1 REVIEW OF COMMODITY MANAGEMENT OF THE ETHIOPIA JOINT EMERGENCY OPERATION PROGRAM (JEOP) Final Report AID-663-TO-17-00002 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared for USAID/Ethiopia under contract AID-OAA- I-15-00322/AID-663-TO-17-00002, by International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI). Authors include: Faheem Khan, Team Leader, Mesfin Beyero, Temesgen Adnew Burka, Benti Erena, Hagos Adhana, Dessalegn Anshiso & Abigail Price. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. I COMMODITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW USAID/ETHIOPIA JOINT EMERGENCY OPERATION PROGRAM (JEOP) FINAL REPORT January 15, 2018 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 8618 Westwood Center Drive, #400 Vienna, VA 22182 DISCLAIMER This Final Report was prepared by International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) for review by the United States Agency for International Development. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. I Table of Contents Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Glossary .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Introduction and Background........................................................................................................ 9 2. Scope and Methodology................................................................................................................10 3. Findings .............................................................................................................................................16 Analytical Domain 1: Distribution of Food Aid .................................................................................16 Analytical Domain 2: Food Management and Internal Control Systems...........................................24 Analytical Domain 3: Reporting .........................................................................................................34 Analytical Domain 4: Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices..................................................35 4. Conclusions and Lessons Learned ..............................................................................................35 5. Recommendations..........................................................................................................................37 Annex A: Scope of Work from USAID....................................................................................41 Annex B: Team and Timetable..................................................................................................49 Annex C: Charts of Findings by Location and Beneficiary Queue/Wait Times .............50 Annex D: Warehouse Questionnaire .......................................................................................51 Annex E: Food Distribution Point Questionnaire ................................................................60 Annex F: End-Use Beneficiary Questionnaire.......................................................................64 Annex G: Informed Consent Form..........................................................................................67 ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 4 Acknowledgements IBTCI would like to thank the USAID/Ethiopia Mission and all six JEOP partners for their support to help successfully complete this review. In particular, IBTCI is especially grateful to Muna Bayou (USAID) for taking time to brief the Review Team, send pipeline tables and reports, connect the team to the JEOP consortium, and being available throughout the review period to respond to questions and facilitate support needs. IBTCI is also very grateful to the JEOP leadership and field teams to update the Review Team of their operations, and to allow full access to all primary warehouses and Food Distribution Points that were part of the sample. Special thanks go to LeAnn Hager (Chief of Party-COP), Tibeb Abate (Deputy Chief Of Party-DCOP), Joanna Olsen (Deputy Chief Of Party), Ephrem Degefhu (DCOP -Compliance) and all the Team Leaders and field management staff of the six JEOP partners (who are too many to mention here), for keeping their sites accessible even during the weekends. Finally, IBTCI thanks Margie Ferris Morris for quality control, review and editing of the final report. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 5 Acronyms BUBD Best Used By Date COP Chief of Party CRS Catholic Relief Services CSB Corn Soya Blend CY Calendar Year DCOP Deputy Chief of Party GoE Government of Ethiopia FFP Food For Peace FDP Final Distribution Point FHE Food for the Hungry Ethiopia FIFO First-In-First-Out HCS Hararghe Catholic Services HRD Humanitarian Requirements Document IBTCI International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. IP Implementing Partner JEOP Joint Emergency Operation Program kcal Kilocalorie Kg Kilogram LMMS Last Mile Mobile Solution MCS Meki Church Secretariat NDRMC National Disaster Risk Management Commission NGO Non-Governmental Organization ORDA Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara PDP Primary Dispatch Point PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report & Safe Use Action Plan PREP Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal PSNP Productive Safety Net Program QWICR Quarterly Web-Interfaced Commodity Reporting REST Relief Society of Tigray SCI Save the Children International SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region ToR Terms of Reference UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development WFP World Food Program WVI World Vision International Glossary of Key Terms Kebele – The smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia, a ward or neighborhood Rubhall – A large, relocatable tent-like structure often used in humanitarian emergencies for storage of commodities in rural settings Woreda –the main District political/geographical unit used in Ethiopia, above the Kebele level ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 6 Executive Summary The Joint Emergency Operations Program (JEOP) is a major USAID Food for Peace P.L. 480 investment contributing significantly to the Government of Ethiopia’s (GoE’s) Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and humanitarian appeal, providing between 25-33 percent of the overall emergency food needs of the country, while also helping community food security resilience efforts. It is a long-standing program to address food emergencies in Ethiopia. JEOP mechanisms date back to 1984 and have taken various forms since. Currently, the program is implemented by a consortium of six NGOs: CRS (lead agency), CARE, Food for the Hungry Ethiopia (FHE), Relief Society of Tigray (REST), Save the Children International (SCI) and World Vision International (WVI) – operating in the regions of Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, Dire Dawa and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). CARE, FHE, REST and WVI implement directly, whereas CRS implements through Meki Church Secretariat (MCS) and Hararghe Catholic Services (HCS), and both FHE and SCI implement through Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA). The program directly supports the Ethiopian humanitarian appeal, where the government defines emergency target lists, with limited authority by JEOP partners as this is a government controlled process. Further, re￾targeting of beneficiaries occurs regularly, to correctly identify beneficiaries in need at different times of the year. The JEOP responds to these appeals providing aid to beneficiaries in the form of rations composed of 15 kilograms (kg) wheat, 1.5 kg pulses and 0.45 kg vegetable oil. This review has been commissioned by USAID/Ethiopia to assess the management systems of the JEOP partners for commodities, which have been distributed over calendar year (CY) 2016 and CY 2017 (up to October 2017). There were four analytical domains the review assessed: 1. The distribution of food aid, 2. The food management and internal control systems, 3. Reporting, and 4. Lessons learned. International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) fielded a team of six specialists to review and analyze these questions via direct field evidence. The review utilized a mixed-methods approach. Three teams, consisting of two commodity specialists each, were deployed across the five regions where JEOP operates to assess a sample of primary warehouses and final distribution points (FDPs), and to conduct End-Use monitoring of beneficiaries coming from two random villages served by each of the selected FDPs for review. The general findings from the review are as follows: Under Analytical Domain 1 – Distribution of Food Aid, the Review Team found that beneficiaries were receiving approved ration sizes across the WVI regions in SNNPR and Oromia, and the FHE/ORDA sites in the Amhara region, indicating that these were being effectively communicated through signboards and messaging from these partners. In these areas, beneficiaries were found to be knowledgeable on what they were entitled to receive, in a standardized weight measure. However, across all other partners and working areas, there were concerns that beneficiaries were not knowledgeable on what they were entitled to receive, or they only knew their entitlements in the form of container measurements. The latter process raised concern that not having the knowledge on entitlements based on a weight scale, resulted in that beneficiaries had to base on “trust” that scoopers were using containers that were genuine, with no room for them to later check if the quantities were accurate. Although partners in these areas used the same approach of displaying signboards showing entitlements, it was evident that the messaging ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 7 approaches at times of distribution were not as effective in clearly relaying these messages to beneficiaries. The Review Team found that a reliable and predictable food transfer schedule was adhered to across the regions. Based on the government appeal, the NGO implementing partners (IPs) calculated the commodities required against each round, and arranged to have these transported to final distribution points (FDPs) from Primary Warehouses before distribution dates. The IPs worked closely with government counterparts in all aspects of the distribution, where respective woreda officials determined distribution dates, and the identification of beneficiaries was established through verification from Kebele Leaders. With regard to communication systems, the Review Team had concerns where all regions exhibited shortcomings. In the Oromia region, in all of the sampled CRS/HCS FDPs, all of the sampled CRS/MCS FDPs, and the majority of the CARE FDPs, the Review Team found a high proportion of beneficiaries not knowing their entitlements and/or not knowing that the commodities were coming from the American people. Similarly, there was a high proportion of beneficiaries that were lacking knowledge on entitlements, and who the donor was, across the Amhara region. In the Tigray region, beneficiaries were seemingly more knowledgeable on their entitlements, many using local weight measures. This was found to be acceptable, as REST translated the approved ration sizes to local weight measures as these would be more readily understood by the local population. However, there remained significant unawareness across Tigray regarding the identity of the donor. In the SNNPR region, WVI had issues in the two of the four FDPs, where a high proportion of beneficiaries were not aware of from where the donations were coming. About managing and controlling food distributions, the Review Team concluded that the IPs are adequately distributing food. Exceptions were in the CRS/MCS FDPs, one of the CRS/HCS FDP, one REST FDP, and one WVI FDP where beneficiaries complained that they were forced to pay 20 Birr, beforehand, to Kebele and Village Leaders to be included in the Payroll List. Local governments were found to play an integral role in the distribution process from the onset. From the time of the appeal, government officials from woredas and kebeles played an important role in developing the emergency list for the regional and woreda levels, and then determining dates for distributions. These dates were then relayed through the Kebele Leaders to Village Leaders and then down to communities. On the day of the distribution, Kebele and Village Leaders played a pivotal role to validate the identity of individuals. The Review Team was concerned with the efficiency of FDPs during distribution days, where the majority of FDPs reviewed, across the five regions and across all IPs, took significant lengths of time to conclude the distributions. The Review Team considers that distributions should be concluded within two hours, such that beneficiaries are able to commute to the FDP, collect rations, and return home within day light hours on a single day. Anything beyond this time, renders beneficiaries to hazards of returning home in the dark, or being forced to stay overnight which incurs additional resource and labor costs. These issues are more significant for female beneficiaries who come to collect rations, both in nutritional costs and security risks they may encounter. In the Amhara region, the Review Team found that FDPs were too distantly situated from villages they served. Significant hours were required by many villagers to reach the FDPs, across very difficult terrain. When added with the significant wait times at FDPs to receive rations, this invariably required most beneficiaries from this region to reserve two ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 8 full days to receive rations. This resulted in greater expense, and significant hardship for beneficiaries to reach FDPs, and then transfer heavy commodities back to their homes. Under Analytical Domain 2 – Food Management and Internal Control Systems, the Review Team found no major deficiencies. Primary warehouses were well managed, and commodities were stored in safe and secure compounds and structures. Similarly, on the whole, all FDPs sampled were found to offer safe and sound structures to store commodities, together with adequate security protocols. The receipt of commodities was found to be largely efficient. CRS, as the lead agency, together with each of the IPs, had structured monitoring and compliance procedures, where frequent checks were initiated to ensure that commodities were physically counted and checked, and checked against documents and ledgers. Analytical Domain 3 – Reporting was also found to be performed per targets. All IPs systematically prepared, updated, and retained BIN cards, stock cards, authorizations, Goods Receiving Notes, ledgers, loss and adjustment reports, Best Used By Date (BUBD) tables, Commodity Status Reports, fumigation certificates and weighing scale calibration certificates. Quarterly Web-interfaced Commodity Reporting (QWICR) reports, semi-annual and annual reports were found to be prepared on time and submitted to USAID. The Review Team, over the course of the evaluation, came across several best practices. These are as follows” - Cards to Detect Pest Infestation: the Review Team were particularly impressed by the practice adopted in the Kombolcha primary warehouses where small cardboard sheets were wedged in between bags at different areas of the stack. The cards were checked daily, and if any grain or substances were found on the cards, this was an early indication of potential infestation. The evaluators did not have the capacity to research how well this process detects insect, weevil, or rodent infestation, but on observation, the Review Team considers this as a simple and logical approach considering that debris is usually produced should bags be infested. - Last Mile Mobile Solution (LMMS): this is a proprietary hardware/software system used by WVI in the Oromia region. The LMMS system produces electronic cards that are issued to eligible beneficiaries, which when swiped, automatically confirms the eligibility of the card holder, shows the quantities of rations they are entitled to, and when issued rations, removes the possibility of the card holder taking further rations. This process leads to less time being required to confirm identities of beneficiaries, minimizes possible malfeasance, making the distribution considerably more efficient. - Ration Cards: WVI was the only JEOP partner found to use Ration Cards, although ration cards have been standard in emergency response worldwide (including the Horn of Africa) for several decades. The Review Team considers the use of Ration Cards to identify beneficiaries to be significantly better than the process of simply checking names on Payroll Lists and the confirmation by kebele and village leaders. - Commodity Risk Monitoring and Management Platform: developed by CRS, this system has helped streamline workflow and decentralize decision making. The system is accessible by all IP managers, allowing them to use tablets to enter data at the FDP level, including issues encountered. These are immediately available to the central CRS compliance department, who are then able to track progress on how these issues are being resolved. The Risk Management System has proved to be effective tool to enhance performance. