JORDAN EVALUATION REPORT APRIL 2018 USAID COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT (USAID CEP) ENDLINE EVALUATION Cover photo: Village in Irbid governorate, Jordan. © REACH, 2015 REACH operates under ACTED in Jordan and is a joint initiative of ACTED, IMPACT Initiatives and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme (UNOSAT). REACH was established by ACTED in 2010 to strengthen evidence-based decision making by aid actors through efficient data collection, management and analysis before, during and after an emergency. This contributes to ensuring that communities affected by emergencies receive the support they need. All REACH activities are conducted in support of the Government of Jordan and UN partners, for the development of the Jordan Response Plan, and are within the framework of interagency aid coordination mechanisms. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Country Context Over the years, Jordan has absorbed the effects of regional shocks in the Middle East and offered haven to successive waves of refugees from neighbouring countries in crisis. Nonetheless, the onset of the crisis in Syria in 2011 and the subsequent arrival of large numbers of refugees into Jordan has placed an unprecedented strain on the country’s infrastructure and resources, as well as on the resilience and coping capacities of local communities hosting these refugees1 where demand for housing, livelihood opportunities and critical public services has particularly increased. 2 The arrival of refugees has gone hand-in-hand with a general increase in population in the country, and according to 2014 census data from the government’s Department of Statistics (DoS), the country’s population nearly doubled in just one decade.3 Over time, this increase in population has exacerbated a number of pre-existing challenges in the country, particularly structural issues relating to public service delivery and resource allocation, as government at different administrative levels increasingly struggles to meet heightened demand for services and other resources. In parallel, Jordan’s economy has suffered spill-over effects from growing regional instability, specifically in terms of subdued economic growth, increased unemployment4 and a general rise in prices and costs of living, which can in part be attributed to regional insecurity. 5 These challenges increase pressure on the government to deliver services, and also impact social cohesion and resilience within local communities. Previous assessments of social cohesion and resilience in Jordan have identified increased competition for basic services, livelihoods opportunities and housing, along with limited communication between citizens, local government and other stakeholders as drivers of tension at the community level.6 Such findings highlight the need for strengthening community resilience, so as to nurture an environment conducive to long-term, sustainable development and stability. USAID Community Engagement Project Within this context, the USAID Community Engagement Project (USAID CEP) was launched in Jordan and implemented by Global Communities between 2013 and 2018. The project aimed at increasing community resilience and supporting social cohesion within 20 communities in Maan,7 Mafraq, Irbid and Tafileh governorates. Irbid and Mafraq governorates are host to some of the highest populations of Syrian refugees in the country. Specifically, USAID CEP worked through and built the capacity of Community Enhancement Teams (CETs), municipalities/local government and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) to support communities in identifying and prioritising stressors; developing short and long-term solutions to challenges through collaboration with relevant stakeholders; and using effective and transparent communication to strengthen community cohesion. Its grassroots approach utilised a participatory process to engage community members in addressing community needs and stressors within the context of transitions associated with domestic policy reform, economic conditions, and demographic change. 1 Of the 661,859 refugees registered by UNHCR as of 7 April 2018, a large majority – approximately 80% (530,193) – are residing outside of formal camps, in host communities. UNHCR, Syrian Regional Refugee Response Portal [last accessed 4 May 2018]. 2 UNDP, Mitigating the Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Jordanian Vulnerable Host Communities; JRP 2015, p. 16-17. 3 From 5,597,000 (2004) to 9,531,712 (2015) Jordan Department of Statistics Official Census Data . [accessed 20 December, 2017.] 4 According to the World Bank’s Jordan Economic Monitor from Fall 2016, one of the results of Jordan’s economic growth being subdued because of these spillover effects has been structural unemployment reaching a historical high of 15% in the first three quarters of 2016, See also: Jordan Economic Monitor: Reviving a Slowing Economy (Fall 2016), p.13. 5 According to the monthly report on inflation in Jordan issued by the Department of Statistics in March 2017, there has been an average increase of 4.3% of the inflation rate in the past year i.e. a sustained increase in the general level of prices for goods and services, especially for transport, vegetables, housing and utilities, and healthcare. See also: Jordan Department of Statistics, last accessed April 24 2017. 6 FCO-REACH, Evaluating the Effect of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Stability and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities – Preliminary Impact Assessment, January 2014; Ibid., Understanding Social Cohesion and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities, Assessment Report, June 2014; Ibid., Social Cohesion in Host Communities in Northern Jordan, Assessment Report, May 2015. 7 The baseline and endline surveys were only conducted in 19 communities where the project had a full presence and programming since 2013. In Maan, only a small pilot activity was conducted and therefore, this community was not part of the overall monitoring and evaluation framework. 3 Table 1: Total number of projects implemented in each of the 19 targeted communities8 Community Number of Projects Amman Amman 3 Irbid Al.Taybeh 7 Al.Wasatyah 8 Dabbet.Nimer 4 Hay.Jalama 4 Khalid.Bin.Al.Waleed 7 Moath.Bin.Jabal 8 Noaimeh 4 Ramtha 9 Yarmouk.Al.Jedida 10 Maan Maan.City 4 Mafraq Al.Sarhan 9 Hay.Al,Hussein, Hay.Al.Janoubi 1 Hay.Al.Hussein 11 Hay.Al.Janoubi 8 Hosha 7 Mafraq 1 Sabha.Dafyaneh 8 Salheyeh.Nayfeh 2 Salhyieh.Wa.Nayfeh 5 Um.Al.Jmal 5 Um.Aljmal 3 Tafileh (32) Al.Hassa 6 Bseira 8 Ein.Al.Beida 4 Ein.Al.Beyda 5 Ein.Al.Beyda , Bseira 1 Ein.Al.Beyda, Hasa, Bseira 2 HTM 6 Evaluation Background Beginning in January 2018, REACH conducted an endline evaluation of USAID CEP. The evaluation forms the final part of the external monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework developed for the project by REACH, and follows from (1) a baseline assessment which was conducted over two phases in 2014 and 2015, to establish baseline levels of resilience and social cohesion in the communities targeted by CEP,9 and (2) a progress 8 Cells highlighted in red indicate that a project has been implemented in more than one community. 9 The first baseline was conducted by the Middle East Marketing and Research Consultants (MEMRC) between March and August 2014 in the initial nine communities targeted by USAID CEP in 2014. The second baseline was conducted by REACH in November 2015 in the ten newly targeted communities 4 monitoring round conducted in December 2016,10 the key objective of which was to evaluate progress made by USAID CEP towards its goals since the baseline The project’s M&E framework was centred around five key components of social cohesion and resilience relevant to the programming of USAID CEP, as specified in the USAID CEP Project Performance Plan: safety and security, social well-being, collective competence, government responsiveness, and provision of services. A range of factors were then assessed for each of these five key components.11 These components encompass both the horizontal dimension of social cohesion, i.e. intra-community cohesion; and the vertical social cohesion dimension, i.e. cohesion between citizens and different levels of government (See Figure 1). In addition, physical safety and human security perceptions were assessed to provide a broad social cohesion and resilience overview, as these provide insights into both dimensions of social cohesion and resilience. Figure 1: USAID CEP Social Cohesion and Resilience Framework SOCIAL COHESION Horizontal dimension Social well-being, i.e. the extent to which respondents reported strong intra-community relationships and support networks; frequent community interaction; the level of respect and trust within the community; and a sense of community belonging Collective competence, i.e. community empowerment and the extent to which members of the community perceive they can take collective action and resolve issues Vertical dimension Government and municipal effectiveness and responsiveness, referring to community members’ satisfaction with municipal and government service provision, as well as the extent to which communities participate in administrative decision making and perceive different administrative bodies as trustworthy and accountable to their citizens Evaluation Methodology As with the progress monitoring round, a mixed methods approach was used for this evaluation. A quantitative survey of community members’ perception was conducted between February and March 2018, comprising of 2,156 surveys (interviews administered at the individual level).12 This was followed by a qualitative phase March￾April 2018, comprised of 12 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 52 Key Informant (KI) interviews.13 The data collection was carried out in 19 communities for which the project was implemented as well as 3 control communities in which data was also collected during the baseline. The questionnaire used for the perception survey was the same as the baseline for comparability reasons; it was designed to capture community members’ perceptions of safety and security, social well-being, collective competence, public service provision (both government and municipal) and government/municipal responsiveness. The qualitative phase of the evaluation focused on four case studies – community engagement, good practices, externalities, and sustainability – to generate more in-depth understanding of changes brought about by USAID CEP, and triangulate and explain quantitative findings. for CEP implementation in late 2014 and early 2015. Findings and figures from the baseline assessment form the key point of comparison of the present report, as the statistical significance of these findings is at the same. 10 The sample of the monitoring round was drawn at a lower level compared to the baseline and endline, and provides statistically significant findings that can be generalized to the adult population in each community, to a 90% level of confidence and a 10% margin of error. This was augmented by a series of qualitative case studies. 11 Please refer to the Annex for the analytical framework and the complete survey tool. 12 A minimum of 96 surveys per community, which provides results generalizable to the population of each community with a 95% level of confidence and 10% margin of error. This sample size is coherent with that of the baseline, which was also conducted with the same level of precision. 13 While FGDs were conducted with men, women and youth from selected communities, KI interviews were conducted with USAID CEP staff, CET members, municipality representatives, representatives from CBOs, and members of the local community. COMMUNITY RESILIENCE 5 Key Findings When looking at the mean index scores for the five key indicators of the project,14 a significant difference was found for all five project areas of intervention,15 especially government responsiveness and service delivery (see Figure 2). However, collective competence perceptions appeared to have worsened. These variations highlight the need to consider the various factors within each of these indicators individually, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the key cohesion and resilience components, as well as how and why community perceptions may have changed since the baseline. Figure 2: Mean index scores for the five key indicators (across treatment communities), baseline, progress monitoring (midline) and endline Overall safety and security perceptions remain similar to the baseline. However, in both treatment and control communities,16 a majority of community member respondents to the survey (more than 60%) perceived levels of safety and security to have improved in the past four years for men, women and children of their community.17 Since improvements were also reported in control communities, it is important to note that these improvements could be attributable to external factors such as country-wide changes in national security policies, changes in the country’s socio-economic or political situation more generally, or changes in the political and security situation in neighbouring countries. Nonetheless, in some communities, if not all, these perceptions have arguably been enhanced by USAID CEP interventions, especially those which increased community’s awareness about key safety and security issues, and increased interaction and collaboration between the community and the local police. For example, safety and security was perceived to have improved by a large proportion of survey respondents in Um Aljmal (91% for men, 87% for women, 81% for children),18 where awareness sessions around community violence and drug-related issues were conducted in 2017. The relevance of the ‘Friends of the Police’ sessions 14 These scores provide the average of all responses assessed for each of these five indicators with higher index scores being indicative of more positive perceptions. A detailed methodology of how these indices were constructed during the baseline using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the questions analysed to construct the indices are provided in the Annex of the report. 15 SPSS t-test was used to check whether there is a statistically significant difference between the mean index scores from the baseline and progress monitoring. According to t-test results, these differences were found to be significant for all of the five indicators. The test, however, only indicates if there has been a significant difference since the baseline but does not indicate what the exact difference has been. 16 Control communities were identified based on similar demographic, economic, social and political factors to ensure comparability with implementation communities. Control communities identified were Al-Me’rad Municipality in Jerash, Ajloun Greater Municipality in Ajloun and Gharandal city in Tafileh. 17 This was a separate question asked during the endline survey to assess if respondents perceived levels of safety and security to have improved for men, women and children in their community over the past four years. 18 This means that 91% perceived safety levels to have improved for men of the community, 87% perceived safety levels to have improved for women of the community, and 81% perceived safety levels to have improved for children of the community, 6 organized in some of the treatment communities through USAID CEP is also highlighted by the findings that across treatment communities, trust in the police was found to have increased since the baseline, from 82% community members reportedly trusting the police to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, to 91% reportedly trusting them to this degree now.19 As with safety and security, social well-being perceptions in treatment communities remains at a similar level as the baseline although levels of trust and respect between people of the community were perceived to have improved in the past four years. Within treatment communities, these improvements were perceived by a relatively large majority (i.e. more than 60%) in the following treatment communities: Sama Sarhan (73%), Um Aljmal (71%), Hay Hussain Ifdain (68%), Hay Janoubi (68%), Wastyah (64%) and Bsaira (63%). However, improvements were also perceived in control communities,20 which indicates that these improvements are also attributable to external factors (i.e. those beyond the scope of the project) such as subjective personal circumstances and local contexts. Qualitative findings from the endline evaluation confirm that in addition to external factors, there are three key ways in which USAID CEP interventions could have contributed towards strengthening trust, relations and overall social well-being within treatment communities: (1) frequently organising project events and activities which brought people of the community together and increased opportunities for interaction; (2) providing physical spaces where the community can gather and interact on a more frequent basis; and (3) establishing the CET whose members are comprised of people from the community and is demographically representative, making it a representative body for community needs and interests. Reflective of links between USAID CEP and improved social well-being perceptions since the baseline, 91 endline survey respondents reported to be aware of interventions to enhance cohesion and resilience in their respective communities. The most commonly reported types of interventions that respondents were aware of were: (1) trainings, awareness raising sessions and other events that gather the community together (most commonly reported by respondents in Wastyah, Dabbet Nimer); (2) initiatives to enhance women’s participation in the community (most commonly reported in Sama Sarhan, Khalid bin Al Waleed); and (3) maintaining or providing public spaces where the community can gather (most commonly reported in Ein Beyda). As the project took a tailored approach, these interventions were specific to these communities, and not implemented across all communities. Despite perceived improvements in levels of trust and respect within the community, collective competence perceptions were found to worsened since the baseline, a trend also reflected in the midline. Across both treatment and control communities, three specific collective competence perceptions which appear to have worsened since the baseline are: (1) people’s ability to work together to solve problems faced,21 (2) people’s ability to identify stressors (such as sources of economic or social tension, competition over resources etc.) collectively,22 and (3) people’s ability to resolve prioritised stressors.23 The fact that collective competence scores also worsened in control communities indicates that this dimension is determined by a range of subjective factors, including those beyond the influence of the project. However, it is worth noting that collective competence was in general found to be higher in the control communities during the baseline which means that these communities were in a better state than the treatment communities. At the same time, the finding that collective competence did decrease quite significantly in the control communities in comparison to the treatment, at the time when the coping capacities of the country as a whole have been challenged, implies that USAID CEP interventions did have a role to play in sustaining collective competence abilities at baseline levels despite growing challenges in the communities of intervention. Additional details on how the project contributed towards this, as indicated through qualitative findings, have been discussed in the paragraph below. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that increasing ability to take such action, especially in terms of 19 Reflective of this, 37 endline survey respondents, primarily across Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid, Al Taybah, Al Yarmouk, Alsalhya w Nayfha, Bsaira, Hasa, Hay Jalama and Moath Bin Jabal, reported to be aware of ‘Friends of the Police’ sessions organised by USAID CEP in their community to increase people’s awareness about the need to cooperate with the police to enhance overall safety and security. 20 In all of the three control communities, the proportion who perceived positive changes ranged between 56-58%. 21 Control communities: from 82% who agreed or strongly agreed during the baseline to 65% during the endline; treatment communities: from 72% to 66%. 22 Control communities: from 73% who agreed or strongly agreed during the baseline to 63% during the endline; treatment communities: from 62% to 61%. 23 Control communities: from 70% who agreed or strongly agreed during the baseline to 49% during the endline; treatment communities: from 61% to 50%. 7 required capacity, knowledge, and networks of support is a longer-term process and requires longer engagement that goes beyond a few years. The project was also limited in its ability to strengthen this dimension given the nature of challenges facing targeted communities and the country as a whole. For example, across both treatment and control communities, since the baseline survey was conducted there has been an increase in people’s perceptions of structural, macro-economic challenges as the most important issue facing their community. While lack/cuts to water supply and inefficient garbage collection were the two most frequently cited challenges during the baseline, rising prices and unemployment were the two most frequently cited challenges during the endline. Given the nature of these challenges, there is little that communities are able to do about them even if there are mechanisms for collective action in place. Despite this, qualitative findings indicate that the project has impacted civic engagement and collective action abilities in target communities, , in the following ways: (1) increasing opportunities for people to engage in dialogue about common needs, (2) increasing community awareness about key issues that they face and how these can be tackled, (3) providing physical spaces where people can gather to discuss common issues, and (4) providing opportunities for civic engagement and subsequently building capacities to take collective action through a ‘learning by doing’ approach. The latter was found to have been particularly important in increasing public participation and civic engagement among women and youth (i.e. between the ages of 18 and 30 years) of the community. For example, according to a KI from Wastyah municipality, youth now have better awareness and social consciousness about the importance of their public participation and are reportedly more aware of the key issues facing their community, and of how they can take steps to address these and bring about positive local development. Overall, opportunities provided for collective action were important in the long run because they not only helped people to engage actively in their community and take initiatives for community development, but also increased the community’s confidence in the benefits of such engagement. In terms of communities’ satisfaction with service provision, endline and midline findings indicate that interventions did contribute towards improving community satisfaction levels, although funding and material support received from sources other than USAID CEP were also important. Across treatment communities, specific services for which satisfaction levels were found to have improved include education in public schools (from 63% largely or moderately satisfied during the baseline, to 69% similarly satisfied at the endline), youth centres and sports facilities (20% to 35%), water supply services (59% to 71%), and construction and maintenance of streets (50% to 63%). All of these except water supply are sectors in which USAID CEP provided support, at least in some of the targeted communities. At the same time, satisfaction levels for some of the services where USAID CEP intervened were also found to have improved in the control communities, specifically education in public schools,24 public gardens and recreational facilities,25 and youth centres and sports facilities.26 Improved satisfaction levels in control communities shows that even in areas where USAID CEP did not intervene, other actors could have provided support in similar to USAID CEP during the past four years. Taking this a step further, this could also mean that in treatment communities as well, support was received from other external actors in similar sectors over the past four years. This implies that USAID CEP interventions were supported by other factors which could have brought about these improvements in assessed communities and support was also received from other sources to increase the efficiency of service delivery. This is especially true for communities located in Irbid and Mafraq governorates, where large amounts of support from national and international sources have been channelled since the onset of the Syrian refugee crisis.27 Nonetheless, USAID CEP interventions to improve service provision capacities were an important contribution towards improving communities’ overall satisfaction with service delivery. For instance, at the community level, clear links can be established between improved satisfaction levels and USAID CEP interventions in the following instances: improved satisfaction with education in public schools in Bsaira, Hasa 24 67% ‘largely’ or ‘moderately satisfied’, compared to 61% during the baseline 25 16% ‘largely’ or ‘moderately satisfied’, compared to 8% during the baseline 26 24% ‘largely’ or ‘moderately satisfied’, compared to 16% during the baseline 27 For instance, both Ramtha (where Hay Jalama and Hay Dabbet Nimer are located) and Mafraq (where Hay Janoubi and Hay Hussein are located) municipalities received support from the World Bank’s Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (ESSRP) to enhance the delivery of key services to the local community. 8 and Hay Janoubi; improved satisfaction with youth centres and sports facilities in Bsaira, Hay Janoubi and Sama Sarhan; and improved satisfaction with public gardens and recreation facilities in Hay Jalama. Local community members surveyed during the endline also acknowledged the importance of these interventions for improving services in their community. Indeed, of those survey respondents that were aware of the project’s work in their community (21% across all treatment communities), the highest proportion were aware of interventions to improve municipal and government services (75% of this 21%, i.e. a total of 293 respondents). Positive perceptions of interventions are also reflected in qualitative findings; specific services which were commonly perceived to have improved as a result of interventions include: road construction and maintenance, waste management, street lighting, public leisure spaces, and infrastructure of public schools. Reflective of links between project interventions and community satisfaction with service delivery, during the endline survey, a higher proportion of community members across treatment communities perceived service provision in their area to have improved over the past four years, compared to those in control communities (62% in treatment communities, compared to 53% in control). Furthermore, a higher proportion across treatment communities perceived improvements in sectors which USAID CEP intervened in - such as street lighting, road construction and maintenance, solid waste management, and health services - in comparison to those in control communities. At the community level, specific links can be found between sectors for which improvements were perceived by a large majority (i.e. more than 60%), and CEP interventions in these cases: solid waste management (Yarmouk, Wastyah, Taybah, Khalid Bin Al Waleed, Moath Bin Jabal, Noaimeh, Hay Hussein), road building and maintenance (Hay Jalama), and street lighting (Bsaira, Hay Jalama, Hay Dabbet Nimer, Taybah, Moath Bin Jabal). Interestingly, improvements in service provision were perceived by a larger proportion of community members in old communities of intervention: 62% of those in 2014 intervention communities reported improvements, compared to 58% of those in 2015 ones. This is an important finding to take note of as it highlights that more time and continued support is needed for the intended change to take actual effect in a sustainable way. Overall, findings related to government and municipal service provision positively reflect on USAID CEP’s participatory planning approach, which effectively tailored interventions and targeted sectors based on context-specific needs identified by the community itself. This helped to ensure that support provided was indeed relevant to the priority needs of targeted communities. Confirming this relevance, a large majority (94%) across treatment communities who reported improvements in government and municipal services over the past four years, perceived these improvements to have been relevant to the priority needs of their respective communities. This finding is particularly important to show that the approach used by USAID CEP for planning and implementation, namely the involvement of community members and local stakeholders in the identification and targetting of project interventions based on local priorities, was particularly important for the overall efficacy of the project. Reflective of increased satisfaction with service delivery, overall perceptions of government and municipal responsiveness was found to have improved since the baseline. Across treatment communities, specific responsiveness perceptions which were found to have improved since the baseline include perceptions of municipal effectiveness (from 25% perceiving their municipalities to be functioning effectively ‘always’ or ‘many times’ during the baseline, to 48% perceiving this level of effectiveness during the endline), and perceptions of municipal responsiveness (from 39% perceiving their municipalities to be responsive to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, to 58% perceiving this level of effectiveness during the endline). At the community level, effectiveness and responsiveness perceptions were found to have changed significantly in Hay Dabbet Nimer, Sama Sarhan, Hay Janoubi, Hay Hussain Ifdain (both neighbourhoods within Mafraq municipality), Taybah, and Khalid Bin Al Waleed. Confirming an increase in the proportion who perceived municipalities to be responsive, a majority (57%) across treatment communities28 also perceived municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs to have improved in the past four years. These improvements were perceived by a significant majority in: Um Aljmal 28 Compared to 49% across the three control communities. 9 (78%), Sama Sarhan (76%), Dabbet Nimer (71%), Hosha (69%), and Hay Janoubi (66%). Most commonly reported reasons for why municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs improved in the past four years were: improved physical capacity (funds, material resources) to be able to address identified needs (63%) and improved human resource capacity within municipality (59%). Interestingly, respondents in older communities of intervention were more likely to perceive ‘establishment of more effective communication channels’ as a reason for increased municipal responsiveness (reported by 61%, compared to 53% in 2015 communities), which highlights the importance of longer engagement in bringing about sustainable changes in intended areas. Additionally, 33% across treatment communities also perceived communication between citizens and their municipality/local government to have improved over the past four years. The three most commonly reported reasons for this improvement were: increased effectiveness of existing channels of communication (48%), improved community outreach capacity among municipality staff/government representatives (46%), and more initiative taken by the government/municipality (27%). Interestingly, respondents in older (2014) communities of intervention were more likely to perceive (1) increased effectiveness of existing channels (51%, compared to 41% in 2015 communities), and (2) improved community outreach capacity among staff/ representatives (49%, compared to 39% in 2015 communities), as reasons why citizen-government communication improved over the past four years. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, this highlights the importance of longer engagement period of project interventions to increase the efficacy of the project in achieving intended impacts. Overall, perceptions of both improved responsiveness and increased citizen-government communication indicate that USAID CEP did have an impact on communities’ overall perceptions of local stakeholders and government authorities. Specific efforts which could have been important in this regard include: (1) strengthening community outreach capacities and consultative planning abilities among municipalities and other local government actors, and (2) encouraging local community members to come together with their municipal and local government representatives to discuss key issues for planning and decision-making purposes. Further confirming the contributions made by these efforts, a large majority (60% or more) in all three control communities did not perceive there to have been any such changes to the levels of municipal-community engagement over the past four years. Responsiveness perceptions specifically among women and youth were also found to have changed significantly since the baseline across treatment communities. For instance, while 39% of women perceived municipalities to be responsive to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, 51% perceived similar levels of responsiveness during the endline. Similarly, 36% of youth perceived municipalities to be responsive to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, compared to 60% during the endline. This is an important finding since USAID CEP did have a specific focus on increasing public participation among women and youth within targeted communities.29 Qualitative findings indicate that USAID CEP’s community engagement approach and interventions, which aimed at increasing women and youth’s participation in their communities, did contribute towards increasing women and youth’s interaction with representatives of the municipality. Reported ways in which the project’s approach brought about this change include: organisation of community-based meetings, events, trainings and awareness raising sessions; establishing platforms and channels of communication for women and youth; and establishing opportunities for active engagement of these groups such as through meetings with the municipality. In sum, USAID CEP interventions did contribute towards improved responsiveness perceptions in targeted communities. Findings from FGDs and KI interviews conducted during the endline evaluation indicate that the project could have contributed towards enhancing community perceptions of responsiveness in the following ways: provision of material support to enhance municipality and local government’s ability to respond to needs of the community; establishment of the CET as an effective channel of communication between people of the community and their municipal/local government representatives; and organisation of frequent meetings 29 50% of CET members, for example, were required to be women. Similarly, 30% of CET members were youth. See also: USAID, Community Engagement Project Factsheet (December 2015). 