-Jun-14 25% 3 Presentation of the preliminary findings of Phase I of the evaluation for feedback and revision to the Mercy Corps management, partners, local CBO’s leaders and key beneficiary groups. 30-Jun-14 35% 4 Presentation of the preliminary findings of Phase I of the evaluation for feedback and revision to USAID in Jerusalem. 7-Jul-14 37% 5 Submission of the draft report in English language in the format as Annex (2) for the completed intermediate results such as: 1) the infrastructure & housing component, and 2) the improvement of food security through the increased agricultural production, the fuel briquettes. 30-Jul-14 40% Phase II 6 Finishing the field work for phase two and providing the report on the work done 15-Sep-15 50% 7 Presentation of the preliminary findings of the final evaluation (with special focus on Phase II) for feedback and revision to the MC management, partners, local CBO’s leaders and key beneficiary groups. 15-Oct-15 60% 8 Presentation of the preliminary findings of the final evaluation (with special focus on Phase II) for feedback and revision to USAID in Jerusalem. 20-Oct-15 75% 9 Submission of the FINAL Report in English in the format as Annex (2) within two weeks after receiving the feedback from the Mercy Corps/Partners/USAID on the draft report. Please note that the report will not be considered final until all of the comments and feedbacks from PCAP are well incorporated into the Report. This may take more than two weeks and rounds of review and feedback for which the evaluation team should be prepared. 25-Oct-15 90% 10 Provide an Arabic translated version of the key findings and learning lessons to be disseminated to local CBOs and relevant community leaders to contribute to future programming/planning in the local community. 30-Oct-15 94% 11 As appropriate, provide hard copies of completed questionnaires, focused groups etc. 30-Oct-15 97% 12 Survey forms, protocols, and guidance to be the property of Mercy Corps, as well as the collected raw data. 30-Oct-15 100% 6. Governance and Accountability 49 49 Although Mercy Corps WBG is the primary responsible agency facilitating the evaluation, there are key stakeholders of this evaluation including but not limited to USAID WBG, Mercy Corps HQ, and local and headquarters of the partner organizations and the local partner CBOs. Below is a dissemination plan of the minimum evaluation progress/reports but additional or alternative methods of dissemination and communication of results may be suggested by the consultant company: Stakeholder What do they receive? In what form(s)? Language Approximate timeframe Who is responsible? Mercy Corps Bi-Weekly progress report Soft copy English Consultant company (Team leader) USAID/Mercy Corps WBG Verbal presentation of findings – Phase I Verbal briefing of initial findings two weeks after completion of field works for Phase I English TBD Consultant company with M&E Director USAID/Mercy Corps WBG Initial report for Phase I findings Soft copy English TBD Consultant company with M&E Director USAID/Mercy Corps WBG Verbal presentation of Final Evaluation Verbal briefing of final evaluation findings three weeks after completion of field works for Phase II English TBD Consultant company with M&E Director USAID/Mercy Corps WBG Initial report for Phase II findings Soft copy English TBD Consultant company with M&E Director USAID/Mercy Corps WBG/MC HQ / partners in concern Full Report Soft & hard copy English TBD Consultant company with M&E Director Relevant local Partners (NGOS/CBOs of Programs Components ) Summary findings TBD Hard copy Arabic TBD Program Managers/DME Director Beneficiary stakeholders – community groups/leaders or sector groups Summary findings TBD Verbal briefing Arabic TBD Program Managers/DME Director 7. Guiding Principles and Values Mercy Corps/USAID strongly recommends that the consultant company carefully follow USAID Evaluation policies in the design, conducting field works and in preparing evaluation report. Please refer to http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation to download the Evaluation Policy Document. Mercy Corps is to approve the proposed inception report in advance. 7.1 Ethical considerations It is expected that the consultant company will adhere to ethical guidelines as outlined in the American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators. A summary of these guidelines is provided below, and a more detailed description can be found at www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesPrintable.asp. 50 50 1. Informed Consent: All participants are expected to provide informed consent following standard and pre-agreed upon consent protocols. 2. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluation team/ Evaluator conduct systematic, data-based inquiries. 3. Competence: Evaluation team/ Evaluator provide competent performance to stakeholders. 4. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluation team display honesty and integrity in their behavior, and attempt to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process. 