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 9 1. Introduction and Background The United States Agency for Development (USAID) plays a key role in food security programming in Ethiopia, and is the largest bilateral donor to the Government of Ethiopia’s (GoE) multi-donor funded Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and humanitarian appeal. The USAID Office of Food for Peace (FFP) operates a diverse emergency and non￾emergency portfolio in Ethiopia, with varied operating budget between approximately US $250 - US$500 million per year, from any normal year to a drought emergency year. At present, these investments are through Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) implementing partners (IP) and through the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). To respond to ongoing emergency food needs, and mitigate starvation, the GoE’s National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) leads emergency response efforts. Since 2002, the GoE’s primary partners have been WFP and the Joint Emergency Operation Plan (JEOP) – implemented by six NGOs – Catholic Relief Services (CRS) as lead agency, CARE, Relief Society of Tigray (REST), Save the Children International (SCI), World Vision International (WVI) and FHE. Of these six NGOs, CARE, REST and WVI implement directly, whereas SCI and FHE implement through ORDA (apart from one woreda where FHE implements directly), and CRS implements through Meki Church Secretariat (MCS) and Hararghe Catholic Services (HCS). The Joint Emergency Operations Program – or JEOP – was developed among leading NGOs as a mechanism to address emergency food needs, with a goal to protect lives and livelihoods of emergency-affected rural Ethiopians. The emergency food aid also acts as a measure of resilience, whereby food insecure and food deficit families can mitigate the loss of assets used to buy food in times of crisis and build capacities to withstand the next shock. The JEOP ensures the provision of a steady and planned response through a flexible and reliable food pipeline. The JEOP consortium reaches up to a maximum of 73 woredas (depending on the needs as determined by the Humanitarian Requirements Document or HRD) across five regions (Amhara, Tigray, SNNPR, Oromia and Dire Dawa), where JEOP commodities contribute between 25 – 33 percent of the overall emergency food needs across Ethiopia. The JEOP implemented in response to the GoE’s Humanitarian Requirements Document and operated with diverse numbers of beneficiaries in any year and/or round, which ranged from 500,000 to three million beneficiaries. CRS, as the lead agency, has been responsible for the importation, warehousing, management and allocations of United States (US) Title II food aid, while the other IPs were responsible for working with their respective regional, woreda and kebele counterparts in managing dispatches to their respective FDPs and distributions to beneficiaries. Rations provided to each beneficiary include 15 kg of wheat, 1.5 kg of pulses and 0.45 kg of vegetable oil, to meet the standard 2,100 kilocalorie (kcal) per day of energy that is the emergency standard established the emergency nutrition working groups, and Sphere. USAID Ethiopia commissioned this review to examine how well the JEOP consortium have been managing and distributing commodities in accordance to USAID standards, particularly: - Whether procedures and systems of commodity receipts, management, handling, utilization and reporting are consistent with USAID regulations and guidelines; - Whether partners follow appropriate standards in commodity receipt, management, distribution and reporting; and - Whether partners maintain sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize JEOP food resources efficiently. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 10 2. Scope and Methodology International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI) fielded a team of six specialists to review and analyze these questions via original field evidence: the Team Leader, two Commodity Management Experts, and three research specialists with food experience. (See Annex A: Scope of Work; Annex B Team and Timetable). A mixed-methods approach was adopted to review JEOP commodities for the period of CY 2016 and CY 2017 (up to October 2017), with four primary areas of research: - Analytical Domain 1: Distribution of food aid - Analytical Domain 2: Food management practices and internal control systems - Analytical Domain 3: Reporting - Analytical Domain 4: Key lessons learned and promising practices The primary survey, as per USAID’s Terms of Reference for this review, required that 30 percent of the overall implementing woredas were included in the sample survey, in proportion to the number of woredas where each of the partners implemented in the five regions of Tigray, Amhara, Oromia Dire Dawa and SNNPR. Accordingly, a total of 23 woredas were randomly selected, equating to over 32 percent of the overall implementing woredas. A number generator was applied to the list of implementing woredas, ensuring that the ratio of selected woredas was proportionate to the number of woredas where each of the IPs operated as seen in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Operational Coverage of the JEOP Program JEOP Partner Region Overall Partner Implementing Woredas Sample Woredas Selected for Review Number Percentage Number Percentage CARE Oromia 15 21% 5 22% CRS/MCS Oromia 6 8% 2 9% CRS/HCS Oromia 7 10% 1 4% WVI Oromia 2 3% 1 4% CRS/HCS Dire Dawa 1 1% 1 4% FHE Amhara 3 4% 1 4% FHE/ORDA Amhara 6 8% 2 9% SCI/ORDA Amhara 7 10% 2 9% REST Tigray 12 17% 4 17% WVI SNNPR 13 18% 4 17% When selecting a representative set of woredas to visit, a simple number generator was used to select one sample Final Distribution Point (FDP) within that woreda for detailed review. In addition to the FDPs, a minimum of two primary warehouses were selected from each of the regions where primary warehouses were located – i.e. Mekelle (Tigray region), Dire Dawa (Dire Dawa region), Kombolcha and Dessie (Amhara region), and Adama (Oromia region). ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 11 In parallel with the random selection of sites, instruments and tools were developed to conduct surveys at the primary warehouses, the FDPs and for the End-Use monitoring. The development of the tools was based on the “key research questions” as outlined in the Terms of Reference (ToR), which were as follows: Analytical Domain 1: Distribution of Food Aid A. Are eligible beneficiaries receiving the approved ration size with no under or over payment? B. Is there a reliable/predictable food transfer schedule? C. Are effective communication systems in place to inform all stakeholders/clients of ration size and entitlements at all levels? D. How effectively are IPs managing and controlling food distributions? E. What role does local government play in the distribution process, especially at the FDPs? F. How efficient is the food distribution process? G. How long does a beneficiary spend at an FDP to receive rations? H. Do IPs use “group based” or “scooping” methods – what are the pros and cons of each? Analytical Domain 2: Food Management Practices and Internal Control Systems A. How effective is the food management, distribution and reporting systems at all stages (regional, woreda, and kebele levels)? B. How are commodity tracking, management, reporting, and disposal of losses handled including Best Used By Date (BUBD)? C. Are these systems aligned with commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling of disposal losses per 22 CFR 211 (USAID Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives, including reporting through QWICR? D. Are warehouses fully staffed with knowledgeable people who have a clear understanding of USAID commodity management rules and regulations, and are warehouses fully equipped with commodity related tools, such as weighing machines, fire extinguishers, etc? E. Is there adequate record keeping of all relevant documentation and authorizations at all levels? F. Are commodity movements supported by the appropriate documentation including distribution plans, dispatch notes, and any other authorizations on commodity movement? G. Is compliance with internal controls reviewed periodically? H. How frequently do partners conduct physical inventories and other monitoring? How are inconsistencies between stocktaking and records handled? I. Is there an unusual volume of inventory adjustments, write-offs, or disposal? J. What is the frequency of commodity monitoring visits conducted by IPs head office? K. What are the storage/warehouse conditions at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels? How well are they equipped? L. How effective are commodity loss management practices, including measures taken to reduce loss, measures taken for commodity reconstitution, disposal methods for damaged and unfit commodities, and handling and tracking of loss claims payments by third parties or IPs to USAID? M. How do IPs handle BUBD management: tracking, documentation, reporting and posting? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 12 Analytical Domain 3: Reporting A. What types of commodity related information are collected and disseminated? How frequently? B. Is this information adequate for ensuring a comprehensive management system? C. How timely are the reports produced and shared? D. What are the systems in place for internal data quality validation of various reports (from field level to national level)? E. Do IPs have feedback systems that critically analyze and improve the quality of reports? Analytical Domain 4: Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices A. Identify and list lessons learned from management and internal control systems as well as innovative approaches. The team was informed throughout by the tools for and findings from two related studies conducted in Ethiopia, a review of the NGO consortium work in non-emergency food assistance in 2016, and an evaluation of the dissemination and distribution of specialized therapeutic foods to HIV-positive patients across Ethiopia.1 These tools were thoroughly reviewed, discussed and finalized by the Review Team in a one day working meeting held in Addis Ababa on November 4, 2017. The six team members formed into three sub-teams (comprised of two specialists each). The first team was assigned the regions of Tigray and Amhara; the second team the eastern woredas of the Oromia region; and the third team the SNNPR region, as well as the Oromia woredas bordering the SNNPR region and in Dire Dawa. The primary survey was conducted over the period November 5 – 28, 2017. Each respective team conducted a thorough review of their assigned primary warehouses using the tools attached in Annex D, and for the FDPs used the tools attached in Annex E. On arriving at an FDP, each team requested that the full list of villages served by the FDP be provided. All villages were listed on paper, and then a simple number generator was applied to select two villages from each FDP. Villages that were found to be considerably difficult to access (beyond three hours each way) were dropped considering the team did not have the time to reach these villages. Table 2 provides a complete list of primary warehouses reviewed, and Table 3 provides a complete list of woredas, FDPs, and villages that were sampled under this review. From the original list of sample FDPs, the Arero FDP, from the Borena woreda, had to be replaced, given the insecurity and unrest in that area. The simple number generator was used to select an alternate FDP (Yabello). From Table 2, it can be observed that the Review Team managed to reach all of the eight selected sample primary warehouses, and was able to conduct further reviews of an additional seven primary warehouses – bringing the total number of primary warehouses reviewed to be 15. Likewise, the Review Team also surveyed all the selected sample FDPs, together with two random villages served by each FDP (Table 3). 1 See: F Khan, M Beyero, T Burka, B Erena, S Woldeab, T Wario and K Labombarde, 2016 Ethiopia Development Food Assistance (DFAP) Commodity Management Review Final Report, November 16, IBTCI; and, Rosemary Barber-Madden, Mesfin Beyero and Steven Hansch May 25, 2015 Final Performance Evaluation of Ethiopia Food by Prescription, IBTCI. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 13 Table 2 – List of Randomly Selected Sample Primary Warehouses for Review Region Location Primary Warehouses Randomly Selected Primary Warehouses Reviewed Dire Dawa Dire Dawa -CARE #6 -Mohamed Aden -CARE #6 -Mohamed Aden -Rub Hall #11 (additional) Adama Adama -Rub Hall #8 -Zelalem -Rub Hall #8 -Zelalem -Rub Hall #6 (additional) Amhara Kombolcho -Amhara Seed Enterprise -Dessie #2 -Amhara Seed Enterprise -Dessie #2 -Dessie #1 (additional) Tigray Mekelle -Quiha #3 -Latchi #1 -Quiha #3 -Latchi #1 -Quiha #1, #2 and #4 (additional) -Latchi #2 (additional) Table 3 – List of Randomly Selected Sample FDPs and Villages for Review Region Partner Sample Woreda Sample FDP Sample Village Oromia WVI Dugda Dawa Finchowa Madda + Hida CARE Yabello Areri Kukiba + Chanadika Miesso Asabot Kore + Waraba Chiro Beka Kubi + Nolee Gurawa Gurawa1 Ebro + Mukura Bedeno Bedeno1 Gara + Mume CRS/MCS Shala Senbete Shala W/Tinasho + Tula Mohamed Dodota Amude Amude + W/Bekere Oromia CRS/HCS Meta Wayber Wado + Jingo Dire Dawa Dire Dawa Jelobelina Chelo + Kore Amhara FHE Tach Gayint Arb Gebaya 2 Muhuda + Agaye FHE/ORDA Lasta Lalibela 3 Lalibela 1(add) Lalibela 2(add) Chiraro + Gidib Gaz Gibela Asketma 2 GazGibela(add) Awrarku + Shumeres SCI/ORDA Sirinka Sirinka Seba + Menget Abergelie Seriya Seriya + Kuaro Tigray REST Ahferom Edaga Arbi Edaga Arbi + Maekelawi Mereb Lekhe Rama Village #2 + Werwer T/Abergelle Agbe Menya K/Awlaelo B/Akhor Kambo + Debretsia SNNPR WVI Kochera Chalelekitu Derertu + Bedessa Tembaro Mudula Dokona + Arada Duna Ansho Amhogiso + Bekafa Boricha Yirba Mudane + Fulasa ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 14 Primary warehouse reviews were conducted with Warehouse Managers and Storekeepers; FDP reviews were conducted with Field Office Managers, Storekeepers, Commodity Accountants, and Distributors. Village-level End-Use monitoring was conducted within sampled villages by the evaluators. On “working days”, it was difficult to find JEOP beneficiaries as they were away from home, tending to their fields, or engaged in other productive activities. On these days, the survey team either interviewed spouses, or other household members, subject to them having had direct experience of the FDP and who could respond knowledgeably on issues surrounding FDPs. Alternatively, the survey team went out to the field to find beneficiaries to interview them at their work place. On those “religious vacation” days, it was easier to find beneficiaries within their villages. In villages where households were clustered together, the evaluators counted off every third or fifth household. However, in villages where households were dispersed, the evaluators took a more pragmatic approach by randomly starting from a point in the village, and then walking to the next closest household. Each team attempted to complete between 8 – 10 beneficiary interviews in each village. By the end of the survey, a total of 418 beneficiaries were interviewed. As responses were collected from primary warehouse staff, relevant evidence was reviewed to verify information being provided by the respondents. Evidence also included physical observations by the Review Team members of warehouse inventory. For evaluation of FDPs, as with the primary warehouse evaluation, evidence and relevant documentation to support information provided by FDP respondents was physically checked by the evaluators. Figure 1 – Location of Sample FDPs and Primary Warehouses ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 15 Before conducting end-use monitoring with beneficiaries, team members clarified to respondents that the interview was confidential, voluntary, and that respondents could opt out of the interview at any stage of the discussion, with no repercussions. After receiving verbal consent, respondents signed the “informed consent” form (Annex G) confirming their willingness to be interviewed. Analysis of incoming data was an on-going activity through the duration of data collection. As teams collected information, these were submitted in prescribed reporting formats, daily, to the Team Leader. The Team Leader collated and merged data and continued synthesis and analysis all throughout the data collection period. This approach allowed a continual interpretation of data, allowing the Team Leader to interact with the data collection teams to follow up on any areas that needed further investigation. At the same time, a comprehensive desk research reviewed a broad range of commodity documents of all six JEOP partners. This included visiting their offices in Addis Ababa, and directly conversing and interviewing a range of management, administrative and technical staff. The Review Team analyzed data and information collected through the primary surveys and the secondary documentation review, taking into consideration the entire commodity cycle – starting from the planning and requesting of commodities, followed by the delivery of commodities, and finally to the distribution of commodities. The review assessed the receipt and documentation of commodities received in good order, commodities damaged, how damaged commodities were managed, and agreements with transportation companies. The commodity chain, down to regional/woreda warehouses were assessed, reviewing in detail how commodities were received and documented, the manner in which they were stored, how secure commodities were from environmental and human hazards, and how commodities were monitored. The final chain of the assessment covered FDPs and beneficiaries to determine how commodities were managed in terms of security, efficiency in distribution to beneficiaries, and commodity losses not being incurred due to poor storage or distribution to ineligible beneficiaries. Secondary data was used to understand the efficiency of each IP in managing the commodity chain from the time of arrival at warehouses to arrival at FDPs and its final distribution to eligible beneficiaries. Complicity and adherence to USAID Assistance Regulation 11 was assessed to determine if approaches complied to applicable authorizations and how the IPs were adhering to processes and deliverables as agreed in Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal (PREPs) and modifications. End-Use Monitoring Interview Tigray – Kambo Village ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 16 3. Findings Analytical Domain 1: Distribution of Food Aid A. Are eligible beneficiaries receiving approved ration size? C. Are communication systems effectively informing clients of entitlements? Of the 23 sampled FDPs, 11 (48 percent) were found to be satisfactory, 11 (48 percent) were considered as FDPs requiring improvement, and one (4 percent) FDP was found to be unsatisfactory with critical issues. Research questions A and C have been brought together as they complement each other and the findings relate to both. Of the 23 selected (sampled and visited) FDPs, only one live distribution could be observed, which was in SNNPR, as the majority of other FDPs had already completed their sixth round of distributions of CY 2017. The JEOP partners have taken several measures to ensure that beneficiaries receive their due entitlements. These include the supply of standardized containers to each of the FDPs, which scoopers use to provide rations to beneficiaries, with follow up from Commodity Risk Monitors who check to ensure that scoopers are using these containers correctly. Banners and sign boards are also posted across the FDP site, depicting the quantity of different commodities to which each beneficiary is entitled. To evaluate the effectiveness of these actions, the evaluators relied on responses from beneficiaries as to whether or not beneficiaries knew accurately “what” they were entitled to receive? Should beneficiaries be aware of their entitlement, then the communication measures were being effective, and it was easier to gauge whether or not they were receiving their approved ration sizes, as beneficiaries would have the ability to measure rations and determine if they had received the correct quantities. However, if beneficiaries were not aware of their entitlements, there was little room to determine whether or not they were receiving correct quantities. Table 4 summarizes the findings against these two research questions. The green boxes indicate no significant findings from these villages, denoting that beneficiaries are satisfied with the rations they receive, and are knowledgeable on what are their entitlements. The yellow boxes indicate there are issues in that beneficiaries are not fully aware on their entitlements, and consequently it is difficult to conclude whether or not they are receiving their full entitlements. 