10 between community leaders, people of the community, CETs and the municipality as a part of the participatory approach for planning and implementation of interventions. The latter two aspects, improving communication opportunities, are particularly important because it institutionalised a participatory approach for the planning and implementation of projects which encouraged different community stakeholders to collaborate with the municipality/local government to bring about positive developments in their communities. However, while USAID CEP did contribute towards improving overall responsiveness perceptions in the community, it is important to keep in mind that such perceptions are also determined by specific circumstances and subjective factors within local contexts. Key external factors which could have brought about changes in responsiveness perceptions include: the government decentralisation reforms passed in 2015, the municipal elections and subsequent change in elected local government representatives in 2017, level of buy-in established among local government stakeholders and people of the community, advent of technology and increased usage of social media platforms to communicate with the municipality, and finally, funding or other types of support received from sources other than USAID CEP. Conclusion In sum, findings from the REACH endline evaluation indicate that USAID CEP did, to a large extent, have the intended impacts in its communities of intervention. Results can be seen more visibly in the vertical dimension of social cohesion i.e. community satisfaction with service delivery, and community’s perceptions of government and municipal responsiveness. Findings from the endline evaluation also indicate the importance of longer term engagement and continued support to bring about intended impacts in this vertical dimension of social cohesion. For example, a higher proportion of respondents in older communities of intervention perceived service provision to have improved over the past four years. Similarly, establishment of more effective communication channels was perceived to be more of a reason for increased municipal responsiveness by respondents in older communities. These findings show that time and continued support is needed to bring about changes in targeted areas in a sustainable manner. As per the evaluation findings, changes in the horizontal dimension of social cohesion appear to be more limited in comparison the vertical dimension, although it is important to note that such changes do take longer to come about because of the subjective nature of intra-community dynamics, and the extent to which these dynamics are determined by evolving local contexts, personal relations and longer term social change processes. Furthermore, the increasingly structural nature of challenges that local communities are facing in Jordan, such as unemployment and a lack of overall economic growth, limited the ability of the project to have its intended impact in the area of collective competence. Within the design and processes of the project, the following good practices can be identified which could have helped the project bring about intended results in targeted communities: participatory ‘grassroots’ approaches to the planning of interventions and the involvement of the local community in planning processes; flexibility for the design of interventions and the ability to tailor programming to specific needs within the local context; involvement of a wide range of relevant stakeholders during planning and implementation; establishment of the CET as a community-based body to support with the planning and implementation of interventions. In sum, all of these highlight the overall importance of USAID CEP’s planning and implementation approach, namely the involvement of community members and local stakeholders in the identification and targetting of project interventions based on local priorities. This approach was not only important to enhance the overall efficacy and efficiency of the project but also to ensure that interventions were relevant towards enhance the overall stability and cohesion within treatment communities. While the above-mentioned factors did help the project bring about intended changes within targeted communities, it is also important to examine to what extent these changes are sustainable in the long￾run i.e. once the project has come to an end. Findings from KI interviews conducted during the endline evaluation reveal the following reasons why changes brought about can be considered to be sustainable: (1) strong cooperation with and capacity-building of local partners such as the CET, CSOs, CBOs, and the 11 municipality who have been trained in how to undertake effective project planning and implementation practices through participatory approaches; (2) high levels of buy-in, awareness and interest established within the community, so that people can continue these engagement efforts, provided they are given the appropriate platforms and opportunities; (3) effectively strengthening physical and community outreach capacities within municipalities which can sustain responsiveness to community needs in the long-term; and (4) high quality of construction and infrastructure-maintenance projects. Nonetheless, there are certain risks that can be identified for the sustainability of these changes once the project has ended. A key challenge will be ensuring follow-up opportunities are available to sustain the momentum established for civic engagement and collaborative planning to address needs and stressors of the community. In other words, while local stakeholders and community members might be familiar with how to engage in dialogue and try to take -initiative to address key issues, if support is not available (for example, civil society support projects) to continue providing opportunities at the local level and to institutionalise formal community engagement mechanisms, levels of engagement can decline, especially at the local government and municipal levels. This is a key challenge because a large part of the changes that have come about are personality-driven i.e. reliant on buy-in among the community and relevant stakeholders at the local level. Therefore, if opportunities are not available to sustain this buy-in, especially in terms of formalising opportunities to encourage effective civic engagement, sustainability will be challenged. Another risk to sustainability would be turnover of local governments and staff within municipalities. Specifically, the sustainability of changes brought about in the vertical dimension of social cohesion will be determined by individual personalities of local government representatives and the extent to which they prioritise community outreach activities. Lack of technical capacities for maintenance and follow-up within municipalities and local government bodies could also challenge the sustainability of changes brought about by service-related interventions. Finally, one of the biggest challenges going forward would be deterioration in the socio-economic conditions within the country, and as such, an increase in the severity of challenges being faced by local communities. If these challenges continue to increase, and less external support is available to help communities cope, overall community resilience and social cohesion will be adversely affected regardless of effective community engagement practices and collective action opportunities available within the community. 12 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................3 COUNTRY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................................3 USAID COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT ...............................................................................................................3 EVALUATION BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................5 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................................................11 LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................15 LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................................16 GEOGRAPHICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS .............................................................................................17 1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................18 A. CONTEXT............................................................................................................................................................18 i. Country Context.............................................................................................................................................18 i. Project Overview............................................................................................................................................19 B. EVALUATION BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................20 i. Baseline Assessments (2014, 2015) .............................................................................................................20 ii. Progress monitoring (December 2016- April 2017) .......................................................................................21 C. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................................21 D. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................26 2. KEY FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................................28 A. OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................................................................28 B. SAFETY AND SECURITY .......................................................................................................................................29 i. Changes in safety and security perceptions ..................................................................................................29 ii. Perceived improvements in safety and security levels within the community ................................................30 iii. Changes in communities’ trust in the police...................................................................................................31 iv. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................32 C. HORIZONTAL DIMENSION: SOCIAL WELL-BEING ....................................................................................................32 i. Changes in social well-being perceptions......................................................................................................32 ii. Perceived improvements in intra-community trust and respect .....................................................................33 iii. Changes in reported trust levels in different societal groups and institutions ................................................34 iv. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................35 D. HORIZONTAL DIMENSION: COLLECTIVE COMPETENCE...........................................................................................36 i. Changes in collective competence perceptions.............................................................................................36 ii. Factors that impacted the project’s ability to strengthen collective competence............................................38 iii. Contributions made by USAID CEP towards enhancing collective action abilities ........................................39 iv. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................43 E. VERTICAL DIMENSION: PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY .................................43 i. Changes in service provision satisfaction levels............................................................................................43 Links with support received from USAID CEP to improve service provision .......................................................45 13 Community perceptions of service-related interventions.....................................................................................46 ii. Perceived improvements in service provision over the past four years .........................................................47 iii. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................48 F. VERTICAL DIMENSION: PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL RESPONSIVENESS...................................48 i. Changes in government and municipal responsiveness perceptions ............................................................49 ii. Changes in responsiveness perceptions among women and youth..............................................................53 iii. Factors that contributed towards enhancing responsiveness perceptions.....................................................58 iv. Summary .......................................................................................................................................................62 3. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................64 ANNEX 1: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................................................................69 ANNEX 2: SURVEY TOOL.........................................................................................................................................72 ANNEX 3: COMPOSITION OF INDEX SCORES .......................................................................................................64 Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid (Tafileh governorate)......................................................................................................66 Al Taybah (Irbid governorate)..............................................................................................................................66 Al Wastyah (Irbid governorate)............................................................................................................................67 Al Yarmouk (Irbid governorate) ...........................................................................................................................67 Alsalhya w Nayfha (Mafraq governorate)............................................................................................................67 Bsaira (Tafileh governorate) ...............................................................................................................................68 Ein Beyda (Tafileh governorate)..........................................................................................................................68 Hasa (Tafileh governorate)..................................................................................................................................68 Hay Al Hussein Al-Ifdain (Mafraq governorate)...................................................................................................69 Hay Al Janoubi (Mafraq governorate)..................................................................................................................69 Hay Dabbet Nimer (Irbid governorate) ................................................................................................................69 Hay Jalama (Irbid governorate)...........................................................................................................................70 Hosha (Mafraq governorate) ...............................................................................................................................70 Khalid Bin Al Waleed (Irbid governorate) ............................................................................................................70 Mo’ath bin Jabal (Irbid governorate)....................................................................................................................71 No’aimeh (Irbid governorate)...............................................................................................................................71 Sabha w Eldafyaneh (Mafraq governorate).........................................................................................................71 Sama Al Sarhan (Mafraq governorate)................................................................................................................72 Um Al Jmal (Irbid governorate) ...........................................................................................................................72 Control community- Greater Ajloun municipality (Ajloun governorate)................................................................72 Control community- Al Merad (Jerash governorate)............................................................................................73 Control community- Gharandal (Tafileh governorate) .........................................................................................73 14 List of Figures Figure 1: USAID CEP Social Cohesion and Resilience Framework ....................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Mean index scores for the five key indicators (across treatment communities), baseline, progress monitoring (midline) and endline............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Assessment background and timeline ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 4: Evaluation goals and objectives............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 5: Methodology used for endline evaluation............................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Mean index scores for the five key project indicators across treatment communities, baseline, midline (progress monitoring), and endline ....................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 7: Proportion of community members who perceived safety and security levels to have improved for the following demographic groups over the past four years (both treatment and control)........................................... 30 Figure 8: Baseline-Endline Social Well-being Scores (communities where significant differences were found)...33 Figure 9: Proportion of community members across treatment communities who trust the following stakeholders to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree ........................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Baseline-Endline Collective Competence Scores (communities where significant differences were found).................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 11: Changes in collective competence perceptions since the baseline (% who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’, treatment and control communities)...................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: Three most frequently reported challenges facing the community (treatment and control communities), baseline vs. endline............................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 13: Proportion of community members across treatment communities ‘largely’ or ‘moderately’ satisfied with the following services, baseline vs. endline ................................................................................................... 44 Figure 14: Baseline-Endline Service Delivery Scores (communities where significant differences were found)...45 Figure 15: Extent to which service provision was perceived to have improved over the past four years..............47 Figure 16: Extent to which the following services were perceived to have improved over the past four years, control vs. treatment communities ........................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 17: Baseline-Endline Responsiveness Scores (communities where significant differences were found) ..49 Figure 18: Extent to which municipalities are perceived to be functioning effectively ‘many times’ (across treatment communities), baseline vs. endline ....................................................................................................... 50 Figure 19: Extent to which municipalities are perceived to be responsive to community needs (across treatment communities), baseline vs. endline ....................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 20: Extent to which municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs was perceived to have improved over the past four years ...................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 21: Changes since baseline in women’s perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness (across treatment communities)............................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 22: Changes since baseline in proportion of women (across treatment communities) who report the following................................................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 23: Reported reasons for improved citizen-government communication over the past four years, by gender (across treatment communities)................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 24: Changes since baseline in youth perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness (across treatment communities)......................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 25: Changes since baseline in proportion of youth (across treatment communities) who report the following................................................................................................................................................................ 57 Figure 26: Reported reasons for improved citizen-government communication over the past four years, by age group (across treatment communities).................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 27: Contributions made by USAID CEP towards community responsiveness perceptions (as per findings from KI interviews and FGDs)............................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 28: USAID CEP community cohesion and resilience framework ............................................................... 71 15 List of Tables Table 1: Total number of projects implemented in each of the 19 targetted communities ...................................... 4 Table 2: Target communities and sample sizes for the perception survey............................................................ 23 Table 3: Qualitative phase activities and thematic focus....................................................................................... 25 Table 4: Social cohesion measurement framework after Chan et al..................................................................... 70 Abbreviations and Acronyms CBO Community Based Organisation CET Community Enhancement Team CITIES CSO Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative and Effective Solutions Civil Society Organisation DOE DOH DOS DFID Directorate of Education Directorate of Health Department of Statistics UK Department for International Development FCO UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office FGD GoJ Focus Group Discussion Government of Jordan HH Household ILO International Labour Organisation JESSRP JOD Jordan Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project Jordanian Dinars JRP Jordan Response Plan JRPSC Jordan Response Platform for the Syria Crisis KI Key Informant MEMRC MoPIC MSC MSI Middle East Marketing and Research Consultants Jordanian Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation Most Significant Change Management Systems International NGO Non-Governmental organization NRP National Resilience Plan PCA SVA SWM Principal Component Analysis Sector Vulnerability Assessment Solid Waste Management UN United Nations UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USAID United States Agency for International Development 16 USAID CEP USAID Community Engagement Project WFP World Food Programme Geographical and Administrative Classifications Governorate The highest administrative boundary below the national level. Jordan is divided into 12 Governorates. District and sub-district The 12 Jordanian Governorates are divided into districts and sub-districts. Municipality A financially independent national institution comprised of areas, which might be villages and neighbourhoods. The territorial boundaries of municipalities are defined by the Council of Ministers. 30 Village/neighbourhood Municipalities are divided into villages/ neighbourhood. Each village or neighbourhood can belong to a municipality and district, which can be different or the same, since in the case of some municipalities, territorial boundaries correspond to district level boundaries as well. Community An area defined as the level of intervention of USAID Community Engagement Project (USAID CEP). For the purpose of USAID CEP and this assessment, a “community” is defined either along the administrative boundaries of a municipality, or, in larger cities such as Tafileh, along the boundaries of an administratively and/ or demographically distinct neighbourhood. 30 Jordan Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, World Bank, Third Tourism Development Project, Secondary City Revitalisation Study, Analysis of the Municipal Sector, 2005. 17 1. INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY a. CONTEXT i. Country Context Over the years, and against the backdrop of rising regional volatility, Jordan has effectively absorbed regional shocks and offered haven to successive waves of refugees from neighbouring countries in crisis. Nonetheless, the onset of the crisis in Syria in 2011 and the subsequent arrival of large numbers of refugees into Jordan placed an unprecedented strain on the country’s infrastructure and resources, as well as on the resilience and coping capacities of local host communities.31 These strains continue to be visible seven years after the first wave of refugees arrived from Syria. Over the years the resilience of host communities has been increasingly challenged by intensifying competition for scarce resources and existing infrastructure, while increasing demand for housing, livelihood opportunities and critical municipal services. 32 These strains have been further aggravated by the fact that the arrival of refugees over the past few years has gone hand-in-hand with a general increase in population in the country, and according to 2014 census data from the government’s Department of Statistics (DoS), the country’s population nearly doubled in just one decade.33 While this increase in population has intensified competition for resources and infrastructure, it is worth noting that Jordan was already facing a number of internal structural challenges even prior to the mass influx of refugees. These pre-existing structural challenges include perceptions of limited access to public services or poor service quality; challenges related to the engagement between citizens and local governments, including limited participation of women in the public and political sphere;34 limited employment opportunities and prospects for youth;35 pressure on natural resources, particularly availability of water;36 as well as perceptions of uneven or inadequate resource allocation between Governorates. As such, in addition to bringing about new challenges, the increase in population has exacerbated a number of these pre-existing internal issues, most importantly in terms of structural challenges relating to public service delivery. Although the Government of Jordan has taken essential steps and made significant efforts to cope with these issues, the scale of the challenges is unprecedented and the government at the municipal, governorate and national levels has found it especially difficult to adapt to rising demands for services other basic needs. 37 The Jordan Response Plan (JRP) for 2017-2019 has also highlighted these challenges related to public services. Within the public education sector for example, the JRP noted that there has been a 16% increase in the number of students attending school in 2016-2017, compared to the previous school year. As of 2016, almost half (47%) of Jordanian schools are reportedly overcrowded.38 The JRP for 2017-2019 also highlighted vulnerabilities within public healthcare sector; due to overcrowding of medical centres, 22% of the population has inadequate access to healthcare services.39 Furthermore, the demand for water resources has also increased by up to 40% in northern areas which host the largest numbers of Syrian refugees. Meanwhile, the per-capita share of water decreased to 27% in some northern Governorates.40 In addition to these service-related challenges, the resilience of local communities is tested by increasing challenges in the country’s economic sector, due to both structural-level issues as well as spillover effects from 31 Of the 661,859 refugees registered by UNHCR as of 7 April 2018, a large majority – approximately 80% (530,193) – are residing outside of formal camps, in host communities. UNHCR, Syrian Regional Refugee Response Portal [last accessed 4 May 2018]. 32 UNDP, Mitigating the Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Jordanian Vulnerable Host Communities; JRP 2015, p. 16-17. 33 From 5,597,000 (2004) to 9,531,712 (2015) Jordan Department of Statistics Official Census Data . [accessed 20 December, 2017.] 34 See e.g. Dababneh, Abeer Bashier, 2012, Jordanian Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Status and Structural Challenges, European Journal of Social Sciences 27(2), pp. 213-221; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Public Administration: Jordan Case Study, 2012; World Bank, Country Gender Assessment: Economic participation, agency and access to justice in Jordan, 2014. 35 See e.g. International Labour Organisation (ILO), Labour market transitions of young women and men in Jordan, June 2014; World Bank data 2006-2014 [last accessed 18 January 2016]. 36 See e.g. Jordan Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Jordan Water Sector Facts and Figures 2013, January 2015. 37 FCO-REACH, Evaluating the Effect of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Stability and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities – Preliminary Impact Assessment, January 2014, p 8. 38 Jordan Response Plan for the Syria Crisis 2017-2019 (JRP 2017-2019), Draft, p.58. 39 Jordan Response Plan for the Syria Crisis 2016-2018 (JRP 2016-2018), Draft, October 2015, p. 28. 40 Ibid, p.130. 18 regional instability over the past few years. For instance, according to the World Bank’s Jordan Economic Monitor, the country’s economic growth was particularly subdued in 2016 because of these spillover effects, one of the results of which has been structural unemployment reaching a historical high of 15% in the first three quarters of that year.41 Prolonged border closures with Syria and Iraq and its impact on cross-border trading opportunities, a decline in foreign investment, reduced remittances, and a drop in tourism revenues42 are some of the specific impacts of increased regional instability which has particularly affected unemployment in Jordan.43 the JRP 2017-2019 also identified poverty and unemployment to be among the key protection challenges for Jordanians, especially women and youth.44 Meanwhile, according to a report on inflation in Jordan issued by the Department of Statistics in 2017, there was an average increase of 4.3% of the inflation rate in 2016, i.e. a sustained increase in the prices for goods and services especially for transport, vegetables, housing, utilities, and healthcare.45 These challenges are exacerbated by increasing strains on Jordan’s labour market due to population increase. According to the JRP for 2016-2018, the arrival of refugees has brought about lowering of wages, increase in informal employment, and an increase in competition for jobs, as Syrians are reportedly willing to work for lower wages and accept harsher working conditions than Jordanians.46 In addition to impacting infrastructure and the government’s physical coping capacities, such as waste disposal capacity and capacity for service provision, these challenges also have impacts on intra-community cohesion and resilience, as well on the morale among people within local communities. Past REACH assessments on social cohesion in host communities conducted in collaboration with the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) found three key sectors – WASH, solid waste management and livelihoods (housing and employment) – to not only have been most affected by the large influx of refugees but also as issues which have led to tensions in assessed communities.47 In light of these implications and as the crisis in Syria becomes increasingly protracted with no immediate prospect for refugees to return to Syria, humanitarian and development actors in Jordan have acknowledged the need to adopt a resilience-based approach, which would provide sustainable solutions for enhancing community cohesion and resilience to support the longer-term integration of refugees in Jordan’s host communities. As such, provision of support to enhance communities’ ability to adapt to changes and withstand future shocks, i.e. strengthening social cohesion and resilience, has become priority. i. Project Overview Within this context, the USAID Community Engagement Project (USAID CEP) was launched in 2013. It was a five-year programme (ending in July 2018) implemented by Global Communities in 19 communities in Mafraq and Irbid Governorates in Northern Jordan and Tafileh and Ma’an Governorates in the South. The aim of the project was to leave behind stronger, more cohesive and resilient partner communities, while strengthening community engagement in the context of regional volatility and transitions associated with domestic policy reform, economic conditions and demographic changes. USAID CEP defined “community” as all segments of the population – public and private, formal and informal – living and working within an administrative area.48 USAID CEP sought to achieve its intended goal by working through, and building the capacity of, Community Enhancement Teams (CETs)49 as primary counterparts for the project, and municipalities/local government 41 World Bank, Jordan Economic Monitor: Reviving a Slowing Economy (Fall 2016), p.13. 42 Perceptions of insecurity due to regional instability has negatively affected the tourism sector in Jordan. According to Ministry of Tourism figures for the first half of 2016, number of visitors to Jordan has declined by 5.3% since the first half of 2015. Reportedly, the number of visitors has fallen every year since the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011. See also: European Parliament, Syrian crisis: Impact on Jordan (Briefing Paper), February 2017, p.7. 43 European Parliament, Syrian crisis: Impact on Jordan (Briefing Paper), February 2017, p.7. 44 Ibid, p. 50. 45 Jordan Department of Statistics, last accessed April 24 2017. 46 Ibid, p. 5. 47 FCO-REACH, Evaluating the Effect of the Syrian Refugee Crisis on Stability and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities – Preliminary Impact Assessment, January 2014; Ibid., Understanding Social Cohesion and Resilience in Jordanian Host Communities, Assessment Report, June 2014; Ibid., Social Cohesion in Host Communities in Northern Jordan, Assessment Report, May 2015. 48 Please also refer to the ‘Geographical and Administrative Classifications’ section for a definition of the term “community” as used by USAID CEP. 49 USAID, Community Engagement Project, December 2015. CETs are comprised of 12-20 volunteers from the intervention community. 50% of the volunteers are women, 30% youth, and two volunteers are municipal representatives—one elected and one appointed. 19 actors and Community Based Organisations (CBOs)50 as key stakeholders, to support communities to become stronger and capable of:  Engaging in a continuous, conflict-sensitive participatory process of identification and prioritisation of stressors;  Developing immediate and long-term solutions by accessing available resources through collaboration and partnerships with relevant stakeholders (including informal leaders);  Utilizing effective and transparent communication mechanisms in support of increased community cohesion. USAID CEP paid particular attention to the needs of women and youth (18 to 30-year olds). Using a gender mainstreaming approach, the project aimed to create opportunities and empower women and youth, by ensuring their representation in CETs, 51 and allocating gender and youth earmarks to grants available to communities. The implementation of USAID CEP began in 2013 in nine communities, namely Hay Al Hussein, Hay Al Janoubi and Al Sarhan communities in Mafraq Governorate; Hay Al Jalama, Dabbet Nimer and Yarmouk Al Jedidiah communities in Irbid Governorate; and Ein Al Beyda, Al Hasa and Bsaira communities in Tafileh Governorate. An additional ten communities were targeted in 2014: Alsalhya w Nayfha, Sabha w Eldafyaneh, Um Al Jmal and Hosha communities in Mafraq Governorate; Mo’ath bin Jabal, Khaled bin Al Waleed, Al Wastyah, No’aimeh and Al Taybah communities in Irbid Governorate; and the Al Mansoura, Tein and Hid (HTM) community in Tafileh Governorate. Furthermore, a small pilot activity was also implemented in Ma’an city in Ma’an Governorate in late 2015. 52 b. EVALUATION BACKGROUND i. Baseline Assessments (2014, 2015) As part of the monitoring and evaluation strategy (M&E) for USAID CEP, a baseline assessment was conducted over two phases, one in 2014 and another in 2015, to measure baseline levels of resilience and social cohesion in targeted communities. The first baseline assessment was conducted by the Middle East Marketing and Research Consultants (MEMRC) between March and August 2014 in the initial nine communities targeted by USAID CEP. In addition to the nine targeted communities, MEMRC also conducted the assessment in three ‘control’ communities not targeted by the project: Al-Me’rad Municipality in Jerash, Ajloun Greater Municipality in Ajloun, and Gharandal City in Tafileh. 