December 2017 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared independently by the USAID/Jordan Monitoring and Evaluation Support Project, implemented by Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech Company. May 2017 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Mid-term Performance Evaluation of the USAID Community Engagement Project FINAL EVALUATION REPORT MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT December 27, 2017 Contracted under: AID-278-C-13-00009 USAID/Jordan Monitoring and Evaluation Support Project (MESP) Cover Photo: USAID/CEP Community-wide Meeting, Ma’an City, October 12, 2016 Photo Credit: Harold Lippman DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report iii CONTENTS Contents..........................................................................................................................................................................iii Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Purpose And Questions........................................................................................................................... 9 Evaluation Purpose........................................................................................................................................................9 Evaluation Questions....................................................................................................................................................9 Project Background.....................................................................................................................................................10 Approaches and Activities ........................................................................................................................................11 Changes in the Implementation Model ..................................................................................................................13 Evaluation Methods and Limitations........................................................................................................................16 Secondary Data Sources............................................................................................................................................16 Qualitative Data Sources...........................................................................................................................................17 Quantitative Data Sources........................................................................................................................................18 Limitations.....................................................................................................................................................................21 Organization of the Report.......................................................................................................................................21 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................................23 EQ2 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................23 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................32 EQ3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................34 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................47 EQ1 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................50 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................56 EQ4 Findings and Conclusions.................................................................................................................................57 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................61 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................63 Annexes..........................................................................................................................................................................67 Annex 1: Jordan CEP Statement of Differnce.......................................................................................................67 Annex II: Evaluation Statement of Work ...............................................................................................................75 Annex III: Evaluation Methodology and Limitations.............................................................................................83 Annex IV: Evaluation Design Report – Jordan Community Engagement Program (CEP)..........................92 Annex V: List of Data Collection Instruments....................................................................................................117 Annex VI: USAID CEP Results Framework.........................................................................................................118 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report iv Annex VII: Team Composition and Roles and Responsibilities......................................................................119 Annex VIII: Community Selection Criteria and Justification............................................................................120 Annex IX: Data Collection Instruments - Discussion Guides.........................................................................123 Annex X: General Population Survey Instrument..............................................................................................145 Annex XI: CET Phone Survey Questionnaire.....................................................................................................170 Annex XII: Respondent List By Location .............................................................................................................179 Annex XIII: Grants Tables.......................................................................................................................................182 Annex XIV: Data Collection Services END OF TASK REPORT...................................................................184 Annex XV: CET Survey Results .............................................................................................................................191 Annex XVI: General Population Survey Results.................................................................................................239 Annex XVII: Glossary................................................................................................................................................294 Annex XVIII: References and Works Cited ........................................................................................................295 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report v ACRONYMS ADS Automated Directives System CBO Community Based Organizations CCT Community Consultation Team CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy CE Community Engagement CEM Community Engagement Mechanism CEP Community Engagement Program CET Community Engagement Team CSO Civil Society Organization DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DO Development Objective EQ Evaluation Question FGD Focus Group Discussion FY Fiscal Year GOJ Government of Jordan HHS Household Survey IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview LCDP Long-Term Community Development Plan LDD Local Development Directorate LDU Local Development Unit MOE Ministry of Education MOH Ministry of Health MOI Ministry of Interior MOMA Ministry of Municipal Affairs MOPIC Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation MSI Management Systems International SOW Statement of Work TA Technical Assistance TTC Threats to Cohesion USAID U.S. Agency for International Development Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS This evaluation assesses the Community Engagement Project’s (CEP) progress toward achieving its objectives in terms of several requirements, including: • recommending shifts in program implementation to enable a strategic exit by participating communities; • considering the implications of any unanticipated positive or negative program outcomes; and • informing changes in program implementation during its last 12-18 months of operation. The evaluation addresses four key questions: 1. Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building and grants) as they relate to CEP goals? Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? 2. To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. 3. To what extent have the Community Engagement Teams (CETs) been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? a) To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their communities and local civil society organizations (CSOs)? b) Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? c) Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? d) Are there opportunities for improvement in this area in the second half of implementation? 4. Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy. a) Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity b) Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues. c) All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors. PROGRAM BACKGROUND CEP is a five-year, $50 million program implemented by Global Communities, in partnership with the Jordan River Foundation (JRF), in 20 communities in the Governorates of Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, and Ma’an. It was established to provide immediate and long-term support to Jordanian communities experiencing cohesion￾related challenges brought about by the Syrian refugee crisis, deteriorating economic conditions, and frustrations arising out of the slow pace of the Government of Jordan’s (GOJ) decentralization efforts. Its goal is to leave behind stronger, more cohesive, and resilient partner communities by working through, Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 2 and building the capacity of, CETs to collaborate and partner with municipalities/local governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing stressors and developing immediate and long-term solutions in response to these stressors. The essence of its development hypothesis is: “if the capacity of CETs to serve as dialogue platforms in targeted communities is increased…then social cohesion and resilience will increase.” As indicated above, CEP activities have focused on community engagement, capacity building, and community level project grants and, starting this year, efforts to promote the sustainability of the community engagement mechanisms it has developed over the life of the program. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODS To answer the evaluation questions, the Evaluation Team utilized a mixed-methods approach that relied on secondary data from a wide range of reports and documentation, as well as primary qualitative and quantitative data sources. For primary qualitative data, the Team relied on key informant interviews, group discussions, focus group discussions, and first hand observation at activity sites in Amman and nine communities in the four Governorates in which CEP operates. For the quantitative data, the Team conducted a telephone survey of 264 current and 160 former CET members and a representative general population survey in the 20 participating CEP communities. LIMITATIONS Major changes in CEP’s strategic approaches and results frameworks have made it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of some interventions. For example, because CEP began implementing activities regarding Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) and Threats to Cohesion (TTC) in 2015, and the baseline for them was only completed that same year, there is not enough of a record to draw from to analyze their effectiveness with any degree of reliability. While the evaluation is based predominantly on people’s self-reported views and perceptions, which are not necessarily facts, these views constitute respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences and reactions that generally guide their civic actions and shed light on the nature of their interactions with CEP. This assumes added importance in a DRG project that aims to promote resilience, alleviate stressors and empower citizens to address these stressors themselves. The Evaluation Team was able to look at CEP efforts through April 2016; any activities undertaken after that time are not covered in this report. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CEP has made progress towards enhancing horizontal and vertical cohesion in the communities in which it operates. Through its various types of grants, capacity building opportunities, and avenues for community engagement, CEP efforts have increased municipal/governmental responsiveness, enhanced the quality of municipal services, built the collective competence of CETs and, most importantly, demonstrated to immediate stakeholders the value and benefits of participation. CEP’s current intervention with the Ministry of Interior (MOI) holds promise for its approach to sustaining community engagement mechanisms and enhancing public demand for accountability. That said, CEP is a technically and geographically broad program and, absent a more narrowly defined technical focus, risks implementing many one-off activities without generating a deeper impact. CEP’s overall effectiveness was affected by limitations related to the project’s logic model, operations and the various changes made to its strategic approach, mainly by USAID/Jordan. The most pronounced challenges include the limited ability of the project to address critical stressors in the communities related to poverty and unemployment and the establishment of the CETs as new mechanisms whose sustainability Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 3 is unclear after the project ends rather than working with existing mechanisms of community engagement such as municipal councils, existing committees established by municipalities or CSOs. In addition, USAID￾inspired changes in the project’s implementation approach during the first and second years of performance, as well as in the expansion of the number of targeted communities, have also constituted a significant challenge to the project. They affected CEP’s ability to develop a strong baseline and focus on the most relevant indicators for program performance. They also caused significant delays and adversely affected community expectations regarding the program. CEP was not meant to address economic security challenges, which were most frequently identified as top stressors by respondents. As a USAID DRG program, CEP was designed not to overlap with or duplicate Mission-funded economic growth programs already working to address unemployment and poverty. This set the stage for and became a fundamental challenge in CEP’s design: while not designed to support economic growth, CEP aimed to address stressors in communities purposefully selected based on criteria related to economic insecurity as a result of the influx of Syrian refugees. While the overall goals of CEP have been to strengthen community engagement and leave behind stronger more cohesive and resilient communities, the majority of stakeholders only understood the program as providing immediate responses to community needs which was an early emphasis of the program. In general, grants that delivered tangible benefits to municipalities were viewed as the most effective in addressing stressors. These interventions are perceived to have enhanced the government’s responsiveness as well as the quality of services rendered. The overall effectiveness of grants was affected by the changes the program has undergone, the limited ability to address stressors viewed as most important by communities, and the lack of understanding by stakeholders and beneficiaries of the changes in grants strategy, which now emphasized relationship building and community engagement over the delivery of tangible benefits. The stressors viewed as second most important were addressed and those projects were appreciated but the benefits of those projects were limited to immediate benefits and there is not evidence of the long-term broader benefits desired in the CEP theory of change and related to enhanced community cohesion and engagement. The projects that CETs helped deliver have improved the local government’s responsiveness to service demands and the quality of services delivered. While CEP support had addressed only secondary stressors (mainly because it was precluded by USAID from addressing the top stressors of economic security), the assistance was still regarded as beneficial, alleviating the pressure placed upon municipal services and allowing the municipality to provide more and better services. CEP has supported CETs in developing Long-Term Community Development Plans (LCDPs) that outline their vision for ongoing development of their communities and to integrate them into the governmental planning process. Despite the LCDPs being a key aspect of CEP’s sustainability strategy, the majority of CET members did not recall developing them. Local Development Units (LDUs) staff was likewise unaware of the LCDPs. To strengthen vertical engagement with the government, the project has been moving its focus away from service provision towards activities that involve more robust community engagement and mobilization activities. Year 3 CET projects in particular embody this approach. Because they were only approved at the end of Year 3, their impact is still not visible. CEP has not affected or exacerbated tribal cleavages or other existing leadership structures. Likewise, the CET mechanism does not seem to have threatened the authority of the municipality or local government entities. The net effect of the project’s design rationale for creating loosely organized civic structures to function alongside legitimately elected bodies and CSOs is unclear. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 4 The relationship between the community and local government entities has been strengthened due to the municipalities’ improved capacity to deliver services. There is little evidence that the relationship between the community and civil society organizations has improved. CEP’s efforts have demonstrated the value of community engagement to local government and the communities alike. CEP’s role as a catalyst for local government and community engagement does not seem to have been transferred to local stakeholders, including CETs. Given that USAID has changed CEP’s direction in the past, CEP’s work with the CETs has taken place in a concerted manner for only between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years (depending on whether they are a new or old community.) The ability of CETs to self-mobilize, therefore, is not surprisingly still weak and there is little evidence that CEP staff have consistently conceded real decision-making power to CETs. Though CETs’ sustainability is questionable, most CETs felt that they improved municipal receptivity to community input and that the projects built the collective competency of CETs to engage the community and work with stakeholders, such as municipal councils, to design and deliver projects. CEP has implemented the ambitious planned capacity building activities for CETs with clear results. CETs have expressed a clear appreciation and understanding of the benefits of community consultation and collaborative project design as well as the importance of monitoring implementation to ensure that grants meet identified needs. CETs have also built some new skills that can help them work with communities to identify and respond to basic communal needs with the help of CEP and the municipalities. At this point in the project, it is unclear if they will develop the capacity to engage communities to design responses to TTCs. CET members expressed confidence that their training would enable them to engage different partners after the project ends but because such awareness and skills were developed within processes managed and implemented by CEP (including funding for grants), it is unclear how their collective or individual capacity will transfer and/or sustain itself in the absence of USAID funding and branding. The results of capacity building and other CEP activities directed at local government representatives have not yet changed the ways municipalities collect and process information on community needs, or the ways in which they communicate information to their communities. The project’s Year 4 activities are expected to address this. As CEP moves towards closeout in 2018, its current exit strategy includes activities at the community, municipal, and national levels: At the community level, activities include: • The identification of 19 entities to serve as hosts to CETs; • Working with CETs as community dialogue platforms to organize and facilitate dialogue around common priority stressors, TTCs and the development of LCDPs; • Supporting host entities to transition to self-funding; • Building capacity of stakeholders to map community assets and utilize communication mechanisms; and • Packaging a toolkit including training, communications, project management and community mapping material to serve as a resource for stakeholders. Based on the evidence collected by the Evaluation Team, there are several issues that mean CEP’s exit plan may prove problematic. Considering that the majority of CET members are already members of CSOs, they may be reluctant to join other organizations as community engagement teams. CETs may also be Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 5 reluctant to play a dialogue platform role without the ability to deliver large-scale municipal and/or CBO projects that will in turn affect their ability to mobilize the community. In addition, the very challenges that plague the civil society sector might impede the host organizations from taking advantage of this opportunity. The sector’s fragmentation, donor dependency, and inability to raise funds from local sources will require these organizations to continue to seek foreign funding. Assistance along these lines should include capacity building for the selected CSOs to help them conduct community needs assessments, administer surveys, do focus groups, map communities, and develop asset inventories. For a more robust community engagement experience, CEP could also support CET members and their host entities by filling the gaps in their knowledge about promoting more effective community engagement for addressing stressors. Building on past CEP support for CET efforts to develop LCDPs that outline their vision for ongoing development of their communities is another area for potential exit strategy activity.1 CEP could leverage CET members and their host entities to support decentralization efforts by supporting their advocacy for the adoption of LCDPs. As one of CEP’s original partners, JRF has been involved in its implementation from the beginning. It is also one of the three national intermediary organizations through which USAID Civic Initiatives Support (CIS) assistance has been provided to CBOs in local communities. Expanding the role of JRF to support community engagement mechanisms and ensuring it has the capacity to do so could be a key element of the program’s exit planning. Other USAID programs could take lessons learned and successful CE approaches implemented by CEP and share or replicate them in communities beyond the ones where the project has worked. The IRI, CIS and CITIES programs, for example, have clear synergies with CEP. RECOMMENDATIONS For USAID CEP Program Management/Operations • Avoid some of the past confusion and disappointments documented in the findings. Manage stakeholders’ expectations by ensuring that they are aware of project complexities and standard USAID procurement approval processes and timeframes for delivery. • Address the transparency related concerns voiced by CET members and other respondents by improving transparency, and clarifying roles, responsibilities, lines of authority, and accountability for CEP staff, CETs, CBOs and GOJ, in project design/implementation. To accomplish these ends, CEP should consider: o Sharing hard and electronic copies of final project proposal, budgets and other documentation with CETs and other partners; o Establishing a formal, accessible, and anonymous feedback mechanism in conjunction with developing the capacity to follow up and/or investigate complaints and, in both cases, keeping stakeholders informed of results; and o Ensuring field staff does not send mixed messages about potential tangible benefits partners can expect from participating in grant implementation. 1 Year 3 Implementation Plan, p.17. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 6 • Avoid turf and credit-claiming issues by ensuring CEP activities do not cause strains in relationships between municipalities and CETs. Take into account implications of messaging and how different stakeholders will perceive actions or statements that might strain relationships between and/or among them. Project Focus/Approaches • Because the evidence showed that some interventions had limited impact, new projects should focus on ensuring the depth, instead of breadth, of the intervention. For example, in a project where CETs are supporting public meetings between schools and the directorate of education in a specific community, the project should be focusing on holding more sessions in a few schools leading to tangible results rather than single sessions in many schools. • Since sustainable sources of funding may not be forthcoming, consider focusing effort on helping communities identify and develop solutions to stressors that do not require CEP’s continuous and direct intervention. This can be partly accomplished by strengthening communities’ ability to engage both horizontally and vertically and by strengthening municipalities’ capacity to deliver services and supporting existing structures for community engagement. Community Engagement • In order to strengthen the project’s ability to strategize about how to promote the most effective forms of community engagement, determine and map the different levels of engagement that CEP’s community engagement avenues are promoting among communities and CETs. Levels of engagement include various levels of involvement that range from being kept informed to devolving decision-making. While CEP should be identifying lower-rung engagement opportunities for the public, more meaningful engagement should be moving CETs and their host entities up the ladder of engagement. This would ensure that engagement whether with municipalities, government, civil society or CEP staff is systematically progressing beyond one-way communication. • To make community engagement efforts more sustainable, based on lessons learned, map engagement risks and develop contingency plans for when risks occur, making sure to build capacity of field staff and CET members as community leaders to respond without the involvement of staff in Amman. Other than for CEP, this will be a useful exercise to inform CITIES efforts in the field. • To promote sustainability and deepen impact, harness the potential of CET members as community influencers. Catalyze opportunities for them to promote the narratives of successful activities and networks to spread best practices and lessons learned beyond their projects’ immediate circles of implementation. In the same vein, use the time remaining for CEP to “encourage contagion” of best practices and lessons learned from pilot municipal projects to bring effective practices into other municipalities. • To further build capacity for community engagement, strengthen meaningful peer-to-peer exchanges beyond visits and recreational networking events, to deepen experiences and help ensure cross-fertilization of knowledge. One way to do that is to identify positive outliers and organize peer-led circles in which CET members disseminate knowledge and help each other identify solutions to challenging communal problems. • Continue to strengthen the relationship with MOI to formalize channels for community engagement. Resources should also be allocated to building the capacity of LDUs and ensuring they are well aware of Long-Term Community Development Plans (LCDPs) and how they’re Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 7 developed. MOPIC and MOMA should be on board with, and continuously informed about, these efforts. • Prioritize and support private sector engagement by CETs and their future host entities, creating in the process models of excellence that community members can replicate. • To help promote CEP’s visibility, facilitate easier access to government stakeholders, and support CITIES, continue to focus efforts on integrating CE in municipal structures and ensuring all municipal projects include a meaningful vertical engagement component. • To build sustainability, support and expand JRF’s role to continue a CE community of practice and develop proof points to demonstrate success, and ensure lessons learned are used for cross￾fertilization. • To strengthen vertical engagement, ensure that municipal pilot projects and other projects trying to push the vertical dimension of social cohesion support the institutionalization of transparent mechanisms for community discussion, negotiation and decision-making between stakeholders at the municipal level. Capacity Building • Ensure that bottom-up engagement is not sidelined by top-down engagement in new round of municipal projects emphasizing vertical cohesion. Host CSOs/CET members and host entities should understand government decision-making processes and be able to influence them. Having acquired such knowledge, host CSOs/CET members can then share it with other community members. • Address some of the gaps in capacity building identified in the evaluation. Concentrate CET capacity building activities on building advocacy skills so CET members are better able to practice their roles as proponents of social accountability for improved municipal services. At the same time, build skills and channels for the CETs and other community members to track change, generate feedback, and advocate for follow up action to increase accountability. This includes filing gaps in their knowledge of municipal budget processes and operations and the role of civil society. To strengthen sustainability, capacity building efforts should also focus on community needs assessments to ensure CSO hosts/CET members can independently administer surveys, conduct focus groups, map communities and develop asset inventories. • To address the gaps in understanding of LCDPs identified in the evaluation, ensure host CSOs and CETs have access to the LCDPs, understand the process by which they were developed, and support advocacy efforts to adopt them. For USAID Program Approaches • When designing projects that are meant to solicit and address community needs, ensure that either limitations are not imposed on what needs can be addressed or that effective measures are in place to manage the expectations of beneficiaries and stakeholders. Alternatively, link up with other programs that can address needs identified as highest priority. • As changes USAID made in CEP created difficulties in implementation and confusion among beneficiaries, going forward USAID should make sure that any plans to change guidance on program implementation for other programs are carefully weighed in light of this experience. When and where changes are made in future programs, careful thought should be given to Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 8 approaches that might mitigate any of the potential difficulties encountered in CEP, particularly to preventing beneficiary confusion and effectively managing beneficiary expectations and understanding of interventions. • Ensure that outreach, communication and feedback channels in projects similar to CEP are a key component of implementation. Perceptions of beneficiaries and stakeholders can be detrimental to programming and results. • If the intention of projects like CEP is to develop communication channels between community and decision makers through stuctures similar to CETs then ensure such projects consider sustainability and institutionalization of new structures and build capacity of individuals responsible for these mechanisms to take on ownership of the process/mechanisms at the earliest possible opportunity within the program implementation (i.e. slowly concede the management and decision-making authorities of such mechanisms and move into more of a mentorship role as the project implementation progresses). • Better target community engagement projects and development projects in general, whether technically or geographically to ensure deeper impact. If projects are broad, then sufficient human and financial resources should be allocated to avoid implementing one-off activities with insufficient impact at the community level. CEP Improvements • To deepen the impact of the program and sustain its efforts, ensure that CET members continue to participate in other USAID programs’ trainings. • Implement efforts to sustain tools, resources and knowledge developed/transferred by CEP such as posting resources on KaMP and building a database of CET members that other programs can utilize. Actively seek out other ways to leverage these tools and resources. • As a new USAID program targeting municipalities that might overlap with those in which CEP worked, ensure CEP coordinates with CITIES to avoid duplication and ensure long-term cumulative benefits to communities. • Through capacity building, support CET members who run for municipal or governorate council elections and win so they can continue to collaborate and share experiences/knowledge. This can be achieved through referrel to other USAID projects. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 9 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the Community Engagement Project’s (CEP) progress toward achieving its objectives. The evaluation will also recommend shifts in CEP’s implementation to enable a strategic exit from communities, particularly those that may receive support from the upcoming Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative and Effectives Solutions (CITIES) activity. The evaluation will also consider the implications of any unanticipated positive or negative outcomes. Recommendations from the evaluation will be used to inform changes in program implementation during CEP’s last twelve to eighteen months, to strategically align with and incorporate its best practices into future similar USAID programming. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building and grants) as they relate to CEP goals? Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? 2. To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. 3. To what extent have the Community Engagement Teams (CETs) been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? a) To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their communities and local civil society organizations (CSOs)? b) Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? c) Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? d) Are there opportunities for improvement in this area in the second half of implementation? 4. Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy. a) Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity b) Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues. c) All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 10 PROJECT BACKGROUND CEP is a five-year, $50 million program (Cooperative Agreement No. AID-278-A-13-00001) that began in April 2013 and will run through April 9, 2018. It is being implemented by Global Communities (GC), in partnership with the Jordan River Foundation (JRF), in 20 communities in the Governorates of Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh, as well as Ma’an City. CEP was established to provide immediate and long-term support to Jordanian communities experiencing cohesion-related challenges brought about by a combination of rapid demographic shifts, such as the Syrian refugee crisis, deteriorating economic conditions, and frustrations building due to the slow pace of government decentralization efforts. Through its field offices in Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh, CEP initially started working in nine communities but expanded into ten additional ones in March 2014 as presented in Table 1. TABLE 1: CEP TARGET COMMUNITIES BY GOVERNORATE The goal of CEP is to leave behind stronger, more cohesive and resilient partner communities. CEP intends to achieve this goal by working through, and building the capacity of, CETs as CEP’s key stakeholders to collaborate and partner with municipalities/local governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders to: • Engage in a continuous, conflict-sensitive participatory process of identification and prioritization of stressors; • Develop immediate and long-term solutions by accessing available resources through collaboration and partnerships with relevant stakeholders; and • Utilize effective and transparent communication mechanisms in support of increased community cohesion. Communities Municipality Governorate Old Hay Jalama Greater Ramtha Irbid Dabbet Nimer Yarmouk New Yarmouk Hay Al Hussein Greater Mafraq Mafraq Hay Al Janoubi Al Sarhan Al Sarhan Bseira Al Harth Bin Omair Tafileh Ein Al Beyda Greater Tafileh Al Hassa Al Hassa New Mo’ath Bin Jabal Mo’ath Bin Jabal Irbid Khalid Bin Waleed Khalid Bin Waleed Al Wasatyeh Al Wasatyeh No’aimeh Greater Irbid Al Taybeh New Al Taybeh Al Salheyeh Al Salheyeh W Nayafeh Mafraq Sabha Sabha W ElDafyaneh Um Al Jamal Um Al Jamal Hosha New Hosha Hid, Tein, and Al Mansoura Greater Tafileh Tafileh Ma’an City Greater Ma’an Ma’an Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 11 CEP has established CETs in target communities and intends for them to serve as dialogue platforms. CEP aims to work through the CETs with local NGOs, municipalities, and community members to better position them to identify their most pressing community needs and then address them through a variety of self-generated and CEP-supported interventions. CEP is based on the following development hypothesis: “If the capacity of CETs to serve as dialogue platforms in targeted communities is increased to enable them to engage municipalities, local government entities, potential partners, and other community members in a solution-oriented, positive dialogue focused on common interests, then social cohesion and resilience will increase.” In the USAID/Jordan CDCS results framework, CEP supports Development Objective (DO) 2, “Democratic Accountability Strengthened." When CEP was first developed, it supported Intermediate Result (IR) 2.1 “Accountability of, and Equitable Participation in, Political Processes Enhance” and 2.3 “Civil Society Engagement and Effectiveness Increased.” After the CDCS was amended in 2015, USAID CEP started supporting IR 2.4, "Community Cohesion Enhanced," and the following sub-IRs: • Sub‐IR 2.4.1: Institutions and Mechanisms to Build Cohesion and Resilience Strengthened • Sub-IR 2.4.2: Mediation and Constituency-building Skills Enhanced CEP’s general approach is to first establish the CETs and then work through them to facilitate the development of community engagement mechanisms (CEMs). CEP supports the CETs to act as dialogue platforms to promote horizontal intra-community engagement among stakeholders within the communities, as well as support vertical enagement between citizens and the different levels of government. As the primary actors in the CEP, the CETs are intended to be representative and legitimate facilitators of community engagement processes. CETs are comprised of 12-18 members. About 25 percent of the members represent youth (age 18-30) and the goal is to achieve equal representation among men and women. Each CET also includes two municipal representatives, one employee and one elected official (council member), to strengthen the relationship with the municipality and elected officials and ensure continuity in case of elections-inspired changes. APPROACHES AND ACTIVITIES The primary activities CEP has used to achieve its objectives and intermediate results fall under three broad categories of interventions: community engagement; capacity building; and grants to fund community level projects. In addition, starting this year CEP has begun implementing activities intended to promote the sustainability of the CEMs it has focused on developing since the project began. Community Engagement CEP seeks to establish and formalize avenues for soliciting community input and feedback to broaden community engagement. Specific community engagement efforts include: • Community mapping and household surveys to identify and document needs, tensions and stressors, and TTCs; • Facilitating community meetings to introduce community engagement concepts, elect members to the CETs, present mapping/survey results, and vote on the prioritization of community needs; • CET-led dialogue platforms; • Integration of community engagement into the decentralization process; and • A pilot advisory committee activity in Ma’an. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 12 Capacity Building CEP aims to increase the communities’ collective competence by providing the CETs and selected stakeholders with capacity building via interventions such as training workshops on: • Project design and proposal writing • Project-focused M&E • Voluntary work and community initiatives • Documentation and report writing • Do no harm framework (workshops to enable stakeholders to identify and analyze stressors, and design and implement projects to address these stressors in a conflict mitigation sensitive manner) 2 • Community engagment for partners • Conflict management and mitigation Grants CEP provides grants to relieve stressors in areas such as infrastructure and health services and provide safe classroom environments and youth-friendly services. Grants include the following: • Community-based organization (CBO) grants; • CET grants (including projects focused on gender and youth initiatives); • Municipal government grants; • Pilot municipal grants; and, • Partnership Initiatives. Sustainability/Decentralization Support To ensure sustainability, CEP plans to formalize avenues for soliciting community input and feedback by strengthening and broadening engagement on the horizontal, community level and formalizing vertical community engagement mecahnisms between communities and government entities. Specifically, CEP will:3 • Work with CETs, and municipal local councils to transition grant-funded projects to self-funding; • Identify host CSOs/organizations to host CETs; • Build CETs’ ability to mobilize citizens and respond to stressors with limited to no external support; and • Work with the Ministry of Interior (MOI), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MOMA) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) to sustain CE mechanisms beyond the life of the program. USAID envisions that as CEP funding diminishes over its lifespan, CET members will have learned to mobilize key stakeholders and local governments to fund and/or otherwise respond to community needs and identify long-term needs through the LCDPs. It is further envisioned that the LCDPs will help municipal and local councils in prioritizing community issues for inclusion in a Needs Guide that will be developed as part of the GOJ’s decentralization efforts. CEP also aims to have the central government, Local Development Units (LDUs) in each governorate, and municipal structures integrate community engagement more systematically in their planning and operations. 2 USAID CEP Year 2 Annual Report, p. 17. 3 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, Modification 7 signed 7-28-2016, pages 21-26. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 13 CHANGES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION MODEL Original Design According to USAID, GC and CEP staff, CEP began in April 2013 in nine communities with a design based on USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) approaches in response to the Syrian refugee crisis, which was straining Jordanian services.4 USAID indicated it was concerned that the situation could cause conflict or disengagement among groups in Jordanian host communities and other areas designated as poverty pockets where protests and discord manifested during the Arab Spring. The original CEP goal as stated in the cooperative agreement reflected this impetus, "to strengthen community engagement in the context of regional volatility and transitions associated with domestic policy reform, economic conditions, and demographic changes."5 In the original design this goal was to be attained by achieving three objectives: • Objective 1 – Expand NGO, community organization, professional association, and government efforts to build resilience and address cohesion-related challenges; • Objective 2 – Increase civil society-government-private sector cooperation in building resilience and addressing cohesion-related challenges; • Objective 3 – Strengthen skills and build other capacity relevant to community cohesion. The intended outcomes under Objective 1 focused on technical support to civil society, NGOs,6 as well as municipalities and local (governorate level) GOJ entities. 7 The intended outcomes under Objective 2 focused heavily on technical support to the CETs. Capacity building activities under Objective 3 supported the first two objectives by aiming to strengthen skills and build other capacities relevant to community cohesion. These design components remained through Years 1 and 2 (April 2013 to March 2015). As stated above, CEP is being implemented in partnership with JRF, a local NGO with national reach. The original cooperative agreement outlined the role of CEP’s local implementing partner (IP) and envisaged increased responsibility to be assumed by the IP over the course of the program including being the main implementer of the sustainability activities meant to support the transition of the CETs in Year 4. Changes that Increased Program Coverage Over the period of performance, the Mission requested changes from CEP. For example, while in the original design CEP was to be implemented in nine communities, about midway into Year 1 the Mission requested that 10 more communities be added. To meet this request, CEP doubled its staff and began mobilization to establish CETs and start grant activities in 10 more communities by Year 2. Similarly, in November 2014, the Mission asked CEP to expand to Ma'an, though the mission did not increase the overall program budget. CEP agreed to expand to implement a smaller scale version of CEP activities in Ma'an City under the existing ceiling. This was intended to be a Ma'an "pilot project" to inform future implementation if the Mission decided to fund a full-scale rollout of the CEP approach. 4 KII with USAID/Jordan personnel on 11-3-16 in Amman; presentations provided by Global Communities and CEP staff on 9-16-16 in Silver Spring MD, and with CEP staff in Amman on 11-20-16. 5 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No. AID-279-A-13-0001 signed April 4, 2013. 6 In CEP documentation "NGO" refers to local non-profit societies, charities, and other CBOs. In this report the terms NGOs, CBOs, and CSOs are used interchangeably as local non-profit organizations. 7 The outcomes included: 1.1 NGOs able to plan and implement projects that address stressors and build cohesion; 1.2: Networking leverages resources and promotes cohesion within civil society; 1.3: Government engages with civil society and effectively responds to articulated needs. USAID CEP Year 1 Annual Implementation Plan. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 14 USAID requested another change in Year 2, asking CEP to create youth shadow councils, in addition to establishing the CETs. CEP concluded that creating and managing two community engagement platforms was not feasible and instead conducted an assessment on why youth are not engaged in the CET or CEP activities, and addressed the problem based on its findings. Changes to the Strategic/Technical Approach Since its inception the program has evolved as follows: During phase I, CEP established and worked with CETs, building their capacity to identify community needs and funding projects that brought tangible community improvements. Phase II activities sought to deepen CETs’ understanding of how relationships among stakeholders affect how communities and government react to stressors, offering stakeholders the opportunity to address stressors and to participate in the design and implementation of projects. Phase III builds upon new opportunities such as those presented by the recently passed Municipal and Decentralization Laws to foster a more enabling environment for CE. This phase is supposed to leverage established relationships to add discussions about TTCs in the design of projects to help communities deal with internal power dynamics and the influx of refugees.8 The focus of CEP's primary grant activities has undergone several changes. Since its inception, CEP has delivered grants targeted to a range of sectors through different implementing partners. In its first year it delivered small rapid start-up grants, and during Years 1-2, CEP implemented gender grants as requested by USAID/Washington. At USAID’s request, neither grant program is reviewed in this evaluation because these grants were not meant to be sustainable nor the norm for CEP’s implementation approach. In Years 1 and 2, CEP designed and USAID approved grants to CBOs, which were implemented through Year 4. Throughout the program, CEP has delivered in-kind grants to municipalities. CET grants were originally primarily focused on municipal infrastructure or maintenance. In Year 3 these types of grants began to be exclusively implemented through in-kind grants to the municipalities, and CET grants became smaller and more focused on promoting CE. Gender and youth were separate grant categories but were mainstreamed into CET Grants though $10,000 increases to those grants which incorporated specific gender or youth components. According to senior CEP staff, in Year 1 USAID directed the program to implement grants that identified and directly responded to urgent community needs. In Year 2, CEP was directed to change course for all grants, and CET grants in particular, to make them more participatory to enable communities to promote collaboration and respond to identified stressors. While these changes necessitated an expanded focus for CEP, they were still in alignment with the original intention of the program as described in the cooperative agreement: “building the capacity of NGOs and citizens to identify stressors in communities, particularly those affecting community cohesion, AND to increase the efforts of citizens and NGOs to engage with government at the municipality level and governorate level to jointly develop solutions and produce LCDPs to address those challenges.” 9 Another change to the grants program occurred with Modification 7 to the cooperative agreement signed in July 2016. The original purpose of the rapid response grants to NGOs stated in the cooperative agreement was to “address community stressors such as youth unemployment, community clean up and food insecurity.”10 With Modification 7 discussions, TTCs were added to the grants process and are intended to help communities deal with existing internal power dynamics and continuing challenges posed by the Syrian refugee influx in a conflict sensitive manner.11 As part of the shift to identifying and addressing 8 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, Modification 7 signed 7-28-2016, p.10. 9 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, signed 4-4-2013, p. 14 10 Ibid., p. 18 11 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, Modification 7 signed 7-28-2016, p. 10 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 15 these TTCs, CEP initiated a process to develop and implement a project-specific CMM training for all CETs, relevant municipal and government officials and informal leaders. This entailed conducting an assessment for all staff and CET members, the design of a new curriculum, and a pilot to inform the final design of the training. Another change introduced by Modification 7 included the addition of pilot projects designed to embed CEMs in GOJ decision-making structures that connect municipal and MOI processes.12 As a result of these changes, CEP has put a good deal of effort into altering the processes for developing and awarding grants, retraining staff and communicating these changes and their justifications to stakeholders and partners. The delay in approving Modification 7 has affected the expanded role envisioned for the program’s IP. As the modification was necessary to extend CEP funding for Years 4 and 5, and had to be approved by USAID, the planned sustainability activities were delayed until the modification was approved in July 2016. JRF was therefore not able to begin these activities until then. USAID also requested changes in the program’s strategic framework, which was designed at the beginning of Year 2 in an effort to streamline implementation and create an integrated approach. The original monitoring and evaluation plan did not effectively communicate the program’s successes and capture its approach. As a result, CEP was not able to demonstrate progress and stakeholders struggled to understand the value of the program.13 When USAID amended the Jordan CDCS in March 2015, at the start of Year 3, CEP worked with USAID to revise its log frame to fit into the latest Mission results framework. Due to programming and staffing changes, a final version of the activity’s logic model was not approved until the Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan was approved in April 2016 at the start of Year 4. Another strategic change USAID requested related to whether CEP should focus on the needs of Syrians. USAID directed CEP in Year 1 to not “specifically target” Syrians, as the program was intended to support Jordanians, especially in addressing the needs of refugee host communities. According to USAID, there were also political sensitivities around the time CEP started and GOJ was being careful about projects being implemented for Syrians in host communities. That said, as community members, many Syrians in Irbid and Mafraq did benefit from USAID CEP projects. In Year 4, USAID shifted and directed CEP to ensure the participation of Syrian beneficiaries with the additional emphasis on conflict-sensitive approaches outlined in Modification 7. According to CEP staff, in Year 4, CEP implemented focus group discussions with Syrians in order to add their perspectives to grant activities being designed during the second quarter.14 In addition to changes requested by USAID, CEP initiated some modifications on its own in response to changes in the policy framework in Jordan. In Year 3, CEP decided to leverage the GOJ’s approval of the Municipal and Decentralization Laws as opportunities to enhance the program’s activities to engender vertical cohesion. The program’s CEMs, sustainability plan and exit strategy had to be clarified to fit within the new policy framework.15 These strategic shifts required CEP to transform the financial administrative processes and technical programmatic approaches for selecting and awarding grants three times. In year 1, for example, USAID directed CEP to increase the ceiling of CET grants to $90,000, and then directed CEP to remove CET grant ceilings entirely. CEP staff reported that it was challenging to explain these changes to stakeholders 12 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, Modification 7 signed 7-28-2016, p.10. 13 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p. 43 14 Presentation by CEP staff in Amman on 11-20-16. 15 Ibid. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 16 in year 2 and that therefore, they decided to create grant ceilings in order to manage the expectations of CETs and municipal representatives, especially those in the new communities who had heard of the large grant amounts CEP awarded in Year 1.16 There was one additional shift in grant implementation between Year 1 and 2. Originally, the grants to support the municipalities to provide services were USAID-led and CETs were not involved. In Year 2, CET involvement was integrated into the process for awarding CBO grants and in-kind support to municipalities. Additionally, as CEP was designed as a DRG intervention, engineering expertise was not required in the original staffing plan. USAID later directed CEP to hire contractors to undertake small to medium sized infrastructure works (as is required by Agency policies for construction under grants) and CEP hired engineers to supervise this work. CEP staff also reported that the approval of CET grants was delayed in Year 1 and only one CET grant had been implemented by March 2014. According to CEP staff, approvals of grants were again delayed in Year 3 because of the transition of the program’s Agreement Officer Representative. CEP senior management staff felt these initial delays in the grants pipeline affected the program’s community engagement activities. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The Evaluation Team included Harold Lippman (Team Leader), Dima Toukan (Evaluation/Country Specialist), Jessica Gajarsa (Evaluation Specialist), and Jerome Hansen (Conflict Management and Mitigation Specialist). The Team performed its research and analysis in accordance with an Evaluation Design (Annex III) developed in response to the Evaluation SOW (Annex I). The Evaluation Design was submitted to and accepted by USAID/Jordan in mid-October 2016. The Evaluation Design, including the data collection tools, was developed in consultation with USAID and CEP. The Evaluation Design included a work plan and detailed description of the research methods, tools, and instruments the Team used in conducting the evaluation. After an extensive desk review the fieldwork component of the evaluation was completed between September 24 and November 5, 2016 in Amman, Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, and Ma’an Governorates. To answer the evaluation questions, the Team utilized a mixed-methods approach that relied on secondary data from a wide range of reports and documentation, as well as primary qualitative and quantitative data sources. The qualitative and quantitative data were collected simultaneously. Qualitative data sources included group discussions with CET members, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions and observations at activity sites. Quantitative data sources included two surveys: one of CET members and the other, a representative survey of the general population living in the twenty communities targeted by CEP. SECONDARY DATA SOURCES Secondary data sources included: • CEP Cooperative Agreement and subsequent modifications; • CEP Work Plans for Years 1-4; • CEP AMEP and Results Framework; • CEP Grants Manual and Grants database; • Quarterly and Annual Reports; • Baseline Survey Reports for old and new communities; • Documented program guidelines including the Participatory Action for Community Enhancement (PACE) Methodology, activity guides, manuals, and training curricula and materials; 16 Presentations by CEP staff in Amman on 9-27-16 and 11-20-16. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 17 • Program performance data including reports, summaries, databases (e.g., training, household perception surveys, field perception surveys, community workshops, community-wide meetings, youth engagement assessments, data quality assessments, and indicator tracking tables); • Government plans, laws, regulations, reports and other official documentation in effect during the period of performance related to CEP's social cohesion and resilience objectives, including: o Frameworks and plans to address the Syrian refugee crisis such as the Jordan Response Plan 2016-2018 Guiding Framework (JRP), Regional Refugees Resilience Plan (3RP), and National Resilience Plan (NRP) 2014-2016. o Laws and policies that are restrictive to civil society and potentially constrain CEP's ability to achieve intended results, such as the Law on Societies of 2008 as amended in 2009, as well as key provisions in other texts relevant to civil society operations, including the Penal Code (particularly Articles 149 and 191); the 2004 Law on Public Gatherings (especially Article 4); the 2007 Press and Publications Law, as amended in 2012 (especially Article 5 and 38b); and the 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law as amended in June 2014. The recently passed decentralization and municipal laws. QUALITATIVE DATA SOURCES For primary qualitative data, as depicted in the table below, the evaluation team conducted KIIs, group discussions, FGDs, and firsthand observation at activity sites in Amman and nine communities in the four Governorates in which CEP operates. These communities are: Al Taybeh, Hay Jalama, and Dabbet Nimer (Irbid); Hay Al Hussein, Hay Al Janoubi, and Al Salheyeh (Mafraq); Al Hassa and HTM17 (Tafileh); and Ma’an City (Ma’an). Separate discussion guides were prepared for different respondent categories, e.g. CET members, government officials, community representatives and beneficiaries (Annex IV). To select these communities, the following criteria were considered: • The community’s score on demographic, economic, and socio-political stressors, as developed and applied by CEP in the original community selection process: o Demographic considerations include municipalities and communities with higher populations, greater demographic shifts, and/or greater heterogeneity; o Economic considerations include communities that are considered to be a “poverty pocket" and/or experiencing high unemployment; o Considerations of social-political stressors include municipalities and communities where higher amounts of social unrest and protests have been documented. • A balance of old versus new CEP communities, in order to generate information on potential differences in the sustainability of project interventions; • Optimal coverage of the different sectors of the grant projects – e.g., health, education, youth – and Partnership Initiatives implemented by CEP across the municipalities and communities; and • Other opportunities for learning based on the team’s document review and preliminary discussions with USAID and CEP: Lastly, the overall qualitative data approach was pre-tested in Al Taybeh (Irbid) and Ma’an City and modified according to the initial research experience in those communities. 17 HTM” refers to an area that combines parts of three neighborhoods where CEP implemented activities in Tafileh: Hid, Tein and Al-Mansoura. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 18 Table 2 Data Collection Sources and Methods Respondent Category and Data Collection Methods Amman Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Total KIIs # of KIIs (# of individuals if multiple participants) KIIs – GOJ Central/ LDUs/ Governors/ Directorates 5 (9) 3 (7) 1 (4) 4 (5) 1 (2) 14 KIIs – Mayors/ municipal council members and staff 4 (11) 2 2 1 (2) 9 KIIs – CEP Implementing Partner 1 1 KIIs – CBOs CEP Grantees 1 2 2 4 9 KIIs – CBOs Non￾Grantees 1 1 1 (4) 2 (4) 5 KIIs – Grant Beneficiaries 3 (13) 1 (3) 2 (3) 2 (3) 8 KIIS – Other Donor Programs 3 3 CET Group Discussions 3 3 2 1 9 FGDs – grant beneficiaries 2 2 4 Site Observation visits 6 4 2 2 14 Global Communities CEP staff: 6 presentations and 4 KIIs 5 1 1 2 1 10 USAID: 2 Briefings/1 KII 3 3 Total qualitative data collection events 86 Telephone survey of current and former CET Members 86 81 52 13 232 Population based survey in target communities - final sample 385 385 385 385 1,594 Total quantitative data collection sample 1,826 QUANTITATIVE DATA SOURCES For the quantitative data, the evaluation team worked with a local data collection firm to conduct surveys that covered all 20 CEP target communities and included two groups of respondents: • Current and former CET members; and • General Population survey - direct and indirect beneficiaries residing in those communities. Data obtained from the general population survey was used to triangulate and complement both the qualitative and quantitative results that emerged from the CETs and to clarify contextual variables affecting the program. The datasets from both surveys were triangulated not to seek consensus, given their different samples, but to explore complementary perspectives, and to elucidate different aspects of emerging findings. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 19 CET Survey: The sample of the CET members included the list of 264 current CET members, as well as about 160 former members, and the survey was conducted by telephone. The members survey provided an opportunity to capture their perception of the effectiveness of the various CEP-inspired activities they were part of, including capacity building, identification of stressors and prioritization of projects to meet those stressors, as well as vertical and horizontal engagement. This survey also augmented the team’s understanding of members’ conception of sustainability scenarios and CETs’ relationship to the decentralization process. As direct beneficiaries and the main community engagement mechanism through which the program delivers its various interventions, the evaluation team considered CET members to be central to the evaluation. Data obtained qualitatively or quantitatively through the CET members carries significant weight especially insofar as the program’s zone of influence is loosely defined. Primary data derived from the CET survey was triangulated with qualitative data emerging from CET group discussions. General Population Survey: The representative general population survey sampled 1,540 individuals from the 20 communities in the four governorates (385 per governorate) in which CEP has been active. Distribution was based on the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling approach, which yielded a representative sample at the governorate level, with a +/- 5 percent margin of error at 95 percent confidence level. The survey sample size allowed for generalizable data at the governorate level, as well as comparisons across regions at a comparable margin of error. Communities in which CEP is active were selected using pre-determined selection criteria that included economic and social/political stressors such as significant and rapid demographic shifts, stress on social and municipal services, poverty and unemployment, increase of living costs, incidents of unrest, and cohesion and resilience. As the sample of this survey is focused on these communities, the survey provides a representative capture of public opinion in areas facing considerable economic, social and political stressors. As a representative survey of the population in the 20 communities, the survey data: • Provides the broader context for the qualitative findings of the evaluation team. For example, the survey findings tell us about the entire population’s perspectives and preferences related to interventions they consider most effective in responding to stressors and cohesion, including the type of interventions CEP has focused on; • Identifies the tensions and stressors that are currently seen as most significant by the communities; • Provides community perceptions regarding the different mechanisms for vertical and horizontal community engagement; and • Provides an understanding of the contextual variables, current challenges and opportunities for CEP work, and future USAID programming in these or other similar communities. The survey was designed to be used as part of this evaluation. As such, its structure and content were informed by the evaluation questions. Particular attention was given to ensuring that the survey results are useful for understanding the overall situation in these communities, including favorability ratings of different institutions, types of interventions and the current challenges and opportunities. This is particularly useful for thinking about appropriate exit strategies and future USAID work in this sector. Given its distinct objectives and methodology, the survey data was not compared against the two baseline surveys completed by the CEP team for the following methodological reasons: • Variation in Methodology: There is variation between the methodology for CEP’s two baselines. CEP’s first baseline survey conducted in nine communities has a sounder methodology Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 20 to ensure representativeness. Specifically, the first baseline survey used a Kish grid for selection at the household level, an approach also used by the survey for this evaluation. For both the CEP’s first baseline survey and the survey done for this evaluation, half of the respondents are males and half are females. In the second CEP baseline survey, however, the REACH data collection team conducted interviews with the first identified and ready to participate adult household member. This may account for the fact that out of the 966 interviews conducted for the second baseline, 582 (60%) were conducted with women and 384 (40%) with men. • Differences in Sample Size: The sample sizes for the two CEP baseline surveys are different, making comparison difficult. In the first baseline survey for example CEP has close to two hundred interviews for every community surveyed, except for Hay Jalama, where 240 interviews were conducted. The community level sample for the second baseline is close to 100 interviews per community. In addition to the differences in sample sizes between the two rounds of data collection the CEP community level samples are quite small and have relatively high margins of error (for example a margin of error of +/-10 for a sample of 100 and a margin of error of +/- 7 for a sample size of 200) if used to measure change over time. The sample size for this evaluation was developed to ensure that we have a large enough sample to allow us a margin of error of +/- 5 for all the communities within the relevant governorate combined. The differences in sample sizes limit abilities to compare results across the different surveys. • Measuring Impact - Challenge: It was the evaluation team’s understanding that the CEP baseline surveys informed programming and implementation and were not developed to assess CEP impact, that is by doing a follow up survey at the end of the project. Such an impact study would need a control group and would assume that CEP efforts can register discernable community (municipality level) wide impact.18 The evaluation team was informed by CEP that the general population, including in-direct beneficiaries may not know CEP by name. Therefore, in the general population survey there is no reference to CEP. Instead, the survey asks about different types of projects/activities including the types of activities done by USAID. Based on the above and the evaluation team’s understanding of the CEP intervention it was decided that it would be best not to use the survey to measure the impact of the CEP intervention. The latter would require a more targeted survey based on mapping all the localities in which CEP implemented its activities. Developing such a beneficiary specific sampling plan would require a lot more time than was available during the implementation of the evaluation. Moreover, there was no existing counterfactual/comparison group, where baseline data collection had been conducted. This would be required for any rigorous measurement of acivity impact. 