85 percent or more beneficiaries responded they were not aware of their entitlements in all the sampled villages served by the CRS/HCS Jelobelina FDP and Wayber FDP; and the CARE – Asebot FDP. 70 – 85 percent of beneficiaries were not aware of entitlements in the CARE Bedeno1 FDP villages; and between 40 – 70 percent did not know their entitlements in the villages served by the CRS/MCS Senbete Shala and Amude FDPs; the CARE Beka FDP; the FHE Arb Gebeya 2 FDP; and the Kuaro village under SCI/ORDA Seyria FDP. Lack of knowledge about their entitlements emerged from two primary constraints. The first more obvious reason was due to beneficiaries simply not knowing to what they were entitled. The second reason was that beneficiaries did not use a standard weight measure to recognize to what they Standard Scooping Measures ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 17 were entitled. In this second scenario, beneficiaries did respond that they knew they were entitled to a set number of containers (usually in the form of mugs) for wheat and pulses, but had no understanding of what this translated to in terms of standardized weight measures. Similarly, for oil, beneficiaries responded that they knew they were entitled to a set number of bottles of oil – usually a beer bottle, but issues arose as oil was provided in fractions. This resulted in beneficiaries having to estimate what different fractions would appear as in a bottle. Not knowing their entitlements in some form of standard measure resulted in these beneficiaries being unable to check their rations against any standard and were forced to accept whatever the number of mugs or bottles of rations they were being provided as being accurate. Table 4 – Summary of Villages served by FDPs indicating whether or not Beneficiaries Received Approved Ration Sizes (Green – Satisfactory; Yellow – Needs Improvement; Red – Unsatisfactory) PARTNER WOREDA FDP VILLAGE #1 VILLAGE #2 REGION: OROMIA WVI Dugda Dawa Finchowa Madda Hida CARE Borena Yabello Kukiba Chanadika REGION: AMHARA FHE/ORDA Lasta Lalibela 3 Chiraro Gidib Gaz Gibela Asketma 2 Awrarku Shumeres SCI/ORDA Guba Lafto Sirinka Seba Menget REGION: TIGRAY REST T/Abergelle Agbe Menya K/Awlaelo B/Akhor Kambo Debretsia REGION: SNNPR WVI Kochera Chalelekitu Derertu Bedessa Tembaro Mudula Dokona Arada Dune Ansho Amhogiso Bekafa Boricha Yirba Mudane Fulasa REGION: OROMIA CRS/HCS Dire Dawa Jelobelina Chelo Kore Meta Wayber Wado Jingo CARE Miesso Asebot Kore Waraba Chiro Beka Kubi Nolee Grawa Grawa1 Ebro Mukura Bedeno Bedeno1 Gara Mume CRS/MCS Dodota Amude Amude W/Bekere REGION: AMHARA FHE Tach Gayint Arb Gebeya 2 Muhada Agaye SCI/ORDA Abergele Seyria Seyria Kuaro REGION: TIGRAY REST Ahferom Edaga Arbi Edaga Arbi Maekelawi Mereb Lekhe Rama Village #2 Werwer REGION: OROMIA CRS/MCS Shala Senbete Shala W/Tinasho Tula Mohamed ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 18 Considering research question C addresses communication, the Review Team gathered information, as part of this query, of how well acquainted these beneficiaries were as to who was the donor. 100 percent of interviewed beneficiaries from the Seyria village receiving from the SCI/ORDA Seyria FDP were unaware of who the donor was; 70 percent or more were unaware of the donor from the villages served by the FHE/ORDA Asketma 2 FDP, and the villages from the REST Rama FDP; and between 40 – 70 percent were unaware from FDPs in CRS/HCS Jelobelina, CRS/MCS Senbete Shala and Amude; in CARE Asebot, Beka, Grawa1 and Bedeno1; in FHE Arb Gebeya 2; in Kuaro village under SCI/ORDA Seyria; in REST Edaga Arbi, Agbe and B/Akhor, and in WVI Mudula and Ansho. Table 5 – Knowledge gaps within beneficiary groups Partner FDP Village % Beneficiaries Unaware of Entitlement % Beneficiaries Unaware who Donor Is CRS/HCS Jelobelina Chelo 85% 55% Kore 85% 55% Wayber Wado 90% Satisfactory Jingo 90% Satisfactory CRS/MCS Senebete Shala W/Tinasho 50% 40% Tula Mohamed 50% 40% Amude Amude 40% 50% Bekere 40% 50% CARE Asebot Kore 50% 40% Waraba 50% 40% Beka Kubi; Nolee 40% 40% Grawa1 Ebro 40% Satisfactory Mukura Bedeno1 Gara 70% 50% Mume FHE Arb Gebeya 2 Muhada 50% 40% Agaye FHE/ORDA Asketma 2 Awrarku Satisfactory 70% Shumeres SCI/ORDA Seyria Seyria Satisfactory 100% Kuaro 55% 45% REST Edaga Arbi Edaga Arbi Satisfactory 65% Maekelawi Rama Village #2 Satisfactory 85% Werwer Agbe Menya Satisfactory 65% B/Akhor Kambo Satisfactory 65% Debretsia WVI Mudula Dokona Satisfactory 50% Arada Ansho Amhogiso Satisfactory 40% Bekafa ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 19 The issues in the CRS/MCS villages under the Senebete Shala were more serious, as 25 percent of beneficiaries complained that they were not receiving the correct quantities of rations from scoopers. B. Is there a reliable / predictable food transfer system? All 23 sampled FDPs were found to be satisfactory in the distribution of commodities to beneficiaries The GoE produces lists of emergency beneficiaries, at the regional and woreda levels, through consultations with their woreda and kebele counterparts. Lists were then shared with the JEOP consortium, who discussed with their respective woreda officials to determine timelines for distributions. To confirm distribution dates, letters were sent from the woreda to Kebele Leaders, informing them of the distribution schedule, who in turn, informed Village Leaders and communities of these dates. Those in charge at FDPs, based on the beneficiary lists received, calculated the commodities required and informed their respective headquarters to arrange for the commodities to be transferred from the Primary Warehouse to the FDP. IP headquarters acted accordingly, authorized dispatch notes, and transferred food through local trucking companies. On receipt of commodities at FDPs, Storekeepers received commodities through Goods Receiving Notes. The evaluators were satisfied with this process as Master Beneficiary Lists and Payroll Lists existed in all FDPs surveyed under this review. There was also evidence that distribution dates were planned and shared with villages. However, these plans were usually retained at the government Early Warning office, and not at the FDPs. However, the distribution time from one round to the next was found to be unsatisfactory. The government‘s NDRMC is responsible for announcing the distribution rounds for relief operators in Ethiopia, and has a stipulated 30-day rule gap from one round to the next. From CRS analysis, it was found that the gap for the JEOP program ranged between 42 – 54 days from one round to the next – or an overall average of 46.4 days – hence not abiding by the 30- day standard. Delays were experienced due to a variety of reasons arising from conflicts with other government priority activities such as community mobilization for soil and water conservation activities, government campaigns, or other competing activities of the woreda. Distributions were also delayed when additional caseloads were announced which required re￾targeting to be performed again. Unrest within the East Haraghe, East Arsi and the Borena zones in the Oromia region was another factor that led to delays. Due to the unrest, transportation of commodities from primary warehouses to FDPs in these areas were hampered as transporters encountered road blocks, or were forced to reschedule transportation to avoid potential dangers on route. Once commodities reached FDPs, the average time taken to complete a round varied from 10 to 15 days. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 20 D. How effectively are IPs managing and controlling food distributions? Of the 23 sampled FDPs, 20 (87 percent) of FDPs were found to be satisfactory; and three FDPs (13 percent) were found to be unsatisfactory. The assessment team concluded that the majority of IPs were managing and controlling food distributions satisfactorily. The exceptions were the villages shown in Table 6, where beneficiaries complained that they were forced to pay 20 Birr, beforehand, to Village Leaders, to be included in the emergency list as prepared by the government. This clearly violates the emergency appeal procedure, where vulnerable people were being taken advantage of to be included in the emergency list. In terms of inclusion and exclusion error, the Review Team did find that beneficiaries interviewed were reflected in Payroll lists, and hence in this limited sample frame did not find any major issues. Table 6 – List of Villages where Beneficiaries were Paying to be Included in Payroll Lists Partner FDP Village % Beneficiaries Forced to Pay Village Leaders CRS/HCS Jelobelina Chelo 75% Kore 65% CRS/MCS Senbete Shala Tula Mohamed 40% Amude Bekere 30% The food distribution process is described at greater length under research question H. However, there are efficiency shortcomings in distributing food, which is discussed under research questions F and G. E. Do local governments play a role in the distribution process at FDPs? Government engagement in all 23 sampled FDPs was found to be satisfactory. In the Tigray and Amhara regions, REST, FHE, FHE/ORDA and SCI/ORDA, requires that beneficiaries present their Government Identification cards at the time of distribution. Government Identification cards are checked against Payroll Lists, matching names up to the grandfather’s name. As a further check, Kebele Leaders, together with Village Leaders, then verify that the individual is indeed eligible to receive rations and is a genuine beneficiary reflected in the government emergency list. In the Oromia region, Government Identification cards are not as widely available. CRS/HCS, CRS/MCS and CARE identify beneficiaries primarily through a verification process where Kebele Leaders and Village Leaders vouch for individuals as being the person whose name appears on the Payroll List. WVI, however, uses the Last Mile Mobile Solution (LMMS) to identify beneficiaries. The LMMS is a WVI proprietary electronic system where beneficiaries are LMMS Identity Card WVI - Oromia ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 21 issued bar coded identification cards, which they are required to present at the time they come to collect rations. The electronic cards are scanned by the mobile phone where the software is installed on to automatically check the identification of the individual, ensure they are eligible to receive rations, and updates the system to show rations have been received, and reduces the risk of multiple distributions to the same beneficiary. Kebele Leaders and Village Leaders act as a final verification that individuals coming to receive rations are indeed eligible beneficiaries. In the SNNPR region, WVI has issued Ration Cards to all eligible beneficiaries. Beneficiaries present their cards at the time of distribution, where identifications are checked against Payroll Lists, as well as final confirmation from Kebele Leaders and Village Leaders to confirm that individuals are eligible beneficiaries. All other JEOP partners did not use Ration Cards as they considered these to be impractical given the changing beneficiary lists. Updated lists would be prepared for each emergency distribution, where targeting exercises would be conducted each time. The GoE imposes strict timelines where distributions are to be conducted within 30 days, and are also skeptical that beneficiary pictures are taken. Even so, considering that WVI are using Ration Cards, despite these challenges, merits the recommendation that the JEOP consortium discuss the WVI approach to see how well this is working for them, and how they have overcome these issues to introduce Ration Cards and the LMMS identity card. Government counterparts also play a role in determining distribution dates. Once the government prepares emergency beneficiary lists, these are sent to their respective woredas. The Woreda Food Security Task Force and the Early Warning Department then work with the JEOP IPs to set dates for distributions, which are communicated to the Kebele Leaders and then down to villages. Accordingly, it was evident that the government does play an important role in both setting dates for distributions, informing beneficiaries of distribution schedules, and in the final verification of beneficiaries through Woreda and Kebele Leaders. The process used in the Amhara, Tigray and Oromia regions by all IPs, with the exception of WVI, needs careful consideration. The Amhara and Tigray approach of identifying beneficiaries through Payroll Lists and Kebele/Village Leaders may be vulnerable to multiple rations being provided to the same individual, should individuals and community leaders collude in unfairly manipulating the system. In cases such as these, Kebele Leaders can include the same individual in multiple Payrolls Lists, and vouch for the individual at different FDPs. Even with the additional step of matching names against Government Identification cards, the process remains vulnerable should Kebele Leaders be in collusion with individuals. The Oromia region is even more vulnerable as they rely entirely on the Kebele/Village Leaders to vouch for beneficiaries, where Government Identification cards are not used as these were largely absent in this region. The WVI approach of confirming eligible rations through Ration Cards is a more secure system as these cards are issued only after verifying the identity of individuals, and after their names appear on the emergency lists prepared by the government. The LMMS is even more secure, as these are electronic ration cards that automates the identification process, and confirms the ration levels an individual is entitled to, by simply swiping these cards. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 22 F. How efficient is the food distribution process? G. How long do beneficiaries wait? In these two research areas, of the 23 sampled FDPs, 17 (74 percent) were found to be unsatisfactory; four (17 percent) were found to be FDPs with issues; and only two (9 percent) FDPs were found to be satisfactory. Research questions F and G are reflected as a combined finding, given that these are co￾dependent variables. Across the four regions, it was apparent that there remain critical issues in the lengthy periods beneficiaries are required to wait once they arrive at FDPs to collect rations. Figures 2 – 5 summarize the wait times at different FDPs. Only two FDPs (REST – Edaga Arbi and WVI – Mudula), of the sampled 23 FDPs, had wait times of up to two hours, which can be considered to be “acceptable”. Four FDPs (CARE – Grawa1, CRS/HCS – Wayber, SCI/ORDA – Seyria and WVI – Ansho) were within a borderline acceptable wait time of up to three hours. All other 17 sampled FDPs were found to have wait times of four hours and up, which is considered to be an “unacceptable” length of time for beneficiaries having to wait to receive commodities. Further, several of the FDPs in the Amhara region were found to be located at great distances from the villages they served. The Muhada and Agaye villages, served by the FHE – Arb Gebeya 2 FDP, required beneficiaries to walk up to four hours each way to reach the FDP; the Chiraro and Gidib villages required four hours of walking each way to reach the FHE/ORDA – Lalibela 3 FDP; the Awrarku and Shumeres villages required beneficiaries to walk three hours each way to reach the FHE/ORDA – Asketma 2 FDP; and the Seba and Menget villages required beneficiaries to walk three hours each way to reach the SCI/ORDA – Sirinka FDP. This effectively resulted in that beneficiaries in 17 of 23 sampled woredas (75 percent of sampled FDPs), having to devote two days in collecting rations. Figure 2 below provides a graphic perspective of the sites visited and the wait times recorded per region. Additional graphs about queuing/wait times are included in Annex C. This raises several critical issues. The first is the lost opportunity of beneficiaries not being able to engage in productive work over the days when they come to collect rations. The second is the added costs incurred where beneficiaries are forced to stay overnight, where many have to pay rental fees for lodging, and additional costs for food. For the FDPs which are particularly remote, especially those in the Amhara region, there is also the relatively more expensive cost for transferring the rations back to their homes from the FDPs, usually in the form of donkeys, or in some places, motorized buses or bajaj taxis. The distribution process is discussed in the following section. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WVI-Finchowa(FDP) CRS/HCS-Jelobelina(FDP) CRS/HCS-Wayber(FDP) CRS/MCS-SenShala(FDP) CRS/MCS-Amude(FDP) CARE-Yabello(FDP) CARE-Asebot(FDP) CARE-Beka(FDP) CARE-Grawa1(FDP) CARE-Bedeno1(FDP) Figure 2 - Number of Hours Beneficiaries Wait to Receive Rations at FDP (Oromia and Dire Dawa Regions) ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 23 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FHE-ArbGebeya2(FDP) FHE/ORDA-Lalibela3(FDP) FHE/ORDA-Asketma2(FDP) SCI/ORDA-Sirinka(FDP) SCI/ORDA-Seyria(FDP) Figure 3 - Number of Hours Beneficiaries Wait to Receive Rations at FDP (Amhara Region) Do IPs use “group” or “scoop” methods? JEOP implementing partners adopted a combination of the “grouping” and “scooping” approach to giving food out to beneficiaries. As beneficiaries first arrived, FDP Distributors, together with Kebele and Village Leaders, determined the eligibility of beneficiaries by comparing their names in their Government Identification cards (only for the Amhara and Tigray regions), checking their names in the Payroll List (across all regions), with final confirmation from the Kebele and Village Leaders. WVI used their proprietary LMMS ration cards, to identify beneficiaries. On confirming the eligibility of individuals, beneficiaries either signed, or thumb￾printed the Payroll List, and were then assigned to a group. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WVI-Chalelekitu(FDP) WVI-Mudula(FDP) WVI-Ansho(FDP) WVI-Yirba(FDP) Figure 5 - Number of Hours Beneficiaries Wait to Receive Rations at FDP (SNNPR Region) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 REST-EdagaArbi(FDP) REST-Rama(FDP) REST-Agbe(FDP) REST-B/Akhor(FDP) Figure 4 - Number of Hours Beneficiaries Wait to Receive Rations at FDP (Tigray Region) ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 24 Groups were formed based on the number of rations that different households were entitled to receive. For example, households receiving two rations were all brought together in one group; households receiving three rations were all brought together in another group; and so on. Different groups were then assigned different locations within the FDP, and assigned scoopers to assist them in their distribution process. For groups that were larger in size, they were proportionately assigned more scoopers, considering more time would be required to complete the distribution within these larger groups. Within each group, scoopers measured the correct quantities of wheat and pulses in measuring containers provided to the FDP from each of the IP headquarters. Oil, similarly, was provided through measuring containers. CARE shared that they also had an additional verification step where weighing scales were available for beneficiaries to randomly check weights of rations received, to ensure that scoopers were providing accurate amounts. REST, although adopting a similar approach, had one significant difference. Across all FDPs surveyed, it was found that beneficiaries were required to sign the Payroll List first thing in the morning, and then were made to wait until the distribution began at the end of the day, and in several FDPs, having to wait till the next day for the distribution to start. This process raises concern as beneficiaries are asked to sign well in advance of them actually receiving rations, leaving them no safety net to raise complaints should commodities be channeled away from them through unfair means. Additionally, this adds risks to female beneficiaries who may be subject to male predatory behaviors, and adds labor and resource costs to the recipients. Although the grouping system is an approach which can make the distribution process easier for FDP staff, however, in the majority of FDPs across the six IPs, this has reduced the efficiency of the distribution process. The primary reason for this is that these FDPs wait considerable lengths of time to allow the “majority” of beneficiaries to first arrive, before they form different groups. Whilst this can make life easier for the staff and helpers at each of the FDPs, this is at the trade-off against beneficiaries. Beneficiaries arriving early have to wait until the majority of beneficiaries arrive, creating frustration. Analytical Domain 2: Food Management and Internal Control Systems A. How effective is the food management, distribution and reporting systems at all stages (regional, woreda, and kebele levels)? C. Are these systems aligned with commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling of disposal losses per 22 CFR 211 (USAID Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives, including reporting through QWICR? Food Management: Regulation 11 Section 211.5 states that • “Cooperating Sponsors shall be responsible for determining that recipients are eligible in accordance with the Operational Plan Signed Payroll List ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 25 • No discrimination of eligible beneficiaries without regard to political affiliation, geographic location, ethnic, tribal, religious or other factors extraneous to need • Public recognition shall be given in the press, by radio, and other media that commodities have been provided through the friendship of the American People as for Food for Peace • Program supervision • Except if USAID may otherwise agree in writing, agriculture commodities donated by USAID shall not be distributed, handled or allocated by any military forces’ All six JEOP partners are adhering to these key regulations. IPs were confirming the eligibility of beneficiaries by confirming that their names appeared on the emergency list, as prepared by the GoE, and that these names were reflected in Payroll Lists, and further verified by Kebele and Village Leaders. WVI were the exception among all IPs, where they issued Ration Cards to beneficiaries across their operations; and in the Oromia region introduced their proprietary LMMS system. The issue of discrimination did not arise, as the lists were prepared by the government. All primary warehouses and FDPs displayed signboards clearly denoting that the commodities were from the US government, together with the quantities of commodities to which beneficiaries were entitled written in both English and the local language. Program supervision is discussed in sections D and K below. Finally, none of the commodities were handled by any military forces. QWICR Reports: According to Regulation 11 Section 211.10 (b) “Cooperating Sponsors shall submit reports to USAID such reports as USAID may reasonably request. The report should contain periodic summary reports showing receipt, distribution and inventory of commodities.” Accordingly, all IPs prepare monthly Commodity Status Reports (CSR) and submits to CRS. CRS collates all CSR information, and completes the Quarterly Web Interfaced Commodity Report (QWICR) each quarter, and submits to USAID. The Review Team sample tested different QWICR reports and found these to be “satisfactory” in being prepared and submitted by all IPs on a timely schedule, and for accuracy of content. Risk Monitoring and Compliance System: Developed by CRS, the platform connects FDPs to central level management. Accessible by IP managers, users are able to use tablets to input data, and issues encountered in the field. Information is collated into a central database, allowing the central CRS compliance department JEOP Signboard; SCI – Seyria FDP Entitlement Signboard; WVI–Boricha FDP ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 26 to track issues, and how these are being resolved. The system is an effective tool to decentralize management, and for field staff to systematically identify issues, and to develop steps to manage these issues. The Risk Management System is supported by 42 staff across the consortia – 29 from CRS, and 13 from partners. Strategic oversight is provided by the COP, and operational oversight by the DCOP for Commodity Risk Monitoring and Compliance. The day to day implementation is overseen by the Commodity Risk and Compliance Manager, Risk Monitors and Compliance Officers. B. How are commodity tracking, management, reporting, and disposal of losses handled including Best Used By Date (BUBD)? L. How effective are commodity loss management practices, including measures taken to reduce loss, measures taken for commodity reconstitution, disposal methods for damaged and unfit commodities, and handling and tracking of loss claims payments by third parties or IPs to USAID? M. Do IPs handle BUBD management: tracking, documentation, reporting and posting? I. Is there an unusual volume of inventory adjustments, write-offs, or disposal? Handling of Commodity Losses: The Review Team did not find evidence of an unusual volume of inventory adjustments, write-offs or disposal. The Review Team found the handling of losses and disposals by all IPs to be “satisfactory”, and that these were being managed as per the standards of Regulation 11 Section 211.9. Loss and damage reports were reported by all IPs to CRS in their quarterly reports indicating the type of loss, the kind and quantity of lost commodities, and the time and place where the loss occurred. CRS satisfactorily submitted reports about losses, including those below US$500, to USAID for approval. The common area where losses occurred were during transportation of commodities. All losses were found to have been recovered by deducting the prevailing market value of the commodity as per Regulation 11 Section 211.9 (iii) B which states that “the value of the lost commodity shall be determined on the basis of the domestic market price at the time and place of the loss of commodities.” Disposal of Unfit Commodities: For the disposal of unfit commodities, Regulation 11 Section 211.8 states that “the Cooperating Sponsor shall arrange for inspection of commodities by a public health official as soon as damage is noticed, and based on the public health official’s recommendation, unfit commodities will be disposed.” If the value of the commodity is more than US$500, CRS (as the lead agency) should be informed about the unfit commodities, and a USAID representative should be present at the time of disposal of the commodity, and local officials should also be represented. Minutes of the disposal should be prepared and signed by the disposal committee. The Review Team found that disposals were being followed as per USAID standards. Over the period 2016 to 2017, the following disposals were conducted: - CY 2016: CRS conducted 15 disposals. Nine were from “marine losses” and six were from “internal disposals.” The internal disposals amounted to 100 Kg of oil (valued at US$182), 50 Kg of wheat (valued at US$19). Marine losses were more significant with ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 27 disposals of 39,500 Kg of peas and 600 Kg of Corn Soya Blend (CSB) (with a combined value of US$30,487). Marine losses were recovered from the shipper. Additionally, CARE disposed 10 Kg of sorghum (valued at US$4), REST disposed of 25,050 Kg of wheat (valued at US$8,006.85), and WVI disposed of 3 Kg of oil (valued at US$3). - CY 2017: The majority of unfit commodity disposals were made by CRS from marine losses, which included 131,460 Kg of peas (valued at US$120,665), 16,150 Kg of wheat (valued at US$5,374), 176 kg of oil (valued at US$266), 30,990 Kg of CSB (valued at US$23,581), and 100 Kg of sorghum (valued at US$29). These were all recovered from the shipper. CRS internal disposals included 84 Kg of oil (valued at US$123). Additionally, internal disposals included 217 Kg of wheat (valued at US$78) from CARE, and 85 Kg of peas (valued at US$117) from SCI. BUBD: With regard to Best Used By Date (BUBD) management, the Review Team found that all IPs have a tracking and monitoring sheet indicating expiry dates for different commodities. This report was being prepared on a monthly schedule and submitted to their respective headquarters. The tracking and monitoring sheet contained information on the type of commodity, the quantity of each commodity, the BUBD of each commodity, and the number of months between the BUBD and the reporting date. As BUBD were being approached, IPs would either “swap” or “loan” these commodities to other projects, with appropriate approvals from USAID. Also, all IPs were found to be using the First-In-First-Out (FIFO) approach, which minimized the risk of retaining commodities for lengthy periods of time. The Review Team found this process to be managed at a satisfactory level. C. Are warehouses fully staffed with knowledgeable people who have a clear understanding of USAID commodity management rules and regulations, and are warehouses fully equipped with commodity related tools, such as weighing machines, fire extinguishers, etc.? K. How are the storage/warehouse conditions at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels? How well are they equipped? Program Supervision: Program supervision was conducted and maintained by a fully resourced commodity team within each of the JEOP partners. Each partner has a JEOP Team Leader based at their respective headquarters, who oversees a team consisting of a Commodity Logistics Manager, a Commodity Logistics Officer, a Compliance Officer and a Commodity Accountant. On the direction of the CRS Chief of Party (COP), IPs are provided eligible beneficiary emergency lists as provided by the government. IPs then plan for distribution dates with their respective woreda officials, and arranges for commodities to be transported from the CRS Primary Warehouses to the FDPs. Management and reporting of commodities is discussed at greater length in the following sections, and under Analytical Domain 3. Staff Capacity: The Review Team found FDP staff, and JEOP headquarters staff of CARE, CRS, FHE, MCS, ORDA, SCI and WVI to be knowledgeable and capable in their job responsibilities and functions. However, the Review Team considered that HCS staff required further capacity building, particularly in managing their filing systems. Similarly, the Review ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 28 Fumigation Certificate EKA Pest Control Limited Team found FDP staff (Site Representatives and Store Keepers) from REST in the Rama and Agbe FDPs requiring significant capacity building, where FDP management staff were found to be new to their positions, and were not clear on how to receive and manage commodities. However, the Distributors within these FDPs were more seasoned and knowledgeable on their roles, and consequently were propping up many of the more senior staff within these FDPs. Conditions at Primary Warehouses: Overall, all sampled Primary Warehouses were found to “satisfactory”. Warehouses had ample space for trucks to maneuver within, were situated on solid ground, and had sufficient capacity to store commodities. Warehouses took varied forms including solid cement buildings, corrugated iron sheet structures, and as rub halls. Warehouses had solid locks, together with a 24-hour guard service. All warehouses clearly displayed signboards showing the USAID logo, and the types of commodities stored, displayed in both English and the local language. Fumigation agreements were managed and agreed at the CRS headquarters level, where they had contracted EKA Pest Control Limited to perform fumigations at all primary warehouses and FDPs. Fumigation certificates were checked at all sampled primary warehouses and FDPs, and the evaluators found that the fumigations had been performed “satisfactorily” by EKA Pest Control Limited. Two types of fumigants were used – Aluminum Phosphide and Diznon. In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible to register fumigants used in the country. According to Proclamation 674 “no pesticide shall be registered unless the efficacy, safety and quality is tested under field or laboratory condition and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture. No person may formulate, manufacture, import or use pesticide not registered with the Ministry. Any person who imports pesticides, or sells pesticides, shall be responsible for the disposal of any obsolete pesticides in their custody at their own expense, according to the directives issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry shall also monitor and control its implementation.” The fumigants Aluminum Phosphide and Diznon are registered with the Ministry of Agriculture as approved fumigants – hence EKA Pesticides is abiding by the country law and fulfills the requirements of the Pesticide Evaluation Report & Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP). Within Primary Warehouses, the Review Team found that commodities were managed “satisfactorily”, where commodities were stacked by commodity type, shipment, stacks were one meter from the walls, ceilings, and between stacks; plastic sheets and pallets were used for ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 29 stacking; stacks were less than 40 levels high; the first-in/first-out (FIFO) approach was adopted; and damaged commodities were stacked separately. All warehouses were found to have the necessary equipment, including weighing scales, ladders, fire extinguishers, rat traps, and other commodity management equipment. The exceptions were the following. - Dire Dawa / Rub Hall #6: the door was found to be weak and requires to be replaced. The locks were also found to be weak and requires replacement. - Dire Dawa / Rub Hall #11: was found to be over 20 years old and needs to be replaced. The same observation was made by the evaluators of the majority of the 14 rub halls that exists in this compound, where most were exceeding 20 years of age and needs to be replaced. Other observations included that the compound was dusty, and infested with termite nests. From a security and management perspective, the evaluators found there were only two scales serving all 14 rub halls, and only three guards providing security to all 14 rub halls – both of which is insufficient. There was also no evidence that surprise checks were on-going within any of these primary warehouses. - Tigray / Quiha 1 – 4: all four warehouses were within the same compound, in cement buildings which were of good quality. However, all reconstitution was performed in a very