53 The inclusion of these control communities was to enable a comparison for the overall impact evaluation at the end of the project and thus contribute towards making a convincing case that improvements in community cohesion and resilience would not have resulted without the project interventions. In late 2015, REACH conducted a second baseline assessment in the ten communities newly added to the project in 2014 (see Figure 3).54 A detailed overview of the methodology used for both baseline assessments is available in a compiled baseline report produced by REACH in 2016. 50 CEP’s definition of a CBO is a local non-profit organisation. The criteria for identifying CBOs include legal status and registration, consistency of CBOs’ objectives with CEP’s objectives, clarity and credibility of action plan, implementation plan being within CEP’s awarding date, implementation being within targeted area and within budget limit, and the proposed organisation contributing 10% of overall activity cost by way of cash or in-kind contribution. 51 USAID, Global Communities, Fact Sheet USAID Community Engagement Project, 2014. 52 USAID, Community Engagement Project, December 2015. Note that Ma'an was considered to be a ‘pilot community’ where the full USAID CEP process was not implemented. It was because of this that this community was not included in this external M&E framework. However, the community did receive three different in-kind sub grants, one in 2015, and two in 2017/2018. 53 For Monitoring and Evaluation purposes, a ‘control group’ is an “untreated research sample against which all other groups or samples in the research is compared”. A control group is used to produce an estimate of the counter-factual i.e. to understand what would have happened if an intervention had not been implemented. See also: http://www.betterevaluation.org/en/evaluation-options/control_group. For the USAID CEP baseline, control communities were identified based on similar demographic, economic, social and political factors to ensure comparability with implementation communities. 54 The community of Ma’an city was not included during the 2015 baseline due to the limited scope of USAID CEP interventions there. 20 Figure 3: Assessment background and timeline Overall, the baseline assessments found that the horizontal dimension of social cohesion was, in most cases, strong. In comparison to the horizontal dimension, the vertical dimension of social cohesion was found to be relatively weaker, with limited perceptions of government/municipal responsiveness, and low levels of reported satisfaction for public services.55 Information gathered through the baseline assessments was used to guide on-going discussions among USAID CEP stakeholders so as to inform evidence-based programming and project implementation. Moreover, baseline findings also provided a point of reference to evaluate progress made by USAID CEP interventions over time as well as to enable an evaluation of overall impact towards the end of the project (See Figure 3). ii. Progress monitoring (December 2016- April 2017) Following up from the baseline assessments, between December 2016 and April 2017, a progress monitoring round was conducted by REACH, the key objective of which was to evaluate progress made by USAID CEP towards its goals since the baseline. The assessment was conducted in the nineteen communities targeted by the project in Irbid, Mafraq and Tafileh Governorates, but did not examine the control communities. In addition to serving as a point of reference for comparisons with the baseline, the progress monitoring was also intended to assess and provide an understanding of the level of social cohesion and resilience within targeted communities at the time. The monitoring found good progress in many areas, such as perceptions of government service provision, but also areas and ways in which implementation could be further improved. Where possible, findings from the monitoring round are included in the present report, although methodological differences between the progress monitoring and the endline limit the extent to which the data is comparable.56 c. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY As the project entered its final phases towards the end of 2017, REACH conducted an endline evaluation with data collection between January and April 2018. The objective of the evaluation was to identify the impact of the project on community and social cohesion, quantify changes in key outcome indicators, and identify best practices for future programming. In order to maximise comparability of quantitative indicators, the methodology of the endline mirrored that of the baseline, with quantitative data collection taking place in all 19 targeted communities and all three control communities. In addition to the quantitative survey, four qualitative case studies were also conducted (see Table 2 below) to allow the endline to zoom-in on specific examples of best practices, or instances in which interesting or unexpected quantitative findings were found. 55 REACH, USAID CEP Compiled Baseline Report (November 2016). 56 Please refer to the Challenges and Limitations at the end of this section for more details. April 2013 Programme Start-up August 2014 First Baseline Assessment December 2015 Second Baseline Assessment April 2017 Progress Monitoring April 2018 Endline/ Impact Evaluation 21 Figure 4: Evaluation goals and objectives In order to ensure the endline met the objectives cited above, as well as maximising the comparability between the endline and baseline, the evaluation methodology mirrored closely that of the baseline with the addition of four qualitative case studies which looked in detailed at specific aspects and communities. The survey questionnaire used was the same as that used for the baseline assessment. In addition, during the endline, additional questions were incorporated into the survey tool to look into the extent to which the core project areas were perceived to have improved over the past four years i.e. the timeline of the project. In general, the quantitative survey focused on five core outcome indicators specified in the USAID CEP Project Performance Plan: 57  % change in citizen perception score of safety (Safety);  % change in citizen perception score of social well-being (Social Well-Being);  % change in citizen perception score relating to community’s ability to deal with stressors (Collective Competence);  % of community members who state their government/ local government responds to input of communities (Government Responsiveness);  % change in citizen perception score of satisfaction with the provision of municipal and government services (Provision of Services). Prior to conducting the first baseline in 2014, USAID CEP developed a detailed impact assessment methodology that utilized existing literature to develop the conceptual and operational definitions of these five indicators.58 In addition, prior to the baseline, USAID CEP also conducted four focus group discussions (FGDs) in targeted communities in Irbid, Mafraq and Tafileh Governorates to identify dimensions of community cohesion and resilience relevant to Jordanian communities and to use these dimensions in the design of the baseline survey questionnaire. The quantitative component was expanded on with a significant qualitative component consisting primarily of four case studies. These case studies comprised a number of focus group discussions and key informant interviews. 57 Please refer to the Annex for the complete survey tool. 58 Please refer to the Annex for the Analytical Framework. Identify changes brought about by the USAID CEP project over the past four years and its impact in the 19 targetted communities Assess current community perceptions of cohesion and resilience indicators in the 19 treatment and 3 control communities Compare with baseline perceptions to measure changes that have come about since project onset Compare perceptions between treatment and control communities to isolate project impact from external factors that brought about similar changes Triangulate and understand changes in more depth, establish causal links where possible 22 The case study selection was based on initial findings from the quantitative analysis, used to identify specific instances in which surprising quantitative trends were seen, and discussion with CEP management and programme teams to identify interesting cases to look at in more detail. The case studies looked at specific aspects and communities. Figure 5: Methodology used for endline evaluation Quantitative Phase: Sampling In line with the methodology and sampling frame used in the baseline, the endline evaluation conducted a minimum of 96 surveys in each of the 19 treatment and 3 control communities (see Table 2). This sampling approach gives a confidence level of 95% and margin of error of 10% in all communities. Across communities, the sample can provide significant findings disaggregated by sex and age, while at the community level, it was not deemed necessary for the purposes of analysis to provide statistically significant findings disaggregated by sex or age. Table 2: Target communities and sample sizes for the perception survey Community Sample size Irbid Hay Jalama 97 Hay Dabbet Nimer 97 Al Yarmouk Al-Jedidiah 99 Khalid bin Al Waleed 97 Mo’ath Bin Jabal 97 No’aimeh 96 Al Taybah 96 Al Wastyah 99 Quantitative: Community Members' Perception Survey February- March 2018 Assess community members’ perceptions of CEP social cohesion and resilience indicators, as well as changes in perceptions since baseline 2156 surveys in total (96-100 per community) in 22 communities, including 3 control communities Random GIS Sampling 95% confidence level, 10% margin of error Qualitative: Case Studies, FGDs, KI Interviews March-April 2018 Contextualise, triangulate, explain quantitative findings 'Zoom in' on specific cases and locations of interest 12 FGDs and 52 KI interviews in 6 out of 19 intervention communities, all 3 controls, and 3 governorate level Purposive Sampling Phase 1 Phase 2 23 Mafraq Hay Al Hussein & Al-Ifdain 100 Hay Al-Janoubi 101 Sama Al-Sarhan 97 Alsalhya w Nayfha 96 Sabha w Eldafyaneh 100 Hosha 97 Um Al Jmal 100 Tafileh Bsaira 97 Ein Beyda 99 Hasa 97 Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid 100 Control Communities Sample Ajloun Greater Ajloun 96 Jerash Al Merad 98 Tafileh Gharandal 100 Total # of surveys conducted 2,156 To obtain randomization of the sample in each community, REACH utilized a methodology that it has successfully implemented in a series of prior projects, including the baseline assessment and monitoring for USAID CEP in 2015 and 2016. This random sample was drawn by generating randomized GPS points on maps of the assessed communities, with the probability of selection weighted based on population density across the different geographic locations in each community. Enumerators subsequently located the GPS points on the ground, approached the nearest household within a 125-meter radius of these coordinates and conducted an interview with the first adult household member identified and willing to participate in the interview. In communities that are smaller in size- such as Hay Janoubi, Noaimeh and Al, Mansoura, Tein, Hid- households were located within a 50-meter radius of the GPS coordinates. Given that the sample was stratified by community, all findings reported across all sampled communities were first weighted according to community population size. It should also be noted that comparisons between gender or age groups are only included in this report if such disaggregation of findings revealed statistically significant differences between these groups of respondents, i.e. when the Pearson's chi-squared value was found to be statistically significant. Qualitative phase: Sampling and Activities In addition to the perception survey, another core component of the progress monitoring round was the qualitative phase; 12 FGDs and 52 KI interviews were conducted in nine of the 19 treatment communities, all three control communities, and some additionally conducted at the national and governorate levels, including with CEP field staff at the governorate level. The communities targeted for the qualitative component were selected on the basis of presenting interesting case studies, in terms of interventions or changes seen there. The qualitative phase adopted a purposive sampling approach, with support provided by USAID CEP field staff for the 24 identification of KIs. Meanwhile, FGD participants were identified in the field on the day of data collection, based on pre-determined profiles as set out in the table below. The topics for the case studies were selected after analysis of initial quantitative findings and close discussion with the USAID CEP team. In instances where surprising results were identified, or where specific localities were found to demonstrate trends of interest, these were further discussed with the CEP team. Table 3 below provides a detailed overview of thematic areas explored through the qualitative phase, by community. While the Most Significant Change approach was used during the midline monitoring round to assess specific changes within communities, this approach was not used for the endline. Table 3 below provides a detailed overview of these qualitative data collection activities. Table 3: Qualitative phase activities and thematic focus CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES METHOD RESPONDENT PROFILE59 PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVE Community Engagement Three treatment communities (one per governorate)60 6 KI Interviews Municipality/local government representatives, CET representatives • How did the project impact intra-community engagement? • How did the project impact citizen-government engagement? • How did women and youth specifically benefit from the project? 12 FGDs 4 per community with each of the following groups from the local community: male, female, youth male, youth female Good practices Three treatment communities (one per governorate) 61 24 KI interviews Municipality/ local government representatives, CET representatives, community KIs (survey respondents aware of the project), representatives from CBOs/ CSOs involved with CEP • Why was the project able to achieve more significant impact in some specific communities? • What enabling factors within local context, what external factors helped the project achieve intended impacts in these communities? • What are some key lessons learned and good practices in terms of project planning and implementation? Externalities All three control communities: Gharandal, Ajloun, Merad 6 KI interviews Municipality/ local government representatives, community KIs (community leaders, representatives from local organisations/ associations) • What developments have come about in the control communities across the key project areas which could explain changes? • Which of the changes that have come about in the treatment communities can be attributed to CEP interventions and why? Sustainability Nationwide/ governorate level 7 KI interviews CEP management, CEP field staff (Programme Managers or similar profiles), local government representatives • What are some key lessons learned and good practices in terms of project planning and implementation? • What steps are being taken to ensure sustainability of outcomes achieved once the project comes to an end? • What steps can be taken to 3 FGDs 1 FGD per governorate with CET members. Ideally, at least one CET representative from each 59 For municipality/ local government, CET and CBO/ CSO representatives, support was provided by CEP field staff to identify and contact respondents. 60 Selected following preliminary quantitative analysis and based on insights from CEP management and field staff. 61 Selected following preliminary quantitative analysis and based on insights from CEP management and field staff. 25 community within that governorate should participate. ensure sustainability of outcomes achieved once the project comes to an end? Indicators and analysis Aligning the endline survey tool with that of the baseline enabled comparability of findings with the baseline, especially in terms of how perceptions related to the previously outlined five core indicators may have changed for better or for worse since the onset of USAID CEP. However, it should be noted that findings related to changes in perceptions since the baseline have only been included in the report if the differences were found to be significant.62 Findings from the qualitative phase were then used to contextualise these findings. Where relevant, secondary data from past REACH assessments and other secondary research, as well as insights and local contextual knowledge from USAID CEP field staff have also been used to contextualise and triangulate quantitative findings. In addition to these perceptions since the baseline, mean index scores for the five core project indicators were compared between the baseline and endline. During the baseline, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted to calculate these index scores, which measured how communities were performing at the time across the five key indicators. Survey questions were grouped according to each of the five indicators and the purpose of the PCA was to provide an aggregate score which best explains the variance across all questions included in the analysis. Subsequently, each question was averaged and weighted according to the extent to which it explained (was correlated to) the overall principal component of the index. The overall indicators represent the average of all relevant questions, weighted by each question’s explanatory power. The questions analysed to create each of the overall indices are outlined in the Annex. For the endline evaluation SPSS t-test was used to test whether a statistically significant difference between the mean index scores between the baseline and endline can be seen both for the treatment group communities and control group communities. d. CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS Below is an outline of the challenges experienced during the planning and implementation of the endline, as well as the respective mitigation strategies adopted: • Limited comparability between treatment and control communities: Control communities were included in the endline in order to provide comparison with the baseline. Although providing comparison with control communities represents a best practice in evaluations, it must be noted that comparison between the two groups is only possible to a limited extent. While the selected control communities are comparable with the treatment communities in terms of size and nature, direct pairing may not be possible as there are many other external factors that have affected the character and development of the communities over the past years. As such, one of the case studies focusing on the control communities sought to address this by identifying potential externalities that may help explain any changes seen. It should also be noted that the relatively small number of control communities and subsequently the smaller sample size of the control group further limits the ability to accurately compare findings between this group and the treatment. This also limits the extent to which the exact variation in mean difference scores between both groups can be compared and prevents the ability to draw any conclusion with certainty that the change in scores in the control group were larger, smaller or to same extent as the treatment group. What can be concluded instead is whether differences in the same direction can be seen for both groups. In other words, significant results 62 SPSS Column Proportions and Chi-square tests were used for significance testing. To further mitigate sampling errors, p-values were also corrected for multiple hypothesis testing with the Bonferroni correction. The column proportions test is used to determine the relative ordering of categories of the Columns categorical variable in terms of the category proportions of the Rows categorical variable. In other words, the test looks at the rows of a table independently and compares pairs of columns, testing whether the proportion of respondents in one column is significantly different from the proportion in the other column. See also: https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLVQG6.0.1/com.spss.professional/column_proportions_test.htm. Chi-square test assesses whether there is a relationship between two categorical variables. See also: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/chi-square￾test-for-association-using-spss-statistics.php. 26 only suggest that there was a comparable difference at all in each group in a certain direction and does not necessarily mean that a change achieved in one group was larger or smaller than the other. • Small sample size at community level: Although the sample size is relatively large at the aggregate level allowing changes in key outcome indicators to be identified with a relatively high degree of certainty and a relatively narrow error margin, the certainty and error margin of the findings decreases at higher levels of detail i.e. to identify impacts within each of the assessed communities. While case studies were used to gain a more focused view of some specific localities and interventions, there is certainly much scope for further in-depth qualitative data collection and understanding. • Using weights from baseline PCA to calculate endline index scores: To enable comparability and significance testing between the mean index scores for both years, the endline scores were constructed using the same weights derived through the PCA methodology during the baseline. There is therefore a likelihood that endline scores may be overestimated as the PCA weights are based on the baseline alone, and as a result, indicators with little variation in the baseline may have too strong of an impact on the indices during the endline. To mitigate this, the findings presented in this report puts more focus on the changes in specific perceptions (i.e. sub-indicators used to construct overall indices) and in qualitative results, rather than exclusively on the mean index scores for the five key factors within the project. • Subjective factors determining perceptions of social cohesion and resilience: Although the qualitative phase was used to contextualise quantitative findings and establish causal links between changes in perceptions and USAID CEP interventions, it should be noted that these links are difficult to establish with absolute certainty given the subjective nature of some perceptions, especially for those related to trust, personal relations, government responsiveness and collective competence. In most cases, REACH conducted both KI interviews and FGDs to be able to analyse causal links from two different levels i.e. from the point of view of community members and beneficiaries themselves, as well as from key stakeholders and partners involved in implementation. Thus, while the qualitative findings do enable us to establish links between changes in perceptions and USAID CEP interventions, these links should nonetheless be considered with caution given the highly subjective nature of some of the assessed perceptions. Additionally, a potential bias in qualitative findings should also be accounted for since quite a few of the KIs were identified for the evaluation by USAID CEP project staff. • Delayed roll-out of baseline assessments and potential implications of this delay on baseline data: For example, by the beginning of April 2014 i.e. when the first baseline assessment was conducted in the initial nine communities of intervention, USAID CEP had already completed the first round of CBO subgrants (30 in total), held community meetings to announce the second round of CBO subgrants, held community wide meetings and started identifying municipal projects, and, in some cases even started the procurement processes for these projects. A similar staggered approach also took place for the second baseline assessment in the ten newly targeted communities. As a result, it is likely that baseline figures were skewed and community perceptions at that time were impacted by the onset of project activities, even though they were meant to be perceptions prior to the start of USAID CEP intervention. 27 2. KEY FINDINGS a. Overview Figure 6 below presents endline findings in relation to the five key project indicators related to social cohesion and resilience across the nineteen communities targeted by USAID CEP in Irbid, Mafraq and Tafileh Governorates. The mean score for each indicator provides the average score for all responses across the five indicators with higher index scores being indicative of more positive perceptions. A detailed methodology of how these indices were constructed using the PCA methodology developed during the baseline, and the questions analysed to construct each of the five indices are provided in Annex 3. Figure 6: Mean index scores for the five key project indicators across treatment communities, baseline, midline (progress monitoring), and endline As per figure 6, with high index scores of 86.9 and 70.9 respectively, safety and security and social well￾being are perceived to be strong across the communities of USAID CEP intervention. Meanwhile, public service delivery, government and municipal responsiveness, and collective competence were perceived to be more limited in their effectiveness. These findings are similar to that of the baseline. However, when comparing these scores to what was found during the baseline,63 significant differences in perceptions of service delivery, and of government responsiveness were found (see Figure 6 above). For example, the endline score for government responsiveness was 54.7, compared to the baseline score of 49.4. Meanwhile, since the time of the 2017 progress monitoring study, collective competence perceptions appear to have worsened from a mean index score of 55.6 during the baseline to a mean index score of 51.4 during the endline. Similar differences in this mean index score were also observed across the three control communities. These observed variations highlight the need to consider the various sub-indicators individually, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the cohesion and resilience situation in both treatment and control communities, as well as how and why perceptions may have changed since the baseline. The following sections of this report will thus outline and analyse findings related to these individual indicators in detail: 63 Comparison of mean scores are only reported here if the difference of means between the baseline and endline were found to be significant based on independent samples t-test results. The independent samples t-test compares the means between two unrelated groups on the same continuous, dependent variable. See also: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/independent-t-test-using-spss-statistics.php. 28 • The first section analyses community members’ perceptions of safety and security. This serves as an indicative overview of the current state of social cohesion and resilience, while highlighting specific ways in which this may have changed since the baseline • The next two sections focus on analysing the horizontal dimensions of social cohesion,64 i.e. social well-being and collective competence. The section on social well-being examines perceptions of respect and trust within communities, and in what ways this may have changed since the baseline. The following section on collective competence will then analyse communities’ perceptions of their ability to work together This will also include the consideration of key challenges reported by communities, as well as how these challenges along with other external factors could have limited the project’s ability to achieve its intended impacts. • The remaining two sections consider the vertical dimension of social cohesion,65 i.e. cohesion between citizens and different levels of government. This dimension is comprised of satisfaction with public service delivery and perceptions of the degree to which governmental/ municipal institutions and representatives are perceived to be responding to citizens’ needs. Similar to the other sections, these sections will also comprise a discussion around how these perceptions have changed since the baseline and in what way USAID CEP could have contributed towards these changes. b. SAFETY AND SECURITY This section looks into the first core component of USAID CEP - safety and security levels within the community and how this has changed since the onset of the project. Community members’ perceptions of safety and security serve as an indicator of their overall quality of life,66 while highlighting specific areas of tensions or concern from a community cohesion and resilience perspective. i. Changes in safety and security perceptions Community perceptions of safety and security remain similar to the baseline, with a mean index score of 86.9, 67 compared to 87.6 during the baseline.68 This implies that no statistically significant impact since project onset was observed in this area during the endline, even though during the progress monitoring this score was recorded to be higher at 93.5. Additionally, this score during the endline was found to vary between the different assessed communities and was found to have increased significantly in Khalid Bin Al Waleed, from 87 during the baseline to 94 during the endline. While there could have been multiple external factors which brought about these improvements,69 USAID CEP interventions which could have contributed include sessions organised to increase community awareness about key issues since 2017, such as drug use, gender-based violence, and harassment outside girls’ schools., increasing community awareness about key safety and security issues was perceived to be an important change brought about by the project by 3 KIs interviewed as part of the endline evaluation. Conversely, safety and security perceptions appear to have worsened in Ein Beyda, from a mean index score of 93 during the baseline to 79 during the endline. This is in contrast to the progress monitoring 64 The horizontal dimension refers to cohesion within civil society, including people’s state of mind (trust among fellow citizens, willingness to cooperate with and help fellow citizens, and sense of belonging and identity), and behavioural manifestations in the community (social participation of civil society, voluntarism and civic engagement, presence or absence of major inter-group alliances or cleavages). Please refer to the annex for an overview of the analytical framework, including an outline of the definitions of the two dimensions of social cohesion (i.e. horizontal and vertical). 65 The vertical dimension refers to citizen-government cohesion, including people’s state of mind (trust in public figures and confidence in political or other major social institutions), and behavioural manifestations in the community (active political participation). Please refer to the annex for an overview of the analytical framework, including an outline of the definitions of the two dimensions of social cohesion (i.e. horizontal and vertical). 66 Duhaime, G., E. Searles, P. Usher, H. Myers and P. Frechette. 2004. “Social cohesion and living conditions in the Canadian artic: from theory to measurement”, Social Indicators Research 66: p. 295-317. 67 Multiple indicators/ responses were used to construct this index score. Please refer to Annex for the full list of these indicators. 68 For this and all other comparisons between index scores outlined in the remainder of this report, the t-test function on SPSS was used to check if there is a statistically significant difference in the two means between years i.e. between the baseline and endline. The t-test compares the means between two unrelated groups on the same continuous, dependent variable. See also: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/independent-t-test-using-spss￾statistics.php. 69 Possible external factors could include: country-wide changes in national security policies, changes in the country’s socio-economic or political situation more generally, or changes in the political and security situation in neighbouring countries 29 findings during which 98% of community members in Ein Beyda perceived themselves to be living in safety ‘to a large degree’. It is also in contrast to the finding that during the endline, a majority in Ein Beyda (60% and more) perceived safety levels in the community to have improved for women, men and children. Further reflective of these perceived improvements, during the progress monitoring, there was found to have been a decrease in the perception of poor enforcement of rule of law as a reason for feeling unsafe by community members in Ein Beyda, from 60% reporting this during the baseline to 38% reporting this during the progress monitoring. These changes in perceptions could be linked to a community-led activity launched by the Ein Beyda Community Enhancement Team (CET) in January 2016, during which CET members met with the Tafileh police department to discuss and highlight priority security challenges being faced by the community. Following these meetings, additional resources and patrols were allocated to address identified challenges. The worsening of overall safety and security perceptions found during the endline is therefore in contrast to the positive trends found during the progress monitoring. A possible explanation for this contradiction could be due to the different reasons which determine safety levels for the community as well as the different reasons which caused people to feel unsafe over the years. During the endline, the two most frequently reported reasons for feeling unsafe reported in Ein Beyda were rising unemployment and a general rising in prices (92% and 90% respectively). Similarly, during four FGDs conducted in Ein Beyda with males, females and youth (both males and females), participants from all of these demographic groups perceived unemployment and lack of job opportunities to be a key challenge which has worsened for their community over the past three to four years. Male and youth FGD participants also perceived an increase in prices to be a worsening challenge for the community. Furthermore, according to female youth FGD participants, theft and crime in the area has increased over the past few years due to worsening socio￾economic conditions, specifically unemployment, rising prices, increase in poverty and population growth. In general, this reinforces that perceptions of safety are determined by what communities interpret ‘safety’ to mean. While some might interpret safety in the traditional sense in terms of physical safety and security, others might interpret safety in a broader sense of human security which includes socio-economic factors. Therefore, even if community members might consider their general physical security to have improved, deteriorating socio￾economic conditions could have worsened people’s sense of security overall. ii. Perceived improvements in safety and security levels within the community In both treatment and control communities a majority of community members perceived levels of safety and security to have improved in the past four years for men, women and children (see Figure 7).70 These improvements were equally perceived in both treatment and control communities (60% or more in both cases). Perceived improvements in both treatment and control communities indicate that there could be external factors which brought about these improvements, such as country-wide changes in national security policies, changes in the country’s socio-economic or political situation, or changes in the political and security situation in neighbouring countries. Figure 7: Proportion of community members who perceived safety and security levels to have improved for the following demographic groups over the past four years (both treatment and control) 70 Please note that this was a specific question regarding improvements asked during the endline survey. Please refer to the Annex for the complete survey questionnaire. 