5. Respect for People: Evaluation team/ Evaluator respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, program participants, clients, and other stakeholders. It is expected that the evaluation team/ evaluator will obtain the informed consent of participants to ensure that they can decide in a conscious, deliberate way whether they want to participate. 6. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluation team/ Evaluator articulate and take into account the diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to the evaluation. 7.2 Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report The evaluation should ensure that the criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report as stated below is followed which is a part of the USAID Evaluation Policy.  The evaluation report should 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 should 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.  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 should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings should 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 should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action. 8. Evaluation team (composition and professional qualifications): In principle, the evaluation team is to include a team leader and three lead evaluators specialized in the areas of the key components of PCAP namely: Infrastructure Recovery, Economic Recovery and Social Resilience. These leaders are responsible for the entire evaluation including the supervision of a field work team comprising a gender balance professional crew that will assist in conducting the different evaluation data collection activities and as appropriate. The number and tasks of the supporting field work assistants are to be elaborated in the evaluation plan. As an opportunity for building evaluation capacity, the MC-DME (Design, Monitoring and Evaluation) will be consulted and updated on the evaluation progress and work closely with the evaluation team. This also applies to relevant program managers. The DME Director will be the point of contact to facilitate the co-ordination and co-operation with the PCAP’s relevant staff. Key qualifications of the leading evaluation team should include, but not be limited to:  Team Leader: Relevant advanced degree  Relevant advanced degree (masters at minimum), 10 years of related evaluation experience, and proven experience in conducting evaluations for similar complex development programs/projects and USAID projects (please provide a sample of this work).  Component Lead Evaluators (3): each assistant is to lead the tasks in relation to one of PCAP components i.e. Infrastructure Recovery, Economic Recovery and Social Resilience. The Lead 51 51 Evaluator is to hold a relevant advanced degree (Master degree at least) in an area related to the assigned component with extensive and proven experience in conducting evaluations in relation to that component for complex development programs/projects (10 years of related experience with provision of sample of previous work).  Members of the Field Work crew: Academic qualifications (BA degree at least) in the area where they will assist with proven experience in tasks relate to survey completion and conducting interviews/focused groups meetings. Some of the PCAP sub-programs such as Social Resilience need persons with expertise in social resilience/psychology to conduct meetings with children. The evaluation team proposed by the contractor will be engaged for the duration of the evaluation. Details of the evaluation team are described above. No substitutions will be permitted unless such substitutions are necessitated by circumstances outside of contractor’s control. All proposed substitutions shall have qualifications equal to or higher than the qualifications of the person to be replaced. Mercy Corps shall be notified in writing of any proposed substitution at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the proposed substitution. Such notification shall include:  An explanation of the circumstances necessitating the substitution;  A complete resume of the proposed substitute;  Any other information requested by Mercy Corps that may be required to determine whether or not the contractor is maintaining the same quality of personnel that provided the partial basis for award.  Requests for approval of replacement personnel may be submitted via e-mail. 9. Logistics: As a facilitator of the evaluation, Mercy Corps (MC) will be responsible for: 1. Compiling and providing the relevant set of program documents for the evaluation team to review during the deck review phase and prior to the field work and in accordance with agreed upon timetable and format. 2. Obtaining all necessary beneficiary lists with complete contact details from the PCAP implementing partners in accordance with agreed upon timetable and format. 