poor tin shed, located within the compound, but separate to the primary warehouses. The evaluators found a good quantity of commodities awaiting to be reconstituted within the tin shed. It was evident these commodities had been within the shed for a period of time. Concerns were raised within the Review Team as the structure was highly insecure, with rusted and twisted doors and windows that could easily be compromised. Although the four primary warehouses were solid cement structures, the evaluators when examining commodity bags on top of stacks, found that a large volume of these bags were damaged by birds that were freely flying in and out of these warehouses. - Adama / Zelalem: there was no evidence that surprise visits were taking place. - Adama / Zelalem and Rub Hall #8: neither of these warehouses had any formal Reconstitution Committees, raising concern that gaps existed that can lead to vulnerabilities during the reconstitution process. - Kombolcha / Dessie #1 and Dessie #2: the Review Team observed that there was only one fire extinguisher adjacent to each of the warehouses, which was insufficient to protect two Tigray Quiha Primary WH Compound Reconstitution Shed – Inside (top) Reconstitution Shed – External (bottom) ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 30 such large warehouses from fire hazards. The Team also found a stack of rubber tires disposed within the back yard, and in very close proximity to the warehouse, creating a fire hazard. A more serious issue was discovered when testing the weighing scale, where 50 kg bags were reading as 45 kg. Investigating the scale, it was observed that the scale had been calibrated by the Institute of Meteorology in the past two months, and that the certification showed that a “45 kg” reading actually meant that the bag was 50 kg in weight. This was considered to be a serious problem by the Review Team, as it created confusion that could be manipulated. This was especially critical at the time of reconstitution when bags are damaged and have quantities less than 50 kg, which would inevitably lead to miscalculations. - Common Issue within all Primary Warehouses: all warehouses were found to have locks securing access doors and gates of the structure. However, the Review Team were concerned that “all” keys were kept by the respective Storekeeper. This raises a security concern as there were no checks and balances on these Storekeepers, leaving the warehouse vulnerable should a storekeeper engage in any kind of malfeasance. Conditions at FDPs: FDPs came in the form of solid cement buildings, corrugated iron sheet structures and rub halls. Overall, FDP compounds were found to be “satisfactory”, with ample space for trucks to maneuver within, having adequate space to store commodities, situated on solid ground, with clear signboards showing that commodities were received from the US Government. The compounds were secured with 24-hour guard services, and had good secure locks and doors. The exceptions were as follows: - CARE, Oromia Region, Bedeno Woreda, Bedeno FDP: access road requires maintenance. - CRS/HCS, Dire Dawa Region, Dire Dawa Woreda, Jelobelina FDP: FDP compound, in addition to containing warehouses, also included a school and a private residence, which can lead to compromising the security of the warehouse. The warehouse also only has one toilet, which especially impacts on women as they are forced to use the same toilet as their male counterparts. - CRS/HCS, Oromia Region, Meta Woreda, Wayber FDP: the compound has no fence, which makes the warehouse less secure. The warehouse also had no provision for toilets. The filing system used by staff was particularly poor in this FDP. - CRS/MCS, Oromia Region, Dodota Woreda, Amude FDP + Shala Woreda, Senbete Shala FDP: the Amude FDP had no provision for toilets. Weighing scales at both FDPs had not been calibrated compromising the accuracy of weight measurements taken on these scales. - FHE, Amhara Region, Tach Gayint Woreda, Arb Gebeya FDP: on interviewing staff within the warehouse, it was evident that oil tins were not punctured before being handed over to beneficiaries. This is in violation of USAID standards, and tins may be reused containing poorer quality oil for reselling, which can be damaging for USAID’s brand. - REST, Tigray Region, T/Abergelle Woreda, Agbe FDP: damaged bags were being received without weighing to determine losses. Evaluators found that the weighing scale had not been calibrated, and staff confirmed that they had never used the scale. The staff were all ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 31 found to be recently recruited, and lacked knowledge of their responsibilities and how to manage commodities. - REST, Tigray Region, Ahferom Woreda, Edaga Arbi FDP: oil tins were being handed over to beneficiaries, without first puncturing these tins. This was in violation of USAID standards, and can be damaging to USAID’s image should the tins be reused to sell inferior quality oil. - SCI/ORDA, Amhara Region, Abergelie Woreda, Seyria FDP: this FDP was found to be particularly remote and distant from the communities it served. The compound was found to contain a large quantity of construction material which could be hazardous for laborers and beneficiaries to injuries. The weighing scale was tested and found to be provide inaccurate readings where a 25 kg bag (according to the BIN card) was showing as 23 kg. - SCI/ORDA, Amhara Region, Sirinka Woreda, Sirinka FDP: the gates to the compound were found to be in particularly poor condition and needs replacement. The toilets were found to be in very poor condition, with no gender segregation. - WVI all sampled FDPs across SNNPR: Ration cards were found not to contain USAID’s logo. Also, the Ration Cards for villages served by the Mudula FDP were found to be empty, even after beneficiaries had taken rations. - Sampling of Bags: across all sampled FDPs, it was evident that there was no standard approach to “sampling” of bags when these were received at the FDP. REST and ORDA received “all” bags that were perceived to be in good form, without weighing; whereas FHE, SCI and WVI did sample weigh bags, but using no set rule. This approach could lead to vulnerabilities as it was difficult to identify bags that may have small fractions of commodities that may be missing from perceptibly good bags, and unless weighed, would not be detected. In the case of obviously damaged bags, IPs did weigh all these bags and immediately reconstituted these commodities in the presence of drivers, and the other reconstitution committee members. Drivers then signed waybills to acknowledge missing quantities of commodities which were then reclaimed by CRS. - Recording of Dates: REST and ORDA retained dates within ledgers and documents in both “Gregorian” and “Ethiopian” formats, leading to confusion and difficulty in matching and checking dates. For example, instances were found where distribution dates were scheduled in the Ethiopian calendar, but the actual distribution dates were recorded in the Gregorian calendar. In so doing, unnecessary complexities were introduced trying to convert dates for monitoring purposes. Other partners such as CRS, SCI and WVI maintained dates in both the Gregorian and Ethiopian calendars, making it easier to match and compare dates. WVI Ration Card – Mudula FDP ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 32 - Basic Provisions at FDPs: The review team found that none of the FDPs offered shading to beneficiaries during distribution. Specific observations were noted for the following FDPs. o SCI/ORDA, Amhara Region, Sirinka Woreda, Sirinka FDP – had no gender segregated toilets, and the conditions of the toilets were very poor. o CRS/HCS, Oromia Region, Meta Woreda, Jelobelina FDP + CARE, Oromia Region, Chiro Woreda, Beka FDP – each of these FDPs only had one toilet, thereby restricting access to women beneficiaries who had to share the same facilities with male counterparts. Neither FDP offered any provision for drinking water. o CARE, Oromia Region, Miesso Woreda, Asabot FDP + CARE, Oromia Region, Grawa Woreda, Grawa FDP + CARE, Oromia Region, Bedeno Woreda, Bedeno FDP – none of these FDPs offered provision for drinking water. o CRS/HCS, Oromia Region, Meta Woreda, Wayber FDP – had no toilet facilities. o CRS/MCS, Oromia Region, Dodota Woreda, Amude FDP – had no toilet facilities and offered no provision for drinking water. Not having such basic provisions, together with the long wait times to receive rations, resulted in severe discomfort for beneficiaries leading to frustration and possibly health issues such as dehydration and heat exhaustion/stroke. D. Is there adequate record keeping of all relevant documentation and authorizations at all levels? E. Are commodity movements supported by the appropriate documentation including distribution plans, dispatch notes, and any other authorizations for commodity movement? (B3 + B6 + B7) These questions are discussed and addressed as part of Analytical Domain 3. G. Is compliance with internal controls reviewed periodically? F. How frequently do partners conduct physical inventories and other monitoring? How are inconsistencies between stocktaking and records handled? J. What is the frequency of commodity monitoring visits conducted by IPs head office? Internal Control Systems: The Review Team found that internal control systems within all IPs to be “satisfactory”. IPs were conducting physical inventory checks every month, which were being reconciled with ledgers. Surprise checks were being conducted by IP headquarters staff (including the JEOP Team Leader, Food Monitors, Compliance Officer, and the Commodity Logistics Officer), counting inventory, checking ledgers, and signing off on BIN cards and against ledgers to denote that the visit had taken place. CRS, as the lead agency, are fully resourced with a dedicated Chief of Party (COP) in overall management and accountability of the JEOP consortium. The COP is supported by the CRS ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 33 commodity department which includes three DCOPs, the Logistics Manager, the Deputy Logistics Manager, the Risk Manager and the Compliance Manager. Each of their field offices is managed by a Field Office Manager, who oversees the Commodity Accountant, the Commodity Transport Officer, the Primary Warehouse Supervisor, and Storekeepers. Frequency of Physical Checks: The Review Team found evidence that IPs were reviewing their internal control systems on an on￾going basis based on feedback from Food Monitors and Compliance Officers, and other headquarters staff. Additionally, CRS headquarters Compliance Officers and Risk Monitors were conducting routine monthly visits across all IP sites. Findings were reflected in each of the IP management meetings, as well as in the JEOP consortium management team, where these were discussed and actions taken as needed. A particular example demonstrating taking action against such feedback, was when CARE identified that more Commodity Supervisors were required. Accordingly, they increased the number of these supervisors such that each woreda had one Commodity Supervisor, rather than only the Zone having one supervisor. They also received feedback that more scoopers were required, and accordingly increased the number of scoopers at each of their FDPs. Weighing Scale Calibration Certificate National Metrology Institute of Ethiopia ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 34 Analytical Domain 3: Reporting A. What types of commodity related information are collected and disseminated? How frequently? B. Is this information adequate for ensuring a comprehensive management system? C. How timely are the reports produced and shared? D. What are the systems in place for internal data quality validation of various reports (from field level to national level)? E. Do IPs have feedback systems that critically analyze and improve the quality of reports? Figure 6 summarizes the essential documents and reports prepared and retained by all the JEOP partners. Payroll Lists were prepared and filed based on the emergency list prepared by the government. Dispatch notes were prepared indicating the commodities required, which were then authorized, and arrangements were made to transfer these resources from primary warehouses. At the time of receiving commodities at the FDP, Goods Receiving Notes were completed and signed by the driver and the storekeeper, clearly denoting any losses that may have occurred during transportation. Commodities were then stacked within the FDP, and BIN cards prepared / updated, and attached to each stack. Stock cards were also prepared / updated and filed. Ledger books were updated as and when commodities entered and left the primary warehouse and the FDP. Loss and Adjustment reports were prepared and filed, and BUBD tables were updated. Monthly and quarterly Commodity Status Reports were prepared and filed. Other important documents and reports included the physical check tally sheets, which CRS conducted on a routine schedule, as well as physical checks performed by IPs. Risk Monitors and Compliance Officers from CRS also prepared reports on their findings after each of their monitoring visits. Fumigation certificates from EKA Pest Control Limited were retained after each fumigation was performed at an FDP or primary warehouse, as well as weighing scale calibration certificates from the Institute of Meteorology. The Review Team found all reports to be prepared and submitted in a timely schedule. The accuracy of reports were checked on a continual basis, where headquarters staff from IPs would routinely check the reports against BIN cards, stock cards, Loss and Adjustment reports. CRS collated information received from IPs, to prepare the QWICR report, as well as semi-annual and annual reports, all of which were submitted to USAID. The Review Team performed sample physical checks of reports during the review, and found all information to be accurate. Government prepares Emergency List Payroll List prepared Dispatch Notes prepared to collect commodities from Primary Warehouse Dispatch Notes Authorized Goods Receiving Notes signed at time of accepting commodities at FDP BIN cards prepared and attached to stacks / filed Stock cards prepared and filed based on BIN card details Ledgers prepared and updated Monthly / Quarterly CSRs prepared and filed QWICR reports prepared ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 35 The Review Team found the overall reporting process to be “satisfactory” and meeting the requirements of Regulation 11 Section 211.10. Analytical Domain 4: Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices A. Identify and list lessons learned from management and internal control systems as well as innovative approaches. This section is discussed in the Conclusions section below, in accordance with the format suggested in USAID’s ToR. 4. Conclusions and Lessons Learned In conclusion, the Food For Peace P.L. 480 program acting as a safety net in emergency food crises appears to be successfully undertaken. Under Analytical Domain 1 – Distribution of Food Aid, the Review Team concluded that beneficiaries were receiving approved ration sizes across the WVI regions in SNNPR and Oromia, and the FHE/ORDA sites in the Amhara region, indicating that these were being effectively communicated through signboards and messaging from these partners. In these areas, beneficiaries were found to be knowledgeable on what they were entitled to receive, in a standardized weight measure. However, looking at other partners and working areas, there were concerns that beneficiaries were not knowledgeable on what they were entitled to receive, or they only knew their entitlements in the form of container measurements. The later process raised concern that not having the knowledge on entitlements based on a weight scale, resulted in that beneficiaries had to base on “trust” that scoopers were using containers that were genuine, with no room for them to later check if the quantities were accurate. Uneven quantities inevitably impact on total caloric value. Although partners in these areas used the same approach of displaying signboards showing entitlements, it was evident that the messaging approach at times of distribution was not as effective to clearly relay to beneficiaries these messages. The Review Team verified adherence to a reliable/predictable food transfer schedule. Based on the government appeal, IPs calculated the commodities required against each round, and arranged to have these transported to FDPs from Primary Warehouses before distribution dates. The IPs worked closely with government counterparts in all aspects of the distribution, where distribution dates were determined by respective woreda officials, and the identification of beneficiaries was established through verification from Kebele Leaders. In reviewing the JEOP communication systems, the Review Team had concerns in each region visited, finding shortcomings. In the Oromia region, in all of the sampled CRS/HCS FDPs, all of the sampled CRS/MCS FDPs, and the majority of the CARE FDPs, the Review Team found a high proportion of beneficiaries not knowing their entitlements and/or not knowing that the commodities were coming from the American people. Similarly, there was a high proportion of beneficiaries that were lacking knowledge about their ration entitlements, and who the donor was, across the Amhara region. In the Tigray region, beneficiaries were found to be more knowledgeable on their entitlements, many using local weight measures. This was found to be acceptable, as REST translated the approved ration sizes to local weight measures such that these would be more readily understood by the local population. However, there remained a ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 36 significant gap in awareness across Tigray about USAID as the donor, believed to be largely due to the local government In the SNNPR region, WVI had problems in the two of the four FDPs, where a high proportion of beneficiaries were not aware of from where the donations were coming. In the area of managing and controlling food distributions, the Review Team was largely satisfied that IPs are safely distributing food. Exceptions were in the