30 These improvements were perceived by the largest proportion of community members in Mafraq, namely in the following communities: Hay Hussain Ifdain (94% for men, 89% for women, 78% for children)71, Hay Janoubi (84% for men, 81% for women, 77% for children), and Um Aljmal (91% for men, 87% for women, 81% for children). These changes could be attributed to USAID CEP interventions as awareness sessions about drug￾related issues were conducted in Sama Sarhan in 2017, and awareness sessions about community violence and drug-related issues conducted in Um Aljmal in 2017. In Sama Sarhan, another reason for improved safety and security perceptions could be due to a community led-activity in October 2015, through which CET members organised a public commitment ceremony in collaboration with the mayor to raise awareness in their community about the danger of celebratory gun shooting during wedding ceremonies. Community leaders, representatives from the Public Security Department and the municipality as well as numerous community members signed a commitment document in support of the initiative. The signatories committed to modelling positive gun safety behaviour in their respective communities. These examples highlight that USAID CEP interventions contributed towards improving people’s feelings of safety and security in their communities, primarily by increasing communities’ awareness of key safety and security issues. Furthermore, 16 endline survey respondents, primarily in Alsalhya w Nayfha and Noaimeh, reported to be aware of trainings and awareness raising sessions organised by USAID CEP in the past three-four years in their community to enhance overall safety and security. Additionally, survey respondents in Al Taybah, Al Yarmouk, and Sabha w Dafyanah specifically highlighted the importance of raising awareness around drug￾related issues among people of their community. Additionally, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, KIs and FGD participants perceived enhancement of safety and security conditions in the community as the most significant change brought about by the project in the following communities: (1) Alsalhya w Nayfha, as a result of better lighting and street conditions, (2) Bsaira, as a result of increased awareness among community members about drug-related issues and better safety conditions for children attending the Bsaira primary school, and (3) Ein Beyda, because of the construction of three flood retaining walls and the subsequent elimination of flood damage risks to households. However, it is important to keep in mind that since these improvements were also perceived in control communities and given the multiple reasons that cause people to feel safe or unsafe more generally, external factors discussed above also had a role to play and improvements cannot be exclusively attributed to project interventions. iii. Changes in communities’ trust in the police Across treatment communities only, community’s trust in the police was found to have increased since the baseline, from 82% community members reportedly trusting the police to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, to 91% reportedly trusting them to this degree now. No significant increase in trust levels was found in the control communities. This implies that USAID CEP interventions did contribute towards improving people’s relations with and trust in the police, primarily through the ‘Friends of the Police’ sessions organized in some of the treatment 71 This means that 94% perceived safety levels to have improved for men of the community, 89% perceived safety levels to have improved for women of the community, and 78% perceived safety levels to have improved for children of the community, 68% 65% 63% 32% 35% 37% Adult men Adult women Children (i.e. less than 18 years of age) Agree or Strongly agree Disagree or Strongly disagree 31 communities. Reflective of this, 37 endline survey respondents, primarily across Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid, Al Taybah, Al Yarmouk, Alsalhya w Nayfha, Bsaira, Hasa, Hay Jalama and Moath Bin Jabal, reported to be aware of ‘Friends of the Police’ sessions organised by USAID CEP in their community to increase people’s awareness about the need to cooperate with the police to enhance overall safety and security. Further confirming these links, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, increased awareness among community members about drug￾related issues as a result of awareness-raising sessions conducted by USAID CEP in collaboration with local law enforcement authorities was perceived by KIs from Bsaira and Ein Beyda to have brought about a decrease in the spread of drugs and increased safety in the community.72 iv. Summary Overall, safety and security levels remain similar to the baseline,73 although during the endline, community members did perceive safety and security levels in their community to have improved in the past four years. Since improvements were also reported in control communities, it is important to note that they could be attributable to external factors such as country-wide changes in national security policies, changes in the country’s socio-economic or political situation more generally, or changes in the political and security situation in neighbouring countries. Furthermore, given the variations in local contexts between the different communities which are located in different parts of the country, it is also possible that these improvements were driven by specific changes within local contexts. Nonetheless, in some communities, if not all, these perceptions have been enhanced by USAID CEP interventions, especially those which increased community’s awareness about key safety and security issues, as well as those which increased interaction and collaboration between the community and the local police. c. HORIZONTAL DIMENSION: SOCIAL WELL-BEING To further understand the impact which USAID CEP may have had on the resilience of treatment communities, this section will analyse the second core indicator of the project - social well-being. Social well-being is also the first component of social cohesion (horizontal dimension) i.e. social well-being or the availability of social capital within communities.74 i. Changes in social well-being perceptions Across all 19 treatment communities, overall social well-being was found to remain at the same level as during the baseline. The mean index score for this indicator during the endline was 70.9, while it was 68.7 during the baseline. 75 At the community level, this score was found to have changed significantly since the baseline in Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid, Al Taybah, Hay Jalama, Hosha, Khalid Bin Al Waleed, Moath Bin Jabal, Noaimeh and the control community of Ajloun Greater Municipality (see Figure 8). 72 During the progress monitoring, these KIs stated that increased awareness has led to more efforts from the community to support the police in its drug combatting efforts, by being more aware of and reporting any drug trafficking and consumption cases they may notice in their day-to-day lives. Additionally, the KI from the Tafileh Police Directorate also perceived such increased awareness and cooperation to curb the spread of drugs to have been the ‘Most Significant Change’ brought about by USAID CEP in the community of Ein Beyda. 73 That is, the mean index scores were not found be significantly different between the two years. 74 Please refer to the annex for an overview of the analytical framework, including an outline of the definitions of the two dimensions of social cohesion (i.e. horizontal and vertical). 75 Multiple indicators/ responses were used to construct this index score. Please refer to Annex for the full list of these indicators. 32 Figure 8: Baseline-Endline Social Well-being Scores (communities where significant differences were found) While the subjective nature of these perceptions makes it difficult to establish causal links with any programmatic interventions with certainty, qualitative findings indicate USAID CEP could have contributed towards strengthening relations within communities. For example, a CET KI from Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid stated that the project contributed towards improving relations within the community by providing a physical space where people can gather. The example cited by the KI was the support provided by CEP for the maintenance and development of community halls in the area which could then be used for organising community meetings and events.76 Similarly, a KI from the Khalid Bin Waleed CET stated that the project helped to improve relations because project events (such as meetings, training courses, recreational activities) brought people from different parts of the community together and encouraged them to take an active part in their society.77 A similar reason was cited by a KI from Ramtha municipality, where Hay Jalama community is located.78 ii. Perceived improvements in intra-community trust and respect During the endline survey, a majority of community members (57%) in both treatment and control communities perceived levels of trust and respect between people of their community to have improved in the past four years. Within treatment communities, these improvements were perceived by a relatively large majority (i.e. more than 60%) in the following treatment communities:79 Sama Sarhan (73%), Um Aljmal (71%), Hay Hussain Ifdain (68%), Hay Janoubi (68%), Wastyah (64%) and Bsaira (63%). Qualitative findings indicate that USAID CEP may have contributed, at least in some part, to these improvements. Following are some key examples provided by respondents during the qualitative phase of the endline evaluation as to how the project could have improved social relations within the community: • Frequently organised project events and activities: Project events such as training sessions, community meetings, volunteering and recreational activities, etc. were important to bring together people from different parts of the community and increase interaction among them. According to a KI from a CBO in Sama Sarhan, these activities also encouraged people to start working together as one community and there is now a deeper understanding of the spirit of cooperation. For example, people 76 In 2016, the project provided support to a cultural centre that serves Hid, Tein and Mansoura. 77 A 2017 project provided opportunities to enhance community engagement in Khalid Bin Waleed through events such as awareness sessions on drugs, community engagement training, awareness sessions on gender-based violence and economic opportunities, education for women, life skills training, soap and basket making courses, community cultural days, etc. 78 The 2017 ‘Partners for Community Health’ project in this community organised community engagement trainings, awareness sessions on drugs and domestic violence, friends of police courses, breast cancer and maternal health awareness sessions for women, awareness sessions on life style chronic diseases, etc. 79 In all of the three control communities, the proportion who perceived positive changes ranged between 56-58%. 63 67 68 68 66 66 66 67 70 71 72 71 73 73 70 71 Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid Al Taybah Ajloun (Control) Hay Jalama Hosha Khalid Bin Al Waleed Moath Bin Jabal Noaimeh Baseline Endline 33 came together to paint one of the schools in the area. Additionally, according to a KI from Hay Janoubi, opportunities were also reportedly provided for youth and women to participate in community-based activities and this was especially important for women as it increased their confidence for public engagement. In a similar light, youth and female FGD participants from Hay Janoubi also highlighted the importance of awareness sessions that brought Syrians and Jordanians together as they helped to improve relations between these two communities, while sessions in schools enhanced interaction between Syrian and Jordanian children.80 Increased opportunities for Jordanian-Syrian interaction through project activities was also reported as important by youth community members in Ein Beyda, and by a municipal KI in Wastyah. • Establishing the CET which is composed of people from, and demographically and geographically representative of, the community that are selected by the community: According to a KI from the Sama Sarhan municipality, establishing a CET that is representative of the community ensured equal distribution of support across the entire community. This was reportedly important because Sama Sarhan is comprised of five villages, and before, there was no interaction between these villages. Some villages were perceived to be receiving better services than others which created negative perceptions in the community. • Maintenance and rehabilitation of spaces when public meetings and gatherings can be organised: For example, according to a KI from Hay Janoubi CET, the maintenance of a school theatre through CEP was important to bring people together for recreational activities such as children’s sports events and art competitions. Similarly, a KI from the Bsaira local community perceived CEP’s support for the maintenance and equipment of the Bsaira sports club to have been important as it provided opportunities to increase women’s relations in the community. Reflective of links between USAID CEP and improved social well-being perceptions since the baseline, survey respondents were aware of CEP interventions to enhance cohesion and resilience in their respective communities. Of the 21% that were aware of the project as a whole, 24% (a total of 91 respondents) were aware of interventions to enhance cohesion and resilience within their communities. The most commonly reported types of interventions that respondents were aware of were: (1) trainings, awareness raising sessions and other events that gather the community together (most commonly reported by respondents in Wastyah, Dabbet Nimer); (2) initiatives to enhance women’s participation in the community (most commonly reported in Sama Sarhan, Khalid bin Al Waleed); and (3) maintaining or providing public spaces where the community can gather (most commonly reported in Ein Beyda). iii. Changes in reported trust levels in different societal groups and institutions When looking specifically at reported levels of trust which community members have in different local stakeholders and societal groups, perceptions were found to have improved since the baseline for specific local institutions and local government representatives (see Figure 9). Similar improvements were also found during the 2017 progress monitoring study. 80 Examples of events organised in Hay Janoubi include poetry and short story readings for women, plays on drugs for youth, handicraft workshop, reading activities, dialogue sessions with youth, awareness sessions on women’s rights, focus group discussions/ community meetings, etc. When the sports club was equipped with needed machinery and equipment, most of the women in the region registered and the relationship between women of the community improved. There were opportunities for them to discuss common issues. - Female Community Member, Bsaira 34 Figure 9: Proportion of community members across treatment communities who trust the following stakeholders to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree Interestingly, no significant changes in these trust levels were found in the control communities. Therefore, it is likely that USAID CEP interventions had a role to play in increasing communities’ trust in these institutions and representatives. For example, in the case of local government representatives, improved perceptions could be the outcome of more frequent engagement and interaction between the community and representatives from the municipality, which is facilitated to a large degree by the community consultation and participatory approach used by USAID CEP for project planning and implementation. However, they may also be impacted by changes in municipality staff and representatives. These links are discussed in more detail in a later section of this report on Government and Municipal Responsiveness. Meanwhile, improved trust perceptions for international NGOs can at least partially be attributed to the work of USAID CEP and noticeable improvements brought about by the project in these communities over the project lifespan. Similarly, trust in local NGOs could have improved because of CEP’s partnership with local CBOs and CSOs and the work done through them in the past few years. At the community level, significant increase in trust in international NGOs was found in Wastyah (from 16% who trust international NGOs to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline, to 37% who do so now) and Um Aljmal (20% to 54%). Meanwhile, trust in local NGOs also increased significantly in these two communities.81 iv. Summary Overall, social well-being in treatment communities remains at a similar level as during the baseline. However, two key findings can be highlighted which point towards the contributions made by the project towards this dimension of community cohesion: • There appears to have been an increase in levels of trust reported for specific local stakeholders and societal groups (governor, mayor, police, NGOs) since the baseline. No significant increase in trust levels for these stakeholders and groups were found in the control communities, which indicates that USAID CEP interventions had a role to play in these improved trust levels. USAID CEP’s role could have been particularly important in this aspect because of its collaborative approach to project implementation, an approach which consistently relied on inputs provided by local stakeholders such as CBOs, the municipality, and the mayor’s office, for effective planning and targetting of interventions. Increased trust in local and international NGOs can also be attributed to positive results which local community members have witnessed from project interventions in their areas over the past four years. • Levels of trust and respect between people of the community were perceived to have improved over the past four years by a majority across treatment communities. Qualitative findings from the endline evaluation confirm that in addition to external factors, there are three key ways in which USAID 81 Wastyah (18% to 43% trust local NGOs to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree) and Um Aljmal (18% to 35% trust to a ‘moderate’ degree) 29% 30% 82% 26% 21% 45% 51% 91% 36% 35% Governor Mayor Police Local NGOs International NGOs Baseline Endline 35 CEP interventions could have contributed towards strengthening trust, relations and overall social well￾being within treatment communities over the past four years: (1) frequently organized project events and activities which brought people of the community together and increased opportunities for their interaction; (2) providing physical spaces where the community can gather and interact; and (3) establishing the CET whose members comprise of people from the community making it a representative body for community interests. However, since a similar proportion also perceived these overall improvements in control communities, it is likely that these improvements are also attributable to external factors (i.e. those beyond the scope of the project) such as subjective personal circumstances and local contexts. d. HORIZONTAL DIMENSION: COLLECTIVE COMPETENCE In addition to social well-being, another core component of the horizontal dimension of community cohesion and resilience which the project aimed to improve was collective competence. On one hand, collective competence refers to people’s collective ability to: identify community challenges and needs, prioritise issues and related objectives, agree on approaches and effectively work together to achieve prioritised goals.82 On the other hand, collective competence includes the perceived effectiveness of collaborative action, as well as overall community empowerment, i.e. the extent to which the community as a whole has access to resources necessary to achieve their goals.83 This section will discuss these aspects of community resilience and in what way it has changed in the targeted communities since the onset of USAID CEP. i. Changes in collective competence perceptions Across all 19 treatment communities as well as the three control communities, collective competence perceptions appear to have worsened since the baseline. Across treatment communities, the mean index score for this indicator has gone down to 51.4, from 55.6 during the baseline.84 A downward trend in collective competence perceptions was also found across the control communities, where the endline score reduced to 49.5, from 62.3 during the baseline. At the community level, this score was found to have worsened significantly since the baseline in: treatment communities of Ein Beyda, Hasa, Hay Dabbet Nimer, Hay Jalama and Sama Sarhan, and control communities of Al Merad and Gharandal (See Figure 10). The fact that the score also worsened in control communities indicates that collective competence is determined by a range of subjective and circumstantial factors, which cannot exclusively be influenced by interventions. These factors are discussed in more detail later on. At the same time, the finding that collective competence did decrease quite significantly in the control communities in comparison to the treatment, at the time when the coping capacities of the country as a whole have been challenged, implies that USAID CEP interventions did have a role to play in sustaining collective competence abilities at baseline levels despite growing challenges in the communities of intervention. Additional details on how the project contributed towards this, as indicated through qualitative findings, are outlined later in this section. Figure 10: Baseline-Endline Collective Competence Scores (communities where significant differences were found) 82 Norris, Fran H., Suzan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness”. American Journal on Community Psychology 41: p. 141. Please refer to the annex for a detailed outline of the theory and analytical framework used by USAID CEP and this assessment. 83 Ibid. 84 Multiple indicators/ responses were used to construct this index score. Please refer to Annex for the full list of these indicators. 36 An interesting observation in these findings is that of the six treatment communities where collective competence appears to have worsened, three are neighbourhoods within large municipalities and thus, part of larger urban environments. While Hay Dabbet Nimer and Hay Jalama are part of Ramtha municipality, Ein Beyda is a part of Greater Tafileh municipality. Problems facing each of these communities and people’s perceptions of their abilities to deal with these problems should thus be considered within this larger context. Since each of these communities are part of larger urban environments, collective identity and collective action abilities are more likely to be challenged than communities that are part of smaller municipalities or part of peri￾urban/rural environments. This could potentially be because large, heterogenous urban areas often see a fragmentation of the traditional structures of social fabric that provide social networks and safety nets in Jordan, such as tribal links which are stronger in small, rural communities. Furthermore, targeted communities that are part of larger municipalities are also dependent on a wider distribution of service provision across different departments between the different areas from the municipality, compared to communities which are stand-alone municipalities in themselves. Community’s ability to work together to identify and resolve problems Three specific collective competence perceptions which appear to have worsened since the baseline are: (1) people’s ability to work together to solve problems faced, (2) people’s ability to identify stressors collectively, and (3) people’s ability to resolve prioritised stressors. These perceptions worsened in both control and treatment communities, albeit to a significantly larger degree in control communities (see Figure 11). These further underscores what was discussed previously about the role played by USAID CEP in mitigating the negative impact of evolving challenges on the resilience and coping capacities of treatment communities. Figure 11: Changes in collective competence perceptions since the baseline (% who ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’, treatment and control communities) 62 63 57 64 61 58 64 51 51 49 52 52 50 48 57 57 Al Merad (Control) Gharandal (Control) Ein Beyda Hasa Hay Dabbet Nimer Hay Jalama Sama Sarhan Umm Jmal Baseline Endline 37 These changes are contradicted by some of the findings from the qualitative phase of the endline evaluation, in terms of how the project contributed towards bringing about positive changes in these aspects of collective competence. For instance, 13 KIs – primarily CET members and municipal or local government representatives from assessed communities – stated that the project had positively changed people’s ability to work together to identify stressors. Meanwhile, 7 KIs, primarily from Wastyah, Dabbet Nimer, Bsaira and Hasa stated that the project had positively changed people’s ability to work together to resolve prioritised stressors. Details of how respondents perceived the project to have brought about these changes are discussed in more detail under sub-section 3 below. From a methodological standpoint, contradictions between qualitative and quantitative findings could be because KIs are not necessarily aware of the situation in the entire community and therefore are only reporting within their area of knowledge. Furthermore, contradictions between quantitative and qualitative data also imply that despite interventions, a range of subjective factors could have limited the project’s ability to achieve intended impacts on collective competence. These factors are discussed in more detail below. ii. Factors that impacted the project’s ability to strengthen collective competence The fact that collective competence scores also worsened in control communities indicates that this dimension is determined by a range of subjective factors, which cannot be exclusively influenced by project interventions. For instance, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, findings from FGDs with local community members revealed that availability of resources (both financial and human resources), the level of socio-cultural unity, availability of physical spaces to gather, existence of active community-based organisations, and people’s awareness of/interest in solving common issues were some of the key factors which determined collective competence in the community. In Hay Dabbet Nimer, where collective competence perceptions appear to have worsened significantly since the baseline, participants of FGDs conducted during the 2017 progress monitoring highlighted three additional challenges preventing their community from being able to take effective collective action: (1) traditional barriers to women’s participation in the public sphere, (2) limited effectiveness of CBOs,85 and (3) onset of the Syria crisis which aggravated issues such as unemployment and service provision that are beyond the direct control of the communities. Therefore, it can be argued that despite efforts made, pre-existing and newly emerging challenges limited the project’s ability to achieve intended impacts on collective competence. The other key factor which could have negatively impacted the project’s ability to achieve this impact is the nature of the problems communities are facing and the extent to which these are within their control. All of these together have contributed towards a general trend in terms of people perceiving themselves as less well-prepared to handle problems they face. Types of challenges faced by communities Across both treatment and control communities, since the baseline, there has been an increase in people’s perceptions of structural, macro-economic challenges as the most important issue facing their community.86 For example, while lack and cuts to water supply and inefficient garbage collection were the two most frequently cited challenges during the baseline, rising prices and unemployment were the two most frequently cited challenges during the endline (See Figure 12). This means that worsening perceptions of people’s ability to cope with problems they face across both treatment and control communities could be directly a result of the wider changes in the country. 85 FGD participants perceived CBOs to be useful only as a means to discuss problems and not useful as a means to actually resolve these problems. 86 It should be noted that this was an open-ended question, with enumerators engaging in a discussion with respondents about the challenges and pressing needs their communities face. While enumerators then classified the answers provided into specific groups, they were encouraged to use the option ‘other’ as often as possible to describe any issues that cannot be captured in the options provided (please refer to the annex for the tool). 38 Figure 12: Three most frequently reported challenges facing the community (treatment and control communities), baseline vs. endline This is further confirmed by qualitative findings. For instance, FGD participants in Ein Beyda, Hay Janoubi and Wastyah perceived unemployment to have worsened in their community over the past four years. Furthermore, FGD participants in Ein Beyda and Wastyah also perceived increases in prices to be a new challenge which has emerged in their community over the project lifespan. This growing concern across communities with economic issues is understandable, given the wider economic changes that Jordan has been facing over recent years, especially in terms of increased unemployment87 and a general rise in prices and costs of living. 88 Worsening of collective competence due to increased macro-economic challenges is also confirmed by qualitative findings from the three control communities. For instance, KIs from the control communities of Ajloun and Al Merad perceived people’s ability to take collective action to resolve issues to has worsened over the project lifespan, primarily because people’s coping capacities (for example, household income levels) have remained the same even though problems have increased for the community as a whole, especially economic problems such as high prices, lack of income and unemployment. In the long run, the structural and macro-economic nature of challenges being faced by communities highlights the importance of effective communication and engagement not just among citizens, but also between citizens and government representatives at different administrative levels. The participatory and inclusive approach adopted by USAID CEP for planning and implementation89 has contributed to a large degree towards enhancing this latter engagement, which is discussed in more detail later in this report. Therefore, while external factors limited the project’s ability to achieve intended impacts on collective competence, enhancing such engagement has arguably helped to strengthen collective competence in the longer term. Additionally, while economic development and livelihood programming was beyond the scope of USAID CEP, these findings highlight the importance for future projects to incorporate such components if the overall resilience of targeted communities is to be strengthened. iii. Contributions made by USAID CEP towards enhancing collective action abilities Contrary to overall worsening of perceptions, collective competence appears to have improved since the baseline in USAID CEP’s treatment community of Um Aljmal, where the overall score for this indicator has increased from 51 to 57 (see Figure 10). A specific perception which was found to have increased significantly since the baseline in this community is people’s perceived ability to work together to resolve prioritised stressors: from 38% agreeing or strongly agreeing to this statement during the baseline to 65% who agreed or strongly agreed in the endline. USAID CEP interventions which could have contributed towards these improvements include: ‘Yalla Shabab’ initiative (2015) which aims to promote the sense of belonging among young volunteers towards their community and promote their civic engagement and contribution to mitigating the stressors their 87 According to the World Bank’s Jordan Economic Monitor from Fall 2017, Jordan’s labour market continues to be weak and structural unemployment remains high, with unemployment reaching an average of 18% during the first half of the year. Even Jordanians holding university degrees exhibited a high level of unemployment at 23% in the first half of the year. See also: World Bank, Jordan Economic Monitor: Towards Stronger External Trade Performance (2017). 88 According to the monthly report on inflation in Jordan issued by the Department of Statistics in March 2017, there has been an average increase of 4.3% of the inflation rate in the past year i.e. a sustained increase in the general level of prices for goods and services, especially for transport, vegetables, housing and utilities, and healthcare. See also: Jordan Department of Statistics, last accessed April 24 2017. 89 This approach allowed communities to coherently and effectively communicate their challenges and needs to relevant stakeholders at the municipal, Governorate or national levels, where stressors beyond the control of communities might be addressed more effectively. Baseline Endline 39 community is facing,90 establishing a new administrative office in Um Aljmal with CEP support (2016),91 and the ‘Enhanced Partnerships for Community Cohesion’ initiative (2017).92 Additionally, the initiative to enhance community cohesion through positive youth engagement and dialogue in early 2018 could have also contributed, as a component of this included the formation of, and providing capacity-building support to, a youth committee. This then arguably enhanced youth’s ability to mobilise and take collective action for the issues in their community. As similar interventions were also conducted in other communities targeted by USAID CEP, the observation of a statistically significant difference only in Um Aljmal could imply that specific subjective factors like those discussed previously, as well as other types of support received from sources other than USAID CEP, contributed towards the project’s ability to achieve its intended impact in this community. Collective competence perceptions were also found to have improved in Hay Janoubi in the following two aspects: people’s ability to identify stressors collectively (increase in percentage who agree from 46% to 66%) and people’s ability to work together to resolve prioritised stressors (increase in percentage who agree from 47% to 63%). However, no significant difference in the overall collective competence score was found in this community. USAID CEP interventions which could have contributed towards the areas of improvement include: the clean-up campaign organised in 2014, awareness and dialogue sessions with youth through the ‘Our Culture is our Pride’ initiative in 2017, and awareness sessions on women’s rights, formation of women council, and capacity-building for women through the initiative to strengthen relations between women of Hay Janoubi and their community in early 2018. Overall, qualitative findings indicate that since its onset, CEP contributed towards enhancing collective competence not just in these two communities but in several targeted communities in the following ways: • Providing opportunities that encouraged people to come together for constructive dialogues about their common needs and challenges: For instance, according to municipal and CET KIs from Hay Janoubi, these opportunities have increased dialogue among people of the community.93 Similarly, the municipal KI from Sama Sarhan stated that with the arrival of this project which had the ability to address challenges at least to some degree, people from different social groups and villages were encouraged to come together and identify common challenges they were facing. An interesting example provided for such increased dialogue was by the municipality KI from Wastyah who stated that before, there was disagreement between people of two different towns in Wastyah about where the healthcare centre should be set up (people wanted it in their own area) but they were able to come to a solution because they discussed it through meetings and had a common agreement about what suits the interest of both towns. A KI from the CET of Alsalhya w Nayfha also provided an example that with the help of CEP many local community members, schools, local charities and community committees started conducting events such as awareness sessions around traffic, road safety, and the use of drugs. However, an important caveat highlighted by both KIs and FGD participants in Hay Janoubi was that while these opportunities have increased people’s ability to discuss 90 Specifically, this initiative was aimed at highlighting the concept of voluntary work and empowering youth to address challenges through initiatives, as well as increasing awareness about the need to support and mobilize young volunteers for the development of the local community. 