3. Providing contact details and facilitating all requests by the evaluation team to meet key staff in relation to PCAP including those of implementing partners. 4. Arranging, as possible, for travel permission and transportation for the evaluation team in their travel to and from the Gaza Strip in relation to present the evaluation findings to USAID. 5. Covering the transportation/accommodation expenses as appropriate in relation to travelling to USAID offices for presenting findings. Mercy Corps is not responsible to arrange local transportation within the Gaza Strip or expenses due to transportation in the Gaza Strip in relation to the evaluation. 6. Managing the progress and payment process for the evaluation. 7. The consultant company is responsible for arranging and covering expenses for field transportation in the Gaza Strip. 52 52 ANNEX 02 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY MATRIX Phase I of PCAP evaluation Implementer Approved Methodology Realized Status against approved methodology Evaluation Comments Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Completed as proposed Completed with alteration Intermediate Result 1: Basic Infrastructure and Housing Needs of Gazans Improved OUTPUT 1.1 Community infrastructure strengthened CHF 6 2 N/A 5 6 2 N/A 5  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. For desk review the evaluation team is still missing the results of the survey conducted by MC to measure activity related outcome indicator 1.1.1 OUTPUT 1.2 Housing availability improved CHF 16 N/A N/A 15 16 N/A N/A 15  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. Intermediate Result 2: Economic Recovery Strengthened in Gaza by Creation of Income Generation and Business Development Opportunities OUTPUT 2.1 Improved foods security through increased agricultural production CHF 2 8 N/A N/A 2 6 N/A N/A  Two FGD with home garden and poultry production beneficiaries could not be held due to lack of participation by beneficiaries. The FGD were changed to KII’s. IOCC 4 11 N/A N/A 4 11 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. OUTPUT 2.2 Employment generated CRS 2 4 N/A 2 2 4 N/A 2  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. 53 53 Implementer Approved Methodology Realized Status against approved methodology Evaluation Comments Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Completed as proposed Completed with alteration IOCC 2 3 1 N/A 2 3 1 N/A  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. MC-ED 1 1 N/A N/A 1 1 N/A N/A  The KII with businesses and restaurants using briquettes for the purpose of assessing the economic effect of the activity was cancelled since MC does not compile a list of these businesses and briquettes are sold through selling points only. A new evaluation activity is introduced to meet with MC staff member responsible for this activity. OUTPUT 2.3 Prepare youth or under-employed adults to become productive members of the workforce through skills training and professional development CRS 1 5 N/A N/A 3 4 N/A N/A  One FGD with managers of placement sites could not be held due to inability of these managers to leave work and attend the meeting. The activity was replaced with 2 KII. SC 8 11 N/A N/A 9 9 N/ A N/ A  One key informant with SC/Training service provider could not be held due to lack of cooperation from the service provider. One FGD with interns in Rafah was changed to KII due to lack of participation by beneficiaries. One FGD with non-beneficiary interns was changed to a KII since we could not get a list of non-beneficiaries from SC OUTPUT 2.4 Business Development Opportunities Improved CHF 1 2 N/ A N/ A 1 0 N/A N/A  The two FGD were not held since we could not get lists and beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries and contact info. Intermediate Result 3: Social Recovery Strengthened in Gaza through Tangible Improvements in Food Security, Education, Health and Psychosocial Services OUTPUT 3.1 Formal and Non-formal Education Enhanced ANERA 5 3 N/A 10 6 3 N/A 10  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved methodology were completed and reflected in the attached consent forms. An additional Key informant interview was held with Ms. Mona Zakout, the former Program Manager of the RS! project who is no longer part of the team of ANEAR. 54 54 Implementer Approved Methodology Realized Status against approved methodology Evaluation Comments Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Completed as proposed Completed with alteration IMC 1 5 N/A 5 1 5 N/A 5  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. Output 3.2: Recovery and Resilience improved MC-YIS 1 6 N/A N/A 2 6 N/ A N/ A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved methodology were completed and reflected in the attached consent forms. An additional focus group meeting was held with non-beneficiary female youth. Output 3.3: Psychosocial support improved CARE 1 8 N/A 3 1 8 N/A 3  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. Output 3.4: Humanitarian support improved CRS 3 4 N/A N/A 3 4 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities were competed as proposed in the approved methodology and reflected in the attached consent forms. 