CRS/MCS FDPs, one of the CRS/HCS FDP, one REST FDP, and one WVI FDP where beneficiaries complained that they were forced to pay 20 Birr to Kebele and Village Leaders, before being placed on the Payroll List. Local governments were found to play an integral role in the distribution process from the onset. From the time of the appeal, government officials from woredas and kebeles played an important role in developing the emergency list, and then determining dates for distributions. These dates were then relayed through the Kebele Leaders to Village Leaders and then down to communities. On the day of the distribution, Kebele and Village Leaders played a pivotal role to validate the identity of individuals. The Review Team were concerned with the efficiency of FDPs during distribution days, where the majority of FDPs reviewed, across the five regions and across all IPs, took significant lengths of time to conclude the distributions. The Review Team considers that distributions should be concluded within two hours, such that beneficiaries are able to commute to the FDP, collect rations, and return home within day light hours on a single day. Anything beyond this time, renders beneficiaries to hazards of returning home in the dark, or being forced to stay overnight which incurs additional costs and loss of time for conducting normal labor. These issues are more pronounced for female beneficiaries coming to collect rations, and also subjects them to physical vulnerabilities of predatory behaviors from men. There is also the nutritional costs, commuting long distances, in some instances by foot to collect the rations. In the Amhara region, the Review Team found that FDPs were too distantly situated from villages they served. Significant hours were required by many villagers to reach the FDPs, across very difficult terrain. When added with the significant wait times at FDPs to receive rations, this invariably required most beneficiaries from this region to reserve two full days to receive rations. This resulted in greater expense, and significant hardship for beneficiaries to reach FDPs, and then transfer heavy commodities back to their homes. Under Analytical Domain 2 – Food Management and Internal Control Systems, the Review Team found that Primary warehouses were well managed, and commodities were stored in safe and secure compounds and structures. Similarly, on the whole, all FDPs sampled were found to offer safe and sound structures to store commodities, together with adequate security protocols. The receipt of commodities was found to be largely efficient. CRS, as the lead agency, together with each of the IPs, had structured monitoring and compliance procedures, where frequent checks were initiated to ensure that commodities were physically counted and checked, and checked against documents and ledgers. Analytical Domain 3 – Reporting was also found to be satisfactory. All IPs systematically prepared, updated, and retained BIN cards, stock cards, authorizations, Goods Receiving Notes, ledgers, loss and adjustment reports, BUBD tables, Commodity Status Reports, fumigation certificates and weighing scale calibration certificates. QWICR reports, semi-annual and annual reports were found to be prepared on time and submitted to USAID. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 37 The Review Team, over the course of the evaluation, came across several best practices. These are as follows: - USAID Branding: across all the sampled FDPs and primary warehouses, there were clear and large signboards posted depicting the USAID logo, the types of commodities stored, and to the ration sizes that the beneficiaries were entitled. - Cards to Detect Infestation: the Review Team were particularly impressed by the practice adopted in the Kobolcha primary warehouses where small cardboard sheets were wedged in between bags at different areas of the stack. The cards were checked daily, and if any grain or substances were found on the cards, this was an early indication of potential infestation. The evaluators did not have the capacity to research how well this process detects infestation, but on observation, the Review Team considers this as a simple and logical approach considering that debris is usually produced should bags be infested. - Last Mile Mobile Solution: this is a proprietary system used by WVI in the Oromia region. The LMMS system produces electronic cards that are issued to eligible beneficiaries, which when swiped, automatically confirms the eligibility of the card holder, shows the quantities of rations they are entitled to, and when issued rations, removes the possibility of the card holder taking further rations. This process leads to less time being required to confirm identities of beneficiaries, minimizes possible malfeasance, making the distribution considerably more efficient. However, WVI has faced challenges in the scaling of the LMMS. - Ration Cards: WVI was the only JEOP partner found to use Ration Cards. The Review Team considers the use of Ration Cards to identify beneficiaries to be significantly better than the process of simply checking names on Payroll Lists and the confirmation by kebele and village leaders. - Commodity Risk Monitoring System: developed by CRS, this platform offered an effective tool for field management to enter data, and to track and resolve issues identified. The system collated information at a central level, and was an important tool for the CRS compliance department to monitor issues and track progress on how IPs were managing these issues. The Commodity Risk Monitoring System was appreciated by partners. 5. Recommendations A number of recommendations emerged from this JEOP Commodity review. The IBTCI team feels addressing these issues, particularly the time and distance recommendations below, would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this important safety net. 1. Location of FDPs: Across the Amhara region, FHE, FHE/ORDA and SCI/ORDA, the location of FDPs should be reviewed. All FDPs were found to be at significant distances from the villages they serve, contributing to greater hardships for these beneficiaries to reach these FDPs, across difficult and often hazardous terrain. Greater costs are also incurred as beneficiaries are forced to stay overnight, and having to hire relatively expensive modes of transport to transfer commodities back to their homes. Given that the intent of providing rations is to alleviate stress on these emergency beneficiaries, forcing them to travel such great distances contradicts the goal of the program. The partners in the Amhara region are recommended to explore alternatives to relocate their FDPs. There are two possible recommendations as follows. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 38 a. Relocate FDPs: Existing FDPs can be relocated to be nearer to the villages they serve. This is an obvious approach, however, there are several challenges that need to be considered. The terrain within the Amhara region is particularly challenging, and when interviewing the different IPs, they shared that these were the some of the best and most secure locations they could find to establish FDPs. Regardless of this challenge, it is recommended that each of the Amhara partners again approach their respective regional government counterparts to explore if better sites can be found. b. Introduce Satellite FDPs: Amhara partners can consider introducing “satellite” FDPs. Satellite FDPs can be temporary FDPs, where local schools, meeting places, or other community structures, can be used at the time of distributions. These would not be permanent FDPs, and only come into operation when distributions are scheduled. Another option could be pitching temporary rub halls nearer to villages on the day of scheduled distributions. The JEOP consortium can learn from the experiences of WVI, where over 2016, WVI only had permanent FDPs, but introduced satellite FDPs in 2017 after intense demand from communities to have distribution sites in closer proximity to their villages. 2. Time for Beneficiaries to receive rations: The review found that the wait times for beneficiaries to collect rations, across all regions and partners, to be “unsatisfactory”. IPs should strive to ensure that beneficiaries are not required to wait more than two hours to receive rations. The following recommendations may be considered. a. Eliminate wait times for “all” beneficiaries to be present before distribution begins: This was found to be one of the primary reasons contributing to lengthy wait times for beneficiaries to receive rations. Although waiting for beneficiaries to all arrive makes it easier for the FDP staff to form smaller groups, and then to start distribution – this is offset by significantly inconveniencing the FDP clientele. Beneficiaries coming early to the FDP, should not be penalized having to wait for other beneficiaries to arrive, thereby wasting much of their day. Accordingly, the FDP needs to eliminate the process of waiting for all / or the majority of beneficiaries to arrive before starting the distribution process. Consider Gender implications and giving first distributions to women to mitigate security risks. b. Introduce preferred timings: The current practice largely involves that several villages are called in a day to collect rations. This can be complex to manage, as the FDPs wait until the majority of beneficiaries arrive from these different villages, and then having to manage all attendees. An alternative approach may be to invite different villages to come to the FDP in a specified interval during the day. The FDP may plan for a two￾hour slot where beneficiaries coming from a particular village are guaranteed to receive their rations within that time slot, and the next village in the next two-hour time slot, and so on. Adopting this approach will ensure that crowd sizes are more manageable, and that beneficiaries are assured that there wait times will be minimal. For villages which are larger in size, a series of two-hour time slots can be scheduled, where blocks of beneficiaries will be invited to come at a predetermined two-hour time slot. There will invariably be beneficiaries that are unable to keep their appointed time, and in such cases, they will be served at the end of the day. Should beneficiaries be made aware of this process, frustrations can be minimized. Adopting this approach will require better and more careful planning, but the benefits would be apparent in improving the ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 39 efficiency of distributions, cutting down wait times, reducing anxiousness within beneficiaries, and freeing up time for beneficiaries to be able to engage in productive work rather than wasting time at the FDP. 3. Basic Provisions within FDPs: Basic provisions including gender segregated toilets, drinking water and sun shades should be standardized across all FDPs. Beneficiaries retain the basic right of being provided these very basic human needs when collecting rations. The Review Team consistently heard complaints from beneficiaries that waiting in the scorching sun, over lengthy periods without food and water, raises tension levels during distribution days. Latrines were provided by many of the FDPs reviewed. However, it was apparent that there was no formal communication by IPs that FDPs should provide or retain gender￾segregated toilets, which were clean and private. 4. Communication Systems: From the review it was apparent that there remains a high proportion of beneficiaries who are not aware of their entitlements and not knowing who the donor of the food is. Even though all FDPs had clear signboards displaying the USAID logo, and the ration mixes that beneficiaries were entitled to, there remains a dis-connect in that these messages are not being retained. IPs need to increase and sustain more direct verbal messaging, for example using microphones, informing beneficiaries on these issues at the time of the distribution. CRS already monitors this, but more is needed. Written notifications in different languages may be given more frequently to beneficiaries. 5. Beneficiaries Entitlements: All beneficiaries have a right to be made aware of their entitlements on some form of “weight” measure that enables them to check whether or not they are receiving their entitled ration quantities. The weight measures can be in kg, grams, or even in a form that is locally used (in these instances the measures need to be converted to 15 kg wheat, 1.5 kg pulses and 0.45 kg oil). Scoopers can provide rations using standard containers as issued to them by their headquarters, which can then be checked by beneficiaries against a weight measure. This removes the potential risks should a scooper replace containers with smaller sizes, if s/he exhibit tendencies for malfeasance. 6. Early Signing of Payrolls: This recommendation applies specifically to REST in the Tigray region. It is recommended that REST abandons the process where beneficiaries are required to sign Payrolls as soon as they arrive at the FDP, and then made to wait for the entire day (and at times the next day) before they actually receive rations. This is a risky practice, and leaves beneficiaries vulnerable should they not receive commodities. More generally, the majority of partners were found to have their beneficiaries sign Payrolls and then guided immediately to join a group and receive rations. This is a less risky approach. However, it is recommended that all partners review this process and determine if they can adopt an approach where beneficiaries only sign the Payroll after actually receiving commodities. 7. Card sheets in commodity stacks: It is recommended that all primary warehouses and FDPs adopt the Kombolcha practice of wedging cards between bags in different areas of commodity stacks. This is a simple approach, will incur no additional costs, and can be an excellent approach for the early detection of infestation. 8. Calendars: It is recommended that all IPs standardize their reports and documentation to retain both Gregorian and Ethiopian dates. Considering that Ethiopians continue to widely use the Ethiopian calendar, dates in this format need to be retained. At the same time, Gregorian dates are widely used and also need to be retained. Adopting the SCI and WVI ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 40 standard of keeping both formats will improve record keeping, and allow for easier checks and monitoring to be performed. 9. Receipt of Bags at FDP: The receiving of bags at FDPs should be standardized. A set percentage of “good” bags should be sample weighed to confirm that commodities are being delivered in good order. The draft TOPS commodity manual suggest sample weighing 10 percent of the first 100 bags, sample weighing the square root of total bags between 101 to 999 bags, and sample weighing one percent of all bags beyond 1000. Although in draft form, the JEOP consortium may consider this as a standardized approach, or may venture to adopt another standard such as the SCI approach of sample weighing every twentieth bag. With regards to obviously damaged bags, 100 percent of these bags must be weighed and reconstituted immediately, as is the current practice of all JEOP IPs. 10. Warehouse and FDP Security: All primary warehouses and FDPs sample surveyed in this review were found to have 24-hour security, and the storage spaces were protected by secure doors. However, having all keys retained by respective Storekeepers, elevates the risk level as there are no checks and balances on the Storekeepers. It is recommended that all access doors to warehouses and FDPs each have a minimum of two locks, and that the keys are retained by two different individuals – one with the Storekeeper, and the keys to the second lock with someone such as the Field Office Manager, or another field office management staff. This would provide an additional layer of security in that the warehouse could only be opened with the presence of both individuals who retained keys. 11. Last Mile Mobile Solution: WVI uses this system to identify beneficiaries, and update records as and when rations are provided through this automated system. The JEOP consortium would benefit in exploring this system to determine its viability across all IPs. There will undeniably be additional costs that would be incurred, but the benefits in improving efficiencies may justify the investments. It is recommended that the system be explored. 12. Ration Cards: the system of identifying beneficiaries by checking their names against Payroll Lists, and from verbal affirmation from Kebele and Village Leaders, remains susceptible to manipulation. Even with the additional checking of Government Identification cards in the Amhara and Tigray regions, the system still remains vulnerable to malfeasance. The WVI approach across the SNNPR region, where beneficiaries are issued Ration Cards, is a far more effective means to reduce rations reaching ineligible beneficiaries. It is recommended that the JEOP consortium review and learn from the WVI experience and explore the possibility of introducing Ration Cards across all JEOP regions. 13. Feedback Mechanism to IP: Ideally, an immediate feedback mechanism to organizations implementing the JEOP could be established after such reviews as this be established for more timely feedback and addressing of critical issues found during the review. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 41 Annex A: Scope of Work -- USAID DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS 1 TITLE -FOOD FOR PEACE ETHIOPIA COMMODITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE JOINT EMERGENCY OPERATION PLAN (JEOP) ACTIVITY 2 BACKGROUND The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) plays a lead role in food security programming in Ethiopia and is the largest bilateral donor to the Government of Ethiopia's (GOE) multi￾donor funded Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) and humanitarian appeal. The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID's) Office of Food for Peace (FFP) operates a diverse emergency and non-emergency portfolio in Ethiopia, with varied operating year budget between approximately $250 -$500 million per year, from any normal year to a drought emergency year. At present, these investments are through nongovernmental organizations (NGO) implementing partners (IPs) and through the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) and UNICEF. Here below is the description on the background of Humanitarian Food Assistance Activity called as Joint Emergency Operation Plan (JEOP) implemented by a consortium of NGOs led by Catholic Relief Services which is intended for the review in FY 2017. To respond to ongoing emergency food needs, the GoE's National Disaster Risk Management Commission (NDRMC) leads emergency response efforts. Since 2002, the GoE's primary partners in the provision of emergency food assistance have been the World Food Program (WFP) and the Joint Emergency Operation (JEOP), implemented by a consortium of six NGOs. The JEOP is developed as a mechanism to address emergency food needs, with a goal to protect lives and livelihoods of emergency￾affected rural Ethiopians. The JEOP ensures the provision of a steady and planned response through a flexible and reliable food pipeline. JEOP is led by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and includes CARE, FHI/Ethiopia(FH), World Vision (WV), Save the Children international (SCI), and the Relief Society of Tigray (REST) . JEOP partners have provided emergency food in 73 Woredas pre-approved by USAIDIFFP across five regions (Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, and Tigray and Dire Dawa Administrative Regions). These Woredas represent between and 33 percent of the total emergency food needs in Ethiopia. The Joint Emergency Operation (JEOP), with its extensive reach into 73 Woredas and through its presence of consortium members operating in the rural and marginalized communities in the northern highlands, eastern belg producing areas and southeastern pastoral and agro-pastoral areas. In addition to the general relief food ration distribution, USAID approved JEOP to partner with GOAL, beginning 2013, to access Com Soy Blend (CSB) and fortified vegetable oil to supplement their emergency nutrition program. In January 2016, USAID authorized CRS to provide Corn Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) and fortified vegetable oil to SCI and Super Cereal+ to Concern to support their OFDA-funded emergency nutrition program, which is designed to address moderate and severe malnutrition through detection and supplementary and therapeutic feeding. The JEOP has been approved in August 2012 and through subsequent modifications, the operation is approved to end in July 31, 2019. JEOP implements in response to the Humanitarian Requirements Document (HRD)/appeal of the GOE, and operates with diverse number of beneficiaries in a given year and/or rounds which could range from 500,000 to 3 million (as in the case in 2016). In 2017 HRD, JEOP is expected to addresses 882,804 transitory caseloads. Table III below shows the 2016 and 2017 beneficiary numbers by round. CRS, as the lead agency, is responsible for importation, warehousing, management and allocations of food while sub-partners are responsible for working with their respective regional. Woreda and Kebele counterparts in managing dispatches to their respective food distribution points (FDPs) and distributions ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 42 to beneficiaries. Between 2012 and 2016, USAID approved more than 900,000 metric tons of Title II food commodities to JEOP, and the approved tonnage is expected to reach to 1.39 million metric tons by July 2019, subject to availability of commodities and funding. The general relief ration includes 15 kg of cereals, 0,45 kg of oil and 1.5 kg of pulse per round per person that meets the standard 2,100 kcal per day. 3. OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to assess, and determine whether the Food for Peace commodities of JEOP approved and received by implementing partners, are managed and distributed as per the established standard of USAID and maintain a sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The review will assess and determine: • Whether the procedures and systems of commodity receipt, management, handling, utilization and reporting under the activities in all regions are consistent with USAID regulations and guidelines, • Whether partners follow appropriate standards of best practices in commodity receipt, management, distribution and reporting, and • Whether partners maintain sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The Contractor will be required to sample 30% of the 73 Woredas covered by JEOP provided that the 30% sampling considers the proportional number of Woredas for each of the four regions, Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and SNNP that are depicted in the Attachment I: List of JEOP Woredas with the Implementing Partners. 4. GENERAL GUIDANCE The following general guidance applies to all services provided under this Task Order. a. Geographic Focus The geographical scope of the study is limited to the approved Woredas in regions where cooperating sponsors are implementing FFP-funded activities with commoditiesi . USAID Ethiopia, in collaboration with the Contractor, will identify and prioritize Woredas to carry out the commodity review and the review will include a partner-by-partner analysis through selection of representative sample Woredas, warehouses and targeted households. h. Relationships and Responsibilities The relationships and responsibilities of the Contractor and USAID/Ethiopia are set forth below 1. The Contractor The Contractor shall complete the following tasks: I This currently includes Woredas in Amhara, Oromia, Dire Dawa, and Tigray and SNNP Regions served by the partners. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 43 A. Identify key data sources B. Meet with the Chiefs of Party of the JEOP and Emergency Program Leads of Consortium members, Commodity management and logistics officers, warehouse managers and commodity accountants of all implementing partners who will outline commodity management and distribution requirements C. Determine the effectiveness of control systems established by partners for food management and the entire supply chain starting from receipt at the primary warehouse, allocation, dispatch and distribution as well as identification of key commodity management issues; D. Prepare and deliver inception and assessment reports as per the required purpose, scope, methodology, tasks and deliverables in this statement of work. E, Conduct a presentation on preliminary findings to USAID/Ethiopia and partners; F. Submit draft reports for review and feedback by the technical team; and G. Submit final reports which incorporate feedback from the draft report. 11. USAID/Ethiopia The USAID/ Ethiopia's ALT office will provide overall technical leadership and direction for the review team throughout the assignment and will undertake the following specific roles and responsibilities: A. Provide information on the total levels of food resources approved for partners in 2016 & 2017 Provide reference materials to the Contractor preferably in electronic form: including the Regulation 11 and other relevant guidelines and checklists, B. Provide a list of implementing partners in operational Woredas, the number of warehouses, and contacts; C. Throughout the assessment work, ensure constant availability of a point of contact who can provide technical leadership and direction for the team's work; D. Introduce the assessment team to implementing partners and other stakeholders; E. Prioritize and identify activities and/or regions to be included in the review for each year and communicate to the Contractor three months in advance to the field work; F. Provide timely review and approval of inception reports! work plans, draft/final reports and approval of the deliverables. c. Logistics USAID will not provide any logistical support. The Contractor will, therefore, be responsible for arranging the required travel and logistics. USAlD will inform with a letter the appropriate government offices that facilitate support letters to 1he regions for the planned commodity review work. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 44 d Team Composition and Skills Team Composition: The assessment will be conducted by a team of international and local experts with 'experience and skills that are applicable to carrying out this review. The Assessment Team should be consisting of one Team Leader plus 4 -6 Team Assistants/Commodity management Experts. The Team Leader will be responsible for organizing the review, reviewing all relevant documentation, producing a work plan, assembling and coordinating Team Assistants, planning and oversight of data collection efforts, and ensuring the timeliness and quality of deliverables. The Team Assistants will be responsible fot various data collection and analysis responsibilities as directed by the Team Leader. Team Qualifications: If necessary, the Contractor should work in partnership with the relevant consultants/firm with commodity management expertise with the following skills: A. Demonstrated qualifications~ experience, and skills related to commodity management review, audits and assessments applicable to conducting this review. B. Technical competency in related fields such as accounting, economics or logistics management. C. Substantial experience with data collection procedures, surveys, and analysis and interpretation of databases. D. Good communication skills and the ability to interact with Ethiopians and expatriates, including at least one team member fluent in the regional languages (Oromifa, Tigrigna, Gamo, Hadiya, Wolaita). 5. SERVICES REQUIRED This review will assess and respond to research questions that aligned with key aspects of commodity management and distribution practices, including, but not limited to, the following: a, Distribution o/Food Aid The review will assess and determine that whether or not food distributions are conducted per USAID regulations and standards, commodities are distributed to intended beneficiaries; and IPs 'are using an efficient system for distribution and facilitating the process. The review will respond, but not limited, to the following review questions: A. Are distributions made to entitled beneficiaries per the approved ration size and mix, with no over or under payment of entitlements to beneficiaries? B. Is there reliable/predictable food transfer schedule'? C. Do partners practice appropriate communication system to inform all stakeholders/clients ration size and entitlements at all levels? D. Do partners exercise efficient system to manage and control food distributions? E. What is the role of local government in the distribution processes, especially at the FDP level? F. Are food distributions efficient? O. How long, on average, it takes to complete one round transfer to beneficiaries (from the beneficiaries' arrival till the end) in a specific Food Distribution Point (FDP)? H. Do partners use group based or scooping methods system-what are the pros and cons of using one or the other? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 45 h. Food Management Practices and Internal Control System Assess and determine that partners establish and practiced appropriate and adequate commodity management, safeguarding mechanisms and internal control systems to manage FFP donated, food resources: A. How do partners food management, operation and reporting systems mapped at all levels (Central warehouses, regions, Woreda level)? B. How are commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses handled including Best Used By Date (BUBD)? C. Are these systems aligned with commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses per 22 CFR 211 (Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives, including reporting through the QWICR system? D. ]s there appropriate and sufficient warehouse staff in place with clear understanding of USAID commodity management rules and regulations? Do warehouse staffs have access to all the required warehouse equipment (including but not limited to operable fire extinguishers and reconstitution materials) at the warehouse level? E. Is there appropriate and standard practice in record keeping of all relevant documentation with appropriate authorizations at all levels? F. Are all commodity movements and transfers are supported by appropriate documentation, including distribution plans, dispatch notes, and any other documentation that authorizes the movement of commodities? O. Is compliance with internal controls reviewed periodically? H. How frequently p31tners conduct physical inventories and other monitoring? How do inconsistencies of figures between stocktaking and the records handled? 1. Is there an unusual volume of inventory adjustment, write-off, or disposal? J. What is the frequency of commodity monitoring visits conducted by the head office? K. How are the storage/warehouse conditions at primary, secondary and tertiary levels handled, maintained and equipped? L. Are there adequate commodity management practices, measures to reduce losses? How are commodity reconstitution and damaged commodities handled and disposed? Are there appropriate records that tracking of loss claim payments by third parties or from IPs to USAID? M. How do partners handle Best Used By Date (BUBD) management, tracking, documentations, reporting and posting. c. Report Assess and determine appropriateness of the type of reporting, accuracy and frequency, including identifying reports that feed into the government reporting channel: A. What types of commodity related information collected and disseminated and how frequently? B. Are these adequate for ensuring sound management system? C. How timely are the reports produced and shared? D. What systems/ tools are in place to validate data quality of various reports at all levels (from field level to Addis office)? E. Do agencies have feedback loop systems that identify and improve reports quality? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 46 d. Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices Identify and list good lessons drawn from management and internal control system, innovative approaches. e. Methodology It is envisaged that the review will employ a mix of methods and triangulation of data in order to ensure the appropriateness and efficiency of IP’s commodity management and utilization. 1. Methods The methods should include but are not limited to the following: A. Document Reviews, including Reviews of Quarterly Commodity Reports B. Key lnformant Interviews C. Surveys of Beneficiaries l beneficiary interviews D. Observations of commodity distributions to beneficiaries E. Warehouse visits F. Local Market assessment -to analyze utilization vis-a-vi extent of self￾monetization G. Examination of master beneficiary list, recipient list etc. etc. II. Data Sources and Collection Methods Primary sources such as beneficiaries, key informants such as Keble and Woreda Food Security Task Forces, and commodity management personnel, and secondary sources such as IP's commodity distribution and other periodic reports, are to be used as the sources of data. Qualitative methods will be used for the collection of data among the sampled program beneficiaries and key informants. III. Sample Selection and Size The Contractor will prepare a detailed assessment framework including sample size and instruments which will be reviewed and approved by USAID/Ethiopia. USAID will work with the Contractor to prioritize and identify region(s) and activities to be included in the review for any specific year. iv. Data Analysis and Presentation The Contractor will apply appropriate data analysis to the qualitative/quantitative data so as to be able to clearly determine the appropriateness and efficiency of IPs' Title II food management systems, and any corrective measures needed. Before and after completion of the field work, the Contractor will conduct an entry and exit conference with USAID and IP staff working in the selected Woredas. Finally, the Contractor is expected to present all the findings together with recommendations including: (a) generic issues applicable to all IPs and reviewed Woredas and (b) specific findings (positive and negative) applicable to USAID and to reviewed partner. ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 47 Included in the SOW was this table from USAID: provision of FDPs ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 48 ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 49 Annex B: Team and Timetable The JEOP Review team comprised of one expatriate (evaluation expert) and five Ethiopian experts in commodities, food aid and evaluation. - Mr. Faheem Khan was the Team Leader and had overall responsibility of the review, coordinating and supervising three field teams. He was part of the field team reviewing the Tigray and Amhara regions, and remotely supervised the other two teams reviewing the Oromia, Dire Dawa and SNNPR regions. Mr. Khan was also reviewing secondary documents, together with one of the Commodity Management Experts over the duration of the review. Mr. Khan prepared and delivered the formal presentation to USAID Ethiopia on December 5, 2017, led the overall analysis of the evaluation and was the principal author of this report. - Mr. Temesgen Burka and Mr. Benti Erena served as the Commodity Management Experts and were responsible for various data collection and analytical works as directed by the Team Leader. They took lead roles in planning, managing, and supervising the commodity review, and provided ongoing and regular cataloguing, tracking, synthesis, and analysis of findings. Mr. Burka and Mr. Erena led a large share of Key Informant Interviews (KII) with commodity managers, warehouse staff, and other stakeholder interviews, as well as conducted beneficiary surveys in the Oromia region. Mr. Erena led the review of secondary documents, coordinating and sharing findings with the Team Leader. - Dr. Mesfin Beyero was a lead researcher and analyst, leading the data collection in the SNNPR region and parts of Oromia. - Mr. Hagos Adhana and Mr. Dessalegn Anshiso served as Evaluation Team Asistants with considerable participation in meetings, planning, training, travel, field visits, interviews, group discussions and analysis. Mr. Dessalegn covered the SNNPR region, and the Oromia areas bordering SNNPR. Dr. Beyero also played a lead role in facilitating logistics and travel for the review team. Mr. Adhana was assigned to the Tigray and Amhara regions, and worked with the Team Leader reviewing warehouses/FDPs, and interviewing beneficiaries. JEOP Review Timetable Activity Dates Inception Report October 23, 2017 Secondary Desk Review On-going TL meets with USAID November 2 Meeting with 6 JEOP COPs and Emergency Program Leads November 3 Team Meeting to go over logistics / tools November 4 Warehouse, FDP and Beneficiary surveys November 5 - 28 Analysis and preparation for Presentation Nov 29 – Dec 4 Presentation to USAID December 5 Draft Report preparation and submission December 15 USAID and IPs review and comment on draft December 16 - 17 Final report preparation and submission December 18 - 21 ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 50 Annex C: Charts of Findings by Location and Beneficiary Queue/Wait Times ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 51 Annex D: Warehouse Questionnaire Notes: the Respondent for this questionnaire is the Warehouse Supervisor. All responses need to be verified by formal documentation or by observation and physical checking from the evaluator. Date: Partner: Evaluator’s Name: Region: Respondent’s Name: Zone: Respondent’s Position: Woreda: Warehouse Name: WareHouse Type (Prime/Secondary) Questionnaire 1 – Warehouse Structure and Equipment (place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Is WH easily accessible with ample space for trucks to turn around and for loading and unloading? 