91 This could have helped by bringing people closer to local authorities who they can raise their problems to. 92 Examples of components of this initiative include: community engagement training, awareness sessions about women and gender related issues, about community violence and drug related issues, and youth empowerment dialogue sessions. 93 However, as caveated by respondents, this does not necessarily mean that people are able to resolve problems, but instead that they interact more to collectively discuss and identify their common problems. Opportunities provided by the project for the community to come together to discuss common challenges encouraged people to think about challenges for the community as a whole rather than for their own individual areas, because they knew the project intended to serve the area as a whole. Therefore, needs were prioritised based on common challenges, not self-interest of people living in each of the individual five villages. - Municipal KI, Sama Sarhan 40 common issues, they are not usually enough to enable people to resolve issues once they have been identfied. • Providing opportunities and platforms needed to take effective civic action: Examples provided by CET KIs were of volunteer activities and initiatives organised through CEP, especially among youth and students in schools. Furthermore, the KI from Wastyah CET also highlighted how people have themselves begun to take initiatives and ownership to solve problems discussed during meetings, events organised through CEP. Similarly, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, a KI from Khalid bin Al Waleed stated that an important contribution made by the project was the opportunity provided for the community to contribute towards key decision-making processes. For instance, efforts made to identify community-specific needs through consultations and field surveys were perceived to have been particularly important in this regard and in increasing overall resilience and coping capacities within the community. • Providing physical spaces where people can come together to discuss common issues: An example provided by the municipal KI for Ein Beyda was the rehabilitation of the hall in the public school with USAID CEP support which gave people a space to conduct community gatherings and meetings on a more frequent basis. Such increased interaction has not only helped people to understand how they can support one another, but also (1) increased people’s awareness about common issues and (2) helped CET to identify issues that need to be raised with the municipality. Similarly, a KI from Wastyah CET highlighted the importance of meetings organised through USAID CEP and the CET at the municipality hall which was refurbished and maintained with CEP support. • Increasing people’s awareness about the benefits of collective action and civic engagement: For example, a KI from the Khalid Bin Al Waleed CET stated that the project and its results showed people the value of working collectively to identify and address common needs. Similarly, according to a KI from the Tafileh Youth Directorate and a KI from a CBO in Bsaira, project interventions, especially meetings organised with different social groups to identify common needs, encouraged the community to work in a collective team spirit and as an integrated society. A similar reason provided by a KI from CEP field team in Tafileh was that the project has helped people understand that neither the local government nor external actors can achieve any results or solve any key issues without the participation and help from the community. Meanwhile, a KI from Wastyah municipality stated that people's ability to identify and try to resolve problems collectively i.e. through 'community spirit' has improved because the project not only provided material support to improve municipal service provision capacities but also created understanding among people about what their own duties to their community are. Therefore, there are now collaborative efforts made to address issues rather than mere expectations that the municipality will do everything. An example of this is improved public cleanliness which has reportedly come about because of people's own awareness about the importance of maintaining cleanliness and the health hazards of waste accumulation. As a result, people take initiative to keep the area clean. Similarly, a KI from Hasa CET stated that because of positive results seen over the past years, people are more aware of how active participation and collaborative efforts can contribute towards addressing challenges faced by the community. Overall, this reported contribution made by CEP is important to take note of as in the control community of Gharandal, a KI from the local community stated that people are generally unable to take collective action to address their challenges. • Increasing opportunities for women to actively participate in their community and take collective action (Sama Sarhan, Bsaira, Ein Beyda, Hay Janoubi, Wastyah): According The project not only provided material support to improve municipal service provision capacities but also created understanding among people about what their own duties to their community are. As a result, there is now a collaborative effort to resolve issues in the community rather than people just expecting the municipality to do everything. - Municipal KI, Wastyah Challenges for women’s public participation have reduced because of more opportunities available now such as meetings with municipality, community￾based events and trainings. Women now have more opportunities for public participation and there is more representation for their needs. - Youth female FGD, Hay Janoubi 41 to a municipal KI from Sama Sarhan, women particularly benefitted from opportunities provided by the project to come together and discuss community issues because they had no such opportunities before the project began. Specific examples provided by the KI as to how women have gained experienced community participation is that initially, the project’s plan to include women in platforms such as the CET was surprising for people in Sarhan community but now (i.e. after the project). However, since then women of Sama Sarhan villages have been encouraged to participate more actively in their community, especially in terms of having a role in planning and determining the priorities for the overall development of their community. Similarly, according to both local community and CET KIs in Bsaira, participation of women in volunteering activities and community meetings and the visible positive results this had on the community encouraged many women to participate further. Another example of an increase in women’s active participation since CEP as reported by a KI from Dabbet Nimer CET was of a group of women in the community who took initiative to maintain the cleanliness of their area, by cleaning their surrounding neighbourhoods, sorting out waste, and conducting awareness sessions on the importance of public cleanliness. A male KI from the local community of Dabbet Nimer also stated that women’s civic engagement increased because they were participating in any work that was being undertaken as part of USAID CEP, especially through local associations/ organisations. Another aspect highlighted was increased awareness - according to female and youth female community members who participated in FGDs conducted in Hay Janoubi, women have become more able to be involved in the community due to increased awareness levels both among women as well as within the community as a whole. Furthermore, a municipal KI for Hay Janoubi stated that increased opportunities and awareness levels among women has increased their confidence for active public participation.94 • Increasing opportunities for youth to actively participate in their community and take collective action (Dabbet Nimer, Hay Janoubi, Hay Hussein, Wastyah, Taybah): An example provided by a KI from a CBO in Dabbet Nimer as to how USAID CEP increased civic engagement among youth was through the work of youth teams who assisted with the implementation of projects, which is reflective of a growing civic duty sense among youth. A KI from the CET in this community also stated that through positive engagement between the members of the municipal council and the members of the CET, a youth committee was established to support with the implementation and follow-up of projects. Similarly, according to a KI from Wastyah municipality, youth now have better awareness and social consciousness about the importance of their public participation, primarily due to USAID CEP interventions, especially the trainings and awareness-raising sessions. As a result of these sessions, youth are reportedly more aware of how they can bring about local development in their community. Overall, these findings indicate that while wider changes in the country and external factors such as a lack of resources may have limited the project’s impact on collective competence as a whole, there are some ways in which USAID CEP has positively impacted collective competence in target communities, primarily by (1) increasing people’s understanding of the importance of collective action and civic participation (2) increasing their understanding and awareness of key challenges faced and (3) showing them ways in which effective collective action and dialogue can be undertaken.95 As a result the project contributed towards building capacities for effective civic engagement practices at the local level through a ‘learning by doing’ approach.96 Because of ‘learning by doing’, there was a sense of ownership of success in the community if, for example, initiatives planned collectively were implemented with CEP support and positive results were visible on the ground. 94 As mentioned previously, awareness sessions on women’s rights, formation of women council, and capacity-building for women through CEP’s initiative to strengthen relations between women of Hay Janoubi and their community in early 2018 could have been particularly important in this aspect. 95 According to KIs from CEP senior management, this aspect was further enhanced as people actually saw the results of actively participating in meetings and providing their inputs when projects were implemented based on their inputs, and this incentivised them to further engage and take initiatives for the development of their community. 96 According to KIs from CEP senior management, in addition to CET members, capacities of hundreds of people have strengthened in this way, especially women and youth. A demonstration of strong capacities of CET members is that 22 such members were elected to local offices in the 2017 municipality elections, 2/3rd of which were women. Also, 17 individuals from the Ministries of Interior (MOI), and of Municipal Affairs (MoMA) were trained on community engagement approaches/ practices, who then train their colleagues on these aspects. These 17 trainers will continue to be part of the USAID CITIES programme once CEP comes to an end. 42 This is important in the long run because it can not only help people to engage actively in their community and take initiative for community development, but also increases the community’s confidence in the benefits of such engagement. For instance, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, FGD participants in Alsalhya w Nayfha stated that the increased scope for intra-community collaboration due to an overall increase in interest and participation in volunteering and communal activities among community members, has been the ‘Most Significant Change’ brought about by USAID CEP in this community. This is perceived to be an important aspect of strengthening overall community resilience and the community’s ability to work together to resolve commonly faced issues such as drugs, violence and extremism. Therefore, even if the impact of these strong ‘civic engagement’ capacities might not be immediately visible, it is definitely something that can become apparent in the coming years when citizens are themselves able to launch initiatives and take action to resolve problems within their capacity. iv. Summary In sum, while positive changes in the collective competence score could have been expected given the project’s focus on strengthening people’s ability to take collective action towards addressing key stressors in their communities, it is important to keep in mind that increasing ability to take such action, especially in terms of required capacity, knowledge, and networks of support is a longer-term process and requires longer￾term engagement. Moreover, the project was limited in its ability to strengthen this dimension given the nature of challenges facing targeted communities and the country as a whole, as these challenges are structural in nature and therefore beyond the direct control or influence of the communities. However, it is worth noting that collective competence was in general found to be higher in the control communities during the baseline which means that these communities were in a better state than the treatment communities. At the same time, the finding that collective competence did worsen quite significantly in the control communities in comparison to the treatment, at the time when the coping capacities of the country as a whole have been challenged, implies that USAID CEP interventions did have a role to play in sustaining collective competence abilities at baseline levels despite growing challenges in the communities of intervention. This is further highlighted by improvements in specific collective competence perceptions found in the treatment communities of Umm Aljmal and Hay Janoubi. Indeed, qualitative findings indicate that the project has impacted civic engagement and collective action abilities in target communities, at least to some degree, primarily by increasing opportunities for people to engage in dialogue about common needs, increasing community awareness about key issues that they face and how these can be tackled, and building capacities to take collective action through a ‘learning by doing’ approach. e. VERTICAL DIMENSION: PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY Having looked at the horizontal dimension of social cohesion, the following two sections will look at how USAID CEP impacted the vertical dimension of social cohesion and resilience, i.e. the quality of relations between citizens and government at different administrative levels. Within this aspect, this specific section will look into satisfaction with service provision and any changes that may have come about in this aspect since the baseline. i. Changes in service provision satisfaction levels Across treatment communities, the overall index score for service delivery increased from 51.1 during the baseline to 56.7 during the endline. An increase was also found across the control communities, from a baseline score of 42.9 to an endline score of 51.9. A change in scores in both groups implies that support received from other sources during the project lifespan contributed towards improving service provision in assessed communities. Furthermore, these changes should also be considered keeping in mind that community satisfaction levels for eleven different government and municipal services were included for the construction of 43 this index,97 and USAID CEP did not target all eleven of these sectors. Therefore, in order to accurately isolate the project’s impact in this area, it is important to look into which specific services satisfaction levels changed for and how these are linked to CEP interventions. Across treatment communities, specific services for which satisfaction levels were found to have improved include education in public schools, youth centres and sports facilities, water supply services, and opening and maintenance of streets (See Figure 13). All of these except water supply are sectors in which USAID CEP provided support, at least in some of the targeted communities.98 Specific links between community-level interventions implemented and improved satisfaction levels within the community are discussed later in this section. Figure 13: Proportion of community members across treatment communities ‘largely’ or ‘moderately’ satisfied with the following services, baseline vs. endline At the same time, it is also important to note that satisfaction levels for some of these services were also found to have improved in the control communities, specifically: education in public schools (67% ‘largely’ or ‘moderately satisfied’, compared to 61% during the baseline), public gardens and recreational facilities (8% to 16%), and youth centres and sports facilities (16% to 24%). Increase in community satisfaction with these services in control communities implies that these areas in the country where USAID CEP did not intervene could also have received external support in similar sectors. It is therefore also likely that similar support was received in communities of intervention, especially for communities located in the northern governorates of Irbid and Mafraq, where large amounts of support have been channelled since the onset of the Syrian refugee crisis to improve service provision. For instance, both Ramtha (where Hay Jalama and Hay Dabbet Nimer are located) and Mafraq (where Hay Janoubi and Hay Hussein are located) municipalities received support from the World Bank’s Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (ESSRP) to enhance the delivery of key services to the local community. Other examples of such support received as reported by KIs and FGD participants during the endline include: (1) road construction and maintenance equipment (rollers, bulldozers, cranes) procured with the support of the Arab Potash Company in Bsaira, (2) support received from the private sector to improve public transportation (buses) and the state of community halls also in Bsaira, (3) the sewing hangar project implemented by the municipality in Sama Sarhan with the support of ESSRP which reportedly created jobs for women across the villages of Sama Sarhan and helped to address a key issue vis-à-vis female unemployment, 97 Please refer to Annex for the full list of questions/ indicators that was used to construct this index during the baseline. 98 Because of the grassroots approach the project used for planning and implementation, interventions between all the targeted communities varied based on the type of need that was identified for the community through this process. 71% 63% 59% 50% 20% 60% 69% 71% 63% 35% Government health services Education in public schools Water supply Opening and maintenance of streets Youth centres and sports facilities Baseline Endline 44 and (4) the Makani project99 in Wastyah which reportedly created jobs for women in community learning centres and increased their engagement in the public sphere. Similarly, examples provided of external support by KIs from the control community of Gharandal include support from Lafarge Cement Company for road construction. A KI from Gharandal also stated that this area benefitted to an extent from road construction and maintenance equipment provided to Bsaira municipality (which was through USAID CEP). In Ajloun and Al Merad, service provision was also perceived by KIs to have improved due to external support, although information regarding the exact sources of this support was not provided. Across the treatment communities, community satisfaction levels with government health services were found to have decreased. This is important to take note of since USAID CEP did provide support in this aspect, for example: (1) organising free medical days in quite a few treatment communities, (2) interventions to equip healthcare centres, such as in Ramtha (where Hay Dabbet Nimer and Hay Jalama are located) and Wastyah, and (3) general support provided to the Health Directorate in Khalid Bin Al Waleed. Contrasting these findings, however, KIs did perceive healthcare services to have improved as a result of these interventions in Hay Dabbet Nimer, Wastyah, Khalid Bin Al Waleed, and Hasa. Links with support received from USAID CEP to improve service provision At the community level, overall service delivery scores were found to have changed significantly in sixteen communities, including thirteen treatments and three control communities (See Figure 14). As mentioned above, increase in satisfaction levels in the control communities implies that support was received from other sources over the past four years even in areas outside of USAID CEP intervention. Figure 14: Baseline-Endline Service Delivery Scores (communities where significant differences were found) At the same time, some clear links can be seen between improved satisfaction levels and USAID CEP interventions; examples by service type are outlined below: 1. Education in public schools: In Bsaira, a large majority - 65% - reported to be moderately satisfied with this service during the endline, compared to 43% during the baseline. In 2015, USAID CEP provided support to build a wall around the Bsaira elementary school and in 2017, support was provided to install sunshades in government schools. Furthermore, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, improved education environment in public schools was perceived to be the most significant change brought about by the project by FGD participants in Bsaira. During the same study, better privacy and 99 ‘Makani- My Space’ is an innovative approach implemented by UNICEF in Jordan which aims to expand learning opportunities for all children not accessing any form of education. Makani centres have a holistic approach that provides all vulnerable children and youth with learning opportunities, life skills training and psychosocial support services under one roof. See also: UNICEF, Guidance Note on ‘Makani’ My Space Approach. 49 49 53 51 47 46 52 41 47 53 52 53 50 51 51 48 57 53 62 56 52 59 57 51 55 59 69 59 57 60 56 62 Baseline Endline 45 enhanced safety for girls because of this wall was also identified as the most significant change by a KI from the Tafileh Education Directorate. Similarly, in Hay Janoubi, where the proportion largely satisfied with education in public schools has increased from 14% to 37%, USAID CEP provided support for the rehabilitation of a school theatre in 2017. In Hasa, the proportion of community members moderately satisfied with this service increased from 40% to 58%. In 2016, USAID CEP’s ‘Education and Health of Hasa Schools’ project provided support for the rehabilitation of the elementary boy’s school, as well as the secondary girls and boys schools. As was the case in Bsaira, during the progress monitoring, FGD participants from Hasa perceived infrastructural improvement in public schools to have been the most significant change brought about by the project. Progress monitoring respondents generally perceived the intervention to have contributed towards improving the infrastructure and general environment in the schools of the area. Specific infrastructural improvements which were perceived to be important in this regard include the addition of cafeterias and the improvement of existing water and sanitation facilities. Secondly, this intervention is also perceived to have contributed towards raising awareness among community members, both parents and children, about the importance of schooling and education, for both boys and girls. This increased awareness has reportedly enhanced students’ commitment to their education which, in turn, has helped school staff to maintain better discipline among students. Further confirming the importance of both these developments, FGD participants jointly identified higher motivation among students to attend school because of more awareness on the importance of education and better infrastructure as one of the most significant changes brought about by USAID CEP in Hasa community. 2. Youth centres and sports facilities: In Sama Sarhan, a majority of community members (52%) were found to be ‘largely’ or ‘moderately’ satisfied with youth centres and sports facilities, compared to 15% during the baseline. This could be attributed to the opening of youth club ‘Mansheyet AL Gublan Charitable Association’ with CEP support in 2014. In Hay Janoubi, 34% were reportedly largely satisfied with these facilities, compared to 16% during the baseline, which could be the result of the football stadium built with the project’s support in 2016. Furthermore, a range of recreational opportunities for youth such as a photography club was also provided through ‘Improving the Relationship between Youth and Community in Al Sarhan’ project.100 Similar opportunities provided in Bsaira (‘Supporting Bseria’s Youth’ project) could explain the increase in the proportion ‘largely’ or ‘moderately’ satisfied with youth centres from 23% during the baseline to 51% during the endline. In general, providing support for youth centres and recreational opportunities also appears to have been important at a higher level in terms of increasing public engagement among youth, an aspect which is discussed in more detail in the following section on responsiveness perceptions. 3. Public gardens and recreational facilities: Although still a minority, the proportion largely satisfied with this service in Hay Jalama increased to 11% during the endline, compared to 4% during the baseline. This could be linked to the USAID CEP intervention for the rehabilitation of a public park in Ramtha (i.e. the municipality within which Hay Jalama is located). As per qualitative findings from the 2017 progress monitoring, ways in which CEP’s support improved the condition of the park include improvements, such as better sidewalks, better lighting, rehabilitation of the library, installation of new swings and chairs, and improvement of existing WASH facilities. Community perceptions of service-related interventions Local community members surveyed during the endline also acknowledged the importance of USAID CEP interventions for improving services in their community. Indeed, of those survey respondents that were aware of the project’s work in their community (21% across all treatment communities), the highest proportion were aware of interventions to improve municipal and government services (75% of this 21%, i.e. a total of 293 respondents). Specific types of interventions which respondents were aware of and perceived to be important in this regard include (in order of how frequently they were reported): those related to health and education, supporting construction for retaining walls, public leisure spaces (parks, stadium, playground, community halls), 100 This project was still ongoing at the time of data collection. 46 public roads and/or street lighting, community recreation centres (youth clubs, library, sports centre, cultural centre, municipality hall), and waste management. Positive perceptions of interventions are also reflected in qualitative findings. For example, according to male community members who participated in an FGD in Hay Janoubi, waste management has improved in the past four years because of the increased frequency of garbage collection. Overall, specific services which were commonly perceived to have improved as a result of interventions include: road construction and maintenance, waste management, street lighting, public leisure spaces, and infrastructure of public schools. The flood retaining wall was also reported to be a particularly important intervention by KIs and FGD participants in Ein Beyda. Similarly, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, KIs and FGD participants perceived infrastructural improvements to have had a significant impact on the lives of people in: Alsalhya w Nayfha (better conditions of public roads as well as improved infrastructure in public schools in the community); Hasa (infrastructural improvement in public schools); Bsaira (opening of new streets in the village areas which has improved people’s mobility within the community); Ein Beyda (improved quality of life for women as a result of the rehabilitation of the women’s youth and fitness centre); Hay Jalama and Hay Dabbet Nimer (improvements in the conditions of public roads and street lighting, and rehabilitation of the centre for disabled children, improvements in the provision and delivery of solid waste management services). ii. Perceived improvements in service provision over the past four years During the endline survey, a higher proportion of community members across treatment communities perceived service provision in their area to have improved over the past four years, compared to those in control communities (see Figure 15). Indicating that improvements in treatment communities are linked to USAID CEP interventions, communities that had been engaged in the project for longer, i.e. since 2014, showed higher levels of reported improvements than those that joined the project in 2015. 62% of those in 2014 intervention communities perceived positive changes, compared to 58% of those in 2015 ones. At the community level, improvements were most perceived in Sama Sarhan (80%), Hay Janoubi (77%), Hay Dabbet Nimer (76%), and Um Aljmal (75%). Figure 15: Extent to which service provision was perceived to have improved over the past four years A large majority (94%) across treatment communities who reported improvements in government and municipal services perceived these improvements to have been relevant to the priority needs of their respective communities. This is also reflected in qualitative findings. For example, FGD participants in Ein Beyda stated that service-related challenges in the community have reduced and municipal responsiveness to service-related problems has improved because municipal capacity to provide services has increased. Reportedly, the municipality has the required machinery and equipment now, so if they receive a complaint they are better positioned than they were four years ago to respond to the complaint. Despite overall improvements there were some variations by service sector, with street lighting, road building, and solid waste management seeing particularly strong perceptions of improvements (see Figure 16). As the figure below shows, a higher proportion across treatment communities perceived improvements in sectors which USAID CEP intervened in - such as lighting, roads, solid waste management, and health services - in comparison to those in control communities. 53% 62% 47% 38% Control Treatment Agree or Strongly agree Disagree or Strongly disagree 47 Figure 16: Extent to which the following services were perceived to have improved over the past four years, control vs. treatment communities In the following community-specific examples, links can be found between sectors for which improvements were perceived by a large majority (i.e. more than 60%), and USAID CEP interventions: • Solid waste management: Yarmouk, Wastyah, Taybah, Khalid Bin Al Waleed, Moath Bin Jabal, Noaimeh, Hay Hussein; • Road building and maintenance: Hay Jalama; • Street lighting: Bsaira, Hay Jalama, Hay Dabbet Nimer, Taybah, Moath Bin Jabal. iii. Summary Overall, findings related to government and municipal service provision indicate that interventions did contribute towards improving community perceptions in this area, although funding and material support received from sources other than USAID CEP should also be taken into consideration. In general, the improvement in satisfaction levels for specific services in specific communities is also a positive indication of USAID CEP’s participatory project planning approach, which effectively targeted sectors based on context￾specific needs identified by the community. This helped to ensure that support provided was indeed relevant for the priority needs of targeted communities. Further ratifying this approach, perceptions of municipal effectiveness and responsiveness across treatment communities improved since the baseline. This aspect is discussed in more detail below. f. VERTICAL DIMENSION: PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL RESPONSIVENESS Following up on the service provision findings from above, this section discusses community members’ trust in and perceived responsiveness of the municipality and a number of other government institutions and representatives. Combined with satisfaction with government and municipal services, this provides an understanding on the impact which USAID CEP had on the vertical dimension of social cohesion since project onset. 53% 43% 35% 25% 16% 8% 3% 61% 52% 50% 18% 11% 14% 9% Street lighting Road building and maintenance SWM Water supply Police and security services Transportation services Government health services Control (% who perceived this service to have improved) Treatment (% who perceived this service to have improved) 48 i. Changes in government and municipal responsiveness perceptions Overall perceptions of government and municipal responsiveness were found to have improved since the baseline. Across the 19 treatment communities, the mean index score for this indicator was 54.7, compared to a baseline score of 49.4.101 However, improvements were also found across the control communities (from a mean index score of 47.1 to 56.6), which implies that factors external to the project had a role to play in improving people’s trust in and perceived responsiveness of the municipality and other local government institutions. At the community level, overall responsiveness perceptions were found to have improved most significantly in the treatment communities of Khalid Bin Al Waleed and Hay Janoubi, and in the control community of Gharandal in Tafileh (See Figure 17). In 12 of the 13 communities where responsiveness was found to have improved,102 these improvements are reflected in overall improvements in service provision perceptions discussed in the preceding section of this report. This implies that perceptions of government and municipal responsiveness are directly linked to people’s satisfaction with the quality of public services being provided. Since a large part of USAID CEP interventions comprised of municipal and local government support projects to address community’s service-related needs, these improvements can, at least in part, be attributed to this project. However, as already mentioned, since improvements can also be found in control communities, contributions made by external factors should also be acknowledged. Both of these factors (i.e. internal and external to the project) are discussed in more detail later. Figure 17: Baseline-Endline Responsiveness Scores (communities where significant differences were found) Perceptions of municipal effectiveness and responsiveness improved significantly in the treatment communities, while the overall index scores for responsiveness increased since the baseline across both treatment and control communities, perceptions for two specific indicators within responsiveness103 - municipal effectiveness and municipal responsiveness - were found to have increased more significantly in the treatment communities. These perceptions are discussed in more detail below. Perceptions of municipal effectiveness Across the 19 treatment communities, the extent to which municipalities are perceived to be functioning effectively was found to have improved, from 25% perceiving their municipalities to be functioning effectively 101 Multiple indicators/ responses were used to construct this index score. Please refer to Annex for the full list of these indicators. 102 Exception of Hosha. 103 Multiple indicators/ responses were used to construct this index score. Please refer to Annex for the full list of these indicators. 