55 55 Phase II of PCAP evaluation Implementer Approved Methodology Realized Status against approved methodology Evaluation Comments Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Completed as proposed Completed with alteration Intermediate Result 2: Economic Recovery Strengthened in Gaza by Creation of Income Generation and Business Development Opportunities OUTPUT 2.1 Improved foods security through increased agricultural production IOCC N/A 2 N/A N/AN/A 2 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. OUTPUT 2.2 Employment generated MC-ED 3 11 1 N/A 3 11 1 N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. OUTPUT 2.3 Prepare youth or under-employed adults to become productive members of the workforce through skills training and professional development Economic Development -ICT Education and Workforce Development MC-ED 2 5 N/A N/A 2 5 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. Economic Development – Construction Sector Vocational Training MC-ED 3 3 N/A N/A 4 2 N/A N/A  One focus group was changed into key informant interview due to lack of participation from beneficiaries. Despite efforts from MC to reach beneficiaries (site engineers) and Al Athar rescheduling of the activity, only two beneficiaries showed up and hence a KII was conducted with them. Economic Development -Internship by MC MC-ED N/A 5 N/A N/A 1 4 N/A N/A  One focus group was changed into key informant interview for the reason of the absence of the participants. Despite efforts from MC to reach beneficiaries (Private Sector Interns) and Al Athar rescheduling of the activity, only one beneficiary showed up and hence a KII was conducted with them. OUTPUT 2.4 Business Development Opportunities Improved Business Development-Support to ICT Sector Development MC-ED N/A 1 N/A N/AN/A 1 N/A N/A   All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. Business Development-Support to Entrepreneurs MC-ED N/A 2 N/A N/A 1 2 N/A N/A  One focus group was changed into two key informant interviews due to the absence of the participants (Team Start).Despite efforts from MC to reach beneficiaries and Al Athar providing additional new sample, only two beneficiaries showed up and hence a KII was conducted with each of them. 56 56 Implementer Approved Methodology Realized Status against approved methodology Evaluation Comments Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Informant Interviews Focus Group Formal Survey Direct Observation Completed as proposed Completed with alteration Business Development-Support to Productive Industries MC-ED 1 5 N/A N/A 4 4 N/A N/A  One key informant interview with on job training beneficiary was added. During the field work phase, MC informed Al Athar that FY 2013 interns were provided with a training opportunity and a job placement. In FY 2014, interns were only provided with training and a chance to be selected by employers. This change in approach required separating interns into two FGD’s to capture the change in approach. One focus group was changed into two key informant interviews due to the absence of the participants (Senior Business Advisors). Despite efforts from MC to reach beneficiaries and Al Athar providing additional sample, only two beneficiaries showed up and hence a KII was conducted with each of them. Intermediate Result 3: Social Recovery Strengthened in Gaza through Tangible Improvements in Food Security, Education, Health and Psychosocial Services OUTPUT 3.1 Formal and Non-formal Education Enhanced MC NASP 3 9 N/A 2 4 8 N/A 2  The key informant interview with MC education team was changed into a focus group discussion where all five members of the team participated in the session. MC ALE 2 4 N/A N/A 2 4 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. Output 3.3: Psychosocial support improved MC PSS 3 9 N/A N/A 2 10 N/A N/A  The key informant interview with GCMHP team was changed into a focus group discussion where all five members of the team participated in the session. IMC 2 5 N/A N/A 2 5 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. Output 3.4: Humanitarian support improved MC 7 1 N/A N/A 7 1 N/A N/A  All proposed evaluation activities in the approved revised version of the methodology were completed as reflected in the attached consent forms. 