2 Is WH on solid ground? 3 Are walls and ceilings protected from leaks? 4 Is floor made of concrete and of a smooth surface? 5 Is there proper drainage for water collection in the yard? 6 Are roads leading up to WH accessible in all weather? 7 Does WH have solid and secure doors? 8 Is entrance wide enough for smooth transfer of commodities? 9 Does WH have electricity? 10 Are these in good working order? 11 Is there a circuit breaker? 12 Does WH have sufficient space for re￾constitution of commodities? 13 Are weighing scales calibrated? 14 What is the MT capacity of the Primary WHs in total? Capacity (MT)={(Length-1xNo. Rows) x (Width-1xNo.Rows)x(Height-1)} / 2 15 Do all Primary WHs have capacity match requirements of commodity being received? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 52 16 Does WH construction protect from weather, pests and theft? 17 Is there ventilation, and is this protected from rodents / insects? 18 What types of communication exist in and around the WH (phone, modem, radio, etc)? 19 Are communication systems in working order (radio, telephone, modem, etc.)? 20 Does WH have following items? A Table, chair, filing shelf? B Stapler and staple pins? C Hole punch and filing clips? D Calculator? E Office stationary (pens, paper, pencils, eraser, sharpeners, etc)? F Registers, ledgers, reporting formats? G First aid kit? H Pallets / plastic sheets? I Fire extinguishers? J Are fire extinguishers in good working order (i.e. not expired + has sufficient liquid inside)? K Flash lights and batteries? L Bucket with stand and water? M Warehouse cleaning materials (brooms, buckets, etc)? N Rat glue, rat traps? O Empty bags and containers for reconstitution? P Standardized scooping equipment? Q Sieve / sorter? R Ladders? S Sampling spears? T Twine and needle/bagging machine? 21 What is the management structure adopted for commodity management? 22 How are management and operational duties segregated? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 53 Questionnaire 2 – Commodity Storage (place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Are ONLY USAID commodities stored in warehouse? 2 If NO, are USAID commodities stored separate to commodities from other donors? 3 Are stacks 1 meter away from walls and ceiling? 4 Are stacks 1 meter away from each other? 5 Are plastic sheets or pallets used for stacking commodities? 6 Are stacks for CSB and YSP commodities less than 25 levels in height? 7 Are stacks for oil less than 10 levels in height? 8 Is First In First Out (FIFO) method adopted? 9 Are commodities rotated if they are retained for long periods? 10 Are stocks inspected daily to see signs for infestation or damage? 11 Are there more than 1 type of commodity in a stack? 12 Are the exterior of commodity packages clean and undamaged? 13 Are oil cartons stacked upright? 14 Is there a layout stack plan before commodities arrive? 15 Are different shipments stacked separately from each other? 16 Are CSB and YSP commodity bags bonded or interlaced to construct stack? 17 Are bags lined up with edge off pallet? 18 Are the same number of bags placed in each level? 19 Are separate stacks and cards for each food type maintained for each shipment? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 54 20 Are stack cards attached to the stack? 21 Are separate stack cards maintained for food unfit for human consumption? 22 Are these stack cards attached to the stack unfit for human consumption? 23 Are separate stack cards maintained for food to be repackaged? 24 Are these stack cards attached to the stack for repackaging? 25 Is information on stack cards compared to inventory ledger? 26 Does the information match? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 55 Questionnaire 3 – Security (instruction: place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Does WH have good quality strong locks? 2 Does WH have 24 hour guard service? 3 Who has access keys to the WH? 4 Are there surprise visits to check on security? 5 Who performs these surprise visits? Questionnaire 4 – Fumigation and cleaning (instruction: place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Is spraying conducted to eliminate weevils and pests? 2 How often are fumigations performed? 3 What was the name of the company contracted to conduct the fumigation? 4 What company “actually” conducted the fumigation? 5 What fumigants were used? 6 Is WH cleaned before arrival of commodities? 7 Is WH cleaned and swept after food receipt and dispatched? 8 How often is warehouse cleaned on a routine basis? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 56 9 Are there any rodents observed, or signs of rodents such as droppings, tracks, burrows, holes or signs of feeding? 10 Is there any refuse that can attract rodents/insects? 11 Is there any food observed on floor? Questionnaire 5 – Receipt of Commodities (instruction: place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 At the time of receipt, are damaged/slack/torn/leaking units separated for reconstitution? 2 Are these damaged commodities stored separately? 3 Is reconstitution performed by a committee formed by management? 4 If yes, who are the members of this reconstitution committee? 5 Are stack cards appropriately displayed and updated as and when transaction occur? Questionnaire 6 – Checks and Balances and Record Keeping (place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Are daily/weekly commodity receipt confirmation maintained? 2 Are User ledgers maintained? 3 Are Monthly commodity status reports maintained? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 57 4 Are used BIN cards properly filled containing information -commodity type -program name -date received -number of units received -units and dates of dispatch/issue -control number -balance 5 Are Physical count and commodity reconciliation report filed? 6 Are Daily WH activity reports maintained? 7 Are Loss and Adjustment reports maintained? 8 Are Waybills as per commodity, control number and month (separated by incoming and outgoing Waybills) maintained? 9 Are Tally sheets maintained? 10 Are Handing and Taking over responsibilities files maintained? 11 Are Furniture and fixture files maintained? 12 Are Incoming letters filed? 13 Are Dispatch authorizations maintained? 14 Are Monitoring files maintained? 15 Are Weekly Commodity Status Reports (CSR) maintained? 16 Are Transmittal memos filed? 17 How often does physical counting of commodities take place? 18 Who performs the physical count? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 58 19 Are Waybills filled out in its entirety by WH Officer, Transporter, and Receivers of commodities? 20 Are sample signatures of WH Officers, and other authorization personnel kept at a central level? 21 Are bags counted when loaded on trucks? WH Inventory Ledgers 22 Are ledgers maintained for different shipments? 23 Is there a shipment number assigned for each shipment for tracking purposes? 24 Are all receipts, issues, losses recorded in a ledger? 25 Are there Delivery Survey reports? 26 Are ledgers closed at the end of each month? 27 Are Carry Forward and Opening Balances recorded? 28 Are two separate inventory ledgers maintained – one for good and one for unfit/damaged goods? 29 Are losses and adjustments recorded in Pending column of ledger? 30 Are losses submitted for approval from management? 31 Who approves these losses? 32 Once approved, are copies routed to the original warehouse? 33 Are negative entries made to remove losses from pending column of ledgers and the amount entered in loss column of ledger? 34 Does the Balance in pending column represent loss and adjustment amounts not approved? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 59 Commodity Status Report 35 Are monthly and quarterly CSRs maintained? 36 Are these reported in KG? 37 Are physical inventories completed at the ending of the reporting period? 38 Are all receipts added and reported during a reporting period? 39 Are all distributions for a reporting period added and reported? 40 Are balances for a reporting period calculated? 41 At the end of a reporting period, are physical counts reported and documented? 42 Are differences between physical count and balances – are these reported and explanations provided? 43 To whom are these reports sent to? Recipient Status Report 44 Are RSRs prepared monthly? Commodity Loss Status Report 45 Evidence of Commodity Loss Report? 46 Does this report mention the type of commodity lost? 47 Location of loss? 48 Are recovered commodities reported? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 60 Annex E: Food Distribution Point Questionnaire Notes: the Respondent for this questionnaire is the FDP Officer in charge of this particular FDP. All responses need to be verified by formal documentation or by observation and physical checking from the evaluator. Date: Partner: Evaluator’s Name: Region: Respondent’s Name: Zone: Respondent’s Position: Woreda: Name of WH serving FDP: FDP Name: (instruction: place “1” in appropriate column) Item Yes Yes, but needs to improve No Comments 1 Is there documentation showing number of beneficiaries served by the FDP? 2 Is there documentation about entitlement per beneficiary (ration size)? 3 Are the distribution periods set? 4 Has distribution schedule been shared with beneficiaries? 5 Does the planned distribution date match with the actual distribution date? 6 Is there a plan of how commodities are transferred from WH to FDP? 7 Does plan take into consideration seasonal challenges? 8 Is FDP accessible by trucks? 9 If YES, are Turn-Around-Times for trucks established? 10 If NO, and trucks cannot access FDP, how are commodities delivered to FDP? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 61 11 Are there adequate facilities to store commodities at FDP? 12 Does Store Keeper at FDP count the number of bags / containers received at FDP? 13 Does Store Keeper weigh a sample of commodities received to ensure no loss/theft has occurred during transportation? 14 If yes, has weighing machine been calibrated? 15 If yes, what is the sample size? 16 Does Store Keeper complete the receipt form in full? 17 Are stack cards and beneficiary lists maintained at FDP? 18 Are records kept of the quantity of food taken each day during distribution? 19 Does FDP Officer prepare monthly distribution reports? Does report contain the following 20 -planned number of beneficiaries eligible to receive food? 21 -total amount of food authorized to be distributed? 22 -actual amount of food distributed? 23 -approved individual ration size and the actual ration size distributed? 24 Does FDP maintain an up-to￾date display board indicating name of USAID and ration size to be distributed? 25 Is there an effective crowd control mechanism in place? 26 Do recipients acknowledge receipt with thumb print or signature on Payroll? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 62 27 Are commodities weighed and/or scooped in front of beneficiary? 28 Is this being performed properly? 29 Are beneficiaries identified as eligible before handing over rations to them? 30 Does FDP puncture oil tins and open all containers before issuing out? 31 Has FDP issued ration cards? 32 If yes, are these being effectively used? 33 If no, how are beneficiaries identified? 34 Is there any evidence that food aid is being diverted to the market? Simply observe! 35 Is there evidence of people abusing through fake names, double names? 36 Are there absent beneficiaries? 37 If yes, what percentage? 38 How are beneficiaries marked after they receive rations, to ensure they do NOT take a second ration? 39 How are multiple registrations of beneficiaries detected/eliminated where a HH is not able to take rations from multiple FDPs, or have other HH members collected more than 1 ration? 40 What is the shortest wait time at FDPs for beneficiaries to receive rations? (nearest hour)? 41 What is the longest wait time at FDPs for beneficiaries to receive rations? (nearest hour)? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 63 42 Do the beneficiaries have any input to determine where to setup the FDP? 43 Which HH member usually comes to the FDP to collect rations? 44 Is there a committee at the FDP overseeing the ration distribution? 45 If YES, who are the members of this committee? 46 What proportion of these committee members are women? 47 Any comments/observations from Committee Members regarding commodity management and distribution? 48 Are there any Government Counterparts present? (circle response) Yes No 49 If Government Present – what is their title? 50 What observations/comments does Government Officer have on commodity management and distribution? 51 Any further observations / comments from Evaluator? ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 64 Annex F: End-Use Beneficiary Questionnaire Date: Partner: Evaluator’s Name: Region: Respondent’s Name: Zone: Sex of Respondent: M / F (circle) Woreda: FDP providing rations: Kebele: Village: 1. Total members in Household? 2.1. According to Ration Card, how many times did they receive rations? 2.2. According to Payroll, how many times did they receive rations? (check at FDP) 2.3. Is there a deviation? YES NO 2.4. If YES, FDP Officer to explain: 3.1. When did they receive their last round of commodities, according to their ration card? 3.2. Does this distribution date match with the FDP plan schedule? (Verify at FDP) Y N 3.3. Is there a deviation? YES NO 3.4. If YES, then FDP Officer to explain: 4. Who from your HH receives rations? 4.1. Self YES NO 4.2. Nominee YES NO 5.1. How long did you have to wait at the FDP to receive rations? Hours 5.2. How long does it take you to come to the FDP? Hours 5.3. How do you come to the FDP? (walk, or what type of transport)? 5.4. How do you take your commodities back home? (walk, or what type of transport)? 6.1. Do you face difficulty collecting rations from the FDP? YES NO ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 65 6.2. If YES, explain: 7.1. How happy are you with the Ration Distribution process? Place X on select response 7.2. Explain your response: 8.1. Did you pay anyone to receive rations? YES NO 8.2. If YES, what form was the payment in? 8.2.1. Share of Ration YES NO 8.2.2. Cash YES NO 8.2.3. Other YES NO 8.2.4. If “Other”, specify: 8.3. Who did you pay? 9.1. Do you know who the Ration Provider is? YES NO 9.2. If YES, who is it? 10. How happy are you “overall” with the treatment by different Ration Distributors? 10.1. NGO Staff 10.2. CHV/Volunteer 10.3. Scooper 10.4. Other (specify): 11. How much food are you entitled to? 11.1. Cereal Kg 11.2. Pulse (YSP) Kg 11.3. Oil Kg ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 66 11.4. Is the beneficiary correct? YES NO 12.1. Do you collect oil in a clean container? YES NO 12.2. Do you store oil at home in a clean container? YES NO 13.1. Do you have any complaints regarding the FDP? YES NO 13.2. If YES, explain: 13.3. Do you know how you can raise complaints at the FDP? YES NO 13.4. If YES, which option can you use? 13.4.1. Mobile/Telephone YES NO 13.4.2. Help Desk at FDP YES NO 13.4.3. Complaint / Suggestion Box at FDP YES NO 13.4.4. Other YES NO 13.4.5. If “Other”, specify: 13.5. If you do raise complaints, are these addressed? Yes No 14. Any Observations from Evaluator: ETHIOPIA JEOP COMMODITY ASSISTANCE REVIEW FINAL REPORT AID-663-TO-17-00002 International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 67 Annex G: Informed Consent Form Introduction and Consent Form for use with informants: Good day. My name is ___________________, and we are conducting a Commodity Management Review under the USAID JEOP Program. The purpose of the review is to assess if commodities managed by the Implementing Partner adheres to the established standard of USAID and maintains a sufficient internal control system. You were selected as a Key Informant to provide information for this evaluation. The information collected will only be used for the evaluation. All the information is strictly confidential. [Interviewer collects signed consent forms]. I would also like to clarify that this interview is voluntary and that you have the right to withdraw from interview at any point without consequence. Thank you very much. At this time, do you have any questions? Are you willing to participate in this study? (Circle Response) Yes 1) Proceed No 2) Thank the KI and STOP HERE May I begin the discussion now? (Circle Response) Yes 1) Continue with the Key Informant Interview No 2) STOP HERE Start Time: ____:____ Interviewee signature _____________________________ Date ___________________ Interviewer signature _____________________________ Date ____________________ Thank you