42 45 51 48 46 44 46 50 48 46 56 44 49 47 53 55 55 57 53 55 60 57 53 63 59 58 Baseline Endline 49 ‘always’ or ‘many times’ during the baseline, to 48% perceiving this level of effectiveness during the endline. No significant changes in these perceptions were found across the control communities. At the community level, perceptions of municipality functioning effectively increased significantly in Hay Janoubi, Hay Hussain Ifdain (both neighbourhoods within Mafraq municipality), and Khalid Bin Al Waleed (see Figure 20). Figure 18: Extent to which municipalities are perceived to be functioning effectively ‘many times’ (across treatment communities), baseline vs. endline As discussed earlier, a key reason for improvements in community perceptions of municipal effectiveness could be the increased efficiency and quality of service provision. Indeed, in all four of these communities, overall service provision perceptions scores did increase significantly since the baseline. Furthermore, during FGDs conducted with local community members in Hay Janoubi, service-related challenges were perceived to have decreased in this community in the past three to four years, due to improved efficiency of service provision such as waste management. Provision of material support through USAID CEP to enhance service provision capacities could thus have contributed to these improved perceptions. For instance, as part of the ‘Increase Khalid Bin Al Waleed Municipality Responsiveness to Citizens Needs’ project in 2016, the municipality was provided with equipment such as pick-up trucks, garbage compactors and containers to improve its waste management capacities. Similar types of support were also provided to the municipality in Hay Janoubi (paving roads, building sidewalks, installing and maintaining street lighting) and Hay Hussain Ifdain (paving roads, installing street lighting) which as demonstrated in figure 18 above also saw similar gains. In addition to material support and increased service provision capacity, improved perceptions of municipal effectiveness could also be due to increased communication between the community and their municipal representatives, which subsequently impacts the extent to which municipalities are perceived to be effective at responding to the needs of the community. Perceptions of municipal responsiveness Reflective of improved perceptions of municipal effectiveness, across the 19 treatment communities, the extent to which municipalities are perceived to be responsive was also found to have increased significantly since the baseline (see Figure 19). No significant differences were found in these perceptions across the control communities. Similar improvements in municipal responsiveness perceptions were also found during the 2017 progress monitoring study. 9% 20% 25% 34% 51% 48% Hay Hussain Ifdain Hay Janoubi Khalid Bin Al Waleed Baseline Endline 50 Figure 19: Extent to which municipalities are perceived to be responsive to community needs (across treatment communities), baseline vs. endline At the community level, municipal responsiveness perceptions increased most significantly in: Hay Dabbet Nimer (from 38% who perceived the municipality to be responsive to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree during the baseline to 73% who perceived similar levels of responsiveness during the endline), and Sama Sarhan (42% to 64%). Additionally, the proportion of those who perceived the municipality to be responsive ‘to a large degree’ increased in Al Taybah (2% to 16%) and Hay Janoubi (6% to 22%). In Sama Sarhan and Hay Janoubi, similar improvements in municipal responsiveness perceptions were also found during the 2017 progress monitoring study.104 It is interesting to note the improvement in responsiveness perceptions in Hay Dabbet Nimer because during both the baseline and progress monitoring, these perceptions were found to be limited. For example, a majority in this community during the progress monitoring (52%) perceived their municipalities to be responsive only ‘to a little degree’ or ‘not at all’. In Hay Janoubi and Sama Sarhan, improved perceptions of municipal responsiveness are reflected in an increase in the proportion who perceived their mayors to be responsive to community needs.105 For instance, in Hay Janoubi, 48% perceived their mayor to be responsive to community needs to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate degree’ during the endline, compared to 26% during the baseline.106 Similarly in Sama Sarhan, the proportion who perceived their mayor to be responsive to a ‘moderate’ or ‘little’ degree increased from 45% to 74%. A finding from the community of Noaimeh was that although municipal responsiveness perceptions were not found to have improved, perceptions of municipal accountability did improve. For instance, during the endline, a large majority (61%) of community members in Noaimeh perceived citizens to be able to hold the municipality accountable ‘always’ or ‘many times’, compared to 20% during the baseline. Additionally, there was an increase in the proportion who reportedly trust municipal council members ‘to a moderate degree’ from 20% to 35%. This could explain why the overall responsiveness score in this community was found to have improved, even though perceptions of municipal responsiveness did not. Reflective of an increase in the proportion who perceived municipalities to be responsive, a majority (57%) across treatment communities107 also perceived municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs to have improved in the past four years (see Figure 20). These improvements were perceived by a significant majority in: Um Aljmal (78%), Sama Sarhan (76%), Dabbet Nimer (71%), Hosha (69%), and Hay Janoubi (66%). 104 For example, in Sama Sarhan, proportion of those who perceived municipalities to be responsive to a ‘large’ or ‘moderate’ degree increased from 42% to 63%, and in Hay Janoubi from 34% to 57%. 105 It is important to note here that municipal elections took place in Jordan in August 2017, which means mayors may have changed as a result during the timeframe of the project. Please refer to the section on external factors below. 106 Similar improvements were also found in Hay Hussein Ifdain (21% to 44%), which is the other neighbourhood in the same municipality (Greater Mafraq) that was targeted by USAID CEP. 107 Compared to 49% across the three control communities. 39% 58% 35% 26% 17% 7% 9% 9% Baseline Endline To a large or moderate degree To a little degree Not at all Not sure/ don’t know 51 Figure 20: Extent to which municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs was perceived to have improved over the past four years Most commonly reported reasons for why municipal responsiveness to citizens’ needs improved in the past four years were: improved physical capacity (funds, material resources) to be able to address identified needs (63%) and improved human resource capacity within municipality (59%). A small proportion of community members across treatment communities (7%) also perceived these improvements to be due to the establishment of more effective communication channels, compared to 1% in the control communities. As per qualitative findings from the 2017 progress monitoring study, the four key factors that typically determine people’s perceptions of municipal responsiveness are: (1) quality and equitable distribution of public services, (2) the promptness with which the government/municipality responds to specific requests and complaints, (3) the effectiveness and sustainability of these responses, and (4) additional efforts made to effectively respond to priority needs, such as through site visits and direct consultations with the community. Additionally, variations in responsiveness levels between communities are also arguably determined by levels of effective citizen-government engagement between the different communities. This, in turn, is influenced by factors such as the existence and effectiveness of formal channels for such engagement, political and socio￾cultural dynamics affecting the relation of the community or its representatives, and proximity to administrative setups which affect where and how community needs can be communicated to different levels of government. All of these factors, and how they might have changed due to both USAID CEP contributions and other external factors, are discussed in more detail in two subsequent sub-sections. Engagement between the municipality and local community Although only a minority perceived improved citizen-government communication to be a reason for improvements in municipal responsiveness, 33% across treatment communities perceived communication between citizens and their municipality/local government to have improved over the past four years. At the community level, these improvements were perceived by a majority in Um Aljmal (61%), Sama Sarhan (58%), Ein Beyda (52%), and Hosha (51%). The three most commonly reported reasons for this improvement were: increased effectiveness of existing channels of communication (48%), improved community outreach capacity among municipality staff/government representatives (46%), and more initiative taken by the government/municipality (27%). This indicates that USAID CEP efforts to strengthen community outreach capacities and consultative planning abilities among municipalities and other local government actors did have an impact on communities’ overall perceptions of these authorities. A large majority (60% or more) in all three control communities did not perceive any such changes to the levels of municipal-community engagement over the past four years. This confirms that USAID CEP’s community engagement approach which encouraged local community members to come together with their municipal and local government representatives to discuss key issues for planning and decision-making purposes did have a role to play in bringing about these improvements. In Hosha, perceptions of improved communication are further reflected in improvements in community members’ reported trust levels in and perceived strength of relations with municipal council members. 49% 57% 51% 43% Control Treatment Agree or Strongly agree Disagree or Strongly disagree 52 For example, there has been an increase since the baseline in proportion of community members who reportedly trust municipal council members to a large degree, from 5 to 26% in Hosha. ii. Changes in responsiveness perceptions among women and youth Perceptions among women in treatment communities As during the progress monitoring, women’s perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness were found to have particularly improved since the baseline (see Figure 21). This is an important finding since USAID CEP did have a specific focus on increasing public participation among women.108 Figure 21: Changes since baseline in women’s perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness (across treatment communities) Improved perceptions among women is further reflected in an increase in the proportion of women who reported: (1) trusting their municipal council members (2) having strong relations with their municipal council members and (3) being invited to attend public meetings to discuss community issues (See Figure 22). Figure 22: Changes since baseline in proportion of women (across treatment communities) who report the following 108 50% of CET members, for example, were required to be women. See also: USAID, Community Engagement Project Factsheet (December 2015). 39% 24% 51% 38% Municipality is responsive to citizen's needs (to a large or moderate degree) Municipality functions effectively (always or many times) Baseline Endline 53 This implies that improved perceptions among women about their municipality is related to increased engagement between women and their municipal representatives. Qualitative findings indicate that USAID CEP’s community engagement approach and interventions, which aimed at increasing women and youth’s participation in their communities, did contribute towards increasing women’s interaction with these representatives. Reported ways in which the project’s approach could have brought about this change include: • Organisation of community-based meetings, events, trainings and awareness raising sessions: As discussed previously under Collective Competence, these events have increased women’s ability to interact and discuss key issues with their municipal representatives. Furthermore, female community members from Hay Janoubi who participated in a community-level FGD stated the municipality has started to organise meetings more frequently with the community (every three months) which has had two key results: (1) helping the municipality understand people’s problems and respond accordingly, (2) helping people understand municipal capacities and thus be more realistic with their expectations. Women’s ability to participate in these meetings has also reportedly increased their confidence to participate in public platforms of this kind. For instance, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, FGD participants in Ein Beyda and Hay Janoubi reported that while women’s engagement is still relatively limited in comparison to men, they have become more confident because of these sessions to overcome cultural barriers and visit the municipality and/or government offices to file complaints. Furthermore, female participants of FGDs during the progress monitoring in Hay Janoubi also highlighted that direct engagement with the Mayor through such meetings has been particularly important in improving people’s perceptions of the municipality. Participants stated that the mayor had occasionally begun attending these community meetings himself, and this enhanced responsiveness as it helped to better connect the government to the realities in the community and understand the urgency of their needs. Reportedly, responsiveness of the municipality to complaints and requests have also become faster since the mayor started attending these meetings.109 • Established platforms and channels of communication for women: A platform reported by municipal KIs in Sama Sarhan and Wastyah was the CET, as it not only encouraged women to have a strong role in their community but also increased their capacity in terms of engaging in effective public participation. Furthermore, a KI from Wastyah municipality stated that women in the CET were themselves a good channel for other women in the community to discuss their needs with the municipality. 109 It is important to take note that between the progress monitoring and endline, municipality elections took place in Jordan (second half of 2017). This means that the mayors have changed. 23% 39% 11% 17% 5% 10% Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Trust municipal council members to a large or moderate degree Have strong relations with municipal council members Been invited by municipality/ local government to attend public meeting to discuss issues of public concern 54 • Established opportunities for women’s active engagement such as meetings with the municipality: According to municipal and CET KIs as well as youth female FGD participants from Hay Janoubi, women now have more opportunities for public participation and there is more representation for their needs through these meetings. As a result, challenges for women’s public participation have reduced. What has also been helpful in this aspect, as reported by a KI from the CEP field team in Mafraq governorate, was that half of the CET members (50% according to the KI) were women. Furthermore, according to a municipal KI from Sama Sarhan, women who were heads of local organisations, charities and community centres were given opportunities to increase their collaboration with the municipality, while implementing projects that are part of USAID CEP. These qualitative findings are also confirmed by the finding that during the endline survey, women who perceived citizen-government communication to have improved over the past four years perceived this change to have come about primarily because of improved community outreach capacity among municipal staff and representatives. Women were more likely to report this as a reason than their male counterparts, and women were also more likely to perceive increased communication to be due to more initiative taken by the government/ municipality (See Figure 23). Overall, this is further indicative of improved communication opportunities specifically among women of the community. Figure 23: Reported reasons for improved citizen-government communication over the past four years, by gender (across treatment communities) Perceptions among youth in treatment communities Along with women, perceptions among youth of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness were also found to have improved since the baseline (see Figure 24). This is another important finding since USAID CEP had a specific focus on increasing public participation among youth of the community.110 Figure 24: Changes since baseline in youth perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness (across treatment communities) 110 30% of CET members, for example, were required to be youth. See also: USAID, Community Engagement Project Factsheet (December 2015). 57% 36% 19% 17% 15% 38% 48% 6% 8% 35% Existing channels of communication have become more effective Improved community outreach capacity among staff/ representatives More effective channels of communication have been established More frequent meetings and events organised with the community More initiative from the government and municipality % of women who perceive this to be a reason for improved communication % of men who perceive this to be a reason for improved communication 55 Improved perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness among youth is further reflected in an increase in the proportion of youth who: (1) reportedly trust their municipal council members and (2) perceived to have strong relations with their municipal council members (see Figure 25). 36% 23% 60% 46% Municipality is responsive to citizen's needs (to a large or moderate degree) Municipality functions effectively (always or many times) Baseline Endline 56 Figure 25: Changes since baseline in proportion of youth (across treatment communities) who report the following As was the case for females, this implies that improved perceptions among youth is related to increased engagement between youth and their municipal representatives. Reflective of this, during the endline survey a majority of respondents of all age groups across the treatment communities (57% for female youth and 61% for male youth) perceived the ability of youth members of their household to make their voice heard by the municipality to have increased in the past three to four years. However, a majority also perceived these improvements across control communities (56% for female youth and 60% for male youth) which demonstrates that factors external to the project also had a role to play in bringing about increased engagement among youth. These external factors are explored in detail in the following sub-section. Another indication of increased engagement between youth and their municipal/local government representatives is that across treatment communities, youth were most likely to perceive ‘more frequent meetings and events organized with the community’ as a reason why communication between the community and their local government representatives increased over the past four years (see Figure 26). Figure 26: Reported reasons for improved citizen-government communication over the past four years, by age group (across treatment communities) As per the qualitative findings, ways in which USAID CEP could have played a role in increasing such engagement between youth and their municipal/local government representatives was by establishing opportunities for active engagement among this demographic group. For example, as discussed previously under Collective Competence, CET, CBO and local community KIs from Hay Dabbet Nimer discussed the importance of active engagement of youth through the establishment of a youth committee. Reportedly, this committee worked in collaboration with the CET and the municipality to support with project implementation as 24% 55% 14% 39% Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Trust municipal council members to a large or moderate degree Have strong relations with municipal council members 39% 16% 14% 48% 14% 19% 51% 9% 9% 50% 8% 5% Existing channels of communication have become more effective More frequent meetings and events organised with the community More effective channels of communication have been established 18-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51 years and above 57 well as to take initiatives which could address issues in the community. Youth were also actively engaged through awareness-raising activities which reportedly increased their overall awareness of key issues facing their community. A KI from Hay Hussein CET also stated that youth were given opportunities to work closely with the municipality as members of the CET, by launching volunteer initiatives or by participating actively in meetings organised with the municipality to discuss key issues. In sum, while external factors could have contributed towards increased engagement among youth, the community engagement approach with its focus on youth involvement, which lies at the core of USAID CEP’s planning and implementation processes also arguably had a role to play. iii. Factors that contributed towards enhancing responsiveness perceptions Contributions made by USAID CEP Findings from FGDs and KI interviews conducted during the endline indicate that USAID CEP could have contributed towards enhancing community perceptions of responsiveness in the following ways: • Provision of material support to enhance municipality and local government’s ability to respond to needs of the community: According to KIs and FGD participants in Bsaira and Hay Janoubi, this increased capacity has, in turn, increased people’s trust in municipal/local government institutions and improved their perceptions of these institutions. The outcomes of improved responsive capacity were also discussed by local community members in Hay Janoubi who, during a community-level FGD, stated the municipality has become very responsive over the past three years and respond to complaints and needs to the best of their capacity. The provision of material support has reportedly enabled the municipality to address long-term needs of the community such as the construction, maintenance and paving of roads, and the construction of retaining walls specifically in Ein Beyda. Furthermore, according to a KI from the local community in Bsaira, this support has enabled the municipality to meet basic needs such as clearing roads of snow and water in the winter which is important for people’s day-to-day lives but which the municipality did not have the resources to do before. Another outcome of this support as reported by a KI from a CBO in Bsaira is that it enhanced equitable distribution of services across the community i.e. enabled the municipality to ensure that all services reach all citizens in the community. this aspect appears to be especially important because municipality and community KIs from control communities highlighted gaps in physical capacity as a key reason why the municipality/local government is unable to support the community in coping with challenges faced. For example, a KI from the local community of Gharandal stated the municipality is particularly limited in its ability to resolve problems due to limited human resources while the KI from Al Merad stated that the local government is unable to cope with problems because it has not received any support from external actors and without this support, it does not have the required capacity. In Ajloun and Al Merad, KIs also perceived responsive capacities to have worsened over the past four years because of the following reasons: (1) increase in challenges but lack of external support to increase resources and responsive capacities, and (2) lack of communication with the community. Finally, the importance of material support for improving overall responsiveness perceptions is also reflected in the finding that a majority of those endline survey respondents who reported to be aware of USAID CEP interventions to enhance municipal responsiveness (36/48 respondents), reported to be aware of support provided to municipalities in the form of material (i.e. procurement of machinery, equipment) and financial assistance. • Establishment of the CET as an effective channel of communication between people of the community and their municipal/local government representatives: As reported by a KI from the local community of Bsaira, this was possible since the CET was composed of people selected by and from the community, because of which it was an effective platform to communicate community needs to the municipality and other institutions responsible for providing The CET served as a link between the community and the municipality and other government agencies. In this capacity, it improved the means of communication between the community and all parties that can provide services effectively to the community. As a result, the relationship between citizens and their government/ municipality representatives has become much better than it was before. L l it KI B i 58 services to the community. The effectiveness of CETs as channels of communication is also arguably enhanced because local government representatives form a part of these teams111 which then strengthens linkages of the CETs with the local government. The importance of this link established through the CET was also reported by a KI from the Tafileh Youth Directorate. Furthermore, the role of the CET was also perceived by KIs and FGD participants to be important because of the meetings it organised to involve community members in the planning and implementation of interventions. Moreover, as outlined previously in this section, the CET was also an important platform to specifically represent the needs of women of the community. This could, in turn, have contributed towards improving women’s overall perceptions of their municipality and other local government representatives. The importance of the CET as a communication link between the community and the municipality was also discussed by KIs and FGD participants during the 2017 progress monitoring study.112 • Organisation of frequent meetings between community leaders, people of the community, CETs and the municipality as a part of the participatory approach for planning and implementation of interventions: The core objective of this participatory approach was involving and consulting the local community and all key local stakeholders at all stages of project planning and implementation, primarily through community-wide meetings. A key reported advantage of this approach was that it made it easier for people of the community to interact with representatives of the municipality and with local government representatives for education, health, agriculture and similar bodies. These meetings have reportedly improved the municipality’s ability to understand the views and needs of the community and therefore improved its ability to meet these needs. Additionally, as reported by a KI from the Bsaira CET and by a municipal KI in Ein Beyda, because of what has been achieved by projects that were designed based on the outcomes of these meetings, (1) trust between the community and the government/municipality was strengthened and (2) people’s confidence in the benefits of actively engaging with the municipality for planning and decision-making was enhanced. Furthermore, as a result of these meetings, the community has reportedly become more aware of the capacities that the municipality has and therefore more patient and realistic about their expectations. As outlined earlier in this section, these meetings have also specifically benefitted women and youth within the community. The latter two aspects, both of which reportedly improved communication opportunities, are particularly important because they institutionalised a participatory approach for the planning, and implementation of interventions which encouraged different community stakeholders to collaborate with the municipality/local government to bring about positive developments in the community. Additionally, during the 2017 progress monitoring study, municipal Key Informants in Hay Al Janoubi and Al Mansoura, Tein, hid identified improved citizen-government engagement through CETs, for example through regularly convened meetings and community consultations, as the ‘Most Significant Change’ brought about by USAID CEP in these two communities. Such collaboration also appears to be important in light of qualitative findings from the control communities. For instance, according to a KI from the local community in Al Merad (i.e. control community) interviewed during the endline, one of the reasons the local government/ municipality is unable to resolve people’s problems is because there is no communication between the people and the representatives of these institutions. Overall, while qualitative findings show that USAID CEP did contribute towards improving overall responsiveness perceptions in the community, it is important to keep in mind that such perceptions are 111 CETs are comprised of 12-20 volunteers from the community, which includes 2 municipal representatives. See also: USAID, Community Engagement Project (December 2015). 112 The importance of CETs in enhancing citizen-government engagement was also found during a Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of USAID CEP conducted by Management Systems International (MSI) in 2016. This evaluation found that since the onset of this project, a significant proportion of community members across targeted communities (38%) have begun to use CETs as their channels of communicating with the government/ municipality. According to findings from this evaluation, CETs have replaced personal connections with municipality and Governorate staff which was reportedly the most common means of communication prior to the project. Furthermore, during Key Informant interviews conducted as part of this evaluation, almost all Mayors in CEP intervention communities agreed that CEP had enhanced their ability to provide services and better understand the needs of the communities they serve. Majority of the Mayors also perceived the CETs as “an additional arm of the municipality, better able to conduct grassroots outreach and channel demands and grievances back to the municipality”. See also: USAID, Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the USAID Community Engagement Program (Draft Evaluation Report), November 2016. p.34. 59 also largely determined by specific circumstances, individual experiences and subjective factors within local contexts. These thus limit the ability of any project intervention to fully impact responsive capacities and responsiveness perceptions within a short timeframe in a sustainable manner. While sustainability concerns are discussed in more detail in the concluding section of this report, external factors that could have contributed towards improving responsiveness perceptions are discussed in more detail below. External factors that contributed towards improved responsiveness perceptions Since the overall responsiveness score was found to have increased since the baseline in both treatment and control communities, it is important to acknowledge that external factors i.e. those that go beyond project interventions did have a role to play in improving overall responsiveness perceptions in the communities over the past three to four years. These factors could also explain why, despite the use of a similar approach and the implementation of similar interventions across all targeted communities, the project appears to have had more impact on responsiveness perceptions in some communities than others. Key external factors which could have contributed are: • Decentralisation reforms in the country: In August 2015, the Government of Jordan passed the Decentralisation Law in Jordan, the overall goal of which is to bring policies and public services closer to citizens, so as to better meet the needs of local communities and bring about inclusive growth in the country.113 Within the new legal framework, new elected councils at the municipal and governorate levels have been established and locally elected councils are meant to collaborate with CSOs, citizens, and other relevant non-government stakeholders to identify community needs, thus helping align policies and plans across different layers of government with realities on the ground.114 These reforms therefore could have contributed towards improving people’s perceptions of responsiveness. While the reforms are still relatively recent for any tangible impact to have become visible, the objectives of these reforms could have positively impacted communities’ confidence in local governance. Indeed, during a baseline study conducted by REACH for the USAID CITIES programme between December 2017 and February 2018, three most commonly reported impacts of decentralisation by survey respondents who reported to be aware of this new law were: (1) an increase in municipal responsiveness to complaints issued, (2) increased access to information and transparency of local governance, and (3) an increase in the frequency of engagement with municipal representatives. Likewise, municipal KIs from the same study also reported that decentralisation reforms had (1) improved municipalities’ communication with local communities to identify priorities, and (2) improved municipalities’ understanding of community needs through the local councils.115 • Municipal elections in August 2017: As a result of these elections, mayors in communities targeted by the project may have changed which does arguably impact how people perceive municipal representatives, especially the mayor. However, the elections are still relatively recent which implies that impacts of newly elected representatives might not have become visible at the time of data collection. Nonetheless, if people were generally satisfied with the outcomes of the elections and had confidence in the potential of the newly elected representatives, this could directly have impacted their overall perceptions of responsiveness. • Level of buy-in among local government stakeholders: This, in turn, determined the level of necessary support and cooperation that was provided by the municipality and other local government institutions to the project for the implementation of interventions. An example provided by a CET KI and a KI from a local association in Bsaira (where overall responsiveness perceptions appear to have improved) was of provision of land from the Ministry of Agriculture to facilitate CEP’s public park project. This support was reportedly important because the park was a long-term need for the community and 113 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Strategic Assessment of the Decentralisation Reform and Open Government in Jordan (2017), p.2 114 Ibid., p.11 115 REACH, Baseline Study for Jordan CITIES (Cities Implementing Transparent, Innovative and Effective Solutions) Project, December 2017- February 2018 60 has positively impacted the lives of people in Bsaira. In general, adequate buy-in among local government stakeholders was important to ensure that the project’s participatory approach was properly understood, appreciated and implemented at the local level. As discussed earlier, this participatory approach was then important to increase community’s interaction and collaboration with their municipal representatives. • Level of buy-in among the local community: As above, if there was no buy-in among community members, community participation in meetings organised to discuss issues and plan interventions would have been limited. The fact that the community acknowledged the potential of this participatory planning approach was therefore important. The extent to which interventions planned through this approach had visible impacts in the community was also arguably important in determining the level of buy-in in each community. Another factor which could also have impacted buy-in levels is the physical size and socio-cultural composition of the community. • Uptake of technology and increased usage of social media platforms to communicate with the municipality: A common finding from FGDs in Hay Janoubi, Ein Beyda and Wastyah was that participants from the local community stated that people’s interaction with the municipality had increased in recent years because of increased usage of digital social media platforms for community outreach. Female FGD participants perceived this to be important because of three reasons: (1) people are busy and have other personal commitments during the day and therefore have less time to attend community events and meetings, (2) social media is generally a more accessible and convenient way of communication for many people in the community (for example women and people with health concerns who can now raise their issues from home ), (3) the municipality is quicker in responding to problems posted on social media platforms and this has overall improved perceptions of the community. Social media could thus have specifically benefitted women and subsequently impacted their perceptions of responsiveness because, as reported by two KIs, it enables them to raise issues without visiting the municipality or attending public meetings, which traditional barriers have prevented them from doing in the past. A KI from Hay Janoubi also highlighted the importance of social media platforms from an accountability standpoint: since issues are posted on a public platform, people can easily see whether the municipality has addressed issues that were previously raised, and this in turn increases the municipality’s sense of accountability. The municipality is thus reportedly more incentivised to respond promptly to issues raised through these platforms. • Funding or other types of support received from sources other than USAID CEP: While material support provided by the project has indeed been important in improving responsive capacities and community’s responsiveness perceptions as a result, in the past three to four years at least some of the targeted communities could have received support from other sources which had a similar impact. This is especially true for communities located in Irbid and Mafraq governorates, where large amounts of support from national and international sources have been channelled since the onset of the Syrian refugee crisis. For instance, both Ramtha (where Hay Jalama and Hay Dabbet Nimer are located) and Mafraq (where Hay Janoubi and Hay Hussein are located) municipalities received support from the World Bank’s Emergency Services and Social Resilience Project (ESSRP) which not only provided material support to enhance service provision but also capacity-building support to increase community outreach capacities of municipalities. Other examples of such support received as reported by KIs and FGD participants during the endline include: (1) road construction and maintenance equipment (rollers, bulldozers, cranes) procured with the support of the Arab Potash Company in Bsaira, (2) support received from the private sector to improve public transportation (buses) and the state of community halls also in Bsaira, (3) the sewing hangar project implemented by the municipality in Sama Sarhan with the support of the World Bank ESSRP which created jobs for women across the villages of Sama Sarhan, and (4) the Makani project in Wastyah which reportedly created jobs for women in community learning centres and increased their engagement in the public sphere. 