57 57 ANNEX 03 PCAP TARGETS VERSUS ACHIEVED ACROSS IRS AND SUBSEQUENT SUB-PROGRAMS Table 8: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 01 performance indicators Indicator Code Indicator Target Achieved Value Percent Building/renovating community infrastructure projects 1.1.1 % of people reporting improved services due to the new/rehabilitated infrastructure in the target communities completed 62.5% 82.9% 133% 1.1.3 # of small infrastructure projects 5 5 100% Houses renovation/rehabilitation sub-program 1.2.1 % of targeted households reporting increased physical & social well-being 75% 100% 133% 1.2.2 # of housing rehabilitation beneficiaries - major and W/D n/a 10,759 n/a 1.2.3 # of housing units repaired or rehabilitated 860 1,399 163% Table 9: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 02 performance indicators Indicator Code Indicator Target Achieved Value Percent CHF Improved food security through increased agricultural production 2.1.1 % of targeted households that report an increase in their fresh food supply 62.5% 62.5% 100% 2.1.2 # of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 1,820 1,461 80% 2.1.3 # of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training 2,606 2,502 96% 2.1.5 # of households received animal production kits 1,550 1,548 100% 2.1.6 # of household gardens established 1,021 999 98% 2.1.1 # of Individuals trained from associations and firms n/a 74 n/a IOCC Improved food security through increased agricultural production 2.1.1 % of targeted households that report an increase in their fresh food supply 90% 95.4% 106% 2.1.1.a % change in household expenditures on food following the intervention 20% 39.1% 196% 2.1.2 # of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance 1,960 1,836 94% 2.1.3 # of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training 2,090 2,167 104% 2.1.5 # of households received animal production kits 1,520 1,519 100% 2.1.6 # of household gardens established 180 180 100% 2.1.7 # of greenhouses established/rehabilitated 240 243 101% 2.1.8 # of water catchments established 240 288 120% IOCC Cash for Work Program 2.2.1 # of people employed in short-term jobs as a result of USG-supported social assistance programming 1,097 1,148 105% 2.2.2 # of person days of employment generated 28,476 29,490 104% CRS Cash for Work Program 2.2.1 # of people employed in short-term jobs as a result of USG-supported social assistance programming 2,006 2,015 100% 2.2.2 # of person days of employment generated n/a 90,953 n/a MC Cash for Work Program 2.2.1 # of people employed in short-term jobs as a result of USG-supported social assistance programming 16,599 18,162 109% 2.2.2 # of person days of employment generated n/a 697,960 n/a 58 58 Table 9: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 02 performance indicators Indicator Code Indicator Target Achieved Value Percent MC Distribution of Briquettes Machines 2.2.4 % of beneficiaries report decrease in household expenditure or increase to household income through the participation in recycling activities and briquette making 85% 82.6% 97% CRS Cash for Internship 2.3.2 # of graduates who were able to earn income used the work experience skills after the completion of work experience placement program n/a 214,317 n/a 2.3.3 # of person days generated in work experience 1,790 1,912 107% 2.3.4 # of person hours of training completed in workforce development buy young graduates 2,007 2,389 119% 2.3.5 # of youth or under-employed adults benefitted from work experience placements n/a 314 n/a SC Cash for Internship 2.3.2 # of graduates who were able to earn income used the work experience skills after the completion of work experience placement program 35% 34% 97% 2.3.3 # of person days generated in work experience 55,028 57,350 104% 2.3.4 # of person hours of training completed in workforce development buy young graduates 47,600 48,646 102% 2.3.5 # of youth or under-employed adults benefitted from work experience placements 609 623 102% 2.3.8 % change in the scores of livelihoods assets (YLDR) among youth participating in the employability training 15% 22.5% 150% MC ICT Education and Workforce Development 2.3.4 # of person hours of training completed in workforce development buy young graduates 497,088 207,034 42% MC Construction Sector Vocational Training 2.3.6 # of youths receiving vocational training to earn income n/a 3,670 n/a MC Internship Program 2.3.2 # of graduates who were able to earn income used the work experience skills after the completion of work experience placement program 897 321 36% 2.3.3 # of person days generated in work experience n/a 61,972 n/a 2.3.4 # of person hours of training completed in workforce development buy young graduates 497,088 207,034 42% 2.3.5 # of youth or under-employed adults benefitted from work experience placements 1,105 883 80% 2.3.6 # of Youths received vocational training to earn income n/a 3,670 n/a 2.3.9 % of factories report strengthened business capacity following PCAP intervention 50% 88.9% 178% MC Support to ICT Sector Development and Entrepreneurs (Think Tank, Team Start) 2.42 # of individuals trained from associations and firms 2,256 1,882 83% MC Support to Productive Industries 2.4.3 # of private enterprises/firms received USG assistance (technical, training and/or intern contribution). 