19 • Availability of Census Data: The evaluation survey was based on the 2016 census data, which was not available at the time of the two CEP surveys, further limiting ability to compare across surveys. • Ma’an Inclusion: Lastly, the CEP baseline surveys did not cover Ma’an, whereas in the survey done for this evaluation, given USAID’s interest, a total of 385 interviews were conducted in Ma’an city, thus yielding a representative sample of the city’s population. 18 Related to this, when asked about their awareness of any trainings and/or activities in their area that focus on community engagement, community organizing or conflict mitigation (Question 38 – General population survey), most of the respondents in all four governorates answered “No.” (62% in Irbid, 74% in Mafraq, 69% in Tafileh and 71% in Ma’an) 19 The USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) 203 defines impact evaluations as those that measure the change in a development outcome that is attributable to a defined intervention. Impact evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual to control for factors other than the intervention that might account for the observed change. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 21 LIMITATIONS The evaluation design includes some limitations. Most importantly, because only a limited amount of time has passed since the CEP approach shifted during year 3, it would be difficult for any evaluation design to capture the effectiveness of some of the newer approaches CEP began using at that time. There is not enough of a record of activity to draw from and analyze with any degree of reliability. In particular, the major shifts in the project’s AMEP during year 3 mean that of the 32 indicators in the current AMEP all but three are new and have only been tracked since the beginning of FY 2016. In addition, as is customary with qualitative research, data collected through key informant interviews and group and focus group discussions is self-reported and as such carries the potential for respondent bias. To minimize the impact of bias on the results of the qualitative research, the evaluation team explained the purpose of the evaluation at the start of all interviews and group discussions. To help secure respondents’ neutrality, they were advised that their performance was not being evaluated. The team also clearly explained the relationship of CEP to USAID to ensure beneficiaries did not conflate the two. The findings from the qualitative research are not intended to convey the extent of benefits, opportunities, challenges and problems identified by the respondents. The evaluation team utilized a qualitative approach to understand the “causal mechanisms,” as well as the “why” and “how” related to respondent responses identifying successes, opportunities, challenges and issues. In interpreting the reported findings from qualitative research therefore, it is important to think about both what is being said, as well as by whom, rather than assuming that the information is broadly representative of all scenarios and respondents’ perspectives. In terms of what is being said, it is important to think about the nature of the success, issue or challenge being identified, rather than focusing on how many respondents mentioned it during an in-depth interview or a focus group discussion. In cases where a success and/or an issue is considered significant by USAID and the CEP team, their activity data, specifically performance monitoring data may provide a useful source to assess the extent of the success and/or issues. For example, if a respondent remarked on the issues resulting from a delay in delivery of some good or service, the activity monitoring data should be able to highlight how often such delays occurred and should thus help the USAID and CEP teams determine the extent of the issue and its overall impact on performance. In terms of who is saying something, it is important to consider the role and responsibilities of a specific respondent or group of respondents, to assess the significance of what they are saying. The opinion of a mayor for example may have implications for an entire municipality. Similarly, the opinion of a single community engagement team member may still be important, as they are elected by the communities, and as such may reflect the interests and opinions of those who have elected them. While the evaluation is based predominantly on people’s self-reported views and perceptions, which are not necessarily facts, these views constitute respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, experiences and reactions that generally guide their civic actions and shed light on the nature of their interactions with CEP. This assumes added importance in a DRG project that aims to promote resilience and alleviate stressors and empower citizens to address these stressors themselves. The evaluation team was able to look at CEP efforts through April 2016; any activities undertaken after that time are not covered in this report. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Because evaluation questions two and three, which focus on grants and community engagement respectively, partly answer question one on overall effectiveness, the order of the questions in the report Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 22 has been changed so that question one is answered after questions two and three. In addition, to ensure answers are not redundant, the focus of question one is limited to capacity building. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 23 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EQ2 FINDINGS To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. Introduction The narrative below begins by reviewing how the CEP’s overall design and grants strategy impacted the program’s alignment with community tensions and stressors. The discussion next turns to examining the responsiveness of projects to stressors as well as their effectiveness in strengthening community engagement by promoting sustainable horizontal and vertical cohesion. Next, the narrative assesses how the management and delivery of projects impacted their effectiveness, as well as partner relations and capacity building. Lastly, in response to the second question on the effectiveness of CEP grants, the narrative focuses on the evolution, responsiveness, and community perception of the three types of grants – municipal, CBO, and CET – covered by this evaluation. Alighnment of CEP Program Design and Grants Strategy with Perceived Stressors From project conceptualization and design, CEP was not meant to address economic security challenges, which were most frequently identified as top stressors by KII respondents, CET group discussion participants, as well as CET and general population survey respondents. Group discussions with CET members, and KIIs with grant partners, and beneficiaries, all cited unemployment and economic insecurity as top stressors in their communities. This is reinforced by the results of the CET survey in which 86 percent of respondents listed either unemployment or poverty as the top stressor in their community. In addition, in the general population survey, 43 percent of respondents in CEP target communities cited jobs and income as their households’ highest stressor. As a USAID DRG program, CEP was also designed not to overlap with or duplicate Mission-funded economic growth programs already working to address unemployment and poverty. This set the stage for and became a fundamental challenge in CEP’s design: while not designed to support economic growth, CEP aimed to address stressors in communities purposefully selected based on criteria related to economic insecurity. These factors include areas that are poverty pockets and areas that have high demographic shifts in terms of influxes of Syrian refugees that strain existing services (e.g., municipal, sanitation, health, education), as well as affordable housing and livelihood opportunities. In short, the CEP target communities were chosen in large part because of the high levels of economic insecurity experienced by residents so it is not surprising that economic issues were cited as top stressors, yet CEP was explicitly not permitted to address these top stressors. To eliminate overlap or duplication, the designers of CEP intended that CEP beneficiaries would be directed or referred to other existing USAID or donor interventions addressing stressors identified by the communities, and that CEP would focus on addressing gaps or areas where there were insufficient services/resources. At the same time, CEP grants were first designed to address urgent needs (Phase I), then stressors (Phase II), and now TTCs (Phase III), which are likely to be related to the high levels of economic stress due to unemployment and poverty. As a result, the application of CEP selection criteria disqualified many of the projects communities had selected including economic growth interventions. Funding ceilings also disqualified other large-scale projects that the communities preferred. Because of this, while CEP grant activities addressed some community stressors, the nature of those did not always correspond with the most important stressors identified by the community. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 24 Figures I-3 below elucidate the preceding discussion. Figure 1 demonstrates that about 48 percent of the 232 CET members surveyed indicated that projects that generate jobs best respond to the top stressor in their communities, followed by 31 percent that selected improved municipal services. It is important to note that as per CEP activity design, the project was not meant to address poverty and/or unemployment. Figure 1 CET Survey Results - Which type of donor projects best respond to your community’s main stressors? Figure 2A shows about 67 percent of CET members surveyed indicated that the interventions supported by CEP grants responded to one of their top three stressors. Figure 2A – CET Survey Results - Do the projects funded by CEP address any of the three top stressors you identified in the previous question? Figure 2B lists the reasons why the 33 percent of CET members thought that the projects funded by CEP have not addressed any of their top three stressors. 2% 3% 3% 13% 31% 48% Projects to improve the employability or entrepreneurship skills of community members Projects to improve health services and raise awareness on health issues Projects to create spaces for community engagement including women and youth Projects to improve schools Projects to improve municipal services Projects to generate jobs 33% 67% No Yes Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 25 Figure 2B – CET Survey Result - If responded no in Figure Q2A above, why do you think the projects funded by CEP haven’t addressed any of the three top stressors you identified in the previous question (Percentage of the 76 respondents that responded “no” in Figure 2) Figure 3 below demonstrates that in the general population survey when respondents were asked what is the most important problem facing your community or area other than poverty and lack of employment that poor municipal services was a popular choice across the governorates: Irbid 17 percent, Mafraq 26 percent, Tafileh 35 percent, and Ma'an 23 percent.20 The second most popular answer was that nothing is more important than poverty or lack of employment. 20 It should be noted that higher percentages of respondents in each governorate chose "other" and many specified some form of economic insecurity despite being asked for other types of problems. 1% 1% 1% 8% 16% 17% 55% Other (not specified) Lack of involvement of private sector Planning was different than implementation Don't know Due to limited funding of the projects The project can't address these type of large scale problems The program had a different focus than the stressors Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 26 Figure 3 General Population Survey Results - Other than poverty and lack of employment what is the most important problem facing your community/area?21 Extent to which CEP Relieved Tensions or Stressors While most program stakeholders understood that CEP was not an economic or job creation program, the majority of CET members exhibited frustration that eligibility restrictions limited their ability to respond to their higher-level economic stressors. All mayors expressed appreciation for equipment and infrastructural support the program has provided but urged additional support to address economic needs. In expressing these views, the mayors seemed to exhibit little agency, and a lack of understanding of their own responsibilities towards their communities. In a KII, one mayor in the south noted, “We want USAID to move beyond service provision and awareness raising and start addressing unemployment.”22 This was echoed by a mayor in the north saying, “Our biggest problem now is the high unemployment rate; we’ve had enough cleaning support; we want something bigger.” In expressing these views, few mayors contextualized their own responsibilities to their communities. A lack of municipal services is the second most frequently cited stressor by primary data sources. All CET members and mayors viewed interventions that delivered needed infrastructure and equipment as responsive to stressors. They said such assistance increased municipalities’ responsiveness and delivered “tangible” support that was most visible to the communities. A CBO representative’s comments in Mafraq typified many stakeholder responses: 21 This bar chart only contains the open-ended responses that were mentioned by at least 2% of the respondents per governorate. Please see Annex IV Question 4 for a table with all responses that received 1% or more per governorate. 22 KII with a Mayor of one of the nine CEP target communities selected for qualitative data collection. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Lack of Or Low Quality Healthcare Radicalization of Disengaged Youth Water Security Nothing Besides Poverty & Unemployment Poor Municipal Services Irbid 390 responses Mafraq 408 responses Tafileh 400 responses Ma'an 391 responses Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 27 “The roads and sunshades, any project that would lessen the stressors on the schools. The most effective and valuable to continue are the ones that target the youth; for example, the sports field, they will absorb the energy of the youth and prevent them from turning to drugs.”23 “When we received the garbage compactor and the electrical crane they solved a problem for the entire municipality,” noted a mayor.24 Mayors and municipal council members indicated that perceptions of municipal responsiveness were improved as a result of infrastructure and service delivery projects. As one mayor explained: “…what has changed is people’s approval and level of satisfaction with municipality services.” The retaining walls the project constructed in [a community that floods annually] was especially appreciated: “It rained last week and for the first time in that community there was no flooding. The civil defense told us that this is the first time that we don’t get emergency calls from [this community]. This is the first time we welcome rain with joy.” Figure 4 CET Survey Results - Do you think the municipality/local government has become more responsive because of the CEP program? In terms of achieving other desired objectives, the evaluation team assessed whether grant activities were effective in promoting community engagement and vertical or horizontal cohesion. Though the CETs did not become sustainable community engagement platforms as detailed in Q3, the majority of CET members felt that they improved municipal receptivity to community input and that the projects generally built the collective competency of CETs to engage the community and work with stakeholders, such as municipal councils, to design and deliver projects. In group discussions, CET members indicated that engaging the community both formally through the CETs and informally through their individual connections improved the projects they selected, how they were implemented, and their role in relaying community needs to the municipalities. One member of a CET group discussion, for example, explained that “we now have the skills to deal with government institutions and deliver information to and from the local community.” Additional evidence along these lines can be gleaned from the CET survey as indicated in Figure 5 below. 23 KII with a representative of a CBO that is an implementation partner on a CEP grant. 24 KII with a participating mayor and municipal council members. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 28 Figure 5 CET Survey Results - To what extent did the program increase the value that municipalities/local government place on the role of community engagement? However, while the overall goals of CEP have been to strengthen community engagement and leave behind stronger more cohesive and resilient communities, the majority of stakeholders only understood the project as providing immediate responses to community needs which was an early emphasis of the project. Revealing their limited understanding of what CEP was trying to accomplish, participants in one CET group discussion noted: “the program raised people’s expectations. We were hoping they would do more. We have 39 schools here. They provided sunshades for 9 schools.”25 Representatives of the municipalities that received needed equipment expressed their appreciation for and commitment to maintaining it for future use, but some also asked for more such assistance or infrastructure support. The early emphasis of “delivering larger grants more quickly”26 to directly respond to community needs gave way in Year 3 to “a greater emphasis on partner formation that contributes to greater community resilience.” 27 With Modification 7 in Year 4, as noted above, grants are focused on generating greater collaboration to identify and address stressors that are TTCs.28 Regardless of the changes, the earlier approach was the predominant view of most stakeholders, including CET members, who were generally not able to articulate these changes in the program approach from identifying and responding to needs, then to stressors, and then to greater collaboration to address TTCs. For example, stakeholders regularly used the term stressors interchangeably with needs and did not show a conceptual distinction between the two. So, stakeholders who were interviewed, including CET members, municipal representatives, and CBO partners often saw limited benefits for the CEP-funded interventions beyond the tangible benefits of the provided equipment, renovations, or services rendered, and, accordingly, judged a project’s effectiveness in terms of the size of such assistance. Justifications for the CEP project proposals that were reviewed by the evaluation team often lacked specificity when addressing stressors. Stressors cited from the Household Survey’s (HHS) and Community￾wide Meetings (CWMs), were broad and thematic such as “enhancing infrastructure” and “enhancing health sector.” This resulted in programming that is generally responsive but not tightly targeted. CBO grant 25 Group discussion with CET in Al Salheyeh, Mafraq, October 27, 2016. It should be noted that the implementation was so late that most of the money was spent on operations. 26 Year 1 Annual Implementation Plan (revised) 27 Year 3 Annual Implementation Plan p. 18. 28 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No AID-278-A-13-00001, Modification 7 signed 7-28-2016, p. 10 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 29 applicants were given very broad thematic requirements by CEP and only limited points were given in the scoring for their responsiveness to these needs. CETs’ projects, on the other hand, were more responsive to the HHS than CBO proposals. While CEP’s approach has been changed to address this issue, the projects still did not address the highest tier challenges faced by communities. For example, even after the second HHS was improved with greater detail on stressors, there were often mismatches that resulted in the projects partially addressing a sub￾need, such as the "Activate Schools as Community Hubs" intervention in Al Taybeh. This CET grant emphasized school infrastructure such as fire extinguishers, sunshades, and facility maintenance when, according to the HHS, education was the fourth-ranked stressor in the municipality and school facility quality was the fifth-ranked need within education. While this project had community and government engagement components that promoted some CEP goals, top-tier stressors related to education were not addressed. Of course, the project is limited by its scope and cannot address quality of education issues on which other USAID programs are working. However, community members including CET members, municipal staff, and representatives of CSOs did not regard infrastructure support provided to schools as transformational. For example, school facility quality was only partially addressed, especially insofar as the CEP support was not concentrated but spread over many schools. Impact of Project Management and Implementation Respondents indicated that the way grants were designed and delivered sometimes made it less likely that the grants would effectively address their perceived stressors and tensions. In interviews with CET members, CBO representatives, and other stakeholders, respondents raised a variety of issues and concerns that had limited the extent to which the projects could have relieved tensions and stressors. Many respondents, for example, said there was a general lack of clarity or transparency with CEP about the roles, responsibilities, and expectations in terms of agreed upon benefits for them and/or their organizations. Relatedly, in five out of the nine CET discussion groups, the majority of members in each of those groups explained that they felt they had little input in the scope and design of projects. Other members did not disagree. During two group discussions, participants talked about not being able to choose the size of sunshades for schools, so that in the end small and large schools in their municipality received the same ones. In another discussion, participants pointed out that after disagreeing with a requirement that the new roads to be built as part of a proposed project would have to lead to schools, mosques, or cemeteries, “they [CEP] gave us no option [and] told us either you accept or you lose the funding.” In addition, in six of the nine discussion groups the evaluation team held with CET members, several respondents in each of those groups felt that existing feedback mechanisms were not effective to report issues during implementation, such as when procured materials or contracted renovations were perceived to have not met agreed upon standards or specifications they had identified during the design process. In response, CEP staff maintain that stakeholders sign off on all specifications before procurement, and participate in the technical review of the bidding process. In addition, they said all renovation work meets agreed upon quality standards that are generally higher than those in comparable municipal public works. In the end, however, the fact that in six out of nine CET group discussions the majority of members complained about standards and quality of services is notable. While the evaluation team could not verify the validity of these respondents’ assertions about quality, the important finding is that CET members and other stakeholders believe they have little control over the projects and associated processes they were meant to drive which, in turn, helps feed perceptions of mismanagement and raises suspicions of wrongdoing among them. At the very least, from the stakeholders’ standpoint there was a lack of ownership and a need for more transparency and effective communication. Lastly, among respondents, frustration was often expressed over the amount of time it took to deliver projects and the efficiency of the process. Stakeholders said that months-long delays affected their Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 30 credibility and standing in their communities. One CET group discussion participant captured the point, complaining that: “the schools project was delayed. This affected our credibility with people. In addition, implementation of projects is slow. Sometimes the project goes to USAID for six months. We almost lost confidence in the program [and] thought of resigning. We thought they were lying to us.”29 Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? As noted above, most stakeholders, including CETs, expected projects to respond to basic local needs and did not have a well-developed sense of their potential to respond to stressors or threats to cohesion. In this way, the projects were often judged by more simple criteria such as did the project respond to an important need in the community and did the scale of the project allow it to respond effectively. In general, projects that delivered tangible services to communities were regarded as more effective than other projects. The effectiveness of the various types of CEP interventions are reviewed below. Municipal Grants CEP has delivered support to municipalities through in-kind grants since the beginning of the program. Years 1 and 2 saw very large grants with seven of the municipalities in old communities receiving between $280,000 and $1.7 million in project support. In Year 3, these grants were capped at $300,000 for new communities and $100,000 for old communities. In Year 4, grants were eliminated to municipalities in old communities. Stakeholders view municipal grants as targeted responses to stressors in the community. Larger projects, especially those that supported infrastructure or municipal services, were generally cited by municipal council members, CET members, and partners as responding to local needs and relieving pressure on the municipality. “We got six machines for the municipality including a water tank, street sweeper, a grader, and a back loader. This increased the municipality’s ability to respond to the community in terms of service provision by 50 percent,” said one of the mayors interviewed. CBO Grants Grants to CBOs were initiated in Years 1 and 2. The initial grants, referred to as Rapid Start-up Grants, were delivered early in Year 1. 30 An additional round of grants was delivered to CBOs/NGOs in Year 2. All grants were completed by Year 4. These were delivered in old and new communities. Per the original program description, as well as the amended program description in Year 2 (October 2014), the criteria for these grants were: • direct impact on stressors; • potential to promote cohesion and build resilience; • impact women and youth; • implementation capacity; • participation in capacity building; and • local government support. According to a grants table supplied by CEP, 36 CBO grants (other than the Rapid-Start-Up grants) were disbursed totaling just over $1 million, with individual ceilings of $50,000. The majority of target communities received one or two grants, with a few receiving three. 29 Group discussion with CET in Al Hasa, Tafileh, October 30, 2016. 30 As noted earlier, these grants are not covered in this evaluation. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 31 Most often, grants to CBOs were used to refurbish schools and medical centers or build community parks. Some also worked directly with at-risk communities such as underperforming female secondary students. While stakeholders interviewed reported that these efforts responded to some immediate needs in their community, they generally felt that their smaller scale limited the types of community needs to which they could respond. However, the goal of working with the CBOs was not just to achieve immediate project outcomes, but was to have the CBO help generate greater community engagement and engage local citizens. While the grants did respond to community needs, they do not appear to have been effective in generating greater community engagement through the CBOs. CEP did not utilize the CBOs for this. For example, CBO grants were not judged on their community participation merits for the verification of needs and were not required to have community or municipal engagement incorporated into their design or implementation, even though CEP targeted CBOs to build their capacity to identify stressors and engage more effectively with municipal and governorate structures. Also, the selection process did not identify NGOs that had, or could have, carried out basic community engagement or advocacy. The overall view was that CBOs were supporting CEP grant implementation in small ways. For example, a CBO representative in the north said: “The idea was to integrate the CET teams in civil society. This did not happen. The program dealt with them as a requirement. The program was not able to activate civil society or to define it. Services are the only positive effect of this project.”31 CET Grants CET grants began in Year 1 and have continued throughout the CEP program. They have changed in size and approach during this time but have always been developed in conjunction with CETs and emphasized a community engagement component to identify and deliver projects. CET grants were delivered in all nine communities in Year 1 and 2 with communities receiving between $78,000 and $500,000 in total support and generally focused on municipal services and repair of infrastructure such as schools. In Year 3, CET projects began to focus more on community relationships to enhance communication among different segments of the community. In Year 3, CET grant limits were set at $50,000 for old communities and $100,000 for new communities and for Year 4 all CET grants will be limited to $30,000. In Year 4, CEP continued to move the focus away from service provision towards building relationships, promoting the involvement of disenfranchised populations, and responding to TTCs.32 This objective will be suppported through the CMM training, mapping of TTCs, focus groups with Syrians, and CMM-focused project development and implementation. CEP staff indicated that the new approach laid out for the Year 4 CET grants provides a potential framework for a deeper CET understanding of the TTCs facing their communities and, therefore, a potential for stronger and more responsive programming. The CMM training and mapping of TTCs have taken place, but project designs are not yet complete and thus it is not possible at this time to fully evaluate their design or effectiveness. While information gathered from surveys and interviews shows that CET members considered CMM training as being valuable on an individual basis, the new strategic approach was not clearly understood by the CETs. Group discussions with the CET members highlighted opportunities for improving the understanding of the material covered during the CMM training; in particular, all respondents demonstrated little understanding of either what threats to cohesion are or how they are different from stressors. Projects such as sunshades and school maintenance were seen as contributions to the community, and valued by the immediate beneficiaries. As one principal explained, “we have strong sun so students suffer 31 KII with head of a CBO that participated in a CEP grant. 32 Defined as “things which may prevent them from coming together as a community to tackle the challenges they are facing.” Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 32 when they are waiting. There was only one small shade for the students, now they have one for 140 students where they are picked up/dropped off. The school has been beautified by the murals and there is no more graffiti on the walls.” CET projects that encouraged collaborative approaches or relationship building as part of larger projects, such as community volunteerism for beautification or committees to activate the role of parents in schools, have not been in effect long enough to be evaluated. In general, however, they are relatively small in scale and level of effort and this may make it difficult for them to have an impact on the identified stressors in communities either through direct response or advocacy. Partnership Initiatives Beneficiaries of Partnership Initiatives considered them somewhat valuable in strengthening relationships between stakeholders. For example, in response to the "Towards a More Beautiful School" Initiative, a principal of a participating school commented, “The collaboration between Syrian and Jordanian students improved as well as relations between parents and the school.” However, respondents including CET members, LDU representatives and mayors agreed that the community has implemented similar initiatives, and that communal action in the form of cleaning and beautification campaigns would not be lacking if it were not for the dearth of funding. Relatedly, many stakeholders viewed cleaning campaigns, which were part of various projects, as not particularly responsive to needs. As a mayor of a participating municipality said: “All cleaning campaigns that the program implemented don’t convince me. These campaigns are useless. Whoever wants to work right on this issue must work with our staff [sanitation workers] [...] awareness raising is much more effective. The municipality must be a main partner in these campaigns.” Similar views were expressed by a CET member: “Cleaning campaigns are not sustainable. It would have been much better if the funding was spent on infrastructure; the money was wasted.” Excluding rapid start-up and gender grants, CEP expended less than one percent of the projected Year 1- 3 grants budget on Partnership Initiatives. Even with this limited expenditure, ten Partnership Initiatives have been implemented by the end of Year 3, resulting in 2,309 community members receiving free medical services; the mobilization of 65 schools to enhance community engagement in supporting education; and the implementation of nine youth projects.33 CONCLUSIONS Limiting CEP from addressing economic stressors in areas targeted for their economic insecurity had consequences in program effectiveness and relations with stakeholders. While CEP grant activities addressed some community stressors, the nature of those did not always correspond with the most important stressors identified by the community, which were usually economic or job related. Even though limiting program design to non-economic issues was understood by stakeholders, many could still not reconcile why a program meant to respond to community stressors limited their ability to respond to their higher-level economic stressors. Stakeholders and beneficiaries have not absorbed the program’s changing grants strategy. The program’s early emphasis on larger projects that quickly addressed ‘needs’ has made it difficult to develop more complex responses to stressors and threats to cohesion using smaller grants and with greater use of 33 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p. 7. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 33 community engagement mechanisms. In the communities in which CEP operates, it is regarded as a program that will deliver tangible, large-scale projects. So, stakeholders often see limited benefits for the CEP-funded interventions beyond the tangible benefits of the provided equipment, renovations, or services rendered, and, accordingly, judged a program’s effectiveness in terms of the size of such assistance. To stakeholders, relationship building is an add-on component of CEP activities, which brings value only insofar as it facilitates the delivery of tangible support. The changing CEP phases and the shortfalls in managing stakeholders’ expectations have contributed to the stakeholders’ outlook in this regard. Overall, justifications for the CEP project proposals that were reviewed by the evaluation team lacked specificity when addressing stressors. Earlier projects, especially those implemented as CBO grants, were not well aligned with identified stressors and did not support CE in design or implementation. This resulted in projects that were often misaligned with stressors. Comparatively, CET projects were slightly better in this regard. Grants that delivered tangible benefits to municipalities were viewed as the most effective in addressing stressors. Though, the term stressor was used interchangeably with needs and stakeholders did not show a conceptual distinction between the two. Larger scale infrastructure and municipal service projects were viewed as the most effective in responding to immediate stressors and improving trust in local government. These interventions are perceived to have enhanced the government’s responsiveness as well as the quality of services rendered. In assessing whether projects achieved other desirable objectives such as vertical and horizontal community engagement, the team found that though the CETs may lack sustainability as community enegament platforms (as detailed in Q3), the CETs felt that they improved municipal receptivity to community engagement and that the projects generally built the collective competency of CETs to engage the community and work with stakeholders, such as municipal councils, to design and deliver projects. CETs did not utilize CBOs as a way of deepening community engagement. CBOs’ role in projects was not clearly defined and the organizations did not feel they were part of the broader CEP agenda. Year 3 CET projects that include CBOs as partners have a more robust community engagement and mobilization approach, but it is too early to judge their impact. A more engaged, integrated and robust role for CBOs could have potentially strengthened community engagement and responsiveness and supported overall CEP goals of building community resilience. CEP efforts to build horizontal community cohesion and community responsiveness through the Partnerships Initiatives generally lack a vertical component. Further, while these efforts engage communities on important issues such as drug awareness, alcohol, or littering they still lack the scale and structure to significantly address such problems and have not meaningfully engaged stakeholders to ensure the initiatives’ sustainability. Similarly, the initiatives’ effect on elevating stakeholders’ sense of civic responsibility or agency to address stressors is limited. To sum up, the overall effectiveness of grants was affected by the changes the program has undergone, the limited ability to address stressors viewed as most important by communities, and the lack of understanding by stakeholders and beneficiaries of the changes in grants strategy, which now emphasized relationship building and community engagement over the delivery of tangible benefits. The stressors viewed as second most important were addressed and those projects were appreciated but the benefits of those projects were limited to immediate benefits and there is not evidence of the broader benefits desired in the CEP theory of change. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 34 EQ3 FINDINGS To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their communities and local civil society organizations (CSOs)? Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? Are there opportunities for improvement in this area in the second half of implementation? Introduction In response to the initial question regarding CETs’ impact on the relationships between their communities and local government entities, the narrative below addresses the following items: • the effect of the program on the general relationship between communities and municipal governments; • the effect of the program on the relationship between CETs and municipal governments; • the role of LCDPs in the relationship between CETs and municipal governments; and • how traction on decentralization was leveraged by the program to engage the government with the community. The discussion then turns to the question on the extent to which CETs were able to strengthen the relationship between the community and civil society. The response here examines: the role of CBOs as project partners; CETs’ ability to attract private sector support; and, the effectiveness of Partnership Initiatives in sparking communities to address their own needs. To answer the remaining questions, the narrative explores: the legal and administrative restrictions that might affect the establishment of community engagement mechanisms; the potential for CETs to serve as such mechansims; and, the program’s potential for replicability. The discussion continues with an assessment of whether municipal councils can be more effective than CETs in promoting citizen engagement and concludes by looking into opportunities. To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? Improved Municipal Services Strengthen Relationships with Community The projects that CETs helped deliver have, to some extent, improved the local government’s responsiveness to service demands and the quality of services delivered. However, all CET members in group discussions agreed that while CEP support had addressed only lower-level stressors (what the 2016 CEP baseline terms Macro-Level Stressor Drivers), the assistance was still beneficial, alleviating the pressure placed upon municipal services and allowing the municipality to provide more and better services. As a CET member explained: “if it weren’t for USAID we would not have been able to keep things calm in Ramtha; USAID saved the municipality with their support for waste management.” In Al Taybeh, another CET member said: “to be honest, the one thing that benefitted us the most was the man lift.” Almost all mayors agreed that CEP has enhanced their ability to provide services and better understand the needs of their constituencies. Except for one, the mayors viewed the CETs as an additional arm of the municipality, better able to conduct grassroots outreach and channel demands and grievances back to the municipality. A mayor in the north was happy he has been getting better input from CET members and does not have to handle as many individuals wanting to see him every day about personal issues. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 35 When asked about whether CET members trust the municipality or not, 60 percent of the 232 members said they do while 35 percent said they do not, referring to unfairness in the distribution of public benefits. That said, when CET members were asked if they believed the program enhanced the community’s trust in municipal and local government, as shown in Figure 6, 81 percent said yes. Figure 6 CET Survey Results - Did CEP enhance the community's trust in municipal/ local government? As further evidence for the engagement of local government, through April 2016 CEP secured over $2 million in matching contributions from the local communities, most of which came from municipal and local government entities.34 In discussion groups, all CET members talked about their role as intermediaries between the people and municipal representatives, channeling demands for services from the former to the latter. This conception of their role was framed in terms of a one-way communication of demands rather than as a conduit for advocacy. According to the evaluation survey, 39 percent of CET members still do not think that the municipality and local government consult with CETs over their planning and allocation of resources, while 35 percent think they sometimes do (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q16). While having municipal representatives on the CET teams enhanced open communications between municipalities and the members, it also adversely affected group dynamics. During the evaluation, two CET group discussions quickly devolved into an “us versus them” dynamic that prompted continuous accusations to be leveled at the municipality during the meetings. During a third group discussion, the mayor insisted on attending part of the meeting and monopolized the discussion, providing members with the opportunity to speak only to affirm his points. Heightened Expectations Affect CETs Relationship with Municipalities According to the majority of CET members, CEP raised expectations among CET members and their communities about incoming assistance. USAID’s removal of funding ceilings in Year 1 likely contributed to this outcome. One dynamic documented by the evaluation team was competition between CETs and the municipalities to claim credit for the CEP projects. In four communities, including Al Salhayeh, Dabbet 34 USAID CEP Year 4 Annual Implementation Plan, p.9. 3% 16% 81% Don't know No Yes Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 36 Nimer, Hay Al Hussein, and Al Taybeh, CET respondents said that the community is not aware of their efforts and that the municipality had claimed all the credit for the improved service provision. To these CET members, CEP had raised the profile of the municipality in the community rather than their own standing. In Al Taybeh, for example, CET members said they would have preferred that the CEP support was provided to them instead of the municipality. Tensions between CETs and municipalities over how to spend grant money and who should get credit for improvements created some strains in their relationships. The heightened expectations about incoming assistance that the majority of CET members alluded to and said were later not met fed frictions between the municipalities and CETs. For example, to explain why the level of expected assistance was not received, CET members in Al Taybeh and Tafileh blamed the municipality and the mayor. In fact, in Al Taybeh, Al Hasa, and HTM, the CET members’ relationship with the municipality was found to be particularly strained. During CET group discussions, members were openly critical of the municipality and how it controlled CEP’s assistance. One such respondent said: “70 percent of people are hungry; we need the support not the government.” Long-Term Community Development Plans CEP has supported CETs in developing LCDPs that outline their vision for ongoing development of their communities and to integrate them into the governmental planning process. These municipal-specific local plans were meant to help CETs conceptualize the long-term development of their communities and to identify the steps that need to be taken to realize those goals, including the enagement of government stakeholders. LCDPs have been finalized and signed off on by the CETs for the 19 CEP target communities. As documented in the CEP Year 3 Annual Report, these plans include a total of 1,367 prioritized interventions.35 Despite the LCDPs being a key aspect of CEP’s sustainability strategy, the majority of CET members did not recall developing them. When prompted by the focus group facilitator, the majority said they did not know where these plans are; some guessed they are at the CEP field office. The majority of discussion group CET members said they have not used these plans to advocate for community demands with the municipality or local government. LDU staff were likewise unaware of the LCDPs. Role in Decentralization and GOJ Development Planning CET members’ participation in GOJ development planning and dialogues on decentralization facilitated engagement between the government and community members. Thirty CET members participated in the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC) bottom-up approach to engage citizens in the drafting of the 2016-2018 Executive Development Plan. Up to 84 community-identified and prioritized projects were included in the Plan. According to the CEP Year 3 Annual Report, 13 projects have already been included in the FY2016 GOJ budget.36 With the passing of the decentralization law in 2015, CEP thought to seize an emerging window of opportunity and reached out to MOI to support the organization of community dialogue platforms on decentralization. In Quarter 4 of Year 3, CEP organized “Community Dialogues on Decentralization” in Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh. Co-facilitated with the MOI/Local Development Department (LDD) and LDUs, the dialogues brought together CETs from all communities within the governorate, community members, and government officials. The objective of the dialogues was to raise awareness about the decentralization 35 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p.14. 36 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p.7. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 37 law and gather input about the characteristics of the community engagement mechanisms that citizens would be interested in seeing.37 According to MOI officials, the events were successful and the objective was achieved. To what extent have the CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and civil society organizations? The majority of CET members surveyed said their teams have been able to strengthen relationships between their community and civil society organizations. Sixty percent of CET members reported they are active in a CSO in their communities and more than half said their community members are very engaged with CSOs in working on local issues (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section II Introductory Questions, Q5). This contributed to perceptions of strengthened relations and ensured knowledge transfer to CSOs. CET respondents regarded civil society advocacy as partly effective in generating government responsiveness but less effective than advocacy by CETs. As shown in Figure 7, when CET members were asked about the most effective way to get the government to respond to a communal problem, about 50 percent said direct engagement with government on a personal level and 29 percent thought that civil society advocacy can be most effective. However, when CET members were asked in discussion groups about how their advocacy role compares with that of civil society, members were dismissive of CSOs and their ability to advocate on behalf of their constituencies. In almost all communities, CET respondents expressed the view that their teams were more effective than CSOs, although this could partly be a self￾serving expression of their need to ensure continued support from CEP. Figure 7 CET Survey Results - In your opinion what is the most effective way to generate responsiveness from the government for a communal problem? 37 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p.16 1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 7% 29% 50% Use all channels at the same time File a petition or a memo Don't know Protest Present problem to tribal leaders Create dialogue through constructive open communication channels Civil society advocacy Direct personal engagement with municipal/ local GOJ Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 38 As shown in figure 8, Traditional (religious and tribal) and local (mayors and municipal council representatives) leaders were viewed as very responsive to community needs across all communities, compared to considerably lower responsiveness rating for NGOs (local and International) and members of the parliament. Figure 8 General Population Survey Results - When it comes to the responsiveness to your community needs, what is the level of responsiveness of the following institutions? CBOs as Project Partners CEP CET projects were aimed at the cultivation of collaborative relationships with civil society. While the program did foster collaboration with CBOs, such collaboration did not elevate the organizations’ participation beyond the tangential roles they were able to describe as partners on those projects. KIIs with project-affiliated CBO representatives revealed that the CBOs did not exhibit a sufficient level of ownership and knowledge of the projects’ course of action, nor of the projects’ aim to foster community engagement. As partners, CBOs articulated benefits of the projects in terms of services provided to the municipality or to their organization. Grantees expressed appreciation for USAID for providing these services. However, these partners were only able to speak about the specific role they are implementing within the projects and were unable to articulate what each project as a whole was aiming to achieve. For example, representatives of a youth center said they are only providing a venue where the CET can meet. Similarily, a local government officialin Tafileh said members of his office deliver lectures when they are contacted by CEP but are not aware of other program components or its overall goal. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Police Utilities (water & electricity) Religious leaders Tribal leaders Mayor Municipal council representatives Health and Education Directorates Central government Governor Private Sector (local businesses) Media Parliament members Local NGOs International NGOs Percentage of responses that were "very" or "moderately responsive Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Irbid Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 39 Some CBO representatives the evaluation team interviewed were expecting CEP to better integrate the CETs into civil society. As one CBO leader in Mafraq said: “this did not happen. The program dealt with CETs as a requirement. The program was not able to activate civil society or to define it. Services are the only positive effect of this project. And even those services that were provided were not based on main needs.” According to CEP staff, Year 3 CET grants, which include 19 currently under implementation, have incorporated a more pronounced role for CBOs. In addition, the CBOs the evaluation team interviewed were partners in projects that were less than halfway complete. It is possible that if the team had been able to interview CBOs whose projects were more advanced that the CBO members would have become more involved over time and there would have been better integration and awareness of the broader goals. Private Sector Engagement While the majority (55 percent) of the CET survey respondents believed that CEP had to some extent enhanced their community’s ability to engage the private sector, the group discussions highlighted opportunities for further improvements in this regard. One CET member in Al Hasa said: “we have 12 companies… and they employ only 15 percent of the people in this area. We don’t know how to talk to them.” Some CET members in Al Taybeh were unaware that the private sector had in fact contributed to their partnership initiatives, until other CET members pointed this out during the group discussion. Partnership Initiatives Partnership Initiatives were meant to foster inter-communal collaboration. CBO representatives, CET members and government directorate officials reported that Partnership Initiatives rallied the community and positively impacted citizens’ behavior. Speaking about the Towards a More Beautiful School Initiative, CBO representatives and government officials said it contributed to positive behavior change among students and built up their sense of ownership towards their schools. School principals said the projects created incentives for the students and communities to work together to achieve results. Such initiatives are not new to their communities, they added, but when the MOE holds such competitions, according to one principal, prizes tend to go to the bigger and more established schools. A Directorate of Education official in Irbid said: “Students’ sense of belonging improved. Students started cleaning their school without encouragement from their teachers. The competition taught the students to take care of their school. The whole community knew of the initiative. We facilitated a lot of the work. Everyone was engaged by the initiative. The initiative produced other smaller initiatives such as the placement of a suggestion box at schools.” All CET members, CBO representatives, and government officials who commented on these initiatives found them to have been valuable but not necessarily consequential in terms of long-term effects. An LDU representative observed: “these quick initiatives don't have an impact. A piece of equipment (for a health center) or a park are much more effective…Funding must be channeled to the right place. It should contribute to and propel development and entice investment.” Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? CEP utilizes CETs as catalysts for engaging with the local government and the community. As reported by CEP staff, the CETs’ sustainability as mechanisms for community engagement in local governance is unclear. To address this and strengthen vertical engagement with the government, the staff reported that the program has been moving its focus away from service provision towards activities that involve more robust community engagement and mobilization activities. Year 3 CET projects in particular embody this approach. Because they were only approved at the end of Year 3, their impact is still not visible. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 40 CETs are an intermediary for citizens to engage with the government and the community. From the members’ perspective, 80 percent expressed the view that the CET is an effective mechanism for engaging the community while 16 percent said it is not, citing different reasons for that such as their insufficient capacity and representation and overall control by CEP (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants, Q10A). The project’s effect on CET members’ collective engagement with local government has improved as evidenced by the CET survey results. When respondents were asked about the most effective way CET members used to communicate with the municipality to solve their problems before CEP, 41 percent said personal connections with government officials and only 10 percent said they attended municipal public meetings. When members were asked how that changed after CEP, only 18 percent said they still relied on personal connections, and 29 percent said they attended municipal public meetings. Figure 10 CET Survey Results - What is the most effective way you used to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem before CEP? Figure 11 CET Survey Results - What is the method you use to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem since CEP? However, when respondents were asked in the evaluation’s general population survey about how they hold their mayor accountable, communicating with the mayor directly or through phone was a top choice 1% (2 responses) 4% (10 responses) 10% (24 responses) 20% (46 responses) 24% (55 responses) 41% (94 responses) Association with CSOs Informal community/ tribal gatherings Attended municipal public meetings Visited the municipality Didn't voice my opinion Personal connections with municipality/ governorate Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 41 across the governorates: Irbid 40 percent, Mafraq 23 percent, Tafileh 21 percent, and Ma'an 21 percent. Meanwhile, the second top answer was don’t know: Irbid 23 percent, Mafraq 23 percent, Tafileh 20 percent, and Ma'an 25 percent (Annex XIIV: Population Survey Results, Section Survey Questions, Q28). Figure 12 General Population Survey Results - In your opinion, what is the most effective mechanism/approach to ensuring that the government is responsive to your community needs? Top six mechanism/approach While CETs have not yet established sustainable CE mechanisms and the effects of Year 3 CET projects are not yet visible, there are a number of defining factors that are likely to have some bearing on potential outcomes in this regard as CEP winds down. These include CETs’ stature and credibility, sustainability, and capacity and independence, in addition to CEP’s replicability and visibility. CETs’ Stature and Credibility in the Community According to CET group discussion respondents, CEP has boosted public confidence in them as CET members. For example, some respondents pointed out that community members are now approaching them to facilitate engagement with the municipality. However, these CET members also said they are cognizant that their stature in the community is dependent on CEP funding and they realize that the credibility the mechanism enjoys is tenuous, being contingent on their ability to generate tangible results for the community. In Dabbet Nimer, CET members said that “if the local community asks us for stuff and 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Complaints to the relevant entity Nothing Communicate more with citizens I do not know Appoint community members who are qualified to represent all Protest, demonstrations and strikes Discuss/ debate in seminars/ meetings with Government Irbid - 390 Mafraq - 405 Tafileh - 400 Ma'an - 391 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 42 we don’t respond we will lose our credibility.” This happened during the earlier phase of the program when deliverables were delayed. In other communities, such as Al Hasa and Al Salheyeh, CET members said their credibility was in fact being tarnished by the little traction the projects have so far achieved. In Hay Al￾Hussein, CET members said that little has been accomplished beyond some road improvement. In Al Hasa CET members were frustrated that only the jackhammer has been delivered. Despite generally feeling that the public has confidence in them, several CET members in six communities said they wanted to quit the teams, because they did not feel they were able to deliver on what their communities expected from them. CETs’ Sustainability To ensure meaningful engagement, CEP employs a facilitative approach working through key stakeholders with the aim of transferring to them its role as a catalyst over the course of the program’s implementation.38 In the same vein, sustainability for CET members depends on their ability to engage stakeholders on their own. However, while most CET survey respondents said that CETs would continue to function after the program ends, when they were asked about how they would do so, 60 percent said another donor program would be needed. Figure 13 CET Survey Results - In your opinion and at the end of the CEP program and without further funding from CEP, will your CET continue to function? 38 USAID CEP Implementation Plan-Year 3, p.6. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 43 Figure 14 CET Survey Results - How do you think CETs can continue after the CEP program ends? Sixty-six percent of CET survey respondents said CETs would continue beyond the life of CEP and 25 percent said they would not. About 37 out of the 58 respondents who said they would not cited the lack of financial support and the lack of legal status for the teams to continue. Some CET members are already thinking of next year’s decentralization elections, while others are considering running for the governorate councils. CET group discussion respondents expressed skepticism at their teams’ ability to continue beyond the life of the program. Some members thought that CEP has not done enough to “wean” the members off the CETs or to inspire others to adopt the same mechanism for community engagement. One respondent in Hay Al-Janoubi said: “they told us with time we will be able to engage stakeholders on our own… They told us over time they would build our capacity to network and raise funds and become independent; that did not happen.” When asked whether other civil society organizations or informal groups have adopted the same engagement mechanism as a result of CEP efforts, respondents could not recall examples. However, other key informant interview and focus group respondents did point out that other organizations have used surveys to assess community needs; these organizations include: Kulluna Al Urdon Commission, the Jordanian National Forum for Women, the Qantara Center and the Future Makers Center. In general, legal and governmental administrative requirements affect and often restrain community engagement in Jordan, and therefore have an impact on the sustainability of CETs. For one, municipal councils do not always equitably represent their communities. Also, private giving, including in-kind donations to public schools, is restricted in Jordan. The evaluation team has heard from school principals, teachers, and education directorate officials that schools are in dire need of equipment and supplies. While some parents and community members are willing to provide these materials, school principals have to revert back to the central government to make these decisions. Municipalities and directorates at the local level remain under the tutelage of the central government with little real devolution of power in their direction. This precludes local structures from adopting or replicating effective activities that donors roll out in their communities. One principal told the evaluation team that small community initiatives like those 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 10% 20% 60% Don't know National NGO host Governmental support Royal NGO host Registration as an NGO CBO hosts Community support Another donor program Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 44 implemented under the CEP are better run by USAID because public schools cannot initiate such projects on their own and securing approvals from the central government takes too long. The Importance of the USAID Brand Most CET members in focus groups defined themselves as a body set up by “USAID” to identify and address communal demands. One respondent in Dabbet Nimer said: “we define ourselves as USAID.” Another added: “we get our power from USAID.” Similarly, during group discussions, CET members were vocal about the importance of the USAID brand to maintain their newly acquired stature in the community. They consistently asked for an “umbrella to work under after the program ends.” In Dabbet Nimer some respondents said that this umbrella would have to be under the USAID banner. In Hay Jalama, respondents were in agreement that they derive their credibility from USAID. They cited their usage of a special program badge that in their opinion has facilitated their communication with the government and the municipality. They questioned how they could still operate and engage with stakeholders without the program after it ends. CETs’ Capacity and Independence The majority of surveyed CET members believe that CEP has provided them the necessary skills to act independently after the program ends. Only 14 percent of those surveyed said it did not, mostly because they believe their skills are insufficient (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants, Q21). CET members in group discussions agreed that the training they received through the program was especially beneficial. They emphasized benefits accrued through the CMM training which allowed them to apply their newly acquired skills in various communal contexts to defuse ordinary disputes. For example, in Dabbet Nimer, CET members said they have used CMM to address social problems in the community, and divorce cases in particular, in addition to conflicts between students and during elections. CET members indicated they do not have all the skills they think they need to continue to engage with municipalities after the program ends. In some cases there are skills community members would need that were not part of CEP’s scope of work. In discussion groups, CET respondents said they do not use LCDPs to advocate for their communities’ needs and have not received training on advocacy. They added that they are unable to engage the private sector and have not learned the basics on conducting needs assessments or program design and management since CEP undertakes most of the analysis and the project design, implementation and monitoring processes. In the survey, 35 percent of CET members said they do not understand the municipality’s budget process and operational framework while 22 percent said they understand it to some extent (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q12, Q13). Again, more than a third of CET members did not believe the program enhanced their understanding of this process. Even though the municipal budget process and operational framework were not part of CEP’s scope of work, these findings shed light on the strengths and weaknesses of the program’s training, and their relevance and utility, especially insofar as CET members are supposed to be able to continue to engage successfully with municipalities. Issues with CETs’ independence also present challenges for sustainability in some places. Many CETs do not even call their own meetings. Forty-four percent of the CET survey respondents said that CEP calls for CET meetings and 41 percent said program staff set the agenda. Just 13 percent said the agenda is cooperatively developed (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q3 & Q4). The majority of CET members in discussion groups agreed that the organization of CET meetings is highly dependent on direct guidance from CEP staff. One respondent said, “if [the CEP field officer] calls us we meet; if [the CEP field officer] says don’t meet we do not meet.” On the other hand, in two communities, CET members demonstrated significant independence. One respondent said: “We meet on weekly basis. We don’t need CEP’s facilitation. Sometimes we vote on WhatsApp. Sometimes we meet without telling the CEP field office.” Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 45 CEP’s Replicability and Visibility Local government and municipal representatives said they are considering replicating the CET model. Both mayors and some LDU staff believe that the CET mechanism can be replicated because CETs are a “valuable source of information” and “enjoy a larger margin of freedom,” than municipal councils because they are not under the purview of the municipality. Even though 72 percent of CET survey respondents believe the CET is sufficiently visible (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness, Q11), when the general public was asked about any training and/or activities in their area that focus on community engagement, community organizing or conflict mitigation, the majority of respondents said they were not aware of such training and/or activities. This illustrates CEP’s lack of visibility among the general population as well as that of other donor programming operating in these communities. Figure 15 General Population Survey Results - Are you aware of any training and/or activities in your area that focus on community engagement, community organizing or conflict mitigation? Figure 16 General Population Survey Results - Are you aware of any activities that focus on building awareness and capacity of the people living in your area? No 62% 74% 69% 71% Yes 15% 17% 25% 21% Don't Know 22% 9% 6% 8% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an No 64% 68% 62% 50% Yes 14% 22% 31% 42% Don't Know 22% 10% 7% 8% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Maan Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 46 Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? When CET members were asked in their survey about which organizations – CETs, CSOs, or municipal councils – would be more effective in engaging the community and advocating for its needs, 59 percent said the CETs, 22 percent said municipal councils and 19 percent said civil society. Of the reasons given for selecting the CETs, respondents reasoned that they are closer to the people and are therefore better able to assess their needs. Those who selected municipal councils cited the direct services provided by the municipality and their organizational sustainability and continuity, ability to interface with the government, available resources, decision-making capacity and official mandate. Figure 17 CET Survey Results - Which of the following structures/organizations would be more effective in engaging the community and advocating for its needs: the CET, a CSO or the municipal council? The majority of mayors, LDU staff, and CET members interviewed during the evaluation saw no jurisdiction or role overlap between CETs and municipal councils and reported that the program had not exacerbated tribal cleavages or existing leadership structures. A LDU representative said that the mayor was happy with the CET team, explaining that “they became a source of strength for the council members who represent different areas. They worked with each council member. I did not hear any complaint from the members.” A CET respondent said: “the council has a desk role only. The service is provided over the phone. The municipality does not go to the street.” A CET municipal representative in Dabbet Nimer added: “CET is a field team and they are stronger than me but I am aware of what they’re doing.” Along these lines, CET members regard themselves as conduits for channeling demands and acting as liaisons between the municipality and the community. To them, municipal council members do not conduct grassroots outreach to try to understand community needs like they do. They are closer to the people. In two communities, CET respondents did not even know the names of their municipal council representatives. Only one out of six mayors interviewed for the evaluation was of the opinion that the CET undermines the municipal council in his community. He said that the CET is an illegitimate body that is competing with a legitimately elected body. However, while it is no longer welcomed in this municipality, CEP staff confirmed that the CET is still working with other stakeholders in the community, including the departments of health, education and youth under the current municipal project. 19% 22% 59% CSOs Municipal Council The CET Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 47 Municipal structures, and especially mayors, enjoy the most public confidence among various levels of government and local CSOs. Fifty-nine percent of surveyed CET members said that community members trust their municipality (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q1). When CET members were asked in the survey with which entity they feel their engagement can be most effective in enhancing municipal/government responsiveness to community needs, 42 percent said with the mayor, 35 percent said with CETs and 10 percent said with municipal councils. Thirty percent of CET members in the same survey said that municipal council members are weak, lack financial resources, reflect tribal makeup and are generally not interested in community engagement after being elected. The results of Figures 17 (above) and 18 (below) reveal that CET respondents believe that as local actors they are best suited to engage the community to address its needs, while mayors are most effective in engaging with municipal structures and government to improve their responsiveness to community needs. In other words, CET members perceive themselves to be the most effective for horizontal engagement and view mayors as potentially more effective for vertical engagement. Figure 18 CET Survey Results - with which of the following do you feel your engagement can be most effective in enhancing municipal/government responsiveness to community needs: the CET, a CSO or the municipal council? In its last round of municipal projects that are currently under development, CEP will be working towards the incorporation of a feedback mechanism in municipal processes to ensure citizens have a formalized means for feedback on service delivery. The program is also piloting municipal projects that aim to formalize CE mechanisms in three municipalities by focusing on strategic planning and responsiveness to citizens. In addition, the project has been working with the MOI to incorporate community engagement mechanisms into their decentralization regulations. Are there opportunities for improvement in this area in the second half of implementation? Although CEP has made progress towards changing behaviors and attitudes towards community engagement, according to CEP staff “continued engagement still requires an external catalyst to maintain the momentum of the dialogue.”39 As discussed under EQ2, the majority of CET members have complained about the little input they had in the design of the various projects. The level of engagement CEP has offered CET members can therefore be enhanced through closer and more transparent collaboration. As a CET 39 USAID CEP Year 4 Implementation Plan, p.9. 3% 10% 10% 35% 42% My tribe Municipal Council members The governor The CET The mayor Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 48 member in Salheyeh put it: “we only sign. The directorate is talking to the schools and we don’t know anything [about the project.]” Given that USAID has changed CEP’s direction in the past, CEP’s work with the CETs has taken place in a concerted manner for only between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years (depending on whether they are a new or old community.) The ability of CETs to self-mobilize, therefore, is not surprisingly still weak and, as noted earlier, there is little evidence that CEP staff have consistently conceded real decision-making power to CETs. In Hay Al Hussein, CET members were quite vocal in their group meeting with the evaluation team about decisions they disagreed with and thought were taken on their behalf by CEP staff. Elaborating on this point, one of the respondents said: “we used to put specifications but then discover that the specifications we end up receiving are not what we initially agreed upon.” In the same vein, CET respondents in four out of the nine communities the evaluation looked at complained of a lack of transparency that left them feeling marginalized and questioning the integrity and intentions of the project’s field staff. These allegations were not verified by the evaluation; however, the perceptions held by these CET members are suggestive of weak communication with CEP staff and insufficient involvement in the design and implementation of projects, making this an area for potential improvement in the second half of implementation. All CET group discussion respondents said they have not received training on advocacy or fundraising. They did however receive training on developing budgets for small initiatives. Capacity building to develop advocacy and private sector engagement skills, gain understanding of municipal operations, and conduct community needs assessment are still lacking. These capacity needs, according to CEP staff, will be addressed as part of the program’s sustainability plan once the CETs are housed within legal entities. Thirty-seven percent of CET members who took part in the CET survey said they do not understand the municipality’s budget process and its operational framework, including how resources are allocated to meet needs (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q12). Twenty-one percent said they understand it to some extent. In addition, 38 percent of these respondents still believe the municipality does not have a transparent institutionalized mechanism for community discussion, negotiation, and decision-making between stakeholders. While CEP’s scope did not include capacity building in municipal operation and processes, the lack of these skills affects the ability of CET members, whether as individuals or as collective bodies, to more meaningfully engage with local government and advocate for their needs. According to CEP staff, improvements in this regard to focus efforts on integrating engagement mechanisms in municipal structures are underway. CEP is in the process of piloting three municipal projects in a bid to move away from large-scale municipal support projects towards a stronger focus on sustainable community engagement mechanisms that are related to strategic planning and citizen feedback on quality of service provision. Particular attention will be paid to exploring ways in which municipal structures can link up with governorate structures for more efficient bottom-up planning. Through these efforts, lessons learned, and best practices will be handed over to the new CITIES program that has recently started. CONCLUSIONS The relationship between the community and local government entities has been strengthened, due to the municipalities’ improved capacity to deliver services. There is little evidence, however, that the relationship between the community and civil society organizations has improved. That said, CEP efforts have demonstrated the value of community engagement to local government and the communities alike. The program has acknowledged the need for additional emphasis on vertical engagement and has been working to refocus its efforts on creating mechanisms for citizens’ input and feedback in municipal structures through its Year 4 activities, which include support to MOI and the municipal pilot projects. The support to MOI carries with it significant potential for formalizing CE mechanisms on a national scale. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 49 CEP has not affected or exacerbated tribal cleavages or other existing leadership structures. Likewise, the CET mechanism does not seem to have threatened the authority of the municipality or local government entities. The net effect of the project’s design rationale for creating loosely organized civic structures to function alongside legitimately elected bodies and CSOs is unclear. By creating new structures, the project has overlooked more organic and potentially sustainable community engagement mechanisms, especially that the sustainability of CETs will depend on hosting by existing CSOs. The collective competence of CETs has been enhanced. As community leaders and representatives, members have demonstrated enhanced capacity to work together to identify and address community needs and to engage with key stakeholders. However, CEP did not enhance the community’s collective ability to tap into existing resources to address stressors. Stakeholders remained dependent on the program for funding and support. Community engagement was meant to be an entry point to mobilize the community. There is significant evidence that this type of mobilization has not yet occurred. CETs are limited in their ability to self mobilize and self fund. CBO involvement is limited. The Partnership Initiatives helped to engage the broader community somewhat but were also limited in their reach. This mobilization and collective competence on the part of the larger community is less visible beyond small-scale community initiatives that other local organizations are already implementing. The project has managed to ensure some community input, but the larger scale mobilization effort in the form of a sustained ability by CETs to engage the community, did not materialize. CEP’s role as a catalyst does not seem to have been transferred to local stakeholders, including CETs. Overall decision-making authority is still vested in CEP staff. This has negatively affected the autonomy and sustainability of CET teams, as illustrated by their dependence on the USAID brand for legitimacy. This suggests that a) CET members lack an understanding of the project’s results chain and its intended impact and b) that the CETs’ credibility is contingent on the availability of funds and association with a strong donor, a model which may not be sustainable. While mayors and municipal councils enjoy relatively more public confidence than other government actors, it is questionable whether municipal councils can assume the role of CETs. Opportunities for improvement would have to take into account CET members’ knowledge gaps in advocacy skills and municipal decision-making processes including resource allocation. This will bolster members’ ability to access resources to meet their communities’ needs. A more robust community engagement mechanism that goes beyond one-way communication could also be helpful. Building the skills and channels to track change, generate feedback, and advocate for follow-up action will increase accountability and demonstrate the value of engagement. Ensuring a broad based and pluralistic approach to these processes, with an eye on gender and marginalized communities, is an important component in supporting the goals of social cohesion. CEP’s Year 4 activities could address some of these issues and challenges. And finally, more focus on CEP’s current intervention with the MOI will sustain community engagement mechanisms and enhance public demand for accountability. The overall effectiveness of CEP’s future community engagement efforts hinges on the sustainability of CETs and is limited by the teams’ ability to self-fund and self-mobilize. That said, the project’s community engagement efforts have bolstered government responsiveness and demonstrated to stakeholders the benefits of engagement between various stakeholders. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 50 EQ1 FINDINGS Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building and grants) as they relate to CEP goals. Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? Introduction In this section, because the overall effectiveness of CEP’s grants and community engagement components has been discussed in the above responses to EQ 2 and EQ 3, respectively, the narrative below focuses solely on the last of the project’s interventions, capacity building. The discussion begins with an analysis of the initial and subsequent approaches implemented as part of CEP capacity building efforts. In addition, in this section an original program goal to increase the role and responsibilities of local implementing partners is assessed as part of reviewing overall CEP effectiveness. The focus then shifts to the effectiveness of CEP's multi-faceted efforts to build the capacity of CETs in the following areas: • the ability to engage with a range of stakeholders, including community members and the private sector; • the skills to continue engagement with different partners after the project ends; • project design and management skills; and • CMM training and the ability to identify TTCs. Lastly, the narrative examines the effectiveness of CEP capacity building efforts focused on CBOs and municipalities. This is followed by a presentation of the EQ1 conclusions divided into two parts: those regarding the overall effectiveness of the CEP intervention model and those focused on the effectiveness of the capacity building activities. Capacity Building Approaches and Activities The purpose and approach of CEP capacity building activities has shifted significantly over time. During Phase 1, CEP had ambitious plans to build the capacities of, "individuals, NGOs, government entities, and CSO Coordination Committees to identify and address community stressors through improving participation, cohesion, and government responsiveness."40 CEP planned to achieve this by providing training and technical assistance (TA) through the CETs and community meetings, as well as direct TA, classroom offerings, and on-the-job mentoring to GOJ and NGO representatives. Capacity building activities were to be tailored to NGO and GOJ stakeholders based on gap analysis and refined based on participant feedback. As outlined in the original cooperative agreement, factors for program success in the original design included: building the CETs’ capacity to create and approve LCDPs; increasing the responsibility of local implementing partners Al Jidara and JRF; and, empowering government champions to facilitate formalization and sustainability of program tools.41 As the CETs were envisioned as the "fora" or main catalyst through which to increase the engagement and build the capacity of communities, NGOs, and GOJ stakeholders, CEP provided a range of informal and formal capacity building activities over the period of performance. During Phase 1, the capacity building activities for CETs included a mix of formal training sessions to instill basic knowledge of community engagement and volunteerism principles, as well as on-the-job training activities where CEP supported the 40 USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement No. AID-279-A-13-0001 signed April 4, 2013, p. 22 41 Ibid., p. 16 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 51 CETs to fulfill their roles. According to program records and interviews with CEP Staff, these formal and informal capacity building activities included: • Orientation meetings to elaborate the roles and responsibilities of the CET; • Community survey to validate prioritized projects: the CET members completed questionnaires by interviewing about 15 community members each on the value of the proposed interventions; • Stakeholder dynamics and meetings -CEP staff taught the CETs to identify all key stakeholders for each community; • Community asset mapping;42 • Communications and outreach; • Community engagement training; • Development of project concept paper; • Capacity building workshops similar to those provided to the NGO grantees;43 • Support to develop and submit appropriate project proposals for USAID/CEP approval; and • Support to each CET to develop LCDPs. This focus shifted slightly in Year 2. The Year 2 Annual Implementation plan noted that "to date, assistance was predominantly focused on building the capacity of municipalities and government to supply basic services and develop planning processes." It then goes on to describe a shift in strategy to focus on building the capacity of communities to "participate in the identification of needs, generating de facto demand for services." In Phase II, the overall goal of CEP remained the same and capacity building remained under Objective 3. In Phase III, with the changes in the overall logic model and AMEP mentioned earlier, CEP capacity building activities became the key component of IR 2, community capacity to mobilize in response to threats to cohesion (TTCs) strengthened, and the related sub-IRs: • 2.1 CET capacity to identify TTCs strengthened • 2.2 CETs and stakeholder capacity for project planning and implementation developed • 2.3 CETs and stakeholders effectively utilize communication skills In order to achieve Sub-IR 2.1, CEP developed the Conflict Management Mitigation (CMM) training for CETs to make the shift from designing activities to address identified stressors, to making a deeper analysis of how stressors impact relationships in each community in order to design the last round of CET projects to address TTCs. In order to achieve Sub-IR 2.2, CEP is continuing to deliver community engagement training to CET members, GOJ staff and other stakeholders participating in the implementation of the municipal grants. CEP is also working with the MOI/LDD to design an assistance package to increase its capacity to implement the agreed upon CEMs through the decentralization process. 42 In practice, asset mapping took place during stakeholder meetings where the CEP staff, CET members, and grant stakeholders identified what interventions will likely be covered by the municipality, other GOJ entities or donor programs and ensure that CET grants are covering gaps in terms of pressing needs and services. 43 The level of training was to be customized based on the skills and experience of the members of each CET. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 52 Increased Responsibilities of Implementing Partners One of the sustainability factors envisioned earlier in the project was that IPs Al Jidara and JRF would assume increased responsibility over the course of the program. However, Al Jidara was later determined not to be a useful tool for sustainability and JRF was to take over sustainability activities. JRF has provided staff to help conduct the HHS and facilitate the CWMs and been the lead implementer of a gender grant in Year 1.44 The changes the project underwent from Years1-3 precluded the envisioned expansion of JRF’s role. When the project was in a better position to start long-term planning in the middle of Year 3, there was a management transition at USAID and a Regional Inspector General audit of CEP. Based on KIIs with JRF and CEP staff and a review of CEP annual implementation plans and reports, JRF's expanded role was not clarified until the Year 4 Annual Implementation Plan and in the seventh agreement modification in which JRF was assigned to direct the development of sustainable exit strategies for the CETs. These activities have been delayed until late in 2016. As noted in the CEP Year 3 Annual Report, the delay in approval of CEP Years 4-5 extension and seventh agreement modification caused further delay to implementing the expansion of JRF's role.45 CEP and JRF staff said that the sub-agreement with JRF outlining its expanded role was signed recently and JRF received approval to implement it from the MOI in early October 2016.46 A JRF representative informed the evaluation team that JRF was tasked with providing local technical experts to support the implementation of the HHS and facilitate the CWMs. However, as a key IP, JRF has not played a decision-making role in developing technical approaches. From the JRF perspective, until recently "we feel like a body shop," while noting with the signing of the new agreement, this should change. Capacity Building Results with CETs The most robust capacity building activities of CEP were directed at the CETs. CET survey respondents and group discussion participants were overwhelmingly positive and appreciative of CEP activities in this regard. Indeed, during all of the CET group discussions, participants expressed their appreciation of CEP￾provided formal trainings with such comments as, “the way the trainers transmitted the information was effective,” and “we would like them to increase their trainings.” Overall, CET members found the CMM training to be the most valuable. The CET survey results were also overwhelmingly positive on CEP capacity building activities. Of the 232 CET members surveyed: • 73 percent rated the overall quality of the trainings they received through CEP as outstanding (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants, Q18). • 48.7 percent of CET members expressed interest in additional training; more youth (57.1 percent) than adults (39.8 percent) expressed such interest (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants, Q23A). 44 USAID CEP Annual Report Year 1 - Reporting Period: April 10th, 2013-March 31st, 2014, p. 12 45 At the end of Year 3, the seventh modification, which covered Years 4 and 5 (from April 10, 2016 through the present), was delayed and finalized in July 2016. USAID CEP submitted a draft Year 4 Annual Implementation Plan to USAID/Jordan, several activities including those related to JRF’s expanded role, were delayed as they were contingent upon an executed modification. 46 Personal communication with CEP staff in Amman on 11-16-16 and with JRF staff also in Amman, on 10-13-16. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 53 Figure 19 CET Survey Results - How would you rate the overall quality of the trainings you received through the CEP program? Similarly, the survey results are very positive in terms of the confidence of CET members in their acquired abilities to generate awareness and participation in community engagement processes. Of the 232 CET members surveyed: • 84 percent believed that the program provided them with the necessary skills to act independently after the program ends (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section V Sustainability, Q5A). • 79 percent said the training sufficiently built their capacity to engage different partners after the project ends (Annex XIII: CET Survey Results, Section III Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants, Q21). These survey results were confirmed by participants from five of the CET group discussions who likewise said they believe that the training they received helped build their capacity to continue to engage stakeholders after the program ends. In terms of informal capacity building activities, participants in seven CET group discussions mentioned that they have either met with other CETs to exchange experiences and/or to coordinate grant design and implementation. Participants in five of these discussions found the CEP-organized meetings with other CETs beneficial and they appreciated the opportunity to exchange experiences. On the other hand, CEP capacity building efforts did not sufficiently support communities through the CETs to identify ways to address stressors on their own. CEP is meant to leave behind communities capable of developing solutions by accessing available resources through collaboration and partnerships with relevant stakeholders.47 As discussed earlier, the majority of CET members, whether in the survey or the discussion groups, exhibited strong dependency on CEP staff for mobilization and funding. Furthermore, the majority of respondents in the CET survey said that additional donor funding would be required to sustain CETs. Even though 53 percent of CET members reported that CEP built their capacity to engage the private sector, concrete evidence in the form of partnerships or engagement with the private sector were not mentioned during the discussion groups with them. In fact, the majority of CET members in discussion groups said that the program did not build their capacity to engage the private sector on their own. The 47 USAID CEP Year 3 Annual Report, p.5. 1% 13% 13% 73% Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Don't know Outstanding Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 54 discrepancy between responses can be attributed to the different issue that the two groups were commenting on. The survey respondents might have been reporting on whether the program has included capacity building efforts to engage the private sector while the CET members in discussion groups were commenting on their actual capacity to do so on their own having been probed on their future ability to build bridges with the sector. Project Design and Management Training Under Sub-IR 2.2, CETs and Stakeholders capacity for project planning and implementation developed, CEP provides design and implementation monitoring training for the CETs, CBOs and municipalities. As part of the revision of the strategic approach, CETs are supposed to assume more responsibility to ensure sustainability and a successful exit for the program. According to CEP, final proposals and budgets are designed for approval by USAID and are not working documents for CETs. Despite CETs’ access to Data Collection Sheets that contain all projects’ activity and budget information, CET members in group discussions expressed frustration that they are not applying project design and management skills in meaningful ways. In six of the nine CET group discussions, participants said they do not have access to final proposals or budgets, which makes it difficult for them to lead implementation or perform monitoring. In addition, in six of the nine discussions, participants said that their role in follow-up monitoring the quality and completion of CET grant activities was marginalized by CEP or that the CET had no role in this process. CMM Training to Identify TTCs In Phase 3, under IR 2, Community Capacity to mobilize in response to TTCs strengthened, CEP delivers targeted training to the CETs in two main areas, CMM and Do No Harm. Under Sub-IR 2.1: CET capacity to identify TTCs strengthened, CEP focuses on increasing the collective competence of "partner communities to identify and address stressors and TTCs in a conflict sensitive manner." CEP aims to achieve this through providing CETs and other key stakeholders with CMM training that will enable communities to build on their previously identified stressors in order to, "dig deeper into underlying issues and community dynamics." The Do No Harm training was developed in Year 2 and was delivered to staff and incorporated into the CET training and project design approach.48 In Year 3, CEP conducted a needs assessment, and developed and tested the pilot. The new training was rolled-out at the beginning of Year 4. During the CET group discussions and in the members’ survey, participants named CMM most frequently as the most valuable training. CEP staff were not surprised by these results, having received similar positive feedback, but they also noted that CMM is the most recent training the CETs have received so it is likely to be in the forefront of participants’ memories. However, during the group discussions with CET members, the evaluation team found that despite the positive feedback about the CMM training, participants still did not clearly understand the relationship between stressors and TTCs, regularly conflating the two concepts. When asked specifically about the program’s current focus on TTCs and how that differs from its earlier focus on stressors, almost all CET members in discussion groups were unable to explain the difference between the two. 48 It should be noted that at the time of the evaluation, most but not all active CET members included in data collection have taken the CMM training with the related exercise to identify and map conflict dynamics and TTCs. The focus on TTCs is a new shift in the direction of CEP’s program preparation and planning and related activities that took place in Year 3. Grants designed to address TTCs are being implemented in late 2016 and early 2017. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 55 Figure 20 CET Survey Results - Which training listed below was most valuable to you in building your capacity to engage stakeholders and to identify and address stressors? Capacity Building of CBOs During Phases 1 and 2, under Component I Grants to NGOs and Local Government, capacity building activities focused on training for CBOs and NGOs in community engagement practices and becoming successful grant implementing partners. This targeted training included efforts in project design and management. In the case of CBO grants, CEP collaborated with USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program (USAID CIS), a USAID/Jordan program providing capacity building for CSOs, adapting some of their training modules to CEP’s needs where appropriate. As a result of the previously referenced changes in the intervention model, during Year 2 of the program, the capacity component witnessed a stronger integration into CEP’s engagement approach and much narrower, project-focused approach.49 Instead of providing general capacity building to CBOs, CEP started to provide such assistance to grantees tailored to their grants and in support of the implementation of their particular projects. According to CEP staff, the most valued capacity building interventions were those aimed at equipping CBOs with the key knowledge and skills needed to design and implement successful projects that address community stressors including “Project Design and Proposal Writing” workshops and project-focused M&E workshops.50 Illustrating the impact of these efforts, when asked in the CET survey what were the tangible benefits they received from participating in CEP, two of the eight CBO partners interviewed, who are also CET members, mentioned the high quality training they received. A few CBO representatives also tied the training they received to their organizations being able to provide tangible benefits to their beneficiaries, such as access to soccer fields. 49 USAID CEP Year 2 Annual Report, p.15. 50 Ibid. 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 10% 11% 18% 49% Other (data collection, road paving, and debating) Communication skills All of them Nothing Do no Harm Community enagament Didn't attended any CEP training ABCs of initiatives CMM Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 56 That said, capacity building efforts did not sufficiently improve the image of civil society or the understanding of its role. Twenty-nine percent of CET members said in the survey that civil society advocacy would be the most effective way to generate responsiveness from the government for a communal problem and 19 percent said CSO would be most effective in engaging the community and advocating for its needs. In other words, CETs perceive CSOs to be relatively less capable of vertical and horizontal engagement than other stakeholders. Municipalities and GOJ As with the CSO approach, changes to the intervention model resulted in a new approach focused on the provision of capacity building and equipment related to the specific project being implemented rather than more general capacity building. When asked about methods staff uses to collect information on community needs, all municipal representatives described informal mechanisms for processing complaints and assessing needs that were in place before the program. The representatives did not speak of new mechanisms, processes or capacities that were developed as a result of the program. According to CEP staff, Year 4 interventions are designed to address this gap in vertical engagement mechanisms. In addition, USAID, CITIES and CEP are working on a robust coordination effort that will ensure that CITIES can build on these Year 4 efforts when CEP ends. The majority of mayors and municipal staff interviewed by the team said their staff had participated in some CEP trainings, but were not able to articulate what they were or the specific value accrued by their municipalities as a result. A few of these interviewees did mention they thought their staff received operational and maintenance training as part of the training targeted to support the implementation of specific municipal services grants. CONCLUSIONS Capacity Building CEP has largely implemented the ambitious planned capacity building activities for CETs with clear results. CETs have expressed a clear appreciation and understanding of the benefits of community consultation and collaborative project design as well as the importance of monitoring implementation to ensure that grants meet identified needs. CETs have also built some new skills that can help them work with communities to identify and respond to basic communal needs with the help of CEP and the municipalities. At this point in the program, it is unclear if they will develop the capacity to engage communities to design responses to threats to TTCs. CET members expressed confidence that their training would enable them to engage different partners after the projects ends but because such awareness and skills were developed within processes managed and implemented by CEP (including funding for grants), it is unclear how their collective or individual capacity will transfer and/or sustain itself in the absence of USAID funding and branding. CET members viewed CEP training favorably and expressed keen interest in additional training. Although the CMM training was highly valued by CET members, they did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge to differentiate between stressors and TTCs. Their knowledge level of how relationships among stakeholders affect their reaction to stressors, which is the crux of the CMM training, was rudimentary at best. The results of capacity building and other CEP activities directed at local government representatives have not yet changed the ways municipalities collect and process information on community needs, or the ways in which they communicate information to their communities. The program’s Year 4 activities are expected to address this. Despite the overall positive feedback on the program’s capacity building activities, stakeholders exhibited a weak sense of agency and dependence on CEP to drive the engagement process. Capacity building efforts Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 57 seem to have promoted CETs’ project-specific functionality for the most part (project design, monitoring, etc.) and may have missed some of the more basic conceptual points for CBOs and CETs to understand, namely the role of civil society, and how to become self-sustaining to continue to address pressing issues in their community after CEP ends. CEP’s Overall Effectiveness While the effectiveness of CEP’s grants and community engagement components has been discussed in the above responses to EQ 2 and EQ 3, respectively, the narrative below sums up the overall effectiveness of the whole program. CEP’s overall effectiveness was affected by limitations related to the project’s logic model, operations and the various changes made to its strategic approach. The most pronounced challenges include the limited ability of the project to address higher-level stressors in the communities and the establishment of the CETs as new mechanisms whose sustainability is unclear after the project ends rather than working with existing mechanisms. In addition, USAID-inspired changes in the project’s implementation approaches during the first and second years of performance, as well as in the expansion in the number of targeted communities has also constituted a significant challenge to the project. It affected CEP’s ability to develop a strong baseline and focus on the most relevant indicators for program performance. It also caused significant delays and adversely affected community expectations regarding the program. Despite these challenges, CEP has made progress towards enhancing horizontal and vertical cohesion in the communities in which it operates. Through its various types of grants, capacity building opportunities, and avenues for community engagement, CEP efforts have increased municipal/governmental responsiveness, enhanced the quality of municipal services, built the collective competence of CETs and, most importantly, demonstrated to immediate stakeholders the value and benefits of participation. CEP’s current intervention with the MOI holds promise for its approach to sustaining community engagement mechanisms and enhancing public demand for accountability. That said, CEP is a technically and geographically broad program and, absent a more narrowly defined technical focus, risks implementing many one-off activities without generating a deeper impact. EQ4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy a) Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity b) Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues c) All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 58 To answer this question, the narrative initially focuses on CEP’s current exit strategies at the community, municipal, and national levels. In the course of this discussion, the feasibility of these exit strategies is also assessed. Lastly, the potential for program sustainability at the same three levels is examined. As CEP moves towards closeout in 2018, it is proceeding with its exit strategy in tandem with the mandates and responsibilities of its partners. As a part of the exit strategy, the CETs were asked to look into: 1) finding the most appropriate form of institutionalization of the CEP Community Engagement Methodology that does not require the support of a donor project; and, 2) exploring best options for feeding CE mechanisms and program efforts into government processes. The current exit strategy includes activities at the community, municipal, and national levels: Community Level At the community level, activities include: • The identification of 19 entities to serve as hosts to CETs. The hosts will provide space for CETs and maintain CE mechanisms. This will include developing criteria for the selection of hosts, by-laws, and communication, outreach, fundraising and advocacy plans; • Working with CETs as community dialogue platforms to organize and facilitate dialogue around common priority stressors, TTCs and the development of LCDPs; • Supporting host entities to transition to self-funding; • Building capacity of stakeholders to map community assets and utilize communication mechanisms; and • Packaging a toolkit including training, communications, project management and community mapping material to serve as a resource for stakeholders. CEP has recently held workshops for CET members to discuss sustainability options. As indicated earlier, when CET members were asked about how they could continue operating after the program ends, 60 percent said with funding from another donor. When CET members were asked about how CEP support can be improved, most members articulated improvements in the form of additional training and funding; no CET respondents proposed scenarios for sustainability, or requested support to transition to self￾funding. When CET members were asked whether they thought CSOs could play the role of CETs, 55 percent of respondents said yes and 40 percent said no. However, and based on the evidence collected by the evaluation team, there are several issues that mean CEP’s plan to identify 19 entities to host CETs may prove problematic. These reasons include: • Considering that the majority of CET members are already members of CSOs, they may be reluctant to join other organizations as community engagement teams; • CETs may be reluctant to play a dialogue platform role without the ability to deliver large-scale municipal and/or CBO projects that will in turn affect their ability to mobilize the community; • CETs’ lack of advocacy skills may impede their ability to push for the incorporation of LCDPs into government planning processes; and • Utilizing the CET mechanism as a dialogue platform to assist communities to horizontally engage with each other will need to be supplemented by efforts to ensure that vertical engagement with the government to address stressors is not overlooked. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 59 Figure 20 CET Survey Results - Do you think the civil society organizations can play the role of CETs? In addition, the very challenges that plague the civil society sector might impede the host organizations from taking advantage of this opportunity. The sector’s fragmentation, donor dependency, and inability to raise funds from local sources will require these organizations to continue to seek foreign funding. On the other hand, the fact that 60 percent of CET members are already members of CSOs could work in favor of having CSOs become hosts after CEP ends. Members returning to their CSOs could act as mentors and catalysts and embed CEMs in their respective organizations, which could boost civil society and ensure the transfer of knowledge on community mechanisms to the sector. This is important in light of the 2015 USAID Civil Society Assessment, which revealed that Jordanian citizens do not fully understand the functions civil society performs and the role it plays in shaping public policy. The overriding challenge the sector suffers from, according to the study, is its limited impact overall and limited relevance to the constituencies it is there to represent.51 Citizens and decision-makers alike may learn to overcome their distrust for civil society if CSOs can prove their utility to them by: • becoming more knowledgeable about community needs and more effective at relaying those needs to decision makers; • becoming credible sources of data; • offering evidence-based feedback on policies, government plans, or challenges; and/or • piloting programs and services.52 In effect, by embedding a CE mechanism into CSOs, CEP would be assisting the sector to expand its constituencies and, in the process, achieve “micro-relevance” to the daily lives of Jordanians and “macro￾relevance” to the challenges facing the country. 51 USAID Civil Society Assessment, 2015, p.v. 52 Ibid., p.vi. 5% 40% 55% Don't know No Yes Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 60 Municipal Level Considering that CETs’ sustainability is questionable, CEP is exploring how community engagement mechanisms can be built in and sustained through different avenues. One such option is municipalities, which is supported by the evaluation general population survey finding that citizens tend to trust mayors and municipal councils to a larger extent than the central government, parliament, government directorates at the local level, and governors. Accordingly, and as referenced earlier in this report, CEP is currently experimenting with three pilot projects in the municipalities of Tafileh, Ramtha, and Mafraq to assist them in establishing community engagement mechanisms that support participation in decision-making at the municipal level. The projects will have CETs support local councils in the development of LCDPs and help them broaden public engagement in decision-making. This will also include efforts to strengthen linkages with LDUs to ensure the integration of identified priorities into governorate plans.53 In sum, the projects are well positioned to take advantage of the relative level of confidence survey respondents expressed regarding municipal structures. Municipal structures are closest to the people and are required to manage competing needs and synthesize them for action by other governmental levels. Integrating the CET mechanism into municipal structures through the pilot projects or as host entities to the CETs could help ensure their sustainability to address stressors. A partnership with CITIES will facilitate this considering that CEP will not have sufficient time, resources and technical capacity to undertake such a change in its limited time remaining. National Level CEP will continue to work with the MOI, MOMA and MOE to integrate and sustain CE mechanisms in their processes. Through many of its projects, and especially the Partnership Initiatives, the project has been working to shore up the role of schools within communities and emphasize this as an important element of its sustainability framework. To ensure the continuity of this component, CEP will be removing itself as a catalyst for the “Towards a More Beautiful School” Initiative, by working with the MOE to fully adopt its program approach and independently launch these activities. CEP has also developed a good relationship with the MOI to take advantage of the GOJ’s drive for decentralization and embed community engagement mechanisms in the new governance structure. It has collaborated with the MOI/LDD to organize three community dialogues in March 2016 in Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh. The dialogues, attended by 356 community members (265 males, 93 females) and stakeholders (130 government, 28 municipal), raised awareness about decentralization and gathered community input around what citizens are interested in seeing in terms of CE mechanisms in their communities. The results of the workshops fed into the design of a national conference held in Amman in May 2016. CEP is continuing to assist the MOI/LDD to integrate community engagement into the decentralization process. Ongoing and envisioned future support includes: • Working with each governorate to develop mechanisms to ensure wide dissemination of the dialogues; • Supporting integration of community engagement mechanisms into decentralization, regulations and bylaws; • Designing an assistance package to increase the capacity of the MOI/LDD to implement community engagement mechanisms; • Developing in-kind support to help operationalize bylaws; and • Designing a media campaign and action plan in support of decentralization. 53 USAID CEP Modification 7, p.18. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 61 These efforts are expected to help ensure that community engagement mechanisms are duly integrated in the GOJ’s decentralization infrastructure. Integration of CE mechanisms in decentralization by-laws and regulations could help ensure their sustainability and cultivate demand for accountability on a national level. On the other hand, the relationship with MOI will depend on “government champions” to continue and will require a sustained effort on the part of USAID or follow on projects like CITIES to ensure its continuation. CONCLUSIONS Potential Exit Strategies The evaluation team has considered CEP’s ongoing efforts regarding sustainability and developing CE avenues to incorporate into the GOJ legal framework and other civic outlets to ensure that channels for community input and feedback are embedded at the local level. These plans, in addition to other opportunities, are explored below. Community Level When asked about the role CETs would play under the decentralized governance structure, CET members’ responses cited various possibilities including raising awareness regarding the new laws, running for local, governorate or municipal councils, and organizing Get-Out-the-Vote efforts during the upcoming elections. In discussion groups, more CET members were interested in running for the governorate councils than for municipal or local councils. According to CEP, the vast majority of CET members have elected to pursue existing structures (namely, CSOs) rather than to create new ones. This strategy seems promising as supporting these members’ integration into existing advocacy CSOs will leverage the knowledge they have acquired from their CET experience. Assistance along these lines should include capacity building for the organizations to help them conduct community needs assessments, administer surveys, do focus groups, map communities, and develop asset inventories. Building on past CEP support for CET efforts to develop LCDPs that outline their vision for ongoing development of their communities is another area for potential exit strategy activity. 54 As mentioned earlier, CET members did not exhibit significant knowledge or ownership of these long-term plans. These plans have already been developed and undergone extensive stakeholder analysis. However, CET members are now well positioned to share these plans with candidates, mayors, LDUs and, eventually, the new decentralization councils. In fact, USAID CIS is gearing up to support CSOs to actively engage in defining development priorities for governorates and to discuss these initiatives with their respective communities to agree on priorities to be shared with candidates for the various councils. CEP could similarly leverage CET members and their host entities to support decentralization efforts by supporting their advocacy for the adoption of LCDPs. CEP or other USAID implementers, such as IRI, can provide services to CET members interested in running for local councils. Their members’ role in raising awareness and disseminating information on decentralization and the roles of the various councils can also be supported. In addition, their role in sharing information about the activities they participated in regarding decentralization (such as the stakeholder workshop to gather input on the draft procedures manual) is worthy of consideration. As community leaders, CET members could also be at the forefront of efforts to educate voters about how to judge candidates by learning their stands on issues, leadership abilities, and professional suitability. 54 Year 3 Implementation Plan, p.17 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 62 CEP could also support CET members and their host entities by filling the gaps in their knowledge about promoting more effective community engagement for addressing stressors. As referenced earlier, CET members are not sufficiently aware of or knowledgeable about LCDPs, the role of civil society, municipal budget processes and municipal operations, advocacy skills, and skills to engage the private sector. These are areas that the program could work on for a more robust community engagement experience that is capable of engaging large constituencies, exploring already existing community engagement and conflict management and mitigation mechanisms, and increasing accountability. Lastly, CEP’s work is potentially aligned with Mercy Corps’ efforts in Jordan in the area of conflict and governance, under which support is provided to communities, community leaders and local government to resolve local stresses and tensions and to help communities develop solutions to common problems. Municipal Level On the municipal level, CEP could explore leveraging the project-focused capacity it has developed in CETs by potentially transitioning those skills to host entities and especially CSOs, shifting them into a social accountability role. This would boost the demand for better services and enhance the vertical dimension of social cohesion. Such efforts would increase government responsiveness and help ensure citizens’ meaningful involvement in the planning, delivery, and monitoring of services. The project’s attempts to host CE mechanisms in municipalities is also promising considering the high level of trust exhibited by community members in municipal structures. National Level As one of CEP’s original partners, JRF has been involved in its implementation from the beginning. It is also one of the three national intermediary organizations through which USAID CIS assistance has been provided to CBOs in local communities. Expanding the role of JRF and ensuring it has the capacity to support community engagement mechanisms could be a key element of the project’s exit planning. Moreover, supporting periodic and structured peer-to-peer exchanges to pave the way for the development of a network of interested CET members, to be overseen by JRF, would signify that a national and well-positioned USAID assistance recipient is bringing its demonstrated capability and experience to the effort to sustain the community engagement model. This could, as well, contribute to the expansion of JRF’s constituency, as recommended by the USAID Civil Society Assessment, and its ability to gather input on community needs. In boosting support for the integration of CE mechanisms in decentralization regulations, CEP would need to ensure MOPIC and MOMA’s buy-in to the process. Under the new decentralization law, the LDUs are assuming more responsibility as the Secretariat of the decentralized governance infrastructure. As part of their new mandate, the LDUs will be responsible for synthesizing the various “Needs Guides” received from the different municipalities. Part of CEP’s assistance package to the LDUs could include information sharing about what it has accomplished and the resources they can draw upon. Other USAID programs could take lessons learned and successful CE approaches implemented by CEP such as the methodology by which CETs engaged with municipalities to channel community input into municipal decision making and share or replicate them in communities beyond the ones where the project has worked. The IRI, CIS and CITIES programs, for example, have clear synergies with CEP. Hosting could take place at CSOs currently supported by CIS, where the latter has been building capacity or helping transition into an advocacy role. In the same vein, these USAID programs can provide support to the entities that have already absorbed the community engagement mechanism. IRI’s potential role along these lines could be tied to its work that encourages citizen advocacy through focus groups and town hall meetings. During these sessions, a cross-section of citizens identifies top local issues that need solutions and then designs advocacy plans to help raise public awareness about them. IRI Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 63 also enables local citizens’ committees to organize town hall meetings that bring together citizens and local elected officials to raise awareness on issues of concern and discuss possible solutions to communal problems.55 The role of citizens’ committees is very similar to that of CETs and can be informed by the latter’s approaches and accomplishments. Lastly, transferring training material and program tools to USAID implementing partners and local entities such as JRF is another potential way to effectively disseminate CEP resources. CMM training, for example, could be delivered by CIS and IRI to their beneficiaries to ensure that their projects and interventions take into account local conflict dynamics and use a conflict analysis lens to ensure that assistance provided is not reinforcing divisions or inequities. Support could also be provided to CET members and stakeholders to enable them to participate in trainings offered by other IPs to ensure that their skills continue to be expanded and strengthened. RECOMMENDATIONS For USAID CEP Program Management/Operations • Avoid some of the past confusion and disappointments documented in the findings. Manage stakeholders’ expectations by ensuring that they are aware of project complexities and standard USAID procurement approval processes and timeframes for delivery. • Address the transparency related concerns voiced by CET members and other respondents by improving transparency, and clarifying roles, responsibilities, lines of authority, and accountability for CEP staff, CETs, CBOs and GOJ, in project design/implementation. To accomplish these ends, CEP should consider: o Sharing hard and electronic copies of final project proposal, budgets and other documentation with CETs and other partners; o Establishing a formal, accessible, and anonymous feedback mechanism in conjunction with developing the capacity to follow up and/or investigate complaints and, in both cases, keeping stakeholders informed of results; and o Ensuring field staff do not send mixed messages about potential tangible benefits partners can expect from participating in grant implementation. • Avoid turf and credit-claiming issues by ensuring CEP activities do not cause strains in relationships between municipalities and CETs. Take into account implications of messaging and how different stakeholders will perceive actions or statements that might strain relationships between and/or among them. Project Focus/Approaches • Because the evidence showed that some interventions had limited impact, new projects should focus on ensuring the depth, instead of breadth, of the intervention. For example, in a project where CETs are supporting public meetings between schools and the directorate of education in a specific community, the project should be focusing on holding more sessions in a few schools leading to tangible results rather than single sessions in many schools. • Since sustainable sources of funding may not be forthcoming, consider focusing effort on helping communities identify and develop solutions to stressors that do not require CEP’s 55 http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/Jordan%202010-01-22.pdf Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 64 continuous and direct intervention. This can be partly accomplished by strengthening communities’ ability to engage both horizontally and vertically and by strengthening municipalities’ capacity to deliver services and supporting existing structures for community engagement. Community Engagement • In order to strengthen the project’s ability to strategize about how to promote the most effective forms of community engagement, determine and map the different levels of engagement that CEP’s community engagement avenues are promoting among communities and CETs. Levels of engagement include various levels of involvement that range from being kept informed to devolving decision-making. While CEP should be identifying lower-rung engagement opportunities for the public, more meaningful engagement should be moving CETs and their host entities up the ladder of engagement. This would ensure that engagement whether with municipalities, government, civil society or CEP staff is systematically progressing beyond one-way communication. • To make community engagement efforts more sustainable, based on lessons learned, map engagement risks and develop contingency plans for when risks occur, making sure to build capacity of field staff and CET members as community leaders to respond without the involvement of staff in Amman. Other than for CEP, this will be a useful exercise to inform CITIES efforts in the field. • To promote sustainability and deepen impact, harness the potential of CET members as community influencers. Catalyze opportunities for them to promote the narratives of successful activities and networks to spread best practices and lessons learned beyond their projects’ immediate circles of implementation. In the same vein, use the time remaining for CEP to “encourage contagion” of best practices and lessons learned from pilot municipal projects to bring effective practices into other municipalities. • To further build capacity for community engagement, strengthen meaningful peer-to-peer exchanges beyond visits and recreational networking events, to deepen experiences and help ensure cross-fertilization of knowledge. One way to do that is to identify positive outliers and organize peer-led circles in which CET members disseminate knowledge and help each other identify solutions to challenging communal problems. • Continue to strengthen the relationship with MOI to formalize channels for community engagement. Resources should also be allocated to building the capacity of LDUs and ensuring they are well aware of LCDPs and how they are developed. MOPIC and MOMA should be on board with, and continuously informed about, these efforts. • Prioritize and support private sector engagement by CETs and their future host entities, creating in the process models of excellence that community members can replicate. • To help promote CEP’s visibility, facilitate easier access to government stakeholders, and support CITIES, continue to focus efforts on integrating CE in municipal structures and ensuring all municipal projects include a meaningful vertical engagement component. • To build sustainability, support and expand JRF’s role to continue a CE community of practice and develop proof points to demonstrate success, and ensure lessons learned are used for cross-fertilization. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 65 • To strengthen vertical engagement, ensure that municipal pilot projects and other projects trying to push the vertical dimension of social cohesion support the institutionalization of transparent mechanisms for community discussion, negotiation and decision-making between stakeholders at the municipal level. Capacity Building • Ensure that bottom-up engagement is not sidelined by top-down engagement in new round of municipal projects emphasizing vertical cohesion. Host CSOs/CET members and host entities should understand government decision-making processes and be able to influence them. Having acquired such knowledge, host CSOs/CET members can then share it with other community members. • Address some of the gaps in capacity building identified in the evaluation. Concentrate CET capacity building activities on building advocacy skills so CET members are better able to practice their roles as proponents of social accountability for improved municipal services. At the same time, build skills and channels for the CETs and other community members to track change, generate feedback, and advocate for follow up action to increase accountability. This includes filing gaps in their knowledge of municipal budget processes and operations and the role of civil society. To strengthen sustainability, capacity building efforts should also focus on community needs assessments to ensure CSO hosts/CET members can independently administer surveys, conduct focus groups, map communities and develop asset inventories. • To address the gaps in understanding of LCDPs identified in the evaluation, ensure host CSOs and CETs have access to the LCDPs, understand the process by which they were developed, and support advocacy efforts to adopt them. For USAID Program Approaches • When designing projects that are meant to solicit and address community needs, ensure that either limitations are not imposed on what needs can be addressed or that effective measures are in place to manage the expectations of beneficiaries and stakeholders. Alternatively, link up with other programs that can address needs identified as highest priority. • As changes USAID made in CEP created difficulties in implementation and confusion among beneficiaries, going forward USAID should make sure that any plans to change guidance on program implementation for other programs are carefully weighed in light of this experience. When and where changes are made in future programs, careful thought should be given to approaches that might mitigate any of the potential difficulties encountered in CEP, particularly to preventing beneficiary confusion and effectively managing beneficiary expectations and understanding of interventions. • Ensure that outreach, communication and feedback channels in projects similar to CEP are a key component of implementation. Perceptions of beneficiaries and stakeholders can be detrimental to programming and results. • If the intention of projects like CEP is to develop communication channels between community and decision makers through stuctures similar to CETs then ensure such projects consider sustainability and institutionalization of new structures and build capacity of individuals responsible for these mechanisms to take on more ownership of the process/mechanisms at the earliest possible opportunity within the project implementation (i.e. slowly concede the Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 66 management and decision-making authorities of such mechanisms and move into more of a mentorship role as the program implementation progresses). • Better target community engagement projects and development projects in general, whether technically or geographically to ensure deeper impact. If projects are broad, then sufficient human and financial resources should be allocated to avoid implementing one-off activities with insufficient impact at the community level. CEP Improvements • To deepen the impact of the project and sustain its efforts, ensure that CET members continue to participate in other USAID programs’ trainings. • Implement efforts to sustain tools, resources and knowledge developed/transferred by CEP such as posting resources on KaMP and building a database of CET members that other programs can utilize. Actively seek out other ways to leverage these tools and resources. • As a new USAID program targeting municipalities that might overlap with those in which CEP worked, ensure CEP coordinates with CITIES to avoid duplication and ensure long-term cumulative benefits to communities. • Through capacity building support CET members who run for municipal or governorate council elections and win so they can continue to collaborate and share experiences/knowledge. This can be achieved through referrel to other USAID projects. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 67 ANNEXES ANNEX 1: JORDAN CEP STATEMENT OF DIFFERNCE Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 68 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 69 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 70 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 71 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 72 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 73 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 74 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 75 ANNEX II: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Community Engagement Project (CEP) Performance Evaluation STATEMENT OF WORK July 17, 2016 I. INTRODUCTION The Democracy and Governance Office requests a midterm performance evaluation of the Community Engagement Project (CEP). II. BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION The USAID Community Engagement Project, a $50 million five-year project implemented by Global Communities, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience. CEP convenes Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community-stressors that could contribute to conflict and ways to address those stressors. CEP facilitates constructive engagement among community members, civil society, and local government to address stressors, develop Long‐term Community Development Plans (LCDPs), and determine which stressors must be alleviated immediately and by whom. The CETs play an integral role in this process. They have 12-18 members; equal representation of men and women; and have 25% representation by youth (18-30 years). Ultimately, it is envisioned that as CEP funding diminishes over the five-year project period, CET members utilize skills learned to mobilize key stakeholders and local governments to fund community needs, with long-term needs identified through LCDPs and other needs addressed on an ad hoc basis by a more responsive local government. CEP aims to have the Local Development Units (LDUs) in each governorate and municipal governments integrate community engagement more systematically in their planning and implementation processes CEP operates in 20 communities in Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, and Ma’an governorates, with 11 of these communities added to the project during the second year of implementation. Communities were selected based on an assessment conducted at the project inception (selection criteria is detailed in Annex 1) with the following rationale: • Irbid and Mafraq in the North: Urban and densely‐populated Irbid has experienced an influx of Syrian refugees as well as strikes and protests around lack of government transparency, provision of services, and economic opportunity. Syrian refugees have swelled the population of Mafraq by more than 30%, crippling basic services and increasing unemployment in an already poor governorate; • Tafileh in the South: Small, impoverished Tafileh has received less attention and support from the donor community than other locations but was where the main strikes and protests in Jordan began. In addition to recent demographic shifts, it suffers high unemployment and high rates of poverty. • Ma’an in the South: Poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment – coupled with the residual effect of the 2003 unrest in Ma'an–resulted in the accumulation of stressors. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 76 CEP uses the following interventions: 1. Community Engagement a. Community mapping and household surveys b. Forming and training CETs c. Facilitating a community meeting to introduce CETs, present mapping/survey results, and vote on prioritization of community needs 2. Capacity Building a. Training and support to CETs to produce proposals to address stressors with USAID funding b. Training in grants management, project management, procurement and financial management, communications and community outreach, proposal writing and project design c. Training and support to develop LCDPs, community outreach through focus groups and messaging for awareness of activities d. Training in community asset mapping, stakeholder dynamics, communications and outreach, and community engagement e. Training in networking to strengthen stakeholders’ ability to form partnerships, mobilize non￾USAID CEP resources, share experiences, demonstrate and replicate successes, and find solutions for common challenges f. Training in Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) to help community members (including local tribal leaders), NGOs, and government partners effectively respond to emerging challenges 3. Grants a. Grants to CBOs and NGOs and in-kind grants to key stakeholders and local government to relieve tensions through improving interventions such as infrastructure and health services, providing safe classroom environments, and providing youth-friendly services. Grant duration is up to twelve months. Implementation Challenges CEP has encountered challenges resulting from changing USAID direction of the project due to the changing context in Jordan56, resulting in shifting implementation approaches during the first and second years of performance, as well as an expansion in communities from nine to twenty. This affected the ability of the project to develop a strong baseline and focus on the most relevant indicators for project performance. These changes during the first two years of the project affected community expectations from the project, from the length of the grant process to the amount communities, including municipalities, could receive from the project. Investments in time and transparent processes with the communities alleviated some of these challenges. III. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the project’s progress toward achieving its objectives. The evaluation will also recommend shifts in project implementation to enable a strategic exit from communities, particularly those that may receive support from the upcoming Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative and Effectives Solutions (CITIES) project. The evaluation will also consider the implications of any unanticipated positive or negative outcomes. Recommendations from this evaluation 56 For example, after project implementation began, USAID removed ceilings of grants to communities to help municipalities address urgent needs. Once these needs were met, USAID reinstated grant ceilings, which caused changes in the types of community projects that were funded and their results. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 77 will be used to inform changes in project implementation during its last twelve to eighteen months to strategically align with and provide best practices to incorporate from CEP into future similar programming (such as CITIES and efforts to incorporate citizen engagement and social cohesion into governorate and municipal bodies). IV. CEP GOAL AND DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS The goal of USAID CEP is to leave behind stronger, more cohesive and resilient partner communities. This goal will be achieved by working through, and building the capacity of, CETs as USAID CEP’s key stakeholders to collaborate and partner with municipalities/local governments, NGOs, and others to: • Engage in a continuous, conflict-sensitive participatory process of identification and prioritization of stressors; • Develop immediate and long-term solutions by accessing available resources through collaboration and partnerships with relevant stakeholders; and • Utilize effective and transparent communication mechanisms in support of increased community cohesion. CEP is based on the following development hypothesis: “If the capacity of CETs to serve as dialogue platforms in targeted communities is increased to enable them to engage municipalities, local government entities, potential partners, and other community members in a solution-oriented, positive dialogue focused on common interests, then social cohesion and resilience will increase.” CEP supports one Intermediate Result (IR) and its sub‐IRs under USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDCS results framework: ▪ IR 2.4: Community Cohesion Enhanced57 o Sub‐IR 2.4.1: Institutions and mechanisms to build cohesion and resilience strengthened o Sub-IR 2.4.2: Mediation and constituency-building skills enhanced V. EVALUTION QUESTIONS: 1. Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building and grants) as they relate to CEP goals? Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? 2. To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. 3. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? Local civil society organizations? Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? Are there opportunities for improvement in this area in the second half of implementation? 57 USAID/Jordan’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) was revised during the project’s second year. This project was designed under the original CDCS but shifted after the revision of the CDCS. These changes are reflected in the project’s AMEP, with CEP supporting IR 2.1 and 2.3 of the DRG Office’s PMP during the first two years and then supporting IR 2.4 beginning in the third year. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 78 4. Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy. a) Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity b) Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues. c) All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors. The evaluation team will ensure that, where relevant, gender disaggregation and gender differential effects are captured in answering the evaluation questions. VI. EVALUATION METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH The evaluation team will be responsible for developing an evaluation methodology that includes a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis approaches. The methodology should comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy and its strengths and limitations should be described. The data needs to be disaggregated by sex, youth and geographic locations. Data collection should be systematic and findings and conclusions should be evidence-based. Within data limitations, the evaluation team will be expected to present strong quantitative analysis in response to the research questions. The methodology will be presented as part of the draft work plan as outlined in the deliverables below. Data collection and evaluation methodology should include, at a minimum: 1. Review of secondary data: • Basic program documents such as the Cooperative Agreement, the revised program description, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E Plan), annual work plans, quarterly reports, list of deliverables, surveys and training materials • Material related to community engagement, social cohesion and conflict mitigation in Jordan • CITIES RFTOP (to address evaluation question 3) 2. Focus group and individual interviews with: • The CEP team in Amman and the 4 governorates • USAID/Jordan Democracy and Governance Office staff in Amman • CET members • Municipal and Local Directorate key staff, including mayors • Staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, and Ministry of Interior (particularly from the Local Development Units) • Citizens and civil society organizations • Donors A questionnaire or guide of key questions for the interviews (individual or in groups) should be used to ensure consistency in data collection. Rigorous data analysis methods should be used to ensure the main questions are addressed and analyzed. 3. Survey to address these questions VII. TEAM COMPOSITION In accordance with guidance provided in USAID ADS 203 the proposed evaluation team is composed of the following areas of expertise: Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 79 • Approaches to conflict mitigation in developing countries, and experience with participatory community development approaches in particular; • Community development, civil society, local government, and conflict mitigation in Jordan; • Evaluation and assessment design methodologies; • USAID evaluations and familiarity with USAID evaluation policy; • Excellent writing and communication skills with experience in producing team-based, collaborative reports that are learning-oriented; • Skills in qualitative data analysis; and • Local language skills. In order to meet the requirements of team composition, ensure data quality, and contribute to building capacity of local evaluation specialists, the following is suggested for team composition: 1. Team Leader (position combined with Evaluation Specialist or Technical Specialist) 2. Subject Matter Expert (Participatory Community Development and/or Conflict Mitigation) 3. Evaluation Specialist 4. Jordanian Technical Specialist: Community Development Specialist 5. Jordanian Technical Specialist: Conflict and Conflict Mitigation Specialist 6. Research Coordinator/ Interviewer The evaluation team will also be supported by a MESP M&E Specialist, Senior M&E Specialist and Evaluation Assistant. The Senior M&E Specialist will assist the team in designing and implementing the survey to capture the quantitative data to support evaluation findings. Proposed Team Members and Roles 1. Team Leader: Primary point of contact for evaluation with responsibility for assigning team member activities and facilitates smooth team operations, resources, and team member performance to meet objectives. Leads meetings with USAID. 2. Subject Matter Expert (Participatory Community Development / Conflict Mitigation): leads design methodology and instruments; conducts literature review; participates in interviewing and data collection; ensures that findings, conclusions, and recommendations answer evaluation questions and meet USAID purposes; leadership role in analysis, final reporting and presentation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead; and ensures final reporting meets USAID evaluation requirements. 3. Evaluation Specialist: Contributes to design methodology and data collection instruments; conducts literature review; participates in data collection; leads data analysis and interpretation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead. 4. Jordanian Community Development Specialist: Provides culturally and contextually relevant information about environment in which civil society operates. Contributes to design methodology and data collection instruments; participates in pilot testing for data collection and data collection efforts; participates in data analysis and interpretation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead. Ensures assessment and evaluation processes and reporting adhere to USAID requirements. 5. Jordanian Conflict and Conflict Mitigation Specialist: Provides contextually relevant information on community level stressors, conflict dynamics and mitigation strategies. Contributes to design methodology and data collection instruments; participates in pilot testing for data collection and data collection efforts; participates in data analysis and interpretation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead. Ensures assessment and evaluation processes and reporting adhere to USAID requirements. 6. Research Coordinator / Interviewer: Support every stage of the evaluation and assist the evaluation team in data collection: scheduling and conducting interviews; note taking and data analysis. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 80 Members of the team are all expected to sign statements confirming that there are no conflicts of interest with their working on the assessment and evaluation. VIII. PERFORMANCE PERIOD The evaluation will be conducted from August 2016 through December 2016 with data collection conducted in September/October and final report submitted by December 29, 2016. The team should be aware that Eid al Adha (on or around September 12) are national holidays in Jordan (of about 3 to 4 days each) and fall within the evaluation timeframe. The Evaluation Team should plan for a six-day workweek although the formal workweek in Jordan is Sunday through Thursday. Logistics for the assessment and evaluation will be provided by MESP. IX. DELIVERABLES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES • Evaluation Work plan: Within 2 weeks from USAID in-briefing • Evaluation Design Report: Within 4 weeks from USAID in-briefing • The evaluation team will conduct an initial briefing, interim briefing, final briefing, and internal dissemination with USAID; • Draft Evaluation Report • Joint Development of Actionable Recommendations: USAID and the Evaluation team will collaborate on developing actionable recommendations based on findings and conclusions for inclusion in the final report. • Final Evaluation Report: The length of the final evaluation report will not exceed 25 pages, consistent with USAID branding policy and exclusive of annexes and executive summaries; • The report will address each of the questions identified in the relevant sections of the SOW and any other factors the team considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation; • All evaluation questions must be answered, and recommendations must be stated in an actionable way with defined responsibility for the action; • Sources of information will be properly identified and listed in an annex; • The evaluation reports must include a table of contents, list of acronyms, and executive summary; • The assessment and evaluation reports will be published on USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse at edec.usaid.gov. • Upon request from USAID or closure of MESP, both electronic and hard copy data files will be transferred to USAID. In the meantime, electronic files are on the MESP file and hard copies are warehoused at MESP. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 81 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 82 Annex I: Community Selection Criteria Table 1: Components of Community Selection Criteria 1. Demographic Shifts: rapid recent population shifts, especially near Syrian border, rural-urban immigration Criteria Data and/or observations 1.a. Significant and rapid demographic shift • Population • Population of Syrian refugees 1.b. Stress on social and municipal services • Complaints regarding the quality of services (trash collection, health services, schools) • Situation of roads • Situation of trash collection • Issues with water supply • Issues with sewage • The % increase in the number of students in the community schools • The % increase in the number of daily patients received by the local health center 2. Economic Stressors: economic downturn, high unemployment, increase in poverty, increase in cost of living Criteria Data and/or observations 2.a. Poverty and unemployment • Poverty Pocket • Poverty rate • Unemployment rate 3. Social/Political Stressors: recent demonstrations, violence in response to demographic and economic changes Criteria Data and/or observations 3.a. Incidents of unrest • Incidents of unrest • Rate of crime • Rate of drug use • Child abuse • Violence against women • Divorce rates 3.b. Cohesion and resilience • Cohesion and resilience 4. Additional elements Criteria Data and/or observations 4.a. Community acceptance of the program • Community acceptance of the program 4.b. Municipal government willingness to cooperate • Municipal government willingness to cooperate 4.c. Previous donor activity • List of current donor funded programs working on Community Engagement (the larger the number, the lower the rating). Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 83 ANNEX III: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS This section describes the overall methodology that was used to answer the evaluation questions for the mid-term performance evaluation of the Community Engagement Project (CEP). The Team performed its research and analysis in accordance with an Evaluation Design Report (Annex III) developed in response to the Evaluation SOW (Annex I), which was submitted to and accepted by USAID/Jordan in mid-October 2016. The Evaluation Design included a work plan and detailed description of the research methods, tools, and instruments the Team used in conducting the evaluation. After a brief desk review in Washington, the fieldwork component of the evaluation was completed in country between September 24 and November 5, 2016 in Amman and Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, and Ma’an Governorates. To answer the evaluation questions, the Team utilized a mixed-methods approach that relied on secondary data from a wide range of reports and documentation, as well as primary qualitative and quantitative data sources. The draft Evaluation Report was written in November 2016 and submitted to USAID on November 28. The Evaluation Team included Harold (Hal) Lippman (Team Leader), Dima Toukan (Evaluation/Country Specialist t), Jessica Gajarsa (Evaluation Specialist), and Jerome Hansen (Conflict Management and Mitigation Specialist). A description of the Team composition including roles and responsibilities is provided in Annex V. TIMELINE AND PROCESS OVERVIEW Document Review and Design. The evaluation team’s initial review of CEP activity documentation began on September 1, 2016. The expatriate team members had the opportunity to meet with the CEP Chief of party (COP) as well as senior management staff supporting CEP at Global Communities headquarters in Silver Spring Maryland on September 16. The COP provided a presentation about the shifting context and adaptations of the implementation model over the period of performance. The evaluation team arrived in country on September 24, 2016. The evaluation team developed a draft design and work plan before departure which they refined in country after briefings with USAID, and several presentations provided by CEP senior technical and management staff. The team submitted the draft design report including for USAID and CEP to review on October 5. USAID and senior COP staff reviewed the draft design and provided comments on October 10. The team responded to all comments and submitted a final design report and qualitative discussion guides instruments for USAID approval on October 11. Data Collection Instruments. In close collaboration with the USAID Jordan MESP Senior Evaluation Advisor, the team developed qualitative and quantitative instruments which were translated into Arabic. The team tested the qualitative discussion guides in Al Taybeh, a CEP target community in Irbid governorate during October 17-19. The team revised them and translated the revised versions which were submitted to USAID on October 20. Both the Arabic and English versions of the instruments were revised and finalized based on USAID comments. The qualitative discussion guides were targeted to the primary respondent categories the team determined would be the most informative. The team developed semi-structured discussion guides for key informant interviews (KIIs) with: • GOJ representative at the Central level including Local Development units (LDUs), Governors, and directorate officials • Mayors and municipal council members and staff • CEP implementing partner staff • Senior staff of community based organizations (CBOs) that have participated in, and/or benefitted from CEP grants • Senior staff of CBOs that haven’t participated in, and/or benefitted from CEP grants Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 84 • Senior staff of other related donor programs • Individual community members that have benefited from CEP grants The team also developed semi-structured discussion guides for group discussions with: • CETs in nine of the 20 CEP target communities. • Beneficiaries of selected CEP grants In close collaboration with the Jordan MESP Senior Evaluation Adviser and Mindset, the local data collection firm that conducted the survey and supported the qualitative data collection, the team developed the two survey instruments. These included a phone survey for current and former Community Enhancement Team (CET) members, as well as a population based survey for members of the 20 communities where CEP is implemented. The survey instruments were informed and adjusted after the team tested the qualitative instruments. The team developed and submitted draft versions of the survey instruments on October 20 and submitted the final instruments based on USAID comments on October 26. A list of qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments is provided in Annex IV. The final Arabic and English versions of the qualitative data collection instruments are presented in Annex VII; and the final quantitative survey instruments in English are presented in Annexes VIII and IX. Primary Data Collection. Primary data was collected over three phases. First, to inform the design, the team conducted preliminary KIIs from October 4 -10 with selected stakeholders based in Amman, including Ministry of Interior (MOI) officials, donors and implementer of related interventions, as well as USAID staff. CEP senior management and technical staff generously provided a series of structured detailed presentations to orientate the team to CEP technical approaches and assumptions, implementation processes, as well as the contextual dynamics, constraints, and obstacles the project has experienced over the period of performance thus far. The team also had the opportunity to attend and observe the last planned CEP community wide meeting (CWM) in Ma’an City, on October 12. In the second phase, the team conducted qualitative data collection in nine of the 20 CEP target communities from October 17 - November 3 and Mindset conducted FGDs with CEP grant beneficiaries from November 4-7. In the third phase, Mindset collected the CET Phone survey and the general population based survey. Data Analysis, Presentation, and Reporting. Analysis of the various data streams was an ongoing process and a preliminary report summarizing qualitative findings to date and closed-ended responses to the survey questionnaire was delivered to USAID on November 28. This version of the final report incorporates the full analysis of all data streams discussed in more detail below. DATA COLLECTION METHODS To answer the evaluation questions, the Team utilized a mixed-methods approach that relied on secondary data from a wide range of reports and documentation, as well as primary qualitative and quantitative data sources. Table 1 below provides a list of completed data collection activities followed by descriptions of the qualitative and quantitative methods used by the team. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 85 Table 1 Data Collection Sources and Methods Secondary Data Sources Secondary data sources included: • CEP Cooperative Agreement and subsequent modifications; • CEP Work Plans for Years 1-4; • CEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) and Results Framework; • CEP Grants Manual and Grants database; • Quarterly and Annual Reports; • Baseline Survey Reports for old and new communities; • Documented program guidelines including the PACE Methodology, activity guides, manuals, and training curricula and materials; • Program performance data including reports, summaries, databases (e.g., training, household perception surveys, field perception surveys, community workshops, community-wide meetings, youth engagement assessments, data quality assessments, and indicator tracking tables); • Government plans, laws, regulations, reports and other official documentation in effect during the period of performance related to CEP's social cohesion and resilience objectives, including: Respondent Category and Data Collection Methods Amman Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Total KIIs # of KIIs (# of individuals if multiple participants) KIIs – GOJ Central/ LDUs/ Governors/ Directorates 5 (9) 3 (7) 1 (4) 4 (5) 1 (2) 14 KIIs – Mayors/ municipal council members and staff 4 (11) 2 2 1 (2) 8 KIIs – CEP Implementing Partner 1 1 KIIs – CBOs CEP Grantees 1 2 2 4 8 KIIs – CBOs Non￾Grantees 1 1 1 (4) 2 (4) 5 KIIs – Grant Beneficiaries 3 (13) 1 (3) 2 (3) 2 (3) 8 KIIS – Other Donor Programs 3 3 CET Group Discussions 3 3 2 1 9 FGDs – grant beneficiaries 2 2 4 Site Observation visits 6 4 2 2 14 Global Communities CEP staff: 6 presentations and 4 KIIs 5 1 1 2 1 10 USAID: 2 Briefings/1 KII 3 3 Total qualitative data collection events 86 Telephone survey of current and former CET Members 86 81 52 13 232 Population based survey in target communities - final sample 385 385 385 385 1,594 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 86 • Frameworks and plans to address the Syrian refugee crisis such as the Jordan Response Plan 2016- 2018 Guiding Framework (JRP), Regional Refugees Resilience Plan (3RP), and National Resilience Plan (NRP) 2014-2016. • Laws and policies that are restrictive to civil society and potentially constrain CEP's ability to achieve intended results, such as the Law on Societies of 2008 as amended in 2009, as well as key provisions in other texts relevant to civil society operations, including the Penal Code (particularly Articles 149 and 191); the 2004 Law on Public Gatherings (especially Article 4); the 2007 Press and Publications Law, as amended in 2012 (especially Article 5 and 38b); and the 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law as amended in June 2014. The recently passed decentralization and municipal laws. A full list of the documents and sources included in the desk review is included in Annex XVI. Qualitative Data Sources and Sample Selection In order to identify qualitative sources, the team created a purposive sample selection of the CEP implementation communities, a purposive sample selection of grant activities on which to focus data collection activities, and then a purposive sample of individuals or groups based on their familiarity with and role in the selected CEP activities. The final list of interviewees and group discussion was determined by convenience in terms of who was available in a given location at the time of data collection. Community Sample Selection. For primary qualitative data, as depicted in Table 1 below, the evaluation team conducted KIIs and group discussions, and firsthand observation at activity sites in Amman and nine communities in the four Governorates in which CEP operates. These communities are: Al Taybeh, Hay Jalama, and Hay Dabbet Nimer (Irbid); Hay Al Hussein, Hay Al Janoubi, and Al Salheyeh (Mafraq); Al Hassa and Hid (Tafileh); and Ma’an City (Ma’an). As described above, the evaluation team developed semi￾structured discussion that were tailored guides to different respondent categories. The team made a purposive selection of communities for qualitative data collection based a comparison of several factors: • the community’s score on demographic, economic, and socio-political stressors in the original CEP community selection process; • balancing old and new CEP communities; • optimal coverage of grant projects – e.g., health, education, youth – and Partnership Initiatives; and, • other opportunities for learning based on the team’s document review and preliminary discussions with USAID and CEP. A more detailed description of the community selection criteria is included in Annex VI. Grant Sample Selection. The team made a purposive selection of grant activities to focus data collection in identifying key informants in each of the nine communities. This selection was based on the optimal coverage of grants that based on several factors. The team identified potential activities from a spreadsheet of Year 1-3 grants provided by CEP. This spreadsheet included key characteristics of the grants that were useful for purposive selection including: location, sector, period of performance, grant amounts, cost￾sharing contribution amounts, completion status, and the key implementer of each grant activity. (explained in more detail below). The evaluation team made an original selection of activities in the target communities based on the factors described below and requested the grant proposals from CEP for those that were missing. The team augmented the spreadsheet to add in other key characteristics such as the targeted beneficiaries, other participants or stakeholders and activity descriptions. The team selected 18 grants based on the following factors. First, the team considered the status and timing of the activity over the period of performance: The team selected a mix of activities including those that were started and completed earlier in the project performance, and ones that were underway or nearly complete. The team wanted to capture if there was a difference in the perceived effectiveness of grants that were implemented differently as CEP has adjusted Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 87 the technical approach and grant award amounts for each yearly grants cycle. The team also wanted to evaluate completed older grants, which could present a recall bias issues with respondents, but also present the best opportunity to learn whether grant activities have sustainable aspects. Second the team considered which entity had served as the designated “key implementer” which is the role of the lead partner that CEP supports to implement grant activities. The key implementer could be a CBO, the municipality, or the CET in a given target community. The team wanted to understand if there were differences in the effectiveness or sustainability of activities based on who was the lead implementer. This characteristic was also useful in understanding if the lead implementer may have experienced any lasting benefits, such as capacity building, as a result of participating in CEP grant activities. Third, the Team considered what sector the grants targeted to make sure there was an optimal capture of the different types of grants activities including: municipal services, health, education, civil society, and community engagement, as well as to include one or more of the Partnership Initiatives which were designed to have very small award amounts, higher cost share contributions, and to be implemented by a broader base of community members. Lastly the team considered the amount of the grant award and cost share contribution. Both the sector and award/ contribution amounts were particularly helpful in understanding what types of activities are perceived by beneficiaries as the most effective for addressing needs and/or stressors in order to answer evaluation Question 2. The list of the final selection of grant activities in the nine communities targeted for qualitative data collection is provided in Table 2 below. Individual Sample Selection. Following the section of grants for qualitative data collection activities, the team tried to speak to as many different types of stakeholders that would be familiar with one or more of the selected grant activities. For example, the Team asked mayors and municipal council members or staff about multiple grant activities implemented in their jurisdiction, including those for which the respondent didn’t serve as the key implementer. Similarly, the Team discussed all grant activities implemented in a given community while conducting group discussions with the CEP field staff in each of the four governorates, and the CETs in each of nine communities selected for qualitative data collection. These discussions provided insights across a broader selection of activities. To select the representatives of CBOs which were not CEP grant partners or beneficiaries, the Team used information gathered from different sources and made a final selection based on convenience. As the team anticipated, these sources provided valuable insights into the successes, failures, and constrainsts of CEP activities due to their positions and involvement in similar efforts in the nine CEP target communities selected for qualitative data collection. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 88 Table 2 Selection of CEP Grants Grant # Name IP IP type Governorate Municipality Community Sector Y3034 Activate Schools as Community Hubs Taybeh Directorate of Education CET Irbid New Al Taybeh Al Taybeh Education Y3049 Partners for Community Health Hay Jalama CET CET Irbid Greater Ramtha Hay Jalama Communi ty Engageme nt PR002 Pave, rehabilitate and lighting of roads Hay Al Hussain CET CET Mafraq Greater Mafraq Hay Al￾Hussein Municipal Services PR047 Clean-up project Greater Mafraq Muni. Muni Mafraq Greater Mafraq Hay Al￾Hussein Municipal Services PR132 Soccer Field USAID CEP (MoU with Alharameen Association) N/A Mafraq Al Salheyeh & Nayefeh Al Salheyeh Municipal services PR144 Maintenance of the western health center in the city of Ramtha Arab Society for Thought and Culture CBO Irbid Greater Ramtha Dabbet Nimer Healthcar e PR131 Soccer Field USAID CEP (MoU with Mandah Association) CBO Irbid New Al Taybeh Al Taybeh Municipal Services PR124 Promotion of Schools' role in terms of health, environment and education in cooperation with the local community Al-Ard Al￾Taibah CBO Mafraq Greater Mafraq Hay Al￾Hussein Education PR001 Pave, rehabilitate and lighting of roads Hay Al Janoubi CET CET Mafraq Greater Mafraq Hay Al￾Janoubi Municipal services PR014 Enhancing the educational environment for Al Hassa Schools Al Hassa CET CET Tafileh Al Hassa Al Hassa Education Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 89 Quantitative Data Sources For the quantitative data, the evaluation team worked with a local data collection firm to conduct surveys that covered all 20 CEP target communities and included two groups of respondents: • Current and former CET members: and • Representative survey of the general population residing in the twenty communities targeted by CEP. The sample of the CET members was based on the list of 264 current CET members, as well as about 160 former members, and the survey was conducted by telephone. The members survey provided an opportunity to capture their perception of the effectiveness of the various CEP-inspired activities they were part of, including capacity building, identification of stressors and prioritization of projects to meet those stressors, as well as vertical and horizontal engagement. This survey also augmented the team’s understanding of members’ conception of sustainability scenarios and CETs’ relationship to the decentralization process. PR012 Enhancing the capability of the Muni. to deliver better services to the community Al Hassa Muni. Muni Tafileh Al Hassa Al Hassa Municipal Services PR119 A cultural center that serves Heid, Tein, and Al Mansoura Tafileh Women's Union CBO Tafileh Greater Tafileh Heid, Tein, & Al Mansoura Youth Y3023 Improve the community’s connection and access to HTM Muni. services Hid, Tein and Mansoura (HTM) Muni Tafileh Greater Tafileh Heid, Tein, & Al Mansoura Municipal Services N/A Free Medical Day Partnership Initiative Basmet Taghyeer, Jordanian volunteer org. CBO Ma'an Ma'an Ma'an City healthcar e N/A Ma'an Brings Us Together Ma'an City Muni. Muni Ma'an Ma'an City Ma'an City Municipal Services Y3052 Towards an Active Positive Community Al Hassa CET (with partner JOHUD Center in Al Hassa) CET Tafileh Al Hassa Al Hassa Communi ty Engageme nt Y3030 Enhance Opportunities for Social Unity and Cultural Unity Al Salheyeh CET CET Mafraq Al Salheyeh & Nayefeh Al Salheyeh Civil Society Y3035 Our Culture is Our Pride Mafraq Directorate of Culture CET Mafraq Greater Mafraq Hay AlJanoubi Civil society Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 90 The direct/indirect beneficiaries survey sampled 1,540 individuals from all the communities in the four governorates (385 per governorate) in which CEP has been active. Distribution was based on the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling approach, which yielded a representative sample at the governorate level, with a +/- 5 % margin of error at 95% confidence level. The survey sample size allowed for generalizable data at the governorate level, as well as comparisons across regions at a comparable margin of error. This general population survey has made it possible for the evaluation team to do a combined, proportionally weighted analysis of the data from all four governorates to identify general trends across all the communities in which CEP is working. As a representative survey of the population in the 20 communities, it has provided an opportunity to: • assess perceived effectiveness of different types of interventions; • identify the tensions and stressors that are currently seen as most significant by the communities; • surface community perceptions regarding the different mechanisms for vertical and horizontal community engagement; and • gain understanding of contextual variables, current challenges and opportunities for CEP work, and future USAID programming in these or other similar communities. Mindset provided a Data Collection Services End of Task Report about the quantitative and qualitative data collection activities they supported which is included in Annex VII. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES This evaluation primarily relied on three types of analysis: Before and After: The unit of observation under this type of analysis was at the individual participant or beneficiary level (i.e., CET members and representatives of participating CBOs and municipalities). This line of analysis explores patterns and trends that can be observed from the primary and secondary data collected. The before and after aspect is ascertaining whether or not the individuals perceived that they (or their organizations or communities) have received any tangible or lasting benefits from CEP activities. Planned versus Actual: This line of analysis focuses on tracking the achievement of outcomes and outputs reported by the project as laid out from the cooperative agreement and modifications, annual work plans, and annual reports. The ability to apply and integrate a detailed analysis of indicator data was constrained by the fundamental changes the Activity Performance Monitoring Plan (AMEP) indicators based on the periodic shifts in the implementation model. The team found the descriptions of the grant activities. The planned versus actual analysis mainly focused on a broader level than relying mainly on performance indicator targets in order to determine the overall effectiveness of the project. It was relevant to understanding whether or not, how, and to what extent CEP implemented the original project design and planned activities, and then adjusted the to the USAID directed adjustments to the implementation model over the implementation model. This broader understanding of the changes in the implementation model framed the findings on the perceived successes and failures of the project distilled during the content analysis described below. Thematic content analysis: The evaluation team further conducted content analysis of primary data collected during the KIIs, FGDs, and group discussions, as well as the open-ended survey responses around key themes corresponding to the evaluation questions and sub-questions. Descriptive statistics are provided based on CET phone survey and general population surveys conducted in all 20 CEP communities. The findings under the themes were grouped by respondent category and then compared across respondent categories including the descriptive statistics generated by the surveys. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 91 DATA STORAGE AND TRANSFER Data storage procedures for this evaluation are governed under the provisions set out in the MESP contract signed by USAID and MSI. Survey data collected for this evaluation will be cleaned for submission to the Development Data Library in a machine readable format. Respondent identifying information will be redacted in accordance with MSI and MESP ethical guidelines. LIMITATIONS A number of items have affected the evaluation team’s efforts to carry out its work. First, major changes in CEP’s intermediate results and results frameworks, which took place between years one and three, have made it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of some interventions. For example, some Year 1 and 2 interventions, such as aspects of capacity building, are no longer being emphasized or have been superseded by the major shift in program emphasis starting in Year 3. Notably, along these lines, of the 32 indicators included in CEP’s revised AMEP, all but three are new and tracking them only began in FY 2016. This has constrained the team’s ability to integrate an analysis of planned versus actual performance data Relatedly, because of these significant changes in the program approach, CEP began implementing activities regarding CMM and TTCs in 2015 and the baseline for such activities was only completed late that same year. Thus, it has been difficult to assess the effectiveness of such interventions because there is not enough of a record of activity to draw from and analyze with any degree of reliability. Lastly, as customary with qualitative research, data collected through key informant interviews and focus group discussions is self￾reported and as such has presented possible limitations, such as social acceptability bias. The team followed a clearly stated and translated informed consent protocol at every data collection event, and repeating the key points of the protocol at the end. Despite the team providing additional emphasis that it is an evaluation team independent of the implementer or USAID, the team repeatedly encountered and made a concerted effort to correct the misunderstanding of respondents whom thought the implementing partner was the same as USAID, and/or that the valuation team was also part of USAID. As a result, their responses may be biased towards those supportive of claims of need in order to elicit more donor support. Lastly, the perceptions of respondents involved in Year 1-1 CEP activities may have been affected by recall bias. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 92 ANNEX IV: EVALUATION DESIGN REPORT – JORDAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM (CEP) EVALUATION DESIGN REPORT JORDAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM (CEP) OCTOBER 11, 2016 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Harold Lippman, Jerome Hansen, Dima Toukan, and Jessica Gajarsa on behalf of Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech Company. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 93 Contents A. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 9 Program Summary ......................................................................................................................................................95 Program Adjustments................................................................................................................................................95 CEP Goal and Development Hypothesis..............................................................................................................96 Evaluation Purpose .....................................................................................................................................................97 Effectiveness.............................................................................................................................................................97 B. EVALUATION APPROACH................................................................................................................................97 CEP Strategies and Interventions............................................................................................................................97 Community Engagement.......................................................................................................................................98 Capacity Building ....................................................................................................................................................98 Grants .......................................................................................................................................................................98 Understanding and Answering the Evaluation Questions.................................................................................21 Effectiveness.............................................................................................................................................................98 Sustainability and Exit Strategies.......................................................................................................................101 Limitations..................................................................................................................................................................102 C. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES .................................................................................103 Secondary Data Collection.....................................................................................................................................103 Primary Data Collection/Sampling Approach.....................................................................................................103 Qualitative Methods and Sources.....................................................................................................................103 Quantitative Methods and Sources..................................................................................................................105 D. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS..........................................................................................................................108 Evaluation.....................................................................................................................................................................110 Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................110 ANNEX I: Getting Answers....................................................................................................................................116 ANNEX II: CEP Evaluation Workplan..................................................................................................................116 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 94 ACRONYMS 3RP Regional Refugee & Resilience Plan AMEP USAID Jordan CEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan CBO Community Based Organization CSO Civil Society Organization CE Community Engagement CEM Community Engagement Mechanism CEP Community Engagement Program CET Community Enhancement Team CMM Conflict Management and Mitigation COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer Representative CSO Civil Society Organization CVE Countering Violent Extremism FGD Focus Group Discussion GOJ Government of Jordan IR Intermediate Results IRI International Republican Institute JRP Jordan Response Plan 2016-2018 Guiding Framework JRF Jordan River Foundation KII Key Informant Interview LCDP Long‐term Community Development Plan LCDD Local Community Development Department LDU Local Development Units MOI Ministry of Interior MOPIC Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation MSI Management Systems International M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRP National Resilience Plan 2014-2016 PACE Communities’ Participatory Action for Community Enhancement Methodology SOW Statement of Work USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 95 A. INTRODUCTION Program Summary The USAID Community Engagement Program (CEP) is a $50 million, five-year program which began in April 2013 and will run through March 2017. CEP is implemented by Global Communities in partnership with the Jordan River Foundation (JRF) under Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-278-A-13-00001. The goal of USAID CEP is to leave behind stronger, more cohesive and resilient partner communities. CEP implements activities in 20 communities across the Governorates of Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh, as well as Ma’an City, and operates through three field offices in Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh. CEP initially started working in nine target communities in the governorates of Irbid, Mafraq and Tafileh: Hay Jalama, Hay Dabbet Nimer, and Yarmouk (Irbid Governorate); Hay Al Hussein, Hay Al Janoubi, and Al Sarhan (Mafraq Governorate); and Bseira, Ein Al Beyda, and Al-Hasa (Tafileh Governorate). In March 2014, CEP expanded into ten additional target communities in the three governorates, in addition to Ma’an City: Mo’ath Bin Jabal, Khalid Bin Al Waleed, Al Wasatyeh, No’aimeh, and Al Taybeh (Irbid Governorate), Al Salhyeh, Sabha, Um Aljmal, and Hosha (Mafraq Governorate), and Tein, Hid, and Al Mansoura (Tafileh Governorate). The program aims to facilitate constructive engagement among community members, civil society, and local government to prioritize and address needs, stressors, tensions, and threats to cohesion (TTCs). CEP’s general approach is to first establish and build the capacity of community enhancement teams (CETs), and then work through them to facilitate community engagement mechanisms (CEMs). As the primary actors in the CEP approach, the CETs play an integral role and are established with an aim to be seen as representative and legitimate facilitators of community engagement (CE) processes. CETs have 12-18 members; work towards equal representation of men and women; and have 25% representation by youth (age 18-30). Each CET also includes two municipal representatives, one employee and one elected official (council member), to strengthen the relationship with the municipality and elected officials, integrate participation from the administrative and political side of the municipality, and ensure continuity in case of elections. CEP supports the CETs to act as dialogue platforms to promote engagement among stakeholders within the communities horizontally, as well as with their municipal and local government entities vertically. The CETs have been trained to engage with community stakeholders to prioritize identified needs, stressors, tensions, and TTCs. CETs also help communicate these issues to the broader community and develop grant activities to alleviate them. Beginning in Year 4, CEP is implementing activities intended to engender the sustainability of these CEMs beyond the life of the program. Ultimately, it is envisioned that as CEP funding diminishes over its five￾year lifespan, CET members will utilize skills learned to mobilize key stakeholders and local governments to fund community needs, with long-term needs identified through Long‐term Community Development Plans (LCDPs) and other needs addressed on an ad hoc basis by more responsive municipalities and local government. The CETs have also been trained and have developed LCDPs that are designed to inform municipal and local councils to prioritize community issues in the Needs Guide of the government that will be submitted to the Executive Council, as part of the Government of Jordan (GOJ) decentralization process. CEP aims to have the central government, Local Development Units (LDUs) in each governorate, and municipal structures integrate community engagement more systematically in their planning and implementation processes. Program Adjustments Over the life of the program CEP has experienced significant shifts in its direction and implementation. Perhaps most notably, for example, after the first year the program expanded from the original nine into Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 96 ten additional communities. Following this expansion, CEP developed a standardized approach and clear roadmap for implementation applicable to all CETs, including revising its community engagement methodology and developing program selection criteria. In Year 3, reflecting these changes and in conjunction with the enactment of the new decentralization laws at the end of 2015, CEP revised its existing results framework into a new Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP), which was approved in April 2016. CEP Goal and Development Hypothesis The goal of CEP is to leave behind stronger, more cohesive, and resilient partner communities. This goal will be achieved by working through, and building the capacity of, CETs as the program’s key community engagement mechanism to collaborate and partner with municipalities/local governments, NGOs, and others to: ● Engage in a continuous, conflict-sensitive participatory process of identification and prioritization of stressors; ● Develop immediate and long-term solutions by accessing available resources through collaboration and partnerships with relevant stakeholders; and, ● Utilize effective and transparent communication mechanisms in support of promoting increased community cohesion. CEP is based on the following development hypothesis: “If the capacity of CETs to serve as dialogue platforms in targeted communities is increased to enable them to engage municipalities, local government entities, potential partners, and other community members in a solution￾oriented, positive dialogue focused on common interests, then social cohesion and resilience will increase.” The program is implemented through the following intermediate results (IRs): ● IR 1: Effective Community engagement mechanisms (CEMs) established o Sub-IR 1.1: Community engagement with government strengthened o Sub-IR 1.2: Community participation enhanced ● IR 2: Community capacity to mobilize in response to threats to cohesion strengthened o Sub-IR 2.1: CET capacity to identify threats to cohesion strengthened o Sub-IR 2.2: CETs and stakeholder capacity for program planning and implementation developed o Sub-IR 2.3: CETs and stakeholders effectively utilize communication skills CEP supports one Intermediate Result (IR) and its sub‐IRs under USAID/Jordan’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) results framework: ● IR 2.4: Community Cohesion Enhanced o Sub‐IR 2.4.1: Institutions and mechanisms to build cohesion and resilience strengthened o Sub-IR 2.4.2: Mediation and constituency-building skills enhanced58 58 USAID/Jordan’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) was revised during CEP’s second year. This program was designed under the original CDCS, but shifted after it was revised. These changes are reflected in the AMEP (see Annex IV), with CEP supporting IR 2.1 and 2.3 of the DRG Office’s PMP during the first two years and then supporting IR 2.4 beginning in the third year. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 97 Evaluation Purpose The purpose of this evaluation is to assess CEP’s progress toward achieving its objectives, and intermediate results. The evaluation will also recommend shifts in program implementation to enable a strategic exit from communities, particularly those that may receive support from the upcoming Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative and Effectives Solutions (CITIES) program. The evaluation will also consider the implications of any unanticipated positive or negative outcomes. Recommendations from this evaluation will be used to inform changes in program implementation during its last twelve to eighteen months, to strategically align with and incorporate best practices from CEP into future similar USAID programming. Evaluation Questions: Effectiveness 1. Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building, and grants) as they relate to CEP goals. a) Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? 2. To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? a) Are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. Sustainability 3. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? Local civil society organizations? a) Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? b) Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? c) Are there opportunities for improvement in this area during the remaining time the program has (April 2018)? 4. Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy. a) Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity b) Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues. c) All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors. The evaluation team will ensure that, where relevant, sex disaggregation and gender differential effects are captured in answering the evaluation questions. B. EVALUATION APPROACH This section summarizes the evaluation team’s general understanding of and approach to answering the evaluation questions. CEP Strategies and Interventions The evaluation team’s overall evaluation approach is based on examining the effectiveness and sustainability of the primary activities CEP has used to achieve its objectives and intermediate results (IRs), under the Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 98 three broad categories of interventions – community engagement, capacity building, and grants to fund community level projects.59 Community Engagement CEP seeks to establish and formalize avenues for soliciting community input and feedback to broaden community engagement. To achieve this, CEP builds the capacity of the CETs to engage with municipal and local government entities, community grantees, CBOs, and other local stakeholders to create partnerships, and mobilize resources to address identified needs, stressors, and tensions, and more recently, TTCs, over the period of performance. Specific community engagement efforts include: ● Community mapping and household surveys to identify and document needs, tensions and stressors, and TTCs; ● Facilitating community meetings to introduce CE concepts, elect members to the CETs, present mapping/survey results, and vote on the prioritization of community needs; ● CET led dialogue platforms; ● Integration of CE into the decentralization process; and ● Pilot activity in Ma’an (Advisory Committee). Capacity Building CEP aims to increase the communities’ collective competence by providing the CETs and selected stakeholders with the knowledge and skills to prioritize identified needs, tensions, stressors, and TTCs, and engage with each other in a conflict sensitive manner, mobilize the community, and form partnerships on their own to respond to community priorities. Specific activities include training the CETs in the following: CE processes; communications and community outreach; grant proposal design; the development of Long-term Community Development Plans (LCDPs); and, CMM and mapping Threat to Cohesion (TTCs). Training for grantees (CBOs and NGOs) has included grant proposal writing, project design, and project management. Grants CEP provides grants to relieve stressors in areas such as infrastructure and health services and provide safe classroom environments and youth-friendly services. Grant duration is up to twelve months. Grants include: ● CBO grants; ● CET grants, including projects focused on gender and youth initiatives; ● municipal/government grants; ● pilot municipal grants; and, ● Partnership Initiatives. Understanding and Answering the Evaluation Questions The first two of the four evaluation questions focus on the concept of effectiveness. The third question addresses the status of CEP’s efforts to ensure the sustainability of results. The fourth requests that the evaluation team provide a map and assessment of potential exit strategies. Below is an outline of the evaluation team’s understanding of and plan to answer the evaluation questions. Effectiveness The first and second evaluation questions address the concept of effectiveness on several levels. The first question asks whether CEP interventions were effective in achieving its overall goal and if there are 59 Per agreement with USAID/Jordan, the evaluation team will not focus on the Year 1 Rapid Start-up Grants and early Gender Grants directed at the national level. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 99 opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity. Examining effectiveness under question one will entail the measurement of program performance against targets for outputs and outcomes. It also entails examining whether or not the program strategy and interventions, as they were adapted to address shifts in USAID requirements, were successful in bringing about any demonstrated successes in terms of the IRs. As part of this process, the evaluation team will assess whether or not CEP generated unintended positive or negative outcomes. The evaluation team will use these findings to identify opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of the program. Effectiveness of Community Engagement Interventions In order to evaluate the effectiveness of CEP in terms of the CE interventions, the evaluation team will determine whether or not viable CEMs have been developed in the target communities. The evaluation team will also ascertain the role of CEP, and the CETs in particular, in creating these mechanisms. It is important to understand not only whether the CEP-generated CE mechanisms were effective, but also whether they facilitated broad participation and were seen as legitimate and transparent mechanisms in the target communities. Similarly, the questions of whether or not the CEP-generated mechanisms had an impact on other formal and informal CE mechanisms (e.g., municipal councils and local tribes) and interacted with other legitimate CE structures will be addressed. To respond to these questions, the evaluation team will triangulate the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including those directly involved in implementation (CETs, municipal government representatives, directorate representatives, CBOs, and CSOs), as well as those not directly involved in implementation. To reach a wider sample of indirect beneficiaries, the evaluation team will use a local data collection firm to ask community members whether or not: they have participated in the CEMs; they perceive them as valuable, legitimate, and transparent; and, if they think they should continue and, if so, what is the best forum or structure for CE. If interviewees from the community have not been exposed to the CEM, they will be asked questions about how to broaden participation to inform the rest of implementation and future activities. Other sub-groups of interest in this regard include grantees or mid￾level government workers and community leaders that were and/or were not involved in implementing CEP funded grants. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 100 The team will use qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments with these respondents to ascertain the effectiveness of CE interventions in terms of the following: ● What were the challenges CEP faced with the changes in technical direction and strategies over the period of performance? o How did these challenges affect the achievement of program objectives? ● What were the criteria CEP applied for the selection and formation of the CETs? o Were these criteria appropriate for the context? ● Were these criteria applied sufficiently to ensure that CETs were representative of the communities they serve? ● To what extent are CET-led discussions and processes transparent, inclusive, and participatory? ● How are CETs viewed by their communities? ● What were the challenges the program faced in engaging women, youth, and other vulnerable constituencies? ● Has the collective ability of community members to identify, prioritize, and address stressors and threats to cohesion improved? ● Did the CEP strategy and interventions including the use of CETs contribute to improvements for the communities in terms of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion? ● Whether and how the CEP strategy of initiating CEMs through the CETs have supported or disrupted informal consultation processes and government structures? Effectiveness of Capacity Building Interventions In order to assess the effectiveness of CEP capacity building interventions, the evaluation team will assess whether or not, and to what extent, the capacity building activities enabled program participants, especially the CETs and GOJ representatives, to engender strong CEMs in the target communities. The team will also ascertain the effectiveness of other training in building skillsets to work with communities to prioritize among identified stressors and tensions, as well as mobilize resources to address them. For the CMM training being implemented currently, the team will assess the progress of TTC mapping activities and initial uptake of conflict sensitive approaches. In addition, the team will ask the CEP team about their process for identifying their capacity building needs and whether or not program activities improved these skill sets and, if so, how? To respond to evaluation question one in terms of the effectiveness of capacity building activities, the evaluation team will triangulate the perspectives of a smaller group of stakeholders. This will primarily include those directly involved in CEP training and capacity building activities, such as CEP and JRF staff, CETs, ministry and municipal government representatives, as well direct grantees. The team will employ qualitative data collection instruments with these respondents to ascertain the effectiveness of capacity building interventions in terms of the following: ● Whether or not participants perceive the different training sessions and materials as valuable? ● The extent to which the training delivered to the CETs has improved their abilities to work with communities in order to: o Maintain viable and participatory CEMs; o Identify and address stressors and increase resilience; o Use the Do No Harm training to effectively identify and mitigate potential negative consequences of CEP interventions; o Map TTCs, as well as identify and mobilize CEP and existing resources to address them o Perform these current functions independently without the support of CEP ● Do those GOJ officials who received training perceive CEP capacity building efforts to be valuable and effective at improving their community engagement skills and knowledge? o Have they applied what they learned from the CEP training and, if so, how? Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 101 Effectiveness of Grants and Community Projects Evaluation question two asks the team to examine the extent to which community-level projects have relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives). It also asks the team to determine if there are any types/categories of community level projects more effective than others and, if so, why. To respond to this question in terms of the effectiveness of grant projects, the evaluation team will develop a typology of the different types of grants by sector and project type. Data collectors will be informed about what specific activities have been implemented before data collection in order to ascertain if respondents are referring to specific CEP activities as well as capture feedback on specific sectors and project types whether or not they were implemented by CEP. The evaluation team will seek to understand the extent to which the various types of sector specific – e.g., education, health, gender, and youth – community or municipal project (including their identification and implementation) have contributed to the achievement of CEP’s objectives. The evaluation team will develop a depth of understanding of local dynamics and stressors, as well as examine the design and implementation of specific interventions from the standpoint of participants and non-participants, such as community leaders, government workers, and community members The team will triangulate the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including those directly involved in grant project implementation (CEP and JRF staff, CETs, municipal government representatives, CBOs, and CSOs), as well as those not directly involved in project implementation (community leaders and members). To reach a wider sample of indirect beneficiaries, the evaluation team will use a local data collection firm to ask community members whether or not: they are aware of the grant activities; if they perceive them as effective in terms of addressing their tensions/ stressors; and whether or not they perceived the process as transparent and fair. If interviewees from the community have not been exposed to the CEP grants, they will be asked questions about whether they experienced different sector interventions and project types they perceived as effective in terms of addressing their tensions/stressors; and whether or not they perceived the process as transparent and fair. This information will also be used to inform the rest of implementation and future activities. Sustainability and Exit Strategies Evaluation question three examines sustainability in terms of the extent to which CEP has enabled CETs to strengthen and broaden engagement on the horizontal level with communities and targeted civil society organizations, and on the vertical level with municipal/government entities. In particular, the evaluation team will examine whether CEP has proposed a realistic and achievable strategy for sustainable mechanisms that can facilitate participation of all stakeholders to identify and address stressors and TTCs after the program ends. This will include a review of earlier Phase I and II activities (excluding Rapid Response Grants) to assess their sustainability over the life of the CEP and beyond. The team will also address the question of whether or not existing municipal, or other local structures, are better positioned to undertake community engagement. The evaluation team will also examine whether or not the assumptions, both explicit and implied, of the CEP sustainability framework and existing exit strategies are sound. These assumptions include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: ● JRF’s role and ability in promoting CETs’ sustainability as dialogue platforms through support to them and their host CSO. ● That CSOs targeted for becoming "hosts" to the CETs after CEP ends have "strong roots" in their communities and have the capacity, resources, and incentives to play this role. ● That CETs as community dialogue platforms, their host CSOs, and municipal local councils will successfully transition to self-funding. ● That CETs as community dialogue platforms can mobilize and engage the community and identify and respond to stressors and threats to cohesion in a sustainable manner. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 102 ● That engagement continues without an external catalyst such as an INGO or donor. ● That there are opportunities under the emerging decentralization process that CEP can leverage for sustainability. ● The current status and future likelihood of the alignment of local and municipal government goals with those of targeted CSOs and communities. ● The sustainability or lack thereof of earlier program interventions. In addition, reflecting the importance of stakeholders’ – e.g., government, private sector, CSOs, and donors – continued engagement, the evaluation team will examine the extent to which community engagement structures will be able to secure their ongoing support of vertical and horizontal engagement and mobilizing communities to advocate for their needs. Relatedly, the evaluation team will assess the potential for synergies and leveraging with current and/or upcoming USAID programming (e.g., the CITIES program) in terms of continued efforts to improve social cohesion and resilience within communities. Evaluation question four requests the evaluation team to map potential exit strategies and assess their feasibility, potential alignment, and timing with: future similar programming; the program’s “phase out plan;” and, ability to address community level stressors. In responding to this question, the evaluation team will start by examining the feasibility of the CEP’s conception of potential exit strategies. This includes the transition of CETs into community dialogue platforms, finding suitable CSO hosts for CETs, self￾funding of CETs, and the sustainability of CE mechanisms within the GOJ’s legal framework and operations. The evaluation team will also focus attention on the program’s Partnership Initiatives and municipal pilot projects as models that could be replicated for effective horizontal community engagement and vertical engagement on the municipal level. The answer to this question will draw heavily on, and synthesize the content of, the answers to the previous questions, examining in the process: ● The status of the MOI’s drafting of decentralization bylaws to ensure integration of community engagement mechanisms; ● The potential for pilot municipal projects to inform further efforts to promote and formalize community engagement at the municipal level; ● The feasibility of CSOs serving to host CETs, CETs’ transition to dialogue platforms, and JRF’s role in facilitating this process; ● Capacity building needs at the various levels of the decentralization and municipal infrastructure to incorporate and sustain CE mechanisms; ● Advocacy for and sustainability of LCDPs; ● The potential for formalizing, packaging and transferring training material to host CSOs and MOI; and ● Lessons learned and opportunities for USAID CITIES to build on the CEP’s successes and support the sustainability of CEP interventions. Limitations A number of items could affect the evaluation team’s efforts to carry out its work. First, major changes in CEP’s intermediate results and results frameworks, which took place between years one and three, may make it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of some interventions. Some Year 1 and 2 interventions, such as capacity building, are no longer being emphasized or have been superseded by the major shift in program emphasis starting in Year 3. Notably, for example, of the 32 indicators included in CEP’s revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, all but three are new and tracking them only began in FY 2016. Relatedly, because of these significant changes in the program approach, CEP began implementing activities regarding CMM and TTCs in 2015 and the baseline for such activities was only completed late that same year. Thus, it will be difficult to assess the effectiveness of such interventions because it is unlikely that there will be Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 103 enough of a record of activity to draw from and analyze with any degree of reliability. Lastly, as customary with qualitative research, data collected through key informant interviews and focus group discussions is self-reported and as such presents possible limitations, such as social acceptability bias. C. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SOURCES This evaluation will rely on secondary data in a wide range of reports and documentation, as well as primary qualitative and quantitative data collection. Secondary Data Collection The team will review and incorporate into the analysis relevant secondary data sources, including: ● CEP Cooperative Agreement and subsequent modifications; ● CEP Work Plans for Years 1-4; ● CEP AMEP; ● CEP Grants Manual and Grants database; ● Quarterly and Annual Reports; ● Baseline Survey Reports for old and new communities; ● Documented program guidelines including the PACE Methodology, activity guides, manuals, and training curricula and materials; ● Program performance data including reports, summaries, databases (e.g., training, household perception surveys, field perception surveys, community workshops, community-wide meetings, youth engagement assessments, data quality assessments, and indicator tracking tables); ● Government plans, laws, regulations, reports and other official documentation in effect during the period of performance related to CEP's social cohesion and resilience objectives, including: o Frameworks and plans to address the Syrian refugee crisis such as the Jordan Response Plan 2016-2018 Guiding Framework (JRP), Regional Refugees Resilience Plan (3RP), and National Resilience Plan (NRP) 2014-2016. o Laws and policies that are restrictive to civil society and potentially constrain CEP's ability to achieve intended results, such as the Law on Societies of 2008 as amended in 2009, as well as key provisions in other texts relevant to civil society operations, including the Penal Code (particularly Articles 149 and 191); the 2004 Law on Public Gatherings (especially Article 4); the 2007 Press and Publications Law, as amended in 2012 (especially Article 5 and 38b); and the 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law as amended in June 2014. o The recently passed decentralization and municipal laws. Primary Data Collection/Sampling Approach For primary data collection the evaluation team will employ a mixed methods approach encompassing qualitative and quantitative data. Wherever feasible, the evaluation team will verify program results and reported accomplishments via firsthand observation at activity sites, such as schools, parks, youth centers, and municipal buildings. The evaluation team intends to gather qualitative data in seven communities in Mafraq, Tafileh, Irbid, and Ma’an, augmented by efforts by a local data collection firm to identify opportunities for quantitative data collection from a broader range of communities. Qualitative Methods and Sources Qualitative data collection methods will incorporate a range of sources in order to capture the nuances of the complexities in the communities, as well as, stakeholders’ perceptions of effectiveness in terms of challenges, opportunities, lessons learned, and scenarios for sustainability. The evaluation will also use purposive sampling in developing the selection of communities and respondents to be examined. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 104 To provide for equal distribution, two communities will be selected from each of three of the governorates, i.e., Mafraq, Tafileh, and Irbid and another encompassed by Ma’an City. Selection criteria for the communities within the governorates will be developed to provide for a balanced representation of the original USAID selection criteria, as well as for a range of grant projects by type and partner. Unique opportunities for learning that can contribute to strategy development for CEP and related USAID efforts in Jordan will also be considered. The final list of communities, and their justification based on the selection criteria, will be submitted to USAID for final review and approval. The draft instruments for qualitative data collection are presented in Annex III. They will be pre-tested and if necessary modified after data collection in the first community. After pre-testing and making modifications as necessary, the evaluation team will share the updated version with USAID. KIIs - The evaluation team will conduct about 30-35 group and individual KIIs drawn from: USAID; CEP and JRF staff; GOJ line ministries; local government (directorate level representatives based in the governorates); municipal councils; as well as implementers of similar programming funded by USAID and other donors in the targeted municipalities. Interviewees will be selected based on their affiliation and familiarity with the program and ability to answer questions that speak to the effectiveness and sustainability of CEP interventions, as well as inform exit strategies, lessons learned, and areas for improvement. As of October 5th, extensive in-briefings have been conducted with CEP’s program management and field office teams, as well with USAID Amman’s DRG staff and the CEP AOR. KIIs with National, Local, and Municipal Level GOJ Representatives GOJ representatives will include a cross-section of officials at the national, municipal, and local levels. At the national level, the emphasis will be on representatives of ministries that are familiar and/or affiliated with CEP. KIIs with government representatives will encompass the following: ● The Governors of Mafraq, Tafileh, Irbid, and Ma’an; ● Four LDU representatives, one from each of the program governorates; ● Directorate representatives, one from each of the CEP affiliated ministries – MOI, MOE, MOPIC, and MOMA; ● The mayors from the seven communities targeted for qualitative data collection, two each from Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh, and one from Ma'an; and ● Municipal council members and representatives from each of the seven municipalities. KIIs with Community Leaders In each of the seven communities targeted for qualitative data collection, the evaluation team will conduct two KIIs with community leaders (e.g., from CSOs, CBOs, youth groups, and, where relevant, key private sector partners), disaggregated by whether or not they were involved in grant project implementation. FGDs with CETs and Beneficiaries The evaluation team will conduct two focus groups in each community with residents that are beneficiaries of one of the projects implemented in each target community. The team will conduct separate FGDs with female and male beneficiaries, as well as Syrians where possible. The team will also conduct FGDs with each of the CETs in the seven communities targeted for qualitative data collection. The focus groups will consist of all CET members who are not municipal government representatives and there will be separate breakout sessions for adult women and youth members. The columns represent the sample to be collected at each administrative level. If the evaluation team reaches saturation or finds that particular respondent categories are less useful for answering the evaluation questions, the team will elect to focus on the most useful respondents. For example, it is possible that the team will find that some high level government representatives may be less informative than community members about whether CEP established effective and sustainable CEMs in a particular Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 105 community. The table below shows anticipated sample by respondent category for the communities targeted for qualitative data collection. Table 1. Example of the anticipated sample for each community selected for qualitative data collection Administrative levels Governorate/ Directorate Municipality Community Qualitative Data Collection Methods, Sources and Sample Selection per Community ● One KII with governor ● One KII with LDU representative ● One KII with directorate representative of line ministries affiliated with CEP ● KII with CEP Program Manager ● One KII with mayor ● KIIs with municipal council members, including the representative and the appointee to the CET ● One FGD with all CET members and then separate breakout sessions for female and youth members ● One KII with the CEP Community Mobilizer ● Two KIIs with community leaders, disaggregated by their involvement with CEP ● Two FGDs with beneficiaries of a CEP project implemented in the community (separate sessions for females and males) ● Observation visits at grant project sites Quantitative Methods and Sources The evaluation team will work with a local data collection firm to conduct surveys that will cover all 20 CEP target communities, including two groups of respondents: ● Current and former CET members: and ● Direct / Indirect beneficiaries residing in the targeted communities. Current and former CET members The quantitative sample of the CET members is based on the list of about 264 current CET members, as well as about 160 former CET members. The team will consider phone and/or in-person interviews to decide which approach is the most feasible for contacting and interviewing all CET members. The survey will provide an opportunity to capture CET members’ perception of the degree of effectiveness of the various programmatic activities the CETs were part of including capacity building, the identification of stressors and the prioritization of projects to meet those stressors, in addition to vertical and horizontal engagement. The survey will also serve to augment the team’s understanding of CET members’ conception of sustainability scenarios and how best to link up to the decentralization process. Questions will be formulated and prioritized based on the results of the initial phase of the qualitative data collection. Direct / Indirect beneficiaries residing in the targeted communities Below is a summary of the suggested survey sample, survey limitations and the overall value of doing a survey as part of this evaluation. This is followed by a brief description of the process of developing the survey instrument, as well as a summary table detailing the suggested sample breakdown. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 106 Survey Sample: We recommend an overall combined survey sample size of 1540 for all the communities in which CEP was active in the four governorates. For all the communities within each governorate, the sample size will be 385, distributed based on Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling approach. This will yield a representative sample at the governorate level, with a +/- 5 % margin of error at 95% confidence level. This sample size will allow for generalizable data at the governorate level, as well as comparisons across regions, at a comparable margin of error. Moreover, the evaluation team can do a combined analysis of the data from all four governorates, proportionally weighted, to identify general trends across all the communities in which CEP is working. What will the Survey Represent: This sample is focused on the communities where CEP was active, and these communities were selected using pre-determined selection criteria that included economic and social/political stressors such as: significant and rapid demographic shift; stress on social and municipal services; poverty and unemployment; increase of living costs, incidents of unrest, and cohesion and resilience. The survey sample will therefore provide a representative capture of public opinion in areas facing considerable economic, social and political stressors. Survey Limitations: Given the suggested approach of focusing on the general population living in these communities and to ensure a representative capture of this population, the survey respondents will likely have varying levels of exposure to CEP interventions. However, the survey itself will be an effective tool for gauging overall perceptions regarding different types of interventions and their effectiveness, including the types of interventions CEP has focused on. Value of Doing a Survey: The survey data will provide the broader context for the qualitative findings of the evaluation team. For example, the survey findings will tell us about the overall population’s perspectives and preferences related to interventions they consider most effective in responding to stressors and cohesion. The qualitative data in turn, will lay out the causal mechanisms undergirding these preferences, as well as how and why are some interventions more effective. As a representative survey of the population in the 20 communities, the survey will provide an opportunity to assess perceived effectiveness of different types of interventions, identify the tensions and stressors that are currently seen as most significant by the communities, as well as community perceptions regarding the different mechanisms for vertical and horizontal community engagement. The survey data will also provide contextual variables, as well as current challenges and opportunities for CEP work, as well as USAID’s future programming in these or other similar communities. Development of the Survey Instrument: The instrument will be developed in consultation with USAID. As part of the survey tool development, the evaluation team will review the instruments used in the previous baseline questionnaires, as well as consider the questions or relevant sub-questions guiding this evaluation. The survey tool will be pre-tested in some of the study communities, prior to being finalized. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 107 Sample Breakdown The population figures in the table below are not up to date and have been taken from CEP’s past baselines and in the case of Ma’an City from an online search. The evaluation team will use the most up-to-date census information for developing this sample. Governorate Community Population Percentage of Community Population by Governorate Sample Size Irbid Hay Jalama 16,787 0.09 36 Hay Dabbet Nimer 6,839 0.04 15 Al Yarmouk Al￾Jedida 15,953 0.09 34 Al Wastyah 29,450 0.16 63 Al Taybah 35,680 0.20 77 Khalid bin Al Waleed 21,991 0.12 47 Mo’ath Bin Jabal 36,784 0.21 79 No’aimeh 15,240 0.09 33 Total 178,724 385 Mafraq Hay Al Hussein & Al Ifdain 9,657 0.09 35 Hay Al Janoubi 21,581 0.20 78 Sama Al Sarhan 16,405 0.15 59 Um Al Jmal 17,737 0.17 64 Hosha 15,754 0.15 57 Sabha w Eldafyaneh 12,170 0.11 44 Alsalhya w Nayfha 12,895 0.12 47 Total 106,199 385 Tafileh Bseira 6,547 0.19 74 Ein Al Beyda 10,099 0.30 114 Al Hasa 11,028 0.32 125 Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid 6,300 0.19 71 33,974 385 Ma'an City Ma'an City 50,350 1.00 Total 50,350 385 Total 369,247 1540 Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 108 D. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods will be used to understand, explain, and interpret emerging data. The data analysis methods used in the evaluation will depend on content analysis, cross tabulation and comparison, and triangulation. All qualitative and quantitative data will be disaggregated by sex and respondent category and, where possible, by geographic region, age, nationality, etc. Data analysis will be structured by the evaluation’s primary questions and sub-questions. For qualitative data analysis the team will use constant comparative analysis to identify themes and create a coding framework based on emerging trends in the data. As appropriate, descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the frequency of responses, disaggregated by respondent category. The team will analyze and document trends among and across the respondent categories to establish relationships between the themes. This quantification of the prevalence of certain themes in the data will allow the team to formulate findings for each of the evaluation questions. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and analyzed at the same time. The aim of the combined use of qualitative and quantitative data is the mutual validation and convergence of findings. Data collected through qualitative and quantitative methods will be triangulated for each question, e.g., information collected from interviews with mayors will be compared to responses of community leaders and beneficiaries. Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 109 ANNEXES I. Getting to Answers Matrix (G2A) II. Work plan III. Data Collection Instruments IV. CEP Results Framework. V. Team Composition and Roles and Responsibilities VI. Community Selection Criteria and Justification Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 110 ANNEX I: GETTING TO ANSWERS Program or Project: CEP Mid-Term Evaluation Team Members: Harold (Hal) Lippman, Jessica Gajarsa, Jerome Hansen, Dima Toukan, May Mansour EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection, e.g., FGDs, Survey, Key Informant Interviews Sampling or Selection Approach, (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods Data Source(s) Methods Effectiveness I: Achievement of overall goals and indicator targets/ opportunities for Improvement and Lessons Learned 1. Assess the overall effectiveness of CEP interventions (community engagement, capacity building and grants) as they relate to CEP goals? a. Are there opportunities for improvement and lessons learned for the remainder of this activity? ✓ Yes/No or multiple choice Secondary: - CEP CoAg, Modifications, and work plans - Annual, Quarterly & other activity reports - CEP AMEP and reported performance data Primary: - CEP and JRF staff - Members of the CETs - Community members/ CEP grant beneficiaries - GOJ representative at the Qualitative: - Document & secondary data review - KIIs - FGDs Quantitative: - Surveys Purposive sampling approach for qualitative data will include - 35-40 KIIs with: CEP and JRF staff; USAID; community leaders; GOJ representatives including 7 mayors, 7 municipal councils, 4 LDUs, and the directorates in the 4 governorates; and other international donors and implementers; - 7 FGDs with CETs - 14 FGDs with community - Members/ beneficiaries of CEP activities A representative sampling approach will be used for survey data collection - Content analysis and thematic coding of qualitative data - Comparison of the identified strategy and implementation approaches as stated in the activity documents with performance data and reports - Quantitative analysis of CET and beneficiary survey responses - Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes triangulated with findings from document review and survey - Gap analysis - Primary document analysis Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 111 ✓ Description governorate, local, and municipal levels - Community leaders from CBOs, youth groups, schools, etc. with two respondent groups: - 424 current and former CET members - Residents of the 20 targeted communities ✓ Comparison60 ✓ Explanation61 ✓ Perceptions of change (Likert scales) Effectiveness II Community Project success at identifying and relieving community tensions and stressors 2. To what extent have the community-level projects relieved tensions or stressors (or achieved desired objectives)? a. Are any types/ categories of community level projects more effective than others and why? These stressors ✓ ✓ Yes/No or multiple choice Secondary: - CEP CoAg, Modifications, and work plans - Annual, Quarterly & other activity reports Qualitative: - Document & secondary data review - KIIs - FGDs Quantitative: - Surveys Purposive sampling approach for qualitative data will include - 35-40 KIIs with: CEP and JRF staff; USAID; community leaders; GOJ representatives including 7 mayors, 7 municipal councils, 4 LDUs, and the - Content analysis and thematic coding of qualitative data - Comparison of the identified strategy and implementation approaches as stated in the activity documents with performance data and reports 60 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms 61 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality) Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 112 and tensions are identified through the community engagement process. For example, disengagement of youth is a stressor in some communities. - CEP AMEP and reported performance data Primary: - CEP and JRF staff - Members of the CETs - Community members/ CEP grant beneficiaries - GOJ representative at the governorate, local, and municipal levels - Community leaders from CBOs, youth groups, schools, etc. directorates in the 4 governorates; and other international donors and implementers; - 7 FGDs with CETs - 14 FGDs with community - Members/ beneficiaries of CEP activities A representative sampling approach will be used for survey data collection with two respondent groups: - 424 current and former CET members - Residents of the 20 targeted communities - Quantitative analysis of CET and beneficiary survey responses - Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes triangulated with findings from document review and survey - Gap analysis - Primary document analysis ✓ Description ✓ Comparison62 ✓ Explanation63 ✓ Perceptions of change (Likert scales) 62 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms 63 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality) Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 113 Sustainability I Strengthened relationships and sustainable mechanisms 3. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and local government entities? Local civil society organizations? a. Have CETs established sustainable mechanism(s) for community engagement in local governance? b. Is it feasible or better to use municipal councils and/or existing municipal bodies, rather than CETs, for citizen engagement? ✓ ✓ Yes/No or multiple choice Secondary: - CEP CoAg, Modifications, and work plans - Annual, Quarterly & other activity reports - CEP AMEP and reported performance data Primary: - CEP and JRF staff - Members of the CETs - Community members/ CEP grant beneficiaries - GOJ representative at the governorate, local, and Qualitative: - Document & secondary data review - KIIs - FGDs Quantitative: - Surveys Purposive sampling approach for qualitative data will include - 35-40 KIIs with: CEP and JRF staff; USAID; community leaders; GOJ representatives including 7 mayors, 7 municipal councils, 4 LDUs, and the directorates in the 4 governorates; and other international donors and implementers; - 7 FGDs with CETs - 14 FGDs with community - Members/ beneficiaries of CEP activities A representative sampling approach will be used for survey data collection with two respondent groups: - Content analysis and thematic coding of qualitative data - Comparison of the identified strategy and implementation approaches as stated in the activity documents with performance data and reports - Quantitative analysis of CET and beneficiary survey responses - Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes triangulated with findings from document review and survey - Gap analysis - Primary document analysis ✓ Description Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 114 ✓ Comparison64 municipal levels - Community leaders from CBOs, youth groups, schools, etc. - 424 current and former CET members - Residents of the 20 targeted communities ✓ Explanation65 Sustainability II Exit Strategy Mapping 4. Map potential exit strategies from communities and pros/cons as well as the feasibility of each strategy. a. Strategies should note areas of potential alignment with future similar programming and areas outside of the scope of any current DRG activity. b. Exit strategies should take into account CEP’s current “phase out plan” and explore current gaps/issues. c. All exit strategies should focus on the sustainability of mechanisms to address community level stressors. ✓ ✓ Yes/No or multiple choice Secondary: - CEP CoAg, Modifications, and work plans - Annual, Quarterly & other activity reports - CEP AMEP and reported performance data Primary: - CEP and JRF staff - Members of the CETs - Community members/ CEP grant beneficiaries - GOJ representative Qualitative: - Document & secondary data review - KIIs - FGDs Quantitative: - Surveys Purposive sampling approach for qualitative data will include - 35-40 KIIs with: CEP and JRF staff; USAID; community leaders; GOJ representatives including 7 mayors, 7 municipal councils, 4 LDUs, and the directorates in the 4 governorates; and other international donors and implementers; - 7 FGDs with CETs - 14 FGDs with community - Members/ beneficiaries of CEP activities A representative sampling approach will be used for survey data collection - Content analysis and thematic coding of qualitative data - Comparison of the identified strategy and implementation approaches as stated in the activity documents with performance data and reports - Quantitative analysis of CET and beneficiary survey responses - Qualitative analysis of transcripts and notes triangulated with findings from document review and survey - Gap analysis - Primary document analysis - 64 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms 65 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality) Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 115 ✓ Description at the governorate, local, and municipal levels - Community leaders from CBOs, youth groups, schools, etc. with two respondent groups: - 424 current and former CET members - Residents of the 20 targeted communities ✓ Comparison66 ✓ Explanation67 66 Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms 67 Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or about the attribution of an effect to a specific intervention (causality) Final CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 116 ANNEX II: CEP EVALUATION WORKPLAN Activity Responsible Party(s) Timeframe Task 1: Desk Review, Workplan and Research Design Pre-selection interviews with USAID/Jordan staff; initial Team meeting/request for source documents MESP, Team Completed Team building MESP, Team In process Review source documents, complete desk review Team Aug 22 – Sep 22, 2016 Conduct pre-fieldwork meetings Team Sep 16 – Sep 22, 2016 Submit draft workplan to Mission MESP & Team Sep 26, 2016 Prepare and submit draft evaluation design report (including methodology, instruments, and interview protocols) to USAID Team Oct 5, 2016 Arrange schedule and logistics for fieldwork MESP, Team Sep 25 – Oct 3, 2016 Task 2: Conduct/Complete Fieldwork Travel to Amman Team Sep 23/Sep 24, 2016 Team building, in-briefing with USAID MESP, Team Sep 25/26, 2016 Data collection activities – Amman Team Sept 28 – on-going Data collection activities – Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, Ma’an Team Oct 10 – Oct 31, 2016 Complete data collection Team Oct 31, 2016 Regular updates to USAID Team Oct 2016 Task 3: Draft Report Preparation Complete data analysis Team Oct 27 – Nov 8, 2016 Power point presentation/briefing on tentative findings and preliminary conclusions to USAID Team, MESP TBD Prepare and submit draft evaluation report Team, MESP Nov 8 – Nov 22, 2016 Task 4: Submit Final Report Receive USAID comments on draft report Team, MESP Dec 2, 2016 Submit final report incorporating USAID comments Team, MESP Dec 9, 2016 ANNEX V: LIST OF DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Types of Respondents Number of Interviews/ Focus Groups Data Collection Method Instruments Implementing Partners staff - CEP ● Chief of Party, DCOPs (current and former, DFA ● Program management and implementation team ● Monitoring and Evaluation team ● Global Communities headquarters staff KII ● The team has received presentations and asked questions at GC HQ and Amman on the contextual dynamics, adaptions on the overall strategy and approaches, CE, decentralization, and grant activities. The team will receive presentations and ask questions about the communications practices, M&E, and capacity building activities and ask follow up questions as necessary. Implementing partners staff – ● JRF and Al-Jidara ● CEP Field Office staff (field office program managers, program coordinators, and seven community mobilizers) 9 ● IP partner Interview Guide USAID 1 KII Initial meetings to review the CEP Mid-term Evaluation SOW and evaluation question and on technical program components. The team will ask follow up questions Governors 4 KII Interview Guide for Governors Mayors 7 KII Mayors and Municipal Council Members Interview Guide Municipal council members 14 KII Mayors and Municipal Council Members Interview Guide MOI-LDD /MOE/MOMA 3 KII Interview Guide for Ministry Officials LDUs 4 KII Interview Guide for Ministry Officials CIS and IRI 2 KII Questions for implementers of other related donor funded programs Community leaders 7 KIIs Discussion Guide For Community Leaders Community members/ Grant beneficiaries 14 FGD Beneficiary FGD Guide CET members 7 FGDs CET FGD Guide Ma’an Advisory Committee 1 KII Municipal/local government Interview Guide TOTAL KIIs AND FGDs KIIs: 35+ FGDs: 21 CET members, former members 264 160 Survey Survey Questionnaire Direct / In-direct Beneficiaries 1540 Survey Survey Questionnaire ANNEX VI: USAID CEP RESULTS FRAMEWORK ANNEX VII: Team Composition and Roles and Responsibilities Hal Lippman - Team Leader: Primary point of contact for evaluation with responsibility for assigning team member activities and facilitates smooth team operations, resources, and team member performance to meet objectives. Leads meetings with USAID. Jerome Hansen – Participatory Community Development / Conflict Mitigation Expert: Leads design methodology and instruments; conducts literature review; participates in interviewing and data collection; ensures that findings, conclusions, and recommendations answer evaluation questions and meet USAID purposes; leadership role in analysis, final reporting and presentation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead; and ensures final reporting meets USAID evaluation requirements. Jessica Gajarsa - Evaluation Specialist: Contributes to design methodology and data collection instruments; conducts literature review; participates in data collection; leads data analysis and interpretation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead. Dima Toukan - Community Development Specialist: Provides culturally and contextually relevant information about environment in which civil society operates. Contributes to design methodology and data collection instruments; participates in pilot testing for data collection and data collection efforts; participates in data analysis and interpretation; produces report sections as assigned by Team Lead. Ensures evaluation processes and reporting adhere to USAID requirements. Local Qualitative Researchers: The evaluation will be supported by two local researchers to support the FGDs with the CETs and beneficiaries. Research Coordinator / Interviewers/ Interpreters: The evaluation team will be supported by two note￾takers and two interpreters who will support every stage of the evaluation and assist the evaluation team in data collection, scheduling and conducting interviews, and note taking and data analysis. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 120 ANNEX VIII. COMMUNITY SELECTION CRITERIA AND JUSTIFICATION The CEP evaluation team will collect qualitative data in between seven and up to nine of the 20 CEP target communities. To select these communities, the following criteria were developed: • The community’s score on demographic, economic, and socio-political stressors, as developed and applied by CEP in the original community selection process: o Demographic considerations include municipalities and communities with higher populations, greater demographic shifts, and/or greater heterogeneity; o Economic considerations include communities that are considered to be a “poverty pocket" and/or experiencing high unemployment; o Considerations of social-political stressors include municipalities and communities where higher amounts of social unrest and protests have been documented. • A balance of old versus new CEP communities, in order to generate information on potential differences in the sustainability of project interventions; • Optimal coverage of the different sectors of the grant projects – e.g., health, education, youth – and Partnership Initiatives implemented by CEP across the municipalities and communities; • Other opportunities for learning based on the team’s document review and preliminary discussions with USAID and CEP: o Ma'an Governorate should be covered because that is where future USAID programs will be implemented; o Coverage of municipalities where pilot projects to institutionalize community engagement on the municipal level will be implemented.68 Based on the above, the team selected two municipalities and two to three target communities in three of the four project governorates (Irbid, Mafraq, and Tafileh) and the municipality of Ma'an. To reflect the higher population percentage of northern governorates – Irbid and Mafraq –and the higher number of Syrians residing in them, the evaluation will cover a larger number of communities in their respective municipalities as follows: Governorate Population Percentage of Syrians Number of Selected Municipalities Number of Selected Communities Irbid 1,316,618 27.14% 2 3 Mafraq 314,164 16.43% 2 3 Tafileh 90,108 .15% 2 2 Ma’an 127,989 .67% 1 1 68 The design of these pilot projects is mentioned under Sub-IR 1.1, "community engagement with the government strengthened," in the CEP Year 4 Work Plan. Although these pilot projects may not have been implemented fully at the time of the evaluation, it is important to examine the expanded efforts they entail to effectively implement IR 1 activities. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 121 Irbid Old Communities: Greater Ramtha Municipality/Hay Jalama and Dabbet Nimer communities • These two communities scored highest in Irbid against the criteria that CEP used to select the first group of communities for the project. The criteria included demographic, economic, and socio-political stressors. • A pilot project to institutionalize community engagement on the municipal level will be implemented in the municipality. • A "Towards a More Beautiful School" Partnership Initiative was implemented in the Greater Ramtha Municipality to benefit both communities. • Nine grant projects were implemented in Greater Ramtha Municipality through the end of Year 3, which covered a wide variety of sectors, including: municipal services, education, healthcare and community engagement. New Community: New Al-Taybeh Municipality/ Al-Taybeh community • Strong combustive tribal dynamics, which have escalated to violence. • Madrasati Ajmal Partnership Initiative was implemented in the community. • Four grants were implemented in the community through Year 3, which addressed project sectors such as municipal services and education. Tafileh Old Community: Al-Hasa Municipality/ Al-Hasa community • Al-Hasa scored highest in Tafileh and among communities across the governorates against the criteria employed by CEP to select the first group of communities for the program. • Five grants have been implemented in the community to address project sectors such as education, municipal services, and community engagement. • A "Towards a more Beautiful School" Partnership Initiative was implemented in the community. New Community: Greater Tafileh Municipality/ Tein, Eid, and Al Mansoura community • This is the only new community added in Tafileh Governorate. • A high level of social unrest and demonstrations have taken place in this community. • Three grants have been implemented through Year 3 that address municipal services, youth, and community engagement. • This community has a high population (6,300), as CEP decided to merge three small neighboring communities at the center of Tafileh (Tein, Eid, and Al Mansoura) and consider them as one. • A pilot project to institutionalize community engagement on the municipal level will be implemented in the municipality. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 122 Mafraq Old Community: Mafraq Greater Municipality/Hay Al-Hussein and Hay Al-Janoubi communities • These two communities scored highest in Mafraq against the criteria CEP used to select the first group of communities. • Six grants have been implemented in the municipality to address a range of sectors including municipal services, education, community engagement, civil society, and "women issues." • A pilot project to institutionalize community engagement on the municipal level will be implemented in the municipality. New Community: Al Salheyeh and Nayefeh Municipality/ Salheyeh Community • The community scored highest in Mafraq against the criteria CEP used to select the second group of communities. For example, it had the highest poverty rate in the Governorate (44%) at the time the second group of communities were selected. It also has a high number of refugees, both in random camps and urban areas. • Three grants have been implemented through Year 3 in the civil society and municipal services sectors. Ma’an New Community: Ma’an City • Ma'an City has been selected at the request of USAID/Jordan. • A municipal services grant project and free medical day Partnership Initiative have been implemented in the community. The team intends to pre-test the community selection criteria/justification described above as part of its broader effort to pre-test the evaluation approach and qualitative instruments. This effort will take place in the communities of Irbid municipality, as part of the team’s initial visit to the targeted governorates. The results of this exercise will be analyzed and communicated to USAID for its review before the team continues its work elsewhere in Irbid and the other governorates. The MESP Senior Evaluation Specialist will join the team in this undertaking. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 123 ANNEX IX: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS - DISCUSSION GUIDES DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR CET MEMBERS دليل مقابلة افراد فريق التطوير المجتمع This interview guide is to be used for focus groups with CET members who are not municipal council members or government representatives. دليل مقابلةالستخدامه من قبل مجموعة النقاش مع افراد فريقالتطوير المجتمعيالذين هم ليسوا اعضاء بلدية او من ممثلي الحكومةاالردنية . Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: ينبغيقراءةالمقدمة وبروتوكول الموافقة المسبقة في بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستعدادكملالجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارين المستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروع ينفذ فياالردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل ان نبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض المعلومات عن هذا االجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقشة معكم والسبب الذي قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات فياالردن و من ضمنها برنامج التطويلرالمجتمعي التي بدأت اعماله في 2013/04 والذي يهدف الى تحسيين التماسك و االندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق التطوير المجتمعي التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرق سد هذةاالحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. وحتى تتمكن الوكالة من التخطيط للسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج تجاه أ هدافه، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمة هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها حتىاالن. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون ان تقلق من اي نتائج. في حال وافقت على المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 124 اذا وافقت على المشاركة هل يمكن ان نقوم بستجيل النقاش حتى نتاكد من صحة المعلومات؟ لن نقوم في اي حال من الحوال بعرض او نشر هذا التسجيل خارج نطاق التقييم . If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال موافقتك على المشاركة , ستكون كل اجاباتك سرية ,لن يتم عرض اي معلومة او ربط اي مالحظة بشخص معين سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقير لتوجيه خططها في البرنامج و غيره من البرامجاالخرى . Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 23 questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كانت هذهالطريقةتناسبكم فسأبدأ بطرح 23سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. What is your community’s 3 biggest stressors after unemployment? Did the projects CEP supported and funded through this program address these stressors? If no, why not? .1 ما هي ا هم 3 ضغوطات في مجتمعك غير/بعد البطالة ؟ هل عالجت المشاريع المدعومة من قبل برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية هذه الضغوطات ؟ اذا ال, لماذاال؟ 2. Which type of donor projects best responds to your community’s main stressors (Prompts: Projects to improve schools, municipal services, the employability or entrepreneurship skills of community members, projects to create spaces for community engagement including women and youth, or projects to improve health services and raise awareness on health issues). Why? .2 أي نوع من مشاريع المانحين تستجيب او تواجة بشكل افضل الضغوطات الرئيسية لمجتمعك )مشاريع لتحسين المدارس والخدمات ,البلدية تحسين القدرةعلى الحصول على عمل , او مهارات ريادة االعمال عند أفراد المجتمع، ومشاريع لخلق مساحات إلشراك المجتمع المحلي بما في ذلك المرأة والشباب، أو مشاريع لتحسين الخدمات الصحية ورفع مستوى الوعي حول القضايا الصحية( ولماذا؟ 3. What methods/community engagement mechanisms did you use to participate in or engage with municipal/ decision-makers before CEP to address needs or problems? Was this method/s effective? .3 ما هي اّليات / طرق المشاركة المجتمعية التي استخدمتها لحلمشاكلك وتلبية احتياجاتك منالبلدية وفي التعامل بشكل عام معصناع القرار في البلدية اوالحكومةالمحلية قبل مشروع المشاركةالمجتمعية ؟ هل كانت هذهاللية / الطريقة فعالة؟ 4. Do you think decisions that affect you in your municipality/governorate are mostly decided at the local or central levels of government? Please elaborate. .4 هل تعتقد ان القرارات التي تؤثر عليكفيالبلدية/الحكومة المحلية هي قرارات يتم اتخاذ ها على المستوى المحلي او على مستوى الحكومةفي عمان ؟ يرجىالشرح 5. Did the program increase the municipality/government responsiveness to community needs? If yes, how? If no, why not? DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 125 5 . هل ادى برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية إلى زيادة نسبة استجابة البلدية اوالحكومة المحلية الحتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 6. Did the program improve the municipality to provide services? If yes, how? If no, why not? .6 هل حسن البرنامج قدرة البلدية على توفير الخدمات؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 7. What is your role as a CET member? How does the community see your role? How did you present yourself to the community? As what team? .7 ما هو دورك في فريق التطوير المجتمع ؟ كيف يرى المجتمع دورك؟ كيف تعرف عن نفسك للمجتمع؟ كفريق ماذا ؟ 8. How does your role differ from that of the municipal council or CSOs? How are the roles different and how do they overlap? .8 كيفيختلف دورك عن دوراعضاءالمجلسالبلدي او منظماتالمجتمع المدني ؟كيفتختلف ألدواروكيفتتداخل؟ 9. How often does the CET meet? Who organizes and leads these meetings? Did you/do you follow up/monitor the projects that were/are being implemented? .9 كم عدد المرات التي يجتمع فيها اعضاء فريق تطوير المجتمعي ؟ هلتابعت/راقبت المشاريع التي نفذت و التي تنفذ الن ؟ 10. How many times did the CET engage in the following activities over the course of the project: Community wide meeting, community surveys and stakeholder analysis? .10 كم عدد المرات التي قام فريقالتطويرالمجتمعيبالمشاركة في اجتماعات عامة مع اعضاء المجتمع المحلي, عمل استبيانات مع المجتمع المحلي والجتماع مع كل الشركاء )مسح القطاعات ( ؟ 11. Are you in contact with CETs in other communities? What types of topics do you discuss? How do you most frequently interact with each other (phone, Facebook, face￾to-face meetings)? .11 هل انت على تواصل مع فرق التطويرالمجتمعيفي اي مجتمعات اخرى ؟ ما هي المواضيع التي يتم مناقشتها ؟كيف تتم عمليات التواصل فيمابينكم ؟ Facebook , الهاتف او االجتماعات المباشرة؟ 12. Did the training you received help build your capacity to continue to engage stakeholders after the program ends? What was the most useful training you received? How did you apply your newly acquired skills in your work in the community? .12 هل قام التدريب الذي تلقيتة من قبل البرنامج ببناء قدراتك لتستمر باشرك و تحفيز المجتمع و الشركاء المحليين بعد انتهاء البرنامج ؟ ما هو اكثر تدريب استفدت منه ؟ كيف قمت بتطبيق المهارات الجديدة التي اكتسبتها في المجتمع؟ 13. Do you understand the municipality’s budget process plan/operational framework and on what basis resources are allocated to meet needs? Did the program enhance your understanding of this process? What other training would you need to engage municipal/local government structures? .13 هل تعلم كيف تتم عملية اعداد ميزانية البلدية و منظومة عمل البلدية ؟ هل زاد البرنامج من ف همك لهذة العملية ؟ ما هو التدريباالضافي الذي تحتاجة لمشاركة البلدية او الحكومة المحلية في هذة المواضيع ؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 126 14. Did the CEP program help strengthen your relationship with local government entities and civil society? If yes, how? If no, why not? .14 هلقامبرنامجالمشاركةالمجتمعيةبتقوية القاتك معالجهاتالحكوميةالمحلية ) ومنضمنهاالبلدية (والمجتمع المدني؟اذانعمكيف ؟ أذا ال ,لماذا؟ 15. Did the program strengthen your relationship with or build your capacity to engage with the private sector? If yes, how? .15 هلقامالبرنامجبتعزيز عالقتك أوبناء القدرات الخاصةبكللتعامل معالقطاعالخاص؟أذانعمكيف؟ 16. Are you aware of the LCDPs? How are you advocating for the LCDPs to ensure their incorporation into municipal and governorate level development plans? .16 هل لديك فكرة عن خطط تطوير المجتمع-طويلة االمد التي قمت مع البرنامج بأ عدادها؟كيف تقوم بعملية كسب التأييد او حشد الدعم لهذة الخطط لتتاكد من شمولها في خطط تنمية البلدية والمحافظة؟ 17. Were there any negative effects of the program in your community? If so, what were they? Do you think the project had any positive effects beyond those we’ve discussed? If so, what were they? .18 هل كانت هناك أي آثار سلبية للبرنامج في مجتمعك؟ إذا كان كذلك، ما هي؟ هل تعتقد ان للمشروع أي آثار إيجابية تتجاوز تلك التي تم نقاشها حتى االن؟ إذا كان كذلك، ما هي؟ 18. Do you think CETs will continue to meet/function after the CEP program ends? Did other groups in the community or organizations adopt the same mechanism you are using to engage the community? .19 هل يمكن لفريق التطوير المجتمعيالستمرار في العمل بعد انتهاءالبرنامج ؟هلقامت اي مجموعات اخرىبتبني نفساليةالمشاركةالمجتمعيةالتييستخدمهاالبرنامجفيتحفيزالمجتمع وتنفيذالمشاريع ؟ 19. How do you think CETs can be sustained after the program ends? Do you think this mechanism or approach of community driven projects will continue? What about the improved relations between the municipality/local government and the community? .20برايك , كيف يمكن لفريق التطويرالمجتمعي أن يستمر بعد انتهاءالبرنامج ؟ هل تعتقد اناللية او المنهجية التي يستخدمها البرنامج فيتحديد االحتياجات والمشاريعستستمر؟ ماذا عنتحسن العالقاتبينالبلدية /الحكومة المحليةوالمجتمع؟ هلستستمر؟ 21. New local councils and governorate councils will be elected next year as part of the government’s drive for decentralization. What role do you expect your CET to play then? Will there be any overlap in the roles? .21سيتم انتخاب مجالس محلية جديدة ومجالس محافظات العام المقبل كجزء من مشروع الحكومة لتحقيق الالمركزية. باعتقادك ,ماذا سيكونتأثير االمركزيةعلىالمجتمعالمحلي؟ 22. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .22 اذا طلب منك احداث تغيرات على المشروع , ماذا تقترح؟ 23. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .23 هل هناك أي شيء آخر ترغب في مشاركته او اضافته؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 127 After CET members respond to the questions in the Discussion Guide above, women and youth members break out into different group sessions to answer the following additional questions: بعد ان يجيب أفراد فرق التطوير المجتمعي على األسئلة الواردة في دليل مناقشة اعاله, سوف يتم فصل النساء والشباب الى جلسات جماعية مختلفة إلجابة على األسئلة اإلضافية التالية: 1. Do you think that CEP projects and activities are responding to youth/women’s needs in your communities? Why or why not? .1 هل تعتقد أن مشاريع وأنشطة برنامج المشاركةالمجتمعيةتستجيبالحتياجات المرأة/الشباب في مجتمعاتكم؟ لما و لما ال؟ 2. As members of CETs, what are some of the challenges you face that are specific to you as youth/women? .2كأعضاء في فريق التطويرالمجتمعي ، ما هي التحديات التي تواجهها كشباب / كنساء تحديدا؟ 3. How effective was the training you received from the CEP project in addressing these challenges? .3 ما مدى فعالية التدريب الذي تلقيت ه من مشروع المشاركةالمجتمعيةفي التصدي لهذه التحديات؟ 4. How can future community engagement mechanisms overcome some of the challenges listed in question 2? .4 كيف من الممكنالليات التطويرالمجتمعي في المستقبل ان تصدى لمثل هذه التحديات ؟ 5. In your opinion why did the project face challenges recruiting women and youth as CET members? .5في رأيك لماذا واجه المشروع صعوبات في جذب اوضمالنساء والشباب كأعضاء في فريق التطوير المجتمعي ؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 128 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR GOVERNORS دليلمقابلةالمحافظين This interview guide is to be used for Key Informant interview with governors. دليل مقابلة الستخدامه كحوار رئيسي مع المحافظين. Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: ينبغيقراءةالمقدمة وبروتوكول الموافقة المسبقة في بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستعدادكملالجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارين المستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروع ينفذ فياالردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل ان نبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض المعلومات عن هذااالجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقش ة معكم والسبب قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات في الردن و من ضمنها برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية الذي بدأت اعماله في 2013/04 والذي يهدف الى تحسيين التماسك واالندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق التطويرالمجتمعي التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرق سد هذة االحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. و حتى تتمكن الوكالةاألمريكية للتنميةللتخطيط للسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمه هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون القلق من اي نتائج. في حال وافقت على المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 129 If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. اذا وافقت على المشاركة هل يمكن ان نقوم بستجيل النقاش حتى نتاكد من صحة المعلومات؟ لن نقوم في اي حال من الحوال بعرض او نشر هذا التسجيل خارج نطاق التقييم . If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال قبلت المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, سوف يتم الحفاظ على سريةاالجابات؛ ولن تنسب هذه الدراسة و التقرير الذي سيتم استصداراه الى شخص معين. سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقرير لتوجيه التخطيط في هذا المجال وفي غيره من البرامج التي تدعمها الوكالة . Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 15 questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم و على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كان هذا النهج يناسبك فاريد ان ابدأ بطرح 15سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. Are there participatory processes/channels through which local government identifies community needs? If yes, what are they? .1 هل هناك الياتمشاركةتحدد الحكومة المحلي ة من خاللهااحتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 2. How does civil society seek to provide input into governorate level development plans? .2 كيف يسعى المجتمع المدني للمشاركة اوالمسا همة ) توفيرالمعلومات( في خطط تنمية المحافظة؟ 3. How will the various structures under the new decentralization and municipalities laws (governorate, executive, municipal and local) communicate with each other? What will the effect of decentralization be on the community? .4 كيف ستتواصل المجالس الجديدة التي ستنتج عن عملية الالمركزية والبلديات )محافظة , التنفيذية والبلدية والمحلية(؟ 5. In your opinion, which junctures in the new decentralized structure offer the best opportunities for supporting community engagement and bottom-up strategic planning? .4 في رأيك، اي جزء من منظومة الالمركزية الجديدة يتيح فرص اكبر للمشاركة المجتمعية والتخطيطاالستراتيجي الناشئ عن المجتمع؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 130 6. In your opinion, do you think that civil society structures are the best local structure to engage the community and design programming to address its needs or are local councils better equipped for this role? Why or why not? .6 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن المجتمع المدني باشكاله المختلفة هوأفضل آلية الشراكالمجتمع و تحديد احتياجاته، أم ان المجالس المحلية اكثر قدرة على لعب هذا الدور؟ لماذا او لماذاال؟ 7. Are you aware of the CEP program and its activities in your governorate? .7 هل أنت على علم بمشروع المشاركة المجتمعية ونشاطاته في محافظتك؟ If the respondent answers no, the interview ends. إذا كانت اإلجابة عن السؤال ال، تنتهي المقابلة. 8. What are some of the effective interventions/activities that the program has implemented in your governorate? What are some of the challenges it faced? .8 ما هي البرامج /األنشطة الفعالة التي نفذ ها البرنامج في محافظتك؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهها البرنامج ؟ 9. Do you think the program has enhanced the community’s ability and willingness to engage with municipal/local government structures? If yes, how? .9 هل تعتقد أن البرنامج قد عزز من قدرة المجتمع واستعداده للتعامل مع البلدية / الحكومية المحلية؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ 10. In your opinion, were there any negative effects of the program? If so, what were they? Do you think the program had any positive effects beyond those we’ve discussed? If so, what were they? .10 هل كان هناك أي آثار سلبية للبرنامج في مجتمعك؟ اذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ هل تعتقد أن للبرنامج أي آثار إيجابية تتجاوز تلك التي ناقشن اها؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ 11. Did the program inadvertently undermine local authority or informal tribal and leadership structures in the community and already existing mitigation practices? If yes, how? .11 هل قام البرنامج بشكل غير مباشربالتأثيرسلباعلىالسلطةالمحلية اوالعشائر اوقياداتالمجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ 12. CEP is currently supporting the MOI in drafting the bylaws and regulations of decentralization to ensure the incorporation of community engagement mechanisms. What other forms of support can CEP provide to support the decentralization process at the governorate level? .12يدعم برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية حاليا وزارة الداخلية في صياغة انظمة الالمركزية لضمان إدماج آليات المشاركة المجتمعية. ما هي اشكال الدعماالخرى التي يمكن لبرنامج المشاركة المجتمعية ان يوفر ها لدعم عملية الالمركزية ؟ 13. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .13 هلتود اقتراحتغييرات على البرنامج ؟ 14. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .14 هل هناك أي شيء تود اضافته؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 131 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MAYORS AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEMBERS دليل مقابلة رئيس و اعضاء البلدية This interview guide is to be used for group or individual interviews with Mayors and Municipal Council (MC) members who are not members of a CET. دليل مقابلةالستخدامه في المقابالت الفردية او المجموعات مع رئيس و اعضاء البلدية الذين هم ليسوا اعضاء في فريق التطويرالمجتمعي. Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: ينبغيقراءةالمقدمة وبروتوكول الموافقة المسبقة على أن يقرأ في بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستعدادكم الجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارين المستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروعينفذ في االردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل اننبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض المعلومات عن هذا االجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقشة معكم والسبب قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات فياالردن و من ضمنها برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية الذيبدأت اعماله في 2013/04والذي يهدفالى تحسيين التماسك واالندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرق سد هذة االحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid￾term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. وحتى تتمكن الوكالة من التخطيطللسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج تجاه أ هدافه، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمة هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون القلق من اي انعكاسات. في حال وافقت في المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 132 to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال قبلت المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, سوف يتم الحفاظ على سريةاالجابات؛ ولن تنسب هذه الدراسة و التقرير الذي سيتم استصداراه الى شخص معين. سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقرير لتوجيه التخطيط في هذا المجال وفي غيره من البرامج التي تدعمها الوكالة . Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 23 questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم و على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كان هذا النهج يناسبك فاريد ان ابدأ بطرح 20 سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. Are there participatory processes/channels through which municipalities identify community needs? If yes, what are they? .1 هل هناك آليات مشاركة / تشاركية تستخدمها البلدية لتحديد احتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كانتاإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 2. How does civil society seek to provide input into municipal level development plans? .2 كيف يسعى المجتمع المدني للمشاركه او المسا همة )توفير المعلومات( في خطط تنمية البلدية؟ 3. How will the various structures under the new decentralization and municipalities laws (governorate, executive, municipal and local) communicate with each other? What effect will decentralization have on your community? .3 باعتقادك كيف ستتواصل المجالس الجديدة التي ستنتج عن عملية الالمركزية )محافظة ,المجلس التنفيذي والبلدية و الحكومةالمحلية(؟ وما شكل العالقة بينهم؟ ماذا باعتقادك سيكون تأثير الالمركزيةعلىالمجتمعالمحلي؟ 4. In your opinion, which junctures in the new decentralized structure offer the best opportunities for supporting community engagement and bottom-up strategic planning? .4 في رأيك، اي جزء من منظومة الالمركزية الجديدة يتيح فرص اكبر للمشاركة المجتمعية والتخطيطاالستراتيجي الناشئ عن المجتمع؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 133 5. In your opinion, do you think that civil society structures are the best mechanism to engage the community to address its needs, or are local councils better equipped for this role? Why or why not? .5 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن المجتمع المدني باشكاله المختلفة هوأفضل آليةالشراك المجتمع و تحديد احتياجاته، أم ان المجالس المحلية اكثر قدرة على لعب هذا الدور؟ لماذا او لما ال؟ 6. Are you aware of the CEP program and its activities in your municipality? .6 هل أنت على علم بمشروع المشاركةالمجتمعية ونشاطاته في بلديتك ؟ If the respondent answers no, the interview ends. إذا كانت اإلجابة عن السؤال ال، تنتهي المقابلة. 7. What are some of the effective interventions/activities that the program has implemented in your municipality? What are some of the challenges it faced? .7 ما هي البرامج /األنشطة الفعالة التي نفذ ها البرنامج في بلديتك؟ ما هي التحديات التي واجهها البرنامج ؟ 8. Did the program increase the municipality’s responsiveness to community needs? If yes, how? If no, why not? .9 هل ادى البرنامج إلى زيادةاستجابة البلدياتالحتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 9. Did the program increase the municipality’s capacity to provide services? If yes, how? If no, why not? .9 هل ادى البرنامج إلى زيادة قدرة البلدية على تقديم الخدمات؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذا ال؟ 10. Did the CEP program help strengthen the relationship between municipality and civil society? If yes, how? If no, why not? .10 هل ادى برنامج المشاركة المجتمعيةالى تقوية العالقة بين البلديةوالمجتمع المدني؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذا ال، لماذاال؟ 11. Has the program contributed to the creation of sustainable mechanisms for community engagement in the municipality? If yes, what are they? .11 هل سا هم البرنامج في عمل وتطويرآليات مشاركة مجتمعيةفي البلدية؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 12. Were there any negative effects of the program in your community? If so, what were they? Do you think the program had any positive effects beyond those we’ve discussed? If so, what were they? .13 هل كانت هناك أي آثار سلبية للبرنامج في مجتمعك؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ هل تعتقد أن للبرنامج أي آثار إيجابية تتجاوز تلك التي ناقشنا ها؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ 13. Did the program inadvertently undermine local authority, informal tribal and leadership structures in the community and/or already existing mitigation practices? If yes, how? .14 هل قام البرنامج بشكل غير مباشربالتأثيرسلباعلىالسلطةالمحلية اوالعشائر اوقياداتالمجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف ؟ 14. How do you see the role of the CET in the community beyond the life of this program? DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 134 .15 ما الدور الذي يمكن ان يلعبه فريق التطويرالمجتمعي بعد انتهاء هذا البرنامج؟ 15. In your opinion, do you think the CETs are the best local structure to engage the community and address its needs? Why or why not? .15 في رأيك، هل تعتقد ان فرق التطويرالمجتمعي هي أفضل الية محلية لمشاركة وتحفيزالمجتمع ومعالجة احتياجاته؟ لما و لماال؟ 16. How is it similar or different from the municipal councils or CSOs or other such bodies responding to local community needs? .16 كيف يتشابه أو يختلف دور ها عن دور المجالس البلدية أو منظمات المجتمع المدني أو غير ها من المؤسسات في الستجابة الحتياجات المجتمع المختلفة؟ 17. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: CEP reduced tensions in the community? Please explain. .18 هل تتفق أو تختلف مع العبارة التالية: ان برنامجالمشاركة المجتمعية قد قلل حدةالضغوطات و التوتراتفيالمجتمع؟ يرجىالتوضيح. 18. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .19 لو كنت ستقترح تغييرات على البرنامج ، فماذا تقترح؟ 19. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .20 هل هناك أي شيء تود اضافته؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 135 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS دليل مقابلة مسؤولي الحكومة المحلية This interview guide is to be used with local GOJ representatives. دليل مقابلةالستخدام ه مع ممثلي الحكومةاالردنية. Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: ينبغيقراءةالمقدمة وبروتوكول الموافقة المسبقة بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستدادكم لالجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارينالمستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروع ينفذ فياالردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل ان نبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض عن هذا االجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقشة معكم والسبب قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات فياالردن و من ضمنها برنامج الذيبدأت اعماله في 2013/04 والذي يهدف الى تحسيين التماسك واالندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق برنامج المشاركةالمجتمعية التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرقسد هذةاالحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid￾term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. وحتى تتمكن الوكال ة من التخطيطللسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج تجاه أ هدافه، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمة هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون القلق من اي انعكاسات. في حال وافقت في المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 136 If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال قبلت المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, سوف يتم الحفاظ على سرية الجابات؛ ولن تنسب هذه الدراسة و التقرير الذي سيتم استصداراه الى شخص معين. سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقرير لتوجيه التخطيط في هذا المجال وفي غيره من البرامج التي تدعمهاالوكالة االمريكية. Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 16 questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم و على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كان هذا النهج يناسبك فاريد ان ابدأ بطرح 16سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. Are there participatory processes/channels through which local government identifies community needs? If yes, what are they? .1 هل هناك آليات من خاللها تحدد الحكومة المحلية احتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 2. How does civil society seek to provide input into governorate level development plans? .2 كيف يسعى المجتمع المدني للمشاركة و المسا همة) توفير المعلومات( في خطط تنمية المحافظة؟ 3. How will the various structures under the new decentralization and municipalities laws (governorate, executive, municipal and local) communicate with each other? What impact/effect will decentralization have on your community? .4 باعتقادك كيف ستتواصل المجالس الجديدة التي ستنتج عن عملية الالمركزية )محافظة والتنفيذية والبلدية والمحلية(؟ ما شكل العالقة بينهم؟ باعتقادك ماذا سيكون أثر الالمركزية على المحافظة؟ 1. In your opinion, which junctures in the new decentralized structure offer the best opportunities for supporting community engagement and bottom-up strategic planning? .3 في رأيك، اي جزء من منظومة الالمركزية الجديدة يتيح فرص اكبر للمشاركة المجتمعية والتخطيط االستراتيجي الناشئ عن المجتمع؟ 5. In your opinion, do you think that civil society structures are the best local structure to engage the community and design programming to address its needs or are local councils better equipped for this role? Why or why not? .4 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن المجتمع المدني باشكاله المختلفة هوأفضل آليةالشراك المجتمع و تحديد احتياجاته، أم ان المجالس المحلية اكثر قدرة على لعب هذا الدور؟ لماذا او لماال؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 137 6. Are you aware of the CEP program and its activities in your governorate? .6 هل أنت على علم بمشروع المشاركةالمجتمعية ونشاطاته في محافظتك؟ If the respondent answers no, the interview ends. إذا كانت اإلجابة عن السؤال ال، تنتهي المقابلة. 7. What are some of the effective interventions/activities that the program has implemented in the governorate? What are some of the challenges it faced? .7 ما هي البرامج /األنشطة الفعالة التي نفذ ها البرنامج في محافظتك؟ ما هي بعض التحديات التي واجهها البرنامج ؟ 8. Did the program increase the government responsiveness to community needs? If yes how? If yes, how? If no, why not? .8 هل ادى البرنامج إلى زيادة استجابة الحكومة المحليةالحتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذا ال؟ 9. Did the program increase the government capacity to provide services? If yes, how? .9 هل ادى البرنامج إلى زيادة قدرة الحكومة المحلية على تقديم الخدمات؟ إذا كان الجوابنعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 10. Did the CEP program help strengthen your relationship with local government entities and civil society? If yes, how? If no, why not? .10 هل ادى برنامج المشاركةالمجتمعيةالى تقوية العالقة بين الجهات الحكومية المحلية والمجتمع المدني؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 11. Has the program contributed to the creation of sustainable mechanisms for community engagement in local governance? If yes, what are they? .11 هل سا هم البرنامج في عمل وتطويرآلياتإلشراك المجتمع المحلي في الحكم المحلي و تحديدااللوليات يمكن ان تستمر بعد نهاية البرنامج؟ إذا كانتاإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 12. Were there any negative effects of the program in your community? If so, what were they? Do you think the program had any positive effects beyond those we’ve discussed? If so, what were they? .13 هل كانت هناك أي آثار سلبية للبرنامج في مجتمعك؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ هل تعتقد أن للبرنامج أي آثار إيجابية تتجاوز تلك التي ناقشنا ها؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ 13. The program is currently supporting the MOI in drafting the bylaws and regulations of decentralization to ensure the incorporation of community engagement mechanisms. What other forms of support can the program provide to support the decentralization process at the governorate level? .14 مشروع المشاركةالمجتمعية يدعم حاليا وزارة الداخلية في صياغة أنظمة الالمركزية لضمان إدماج آليات المشاركة المجتمعية. هل هناكأشكال أخرى من الدعم يمكن للمشروع ان يوفر ها من اجل دعم عملية الالمركزية؟ 14. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .15 لو كنت ستقترح تغييرات على البرنامج ، فماذا تقترح؟ 15. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .16 هل هناك أي شيء تود اضافته؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 138 INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MINISTRY OFFICIALS IN AMMAN دليل مثلي الوزاراتالمختلفةفي عمان This interview guide is to be used with MOI, MOPIC, MOMA or other GOJ ministry representatives in Amman. دليل مقابلةالستخدام ه مع وزارة الداخلية, وزارة التخطيط و التعاون الدولي, وزارة الشؤون البلدية او اي وزارت اخرى. Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: ينبغيالمقدمة وبروتوكول الموافقة المسبقة على أن يقرأ في بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستعدادكملالجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارين المستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروع ينفذ فياالردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل ان نبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض عن هذااالجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقشة معكم والسبب قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات في االردن و من ضمنها برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية الذيبدأت اعماله في 2013/04 والذي يهدف الى تحسيين التماسك و االندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق برنامج التطويرالمجتمعي التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرق سد هذة االحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. وحتى تتمكن الوكالة من التخطيط للسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج تجاه أ هدافه، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمة هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون القلق من اي انعكاسات. في حال وافقت في المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 139 USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال قبلت المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, سوف يتم الحفاظ على سريةاالجابات؛ ولن تنسب هذه الدراسة و التقرير الذي سيتم استصداراهالى شخص معين. سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقرير لتوجيه التخطيط في هذا المجال وفي غيره من البرامج التي تدعمها الوكالة . Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 15questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم و على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كان هذا النهج يناسبك فاريد ان ابدأ بطرح 15سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. Are there participatory processes/channels through which government identifies local community needs? If yes, what are they? .1 هل هناك آليات مشاركة مجتمعيةتحدد الحكومة المحلية من خاللها احتياجات المجتمع؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 2. How will the various structures under the new decentralization and municipal laws (governorate, executive, municipal and local) communicate with each other? .2 كيف ستتواصل المجالس الجديدة التي ستنتج عن عملية الالمركزية والبلديات )محافظة ,المجلس التنفيذي ,مجلس البلدية و الحكومة المحلية(؟ 3. In your opinion, which junctures in the new decentralized structure offer the best opportunities for supporting community engagement and bottom-up strategic planning? .3 في رأيك، اي جزء من منظومة الالمركزية الجديدة يتيح فرص اكبر لمشاركة المجتمعية والتخطيط االستراتيجي الناشئ عن المجتمع؟ 4. How would you like to see community engagement take place? What form and for what purposes? .4 كيف تود أن ترى مشاركة المجتمع ؟ ما هو شكل هذه المشاركة وألي ا هداف؟ 5. The new decentralization project has brought down representation to the local councils level. Do you think that civil society can play a role in channeling community needs through this new structure? If no, why not and if yes, how can they do that? .5 قام مشروع الالمركزية الجديد على ايصال التمثيل الى مستوى المجالس المحلية. هل تعتقد أن المجتمع المدني يمكن أن يكون له دورا في ايصال احتياجات المجتمع من خالل هذه المجالس الجديدة؟ إذاال، لماذا ؟ 6. In your opinion, do you think that civil society structures are the best local structure to engage the community and design programming to address its needs or are local councils better equipped for this role? Why or why not? .6 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن المجتمع المدني باشكاله المختلفة هوأفضل آلية الشراك المجتمع و تحديد احتياجاته، أم ان المجالس المحلية اكثر قدرة على لعب هذا الدور؟ لماذا او لماال؟ 7. Are you aware of the CEP program and its activities? DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 140 .7 هل أنت على علم بمشروع المشاركةالمجتمعية ونشاطاتها؟ 8. What are some of the effective interventions/activities that the program has implemented? What are some of the challenges it faced? .8 ما هي البرامج /األنشطة الفعالة التي نفذ ها البرنامج ؟ ما هي بعض التحديات التي واجهها البرنامج ؟ 9. Did the CEP program help strengthen your relationship with local government entities and civil society? If yes, how? If no, why not? .9 هل ادى برنامج المشاركة المجتمعيةالى تقوية العالقة بين الجهات الحكومية المحلية والمجتمع المدني؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف؟ إذاال، لماذاال؟ 10. Has the program contributed to the creation of sustainable mechanisms for community engagement in local governance? If yes, what are they? .10 هل سا هم البرنامج في إنشاء و تطوير آليات مشاركة مجتمعية إلشراك المجتمع المحلي في الحكم المحلي؟ إذا كانت إلجابة بنعم، فما هي؟ 11. Were there any negative effects of the program? If so, what were they? Do you think the project had any positive effects beyond those we’ve discussed? If so, what were they? .11 هل كانت هناك أي آثار سلبية للبرنامج ؟ إذا كان األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ هل تعتقد أن للبرنامج أي آثار إيجابية تتجاوز تلك التي ناقشن اها؟ إذا كا األمر كذلك، ما هي؟ 12. The program is currently supporting the MOI in drafting the bylaws and regulations of decentralization to ensure the incorporation of community engagement mechanisms. What other forms of support can the project provide to support the decentralization process at this level? .12 مشروع المشاركةالمجتمعيةيدعم حاليا الوزارة الداخلية في صياغة انظمةالالمركزية لضمان إدماج المشاركة المجتمعية. ما هي اشكالالدعم ألخرى التييمكن للبرنامج ان يوفر ها من اجل دعم عملية الالمركزية ؟ 13. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .13 لو كنت ستقترح تغييرات على البرنامج ، فماذا تقترح؟ 14. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .14 هل هناك أي شيء تود اضافته؟ 15. (For MOI only) .15 فقط لموظفين الوزارة الداخلية i) What is the status of the cooperation between MOI and the CEP program? أنتم من نتائج التعاون بين وزارة الداخلية و برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية؟ ما هي ا ؟ ّ أ( أين خر المستجدات لهذا التعاون ii) How effective have these efforts been (strengths and challenges)? ب( ما مدى فعالية هذه الجهود)نقاط القوة والتحديات(؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 141 DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS دليل مقابلة قادة المجتمع This interview guide is to be used with community leaders (CBO and CSO representatives, religious leaders, youth group leaders, etc.). It may be used for KIIs or groups of respondents in this category who are directly or not directly involved in the implementation of CEP grants or interventions. يستخدم دليل المقابالت معقادةالمجتمع )ممثلين منظماتالمجتمعالمحلي , ممثلين منظماتالمجتمع المدني ,القيادات الدينية,قياداتالمجموعات الشبابية( ومن الممكناستخدامهكدليللمقابلة أفراد أو مجموعة منالمشاركينبشكل مباشر أو غير مباشرفيتنفيذ منح انشطة برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية . Introduction and Informed Consent Protocol to be read at the start of each interview: مقدمة وبروتوكول موافقة مسبقة على أن يقرأ في بداية كل مقابلة: Thank you very much for meeting with us today and for being willing to answer our questions. We are an independent team of consultants that have been contracted by USAID to evaluate a USAID funded program being implemented in Jordan. شكرا جزيال لمقابلة فريق التقييم اليوم واستدادكم لالجابة على اسئلتنا , نحن فريق من المستشارين المستقلين المتعاقدين مع الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية لتقييم مشروع ينفذ فياالردن و ممول من الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية. Before we start, let me provide some context for this meeting and explain briefly what we would like to discuss with you and why. As you know, USAID is supporting a wide range of programs and activities in Jordan including the USAID Community Engagement Program which, started in April 2013 with the goal of improving community cohesion and resilience mainly through the convening of Community Engagement Teams (CETs) that utilize participatory approaches to help communities identify community needs and ways to address those needs. قيل ان نبدأ, اسمحوا لي بتقديم بعض عن هذا االجتماع وشرح بإيجاز ما نود أن نناقشة معكم والسبب قي ذلك , تقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية بدعم العديد من اليرامج و النشاطات فياالردن و من ضمنها برنامج المشاركة المجتمعيةالذي بدأت اعماله في 2013/04والذي يهدف الى تحسيين التماسك واالندماج المجتمعي عن طريق انشاء فرق برنامج المشاركة المجتمعية التي تستخدم اليات تشاركية للتعريف باحتياجات المجتمع وطرق سد هذة االحتياجات. As part of its own planning for the next few years, USAID has asked us to conduct a mid￾term evaluation of the program to assess its progress toward achieving its objectives. So, what we are trying to evaluate are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, its accomplishments but also its shortcomings, and how it can be more effective and better aligned with USAID programs for local governance in Jordan. وحتى تتمكن الوكال ة من التخطيطللسنوات القادمة تم طلب نتفيذ تقييم نصف سنوي للبرنامج , لتقييم مدى ما حققة البرنامج تجاه أ هدافه، لذلك ما نحاول أن نقيمة هو نقاط القوة والضعف في البرنامج،واإلنجازات التي تم تحقيقها. You may refuse to participate in this research without concern for repercussions. If you agree to participate in this interview, you may refuse to answer specific questions or end the interview at any point. يمكنك ان ترفض المشاركة في هذا البحث دون القلق من اي انعكاسات. في حال وافقت في المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, يمكنك ان ترفضاالجابة على بعضاالسئلة او انهاء المقابلة في اي وقت. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 142 If you agree to participate in this interview may we record your responses for ensuring the quality of the data? We will not share this recording outside of evaluation team members. If you agree to participate in this interview, your answers will be kept confidential; the report that will be developed out of this study will not attribute any particular comment to any particular individual. We will summarize our findings in a brief report that will be given to USAID. USAID will then use that report to inform and guide its planning for this and other related projects it supports. في حال قبلت المشاركة في هذه المقابلة, سوف يتم الحفاظ على سرية الجابات؛ ولن تنسب هذه الدراسة و التقرير الذي سيتم استصداراه الى شخص معين. سوف نلخص نتائج البحث في تقرير مختصر وسوف يتم تقديمة الى الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية , ستقوم الوكالة األمريكية للتنمية في استخدام هذا التقرير لتوجيه التخطيط في هذا المجال وفي غيره من البرامج التي تدعمها الوكلة االمريكية. Again, we are very grateful for your willingness to help us as we conduct this study. If you are comfortable with this approach, I am planning to ask you about 20questions, a few of which entail follow-up questions. But before we proceed, do you have any questions for us? نحن ممتنون جدا لكم و على استعدادكم لمساعدتنا في إجراء هذه الدراسة , إذا كان هذا النهج يناسبك فاريد ان ابدأ بطرح 20سؤال، وعدد قليل من اسئلة المتابعة, ولكن قبل أن نبدأ، هل لديك أي أسئلة لفريق التقييم ؟ Questions االسئلة 1. Are you aware of the CEP program and its activities in your community? [Prompts describing the different CEP grants/ activities implemented in the specific community] .1 هل لديك فكرة عنبرنامج المشاركةالمجتمعية و نشاطاتة في المجتمع ؟)اعطاء شرح عن منح البرنامج ونشاطاتة المنفذة في المجتمع المحلي(. 2. Have you participated in these activities? If yes please describe your involvement. .2 هل شاركت في اي من هذة النشاطات ؟ )اذا نعم , الرجاء شرح تجربتك( 3. Which types of interventions do you feel were most effective for addressing community level needs or tensions/stressors? .3 حسب رايكم , ماهي افضل البرامج والنشاطاتالتي شعرتم بانها قد تكون ذو فاعيلة اكبر لمعالجة احتياجات المجتمع )الضغوطات و التحديات(؟ 4. Youth additional question– Do you feel that CEP projects are responding to youth needs in your community? .4 حسب رايكم, هل تعتقد بان مشاريع برنامج المشاركةالمجتمعيةتستجيب الحتياجات الشباب في المجمتع المحلي ؟ 5. Female additional question – Do you feel that CEP projects have responded to Women’s needs in your community? .5 سؤال موجه لالناث – هل تشعرين بان مشاريع برنامج المشاركة المجتمعيةقد لبى احتياجات المرأة في المجتمع ؟ 6. Did the program increase the municipality/government responsiveness to community needs? If yes how? .6 هل قام البرنامج بزيادة استجابة البلدية والحكومة المحلية الحتياجات المجتمع ؟في حال اليجاب ,كيف؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 143 7. Did the program increase the municipality/government capacity to provide services? If yes, how? .7 هل قام البرنامج بزيادة قدرة البلدية والحكومة المحلية علىتقديم الخدمات؟ في حال اليجاب, كيف؟ 8. Did the CEP program help strengthen the relationship with local government entities and civil society? If yes, how? If no, why not? .8 هل قام برنامج المشاركةالمجتمعيةبتقوية العالقة بين الحكومة المحلية و المجتمع المدني ؟في حال االيجاب,كيف؟في حال النفي ,لماذا؟ 9. Has the program contributed to the creation of sustainable mechanisms for community engagement in local governance? If yes, what are they? .9 هل سا هم البرنامج في تطوير الية ثابتة لمشاركة المجتمع في الحكومة المحلية ؟ في حال االيجاب , اذكر الكيفية؟ 10. Are you aware of the LCDP produced by the CETs? (If yes, continue to question 12, if no proceed to question 13) .10 هل لديك فكرة عن خطة تطوير المجتمع –طويلة االمد المعدة من برنامج االمشاركةالمجتمعية ؟ )في حال اليجاب اكمل للسؤال 12 , في حال النفي اكمل للسؤال 13( 11. Are they considered as legitimate representations of your community? b) Do they accurately represent the needs of you your community? c) Do they present appropriate responses to these needs? .11 هل تعتبر هذه الحتياجات احتياجات رئيسيةللمجتمع ؟ هل تقدم تلبي احتياجات مجتمعكالرئيسية ؟ 12. Did the program inadvertently undermine local authority, informal tribal and leadership structures in the community and/or already existing mitigation practices? .12 هل قام البرنامج بشكل غير مباشربالتأثيرسلباعلىالسلطةالمحلية اوالعشائر اوقياداتالمجتمع؟ إذا كان الجواب نعم، كيف ؟ 13. In your opinion, what are the program’s strength and challenges? .13 في رايك الشخصي , ما هي نقاط القوة والتحديات للبرنامج؟ 14. In your opinion, do you think the CETs are the best local structure to represent the community and design programming to address its needs? Why or why not? .14 في رأيك، هل تعتقد أن فرقالتطوير المجتمعي, هي أفضل الية لتمثيل المجتمع ولتصميم مشاريع تعالج و تسد احتياجاته؟ 15. Should these CETs be sustained beyond the life of this program? If so, how should it be done? .15 هل تعتقد بان فرقالتطوير المجتمعييجب ان تستمربعدنهاية المشروع؟ اذا كان كذلك , كيف؟ 16. Are you familiar with the details of the new decentralization plan? If so, how should your community best use this plan to connect with Municipal Councils and local government for effective bottom up planning? Do you think that CETs or civil society in general can play a role in channeling community needs through this new structure? DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 144 .16 هل أنت على علم بتفاصيل خطة الالمركزية الجديدة؟ إذا كنت كذلك، كيف ينبغي على مجتمعك ان يتعامل مع هذه الخطة للتواصل مع المجالس البلدية والحكومة المحلية للمشاركةفي عمليةالتنمية ؟ هل تعتقد أن فرق التطوير المجتمعي أو المجتمع المدني بشكل عام يمكن أن يلعب دورا في التأثير من خالل هذهاالليات الجديده؟ 17. Do you think that stressors have increased or decreased in the community over the last 2-4 years? Please explain. .17 هل تعتقد أن حدة الضغوطات و التوترات قد ازدادت أو نقصت في المجتمع خالل السنوات 4-2 األخيرة؟ 18. Do you think that trust in government has improved over the last 2-4 years? Please explain. .18 هل تعتقد أن الثقة في الحكومة قد تحسنت خالل السنوات 4-2 األخيرة؟ يرجى التوضيح 19. If you were to recommend changes to the program, what would you propose? .19 ماذاتقترح منتغيراتعلى البرنامج؟ 20. Is there anything else you’d like to share beyond what we’ve asked? .20 هل هناك اي شي اخر تريد اضافته؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 145 ANNEX X: GENERAL POPULATION SURVEY INSTRUMENT General Population Survey Survey Administration Details: I. Interviewer Name: _________________ II. Interviewer Code: _________________ III. Governorate: _________________ IV. District: _________________ V. Municipality/Community: _________________ VI. City/Town/Village: _________________ Introduction: Good Morning / Good Evening, My name is ___________. I work for Mindset, an independent organization that specializes in field studies and data collection. On behalf of USAID, we are currently conducting a public opinion poll with households in your community and I would appreciate your time to answer some questions. The survey questions focus on gauging your opinion regarding the overall situation in your community. I assure you that all the information we gather will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and that none of your personal information will be revealed. The findings from the survey will be reported in aggregate and not at the individual level. The survey will take around 30 minutes of your time. Do you have any questions at this time? Household List: How many people reside within this household (including yourself and including all members of all ages)? [-----------] LIST THE AGE, SEX, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE ADULTS (18 YEARS OR OLDER) IN THE HOUSEHOLD IN THE BELOW TABLE, STARTING WITH THE YOUNGEST TO THE OLDEST. I would like to ask you about your family members (male and female) that live in this household, and who are 18 years of age or older. FILL THE BELOW TABLE IN ASCENDING ORDER IN TERMS OF AGE. Family member # First name Age Gender Education Employment Status Type of house 1. [----] [----] A. Male B. Female A. No formal education and cannot read or write B. No formal education and can read and write C. Elementary D. Primary / Basic E. Vocational A. Unemployed and looking for a job B. Unemployed and not looking for a job C. Self employed D. Student A. Owned Apartment B. Rented apartment C. Owned Detached house/ Villa D. Rented Detached house/ Villa 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 146 11. F. Secondary G. Diploma H. B.A/s I. Higher degrees E. Employed in private sector F. Employed in public sector G. Employed in non for profit sector H. Retired E. Tent/ 12. Caravan 13. 14. KISH GRID: TO RANDOMLY SELECT THE RESPONDENT AT THE HOUSEHOLD LEVEL Instructions for using Kish Grid: 1. The first household where you do an interview is household 1, the second is household 2, and so on, up to household 8 - the last in the cluster. 2. Look up the column for the household number, and the row for the number of eligible people by referring to the household list. The number in the cell where the column and row meet is the person to interview. For example, if household 2 has 3 adults, interview the 2nd youngest (shown in bold type). If that person is not there when you call, arrange to come back later. Eligible people Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 or more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • Sex of Respondent o Male o Female • Nationality of respondent o Jordanian (Show Q21, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36) o Iraqi (Show Q32 and D&E of Q21) o Syrian (Show Q32 and D&E of Q21) o Egyptian (Show D&E of Q21) o Other, Specify--------------- (Won’t be shown Q21, Q32, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 147 Survey Questions 1. When it comes to Jordan, over the last six months, are things moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? A. Right Direction, why do you say that, what improved: ______________________ B. Wrong Direction, why do you say that, what worsened: ____________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 2. When it comes to your area, over the last six months or since you started living in this area, are things moving it the right direction or the wrong direction? A. Right Direction, why do you say that, what improved: _____________________ B. Wrong Direction, why do you say that, what worsened: ____________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 3. When it comes to the situation of your household, over the last six months, has your situation improved, worsened or remained the same? A. Improved, why do you say that, what improved: _______________________________ B. Worsened, why do you say that, what worsened: __________________________ C. Remained the same D. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 4. In your opinion, other than poverty and lack of employment what is the most important problem facing your community/area? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ THE PRECODES – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) A. Security (e.g. increase in crime and/or violence) B. Food security C. Water security D. Overcrowded and ill-equipped schools E. Lack of affordable housing F. Lack of or low quality healthcare G. Poor Municipal services (sewage, garbage pick up, lighting, roads, etc.) H. Lack of safe recreational facilities/ spaces to socialize for men, women, and children I. Discrimination against Syrian refugees or other minorities and vulnerable groups J. Discrimination against women K. Lack of services for people with disabilities L. Radicalization of disengaged youth M. OTHER (SPECIFY): __________________________________ 5. In your opinion, can the community solve this problem on its own without governmental help? A. Yes, How: ___________________ B. No, Why Not: _________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 6. What is the most important problem facing your household? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 148 A. Security (e.g. increase in crime and/or violence) B. Food security C. Water security D. Poverty/ lack of jobs and sources of income E. Poor quality of education / Overcrowded and ill-equipped schools F. Lack of affordable housing G. Lack of or low quality healthcare H. Poor Municipal services (sewage, garbage pick up, lighting, roads, etc.) I. Lack of safe recreational facilities/ spaces to socialize for men, women, and children J. Discrimination against Syrian refugees or other minorities and vulnerable groups K. Discrimination against women L. Lack of services for people with disabilities M. Radicalization of disengaged youth N. OTHER (SPECIFY): ____________________________________ 7. Can your household solve this problem on their own? A. Yes, How: ___________________ B. No, Why Not: _________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 8. Can your household solve this problem with support from the community and without governmental intervention? A. Yes, How: ___________________ B. No, Why Not: _________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 9. Has the overall security situation in your community improved, worsened or remained the same? A. Improved, How: ___________________ B. Worsened, How: ___________________ C. Remained the same D. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 10. Do you sometimes face conflicts/ discords within your community- even if you are not a part of the conflict? A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.18) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.18) 11. What is the primary conflict/discord within your community/ between which parties do those conflicts/ discords occur primarily? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) A. Between tribal/ethnic groups B. Between individuals C. Between citizens and government D. Between citizens and municipality E. Between citizens and law enforcement F. Other (SPECIFY): ________________________________________ 12. In your opinion, what is the primary cause of this conflict/discord? (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 149 ________________________________________________________________ _______ 13. Are there existing mechanisms/processes, (whether at the individual level, collective level or institutions), in your community to resolve this discord/conflict? A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.15) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.15) 14. Among the existing mechanism/processes to resolve conflict, which one is most effective in your opinion, and why? (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE) A. __________________________________________________________ ______________ B. No effective mechanism (DO NOT READ) 15. For resolution of conflicts/discords, whom do you primarily resort to within your community? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) A. Elders or family members B. Distinguished members of the community C. Tribal leaders D. Religious leaders E. Mayor or municipal representatives F. Police G. District Administrative Officers H. Local Government: Governor or governorate level official I. Other: ___________ J. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) 16. In your opinion how effective is this mechanism (MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION) for resolution of conflicts/discords? A. Very effective B. Somewhat effective C. Somewhat ineffective D. Very ineffective E. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 17. How often are the people in your community able to solve problems within the community? Is it always, often, sometimes, rarely, or never? A. Always B. Very Often C. Sometimes D. Rarely E. Never F. Don't know (DON'T READ) 18. Over the last year, has your level of trust with other people living in your community increased, decreased or remained the same? A. Increased, Why: ____________________________ B. Decreased, Why: ____________________________ C. Remained the Same D. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 150 19. Do you feel that you have a say in the decisions that affect your life? A. Always B. Very Often C. Sometimes D. Rarely E. Never F. Don't know (DON'T READ) 20. To what degree do you trust the following institutions/organizations to make decisions that will affect your life in a positive way? Key decision-making institutions, organizations, or actors Trust to a large degree Trust to a moderat e degree Neutral neither trust or mistrust Trust to a small degree Don’t trust at all Don't know (DO NOT READ) A. Central government/ The government in Amman B. Parliamentary representatives C. Governor D. Ministry Directorates at the governorate level, e.g., MOE, MOH, etc. (Local Government) E. Mayor F. Municipal council representatives G. Police H. Tribal leaders I. Religious leaders J. International NGOs K. Local NGOs DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 151 21. When it comes to participation in the different formal elections and informal decision￾making processes, do you: actively participate, sometimes participate, or never participate? 22. When it comes to the responsiveness to your community needs, what is the level of responsiveness of the following institutions, very responsive, moderately responsive, or not responsive? Formal and informal engagement Processes Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know A. Parliamentary Elections B. Informal Tribal Elections C. Municipal Elections D. Town halls and public meetings with municipality/government E. Community members working together to prioritize problems and find solutions Key decision-making institutions, organizations, or actors Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know (DO NOT READ) A. Central government B. Parliament members C. Governor D. Health and Education Directorates or other directorates at the governorate level E. Mayor F. Municipal council representatives G. Police H. Tribal leaders I. Religious leaders J. International NGOs K. Local NGOs L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity N. Media DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 152 23. How would you characterize the relationship between your community and the Governor’s office? A. Very Good B. Good C. Bad (SKIP TO Q.25) D. Very Bad (SKIP TO Q.25) E. No Relationship (SKIP TO Q.25) F. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.25) 24. Why do you say that, what accounts for this relationship being good? (OPEN ENDED) _______________________________________________________________ 25. How can this relationship be improved/ be even better? (OPEN ENDED) _______________________________________________________________ 26. How would you characterize the relationship between your community and the mayor or municipal representatives? A. Very Good B. Good C. Bad (SKIP TO Q.28) D. Very Bad (SKIP TO Q.28) E. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.28) 27. Why do you say that, what accounts for this relationship being good? (OPEN ENDED) _______________________________________________________________ 28. How can this relationship be improved/ be even better? (OPEN ENDED) ___________________________________________________________________ 29. In your opinion, what is the most effective mechanism/approach to ensuring that the government is responsive to your community needs? (OPEN ENDED) ___________________________________________________________________ 30. How do you hold your mayor accountable? ___________________________________________________________________ 31. In addition to projects that focus on poverty and unemployment, what are some other kinds of projects that can address the problems faced by your community, whether funded by the government or international donors? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) ___________________________________________________________________ 32. Is your family receiving humanitarian assistance? A. Yes B. No C. Not Sure / Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 153 33. Does your community host any Syrians? A. Yes B. No C. Not sure 34. Did you host any Syrians in your home? A. Yes B. No 35. Did you extend any other help to Syrians during the last six months? A. Yes B. No 36. Since the onset of the Syrian Crisis, as Syrians have come to Jordan to seek refuge, has this affected the following in your community: Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way No, it has not affected my community in any way Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) A. Job Security B. Quality of Medical Treatment C. Access to Medical Treatment D. Quality of Education E. Your family and neighborhood security F. Access to affordable housing G. Access and availability of water H. Municipal waste services I. Culture, norms and values 37. In your opinion, are the perspectives of the entire community, including men, women, youth and minorities adequately captured in the decisions affecting your community? A. Yes B. No. If no, why do you say that, and why is this the case? __________________________________________________________ __ C. Don’t Know DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 154 38. Are you aware of any trainings and/or activities in your area that focus on community engagement, community organizing or conflict mitigation? A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.40) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.40) 39. How effective are such trainings and/or activities in your opinion? A. Very effective B. Somewhat effective C. Somewhat ineffective D. Very ineffective E. Don’t Know 40. Are you aware of any activities that focus on building awareness and capacity of the people living in your area? A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.42) C. Don’t Know (SKIP TO Q.42) 41. How effective are such trainings and/or activities in your opinion? A. Very effective B. Somewhat effective C. Somewhat ineffective D. Very ineffective E. Don’t Know 42. Over the last two years, can you think of any successful projects in your community, whether implemented by the government or non-government organizations? A. Yes (SPECIFY NAME AND/OR TYPEs OF PROJECT) __________________________________________________________ _______ B. No (SKIP TO Q.44) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.44) 43. Why were they successful in your opinion? (RECORD VERBATIM) A. _______________________________________ B. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DEMOGRAPHICS: 44. Respondent Marital Status A. Single B. Married C. Widowed D. Divorced E. Separated 45. Respondent Age A. ____________ B. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 155 46. Respondent Education Level A. No Education B. Elementary C. Primary / Basic D. Vocational E. Secondary F. Diploma G. B.A H. H. Degrees 47. Respondent Employment Status A. Unemployed and looking for a job B. Unemployed and not looking for a job C. Self employed D. Student E. Employed in private sector F. Employed in public sector G. Employed in non for profit sector H. Retired 48. What are the average overall monthly expenses for your household? A. Specify: ______________________ (Post Code) B. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 49. What is the monthly income of your household from all sources? A. Less than 200 JOD a month B. Between 201 and 350 JOD a month C. Between 351 and 500 JOD a month D. Between 501 and 750 JOD a month E. Between 751 and 900 JOD a month F. Between 901 and 1200 JOD a month G. Between 1201 and 1500 JOD a month H. Between 1501 and 2000 JOD a month I. Over 2000 JOD a month J. Refused to answer/ Do not know 50. How many families share this accommodation? A. One B. Two C. Three D. More than three 51. How long have you been living in this community? In year. A. _____________________________ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 156 52. What is your primary source for finding out what is happening in your community? A. _____________________________ B. None C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) We have completed our survey, please let us know if there is anything else that you would like to share with us and/or if you have any questions for me: _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ______________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 157 استبيان الرأي العام السر 2 تفاصيل االستبيان االدارية: .1 رقم االستمارة:____________________ .2 اسم ورمز مجريالمقابلة: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .3 اسم و رمزالمشرف: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .4 المحافظة: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .5 الحي/البلدية: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .6 المدينة/البلدة/القرية: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .7 رقم البلوك:____________________ مقدمة: صباحالخير / مساءالخير، اسمي ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ، وانا اعمللدى مايندست، وهي مؤسسةمستقلة متخصصةبالدراسات الميدانية وجمعالبيانات. بالنيابة عن USAID،نحننقومحاليابعملاستطالعللرأيالعاملألسرفي مجتمعنا، أرجو منكم الجابةعلىبعضألسئلة. حيثتتمحورأسئلة هذا اإلستبيان حولاستطالع آرائكمبخصوص ألوضاعفي مجتمعكم. وأوكدلكمبأنالمعلوماتالتينقومبجمعهاسوفتعاملبسريةتامة،ولنيتمالكشف عن أي منمعلوماتكمالشخصية.سوف يتم اعدادتقريربنتائجالستبيان الجماليةوليسالفردية. يحتاجملئ االستبيان ٣٠ دقيقة من وقتك. هللديك أياستفسارات؟ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 158 تفاصيل األسرة: كم عدد أفراد االسرةفوقسن ،18بمافيهم أنت؟ يرجىذكرالعمر،الجنس،الدرجة العلمية والمسمى الوظيفيللبالغين )١٨ عاما اوأكثر(فيألسرة الواحدةفيالجدول ادناه، منألصغرفيالعمرالى األكبر. أود أنأستفسر عن أفراد عائلتك)ذكور وإناث(والذينيعيشونفي هذاالمسكن،والبالغين منالعمر ١٨ عاما وأكثر.الرجاء ملئالجدول أدناهبشكلتصاعديبالنسبةللعمر. السم العمر ذكر / أنثى التحصيل العلمي المسمىالوظيفي نوعالسكن ذكر / أنثى أ. لم يلتحق بالتعليم النظامي/ ال يستطيع الكتابة و القراءة ب. لم يلتحق بالتعليم النظامي/ يستطيع الكتابة والقراءة ج. إبتدائي د. ابتدائي/ أساسي ه. مهني و.ثانوي/ توجيهي ز. دبلوم ح. بكالوريوس ط. شهادات عليا أ. عاطل عن العمل و يبحث عن عمل ب. عاطل عن العمل وال يبحث عن عمل ج. صاحب عمل د. طالب ه. موظف في قطاع خاص و. موظف في قطاع عام ز. موظف في منظمة دولية ح. متقاعد أ. شقةملك ب. شقةايجار ج. منزل/فيالملك د. منزل/فيالايجار ه. خيمة/كرفان 1 ذكر / أنثى 2 ذكر / أنثى 3 ذكر / أنثى 4 ذكر / أنثى 5 ذكر / أنثى 6 ذكر / أنثى 7 ذكر / أنثى 8 ذكر / أنثى 9 ذكر / أنثى 10 ذكر / أنثى DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 159 جدول KISH: الختيار المستجيب علىمستوى األسرةبشكلعشوائي تعليماتاستخدام جدول KISH: .1تكون أولأسرةتم عملمقابلةمعها هيأسرةرقم ،١والثانية هيأسرةرقم ،٢ و هكذا،ولغاية أسرة رقم .٨ وهي ألخيرة فيالمجموعة. .2 ابحث عن رقم ألسرة عاموديا، وعدد ألشخاصالمؤهلينفي األسرةأفقيا وبالرجوع الىقائمةألسرة.يكونالشخص الذييجب انتتممقابلته هو الرقمالذييظهرفي الخلية عندالتقاطعالعامودي واألفقي. مثال: اذاكانت ألسرة رقم ٢ لديها ٣ أشخاصبالغين،فانالمقابلةتتم معثانيأصغر ألشخاص )يظهربخط غامق(. اذاكان هذاالشخص غير متوفر عند التصال،يتمالترتيبللقاء الحقا. ألشخاص المؤهلين األسرة 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 ١٠ أو أكثر 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 • جنسالمستجيب o ذكر o أنثى • جنسية المستجيب أ. أردني ) اظهراسئلةرقم 36،35،34،33،21( ب.سوري )اظهراسئلة رقم ،32 د، ه منسؤال 21( ج. عراقي )اظهراسئلة رقم ،32 د، ه منسؤال 21( د. مصري ) التظهراسئلة رقم 36،35،34،33،21( ه. أخرى )يرجىالتحديد ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ( DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 160 أسئلة االستبيان .1 عندمايتعلق األمر االردن ، خاللالستةأشهرالماضية أو منذبدأت العيشفي الردن، هلتسير ألمورفي االتجاه الصحيح أمالتجاه الخاطئ؟ أ. االتجاهالصحيح،لماذاتقول هذا ,ماالذيتحسن: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب.التجاهالخاطئ، لماذاتقول هذا ,ما الذي ازدادسوءا: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج. ال أعلم )التقرأ( .2 عندمايتعلق األمربمنطقتك، خاللالستة أشهرالماضية أو منذبدأت العيشفي الردن ، هلتسير األمورفي التجاهالصحيح أمالتجاه الخاطئ؟ أ. االتجاهالصحيح،لماذاتقول هذا ,ماالذيتحسن: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب.التجاهالخاطئ، لماذاتقول هذا ,ما الذي ازدادسوءا: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج. ال أعلم )التقرأ( .3 عندمايتعلق األمربوضعأسرتك، خاللالستةأشهرالماضية، هلتحسنوضعك، ازدادسوءا أوبقيكما هو؟ أ.تحسن،لماذاتقول هذا ,ماالذيتحسن: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ازدادسوءا، لماذاتقول هذا ,ماالذي ازدادسوءا: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج.بقيكما هو د. ال أعلم )التقرأ( .4 برأيك، عدا عنالفقروالبطالة ما هي أ همالمشكالتالتيتواجه مجتمعك /منطقتك؟ )غير محدد الجابة - التقرأ الرموزالمعرفةمسبقا - اجابة واحدةفقط( أ. االمن ب. تأمينالغذاء ج. تأمينالماء د. االكتظاظ وقلة جا هزيةالمدارس ه. نقصفيتوفرمساكنبأسعارمعقولة و. عدمتوفر أوتدنينوعيةالرعاية الصحية ز. سوء الخدماتالبلدية )مجاري، جمعالقمامة،الكهرباء، الطرق،الخ...( ح. نقصفيالمرافقالترفيهية اآلمنة / مرافقللتعارف االختالطللرجال،النساءولألطفال ط. التمييزضدلالجئينالسوريين أو ألقليات األخرىوالمجموعاتالضعيفة ي. التمييزضدالمرأة ك. نقصفي الخدماتلألشخاص ذوو الحتياجات الخاصة ل. تطرفالشباب المنعزل و غير المشارك م. أخرى )حدد(: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .5 رأيك، هل من الممكن أنيقومالمجتمعبحل هذهالمشاكللوحده؟ أ.نعم،كيف: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال،لم ال: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ د. ال أعلم التقرأ( ج. الينطبق .6 ما هي أ هممشكلةتواجهأسرتك؟ )غير محدد - التقرأ( أ. االمن ب. تأمينالغذاء ج. تأمينالماء د. االكتظاظ وقلة جا هزيةالمدارس ه. نقصفيتوفرمساكنبأسعارمعقولة و. عدمتوفر أوتدنينوعيةالرعاية الصحية ز. سوء الخدماتالبلدية )مجاري، جمعالقمامة،الكهرباء، الطرق،الخ...( ح. نقصفيالمرافقالترفيهية اآلمنة / مرافقللتعارف االختالطللرجال،النساءولألطفال ط. التمييزالعنصري ضدالالجئينالسوريين أو األقليات ألخرى والمجموعاتالضعيفة DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 161 ي. التمييزالعنصريضدالمرأة ك. نقصفي الخدماتلألشخاص ذوو الحتياجات الخاصة ل. المنعزل و غيرالمشارك م. أخرى )حدد(: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .7 هلتستطيع أسرتك حل هذهالمشكلةبنفسها؟ أ.نعم،كيف: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال،لم ال: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ د. ال أعلم )التقرأ( ج. الينطبق .8 هلتستطيع أسرتك حل هذهالمشكلةبمساعدةالمجتمع وبدونتدخل الحكومة؟ أ.نعم،كيف: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال،لم ال: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ د. ال أعلم )التقرأ( .9 هلتحسنالوضع األمنيبشكل عامفي مجتمعك، ازدادسوءا أمبقيكما هو؟ أ.تحسن،كيف: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ازدادسوءا،كيف: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج.بقيكما هو د. ال أعلم )التقرأ( .10 هليحدث أحيانانزاعات/ خالفاتضمن مجتمعك؟ أ.نعم ب. ال )انتقلالىالسؤالرقم18 ( ج. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىالسؤال رقم 18( .11 ما هوالنزاعألساسي/الخالفضمن مجتمعك؟ )غير محدد - التقرأ - اجابة واحدةفقط( أ. عشائري ب. شخصي ج.بينالمواطنينوالحكومة د. بينالمواطنينوالبلدية ه. بينالمواطنيين والقوة االمنية و. أخرى )حدد( ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .12برأيك، ما هوالمسببالرئيسيلهذهالنزاعات/الخالفات؟ )غير محدد -سجل حرفيا( ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .13 هليوجدآلية / منهج )سواءعلى المستوىالشخصي، أو جماعي أو مؤسسات(في مجتمعكلحل هذهالنزاعات / لخالفات وبدونتدخلالحكومة؟ أ.نعم ب. ال )انتقلالىالسؤال رقم 15( ج. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىالسؤال رقم 15( .14 منبينآلليات/ المنا هجلحلالنزاعات ،/ ما هيبرأيك األكثرفاعلية؟ولماذا؟)سجل إلجابة حرفيا( أ. ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. اليوجدآليةفعالة التقرأ( .15في حلالنزاعات / الخالفات،لمنتلجأفي مجتمعك؟ )غير محدد - التقرأ( أ. كبارالسن أو أفرادالعائلة ب. وجهاءالمجتمع ج. شيوخالعشائر د. رجالالدين DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 162 ه. رئيسالبلدية أو ممثليالمجلسالبلدي و. الشرطة ز. موظفي المناطق الداريين مثلالمتصرف ح. الحكومةالمحلية:المحافظ أو موظفيالمحافظة ط. أخرى ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ي. ال أعلم التقرأ( .16برأيك، ما مدىفعاليةآليات حلالنزاعات/الخالفات )المذكورةفي السؤالالسابق(؟ أ. فعالة جدا ب.فعالةإلى حد ما ج. غيرفعالةإلى حد ما د. غيرفعالة ابدا ه. ال أعلم ) التقرأ( .17كم عادةيستطيع األشخاصفي مجتمعك حلالمشاكلالتيتحدثفي مجتمعك؟ هل هيغالبا، أحيانا،نادرا،أبدا؟ أ. دائما ب. غالبا ج. أحيانا د. نادرا ه. أبدا و. ال أعلم التقرأ( .18 خاللالسنةالماضية، هل ازدادتثقتك األشخاص اآلخرينفي مجتمعك، أمقلت أمبقيتكما هي؟ أ. زادت،لماذا______________ ب.قلت،لماذا: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج.بقيتكما هي د. ال أعلم التقرأ( .19 هلتشعربأنلديك رأيفيالقراراتالمجتمعيةالتيتؤثرفي حياتك؟ • دائما • غالبا • احيانا • نادرا • ابدا • ال أعلم التقرأ( .20الى أي درجةتثقبالمؤسسات / والمنظماتالتاليةفي اتخاذقراراتتؤثرفي حياتكايجابيا؟ مؤسسات صناع القرار الرئيسيين، منظمات أو ممثلي أثقبدرجةكبيرة أثق بدرجة معتدلة محايد -أثق أو ال أثق أثقبدرجةقليلة الأثقأبدا ال أعلم )التقرأ( أ. الحكومة المركزية ب. ممثلوا البرلمان )نواب , أعيان( ج.المحافظ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 163 مؤسسات صناع القرار الرئيسيين، منظمات أو ممثلي أثقبدرجةكبيرة أثق بدرجة معتدلة محايد -أثق أو ال أثق أثقبدرجةقليلة الأثقأبدا ال أعلم )التقرأ( د. ممثلي الوزارات على مستوى المحافظة، مثل رؤساء المديريات مثل مديرية التربية والتعليم و الصحة ه. رئيسالبلدية و. ممثليالمجلس البلدي ز. الشرطة ح.شيوخالعشائر ط. رجال الدين ك. المنظمات الغير حكومية الدولية ) اليونسيف، النوروا( ل. المنظمات الغير حكومية المحلية ) الجمعيات و مؤسساتالمجتمع المدني( DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 164 .21 عندمايتعلق األمربالمشاركة االنتخاباتالرسمية وغيرالرسميةالمختلفةفي عملية اتخاذالقرارات، هل:تشارك بنشاط،تشارك أحيانا، التشارك أبدا؟فقط الردنيين عملية المشاركة الرسمية وغير الرسمية أشاركبنشاط أشارك أحيانا ال أشارك ابدا ال أعلم أ. النتخاباتالنيابية ب. النتخاباتالعشائرية غيرالرسمية ج. النتخاباتالبلدية د. الجتماعات العامة مع البلدية أو الحكومة ر. أفراد المجتمع الذين يعملون سويا لتحديد أولوياتللمشاكل وإيجاد حلول .22 عندمايتعلق األمراالستجابة الحتياجات مجتمعك، ما هي درجةاستجابة المؤسساتالتالية؟ )استجابةعالية، استجابة عادية، اليوجداستجابة( مؤسساتصناع القرار الرئيسيين، منظمات أو ممثلي استجابة عالية استجابة عادية اليوجداستجابة ال أعلم التقرأ( أ. الحكومةالمركزية ب. ممثلواالبرلمان ج.المحافظ د. مديريات الرعاية الصحية والتعليم أو وزارات أخرى على المستوى الحكومي ر. رئيسالبلدية و. ممثليالمجلسالبلدي DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 165 مؤسساتصناع القرار الرئيسيين، منظمات أو ممثلي استجابة عالية استجابة عادية اليوجداستجابة ال أعلم التقرأ( ز. الشرطة ح. رئيس )شيخ(العشيرة ط.القادة من رجال دين ك.المنظماتالدولية ل. المنظماتالمحلية م. القطاع الخاص )شركات، محالت، مشاريع ضغيرة في منطقتك( ن. المؤسسات الخدماتية )التي توفر الكهرباء و الماء( ه. العالم .23كيفيمكن أنتصف العالقةبين مجتمعكوبينمكتبالمحافظ؟ أ. جيدة جدا ب. جيدة ج.سيئة )انتقلالىسؤالرقم25( د.سيئة جدا)انتقلالىسؤالرقم25( ه. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىسؤالرقم25( .24برأيك، ماالذييفسركون هذه العالقة جيدة؟ _____________________________________________________________________ _____ .25كيفيمكنتحسين هذه العالقة/و أنتصبح أفضل؟ )غير محدد( ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .26كيفيمكن أنتصف العالقةبين مجتمعك و رئيسالبلدية أو ممثليالبلديات)المجلسالبلدي(؟ أ. جيدة جدا ب. جيذو ج.سيئة)انتقل الىسؤالرقم28( د.سيئة جدا)انتقلالىسؤالرقم28( ه. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىسؤالرقم28( DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 166 .27برأيك، ماالذييفسركون هذه العالقة جيدة؟ _____________________________________________________________________ __________________ .28كيفيمكنتحسين هذه العالقة و أنتصبح أفضل ؟ )غير محدد( ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .29برأيك، ما هيأكثر طريقةفعالةلجعلالحكومةاكثراستجابةلمطالب مجتمعك؟ )غير محدد( ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ كيفيمكنمسائلة رئيسبلديتك؟ ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .30االضافةإلىالمشاريعالتيتركزعلىالفقر والبطالة، ما هونوع المشاريع،سواء ممول منقبلالحكومة أو من قبلمموليندوليين،يمكنمعالجة المشاكلالتيتواجههافي مجتمعك؟ )غير محدد - التقرأ( ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .31 هلتسنلم عائلتكمساعدات انسانية؟ أ. نعم ب. ال ج. غير متأكد /ال أعلم ) التقرأ( .32 هليستضيف مجتمعكسوريين؟فقطلالردنيين أ.نعم ب. ال )انتقلالىسؤالرقم34 ( ج. غير متأكد .33 هلتستضيفسوريينفيبيتك؟فقطلالردنيين أ.نعم ب. ال .34 هلقمتبتقديم أينوع منالمساعداتللسوريين خالل الستةأشهر الماضية؟فقطلالردنيين أ.نعم ب. ال .35 منذبداية األزمةالسورية، و مجيئالسوريينطلباللجوء، هل أثر هذاعلىالتاليفي مجتمعك:فقط الردنيين أ. توفر الوظائف و فرصالعمل نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ب. نوعية الرعاية الصحية نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ج. توفر الرعاية الصحية نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( د. نوعية التعليم نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 167 أ. توفر الوظائف و فرصالعمل نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ه. أمان عائلتك و والحيالذي تقطنفيه نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( و.القدرةعلى الحصول على سكن بأسعار مقبولة نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ز. الوصول للمياه وتوفر ها نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ح. خدمات البلدية المتعلقة بإزالة النفايات و الصرف الصحي نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( ط.الثقافة،القيم والعادات نعم،لقد أثرايجاباعلى مجتمعي نعم،لقد أثرسلبا على مجتمعي ال،لميؤثرعلى مجتمعيبأي طريقة ال أعلم )التقرأ( .36برأيك، هلتعتقد أن القراراتالتيتؤثرفي مجتمعك،تأخذبعين العتبار وجهاتنظرالمجتمعكله، من رجال، نساء،شباب وأقليات؟ أ.نعم ب. ال،لماذاتقول هذا،ولماذا هذا الحال: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ج. ال أعلم .37 هل أنتعلىعلم عن أي دوراتتدريبية أونشاطاتفيمنطقتكتعملعلى اشراكالمجتمعالمحليوالمؤسسات، أوتقلل من حدةالنزاعات؟ أ.نعم ب. ال )انتقلالىسؤال رقم 40( ج. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىسؤالرقم40( .38برأيك، ما مدىفاعلية مثل هذهالدوراتالتدريبية و / أوالنشاطات؟ أ.فعالة جدا ب.نوعا مافعالة ج.نوعا ما غيرفعالة د. غيرفعالة أبدا ه. ال أعلم .39 هل أنتعلىعلم عن أي دوراتتدريبية و / أونشاطاتفي منطقتكتركزعلى زيادةالوصولالىالفرص القتصادية، مثال، دوراتتدريبيةتركزعلىالتدريبال مهني، انشاء عمل جديد أو مهارات ادارية؟ أ.نعم ب. ال )انتقلالىسؤالرقم42 ( DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 168 ج. ال أعرف التقرأ( )انتقلالىسؤال رقم 42 ( .40برأيك، ما مدىفاعلية دوراتتدريبية ونشاطات كهذه؟ أ.فعالة جدا ب.نوعا مافعالة ج.نوعا ما غيرفعالة د. غيرفعالة ابدا ه. ال أعلم .41 خاللالسنتينالماضيتين، هلتستطيع أنتفكرفي أيمشاريعناجحةفي مجتمعك،سواءاتمتطبيقها من خالل الحكومة، أو من خالل مؤسسات غيرحكومية؟ أ.نعم )حددالسم و/أونوعالمشروع/و ممولالمشروع( ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال )انتقلالىقسم معلوماتالمستجيب( ج. ال أعلم التقرأ( )انتقلالىقسممعلوماتالمستجيب( .42لماذاتعتقد أن هذهالمشاريعكانتناجحة؟ )تسجيل حرفي( أ. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال أعلم التفرأ( المعلومات االساسية: .1 الحالة الجتماعيةللمستجيب أ. أعزب ب.متزوج ج. أرمل د. مطلق ه. منفصل .٢ عمر المستجيب أ. ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال أعلم التقرأ( .٣التحصيل العلميللمستجيب أ. لم يلتحق بالتعليم النظامي/ ال يستطيع الكتابة و القراءة ب. لم يلتحق بالتعليم النظامي/ يستطيع الكتابة والقراءة ج. إبتدائي د. ابتدائي/ أساسي ه. مهني و.ثانوي/توجيهي ز. دبلوم ح. بكالوريوس ط. شهادات عليا .4 الحالةالوظيفيةللمستجيب أ. عاطل عن العمل و يبحث عن عمل ب. عاطل عن العملوال يبحث عن عمل ج. صاحب عمل د. طالب ه. موظف في قطاع خاص و. موظف في قطاع عام DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 169 ز. موظف في منظمة دولية ح. متقاعد .٨ ما هو معدلالمصاريف الشهريةلألسرة؟ أ. حدد: ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. ال أعلم التقرأ( .٩ ما هوالدخلالشهريألسرة من جميعالمصادر؟ أ. أقل من 200 دينارشهريا ب.بين 350-201 دينارشهريا ج.بين 351 500- دينارشهريا د. بين 750-501 دينارشهريا ه. بين 900-751 دينارشهريا و.بين 1200-901 دينارشهريا ز.بين 1500-1201 دينارشهريا ح.بين 2000-1501 دينارشهريا ط. أكثر من 2000 دينارشهريا ي. رفض الجابة/ اليعلم .١٠كم عدد ألشخاصالذينيتشاركونفي هذاالمسكن؟ أ. واحد ب. إثنين ج.ثالثة د.أكثر منثالثة .١١ منذ متى وأنتتعيشفي هذا المجتمع؟بالسنوات )1990( أ. ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ .١٢ ما هومصدركالرئيسيلمعرفة ماالذييحدثفي مجتمعك؟ أ. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ب. اليوجد ج. ال أعلم )التقرأ( لقد اتممناالسئلةالخاصةاالستبيان، ارجو اعالمنا اذاكنتتوداضافة إيشيء، اومشاركتنابأي معلومة أخرى أو طرح أي سؤال: رقم هاتفالمستجيب: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ اسمالمستجيب: ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ شكرالك علىوقتك. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 170 ANNEX XI: CET PHONE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Community Engagement Project (CEP) Sex: ___________________ Community: ___________________ Governorate: ________________________ Respondent phone number: _______________________ Hello, my name is ……… and I work for MINDSET, a survey company based in Amman. We have been hired by USAID to conduct a phone survey as part of a mid-term evaluation of the USAID Community Engagement Program (CEP). The information you provide is confidential. We don’t know your name, and only the aggregate results of this survey will be reported to USAID. Can you spare about 30 minutes to answer a few questions about your experience with the program? Thank you. Q1. What is your role within the CET? ____________ Q2. How old are you? ____________ Q3. What is your occupation? ___________________________ Q4. How long have you been a CET, CCT or Advisory Council member? a. _______ Less than 6 months b. _______ Between 6 months and 1 year c. _______ More than 1 year Q5. Are you active in any community based organization or charity in your community? a. Yes b. No c. Not sure/don’t know (DO NOT READ) Q1. Did you communicate or deal with your municipality before CEP to solve a problem? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q2. What is the most effective way you used to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. I relied on my personal connections with municipality and governorate staff b. I attended public meetings held by the municipality c. I voiced my opinion on social media I - Data According to CEP Database (To be completed by researcher prior to conducting the phone call) II- Introduction III- Effectiveness of Community Engagement, Capacity Building and Grants DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 171 d. I voiced my opinion in informal community/tribal gatherings e. I voiced my opinion through my association with civil society organizations f. I visited the municipality to solve a problem g. I did not voice my opinion h. Other (SPECIFY)__________________________ Q3. How effective was this method? a. Very effective b. Effective c. Ineffective d. Very ineffective e. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q4. What is the method you used to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem since CEP? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. I rely on my personal connections with municipality and governorate staff b. I attend public meetings held by the municipality c. I voice my opinion on social media d. I voice my opinion in informal community/tribal gatherings e. I voice my opinion through my association with civil society organizations f. I voice my opinion through CET g. I do not voice my opinion h. Other (SPECIFY)__________________________ Q5. In your opinion, what is the most effective way to generate responsiveness from the government to solve your problem? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Direct engagement with municipal/local government on a personal level b. Present problem to tribal leaders c. Protest d. Civil society advocacy e. Other (SPECIFY)______________________________ f. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q6. Do you think decisions that affect your life in the governorate /municipality are mostly decided at the local or central levels of government? a. Local government b. Central government c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q7. When it comes to engagement and participation in civil society, is your community: a. Very engaged (SKIP TO Q.9) b. Engaged (SKIP TO Q.9) c. Disengaged (ASK QUESTION 8) d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.9) Q8. Why do you think community members are not more engaged in civil society? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Engagement is limited because civil society is not focused on issues important for my community DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 172 b. Engagement is limited because civil society is weak c. Engagement is limited because local governance structures are not responsive to civil society’s demands d. Engagement is limited because civil society is not sufficiently visible/clear in my community e. Engagement is limited because civil society does not have sufficient resources f. Other (SPECIFY)________________________ Q9. In your opinion, should the CET include Syrians? a. Yes b. No; why not?_______________________________________________ c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q10. Do you think the CET is an effective platform to engage the community and has an effective role in decision making? a. Yes b. No; why not?_______________________________________________ c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q11. Do you think your CET is sufficiently visible/known to people in the community? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q12. Do you think municipal services have improved as a result of the CEP program? a. Yes b. No c. Got worse. d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q13. Do you think the municipality/local government has become more responsive because of the CEP program? a. Yes b. No c. Got worse d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q14. To what extent did the program enhance the collective ability of the community to engage with the municipal/local government? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q15. To what extent did the program enhance the community’s ability to activate engaging the private sector including any privately owned small business? a. To a great extent b. To some extent DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 173 c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q16. To what extent did the program increase the value that municipalities/local government of the role of community engagement? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q17. Which CEP training did you attend? _________________________________________ Q.18. How would you rate the overall quality of the trainings you received through the CEP program? a. Outstanding (SKIP TO Q.20) b. Satisfactory (SKIP TO Q.20) c. Unsatisfactory (ASK Q.19) d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.20) Q19. why? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. __________ Attended similar trainings previously b. __________ Training subjects could not be implemented in Jordanian community c. __________ Quality of the training was poor d. __________ Duration of the training was insufficient e. __________ The trainer was not qualified f. __________There was no follow-up to training g. __________Other; please specify ____________________________________ Q20. Did the training you receive enhance your ability to identify and address community stressors (Problems) /needs? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q21. Has the training sufficiently built your capacity to continue to engage different partners including (directorates and different entities) after the program ends? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q22. Which training was most valuable to you in building your capacity to engage stakeholders and to identify and address stressors? (ONE RESOPNSE ONLY) ____________________ Q23. Are there trainings you would have liked to receive from CEP in order to help you better engage and identify your community’s needs after the project ends? a. Yes (SPECIFY)_________________________________________________ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 174 b. No c. Q24. Did you feel that the CEP program had any particular negative or positive impact on you or the community? a. Yes, Negative impact (please explain)_____________ b. Yes, Positive impact (please explain)_____________ c. No Q25. : How could the support you received from CEP be improved? (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Q1. Please identify and rank the 3 top stressors your community is facing with #1 being the biggest? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Unemployment b. Poverty c. Municipal services d. Quality of education e. Crime/violence f. Ethnic tension g. Lack of recreational facilities h. Other ______________ Q2. Do the projects funded by CEP address any of the three top stressors you identified in the previous question? a. Yes b. No; Why not?_____________________________________________ Q3. How can the process of identifying projects be more inclusive? (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Q4. Which type of donor projects best respond to your community’s main stressors (ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Projects to improve schools b. Projects to improve municipal services c. Projects to improve the employability of community members d. Projects to generate jobs e. Projects to create spaces for community engagement including women and youth f. Projects to improve health services and raise awareness on health issues g. Other (SPECIFY)________________ Q5. Why is this type of project most effective in addressing community stressors? ________________________________________________________________ IV: Reduction of Stressors DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 175 Q1. With which of the following do you feel your engagement can be most effective in enhancing municipal responsiveness to community needs? a. Municipal Council members b. The mayor c. The governor d. The CET e. My tribe f. Other (SPECIFY) ________________ Q2. Were the program’s selection criteria for CET members clear to you? a. Very clear b. Somewhat clear c. Somewhat unclear d. Very Unclear e. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q3. Who usually calls for the CET meetings? a. CEP staff b. Members of the CET c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q4. Who sets the agenda for CET meetings? (RECORD VERBATIM) ________________________________________________________________ Q5. Do you think that the program’s approach with CETs has provided CET members the necessary skills they need to act independently after the program ends? a. Yes b. No; why not? ________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q6. Do you think your CET will continue to function once the CEP project ends and funding stops? a. Yes b. No, why not? ________________________ c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q7. Do you think that the CETs should continue after the program ends? a. Yes/why? _________________________________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) b. No/Why not? ______________________________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) VI: Sustainability DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 176 Q8. At present, do you think that municipal councils are effective at engaging the community participation and local community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? _______________________________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q9. At present, do you think that civil society organizations identify and advocate for the needs in your community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? ______________________________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q10: Do you think community members trust the municipality in their community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? ___________________________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q11. Did the CEP program enhance the community’s trust in municipal/local government? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q12. Do you understand the municipality’s budget process /operational framework (such as how resources are allocated to meet needs)? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q13. Did the program enhance your understanding of this process/framework? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q14. Does the municipality have a transparent institutionalized mechanism for community discussion, negotiation and processing the basics of decision making between community members? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 177 Q15. Do you feel that the municipality/local government take into consideration the input/opinions of community’s? a. Always b. Sometimes c. Never d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q16. Does the municipality/local government consult with your CET over their planning and allocation of resources? a. Always b. Sometimes c. Never d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q17. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and municipality? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q18. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and civil society organizations? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q19. Do you think the civil society organizations (charities and other community organizations) can play the role of CETs? a. Yes b. No/Why not? _______________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q20. Which of the following structures/organizations would be more effective in engaging and encouraging the community and advocating for its needs: the CET, a CSO or the municipal council? (ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. The CET/Why? _______________________________ b. Municipal Council/Why? ____________________________ c. CSOs/Why? __________________________________ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 178 Q1. In your opinion, at the end of the CEP program, will your CET continue to function? a. Yes b. No/Why not? ________________________ (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q2. In your opinion how do you think CETs can continue after the CEP program ends? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. CBO hosts b. National NGO host c. Royal NGO host d. Registration of NGO e. Another donor program f. Community support (CBO) g. Other (SPECIFY): _________________________________ Q3. New local councils and governorate councils will be elected next year as part of the government’s drive for decentralization. What role do you expect your CET to play then? (RECORD VERBATIM) ________________________________________________________________ Q.4 What forms of assistance do you think the CEP program or other donor programs should provide to support decentralization? (RECORD VERBATIM) ________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your time VII: Exit Strategies DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 179 ANNEX XII: RESPONDENT LIST BY LOCATION Name, Title, and Organization Community, Municipality, Governorate Raed Al Adwan, Currently the Governor of Zarqa, formerly head of LDD, MOI Zarqa Ziad Obeidat, Plans and Program Department, MOPIC Amman Ramsey Day, COP and Andy Yates, Resident Program Officer, IRI Jordan Amman Amer Al Homoud, Project Management Specialist for the Water and Natural Resources (WRE) Office, USAID/ Jordan Amman Michelle Linder, Current Deputy Director of the Education, EDY Office and former CEP AOR D&G Offces, USAID/ Jordan Amman Iman Hadweh Dalia Al Alami, Director of Civic Engagement Eman Nimri, Senior Technical Assistance Specialist USAID Civic Initiatives Support Program (CIS), FHI360 Amman Dr. Khalid I. Armoti, Governor, Local Development Directorate (LDD), MOI Amman Feryal Aqil, Head of Donor Coordination Unit at MOE, Community Engagement Unit at MOE Amman CEP Staff: Mina day, COP, Daniel Cruz, DCOP Hala Abunawar and Hatem Shatnawi, Capacity Building Team Lousada, CMM Analyst and Enam Malkawi, Program Development Manager Rania Faour, Communication & Outreach Specialist and Rana Habahbeh, Communications Coordinator Manal Husein and Abir Majiri, Monitoring and Evaluation Team Amman Mohammad Al Khatib, CEP Manager, Jordan River Foundation (JRF) Amman Fatimah Alhomsi, Ejad for consulting and economic studies (CBO grantee) Amman Ziad Obeidat, Plans and Program Department, MOPIC Amman Fadi Al-Ruteimeh, LDD Amman Hatem Habahbeh, Governorate Development Unit Amman Mr. Al Qaraan Mayor; Mr. Tareef Al Alawneh, Office Manager & Municipal appointee to the Al Taybeh CET; Mr. Mohammad Mousa Ali Qara'an, Head of Al Taybeh Municipality; Mr. Ali Al Alwaneh, Vice President; Mr. Abed El Ra'ouf Abu Taleb, Financial Manager Al Taybeh Municipal Council members: Ms. Abeer Al Kurdi, Mr. Firas Al Jidayeh, Mr. Awad Al Shalabi, and Mr. Yassin Khudairat Al Taybeh, Irbid Mr. Jamal Al Sarhan, Local Development Manager and Ms. Arwa Al Gharaibeh, Project Follow-up Unit, LDU for Irbid Governorate Irbid City, Irbid Mr. Bassam Quran, Principal, Al Taybeh Secondary School for Boys Al Taybeh, Irbid Mr. Ziad Dawagrah - Director, Mandah Charitable Association (CBO - CEP grantee) Al Taybeh, Irbid Eng. Mustafa Alawneh (EDR) Al Taybeh and Greater Ramtha Municipalities, Irbid Mohammad Jadai, Director, Sammah Charitable Society (CBO - not a CEP grantee) Al Taybeh, Irbid DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 180 CEP Irbid Field staff: Mr. Mohammad Bani Hani Mustafa,Program Manager Ms. Sammah Bani Hani, Community Engagement Officer Mr. Dia Al Outom, Senior Community Engagement Officer Al Taybeh and Greater Ramtha Municipalities, Irbid Ibrahim Saggar, Mayor Greater Ramtha Municipality, Irbid Dr. Amad Zraiqat, Director; Mr. Jihad Fakhiri, Project POC; and a female Public Health Officer, Greater Ramtha Municipal Ministry of Health Office; Greater Ramtha Municipality, Irbid Engineer Ni’emeh, MOE Directorate Al Taybeh and Al Wasatiah, Irbid Mohammad Nassar, Director Arab Society for Thought and Culture and a male society member Greater Ramtha, Irbid Mr. Kamal Sa'ad Salah, Mrs. Salah and their two daughters, a family that resides on street that was paved and lighting installed by two CEP municipal services grants (KII with beneficiaries) Hay Jalama, Greater Ramtha, Irbid Four Syrian women refugees living in Taybeh, two are members of the Mother's Committee at Sammah School supported by a CEP grant (KII with beneficiaries) Al Taybah, Irbid KII with an active CET member Hay Jalama, Greater Ramtha, Irbid Engineer Yassir Al-Khalidi, MOE Directorate Al Salhayeh, Mafraq Mr. Noor Alwaqfi, Head of Nasham Al Khair CBO (Non-grantee) Hay Al Hussein, Greater Mafraq, Mafraq CEP Mafraq field staff: Nizar Shdeifat Program Manager Greater Mafraq, Mafraq Ahmad Alhawamdeh, Mayor of Greater Mafraq Municipality Greater Mafraq, Mafraq Hassan Ahmad, Director, Afaq Center (CBO grant partner) Greater Mafraq, Mafraq Salem Almahayra, Director of Education, DOE Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Hussein Gaeth, Manager, Badia Youth Cultural Forum Al Salheyeh, Tafileh Ghalib Abu Namous CBO Director / Mohammad Alfaori Project Manager, Alharameen Association (CBO grantee) Al Salhayeh, Hay Salhyeh wa Nayfeh, Tafileh Mr. Abd-alkreem Aladamat, Nayfeh Football team (beneficiaries of CBO grant) Al Salhayeh, Hay Salhyeh wa Nayfeh, Tafileh Mofeed Ananbed, Acting Mayor of Greater Tafileh and Governor of Tafileh Ahmad Qararah, Senior Engineer HTM Municipality and CET member for Heid Tin, and Al Mansoura Heid, Tin, and Al Mansoura, Greater Tafileh, Tafileh CEP Tafileh Field Team: Omar Daoudieh, Program Manager Omara Badareen, Al Hassa Community Engagement Officer (CEO) Saif Faraheed, HTM CEO Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Ibrahim Ali Abu Jufin, Director in the Municipality overseeing Muni Grants Al Hassa, Tafileh Manal Alhajaya, Head of Hassa Young Women's Center (a CBO Grantee) and an Al Hassa CET member Al Hassa, Tafileh Adel Alzobi, Principal, Hassa Secondary School for Boys (CEP grant beneficiary) Al Hassa, Tafileh Doaa Mazin Al Awrtani, Head of Juhod Center Director (CBO CEP grantee) and an Al Hassa CET member Al Hassa, Tafileh LDU Tafileh Directorate Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Mithqal Odeh, Police Community Engagement (CET grant partner) Greater Tafileh, Tafileh DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 181 Abed Salem Albdoor, Head of Tafileh youth center Re: Grant # Y3048 CET, Phase 1 "Enhance active communities in Hid, Tein and Al Mansoura (HTM) Neighborhood" Hid, Tein and Al Mansoura, Tafileh Dr. Jihad Alturk, Community Engagement Department Tafileh University Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Mayor of Hassa Al Hassa, Tafileh Khawala Kaladeh, Head of the Jordanian Women's Union in Tafileh (CBO - CEP grantee) Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Maha Ebideen Project Manager, AMAL Center for Family Counseling (CBO - not a CEP grantee) Greater Tafileh, Tafileh Majed Alsharari Mayor of Ma'an Ma'an City, Ma'an Yaser Kreshan, Railway Director (CEP grant beneficiary) Ma'an City, Ma'an CEP Ma'an Field Team: Zeyad Ahamri and Sahar Ma'an City, Ma'an Dr. Ghaleb Al Shamayleh, Governor of Ma'an and Eng. Nawaf Albdoor, LDU Ma'an Ma'an City, Ma'an Khitam Hanfi, School Priniciple, (beneficiary of CEP grant) Ma'an City, Ma'an Rakan Al Rwad and Mohammad Aldoerj, Municipal Youth Councils /Al Qantara Center for Human Resources Development (CBO not a CEP grantee) Ma'an City, Ma'an Abdelrazzaq Hani Almuhtaseb, Director, Ms. Yara Joma'an Al-Niemat, (and a male another male employee) Future Makers Center (CBO- not a CEP grantee) Ma'an City, Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 182 ANNEX XIII: GRANTS TABLES Years 1-2 Grants by Governorate and Municipality Number of grants Sum of Projected Budget Sum of Projected Match % of projected match Irbid 27 $4,621,671.10 $563,486.18 12% Al Taybeh 3 $269,003.95 $85,734.45 32% Al Wasatyeh 4 $112,405.26 $17,683.92 16% Dabbet Nimer 5 $2,110,092.10 $200,585.48 10% Hay Jalama & Dabbet Nimer 2 $579,965.77 $59,210.37 10% Hay Jalama, Dabbet Nimer, & No'aimeh 1 $10,985.87 $1,098.86 10% Khalid Bin Waleed 4 $216,279.11 $22,302.27 10% Moath Bin Jabal 3 $133,391.67 $34,237.28 26% No'aimeh 1 $13,135.59 $3,248.58 25% Yarmouk 4 $1,176,411.78 $139,384.96 12% Mafraq 19 $2,932,435.04 $563,791.81 19% Al Salheyeh 1 $54,084.75 $5,084.75 9% Al Sarhan 3 $1,111,976.23 $129,919.76 12% Hay Al-Hussein 4 $1,123,877.73 $334,547.74 30% Hay Al-Janoubi 4 $430,834.48 $71,909.06 17% Hosha 1 $56,002.82 $6,002.82 11% Sabha 4 $89,614.40 $10,282.48 11% Um Aljmal 2 $66,044.63 $6,045.20 9% Tafileh 12 $3,131,155.09 $699,858.21 22% Al Hassa 2 $1,469,282.90 $332,153.95 23% Bseira 4 $1,139,077.12 $305,055.94 27% Ein Al Beyda 2 $386,193.73 $43,912.44 11% Ein Al-Beyda, Al Hassa & Bseira 1 $15,536.72 $1,412.43 9% Heid, Tein, & Al Mansoura 3 $121,064.61 $17,323.44 14% Grand Total 58 10685261.22 1827136.191 17% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 183 Year 3 Grants by Governorate and Municipality Number of grants Sum of Projected Budget Sum of Projected Match % of projected match Irbid 18 $3,419,449.31 $987,379.29 29% Al Taybeh 3 $533,041.00 $180,503.00 34% Al Wasatyeh 2 $646,792.87 $226,792.87 35% Dabbet Nimer 1 $105,929.00 $35,965.00 34% Hay Jalama 1 $115,386.30 $45,421.61 39% Hay Jalama & Dabbet Nimer 2 $161,194.63 $54,086.44 34% Khalid Bin Waleed 2 $571,069.08 $151,071.90 26% Moath Bin Jabal 3 $557,649.00 $138,919.00 25% No'aimeh 2 $544,840.00 $90,875.00 17% Yarmouk 2 $183,547.43 $63,744.47 35% Ma'an 2 $122,214.69 $69,661.02 57% Ma'an City 2 $122,214.69 $69,661.02 57% Mafraq 17 $3,059,359.44 $1,002,336.38 33% Al Salheyeh 2 $531,811.88 $111,811.88 21% Al Sarhan 2 $201,446.29 $81,523.98 40% Hay Al-Hussein 2 $201,606.64 $81,987.99 41% Hay Al Janoubi 2 $196,866.52 $76,912.43 39% Hosha 2 $731,646.00 $311,667.00 43% Hosha 1 $8,898.00 $- 0% Sabha 2 $542,587.00 $122,587.00 23% Um Aljmal 4 $644,497.11 $215,846.10 33% Tafileh 10 $1,582,988.49 $633,703.64 40% Al Hassa 3 $203,117.34 $80,957.89 40% Bseira 2 $230,816.90 $119,298.50 52% Ein Al Beyda 3 $655,720.67 $299,993.57 46% Hid, Tein, & Al Mansoura 2 $493,333.58 $133,453.68 27% Grand Total 47 8184011.929 2693080.327 33% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 184 ANNEX XIV: DATA COLLECTION SERVICES END OF TASK REPORT This report was provided by Mindset, the local data collection firm which USAID Jordan MESP subcontracted to perform qualitative and quantitative data collection services in support of the team conducting the CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation. Mindset provided the following data collection services during this task: 1. Conducted phone survey interviews with current and former CET members 2. Conducted face-to-face survey interviews with a representative sample of the general population in the 20 communities where CEP is implemented 3. Provided note-taking support during qualitative group interviews with CET members 4. Conducted focus group discussions with beneficiaries of selected CEP grants PHONE SURVEY WITH CET MEMBERS Mindset was commissioned to perform a phone survey with CET members. Mindset was given a list of 443 contacts of current and former CET members and was able to successfully conduct 232 interviews. While 177 numbers were unreachable (phone disconnected, number wrong, phone switched off, etc.) and 34 refused to participate in the survey. Mindset performed the following tasks for this activity: 1. Translated the tool provided by the USAID Jordan MESP team from English to Arabic. 