61 iv. Summary In sum, external factors and developments in the country during the lifespan of the project, together with USAID CEP intervention (both material support as well as the process used for planning and implementation) contributed towards improved responsiveness perceptions in assessed communities. Specifically, two key factors which determine these perceptions - government’s physical capacity to respond to people’s needs, and level of engagement between the government and community members - both appear to have been positively impacted by project interventions. What has been particularly important in this regard is the participatory approach used by the project for planning and implementation which involved consultative processes that brought together different groups of society to discuss their needs and concerns with the municipality/government.116 Figure 27: Contributions made by USAID CEP towards community responsiveness perceptions (as per findings from KI interviews and FGDs) An important component within the project’s participatory decision-making process that could have contributed towards improved responsiveness perceptions was the community engagement approach, which encouraged local community members to come together with their municipal and local government representatives to discuss key issues for planning and decision-making purposes. Confirming the importance of this approach, while a majority across the treatment communities perceived municipal-community engagement to have improved over the past four years, only a minority reported such improvements across the treatment communities. Finally, USAID CEP’s participatory planning process and community engagement approach appears to also have been particularly important to improve responsiveness perceptions among women and youth of the community. For instance, across treatment communities, both women and youth’s perceptions of municipal responsiveness and effectiveness were found to have improved since the baseline. Improved perceptions in both these aspects are further reflected in an increase since the baseline in the proportion of both women and youth who reported trust and perceive to have strong relations with their municipal council members. As per qualitative findings, these improvements can be attributed to USAID CEP, which aimed at increasing women and youth’s participation in their communities and as a result, increased their engagement with local 116 USAID, Community Engagement Project (December 2015). USAID CEP contributed towards improving community perceptions of government/ municipal responsiveness to their needs Provision of material support to improve service provision and municipal ability to respond to people’s service-related complaints Improved communication between people of the community and the municipality through events, meetings and platforms such as CET Participatory, consultative approach used by the project for planning and implementation 62 stakeholders and municipal representatives. Reported ways in which the project brought about this change include the organisation of community-based meetings, events, trainings and awareness raising sessions and establishing platforms and channels for communication and public engagement. Further reflective of this, during the endline survey, female respondents were more likely than males to perceive citizen-government communication to have improved over the past four years because of improved community outreach capacity among municipal representatives and because of more initiative taken by the government/ municipality. Likewise, survey respondents from the youth age group were most likely to perceive more frequent meetings and events organized with the community as a reason why communication between the community and their local government representatives increased. Overall, contributions made by the project in this particular aspect is important to take note of because since the inception, USAID CEP had a specific focus on increasing public participation among women and youth of the community. Overall, improved responsiveness perceptions in treatment communities are indicative of improving vertical cohesion in the assessed communities, which was found to be considerably weaker than the horizontal dimension during the baseline. On the other hand, while perceptions of responsiveness might have improved, it is important to note that subjective factors which determine these perceptions could challenge the sustainability of positive changes that have come about. For instance, if efforts for active community engagement do not continue after the project has come to an end, or if follow-up support is not available for municipalities to further strengthen outreach capacities and continue responding effectively to local community needs, responsiveness perceptions and extent of municipal-community engagement could deteriorate over time. Sustainability considerations such as these are discussed in more detail in the concluding chapter of this report. 63 3. CONCLUSION Changes brought about since the onset of the project In sum, findings from the REACH endline evaluation indicate that USAID CEP did have intended results in its communities of intervention. Results can be seen more visibly in the vertical dimension of social cohesion i.e. community satisfaction with service delivery, and community perceptions of government and municipal responsiveness. Changes in the horizontal dimension of social cohesion appear to be more limited in comparison, although it is important to note that such changes do take longer to come about because of the subjective nature of intra-community dynamics, and the extent to which these dynamics are determined by personal relations and longer term social change processes. Furthermore, the increasingly structural nature of challenges, such as unemployment and rising costs of living, that local communities are facing in Jordan limited the ability of the project to have its intended impact in the area of collective competence. However, since changes in some of these aspects could also be seen in the control communities, it is important to acknowledge that USAID CEP interventions were supported by external factors in bringing about these changes in assessed communities. These factors include: support and funding received from sources other than USAID CEP, changes in government policies such as decentralisation, changes in local governments following the 2017 municipality elections, wider changes in the political and/ or socio-economic situation in the country, such as increased living costs, and changes in socio-cultural conditions within local communities, such as increased numbers of Syrian refugees. Nonetheless, changes brought about through project interventions can be said to have been important for the strengthening of community resilience for two key reasons: (1) the changes enhanced relations within the community as well as between the community and the local government, and (2) they addressed priority service-related needs of the community. The former was important to strengthen community resilience and enable community members to take initiative to solve their problems going forward. Meanwhile, the latter was important because it solved long-term issues within the community (for example, the need for retaining walls, maintenance of infrastructure in public roads, better roads and street lighting, improvements in waste management, etc.) which no one had the capacity to address in the past. These examples were also reported by KIs from the local community, CBOs and the municipality, primarily from Bsaira and Sama Sarhan, as key reasons why they perceived the project and the changes it has brought about in their community to be important. Good practices Within the design and processes of the project, the following good practices can be identified which likely facilitated the project bring about above-mentioned changes in targeted communities: • Participatory ‘grassroots’ approach to the planning of interventions and the involvement of the local community in planning processes: As reported by KIs from CBOs, CETs and the municipality, one of the first steps taken for the planning of interventions was to consult the feedback and opinion of people from the local community through meetings, local committees and councils (for example, neighbourhood councils, youth committees), surveys and direct home or site visits. People from the community were also reportedly asked to vote on priorities identified in this way through follow-up sessions based on their importance to the local community as a whole. According to KIs, men from the local community were most commonly participating in these planning processes, although women, youth and community leaders also took part. It can thus be said that planning processes were also representative and took into consideration the opinions of different demographic groups within the 64 community. Overall, these steps helped to plan interventions around community-identified priorities and as such, ensured the overall relevance of interventions eventually implemented. Reflective of this, a large majority of those survey respondents that were reportedly aware of USAID CEP interventions in their community perceived the project to have had a positive impact on levels of social cohesion and resilience within their respective communities. 117 Furthermore, this grassroots approach also showed community members the benefits of intra-community dialogue and active civic engagement and how such engagement can be leveraged to try and address problems being faced by their community. As mentioned in the findings section of the report, this particular aspect was especially important to increase public participation among youth and women of the community. The participatory approach was also important to increase engagement between the community and their local government representatives, which is necessary if strong intra-community cohesion is insufficient to mitigate or resolve challenges that are beyond communities’ immediate control. • Flexibility for the design of interventions and the ability to tailor programming to specific needs within the local context: Another important aspect of the project’s design was that it was not limited in terms of which sectors it could intervene in. This helped to ensure that the project could be tailored to address priorities identified by the community through the grassroots approach mentioned above. One specific aspect in which the project was unable to directly intervene in due to its initial design was livelihoods. This limitation did adversely affect the project’s ability to strengthen community resilience because socio-economic challenges such as unemployment were some of the key challenges facing targeted communities. The overall relevance of interventions could thus have been enhanced, and the project could have brought about more visible changes in the area of collective competence, if livelihood programming had been feasible. Nonetheless, this level of flexibility can be said to have been important for three key reasons: (1) to enhance effective targetting by tailoring interventions to context-specific needs, (2) to strengthen community resilience by addressing some, if not all, of the priority needs identified by the community, and (3) to build the community’s buy-in and confidence in the project which was essential to ensuring participation in the soft activities within the project,118 and as such, to strengthen resilience through a ‘learning by doing’ approach. • Involvement of relevant local stakeholders during planning and implementation: In addition to the active involvement of the local community, planning and implementation of interventions was also based on effective coordination between all parties/stakeholders responsible for the implementation of projects such as the municipality, the USAID field teams, the CET and other relevant government agencies and institutions. According to KIs from CETs and the local community, communication with the municipality was especially important because it helped planning to be based on the lessons and successes of similar projects that have been implemented in the past. Furthermore, collaborating with engineers and specialists was reportedly important because it brought in required technical knowledge and expertise. Additionally, various local CBOs and CSOs were actively engaged throughout which was important for two reasons: (1) to ensure implementation was relevant to local contexts and reflective of realities on the ground, and (2) to effectively leverage pre-existing linkages with the local community. • Establishment of a community-based body such as the CET that was demographically and geographically representative of all segments of the community to support with the planning and implementation of interventions: Throughout USAID CEP, the CET served as an important subsidiary of the project at the local level and was important to establish a close link between the project and the people within targeted communities. The establishment of the CET was also arguably important because of the active participation it encouraged among women and youth of the community. The role of the CET was also perceived to have been important by both stakeholders directly involved with the project (such as KIs from the CET, municipality/local government and a CBO or local association with whom USAID CEP partnered), as well as by project beneficiaries (KIs from the local community). Key reasons why the CET was perceived to have been important for the overall success of the project 117 71% of those aware which corresponds to a total of 376 respondents that reported this. 118 That is community-based meetings, events, awareness-raising sessions, etc. 65 include: serving as a channel of communication between people of the community and their local government/municipality representatives (15 KIs); an effective platform to represent the needs of the community (13 KIs); organisation of community-based events and activities which increased community awareness of key issues (12 KIs); as a participatory planning and implementation tool to design activity interventions that address the community’s priority needs (11 KIs); and organisation of community￾based events and activities which increased engagement among people of the community (10 KIs). Therefore, the inclusive approach used by USAID CEP was arguably important in enhancing the overall efficacy as well the accountability of the project. This is a key good practice that should be taken into consideration by similar projects in the future, especially in terms of ensuring that a thorough demographic analysis is undertaken at the very outset and key steps are taken to incorporate all segments of the society, especially if community outreach and engagement capacities are to be enhanced in a sustainable way. • Active involvement of women and youth in planning and decision-making processes: This was particularly important in ensuring that the interests of both these demographic groups were adequately represented in planning and decision-making processes. As a result, project interventions subsequently implemented were equally relevant for everyone in the community. USAID CEP ensured such active involvement not just by the inclusion of both these groups in the CET but also by incentivising the community to put additional focus on these groups during planning processes. In terms of the latter, specific interventions targeted to these two groups (such as trainings and awareness-raising sessions, public meetings) were also implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. As discussed in the Responsiveness section, these efforts were important in improving women and youth overall perceptions of responsiveness across treatment communities. Therefore, the steps taken by USAID CEP to ensure active involvement of women and youth is a key good practice which could be replicated during the planning and implementation of similar projects in the future. While the above-mentioned factors did help the project bring about intended changes within targeted communities, it is also important to look at to what extent these changes are sustainable once the project has come to an end. This aspect is discussed in more detail below. Sustainability considerations Quite a few of the KIs (23) who participated in the endline evaluation perceived the changes that have been brought about by USAID CEP to be sustainable. Key reasons why changes were perceived to be sustainable include: • Cooperation with and capacity-building of local partners such as the CET, CSOs, CBOs, municipality: As a result of having been actively engaged in the project, these partners have been trained in how to undertake effective project planning and implementation practices through community outreach so as to strengthen overall resilience. In other words, the project’s planning methodology which involved both the community and the local government showed both sides the importance of involving all stakeholders to identify and solve community-based issues. This has created a sense of ownership among local partners which encourages them to continue with similar efforts in the future as well as monitor the continuity of projects that have already been implemented. For example, a ‘partnership approach’ framework was reportedly developed by the project team for overall implementation around year 2 of the project outlining how to leverage decentralisation processes and establish local partnerships to sustain an enabling environment for project outcomes. Additionally, according to a CET KI from Dabbet Nimer, an agreement for cooperation is being reached between the municipal council and the CET so that the latter can be provided with the necessary material support to follow-up on projects that have been implemented. Similarly, according to the KI from Dabbet Nimer, the CET will have an important role in following up on the projects have been implemented and also make efforts to implement project proposals with the support of municipal capacities. Additionally, national and 66 regional dialogue workshops are also being conducted to discuss key lessons learned among local stakeholders that will outline key things to keep in mind going forward. • Community buy-in, awareness and interest: Through the ‘learning by doing’ approach discussed previously, people in targeted communities have seen the importance of active engagement to try and identify and resolve problems being faced by their community. For example, according to a KI from the municipality of Sama Sarhan, because the community has seen how participatory planning and decision-making processes are undertaken and also the benefits of such processes, they will be able to continue efforts for active engagement by themselves going forward. Similarly, a female KI from the local community of Bsaira stated that awareness sessions conducted as part of USAID CEP has raised the level of community engagement, especially among women. Therefore, people can continue these engagement efforts, provided they are given the appropriate opportunities such as periodic community meetings. A KI from the community in Bsaira also added that changes are sustainable because the project has increased awareness about key issues among people of the community. A local community member from Dabbet Nimer also held similar perceptions and stated that changes are sustainable because follow-up action will be taken both by the municipality as well as by people from the local community. • Machinery and equipment provided to the municipality and strengthened community outreach capacities which can sustain responsiveness in the long-term: For example, cranes and bulldozers procured through USAID CEP support can continue to be deployed to address community complaints regarding road conditions and street lighting issues in the future. Similarly, waste management machinery and equipment that was provided can be used to continue frequent and efficient garbage collection in targeted communities. A similar reason was stated by a municipal KI from Ein Beyda who stated that the municipality is working closely with the CET to see how to best use machinery and equipment procured through USAID CEP support to fix problems faced by the community. Meanwhile, strengthening community outreach capacities of local government has also been important to ensure municipal staff and other local government representatives are able to identify and address community needs to the best of their capacity. For instance, 17 staff from MoI and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have reportedly received training on community outreach practices who can then train their colleagues on these aspects. In general, this implies that capacities of local service providers have been enhanced in a sustainable way. • High quality of construction and infrastructure maintenance projects: For example, according to the municipality KI in Sama Sarhan, the school wall, retaining wall, paving of roads, and maintenance of the special needs centre are all durable in the long run. Similarly, according to a KI from Bsaira CET, the wall built around the school, the awnings added to the streets, and the cemetery that was maintained will continue to benefit many generations in this community. Good quality of construction materials and sound engineering was also perceived to be a reason for the sustainability of retaining walls by KIs in Ein Beyda. Nonetheless, there are certain risks that can be identified for the sustainability of these changes. A key challenge in this aspect would be the lack of follow-up opportunities to sustain the momentum established for civic engagement and collaborative planning to address needs and stressors of the community. In other words, while local stakeholders and community members might be familiar with how to engage in dialogue and try to take self-initiative to address key issues, if support is not available (for example, civil society support projects) to continue providing opportunities at the local level, levels of engagement can decline. This is a key challenge because a large part of the changes that have emerged are personality-driven i.e. reliant on buy-in among the community and relevant stakeholders at the local level. Therefore, if opportunities are not available to sustain this buy-in, especially in terms of opportunities to undertake effective civic engagement, sustainability will be challenged. Continuing support projects will thus be important to help people continue the momentum that has been established, both through the upcoming USAID CITIES programme as well as through other projects that specifically provided support to civil society. Additionally, an important opportunity to mitigate this challenge has been provided by the recent decentralisation reforms in the country. 67 For instance, processes for community consultation established through the decentralisation reforms need to be encouraged and feedback received through these processes incorporated into the planning and delivery of future projects. If people see the results of these processes and that their feedback is actually taken into consideration, they would be encouraged to continue participating actively in the public life of their community. Another related challenge to sustainability would be turnover of local governments and staff within municipalities and a lack of follow-up efforts to formalise engagement mechanisms. In other words, while local stakeholders and community members might currently be familiar with how to engage in dialogue and try to take initiative to address key issues, if support is not available (for example, civil society support projects and community outreach capacity-building efforts) to sustain this momentum and to institutionalise formal community engagement mechanisms and processes, levels of engagement can decline, especially at the local government and municipal levels. This is a key challenge because a large part of the changes that have come about are personality-driven i.e. reliant on buy-in among the community and relevant stakeholders at the municipal level. An example provided by female participants of an FGD conducted in Ein Beyda was that responsiveness depends on the municipality manager and his/ her commitment to working for the public good. Similarly, female FGD participants in Wastyah stated that the officer within the municipality who is responsible for grievance management/ community outreach changed during the course of the project lifespan and the new person is more cooperative and has a more collaborative approach with the community. Therefore, in the absence of efforts to formalise and institutionalise community engagement, the sustainability of changes brought about by USAID CEP in the vertical dimension of social cohesion will be challenged in the long run, especially since these are largely determined by individual personalities of local representatives and the extent to which they prioritise community outreach and decentralised decision-making processes. Lack of technical capacities for maintenance and follow-up within municipalities and local government bodies could also challenge the sustainability of changes brought about by service-related interventions. For example, a KI from Wastyah CET stated that there are not enough qualified staff in healthcare centres to operate machines even if USAID CEP provided the required equipment and machinery. As a result, the challenge associated with lack of qualified medical staff has become more apparent because now they have the machines but not the specialised personnel to operationalise the machines. Lack of technical capacities could also impact the efficiency and sustainability of community outreach activities being undertaken by local government institutions. Finally, one of the biggest challenges going forward would be deterioration in the socio-economic conditions within the country, and as such, an increase in the challenges being faced by local communities. If these challenges continue to increase, and no external support is available to help communities cope with these challenges, overall community resilience will be negatively impacted, regardless of the level of effective community engagement and collective action opportunities available within the community. 68 ANNEX 1: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK Defining Social Cohesion and Resilience USAID defines community cohesion as “the ability of communities to recognize the value and respect the rights of all community members, regardless of gender, age, religious affiliation, or ethnic origin; and to act cooperatively and inclusively in meeting challenges and taking advantage of opportunities”. Resilience, according to USAID, is defined as “the ability of people, households, communities, countries and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth”119. These definitions informed the creation of the five goal-level proxy indicators of community cohesion and resilience included in USAID CEP results framework and Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) which were outlined in the methodology section. For the purpose of monitoring and evaluation of USAID CEP, these broad concepts were then expanded using definitions and measurement frameworks proposed in the relevant academic literature, specifically the works of Chan et al.120 and Norris et al.121. These definitions, concepts and frameworks are combined into a community cohesion and resilience measurement framework which is presented at the end of this section. Based on the works of Chan et al. and Norris et al., social cohesion should be understood as having two dimensions, a horizontal, intra-community one, and a vertical one, which concerns interaction between citizens and governments. Community resilience is then derived from communities’ ability to utilize these horizontal and vertical networks to adapt and respond positively to shocks and challenges. Specifically, Chan et al. define social cohesion as: “a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and the horizontal interactions among members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to participate and help, as well as their behavioural manifestations”122. Vertical interactions refer to the rapport between the state or government institutions at different levels and the society and its members, while horizontal interactions describe relations between individuals and groups within society123. Chan et al. measure the vertical and horizontal dimensions through both objective and subjective components. In their view, the objective component, in their view, encompasses “people’s actual participation, cooperation and helping behaviour”124, whereas the subjective one “refers to the norms and subjective feelings of trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to help”125. Based on this conceptualisation, Chan et al. propose the following measurement framework (See Table 4). 119 USAID, Frontlines: Resilience 2015, Insights from Tom Staal, November/December 2015. 120 Chan, Joseph, Ho-Pong To and Eliane Chan. 2006. “Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research”. Social Indicators Research 75(2): pp. 273-302. 121 Norris, Fran H., Suzan P. Stevens, Betty Pfefferbaum, Karen F. Wyche and Rose L. Pfefferbaum. 2008. “Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness”. American Journal on Community Psychology 41: pp.127-150. 122 Chan et al., op. cit.: p. 290. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid.: p. 291. 125 Ibid. 69 Table 4: Social cohesion measurement framework after Chan et al.126 Subjective component (People’s state of mind) Objective component (Behavioral manifestations) Horizontal dimension (Cohesion within civil society) • General trust with fellow citizens • Willingness to cooperate and help fellow citizens, including those from “other” social groups • Sense of belonging or identity • Social participation and vibrancy of civil society • Voluntarism and donations • Presence of absence of major inter-group alliances or cleavages Vertical dimension (State-citizen cohesion) • Trust in public figures • Confidence in political and other major social institutions • Political participation (e.g. voting, political parties etc.) Complementing and building on this framework, Norris et al. argue that resilience is derived from utilizing these horizontal and vertical networks as resources or “adaptive capacities”127 to adapt and respond positively to shocks and challenges. As such, they define community resilience as “[a] process linking a set of networked adaptive capacities to a positive trajectory of functioning and adaptation in constituent populations after a disturbance”128. They then identify four principal sets of networked capabilities or resources which form the basis of community resilience129: (i) Social capital, which encompasses social networks and relationship structures within communities, which are necessary to access and distribute various types of social support from different sources. Furthermore, social capital involves a sense of belonging to a community, as well as an extent of shared values and citizens’ active participation or engagement in the community.130 (ii) Community competence which refers to “collective action and decision-making” grounded in “collective efficacy and empowerment”.131 While collective efficacy relates to confidence in that community action is effective,132 community empowerment describes a process which allows people to gain better and more equal access and control over resources.133 (iii) Information and communication, which means “the creation of common meanings and understandings and the provision of opportunities for members to articulate needs, views, and attitudes”. 134 (iv) Economic development, which rests on the volume, diversity and equity of resources, such as “[l]and raw materials, physical capital, accessible housing, health services, schools, and employment opportunities”,135 which in turn affect social vulnerability. The USAID CEP community cohesion and resilience measurement framework combines the social cohesion measurement framework defined by Chan et al.136 with the conceptual framework of adaptive capacities 126 Ibid.: p. 294. 127 Norris et al., op. cit.: p. 131. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid.: p. 136 et seq. 130 Ibid.: p. 139. 131 Ibid.: p. 141. Norris et al. base their understanding of collective action and decision-making on Cottrell (1976: 197) who considered a community to be competent if “the various component parts of the community: (1) are able to collaborate effectively in identifying the problems and needs of the community; (2) can achieve a working consensus on goals and priorities; (3) can agree on ways and means to implement the agreed upon goals; and (4) can collaborate effectively in the required actions”. (Cottrell, L., Jr. 1976. “The competent community”. In B. Kaplan, R. Wilson, & A. Leighton (Eds.), Further explorations in social psychiatry (pp. 195–209). New York: Basic Books, Inc.) 132 Perkins, D., & Long, D. 2002. “Neighbourhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis”. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291–318). New York: Plenum. 133 Rappaport, J. 1995. “Empowerment meets narrative: Listening to stories and creating settings”. American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 795– 807. 134 Norris et al., op. cit.: p. 140. 