695 890 128% 2.4.4 # of individuals benefited from grants to establish/recover businesses 50 0 0% 59 59 Table 10: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 03 performance indicators Indicator Code Indicator Target Achieved Value Percent ANERA’s Right Start Project (RS!) 3.1.07 # Children/caregivers received ECD education kits 12,400 12,079 97% 3.1.08 # of mothers and care givers participated in ECD program/parented sessions 9,000 9,767 109% 3.1.09 # of preschools/community centers repaired to provide ECD appropriate work space 74 87 118% 3.1.10 # of preschools children participated in ECD program/Right Start program 24,680 20,752 84% 3.1.14 % of targeted teachers and community workers reported to employ ECD pedagogy best practices 25% 62.3% 249% MC’s Education programs (NASP & ALE) 3.1.01.a % of children showing improvements in Math, Arabic &English subjects (NASP) n/a 85.8% n/a 3.1.01.b The improvement in the average scores in the learning test scores of Math, Arabic and English subjects (NASP) 36% 38.1% 106% 3.1.02.a % of children showing improvements (ALE) 60 69.8% 116% 3.1.02.b The improvement in the average scores of the learning subjects (English, Computer literacy, life skills). (ALE) 30 49.2% 164% 3.1.03 # of students enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school settings (NASP - ALE) 15,100 15,538 103% 3.1.03.f #of Female students enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school settings (NASP - ALE) n/a 7,661 n/a 3.1.03.m # of Male students enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school settings (NASP - ALE) n/a 7,877 n/a CARE’s Eye to the Future Project (E2FII) 3.1.05 % of mentors reporting improvement in academic tutoring and skills of intentional programming 80% 39.1% 49% 3.1.06 % change in the management capacity of community based organization 30% 44.8% 149% 3.3.1 % of children who demonstrate improved emotional well-being and social behavior skills 50% 78% 156% 3.3.2 # of children participated in CBO based PSS sessions. 1,960 2,654 135% 3.3.3 # of parents/ caregivers benefitted from PSS and awareness sessions 998 640 64% MC’s Youth in Sports Project (YIS) 3.2.1 % of participants who demonstrated increased resilience as a result of participation in sport and game centered activities 60% 87.3% 146% 3.2.2 # of children/youth participated in sports and group activities 3,715 3,685 99% 3.2.3 # of YWD received/participate in YWD Social Integration activities 79 98 124% IMC’s Early Childhood Development program for children & caregivers 3.1.07 # Children/caregivers received ECD education kits 5,512 6,113 111% 3.1.08 # of mothers and care givers participated in ECD program/parented sessions 2,555 3,223 126% 3.1.09 # of preschools/community centers repaired to provide ECD appropriate work space 25 24 96% 3.3.4 % of caregivers and mothers who report improved child-friendly home routines in their households 78% 86.3% 111% 3.3.5 # of participants in the psychosocial support activities 11,864 11,742 99% 3.3.6 # of mothers and care givers participated in ECD program/parented sessions 3,360 4,345 129% MC’s Psychosocial Support Program (PSS) 3.3.1 % of children who demonstrate improved emotional well-being &social behavior skills 62 92.1 149% 3.3.1.b % of caregivers who demonstrate improved emotional well-being, social behavior skills 50% 49.1% 98% 3.3.2 # of children participated in CBO based PSS sessions. 8020 10128 126% 3.3.3 # of parents/ caregivers benefitted from PSS and awareness sessions 9,780 10,094 103% 3.3.7 #of participants in community and family based PSS activities 34,220 35,240 103% CRS’s Non-Food Items Distribution Project 3.4.1 % of people satisfied with the distributed NFI items. 60% 99.6% 166% 3.4.1.a % of households who report their living conditions improved as a result of using the distributed NFI items. 65% 90.8% 140% 60 60 Table 10: Targets achievements against Intermediate Result 03 performance indicators Indicator Code Indicator Target Achieved Value Percent 3.4.2.H # of households benefited from USG supported Humanitarian Assistance distribution 5,000 5,441 109% 3.4.2.K # of humanitarian Assistance kits distributed n/a 31,933 n/a 3.4.3.I People benefited from USG-supported humanitarian assistance distribution 39,200 39,733 101% 3.4.4 Amount of USD of humanitarian assistance/ emergency supplies provided 4,301,560 2,554,972.75 59% MC’s Humanitarian support and emergency program 3.4.2.H # of households benefited from USG supported Humanitarian Assistance distribution n/a 53625 n/a 3.4.2.K # of humanitarian Assistance kits distributed 26,200 57,592 220% 3.4.3.I People benefited from USG-supported humanitarian assistance distribution n/a 269,013 n/a 61 61 ANNEX 04 LIST OF CONSULTED DOCUMENTS Technical and Activity Proposals: 1- ANERA: Right Start! Technical Proposal, July 2011 2- CARE: Eye to the Future Technical Proposal, July 2011 3- CHF: Agriculture via Plant Production and Animal Husbandry Activity Proposal, February 2011 4- CHF: Major Housing Rehabilitation Activity Proposal, January, April, September 2011 5- CHF: Year 1 Infrastructure Proposal, March 2011 6- IMC: Early Childhood Development and Community Support Technical Proposal, June 2011 7- IOCC: Improving Food Security for Vulnerable Families in Gaza