2. Reviewed the tool and test it. 3. Scripted the tool onto the data collection system. 4. Recruited suitable team members. 5. Arranged for the training session. 6. Performed a pilot of the survey. 7. Performed the phone survey. 8. Cleaned the data. 9. Performed call back of responses for at least 30% to check on authenticity and correctness of responses registered by enumerators. 10. Coded open-ended responses. 11. Translated open-ended codes to English. 12. Delivered SPSS data file. 13. Provided live dashboard to the USAID Jordan MESP team to monitor data. The team that worked on this task included the following: 1. 1 Field supervisor (Office Supervisor) 2. 7 Field/ Data Collector/ Enumerator 3. 1 Instrument/ Survey Design Specialist 4. 1 Data Entry Supervisor (Data processing) 5. 3 Data Entry Supervisor (Data cleaning/call back) GENERAL POPULATION SURVEY Mindset carried out a general population survey in the 20 communities where CEP project was implemented which were spread across these four governorates: Irbid, Mafraq, Tafileh, and Ma’an. The study designed and implemented a representative sample that targeted the general population in these communities. Within these communities, residential blocks (defined by the department of statistics) were the primary sampling units and the households within the DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 185 residential blocks were the secondary sampling units. With the aid of a KISH grid, one respondent was selected within the household. The sample distribution of the 20 communities included in the study were spread across the four governorates as listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: NUMBER OF CEP TARGET COMMUNITIES BY GOVERNORATE Governorate Number of communities covered Irbid 8 Mafraq 7 Tafileh 4 Ma’an 1 Total 20 Below is a description of the sample design steps for the General Population Survey data collection. 1. The population of each community was obtained from the GOJ Department of Statistics (DOS) according to the latest census data (2016 census). However, there were four communities for which data were not available at the DOS. Mindset obtained the populations for those communities from the Global Communities USAID CEP “Community Social Cohesion and Resilience, Baseline Study Report” published in 2016. Those communities were: Hay Jalama and Dabbet Nimer in Irbid, Hay Al Hussein, Al Ifdain in Mafraq and Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid in Tafileh. 2. The number of households and blocks to be sampled from each community was determined based on the community’s share of the total population (among the 20 CEP communities). Ten (10) households were sampled from each residential block. 3. Mindset obtained the total number of blocks and residential units within each community from the DOS. Mindset then randomly selected the required number of blocks within each community. For example, if 200 households were required from a specific community, Mindset randomly selected 20 residential blocks - i.e. 10 households per block - for the survey in that community. 4. Within each household, the KISH grid method was used to randomly select the respondent. This method was controlled by gender to ensure equal gender representation in the sample. Below is a detailed description of sample size within each governorate, the communities covered, areas covered within the community, population within each community, and number of residential blocks covered by survey within each area. Community Areas covered within the community Population of community % of total population No. of residential blocks covered by survey Sample Size from each residential block % representation within survey sample Governorate Irbid Hay Jalama* Eighth￾Ramtha 16,787 8.9 4 40 10.3 Dabbet Nimer* Ninth￾Ramtha 6,839 3.6 1 10 2.6 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 186 Al Yarmouk Al Jadeeda Brashta 783 0.4 0 0 0.0 Yarmouk 823 0.4 0 0 0.0 Khreibeh 2,142 1.1 1 10 2.6 AL Qasfa 1,384 0.7 1 10 2.6 Al Seileh 1,384 0.7 0 0 0.0 Wasatiya Kufor Asad 14,232 7.6 3 30 7.7 Qumaim 8,675 4.6 2 20 5.1 Houfa 7,084 3.8 1 10 2.6 Qum 2,274 1.2 0 0 0.0 Kufor Aam 4,077 2.2 1 10 2.6 Al Kharaj 3,907 2.1 1 10 2.6 Seidour 2,302 1.2 0 0 0.0 Al Tayba Al Tayba 21,938 11.7 5 50 12.8 Khalid Bin Al Waleed Malaka 11,706 6.2 2 20 5.1 Umm Qais 6,124 3.3 1 10 2.6 Al Mansoura 5,502 2.9 1 10 2.6 Al Mkheibeh, Al Tahta 3,637 1.9 1 10 2.6 Moath Bin Jabal Al Shouneh Al Shmaliyeh 18,821 10.0 4 40 10.3 Al Adasiyeh 3,214 1.7 1 10 2.6 Al Baquora 730 0.4 0 0 0.0 Wadi Al Arab 421 0.2 0 0 0.0 Al Manshyeh 7,594 4.0 2 20 5.1 Waqqas 6,170 3.3 1 10 2.6 Nuaimah Nuaimah 29,128 15.5 6 60 15.4 Total 187,678 100 39 390 100 Governorate Mafraq Hay Al Hussein & AlIfdain* Hay Al Hussein & Al Ifdain* 9,657 15.3 6 60 15.4 Hay Al-Janoubi Hay Al Janoubi 21,581 34.1 13 130 33.3 Sama Al Sarhan Sama Al Sarhan 7,018 11.1 4 40 10.3 Um Al Jmal Um Al Jmal 4,524 7.1 3 30 7.7 Hosha Hosha 2,558 4.0 2 20 5.1 Sabha Sabha 9,338 14.8 6 60 15.4 Eldafyaneh Eldafyaneh 2,688 4.2 2 20 5.1 Alsalhya Alsalhya 3,959 6.3 2 20 5.1 Nayfha Nayfha 1,970 3.1 1 10 2.6 Total 63,293 100 39 390 100 Governorate Tafileh Bseira Bseira 10,587 29.9 12 120 30.0 Ein Beyda Ein Beyda 10,448 29.5 12 120 30.0 Al Hassa Al Hassa 8,084 22.8 9 90 22.5 Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid* Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid* 6,300* 17.8 7 70 17.5 Total 35,419 100 40 400 100 Governorate Ma’an Ma’an City Ma’an City 41,055 100 39 390 100 Total 327,445 100 157 1,570 100 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 187 * All population size was obtained from DOS based on 2016 national census with the exception of numbers shaded in yellow, for which data were obtained from the CEP 2014 baseline report. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 188 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION SERVICES Mindset was commissioned to perform two types of services: 1. Provide note-takers for seven group discussions with CET members in three governorates. o Deliverable: Excel sheet with responses for the CET FGDs in the following communities: Hay Jalama, and Dabbet Nimer in Irbid; Hay Al Hussein, Hay Al Janoubi, and Al Salhayeh in Mafraq; Al Hassa and Hid, Tein, and Al Mansoura in Tafileh. 2. Provide facilitators and note-takers for the following FGDs with: o Three FGDs with female beneficiaries of selected CEP grant activities implemented in Irbid and Tafileh o One FGD with male beneficiaries of selected CEP grant activities implemented in Mafraq The team that worked on this task was as follows: 1. One Senior Interviewer/ Focus Group Moderator 2. Five Data Entry Operator (Note taker) 3. One Focus group recruiter QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL Mindset employed research best practice in the execution of this task. The below are the quality assurance and control measures that were used in this task. • Recruitment of experienced members: All team members recruited for this task will have experience in conducting nation-wide household interviews. In addition, the interviewers will have experience in using tablets and electronic data collection tools. Most researchers already had experience using the KIDS method. • Training: All team members underwent a research methodology and research ethics in addition to technical explanation of the tool and the sampling methodology. 1- Project background 2- Methodology of the survey - Target groups of the survey - Selection of households - Selection of respondents within the household - Methodology of work 3- Key definitions 4- Overview of the tools (gives a general idea about the various sections of the questionnaire) 5- The tools in detail (Each question followed by its purpose and how it should be asked) 6- Logistics for the project - How teams are divided - Meeting points 7- Confidentiality 8- Troubleshooting 9- Hierarchy and reporting procedures • Accompanied visits: 10% of all cases visits were accompanied by a field supervisor. The supervisor will ensure attendance of at least 1 visit per enumerator per day). DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 189 • Back-check: at least 25% of all respondents were called back to verify key questions. Those calls were used to monitor the performance of the enumerators. Those were selected randomly and cover work of all enumerators equally. Additionally, faulty responses identified by the data processing expert were re-contacted for verification. • Data cleaning: The data processing experts performed several levels of data cleaning for cohesion, logic, and completeness of data. • Field supervision: Field supervisors are required to ensure that the specified respondents are being interviewed as per the Kish method. • Weekly meetings: A weekly meeting was held in the presence of the back-check team and the data processing experts to discuss progress of the previous week and pinpoint issues for additional focus within the data collection process. • Open house policy: Mindset had an open-house policy that allows access of MSI-JMESP to any function and activity of the effort. • Trouble shooting of forecasted challenges and mechanism of handling them: Within the initial quality assurance procedures and checks document that was prepared at the beginning of the project, a list of all foreseen challenges and errors and method of mitigation were developed. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The teams were trained on the ethical considerations of data collection, namely: • Confidentiality: All team members signed a non-disclosure agreement. All data related to the data collection effort, including personal data of respondents, their responses and the findings of the data collection is considered confidential and cannot be disclosed with any third party. • Informed consent: All respondents were informed of the purpose of the data collection, the entities involved, the nature of the questions and observations and the expected length of the interview/ observation. The enumerators asked to obtain a consent from the respondents prior to commencing with the interview. • Respect of respondents' freedom of choice: Prior to commencing the interviews, the enumerator explained the purpose and the expected length of the interview and will explain that the respondent is free not to partake in the interview, may choose not to answer any question they do not wish to answer and may stop the interview at any point. • An agreement against research misconduct: All enumerators signed an agreement against fabrication or falsification in proposing, collecting, or reporting interview findings. All fieldwork staff must sign and abide by this pledge (in Arabic) Mindset performed the following tasks for this activity: 1. Translate the tool provided by MSI-JMESP from English to Arabic. 2. Review the tool and test it. 3. Script the tool onto the data collection system. 4. Recruit suitable team members. 5. Arrange for the training session. 6. Perform the training session. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 190 7. Assist MSI-JMESP team in development of sample methodology. 8. Perform a pilot of the survey. 9. Perform the phone survey. 10. Clean the data. 11. Perform call back of responses for at least 30% to check on authenticity and correctness of responses registered by enumerators. 12. Coding of open ended responses. 13. Translation of open of ended codes to English. 14. Deliver SPSS data file. 15. Provide live access to MSI-JMESP team to monitor data. The team that worked on this task was as follows: 1. One Field supervisor (Office Supervisor) 2. One Instrument/ Survey Design Specialist 3. 10 Field Supervisor 4. 32 Field/ Data Collector/ Enumerator 5. One Data Entry Supervisor (Data processing) 6. Six Data Entry Supervisor (Data cleaning/call back) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 191 ANNEX XV: CET SURVEY RESULTS Data are presented as a frequency and/or percent of the entire sample of 232 respondents unless otherwise noted. I DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS Sex of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 128 55.2 55.2 55.2 Female 104 44.8 44.8 100 Total 232 100 100 Community of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Al Hassa CET 15 6.5 6.5 6.5 Al Hussein CET 9 3.9 3.9 10.3 Al Janoubi CET 13 5.6 5.6 15.9 Al Salhyeh CET 13 5.6 5.6 21.6 Al Sarhan CET 9 3.9 3.9 25.4 Bseira CET 15 6.5 6.5 31.9 Dabet Nimer CET 6 2.6 2.6 34.5 Ein Al Beyda CET 14 6.0 6.0 40.5 Hosha CET 14 6.0 6.0 46.6 HTM CET 6 2.6 2.6 49.1 Jalama CET 16 6.9 6.9 56.0 Khalid Bin Waleed CET 8 3.4 3.4 59.5 Maan City AC/CCT 13 5.6 5.6 65.1 Moath Bin Jabal CET 9 3.9 3.9 69.0 Noaimeh CET 7 3.0 3.0 72.0 Sabha CET 14 6.0 6.0 78.0 Taybeh CET 16 6.9 6.9 84.9 Um Aljmal CET 10 4.3 4.3 89.2 Wasatyeh CET 17 7.3 7.3 96.6 Yarmouk CET 8 3.4 3.4 100 Total 232 100 100 Governorate of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Irbid 87 37.5 37.5 37.5 Ma'an 13 5.6 5.6 43.1 Tafileh 50 21.6 21.6 64.7 Mafraq 82 35.3 35.3 100 Total 232 100 100 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 192 II INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS Q1. What is your role within the CET? Role in the CET Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Active member in CET's activities 139 59.9 59.9 59.9 CET Committee Secretary 15 6.5 6.5 66.4 Coordination role between the local community and the municipality 43 18.5 18.5 84.9 Data collection activities 7 3.0 3.0 87.9 Inactive member in CET 4 1.7 1.7 89.7 Municipal/ government representative/ liaison 20 8.6 8.6 98.3 Team leader in the CET 4 1.7 1.7 100 Total 232 100 100 Q2. How old are you? Age of respondents Responses by age group Frequency Percent 20-29 45 19.4% 30-39 46 19.8% 40-49 63 27.2% 50-59 59 25.4% 60-72 19 8.2% Total 232 100% Q3. What is your occupation? Occupation of respondent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Employed in the government sector 89 38.4 38.4 38.4 Employed in the non-for-profit sector 22 9.5 9.5 47.8 Employed in the private sector 42 18.1 18.1 65.9 Retired 49 21.1 21.1 87.1 Student 6 2.6 2.6 89.7 Unemployed and looking for a job 11 4.7 4.7 94.4 Unemployed and not looking for employment 13 5.6 5.6 100 Total 232 100 100 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 193 Q4. How long have you been a CET, CCT or Advisory Council member? a. _______ Less than 6 months b. _______ Between 6 months and 1 year c. _______ More than 1 year How long have you been a CET, CCT or Advisory Council member? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Less than 6 months 19 8.2 8.2 8.2 Between 6 months and 1 year 24 10.3 10.3 18.5 More than 1 year 189 81.5 81.5 100 Total 232 100 100 Q5. Are you active in any community based organization or charity in your community? organizations? a. Yes b. No c. Not sure/don’t know (DO NOT READ) EQ3 Findings Are you active in any community based organization or charity in your community? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 143 61.6 61.6 61.6 No 89 38.4 38.4 100 Total 232 100 100 III EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING AND GRANTS Q1. Did you communicate or deal with your municipality before CEP to solve a problem? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 30% 70% No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 194 Q2. What is the most effective way you used to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem [before CEP]? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. I relied on my personal connections with municipality and governorate staff b. I attended public meetings held by the municipality c. I voiced my opinion on social media d. I voiced my opinion in informal community/tribal gatherings e. I voiced my opinion through my association with civil society organizations f. I visited the municipality to solve a problem g. I did not voice my opinion h. Other (SPECIFY) Q3. How effective was this method? a. Very effective b. Effective c. Ineffective d. Very ineffective e. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 1% 4% 10% 20% 24% 41% Association with CSOs Informal community/ tribal gatherings Attended municipal public meetings Visited the municipality Didn't voice my opinion Personal connections with municipality/ governorate DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 195 Q4. What is the method you used to communicate with the municipality to solve your problem since CEP? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. I rely on my personal connections with municipality and governorate staff b. I attend public meetings held by the municipality c. I voice my opinion on social media d. I voice my opinion in informal community/tribal gatherings e. I voice my opinion through my association with civil society organizations f. I voice my opinion through CET g. I do not voice my opinion h. Other (SPECIFY) Q5. In your opinion, what is the most effective way to generate responsiveness from the government to solve your problem? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Direct engagement with municipal/local government on a personal level b. Present problem to tribal leaders c. Protest d. Civil society advocacy e. Other (SPECIFY)_ f. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 3% 6% 7% 18% 29% 38% Social media Visit the municipality I don't voice my opinion Personal connections with municipality and governorate staff Attend public meetings held by the municipality I voice my opinion through CET 1% 1% 3% 3% 5% 7% 29% 50% Use all channels at the same time File a petition or a memo Don't know Protest Present problem to tribal leaders Create dialogue through constructive open communication channels Civil society advocacy Direct personal engagement with municipal/ local GOJ DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 196 Q6. Do you think decisions that affect your life in the governorate /municipality are mostly decided at the local or central levels of government? a. Local government b. Central government c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q7. When it comes to engagement and participation in civil society, is your community: a. Very engaged (SKIP TO Q.9) b. Engaged (SKIP TO Q.9) c. Disengaged (ASK QUESTION 8) d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.9) 4% 34% 63% Don't know Central government Local government 1% 5% 47% 47% Don't Know Disengaged Engaged Very engaged DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 197 Q8. Why do you think community members are not more engaged in civil society? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (percentage of 11 respondents that responded “disengaged” to Q7 above) a. Engagement is limited because civil society is not focused on issues important for my community b. Engagement is limited because civil society is weak c. Engagement is limited because local governance structures are not responsive to civil society’s demands d. Engagement is limited because civil society is not sufficiently visible/clear in my community e. Engagement is limited because civil society does not have sufficient resources f. Other (SPECIFY) lack of community members engagement in civil society Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Engagement is limited because civil society is weak 1 0.4 9.1 9.1 Engagement is limited because local governance structures are not responsive to civil society’s demands 4 1.7 36.4 45.5 Engagement is limited because civil society is not sufficiently visible/ clear in my community 1 0.4 9.1 54.5 Engagement is limited because civil society does not have sufficient resources 2 0.9 18.2 72.7 Other - Write In (Required) 3 1.3 27.3 100 Total 11 4.7 100 Missing System 221 95.3 Total 232 100 Q9A. In your opinion, should the CET include Syrians? a. Yes b. No; why not? c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 198 Q9B. If answered “no” to Q9A above and were asked, “Why shouldn’t the CETs include Syrians?” (percentage of 101 respondents that responded “no” to Q9A above) Q10A. Do you think the CET is an effective platform to engage the community? a. Yes b. No; why not? c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) EQ3 Findings 2% 2% 3% 7% 7% 16% 17% 23% 24% For fear of Syrians being too integrated in the Jordanian society as to not want to go back home They provide no added value to the team It decreases the opportunities of Jordanians to participate Syrians are the cause of many of the problems and cannot be a part of the solution Syrians' civil rights are already secured through NGOs that provide support to them Limited number of Syrians in the community Syrians would not have the best interest of the Jordanian community in mind and will only care for Syrians' wellbeing Syrians lack understanding of the real problems and needs of Jordanian people Because Syrians are not considered a part of the Jordanian society/ have no right in contributing to decision making 1% 14% 84% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 199 Q10B. If responded “no” to question 10A above, “Why don’t you think the CET is an effective platform to engage the community?” (percentage of 33 respondents that responded “no” to question 10A) Q10C. Do you think the CET has an effective role in decision making? a. Yes b. No; why not? c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 6% 6% 9% 12% 24% 27% Community isn't responsive Lack of financial support to carry out plans Lack of government support Municipality takes credit for all CET efforts Little to no use of social media platforms Not receptive to suggestions from team members Lack of compliance of the teams with the decisions and plans Lack of flexibility with what the team members can do Don't know The CET team members are lacking in experience Because communication mechanisms are not systematic/ inefficient 1% 9% 89% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 200 Q10D. If responded “no” to question 10C above, why don’t you think the CET has an effective role in decision making?” (percentage of 22 respondents that responded “no” to question 10C) Q11. Do you think your CET is sufficiently visible/known to people in the community? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) EQ3 Findings CEP’s Replicability and Visibility 5% 5% 5% 5% 9% 14% 18% 41% Lack of financial support Nobody engages with them The CET team members are lacking in experience The decisions that are made by the CET are not always relevant to the needs of community The team cares about their inidividual benefit Lack of governmental support Do not know The team has limited ability to make decisions and implement them 27% 72% No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 201 Q12. Do you think municipal services have improved as a result of the CEP program? a. Yes b. No, it remained the same c. No, got worse d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q13. Do you think the municipality/local government has become more responsive because of the CEP program? a. Yes b. No, it remained the same c. No, got worse d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 13% 87% No, it remained the same Yes, it became more responsive DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 202 Q14. To what extent did the program enhance the collective ability of the community to engage with the municipal/ local government? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q15. To what extent did the program enhance the community’s ability to activate engaging the private sector including any privately owned small business? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 1% 4% 43% 52% Don't know Not at all To some extent To a great extent 3% 15% 28% 53% Don't know To a great extent Not at all To some extent DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 203 Q16. To what extent did the program increase the value that municipalities/local government of the role of community engagement? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q17. Which CEP training did you attend? 3% 8% 36% 53% Don't know Not at all To some extent To a great extent 1% 1% 2% 2% 4% 13% 29% 58% 68% 69% Data collection and surveys course Decentralization of government course Communication skills Volunteerism course Other (not specified) I have not attended any CEP trainings Do no harm Community Engagement Conflict management and mitigation (CMM) ABC's of Initiatives DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 204 Q.18. How would you rate the overall quality of the trainings you received through the CEP program? a. Outstanding (SKIP TO Q.20) b. Satisfactory (SKIP TO Q.20) c. Unsatisfactory (ASK Q.19) d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.20) EQ1 Findings Capacity Building Results with CET’s Q19. If answer to 18 was “unsatisfactory” ask why did you find the why? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) (percentage and frequency of the 2 respondents that answered “unsatisfactory” to Q18 above) a. Attended similar trainings previously b. Training subjects could not be implemented in Jordanian community c. Quality of the training was poor d. Duration of the training was insufficient e. The trainer was not qualified f. There was no follow-up to training g. Other; please specify Responses represent the two respondents that found the CEP trainings unsatisfactory Frequency Percent a. Attended similar trainings previously 0 b. Training subjects could not be implemented in Jordanian community 0 c. Quality of the training was poor 0 d. Duration of the training was insufficient 0 e. The trainer was not qualified 0 f. There was no follow-up to training 0 g. Training subjects were not applicable to the political context 1 50% h. Other; please specify 1 50% Total 2 100% 1% 13% 13% 73% Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Don't know Outstanding DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 205 Q20. Did the training you receive enhance your ability to identify and address community stressors (Problems) /needs? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q21. Has the training sufficiently built your capacity to continue to engage different partners including (directorates and different entities) after the program ends? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) EQ3 Findings CETs’ Capacity and Independence EQ1 Findings Overall Effectiveness of CEP Interventions 3% 13% 83% No Don't know Yes 8% 13% 79% No Don't know Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 206 Q22. Which training was most valuable to you in building your capacity to engage stakeholders and to identify and address stressors? (ONE RESOPNSE ONLY) Q23A. Are there trainings you would have liked to receive from CEP in order to help you better engage and identify your community’s needs after the project ends? a. Yes (SPECIFY) b. No EQ1 Findings Capcity Building Results with CET’s 1% 2% 2% 3% 4% 10% 11% 18% 49% Other (data collection, road paving, and debating) Communication skills All of them Nothing Do no Harm Community enagament Didn't attended any CEP training ABCs of initiatives CMM 43% 57% Yes No DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 207 Q23B. If responded “yes” to Q23A above, what are the other training courses you would have liked to receive from CEP in order to help you better engage and advocate for your community’s needs after the project ends? (percentage of 100 respondents that responded “yes” to question 23A above) Q24A. Did you feel that the CEP program had any particular negative or positive impact on you or the community? a. Yes, Negative impact (please explain) b. Yes, Positive impact (please explain) c. No 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 7% 10% 16% 19% 21% Communal surveillance of neighborhoods Creating civil advocacy Leadership skills Office management Online marketing Youth empowerment Community engagement Counselling Strategic planning Trainer of trainers (TOT) Women's empowerment Debating skills Financial management ABC's of Initiatives Self development courses Project management Courses Technical skills (computers/ language/ profession) Communication skills CMM DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 208 Q24B. If responded to Q24A above that the CEP program had a particular positive impact on you or the community, what is the positive impact? (percentage of 220 respondents that said CEP had a positive impact in answer to Q24A above) Q24C. If responded to Q24A above that the CEP program had a particular negative impact on you or the community, what is the negative impact? Percent Frequency 2% 3% 95% CEP program did not have any impact on me or the community Negative impact Positive impact DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 209 Did not take into consideration the demographics of the community 0 1 Lack of government support 0 1 Used nepotism/ favoritism 0 1 Lack of credibility of project because of constant change in plan 1% 2 There was no tangible benefit 1% 2 Total respondents that said CEP had positive impact or I don't know 97% 225 Total 100% 232 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 210 Q25. How could the support you received from CEP be improved? (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) IV REDUCTION OF STRESSORS Q1. Please identify and rank the 3 top stressors your community is facing with #1 being the biggest? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Unemployment b. Poverty c. Municipal services d. Quality of education e. Crime/violence f. Ethnic tension g. Lack of recreational facilities h. Other 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 14% 27% 28% Transparency in decision-making Provide consultant team from the current work team Do some studies and research to get new ideas for development Providing the right environment and time for conducting the team meetings. Community experience exchange Government involvement Maintaining the idea of the team and it's sustainability. Increasing the number of the CET members and choosing them carefully. I don't know Continuing and expanding the projects CET members were working on, in addition to creating new relevant ones Providing support, whether it was financial or moral. Intensifying awareness courses. DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 211 0% 0% 1% 6% 26% 66% N/A 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Unemployment 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 13% 57% 20% N/A 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Poverty DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 212 7% 2% 8% 8% 19% 27% 21% 6% 4% N/A 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Municipal services 5% 3% 4% 14% 31% 32% 6% 4% N/A 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Quality of education DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 213 11% 5% 16% 26% 19% 9% 12% 2% 1% N/A 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Crime/ violence 14% 3% 37% 28% 11% 4% 2% 1% 0% N/A 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Ethnic tension DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 214 Q2A. Do the projects funded by CEP address any of the three top stressors you identified in the previous question? a. Yes b. No; Why not? 6% 0% 19% 19% 3% 12% 17% 3% 3% N/A 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Lack of recreational facilities 33% 67% No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 215 Q2B. If responded no to Q2A above, why do you think the projects funded by CEP haven’t addressed any of the three top stressors you identified in the previous question (percentage of the 76 respondents that responded “no” to Q2A above) 1% 1% 1% 8% 16% 17% 55% Other (not specified) Lack of involvement of private sector Planning was different than implementation Don't know Due to limited funding of the projects The project can't address these type of large scale problems The program had a different focus than the stressors DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 216 Q3. How can the process of identifying projects be more inclusive? (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 4% 4% 7% 8% 10% 22% 37% Increasing participation of women Through voting To include tribal leaders in decision making Actual implementation on the ground. Through ads and illustrative publications. Through the media (e.g., newspapers and magazines) Through monitoring the community situation by the community development team. I don’t know Through increasing and continuing financial support to existing and new projects Through the internet and social media Communication between the CET and concerned parties (municipality, associations, and GOJ) to identify community needs Continue to conduct needs assessments surveys in local communities Continuous dialogues and direct communication between CET and community members to assess and address community needs DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 217 Q4. Which type of donor projects best respond to your community’s main stressors? (ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Projects to improve schools b. Projects to improve municipal services c. Projects to improve the employability of community members d. Projects to generate jobs e. Projects to create spaces for community engagement including women and youth f. Projects to improve health services and raise awareness on health issues g. Other (SPECIFY) Q5. Why is this type of project most effective in addressing community stressors? 2% 3% 3% 13% 31% 48% Projects to improve the employability or entrepreneurship skills of community members Projects to improve health services and raise awareness on health issues Projects to create spaces for community engagement including women and youth Projects to improve schools Projects to improve municipal services Projects to generate jobs 1% 1% 2% 3% 7% 12% 13% 13% 47% Don't know Creates a safer communal environment Improves healthcare system/ services Provided much needed infrastructre/ machinary for the community Addresses important segments of the community Improves educational system/ services Projects are driven by needs and people contribute to the planning/ decisions Municipal services are the most important to people Addresses crucial community problems such as unemployment and poverty DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 218 V SUSTAINABILITY Q1. With which of the following do you feel your engagement can be most effective in enhancing municipal responsiveness to community needs? a. Municipal Council members b. The mayor c. The governor d. The CET e. My tribe f. Other (SPECIFY) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) EQ3 Findings Muncipal Structures Q2. Were the program’s selection criteria for CET members clear to you? a. Very clear b. Somewhat clear c. Somewhat unclear d. Very Unclear e. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 3% 10% 10% 35% 42% My tribe Municipal Council members The governor The CET The mayor 1% 2% 3% 14% 80% Don't know Somewhat unclear Very Unclear Somewhat clear Very clear DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 219 Q3. Who usually calls for the CET meetings? a. CEP staff b. Members of the CET c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percentage of 231 responses – 1 missing) CETs’ Capacity and Independence 2% 9% 39% 50% Don't know Both CET members and CEP staff Members of the CET CEP staff DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 220 Q4. Who sets the agenda for CET meetings? (RECORD VERBATIM) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) Q5A. Do you think that the program’s approach with CETs has provided CET members the necessary skills they need to act independently after the program ends? (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) a. Yes b. No; why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) EQ1 Finding Overall Effectiveness of CEP Interventions 2% 8% 43% 46% Don't know Both CEP staff and CET members CEP staff CET members 3% 13% 84% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 221 Q5B. If answered “no” to Q5A above, why do you think that the program’s approach with CETs has not provided CET members the necessary skills they need to act independently after the program ends? (percent of 30 respondents that replied “no” to Q5A above) Q6A. Do you think your CET will continue to function once the CEP project ends and funding stops? a. Yes b. No, why not? c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 3% 3% 10% 20% 63% No practical application There was no financial support/ reimburesment There was no clear planning for the team The team composition was not effective/ they lacked cooperation It did not develop necessary skills 9% 25% 66% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 222 Q6B. If responded “no” top Q6A above, why do you think your CET will not continue to function once the CEP project ends and funding stops? (percent of 58 respondents that replied “no” to Q6A above) Q7. Do you think that the CETs should continue after the program ends? a. Yes/why? (RECORD VERBATIM) b. No/Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 2% 2% 2% 3% 5% 10% 31% 45% Because the project was implemented to serve very limited number of people CET members do not have time CET members were not given necessary skills to continue The implementation mechanism was flawed Lack of compliance of CET members with plans The composition of the team lacked harmony Lack of a supporting entity that would allow them to implement their plans and initiatives Lack of funding of initiatives 4% 4% 92% No Don't know Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 223 Q7A. If responded “yes” to Q7 above, why do you think that the CETs should continue after the program ends? (percent of 211 respondents that replied “yes” to Q7 above) Q7B. If responded “no” to Q7 above, why do you think the CETs shouldn’t continue after the program ends? Responses of the 9 respondents that answered "no" to Q7 Frequency Percent Don't know 1 11% It will be difficult to continue without funding 1 11% The CET's capacity must be improved 1 11% The mechanism of implementing is unclear/ weak 2 22% Because the value achieved is minimal, there is no value in continuing 4 44% Frequency and percent out of 232 total responses 9 4% 2% 9% 17% 18% 53% Because it is a communication channel between community and municipality So the problems keep on getting addressed and so the efforts that were made won't go to waste Because CET members are capable of continuing those efforts The has to be a continuation because community needs to evolve and change Because it is beneifical to the community and it has good impact DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 224 Q8. At present, do you think that municipal councils are effective at engaging the community participation and local community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 7% 28% 65% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 225 Q8B. If responded “no’ to Q8 above, why do you think that municipal councils are not effective at engaging the community participation and local community? (percent of the 64 respondents that replied “no” to Q8A above) Q9A. At present, do you think that civil society organizations (CSOs) identify and advocate for the needs in your community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 2% 2% 5% 5% 16% 25% 50% Because it does not make use of CET members Municipal councils have ineffective methids Unaware of municipal councils Don't know Lack of municipal resources/ support towards municipalities Because municipal councils are not inclusive of all members of community/ there are personal benefits served within municipal councils Lack of trust in the decisions and plans of the municipality 6% 14% 80% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 226 Q9B. If responded “no” to Q9A above, why do you think that CSOs don’t identify and advocate for the needs in your community? (percent of the 33 respondents that replied “no” to Q9A above) Q10A. Do you think community members trust the municipality in their community? a. Yes b. No/Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 3% 21% 27% 48% Don't know CSOs serve their own agendas CSOs do not have enough authority/ resources to imeplemnt strategies CSOs are unaware of community needs 6% 35% 59% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 227 10B. If responded “no’ to Q10A above, why do you think community members don’t trust the municipality in their community? (percent of the 81 respondents that replied “no” to Q10A above) Q11. Did the CEP program enhance the community’s trust in municipal/local government? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 2% 2% 4% 9% 12% 30% 41% Don't know Lack of commuication between municipalities and communities Municipal resources are limited Implementation mechanism is ineffective/ mismanagement Communities do not trust municipalities Municipalities do not respond to the needs of commuities There is a lot of favoritism within the municipality 3% 16% 81% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 228 Q12. Do you understand the municipality’s budget process /operational framework (such as how resources are allocated to meet needs)? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) EQ3 Findings CETs’ Capacity and Independence EQ3 Findings Opportunities for Improvement Q13. Did the program enhance your understanding of this process/framework? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 19% 22% 24% 35% To a great extent To some extent Don't know Not at all 16% 23% 25% 35% To a great extent Don't know To some extent Not at all DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 229 Q14. Does the municipality have a transparent institutionalized mechanism for community discussion, negotiation and processing the basics of decision making between community members? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) Q15. Do you feel that the municipality/local government take into consideration the input/opinions of community’s? a. Always b. Sometimes c. Never d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 11% 39% 50% Don't know No Yes 3% 21% 22% 54% Don't know Never Always Sometimes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 230 Q16. Does the municipality/local government consult with your CET over their planning and allocation of resources? a. Always b. Sometimes c. Never d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) Improved Muncicpal Services Q17. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and municipality? a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) Q18. To what extent have CETs been able to strengthen relationships between their community and civil society organizations? 7% 18% 35% 39% Don't know Always Sometimes Never 3% 7% 34% 55% Don't know Not at all To a great extent To some extent DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 231 a. To a great extent b. To some extent c. Not at all d. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) Q19. Do you think the civil society organizations (CSOs) (charities and other community organizations) can play the role of CETs? a. Yes b. No - Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 4% 6% 35% 54% Not at all Don't know To a great extent To some extent 5% 40% 55% Don't know No Yes DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 232 Q19B. If responded “no’ to Q19 above, why do you think the CSOs (charities and other community organizations) cannot play the role of CETs? (percent of the 92 responses that replied “no” to Q19 above) Q20. Which of the following structures/organizations would be more effective in engaging and encouraging the community and advocating for its needs: the CET, a CSO or the municipal council? (ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. The CET - Why? b. Municipal Council - Why? c. CSOs – Why (percent of 231 responses – 1 missing) 1% 1% 8% 18% 21% 25% 26% Other (not specified) Don't know CSOs have limited impact on community Because CSOs serve their own agendas CSOs have weak/ ineffective implementation mechanisms CET members are closer and more aware of people's needs CSOs do not have sufficient authority/ financial resources 19% 22% 59% CSOs Municipal Council The CET DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 233 Q20A. If replied “the CET” to Q20 above, why do you say the CET would be more effective in engaging and encouraging the community and advocating for its needs? (percent of the 137 respondents that replied “the CET” to Q20 above) Q20B. If replied “the Municipal Council” to Q20 above, why do you say the Municipal Council would be more effective in engaging and encouraging the community and advocating for its needs? (percent of the 50 respondents that replied “municipal council” to Q20 above) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 234 Q20C. If replied “CSOs” to Q20 above, why do you say CSOs would be more effective in engaging and encouraging the community and advocating for its needs? (percent of the 44 respondents that replied “municipal council” to Q20 above) VI EXIT STRATEGIES Q1. In your opinion, at the end of the CEP program, will your CET continue to function? a. Yes b. No/Why not? (RECORD VERBATIM) 4% 6% 8% 8% 28% 46% Municipal councils already offer comprehensive services The municipalities have financial means to support initiatives Don't know Municipality is constant and sustainable There are communication channels between the municipal councils and the communities in place Municipality has the authority and governmental support to perform initiative and implement plans 7% 7% 16% 16% 20% 34% Don't know CSOs have more experience in addressing challenges Because CSOs have the support of bigger NGOs and organizations CSOs have sufficient financial support Because CSOs have an effective role in serving communities Because CSOs are close to the communities DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 235 c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Q1B. If responded “no” to Q1 above, why do you think your CET will not continue to function at the end of the CEP program? (percent of the 55 responses that replied “no” to Q1 above) 8% 24% 69% Don't know No Yes 9% 9% 82% Lack of a clear implementation mechanism Lack of commitment and agreement by the team members Lack of a supporting entity/ body DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 236 Q2. In your opinion how do you think CETs can continue after the CEP program ends? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. CBO hosts b. National NGO host c. Royal NGO host d. Registration of NGO e. Another donor program f. Community support (CBO) g. Other (SPECIFY) 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 10% 20% 60% Don't know National NGO host Governmental support Royal NGO host Registration as an NGO CBO hosts Community support Another donor program DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 237 Q3. New local councils and governorate councils will be elected next year as part of the government’s drive for decentralization. What role do you expect your CET to play then? (RECORD VERBATIM) 2% 6% 9% 9% 15% 17% 20% 22% Support the elected members and increasing their awareness about the community needs Encourage civil participation through elections CET members should supervise the elections Don't know I don't believe that CET members have a role CET members should run for municipal elections To enhance the CET members performance and activate their role in community service Support decentralization and increase awareness about it DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 238 Q.4 What forms of assistance do you think the CEP program or other donor programs should provide to support decentralization? (RECORD VERBATIM) Responses of the 232 Frequency Percent Conducting courses and workshops to raise awareness about the concept of decentralization. 126 54.31% To provide financial and moral support to carry out activities and projects that are related to decentralization. 38 16.38% I don’t know 28 12.07% To choose the correct members of the CET to have a more effective role 9 3.88% Practically demonstrate the benefits of decentralization to community and government entities 7 3.02% Monitoring the work and transfer the experience 6 2.59% Participate and integrate the community in the work 6 2.59% Explain and clarify the mechanism of work transparently 5 2.16% Nominating team members for the elections. 4 1.72% Raising awareness about the concept of decentralization through social media. 3 1.29% Frequency and percent out of 232 total responses 232 100% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4% 12% 16% 54% Raising awareness about decentralization through social media Nominating team members for the elections Explain and clarify the mechanism of work transparently Monitoring the work and transfer the experience Participate and integrate the community in the work Practically demonstrate the benefits of decentralization to community and government entities Choose the correct members of the CET to have a more effective role I don’t know Provide financial and moral support to conduct decentralization realed activities Conduct courses and workshops to raise awareness about decentralization DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 239 ANNEX XVI: GENERAL POPULATION SURVEY RESULTS DEMOGRAPHICS Respondent Type of Residence Cross tabulation Governorate Frequency A Owned Apartment B Rented apartment C Owned Detached house/ Villa D Rented Detached house/ Villa F Work￾provided residence Total Percent Irbid Count 322 52 8 2 0 384 % 83.9% 13.5% 2.1% .5% 0.0% 100.0% Mafraq Count 322 63 17 1 0 403 % 79.9% 15.6% 4.2% .2% 0.0% 100.0% Tafileh Count 258 72 60 4 3 397 % 65.0% 18.1% 15.1% 1.0% .8% 100.0% Ma’an Count 163 174 41 12 0 390 % 41.8% 44.6% 10.5% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0% Total Count 1065 361 126 19 3 1574 % 67.7% 22.9% 8.0% 1.2% .2% 100.0% Gender of Respondent Cross tabulation Governorate Frequency Male Female Total Percent Irbid Count 194 196 390 % 49.7% 50.3% 100.0% Mafraq Count 206 202 408 % 50.5% 49.5% 100.0% Tafileh Count 203 197 400 % 50.8% 49.3% 100.0% Ma’an Count 196 195 391 % 50.1% 49.9% 100.0% Total Count 799 790 1,589 % 50.3% 49.7% 100.0% Nationality of Respondent Cross tabulation Governorate Frequency Jordanian Syrian Egyptian Yemeni Total Percent Irbid Count 379 11 0 0 390 % 97.2% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Mafraq Count 390 18 0 0 408 % 95.6% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Tafileh Count 393 2 3 2 400 % 98.3% .5% .8% .5% 100.0% Ma’an Count 373 14 3 1 391 % 95.4% 3.6% .8% .3% 100.0% Total Count 1,535 45 6 3 1,589 % 96.6% 2.8% .4% .2% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 240 SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. When it comes to Jordan, over the last six months, are things moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? A. Right Direction, why do you say that, what improved: ______________________ B. Wrong Direction, why do you say that, what worsened: ____________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 1A. If answer to Question 1 is "Right Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Responses by governorate Irbid 161 responses Mafraq 214 responses Tafileh 158 responses Ma'an 130 responses Stability and Security 69% 65% 63% 64% Wise and strong leadership 7% 9% 11% 4% I do not know 6% 7% 6% 7% Improved economy 4% 5% 7% 5% Improved education 3% 3% 1% 1% Provide services that the community needs 3% 0% 1% 5% Political reform 3% 0% 1% 4% Increased citizen awareness and abiding to laws 2% 1% 1% 1% Being exposed and becoming more developed 2% 1% 4% 3% Remained the same 1% 3% 3% 4% Freedom of expression 1% 2% 0% 1% Loyalty, nationalism and sense of belonging 1% 3% 1% 0% Lower corruption levels 0% 0% 1% 2% Cultural diversity, existence of other nationalities 0% 1% 1% 2% 1B. If answer to Question 1 is "Wrong Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Wrong Direction 46% 44% 56% 62% Right Direction 41% 53% 40% 33% Don't Know 13% 3% 5% 5% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 241 Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 179 responses Mafraq 180 responses Tafileh 223 responses Ma'an 243 responses Deterioration of economic conditions 44% 43% 34% 43% Increased level of unemployment 12% 10% 22% 21% Political corruption 7% 3% 4% 1% Increased refugee numbers 6% 19% 6% 9% Corruption in administration 5% 6% 11% 5% Spread of drugs in the community 4% 3% 1% 2% Increased level of poverty 4% 4% 7% 5% Nepotism and favoritism 3% 4% 3% 5% Lack of stability and security 3% 1% 4% 2% Poor services 3% 1% 2% 0% Lack of consideration to citizens’ rights 2% 1% 0% 1% Deterioration of education 1% 1% 0% 2% Remained the same 1% 0% 1% 2% Higher level of crimes 1% 0% 0% 0% Higher level of social problems 1% 0% 0% 0% Overpopulation 1% 0% 0% 0% General poor conditions 1% 2% 0% 2% Moral corruption 1% 0% 2% 1% Low quality health services 1% 1% 0% 0% Refused to answer 1% 0% 0% 0% I don't know 1% 1% 0% 0% Lack or slow development 0% 0% 1% 0% Ignorance 0% 1% 0% 0% 2. When it comes to your area, over the last six months or since you started living in this area, are things moving it the right direction or the wrong direction? A. Right Direction, why do you say that, what improved: _____________________ B. Wrong Direction, why do you say that, what worsened: ____________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 2A. If answer to Question 2 is "Right Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Wrong Direction 42% 50% 56% 52% Right Direction 43% 47% 36% 44% Don't Know 15% 3% 8% 4% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 242 Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 168 responses Mafraq 191 responses Tafileh 144 responses Ma'an 171 responses Services improvement/ enhanced provision 38% 25% 26% 19% Security and Stability 27% 34% 38% 43% General stability and lack of problems within community 19% 15% 10% 22% Improved social relations 5% 5% 7% 2% Tribal spirit and sense of belonging 3% 3% 3% 1% Improvement and development of region 3% 1% 0% 1% Remained the same 2% 5% 6% 1% Awareness of local community 1% 0% 0% 1% Religious and moral ethics 1% 0% 1% 0% Conviction and simplicity of citizens 1% 2% 2% 1% Monitoring and control 1% 0% 0% 0% I do not know 1% 2% 2% 4% Improved economic conditions 0% 4% 5% 5% Prices have decreased 0% 4% 0% 1% Freedom in decisions making and freedom of speech 0% 1% 0% 0% 2B. If answer to Question 2 is "Wrong Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 164 responses Mafraq 203 responses Tafileh 223 responses Ma'an 205 responses Deterioration of municipal services 23% 10% 20% 10% Unemployment 13% 13% 25% 25% Deterioration of economic conditions 12% 8% 7% 8% Higher level of Crimes e.g., drugs, harassment, etc. 9% 6% 4% 7% High prices 8% 11% 5% 15% Poverty 6% 4% 10% 6% Moral corruption and lack of ethics 4% 2% 1% 4% Spread of problems in the community 3% 0% 0% 0% Increase in Refugees numbers 2% 22% 0% 4% Corruption in Administration 2% 5% 5% 1% Because there is no change for a better situation 2% 0% 3% 5% Decreased security 2% 1% 0% 1% Over population 2% 1% 0% 2% General poor conditions 2% 1% 1% 0% Lack of awareness and culture 2% 0% 1% 0% Poor infrastructure 1% 3% 5% 3% Tribal and racism in community 1% 1% 0% 1% Deterioration of social relations 1% 1% 0% 1% Deterioration of cleanness 1% 3% 2% 1% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 243 Poor transportation services 1% 2% 1% 0% Poor health situation in region 1% 1% 1% 1% I don't know 1% 0% 1% 1% Nepotism and favoritism 0% 4% 2% 1% Marginalization of the region, does not take needs into consideration 0% 0% 2% 1% The spread of foreign labor with low wages 0% 1% 1% 1% Because of environmental pollution 0% 1% 0% 0% Deterioration of education 0% 1% 0% 0% Political corruption 0% 5% 0% 0% Because of freedom limitations 0% 0% 0% 1% Lack of religious values 0% 0% 0% 1% Commitment to bad habits and traditions 0% 0% 0% 1% Because of the deportation of Syrians 0% 0% 0% 1% 3. When it comes to the situation of your household, over the last six months, has your situation improved, worsened or remained the same? A. Improved, why do you say that, what improved: ________________________ B. Worsened, why do you say that, what worsened: _______________________ C. Remained the same D. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 244 3A. If answer to Question 3 is "Right Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 52 responses Mafraq 47 responses Tafileh 39 responses Ma'an 27 responses Improvement in financial situation 52% 53% 51% 37% Finding a job 19% 26% 15% 22% Family stability 12% 2% 15% 22% Improvement in social relations 6% 2% 10% 0% Increase in cultural awareness 4% 2% 3% 0% Improvement in education 4% 0% 3% 0% I don't know 2% 2% 3% 4% Refused to answer 2% 0% 0% 0% Decrease in some items' prices 0% 9% 0% 0% Availability of government services 0% 0% 0% 7% Security and stability in the country 0% 0% 0% 7% Deterioration of some services 0% 4% 0% 0% 3B. If answer to Question 3 is "Wrong Direction," ask " Why do you say that, what improved?" Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 103 responses Mafraq 139 responses Tafileh 112 responses Ma'an 116 responses Deterioration of economic conditions 40% 39% 20% 30% Bad financial situation 25% 17% 32% 22% Low income 11% 11% 11% 9% Lack of work opportunities 10% 17% 13% 25% Increased expenses 4% 4% 8% 3% Accumulation of debts 4% 3% 2% 4% High expenses in education 2% 2% 5% 1% General political situation 2% 0% 0% 0% Small accommodation in relation to family size 1% 0% 0% 1% Difficult living conditions 1% 1% 0% 0% Lack of financial assistance 1% 0% 0% 0% Increase in refugee numbers 0% 4% 1% 0% Familial problems 0% 1% 1% 3% Deterioration of educational services 0% 1% 0% 0% Poor health conditions in family 0% 1% 3% 1% Corruption 0% 0% 1% 2% Lack of appropriate accommodation 0% 0% 1% 1% No family provider or neglect from head of household 0% 0% 2% 0% I don't know 0% 0% 2% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 245 4. In your opinion, other than poverty and lack of employment what is the most important problem facing your community/area? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ OPTIONS – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) a. Security (e.g. increase in crime and/or violence) b. Food security c. Water security d. Overcrowded and ill-equipped schools e. Lack of affordable housing f. Lack of or low quality healthcare g. Poor Municipal services (sewage, garbage pick up, lighting, roads, etc.) h. Lack of safe recreational facilities/ spaces to socialize for men, women, and children i. Discrimination against Syrian refugees or other minorities and vulnerable groups j. Discrimination against women k. Lack of services for people with disabilities l. Radicalization of disengaged youth m. OTHER (SPECIFY): _____________ Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 390 responses Mafraq 408 responses Tafileh 400 responses Ma'an 391 responses Nothing besides Poverty & Unemployment 25% 21% 15% 19% Poor Municipal services 18% 27% 35% 23% Water security 11% 6% 2% 13% Radicalization of disengaged youth 8% 3% 4% 3% Lack of or low quality healthcare 7% 4% 10% 6% Security (increase in crime and/or violence) 6% 2% 2% 1% Lack of safe recreational spaces 6% 3% 9% 5% Overcrowded and ill-equipped schools 4% 7% 5% 3% lack of affordable housing 4% 8% 7% 11% Spread of drugs 3% 6% 4% 4% Increased numbers of refugees 2% 4% 0% 1% High living expenses 2% 1% 0% 2% food security 1% 1% 1% 1% Discrimination against Syrian refugees or other minorities 1% 2% 0% 2% Lack of services for PWDs 1% 1% 0% 1% Discrimination against women 1% 0% 1% 1% Poor Transportation services 1% 2% 1% 1% Deterioration of culture 1% 0% 0% 1% Low quality of curriculum/ lack of experienced educators 0% 1% 1% 0% Community members are marginalized in decision making 0% 0% 1% 1% Lack of development projects 0% 0% 1% 0% Corruption 0% 0% 1% 0% Lower level of marriage 0% 0% 1% 0% Nepotism and favoritism 0% 0% 1% 1% Lack of services in the region 0% 0% 0% 1% Environmental pollution 0% 0% 1% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 246 5. In your opinion, can the community solve this problem on its own without governmental help? a. Yes, How: ___________________ b. No, Why Not: _________________ c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) No 60% 60% 59.8% 56.8% Yes 10.8% 12.5% 11.5% 13.8% Don't Know 29.2% 27.5% 28.8% 29.4% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 247 5A. If Yes to Question #5, How can the community solve this problem without help from the government? Percent of responses by governorate of those who answered Yes to Q5 Irbid 42 response s Mafraq 51 response s Tafileh 46 response s Ma'an 54 response s Total 193 response s Increase awareness among citizens in the region 17% 10% 20% 15% 15% Reduce leases for residential and commercial premises by owners 14% 18% 7% 17% 14% Cohesion and Monitoring of children by families 14% 6% 7% 6% 8% Dialogues and cooperation among citizen to find solutions 7% 14% 11% 19% 13% Demand for rights through complaints and communication with authorities 7% 2% 13% 4% 6% Provide clean drinking water such as digging wells and buying water tanks 7% 2% 0% 7% 4% Select the right representative from tribes or implement elections 7% 0% 0% 2% 2% Contribution and interest by individuals and groups in the community to maintain basic sanitation level 5% 20% 4% 7% 9% Participation of private sector to fulfill the needs of the local community 5% 8% 13% 9% 9% Collect donation from local community for poor, cover needs, recreational activities and transportation 5% 2% 13% 6% 6% Limit the engagement of Syrians in local communities 5% 10% 0% 4% 5% Abide to laws and communicate with Police to report on any incident 2% 0% 4% 4% 3% acceptance and support to engage Syrians in the local community 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% Through being fair to women 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% Enhance infrastructure in the region through collective participation 0% 4% 2% 2% 2% Provide youth training centers 0% 0% 7% 0% 2% Accept existing work opportunities till better opportunities are offered 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% Move Commercial complexes to another location to reduce crowdedness in the center 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 248 5B. If No to Question #5, Why can’t the community solve this problem without help from the government? Percent of responses by governorate of those who answered No to Q5 (940) Irbid 234 response s Mafraq 245 response s Tafileh 239 response s Ma'an 222 response s Total 940 response s Needs support from relevant entities and authorities such as the municipality, media, & government 72% 60% 59% 65% 64% Because of the lack financial resources and needed tools to solve problems 20% 27% 31% 23% 25% Because of the lack of cooperation in the community and lack of social cohesion 5% 7% 6% 7% 6% Social corruption such as nepotism and favoritism 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Due to lack of proper educational commitment 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Overpopulation and increased numbers of refugees 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% The increased level and accumulation of problems 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Need private sector intervention 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% Because they are personal problems and decisions 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 249 6. What is the most important problem facing your household? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 390 responses Mafraq 408 responses Tafileh 400 responses Ma'an 391 responses Poverty/lack of jobs sources of income 40% 44% 47% 50% Nothing besides unemployment/ poverty 36% 28% 22% 19% Water security 7% 5% 2% 7% Poor Municipal services (sewage, garbage pick up, lighting, roads, etc.) 4% 5% 8% 7% Lack of safe recreational facilities/ spaces to socialize 3% 1% 4% 3% Food security 2% 2% 1% 1% Poor quality of education / overcrowded and ill-equipped schools 2% 3% 3% 2% Security (e.g., increase in crime and/or violence) 2% 2% 0% 0% Lack of or low quality healthcare 2% 2% 4% 3% Lack of affordable housing 1% 5% 6% 5% Lack of services for people with disabilities 1% 1% 1% 1% Transportation 1% 1% 0% 0% High living costs 0% 1% 0% 1% Discrimination against Syrian refugees or other minorities/ vulnerable groups 0% 1% 0% 1% Discrimination against women 0% 0% 1% 0% Radicalization of disengaged youth 0% 0% 0% 1% Expenses for education 0% 1% 0% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 250 7. Can your household solve this problem on their own? A. Yes, How: ___________________ B. No, Why Not: _________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 7A. If Yes to Question #7, ask “How can your household solve this problem on their own? Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 29 responses Mafraq 31 responses Tafileh 38 responses Ma'an 54 responses No problems 48% 23% 3% 2% Building wells 10% 0% 0% 2% Seek a job opportunity 10% 10% 26% 24% Loans 7% 3% 0% 4% Provide job opportunities 7% 7% 8% 4% Rationing water use 3% 0% 0% 0% Enrolling children in private school 3% 0% 0% 2% Medical care from private sector 3% 0% 0% 0% Understanding among people 3% 3% 3% 0% I don't know 3% 7% 13% 13% Increase cooperation between local community members 0% 3% 8% 4% Moving to other premises 0% 0% 0% 6% Reliance on private water provider 0% 13% 0% 3% Accommodate to circumstances 0% 12% 5% 7% Contribute to improve the structure of the street 0% 0% 3% 0% Owning a house 0% 3% 7% 0% Through CBOs 0% 0% 0% 6% Place waste in the right place 0% 0% 0% 1% Accept available job opportunities 0% 3% 3% 0% Work of other family members 0% 10% 13% 6% Overtime work per individual 0% 0% 3% 6% Non-discrimination 0% 3% 0% 0% Pay debts 0% 0% 3% 0% File a complaint 0% 0% 0% 4% Getting married 0% 0% 3% 2% No 59% 67% 61% 65% Yes 7% 8% 10% 14% Don't Know 34% 25% 30% 22% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 251 7B. If replied “no” to question 7 above, ask “Why can’t your household solve this problem on their own?” Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 229 response s Mafraq 255 response s Tafileh 238 response s Ma'an 251 response s Total 973 response s Need intervention and support by relevant entities 47% 40% 45% 46% 44% Bad financial situation 17% 19% 20% 19% 19% Because of unemployment 11% 13% 16% 20% 15% Lack of resources and capabilities 5% 5% 9% 2% 6% Unable to find a solution 2% 4% 6% 8% 5% I do not know 6% 4% 0% 0% 2% Because of administrative corruption (favoritism) 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% The family does not have sufficient authority 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% Lack of cooperation between local community members (With relevant entities) 1% 3% 1% 0% 1% Solution at the level of family is not useful 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% Unable to work 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% High prices (Especially rent) 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% Health condition that affects ability to work 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% High number of refugees (less work opportunities and higher prices) 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% No available places 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Poor quality of education 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Syrians are not allowed to work 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Unify lease by Government 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Because of external intervention 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Because of high fees for permits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 252 8. Can your household solve this problem with support from the community and without governmental intervention? A. Yes, How: ___________________ B. No, Why Not: _________________ C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 8A. If replied “yes” to question 8 above ask, “How can your household solve this problem with support from the community and without governmental intervention?” Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 50 responses Mafraq 53 responses Tafileh 42 responses Ma'an 76 responses Total of 221 responses Cooperation between community members to link youth in the region with work opportunities 24% 53% 24% 22% 30% Develop and fund projects 32% 11% 17% 21% 20% Cooperation of community members and enhance cohesion 4% 9% 10% 18% 11% Yes, but would still need intervention by relevant entities 12% 8% 10% 14% 11% Provide financial assistance by community members 10% 4% 26% 5% 10% Reduce prices of leases by owners in the region 6% 8% 7% 5% 6% Reserve natural resources 6% 4% 0% 12% 6% Facilitate taking loans from individuals with capital in the regions 0% 2% 7% 1% 2% Cooperate to prevent Favoritism 6% 2% 0% 0% 2% No 44% 58% 54% 52% Yes 16% 15% 12% 21% Don't Know 40% 27% 35% 27% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 253 8B. If replied “no” to question 8 above ask, “Why can’t your household solve this problem with support from the community and without governmental intervention?” Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 171 responses Mafraq 229 responses Tafileh 210 responses Ma'an 196 responses Total 806 responses Needs official entities intervention 55% 57% 46% 42% 50% Lack of financial resources and low income per individual 16% 10% 23% 28% 19% Lack of cooperation and mutual opinions among individuals in the region 8% 11% 9% 7% 9% There is no solution 6% 7% 7% 10% 7% Because unemployment is high 7% 5% 6% 5% 6% Solving the problems is bigger than society capability 3% 4% 8% 6% 5% There are no problems 5% 4% 0% 2% 3% The existence of favoritism in the community 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% Tried to do so but no one provided support 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 254 9. Has the overall security situation in your community improved, worsened or remained the same? Worsened 13.8% 12.7% 5.0% 4.6% Improved 10.8% 10.3% 10.5% 32.5% Remained the Same 74.4% 76.2% 83.0% 61.4% Don't know 1.0% 0.7% 1.5% 1.5% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Maan DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 255 9A If replied that the overall security situation in your community improved, to question 9, how so? Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 45 responses Mafraq 43 responses Tafileh 42 responses Ma'an 127 responses Increasing security 53% 58% 29% 23% There are no security problems 18% 7% 2% 0% Low levels of crime and theft 13% 19% 41% 42% Increased level of security 7% 5% 2% 5% By increasing awareness among individual in society 4% 5% 2% 4% Social cohesion 2% 0% 2% 0% Improve the way to deal with people and their needs 2% 0% 2% 2% Pursuit of the wanted outlaws 0% 7% 12% 19% Security entities perform their tasks fully and contain the situation 0% 0% 7% 3% Remove or end administrative corruption 0% 0% 0% 1% Provide work opportunities 0% 0% 0% 1% I don't know 0% 0% 0% 1% 9B If replied that the overall security situation in your community has worsened, to question 9, how so? Percent of responses by governorate of those that answered No to Q9 Irbid 53 respons es Mafraq 51 respons es Tafileh 17 respons es Ma'an 15 respons es Total 0f 136 respons es Increase of population in addition to refugees 17% 39% 18% 13% 25% Increased of crime and thefts 26% 18% 12% 27% 21% Increased level of drugs users 23% 6% 24% 33% 18% Security entities are not performing their role fully 21% 14% 29% 13% 18% Lack of awareness among youth 6% 8% 6% 0% 6% Increased level of problems in community 6% 6% 6% 0% 5% Lack of work opportunity for youth 0% 8% 0% 0% 3% Deterioration of living conditions 0% 2% 0% 13% 2% Increased level of problems 0% 0% 6% 0% 1% Media 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 256 10. Do you sometimes face conflicts/ discords within your community- even if you are not a part of the conflict? A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.18) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.18) 11. If replied “no” or “I don’t know” to question 10 ask, “What is the primary conflict/discord within your community/ between which parties do those conflicts/ discords occur primarily?” (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ – ONE RESPONSE ONLY) A. Between tribal/ethnic groups B. Between individuals C. Between citizens and government D. Between citizens and municipality E. Between citizens and law enforcement F. Other (SPECIFY): _______ Percentage of responses by governorate Irbid 67 responses Mafraq 68 responses Tafileh 65 responses Ma'an 57 responses Between Individuals 70% 68% 57% 35% Between tribal/ethnic groups 22% 22% 40% 37% Deterioration of Security 3% 0% 0% 0% Between citizens and government 2% 3% 2% 16% I don't know 2% 0% 0% 2% No response 2% 7% 0% 0% Between citizens and municipality 0% 0% 2% 0% Between citizens and law enforcement 0% 0% 0% 11% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 257 12. If replied “no” or “I don’t know” to question 10, ask “In your opinion, what is the primary cause of this conflict/discord?” (OPEN ENDED – RECORD VERBATIM) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 67 responses Mafraq 66 responses Tafileh 61 responses Ma'an 57 responses Spread of drugs 31% 18% 8% 19% Lack of awareness 19% 30% 21% 16% Unemployment 16% 8% 13% 9% Shallowness of youth thinking 12% 0% 0% 0% Poverty 6% 3% 5% 2% Tribal habits such as racism 5% 3% 10% 16% Increase numbers of refugees 3% 9% 0% 0% I do not know 3% 8% 12% 4% Lack of security 2% 2% 3% 11% Personal problems 2% 14% 16% 7% Elections 2% 2% 5% 7% Social interaction problems 0% 2% 0% 0% Administrative problems 0% 3% 5% 0% Wrong decisions by the government 0% 0% 2% 4% Marginalizing citizens' rights 0% 0% 0% 4% Discrimination against women 0% 0% 0% 2% Problems among families 0% 0% 0% 2% 13. If replied “no” or “I don’t know” to question 10, ask “Are there existing mechanisms/processes, (whether at the individual level, collective level or institutions), in your community to resolve this discord/conflict?” A. Yes B. No (SKIP TO Q.15) C. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.15) No 51% 53% 34% 51% Yes 37% 44% 62% 39% Don't Know 12% 3% 3% 11% Irbid (67 responses) Mafraq (68 responses) Tafileh (61 responses) Ma'an (57 responses) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 258 14. If replied “yes” to question 13 ask, “Among the existing mechanism/processes to resolve conflict, which one is most effective in your opinion, and why?” (RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE) A. (SPECIFY) _________________________________ B. No effective mechanism (DO NOT READ) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 25 responses Mafraq 30 responses Tafileh 38 responses Ma'an 22 responses Total 115 responses Refer to higher authority (Government, Tribal leaders) 72% 47% 18% 27% 39% Implement tribal rules/laws 12% 7% 24% 50% 22% Raise awareness among youth religiously and culturally 8% 20% 26% 23% 20% I do not know 0% 0% 18% 0% 6% Increase monitoring by Government 4% 10% 0% 0% 3% Provide work opportunities 4% 3% 5% 0% 3% Effective and serious dialogue with relevant entities 0% 3% 5% 0% 3% Channel youth energies towards work or create recreational places 0% 7% 0% 0% 2% Enhance social cohesion and communication 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% There is no effective mechanism 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 15. If replied “no” or “I don’t know” to question 13, ask “For resolution of conflicts/discords, whom do you primarily resort to within your community?” (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) A. Elders or family members B. Distinguished members of the community C. Tribal leaders D. Religious leaders E. Mayor or municipal representatives F. Police G. District Administrative Officers H. Local Government: Governor or governorate level official I. Other: ___________ J. Don’t know (DO NOT READ) DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 259 Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 67 responses Mafraq 68 responses Tafileh 61 responses Ma'an 57 responses Police 52% 44% 28% 23% Elders of family members 22% 27% 39% 33% Tribal leaders 8% 3% 12% 11% Don't know 8% 4% 2% 2% District Administrative Officers 5% 2% 2% 0% Religious leaders 3% 9% 15% 21% Distinguished members of the community 3% 6% 3% 5% Local government or government level officials 0% 6% 0% 5% 16. If responded to question 15 ask, “In your opinion how effective is this mechanism (MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION) for resolution of conflicts/discords?” A. Very effective B. Somewhat effective C. Somewhat ineffective D. Very ineffective E. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 67 responses Mafraq 68 responses Tafileh 61 responses Ma'an 57 responses Very effective 30% 32% 44% 30% Somewhat effective 39% 46% 49% 56% Somewhat ineffective 6% 10% 3% 4% Very ineffective 21% 10% 3% 7% Don't know 5% 2% 0% 4% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 260 17. How often are the people in your community able to solve problems within the community? Is it always, often, sometimes, rarely, or never? A. Always B. Very Often C. Sometimes D. Rarely E. Never F. Don't know (DON'T READ) Governorate Frequency Always Very often Some￾times Rarely Never Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 3 16 23 6 17 2 67 % 4.5% 23.9% 34.3% 9.0% 25.4% 3.0% 100.0% Mafraq Count 7 27 17 6 11 0 68 % 10.3% 39.7% 25.0% 8.8% 16.2% 0.0% 100.0% Tafileh Count 9 28 16 6 2 0 61 % 14.8% 45.9% 26.2% 9.8% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0% Ma’an Count 7 25 15 2 5 3 57 % 12.3% 43.9% 26.3% 3.5% 8.8% 5.3% 100.0% Total Count 26 96 71 20 35 5 253 % 10.3% 37.9% 28.1% 7.9% 13.8% 2.0% 100.0% 18. Over the last year, has your level of trust with other people living in your community increased, decreased or remained the same? A. Increased, Why: ____________________________ B. Decreased, Why: ____________________________ C. Remained the Same D. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Governorate Frequency Increased Decreased Remained the same Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 15 85 290 0 390 % 3.8% 21.8% 74.4% 0.0% 100.0% Mafraq Count 8 82 315 3 408 % 2.0% 20.1% 77.2% .7% 100.0% Tafileh Count 14 75 295 16 400 % 3.5% 18.8% 73.8% 4.0% 100.0% Ma’an Count 32 78 254 27 391 % 8.2% 19.9% 65.0% 6.9% 100.0% Total Count 69 320 1154 46 1589 % 4.3% 20.1% 72.6% 2.9% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 261 18A. If replied “increased” to question 18 ask, “Why would you say that over the last year, your level of trust with other people living in your community has increased?” Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 15 responses Mafraq 8 responses Tafileh 14 responses Ma'an 32 responses Knowing members with good qualities 40% 13% 7% 0% Raise awareness and enhance culture 20% 38% 43% 16% Increase social communication 13% 25% 29% 16% Security and control of community problems 13% 0% 0% 41% Social cohesion 7% 25% 14% 25% Cope with surrounding community 7% 0% 0% 0% Don't know 0% 0% 7% 3% 18B. If replied “decreased” to question 18 ask, “Why would you say that over the last year, your level of trust with other people living in your community has decreased?” Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 85 responses Mafraq 82 responses Tafileh 75 respon ses Ma'an 78 respons es Lack of credibility, respect, and cooperation in community 26% 32% 20% 22% Increase of crime and problems in community 13% 6% 5% 4% Insecurity 13% 4% 4% 3% Lack of moral or religious value 11% 4% 5% 14% Experience and specific life incidents 11% 4% 11% 4% Selfishness/ Lack of cooperation between people 8% 21% 20% 27% Isolation and lack of social relation 6% 12% 19% 8% Bad economic situation 6% 2% 4% 1% Asylum and other new nationalities 2% 15% 4% 10% Personal or family problems 2% 0% 5% 6% Intervention of people in personal issues 0% 0% 1% 0% Lack of Elderly and community leaders to solve problems 1% 0% 0% 0% Don't know 1% 1% 0% 1% The disintegration of the tribe 0% 0% 1% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 262 19. Do you feel that you have a say in the decisions that affect your life? A. Always B. Very Often C. Sometimes D. Rarely E. Never F. Don't know (DON'T READ) Governorate Frequency Always Very often Some￾times Rarely Never Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 109 116 102 29 32 2 390 % 27.9% 29.7% 26.2% 7.4% 8.2% .5% 100.0% Mafraq Count 101 120 93 25 68 1 408 % 24.8% 29.4% 22.8% 6.1% 16.7% .2% 100.0% Tafileh Count 130 105 77 32 54 2 400 % 32.5% 26.3% 19.3% 8.0% 13.5% .5% 100.0% Ma’an Count 117 119 74 22 50 9 391 % 29.9% 30.4% 18.9% 5.6% 12.8% 2.3% 100.0% Total Count 457 460 346 108 204 14 1589 % 28.8% 28.9% 21.8% 6.8% 12.8% .9% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 263 20. To what degree do you trust the following institutions/organizations to make decisions that will affect your life in a positive way? Irbid - Percent of responses (390 total responses) Frequency Trust to a large degree Trust to a moderate degree Neutral neither trust or mistrust Trust to a small degree Don’t trust at all Don't know Total Percent A. Central government Frequency 72 132 28 19 113 26 390 Percent 18.5% 33.8% 7.2% 4.9% 29.0% 6.7% 100.0% B. Parliamentary representatives Frequency 36 71 22 33 210 18 390 Percent 9.2% 18.2% 5.6% 8.5% 53.8% 4.6% 100.0% C. Governor Frequency 43 100 65 21 77 84 390 Percent 11.0% 25.6% 16.7% 5.4% 19.7% 21.5% 100.0% D. Ministry Directorates at the governorate level (Local Government) Frequency 46 111 26 23 145 39 390 Percent 11.8% 28.5% 6.7% 5.9% 37.2% 10.0% 100.0% E. Mayor Frequency 113 131 21 15 94 16 390 Percent 29.0% 33.6% 5.4% 3.8% 24.1% 4.1% 100.0% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 61 145 24 27 102 31 390 Percent 15.6% 37.2% 6.2% 6.9% 26.2% 7.9% 100.0% G. Police Frequency 266 71 8 12 25 8 390 Percent 68.2% 18.2% 2.1% 3.1% 6.4% 2.1% 100.0% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 120 97 36 10 39 88 390 Percent 30.8% 24.9% 9.2% 2.6% 10.0% 22.6% 100.0% I. Religious leaders Frequency 103 143 27 20 51 46 390 Percent 26.4% 36.7% 6.9% 5.1% 13.1% 11.8% 100.0% J. International NGOs Frequency 22 65 47 26 81 149 390 Percent 5.6% 16.7% 12.1% 6.7% 20.8% 38.2% 100.0% K. Local NGOs Frequency 27 71 38 31 97 126 390 Percent 6.9% 18.2% 9.7% 7.9% 24.9% 32.3% 100.0% Mafraq - Percent of responses (408 total responses) Frequency Trust to a large degree Trust to a moderate degree Neutral neither trust or mistrust Trust to a small degree Don’t trust at all Don't know Total Percent A. Central government Frequency 79 135 69 30 84 11 408 Percent 19.4% 33.1% 16.9% 7.4% 20.6% 2.7% 100.0% B. Parliamentary representatives Frequency 31 99 66 39 161 12 408 Percent 7.6% 24.3% 16.2% 9.6% 39.5% 2.9% 100.0% C. Governor Frequency 57 147 80 24 67 33 408 Percent 14.0% 36.0% 19.6% 5.9% 16.4% 8.1% 100.0% D. Ministry Directorates at the governorate level (Local Government) Frequency 44 139 65 27 115 18 408 Percent 10.8% 34.1% 15.9% 6.6% 28.2% 4.4% 100.0% E. Mayor Frequency 86 137 47 32 95 11 408 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 264 Percent 21.1% 33.6% 11.5% 7.8% 23.3% 2.7% 100.0% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 64 141 53 32 103 15 408 Percent 15.7% 34.6% 13.0% 7.8% 25.2% 3.7% 100.0% G. Police Frequency 291 76 17 7 16 1 408 Percent 71.3% 18.6% 4.2% 1.7% 3.9% .2% 100.0% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 144 119 62 17 45 21 408 Percent 35.3% 29.2% 15.2% 4.2% 11.0% 5.1% 100.0% I. Religious leaders Frequency 137 149 62 24 33 3 408 Percent 33.6% 36.5% 15.2% 5.9% 8.1% .7% 100.0% J. International NGOs Frequency 37 109 92 27 84 59 408 Percent 9.1% 26.7% 22.5% 6.6% 20.6% 14.5% 100.0% K. Local NGOs Frequency 28 118 88 31 104 39 408 Percent 6.9% 28.9% 21.6% 7.6% 25.5% 9.6% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 265 Tafileh - Percent of responses (400 total responses) Frequency Trust to a large degree Trust to a moderat e degree Neutral neither trust or mistrust Trust to a small degree Don’t trust at all Don' t know Total Percent A. Central government Frequency 46 106 45 47 141 15 400 Percent 11.5% 26.5% 11.3% 11.8% 35.3% 3.8% 100.0% B. Parliamentary representatives Frequency 15 49 30 56 248 2 400 Percent 3.8% 12.3% 7.5% 14.0% 62.0% .5% 100.0% C. Governor Frequency 33 90 56 52 136 33 400 Percent 8.3% 22.5% 14.0% 13.0% 34.0% 8.3% 100.0% D. Ministry Directorates at the governorate level (Local Government) Frequency 15 107 51 46 171 10 400 Percent 3.8% 26.8% 12.8% 11.5% 42.8% 2.5% 100.0% E. Mayor Frequency 91 102 40 46 113 8 400 Percent 22.8% 25.5% 10.0% 11.5% 28.3% 2.0% 100.0% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 51 108 55 48 118 20 400 Percent 12.8% 27.0% 13.8% 12.0% 29.5% 5.0% 100.0% G. Police Frequency 264 76 13 18 27 2 400 Percent 66.0% 19.0% 3.3% 4.5% 6.8% .5% 100.0% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 133 90 45 20 74 38 400 Percent 33.3% 22.5% 11.3% 5.0% 18.5% 9.5% 100.0% I. Religious leaders Frequency 113 145 46 33 55 8 400 Percent 28.3% 36.3% 11.5% 8.3% 13.8% 2.0% 100.0% J. International NGOs Frequency 30 86 69 34 102 79 400 Percent 7.5% 21.5% 17.3% 8.5% 25.5% 19.8 % 100.0% K. Local NGOs Frequency 22 98 76 25 111 68 400 Percent 5.5% 24.5% 19.0% 6.3% 27.8% 17.0 % 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 266 Ma’an - Percent of responses (391 total responses) Frequency Trust to a large degree Trust to a moderate degree Neutral neither trust or mistrust Trust to a small degree Don’t trust at all Don't know Total Percent A. Central government Frequency 76 103 55 40 108 9 391 Percent 19.4% 26.3% 14.1% 10.2% 27.6% 2.3% 100.0% B. Parliamentary representatives Frequency 28 51 40 35 228 9 391 Percent 7.2% 13.0% 10.2% 9.0% 58.3% 2.3% 100.0% C. Governor Frequency 64 117 59 27 92 32 391 Percent 16.4% 29.9% 15.1% 6.9% 23.5% 8.2% 100.0% D. Ministry Directorates at the governorate level (Local Government) Frequency 34 115 54 33 129 26 391 Percent 8.7% 29.4% 13.8% 8.4% 33.0% 6.6% 100.0% E. Mayor Frequency 178 118 23 15 47 10 391 Percent 45.5% 30.2% 5.9% 3.8% 12.0% 2.6% 100.0% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 108 135 41 15 61 31 391 Percent 27.6% 34.5% 10.5% 3.8% 15.6% 7.9% 100.0% G. Police Frequency 231 101 16 14 24 5 391 Percent 59.1% 25.8% 4.1% 3.6% 6.1% 1.3% 100.0% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 151 106 38 17 55 24 391 Percent 38.6% 27.1% 9.7% 4.3% 14.1% 6.1% 100.0% I. Religious leaders Frequency 81 144 52 41 56 17 391 Percent 20.7% 36.8% 13.3% 10.5% 14.3% 4.3% 100.0% J. International NGOs Frequency 36 77 69 29 84 96 391 Percent 9.2% 19.7% 17.6% 7.4% 21.5% 24.6% 100.0% K. Local NGOs Frequency 26 97 69 31 93 75 391 Percent 6.6% 24.8% 17.6% 7.9% 23.8% 19.2% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 267 21. When it comes to participation in the different formal elections and informal decision-making processes, do you: actively participate, sometimes participate, or never participate? Formal and informal engagement Processes Count / % within G4 Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know A. Parliamentary Elections Count 915 249 361 9 % within G4- Governorate 59.6% 16.2% 23.5% .6% B. Informal Tribal Elections Count 382 165 838 149 % within G4- Governorate 24.9% 10.8% 54.6% 9.7% C. Municipal Elections Count 824 197 484 29 % within G4- Governorate 53.7% 12.8% 31.6% 1.9% D. Town halls and public meetings with municipality/government Count 139 209 948 238 % within G4- Governorate 9.1% 13.6% 61.8% 15.5% E. Community members working together to prioritize problems and find solutions Count 114 217 963 240 % within G4- Governorate 7.4% 14.1% 62.8% 15.6% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 268 Irbid - Percent of responses (390 total responses) Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know Total A. Parliamentary Elections Frequency 259 37 82 1 379 Percent 68.3% 9.8% 21.6% .3% 100% B. Informal Tribal Elections Frequency 110 22 181 66 379 Percent 29.0% 5.8% 47.8% 17.4% 100% C. Municipal Elections Frequency 250 41 88 0 379 Percent 66.0% 10.8% 23.2% 0.0% 100% D. Town halls/ public meetings with municipality/ government Frequency 40 47 193 99 379 Percent 10.6% 12.4% 50.9% 26.1% 100% E. Community members working together Frequency 37 48 198 96 379 Percent 9.8% 12.7% 52.2% 25.3% 100% Mafraq - Percent of responses (408 total responses) Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know Total A. Parliamentary Elections Frequency 235 66 85 3 389 Percent 60.4% 17.0% 21.9% .8% 100% B. Informal Tribal Elections Frequency 103 46 209 31 389 Percent 26.5% 11.8% 53.7% 8.0% 100% C. Municipal Elections Frequency 196 56 127 10 389 Percent 50.4% 14.4% 32.6% 2.6% 100% D. Town halls/ public meetings with municipality/ government Frequency 37 61 262 29 389 Percent 9.5% 15.7% 67.4% 7.5% 100% E. Community members working together Frequency 32 66 263 28 389 Percent 8.2% 17.0% 67.6% 7.2% 100% Tafileh - Percent of responses (400 total responses) Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know Total A. Parliamentary Elections Frequency 210 73 106 4 393 Percent 53.4% 18.6% 27.0% 1.0% 100% B. Informal Tribal Elections Frequency 91 47 223 32 393 Percent 23.2% 12.0% 56.7% 8.1% 100% C. Municipal Elections Frequency 190 44 147 12 393 Percent 48.3% 11.2% 37.4% 3.1% 100% D. Town halls/ public meetings with municipality/ government Frequency 33 49 254 57 393 Percent 8.4% 12.5% 64.6% 14.5% 100% E. Community members working together Frequency 25 54 256 58 393 Percent 6.4% 13.7% 65.1% 14.8% 100.0% Ma’an - Percent of responses (391 total responses) Actively participate Sometimes participate Never participate Don't know Total A. Parliamentary Elections Frequency 211 73 88 1 373 Percent 56.6% 19.6% 23.6% .3% 100% B. Informal Tribal Elections Frequency 78 50 225 20 373 Percent 20.9% 13.4% 60.3% 5.4% 100% C. Municipal Elections Frequency 188 56 122 7 373 Percent 50.4% 15.0% 32.7% 1.9% 100% D. Town halls/ public meetings with municipality/ government Frequency 29 52 239 53 373 Percent 7.8% 13.9% 64.1% 14.2% 100% E. Community members working together Frequency 20 49 246 58 373 Percent 5.4% 13.1% 66.0% 15.5% 100% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 269 22. When it comes to the responsiveness to your community needs, what is the level of responsiveness of the following institutions, very responsive, moderately responsive, or not responsive? Key decision￾making institutions, organizations, or actors Count / % within G4 Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know (DO NOT READ) A. Central government Count 127 697 654 111 % within G4- Governorate 8.0% 43.9% 41.2% 7.0% B. Parliament members Count 56 473 977 83 % within G4- Governorate 3.5% 29.8% 61.5% 5.2% C. Governor Count 159 675 535 220 % within G4- Governorate 10.0% 42.5% 33.7% 13.8% D. Health and Education Directorates Count 149 805 485 150 % within G4- Governorate 9.4% 50.7% 30.5% 9.4% E. Mayor Count 463 655 414 57 % within G4- Governorate 29.1% 41.2% 26.1% 3.6% F. Municipal council representatives Count 289 739 452 109 % within G4- Governorate 18.2% 46.5% 28.4% 6.9% G. Police Count 995 448 114 32 % within G4- Governorate 62.6% 28.2% 7.2% 2.0% H. Tribal leaders Count 509 552 292 236 % within G4- Governorate 32.0% 34.7% 18.4% 14.9% I. Religious leaders Count 377 748 285 179 % within G4- Governorate 23.7% 47.1% 17.9% 11.3% J. International NGOs Count 87 507 418 577 % within G4- Governorate 5.5% 31.9% 26.3% 36.3% K. Local NGOs Count 82 545 474 488 % within G4- Governorate 5.2% 34.3% 29.8% 30.7% L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) Count 134 606 491 358 % within G4- Governorate 8.4% 38.1% 30.9% 22.5% M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity Count 403 850 252 84 % within G4- Governorate 25.4% 53.5% 15.9% 5.3% N. Media Count 57 578 511 443 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 270 % within G4- Governorate 3.6% 36.4% 32.2% 27.9% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 271 Irbid - Percent of responses (390 total responses) Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know Total A. Central government Frequency 27 157 167 39 390 Percent 6.9% 40.3% 42.8% 10.0% 100% B. Parliament members Frequency 14 111 240 25 390 Percent 3.6% 28.5% 61.5% 6.4% 100% C. Governor Frequency 31 134 122 103 390 Percent 7.9% 34.4% 31.3% 26.4% 100% D. Health and Education Directorates or other directorates at the governorate level Frequency 42 190 113 45 390 Percent 10.8% 48.7% 29.0% 11.5% 100% E. Mayor Frequency 131 138 108 13 390 Percent 33.6% 35.4% 27.7% 3.3% 100% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 77 161 126 26 390 Percent 19.7% 41.3% 32.3% 6.7% 100% G. Police Frequency 230 107 39 14 390 Percent 59.0% 27.4% 10.0% 3.6% 100% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 114 105 60 111 390 Percent 29.2% 26.9% 15.4% 28.5% 100% I. Religious leaders Frequency 88 164 75 63 390 Percent 22.6% 42.1% 19.2% 16.2% 100% J. International NGOs Frequency 12 101 90 187 390 Percent 3.1% 25.9% 23.1% 47.9% 100% K. Local NGOs Frequency 13 104 106 167 390 Percent 3.3% 26.7% 27.2% 42.8% 100% L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) Frequency 16 128 120 126 390 Percent 4.1% 32.8% 30.8% 32.3% 100% M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity Frequency 89 174 85 42 390 Percent 22.8% 44.6% 21.8% 10.8% 100% N. Media Frequency 12 133 100 145 390 Percent 3.1% 34.1% 25.6% 37.2% 100 % Mafraq - Percent of responses (408 total responses) Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know Total A. Central government Frequency 31 198 155 24 408 Percent 7.6% 48.5% 38.0% 5.9% 100% B. Parliament members Frequency 16 164 198 30 408 Percent 3.9% 40.2% 48.5% 7.4% 100% C. Governor Frequency 41 203 117 47 408 Percent 10.0% 49.8% 28.7% 11.5% 100% D. Health and Education Directorates or other directorates at the governorate level Frequency 38 215 125 30 408 Percent 9.3% 52.7% 30.6% 7.4% 100% E. Mayor Frequency 82 186 128 12 408 Percent 20.1% 45.6% 31.4% 2.9% 100% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 55 207 131 15 408 Percent 13.5% 50.7% 32.1% 3.7% 100% G. Police Frequency 263 118 23 4 408 Percent 64.5% 28.9% 5.6% 1.0% 100% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 121 179 66 42 408 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 272 Percent 29.7% 43.9% 16.2% 10.3% 100% I. Religious leaders Frequency 110 207 62 29 408 Percent 27.0% 50.7% 15.2% 7.1% 100% J. International NGOs Frequency 26 154 122 106 408 Percent 6.4% 37.7% 29.9% 26.0% 100% K. Local NGOs Frequency 28 162 135 83 408 Percent 6.9% 39.7% 33.1% 20.3% 100% L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) Frequency 18 160 131 99 408 Percent 4.4% 39.2% 32.1% 24.3% 100% M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity Frequency 85 234 71 18 408 Percent 20.8% 57.4% 17.4% 4.4% 100% N. Media Frequency 14 158 129 107 408 Percent 3.4% 38.7% 31.6% 26.2% 100% Tafileh - Percent of responses (400 total responses) Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know Total A. Central government Frequency 27 154 194 25 400 Percent 6.8% 38.5% 48.5% 6.3% 100% B. Parliament members Frequency 10 88 293 9 400 Percent 2.5% 22.0% 73.3% 2.3% 100% C. Governor Frequency 31 160 178 31 400 Percent 7.8% 40.0% 44.5% 7.8% 100% D. Health and Education Directorates or other directorates at the governorate level Frequency 34 191 142 33 400 Percent 8.5% 47.8% 35.5% 8.3% 100% E. Mayor Frequency 89 173 125 13 400 Percent 22.3% 43.3% 31.3% 3.3% 100% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 56 185 135 24 400 Percent 14.0% 46.3% 33.8% 6.0% 100% G. Police Frequency 271 100 20 9 400 Percent 67.8% 25.0% 5.0% 2.3% 100% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 129 133 91 47 400 Percent 32.3% 33.3% 22.8% 11.8% 100% I. Religious leaders Frequency 115 183 74 28 400 Percent 28.8% 45.8% 18.5% 7.0% 100% J. International NGOs Frequency 23 136 111 130 400 Percent 5.8% 34.0% 27.8% 32.5% 100% K. Local NGOs Frequency 23 133 128 116 400 Percent 5.8% 33.3% 32.0% 29.0% 100% L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) Frequency 56 146 133 65 400 Percent 14.0% 36.5% 33.3% 16.3% 100 % M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity Frequency 111 218 54 17 400 Percent 27.8% 54.5% 13.5% 4.3% 100% N. Media Frequency 16 151 141 92 400 Percent 4.0% 37.8% 35.3% 23.0% 100.0% Ma’an - Percent of responses (391 total responses) Very responsive Moderately responsive Not Responsive Don't know Total A. Central government Frequency 42 188 138 23 391 Percent 10.7% 48.1% 35.3% 5.9% 100% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 273 B. Parliament members Frequency 16 110 246 19 391 Percent 4.1% 28.1% 62.9% 4.9% 100% C. Governor Frequency 56 178 118 39 391 Percent 14.3% 45.5% 30.2% 10.0% 100% D. Health and Education Directorates or other directorates at the governorate level Frequency 35 209 105 42 391 Percent 9.0% 53.5% 26.9% 10.7% 100% E. Mayor Frequency 161 158 53 19 391 Percent 41.2% 40.4% 13.6% 4.9% 100% F. Municipal council representatives Frequency 101 186 60 44 391 Percent 25.8% 47.6% 15.3% 11.3% 100% G. Police Frequency 231 123 32 5 391 Percent 59.1% 31.5% 8.2% 1.3% 100% H. Tribal leaders Frequency 145 135 75 36 391 Percent 37.1% 34.5% 19.2% 9.2% 100% I. Religious leaders Frequency 64 194 74 59 391 Percent 16.4% 49.6% 18.9% 15.1% 100% J. International NGOs Frequency 26 116 95 154 391 Percent 6.6% 29.7% 24.3% 39.4% 100% K. Local NGOs Frequency 18 146 105 122 391 Percent 4.6% 37.3% 26.9% 31.2% 100% L. Private Sector (Businesses in your area) Frequency 44 172 107 68 391 Percent 11.3% 44.0% 27.4% 17.4% 100% M. Utility Companies that provide water and electricity Frequency 118 224 42 7 391 Percent 30.2% 57.3% 10.7% 1.8% 100% N. Media Frequency 15 136 141 99 391 Percent 3.8% 34.8% 36.1% 25.3% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 274 23. How would you characterize the relationship between your community and the Governor’s office? A. Very Good B. Good C. Bad (SKIP TO Q.25) D. Very Bad (SKIP TO Q.25) E. No Relationship (SKIP TO Q.25) F. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.25) 24. Why do you say that, what accounts for this relationship being good? (OPEN ENDED) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 181 responses Mafraq 212 responses Tafileh 149 responses Ma'an 169 responses Responsiveness of Governmental entities to demands and providing services 28% 43% 35% 30% Enhanced relation due to continuous cooperation and communication 19% 22% 20% 21% Don't know 19% 14% 17% 8% Variety in providing services by Governmental entities 17% 10% 10% 18% There are no conflicts with entities 6% 4% 9% 10% Abiding to rules and tasks 6% 5% 3% 8% Kind and proper behavior 3% 0% 1% 0% Interest in the region and community members 3% 1% 0% 0% Because they are from the same region 1% 1% 5% 5% Nothing 1% 1% 0% 1% Percent of responses by governorate Very good Good Bad Very bad No relation￾ship Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 38 137 51 31 51 82 390 Percent 9.7% 35.1% 13.1% 7.9% 13.1% 21.0% 100% Mafraq Frequency 35 168 69 17 51 68 408 Percent 8.6% 41.2% 16.9% 4.2% 12.5% 16.7% 100% Tafileh Percent 17 115 78 32 72 86 400 Percent 4.3% 28.8% 19.5% 8.0% 18.0% 21.5% 100% Ma’an Frequency 30 134 70 20 58 79 391 Percent 7.7% 34.3% 17.9% 5.1% 14.8% 20.2% 100% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 275 25. How would you characterize the relationship between your community and the mayor or municipal representatives? A. Very Good B. Good C. Bad (SKIP TO Q.28) D. Very Bad (SKIP TO Q.28) E. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.28) 26. How can this relationship be improved/ be even better? (OPEN ENDED) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 390 responses Mafraq 405 responses Tafileh 399 responses Ma'an 391 responses I do not know 52% 37% 32% 30% Collective work towards the interest of community 10% 7% 12% 13% Relation is good originally 8% 5% 2% 4% Regular meetings, Continuous communication between the two parties 7% 23% 6% 6% Respond to region services needs 5% 5% 14% 14% Responsiveness to proposed suggestion and presented complaints 4% 2% 3% 3% There is no solution 3% 3% 6% 5% Dialogue and respecting the opinion of each other 3% 5% 4% 8% Communicate directly with individuals from the regions and show interest in their problems 2% 5% 8% 8% Elimination of nepotism and favoritism 2% 4% 4% 2% Proceed with work for the best interest of region 1% 1% 0% 0% Appoint competent municipality representatives to facilitate communication 1% 3% 4% 2% Focus efforts to receive assistance to start work 1% 0% 4% 5% Independence of some member's decisions 0% 0% 0% 0% The independence of some representative's decisions 0% 1% 2% 0% Percent of responses by governorate Very good Good Bad Very bad Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 38 121 28 13 190 390 Percent 9.7% 31.0% 7.2% 3.3% 48.7% 100.0% Mafraq Frequency 44 134 57 24 149 408 Percent 10.8% 32.8% 14.0% 5.9% 36.5% 100.0% Tafileh Percent 43 146 54 35 122 400 Percent 10.8% 36.5% 13.5% 8.8% 30.5% 100.0% Ma’an Frequency 98 143 27 8 115 391 Percent 25.1% 36.6% 6.9% 2.0% 29.4% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 276 27. In your opinion, what is the most effective mechanism/approach to ensuring that the government is responsive to your community needs? (OPEN ENDED) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 154 responses Mafraq 168 responses Tafileh 147 responses Ma'an 195 responses Discuss and debate with Government through seminars, meetings or directly 25% 36% 12% 12% Protest, demonstrations and strikes 20% 4% 17% 19% Appoint a group from the community who are qualified to represent everyone, e.g., tribal leaders 8% 11% 14% 12% Don’t know 7% 11% 4% 5% Communicate more with citizens 6% 10% 16% 12% Complaints to the relevant entity 5% 7% 5% 3% Nothing 5% 1% 3% 17% Increased monitoring of the Government 4% 0% 1% 2% Elimination of nepotism and favoritism 3% 3% 7% 3% Persistence and follow-up in the submission of the application or complaint 3% 5% 3% 2% Nepotism and favoritism 3% 1% 2% 2% Through the media and social networking sites 2% 1% 5% 4% Choosing the competent person 2% 1% 3% 3% Work collectively 1% 1% 0% 1% The Government is originally responsive 1% 0% 0% 1% Work on improving economy 1% 2% 0% 1% Elect Ministers instead of appointing them 1% 0% 0% 0% Population to respect Government work 1% 1% 1% 1% Wider authority to decision executors 1% 1% 0% 0% State of law 1% 0% 2% 1% Dismiss municipal councils to be assigned by the Prime Minister 1% 0% 0% 0% Credibility with citizens 1% 1% 3% 1% Intervention of higher administrative decision makers 0% 1% 1% 1% Government should be more informative 0% 1% 0% 0% Pressure by public opinion 0% 1% 2% 1% Decentralization 0% 1% 1% 1% Enhance planning 0% 0% 0% 1% The one responsible from the region 0% 1% 0% 0% Work with dedication towards the interest of citizens 0% 0% 0% 1% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 277 28. How do you hold your mayor accountable? Percentage of responses by governorate Irbid 154 responses Mafraq 168 responses Tafileh 147 responses Ma'an 195 responses Communicate with the Mayor directly or through phone 40% 37% 21% 21% I do not know 23% 23% 20% 25% Provide routine complaint through the complaints and summons routine system 9% 9% 15% 13% Cannot be prosecuted 7% 5% 9% 13% Using administrative hierarchy in the complaint 4% 7% 8% 4% File a complaint to the Ministry of Municipalities 3% 5% 7% 4% Make a complaint through tribal leaders 3% 1% 0% 1% Open dialogue and discussion with the Mayor and representatives from the community 2% 2% 3% 6% Through municipal members 2% 2% 1% 0% There is no need, as the Mayor is fulfilling's his tasks to the fullest 2% 0% 2% 2% Hold him accountable verbally 2% 0% 1% 2% Through personal connections 1% 0% 1% 0% Complaint through means of the press and media 1% 1% 1% 1% Through legal prosecution 1% 5% 5% 3% Protest and demonstration 1% 0% 0% 0% Make a complaint through the control and inspection 1% 2% 1% 0% By suspending him from work 1% 1% 0% 1% Establish committees to monitor his work 0% 1% 1% 0% Nothing 0% 1% 5% 4% Make a complaint through social media 0% 0% 0% 0% Make a complaint through the Royal Court 0% 0% 1% 0% Refused to answer 0% 0% 0% 0% EQ3 Findings DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 278 29. In addition to projects that focus on poverty and unemployment, what are some other kinds of projects that can address the problems faced by your community, whether funded by the government or international donors? (OPEN ENDED – DO NOT READ) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 389 responses Mafraq 381 responses Tafileh 400 responses Ma'an 391 responses Investment and operational projects 51% 63% 25% 27% Recreational places such as parks, playgrounds, malls, clubs, and swimming pools 10% 11% 23% 21% I do not know 10% 7% 13% 12% Nothing 10% 8% 13% 15% Build a hospital and health center and improve the old ones 6% 1% 5% 6% Open new school and renovate and enhance services in old schools 2% 2% 2% 1% Educational courses 2% 1% 3% 1% Water well 2% 1% 1% 1% Build a college or a university 1% 0% 1% 0% Vocational trainings 1% 1% 6% 6% Nurseries and kindergartens 1% 0% 1% 0% Wedding venue 1% 0% 0% 0% Olive oil mills 1% 0% 0% 0% Improve infrastructure 1% 2% 4% 4% Vegetables store 1% 1% 0% 0% A public library 1% 0% 0% 1% Tailor shop 1% 0% 1% 0% Centers to provide awareness sessions for all segments of society 1% 1% 1% 1% Planting trees to beautify the area 1% 0% 0% 2% Banks 1% 0% 0% 0% Private associations to teach those with special needs 0% 0% 0% 0% Restaurant 0% 0% 0% 0% Bakery 0% 0% 0% 0% Military and civilian institutions 0% 0% 0% 0% Gas station 0% 0% 0% 0% Recycling waste 0% 0% 0% 0% Secure transportation for the region 0% 0% 1% 0% A center for religious courses 0% 1% 0% 1% School for literacy 0% 0% 0% 0% Renewable Energy Project 0% 0% 0% 1% Provide security element 0% 0% 0% 0% Promote tourism in Jordan 0% 0% 1% 0% Military school 0% 0% 1% 0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 279 30. Is your family receiving humanitarian assistance? A. Yes B. No C. Not Sure / Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) 31. Does your community host any Syrians? A. Yes B. No C. Not sure 32. Did you host any Syrians in your home? A. Yes B. No Percent of responses by governorate Yes No Total Irbid Frequency 6 5 11 Percent 54.5% 45.5% 100.0% Mafraq Frequency 10 8 18 Percent 55.6% 44.4% 100.0% Tafileh Percent 0 2 2 Percent 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% Ma’an Frequency 7 7 14 Percent 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% Percent of responses by governorate Yes No Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 318 60 1 379 Percent 83.9% 15.8% .3% 100.0% Mafraq Frequency 386 2 1 389 Percent 99.2% .5% .3% 100.0% Tafileh Percent 292 90 11 393 Percent 74.3% 22.9% 2.8% 100.0% Ma’an Frequency 355 16 2 373 Percent 95.2% 4.3% .5% 100.0% Percent of responses by governorate Yes No Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 29 292 321 29 Percent 9.0% 91.0% 100.0% 9.0% Mafraq Frequency 90 297 387 90 Percent 23.3% 76.7% 100.0% 23.3% Tafileh Percent 22 287 309 22 Percent 7.1% 92.9% 100.0% 7.1% Ma’an Frequency 26 331 357 26 Percent 7.3% 92.7% 100.0% 7.3% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 280 33. Did you extend any other help to Syrians during the last six months? 1. Yes 2. No 36. Since the onset of the Syrian Crisis, as Syrians have come to Jordan to seek refuge, has this affected the following in your community: Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way No, it has not affected my community in any way Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) A. Job Security B. Quality of Medical Treatment C. Access to Medical Treatment D. Quality of Education E. Your family and neighborhood security F. Access to affordable housing G. Access and availability of water H. Municipal waste services I. Culture, norms and values Percent of responses by governorate Yes No Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 205 174 379 205 Percent 54.1% 45.9% 100.0% 54.1% Mafraq Frequency 226 163 389 226 Percent 58.1% 41.9% 100.0% 58.1% Tafileh Percent 151 242 393 151 Percent 38.4% 61.6% 100.0% 38.4% Ma’an Frequency 169 204 373 169 Percent 45.3% 54.7% 100.0% 45.3% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 281 Irbid - Percent of responses (379 total responses) Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way Don’t know No, it has not affected my community in any way Total A. Job security Frequency 22 278 11 68 379 Percent 5.8% 73.4% 2.9% 17.9% 100.0% B. Quality of medical treatment Frequency 18 215 13 133 379 Percent 4.7% 56.7% 3.4% 35.1% 100.0% C. Access to medical treatment Percent 18 189 13 159 379 Percent 4.7% 49.9% 3.4% 42.0% 100.0% D. Quality of education Frequency 17 222 9 131 379 Percent 4.5% 58.6% 2.4% 34.6% 100.0% E. Your family and neighborhood security Frequency 19 149 12 199 379 Percent 5.0% 39.3% 3.2% 52.5% 100.0% F. Access to affordable housing Frequency 24 206 9 140 379 Percent 6.3% 54.4% 2.4% 36.9% 100.0% G. Access and availability of water Frequency 23 192 9 155 379 Percent 6.1% 50.7% 2.4% 40.9% 100.0% H. Municipal waste services Frequency 14 174 8 183 379 Percent 3.7% 45.9% 2.1% 48.3% 100.0% I. Culture, norms, and values Frequency 15 128 17 219 379 Percent 4.0% 33.8% 4.5% 57.8% 100.0% Mafraq - Percent of responses (389 total responses) Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way Don’t know No, it has not affected my community in any way Total A. Job security Frequency 14 311 2 62 389 Percent 3.6% 79.9% .5% 15.9% 100.0% B. Quality of medical treatment Frequency 9 279 2 99 389 Percent 2.3% 71.7% .5% 25.4% 100.0% C. Access to medical treatment Frequency 10 270 2 107 389 Percent 2.6% 69.4% .5% 27.5% 100.0% D. Quality of education Frequency 11 259 1 118 389 Percent 2.8% 66.6% .3% 30.3% 100.0% E. Your family and neighborhood security Frequency 11 243 3 132 389 Percent 2.8% 62.5% .8% 33.9% 100.0% F. Access to affordable housing Frequency 14 339 1 35 389 Percent 3.6% 87.1% .3% 9.0% 100.0% G. Access and availability of water Frequency 12 286 1 90 389 Percent 3.1% 73.5% .3% 23.1% 100.0% H. Municipal waste services Frequency 12 285 0 92 389 Percent 3.1% 73.3% 0.0% 23.7% 100.0% I. Culture, norms, and values Frequency 12 241 2 134 389 Percent 3.1% 62.0% .5% 34.4% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 282 Tafileh - Percent of responses (393 total responses) Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way Don’t know No, it has not affected my community in any way Total A. Job security Frequency 20 254 7 112 393 Percent 5.1% 64.6% 1.8% 28.5% 100.0% B. Quality of medical treatment Frequency 10 217 6 160 393 Percent 2.5% 55.2% 1.5% 40.7% 100.0% C. Access to medical treatment Frequency 12 204 5 172 393 Percent 3.1% 51.9% 1.3% 43.8% 100.0% D. Quality of education Frequency 15 200 5 173 393 Percent 3.8% 50.9% 1.3% 44.0% 100.0% E. Your family and neighborhood security Frequency 11 170 8 204 393 Percent 2.8% 43.3% 2.0% 51.9% 100.0% F. Access to affordable housing Frequency 14 245 9 125 393 Percent 3.6% 62.3% 2.3% 31.8% 100.0% G. Access and availability of water Frequency 8 193 8 184 393 Percent 2.0% 49.1% 2.0% 46.8% 100.0% H. Municipal waste services Frequency 10 186 10 187 393 Percent 2.5% 47.3% 2.5% 47.6% 100.0% I. Culture, norms, and values Frequency 11 176 9 197 393 Percent 2.8% 44.8% 2.3% 50.1% 100.0% Ma’an - Percent of responses (373 total responses) Yes, it has affected my community in a positive way Yes, it has affected my community in a negative way Don’t know No, it has not affected my community in any way Total A. Job security Frequency 18 323 3 29 373 Percent 4.8% 86.6% .8% 7.8% 100.0% B. Quality of medical treatment Frequency 13 284 6 70 373 Percent 3.5% 76.1% 1.6% 18.8% 100.0% C. Access to medical treatment Frequency 13 278 6 76 373 Percent 3.5% 74.5% 1.6% 20.4% 100.0% D. Quality of education Frequency 15 274 5 79 373 Percent 4.0% 73.5% 1.3% 21.2% 100.0% E. Your family and neighborhood security Frequency 12 242 7 112 373 Percent 3.2% 64.9% 1.9% 30.0% 100.0% F. Access to affordable housing Frequency 20 325 3 25 373 Percent 5.4% 87.1% .8% 6.7% 100.0% G. Access and availability of water Frequency 15 286 6 66 373 Percent 4.0% 76.7% 1.6% 17.7% 100.0% H. Municipal waste services Frequency 14 266 9 84 373 Percent 3.8% 71.3% 2.4% 22.5% 100.0% I. Culture, norms, and values Frequency 11 251 9 102 373 Percent 2.9% 67.3% 2.4% 27.3% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 283 37. In your opinion, are the perspectives of the entire community, including men, women, youth and minorities adequately captured in the decisions affecting your community? a. Yes b. No. If no, why do you say that, and why is this the case? ___________ c. Don’t Know 37B. If replied “no” to question 37, why do you think the perspectives of the entire community, including men, women, youth and minorities are not adequately captured in the decisions affecting your community? Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 127 responses Mafraq 136 responses Tafileh 123 responses Ma'an 123 responses Taking into account only the opinions of officials or representatives in the region, neglecting other segments of community 37% 46% 24% 27% Nepotism and favoritism 16% 2% 7% 7% I do not know what is the reason for lack of interest in the opinions of all segments 10% 4% 2% 1% I don't know 10% 10% 7% 8% Centralization of decision-making 8% 7% 7% 9% Masculine society, taking the opinion of men as per culture and traditions 6% 9% 23% 29% Different views 6% 15% 0% 2% Because debate and dialogue do not have credibility among all segments of society 3% 5% 8% 4% No democracy 2% 0% 19% 11% Spread of tribal issues 1% 2% 2% 2% Take into consideration all adults age groups 1% 0% 2% 1% Refused to answer 0% 0% 0% 1% Percent of responses by governorate Yes No Don't know Total Irbid Frequency 132 127 131 390 Percent 33.8% 32.6% 33.6% 100.0% Mafraq Frequency 194 136 78 408 Percent 47.5% 33.3% 19.1% 100.0% Tafileh Percent 196 123 81 400 Percent 49.0% 30.8% 20.3% 100.0% Ma’an Frequency 168 123 100 391 Percent 43.0% 31.5% 25.6% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 284 38. Are you aware of any trainings and/or activities in your area that focus on community engagement, community organizing or conflict mitigation? a. Yes b. No (SKIP TO Q.40) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.40) 39. How effective are such trainings and/or activities in your opinion? a. Very effective b. Somewhat effective c. Somewhat ineffective d. Very ineffective e. Don’t Know Governorate Frequency Very effective Somewhat effective Somewhat ineffective Very ineffective Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 18 39 0 6 2 65 % 27.7% 60.0% 0.0% 9.2% 3.1% 100.0% Mafraq Count 20 36 6 5 2 69 % 29.0% 52.2% 8.7% 7.2% 2.9% 100.0% Tafileh Count 40 53 3 7 1 104 % 38.5% 51.0% 2.9% 6.7% 1.0% 100.0% Ma’an Count 42 34 1 3 1 81 % 51.9% 42.0% 1.2% 3.7% 1.2% 100.0% Total Count 120 162 10 21 6 319 % 37.6% 50.8% 3.1% 6.6% 1.9% 100.0% No 62% 74% 69% 71% Yes 15% 17% 25% 21% Don't Know 22% 9% 6% 8% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma'an DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 285 40. Are you aware of any activities that focus on building awareness and capacity of the people living in your area? a. Yes b. No (SKIP TO Q.42) c. Don’t Know (SKIP TO Q.42) 41. How effective are such trainings and/or activities in your opinion? a. Very effective b. Somewhat effective c. Somewhat ineffective d. Very ineffective e. Don’t Know Governorate Frequency Very effective Somewhat effective Somewhat ineffective Very ineffective Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 23 24 2 3 3 55 % 41.8% 43.6% 3.6% 5.5% 5.5% 100.0% Mafraq Count 25 56 4 5 2 92 % 27.2% 60.9% 4.3% 5.4% 2.2% 100.0% Tafileh Count 54 46 12 8 5 125 % 43.2% 36.8% 9.6% 6.4% 4.0% 100.0% Ma’an Count 69 76 8 8 5 166 % 41.6% 45.8% 4.8% 4.8% 3.0% 100.0% Total Count 171 202 26 24 15 438 % 39.0% 46.1% 5.9% 5.5% 3.4% 100.0% No 64% 68% 62% 50% Yes 14% 22% 31% 42% Don't Know 22% 10% 7% 8% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Maan DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 286 42. Over the last two years, can you think of any successful projects in your community, whether implemented by the government or non-government organizations? a. Yes (Specify name and/or types of project) _____________ b. No (SKIP TO Q.44) c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) (SKIP TO Q.44) 43. Why were they successful in your opinion? (RECORD VERBATIM) a. Specify: _____________________ b. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Percent of responses by governorate Irbid 101 responses Mafraq 214 responses Tafileh 158 responses Ma'an 130 responses Projects or commercial premises 11% 8% 4% 3% Industrial city 11% 8% 4% 3% Sewing workshops 10% 11% 3% 2% Recreational places such as parks, playgrounds, malls, clubs, and swimming pools 9% 4% 7% 9% Open hospitals/ health centers and improve services 8% 1% 4% 2% Agricultural projects and land reclamation 4% 8% 0% 3% Vocational training centers 4% 4% 3% 1% Handcrafts workshops 4% 6% 1% 1% Enhance infrastructure e.g., streets, water, and public facilities 3% 4% 7% 4% Charity projects 3% 4% 1% 6% Nursery or kindergarten 3% 0% 0% 0% Workshops for clothes production 3% 3% 9% 0% Mill 3% 0% 0% 0% Religious centers 3% 0% 0% 1% Centers and educational courses 2% 1% 0% 0% Beauty Centers and workshops 2% 1% 0% 0% Dairy products shops 2% 1% 3% 1% Food production Workshops 2% 5% 1% 0% Build a bank and provide soft loans 2% 1% 0% 1% No 62% 66% 70% 57% Yes 26% 28% 19% 29% Don't Know 12% 6% 12% 14% Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Maan DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 287 Plastic factories 2% 0% 0% 0% Gas station 1% 0% 17% 0% Economic development projects 1% 11% 0% 2% Bakery 1% 1% 1% 0% Restaurant 1% 0% 0% 0% Home furniture workshops 1% 0% 0% 0% Livestock projects 1% 7% 1% 0% Wedding hall 1% 0% 0% 0% Renovation or creation of government departments 1% 0% 1% 1% Medical drugs store 1% 1% 0% 0% I don't know 1% 0% 0% 2% Projects to open schools and improve services 1% 1% 7% 0% Renewable energy project 0% 6% 9% 50% Pharmacy 0% 0% 3% 0% Premises projects 0% 2% 0% 0% Accessories shops 0% 1% 0% 0% Phosphate factories 0% 0% 1% 3% Glass factories 0% 0% 0% 4% Hotel 0% 0% 1% 0% ATM 0% 0% 4% 0% Tourism Projects 0% 2% 0% 1% A public library 0% 0% 1% 0% Development projects to invest and develop youth and provide job opportunities 0% 3% 1% 1% Provide job opportunities for women & designated workplace 0% 0% 1% 0% Nothing 0% 0% 1% 2% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 288 DEMOGRAPHICS 44. Respondent Marital Status Cross tabulation Gover￾norate Frequency a. Single b. Married c. Widowed d. Divorced e. Separated f. Engaged Total Percent Irbid Count 74 289 18 6 2 1 390 % 19.0% 74.1% 4.6% 1.5% .5% .3% 100.0% Mafraq Count 108 271 20 3 4 2 408 % 26.5% 66.4% 4.9% .7% 1.0% .5% 100.0% Tafileh Count 90 284 22 2 1 1 400 % 22.5% 71.0% 5.5% .5% .3% .3% 100.0% Ma’an Count 104 249 24 10 3 1 391 % 26.6% 63.7% 6.1% 2.6% .8% .3% 100.0% Total Count 376 1093 84 21 10 5 1589 % 23.7% 68.8% 5.3% 1.3% .6% .3% 100.0% 45. Respondent Age Cross tabulation Governorate Frequency 18-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60-69 years 70-86 years Total Percent Irbid Count 97 91 90 62 32 18 390 % 25% 23% 23% 16% 8% 5% Mafraq Count 133 104 79 61 24 7 408 % 33% 25% 19% 15% 6% 2% Tafileh Count 127 103 80 54 31 5 400 % 32% 26% 20% 14% 8% 1% Ma’an Count 129 98 86 43 28 7 391 % 33% 25% 22% 11% 7% 2% Total Count 486 396 335 220 115 37 1,589 % 31% 25% 21% 14% 7% 2% 46. Respondent Education Level Cross tabulation Gover￾norate Frequen cy a. No educa tion b. Element ary c. Primary / Basic d. Vocatio nal e. seconda ry f. Diplom a g. B.A. h. H. degre es Total Percent Irbid Count 23 49 67 1 176 38 31 5 390 % 5.9% 12.6% 17.2% .3% 45.1% 9.7% 7.9% 1.3% 100.0% Mafraq Count 30 45 76 0 176 23 52 6 408 % 7.4% 11.0% 18.6% 0.0% 43.1% 5.6% 12.7% 1.5% 100.0% Tafileh Count 31 49 74 5 156 37 41 7 400 % 7.8% 12.3% 18.5% 1.3% 39.0% 9.3% 10.3% 1.8% 100.0% Ma’an Count 13 69 77 6 131 43 48 4 391 % 3.3% 17.6% 19.7% 1.5% 33.5% 11.0% 12.3% 1.0% 100.0% Total Count 97 212 294 12 639 141 172 22 1589 % 6.1% 13.3% 18.5% .8% 40.2% 8.9% 10.8% 1.4% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 289 47. Respondent Employment Status a. Unemployed and looking for a job b. Unemployed and not looking for a job c. Self employed d. Student e. Employed in private sector f. Employed in public sector g. Employed in non for profit sector h. Retired Governorate Frequency a. Unemploye d and looking for a job b. Unemploye d and not looking for a job c. Self employ ed d. Student e. Employ ed in private sector f. employ ed in public sector h. retired Total Percent Irbid Count 58 149 34 13 29 40 67 390 % 14.9% 38.2% 8.7% 3.3% 7.4% 10.3% 17.2% 100.0% Mafraq Count 81 139 23 19 34 63 49 408 % 19.9% 34.1% 5.6% 4.7% 8.3% 15.4% 12.0% 100.0% Tafileh Count 72 136 10 10 53 64 55 400 % 18.0% 34.0% 2.5% 2.5% 13.3% 16.0% 13.8% 100.0% Ma’an Count 67 133 14 14 63 74 26 391 % 17.1% 34.0% 3.6% 3.6% 16.1% 18.9% 6.6% 100.0% Total Count 278 557 81 56 179 241 197 1589 % 17.5% 35.1% 5.1% 3.5% 11.3% 15.2% 12.4% 100.0% 48. What are the average overall monthly expenses for your household? a. Specify: ______________________ (Post Code) b. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Expenses Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Mean 443 441 435 432 Median 400 400 350 400 n 353 373 391 383 Mean 443 441 435 432 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 290 Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Total (Does not know) 9% 9% 2% 2% 6% 0-100 4% 1% 4% 4% 3% 101-200 8% 9% 13% 12% 11% 201-300 17% 23% 24% 20% 21% 301-400 18% 25% 21% 21% 21% 401-500 22% 14% 16% 18% 17% 501-600 7% 6% 5% 10% 7% 601-700 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 701-800 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 801-900 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 901-1000 3% 3% 5% 4% 4% 1001-1100 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1101-1200 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1201-1300 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% more than 1301 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% n 390 408 400 391 1,589 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 291 49. What is the monthly income of your household from all sources? a. Less than 200 JOD a month b. Between 201 and 350 JOD a month c. Between 351 and 500 JOD a month d. Between 501 and 750 JOD a month e. Between 751 and 900 JOD a month f. Between 901 and 1200 JOD a month g. Between 1201 and 1500 JOD a month h. Between 1501 and 2000 JOD a month i. Over 2000 JOD a month j. Refused to answer/ Do not know Governorate Frequency a. Less than 200 JOD a month b. Between 201 and 350 JOD a month c. Betwee n 351 and 500 JOD a month d. Betwee n 501 and 750 JOD a month e. Betwee n 751 and 900 JOD a month f. Betwee n 901 and 1200 JOD a month g. Betwee n 1201 and 1500 JOD a month h. Betwee n 1501 and 2000 JOD a month i. Over 2000 JOD a month Refused to answer/ Don’t know Total Percent Irbid Count 55 129 116 46 10 11 4 1 0 18 390 % 14.1% 33.1% 29.7% 11.8% 2.6% 2.8% 1.0% .3% 0.0% 4.6% 100.0% Mafraq Count 51 139 129 47 18 13 1 3 0 7 408 % 12.5% 34.1% 31.6% 11.5% 4.4% 3.2% .2% .7% 0.0% 1.7% 100.0% Tafileh Count 42 164 98 34 28 26 5 1 1 1 400 % 10.5% 41.0% 24.5% 8.5% 7.0% 6.5% 1.3% .3% .3% .3% 100.0% Ma’an Count 56 100 126 65 18 14 7 0 1 4 391 % 14.3% 25.6% 32.2% 16.6% 4.6% 3.6% 1.8% 0.0% .3% 1.0% 100.0% Total Count 204 532 469 192 74 64 17 5 2 30 1589 % 12.8% 33.5% 29.5% 12.1% 4.7% 4.0% 1.1% .3% .1% 1.9% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 292 50. How many families share this accommodation? a. One b. Two c. Three d. More than three Governorate Frequency One Two Three More than three Total Percent Irbid Count 387 0 0 3 390 % 99.2% 0.0% 0.0% .8% 100.0% Mafraq Count 400 2 4 2 408 % 98.0% .5% 1.0% .5% 100.0% Tafileh Count 396 1 2 1 400 % 99.0% .3% .5% .3% 100.0% Ma’an Count 383 2 0 6 391 % 98.0% .5% 0.0% 1.5% 100.0% Total Count 1566 5 6 12 1589 % 98.6% .3% .4% .8% 100.0% 51. How long have you been living in this community? In year. a. Specify: ______________________ Irbid Mafraq Tafileh Ma’an Total 1930-1940 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1941-1950 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1951-1960 9% 7% 4% 3% 6% 1961-1970 10% 8% 9% 7% 8% 1971-1980 14% 11% 16% 10% 13% 1981-1990 17% 19% 23% 19% 20% 1991-2000 22% 24% 26% 27% 25% 2001-2010 13% 12% 10% 17% 13% 2011-2016 12% 18% 12% 16% 14% n 390 408 400 391 1,589 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 293 52. What is your primary source for finding out what is happening in your community? a. Specify: ______________________ b. None c. Don’t Know (DO NOT READ) Governorate Frequency Through the internet Through press and media Through Family, relatives, neighbors and co-workers Total Percent Irbid Count 70 70 193 333 % 21.0% 21.0% 58.0% 100.0% Mafraq Count 73 69 171 313 % 23.3% 22.0% 54.6% 100.0% Tafileh Count 92 81 150 323 % 28.5% 25.1% 46.4% 100.0% Ma’an Count 83 82 154 319 % 26.0% 25.7% 48.3% 100.0% Total Count 318 302 668 1288 % 24.7% 23.4% 51.9% 100.0% DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 294 ANNEX XVII: GLOSSARY The evaluation team presents here the definitions of terms and concepts which CEP has employed in the design and implementation of project activities. Collective Competence: Whether or not communities have the ability to face stressors.69 “Ability” is defined as having the potential to identify and mitigate the negative consequences of community stressors.70 Community: People use the term community in a variety of ways. Researchers of community building have no standard definition of community. The term community can include the dimensions of geographic location, psychological ties, and/or people working together toward a common goal: “People who live within a geographically defined area and who have social and psychological ties with each other and with the place where they live”.71 Community Engagement Teams (CETs): The CETs were groups of volunteers that CEP established and supported in the target communities to create and approve participatory long-term community development plans (LTDPs) that will tie together the three CEP components while reinforcing the skills, responsibilities, and mechanisms developed through program activities.72 Community-identified stressors: For USAID CEP, “community-identified stressors” means that stressors are identified through a participatory approach where community members identify and prioritize their community stressors and challenges through a household perception surveys and community-wide meetings and/or validation focus groups.73 PACE Methodology: Global Communities’ Participatory Action for Community Enhancement (PACE) methodology is a process of building the capacity of local communities to mobilize resources and address self-determined priority needs through participatory democratic practices.74 69 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Program Volunteers Training on Conducting Community Needs Questionnaire Instructor’s Guide p. 18 70 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project, Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) Submitted: September18, 2013; Revised: October 10, 2013; Revised December 2015 71 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Program Volunteers Training on Conducting Community Needs Questionnaire Instructor’s Guide p. 18 72 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Year 1 Annual Implementation Plan Implementation Period: April 10, 2013 to April 9, 2014 Submitted: November 25, 2013 p. 9 73 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project, Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) Submitted: September18, 2013; Revised: October 10, 2013; Revised December 2015 p. 19 74 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Program: Year 1 Annual Report, Reporting Period: April 10, 2013 – March 31, 2014 p. 4 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 295 ANNEX XVIII: REFERENCES AND WORKS CITED USAID CEP Cooperative Agreement and Modifications: USAID-CHF International, USAID Community Engagement Project Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-278-A-13-00001 Effective Date: April 10, 2013 USAID-CHF International, USAID Community Engagement Project Cooperative Agreement Number: AID-278-A-13-00001 Modifications: • 01 - Date: July 16, 2013 • 02 - Date: June 4, 2014 • 03 - Date: October 29, 2014 • 04 - Date: February 24, 2015 • 05 - Date: September 16, 2015 • 06 - Date: January 12, 2016 • 07 - Date: July 28, 2016 USAID CEP M&E Plans: Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project, Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) Submitted: September18, 2013; Revised: October 10, 2013; Revised December 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Performance Management Plan, Submitted: September 18, 2013; Revised: October 10, 2013 USAID CEP Annual Work Plans: Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Year 1 Annual Implementation Plan Implementation Period: April 10, 2013 to April 9, 2014 Submitted: November 25, 2013 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Year 2 Annual Implementation Plan Implementation Period: April 10, 2014 to April 9, 2015 Submitted: March 30th, 2014 Resubmitted: July 10, 2014 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Year 3 Annual Implementation Plan Implementation Period: April 10, 2015 – April 9, 2016 Submitted March 13, 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Year 4 Annual Implementation Plan Implementation Period: April 10, 2016 – April 9, 2017 Submitted April 4, 2016 USAID CEP Quarterly Reports: Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2013, Quarter 3 Reporting Period: April 10 – June 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2013, Quarter 4 Reporting Period: July 1 – September 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2014, Quarter 1 Reporting Period: October 1 – December 31 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2014, Quarter 2 Reporting Period: January 1 – March 31 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 296 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2014, Quarter 3 Reporting Period: April 1 – June 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2014, Quarter 4 Reporting Period: July 1 – September 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2015, Quarter 1 Reporting Period: October 1 – December 31 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2015, Quarter 3 Reporting Period: April 1 – June 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2015, Quarter 4 Reporting Period: July 1 – September 30 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2016, Quarter 1 Reporting Period: October 1 – December 31 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2016, Quarter 2 Reporting Period: January 1 – March 31 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Quarterly Report FY2016, Quarter 3. Reporting Period: April 1 – June 30 USAID CEP Annual Reports: Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project: Year 1 Annual Report, Reporting Period: April 10, 2013 – March 31, 2014 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project: Year 2 Annual Report, Reporting Period: April 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project: Third Annual Progress Report Period: April 10, 2015 – April 09, 2016, Submission Date: April 30, 2016 USAID CEP Baseline Reports: Middle East Marketing and Research Consultants (MEMRC). USAID Community Engagement Project Baseline Assessment Report: Community Social Cohesion & Resilience in Old Communities August 2014 REACH. USAID Community Engagement Project Community Social Cohesion and Resilience, Baseline Study Report published in 2016 Other CEP assessments: Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Selection of target Communities April 30, 2013 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Community Cohesion and Resilience Assessment Methodology for the Household Perception Survey (HHPS) V. 8 Submitted: November 5, 2013 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project New Community Selection Overview 2014 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 297 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Irbid Governorate New Community Stressors Report June 4, 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Mafraq Governorate New Community Stressors Report June 4, 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Tafileh Governorate New Community Stressors Report June 4, 2015 Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Results Syrian Inclusion Focus Group Findings with Syrian Refugees in Host Communities August 9, 2016 (PowerPoint presentation) Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Report of Focus Groups Discussion Findings to Validate 2013 Household Survey in Old Communities USAID CEP Training Materials Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Volunteers Training on Conducting Community Needs Questionnaire Instructor’s Guide Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project Outline for Community Engagement Training for Stakeholders Global Communities. USAID Community Engagement Project The ABCs of Voluntary Work and Developing (crafting) of Initiatives Workshop Outline Other Sources Joseph Chan, Ho-Pong To and Elaine Chan. Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research. Social Indicators Research Vol. 75, No. 2 (Jan., 2006), p. 273-302 GOJ Laws and policies that are restrictive to civil society and potentially constrain CEP's ability to achieve intended results, such as the Law on Societies of 2008 as amended in 2009, as well as key provisions in other texts relevant to civil society operations, including the Penal Code (particularly Articles 149 and 191); the 2004 Law on Public Gatherings (especially Article 4); the 2007 Press and Publications Law, as amended in 2012 (especially Article 5 and 38b); and the 2006 Anti-Terrorism Law as amended in June 2014. The recently passed decentralization and municipal laws. GOJ Jordan Response Plan 2016-2018 Guiding Framework (JRP) GOJ Regional Refugees Resilience Plan (3RP) GOJ National Resilience Plan (NRP) 2014-2016. International Republican Institute (IRI). Survey of Jordan Public Opinion National Poll #12 February 25 – March 1, 2015 (PowerPoint presentation) Fran H. Norris, Susan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche, Rose L. Pfefferbaum. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:127–150 REACH. Jordan Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (JESSRP) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework– Baseline Report - May 2015 DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 298 REACH. Evaluating the Effect of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Stability and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities Preliminary Impact Assessment January 2014 REACH. Education and Tensions in Jordanian Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees Thematic Assessment Report June 2014 REACH. Livelihoods, Employment and Tensions in Jordanian Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees Thematic Assessment Report June 2014 REACH. Health Care and Tensions in Jordanian Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees Thematic Assessment Report June 2014 REACH. Perceptions of External Support in Jordanian Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees Thematic Assessment Report June 2014 REACH. Water and Tension in Jordanian Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees Thematic Assessment Report June 2014 REACH. Syrian Refugees in Host Communities Key Informant Interviews / District Profiling January 2014 REACH. Understanding Social Cohesion & Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities Assessment Report April 2014 USAID/Jordan Monitoring & Evaluation Support Project (MESP). Jordan Civil Society Assessment Report May 2016 USAID. Request for Task Order Proposal – Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative, and Effective Solutions (CITIES) RFTOP Number: SOL-278-16-000009 Issuance Date: April 28, 2016 USAID. Jordan Country Development and Cooperation Strategy 2013-2017 Retrei9ved from: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pdacx797.pdf DRAFT CEP Mid-term Performance Evaluation Report 299 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523