135 Ibid. 136 Chan et al., op. cit. 70 developed by Norris et al.137 as a basis for community resilience, in a community cohesion and resilience measurement framework (See Figure 28). Figure 28: USAID CEP community cohesion and resilience framework SOCIAL COHESION Horizontal dimension Social well-being/capital  Personal relationships  Shared values and belonging Support networks  Community interaction  Trust and respect Collective competence  Community action  Community efficacy and empowerment Information, communication and engagement within communities Vertical dimension Government and municipal effectiveness and responsiveness  Government and municipal service provision and quality  Responsive, effective and accountable government  Civic engagement and political participation Information, communication and engagement between citizens and governments On one hand, this framework assumes that the horizontal and vertical social cohesion dimensions are interrelated or complementary. On the other hand, it suggests that all aspects of both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion are nurtured by effective communication, interaction and engagement among community members, as well as between community members, different levels of government, as well as other stakeholders at different administrative levels. This is where USAID CEP intervenes: by strengthening communication and engagement among community members, as well as between communities and various stakeholders it seeks to strengthen social cohesion in its two dimensions. In making these resources or adaptive capacities more robust and in supporting communities in effectively mobilising them in the face of shocks or challenges, USAID CEP aims to contribute to communities’ resilience. The baseline assessment and this report follow the logic of this framework in establishing the current state of both the horizontal and vertical dimension of social cohesion and resulting resilience, with questions developed to capture community members’ perceptions of cohesion within society, as well as between citizens, different levels of government and other stakeholders, and the extent to which they perceive they can mobilise these networks to adapt to challenges facing the community. 137 Norris et al., op. cit. COMMUNITY RESILIENCE 71 ANNEX 2: SURVEY TOOL Introduction: Hello, my name is ____________ and I am working for REACH on behalf of USAID/Global Communities. We are conducting a survey of households in your community and would like to ask you some general questions about your perceptions on community cohesion and resilience. What you will say will be kept confidential and will not be revealed to any other group. This survey will take around 30 minutes to complete. Metadata: GPS Location (coordinates): ________ Date (DD/MM/YY): _______ Start/End Time of Interview: _______ Are you willing to participate in the survey? □ Yes □ No Governorate: □ Irbid □ Mafraq □ Tafileh □ Jerash □ Ajloun District: [add drop down menu] Municipality / Community: □ Khalid bin al Waleed □ Mo’ath bin Jabal □ No’aimeh □ Al Taybah □ Al Wastyah □ Al Salhya w Nayfah □ Sabha w el Dafyaneh □ Hosha al Jadeeda □ Um al Jmal □ Hid, Tein, Al Mansoura (HTM) □ Hay Al Jalama □ Dabbet Nimer □ Yarmouk Al Jedidiah □ Hay Al Hussein □ Hay Al Janoubi □ Al Sarhan □ Ein Al Beyda □ Al Hasa □ Bsaira □ Al Merad □ Ajloun Greater Municipality □ Gharandal City Is this person the head of household? □ Yes □ No [If no] Who is the head of household? □ Father □ Mother □ Father-in-law □ Mother-in-law □ Brother □ Son □ Other, please specify____ Demographics: Q807_1 How many families share this accommodation? □ 1 One family only □ 2 Two □ 3 Three □ 4 More than three □ 98 Other, please specify: _______ Q807_2 Please list the number of males and female family members, in your family, according to age: □ 1 Male: __ 0-17y __ 18-30y __31-59y __60y and over □ 2 Female: __ 0-17y __ 18-30y __31-59y __60y and over Q807_3 How many people in total are in your family? Q807_2_a Please list the number of males and female family members, in family 2, according to age: □ 1 Male: __18-30y __31-59y __60y and over □ 2 Female: __18-30y __31-59y __60y and over Q807_3_a How many people in total are in family 2? Q801 Age: _______ Q802 Gender: (select one) □ Male □ Female Q803 Marital status: (select one) □ 1 Single □ 2 Married □ 3 Widow □ 4 Divorced □ 5 Separated Q804 Educational level: (select one) □ 1 Illiterate □ 2 Elementary □ 3 Primary / Basic □ 4 Vocational □ 5 Secondary □ 6 Diploma □ 7 Bachelor □ 8 Higher Degrees □ Other, please specify_____ Q805 Work status: (select one) □ 1 Working / Employed □ 2 Not working / Not employed 72 Q806_1 How many members of the household are employed? _____ Q806_2.a. How many male members are employed? _______ Q806_2.b. How many female members are employed? _______ Q806_3 What is the monthly income level of this household from all sources (JOD)? (select one) □ 1 Less than 200 □ 2 200 - 399 □ 3 400 - 599 □ 4 600 - 799 □ 5 800 - 999 □ 6 More than 1,000 □ 7 Not sure / Don’t know □ 8 Refuse to answer Q806_1 Nationality (select one): □ 1 Jordanian □ 2 Syrian □ 3 Iraqi □ 4 Egyptian □ 5 Other, please specify: _____ Q808_2 Are they receiving humanitarian assistance? (only ask for Syrians) □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 1. General: Q101 How long have you been living in [name of village]? (select one) □ 1 Less than 6 months □ 2 From 6 months to less than 1 year □ 3 From 1 year to less than 2 years □ 4 From 2 years to less than 5 years □ 5 From 5 years to less than 10 years □ 6 From 10 years to less than 20 years □ 7 More than 20 years □ 97 Don’t remember □ 98 Refused to answer Q102 Where are you originally from? (select one) □ 1 From [name of the municipality selected above] □ 2 From another city in the Governorate □ 3 From another Governorate inside Jordan □ 4 From another country □ 8 Refused to answer Q103 What in your opinion is the most important problem, if any, facing [name of village] today? (rank top 3 from 1st to 3rd most important) □ 1 High rental costs □ 2 Rising prices in general □ 3 Unemployment □ 4 Sanitation problems □ 5 Lack and cuts of water supply □ 6 Lack of road maintenance and road expansion □ 7 Inefficient garbage collection □ 8 Lack of public transport □ 9 Poor street lighting □ 10 Lack of public leisure spaces □ 11 Poor or lack of other municipal services □ 12 Lack of health services, health centres □ 13 insufficient access to schools □ 14 Problems of insecurity and safety □ 15 Pollution □ 96 Other, please specify: _____ □ 97 Don’t know / Not sure □ 98 Refused to answer □ 99 No problems Q104 To what degree do you think the community/residents of [name of village] will be able to handle this problem in the near future? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Will not be able to handle this problem at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q105 What in your opinion is the most important problem, if any, facing your household today? (rank top 3 from 1st to 3rd most important) □ 1 Unemployed household member □ 2 Rising prices in general □ 3 High rental costs □ 4 Other types of household economic challenges □ 5 Illness by a household member □ 6 Small home space / inadequate housing □ 7 Lack and cuts of water supply □ 96 Other, please specify: _____ □ 97 Don’t know / Not sure □ 98 Refused to answer □ 99 No problems Q106 To what degree do you think your household will be able to handle this problem in the near future? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Will not be able to handle this problem at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 2. Social Welfare: Q201 How strong is your relationship with the following groups: (select one per group) Immediate family: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Extended family (uncle, aunts, cousins, etc.): 64 □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Members of your tribe: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Your neighbours: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Your friends: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable District elected member of parliament: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Municipal council members: □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Religious leaders (in your community): □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not at all strong □ 7 Not sure □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Q202 To whom do you resort to in most cases for advice? (select one) □ 1 My immediate family □ 2 My extended family (uncle, aunts, cousins, etc.) □ 3 Members of my tribe □ 4 Neighbours (Jordanian citizens) □ 5 Neighbours of a different nationality □ 6 Neighbours of a different religion □ 7 My friends □ 8 District elected member of parliament □ 9 A member of the municipal council □ 10 A religious leader □ 96 Others, please specify:_____ □ 97 Not sure / don’t know □ 98 Refused to answer Q204 To whom do you resort to in most cases for obtaining financial assistance? (select one) □ 1 My immediate family □ 2 My extended family (uncle, aunts, cousins, etc.) □ 3 Members of my tribe □ 4 Neighbours (Jordanian citizens) □ 5 Neighbours of a different nationality □ 6 Neighbours of a different religion □ 7 My friends □ 8 District elected member of parliament □ 9 A member of the municipal council □ 10 A religious leader □ 96 Others, please specify: _____ □ 97 Not sure / don’t know □ 98 Refused to answer Q203 To whom do you resort to in most cases for a solution to other problems you face? (select one) □ 1 My immediate family □ 2 My extended family (uncle, aunts, cousins, etc.) □ 3 Members of my tribe □ 4 Neighbours (Jordanian citizens) □ 5 Neighbours of a different nationality □ 6 Neighbours of a different religion □ 7 My friends □ 8 District elected member of parliament □ 9 A member of the municipal council □ 10 A religious leader □ 96 Others, please specify:_____ □ 97 Not sure / don’t know □ 98 Refused to answer Q205 Members of [name of village] are helping each other? (select one) □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q206 Do most of your friends, some of your friends, few of your friends, none of your friends live in [name of village]? (select one) □ 1 Most of my friends □ 2 Some of my friends □ 3 Few of my friends □ 4 None of my friends □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q207 How often would you say your neighbours extend help to members of your household? (select one) □ 1 Almost every day □ 2 A few times a week □ 3 At least once a week □ 4 At least once a month □ 5 Less than once a month □ 6 Rarely / never □ Other: anytime help is needed □ 7 Don’t remember / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q208 How often would you say a member of your household helped a neighbour? (select one) □ 1 Almost every day □ 2 A few times a week □ 3 At least once a week □ 4 At least once a month □ 5 Less than once a month □ 6 Rarely / never □ Other: anytime help is needed □ 7 Don’t remember / don’t know 65 □ 8 Refused to answer Q209 Are you a member of any civil society association or organisation (NGO) whether it is social, religious, charity, co-operative, parents council in schools, sports or social club or any other association/society or organisation? (select one) □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q210_1 If yes, how many? _____ Q210_2 In which organisation are you a member, and how active are you in this organisation? Organisation 1: ______ □ 1 Active member □ 2 Non-active member □ 8 Refused to answer Organisation 2:______ □ 1 Active member □ 2 Non-active member □ 8 Refused to answer Organisation 3:______ □ 1 Active member □ 2 Non-active member □ 8 Refused to answer Organisation 4:______ □ 1 Active member □ 2 Non-active member □ 8 Refused to answer Organisation 5:______ □ 1 Active member □ 2 Non-active member □ 8 Refused to answer Q212 Have you ever engaged in any communal or volunteering activity/event during the last four years in [name of village]? (select one) □ 1 Yes, please specify______ □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q213 Do you ever think of leaving to live outside [name of village]? (select one) □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q214 If Always, many times, or sometimes, what are the reasons? (rank top 3 from 1st to 3rd most important) □ 1 To seek employment (not currently employed) □ 2 To seek better job opportunities and improve income □ 3 Poor or lack of municipal services in current location □ 4 Insecurity in the neighbourhood □ 5 To return to my family / place of origin □ 6 Seeking better shelter / housing □ 96 Other, please specify: _____ □ 97 Don’t know / Not sure □ 98 Refused to answer Q215 How strong is your sense of belonging to your local community [name of village]? (select one): □ 1 Very strong □ 2 Strong □ 3 Not strong □ 4 Not strong at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q216 People in your community have similar values (select one): □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q217 How often do most residents of your community engage in the following activities (select one for each): Exchange home visits with each other: □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Participate in weddings: □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Participate in funerals: □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q218 To what degree do you trust the following groups (select one for each): 1: Leaders of your tribe □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 2: Your friends □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 3: Your neighbours □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 4: Your children’s school teachers and principals □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 5: Members of the municipal council □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 66 6: The mayor □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 7: The police □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 8: Health centre / hospital doctors and staff □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 9: Local NGOs □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 10: International NGOs □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 11: The media □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 12: The private sector □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 13: Religious leaders □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 14: The governor □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Q219: To what degree would you say that most people trust each other? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q220: To what degree would you say that most people in your community respect each other? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q221: To what extent do you agree that the level of trust and respect between members of your community has improved over the past four years? □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 3. Safety and security Q301: To what degree do you feel safe living in your community? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q302: How often, during the last four years, has someone in your household felt unsafe in the following places (select one for each): 1: Your home □ 1 Never □ 2 Once □ 3 2-5 times □ 4 6-10 times □ 5 More than 10 times □ 6 Always □ 97 Don’t remember □ 98 Refused to answer 2: While walking in the street □ 1 Never □ 2 Once □ 3 2-5 times □ 4 6-10 times □ 5 More than 10 times □ 6 Always □ 97 Don’t remember □ 98 Refused to answer 3: In your community in general □ 1 Never □ 2 Once □ 3 2-5 times □ 4 6-10 times □ 5 More than 10 times □ 6 Always □ 97 Don’t remember □ 98 Refused to answer Q303: During the last 4 years, have any of the following caused you to feel unsafe in your community? (select one for each) 1: Lack of respect by citizens for the rule of law □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 2: Poor enforcement of the rule of law □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 3: Lack of social justice □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 4: Syrian refugee influx □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 5: Extremism in all aspects (regional, religious) □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 6: Rising prices □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 7: Increased unemployment □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 8: Corruption (all types) □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 9: Firing shots in social events like weddings 67 □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 10: Increased social violence □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 11: Spread of narcotics □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 12: Sexual abuse □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q304: Is there any other reason, outside of those mentioned above, that poses a threat to safety? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q305: If yes, please explain? 1: __________________ Q306: To what extent do you agree with the statement that your community has become safer and more secure over the past four years for: (select one for each) 1: Adult men □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree 2: Adult women □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree 3: Children under 18 □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree 4. Municipal and governmental services Q401: to what extent are you satisfied about the following in your community? (select one for each) 1. Solid waste management (trash collection) services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 2. Water supply service □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 3. Sanitation services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 4. Street lighting services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 5. Road building and maintenance services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 6. Government health services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 7. Government schools / education services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 8. Government universities □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 9. Public gardens and recreational facilities □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 10. Youth centres and sports facilities □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 11. Transportation services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 12. Police and security services □ 1 Largely □ 2 A Moderately □ 3 Little □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q402: To what extent do you agree that municipal and government services have improved over the last four years? □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree Q403: [If ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’] Which specific municipal and government services do you think have improved over the last four years? □ Solid waste management/ trash collection services □ Water supply services □ Sanitation services □ Street lighting services □ Road building and maintenance services □ Government health services □ Government schools/ education services □ Government universities □ Public gardens and recreation facilities □ Youth centres and sports facilities □ Transportation services □ Police and security services □ Other, please specify ______ Q402: To what extent do you feel that improvements in municipal and government services have been relevant to your priority needs over the past four years? □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree 5. Government response to citizen needs Q501: Did you participate in the last municipal elections of 15 August 2017? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 68 Q502_1: In the past four years, did the municipality or the local government institutions in your community invite you to attend a town hall meeting or a public meeting to discuss issues of public concerns about the services offered by the municipality? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Don’t remember □ 8 Refused to answer Q503_1:To what degree does the municipality respond to citizen's needs in your community? (select one) □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q504: To what extent do you think the constituents are capable of holding the municipality accountable? (select one) □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q505: To what degree is the municipality carrying out its functions effectively? (select one) □ 1 Always □ 2 Many times □ 3 Sometimes □ 4 Rarely / never □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q506 To what extent do you feel that the following groups are responsive to the needs in your community? (select one for each): 1: Municipal council members □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 2: District parliament members □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 3: Mayor □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 4: Health care directorate □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 5: Education directorate □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 6: Police directorate □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable 7: Tribal leaders □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree □ 4 Don’t trust at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer □ 9 Not applicable Q507: To what extent do you agree that the responsiveness of the municipality to citizen needs has shown signs of improvement in the past four years? □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree Q508: [If ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’] Why do you think the municipality has become more responsive to citizen needs? □ More effective channels of communication with citizens to identify and discuss needs □ Improved physical capacity (funds, material resources) to be able to address identified needs □ Improved human resource capacity within the municipality (more staff in general, more staff with technical capacity, more staff trained at community outreach, etc.) □ Other, please specify ______ Q509: To what degree do you feel that channels of communication with the municipality and local government have improved over the past four years? □ 1 Improved a lot □ 2 Improved a little □ 3 No change □ 7 Not sure / don’t know Q510: If ‘improved a lot’ or ‘improved a little’, In what way have channels of communication with the municipality and local government improved over the past four years? □ More effective channels of communication have been established, please provide example ______ □ Existing channels of communication have become more effective □ Improved community outreach capacity among municipality staff/ government representatives □ More initiative from the government and municipality □ More frequent meetings and events organised with the community □ Other, please specify ______ 6. The ability of residents to cooperate Q601: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements (select one for each): 69 1: “Generally the people in your community are able to work together as one community.” □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Don’t agree □ 4 Don’t agree at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 2: “The people in your community are able to work together to solve any problems that face them.” □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Don’t agree □ 4 Don’t agree at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 3: “The people in your community have the needed resources to fulfil unmet community needs.” □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Don’t agree □ 4 Don’t agree at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 4: “The people in your community have the ability to identify stressors.” □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Don’t agree □ 4 Don’t agree at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 5: “I believe people in my community can work together to contain and resolve prioritised stressors.” □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Don’t agree □ 4 Don’t agree at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 7. Syrian crisis (ask only for Jordanian families) Q701: Did you host any Syrians from your relatives or members of your extended family in your home? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q221: Did you extend any other help to Syrians during the last four years? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q702: Since the onset of the Syrian crisis, as Syrians have come to Jordan to seek refuge, has this affected the following in your community: 1: Job security □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 2: Quality of medical treatment □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 3: Quality of education □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 4: Your family and neighbourhood safety □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer Q703: To what extent do you agree that any challenges associated with Syrians moving to your community has lessened over the past four years? □ 1 Strongly agree □ 2 Agree □ 3 Disagree □ 4 Strongly disagree 8. Visibility of USAID/CEP projects Q801: Are you aware of any USAID/CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to improve levels of social cohesion and resilience in your community? □ 1 Yes □ 2 No □ 7 Not sure / don’t know Q802: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] Are you are of any USAID/ CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to improve municipal and government service provision in your community? □ 1 Yes, please specify types of intervention □ 2 No Q803: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] Are you are of any USAID/ CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to improve government responsiveness to citizen needs? □ 1 Yes, please specify types of intervention □ 2 No Q804: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] Are you are of any USAID/ CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to enhance relations and social cohesion within your community? □ 1 Yes, please specify types of intervention □ 2 No Q805: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] Are you are of any USAID/ CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to enhance your community’s ability to jointly identify and deal with stressors and issues being faced? □ 1 Yes, please specify types of intervention □ 2 No Q805: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] Are you are of any USAID/ CEP or CET interventions that have been implemented over the past four years to enhance feelings of safety and security among people of your community? □ 1 Yes, please specify types of intervention □ 2 No Q806: [If ‘Yes’ to 801] To what degree do you feel the intervention has had a positive impact on levels of social cohesion and resilience in your community? □ 1 To a large degree □ 2 To a moderate degree □ 3 To a little degree 70 □ 4 Not at all □ 7 Not sure / don’t know □ 8 Refused to answer 71 ANNEX 3: COMPOSITION OF INDEX SCORES COMPOSITE INDICES The assessment included multiple questions across the five core indicators relevant to USAID CEP, namely safety and security; social well-being; collective competence; government and municipal responsiveness; and government and municipal service provision. To measure how communities, taken together, are performing across these five indicators, five indices were constructed. To ensure comparability with the previous baseline assessment, the same methodology to construct the index scores was adopted: 1. Questions were converted from ordinal scales, “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to ranks out of 100: Scale 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree Score 0 33.3 66.6 100 2. Questions were grouped according to each of the five core indicators and a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted. The purpose of the PCA is to provide a principal component, i.e. an aggregate score which best explains the variance across all questions included in the analysis. 3. Each question was then provided with a weight, reflecting its correlation score with the first principal component of the PCA. All weights were calibrated to ensure that the sum of all weights was equal to 1. This was to ensure the maximum index score was 100. 4. Each question was then summed and weighted according to the extent to which it explained (was correlated to) the overall principal component of the index. Below outlines the formula used, where “q” denotes the question score, and “w” denotes the weights, and where the sum of all weights is equal to 1. 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 1 = (𝑞𝑞1 ∗ 𝑤𝑤1) + (𝑞𝑞2 ∗ 𝑤𝑤2 ) + (𝑞𝑞3 ∗ 𝑤𝑤3) In short, the overall indicators represent the average of all relevant questions, weighted by each question’s explanatory power. The questions analysed to create each of the overall indexes are outlined in the annex as well. The purpose of these indices is to represent the baseline perceptions of safety and security; social well￾being; collective competence; government and municipal responsiveness and government and municipal service provision across the communities assessed. Questions analysed to construct the five indices Safety and security index:  To what degree do you feel safe living in your community? Collective competence index:  Do you agree that members of the community can work together?  Do you agree that members of the community have the ability to work together to solve problems?  Do you agree that members of the community have sufficient resources to meet their non￾secured needs?  Do you agree that members of the community have the ability to identify the difficulties and pressures that face them and mitigate or adapt to Social well-being index:  How strong is your relationship with the following groups (includes all questions 201.1 – 201.8)  Are the members of your community helping each other?  Do your friends live in the same area  Have you ever considered moving to live outside your community?  How strong your sense of belonging?  Do you agree that members of the community share the same values?  How frequently do members of your community a) exchange home visits, b) participate in weddings c) attend funerals  To what extent do you trust (tribe leaders, friends etc.). 64 them and address them?  Do you agree that members of the community have the ability to work together to identify stressors and work to resolve them?  To what extent do you believe the community can handle the problems identified (specified in previous question). Municipal/government responsiveness index:  To what extent the municipality responds to citizens needs in the area you are resident  To what extent can residents hold the municipality to account  To what extent does the municipality work effectively  To what extent do you trust the following institutions (list of municipal and government services)  To what extent do you trust the following officials (list of municipal and government officials – i.e. mayor, health professionals etc.).  To what extent do you think members of your community trust each other  To what extent do you think members of your community respect each other Public services index: To what extent are you satisfied with the following services (list of municipal and government services). Potential Methodological Improvements During the 2015 baseline, these indices were constructed to be compatible with the 2014 baseline. However, small modifications were made during the 2015 baseline to improve the methodology. In particular, for the 2015 baseline study the PCA was conducted with only those questions relevant to each separate indicator, thereby ensuring that the weights reflect the explanatory power of each question, as per the indicator. Conversely, the original methodology calculated the weights of each question to reflect the explanatory power against the principle all questions, rather than separated by indicator and analysed accordingly. Further to this, the current methodology is a complex mechanism to understand the overall average scores for each indicator. Different methodologies were tested to check for the best method to construct the indices, and more simple options were found to produce equivalent results. 65 COMMUNITY INDICES The charts below provide an overview of the mean index scores for the five social cohesion and resilience components per community. Due to small variation in scores between the different communities, comparisons of scores between communities is not possible. Nonetheless, these charts provide a breakdown of the five indices per community, which allows for descriptive results of the scores of each index per community, during the baseline and progress monitoring. Furthermore, although statistically significant differences were not found between baseline and endline scores for all of the five indicators in each community,138 these scores do provide a snapshot indication of where perceptions stood for each of these factors during the baseline and endline independently. In cases where differences were found to be significant, a * sign has been added for each community to highlight for which of the five indicators significant differences were found. Al Mansoura, Tein, Hid (Tafileh governorate) Al Taybah (Irbid governorate) 138 Statistical significance of differences between mean index scores were tested using the t-test function on SPSS. The t-test compares the means between two unrelated groups on the same continuous, dependent variable. See also: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/independent-t-test-using￾spss-statistics.php. 63 91 49 42 48 70 88 57 47 51 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 67 85 49 45 50 71 88 53 53 46 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 66 Al Wastyah (Irbid governorate) Al Yarmouk (Irbid governorate) Alsalhya w Nayfha (Mafraq governorate) 69 92 53 53 52 70 90 62 56 51 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness Collective Competence Baseline Endline 72 90 51 53 58 72 91 56 57 49 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness Collective Competence Baseline Endline 67 88 49 51 48 68 82 49 51 48 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness Collective Competence Baseline Endline 67 Bsaira (Tafileh governorate) Ein Beyda (Tafileh governorate) Hasa (Tafileh governorate) 73 94 47 51 56 75 92 52 55 54 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 71 93 47 44 57 69 79 55 53 52 Social Well-being Safety and Security* Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 72 88 54 53 64 72 88 53 52 52 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 68 Hay Al Hussein Al-Ifdain (Mafraq governorate) Hay Al Janoubi (Mafraq governorate) Hay Dabbet Nimer (Irbid governorate) 65 83 53 46 51 65 87 59 55 50 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 66 83 52 50 59 68 86 69 60 57 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 69 87 54 48 61 70 84 57 57 50 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 69 Hay Jalama (Irbid governorate) Hosha (Mafraq governorate) Khalid Bin Al Waleed (Irbid governorate) 68 87 53 46 58 71 85 59 53 48 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 66 91 57 56 55 73 91 60 63 51 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 66 87 50 44 53 73 94 57 59 50 Social Well-being* Safety and Security* Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 70 Mo’ath bin Jabal (Irbid governorate) No’aimeh (Irbid governorate) Sabha w Eldafyaneh (Mafraq governorate) 66 89 51 46 46 70 89 54 50 42 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness Collective Competence Baseline Endline 67 90 51 49 50 71 90 60 58 51 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 69 90 51 53 53 71 87 56 55 53 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness Collective Competence Baseline Endline 71 Sama Al Sarhan (Mafraq governorate) Um Al Jmal (Irbid governorate) Control community- Greater Ajloun municipality (Ajloun governorate) 72 83 48 54 64 72 81 62 57 57 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 70 89 53 53 51 72 83 57 56 57 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision Government Responsiveness Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 68 85 46 48 56 72 87 59 55 53 Social Well-being* Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence Baseline Endline 72 Control community- Al Merad (Jerash governorate) Control community- Gharandal (Tafileh governorate) 71 91 52 56 62 73 90 57 58 51 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 73 90 41 46 63 73 91 51 57 49 Social Well-being Safety and Security Service Provision* Government Responsiveness* Collective Competence* Baseline Endline 73