Technical Proposal, July 2011 8- MC: Cash for Work Activity Proposal, January 2011 9- MC: Various Psychosocial Activity Proposals 10- MC: Various Economic Development Activity Proposals 11- MC: Various Education Activity Proposals 12- SC: Youth Livelihood Development and Recovery in Gaza Technical Proposal, July 2011 Baseline Reports, Beneficiary Surveys and Internal D&ME Unit Surveys 13- ANERA; Right Start! Baseline Report April 2012 14- CARE: Eye to the Future PONAT Baseline Report, May 2012 15- CHF: Agriculture Baseline Survey Report, December 2011 16- CHF: Housing Baseline Report, February 2012 17- IMC: Early Childhood Development and Community Support Baseline Survey Report, March 2012 18- MC: Cash for Work Exit Survey, January 2012 19- MC: ALE Baseline Report, July 2011 20- MC: ALE End Line Report, August 2011 21- MC: NASP Baseline Report, March 2011 22- MC: NASP End line Report, July 2011 23- MC: Psychosocial Baseline Survey Report, February 2012 24- MC: Youth in Sport Baseline Survey Findings, August 2011 25- MC: Youth in Sport End Line Survey Findings, February 2012 26- SC: Youth Livelihood Development Index Baseline Analysis, February 2012 27- Brief assessment - NASP - Science subject 28- Brief Survey of Random Beneficiaries of Water Bladders 29- Cash for Work FY13 Exit Survey 30- ALE End-line Report FY14 31- FY14 IOCC Impact Assessment Report 32- indicator 2.3.1 improvement in average score of courses (ED) 33- Labor Subsidies Intervention - DME brief survey 34- NASP End Line Report for NASP FY14 Percentage of children showing improvement 35- pilot study - SR benefiting and non benefiting children 36- Psychosocial Support - MC Staff Feedback 37- Rapid Needs Assessment - Food Insecurity 38- Social Resilience Second Round FY14 39- STE (CFW) Secondary Beneficiaries Exit Survey 40- STE Exit Survey Report FY14 41- Selected sample of Al Wafa monitoring reports PCAP Quarterly and Annual Reports 42- PCAP First-Nineteenth Quarterly Reports 43- PCAP - FY11 Annual Progress Report October 2010 - September 2011 44- PCAP - FY12 Annual Progress Report October 2011 - September 2012 45- PCAP - FY13 Annual Progress Report October 2012 - September 2013 62 62 46- PCAP - FY14 Annual Progress Report October 2013 - September 2014 Other PCAP Documents 47- PCAP Cooperative Agreement 48- PCAP Performance Monitoring Plan 49- Various Partners’ Implementation Plans 50- PCAP: Field Monitoring Plan 51- Various Partners’ Monitoring Tools 52- PCAP FY15 Implementation Plan Final Approved Other non-PCAP Documents 53- PCBS, Labor Force Survey, Q3 2012 54- PCBS, Labor Force Survey, Q3 2010 55- PCBS, Poverty in the Palestinian Territory, 2009-2010 56- Palestinian Federation of Industry: The Need for a Post-War Development Strategy in the Gaza Strip: Overview and Analysis of Industrial Damage and Its Grave Consequences”, March 2009 57- OCHA, “Five Years of Blockade: The Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip”, June 2012 58- The Portland Trust Bulletin, “The Private Sector in the Gaza Strip”, Special Feature, February 2012 59- UNDP, “One year after the war: Gaza Early Recovery and Reconstruction Needs Assessment”, May 2010 63 63 ANNEX 05 LIST OF CONSULTED INDIVIDUALS S/N Name of interviewee Organization Date of interview Phase I of PCAP Final Performance Evaluation 1. Eng. Ibraheem Hamami CHF 29-May-14 2. Eng Mohammed Al Sharif CHF 29-May-14 3. Eng.Abdelnaser Abu Assi Al Azhar University - Gaza 29-May-14 4. Darwish Abu Sharkh El Amal Association - Rafah 27-May-14 5. Dr.Kamel Al jadba Central Blood Bank - Gaza 29-May-14 6. Osama Al Kronz Al Bureij sports hall - Al Bureij 28-May-14 7. Dr. Ashraf Musalum Al Bureij sports hall - Al Bureij 28-May-14 8. Dr.Issam Tarazi Arab Orthodox Cultural Center - Gaza 28-May-14 9. Mr. Moustafa Assaf Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 25-May-14 10. Mr. Adham Al sarsawi Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 26-May-14 11. Mr. Nael Sobh Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 26-May-14 12. Mr. Awad Ghaben Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 27-May-14 13. Mr. Sa`da Abu Jarad Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 27-May-14 14. Mr. Khaled Abu Dayya Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 25-May-14 15. Mr. Wajih Al Sarsawi Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 26-May-14 16. Ms. Mariam Al Sarsawi Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 26-May-14 17. Mr. Ashraf Al Arqan Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 26-May-14 18. Ms. Lubna Abu Salah Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 27-May-14 19. Ms. Ibtisam Al hawari Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 28-May-14 20. Ms. An'am Abu Wadi Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 28-May-14 21. Ms. Sana'a Al Attar Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 28-May-14 22. Mr. Akram Khdair Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 28-May-14 23. Mr. Ahmad Kshko Direct Beneficiary - Housing Rehabilitation 28-May-14 24. Eng. Mohammad Mousa Economic and Social Development Center of Palestine 12-Jun-14 25. Ms. Fatena Selmi Palestine Tomorrow For Social Development 10-Jun-14 26. Mr. Emad Abu Habel Palestine Tomorrow For Social Development 10-Jun-14 27. Mr. Haitham Shamalkh Palestine Tomorrow For Social Development 10-Jun-14 28. Mr. Amer Abu Jalal Al Manal Association for Ruler Women Development 8-Jun-14 29. Mr. Fraih Abu Jalal Al Manal Association for Ruler Women Development 8-Jun-14 30. Mr. Mohammad Elwan IOCC 25-Jun-14 31. Mr. Sofian Rajab Biet Lahia Development Association 9-Jun-14 32. Ms. Ibtisam El Rokn Al Afaq Association for Community Development 9-Jun-14 33. Mr. Tayseer Saqer Young MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION 10-Jun-14 34. Mr. Bahaa Fares Save Youth Future Society 10-Jun-14 35. Mr. Ibrahim Al Dahdoh Al Afaq Association for Community Development 9-Jun-14 36. Eng. Mousa Al Ghalyeni Save Youth Future Society 9-Jun-14 37. Mr. Hekmet Al Masri Paylara 9-Jun-14 38. Dr. Walid Mousa Save the Children 23-Jun-14 39. Mr. Elian Wadi Ajyal Association for creativity and development 10-Jun-14 40. Mr. Bassam Abu Owda Ajyal Association for creativity and development 10-Jun-14 64 64 S/N Name of interviewee Organization Date of interview 41. Mr. Fahed Al Leddawi Save the children 12-Jun-14 42. Mr. Ahmad Al Essi Ajyal Association for creativity and development 10-Jun-14 43. Mr. Hasan Al Tartori Save the Children 9-Jun-14 44. Mr. Ahmad Saad Save the Children 9-Jun-14 45. Mr. Hamam Barhoom Save the Children 9-Jun-14 46. Ms. Samaher Al Masri Al Ataa Association 16-Jun-14 47. Mr. Mohammad Al Husyni Palestinian Contractors Union 24-Jun-14 48. Ms. Rana Abu Hmaid Save the Children 19-Jun-14 49. Ms. Randa Abu Kmail Mercy Corps 19-Jun-14 50. Ms. Mona Zaquot ANERA's RS! Management 24-Jun-14 51. Mr. Suliman MLEAHAT ANERA's RS! Management 25-Jun-14 52. Ms. Nedaa' Zwayed RS! Partner Preschool 5-Jun-14 53. Ms. Na'ema Mahmoud Hamad Al-Beruij (A) kindergarten 3-Jun-14 54. Ms. Najwa Alfarra RS! Partner Community center 4-Jun-14 55. Mr. Hussain Mansour RS! Partner Community center 5-Jun-14 56. Mr. Mitrej Gillesen IMC Project Manager 23-Jun-14 57. Ms. Bassma Ali MC-YIS Project Manager 25-Jun-14 58. Mr. Samer Mohsen MC senior management 25-Jun-14 59. Ms. Nadeen BaderEldeen MC-YIS Project team 25-Jun-14 60. Mr. Yazdan Al Emawi CARE- E2F II Project Manager 3-Jun-14 61. Mr. Saaed Al Madhoun CARE - E2F II Project team 3-Jun-14 62. Ms. Mona Jaber CARE - E2F II Project team 3-Jun-14 63. Ms JessicaHowell CRS's NFI Project management team 26-Jun-14 64. Mr. Bassam Nasser CRS's NFI Project management team 26-Jun-14 65. Mr. Anees Shabban CRS-NFI implementing partner CBO 5-Jun-14 66. Mr. Baha’ ElDeen Sameh CRS-NFI implementing partner CBO 10-Jun-14 Phase II of PCAP Final Performance Evaluation 67. Ms. Ghada Al Aryan Mercy corps 30-Apr-15 68. Ms. Wafa Ulliyan Mercy corps 30-Apr-15 69. Ms. Heba Zagout Mercy Corps 4-May-15 70. Mr. Mazen Sheikh Eleid Virgin Mary association 4-May-15 71. Mr. Mohammad Elwan IOCC 4-May-15 72. Mr. Mohammad Jadallah Mercy Corps 4-May-15 73. Mr. Mohammad Shoman Mercy Corps 4-May-15 74. Mr. Rawad Nawas Mercy Corps 4-May-15 75. Ms. Jamalat Khalil Mercy Corps 4-May-15 76. Dr. Ayman Abu Assi The Charitably Future Society 5-May-15 77. Eng. A’ed El bram Bayader Association 5-May-15 78. Eng. Tayseer Shaqalia Mercy Corps 5-May-15 79. Mr. Ahmad Shalabi Mercy Corps 5-May-15 80. Mr. Nahed Al Kayali Mercy Corps 5-May-15 81. Mr. Yousef Shaat PITA 5-May-15 82. Ms. Haneen Abu Ghali PITA 5-May-15 83. Ms. Lina Shamia PITA 5-May-15 65 65 S/N Name of interviewee Organization Date of interview 84. Ms. Ola Issa Mercy Corps 5-May-15 85. Ms. Fatma Fadel Mercy Corps 6-May-15 86. Ms. Hanan Abu Amr East of Gaza Association for Family Development 6-May-15 87. Mr. Tamer Mhani Non beneficiary Engineer 7-May-15 88. Ms. Ghada Al Najjar Oxfam Britain 7-May-15 89. Mr. Mitrej Gillesen International Medical Corps 10-May-15 90. Ms. Hiba Al Shawwa International Medical Corps 10-May-15 91. Mr. Elian Wadi Ajyal Association for Creativity and Development 11-May-15 92. Mr. Mahmoud Al zanien Al Atta Association 11-May-15 93. Dr. Ayda Saleh NASP Consultant 12-May-15 94. Mr. Abdelfattah Elian NASP Consultant 12-May-15 95. Mr. Atia Al Omari NASP Consultant 12-May-15 96. Mr. Mohammad Al Dardsawi Al Essi company 12-May-15 97. Mr. Tayseer Moghari NASP Consultant 12-May-15 98. Mr. Kayed Hammad National Agency For Family Care 14-May-15 99. Mr. Mohammad Al Hussani Contractor Union 14-May-15 100. Mr. Jameel Abdelatti Mind and Body Medicine Center 18-May-15 101. Mr. Jasem Hmaid Mercy Corps 19-May-15 102. Mr. Moatz Lubbad Mercy Corps 19-May-15 103. Ms. Abeer Joma’a Mercy Corps 19-May-15 104. Dr. Yasser Abu Jama’ GCMHP 20-May-15 105. Mr. Osama Frauna GCMHP 20-May-15 106. Ms. Khitam Abu Shawarb GCMHP 20-May-15 107. Ms. Rawya Abu Hamam GCMHP 20-May-15 108. Dr. Wael Abu Rezeq The National Centre for Community Rehabilitation May 4 & 6, 2015 109. Mr. Ahmad Hjazi Mercy Corps May 5 & 6, 2015 66 66